Speaking as somewhat of an expert on the subject there is no question that Google has changed from the hypergrowth, exciting, quasi utopian place it was. But similar to an adult reaching maturity its best earning years are still before it. Google's vaunted ethical standard has, ahem, issues, but to suggest these problems are on the scale as Microsoft would be deeply wrong. Google's corporate DNA still includes ethics as a driver, unlike some other companies I could mention (Sony, Microsoft, I'm looking at you). I still own all my Google stock, that should tell you everything you need to know about my opinion of GOOG's future earning power. Like Microsoft before it, Google was once and is no longer the first choice employer for top ranked new grads. Unlike Microsoft, Google's corporate culture has not degenerated to the point of complete dysfunctionality, though there are signs it may head in that direction in the absence of enlightened reforms driven proactively from the executive suite.
Vint Cerf would say no to anything that did not uphold the grandiose new IPv6 design to which he has hitched his wagon, regardless of the cost to mere mortals.
I work for a government organisation in Australia that writes a lot of open source code. But even my organisation tells me we should not release any binaries that contain open source code -- even when we also release our own source code open source. Why? Because the legal team cannot afford the time or cost to check for compliance in everything we produce.
Not really. It is more because Microsoft's FUD has been successful in scaring your organization. Do you really think it would be legally easier to release proprietary code? Think about that.
Tonight my kid had to spend several minutes scrolling throw Sony's latest evil network access agreement. That's not reading it, which no reasonable person would ever spend several hours doing, that's just scrolling through it as fast as it will scroll. Do you really think the GPL somehow more complex than that license?
When the world is run by lawyers then everything just gets miserable all round. It has nothing to do with open source per se. You are safer if anything releasing open source. Your intentions are clearly not malicious, if anything ever lands in court, and that counts for a lot.
I doubt it was intended that this stratagem should knock 4% off Microsoft's share price. Clearly, the investing public sees no great success for Microsoft, only yet another distraction and use of resources.
Speak for yourself. I was highly amused by this dry humour. Even better if the troll might inspire a real shareholder revolt, but if the institutional holders don't bother to make the effort to stick up for their rights then they deserve whatever happens to them.
Microsoft doesn't want free/cheap apps ruining the market for developers, so they can redevelop existing apps and functionality and sell them for money.
Very insightful. Obviously self defeating for Microsoft, but Microsoft has been trying to defeat itself for the last ten years so nothing new there.
As someone who has (and will not delete) the VLC app, I think the VLC developers made a big mistake in not allowing it to exist with a path to the code linked in the app.
Disagree. This simple and reasonable freedom must be upheld. The Developers are right to prevent Apple from distributing the results of their hard work if Jobs wants to impose unreasonable restrictions on freedom. So now VLC benefits the Android community and not Apple. There's going to be more of that.
Can you host Open-sourced apps if the store adds DRM to them or doesn't bundle the code in with the app?
Open source licenses do not require that the source code be bundled with the app, merely that it be available on request. I don't know about your DRM point, however I do know that pointing to Apple and saying "they do it too" is a logical fallacy for justifying evil. So is "you made me do it", which is what arguments revolving around the possibility of being sued for violating terms of an open source license amount to.
This makes no sense to me at all. Why would the status of the source code for software distributed through the app store interest Microsoft?
It makes sense if you suppose that one of the prime directives Gates issued to Ballmer on handover was:
1. Confront and eradicate open source wherever it gains a foothold regardless of the cost or collateral damage.
A few of the innumerable examples:
* Microsoft expending credibility and undermining ISO by forcing through MOOXML
* Microsoft killing off the low cost netbook market in order to prevent Linux distribution
* Microsoft planting a mole at great legal risk to end Meego and QT development by Nokia
* This one, Microsoft not allowing distribution of open source applications through its phone market
Its nice that nearly all these efforts have backfired and just served to inspire the community to greater efforts. I expect this one will backfire in a major way by preventing any open source community from forming around Microsoft's phones. So much the better I say.
They don't want to be hit with daily copyright infringement lawsuits from the morons who buy Xboxen, claiming Microsoft is misusing the video/3d content they created.
An argument that is right up there with "think of the children" as a cynical means of justifying evil.
If you have two CPUs, both going faster because of the increased memory bandwidth, average aggregate throughput will more than double because not every single instruction references memory and memory bandwidth is not continuously maxed out.
I meant to say... most of the programmers and IT professionals I know have or are planning to have an Android device as their next phone. Your mileage may vary. I don't doubt for a moment that the skew is different in Cupertino.
This fits perfectly with my plans to dump Sony. That is, no new console from Sony, ever. I am tired of being frustrated and humiliated by Sony, and I am out hundreds of dollars of repair bills for their defective products.
Mind you, my replacement for Sony will not be Microsoft (way too evil) or Nintendo (way too cutesy). It will be a Linux game box, and as far as I am concerned, any game that does not run on Linux from then on does not exist. It's not like I have time to play all the games I have now anyway.
I also intend to do my part to help the nascent indie/open Linux game industry get off the ground. There will be a project announcement in due course.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking as somewhat of an expert on the subject there is no question that Google has changed from the hypergrowth, exciting, quasi utopian place it was. But similar to an adult reaching maturity its best earning years are still before it. Google's vaunted ethical standard has, ahem, issues, but to suggest these problems are on the scale as Microsoft would be deeply wrong. Google's corporate DNA still includes ethics as a driver, unlike some other companies I could mention (Sony, Microsoft, I'm looking at you). I still own all my Google stock, that should tell you everything you need to know about my opinion of GOOG's future earning power. Like Microsoft before it, Google was once and is no longer the first choice employer for top ranked new grads. Unlike Microsoft, Google's corporate culture has not degenerated to the point of complete dysfunctionality, though there are signs it may head in that direction in the absence of enlightened reforms driven proactively from the executive suite.
Vint Cerf would say no to anything that did not uphold the grandiose new IPv6 design to which he has hitched his wagon, regardless of the cost to mere mortals.
I work for a government organisation in Australia that writes a lot of open source code. But even my organisation tells me we should not release any binaries that contain open source code -- even when we also release our own source code open source. Why? Because the legal team cannot afford the time or cost to check for compliance in everything we produce.
Not really. It is more because Microsoft's FUD has been successful in scaring your organization. Do you really think it would be legally easier to release proprietary code? Think about that.
Tonight my kid had to spend several minutes scrolling throw Sony's latest evil network access agreement. That's not reading it, which no reasonable person would ever spend several hours doing, that's just scrolling through it as fast as it will scroll. Do you really think the GPL somehow more complex than that license?
When the world is run by lawyers then everything just gets miserable all round. It has nothing to do with open source per se. You are safer if anything releasing open source. Your intentions are clearly not malicious, if anything ever lands in court, and that counts for a lot.
I want developers with a vision, not egomaniacs who'd shy from my project based on your excuse.
Too bad for you that most developers with vision also want to uphold their right not to have their creative work taken private.
It's unlikely to be a bandwidth issue, but rather having to validate they are always in compliance with the GPL in 100's of thousands of apps.
Right, because being in compliance with anything is antithetical to Microsoft's culture.
it's not at all clear that Nokia has the talent required to do what you suggest.
Their hardware engineering is brilliant, software less so.
People 'round these parts don't much like being asked to contribute positively where Microsoft is involved.
Perhaps because they tend to have a spine.
The plan is working as intended.
I doubt it was intended that this stratagem should knock 4% off Microsoft's share price. Clearly, the investing public sees no great success for Microsoft, only yet another distraction and use of resources.
It was well-informed and humorless.
Speak for yourself. I was highly amused by this dry humour. Even better if the troll might inspire a real shareholder revolt, but if the institutional holders don't bother to make the effort to stick up for their rights then they deserve whatever happens to them.
You seem to be forgetting precisely why Apple does it too. Its because the authors of GPL software went after them.
So you get busted for jaywalking. Are you now going to stop walking on the streets for fear of getting busted again?
You'd just public domain your work. There's nothing in this against that.
And thereby try to gain wider distribution in return for having fewer developers join your project. Good luck coding everything yourself.
Perhaps Microsoft doesn't want to be burdened with hosting the requisite source code on their servers since they would be required to under the GPL.
As if that would be a blip in comparison to the bloat they normally serve. (How much bandwidth does the Bing background image waste?)
The line of thought that GPL is "infectious"
Wow, a virus that only attacks evil, what a concept.
Microsoft doesn't want free/cheap apps ruining the market for developers, so they can redevelop existing apps and functionality and sell them for money.
Very insightful. Obviously self defeating for Microsoft, but Microsoft has been trying to defeat itself for the last ten years so nothing new there.
As someone who has (and will not delete) the VLC app, I think the VLC developers made a big mistake in not allowing it to exist with a path to the code linked in the app.
Disagree. This simple and reasonable freedom must be upheld. The Developers are right to prevent Apple from distributing the results of their hard work if Jobs wants to impose unreasonable restrictions on freedom. So now VLC benefits the Android community and not Apple. There's going to be more of that.
Can you host Open-sourced apps if the store adds DRM to them or doesn't bundle the code in with the app?
Open source licenses do not require that the source code be bundled with the app, merely that it be available on request. I don't know about your DRM point, however I do know that pointing to Apple and saying "they do it too" is a logical fallacy for justifying evil. So is "you made me do it", which is what arguments revolving around the possibility of being sued for violating terms of an open source license amount to.
This makes no sense to me at all. Why would the status of the source code for software distributed through the app store interest Microsoft?
It makes sense if you suppose that one of the prime directives Gates issued to Ballmer on handover was:
1. Confront and eradicate open source wherever it gains a foothold regardless of the cost or collateral damage.
A few of the innumerable examples:
* Microsoft expending credibility and undermining ISO by forcing through MOOXML
* Microsoft killing off the low cost netbook market in order to prevent Linux distribution
* Microsoft planting a mole at great legal risk to end Meego and QT development by Nokia
* This one, Microsoft not allowing distribution of open source applications through its phone market
Its nice that nearly all these efforts have backfired and just served to inspire the community to greater efforts. I expect this one will backfire in a major way by preventing any open source community from forming around Microsoft's phones. So much the better I say.
Parent is a troll and grandparent was wrongly modded down.
They don't want to be hit with daily copyright infringement lawsuits from the morons who buy Xboxen, claiming Microsoft is misusing the video/3d content they created.
An argument that is right up there with "think of the children" as a cynical means of justifying evil.
If you have two CPUs, both going faster because of the increased memory bandwidth, average aggregate throughput will more than double because not every single instruction references memory and memory bandwidth is not continuously maxed out.
You break me up. Apple not caring about market share, good one. Amazing what you Apple clones can come up with when pressed.
I meant to say... most of the programmers and IT professionals I know have or are planning to have an Android device as their next phone. Your mileage may vary. I don't doubt for a moment that the skew is different in Cupertino.
This fits perfectly with my plans to dump Sony. That is, no new console from Sony, ever. I am tired of being frustrated and humiliated by Sony, and I am out hundreds of dollars of repair bills for their defective products.
Mind you, my replacement for Sony will not be Microsoft (way too evil) or Nintendo (way too cutesy). It will be a Linux game box, and as far as I am concerned, any game that does not run on Linux from then on does not exist. It's not like I have time to play all the games I have now anyway.
I also intend to do my part to help the nascent indie/open Linux game industry get off the ground. There will be a project announcement in due course.
Here's something that may surprise you: Apple doesn't give a fancy flying fuck if Android overtakes iOS in terms of market share.
Ha ha, thanks for the light entertainment. I can go to sleep now.
If it runs native code, I can see one possible advantage over Android: battery life.
That's massive, and equally massive is no threat from patent troll Oracle.