Except that Mono has been trying for 3 years to embrace Dotnet 1.0 without getting there, and for Dotnet 2.0 "only a subset of the total framework will be available".
Looking at the pace of change and who's in the driving seat, I don't think it's MS on the receiving end here.
Yes. Very interesting that such a dumb statement wasn't caught by Gartner in review, isn't it? It's almost in O'Gara/Enderle/Didio territory - one hopes not for similar reasons.
(The point is of course that any new OS is adopted gradually, so the suggestion that MS's position can be improved via the channel of Longhorn is ludicrous).
Being even less well qualified than Linus Torvalds to contribute to this discussion, I nevertheless venture to suggest that the "Linux philosophy" entails, almost by definition, the endorsement of a particular configuration of source files by Torvalds and others.
As such, open source is not at odds with the ostensible goals of TCPA, any more than it is with his ownership of the Linux trademark.
That's why we made trustworthy computing the top priority.
An illuminating quote to choose because it is a complete non sequitur. And perhaps this isn't that obvious to everybody, even in sceptical/. land.
In reality, there is no requirement for Microsoft to trust the software on my machine in order for me to trust it. The two relationships are quite distinct. I may choose to trust software that Microsoft has never heard of. Conversely, I may distrust software that MS has endorsed.
The "trustworthy computing" soundbite has to be this vague because to pin down who is trusting whom to do what would immediately give the game away. The game is, of course, to encourage users to give up control of their PCs.
The Scots (originally Irish, but by now Scotch) were at this time inhabiting Ireland, having driven the Irish (Picts) out of Scotland; while the Picts (originally Scots) were now Irish...
But don't forget that we have VMs now (Java and Dotnet) which allow development of platform-independent distributions, as well as a more solid security model.
Firefox, Mozilla etc., for all their many good qualities, can't really compete as platforms without adopting a VM.
To pretend that "just about anything" in Python was unoriginal is no more convincing than saying it appeared from nowhere.
Not a single sketch, character or even line in Python is directly derived from The Goon Show. In fact the two shows are very different in format and comic style, character-led stories vs. sketches etc. Both are vaguely absurdist, which was novel at the time, and no doubt Spike Milligan had some influence on the Pythons in other ways, but that's about as close as it gets.
I'm pretty sure you don't know. Which track is it on this collection of nearly all Sellers' recorded works, for example?
As another poster points out, the pythons performed all their own material in the TV shows, using other writers or borrowing other material only rarely in other projects.
It should be kept in mind that the fools rushing in are the patent lobbyists, trying to define very abstract and highly dubious principles unprecedented in commerce.
While it's possible to portray the FOSS position as naive and unrealistic, it's equally possible to regard it as a prudent and conservative restatement of the status quo ante.
My own opinion, which I have not seen stated elsewhere, is that society should indeed reward those who produce ideas, but this requires considerable advances in both the technical and economic spheres to accomplish fairly.
If your political colleagues are demanding that the public adopt a bad law because it is better than no law, the onus is on them to provide the supporting evidence and then to make sincere efforts to mitigate its worst consequences, particularly as regards FOSS and small companies.
Patenting software algorithms? I'm sorry, I thought you said software. Or was it a specific embodiment of that software? No, it looks like you could be referring to the idea behind a piece of software. Glad we got that cleared up.
I'm sure you'll agree that clarity is important here and attempts to blur the distinction between the various forms of expression can be misleading. Simplistic, even.
IANAB but I thought Darwin heard sometime in his lifetime that the mammalian eye wasn't so perfect after all - they'd discovered that the nerves made an awkward and fundamentally unnecessary U-turn from the rods and cones in the retina.
Now of course an octopus's eye probably doesn't have this flaw...
Absolutely! As a WASP I find other people's interpretations of "George W Bush" frankly bizarre.
Surely in such cases there's a way to ensure that the concept of "georgewbush" equates to my appreciation and understanding of it? At the very least, I and my friends should be allowed to outbid rival interpretations, right?.I mean, free speech and all that.
Basically, there is only one true way, and, as luck would have it, it's my way. Thanks for listening!
Naturally we sympathise with your unfortunate experience in obtaining some foreign web sites in your Google searches. I understand that the rest of the world occasionally experiences US web sites being returned in their results, if that's any consolation.
Regarding TLDs, I think the distinction you may be groping for is that between a naming authority and a subject area.
Countries are quite good at being authorities, but non-governmental authorities are possible too. ICANN comes to mind, and it's possible to imagine the UN, ISO etc. in this role, as well as new amateur and commercial groups yet to be identified.
The bottom line is that the world will never agree which site http://www.kitchenappliances should resolve to, let alone www.truth or www.beauty.
The solution is not more divisions by subject but more groups making the subjective divisions.
"revealed no business models" I assume - yes, I can believe that, it's just not perceived as a problem.
We've really painted ourselves into a corner on this one, but the solution (metering points) doesn't sound impossible to implement. Should start lobbying....
The pricing model is leading to stagnation of a kind I guess.
As long as the producer continues to have to pay more the more popular his content is, rather than getting a cut from the consumer, the more the scummy stuff is going to accumulate.
What you mean by "moderate diversity" is in fact diversity within the bounds of compatibility. The fact that KDE and Gnome are insufficiently compatible for typical users would appear to be borne out by this other story but we can walk through typical office use cases (email, contacts, calendar, WP) if you require further demonstration.
Slashdot Mirror
C# as a language is much, much, much easier to work with than Java
Not just interesting, more like astonishing given that the languages are practically identical.
Except that Mono has been trying for 3 years to embrace Dotnet 1.0 without getting there, and for Dotnet 2.0 "only a subset of the total framework will be available".
Looking at the pace of change and who's in the driving seat, I don't think it's MS on the receiving end here.
defends Mono by saying no one is forced to use it
Awww, I bet those of you that have been beating him up for the last 3 years feel really mean now!
Don't worry, it will pass.
Yes. Very interesting that such a dumb statement wasn't caught by Gartner in review, isn't it? It's almost in O'Gara/Enderle/Didio territory - one hopes not for similar reasons.
(The point is of course that any new OS is adopted gradually, so the suggestion that MS's position can be improved via the channel of Longhorn is ludicrous).
Being even less well qualified than Linus Torvalds to contribute to this discussion, I nevertheless venture to suggest that the "Linux philosophy" entails, almost by definition, the endorsement of a particular configuration of source files by Torvalds and others.
As such, open source is not at odds with the ostensible goals of TCPA, any more than it is with his ownership of the Linux trademark.
That's why we made trustworthy computing the top priority.
/. land.
An illuminating quote to choose because it is a complete non sequitur. And perhaps this isn't that obvious to everybody, even in sceptical
In reality, there is no requirement for Microsoft to trust the software on my machine in order for me to trust it. The two relationships are quite distinct. I may choose to trust software that Microsoft has never heard of. Conversely, I may distrust software that MS has endorsed.
The "trustworthy computing" soundbite has to be this vague because to pin down who is trusting whom to do what would immediately give the game away. The game is, of course, to encourage users to give up control of their PCs.
GCJ
...Anglo Saxons, not French (originally Danes).
The Scots (originally Irish, but by now Scotch) were at this time inhabiting Ireland, having driven the Irish (Picts) out of Scotland; while the Picts (originally Scots) were now Irish...
If KDE is an app then it's a win for MS.
If KDE is a platform then it's a win for FOSS.
But don't forget that we have VMs now (Java and Dotnet) which allow development of platform-independent distributions, as well as a more solid security model.
Firefox, Mozilla etc., for all their many good qualities, can't really compete as platforms without adopting a VM.
Nothing harms a cause more than overstating it.
To pretend that "just about anything" in Python was unoriginal is no more convincing than saying it appeared from nowhere.
Not a single sketch, character or even line in Python is directly derived from The Goon Show. In fact the two shows are very different in format and comic style, character-led stories vs. sketches etc. Both are vaguely absurdist, which was novel at the time, and no doubt Spike Milligan had some influence on the Pythons in other ways, but that's about as close as it gets.
I'm pretty sure you don't know. Which track is it on this collection of nearly all Sellers' recorded works, for example?
As another poster points out, the pythons performed all their own material in the TV shows, using other writers or borrowing other material only rarely in other projects.
Do you have a reputable reference for this?
A lot of questionable assumptions here.
It should be kept in mind that the fools rushing in are the patent lobbyists, trying to define very abstract and highly dubious principles unprecedented in commerce.
While it's possible to portray the FOSS position as naive and unrealistic, it's equally possible to regard it as a prudent and conservative restatement of the status quo ante.
My own opinion, which I have not seen stated elsewhere, is that society should indeed reward those who produce ideas, but this requires considerable advances in both the technical and economic spheres to accomplish fairly.
If your political colleagues are demanding that the public adopt a bad law because it is better than no law, the onus is on them to provide the supporting evidence and then to make sincere efforts to mitigate its worst consequences, particularly as regards FOSS and small companies.
Patenting software algorithms? I'm sorry, I thought you said software. Or was it a specific embodiment of that software? No, it looks like you could be referring to the idea behind a piece of software. Glad we got that cleared up.
I'm sure you'll agree that clarity is important here and attempts to blur the distinction between the various forms of expression can be misleading. Simplistic, even.
No need to abandon the television medium, just find a way to pay for a service.
Intermediaries with dubious motives are not required. In fact many of us have had a way for a while now.
IANAB but I thought Darwin heard sometime in his lifetime that the mammalian eye wasn't so perfect after all - they'd discovered that the nerves made an awkward and fundamentally unnecessary U-turn from the rods and cones in the retina.
Now of course an octopus's eye probably doesn't have this flaw...
Absolutely! As a WASP I find other people's interpretations of "George W Bush" frankly bizarre.
Surely in such cases there's a way to ensure that the concept of "georgewbush" equates to my appreciation and understanding of it? At the very least, I and my friends should be allowed to outbid rival interpretations, right?.I mean, free speech and all that.
Basically, there is only one true way, and, as luck would have it, it's my way. Thanks for listening!
Naturally we sympathise with your unfortunate experience in obtaining some foreign web sites in your Google searches. I understand that the rest of the world occasionally experiences US web sites being returned in their results, if that's any consolation.
Regarding TLDs, I think the distinction you may be groping for is that between a naming authority and a subject area.
Countries are quite good at being authorities, but non-governmental authorities are possible too. ICANN comes to mind, and it's possible to imagine the UN, ISO etc. in this role, as well as new amateur and commercial groups yet to be identified.
The bottom line is that the world will never agree which site http://www.kitchenappliances should resolve to, let alone www.truth or www.beauty.
The solution is not more divisions by subject but more groups making the subjective divisions.
True.
But arguably Dotnet constitutes a significant investment in producing a secure environment.
Linux-the-platform has nothing equivalent, at least, not without Java.
So by all means let's relish the feeling of superiority, while we can...
Have you seen the number of outstanding problems with HTMLArea 3, for example? And a text edit window is not exactly rocket science.
Sorry but if ActiveX was the answer MS wouldn't have bothered with Dotnet - those applications need to be distributable and portable.
Firefox with a VM might get some traction though...
"revealed no business models" I assume - yes, I can believe that, it's just not perceived as a problem.
We've really painted ourselves into a corner on this one, but the solution (metering points) doesn't sound impossible to implement. Should start lobbying....
But if it it does make it to Windows without hiccups Windows is likely to have hiccups of its own as it was never intended to be a real-time OS.
Pity Linus isn't keen on adding an RT foundation - is his objection based on principle or just the offered code?
The pricing model is leading to stagnation of a kind I guess.
As long as the producer continues to have to pay more the more popular his content is, rather than getting a cut from the consumer, the more the scummy stuff is going to accumulate.
Nope, just missing the point.
What you mean by "moderate diversity" is in fact diversity within the bounds of compatibility. The fact that KDE and Gnome are insufficiently compatible for typical users would appear to be borne out by this other story but we can walk through typical office use cases (email, contacts, calendar, WP) if you require further demonstration.