His point was that, because Word is a proprietary program, it's [sic] users can't modify it for their own uses.
I think he was trying to make two points. This is one of them, the other is that sending Word attachments complicates life for people who don't use Word -- and unintentionally or intentionally continues the idea that Word is the de facto standard so everyone should just go ahead and buy Windows and Office and conform already.
If you're happy using proprietary MS products, cool. That's okay, I don't agree with it, but whatever. Just don't force your choice on my by choosing to send a proprietary bloated attachment instead of a nice neat plain-text message that I could read in my mail client.
It's one thing if you're sending a QuarkXPress attachment to a printer so they can do a job for you. That justifies a proprietary format, rather than sending plain-text. But many PR people and business folks just write something in Word and attach it, when it's a press release or something that could be plain-text with no loss in information.
It's not just a viewing thing either, RMS travels a lot and probably collects email via modem. It's annoying to spend an hour downloading your email because two jerks decided to send Word attachments rather than a simple email. I've been there, done that, hated it.
I'm a writer for several tech pubs, and I refuse to open Word attachments sent by PR flacks. Send it in plain text, or forget about being covered. I'd do the same thing even if I used Windows. Why? Because sending attachments that can carry viruses is also rude.
There are a lot of good reasons NOT to send Word attachments, and no good reasons to send them.
I only wish someone else other than RMS had spoken up about this. People automatically dismiss RMS because they percieve him as being too rigid, which he is, but he has good points as well.
How hard can it be to find a computer with Word installed? Is buying the de facto standard word processor that much to be asked?
In a word, yes.
The only reason you would NOT use MS Office is ideology.
Oh, and ideology is such a horrible thing. Ideology is what prompted colonists to buck taxation without representation too. I guess you think that's horrible as well.
Pragmatism is not such a wonderful thing. You can thank pragmatism for corporations who would rather pay MS license fees than save jobs.
Then I got a job and learnt that tolerance instead of shitty elitism is the way to go. Too bad RMS never learnt that.
Asking people to send plain-text or HTML is not "shitty elitism" -- it's asking people to recognize that they are non-proprietary formats that anyone can view on any platform. How is that bad? Maybe you don't like RMS' phrasing, which is understandable because he tends to devolve into hippy-ish terminology, but the ideas are valid.
Asking people not to send MS attachments, politely, is not fanaticism. It's an attempt to change people's minds. You don't like it? Fine, but don't call it fanaticism, because it's not. It's simply a viewpoint that's different than yours. He has a right to express it. If you think differently, (that he shouldn't express it, not that you don't agree) perhaps RMS isn't the fanatic here.
You didn't learn tolerance, you conformed. There's a difference. Tolerance would be understanding that the world is not fully comprised of Microsoft Word users, and that there are people who do not want to be forced to use Word to correspond with the people who choose to -- or who simply don't think about it at all.
All civilized countries have the strange idea that people accused of a crime should have legal representation in court.
Obviously the subtle nuances of the conversation were lost on you. The poster indicated that Jon can choose ANY lawyer, not just a court-appointed lawyer who probably isn't that experienced, and the state will pay for it. That's different from the system in the US, and I asked if there were other differences because I was genuinely interested.
Instead of contributing valuable information, you chose to be a sarcastic asshole instead by repeating what everyone already knows and acting like I didn't understand the idea of right to representation.
Fox really bungled the Tick. What I don't understand is why they'd spend the money on developing a quirky series like this, and then put it up against Friends. IMHO, the Tick would have been perfect right after the Simpsons, or in the (horrible) Bernie Mac time slot.
I can't say that the episodes I watched were terribly impressive, but it had possibilities -- and Patrick Warburton did a great job as the Tick.
I guess we won't be seeing a Tick movie any time soon... nuts. At least we still have the comic!
That's interesting, I did not know this. Is this the case for all participants in the Norweigan (sp?) legal system, or just defendants? I shudder to think what life would be like here if everyone had a right to a free lawyer in order to sue people...
Does the legal system operate on the same adversarial principle as it does here, or...?
Thanks for the information, I can actually say reading Slashdot was a learning experience today.:)
Thanks, done that already. I'm sure that the MPAA and RIAA will continue to attack our rights if they offer the appearance of conflicting with their profit motive...
However, I also want to donate specifically to Jon -- he's going to need every cent, I'm sure.
Yes, they would, but... would a court agree with their argument, or the argument that a person should be able to do anything with that piece of plastic that doesn't violate copyright law? (I'm pretty sure it's not actually glass...) DMCA aside, I'm pretty sure fair use overshadows any objections the MPAA has to decoding the data for personal use -- whether that's playback or archival. I mean, the commercials heavily feature cuts from the movie, not a family prancing around tossing DVD back and forth. I believe it's strongly implied that by buying a DVD you get to watch the content and no restrictions on the viewing platform are mentioned in the commercials.
At a bare minimum, I bet a really good lawyer could force the studios to refund the purchase price of DVDs already bought under that promise if not actually setting a precedent that explicitly allows decoding for personal use.
One: is there a fund for Jon that we can contribute to?
Two: I wonder if the MPAA or movie studios could be sued for false advertising? If you notice, all advertisements for DVDs like "Shrek" or whatever scream "own this DVD NOW!" Yet, the studios emphatically deny that customers actually own the DVD or the right to do anything with it other than play it on an officially sanctioned player. If you "own" the DVD doesn't that imply the right to play it in any way you want, or can do with it as you will? Obviously, you don't own the rights to the content, so re-distribution is out -- but I'd think ownership should require the right to decode the content for personal use.
Solaris on Intel isn't that popular. There are plenty of UNIX-type OSes for Intel, Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD... Solaris is designed for more powerful hardware, but it loses its luster a bit on x86, plus Sun has to put valuable resources into trying to support the advances in x86 hardware with each new release, which has to be a nightmare compared with supporting the hardware that Sun designs.
Sun has also begun to support (half-heartedly) Linux, which can pretty much take the place of Solaris on Intel. Let the Free Software community support the commodity hardware, which Sun can then pick up and sell on low end boxes, and let Sun put its resources towards the OS that goes on their expensive and money-making hardware.
It is a slight bummer, but it's not really a shock. Sun is tightening its belt, and they're going to want to cut back on things that don't add a lot to the bottom line. With any luck this will mean a little warmer support for Linux and other Free Unices...
Okay, the upload cap is something to bitch about, but whining about a 3GB download cap for news over a 3 day period? Puh-leez.
If you're downloading more than 3GB of pr0n over three days, you have some serious issues...
I'm quite happy to see that the Linuxgruven bastards are being sued, though. They screwed over a good friend of mine, and I hope they get nailed to the wall for it. Took 'em long enough, though...
Yes, lets. For the markets to decide, however, Microsoft would have to quit paying content providers and boxmakers huge sums to include their formats. The "market" isn't deciding here, unless you count having your options reduced and choosing between the lesser options. If they succeed here, it won't be long before you'll only be able to find WMF-only audio players. If it gets popular, Microsoft will use their toehold to start excluding competing formats, like MP3. Forget about ever seeing Ogg on a device that supports WMF...
Microsoft is busily using it's huge cash reserves to buy into markets it wants into -- regardless of whether consumers want them there or not. Witness the recent takeover of Qwest's DSL and dial-up customers. Two corporate giants make a deal, Microsoft throws a butt-load of money at the "problem" and *poof* thousands of formerly-happy Qwest DSL customers are now forced to use MSN. (Hilariously, MSN doesn't even support all of Microsoft's OSes, much less Linux or other OSes... NT isn't supported at all, and XP has "issues" according to Qwest/Microsoft's transition page...)
Until Microsoft can get Windows right, they shouldn't be allowed to branch out any further.
Frankly, I'm just sick of seeing Microsoft around every corner. They're worse than Wal-Mart and McDonalds combined...
Perhaps the timing might have something to do with the HP/Compaq merger?
Perhaps the lawyers smelled blood in the water and thought this was a good time to pursue the suit. HP may be more apt to settle to make it go away right now.
Unlikely. They'll just pay the President of the College a little more for "having the initiative" to sue HP. Students rarely benefit from any windfall donations or grants given to colleges.
The problem here is that, again, they can't tell if he's typing an email or his password until they see the keystrokes, but they record it anyway.
But the email, if incriminating, might not be allowed in court while documents that were decrypted after gleaning the password would be. I think that's a key difference.
If the FBI had a judge's permission to search a filing cabinet, they wouldn't need trickery to get the key -- they'd be able to have a specialist simply pick the lock. When a document is encrypted using PGP, that's a bit more difficult.
While I'm all about protecting privacy, I'm also against completely handicapping law enforcement. Yes, there are some abuses, but let's face facts they're the good guys sometimes too. Defense attorneys get to use just about any means possible to keep evidence out -- evidence against some pretty evil people, mind you -- while LE is continually being handicapped further and further.
If this guy gets off, guess who the bad guys will be? The defense lawyer? Nah, they're "just doing their job." Scarfo? Nope, he just played the game. It'll be the FBI and the prosecutors who couldn't get charges to stick.
Same Theory as Polygraph
on
The Eyes Have It
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This sounds like it works the same way as a polygraph test -- if you have a physical response to lying, basically caused by a panic response then the machine can detect it. If you're a sociopath that doesn't have that response...nada. Polygraphs don't detect your guilt or innocence, they detect your reaction to the question. I'm reasonably sure that if I shot someone, but felt good about having done it, that I'd be able to sail through a polygraph (or this test) with flying colors.
If the paranoia continues we'll all be flying naked without carry-ons in a few months. (Perhaps the airlines would issue something similar to hospital gowns...) On the plus side, being surrounded by naked people might help me with my phobia of flying. I've flown since 9/11 and I'm still more worried about a wing falling off than I am about terrorists...
I never said I loved Office. I said I have to use it to work with some publishers, but some people do like or even love Office -- I've never met anyone who professed to love Windows.
You might want to re-read the post. I love Linux, I've tried OS X, and I'm not impressed. It might look pretty, but it's still slow and bloated -- though far more stable than previous releases of MacOS. (Linux on Mac hardware is fun, but I got rid of my iMac months ago b/c I wasn't doing anything useful with it...)
I own 13 x86 PCs to run various flavors of Linux, *BSD and (once upon a time) BeOS. I bought several used PCs for about $100 each, and they're still usable with Linux/*BSD. I build (or re-build) a new PC every 8 months or so, and spend maybe $1,000 for the parts to get something quite near the top of the line. Try getting a comparable Mac for $1K -- no chance.
Macs are far too expensive for what you get, compared to the comparable PC hardware. This is one of the reasons Apple keeps lagging Windows. Hell, Jobs & Co. are doing M$ a big favor -- innovating new looks & features that Microsoft can copy, but charging too damn much for the original. Expense is a showstopper for some people, particularly businesses. Compare the cost of 20 Dell computers & 20 Macs of the same quality (hardware etc.). The cost of the Macs is far higher than the PCs. I'd almost rather pay the Microsoft tax than the Steve Jobs tax... "our cost more because...they're prettier!" Please.
I gave the beta a shot -- no dice. It doesn't work and play well with their stylesheets. The docs it created were totally fubared in Word & crashed Word quite a bit. Trust me, I was all about finding any alternative whatsoever rather than using Word.
There's one very strong reason why many people would like to see Office for Linux (or any other free UNIX) -- because they want to move away from Windows, but Office is "standard" everywhere.
I work with several publishers who won't accept manuscripts in anything but Word, which means that if you want to write or edit for those companies -- even if you're working on their Linux books -- you have to bow down to Office.
There are a lot of people who HATE Windows but love Office. Honestly, StarOffice et al. haven't caught up to Word's revision features. I wish they would, and soon, but until then there are a lot of businesses that would benefit enormously from being able to run Office on Linux or *BSD because the only apps they need are mail, browser and Word and Excel. (And maybe Access...) Frankly, I'd rather write in Vim any day, but just try to convince a large publisher to accept chapters in plain text, LaTeX or DocBook. And I'm not talking about O'Reilly.
StarOffice is just fine for typing a quick letter or whatever, but its revision control isn't up to snuff and it still has trouble converting Word docs. I'm no champion of Microsoft or their products, but if Microsoft were to port Office to Linux I strongly believe you'd see a surge in Linux on the desktop -- precisely why they won't do it. Why don't you see tons of Macs? Damned expensive hardware, that's why. Commodity PCs + Free OS + Office == Happy Businesses.
I really don't know anyone who uses Linux to be "trendy" though I know a lot of people who find the migration difficult if they try to replicate the Windows experience under Linux.
AT&T made its users aware that there would be a cap at 1.5MB -- there's a FAQ on their Website that says as much and (much more disturbing) they've made clear they plan to charge for speed in the future. How that's affected by the merger, who knows...
This is a non-issue, people on AT&T @Home are already aware of it if they've paid attention. It might suck, but it's not unreasonable.
When the time comes, will our government go to these kind of lengths to protect Free Software licenses? Would the FBI raid a proprietary software company if they were found to be abusing the GPL? This is basically the same issue.
Is it possible to use a different ISP than MSN?
If so, I'm buying several for friends...
Welcome to Corporate Government...
on
DMCA 2, Freedom 0
·
· Score: 1
Okay, is there much doubt left that people have almost no voice left in the process of governing the US? With Bush and Ashcroft running amok and bringing us closer to martial law every day, Microsoft actually standing to PROFIT off of the suits being brought against them, and the FBI backing private companies (Adobe) -- what hope do individuals have in the US when they stand in the way of corporate profits?
The geek community has been quick to organize protests in favor of Dmitry Skylarov -- why not protest the DoJ caving to Microsoft. Even people who *like* Microsoft products have been saying that they don't like the corporate behavior of MS.
Ashcroft and Bush are far too eager to let them off easy. I think that Microsoft should get much more severe punishment for the damage they've inflicted on the computing industry. I don't think breaking them up is the answer, but neither is letting them go about business as usual.
Most of the items that Microsoft and the DoJ negotiated in the end were little more than a list of things that Microsoft should be doing anyway. It's not punishment, merely requiring Microsoft to follow the law...
Some penalties I'd like to see:
1. Require open standards. No more proprietary protocols or file formats. All have to be published by the time Microsoft releases a product to the public.
2. Divest MSN, and X-Box divisions.
3. A fine of no less than 25% of Microsoft's yearly income. Not profit, income.
Why aren't people gathered around the country to protest this obvious miscarriage of justice?
Slashdot Mirror
His point was that, because Word is a proprietary program, it's [sic] users can't modify it for their own uses.
I think he was trying to make two points. This is one of them, the other is that sending Word attachments complicates life for people who don't use Word -- and unintentionally or intentionally continues the idea that Word is the de facto standard so everyone should just go ahead and buy Windows and Office and conform already.
If you're happy using proprietary MS products, cool. That's okay, I don't agree with it, but whatever. Just don't force your choice on my by choosing to send a proprietary bloated attachment instead of a nice neat plain-text message that I could read in my mail client.
It's one thing if you're sending a QuarkXPress attachment to a printer so they can do a job for you. That justifies a proprietary format, rather than sending plain-text. But many PR people and business folks just write something in Word and attach it, when it's a press release or something that could be plain-text with no loss in information.
It's not just a viewing thing either, RMS travels a lot and probably collects email via modem. It's annoying to spend an hour downloading your email because two jerks decided to send Word attachments rather than a simple email. I've been there, done that, hated it.
I'm a writer for several tech pubs, and I refuse to open Word attachments sent by PR flacks. Send it in plain text, or forget about being covered. I'd do the same thing even if I used Windows. Why? Because sending attachments that can carry viruses is also rude.
There are a lot of good reasons NOT to send Word attachments, and no good reasons to send them.
I only wish someone else other than RMS had spoken up about this. People automatically dismiss RMS because they percieve him as being too rigid, which he is, but he has good points as well.
How hard can it be to find a computer with Word installed? Is buying the de facto standard word processor that much to be asked?
In a word, yes.
The only reason you would NOT use MS Office is ideology.
Oh, and ideology is such a horrible thing. Ideology is what prompted colonists to buck taxation without representation too. I guess you think that's horrible as well.
Pragmatism is not such a wonderful thing. You can thank pragmatism for corporations who would rather pay MS license fees than save jobs.
Then I got a job and learnt that tolerance instead of shitty elitism is the way to go. Too bad RMS never learnt that.
Asking people to send plain-text or HTML is not "shitty elitism" -- it's asking people to recognize that they are non-proprietary formats that anyone can view on any platform. How is that bad? Maybe you don't like RMS' phrasing, which is understandable because he tends to devolve into hippy-ish terminology, but the ideas are valid.
Asking people not to send MS attachments, politely, is not fanaticism. It's an attempt to change people's minds. You don't like it? Fine, but don't call it fanaticism, because it's not. It's simply a viewpoint that's different than yours. He has a right to express it. If you think differently, (that he shouldn't express it, not that you don't agree) perhaps RMS isn't the fanatic here.
You didn't learn tolerance, you conformed. There's a difference. Tolerance would be understanding that the world is not fully comprised of Microsoft Word users, and that there are people who do not want to be forced to use Word to correspond with the people who choose to -- or who simply don't think about it at all.
All civilized countries have the strange idea that people accused of a crime should have legal representation in court.
Obviously the subtle nuances of the conversation were lost on you. The poster indicated that Jon can choose ANY lawyer, not just a court-appointed lawyer who probably isn't that experienced, and the state will pay for it. That's different from the system in the US, and I asked if there were other differences because I was genuinely interested.
Instead of contributing valuable information, you chose to be a sarcastic asshole instead by repeating what everyone already knows and acting like I didn't understand the idea of right to representation.
Jerk.
Fox really bungled the Tick. What I don't understand is why they'd spend the money on developing a quirky series like this, and then put it up against Friends. IMHO, the Tick would have been perfect right after the Simpsons, or in the (horrible) Bernie Mac time slot.
I can't say that the episodes I watched were terribly impressive, but it had possibilities -- and Patrick Warburton did a great job as the Tick.
I guess we won't be seeing a Tick movie any time soon... nuts. At least we still have the comic!
That's interesting, I did not know this. Is this the case for all participants in the Norweigan (sp?) legal system, or just defendants? I shudder to think what life would be like here if everyone had a right to a free lawyer in order to sue people...
:)
Does the legal system operate on the same adversarial principle as it does here, or...?
Thanks for the information, I can actually say reading Slashdot was a learning experience today.
Thanks, done that already. I'm sure that the MPAA and RIAA will continue to attack our rights if they offer the appearance of conflicting with their profit motive...
However, I also want to donate specifically to Jon -- he's going to need every cent, I'm sure.
Yes, they would, but... would a court agree with their argument, or the argument that a person should be able to do anything with that piece of plastic that doesn't violate copyright law? (I'm pretty sure it's not actually glass...) DMCA aside, I'm pretty sure fair use overshadows any objections the MPAA has to decoding the data for personal use -- whether that's playback or archival. I mean, the commercials heavily feature cuts from the movie, not a family prancing around tossing DVD back and forth. I believe it's strongly implied that by buying a DVD you get to watch the content and no restrictions on the viewing platform are mentioned in the commercials.
At a bare minimum, I bet a really good lawyer could force the studios to refund the purchase price of DVDs already bought under that promise if not actually setting a precedent that explicitly allows decoding for personal use.
One: is there a fund for Jon that we can contribute to?
Two: I wonder if the MPAA or movie studios could be sued for false advertising? If you notice, all advertisements for DVDs like "Shrek" or whatever scream "own this DVD NOW!" Yet, the studios emphatically deny that customers actually own the DVD or the right to do anything with it other than play it on an officially sanctioned player. If you "own" the DVD doesn't that imply the right to play it in any way you want, or can do with it as you will? Obviously, you don't own the rights to the content, so re-distribution is out -- but I'd think ownership should require the right to decode the content for personal use.
Class action suit, anyone?
Solaris on Intel isn't that popular. There are plenty of UNIX-type OSes for Intel, Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD... Solaris is designed for more powerful hardware, but it loses its luster a bit on x86, plus Sun has to put valuable resources into trying to support the advances in x86 hardware with each new release, which has to be a nightmare compared with supporting the hardware that Sun designs.
Sun has also begun to support (half-heartedly) Linux, which can pretty much take the place of Solaris on Intel. Let the Free Software community support the commodity hardware, which Sun can then pick up and sell on low end boxes, and let Sun put its resources towards the OS that goes on their expensive and money-making hardware.
It is a slight bummer, but it's not really a shock. Sun is tightening its belt, and they're going to want to cut back on things that don't add a lot to the bottom line. With any luck this will mean a little warmer support for Linux and other Free Unices...
Okay, the upload cap is something to bitch about, but whining about a 3GB download cap for news over a 3 day period? Puh-leez.
If you're downloading more than 3GB of pr0n over three days, you have some serious issues...
I'm quite happy to see that the Linuxgruven bastards are being sued, though. They screwed over a good friend of mine, and I hope they get nailed to the wall for it. Took 'em long enough, though...
Not that I'm an MS fan. "Let the markets decide."
Yes, lets. For the markets to decide, however, Microsoft would have to quit paying content providers and boxmakers huge sums to include their formats. The "market" isn't deciding here, unless you count having your options reduced and choosing between the lesser options. If they succeed here, it won't be long before you'll only be able to find WMF-only audio players. If it gets popular, Microsoft will use their toehold to start excluding competing formats, like MP3. Forget about ever seeing Ogg on a device that supports WMF...
Microsoft is busily using it's huge cash reserves to buy into markets it wants into -- regardless of whether consumers want them there or not. Witness the recent takeover of Qwest's DSL and dial-up customers. Two corporate giants make a deal, Microsoft throws a butt-load of money at the "problem" and *poof* thousands of formerly-happy Qwest DSL customers are now forced to use MSN. (Hilariously, MSN doesn't even support all of Microsoft's OSes, much less Linux or other OSes... NT isn't supported at all, and XP has "issues" according to Qwest/Microsoft's transition page...)
Until Microsoft can get Windows right, they shouldn't be allowed to branch out any further.
Frankly, I'm just sick of seeing Microsoft around every corner. They're worse than Wal-Mart and McDonalds combined...
Perhaps the timing might have something to do with the HP/Compaq merger?
Perhaps the lawyers smelled blood in the water and thought this was a good time to pursue the suit. HP may be more apt to settle to make it go away right now.
Unlikely. They'll just pay the President of the College a little more for "having the initiative" to sue HP. Students rarely benefit from any windfall donations or grants given to colleges.
One of the best scenes in Blade Runner, right next to the final scene with Deckard and Roy Batty. (Or should I say final scene for Roy Batty...)
The problem here is that, again, they can't tell if he's typing an email or his password until they see the keystrokes, but they record it anyway.
But the email, if incriminating, might not be allowed in court while documents that were decrypted after gleaning the password would be. I think that's a key difference.
If the FBI had a judge's permission to search a filing cabinet, they wouldn't need trickery to get the key -- they'd be able to have a specialist simply pick the lock. When a document is encrypted using PGP, that's a bit more difficult.
While I'm all about protecting privacy, I'm also against completely handicapping law enforcement. Yes, there are some abuses, but let's face facts they're the good guys sometimes too. Defense attorneys get to use just about any means possible to keep evidence out -- evidence against some pretty evil people, mind you -- while LE is continually being handicapped further and further.
If this guy gets off, guess who the bad guys will be? The defense lawyer? Nah, they're "just doing their job." Scarfo? Nope, he just played the game. It'll be the FBI and the prosecutors who couldn't get charges to stick.
This sounds like it works the same way as a polygraph test -- if you have a physical response to lying, basically caused by a panic response then the machine can detect it. If you're a sociopath that doesn't have that response...nada. Polygraphs don't detect your guilt or innocence, they detect your reaction to the question. I'm reasonably sure that if I shot someone, but felt good about having done it, that I'd be able to sail through a polygraph (or this test) with flying colors.
If the paranoia continues we'll all be flying naked without carry-ons in a few months. (Perhaps the airlines would issue something similar to hospital gowns...) On the plus side, being surrounded by naked people might help me with my phobia of flying. I've flown since 9/11 and I'm still more worried about a wing falling off than I am about terrorists...
I never said I loved Office. I said I have to use it to work with some publishers, but some people do like or even love Office -- I've never met anyone who professed to love Windows.
You might want to re-read the post. I love Linux, I've tried OS X, and I'm not impressed. It might look pretty, but it's still slow and bloated -- though far more stable than previous releases of MacOS. (Linux on Mac hardware is fun, but I got rid of my iMac months ago b/c I wasn't doing anything useful with it...)
I own 13 x86 PCs to run various flavors of Linux, *BSD and (once upon a time) BeOS. I bought several used PCs for about $100 each, and they're still usable with Linux/*BSD. I build (or re-build) a new PC every 8 months or so, and spend maybe $1,000 for the parts to get something quite near the top of the line. Try getting a comparable Mac for $1K -- no chance.
Macs are far too expensive for what you get, compared to the comparable PC hardware. This is one of the reasons Apple keeps lagging Windows. Hell, Jobs & Co. are doing M$ a big favor -- innovating new looks & features that Microsoft can copy, but charging too damn much for the original. Expense is a showstopper for some people, particularly businesses. Compare the cost of 20 Dell computers & 20 Macs of the same quality (hardware etc.). The cost of the Macs is far higher than the PCs. I'd almost rather pay the Microsoft tax than the Steve Jobs tax... "our cost more because...they're prettier!" Please.
I gave the beta a shot -- no dice. It doesn't work and play well with their stylesheets. The docs it created were totally fubared in Word & crashed Word quite a bit. Trust me, I was all about finding any alternative whatsoever rather than using Word.
There's one very strong reason why many people would like to see Office for Linux (or any other free UNIX) -- because they want to move away from Windows, but Office is "standard" everywhere.
I work with several publishers who won't accept manuscripts in anything but Word, which means that if you want to write or edit for those companies -- even if you're working on their Linux books -- you have to bow down to Office.
There are a lot of people who HATE Windows but love Office. Honestly, StarOffice et al. haven't caught up to Word's revision features. I wish they would, and soon, but until then there are a lot of businesses that would benefit enormously from being able to run Office on Linux or *BSD because the only apps they need are mail, browser and Word and Excel. (And maybe Access...) Frankly, I'd rather write in Vim any day, but just try to convince a large publisher to accept chapters in plain text, LaTeX or DocBook. And I'm not talking about O'Reilly.
StarOffice is just fine for typing a quick letter or whatever, but its revision control isn't up to snuff and it still has trouble converting Word docs. I'm no champion of Microsoft or their products, but if Microsoft were to port Office to Linux I strongly believe you'd see a surge in Linux on the desktop -- precisely why they won't do it. Why don't you see tons of Macs? Damned expensive hardware, that's why. Commodity PCs + Free OS + Office == Happy Businesses.
I really don't know anyone who uses Linux to be "trendy" though I know a lot of people who find the migration difficult if they try to replicate the Windows experience under Linux.
AT&T made its users aware that there would be a cap at 1.5MB -- there's a FAQ on their Website that says as much and (much more disturbing) they've made clear they plan to charge for speed in the future. How that's affected by the merger, who knows...
This is a non-issue, people on AT&T @Home are already aware of it if they've paid attention. It might suck, but it's not unreasonable.
When the time comes, will our government go to these kind of lengths to protect Free Software licenses? Would the FBI raid a proprietary software company if they were found to be abusing the GPL? This is basically the same issue.
Is it possible to use a different ISP than MSN?
If so, I'm buying several for friends...
Okay, is there much doubt left that people have almost no voice left in the process of governing the US? With Bush and Ashcroft running amok and bringing us closer to martial law every day, Microsoft actually standing to PROFIT off of the suits being brought against them, and the FBI backing private companies (Adobe) -- what hope do individuals have in the US when they stand in the way of corporate profits?
The geek community has been quick to organize protests in favor of Dmitry Skylarov -- why not protest the DoJ caving to Microsoft. Even people who *like* Microsoft products have been saying that they don't like the corporate behavior of MS.
Ashcroft and Bush are far too eager to let them off easy. I think that Microsoft should get much more severe punishment for the damage they've inflicted on the computing industry. I don't think breaking them up is the answer, but neither is letting them go about business as usual.
Most of the items that Microsoft and the DoJ negotiated in the end were little more than a list of things that Microsoft should be doing anyway. It's not punishment, merely requiring Microsoft to follow the law...
Some penalties I'd like to see:
1. Require open standards. No more proprietary protocols or file formats. All have to be published by the time Microsoft releases a product to the public.
2. Divest MSN, and X-Box divisions.
3. A fine of no less than 25% of Microsoft's yearly income. Not profit, income.
Why aren't people gathered around the country to protest this obvious miscarriage of justice?
Note that Jar-Jar does not appear in the trailer... maybe Lucas is taking the criticism seriously. :)