The GUI calendar app should allow me to send meeting notices using any old terminal email client. It's more a case of not integrating the GUI calendar app with their GUI email app. Ever try sending a Schedule Plus appointment using Netscape email? You should be able to -- it's just email -- but you can't. Similarly, I'll only consider Sunbird if it can send notices via Pine or even Exchange; if it's locked into Thunderbird, forget it. I may end up using Sunbird and Thunderbird together, but I want the option to use something else.
Ah, but once Microsoft gets hit with an antitrust suit, a key issue will be opening the API.
You're speculating, and I disagree. There will be no antitrust lawsuit. The whole issue last time around was "integrating" the web browser (MSIE) with the operating system (Windows), leading to the exclusion of other web browsers (Netscape). With the OS married to the hardware, the only software that will run is Microsoft blessed software -- "integration" is the name of the game. Everyone will know that going in, just as they know that when they buy an Xbox or PS2. There's no deception on Microsoft's part -- this new computer will only run "trusted" applications that Microsoft has blessed. If you want a spam- and virus-free computer, you have to go along with this (so their arguement goes). The fact that you'll have to play this game if you want to share files with anyone else on the planet is just a side-effect of this new security, and you're still free to buy a Mac or build your own Linux PC. Of course, those computers won't be able to share text documents or email with anyone running a Longhorn computer, but none of that is Microsoft's fault, so there's no antitrust case -- especially with this administration.
You need a compiled binary because software will need to be somehow certified safe. And the only way to do that is to have a "trusted" (by the copyright holders, that is) entity perform the auditing and compilation of the software.
Close. The only way to do that will be to have Microsoft certify your binary is safe, just as today only Microsoft can give you the key to running on Xbox. I'm sure there will be no third-party blessings of Longhorn DRM, unless the third-parties are paying massive royalties to Microsoft (hence the patents). So what if the source is included if you can't compile it yourself? You won't even be able to write software for a Longhorn PC without a developer's license from Microsoft (included in Visual Studio 28 for only $1399.95). The only hope will be to get a Longhorn development box with DRM disabled - if there is such a beast - but they'll be as available to the public (you and me) as Xbox development boxes are today, i.e. not at all.
It's PC makers who should be worried. Microsoft is going to lock them in or lock them out. Either they buy BIOS chips from Microsoft and build Microsoft-spec hardware, or their computers won't run Longhorn and won't do Trusted Computing^h^h^hDRM. But if they follow Microsoft's lead, their products will be identical (as if they're not identical now) and only the Dells of the world will have the volume to make money on the slim margins. Let's see: Microsoft dictates the price of the OS; Microsoft dictates the price of the BIOS; Microsoft dictates the design of the rest of the hardware. Doesn't leave much room for innovation or cost-cutting, does it?
Don't believe me? Think Pocket PC, where virtually any PPC is the same as any other. The next logical step in all this is Xbox, where Microsoft sells the hardware and everyone else is a supplier to Microsoft. Indeed, Xbox is a learning platform for how to marry the OS with the hardware such that one won't work without the other.
When you tie the OS so tightly to the hardware the anti-trust issue goes away. Of course only Xbox plays Xbox games -- and only PS2 plays PS2 games. So what? Of course only Longhorn PCs run Longhorn applications -- and only Macintoshes run Macintosh apps. So what?
Oh, sure, someone will get Linux to run on Longhorn PCs, but it will be just like trying to get Linux running on an Xbox. It can be done, but it's klugy and possible illegal and really not worth the hassle.
I'm only given Outlook in a work context, in which case I have no choice and I must use it. At home it paid for Outlook, because it is the best tool available. If I were given Outlook at home then I wouldn't care as much that it doesn't play well with others (but I'd still rather avoid it's exploit-friendly design).
Oddly enough, I use Outlook for both, but not on the same machine. I use Outlook for email on my laptop, and I use Pocket Outlook for calendaring on my Pocket PC. I don't do calendaring on my laptop, and I don't do email on my PDA. I can hear/.readers gasping in horror, but in PDA bang/buck the Pocket PC wins, so whatever runs on my desktop has to work with a Pocket PC. So far that's Outlook, but I'm open to a replacement.
I really don't use Outlook's calendar (Schedule Plus) on my laptop except as a backup for my PDA. Frankly, it's annoying that I can't turn off the alarms on my laptop without turning them off on the PDA as well, so there's an opening for an open-source solution to do Microsoft one better.
I can't switch from the Windows XP that came on my laptop until everything I do can be done with open software. This isn't my game PC, so it doesn't have to run Windows games, but among other things it does have to run Outlook so I can sync my PDA's calendar.
Let's be honest here. We're all looking for an "open" Outlook replacement. I'd be interested in Sunbird on one condition -- it has to be truely open. If it only works (or only works well) with other Mozilla apps, then it may be open source but it's not really open. If it works with OOo, Pine, the KDE suite, etc. then I'm interested.
The dream is to make my own Outlook replacement out of open software building blocks, and a calendar block is much needed. But so far the other blocks only work well with their own kind. It's not Open unless all the building blocks are interoperable and interchangeable. Until then, Outlook/Office wins.
NASA does lots of things. Their charter is pretty far-reaching. But most people think of manned space flight when they think of NASA, and the vast majority of the manned space flight hardware was built by free-market contractors, not by NASA itself. Hell, NASA wouldn't get much support in Congress if they didn't spread the work around to companies in virtually every state. I think you missed my point and come close to putting words in my mouth.
Oh, and I do look down on Lockheed, but not for the reasons you suggest. I look down on them for bungling the quite excellent L-1011 and subsequently getting out of the commercial airline business.
The free market needs a customer. NASA is that customer. NASA does diddly squat itself. They contracted out the design and construction of the shuttle and ISS; NASA just drives the truck and puts the tinker toy together on-site.
NASA has more than one supplier and they periodically re-bid the work -- how much more "free market" do you want? Do you think Boeing and Lockheed and the rest wouldn't fall all over themselves to build you a space station of your own if you wanted one and could pay for it?
It was short-term automated decision-making that let them fly the shuttle without fixing that pesky flaking foam insulation thing. Just like it was short-term automated decision-making that let them fly the shuttle in the cold on January 28, 1986. I don't think NASA's short-term automated decision-making has progressed much at all since April, 1990.
Surely not. The whole point is to NOT send a shuttle, because from now on all shuttle missions must dock with the ISS for safety, and any shuttle mission to Hubble cannot dock with the ISS. If you're going to send a shuttle, why not just let an astronaut fix Hubble? Or did you think the robot is going to fly the shuttle?
Why the hell did they put the ISS so far from Hubble? Shouldn't they be, like, next door, or at least just up the block?
maximizing [ISS] assembly time and hopefully reducing costs
How about if we stop sending rockets and shuttles to the ISS altogether? That would drive costs to zero and drive assembly time to infinity, exceeding both of your stated goals.
A company could submit a software patent, and in the time it takes for the patent to go through, another company could have gone from square one to implementation to market and to obselesence(sp) before the first one has had the patent processed.
That's good. Because they can't sue you for patent infringement until the patent is granted, and if you've already sucked all the $$$ out of the market and gone out of business before their patent is granted, there's nothing left of you for them to sue. Maybe -- just maybe -- companies will have to go back to delivering products in order to make money. They won't be able to let others deliver products then sue them for their profits (although I must admit, as a business model suing successful companies seems much easier than becoming one yourself. Damn ethics -- why was I cursed with honest parents!!!
Yeah, and Henry Ford can argue that the Chevy Corvette is really an implementation of his Model T, and call it a Model T/Corvette, but that doesn't make either claim correct. Do you really think Linus wrote Linux just to further Stallman's pet project?
Further, your argement then is that "GNOME/XFree" nonsense means that XFree is just a component of the GNOME system, as if GNOME came first. You FSF idiots are just that -- idiots. You literally will cut off your nose to spite your face. There was a tag line here on Slashdot that summed you guys up perfectly. I don't recall who said it, but the quote went something like this: "A fanatic can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
One thing I must say for Stallman's "GNU/Linux" nonsense -- the flamefest here on/. got me to investigate *BSD for more than just my firewall, and I've been much happier since I gave up on Linux and switched to a true UNIX. Now I read all these stories about this distro and that distro and now Gentoo is dead and Debian is delayed because they've stuck their philosophical heads up their GNU butts, and I laugh my ass off.
Hell, yes, it's flamebait -- I didn't build up all this Karma for nothing!
If you want to be pedantic, we'd better start calling our operating systems GNOME/XFree/GNU/Linux I sure hope not! The "GNU/Linux" nonsense is because Stallman got his knickers in a twist over the fact that most Linux distros include a lot of GNU software. To say "GNOME/XFree" implies that XFree includes a lot of GNOME software, which it certainly does not! To say "GNOME/Linux" -- as in the story itself -- implies that Linux distros come with GNOME, and that is not entirely true. Lots of Linux distros come with KDE, and some come with neither.
you'll notice that the wright flyer had NO AILERONS
You'll notice this new wing has no ailerons, either.
Even if this isn't exactly the same application as the Wright's Wing Warping, the point of both is to change the aerodynamics of the wing by changing its geometery. This is just the latest in a long line of attempts. In the 1980's NASA came up with the scissors wing to address exactly this problem -- swept wing for the fast transit to the station point, straight wing for loitering on station. In the 1990's Boeing won a contract to re-wing a bunch of Navy jets with flexible composite wings -- with no slats, flaps, or ailerons.
Slashdot Mirror
The GUI calendar app should allow me to send meeting notices using any old terminal email client. It's more a case of not integrating the GUI calendar app with their GUI email app. Ever try sending a Schedule Plus appointment using Netscape email? You should be able to -- it's just email -- but you can't. Similarly, I'll only consider Sunbird if it can send notices via Pine or even Exchange; if it's locked into Thunderbird, forget it. I may end up using Sunbird and Thunderbird together, but I want the option to use something else.
Don't believe me? Think Pocket PC, where virtually any PPC is the same as any other. The next logical step in all this is Xbox, where Microsoft sells the hardware and everyone else is a supplier to Microsoft. Indeed, Xbox is a learning platform for how to marry the OS with the hardware such that one won't work without the other.
When you tie the OS so tightly to the hardware the anti-trust issue goes away. Of course only Xbox plays Xbox games -- and only PS2 plays PS2 games. So what? Of course only Longhorn PCs run Longhorn applications -- and only Macintoshes run Macintosh apps. So what?
Oh, sure, someone will get Linux to run on Longhorn PCs, but it will be just like trying to get Linux running on an Xbox. It can be done, but it's klugy and possible illegal and really not worth the hassle.
I'm only given Outlook in a work context, in which case I have no choice and I must use it. At home it paid for Outlook, because it is the best tool available. If I were given Outlook at home then I wouldn't care as much that it doesn't play well with others (but I'd still rather avoid it's exploit-friendly design).
I really don't use Outlook's calendar (Schedule Plus) on my laptop except as a backup for my PDA. Frankly, it's annoying that I can't turn off the alarms on my laptop without turning them off on the PDA as well, so there's an opening for an open-source solution to do Microsoft one better.
I can't switch from the Windows XP that came on my laptop until everything I do can be done with open software. This isn't my game PC, so it doesn't have to run Windows games, but among other things it does have to run Outlook so I can sync my PDA's calendar.
By the way, there are more email clients than just Thunderbird. Sunbird better work with them, too.
The dream is to make my own Outlook replacement out of open software building blocks, and a calendar block is much needed. But so far the other blocks only work well with their own kind. It's not Open unless all the building blocks are interoperable and interchangeable. Until then, Outlook/Office wins.
Oh, and I do look down on Lockheed, but not for the reasons you suggest. I look down on them for bungling the quite excellent L-1011 and subsequently getting out of the commercial airline business.
NASA has more than one supplier and they periodically re-bid the work -- how much more "free market" do you want? Do you think Boeing and Lockheed and the rest wouldn't fall all over themselves to build you a space station of your own if you wanted one and could pay for it?
It was short-term automated decision-making that let them fly the shuttle without fixing that pesky flaking foam insulation thing. Just like it was short-term automated decision-making that let them fly the shuttle in the cold on January 28, 1986. I don't think NASA's short-term automated decision-making has progressed much at all since April, 1990.
Why the hell did they put the ISS so far from Hubble? Shouldn't they be, like, next door, or at least just up the block?
Yeah, it's OK if we get technology from the commies, but we won't let the commies get technology from us!
That's a neat trick. I always thought it was "hanging from the ceiling."
Further, your argement then is that "GNOME/XFree" nonsense means that XFree is just a component of the GNOME system, as if GNOME came first. You FSF idiots are just that -- idiots. You literally will cut off your nose to spite your face. There was a tag line here on Slashdot that summed you guys up perfectly. I don't recall who said it, but the quote went something like this: "A fanatic can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
One thing I must say for Stallman's "GNU/Linux" nonsense -- the flamefest here on /. got me to investigate *BSD for more than just my firewall, and I've been much happier since I gave up on Linux and switched to a true UNIX. Now I read all these stories about this distro and that distro and now Gentoo is dead and Debian is delayed because they've stuck their philosophical heads up their GNU butts, and I laugh my ass off.
Hell, yes, it's flamebait -- I didn't build up all this Karma for nothing!
Try a Twiddler. Comes in PS2 and USB models.
If you want to be pedantic, we'd better start calling our operating systems GNOME/XFree/GNU/Linux I sure hope not! The "GNU/Linux" nonsense is because Stallman got his knickers in a twist over the fact that most Linux distros include a lot of GNU software. To say "GNOME/XFree" implies that XFree includes a lot of GNOME software, which it certainly does not! To say "GNOME/Linux" -- as in the story itself -- implies that Linux distros come with GNOME, and that is not entirely true. Lots of Linux distros come with KDE, and some come with neither.
These comments are most definately ON topic. Meta-moderation, here I come!
One advantage of the NASA scissor wing over "conventional" swing wings (F14, FB111) is one pivot instead of two.
Even if this isn't exactly the same application as the Wright's Wing Warping, the point of both is to change the aerodynamics of the wing by changing its geometery. This is just the latest in a long line of attempts. In the 1980's NASA came up with the scissors wing to address exactly this problem -- swept wing for the fast transit to the station point, straight wing for loitering on station. In the 1990's Boeing won a contract to re-wing a bunch of Navy jets with flexible composite wings -- with no slats, flaps, or ailerons.
The Wright Brothers called this Wing-Warping.
In 1901.