Please remember, we as a group are going to be characterized by the quality and thought behind our posts.
So, I ask that as a group we take more time to think before posting. And, if you have to, do research on your subject before posting.
Remember, we're representing a new/old movement in the software and communications industry.
Also, don't assume everything is a personal attack, or an attack on freedoms. That would make us no better than RIAA or the MPAA!
The other thing I would ask, is that if the person sending the article can't give his name, and can't provide better information than that provided in the original article, then maybe this type of article shouldn't be posted on/.?
*WARNING - This article was posted as a VBX file *
Maybe we could add the features that have given Outlook the nickname "The M$ Virus Distribution System".
Sorry, had to be done... Also, through guile and just severe bullheadedness, I have proven to my company, that we might as well get rid of the exchange server, because the revolution has arrived, and the people with technologically based jobs (oops, this is a technology company) will not be using anything as dangerous as Outlook for email. Too tell the truth, I won't allow the companies source-code repositories to reside on "Windows" based machines, or even Unix based machines that have partitions that can be directly mountable by Windows based workstations. It may seem extreme, but I do fear things like someone making the mistake of opening something like the "I Love You" trojan, and wiping something important out. Yes, we keep backups, but I can't afford any unscheduled downtime at this juncture in my companies growth.
I understand that there are not many people in companies with the type of power required to make these types of unorthodox decisions, but our numbers are increasing. As we prove that our ideas are compatible in a business environment, our numbers grow. So, there are those of us looking for replacements for tools that have the dangerous holes provided by applications like Outlook. Sure, go for the functionality that makes sense. Make the software compatible, if necessary, and safe. But, medium and large companies will use a software package that proves itself superior to the business norm, if it becomes available.
I guess over the course of the last year, I have become one of the "suits". You wouldn't know this by looking at me, but it is the case.
I have taken research and development responsibilities for a fairly well funded company in need of technical direction. While not all of our projects are open sourced, some of our projects are based on open-source technology.
The older members of the executive staff are always looking for "patentable" material. Whether is be direct patents, or process patents. To date, and with my track record with the company, in perpetuity, at least my company should be able to do 2 things.
Abide by GPL and LGPL licensing.
Make money.
I have even started a program to contact the maintainers of any software we use, and provide whatever assistance we can to help ensure the continued development of the software.
In my limited experience with law, the "intent" of the document would be carefully examined. In the case of the GPL, this may be a powerful weapon against a company like Motorola.
In the case where they find methods to invalidate the license, there is always the possibility that they will unknowingly open a whole that could invalidate all the licenses currently held by Motorola themselves....
While I believe this is an issue worth watching, I'm not sure that it will be the end-all.
And, even as a suit, and with the problems that pertain with balancing my moral standards and fiduciary responsibilities, I always remember that our country was founded through revolution. And in the case that the extreme evil comes knocking, we will always have that recourse...
Currently, I like the musings of Jon Katz, and others of his ilk. I do strive to become like them, and hope that others like me will work to bring the "suits" and the "hackers" together in a working ground.
I've already had some luck in these types of endeavors...
I am in the process of writing an official response to one of ZDNet's "Leave Microsoft alone" articles. As I believe that ZDNet is doing this to gather eyeballs, I would like to propose that slashdotters stay away from ZDNet for a period of 2 weeks.
There are 2 possible outcomes. Slashdotters don't add up to a significant number of hits on ZDNet, and the boycott is ignored, or ZDNet takes some minor damage because we don't visit.
HOpefully, either way we get what I would refer to as "responsible journalism, and not the amateurish dribble that I constantly find when referred to ZDNet articles.
I know of at least one company spending lots of money on software and process patents for (what I believe to be) the sole purpose of licensing and litigation of the offensive nature. They've even offered me money and re-occuring revenues if I'll let them cross-patent what they consider to be "my inventions". Even though I've developed what I would consider to be some pretty decent systems, I don't know how I feel about patenting the process, then threatening anyone who comes close to doing the same thing.
I don't know, but I think Heinlein had the right idea about lawyers...
When I read the intro, I wondered if I were on my way to fantasyland.
But, I have to agree with Charles Wu. Publishing the file formats 6 months before actual release of the software is not a bad idea. One thing we might actually see is a reduction in the number of file-format changes. Do we really need different file formats for different versions of Office?
I am not a M$ advocate. My personal belief is that M$ has held the computing industry back. But, how do you punish a company for being successful. I own my own (incredibly small) company. If I trip over a new inovative idea will I also have to answer to the DOJ for my success?
I would like to see the publishing of file-formats. Then I could choose my office applications on the benefits of the software, not because I need an ability to read/write a certain format.
Well, for our little "proof of concept" cluster (as if it needs to be proved?) we just went with the "shelves in a rack" concept. All components are mounted on shelves using standoffs.
When we build our approximately 100 node cluster (hmm, where can I get the money for the other 500 nodes????) We're considering using rack-mount boxes just because they would be easier to handle and simpler to install.
I'ld tell you how many nodes we can stuff into a standard size 19" rack, but we're still building it!
Well, I personally like the idea of a combination of the 2. An MDI like interface without the father window. My company recently wrote a program using this type for a contract job (running under windows). You could close the master window, and all the children would close also. It's not bad, doesn't clutter your toolbar, and doesn't cause that ugly grey nothingness......
Slashdot Mirror
Please remember, we as a group are going to be characterized by the quality and thought behind our posts.
/.?
So, I ask that as a group we take more time to think before posting. And, if you have to, do research on your subject before posting.
Remember, we're representing a new/old movement in the software and communications industry.
Also, don't assume everything is a personal attack, or an attack on freedoms. That would make us no better than RIAA or the MPAA!
The other thing I would ask, is that if the person sending the article can't give his name, and can't provide better information than that provided in the original article, then maybe this type of article shouldn't be posted on
*WARNING - This article was posted as a VBX file *
Maybe we could add the features that have given Outlook the nickname "The M$ Virus Distribution System".
Sorry, had to be done... Also, through guile and just severe bullheadedness, I have proven to my company, that we might as well get rid of the exchange server, because the revolution has arrived, and the people with technologically based jobs (oops, this is a technology company) will not be using anything as dangerous as Outlook for email. Too tell the truth, I won't allow the companies source-code repositories to reside on "Windows" based machines, or even Unix based machines that have partitions that can be directly mountable by Windows based workstations. It may seem extreme, but I do fear things like someone making the mistake of opening something like the "I Love You" trojan, and wiping something important out. Yes, we keep backups, but I can't afford any unscheduled downtime at this juncture in my companies growth.
I understand that there are not many people in companies with the type of power required to make these types of unorthodox decisions, but our numbers are increasing. As we prove that our ideas are compatible in a business environment, our numbers grow. So, there are those of us looking for replacements for tools that have the dangerous holes provided by applications like Outlook. Sure, go for the functionality that makes sense. Make the software compatible, if necessary, and safe. But, medium and large companies will use a software package that proves itself superior to the business norm, if it becomes available.
And here's where we can take this:
A loose translation of Motorola's idea is that if you haven't actually sold something for money, then any licensing can be invalidated.
Since Microsoft released this specification for free, then according to Motorola, the licensing on this "idea" is invalid.
Let them fight it out... They can't both win...
Sorry this will be so quick...
I guess over the course of the last year, I have become one of the "suits". You wouldn't know this by looking at me, but it is the case.
I have taken research and development responsibilities for a fairly well funded company in need of technical direction. While not all of our projects are open sourced, some of our projects are based on open-source technology.
The older members of the executive staff are always looking for "patentable" material. Whether is be direct patents, or process patents. To date, and with my track record with the company, in perpetuity, at least my company should be able to do 2 things.
Abide by GPL and LGPL licensing.
Make money.
I have even started a program to contact the maintainers of any software we use, and provide whatever assistance we can to help ensure the continued development of the software.
In my limited experience with law, the "intent" of the document would be carefully examined. In the case of the GPL, this may be a powerful weapon against a company like Motorola.
In the case where they find methods to invalidate the license, there is always the possibility that they will unknowingly open a whole that could invalidate all the licenses currently held by Motorola themselves....
While I believe this is an issue worth watching, I'm not sure that it will be the end-all.
And, even as a suit, and with the problems that pertain with balancing my moral standards and fiduciary responsibilities, I always remember that our country was founded through revolution. And in the case that the extreme evil comes knocking, we will always have that recourse...
Currently, I like the musings of Jon Katz, and others of his ilk. I do strive to become like them, and hope that others like me will work to bring the "suits" and the "hackers" together in a working ground.
I've already had some luck in these types of endeavors...
I am in the process of writing an official response to one of ZDNet's "Leave Microsoft alone" articles. As I believe that ZDNet is doing this to gather eyeballs, I would like to propose that slashdotters stay away from ZDNet for a period of 2 weeks.
There are 2 possible outcomes. Slashdotters don't add up to a significant number of hits on ZDNet, and the boycott is ignored, or ZDNet takes some minor damage because we don't visit.
HOpefully, either way we get what I would refer to as "responsible journalism, and not the amateurish dribble that I constantly find when referred to ZDNet articles.
Well, lizards can be mean...
I know of at least one company spending lots of money on software and process patents for (what I believe to be) the sole purpose of licensing and litigation of the offensive nature. They've even offered me money and re-occuring revenues if I'll let them cross-patent what they consider to be "my inventions". Even though I've developed what I would consider to be some pretty decent systems, I don't know how I feel about patenting the process, then threatening anyone who comes close to doing the same thing.
I don't know, but I think Heinlein had the right idea about lawyers...
When I read the intro, I wondered if I were on my way to fantasyland.
But, I have to agree with Charles Wu. Publishing the file formats 6 months before actual release of the software is not a bad idea. One thing we might actually see is a reduction in the number of file-format changes. Do we really need different file formats for different versions of Office?
I am not a M$ advocate. My personal belief is that M$ has held the computing industry back. But, how do you punish a company for being successful. I own my own (incredibly small) company. If I trip over a new inovative idea will I also have to answer to the DOJ for my success?
I would like to see the publishing of file-formats. Then I could choose my office applications on the benefits of the software, not because I need an ability to read/write a certain format.
Well, for our little "proof of concept" cluster (as if it needs to be proved?) we just went with the "shelves in a rack" concept. All components are mounted on shelves using standoffs.
When we build our approximately 100 node cluster (hmm, where can I get the money for the other 500 nodes????) We're considering using rack-mount boxes just because they would be easier to handle and simpler to install.
I'ld tell you how many nodes we can stuff into a standard size 19" rack, but we're still building it!
Well, I personally like the idea of a combination of the 2. An MDI like interface without the father window. My company recently wrote a program using this type for a contract job (running under windows). You could close the master window, and all the children would close also. It's not bad, doesn't clutter your toolbar, and doesn't cause that ugly grey nothingness......
Hmm... If StarOffice would do that also.....
I can understand that, but..... Maybe it's time for a.p.t. to get a real isp?
That's what I'm telling my clients/friends to do!