You're right that Microsoft loses no potential revenue if you wouldn't have paid anyway. That doesn't make stealing morally right.
Microsoft offers their software to the public under certain terms. You can accept those terms or take your business elsewhere.
Deciding you'll take on your own terms is called stealing. Perhaps your parents didn't tell you this was wrong.
Would you as easily violate the GPL? Let's say I don't like the GPL and think Linus is an evil person. Does that justify me incorporating Linux kernel code into my own software and not properly copyrighting and distributing source?
I've been expecting it too, because Visio began life and always lived it as a poster child for OLE/COM/ActiveX. Microsoft always used Visio in their demos on these technologies.
And so Visio has always been a pure Windows program, and obviously so. Why would anyone ever think there was a chance that it would be ported to Linux?
I had to install Debian a few months ago. Getting the base OS on is not all that bad, although it's surely second-rate.
But once you want to start putting packages on, or X or a window manager, good bloody luck. I find it impossible to believe that anyone thought it was a good design. I think it's a test - if you can't figure it out, you're too stupid to use this product anyway, so go away.
ESR: Now, you may think I'm harshing on Microsoft too much here. If so, you can refute me instantly by pointing me at the Web page where Microft has published the wire protocol for its Exchange message servers. Hey -- turnabout is fair play.
Maybe they haven't released their wire protocols, but it's not as if (as with AOL) you have to use Microsoft's clients. You can use SMTP/POP, MAPI, or IMAP4, and there are COM objects for programming Exchange.
If you add up all the lines in the press release table that say "MS Windows 98 something-or-other" you get 29.9%. Not to understate how close 24% is to that, but saying it's number 1 is moderately dishonest.
It's not like I disagree with you, but the question is still an interesting one if one's goal is an open source browser. The Java Community Process is an Open Sham: Sun takes input and then does what it wants.
Others here have made the claim that multi-OS support is a tough thing for open source. In Mozilla's case, it discouraged external work because all changes had to be tested against all distributions, and few outsiders have the inclination or resources to do so. A Linux-focused open source spin-off wouldn't have this problem, even if it had the new problem of focusing on a minor platform.
So, to restate the question, if some Linux programmer/enthusiasts wanted to make a Linux-focused distribution, would that be kosher under the Netscape license? And do all the widgets and other non-code elements go along with the same license?
I read the NPL back when it came out, but I forget the specifics. Would it be legal to take the current sources and spin it off to a new distribution, possibly a Linux-only one?
Go ahead and start your stupid witch hunt. I've said many times here that I used to work for Ziff-Davis. You're real brave making yourself the thought police without even putting up anything close to your own name.
I've worked with the same people and the same benchmarks and your claim makes no sense. In the case of NetBench and WebBench there is no code running on the server; it's just file requests. How can that possibly be Intel-biased?
Windows 1.0 shipped in 85 I think. Utterly useless product. Windows 2.0 was almost useful, at least for Excel, and I know it was shipping in 87. Windows 3 shipped in 90 I think, and 3.1 in late 91-early 92.
You never hear the stories of how Microsoft had all the same PARC information, but they did. I have heard from Microsoft employees who were there at the time, and it's also provable from the historical record. The first issue of PC Magazine (February 82 I think) has an interview with Bill Gates in which he talks about the importance of graphical user interfaces in the future of computing. The interview had to have taken place in late 81, and the Lisa didn't ship until late 83-early 84.
By the way, Apple paid licensing fees to Xerox, but only for Smalltalk, not anything else.
>>These benchmarks are totally unfair. Apache is not particulary fast (because speed is mostly irrelevent in web serving) and SMB is native to Windows (even throw SAMBA is very good)
So you concede the point of the benchmarks, which is that IIS and NT are faster than Apache and Linux? If not, why are they unfair?
Slashdot Mirror
You're right that Microsoft loses no potential revenue if you wouldn't have paid anyway. That doesn't make stealing morally right.
Microsoft offers their software to the public under certain terms. You can accept those terms or take your business elsewhere.
Deciding you'll take on your own terms is called stealing. Perhaps your parents didn't tell you this was wrong.
Would you as easily violate the GPL? Let's say I don't like the GPL and think Linus is an evil person. Does that justify me incorporating Linux kernel code into my own software and not properly copyrighting and distributing source?
Nobody loses any money. Does that make it right?
LJS
If you don't like Barnes and Noble do you just steal the books? Some of us make a living writing software.
LJS
>>1> Office 2000 saves html documents(save as web page or some such option) in a broken XML format, support for which is available only in IE 5.
Basically yes.
>>2> The page cannot be displayed at all w/ netscape.
Basically no. The files open just fine in Netscape. You can read all the content. You don't get all the fancy stuff though.
I've been expecting it too, because Visio began life and always lived it as a poster child for OLE/COM/ActiveX. Microsoft always used Visio in their demos on these technologies.
And so Visio has always been a pure Windows program, and obviously so. Why would anyone ever think there was a chance that it would be ported to Linux?
LJS
I think it was actually in GQ.
LJS
Infoworld reports that the listed price has no monitor
LJS
JavaOS was always a stupid idea. For example, it had almost no driver support. You couldn't print from it.
I had to install Debian a few months ago. Getting the base OS on is not all that bad, although it's surely second-rate.
But once you want to start putting packages on, or X or a window manager, good bloody luck. I find it impossible to believe that anyone thought it was a good design. I think it's a test - if you can't figure it out, you're too stupid to use this product anyway, so go away.
LJS
ESR: Now, you may think I'm harshing on Microsoft too much here. If so, you can refute me instantly by pointing me at the Web page where Microft has published the wire protocol for its Exchange message servers. Hey -- turnabout is fair play.
Maybe they haven't released their wire protocols, but it's not as if (as with AOL) you have to use Microsoft's clients. You can use SMTP/POP, MAPI, or IMAP4, and there are COM objects for programming Exchange.
LJS
If you add up all the lines in the press release table that say "MS Windows 98 something-or-other" you get 29.9%. Not to understate how close 24% is to that, but saying it's number 1 is moderately dishonest.
LJS
It's not like I disagree with you, but the question is still an interesting one if one's goal is an open source browser. The Java Community Process is an Open Sham: Sun takes input and then does what it wants.
Others here have made the claim that multi-OS support is a tough thing for open source. In Mozilla's case, it discouraged external work because all changes had to be tested against all distributions, and few outsiders have the inclination or resources to do so. A Linux-focused open source spin-off wouldn't have this problem, even if it had the new problem of focusing on a minor platform.
So, to restate the question, if some Linux programmer/enthusiasts wanted to make a Linux-focused distribution, would that be kosher under the Netscape license? And do all the widgets and other non-code elements go along with the same license?
I read the NPL back when it came out, but I forget the specifics. Would it be legal to take the current sources and spin it off to a new distribution, possibly a Linux-only one?
Go ahead and start your stupid witch hunt. I've said many times here that I used to work for Ziff-Davis. You're real brave making yourself the thought police without even putting up anything close to your own name.
LJS
Dear Anonymous Coward,
That's me. So what? Want to comment on the subject of the thread?
LJS
Petrely's column would have you believe that history is UNIX vs Microsoft, but Petrely was an OS/2 bigot long before he was a UNIX bigot.
In 1995 he predicted in his column that we would all be using OS/2 on PowerPC systems within 2 years and that never even hit beta, let alone ship.
He always just roots for the underdog and predicts it will succeed.
LJS
That's definitely Joe Barr. He's written similar offensive stuff to other places in the past.
I hear OS/9 is very popular in embedded applications, like controlling traffic lights.
LJS
I assume the mainframe I/O interface is also far more expensive than PC interfaces, whcih are built with off-the-shelf standard parts.
LJS
I've worked with the same people and the same benchmarks and your claim makes no sense. In the case of NetBench and WebBench there is no code running on the server; it's just file requests. How can that possibly be Intel-biased?
Windows 1.0 shipped in 85 I think. Utterly useless product. Windows 2.0 was almost useful, at least for Excel, and I know it was shipping in 87. Windows 3 shipped in 90 I think, and 3.1 in late 91-early 92.
LJS
You never hear the stories of how Microsoft had all the same PARC information, but they did. I have heard from Microsoft employees who were there at the time, and it's also provable from the historical record. The first issue of PC Magazine (February 82 I think) has an interview with Bill Gates in which he talks about the importance of graphical user interfaces in the future of computing. The interview had to have taken place in late 81, and the Lisa didn't ship until late 83-early 84.
By the way, Apple paid licensing fees to Xerox, but only for Smalltalk, not anything else.
LJS
The only thing Apple paid for was Smalltalk.
LJS
Multiplan was out on numerous CP/M platforms long before the Mac, and Excel was a total rewrite.
LJS
The only thing Apple actually licensed from Xerox was Smalltalk, and they didn't even use that.
LJS
>>These benchmarks are totally unfair. Apache is not particulary fast (because speed is mostly irrelevent in web serving) and SMB is native to Windows (even throw SAMBA is very good)
So you concede the point of the benchmarks, which is that IIS and NT are faster than Apache and Linux? If not, why are they unfair?