According to conventional arguments, the richest 10% controls (significantly) more than 50% of the nation's wealth, so how is a mere 1/3 of the tax burden unfair? Besides, even equal percentages on a per capita basis are regressive. I mean, look at buying power and you'll see what I mean. If the tax rate (cumulative, for our purpose - income tax, sales tax, etc.) is a flat 17% on annual income (a la Forbes), then a person who earns $150,000 a year is left with $124,500, while a person who earns $15,000 is left with $12,450. It is impossible to argue that the person with $124,500 is being hit harder than, or even as hard as, the one with $12,450, because his real buying power is still significantly higher. The difference for one is a high-priced sedan, while for the other, it's the difference in rent for an apartment in a safer part of town.
The rich pay the majority of taxes to support the government. But it's that way on purpose. Those who benefit the most from government (i.e. the rich - don't even try to tell me that corporate protectionism and agencies like the FDIC, the FTC, and the SEC don't provide more to the rich than the SSA, Medicaid, and other social welfare programs do to the poor) deserve to pay the heavier share of its taxes.
The Windows Foundation Classes are packaged with Visual J++, and they are completely platform-dependent. I work for a company whose whole product is deployed using WFC, and I guarantee that it cannot be ported to ANY other platform.
From the MSDN:
The following table lists the general run-time dependencies for any WFC solution. Only those dependencies that are not installed as part of the base-level operating system (OS) are listed.
Dependency Minimum version
Microsoft Virtual 5.00.2922
Machine for Java
WFC class library 1.00.8211
Comctl32.dll 4.70
Oleaut32.dll 2.30.4261
Olepro32.dll 5.0.4261
Ole32.dll 4.71.2512
In summary, the minimum run-time platform for WFC is:
Windows 95, Internet Explorer 3.02, and VM build 2922
Windows NT4, SP3, Internet Explorer 3.02, and VM build 2922
Elsewhere in the MSDN, however, Microsoft pretends that it is a "pure" Java implementation. I will admit that Pure Java through v1.1.4 will work on the MS VM, but they have apparently dropped support for any later versions Java and J++.
.NET is Microsoft's second attempt to kill Java. They couldn't do it from within, by polluting it and trying to tie it to Windows, so now they're attacking from outside.
P.S. I'm not the AC who started this thread. I just think he's right!
Re:What disappoints me...
on
Mattel Spyware
·
· Score: 1
I hate to flame on my own thread, but...
If what you mean by "self-taught" is having learned a disciplined, formal, language-independent method of software engineering with adherence to industry-adopted design methodologies and coding standards; patterns and algorithm analysis methods (such as "big-O" analysis); formal logic and discrete mathematics; linear algebra and domain transforms; and all the various other aspects of an accredited Computer Science program, then good for you. If, however, by "self-taught" you mean having learned the syntax of the language you're using and the ability to code from a design given to you by someone else, then don't get on your high-horse. The "stupid mindset" of professors is that there is more to creating software than sitting at the keyboard.
The difference between a software engineer and a programmer is vast, to my mind as vast as the difference between a civil engineer and a construction worker or an electrical engineer and a electrician. Sometimes (perhaps often) the trade workers may in fact know more than the engineer on a certain point, but it is nearly impossible for them to have the skill set of a qualified, educated, certified professional in all aspects of the job. I hope that Software Engineering will be a P.E. classification within the next 15 years. The current professional societies are all pushing for it. That doesn't mean that programmers will be obsolete - every engineering field has its related technicians. There will need to be a recognition, however, that professional licensure and conduct is a vital aspect of creating quality software with guaranteed outcomes.
The disappointing thing about cases like this is that the software professionals who write these programs apparently don't consider ethical behavior to be a priority.
3.12. Work to develop software and related documents that respect the privacy of those who will be affected by that software.
3.13. Be careful to use only accurate data derived by ethical and lawful means, and use it only in ways properly authorized.
Furthermore, management (i.e. Mattel) is admonished to:
5.11. Not ask a software engineer to do anything inconsistent with this Code.
5.12. Not punish anyone for expressing ethical concerns about a project.
So why do products like this keep appearing? I realize that just because something's unethical doesn't make it illegal, but still... it's dismaying, to say the least.
You couldn't have used these patents before at all, so how are you hurting if their owner wants to allow their free use in GPL-protected software? Getting your feathers in a ruffle about it and calling for a holy war against the GPL won't help anyone.
Besides, you pointed out the key - the GPL isn't about open source, it's about free software. I suppose it is anti-competitive to keep patented technology from becoming part of a closed-source, non-free product via the BSDL or its cousins, but it's anti-competitive in favor of the consumer, not the corporation.
You face a real practical problem in allowing patents for BSDL-style licensing - how do you keep Microsoft or AOL or some other Big Company(TM) from using your patented technology in their ClosedSource2000(TM) product?
Unless and until Ralph Metzler chooses to pursue further action, the rest of us need to shut the hell up about it. GPL software is not "owned" by the whole community in this context. If Ralph is content to let nVidia fix it on the next release, then he is free to do that, and we are bound to respect that.
Much as I'd like to see OSS drivers for my Riva TNT card, this is not the way to do it. Ralph could certainly try to demand all sorts of concessions, but it would almost definitely end up in court.
Here's an idea: everyone should assume that whenever they call me on the phone I am taping the conversation for later use as a movie soundtrack. What do you think - can I get away with that legally or do I have to tell everyone on the phone immediately at the start of the conversation that I am taping them?
I'm not one-hundred-percent sure, but I actually think you might be able to;)
In order for me to agree to that they have to add it to the registration process -- not make it up after the fact whenever it suits them.
Not true, actually. I do agree that it must be explicitly stated somewhere to have the force of law. While they cannot make it retroactive to all previous posts, as they would have to in this case, they can make it a term of use for the site on all future posts, whether you click an "I Agree" button or not. The terms of use of a website apply to a first-time AC poster just as much as they do to a seasoned karma whore. If you don't like the rules, you don't post - it's that simple.
It's really sad that a site that was trying to preserve everyone's freedom to post whatever, wherever they like by allowing the author to retain the copyright is now coming under attack because it wasn't sticky enough about the rules. I thought we were a community that appreciated common sense over legalistic BS.
Perhaps it needed to be better spelled out in the user agreement when you registered on Slashdot, but it seems reasonable to assume the following:
When you post a comment to Slashdot, you are granting a license to all readers of Slashdot to read your post free of charge. Furthermore, you are giving the owners of Slashdot the license to relocate, edit, and publish your comments in another forum. Like it or not, that seems a reasonable precondition to using the website.
The real key to your retention of your copyright is that Slashdot cannot, in turn, prevent you from reposting your own comment elsewhere, because you hold the copyright.
Granted, that's a very GPL way of looking at comment posting, but we keep saying that source code is speech and should follow the same rules, right?
I never thought I'd post a junk message like this, but gilroy hits it right on the head: capitalism (or corporatism, pick your term) as a system is inherently undemocratic and opposed to freedom and liberty!
Something else that occurred to me on this point is that those of us who are members of the IEEE and other standards-establishing organizations should be lobbying for all future official standards to be free of patents. That includes things like Firewire, etc. It might have a chilling effect on submissions for standards for awhile, but the current system of "submit it as a standard then ambush everyone with patent demands after the fact" would be defeated.
The fatalist attitude of so many on Slashdot amazes me sometimes. Here we are, a community numbering in the six figures (maybe even seven by now), and we sit here and go, "Too bad it won't make a difference." Hundreds of thousands of users could make a huge difference, if we just agreed to do something together! Heck, just going and looking at the web sites in most stories on Slashdot is enough to bring mortal servers to their knees!
We don't have to overwhelm MP3 to make Vorbis work - we just have to create a niche market. Especially if clever programmers write converters (tricky without compunding artifacts), Vorbis can stand on its own.
If we're serious about supporting Open Source, then we should support it right down the line - no patent-encumbered formats like MP3 and GIF. If we all live by that, then new standards like Vorbis and PNG will win in the end.
I was more concerned with conduits for Evolution than the actual synchronization mechanism. The current conduits for Linux have seemed a little lacking to me. If I weren't trying so hard to graduate, I'd probably help with writing some better ones.
Maybe I'm missing something, too, but it actually seems as though it might be an imitation of LifeStreams rather than BeOS or Lotus Notes. If that's the case, the GNOME project should be careful of Mirror Worlds' patent.
Regardless, it still something new for Free Software (speech, not beer). Kudos to the Evolution team, and I look forward to seeing it. It might be enough to finally get me off of KDE. One note, though - Palm synchronization would be a nice bonus!
Apple won't release a binary Sorenson codec for one reason: Apple believes in ruthless control of the user experience. If they can't make you deal with their RealThings-inspired QuickTime player (a bad idea if there ever was one), they won't let you watch their format. I mean xanim's no great prize either in terms of usability, but the QT4 interface is just confusing.
I'm not ordinarily an Apple critic, but they have to let go of this kind of jealous guarding of the UI. If their UI is really superior, it will win (all other things being equal, which I grant they are not). It's the same principle as security through obscurity - it gets proven time and time again that it's a Bad Idea, but nobody buys a clue.
Actually, the *BSD source Apple started from predates Linux, since it is an evolved version of NeXTStep/OpenStep. That's why the current moves to reassign Apple's copyrights to things like the gcc compiler, etc. are so interesting - they've been forked from the original trees for a long time.
I don't know whether the cphack code was GPL'ed, or even ever realeased, but if it wasn't, then all the mirrors really will be illegal now. Most other licenses can be terminated by the copyright holder. Whatever else you might think about CyberPatrol, you have to respect the license-holder's wishes, or you're no better than the pirates out there.
The best thing to do now would be to clean-room reverse-engineer the list decoder again and GPL it (maybe even assign it to the FSF). Then even if you relinquish the copyright, others' rights to the code can never be taken away.
It's XFree86. Granted, it's a stunning update of ancient windowing technology, but it's time to let some things go. We need a window system with real true-type support from the get-go, that doesn't require special libraries (Motif/Lesstif, Qt, and GTK) just to do decent widgets, and so on.
I'm not saying that we should not keep compatibility for X programs, but that it should be a user-layer thing, like eXceed for Windows. There was a story about just such a new-from-the-ground up system a few months ago, but/.'s search is useless. Anyone remember the name/URL of the project?
If one of the posts above is in fact correct, and any additions to a code base are considered derivative works whose copyright still belongs to the original author, then all of Sally's code is subject to reuse in a closed-source project if the original author iwshes. Her permission is irrelevant.
I'm not sure this interpretation is correct, though. Any lawyer-types that can offer a better analysis?
Re:What the hell is this for?
on
A New DeCSS
·
· Score: 1
I actually wonder why I'm responding this troll, but oh well...
The "encryption" code in a DVD disc serves absolutely no purpose to prevent copying or even any legitimate use of the disk. There is exactly one reason why the MPAA and DVD-CCA want this suppressed, and it's very simple. Requiring a manufacturer/developer to purchase a key protects the DVD hardware hegemony from legitimate, legal competition. Legitimate developers, including Open Source developers, are within their rights to reverse engineer the encryption standard in order to create products that use the content on the media in all the ways permitted by copyright laws. The development of competing products can only benefit consumers.
Let's not forget that the MPAA and DVD-CCA initiated action in this fight. Linux and OSS are the victims, not the aggressors. If you want your DVDs to stay cheap, write them and tell them to stop their grandstanding and legal harrassment!
IMHO, we'll see the board cut & run to some tax haven that has no extradition treaty with the US or Europe within a year, probably months, possibly even weeks, after the IPO.
As ESR wrote right after the VA Linux IPO, original stockholders can't cash in and run for six months after the IPO. That's a long time to maintain this vaporware front. They'll have to release two earnings reports in the meantime, at which point any real market value they have will evaporate. I just feel bad for the people that will get burned along the way.
I saw some comments about creating an open-source version of TiVo (GDVR, maybe?) to run on a run-of-the-mill Linux machine (with a TV decoder, of course). I'm wondering - are there patent issues to be aware of? I'm guessing, since ReplayTV is competing with them directly, that the idea itself isn't patented. What about the underlying technology, though? Any thoughts?
That's tragic in the Shakespearean or perhaps Greek sense, not in the gee-bummer-wouldn't-Alanis-Morrissette-think-this- is-ironic-even-though-it's-not sense. You're the one that has sad and tragic backwards.
That's not to say that I agree with Jon, either - just that if you're gonna try to pick "tragic" things, get the definition of tragic right.
Microsoft may indeed go under - I mean, look at IBM or Apple for an example of how the biggest fish in any given pond can get eaten (the mainframe market was the pond in IBM's case, the early 80's PC market in Apple's case). However, despite its late start, Microsoft has leveraged itself into some of the most promising technological markets of the 90's - consider its acquisitions of Hotmail, WebTV, and so on. Not to mention the illegal methods enumerated in the FoF. Also, Microsoft's stranglehold on the market is bigger than any of the previous computer giants'. After all, MS has forced a strategic alliance between Apple and IBM; who would ever have forseen that in the good old days?
Bottom line, if the DoJ fails to achieve the necessary remedy - a breakup of Microsoft - I can see Microsoft becoming nearly unstoppable. Yes, Linux and all the other alternative OSes out there are making inroads, but we don't have the same windfall of naivete such as Xerox's toward Apple to take advantage of. The DoJ is probably our best hope of breaking the market back open.
Slashdot Mirror
According to conventional arguments, the richest 10% controls (significantly) more than 50% of the nation's wealth, so how is a mere 1/3 of the tax burden unfair? Besides, even equal percentages on a per capita basis are regressive. I mean, look at buying power and you'll see what I mean. If the tax rate (cumulative, for our purpose - income tax, sales tax, etc.) is a flat 17% on annual income (a la Forbes), then a person who earns $150,000 a year is left with $124,500, while a person who earns $15,000 is left with $12,450. It is impossible to argue that the person with $124,500 is being hit harder than, or even as hard as, the one with $12,450, because his real buying power is still significantly higher. The difference for one is a high-priced sedan, while for the other, it's the difference in rent for an apartment in a safer part of town.
The rich pay the majority of taxes to support the government. But it's that way on purpose. Those who benefit the most from government (i.e. the rich - don't even try to tell me that corporate protectionism and agencies like the FDIC, the FTC, and the SEC don't provide more to the rich than the SSA, Medicaid, and other social welfare programs do to the poor) deserve to pay the heavier share of its taxes.
One word (okay, acronym): WFC.
The Windows Foundation Classes are packaged with Visual J++, and they are completely platform-dependent. I work for a company whose whole product is deployed using WFC, and I guarantee that it cannot be ported to ANY other platform.
From the MSDN:
The following table lists the general run-time dependencies for any WFC solution. Only those dependencies that are not installed as part of the base-level operating system (OS) are listed.
Dependency Minimum versionMicrosoft Virtual 5.00.2922
Machine for Java
WFC class library 1.00.8211
Comctl32.dll 4.70
Oleaut32.dll 2.30.4261
Olepro32.dll 5.0.4261
Ole32.dll 4.71.2512
In summary, the minimum run-time platform for WFC is:
Elsewhere in the MSDN, however, Microsoft pretends that it is a "pure" Java implementation. I will admit that Pure Java through v1.1.4 will work on the MS VM, but they have apparently dropped support for any later versions Java and J++.
.NET is Microsoft's second attempt to kill Java. They couldn't do it from within, by polluting it and trying to tie it to Windows, so now they're attacking from outside.
P.S. I'm not the AC who started this thread. I just think he's right!
Yeah, that was the joke. I had a written in, but forgot it was HTML formatted.
Why not the Macintosh (OS X) Foundation Classes ?
I hate to flame on my own thread, but...
If what you mean by "self-taught" is having learned a disciplined, formal, language-independent method of software engineering with adherence to industry-adopted design methodologies and coding standards; patterns and algorithm analysis methods (such as "big-O" analysis); formal logic and discrete mathematics; linear algebra and domain transforms; and all the various other aspects of an accredited Computer Science program, then good for you. If, however, by "self-taught" you mean having learned the syntax of the language you're using and the ability to code from a design given to you by someone else, then don't get on your high-horse. The "stupid mindset" of professors is that there is more to creating software than sitting at the keyboard.
The difference between a software engineer and a programmer is vast, to my mind as vast as the difference between a civil engineer and a construction worker or an electrical engineer and a electrician. Sometimes (perhaps often) the trade workers may in fact know more than the engineer on a certain point, but it is nearly impossible for them to have the skill set of a qualified, educated, certified professional in all aspects of the job. I hope that Software Engineering will be a P.E. classification within the next 15 years. The current professional societies are all pushing for it. That doesn't mean that programmers will be obsolete - every engineering field has its related technicians. There will need to be a recognition, however, that professional licensure and conduct is a vital aspect of creating quality software with guaranteed outcomes.
The disappointing thing about cases like this is that the software professionals who write these programs apparently don't consider ethical behavior to be a priority.
The ACM and the IEEE consider user privacy to be so important that it appears in their joint Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice in a number of places, to wit:
3.12. Work to develop software and related documents that respect the privacy of those who will be affected by that software.
3.13. Be careful to use only accurate data derived by ethical and lawful means, and use it only in ways properly authorized.
Furthermore, management (i.e. Mattel) is admonished to:
5.11. Not ask a software engineer to do anything inconsistent with this Code.
5.12. Not punish anyone for expressing ethical concerns about a project.
So why do products like this keep appearing? I realize that just because something's unethical doesn't make it illegal, but still... it's dismaying, to say the least.
You couldn't have used these patents before at all, so how are you hurting if their owner wants to allow their free use in GPL-protected software? Getting your feathers in a ruffle about it and calling for a holy war against the GPL won't help anyone.
Besides, you pointed out the key - the GPL isn't about open source, it's about free software. I suppose it is anti-competitive to keep patented technology from becoming part of a closed-source, non-free product via the BSDL or its cousins, but it's anti-competitive in favor of the consumer, not the corporation.
You face a real practical problem in allowing patents for BSDL-style licensing - how do you keep Microsoft or AOL or some other Big Company(TM) from using your patented technology in their ClosedSource2000(TM) product?
Unless and until Ralph Metzler chooses to pursue further action, the rest of us need to shut the hell up about it. GPL software is not "owned" by the whole community in this context. If Ralph is content to let nVidia fix it on the next release, then he is free to do that, and we are bound to respect that.
Much as I'd like to see OSS drivers for my Riva TNT card, this is not the way to do it. Ralph could certainly try to demand all sorts of concessions, but it would almost definitely end up in court.
Here's an idea: everyone should assume that whenever they call me on the phone I am taping the conversation for later use as a movie soundtrack. What do you think - can I get away with that legally or do I have to tell everyone on the phone immediately at the start of the conversation that I am taping them?
I'm not one-hundred-percent sure, but I actually think you might be able to ;)
In order for me to agree to that they have to add it to the registration process -- not make it up after the fact whenever it suits them.
Not true, actually. I do agree that it must be explicitly stated somewhere to have the force of law. While they cannot make it retroactive to all previous posts, as they would have to in this case, they can make it a term of use for the site on all future posts, whether you click an "I Agree" button or not. The terms of use of a website apply to a first-time AC poster just as much as they do to a seasoned karma whore. If you don't like the rules, you don't post - it's that simple.
It's really sad that a site that was trying to preserve everyone's freedom to post whatever, wherever they like by allowing the author to retain the copyright is now coming under attack because it wasn't sticky enough about the rules. I thought we were a community that appreciated common sense over legalistic BS.
Perhaps it needed to be better spelled out in the user agreement when you registered on Slashdot, but it seems reasonable to assume the following:
When you post a comment to Slashdot, you are granting a license to all readers of Slashdot to read your post free of charge. Furthermore, you are giving the owners of Slashdot the license to relocate, edit, and publish your comments in another forum. Like it or not, that seems a reasonable precondition to using the website.
The real key to your retention of your copyright is that Slashdot cannot, in turn, prevent you from reposting your own comment elsewhere, because you hold the copyright.
Granted, that's a very GPL way of looking at comment posting, but we keep saying that source code is speech and should follow the same rules, right?
I never thought I'd post a junk message like this, but gilroy hits it right on the head: capitalism (or corporatism, pick your term) as a system is inherently undemocratic and opposed to freedom and liberty!
Something else that occurred to me on this point is that those of us who are members of the IEEE and other standards-establishing organizations should be lobbying for all future official standards to be free of patents. That includes things like Firewire, etc. It might have a chilling effect on submissions for standards for awhile, but the current system of "submit it as a standard then ambush everyone with patent demands after the fact" would be defeated.
The fatalist attitude of so many on Slashdot amazes me sometimes. Here we are, a community numbering in the six figures (maybe even seven by now), and we sit here and go, "Too bad it won't make a difference." Hundreds of thousands of users could make a huge difference, if we just agreed to do something together! Heck, just going and looking at the web sites in most stories on Slashdot is enough to bring mortal servers to their knees!
We don't have to overwhelm MP3 to make Vorbis work - we just have to create a niche market. Especially if clever programmers write converters (tricky without compunding artifacts), Vorbis can stand on its own.
If we're serious about supporting Open Source, then we should support it right down the line - no patent-encumbered formats like MP3 and GIF. If we all live by that, then new standards like Vorbis and PNG will win in the end.
I was more concerned with conduits for Evolution than the actual synchronization mechanism. The current conduits for Linux have seemed a little lacking to me. If I weren't trying so hard to graduate, I'd probably help with writing some better ones.
Maybe I'm missing something, too, but it actually seems as though it might be an imitation of LifeStreams rather than BeOS or Lotus Notes. If that's the case, the GNOME project should be careful of Mirror Worlds' patent.
Regardless, it still something new for Free Software (speech, not beer). Kudos to the Evolution team, and I look forward to seeing it. It might be enough to finally get me off of KDE. One note, though - Palm synchronization would be a nice bonus!
Apple won't release a binary Sorenson codec for one reason: Apple believes in ruthless control of the user experience. If they can't make you deal with their RealThings-inspired QuickTime player (a bad idea if there ever was one), they won't let you watch their format. I mean xanim's no great prize either in terms of usability, but the QT4 interface is just confusing.
I'm not ordinarily an Apple critic, but they have to let go of this kind of jealous guarding of the UI. If their UI is really superior, it will win (all other things being equal, which I grant they are not). It's the same principle as security through obscurity - it gets proven time and time again that it's a Bad Idea, but nobody buys a clue.
Actually, the *BSD source Apple started from predates Linux, since it is an evolved version of NeXTStep/OpenStep. That's why the current moves to reassign Apple's copyrights to things like the gcc compiler, etc. are so interesting - they've been forked from the original trees for a long time.
I don't know whether the cphack code was GPL'ed, or even ever realeased, but if it wasn't, then all the mirrors really will be illegal now. Most other licenses can be terminated by the copyright holder. Whatever else you might think about CyberPatrol, you have to respect the license-holder's wishes, or you're no better than the pirates out there.
The best thing to do now would be to clean-room reverse-engineer the list decoder again and GPL it (maybe even assign it to the FSF). Then even if you relinquish the copyright, others' rights to the code can never be taken away.
It's XFree86. Granted, it's a stunning update of ancient windowing technology, but it's time to let some things go. We need a window system with real true-type support from the get-go, that doesn't require special libraries (Motif/Lesstif, Qt, and GTK) just to do decent widgets, and so on.
I'm not saying that we should not keep compatibility for X programs, but that it should be a user-layer thing, like eXceed for Windows. There was a story about just such a new-from-the-ground up system a few months ago, but /.'s search is useless. Anyone remember the name/URL of the project?
If one of the posts above is in fact correct, and any additions to a code base are considered derivative works whose copyright still belongs to the original author, then all of Sally's code is subject to reuse in a closed-source project if the original author iwshes. Her permission is irrelevant.
I'm not sure this interpretation is correct, though. Any lawyer-types that can offer a better analysis?
I actually wonder why I'm responding this troll, but oh well...
The "encryption" code in a DVD disc serves absolutely no purpose to prevent copying or even any legitimate use of the disk. There is exactly one reason why the MPAA and DVD-CCA want this suppressed, and it's very simple. Requiring a manufacturer/developer to purchase a key protects the DVD hardware hegemony from legitimate, legal competition. Legitimate developers, including Open Source developers, are within their rights to reverse engineer the encryption standard in order to create products that use the content on the media in all the ways permitted by copyright laws. The development of competing products can only benefit consumers.
Let's not forget that the MPAA and DVD-CCA initiated action in this fight. Linux and OSS are the victims, not the aggressors. If you want your DVDs to stay cheap, write them and tell them to stop their grandstanding and legal harrassment!
IMHO, we'll see the board cut & run to some tax haven that has no extradition treaty with the US or Europe within a year, probably months, possibly even weeks, after the IPO.
As ESR wrote right after the VA Linux IPO, original stockholders can't cash in and run for six months after the IPO. That's a long time to maintain this vaporware front. They'll have to release two earnings reports in the meantime, at which point any real market value they have will evaporate. I just feel bad for the people that will get burned along the way.
I saw some comments about creating an open-source version of TiVo (GDVR, maybe?) to run on a run-of-the-mill Linux machine (with a TV decoder, of course). I'm wondering - are there patent issues to be aware of? I'm guessing, since ReplayTV is competing with them directly, that the idea itself isn't patented. What about the underlying technology, though? Any thoughts?
That's tragic in the Shakespearean or perhaps Greek sense, not in the gee-bummer-wouldn't-Alanis-Morrissette-think-this- is-ironic-even-though-it's-not sense. You're the one that has sad and tragic backwards.
That's not to say that I agree with Jon, either - just that if you're gonna try to pick "tragic" things, get the definition of tragic right.
Microsoft may indeed go under - I mean, look at IBM or Apple for an example of how the biggest fish in any given pond can get eaten (the mainframe market was the pond in IBM's case, the early 80's PC market in Apple's case). However, despite its late start, Microsoft has leveraged itself into some of the most promising technological markets of the 90's - consider its acquisitions of Hotmail, WebTV, and so on. Not to mention the illegal methods enumerated in the FoF. Also, Microsoft's stranglehold on the market is bigger than any of the previous computer giants'. After all, MS has forced a strategic alliance between Apple and IBM; who would ever have forseen that in the good old days?
Bottom line, if the DoJ fails to achieve the necessary remedy - a breakup of Microsoft - I can see Microsoft becoming nearly unstoppable. Yes, Linux and all the other alternative OSes out there are making inroads, but we don't have the same windfall of naivete such as Xerox's toward Apple to take advantage of. The DoJ is probably our best hope of breaking the market back open.