...what it probably means is that Rogers ends up eventually shifting from @Home to RoadRunner (which MS has invested in).
It definitely means the new cable boxes will be WinCE "terminals". Does that mean they'll also do WebTV (another MS "product")? Does that mean that everyone will get a "free" HotMail account with their new Wince (more like, shudder) cable boxes?
does that mean they'll get "free" MSN access?
The flip side of the wince cable boxes is that Microsoft is essentially buying market for wince, since it is not doing so well against the Palm Pilots... when MS thinks they have enough wince cable tv boxes in place, they'll start rolling out new "integration" with wince handhelds to do some sort of an end run around PalmPilots: get your E-mail from your TV into your portable Wince. The marketing will also say that "you can't do this with Palm Pilots!", along with some suitable actors with "testimonials" and subtle putdowns (to capture on the Got to Keep with the Jones factor) of PalmPilots and other non-Wince platforms.
...and Microsoft is buying eyeballs for its on-line products: WebTV, MSN, Hotmail, etc. Which makes sense. Microsoft is investing in YOU...you should be thankful!
Does anyone know how significantly different @Home's requirements for the cable tv plant are compared to RoadRunner?
It seems that one of the potential pitfalls of open source development is the lack of a truly structured hierarchy that is unavoidable in the corporate world. Openness and freedom are nice, but they can lead to all sorts of unproductivity.
Well, as Rob of Enlightenment brought to light, this same kind of thing happens in companies or other hierarchies as well.
I guess I would be really worried about it if both of them ended up on the Jerry Springer Show, yelling, "My KungFu is better than yours! Say it!", throwing their cell phones, pagers, Palm Pilots and reference manuals at each other...
Those that write windows programs don't intentionally insert code to make sure their programs work only on Windows.
Wrong. They do exactly that. Not that I blame them, if the API needed to run the app isn't there, it isn't there. If you've ever tried to run a windows program from the DOS command line, you'd see that it says "Requires Windows" or similar and then halts. It sure didn't do that by accident.
Hmm... well, this is what a Win16 or Win32 app, as opposed to a DOS, executable is SUPPOSED to do! It's documented! It's "required" for a Win16/32 app! Big difference! Besides, the way it is done is that Windows compilers stick a "stub" program into the executable for applications intended to be run ONLY in Windows. It calls some DOS interrupt that is redirected by Windows and will continue execution of the Win16/32 part of the app, otherwise it just runs the "Must run from Windows" code chunk. It's explained in "Undocumented Windows 95", at least.
But your argument is about as germane as the troll earlier implying that windows should run Mac apps, or vice-versa. And it doesn't exactly apply to Windows NT, because cmd.exe is a little bit more "powerful" (useful) than command.com, in that you can launch Windows apps from this CLI...
What most people think of as DOS in this case really isn't what is at the point, because the point of the legal argument is what Windows did with what DOS really is (the interrupt vectors, in msdos.sys, io.sys, etc.) about, not command.com.
Imagine where the PC would be if IBM tried to sue clone makers a few years earlier, even if IBM knew the clone's PC was legally reverse engineered, etc. Imagine if IBM and Microsoft had gotten together and put in PC-DOS and MS-DOS (again, IBMDOS.SYS/MSDOS.SYS, IO.SYS, *not* command.com!) some code that checked for approved BIOS (i.e., only from IBM), and refused to load with "unapproved" BIOS, or at the very least, managed to pop up annoying error messages periodically. It would have blown the "100% compatible with IBM PC" marketing of COMPAQ head clean off.
Those that write windows programs don't intentionally insert code to make sure their programs work only on Windows.
Wrong. They do exactly that. Not that I blame them, if the API needed to run the app isn't there, it isn't there. If you've ever tried to run a windows program from the DOS command line, you'd see that it says "Requires Windows" or similar and then halts. It sure didn't do that by accident.
Hmm... well, this is what a Win16 or Win32 app, as opposed to a DOS, executable is SUPPOSED to do! It's documented! It's "required" for a Win16/32 app! Big difference! Besides, the way it is done is that Windows compilers stick a "stub" program into the executable for applications intended to be run ONLY in Windows. It calls some DOS interrupt that is redirected by Windows and will continue execution of the Win16/32 part of the app, otherwise it just runs the "Must run from Windows" code chunk. It's explained in "Undocumented Windows 95", at least.
But your argument is about as germane as the troll earlier implying that windows should run Mac apps, or vice-versa. And it doesn't exactly apply to Windows NT, because cmd.exe is a little bit more "powerful" (useful) than command.com, in that you can launch Windows apps from this CLI...
I'm no lawyer but I work for a University also. Harvard has every right to do anything on their computers they see fit. Unless, Uncle Sam or the FBI gets involved, then it's theirs. Most University policies deem that with probable cause, administrators (with permission of the dean of the college and/or in some cases as well as the President of the University) can read, remove, edit, etc. material on University computers. This may include computers not bought buy the University but connected to the University's networking infrastructure. In essence, a person who connects to the network with a personally bought computer must adhear to University standards. Of course, without reading Harvard Policy indepthly, I can only presume that it is similar to mine.
Hmm...this is just a little bit scary. Think about it for a second. That means that a student's privately owned PC in his dorm room, hooked to the campus network (however), is thus in the domain (in a legal sense) of the University?
Or, just a bit more abstract, that your University employees, if they use your school's dial-up network services, that their computers are thus in the domain of the University while they're using the University's dialup networking services (thus justifying University personnel to hack into a person's computer to see what they could find while it was on the network)?
I somehow don't think this is quite so. If it is, then it is kind of scary, for it would justify any company making their software have similar phraseology in their EULAs or other agreements (yes, I know of the problems with UCITA, if it gets approved, which would definitely provide the contractural basis for allowing stupid ass things like this to happen for real in EULAs)...
"I'm gonna find you and waste your pathetic loser ass into fish food for my pet pirhanas!"
Yep. It does. Now, is there any context that I might actually do this? Nope.
I can also say, "I wanna blow the muthafuckas up!" Again, it might get someone's attention, but, again, there is no context about who I want to blow up.
Does JV have "malicious hackers" stalking him, as he claims, or is he just listening for the footsteps just a little bit too closely? He may claim these bad things have happened to him.
Seems like JV has just a bit too thin of skin. If the only way he can wall it off is to try and get rid if it by running to the Teacher or Mommy, well, I guess that's his right. Or is he really crying out for help and can't afford to go to the public mental health clinic to talk about his delusions?
Too bad we all lose by the loss of someone else's web site from his paranoic rantings and actions.
DOS bootstraps Wind9x, and hangs around for DOS apps/shell. that's about it. But one must make a distinction between DOS, the set of assembly language interrupt routines, msdos.sys/io.sys/command.com, and what we commonly think of as DOS, the whole package...
Read "Undocumented Windows 95" for the details on how it all works. It's actually not an unreasonable way to do it, especially if one's goals are backwards compatibility... It's too bad though that instead of being told what it was/is exactly and truthfully, the Marketing department had to hook it up to the BS port, and try to make it more than what it was, and a lot of what it isn't, because it had to appear to be more high-tech and "modern" than it really was.
SMS. Hmm... bootp? tftp? (can't have SMS w/o SQL Server...)
MS Sql: Postgres? What about the freebie licenses for Sybase ASE?
Exchange: copy what they've done at ZMail, using PHP & MySQL. Oh, and what about all the non-Internet standard stuff that MS-Mail supports? Your features here are probably most internet mail users' bad features there...
SNA Server: Hmm... I would just use X3270... software to actually talk SNA? tn3270 to connect?
Plus, except for SNA Server, for a working Back Office setup, count on one machine for each functionality area (SMS (with its own SQL Server), IIS, SQL Server, Exchange). Which sort of means not buying the Back Office license (because you'd need one BO license for each machine...DOH! might as well just buy the individual licenses for the products), NT client licenses (I'm glad Linux doesn't have THAT feature!), etc. [for the BO license doubters, the BO license isn't any different from the Office license, in that you can't install the parts of the package on different machines...]
I hope that we don't try to coopt mechanisms like plasmid-sharing in bacteria to try and "defeat" them. This would bounce back so hard on us it would be silly.
Read up on drug-resistant bacteria for some pleasant nite-time dreams...
We will learn more than a few things the hard way...
but why do we need to "surpass nature", when we are a part of it (or at least, *very* dependent on it)?
I hope that we don't try to coopt mechanisms like plasmid-sharing in bacteria to try and "defeat" them. This would bounce back so hard on us it would be silly.
Read up on drug-resistant bacteria for some pleasant nite-time dreams...
We will learn more than a few things the hard way...
but why do we need to "surpass nature", when we are a part of it (or at least, *very* dependent on it)?
You have people getting together to decide how the pool gets split up.
As far as bagging on the environmentalist movement, you can add civil rights, women's health issues, AIDS research, (the ban on) fetal tissue research in the US, etc.
It's all politics.
As far as the correlation between absurd assumptions and findings in research, well, isn't that implicitly what research is about, as much as finding out the truth as finding out what is false?
As far as bands of programmers pushing an implementation/solution if it promised more exposure or jobs, Samba would fit under that definition. It definitely is suckup ware.
Does Apple support SMB with Macs (does Windows support AppleTalk? No...not "natively")?
As far as bagging on environmentalism, well, we all benefit from it, even if you think you're not. Sort of like someone else/others have noticed about Open Software (and protocols)...
How do these FSF people make money? They work, just like the rest of us. Some write closed code for companies. some are sysadmins. Some are database geeks. Some are 7-11 clerks. Some probably mow grass. And some lucky programmers get paid for writing the very free/open code they are working on, or run companies that support parallel free/open and closed versions of the program (sendmail, listserv, ghostscript come to mind as example programs with companies wrapped around them that provide free/open versions as well as enhanced closed versions of their programs, and related utilities).
Ya need to open your eyes a little bit, eh?
Be an Emacs consultant. Be a Linux Kernel consultant. Whatever.
If you're out of money, you'll eventually figure out a way to make it, one way or the other.
Stop the "sky is falling, and it's those FSF programmers' fault!" routine.
one of the things you CAN'T do well, if at all, in HTML is page headers & footers (and page numbers). Yes, it's because it has no concept in a web browser, but ever print out pages where the page is split in the middle of a text line?
Sure, probably browser problem, but there is nothing in HTML to say, "Hey, browser, break the page if you're printing at this line!".
Frames work (for one-page items), but IE & NS let you choose different options for printing frames, neither of which is, "repeat top frame at top of each page, with trailing frames suitably shown on the printed page").
No knowledge of intended paper format, etc... All things HTML has no concept of.
But I get this distinct impression that while a Word XML "document" will pass thorugh XML checkers, etc., they won't be very viewable on anything besides IE4/5, due to the use of ActiveX controls for various functionalities in them...
Ever notice while Word seems kinda slow at converting docs? Because the Word conversion process first converts to RTF (which is why in the past each new version of Word, to Word97, was accompanied by a new RTF spec), then to the format desired. Word docs are a binary format (all the formatting info is binary for the most part). RTF is a tagged text format (with tags much more cryptic than HTML), ala HTML.
Word6/97+ docs are a different beast, because they're sort of "metafiles", if you've ever looked in them. Notice all that stuff in them that looks oddly enough like a DOS 'dir' listing? Has something to do with "OLE Documents".
No big deal? Microsoft makes the BIFF5 format pretty easily available (becuase Excel97 still isn't too tightly tied to OLE Documents, unlike Word). So it is possible for programs to create straight BIFF5 files w/o all the OLE crap in it, and Excel can still read the doc (but when you save it it puts the OLEDoc stuff around it). But if you want to figure out a "real" Excel97.XLS, you need to have the OLE SDK (plus NDA, I surmise) to get the format for an OLE Document (to figure out when the BIFF5, actual Word document, etc., starts & ends)... Or perhaps sign an entirely different NDA with MS for the Office file "format" beyond what you do for an MSDN subscription...
Word2K will by default use the Word97 document format. The XML "format" will be a save-to option, but won't really be one document, but a bunch of pieces saved in a subdirectory...).
Why hammer on Red Hat with this particular red herring? The biggest area of standardization on Linux is the KERNEL, is it not?
If there is a problem in the kernel, then potentially every distro/platform (x86 vs Sparc, for example) has that problem.
Everything else is a packaging problem, no?
I won't worry until Red Hat says, "If you try to replace libBlahBlahBlah with this other one, then your system will not work, because, oh, along the way, RH 'integrated' [in the Microsoft sense] for you what was in several other libraries with this library."
But that is sort of what LSB is about, too, no? trying to prevent something like this happening?
Hmm... does any bitware distributed internationally get held up at customs?
This isn't a big market now, but it could be real soon now. how does one then distinguish between bitware and data (you can't tell by looking at the bits). If the tax was levied by each router, should I have to pay one tax one night because of one route, and a different one the other, because of some other, over which I had no control over?
that's why I think the "micropayment" stuff is bogus. There is nothing to stop a company from routing data in a way that most increases their transaction revenue, and it leaves the users with no way to choose, ultimately.
Would long distance be very useful if instead of end-to-end taxes & fees, it was per-switch/node? No.
Slashdot Mirror
...what it probably means is that Rogers ends up eventually shifting from @Home to RoadRunner (which MS has invested in).
It definitely means the new cable boxes will be WinCE "terminals". Does that mean they'll also do WebTV (another MS "product")? Does that mean that everyone will get a "free" HotMail account with their new Wince (more like, shudder) cable boxes?
does that mean they'll get "free" MSN access?
The flip side of the wince cable boxes is that Microsoft is essentially buying market for wince, since it is not doing so well against the Palm Pilots... when MS thinks they have enough wince cable tv boxes in place, they'll start rolling out new "integration" with wince handhelds to do some sort of an end run around PalmPilots: get your E-mail from your TV into your portable Wince. The marketing will also say that "you can't do this with Palm Pilots!", along with some suitable actors with "testimonials" and subtle putdowns (to capture on the Got to Keep with the Jones factor) of PalmPilots and other non-Wince platforms.
...and Microsoft is buying eyeballs for its on-line products: WebTV, MSN, Hotmail, etc. Which makes sense. Microsoft is investing in YOU...you should be thankful!
Does anyone know how significantly different @Home's requirements for the cable tv plant are compared to RoadRunner?
Well, as Rob of Enlightenment brought to light, this same kind of thing happens in companies or other hierarchies as well.
I guess I would be really worried about it if both of them ended up on the Jerry Springer Show, yelling, "My KungFu is better than yours! Say it!", throwing their cell phones, pagers, Palm Pilots and reference manuals at each other...
These things happen all the time...
So...the developers at RedHat (or SuSE, etc.), who get paid to program open source code for Linux, are volunteers? Hmm...
Wrong. They do exactly that. Not that I blame them, if the API needed to run the app isn't there, it isn't there. If you've ever tried to run a windows program from the DOS command line, you'd see that it says "Requires Windows" or similar and then halts. It sure didn't do that by accident.
Hmm... well, this is what a Win16 or Win32 app, as opposed to a DOS, executable is SUPPOSED to do! It's documented! It's "required" for a Win16/32 app! Big difference! Besides, the way it is done is that Windows compilers stick a "stub" program into the executable for applications intended to be run ONLY in Windows. It calls some DOS interrupt that is redirected by Windows and will continue execution of the Win16/32 part of the app, otherwise it just runs the "Must run from Windows" code chunk. It's explained in "Undocumented Windows 95", at least.
But your argument is about as germane as the troll earlier implying that windows should run Mac apps, or vice-versa. And it doesn't exactly apply to Windows NT, because cmd.exe is a little bit more "powerful" (useful) than command.com, in that you can launch Windows apps from this CLI...
What most people think of as DOS in this case really isn't what is at the point, because the point of the legal argument is what Windows did with what DOS really is (the interrupt vectors, in msdos.sys, io.sys, etc.) about, not command.com.
Imagine where the PC would be if IBM tried to sue clone makers a few years earlier, even if IBM knew the clone's PC was legally reverse engineered, etc. Imagine if IBM and Microsoft had gotten together and put in PC-DOS and MS-DOS (again, IBMDOS.SYS/MSDOS.SYS, IO.SYS, *not* command.com!) some code that checked for approved BIOS (i.e., only from IBM), and refused to load with "unapproved" BIOS, or at the very least, managed to pop up annoying error messages periodically. It would have blown the "100% compatible with IBM PC" marketing of COMPAQ head clean off.
Wrong. They do exactly that. Not that I blame them, if the API needed to run the app isn't there, it isn't there. If you've ever tried to run a windows program from the DOS command line, you'd see that it says "Requires Windows" or similar and then halts. It sure didn't do that by accident.
Hmm... well, this is what a Win16 or Win32 app, as opposed to a DOS, executable is SUPPOSED to do! It's documented! It's "required" for a Win16/32 app! Big difference! Besides, the way it is done is that Windows compilers stick a "stub" program into the executable for applications intended to be run ONLY in Windows. It calls some DOS interrupt that is redirected by Windows and will continue execution of the Win16/32 part of the app, otherwise it just runs the "Must run from Windows" code chunk. It's explained in "Undocumented Windows 95", at least.
But your argument is about as germane as the troll earlier implying that windows should run Mac apps, or vice-versa. And it doesn't exactly apply to Windows NT, because cmd.exe is a little bit more "powerful" (useful) than command.com, in that you can launch Windows apps from this CLI...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and granted by the Creator certain unalienable rights"
Umm...even though it's not a law, it is a guiding principle of how the law is interpreted and applied...
If the 1st Amendment (or, hell, the rest of the Constitution) doesn't apply to anyone else OTHER than the US Government, then...we're all f'd.
Bullshit if the 1st Amendment only applies to the Federal Government.
Hmm...this is just a little bit scary. Think about it for a second. That means that a student's privately owned PC in his dorm room, hooked to the campus network (however), is thus in the domain (in a legal sense) of the University?
Or, just a bit more abstract, that your University employees, if they use your school's dial-up network services, that their computers are thus in the domain of the University while they're using the University's dialup networking services (thus justifying University personnel to hack into a person's computer to see what they could find while it was on the network)?
I somehow don't think this is quite so. If it is, then it is kind of scary, for it would justify any company making their software have similar phraseology in their EULAs or other agreements (yes, I know of the problems with UCITA, if it gets approved, which would definitely provide the contractural basis for allowing stupid ass things like this to happen for real in EULAs)...
Nah, free speech means I can say this:
"I'm gonna find you and waste your pathetic loser ass into fish food for my pet pirhanas!"
Yep. It does. Now, is there any context that I might actually do this? Nope.
I can also say, "I wanna blow the muthafuckas up!" Again, it might get someone's attention, but, again, there is no context about who I want to blow up.
Does JV have "malicious hackers" stalking him, as he claims, or is he just listening for the footsteps just a little bit too closely? He may claim these bad things have happened to him.
Seems like JV has just a bit too thin of skin. If the only way he can wall it off is to try and get rid if it by running to the Teacher or Mommy, well, I guess that's his right. Or is he really crying out for help and can't afford to go to the public mental health clinic to talk about his delusions?
Too bad we all lose by the loss of someone else's web site from his paranoic rantings and actions.
That the click-through on
DOS bootstraps Wind9x, and hangs around for DOS apps/shell. that's about it. But one must make a distinction between DOS, the set of assembly language interrupt routines, msdos.sys/io.sys/command.com, and what we commonly think of as DOS, the whole package...
Read "Undocumented Windows 95" for the details on how it all works. It's actually not an unreasonable way to do it, especially if one's goals are backwards compatibility... It's too bad though that instead of being told what it was/is exactly and truthfully, the Marketing department had to hook it up to the BS port, and try to make it more than what it was, and a lot of what it isn't, because it had to appear to be more high-tech and "modern" than it really was.
SMS. Hmm... bootp? tftp? (can't have SMS w/o SQL Server...)
MS Sql: Postgres? What about the freebie licenses for Sybase ASE?
Exchange: copy what they've done at ZMail, using PHP & MySQL. Oh, and what about all the non-Internet standard stuff that MS-Mail supports? Your features here are probably most internet mail users' bad features there...
SNA Server: Hmm... I would just use X3270... software to actually talk SNA? tn3270 to connect?
Plus, except for SNA Server, for a working Back Office setup, count on one machine for each functionality area (SMS (with its own SQL Server), IIS, SQL Server, Exchange). Which sort of means not buying the Back Office license (because you'd need one BO license for each machine...DOH! might as well just buy the individual licenses for the products), NT client licenses (I'm glad Linux doesn't have THAT feature!), etc. [for the BO license doubters, the BO license isn't any different from the Office license, in that you can't install the parts of the package on different machines...]
Why the "pseudo-gui"? Because Drive Magic (by the partition magic folks) uses FreeDOS and a pseudo-X on top of that for its pseudo-gui.
(Yes, but you can't install NT via FTP...)
Nature moves forward very fast in some areas.
I hope that we don't try to coopt mechanisms like plasmid-sharing in bacteria to try and "defeat" them. This would bounce back so hard on us it would be silly.
Read up on drug-resistant bacteria for some pleasant nite-time dreams...
We will learn more than a few things the hard way...
but why do we need to "surpass nature", when we are a part of it (or at least, *very* dependent on it)?
Nature moves forward very fast in some areas.
I hope that we don't try to coopt mechanisms like plasmid-sharing in bacteria to try and "defeat" them. This would bounce back so hard on us it would be silly.
Read up on drug-resistant bacteria for some pleasant nite-time dreams...
We will learn more than a few things the hard way...
but why do we need to "surpass nature", when we are a part of it (or at least, *very* dependent on it)?
Peer Review: The political process of Science.
You have people getting together to decide how the pool gets split up.
As far as bagging on the environmentalist movement, you can add civil rights, women's health issues, AIDS research, (the ban on) fetal tissue research in the US, etc.
It's all politics.
As far as the correlation between absurd assumptions and findings in research, well, isn't that implicitly what research is about, as much as finding out the truth as finding out what is false?
As far as bands of programmers pushing an implementation/solution if it promised more exposure or jobs, Samba would fit under that definition. It definitely is suckup ware.
Does Apple support SMB with Macs (does Windows support AppleTalk? No...not "natively")?
As far as bagging on environmentalism, well, we all benefit from it, even if you think you're not.
Sort of like someone else/others have noticed about Open Software (and protocols)...
Don't forget, the problems with DoE security started on Herr Bush's watch...
How do these FSF people make money? They work, just like the rest of us. Some write closed code for companies. some are sysadmins. Some are database geeks. Some are 7-11 clerks. Some probably mow grass. And some lucky programmers get paid for writing the very free/open code they are working on, or run companies that support parallel free/open and closed versions of the program (sendmail, listserv, ghostscript come to mind as example programs with companies wrapped around them that provide free/open versions as well as enhanced closed versions of their programs, and related utilities).
Ya need to open your eyes a little bit, eh?
Be an Emacs consultant. Be a Linux Kernel consultant. Whatever.
If you're out of money, you'll eventually figure out a way to make it, one way or the other.
Stop the "sky is falling, and it's those FSF programmers' fault!" routine.
Hmm... HTML...
one of the things you CAN'T do well, if at all, in HTML is page headers & footers (and page numbers). Yes, it's because it has no concept in a web browser, but ever print out pages where the page is split in the middle of a text line?
Sure, probably browser problem, but there is nothing in HTML to say, "Hey, browser, break the page if you're printing at this line!".
Frames work (for one-page items), but IE & NS let you choose different options for printing frames, neither of which is, "repeat top frame at top of each page, with trailing frames suitably shown on the printed page").
No knowledge of intended paper format, etc...
All things HTML has no concept of.
But I get this distinct impression that while a Word XML "document" will pass thorugh XML checkers, etc., they won't be very viewable on anything besides IE4/5, due to the use of ActiveX controls for various functionalities in them...
Word...
.XLS, you need to have the OLE SDK (plus NDA, I surmise) to get the format for an OLE Document (to figure out when the BIFF5, actual Word document, etc., starts & ends)... Or perhaps sign an entirely different NDA with MS for the Office file "format" beyond what you do for an MSDN subscription...
Ever notice while Word seems kinda slow at converting docs? Because the Word conversion process first converts to RTF (which is why in the past each new version of Word, to Word97, was accompanied by a new RTF spec), then to the format desired. Word docs are a binary format (all the formatting info is binary for the most part). RTF is a tagged text format (with tags much more cryptic than HTML), ala HTML.
Word6/97+ docs are a different beast, because they're sort of "metafiles", if you've ever looked in them. Notice all that stuff in them that looks oddly enough like a DOS 'dir' listing? Has something to do with "OLE Documents".
No big deal? Microsoft makes the BIFF5 format pretty easily available (becuase Excel97 still isn't too tightly tied to OLE Documents, unlike Word). So it is possible for programs to create straight BIFF5 files w/o all the OLE crap in it, and Excel can still read the doc (but when you save it it puts the OLEDoc stuff around it). But if you want to figure out a "real" Excel97
(Wordpad docs save in Word6 format, that's why)
Word's XML stuff will have lots of functionality stuff embedded in it as ActiveX controls... Why not Java? Well (that one is obvious)...
Word2K will by default use the Word97 document format. The XML "format" will be a save-to option, but won't really be one document, but a bunch of pieces saved in a subdirectory...).
[from Woody's Office Watch].
Why hammer on Red Hat with this particular red herring? The biggest area of standardization on Linux is the KERNEL, is it not?
If there is a problem in the kernel, then potentially every distro/platform (x86 vs Sparc, for example) has that problem.
Everything else is a packaging problem, no?
I won't worry until Red Hat says, "If you try to replace libBlahBlahBlah with this other one, then your system will not work, because, oh, along the way, RH 'integrated' [in the Microsoft sense] for you what was in several other libraries with this library."
But that is sort of what LSB is about, too, no? trying to prevent something like this happening?
Hmm... does any bitware distributed internationally get held up at customs?
This isn't a big market now, but it could be real soon now. how does one then distinguish between bitware and data (you can't tell by looking at the bits). If the tax was levied by each router, should I have to pay one tax one night because of one route, and a different one the other, because of some other, over which I had no control over?
that's why I think the "micropayment" stuff is bogus. There is nothing to stop a company from routing data in a way that most increases their transaction revenue, and it leaves the users with no way to choose, ultimately.
Would long distance be very useful if instead of end-to-end taxes & fees, it was per-switch/node?
No.