This is an excellent point and needs more consideration than you are willing to give it. If I go to a University, they may require Windows. But they have a few things different from the Government.
You signed up for going to that University. No one asked me in the birth canal.
You can ask beforehand if they have a Windows only policy. I don't recall that conversation in the womb.
They offer computer labs with Windows. Where are the US Government supplied computers available?
At this rate we might be better off getting non-Windows users added to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Actually this makes a lot of sense, bear with me.
A majority of people who have problems with Accessability, be it hearing, vision, arms or legs, have below average income levels. I don't know exactly why, but they do, it's a measurable fact. Since they have lower income levels, they often times are not in a position to afford newer computers.
One associate of mine who is near deaf works on a project refurbishing old computers with Linux on them for these people to use. For many, this is the only machine that they have ready access to. But because of the costs and license restrictions, these machines simply cannot have Windows on them at all.
So in a very legitimate way, this may be an issue for the ADA.
I can create a table that large in OpenOffice and it's just fine. So tell me, how is it that Open Office is flawed here?
Are you saying that because OpenOffice cannot import something from someone who has not cooperative that they are at fault? I'd shoot you in the head but my 9mm bullets don't fit me.45 pistol.
My wife is in College and has a lot of term papers to write and share with other student groups for her projects. She is able to do all of this with Open Office by converting to.doc formats without incidents.
The only problem she ran into was PDF. She was using it for her last semester and loved it's simplicity of use with OpenOffice. But then she ran into someone in her class who "couldn't open it in notepad". Avoiding my Nike Burns, Computer Guy, impressions I thought it best to just export to.doc format and leave it at that.
This is the third year that We've been using only OpenOffice on Linux. I've also shown a few others the use of OpenOffice on Windows and they have adopted it as well. As far as I'm concerned, at this point, Microsoft really doesn't have anything useful to add to a word processor. Wait, they might be able to add something, but it's not cost effective.
Obviously his answer is Market Force driven and non-technical. He ships as root, he doesn't want to sacrifice his products perception. He'll never say anything else.
Would you expect the CEO of Exxon to openly state that there is something called Global Warming and it is necessary for everyone to stop driving gasoline powered cars?
Certainly not until they have the answer. It maybe be the Linspire is working on changing this for real, but it won't be openly discussed.
You make an interesting point, but there is a problem with your logic.
How do you explain the contributions of modern software, in particular powerpoint to:
confusion about safety considerings on Colubia, with were contributors to the destruction of the Shuttle?
Loss in business productivity because more time is spent selecting color schemes, bullets, and fonts than dispensing accurate information.
Loss in effective Education in American School systems because more time is spent learning how to use PowerPoint to complete a homework assignment than actually learning the content of homework assignment.
The argument that relative perception of the speed of the software and hence performance is going to drive people to use a dual core processor for the perceived performance of their word processor is kind of... fucked up.
You may be able to run powerpoint 100X faster, but you still aren't able to actually deliver information at an effective rate/methodology using the Office Suite (as promoted today by both Microsoft Market droids and Business Suits) to improve your business performance.
It's amazing how much information you can delivery in 30 minutes if you only have a whiteboard and four colors to write with.
Or the use of a chart with numbers versus graphs representing the same numbers. One chart, 12 graphs...
We have no idea how to use any of the tools that have been developed for use so far. It doesn't really make things easier or better, just prettier. We are no longer Engineers, we are all Marketing Salespeople.
But this does nothing to solve the original problem of stupid people writing stupid programs where they believe their marketing message is worth burning your machine for 30 seconds.
You're just trying to sell one product to solve the fact that someone else is using another product. Haven't you ever heard the story about the Star Bellied Sneetches?
They do not sell the games themselves. Nor do they sell the consoles that these games require to run. And they have no online aftermarket auctioning thing which might tie resale of used items into a revenue generating stream
And yet they claim lost revenue?
It obviously can't be enough revenue to motivate them to actually sell the product. If it was, then I would expect them to put Donkey Kong et al on the shelves for consumers to purchase.
This is an interesting loophole on Americas model of Free Market Economy.
The arguement has always been along the lines that free markets develop products in a Darwinian Evolutionary model. Good products succeed and bad products die off. Patent law was developed to protect the young until they had a chance to mature.
My first reaction is that they are actively killing their predecessor in order for their current products to survive. Kind of a genocide of previous generations.
But how is this different from someone releasing a new software product line and not supporting their old product line AND not allowing anyone else to do that either? Some products have aftermarket support like this (automobiles) without legal ramifications from the original manufacturer, and some do not (Windows 98).
Is this an inconsistency in the law, or am I up too early?
There are a few things in this article that I found a little amazing. For one, that linux can't present a complete solution in business is a bit of a generalization.
It might depend a bit on your business, wouldn't it?
I think he has a point on mindshare. Everyone in the Business mindset has the opinion that no matter what, you still cannot get fired for picking Microsoft products.
But I think that everyone in a desperate mindset: a position where all options have to be explored or perish -- cost, performance, stability, whatever will have a different opinion since most of these people have been driven to this brink as the result of some failing in Microsoft (or someone else) products to begin with.
Over time, Linux will have an effect on Microsoft. It doesn't have to compete directly, but it will always make an influence on anyone exposed to it.
Remove the USB mass storage device drivers. But that's already been mentioned.
Restrict the user access to the USB devices. This has already been mentioned too. You can do this really easily under Linux.
Why the fuck are you posting such a braindead simple question?
If you can't figure this one out on your own, then you probably don't have any IP worth stealing in the first place. And if you do, it's already long gone by now because you are this stupid. The smart people walked out with it weeks ago.
Only problem is that Unbuntu is doing a very bad thing in the big picture. Perhaps. They are forcing out all other architectural options by demonstrating a high activity development cycle for only one architecture.
I don't know about Unbuntu, do they practice that same release practices of Unstable, Testing, Stable? If not, then they are no better than Mandrake, FC2, or the rest...
Now that the Cold War has cooled, maybe we can just nuke all these hackers and solve three problems at once:
No more Evil Hackers
No more Nukes.
Nuclear Winter solves Global Warming.
I'm starting to like the idea that nations should be divided by IP ranges to make it easier to exclude a country from your network. It would certainly solve a lot of problems with China, Russion, North Korea.
When the US finally finishes the English to Metric conversion that they started in December of 1975 we'll be using hectocents. I already use kilobucks where appropriate
I suppose they should consider changing all of this to something like:
Something bad will happen unless you click this button... DO IT NOW!!!
And then they'll understand all they need to.
The alternative, and this is the scarey part, is that all the ISP's will provide for you all your computing needs on a leased machine with centeralized data stores.
I agree with your history, but I really don't think there would be that kind of chaotic reversion. You have to consider that there have already been established standards on interfaces and that many/most of these standards are not only designed and maintained by a monopolistic company but that they have often times been turned over to the care and feeding of an international standards board.
Because of the existence of pseudo-independent boards (independent from corporate influences) on these standards, things like the IETF, IEEE et al are able to define a more universal standard than one company and limit the amount of chaos that would be available. There's nothing here to prevent a company from deviating from the standards, but there would be a common starting point from which all the Tom Dick and Harry companies can build from.
Considering that MySQL probably runs more databases than all the others put together (it being the poster-child for most OSS projects involving DB's), I think that's a little harsh. Sure it's not ACID, but it does well enough for most purposes...
Most of the money spent on software is not Home Use. It's companies. No money in your pocket and money in your employers pocket doesn't go to you. It goes to the subcontractor who supports the software.
Consider the Enterprise Software business model. You don't own anything, you rent it from someone else, like EDS. They in turn rent out hardware from someone else, like Sun or HP. But you are spending the lions share of your IT budget on the people supporting the software, not the licensing costs. Especially after you purchase site licenses for software.
But the problem with the money in your local economy argument fails when you consider what happens when a market economy collapses. What you describe is an absence of Microsoft. That's a multi billion dollar flow of money in the American Economy. Now that's a lot of people who will have to find a new job. And it will take time for retraining. Now consider your choices when you have some Windows retrainee just out of the vocational retraining classes, or some green card dude with 10 years working with FOSS overseas. Who are you going to pick?
You aren't going to put money back into the local economy. You are going to go with the highest ROI available, and that's not the local dude.
To a degree I think that they can be bought. But not as directly as they could be based on historical examples.
The two methods of purchasing government support for your goals are Contributions and Campaigns.
Contributions: It takes a horrendous amount of money to run an election in the US and if you can't afford the cost of the Marketing and Advertisement you will lose, not matter who you are you will lose. It takes about 8 seconds to realize that essentially all of the money available to political candidates comes from companies. It may not be directly from their coffers, but it's provide by private individuals at the insistence or intentional design of the companies. At the very least, everyone gets an email telling them who to vote for from their employer.
Campaigns: Companies can spend millions on marketing a campaign to support, directly or indirectly, a given candidate or the platforms that they support. It helps them get elected.
As for your question about how can Americans accept this? Why do you think we have the lowest voting turnout of any democratic (or otherwise) nation in the world? Becuase everyone here is so sick of the bullshit that they just give up.
But VHS and Beta have been replaced by the next "Right Thing".
The difference between this and the VHS/Beta issue is hardware versus a business/software model. The models can evolve and change over time. The Beta tapes havn't yet.
It's the evolution of the process that guarantees the solution. It's incrimental changes.
The interesting part of this is to consider the damage this will do to the American Economy. When we become the last of the olde guard, we will be in a position of catching up to the rest of the world. We haven't had to do this for a very very long time.
The Corporate America will push on this until it starts to damage the American Economy enough that they have to migrate in order to remain profitable.
We've done this before and we will do it again. Probably the best example I can think of is the 1970's automotive industry. We just decided to keep making big cars because we assumed people would buy them out of habit. The Japanese and Europeans proved us wrong by providing better products. And nothing the Big Three could do would stop it from happening. Trade tariffs delayed the process, but did not stop it.
The same will happen with software. Only this time there will be additional damage becuase the labor force will not be American in America, it will be someone else (Indian, Chinese) and we'll have to export even more money to do any business.
I don't know that the US needs to follow that path and I'm not sure I personally want the US to follow that path. Here's why:
The US will not willing choose to follow that path. They will only do it out of international/grassroots pressures.
USA is the home of Microsoft and most of the other major players in Private Software industry.
As such, any individual or company that chooses to use something else is a loss of market share.
Microsoft et al has Billions to invest in the US Government to develop rules & regulations to limit, block, and discourage the incorporation of FOSS into the American market or government. FOSS has... less.
Since the government is elected based on political contributions, there is no way to win on that front. The only alternatives are EU incentives (see Steel Tariffs of 2004) or through some kind of grassroots effort, but this is highly unlikely considering how owned grassroots methodoligies have become.
For the most part, the US Software industry will exhaust themselves financially trying to block any kind of adoption of FOSS unless they can be convinced that they can make more money with FOSS, and the "more" part is where you can't sell it.
On a more personal and light hearted note: I don't want the US to adopt Open Source because I'm enjoying a wonderful hiatus from being the Family Computer Guy (Nick Burns style) because anytime I go to someones home, I have the ability to say, "I'm sorry, I can't do anything to help you. I haven't used Windows since Windows 95b". No questions asked. It's kind of nice.
If everyone in the US adopted FOSS, say Debian (for sake of argument without financial endorsements, pick what you want), then you will have to deal with the onslaught of problems this will introduce.
Virus writers have been steering clear of Linux because it's such a low ROI. Linux may be better but you're a fool to declare it is immune.
Today mailing lists are more/less populated with people who have some element of Clue. If all those really fucking stupid windows users starting using the mailing lists we would all experience a lowering of our own personal IQ as the result of it.
Personally, I enjoy the elitism. Not altogether healthy, but I can't deny it isn't there.
Politics: Imagine the politics that will ensue if everyone is trying to get their hands into the cookie jar. Look at the UN and the Internet..
Peer Pressure: FOSS will be pulled into some really stupid directions because of really stupid user pressures to do really stupid things. For example, "I want to install anything I want without being root all the time!" and "why can't you do (all the stupid crap) that Microsoft does (which makes them fundamentally insecure)?".
Personally, I would avoid pushing this faster than it needs to go.
If FOSS is the Right Thing then it will eventually win. Nothing anyone can do will prevent this from happening, only delaying it. In the meantime, sit back and enjoy it for what it is.
I heard on NPR yesterday morning that they are also the biggest software thief in the world today.
Don't which one, or both, are true, but you can be pretty sure that if Brazil is the most active software pirate out there the closed source companies will do what they can to set OpenSource==Piracy and imply Evil
Well, I don't know what it sounds like, other than socialism with a twist of welfare in the mix.
I guess the UN wants to control the Internet so they can assure everyone gets internet service, even if they don't have food and toilets.
I don't see any evidence that there would be any real benefit to Internet Regulation via the UN. What are they going to do, sanction me for looking at porn?
Flamebait I know, but I think Java totally sucks as a client application if you have any alternatives available. I seriously consider anyone with the intention of using Java as a client application to be a borderline idiot.
I do however believe that Java has a very good place in the realms of server applications and applets. But not everything should be fixed with a hammer.
If all the distributions take a stand and refuse to distribute this non-free OpenOffice, then the process will take a natural evolutionary process.
Either Open Office will rescind its decision in order to maintain it's market share, or FOSS will introduce a fork of the application.
Ironically, OpenOffice started from StarOffice which was [mostly] free but purchased by Sun and Open Office was the FOSS version of Star Office (fork) which was intended to be a (duh!) FOSS fork of Star Office.
So here we are many years later with the following scenario. Sun owns Star Office and now Sun is starting to assert a territorial claim into the Open Office fork that was started years ago.
Looking back at the history of Star Office, I would say that Open Office has seriously fucked up on this one and has no choice but to buck up and fix their shitty code decision.
In the meantime, I think it would be extremely important for us all to make a stand on this one and simply refuse any inclusion of Java into the OpenOffice suite as it is distributed by the Linux Distributions at large. If they refuse to remove the Java dependency, then we must consider removing Open Office as a viable product.
Slashdot Mirror
Cute line, but you're being an ass.
This is an excellent point and needs more consideration than you are willing to give it. If I go to a University, they may require Windows. But they have a few things different from the Government.
- You signed up for going to that University. No one asked me in the birth canal.
- You can ask beforehand if they have a Windows only policy. I don't recall that conversation in the womb.
- They offer computer labs with Windows. Where are the US Government supplied computers available?
At this rate we might be better off getting non-Windows users added to the Americans with Disabilities Act.Actually this makes a lot of sense, bear with me.
A majority of people who have problems with Accessability, be it hearing, vision, arms or legs, have below average income levels. I don't know exactly why, but they do, it's a measurable fact. Since they have lower income levels, they often times are not in a position to afford newer computers.
One associate of mine who is near deaf works on a project refurbishing old computers with Linux on them for these people to use. For many, this is the only machine that they have ready access to. But because of the costs and license restrictions, these machines simply cannot have Windows on them at all.
So in a very legitimate way, this may be an issue for the ADA.
I can create a table that large in OpenOffice and it's just fine. So tell me, how is it that Open Office is flawed here?
Are you saying that because OpenOffice cannot import something from someone who has not cooperative that they are at fault? I'd shoot you in the head but my 9mm bullets don't fit me .45 pistol.
My wife is in College and has a lot of term papers to write and share with other student groups for her projects. She is able to do all of this with Open Office by converting to .doc formats without incidents.
The only problem she ran into was PDF. She was using it for her last semester and loved it's simplicity of use with OpenOffice. But then she ran into someone in her class who "couldn't open it in notepad". Avoiding my Nike Burns, Computer Guy, impressions I thought it best to just export to .doc format and leave it at that.
This is the third year that We've been using only OpenOffice on Linux. I've also shown a few others the use of OpenOffice on Windows and they have adopted it as well. As far as I'm concerned, at this point, Microsoft really doesn't have anything useful to add to a word processor. Wait, they might be able to add something, but it's not cost effective.
Obviously his answer is Market Force driven and non-technical. He ships as root, he doesn't want to sacrifice his products perception. He'll never say anything else.
Would you expect the CEO of Exxon to openly state that there is something called Global Warming and it is necessary for everyone to stop driving gasoline powered cars?
Certainly not until they have the answer. It maybe be the Linspire is working on changing this for real, but it won't be openly discussed.
Instead of big RAM and a small hard drive, why not get a more sane amount of RAM, a small hard drive, and a solid state Ram disk?
That's probably going to be easier to find than a 64GB single CPU AMD motherboard...
You make an interesting point, but there is a problem with your logic.
How do you explain the contributions of modern software, in particular powerpoint to:
- confusion about safety considerings on Colubia, with were contributors to the destruction of the Shuttle?
- Loss in business productivity because more time is spent selecting color schemes, bullets, and fonts than dispensing accurate information.
- Loss in effective Education in American School systems because more time is spent learning how to use PowerPoint to complete a homework assignment than actually learning the content of homework assignment.
The argument that relative perception of the speed of the software and hence performance is going to drive people to use a dual core processor for the perceived performance of their word processor is kind of... fucked up.You may be able to run powerpoint 100X faster, but you still aren't able to actually deliver information at an effective rate/methodology using the Office Suite (as promoted today by both Microsoft Market droids and Business Suits) to improve your business performance.
It's amazing how much information you can delivery in 30 minutes if you only have a whiteboard and four colors to write with.
Or the use of a chart with numbers versus graphs representing the same numbers. One chart, 12 graphs...
We have no idea how to use any of the tools that have been developed for use so far. It doesn't really make things easier or better, just prettier. We are no longer Engineers, we are all Marketing Salespeople.
Getting dual core performance won't improve things.
But this does nothing to solve the original problem of stupid people writing stupid programs where they believe their marketing message is worth burning your machine for 30 seconds.
You're just trying to sell one product to solve the fact that someone else is using another product. Haven't you ever heard the story about the Star Bellied Sneetches?
This is kind of insane.
They do not sell the games themselves. Nor do they sell the consoles that these games require to run. And they have no online aftermarket auctioning thing which might tie resale of used items into a revenue generating stream
And yet they claim lost revenue?
It obviously can't be enough revenue to motivate them to actually sell the product. If it was, then I would expect them to put Donkey Kong et al on the shelves for consumers to purchase.
This is an interesting loophole on Americas model of Free Market Economy.
The arguement has always been along the lines that free markets develop products in a Darwinian Evolutionary model. Good products succeed and bad products die off. Patent law was developed to protect the young until they had a chance to mature.
My first reaction is that they are actively killing their predecessor in order for their current products to survive. Kind of a genocide of previous generations.
But how is this different from someone releasing a new software product line and not supporting their old product line AND not allowing anyone else to do that either? Some products have aftermarket support like this (automobiles) without legal ramifications from the original manufacturer, and some do not (Windows 98).
Is this an inconsistency in the law, or am I up too early?
There are a few things in this article that I found a little amazing. For one, that linux can't present a complete solution in business is a bit of a generalization.
It might depend a bit on your business, wouldn't it?
I think he has a point on mindshare. Everyone in the Business mindset has the opinion that no matter what, you still cannot get fired for picking Microsoft products.
But I think that everyone in a desperate mindset: a position where all options have to be explored or perish -- cost, performance, stability, whatever will have a different opinion since most of these people have been driven to this brink as the result of some failing in Microsoft (or someone else) products to begin with.
Over time, Linux will have an effect on Microsoft. It doesn't have to compete directly, but it will always make an influence on anyone exposed to it.
Remove the USB mass storage device drivers. But that's already been mentioned.
Restrict the user access to the USB devices. This has already been mentioned too. You can do this really easily under Linux.
Why the fuck are you posting such a braindead simple question?
If you can't figure this one out on your own, then you probably don't have any IP worth stealing in the first place. And if you do, it's already long gone by now because you are this stupid. The smart people walked out with it weeks ago.
I was thinking more like FORK
Only problem is that Unbuntu is doing a very bad thing in the big picture. Perhaps. They are forcing out all other architectural options by demonstrating a high activity development cycle for only one architecture.
I don't know about Unbuntu, do they practice that same release practices of Unstable, Testing, Stable? If not, then they are no better than Mandrake, FC2, or the rest...
Now that the Cold War has cooled, maybe we can just nuke all these hackers and solve three problems at once:
I'm starting to like the idea that nations should be divided by IP ranges to make it easier to exclude a country from your network. It would certainly solve a lot of problems with China, Russion, North Korea.
When the US finally finishes the English to Metric conversion that they started in December of 1975 we'll be using hectocents. I already use kilobucks where appropriate
I suppose they should consider changing all of this to something like:
And then they'll understand all they need to.The alternative, and this is the scarey part, is that all the ISP's will provide for you all your computing needs on a leased machine with centeralized data stores.
I agree with your history, but I really don't think there would be that kind of chaotic reversion. You have to consider that there have already been established standards on interfaces and that many/most of these standards are not only designed and maintained by a monopolistic company but that they have often times been turned over to the care and feeding of an international standards board.
Because of the existence of pseudo-independent boards (independent from corporate influences) on these standards, things like the IETF, IEEE et al are able to define a more universal standard than one company and limit the amount of chaos that would be available. There's nothing here to prevent a company from deviating from the standards, but there would be a common starting point from which all the Tom Dick and Harry companies can build from.
As does a spreadsheet.
As does Windows.
As does my right hand...
No I'm not kidding, I'm completely serious.
Most of the money spent on software is not Home Use. It's companies. No money in your pocket and money in your employers pocket doesn't go to you. It goes to the subcontractor who supports the software.
Consider the Enterprise Software business model. You don't own anything, you rent it from someone else, like EDS. They in turn rent out hardware from someone else, like Sun or HP. But you are spending the lions share of your IT budget on the people supporting the software, not the licensing costs. Especially after you purchase site licenses for software.
But the problem with the money in your local economy argument fails when you consider what happens when a market economy collapses. What you describe is an absence of Microsoft. That's a multi billion dollar flow of money in the American Economy. Now that's a lot of people who will have to find a new job. And it will take time for retraining. Now consider your choices when you have some Windows retrainee just out of the vocational retraining classes, or some green card dude with 10 years working with FOSS overseas. Who are you going to pick?
You aren't going to put money back into the local economy. You are going to go with the highest ROI available, and that's not the local dude.
To a degree I think that they can be bought. But not as directly as they could be based on historical examples.
The two methods of purchasing government support for your goals are Contributions and Campaigns.
Contributions: It takes a horrendous amount of money to run an election in the US and if you can't afford the cost of the Marketing and Advertisement you will lose, not matter who you are you will lose. It takes about 8 seconds to realize that essentially all of the money available to political candidates comes from companies. It may not be directly from their coffers, but it's provide by private individuals at the insistence or intentional design of the companies. At the very least, everyone gets an email telling them who to vote for from their employer.
Campaigns: Companies can spend millions on marketing a campaign to support, directly or indirectly, a given candidate or the platforms that they support. It helps them get elected.
As for your question about how can Americans accept this? Why do you think we have the lowest voting turnout of any democratic (or otherwise) nation in the world? Becuase everyone here is so sick of the bullshit that they just give up.
Right on the Beta comparison.
But VHS and Beta have been replaced by the next "Right Thing".
The difference between this and the VHS/Beta issue is hardware versus a business/software model. The models can evolve and change over time. The Beta tapes havn't yet.
It's the evolution of the process that guarantees the solution. It's incrimental changes.
Absolutely right!
The interesting part of this is to consider the damage this will do to the American Economy. When we become the last of the olde guard, we will be in a position of catching up to the rest of the world. We haven't had to do this for a very very long time.
The Corporate America will push on this until it starts to damage the American Economy enough that they have to migrate in order to remain profitable.
We've done this before and we will do it again. Probably the best example I can think of is the 1970's automotive industry. We just decided to keep making big cars because we assumed people would buy them out of habit. The Japanese and Europeans proved us wrong by providing better products. And nothing the Big Three could do would stop it from happening. Trade tariffs delayed the process, but did not stop it.
The same will happen with software. Only this time there will be additional damage becuase the labor force will not be American in America, it will be someone else (Indian, Chinese) and we'll have to export even more money to do any business.
We are a nation in trouble.
You're on crack right?
I don't know that the US needs to follow that path and I'm not sure I personally want the US to follow that path. Here's why:
The US will not willing choose to follow that path. They will only do it out of international/grassroots pressures.
- USA is the home of Microsoft and most of the other major players in Private Software industry.
- As such, any individual or company that chooses to use something else is a loss of market share.
- Microsoft et al has Billions to invest in the US Government to develop rules & regulations to limit, block, and discourage the incorporation of FOSS into the American market or government. FOSS has... less.
- Since the government is elected based on political contributions, there is no way to win on that front. The only alternatives are EU incentives (see Steel Tariffs of 2004) or through some kind of grassroots effort, but this is highly unlikely considering how owned grassroots methodoligies have become.
For the most part, the US Software industry will exhaust themselves financially trying to block any kind of adoption of FOSS unless they can be convinced that they can make more money with FOSS, and the "more" part is where you can't sell it.On a more personal and light hearted note: I don't want the US to adopt Open Source because I'm enjoying a wonderful hiatus from being the Family Computer Guy (Nick Burns style) because anytime I go to someones home, I have the ability to say, "I'm sorry, I can't do anything to help you. I haven't used Windows since Windows 95b". No questions asked. It's kind of nice.
If everyone in the US adopted FOSS, say Debian (for sake of argument without financial endorsements, pick what you want), then you will have to deal with the onslaught of problems this will introduce.
If FOSS is the Right Thing then it will eventually win. Nothing anyone can do will prevent this from happening, only delaying it. In the meantime, sit back and enjoy it for what it is.
I heard on NPR yesterday morning that they are also the biggest software thief in the world today.
Don't which one, or both, are true, but you can be pretty sure that if Brazil is the most active software pirate out there the closed source companies will do what they can to set OpenSource==Piracy and imply Evil
Well, I don't know what it sounds like, other than socialism with a twist of welfare in the mix.
I guess the UN wants to control the Internet so they can assure everyone gets internet service, even if they don't have food and toilets.
I don't see any evidence that there would be any real benefit to Internet Regulation via the UN. What are they going to do, sanction me for looking at porn?
Flamebait I know, but I think Java totally sucks as a client application if you have any alternatives available. I seriously consider anyone with the intention of using Java as a client application to be a borderline idiot.
I do however believe that Java has a very good place in the realms of server applications and applets. But not everything should be fixed with a hammer.
Actually, the process can take care of itself.
If all the distributions take a stand and refuse to distribute this non-free OpenOffice, then the process will take a natural evolutionary process.
Either Open Office will rescind its decision in order to maintain it's market share, or FOSS will introduce a fork of the application.
Ironically, OpenOffice started from StarOffice which was [mostly] free but purchased by Sun and Open Office was the FOSS version of Star Office (fork) which was intended to be a (duh!) FOSS fork of Star Office.
So here we are many years later with the following scenario. Sun owns Star Office and now Sun is starting to assert a territorial claim into the Open Office fork that was started years ago.
Looking back at the history of Star Office, I would say that Open Office has seriously fucked up on this one and has no choice but to buck up and fix their shitty code decision.
In the meantime, I think it would be extremely important for us all to make a stand on this one and simply refuse any inclusion of Java into the OpenOffice suite as it is distributed by the Linux Distributions at large. If they refuse to remove the Java dependency, then we must consider removing Open Office as a viable product.
It's a matter of doing the Right Thing