Why isn't Corel releasing the source for their whole office suite, then selling plugins, service, and other add-ons for the base product? Selling their base product isn't working, right? This isn't a rhetorical question. I really want to know if there is a real problem with them going with a different model a la Netscape.
If Microsoft can't undercut the cost of Free Software, how in the world would anybody else be able to? It seems to me like somebody bought the FUD campaign.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In the eternal war between the sexes, the lady side-blotched lizard wins it all: she selects her many mates, decides where they'll live and even determines if they will have sons or daughters.
If you go to the USPTO page describing the patent, then scroll to the bottom you'll find a nice set of links, one of which is an Add to Cart button. Does that count as using graphical and textual information on a video screen for the purpose of making a sale?
In April 2001, AOL filed a motion to quash Nam Tai's subpoena, arguing it should not be required to reveal subscriber information because it would "infringe on the well-established First Amendment right to speak anonymously."
It might be better to have some sort of website somewhere with a form for people to use to fill out that contact database for you, rather than trying to somehow harvest that data from/. posts. If people believe in this idea, they'll volunteer their time to help make this a very thorough database.
Assuming all of the information you're looking for is publically available, can you post a list of the fields needed for all the companies? Otherwise, nobody really knows where to start.
You had to know you were going to get flamed with this off-topic garbage.
"If not for them, for the poor children who are starving in the streets [who would have more money if the Democrats weren't raping their parents and potential employers with taxes and the social security Ponzi scheme], the racially discriminated [such as those protestant, white males who, through no fault of their own, can't get into college thanks to racist Affirmative Action plans], the handicapped [like me (I'm hearing impaired) who want the satisfaction of doing things for themselves instead of having forced charity (aka "welfare") take care of them], and the gun violence victims [who died because the gun control lobby took the guns away from the victims and they were unable to defend themselves]."
See? We can all play this stupid political rhetoric game. How about we vote for politicians based on the issues that are important to US, instead of to SexyKellyOsbourne?
Me? I'm going to vote for the politicians that want government to adhere to the Constitution and are gravely concerned about the government ever taking any right away from me to live my life the way I see fit, however immoral or environmentally unconscious it might be:
Is that politician going to vote to take away my right to use software the way I want? -- no vote
Is that politician going to take my money and give it to you so you can feed your starving kids when I don't know you? -- no vote
Is that politician going to make it illegal for me to light up a joint in the privacy of my own home? -- no vote
Is that politician going to take away my second ammendment right to own an AR-15 to blow a burglar's head off if he comes into my house? -- no vote
Is that politician going to prevent me from saying whatever I want on my website? -- no vote
Is that politician going to prevent drilling for oil by environmentally-conscious, high-tech American companies so we can be forced to by oil from countries that use rickety ships and could care less about the environment? -- no vote
Those are the issues that are important to me. Should you vote the way I do? Hell no! Vote for the politicians that represent your interests the best.
Here's the article without registration
on
Microsoft's New Hurdles
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Despite what the summary says, I wasn't prompted for registration, but thanks to news.google.com, Here is the article sans-registration for those of you that are prompted.
From the article: "We were a darling, definitely," said Robert Cresanti, vice president of public policy at the Business Software Alliance. "Some of that impossible-to-maintain perfection has worn off."
The BSA was the "darling" -- not Technology as a whole. The rest of us are in the same political position as always -- if not better, because of the lack of clout the BSA has now. Who's losing ground politically? The BSA. The Post is essentially mourning this fact, but it's actually pretty damn good news, I'd think.
Does the Free Software Movement even have anything resembling a lobby at this point?
This sound issue, I believe, is very Debian centric, and likely would never come up with Grandma Bessie, who would probably use one of several more user-friendly, desktop-oriented distributions. I use Slackware (not part of that more user-friendly group), and even with that I have never had to read anything to get my sound working.
Linux isn't mainstream because people like you assume that "it ISN'T INTENDED, and NEVER WAS INTENDED, to run on the desktop." How very short-sighted of you to assume something so silly. The sad thing is that in a few years when Linux has made major inroads toward that goal, we'll still have your claim in the Slashdot archives to look back on and laugh.
BTW: You should probably have a look at the HOWTO for IIS (running on that vastly superior OS where no HOWTOs are needed?). You've got a bit of a problem at http://beaner.dyndns.org.
* Error Type:
Microsoft JET Database Engine (0x80040E09)
Cannot update. Database or object is read-only./Default.asp, line 57
OK. So now we know for sure what we've mostly assumed all along -- Microsoft has a monopoly and the government isn't going to do much, if anything, about it. Are all of the competitors ready to get off their sweaty asses and do something revolutionary finally, or are they and we going to continue to whine about how unfair Microsoft is? We already know a lot of Free Software is superior to the garbage Microsoft spews out, so why don't we develop some sort of strategy to push Linux and other Free Software to the level that it actually threatens Microsoft's monopoly instead of relying the government that we don't trust anyway to somehow help us?
Yes, a lot of companies are doing this already, but let's stand behind them 100% instead of whining about their lack of spine for not including flag graphics or for looking too much like Windows or any number of other cheesy gripes.
Are you people ready NOW or do you want to wait for another few rounds in court before we actually give Microsoft the competition the marketplace needs? The only thing that Microsoft has that the Free Software Movement needs is a clear direction. Yes, free men pull in all sorts of directions, but right now, we're mostly we're running into eachother.
When governments and large corporations use Free Software, the chances of Palladium and other "Digital Restrictions Management" software being able to work against Free Software are very low, meaning that we as individuals maintain more of our software freedom. Hardware manufacturers cannot afford to lose the whole EU as clientele even if Microsoft can.
As a modem user (*sigh*), I find that using IMAP is a great solution for people that attach massive files to e-mails they send to me. I only end up downloading the headers, and I can see the filesize before deciding whether to download it or not.
I've seen a few posts that state that people should use another method like HTTP or FTP, but that doesn't save space on the server any better than sending through e-mail. The obvious best solution is to find a way to send through something that doesn't require a server, like an instant messenger or DCC on IRC, but even then, it should be possible to send huge attachments through e-mail for when no other solution is viable such as users behind firewalls.
If it were so easy to modify a working malicious binary to match the checksum/md5 or any other hash, why would it be used so often as a method of file verification? I'm thinking it'd be a lot harder to make this happen than you're implying.
I'm not a big fan of BSD licensing, but I will say that I am impressed with the level of innovation that occurs in the BSD world. The ports system, foreign binary support and now this are all examples that really tend to make me see this community as leaders rather than followers in the OS world.
How about forbidding American corporations from trading censorware goods or services to these "repressive governments," wouldn't that be a good start?
That will work just about as well as forbidding the export of cryptography to rogue nations. It's assuming those governments are not capable of finding somebody that will either ignore the ban or just find somebody within their own ranks to write the software for them.
Geez, they could just have students write censoring proxy servers as projects and use the best one to censor the whole nation.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this an open standard that will compete with Passport, or is it something that Passport will have interoperablity with? Are they even related?
Why isn't Corel releasing the source for their whole office suite, then selling plugins, service, and other add-ons for the base product? Selling their base product isn't working, right? This isn't a rhetorical question. I really want to know if there is a real problem with them going with a different model a la Netscape.
1) It's "the same old argument" because it remains true and there still hasn't been a valid rebutal to the statement.
2) I haven't had the need to dig into Mozilla's code, but I always have the option. When's the last time Microsoft gave you that option?
That is all.
Even Steve Ballmer says that Microsoft can't compete with the total cost of ownership of Linux.
n ews.asp?ArticleID=36355
From http://www.varbusiness.com/sections/News/breaking
"One issue we have now, a unique competitor, is Linux. We haven't figured out how to be lower priced than Linux. For us as a company, we're going through a whole new world of thinking."
If Microsoft can't undercut the cost of Free Software, how in the world would anybody else be able to? It seems to me like somebody bought the FUD campaign.
At least we know about them, and are able to fix them unlike with IE.
He's obviously Canadian, eh?
(I'm in Canada, so I know what I'm talking about?)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In the eternal war between the sexes, the lady side-blotched lizard wins it all: she selects her many mates, decides where they'll live and even determines if they will have sons or daughters.
I know women like that.
If you go to the USPTO page describing the patent, then scroll to the bottom you'll find a nice set of links, one of which is an Add to Cart button. Does that count as using graphical and textual information on a video screen for the purpose of making a sale?
to demonstrate a company talking from both sides of its mouth.
In April 2001, AOL filed a motion to quash Nam Tai's subpoena, arguing it should not be required to reveal subscriber information because it would "infringe on the well-established First Amendment right to speak anonymously."
It might be better to have some sort of website somewhere with a form for people to use to fill out that contact database for you, rather than trying to somehow harvest that data from /. posts. If people believe in this idea, they'll volunteer their time to help make this a very thorough database.
Assuming all of the information you're looking for is publically available, can you post a list of the fields needed for all the companies? Otherwise, nobody really knows where to start.
You had to know you were going to get flamed with this off-topic garbage.
"If not for them, for the poor children who are starving in the streets [who would have more money if the Democrats weren't raping their parents and potential employers with taxes and the social security Ponzi scheme], the racially discriminated [such as those protestant, white males who, through no fault of their own, can't get into college thanks to racist Affirmative Action plans], the handicapped [like me (I'm hearing impaired) who want the satisfaction of doing things for themselves instead of having forced charity (aka "welfare") take care of them], and the gun violence victims [who died because the gun control lobby took the guns away from the victims and they were unable to defend themselves]."
See? We can all play this stupid political rhetoric game. How about we vote for politicians based on the issues that are important to US, instead of to SexyKellyOsbourne?
Me? I'm going to vote for the politicians that want government to adhere to the Constitution and are gravely concerned about the government ever taking any right away from me to live my life the way I see fit, however immoral or environmentally unconscious it might be:
Is that politician going to vote to take away my right to use software the way I want? -- no vote
Is that politician going to take my money and give it to you so you can feed your starving kids when I don't know you? -- no vote
Is that politician going to make it illegal for me to light up a joint in the privacy of my own home? -- no vote
Is that politician going to take away my second ammendment right to own an AR-15 to blow a burglar's head off if he comes into my house? -- no vote
Is that politician going to prevent me from saying whatever I want on my website? -- no vote
Is that politician going to prevent drilling for oil by environmentally-conscious, high-tech American companies so we can be forced to by oil from countries that use rickety ships and could care less about the environment? -- no vote
Those are the issues that are important to me. Should you vote the way I do? Hell no! Vote for the politicians that represent your interests the best.
Despite what the summary says, I wasn't prompted for registration, but thanks to news.google.com,
Here is the article sans-registration for those of you that are prompted.
It just doesn't get any easier to have Mac than this.
From the article:
"We were a darling, definitely," said Robert Cresanti, vice president of public policy at the Business Software Alliance. "Some of that impossible-to-maintain perfection has worn off."
The BSA was the "darling" -- not Technology as a whole. The rest of us are in the same political position as always -- if not better, because of the lack of clout the BSA has now. Who's losing ground politically? The BSA. The Post is essentially mourning this fact, but it's actually pretty damn good news, I'd think.
Does the Free Software Movement even have anything resembling a lobby at this point?
This sound issue, I believe, is very Debian centric, and likely would never come up with Grandma Bessie, who would probably use one of several more user-friendly, desktop-oriented distributions. I use Slackware (not part of that more user-friendly group), and even with that I have never had to read anything to get my sound working.
/Default.asp, line 57
Linux isn't mainstream because people like you assume that "it ISN'T INTENDED, and NEVER WAS INTENDED, to run on the desktop." How very short-sighted of you to assume something so silly. The sad thing is that in a few years when Linux has made major inroads toward that goal, we'll still have your claim in the Slashdot archives to look back on and laugh.
BTW: You should probably have a look at the HOWTO for IIS (running on that vastly superior OS where no HOWTOs are needed?). You've got a bit of a problem at http://beaner.dyndns.org.
* Error Type:
Microsoft JET Database Engine (0x80040E09)
Cannot update. Database or object is read-only.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
OK. So now we know for sure what we've mostly assumed all along -- Microsoft has a monopoly and the government isn't going to do much, if anything, about it. Are all of the competitors ready to get off their sweaty asses and do something revolutionary finally, or are they and we going to continue to whine about how unfair Microsoft is? We already know a lot of Free Software is superior to the garbage Microsoft spews out, so why don't we develop some sort of strategy to push Linux and other Free Software to the level that it actually threatens Microsoft's monopoly instead of relying the government that we don't trust anyway to somehow help us?
Yes, a lot of companies are doing this already, but let's stand behind them 100% instead of whining about their lack of spine for not including flag graphics or for looking too much like Windows or any number of other cheesy gripes.
Are you people ready NOW or do you want to wait for another few rounds in court before we actually give Microsoft the competition the marketplace needs? The only thing that Microsoft has that the Free Software Movement needs is a clear direction. Yes, free men pull in all sorts of directions, but right now, we're mostly we're running into eachother.
If the EU embraces TCPA and Linux at the same time, do you think they will tolerate a TCPA platform that does not play fair with Linux?
When governments and large corporations use Free Software, the chances of Palladium and other "Digital Restrictions Management" software being able to work against Free Software are very low, meaning that we as individuals maintain more of our software freedom. Hardware manufacturers cannot afford to lose the whole EU as clientele even if Microsoft can.
As a modem user (*sigh*), I find that using IMAP is a great solution for people that attach massive files to e-mails they send to me. I only end up downloading the headers, and I can see the filesize before deciding whether to download it or not.
I've seen a few posts that state that people should use another method like HTTP or FTP, but that doesn't save space on the server any better than sending through e-mail. The obvious best solution is to find a way to send through something that doesn't require a server, like an instant messenger or DCC on IRC, but even then, it should be possible to send huge attachments through e-mail for when no other solution is viable such as users behind firewalls.
If it were so easy to modify a working malicious binary to match the checksum/md5 or any other hash, why would it be used so often as a method of file verification? I'm thinking it'd be a lot harder to make this happen than you're implying.
I'm not a big fan of BSD licensing, but I will say that I am impressed with the level of innovation that occurs in the BSD world. The ports system, foreign binary support and now this are all examples that really tend to make me see this community as leaders rather than followers in the OS world.
Good. Now, despite the trouble Asa went through to avoid mozdev.org being slashdotted, we can successfully complete our mission.
This a feature being introduced to help Americans get more First Posts.
<British Accent>I missed the bloody First Post by milliseconds again!</British Accent>
How about forbidding American corporations from trading censorware goods or services to these "repressive governments," wouldn't that be a good start?
That will work just about as well as forbidding the export of cryptography to rogue nations. It's assuming those governments are not capable of finding somebody that will either ignore the ban or just find somebody within their own ranks to write the software for them.
Geez, they could just have students write censoring proxy servers as projects and use the best one to censor the whole nation.