Doesn't encouraging WINE use prevent or at least slow the development of native versions of applications for Unix/Linux? Doesn't it keep people from quickly adopting a different and open application that runs natively? As long as people can comfortably run MS Office in Linux, doesn't that mean they won't bother learning OpenOffice.org? As long as users can run Windows games in WINE, what will encourage game vendors to create native versions of their applications? I could understand if this were a system being used to facilitate migration to open-source solutions, but it seems that quite the opposite is true.
I think the best part about this article is that it's even being written -- that a browser war actually exists after so many years of an IE-only field (since Netscape 4 sucked so bad). Yes, IE still dominates, but at least we now have very good options besides IE. Thanks to all the Mozilla, KHTML and other developers for their hard work and giving the browser consumers a choice again.
I was thinking about this the other day, and I think the easiest way to get people to use Jabber would be to provide a gateway service to Jabber that allows people to use their favorite IM client that they already know. I know that AIM and ICQ have an option to specify the server to use, but I doubt MSN does. Anyway, if users could specify this gateway service for their server and have the real AIM client be a Jabber client too, then users would probably be more willing to give it a shot. We already have TOC, Oscar is reverse-engineered already, and obviously the Jabber protocol is open, so I think all the pieces are there to make it happen.
On her website, regarding gay marriage, she says, "This is an issue of equal rights for everyone." and "Let's make California the leader, and show America our state represents fairness and family values." , which is fine with me, personally. But then she goes on in the "Budget" section of the page to explain that the rich need to be taxed higher to get the budget back on track, failing to realize that the rich are already paying the highest percentage of taxes. Why is it necessary to be fair on social issues but not on economic issues?
Incidentally, there are already more individuals and businesses leaving California than moving in because of their ridiculously high taxes to pay prison guards $100,000/year. Consequently, raising taxes will only reduce the number of people paying taxes and, as a result, California will have even less money to work with.
Is security the responsibility of the software of the users? Should we point the finger at that horribly insecure software that shouldn't allow this sort of thing to happen or the ignorant users who put the sensitive data in the document? Both?
If users are 100% responsible for how their computers are used, they'll be more careful about what they install and make doubly sure that they are firewalled, patched and otherwise secured. If using Windows makes you more likely to go to jail for having an insecure box, it may make people want to use better alternatives.
You do not understand. It is difficult to compete because we cannot provide our services on an equal footing with Microsoft because they won't tell us how to interoperate with their systems. If we can't interoperate with MS systems, and everyone else is using MS systems, then open source options aren't really viable, are they?
If Microsoft's competition creates an superior product, then consumers will choose to use alternate software regardless. Interoperability is the least of our problems. If consumers were genuinely concerned about interoperablity, they'd use "Save as HTML" instead of the Word.doc format. Consumers lock themselves into proprietary formats by choice -- due to lack of education on our part.
Everywhere Micrsoft go, they conquer. And they don't want to share their spoils with anyone. This is not what a free market is about.
You're right. Sharing the spoils it not what free market is about at all. Free market is about innovating and creating a better product than your competition so that consumers will choose you over them -- rather than whining about whatever perceived unfair advantage you think the competition has.
If you substituted ``Microsoft`` with ``Big Tobacco``, would you change your mind?
Of course not. People make very bad decisions in their lives and should either live with the consequences or remedy the situation. Notice that suing "Big Tobacco" did nothing to stop people from smoking. It just gave the government a means for seizing the tobacco companys' assets for their own gain. That is essentially what you're asking the government to do for OSS regarding Microsoft.
You're missing the fact that people have been locked into using MS-only systems and *even if they wanted to* would find it very hard to stop. Think about it: they, in effect, provide a significant proportion of our computing infrastructure -- and are preventing anyone from competing with them by not disclosing the vital inferface information about the systems they built that others would need to compete.
It is difficult to switch, but not impossible. Consumers that are concerned about the freedom, stablity, and interoperablity that OSS can provide will make the effort to switch. Those that don't, shouldn't be forced to switch or have their license fees jacked up to pay for legal fees just so you can have the help you think you need from Microsoft for a viable OSS platform. Microsoft provides as much computing infrustrature as consumers will allow. More importantly, though, the open source community does not need Microsoft's cooperation to be viable. OSS should be good enough to stand on its own without standing on Microsoft's shoulders.
They work very hard to maintain the monopoly stranglehold they have created. They bombard the young and impressionable with advertising in print, on television, on billboards. They push ``cheap`` versions of their product on impressional students in schools and universities.
Correction: They work very hard to keep the customers they have gained over the last several years. If OSS vendors and developers had a clue about marketing, they'd be doing the same thing Microsoft does with billboards and print advertising. Instead, the majority of the community just whines. There is nothing ethically or legally that requires Microsoft to reveal methods and code for their products. To force them to do so is unethical, though. I'd call it stealing, but even worse is your contant suggestion that OSS needs Microsoft's cooperation to become viable.
They lobby govenments around the world to say "You should let project leaders make their own choice!" when it comes to choosing between a MS or OSS deployment -- whilst simultaneously doing their utmost to prevent any OSS option from becoming viable.
Do you have any faith in OSS whatsoever to be able to create a quality product without depending on the government to yank Microso
Microsoft has as much of a monopoly as consumers give them through direct software purchases, or indirect purchases through PC vendors they support. The solution is not litigation to protect ignorant consumers from themselves. The solution is education to inform consumers of other, possibly more suitable software solutions. As it stands, consumers are choosing Microsoft, and governments should not interfere with that choice.
If Microsoft's software is as inferior as we, the open source software community, say it is, then it should not be difficult to compete against that software based on quality, features, and usability. If open source software is not up to snuff, then people will either directly or indirectly choose Windows and we need to work on the quality of our products. If open source software is good enough, though, then we don't need to waste our time supporting litigation that will at most be a minor setback for Microsoft. We need to, instead, work on marketing strategies.
In any case, supporting litigation against Microsoft is a waste of valuable resources that could be better spent improving open source software and educating users so they can make informed choices about the software they purchase and use.
Is there any OS vendor other than Microsoft (and SCO) that isn't using open source software in some way? This is because open source software benefits companies as long as they don't thrive on full control of their environment (Microsoft). Granted, most of the companies you listed also sell hardware and could probably survive even if their software products went away.
It's no real mystery what people do with P2P applications.
1) Provide free advertising for the RIAA, MPAA and proprietary software
2) Make it harder for independent musicians, independent filmmakers, and free software to be seen through all the noise of the more well-known, possibly inferior products
3) Prove that the RIAA, MPAA and proprietary software vendors are relevant by demonstrating that their marketing works even if their products are inferior
4) Giving the RIAA, MPAA and proprietary software vendors a leg to stand on when they go to congress to complain about illegal file sharing on P2P networks
Sharing content that the RIAA, MPAA and proprietary software vendors own the copyrights to doesn't help anybody's cause except the RIAA's, MPAA's and proprietary software vendors'. Do you want to be counterproductive?
It seems that the people that would benefit the most from a source-based distro and optimizing binaries specifically for their hardware are the ones with the slow hardware that will take too much time to get everything installed for it to be a worthwhile investment of time.
This might be an opportunity to demonstrate new and exciting technology. Show people what is being done to make their lives on their home computers easier. Instead of showing them how to use applications on an outdated and burdensome OS, Windows, show them how some other people, particularly GNOME and KDE, propose to solve problems. At the very least, make this one of your "classes". In this sense, you could become a bit of an attraction for tourists. I know this is a longshot, but we're just here to give you ideas -- not do your job.
As long as people can get proprietary software they're already familiar with for free (illegally), then they have no motivation to look for legally free alternatives.
The GPL only threatens software companies whose primary source of revenue comes from shrink-wrapped proprietary applications.
The GPL only threatens software companties whose primary source of revenue comes from shrink-wrapped proprietary applications AND who rely on full control of their sector as part of their business strategy. If Microsoft loses control of their environment, the can't survive, because they're not able to quickly evolve and adapt to a new environment. The GPL threatens their environment, so they have to do everything they can to kill it.
They need to just point the Hubble back to earth and create the worlds best voyeur porn site. They could fund all their other missions with that money.
There was a lot of vocal support for Epiphany on the mailing list, but
little for Galeon. So, the consensus points to Epiphany. That was due
to a number of factors: The Epiphany project goals seem to be better
aligned with GNOME's goals, the Galeon developers do not seem to be
100% behind GNOME's goals; Epiphany has had regular releases for GNOME
2.3.x; the Epiphany hackers are working within the project to define
standards and code for toolbar editing and other functionality, etc.
While there are a lot of reservations about offending the Galeon
hackers, and great disappointment that the two projects have not been
able to cooperate, Epiphany does seem to have the consensus, and make
the most technical sense. That is not to say that Epiphany is without
faults, or that Galeon is not excellent software -> we do need to make
a choice at some stage: Right now there is strong support to add a
browser to the Desktop release, and strong support for that browser to
be Epiphany.
If you can make it profitiable for companies to invest in breeding a speices, that speices will thrive. Horses would probably be extinct now if there weren't people intentionally breeding them for recreational use. I don't know enough about breeding whales to speak to this issue specifically, but I do know that there are probably a lot of creatures on this planet that thrive only because of economic motivation.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on much more important factors than the cleanliness of the floor:
1) How hungry I am
2) How good the food is
3) How able I am to replace the food I dropped
Health be damned!
Doesn't encouraging WINE use prevent or at least slow the development of native versions of applications for Unix/Linux? Doesn't it keep people from quickly adopting a different and open application that runs natively? As long as people can comfortably run MS Office in Linux, doesn't that mean they won't bother learning OpenOffice.org? As long as users can run Windows games in WINE, what will encourage game vendors to create native versions of their applications? I could understand if this were a system being used to facilitate migration to open-source solutions, but it seems that quite the opposite is true.
Give me a clue if I need one.
I think the best part about this article is that it's even being written -- that a browser war actually exists after so many years of an IE-only field (since Netscape 4 sucked so bad). Yes, IE still dominates, but at least we now have very good options besides IE. Thanks to all the Mozilla, KHTML and other developers for their hard work and giving the browser consumers a choice again.
If Windows is attacked because it's popular, then why isn't Apache spreading more worms than IIS since it has 60% of the webserver market?
I was thinking about this the other day, and I think the easiest way to get people to use Jabber would be to provide a gateway service to Jabber that allows people to use their favorite IM client that they already know. I know that AIM and ICQ have an option to specify the server to use, but I doubt MSN does. Anyway, if users could specify this gateway service for their server and have the real AIM client be a Jabber client too, then users would probably be more willing to give it a shot. We already have TOC, Oscar is reverse-engineered already, and obviously the Jabber protocol is open, so I think all the pieces are there to make it happen.
On her website, regarding gay marriage, she says, "This is an issue of equal rights for everyone." and "Let's make California the leader, and show America our state represents fairness and family values." , which is fine with me, personally. But then she goes on in the "Budget" section of the page to explain that the rich need to be taxed higher to get the budget back on track, failing to realize that the rich are already paying the highest percentage of taxes. Why is it necessary to be fair on social issues but not on economic issues?
Incidentally, there are already more individuals and businesses leaving California than moving in because of their ridiculously high taxes to pay prison guards $100,000/year. Consequently, raising taxes will only reduce the number of people paying taxes and, as a result, California will have even less money to work with.
Is security the responsibility of the software of the users? Should we point the finger at that horribly insecure software that shouldn't allow this sort of thing to happen or the ignorant users who put the sensitive data in the document? Both?
If users are 100% responsible for how their computers are used, they'll be more careful about what they install and make doubly sure that they are firewalled, patched and otherwise secured. If using Windows makes you more likely to go to jail for having an insecure box, it may make people want to use better alternatives.
I have to do this to eliminate any vent of frustration that the US-hatin' Europeans here could have had:
1) It looks like Linus and G. W. Bush share the same goals for world domination.
and...
2) The subs were going to be running Mandrake, but the Congress-approved renaming to "Freedrake" just didn't sound right.
I don't need a USB drive, but do you have any nifty gadgets that will help enlarge my penis?
You do not understand. It is difficult to compete because we cannot provide our services on an equal footing with Microsoft because they won't tell us how to interoperate with their systems. If we can't interoperate with MS systems, and everyone else is using MS systems, then open source options aren't really viable, are they?
.doc format. Consumers lock themselves into proprietary formats by choice -- due to lack of education on our part.
If Microsoft's competition creates an superior product, then consumers will choose to use alternate software regardless. Interoperability is the least of our problems. If consumers were genuinely concerned about interoperablity, they'd use "Save as HTML" instead of the Word
Everywhere Micrsoft go, they conquer. And they don't want to share their spoils with anyone. This is not what a free market is about.
You're right. Sharing the spoils it not what free market is about at all. Free market is about innovating and creating a better product than your competition so that consumers will choose you over them -- rather than whining about whatever perceived unfair advantage you think the competition has.
If you substituted ``Microsoft`` with ``Big Tobacco``, would you change your mind?
Of course not. People make very bad decisions in their lives and should either live with the consequences or remedy the situation. Notice that suing "Big Tobacco" did nothing to stop people from smoking. It just gave the government a means for seizing the tobacco companys' assets for their own gain. That is essentially what you're asking the government to do for OSS regarding Microsoft.
You're missing the fact that people have been locked into using MS-only systems and *even if they wanted to* would find it very hard to stop. Think about it: they, in effect, provide a significant proportion of our computing infrastructure -- and are preventing anyone from competing with them by not disclosing the vital inferface information about the systems they built that others would need to compete.
It is difficult to switch, but not impossible. Consumers that are concerned about the freedom, stablity, and interoperablity that OSS can provide will make the effort to switch. Those that don't, shouldn't be forced to switch or have their license fees jacked up to pay for legal fees just so you can have the help you think you need from Microsoft for a viable OSS platform. Microsoft provides as much computing infrustrature as consumers will allow. More importantly, though, the open source community does not need Microsoft's cooperation to be viable. OSS should be good enough to stand on its own without standing on Microsoft's shoulders.
They work very hard to maintain the monopoly stranglehold they have created. They bombard the young and impressionable with advertising in print, on television, on billboards. They push ``cheap`` versions of their product on impressional students in schools and universities.
Correction: They work very hard to keep the customers they have gained over the last several years. If OSS vendors and developers had a clue about marketing, they'd be doing the same thing Microsoft does with billboards and print advertising. Instead, the majority of the community just whines. There is nothing ethically or legally that requires Microsoft to reveal methods and code for their products. To force them to do so is unethical, though. I'd call it stealing, but even worse is your contant suggestion that OSS needs Microsoft's cooperation to become viable.
They lobby govenments around the world to say "You should let project leaders make their own choice!" when it comes to choosing between a MS or OSS deployment -- whilst simultaneously doing their utmost to prevent any OSS option from becoming viable.
Do you have any faith in OSS whatsoever to be able to create a quality product without depending on the government to yank Microso
Microsoft has as much of a monopoly as consumers give them through direct software purchases, or indirect purchases through PC vendors they support. The solution is not litigation to protect ignorant consumers from themselves. The solution is education to inform consumers of other, possibly more suitable software solutions. As it stands, consumers are choosing Microsoft, and governments should not interfere with that choice.
If Microsoft's software is as inferior as we, the open source software community, say it is, then it should not be difficult to compete against that software based on quality, features, and usability. If open source software is not up to snuff, then people will either directly or indirectly choose Windows and we need to work on the quality of our products. If open source software is good enough, though, then we don't need to waste our time supporting litigation that will at most be a minor setback for Microsoft. We need to, instead, work on marketing strategies.
In any case, supporting litigation against Microsoft is a waste of valuable resources that could be better spent improving open source software and educating users so they can make informed choices about the software they purchase and use.
Ever heard of it?
Is there any OS vendor other than Microsoft (and SCO) that isn't using open source software in some way? This is because open source software benefits companies as long as they don't thrive on full control of their environment (Microsoft). Granted, most of the companies you listed also sell hardware and could probably survive even if their software products went away.
It's no real mystery what people do with P2P applications.
1) Provide free advertising for the RIAA, MPAA and proprietary software
2) Make it harder for independent musicians, independent filmmakers, and free software to be seen through all the noise of the more well-known, possibly inferior products
3) Prove that the RIAA, MPAA and proprietary software vendors are relevant by demonstrating that their marketing works even if their products are inferior
4) Giving the RIAA, MPAA and proprietary software vendors a leg to stand on when they go to congress to complain about illegal file sharing on P2P networks
Sharing content that the RIAA, MPAA and proprietary software vendors own the copyrights to doesn't help anybody's cause except the RIAA's, MPAA's and proprietary software vendors'. Do you want to be counterproductive?
Why is Sun sponsoring this event while Scott McNealy is telling people not to use Linux and other open source software?
It seems that the people that would benefit the most from a source-based distro and optimizing binaries specifically for their hardware are the ones with the slow hardware that will take too much time to get everything installed for it to be a worthwhile investment of time.
This might be an opportunity to demonstrate new and exciting technology. Show people what is being done to make their lives on their home computers easier. Instead of showing them how to use applications on an outdated and burdensome OS, Windows, show them how some other people, particularly GNOME and KDE, propose to solve problems. At the very least, make this one of your "classes". In this sense, you could become a bit of an attraction for tourists. I know this is a longshot, but we're just here to give you ideas -- not do your job.
As long as people can get proprietary software they're already familiar with for free (illegally), then they have no motivation to look for legally free alternatives.
:)
I'm not Bruce, but that's my opinion.
The GPL only threatens software companies whose primary source of revenue comes from shrink-wrapped proprietary applications.
The GPL only threatens software companties whose primary source of revenue comes from shrink-wrapped proprietary applications AND who rely on full control of their sector as part of their business strategy. If Microsoft loses control of their environment, the can't survive, because they're not able to quickly evolve and adapt to a new environment. The GPL threatens their environment, so they have to do everything they can to kill it.
They need to just point the Hubble back to earth and create the worlds best voyeur porn site. They could fund all their other missions with that money.
If you can make it profitiable for companies to invest in breeding a speices, that speices will thrive. Horses would probably be extinct now if there weren't people intentionally breeding them for recreational use. I don't know enough about breeding whales to speak to this issue specifically, but I do know that there are probably a lot of creatures on this planet that thrive only because of economic motivation.
Most of us would be happy to just get started with anysexatall.com.
According to the article that you didn't read, which has a title of "Star survey reaches 70 sextillion," you could use the term "70 sextillion."