Premise 1: Microsoft makes money from their software (mostly though they do dabble in hardware and also make money off financial tricks). Premise 2: As the courts agreed on 8 separate counts, they leverage their existing software to ensure further software success. Premise 3: They will protect their ability to "own" and leverage their software. This is obvious but must be stated.
Microsoft's problem 1: If they don't either stop GPL/OSS or themselves go OSS/GPL ultimately they will suffer because GPL/OSS software is so much more useful. Microsoft could publish Microsoft Excel, but how long would it be before there was a "better" Excel out there? Sure, the improvements would be marginal at best - but still! The improved Excel might work best on Linux not Windows. How could they charge for Excel then? Their cash cow is threatened - the GPL/OSS must be discredited.
Microsoft's problem 2: This is so often overlooked, it makes me crazy. I thought maybe I should make it item 1, but oh well. Microsoft needs to discredit the GPL in particular. Why? Patents. They have been funding universities increasingly all around the world. But universities are pre-disposed to making their discoveries GPL because of their academic environment. Pre-GPL this was no problem for MS who had no compulsion to post resulting improvements as free stuff. But now, universities are saying "here's our latest stuff and it's GPL" which means that *everything* downstream from that MUST be GPL. Where does that leave Microsoft? Think about it.
Microsoft's problem 3: Governments like the idea of GPL as well. So of course they are pre-disposed to making all government software GPL/OSS (like European and South American governments have done). How is Microsoft trying to counter this? Microsoft wants to fund Microsoft computers for the school system and they are trying to create a "govtalk" system for government communications - using Microsoft software.
Why Intel/IBM/APPLE/SUN do not have a problem with GPL/OSS! Here's the fun bit. This is the rub for Microsoft. IBM sells soooo muh hardware that if Linux/GPL/OSS takes off on the AS/400 they still win! If Star Office decimates the Microsoft Office cash cow, IBM will also win. What can IBM lose? Warp/OS2 is already dead. All their other Os' are so far behind the curve - only 5 years ago did some of their stuff get "windowing" (in response to the Java JVM requirement). And Apple? They don't mind their OS being hurt, because they make money off ultra-cool hardware anyway! How long before Apple ships Linux on their hardware? Intel is the same.
It's the people with their fingers in the hardware business who love the idea of OSS/GPL. They are the ones crying with glee "yes software should be free, spend your money on hardware!". In the end, GPL and OSS will prevail. Microsoft's attempts to portray it as uncool, dangerous, hippie, un-secure, un-American and all the rest - it must fail. Microsoft will then be the "specialist" (we do the best X/Y/Z) - much like Apple is now - but for broad mass appeal Lindows will win (or something like Lindows anyway).
Until now it was believed that although XSLT is based on functional programming ideas, it is not as yet a full functional programming language, as it lacks the ability to treat functions as a first-class data type. Based on numerous concrete XSLT implementations of some of the major functional programming design patterns, including some of the most generic list-processing and tree-processing functions, this article provides ample proof that XSLT is in fact a full-pledged functional programming language. The presented code forms the base of a first XSLT functional programming library. It is emphasized that a decision to include higher-order functions support in XPath 2.0 will make functional programming in XSLT even more straightforward, natural and convenient.
The interesting question here is SHOULD XSLT be used in this way?
Remember when everyone was sending emails to each other asking when the Internet's killer app would arrive? Duh. The killer app was email.
This is the same, how many of you interrupted a game of CS (counter-strike) to wonder when the broadband killer app is going to arrive. Or who has streaming music playing from awesome sites like launchcast.com while reading this article?
I'm not saying those are the killer apps, but in a few years we'll look back and say 'duh!' to ourselves because we already were all using the killer app at the time.
Come on!
Censorship is NOT about pornography! Censorship is about freedom of speech, not freedom to show kids stuff they shouldn't even be concerned about.
I'm deadly serious. I am in favor of a cleaner web, a web where kids can surf without filling their mind with rubbish.
I'm also in favor of having my say and speaking my mind. I believe we can have both! Why have only one?
How about submitting links which enable me to SUPPORT this measure? Why only cover the one side of this?
Slashdot Mirror
Premise 1: Microsoft makes money from their software (mostly though they do dabble in hardware and also make money off financial tricks).
Premise 2: As the courts agreed on 8 separate counts, they leverage their existing software to ensure further software success.
Premise 3: They will protect their ability to "own" and leverage their software. This is obvious but must be stated.
Microsoft's problem 1: If they don't either stop GPL/OSS or themselves go OSS/GPL ultimately they will suffer because GPL/OSS software is so much more useful. Microsoft could publish Microsoft Excel, but how long would it be before there was a "better" Excel out there? Sure, the improvements would be marginal at best - but still! The improved Excel might work best on Linux not Windows. How could they charge for Excel then? Their cash cow is threatened - the GPL/OSS must be discredited.
Microsoft's problem 2: This is so often overlooked, it makes me crazy. I thought maybe I should make it item 1, but oh well. Microsoft needs to discredit the GPL in particular. Why? Patents. They have been funding universities increasingly all around the world. But universities are pre-disposed to making their discoveries GPL because of their academic environment. Pre-GPL this was no problem for MS who had no compulsion to post resulting improvements as free stuff. But now, universities are saying "here's our latest stuff and it's GPL" which means that *everything* downstream from that MUST be GPL. Where does that leave Microsoft? Think about it.
Microsoft's problem 3: Governments like the idea of GPL as well. So of course they are pre-disposed to making all government software GPL/OSS (like European and South American governments have done). How is Microsoft trying to counter this? Microsoft wants to fund Microsoft computers for the school system and they are trying to create a "govtalk" system for government communications - using Microsoft software.
Why Intel/IBM/APPLE/SUN do not have a problem with GPL/OSS! Here's the fun bit. This is the rub for Microsoft. IBM sells soooo muh hardware that if Linux/GPL/OSS takes off on the AS/400 they still win! If Star Office decimates the Microsoft Office cash cow, IBM will also win. What can IBM lose? Warp/OS2 is already dead. All their other Os' are so far behind the curve - only 5 years ago did some of their stuff get "windowing" (in response to the Java JVM requirement). And Apple? They don't mind their OS being hurt, because they make money off ultra-cool hardware anyway! How long before Apple ships Linux on their hardware? Intel is the same.
It's the people with their fingers in the hardware business who love the idea of OSS/GPL. They are the ones crying with glee "yes software should be free, spend your money on hardware!". In the end, GPL and OSS will prevail. Microsoft's attempts to portray it as uncool, dangerous, hippie, un-secure, un-American and all the rest - it must fail. Microsoft will then be the "specialist" (we do the best X/Y/Z) - much like Apple is now - but for broad mass appeal Lindows will win (or something like Lindows anyway).
Dimitre Novatchev has published a proof for functional programming called "The Functional Programming Language XSLT - A proof through examples"
Until now it was believed that although XSLT is based on functional programming ideas, it is not as yet a full functional programming language, as it lacks the ability to treat functions as a first-class data type. Based on numerous concrete XSLT implementations of some of the major functional programming design patterns, including some of the most generic list-processing and tree-processing functions, this article provides ample proof that XSLT is in fact a full-pledged functional programming language. The presented code forms the base of a first XSLT functional programming library. It is emphasized that a decision to include higher-order functions support in XPath 2.0 will make functional programming in XSLT even more straightforward, natural and convenient.
The interesting question here is SHOULD XSLT be used in this way?
Remember when everyone was sending emails to each other asking when the Internet's killer app would arrive? Duh. The killer app was email. This is the same, how many of you interrupted a game of CS (counter-strike) to wonder when the broadband killer app is going to arrive. Or who has streaming music playing from awesome sites like launchcast.com while reading this article? I'm not saying those are the killer apps, but in a few years we'll look back and say 'duh!' to ourselves because we already were all using the killer app at the time.
Come on! Censorship is NOT about pornography! Censorship is about freedom of speech, not freedom to show kids stuff they shouldn't even be concerned about. I'm deadly serious. I am in favor of a cleaner web, a web where kids can surf without filling their mind with rubbish. I'm also in favor of having my say and speaking my mind. I believe we can have both! Why have only one? How about submitting links which enable me to SUPPORT this measure? Why only cover the one side of this?
They moved it, and it's at 2.5 - get it here http://sourceforge.net/projects/alexandria-dev/