is that it lacks credibility. He quotes other blogs and manuals of equipment - and is light on actual technical details. No one outside of the core development team at Microsoft can claim any competence on the DRM implementation - and again, no one can predict when MS can choose to suddely implement hitherto unknown features via Service Packs or Auto Updates.
Considering that playing audio on Vista cripples the network and I/O badly, Guttman's assertions appear far more credible.
While it's possible that some corporation may be exercising some undue influence, it seems just as likely (if not more) to me that people simply don't care.
I did address this issue in my original post. I speculated that this happens becasue Mainstream Media is simply reluctant to publish these issues, which have a vital bearing on true competition in the IT industry. The BBC has an article on the EU anti-trust ruling; but none at all on the Media Defender clowns circus. If it did, there would be much larger pressure on them, than discussions at Slashdot, Digg, Flexbeta ArsTechnica and so on.
In fact an email at MD discusses precisely this apathy in the mainstream media; and why they should relaunch the whole thing under a different name. Microsoft has simply relaunched the same core Office applications and the Windows operating systems in different names at different points in time. The intention is clear: To subvert proper competitive development, impede progress, ruthlessly maintain lock-in; etc. The media must resist such intereferences... otherwise such secondary media sites will make take away their business in tech reporting at least.
I think this revelation brings to light the extent to which companies will go - to deceive the public, the mainstream media... and then continue with their illegal practices after a short time.
Microsoft's recent downplaying of the unexplained Windows Updates is another case in point. Where is Mark Russinovich's article that does a 'diff' of the replaced files, and explaining the 'new behaviour' in detail - like he did in the Sony rootkit case?
It is a bit sad that many of these incidents do not figure in the mainstream media - which seems to be in the powerful grips of these Corporate thugs.
The problem with this idea for policy is defining the point at which a company becomes dominant and what happens if they get there with closed proprietary systems that are not anti-competitive in nature when they are created...
There is no problem even in that case. There are close to a billion computers right now; and Microsoft software runs on well over 80% of them all. So what if they weren't a monopoly 20 years ago? The protocols in use RIGHT NOW must be open for public access.
By any yardstick, it is very clear that Microsoft IS A MONOPLY in the massive worlwide PC market.
Not even 5% of the availability or support for Linux distros, in any case.
In the US, in any market; the marketshare is something like this:
Top 3 or 4 vendors: 80% All the rest share the balance 20%
In Europe, I believe in all sectors except the IT sector, the top vendors collectively share less than 50% market share - thanks to strict measures to combat monopoly and anti-trust issues.
In India (where I live) the only desktop s/w that as any sizable usage is Tally (a financial accounting s/w). All other appln. s/w have a very fragmented marketplace; and it's nearly a 50-50 split between desktop,.Net and ASP apps on the one hand; and Web-based apps on the other, mainly on Linux servers. Apple Macs have less than 1% presence in the h/w space; so there's no incentive for s/w development on the Mac platform.
Last week, I was evaluating a PACS solution for the hospital I consult with - and a s/w vendor suggested Osirix - an open source app. that works only on Mac hardware. We will be implementing this shortly. A few years back, SGI had products in this niche, but they have disappeared now (I used to work for an SGI dealer).
Apple did try to set up shop in India, but strangely packed up and dismissed the thought a few months later. Unless Apple build up their presence in the hardware segment; they will not be a meaningful alternative to the Windows world - Vista or otherwise. Except in miniscule niche segments perhaps.
Wait a minute, doesn't that make the spec inherently unacceptable due to the large number of "do this like this previous version of our software did, but we're not going to tell you how" parts?
Nice question. 3 answers:
1. Technical answer: Yes, the spec as currently documented, would be technically unacceptable, unless detailed explanations are provided over the next few months; covering all 'proprietary' and legacy behaviour.
2. Viable answer: A half-hearted attempt will be made to explain these 'quirks' and resubmitted for consideration.
3. Financial answer: The Office market is worth billions to Microsoft. Countries like Ruritania, Fuckmenistan, Utopitamia, Timbucktoo etc. are available for a few millions. If not the earth, even places on the moon can be declared independent nations for ISO purposes... a trip to the Moon is just a few millions; while a trillion dollars are at stake. These new P-members will pee on the sanctity of the ISO processes, and the OOXML will be on a fast track to nowhere.
The problem with the Microsoft auto update is overblown and biased report.
The fact that this was standard practice before now is no excuse. Microsoft has been caught red-handed, doing things in the background counter to user intuition. If I say "No Auto Updates" I mean, No more touching with system files including auto update files .
And I did not believe Slashdot posts .. I dodn't have to. I was a sysadmin until 3 years ago, and spent lesser time maintaining over a 100 HP-UX, AIX and IRIX boxes than a dozen Windows boxes and a couple Windows servers. I doubt there is a single authoritative way of maintaining a Windows box; or a single competent MCSE who can claim he knows enough to run a Windows shop smoothly. The only foolproof method was to find out if things were okay, and isolating the Windows boxes completely from the 'net; providing web access through CygwinX from Linux boxes, Unix mail server etc.
I have no difficulty in beleiving the situation is much worse 3 years on; and thankful I've moved on to other areas in IT.
Simple suggestion: multiple skins
on
The GIMP UI Redesign
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
To those who are moving in from Photoshop, and would like a similar looka and feel, provide a skin for them. For the true GIMP pros, assuming they exist - retain the existing stuff. And so on. Compared to the size and complexity of code handling images, the UI bit should be miniscule... atleast I suppose so.
The relevant answer:
ISO rules forbid reference implementations. The thinking is that the text must itself by complete, self-contained, and authoritative; a reference implementation opens the possibility of deviation from the text, thereby creating uncertainty about which is "right".
That said, in SC34, we follow the practice of informally requiring that our "home-grown" standards (RELAX NG, NVDL, Schematron etc) are proved efficiently implementable during standardisation. If my time wasn't so taken up with DIS 29500 I would be working on an implementation of DTLL in Java to accompany the draft standard, for example!
I think Microsoft and even Slashdot must replace the FAQ section with a RAQ section, where questions of the "Emperor's New Clothes" type can be asked and answered. This bit in the original article is very thoughtful, and one I've been asking myself:
"...after analysis by some of the experts on the list we discovered that there were some theoretical holes to the new signing protocol, which needed a few trivial changes in order to fix and improve the security. After these proposals were submitted, the response came back from Microsoft that although the fixes were valid, unfortunately the code was already written and was going to be shipped in the next service pack. End of discussion. It wasn't even in a shipping product yet, but the specification was determined to be unchangeable as they didn't want to change their existing code...." I think Mr. Jeremy Allison and Microsoft have different views on security. Any layman would think that security means 'of the product' or 'of the user'... but Microsoft seems to think about its own financial security; which in turn seems to be based on the INSECURITY of its products, services and service packs!
Microsoft has laboured hard to create an impression that a 'secure' system is one that needs daily patching, and must be 'closed' and 'proprietary'. Allison & co. KNOW FULLY WELL that an open, documented and properly implemented system provides true security.
The recent unwarranted update of Windws Update is a case in point. Users who would trust only themselves, and who use Windows only to run their applications, would not like to destabilise their environments by introducing new untested undocumented additions. If it works, they reason, no need to touch it.
In Microsoft's view, their present proprietary document formats have been an enormous cash cow, they will not break that by opening up the formats and inviting needless competition. Which is why, even if the OOXML spec undergoes lots of changes and lengthy explanations; there will not be a single faithful implementation. Including in Office 2007.
Can someone ask this "Rarely Asked Question" to responsible folks at Redmond, and see how they respond?
Googleplex is the biggest installation of hardware...ever, in the entire world. Megawatts of power get consumed in each of it's ceters.
Inefficient PC hardware that guzzles power, processors that consume more poweer than the performace they generate... useless TCPA components etc. all these consume power. Google must build their own chips, boards, SMPSes as well.
Perhaps the idiot who modded the parent troll would care to explain his views? As an AC if he wants to preserve his mod points? When we hear Linux, we think of RedHat, Mandrivia, the LAMP stack etc. Not HP, not Novell, not Google. These companies would do their utmost to ensure Linux and PCs remained non-free. I was not trolling.
How exactly did MS swallow "the BSD"? Last time I checked, BSD projects and communities were as strong as ever.
How dd they swallow BSD? Simple: 1.First they drank the BSD licensed code, like Kerberos from MIT and the BSD TCP-IP stack. 2. As it descended down their oesophagus, they added proprietary extensions to it, and bundled it with their inferior monopoly Windows OS. 3. The corporate types were then fed with choice quotes and reviews, and Active (Craptive) Directory got deployed. 4. The market leading authentication mechanism is now incompatible with the original BSD Kerberos; thus it has been effectively swallowed. Clear?
Linus made Linux in the first place. It's his baby. He should be able to take it wherever he wants, whether you or I like it.
And RMS and the FSF made the GPL in the first place, and also wrote lots of code under that license and made it popular. It's their baby, and the FSF have stated their goals and aims very clearly in the text of the GPL, which even a baby can understand. The cry-baby corporate goons who are trying to steal the thunder of the GPL have been checkmated by the FSF which has upgraded the license. Linus' reluctance to adopt the GPL3 shows him as a true hypocrite, enemy of freedom, enemy of the GPL, and accomplice of the corporate interests in the Linux Foundation.
If not the GPL3, Linus should re-release the kernel in BSD then, if he hates what the GPL stands for.
If you want an OS that fits your ideology, find like-minded people and build one.
So, if you don't like the laws of your home country will you flee or build one? What planet are you on? Linux is licensed under the GPL and violations of the spirit of the GPL are more harmful to it's continued growth than trademark violations which this Foundation governs.
the spirit of the GPL was to keep software free so that the source code can't be made proprietary... The only anti-GPL statements I've seen him make are in regards to GPLv3, in that he doesn't think a software license should govern or have anything to do with hardware.
From TFA: The Linux Foundation was created in 2007 by the merger of the Open Source Development Labs and the Free Standards Group. It sponsors the work of Linus Torvalds and counts companies such as Google, HP, IBM, Intel and Novell among its members.
What have these companies done to advance the spirit of GPL in Linux?
Google : Has made full use of the community built code and made proprietary extensions; without contributing a single bit; since they aren't distributing it.
HP : The company which kicked Bruce Perens out, built winprinters and winmodems on their Windows PCs, kindly took over Compaq and destroyed their Unix offerings.
IBM: Despite the SCO fiasco, they still maintain both AIX and Linux offerings, and have not clearly indicated which way they will go. Also, they are behind TCPA, TPM chips and DRM as well.
Novell : Need I say more? They provoked a version upgrade to the GPL2 by their sleazy dealings and destroyed a decent distro, namely SuSE. After kindly enacting a suicide of their own Novell Netware.
With friends like this in the Linux Foundation, and a clueless Linus at the top, does Linux need any enemies?
Trademark violations of Linux are few, and insignificant. Linus himself seems to be against the spirit of the GPL - either version 2 or 3. Had he chosen the BSD, MS would've swallowed it like Kerberos or the TCP/IP stack and bastardised them, and Linux would've been kicked dead before it started breathing.
The danger from Linus is the one that eeds to be tackled, IMO.
I do find these "I don't trust Windows Update" type comments quite ridiculous. So you trust Microsoft to write your computer's entire operating system...
What is ridiculous about this? People buy computers not to run Windows or ogle at Aero. They buy them to run applications... some of which happen to be Windows-only. So, if a new computer runs an application pretty decently, it ought to keep doing so forever, unless browsing the web can inject malicious bits that change the behaviour of the base Operating System. This is precisely what Microsoft has done - destabilise a previously stable environment, when the user explicitly told them to shut up and keep away from Auto Updates.
Your suggestion to switch operating systems because Microsoft can behave nastily at times is stupid. And ridiculous as well.. which is how you've chosen to describe the parent post.
Novell professes to deal only Open Source - so why is there a necessity for this interop stuff... except for some PR stunt?
The only reason I can think of is if MS wants to share some details only with Novell and not the entire Open Source community.
Which implies no one will touch open source offerings from Novell that implemented flawed MS tchnologies - like Mono, Moonlight, Silverlight, Novell OOO, etc.
You should sound like an pathetic old brat, if you accuse your peers of using the same tool you touted as earthsaver only six months before ,
Some points for you to consider: 1. Six months ago, the MS - Novell partnership wasn't concluded. This posed a new and hitherto unknown threat to Free Software. The FSF reacted by introducing the GPL3 - while Linus has been reacting in typical brainless, asinine fashion.
2. GPL3 retains the same freedom for Torvalds as did GPL2. It's only the freedom of some category of users (a.k.a. abusers, corporate thugs etc.) that is affected by GPL3. So technically speaking, Linus as a devloper should have no complaints with it. The fact that Linus spoke harshly about GPL3 indicates that he does not care about Freedom to users of Linux software.
So, while the GPL2 was indeed an earthsaver 6 months ago, the earth has been invaded by a new threat from a special species of overweight gorillas acting in concert, and only the GPL3 attempts to save the earth. People who blindly follow clueless opinionated morons will lose their Freedom; which is what RMS cautions here.
Intel has nothing to lose by documenting all the instruction sets, architecture designs etc. They have such a big brand name - it doesn't really matter if their designs became public.
It is quite sad that despite their chips being 100s of times faster than a few years ago, so-called 'partners' and OEMs like Microsoft have given the x86 series a bad name - resulting in little or no incremental performance gains for the user community.
Like HP made winprinters and some vendors made winmodems to the customer's ire... and the perennial problems faced by video and audio device mfrs. including big names like Creative... it is clear that the biggest OEM, namely Microsoft determines what customers get to see of "Intel Inside".
The recent thrust towards Open Source drivers for wireless cards from Intel is a very small and incomplete step. Recently at my firm, we talked to Intel for sourcing a 1000 laptops for students joining our colleges. Intel said they would share roadmaps and plans under NDA!!
This is a far cry from 20 years ago when Intel gave out the complete instruction sets and architecture layouts for their 8080; I sort-of remember the Zilog Z-80 did a better job of implementing them. Unless Intel come clean in favour of the truly Open source model, they risk small time players making it big in niche segments - including the biggest niche of them all - the PC market. If not Negroponte, someone else will come out with a non-Intel platform for under $100 and Intel will go down pulling others like Microsoft behind them.
Similarly, salaries of IT professionals world-wide are projected to stagnant or possibly fall due to the large pool of qualified applicants in the market today."
China accuses IEEE of wireless standards conspiracy
In its appeal, China has asked the ISO to investigate 'whether the ethical and procedural rules and principals have indeed been violated and whether the ballots have been unfairly influenced by those ethical and procedural violations,' according to the report in the Xinhua media agency.
Slashdot Mirror
is that it lacks credibility. He quotes other blogs and manuals of equipment - and is light on actual technical details. No one outside of the core development team at Microsoft can claim any competence on the DRM implementation - and again, no one can predict when MS can choose to suddely implement hitherto unknown features via Service Packs or Auto Updates.
Considering that playing audio on Vista cripples the network and I/O badly, Guttman's assertions appear far more credible.
While it's possible that some corporation may be exercising some undue influence, it seems just as likely (if not more) to me that people simply don't care.
I did address this issue in my original post. I speculated that this happens becasue Mainstream Media is simply reluctant to publish these issues, which have a vital bearing on true competition in the IT industry. The BBC has an article on the EU anti-trust ruling; but none at all on the Media Defender clowns circus. If it did, there would be much larger pressure on them, than discussions at Slashdot, Digg, Flexbeta ArsTechnica and so on.
In fact an email at MD discusses precisely this apathy in the mainstream media; and why they should relaunch the whole thing under a different name. Microsoft has simply relaunched the same core Office applications and the Windows operating systems in different names at different points in time. The intention is clear: To subvert proper competitive development, impede progress, ruthlessly maintain lock-in; etc. The media must resist such intereferences... otherwise such secondary media sites will make take away their business in tech reporting at least.
I think this revelation brings to light the extent to which companies will go - to deceive the public, the mainstream media... and then continue with their illegal practices after a short time.
Microsoft's recent downplaying of the unexplained Windows Updates is another case in point. Where is Mark Russinovich's article that does a 'diff' of the replaced files, and explaining the 'new behaviour' in detail - like he did in the Sony rootkit case?
It is a bit sad that many of these incidents do not figure in the mainstream media - which seems to be in the powerful grips of these Corporate thugs.
The problem with this idea for policy is defining the point at which a company becomes dominant and what happens if they get there with closed proprietary systems that are not anti-competitive in nature when they are created...
There is no problem even in that case. There are close to a billion computers right now; and Microsoft software runs on well over 80% of them all. So what if they weren't a monopoly 20 years ago? The protocols in use RIGHT NOW must be open for public access.
By any yardstick, it is very clear that Microsoft IS A MONOPLY in the massive worlwide PC market.
So $690 million is nice for damages, but without a monitor ...
Has Microsoft started bundling monitors and keyboards with their OSes?
Jus' kidding!!
Not even 5% of the availability or support for Linux distros, in any case.
.Net and ASP apps on the one hand; and Web-based apps on the other, mainly on Linux servers. Apple Macs have less than 1% presence in the h/w space; so there's no incentive for s/w development on the Mac platform.
In the US, in any market; the marketshare is something like this:
Top 3 or 4 vendors: 80%
All the rest share the balance 20%
In Europe, I believe in all sectors except the IT sector, the top vendors collectively share less than 50% market share - thanks to strict measures to combat monopoly and anti-trust issues.
In India (where I live) the only desktop s/w that as any sizable usage is Tally (a financial accounting s/w). All other appln. s/w have a very fragmented marketplace; and it's nearly a 50-50 split between desktop,
Last week, I was evaluating a PACS solution for the hospital I consult with - and a s/w vendor suggested Osirix - an open source app. that works only on Mac hardware. We will be implementing this shortly. A few years back, SGI had products in this niche, but they have disappeared now (I used to work for an SGI dealer).
Apple did try to set up shop in India, but strangely packed up and dismissed the thought a few months later. Unless Apple build up their presence in the hardware segment; they will not be a meaningful alternative to the Windows world - Vista or otherwise. Except in miniscule niche segments perhaps.
Wait a minute, doesn't that make the spec inherently unacceptable due to the large number of "do this like this previous version of our software did, but we're not going to tell you how" parts?
Nice question. 3 answers:
1. Technical answer: Yes, the spec as currently documented, would be technically unacceptable, unless detailed explanations are provided over the next few months; covering all 'proprietary' and legacy behaviour.
2. Viable answer: A half-hearted attempt will be made to explain these 'quirks' and resubmitted for consideration.
3. Financial answer: The Office market is worth billions to Microsoft. Countries like Ruritania, Fuckmenistan, Utopitamia, Timbucktoo etc. are available for a few millions. If not the earth, even places on the moon can be declared independent nations for ISO purposes... a trip to the Moon is just a few millions; while a trillion dollars are at stake. These new P-members will pee on the sanctity of the ISO processes, and the OOXML will be on a fast track to nowhere.
Next question?
The problem with the Microsoft auto update is overblown and biased report.
.. I dodn't have to. I was a sysadmin until 3 years ago, and spent lesser time maintaining over a 100 HP-UX, AIX and IRIX boxes than a dozen Windows boxes and a couple Windows servers. I doubt there is a single authoritative way of maintaining a Windows box; or a single competent MCSE who can claim he knows enough to run a Windows shop smoothly. The only foolproof method was to find out if things were okay, and isolating the Windows boxes completely from the 'net; providing web access through CygwinX from Linux boxes, Unix mail server etc.
The fact that this was standard practice before now is no excuse. Microsoft has been caught red-handed, doing things in the background counter to user intuition. If I say "No Auto Updates" I mean, No more touching with system files including auto update files .
And I did not believe Slashdot posts
I have no difficulty in beleiving the situation is much worse 3 years on; and thankful I've moved on to other areas in IT.
To those who are moving in from Photoshop, and would like a similar looka and feel, provide a skin for them. For the true GIMP pros, assuming they exist - retain the existing stuff. And so on. Compared to the size and complexity of code handling images, the UI bit should be miniscule... atleast I suppose so.
Actually I thought so too myself, but apparently this is forbidden by the ISO! However the spec itself must be complete, self-contained and authoritative... this bit I am quoting from a related link from a Groklaw article, in the comments section of Mr. Alex Brown's blog:
http://www.adjb.net/comments.php?y=07&m=09&entry=entry070909-104641
and the Groklaw article is here:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070910110639612
The relevant answer: ISO rules forbid reference implementations. The thinking is that the text must itself by complete, self-contained, and authoritative; a reference implementation opens the possibility of deviation from the text, thereby creating uncertainty about which is "right".
That said, in SC34, we follow the practice of informally requiring that our "home-grown" standards (RELAX NG, NVDL, Schematron etc) are proved efficiently implementable during standardisation. If my time wasn't so taken up with DIS 29500 I would be working on an implementation of DTLL in Java to accompany the draft standard, for example!
Microsoft has laboured hard to create an impression that a 'secure' system is one that needs daily patching, and must be 'closed' and 'proprietary'. Allison & co. KNOW FULLY WELL that an open, documented and properly implemented system provides true security.
The recent unwarranted update of Windws Update is a case in point. Users who would trust only themselves, and who use Windows only to run their applications, would not like to destabilise their environments by introducing new untested undocumented additions. If it works, they reason, no need to touch it.
In Microsoft's view, their present proprietary document formats have been an enormous cash cow, they will not break that by opening up the formats and inviting needless competition. Which is why, even if the OOXML spec undergoes lots of changes and lengthy explanations; there will not be a single faithful implementation. Including in Office 2007.
Can someone ask this "Rarely Asked Question" to responsible folks at Redmond, and see how they respond?
Googleplex is the biggest installation of hardware.. .ever, in the entire world. Megawatts of power get consumed in each of it's ceters.
Inefficient PC hardware that guzzles power, processors that consume more poweer than the performace they generate... useless TCPA components etc. all these consume power. Google must build their own chips, boards, SMPSes as well.
Perhaps the idiot who modded the parent troll would care to explain his views? As an AC if he wants to preserve his mod points? When we hear Linux, we think of RedHat, Mandrivia, the LAMP stack etc. Not HP, not Novell, not Google. These companies would do their utmost to ensure Linux and PCs remained non-free. I was not trolling.
How exactly did MS swallow "the BSD"? Last time I checked, BSD projects and communities were as strong as ever.
How dd they swallow BSD? Simple:
1.First they drank the BSD licensed code, like Kerberos from MIT and the BSD TCP-IP stack.
2. As it descended down their oesophagus, they added proprietary extensions to it, and bundled it with their inferior monopoly Windows OS.
3. The corporate types were then fed with choice quotes and reviews, and Active (Craptive) Directory got deployed.
4. The market leading authentication mechanism is now incompatible with the original BSD Kerberos; thus it has been effectively swallowed.
Clear?
Linus made Linux in the first place. It's his baby. He should be able to take it wherever he wants, whether you or I like it.
And RMS and the FSF made the GPL in the first place, and also wrote lots of code under that license and made it popular. It's their baby, and the FSF have stated their goals and aims very clearly in the text of the GPL, which even a baby can understand. The cry-baby corporate goons who are trying to steal the thunder of the GPL have been checkmated by the FSF which has upgraded the license. Linus' reluctance to adopt the GPL3 shows him as a true hypocrite, enemy of freedom, enemy of the GPL, and accomplice of the corporate interests in the Linux Foundation.
If not the GPL3, Linus should re-release the kernel in BSD then, if he hates what the GPL stands for.
If you want an OS that fits your ideology, find like-minded people and build one.
So, if you don't like the laws of your home country will you flee or build one? What planet are you on? Linux is licensed under the GPL and violations of the spirit of the GPL are more harmful to it's continued growth than trademark violations which this Foundation governs.
the spirit of the GPL was to keep software free so that the source code can't be made proprietary ... The only anti-GPL statements I've seen him make are in regards to GPLv3, in that he doesn't think a software license should govern or have anything to do with hardware.
From TFA: The Linux Foundation was created in 2007 by the merger of the Open Source Development Labs and the Free Standards Group. It sponsors the work of Linus Torvalds and counts companies such as Google, HP, IBM, Intel and Novell among its members.
What have these companies done to advance the spirit of GPL in Linux?
Google : Has made full use of the community built code and made proprietary extensions; without contributing a single bit; since they aren't distributing it.
HP : The company which kicked Bruce Perens out, built winprinters and winmodems on their Windows PCs, kindly took over Compaq and destroyed their Unix offerings.
IBM: Despite the SCO fiasco, they still maintain both AIX and Linux offerings, and have not clearly indicated which way they will go. Also, they are behind TCPA, TPM chips and DRM as well.
Novell : Need I say more? They provoked a version upgrade to the GPL2 by their sleazy dealings and destroyed a decent distro, namely SuSE. After kindly enacting a suicide of their own Novell Netware.
With friends like this in the Linux Foundation, and a clueless Linus at the top, does Linux need any enemies?
Trademark violations of Linux are few, and insignificant. Linus himself seems to be against the spirit of the GPL - either version 2 or 3. Had he chosen the BSD, MS would've swallowed it like Kerberos or the TCP/IP stack and bastardised them, and Linux would've been kicked dead before it started breathing.
The danger from Linus is the one that eeds to be tackled, IMO.
I do find these "I don't trust Windows Update" type comments quite ridiculous. So you trust Microsoft to write your computer's entire operating system...
What is ridiculous about this? People buy computers not to run Windows or ogle at Aero. They buy them to run applications... some of which happen to be Windows-only. So, if a new computer runs an application pretty decently, it ought to keep doing so forever, unless browsing the web can inject malicious bits that change the behaviour of the base Operating System. This is precisely what Microsoft has done - destabilise a previously stable environment, when the user explicitly told them to shut up and keep away from Auto Updates.
Your suggestion to switch operating systems because Microsoft can behave nastily at times is stupid. And ridiculous as well.. which is how you've chosen to describe the parent post.
Has this thing about "chairs".
You mean... like.. the present acting Chair-Man? Begins like Balls and ends like a Bummer?
Novell professes to deal only Open Source - so why is there a necessity for this interop stuff... except for some PR stunt?
The only reason I can think of is if MS wants to share some details only with Novell and not the entire Open Source community.
Which implies no one will touch open source offerings from Novell that implemented flawed MS tchnologies - like Mono, Moonlight, Silverlight, Novell OOO, etc.
You should sound like an pathetic old brat, if you accuse your peers of using the same tool you touted as earthsaver only six months before ,
Some points for you to consider:
1. Six months ago, the MS - Novell partnership wasn't concluded. This posed a new and hitherto unknown threat to Free Software. The FSF reacted by introducing the GPL3 - while Linus has been reacting in typical brainless, asinine fashion.
2. GPL3 retains the same freedom for Torvalds as did GPL2. It's only the freedom of some category of users (a.k.a. abusers, corporate thugs etc.) that is affected by GPL3. So technically speaking, Linus as a devloper should have no complaints with it. The fact that Linus spoke harshly about GPL3 indicates that he does not care about Freedom to users of Linux software.
So, while the GPL2 was indeed an earthsaver 6 months ago, the earth has been invaded by a new threat from a special species of overweight gorillas acting in concert, and only the GPL3 attempts to save the earth. People who blindly follow clueless opinionated morons will lose their Freedom; which is what RMS cautions here.
Intel has nothing to lose by documenting all the instruction sets, architecture designs etc. They have such a big brand name - it doesn't really matter if their designs became public.
It is quite sad that despite their chips being 100s of times faster than a few years ago, so-called 'partners' and OEMs like Microsoft have given the x86 series a bad name - resulting in little or no incremental performance gains for the user community.
Like HP made winprinters and some vendors made winmodems to the customer's ire... and the perennial problems faced by video and audio device mfrs. including big names like Creative... it is clear that the biggest OEM, namely Microsoft determines what customers get to see of "Intel Inside".
The recent thrust towards Open Source drivers for wireless cards from Intel is a very small and incomplete step. Recently at my firm, we talked to Intel for sourcing a 1000 laptops for students joining our colleges. Intel said they would share roadmaps and plans under NDA!!
This is a far cry from 20 years ago when Intel gave out the complete instruction sets and architecture layouts for their 8080; I sort-of remember the Zilog Z-80 did a better job of implementing them. Unless Intel come clean in favour of the truly Open source model, they risk small time players making it big in niche segments - including the biggest niche of them all - the PC market. If not Negroponte, someone else will come out with a non-Intel platform for under $100 and Intel will go down pulling others like Microsoft behind them.
I, for one, welcome our new standardized Mandarin overlords.
Please note that even if China, India and Brazil voted together, they would be well short of 67%.
Similarly, salaries of IT professionals world-wide are projected to stagnant or possibly fall due to the large pool of qualified applicants in the market today."
Stagnate, not stagnant.
Were you thinking of this?
http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=9E
China accuses IEEE of wireless standards conspiracy In its appeal, China has asked the ISO to investigate 'whether the ethical and procedural rules and principals have indeed been violated and whether the ballots have been unfairly influenced by those ethical and procedural violations,' according to the report in the Xinhua media agency.