I'm squarely in the Linux corner and use it at home all of the time. But if I were to install it on my PC at work I would definitely get reprimanded and maybe even fired.
The network people's job is to keep the network up, running and safe. Although I know Linux is far more secure than Windows I would be overstepping my bounds if I unilaterally made a change to the network.
I've been thinking of how I could use Linux in my programming job at work. I was thinking of buying a laptop and installing Linux. It does have some tools that would be helpful like the UML editor "Umbrello." As long I I use my own equipment and don't connect to the network they won't get upset. I could use a flash drive to transfer data. Although they don't have a warm and fuzzy feeling about that.
"New File Format - This as you know is the area that is most near and dear to my heart. We are finally fully opening up our file formats in Office. Word, PowerPoint, and Excel will all three use new XML formats as their default formats. These formats will be fully documented and anyone can leverage them to build solutions, or even to build a competitive application. If you're interested in this topic, just keep reading my blog (and look through all my previous entries)."
Fully documented my ass. There are binary headers that are not documented. Without understanding these headers 3rd party vendors cannot leverage squat.
This is the reason that Massachusetts decided not to list Microsoft's XML format as acceptable. It's not really open at all.
No one is saying that this avian flu is going to become a pandemic. What is being said that there WILL BE another pandemic sometime soon based on statistics and if it happens to be this strain of avian flu it could kill a LOT of people.
"... nothing huge is definitely going to happen."
Wrong. Something huge IS definitely going to happen. If not now soon. If not the avian flu then something else. Pandemics by definition cause a huge amount of death. It may not be the avian flu but there will always be pandemics and there are things we could be doing but aren't to lessen the consequences.
The granting of this patent makes it obvious that any stupid idea will get patented if the person filing is willing to pay a fee. So in the interest of simplicity and efficiency why not eliminate the pretense of the patent concept! Simply issue a "generic" patent for say $10,000.
Then when Microsoft decides to shut down a competitor they could sue using their "generic" patents. This would simplify the legal process as well. All the judge would have to do is have each party reveal the number of "generic" patents owned and the one with the most wins.
If they wanted to make it more interesting for the public they could add a random die roll and multiply that number by the number of "generic politicians" each party has paid for. I would even go so far as to suggest multiplying that result with the evil factor of each party. The more evil a party would relate to the number and severity of dirty tricks that party was willing to pull.
I say for the sake of transparency in government we should give this a try!
There is no plans for a Linux 2.7 kernel yet but maybe there will be someday! So stop dragging your feet IBM and come up with some infringing code that you may plan on putting in a kernel that may or may not be created!
Who says that there will be true democracy in Iraq? And even if there is who says that counter balanced with all of the death and destruction that it's a net gain?
Personally I don't think the oil oh I mean the democracy in Iraq was worth even one American death and now that we're up over 2,000 I'm sure it wasn't.
"Washington's answer to these concerns -- the Commerce Department's four terse paragraphs, released at the end of June, announcing that the United States plans to retain control of the Internet indefinitely -- was intended as a sort of Monroe Doctrine for our times. It was received abroad with just the anger one would expect, setting the stage for further controversy."
This is the same unacceptable behavior that has always defined the Bush administration:. Arrogant self-indulgent uncompromising unilateralism. Like most of what Bush has done, it will not bring anything good to the world.
Moglen I think sometimes goes too far. Isn't he the one that feels that if a GPL'd program is used to _produce_ code that that code should be gpl'd also. I don't remember the details but I think it had something to do with companys using open source products to produce web sites that interact with the public.
It seems to me that if we aren't careful we won't be able to use gcc or any other open source compilers to produce non-GPL'd code even if they are linked only to non-GPL'd libraries. Don't get me wrong, GPL'd code is great but Linux should be a platform that allows both open and closed source applications.
Actually the "intention" of the agreement is everything. I believe that IBM entered into additional talks with AT&T over this very issue to make the "intentions" of the agreement clear.
"It's been reported that IBM's contract with SCO stated that they weren't allowed to put technologies from their Unix into any other OS."
This is what SCO is trying to imply by twisting the meaning of the contract. IBM and the OSS world is on to their little scam however.
What SCO would like the court to rule is that any code that IBM included in any of the products covered by the original contract become derivative works and therefore is under the control of SCO.
This is not what the authors of the contract intended and they have testified proving that it was not their intention or understanding that IBM would lose control of its own code if it added it to the products covered under the contracts.
At the time of this post, this message has moderation of:
60% Overrated 30% Interesting 10% Informative
Although I am squarely in the OSS corner I don't believe in using moderator points to silence a valid opinion even if it is personally objectionable to me.
The Microsoft argument includes the premise that if their products are not able to have access to government markets, a great expense will be incurred by all. Microsoft currently has a monopoly share of the market so I guess their argument is that lot of folks will have to replace their office software.
People like myself who believe in open formats for the sake of sovereignty point out that EVERY upgrade has expenses and indeed you must upgrade even if you're using a Microsoft product because there is not good compatibility between versions.
The point of the parent post is that Microsoft has done a fair job in backward compatibility. I assume implying that you don't really have those upgrade expenses if you stick with Microsoft's products.
This is a valid counter point that should be addressed rather than buried through moderator abuse.
With my moderator scolding over, let me address the parent's point.
You're right. Microsoft did a fair job of backward compatibility. But it isn't perfect. For example. If you used the Access 97 application builder wizard to generate the asset tracking application then later ran it using Access 2000 you would need to fix the switchboard management code for one thing. As a developer I could do it but for businesses that don't have IT staff and used that wizard, parts of their application are broken.
My point is that "a fair job" isn't good enough and there is no guarantee that future versions of Microsoft's products will even do a "fair job."
The Massachusetts decision was not about procurement it was about sovereignty. They simply must ensure that public records are available to the public for as long as the public wants them. Even if that length of time turns out to be a very long.
The fact that Microsoft has threatened to withdraw its products from South Korea if the South Korean government continued in its anti-trust case against them proves that Massachusetts is right in their sovereignty concerns. If Microsoft withdraws their products from South Korea any data locked into Microsoft's proprietary formats will become very hard to access in the future. It would require maintaining obsoleted versions of Microsoft's products. And if Microsoft gets its way and starts selling software as a service God help anyone who gets their data locked into their proprietary formats!
Microsoft should just do the right thing and admit that they can compete on a level playing field and start supporting the Open Document format. They can support plain text, rtf, pdf and other formats. If they want to meet the needs of Massachusetts and hopfully the entire world, they needs to embrace and NOT extend open standards.
It seems to me that Microsoft is admitting that their practice of bundling their media player in with their monopoly product is a violation of anti-trust laws. I guess they figure that paying off one company makes that okay.
Think what this action does for Massachusetts' case for the use of open standards in regards to public records. Microsoft just proved that Massachusetts is right to be concerned over its sovereignty.
Now if only the world would PLEASE connect the dots.
This is EXACTLY why Massachusetts and ALL governments should insist on open formats for public records. It's not right that public records be held hostage!
What would happen if Microsoft's proprietary XML format was used and Microsoft told Massachusetts that if they didn't get their way they would stop selling Windows in that state? How would the public continue to access their own public records?
It amazes me that some people can't see this danger.
I have had hardware that didn't work on Windows. My point is that if hardware doesn't work it's a pain in the ass on ANY OS. It's not more painful on Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, I went there and read this Myth buster section. Didn't see anything about it. Maybe I wasn't looking in the right place. Link?
I'm squarely in the Linux corner and use it at home all of the time. But if I were to install it on my PC at work I would definitely get reprimanded and maybe even fired.
The network people's job is to keep the network up, running and safe. Although I know Linux is far more secure than Windows I would be overstepping my bounds if I unilaterally made a change to the network.
I've been thinking of how I could use Linux in my programming job at work. I was thinking of buying a laptop and installing Linux. It does have some tools that would be helpful like the UML editor "Umbrello." As long I I use my own equipment and don't connect to the network they won't get upset. I could use a flash drive to transfer data. Although they don't have a warm and fuzzy feeling about that.
As far as I know Redmond has not documented the binary header nor relinquished it's patent encumbrances. This format is not yet truly open.
It would be a welcome change if Microsoft would allow 3rd parties to compete on a level playing field but I don't see it happening in our lifetimes.
"New File Format - This as you know is the area that is most near and dear to my heart. We are finally fully opening up our file formats in Office. Word, PowerPoint, and Excel will all three use new XML formats as their default formats. These formats will be fully documented and anyone can leverage them to build solutions, or even to build a competitive application. If you're interested in this topic, just keep reading my blog (and look through all my previous entries)."
Fully documented my ass. There are binary headers that are not documented. Without understanding these headers 3rd party vendors cannot leverage squat.
This is the reason that Massachusetts decided not to list Microsoft's XML format as acceptable. It's not really open at all.
A cluster of Windows machines! That crash should be spectacular!
That we can't hurt Sony by witholding our money so we shouldn't even try?
If you don't think a boycott is the way to go maybe suggesting something that you think will make a difference would be a good idea.
No one is saying that this avian flu is going to become a pandemic. What is being said that there WILL BE another pandemic sometime soon based on statistics and if it happens to be this strain of avian flu it could kill a LOT of people.
"... nothing huge is definitely going to happen."
Wrong. Something huge IS definitely going to happen. If not now soon. If not the avian flu then something else. Pandemics by definition cause a huge amount of death. It may not be the avian flu but there will always be pandemics and there are things we could be doing but aren't to lessen the consequences.
The granting of this patent makes it obvious that any stupid idea will get patented if the person filing is willing to pay a fee. So in the interest of simplicity and efficiency why not eliminate the pretense of the patent concept! Simply issue a "generic" patent for say $10,000.
Then when Microsoft decides to shut down a competitor they could sue using their "generic" patents. This would simplify the legal process as well. All the judge would have to do is have each party reveal the number of "generic" patents owned and the one with the most wins.
If they wanted to make it more interesting for the public they could add a random die roll and multiply that number by the number of "generic politicians" each party has paid for. I would even go so far as to suggest multiplying that result with the evil factor of each party. The more evil a party would relate to the number and severity of dirty tricks that party was willing to pull.
I say for the sake of transparency in government we should give this a try!
...to teach whatever they want to their children. Of course mixing religion in will mean that they will no longer be eligible for federal dollars.
There is no plans for a Linux 2.7 kernel yet but maybe there will be someday! So stop dragging your feet IBM and come up with some infringing code that you may plan on putting in a kernel that may or may not be created!
Poison the ocean...
Good plan guys. Keep up the good work!
Who says that there will be true democracy in Iraq? And even if there is who says that counter balanced with all of the death and destruction that it's a net gain?
Personally I don't think the oil oh I mean the democracy in Iraq was worth even one American death and now that we're up over 2,000 I'm sure it wasn't.
"Washington's answer to these concerns -- the Commerce Department's four terse paragraphs, released at the end of June, announcing that the United States plans to retain control of the Internet indefinitely -- was intended as a sort of Monroe Doctrine for our times. It was received abroad with just the anger one would expect, setting the stage for further controversy."
This is the same unacceptable behavior that has always defined the Bush administration:. Arrogant self-indulgent uncompromising unilateralism. Like most of what Bush has done, it will not bring anything good to the world.
That's right, that's what it was.
:-)
But do you see the very thin line between a gpl'd ASP.NET implementation and code that is generated by a gpl'd compiler?
This becomes very fuzzy in my mind. Of course it could just be my mind...
Moglen I think sometimes goes too far. Isn't he the one that feels that if a GPL'd program is used to _produce_ code that that code should be gpl'd also. I don't remember the details but I think it had something to do with companys using open source products to produce web sites that interact with the public.
It seems to me that if we aren't careful we won't be able to use gcc or any other open source compilers to produce non-GPL'd code even if they are linked only to non-GPL'd libraries. Don't get me wrong, GPL'd code is great but Linux should be a platform that allows both open and closed source applications.
Actually the "intention" of the agreement is everything. I believe that IBM entered into additional talks with AT&T over this very issue to make the "intentions" of the agreement clear.
"It's been reported that IBM's contract with SCO stated that they weren't allowed to put technologies from their Unix into any other OS."
This is what SCO is trying to imply by twisting the meaning of the contract. IBM and the OSS world is on to their little scam however.
What SCO would like the court to rule is that any code that IBM included in any of the products covered by the original contract become derivative works and therefore is under the control of SCO.
This is not what the authors of the contract intended and they have testified proving that it was not their intention or understanding that IBM would lose control of its own code if it added it to the products covered under the contracts.
SCO has no real case.
At the time of this post, this message has moderation of:
60% Overrated
30% Interesting
10% Informative
make that:
At the time of this post, the parent post has moderations of:
60% Overrated
30% Interesting
10% Informative
At the time of this post, this message has moderation of:
60% Overrated
30% Interesting
10% Informative
Although I am squarely in the OSS corner I don't believe in using moderator points to silence a valid opinion even if it is personally objectionable to me.
The Microsoft argument includes the premise that if their products are not able to have access to government markets, a great expense will be incurred by all. Microsoft currently has a monopoly share of the market so I guess their argument is that lot of folks will have to replace their office software.
People like myself who believe in open formats for the sake of sovereignty point out that EVERY upgrade has expenses and indeed you must upgrade even if you're using a Microsoft product because there is not good compatibility between versions.
The point of the parent post is that Microsoft has done a fair job in backward compatibility. I assume implying that you don't really have those upgrade expenses if you stick with Microsoft's products.
This is a valid counter point that should be addressed rather than buried through moderator abuse.
With my moderator scolding over, let me address the parent's point.
You're right. Microsoft did a fair job of backward compatibility. But it isn't perfect. For example. If you used the Access 97 application builder wizard to generate the asset tracking application then later ran it using Access 2000 you would need to fix the switchboard management code for one thing. As a developer I could do it but for businesses that don't have IT staff and used that wizard, parts of their application are broken.
My point is that "a fair job" isn't good enough and there is no guarantee that future versions of Microsoft's products will even do a "fair job."
The Massachusetts decision was not about procurement it was about sovereignty. They simply must ensure that public records are available to the public for as long as the public wants them. Even if that length of time turns out to be a very long.
The fact that Microsoft has threatened to withdraw its products from South Korea if the South Korean government continued in its anti-trust case against them proves that Massachusetts is right in their sovereignty concerns. If Microsoft withdraws their products from South Korea any data locked into Microsoft's proprietary formats will become very hard to access in the future. It would require maintaining obsoleted versions of Microsoft's products. And if Microsoft gets its way and starts selling software as a service God help anyone who gets their data locked into their proprietary formats!
Microsoft should just do the right thing and admit that they can compete on a level playing field and start supporting the Open Document format. They can support plain text, rtf, pdf and other formats. If they want to meet the needs of Massachusetts and hopfully the entire world, they needs to embrace and NOT extend open standards.
It seems to me that Microsoft is admitting that their practice of bundling their media player in with their monopoly product is a violation of anti-trust laws. I guess they figure that paying off one company makes that okay.
Think what this action does for Massachusetts' case for the use of open standards in regards to public records. Microsoft just proved that Massachusetts is right to be concerned over its sovereignty.
Now if only the world would PLEASE connect the dots.
This is EXACTLY why Massachusetts and ALL governments should insist on open formats for public records. It's not right that public records be held hostage!
What would happen if Microsoft's proprietary XML format was used and Microsoft told Massachusetts that if they didn't get their way they would stop selling Windows in that state? How would the public continue to access their own public records?
It amazes me that some people can't see this danger.
"People are underestimating what Microsoft is doing with search technology, says Bill Gates."
You mean applying for every conceivable search technology patent to stifle true innovation? No, I think we're aware of that.
1. Buy PC. Windows is already installed.
2. Buy Anti virus software
3. Install anti virus software
4. install security patch
5. install another security patch
6. install yet another securtiy patch
7. etc
8. etc
9. etc
Linux is easier in the long run.
I have had hardware that didn't work on Windows. My point is that if hardware doesn't work it's a pain in the ass on ANY OS. It's not more painful on Linux.