Well the most profitable products are easily marketable but I don't agree with you that Linux isn't a product. Redhat, Suse, IBM and Mandrake would probably agree with me that Linux is a product.
While it is true that Linux started out to be a geek OS that is changing. If you really are a Linux user as you claim , you must have turned a few people who were not geeks onto Linux. I have, and they really like it. The average adult uses his PC for surfing the web, picking up email, writing letters etc. All these things are as easily done in Linux as they are in Windows. Yes, when compared to Microsoft's monopoly share of the market, Linux doesn't have many users yet. Nobody has. To say that just because Linux hasn't broken Microsoft's monopoly yet it never will isn't founded in solid logic. Linux developer's haven't been working to gain desktop market share until just recently. The push has been until now to make Linux more useful and accepted on the server side. Give us a few years. Linux is reaching a critical mass and is popping up all over in Europe and Asia.
I agree with you about the browser. It's very hard to get people to change once they are use to it. Once Microsoft faced the same problem with Netscape. Their solution was to integrate it directly into their operating system so that they could use their monopoly OS market share to destroy Netscape. The animosity that Microsoft had for Netscape is abundantly clear. One can even find "Nescape engineers are weenies!" embedded [reversed] in the file dvwssr.dll. This file was used in Microsoft web server software for Windows 95/98 and other products as well. Without ranting too long about the Microsoft evil Empire just let me say that it is too early to proclaim that Linux will never make it big on the desktop.
"Linux isn't a viable product. It changes too often, and there are far too many versions. You pointed this out yourself. Can you imagine Windows ever being popular if there was a version for students, a version for corporate markets, a version for Grandma, and a version for average (stupid) users? It would never work."
Linux is most certainly a viable product and is becoming better everyday. I've used it for years and am at this very moment writing this reply using Suse 9.2. Yes, there are various flavors of Linux but that isn't a big deal. Linux is Linux no matter which distro one uses. KDE and Gnome look and act the same weather I run Suse or Mandrake. Open Office is Open Office no matter which platform I'm running it on. Firefox runs just the same on my distro as it does on anyones. There are a LOT of window managers available but by default KDE and Gnome are installed. However if I choose to use one of the others I have a CHOICE. As far as corporate versions I think the parent post made it clear that the difference is primarily the default application load. Not some strange and different animal as you suggest. I would assert that if Linux isn't a viable product like you say there wouldn't be the mass migration to use it in other countries.
"Windows is a commercial success for several reasons: -It's a monopoly, even though Linux and Mac OS exist -It comes bundled on a lot of systems, thereby saving the user the trouble of learning enough about their computer to install something by themselves -It Just Works. Almost all hardware manufacturers write device drivers with Windows in mind, and since Windows is so common, the proprietary software it uses is also widespread. This means that any hardware you toss in the system should Just Work. Any documents Mom sends you should Just Work."
Well we agree that windows success is in large part the fact that it's a monopoly. I would add however that it's a monopoly willing to abuse its monopoly position to maintain its strangle hold. Not exactly a company with which I would choose to do business.
It comes bundled with less applications than most Linux distros and it's no harder to click through the default load of a Linux platform than it is for a Windows platform.
I haven't had any trouble with drivers for my hardware but you are correct that Linux is slightly behind on some of the newest hardware. But only slightly. As Linux becomes more and more common this will change and is in fact already changing. I have found that older hardware is better supported under Linux than Windows primarily because Linux will load the drivers for any hardware that it sees where as for Windows I have to spend an extra hour or more installing the third party drivers that came with the hardware and God help me if I've lost the CD or floppy.
"Linux can do all these things, but sometimes it takes a bit of work. Linux isn't an all-in-one solution that Just Works. Instead, it's a fast-paced, rapidly changing way to get your computer to do the most possible."
Again it doesn't take any more work to point and click in Linux than it does in Windows. Linux IS more flexible for the people who need it but doesn't really take anything away from the Mom and Pop users. Until recently the focus from the Linux developer's has been on the server side. However, Novel has just announced that they intend to go after the desktop. Any deficiencies that you might find now will rapidly be corrected.
"Most users don't care whether they can change their ethernet adapter's MAC address. They want to buy a computer, plug it in, and turn it on, and have everything work. If they need to install something new, they just double click the pretty picture, and then click OK a few times."
Most Linux users don't care whether they can change their ethernet adapter's MAC address but for those who do, they can. And if you would take the time to load the newest Suse or Mandrake distros you would find that everything works right out of the b
"You can quit proclaiming Linux the Windows killer." Actually most Linux developers don't give a flying shit about killing Windows. We just do what we do because we love it. But as long as you want to throw the gauntlet I'll pick it up. "Linux is established and has a niche that, as various pendulums swing, will grow and shrink."
The Linux market share is growing faster than any other operating system and is beginning to bust free of the "niche" label that Microsoft shills such as yourself want so desperately to hang on this superior platform.
" Show me charts and stats and benchmarks that prove Linux superior to Windows in every measure and I'll not argue with you."
There are plenty of statistics showing Linux superiority to Windows. I'm glad you agree that it's a better operating system.
"But no matter how much money and dedication is poured into Linux, it will never put a dent in Windows' mind share or market share because Linux is an operating system, a way -- and probably the best way -- to make system hardware do what it's told. But you can't turn Linux into a platform even if you brand it, box it, and put a pricey sticker on it.
"But you can't turn Linux into a platform even if you brand it, box it, and put a pricey sticker on it.
Businesses and organizations of all sizes need consistent, predictable, scalable, self-contained platforms for server solutions. Windows wins. Linux doesn't lose, because it can continue the legacy of another nonplatform, namely Unix, that needs to be refreshed and extended."
I see, three paragraphs saying that Linux is superior but could never really compete with Windows with a really lame justification.
Redhat, Mandrake, Suse and others are working to provide a consistent, predictable and scalable platform. That isn't even an issue. In fact by the very nature of Open Source applications they are more stable than proprietary software. How many applications have we purchased only to find that the business stopped supporting them or discontinued them? That's not a problem in the Open Source world. If the creator of an Open Source product quits there are many other developers willing to pick up the project and continue on so don't give me this crap about the Linux platform (and yes, it already is a platform.) not being predictable. You think Microsoft is predictable? The only think truly predictable of Microsoft is their continued anti competitive practices.
" In contrast, Windows fills in all the blocks between the hardware and your apps. It does it in ways that you can't alter, but which you can use in different ways. You can code with the tools of your choice and in the programming language of your choice, and unless you stray too far from the rule book, everything you create will interoperate with everything others write for Windows."
Yeah Windows is so integrated that indeed everything will interoperate including viruses. Microsoft's misguided integration is not an asset and it is laughable that Microsoft shills such as you keep pushing it even in the face of documented security flaws that this hackers paradise provides.
If Sony puts out a TV with technology that induces sensory input by shaking my brain with sonic waves my parent's predictions that my brain will turn to mush from watching too much TV may actually come true!
That's what he's all about. "GPL is bad for poor countries.." (Smoke and mirrors) What he really means is "GPL is bad for big corporations because we can't control the source and make everyone pay through the nose until they bleed..."
It really is the question being asked. It seems that the standard has been to look at the product and see if it has legitimate uses or if it was designed to commit a crime. There are groups who want that changed.
I think we are digressing. There is no doubt that some guns were designed to kill people. But even the fact that a gun is designed to kill people isn't enough to cause the manufacturers to be held liable for a crime committed with their products. Like you said defending myself is legal.
Where they cross the line is in things like making the finish "finger print resistant" or obviously if they made the weapon fully automatic or semi automatic but sell a conversion kit.
This is an incredibly important case. At its core is the question: Can the makers of a product or the providers of a service be held responsible for the misuse of that product or misuse of that service?
Can the maker of DVD recording equipment be held liable for you or I using that equipment (and/or programs) to distribute copyrighted material. Can ISPs be held liable for any illegal use of their services? And let's push it to its limit: Can gun manufacturers be held liable when the equipment they make is used to commit a crime?
"Redstate has a chilling description of the FEC's original March 10 proposal to regulate political speech on the Internet."
The first thing that I thought was "When will they get it? The US Constitution gives us the right to free speech. But then I started thinking; when has this administration been overly concerned with upholding our constitution.
The Internet can be a very powerful tool for political change but if the people in control of the government depend on the status quo, the last thing they may want is to empower the people to that end.
"So, did they modify it? Here is the answer I got from Linda Hamel, Esq., General Counsel, Information Technology Division:
"Yes. It added a provision to the license stating that users could use ANY software (that would include GPL licensed open source desktop software) to read government records created using the MS XML reference schema."
"This at least gives us the right to our own data back, since we can then convert it to a more useable format."
Not correct. "We" will have no right to read or write data in their format. Only "Government documents" may be read. That doesn't give most of us shit.
I don't think the subject of this thread had anything to do with his app per se. I believe his point was that VB makes a lot of programming tasks quicker. Since you feel an app that did all those things could be built in VB by "dropping a few OCX's onto a form," I take it you agree.
"Microsoft also called for a patent system that is more accessible to small investors, and executives recommended that the U.S. Congress end patent filing fees for small companies, nonprofit groups, universities and individual inventors."
One might think by this statement that Microsoft wants to play fair and not destroy Open Source through the use of patents. Not so.
Bill Gates himself said that the usefulness of patents is to force cross licensing. However, Microsoft can't really attack open source projects right now because the way that patent laws are drafted it would be too obvious that they have been designed by big corporations for big corporations to destroy competition.
Don't be fooled by this PR stunt. Microsoft has every intention of "vigorously protecting its intellectual property." But after all the publicity that the European software patent push has produced they have to make it seem like software patents are valuable to everyone including open source projects.
Don't forget that even if software patents are free to open source projects suing to enforce them is not. And the whole point of software patents as stated by good ol' Bill himself is to force cross licensing.
I don't care what Microsoft says, they can't compete with "free" forever. If they can force open source software projects to cross license with them and pay royalties they can force the open source projects to not be "free" anymore. This would kill open source as we know it.
From the article: " It consists of a Linux kernel developed by Torvalds and his colleagues by radically improving an earlier open-source Unix released by Andrew Tannenbaum in 1987"
No, no, no... How many times do we have to tell these people that Linus DID NOT ALTER MINIX to produce the Linux kernel!!! When will these people get it right before blathering on?
I guess I need a lawyer to explain exactly what software patents mean to me. Have the corporate lobbyists made it illegal for me to express myself in my own home by writing a program that may do similar things in similar ways as programs written by the monopolistic corporations that they represent?
If it's not illegal for me to express my creative talents in my own home is it now illegal for me to share those expressions with others?
If it is illegal for me to express my creative talents even in my own home then surly most government agencies and private businesses that do their own in-house programming are also endanger of going afoul of the software patent laws unless they hire an army of attorneys to research each and every line of code that they write to ensure that someone else doesn't have a patent covering its functionality. I know of no government agency or private business that does this.
Okay, skimming through the posts there are some misunderstandings that should be cleared up. The first misconception has already been well addressed: Microsoft isn't being slammed for not updating WINE. An upgrade to the XP OS could not possible be applied to WINE anyway. They are being slammed for not upgrading things like Office when it is being run under WINE.
The second misunderstanding is has not been challenged yet so I'll do it here. I hate to because it's sort of coming to Microsoft's defense. A LOT of software does not run under WINE. If Microsoft makes a change to Office or some of their other products that do run under WINE, the change could prevent that product from working under WINE any longer. Would you want Microsoft to automatically apply a patch that broke your software?
So there could be a legitimate reason for excluding WINE users. I guess...
I work as a programmer for the State of Washington. It really surprises me that State and Federal governments do not advocate the use of open standards more.
We in the US unfortunately were lead down the patent path where anything we code could easily violate another's patent. I'm pretty sure that with the thousands of patents being applied for by Microsoft alone in any given year it will be very difficult not to violate some of them.
If you follow open standards you may avoid some problems. I does NOT surprise me that the BSA doesn't want open standards. After all, they are in the business of bitch slapping people who use proprietary software and proprietary software will typically use proprietary "standards."
If the EU really gets a clue (and I believe some members have.) they will avoid any kind of proprietary lock-in and anything like proprietary standards and patents that promote that. It may take a few years but if they stay the course we here in the US could lose any edge we have in the software sector simply because the laws bought and paid for my monopoly interests will stifle innovation here.
The EU will be able to sit back and watch as small US software companies give up because they don't dare release software that may violate patent laws. Small companies don't have the resources to hire the army of attorneys required to do the research needed to ensure that they don't violate patent laws. No doubt about it. Patent laws do NOT help small to mid size software companies. Software patent laws do exactly what they were designed to do: stifle competition for the corporate monopolies. hehe... I seem to have digressed but it all fits together.
Slashdot Mirror
Well the most profitable products are easily marketable but I don't agree with you that Linux isn't a product. Redhat, Suse, IBM and Mandrake would probably agree with me that Linux is a product.
While it is true that Linux started out to be a geek OS that is changing. If you really are a Linux user as you claim , you must have turned a few people who were not geeks onto Linux. I have, and they really like it. The average adult uses his PC for surfing the web, picking up email, writing letters etc. All these things are as easily done in Linux as they are in Windows. Yes, when compared to Microsoft's monopoly share of the market, Linux doesn't have many users yet. Nobody has. To say that just because Linux hasn't broken Microsoft's monopoly yet it never will isn't founded in solid logic. Linux developer's haven't been working to gain desktop market share until just recently. The push has been until now to make Linux more useful and accepted on the server side. Give us a few years. Linux is reaching a critical mass and is popping up all over in Europe and Asia.
I agree with you about the browser. It's very hard to get people to change once they are use to it. Once Microsoft faced the same problem with Netscape. Their solution was to integrate it directly into their operating system so that they could use their monopoly OS market share to destroy Netscape. The animosity that Microsoft had for Netscape is abundantly clear. One can even find "Nescape engineers are weenies!" embedded [reversed] in the file dvwssr.dll. This file was used in Microsoft web server software for Windows 95/98 and other products as well. Without ranting too long about the Microsoft evil Empire just let me say that it is too early to proclaim that Linux will never make it big on the desktop.
"Linux isn't a viable product. It changes too often, and there are far too many versions. You pointed this out yourself. Can you imagine Windows ever being popular if there was a version for students, a version for corporate markets, a version for Grandma, and a version for average (stupid) users? It would never work."
Linux is most certainly a viable product and is becoming better everyday. I've used it for years and am at this very moment writing this reply using Suse 9.2. Yes, there are various flavors of Linux but that isn't a big deal. Linux is Linux no matter which distro one uses. KDE and Gnome look and act the same weather I run Suse or Mandrake. Open Office is Open Office no matter which platform I'm running it on. Firefox runs just the same on my distro as it does on anyones. There are a LOT of window managers available but by default KDE and Gnome are installed. However if I choose to use one of the others I have a CHOICE. As far as corporate versions I think the parent post made it clear that the difference is primarily the default application load. Not some strange and different animal as you suggest. I would assert that if Linux isn't a viable product like you say there wouldn't be the mass migration to use it in other countries.
"Windows is a commercial success for several reasons:
-It's a monopoly, even though Linux and Mac OS exist
-It comes bundled on a lot of systems, thereby saving the user the trouble of learning enough about their computer to install something by themselves
-It Just Works. Almost all hardware manufacturers write device drivers with Windows in mind, and since Windows is so common, the proprietary software it uses is also widespread. This means that any hardware you toss in the system should Just Work. Any documents Mom sends you should Just Work."
Well we agree that windows success is in large part the fact that it's a monopoly. I would add however that it's a monopoly willing to abuse its monopoly position to maintain its strangle hold. Not exactly a company with which I would choose to do business.
It comes bundled with less applications than most Linux distros and it's no harder to click through the default load of a Linux platform than it is for a Windows platform.
I haven't had any trouble with drivers for my hardware but you are correct that Linux is slightly behind on some of the newest hardware. But only slightly. As Linux becomes more and more common this will change and is in fact already changing. I have found that older hardware is better supported under Linux than Windows primarily because Linux will load the drivers for any hardware that it sees where as for Windows I have to spend an extra hour or more installing the third party drivers that came with the hardware and God help me if I've lost the CD or floppy.
"Linux can do all these things, but sometimes it takes a bit of work. Linux isn't an all-in-one solution that Just Works. Instead, it's a fast-paced, rapidly changing way to get your computer to do the most possible."
Again it doesn't take any more work to point and click in Linux than it does in Windows. Linux IS more flexible for the people who need it but doesn't really take anything away from the Mom and Pop users. Until recently the focus from the Linux developer's has been on the server side. However, Novel has just announced that they intend to go after the desktop. Any deficiencies that you might find now will rapidly be corrected.
"Most users don't care whether they can change their ethernet adapter's MAC address. They want to buy a computer, plug it in, and turn it on, and have everything work. If they need to install something new, they just double click the pretty picture, and then click OK a few times."
Most Linux users don't care whether they can change their ethernet adapter's MAC address but for those who do, they can. And if you would take the time to load the newest Suse or Mandrake distros you would find that everything works right out of the b
"You can quit proclaiming Linux the Windows killer."
Actually most Linux developers don't give a flying shit about killing Windows. We just do what we do because we love it. But as long as you want to throw the gauntlet I'll pick it up.
"Linux is established and has a niche that, as various pendulums swing, will grow and shrink."
The Linux market share is growing faster than any other operating system and is beginning to bust free of the "niche" label that Microsoft shills such as yourself want so desperately to hang on this superior platform.
" Show me charts and stats and benchmarks that prove Linux superior to Windows in every measure and I'll not argue with you."
There are plenty of statistics showing Linux superiority to Windows. I'm glad you agree that it's a better operating system.
"But no matter how much money and dedication is poured into Linux, it will never put a dent in Windows' mind share or market share because Linux is an operating system, a way -- and probably the best way -- to make system hardware do what it's told. But you can't turn Linux into a platform even if you brand it, box it, and put a pricey sticker on it.
"But you can't turn Linux into a platform even if you brand it, box it, and put a pricey sticker on it.
Businesses and organizations of all sizes need consistent, predictable, scalable, self-contained platforms for server solutions. Windows wins. Linux doesn't lose, because it can continue the legacy of another nonplatform, namely Unix, that needs to be refreshed and extended."
I see, three paragraphs saying that Linux is superior but could never really compete with Windows with a really lame justification.
Redhat, Mandrake, Suse and others are working to provide a consistent, predictable and scalable platform. That isn't even an issue. In fact by the very nature of Open Source applications they are more stable than proprietary software. How many applications have we purchased only to find that the business stopped supporting them or discontinued them? That's not a problem in the Open Source world. If the creator of an Open Source product quits there are many other developers willing to pick up the project and continue on so don't give me this crap about the Linux platform (and yes, it already is a platform.) not being predictable. You think Microsoft is predictable? The only think truly predictable of Microsoft is their continued anti competitive practices.
" In contrast, Windows fills in all the blocks between the hardware and your apps. It does it in ways that you can't alter, but which you can use in different ways. You can code with the tools of your choice and in the programming language of your choice, and unless you stray too far from the rule book, everything you create will interoperate with everything others write for Windows."
Yeah Windows is so integrated that indeed everything will interoperate including viruses. Microsoft's misguided integration is not an asset and it is laughable that Microsoft shills such as you keep pushing it even in the face of documented security flaws that this hackers paradise provides.
Your article is nothing more than Microsoft FUD.
If Sony puts out a TV with technology that induces sensory input by shaking my brain with sonic waves my parent's predictions that my brain will turn to mush from watching too much TV may actually come true!
driva is too close to drivel....
That's what he's all about. "GPL is bad for poor countries.." (Smoke and mirrors) What he really means is "GPL is bad for big corporations because we can't control the source and make everyone pay through the nose until they bleed..."
You geeks make me sick!
I hardly think that damage from fingerprints is a big concern.
It really is the question being asked. It seems that the standard has been to look at the product and see if it has legitimate uses or if it was designed to commit a crime. There are groups who want that changed.
I think we are digressing. There is no doubt that some guns were designed to kill people. But even the fact that a gun is designed to kill people isn't enough to cause the manufacturers to be held liable for a crime committed with their products. Like you said defending myself is legal.
Where they cross the line is in things like making the finish "finger print resistant" or obviously if they made the weapon fully automatic or semi automatic but sell a conversion kit.
This is an incredibly important case. At its core is the question: Can the makers of a product or the providers of a service be held responsible for the misuse of that product or misuse of that service?
Can the maker of DVD recording equipment be held liable for you or I using that equipment (and/or programs) to distribute copyrighted material. Can ISPs be held liable for any illegal use of their services? And let's push it to its limit: Can gun manufacturers be held liable when the equipment they make is used to commit a crime?
If this appeal succeeds, be afraid.
"Redstate has a chilling description of the FEC's original March 10 proposal to regulate political speech on the Internet."
The first thing that I thought was "When will they get it? The US Constitution gives us the right to free speech. But then I started thinking; when has this administration been overly concerned with upholding our constitution.
The Internet can be a very powerful tool for political change but if the people in control of the government depend on the status quo, the last thing they may want is to empower the people to that end.
"So, did they modify it? Here is the answer I got from Linda Hamel, Esq., General Counsel, Information Technology Division:
"Yes. It added a provision to the license stating that users could use ANY software (that would include GPL licensed open source desktop software) to read government records created using the MS XML reference schema."
Sounds like maybe you need to RTFA.
"This at least gives us the right to our own data back, since we can then convert it to a more useable format."
Not correct. "We" will have no right to read or write data in their format. Only "Government documents" may be read. That doesn't give most of us shit.
"Aparently one of their "Food Service" machines was cracked and used to distribute "games, files, and other media". "
Hey, I ordered a ham sandwich and I got this copy of Doom III!
I don't think the subject of this thread had anything to do with his app per se. I believe his point was that VB makes a lot of programming tasks quicker. Since you feel an app that did all those things could be built in VB by "dropping a few OCX's onto a form," I take it you agree.
they figured out that the only men in IT are geeks that read technical blogs...
"Microsoft also called for a patent system that is more accessible to small investors, and executives recommended that the U.S. Congress end patent filing fees for small companies, nonprofit groups, universities and individual inventors."
One might think by this statement that Microsoft wants to play fair and not destroy Open Source through the use of patents. Not so.
Bill Gates himself said that the usefulness of patents is to force cross licensing. However, Microsoft can't really attack open source projects right now because the way that patent laws are drafted it would be too obvious that they have been designed by big corporations for big corporations to destroy competition.
Don't be fooled by this PR stunt. Microsoft has every intention of "vigorously protecting its intellectual property." But after all the publicity that the European software patent push has produced they have to make it seem like software patents are valuable to everyone including open source projects.
Don't forget that even if software patents are free to open source projects suing to enforce them is not. And the whole point of software patents as stated by good ol' Bill himself is to force cross licensing.
I don't care what Microsoft says, they can't compete with "free" forever. If they can force open source software projects to cross license with them and pay royalties they can force the open source projects to not be "free" anymore. This would kill open source as we know it.
"Pinawella writes "It's reported on VNUnet that 'Enemies of Linux' are trying to undermine the OS with a campaign of disinformation."
Well that's a new tactic...
Let's see... The US was sold out to Corporate greed.
The EU seems determined to be no smarter...
Let the carnage begin!
Then why did the anti-Linux corporate shills work so hard to spread this FUD?
From the article: " It consists of a Linux kernel developed by Torvalds and his colleagues by radically improving an earlier open-source Unix released by Andrew Tannenbaum in 1987"
No, no, no... How many times do we have to tell these people that Linus DID NOT ALTER MINIX to produce the Linux kernel!!! When will these people get it right before blathering on?
I guess I need a lawyer to explain exactly what software patents mean to me. Have the corporate lobbyists made it illegal for me to express myself in my own home by writing a program that may do similar things in similar ways as programs written by the monopolistic corporations that they represent?
If it's not illegal for me to express my creative talents in my own home is it now illegal for me to share those expressions with others?
If it is illegal for me to express my creative talents even in my own home then surly most government agencies and private businesses that do their own in-house programming are also endanger of going afoul of the software patent laws unless they hire an army of attorneys to research each and every line of code that they write to ensure that someone else doesn't have a patent covering its functionality. I know of no government agency or private business that does this.
Okay, skimming through the posts there are some misunderstandings that should be cleared up. The first misconception has already been well addressed: Microsoft isn't being slammed for not updating WINE. An upgrade to the XP OS could not possible be applied to WINE anyway. They are being slammed for not upgrading things like Office when it is being run under WINE.
The second misunderstanding is has not been challenged yet so I'll do it here. I hate to because it's sort of coming to Microsoft's defense. A LOT of software does not run under WINE. If Microsoft makes a change to Office or some of their other products that do run under WINE, the change could prevent that product from working under WINE any longer. Would you want Microsoft to automatically apply a patch that broke your software?
So there could be a legitimate reason for excluding WINE users. I guess...
I work as a programmer for the State of Washington. It really surprises me that State and Federal governments do not advocate the use of open standards more.
We in the US unfortunately were lead down the patent path where anything we code could easily violate another's patent. I'm pretty sure that with the thousands of patents being applied for by Microsoft alone in any given year it will be very difficult not to violate some of them.
If you follow open standards you may avoid some problems. I does NOT surprise me that the BSA doesn't want open standards. After all, they are in the business of bitch slapping people who use proprietary software and proprietary software will typically use proprietary "standards."
If the EU really gets a clue (and I believe some members have.) they will avoid any kind of proprietary lock-in and anything like proprietary standards and patents that promote that. It may take a few years but if they stay the course we here in the US could lose any edge we have in the software sector simply because the laws bought and paid for my monopoly interests will stifle innovation here.
The EU will be able to sit back and watch as small US software companies give up because they don't dare release software that may violate patent laws. Small companies don't have the resources to hire the army of attorneys required to do the research needed to ensure that they don't violate patent laws. No doubt about it. Patent laws do NOT help small to mid size software companies. Software patent laws do exactly what they were designed to do: stifle competition for the corporate monopolies. hehe... I seem to have digressed but it all fits together.