"As the article says,'In a memo to his staff, DOT chief information officer Daniel Mintz says he has placed "an indefinite moratorium" on the upgrades as "there appears to be no compelling technical or business case for upgrading to these new Microsoft software products."
Daniel, Daniel, Daniel... You know your Boss's, Boss's, Boss is about to get "THE CALL" don't you?
"Ozzie, who has only made a few appearances since his promotion last June to replace Bill Gates as CSA, told analysts and investors that he has been laying the groundwork for programmers across the company to build Internet-based software."
But what I want to know is if Microsoft plans to leverage its monopoly muscle in the OS and browser marketsto brute force its way into an unrelated market.... yet again...
What I'm trying to say in a round about way is that history has shown that the entertainment industry sues first and thinks later. How many harassment suits have been filed under the DMCA law? How many times has someone been harassed for simply being connected to a P2P network?
I think we can expect that anyone found with any material on their web sites that contain a watermark will be treated as if they are guilty.
Sure, if you have the money you can defend yourself.
Does not our fair use rights allow us to post part of a broad cast? IANAL but I think they do. So what if I post a small portion of a video or sound file allowed under fair use and it happens to contain the watermark?
The fact that patents on software hurt innovation is EXACTLY right and should be the way to frame the discussion.
"It's a proven system, over 200 years old."
Unfortunately wide spread computers and their programs are a relatively new phenomenon. The fact that the patent system is 200 years old should be your first clue that it may not work for such a radically new and different set of circumstances!
You sir are a moron... Oops... Strike that last sentence... (Damn and I was doing so well too!)
This is a non-starter discussion. Microsoft has already been found guiltily of abusing its monopoly power through the tactics I described in earlier posts. I suggest you read the transcripts etc.
The PATRIOT Act (Please don't upper case "act") did amend various laws but in doing so it also altered those laws giving the government powers that it never had before.
Sectons 505 and 805 for example have already been struck down as unconstitutional. I expect more to follow.
I anti-competitive laws are there to ensure that competition occurs. Not just to address lock-in. If Debian were a monopoly then yes, it would and should be illegal to bundle an office product.
"Okay, I agree that it's just common courtesy/ethics..."
Well, no. It's more than a question of courtesy and ethics. It is blatantly illegal to use a monopoly product to gain an advantage over rival products in other markets. I.E. If you have a monopoly OS you may not use that OS to gain an advantage in the browser, word processor or media player markets.
Bundling has that effect. Almost all computers come with Microsoft's OS preinstalled. If they bundle Office with the OS that most people run by default it puts other competing products at an unfair disadvantage since everyone will simply use the bundled product. It doesn't really matter that Microsoft supports other formats because other companies which are trying to sell competing products will still loose the revenue that they may have gained if millions of potential customers didn't already get Microsoft's bundled product.
"GE has announced an advancement in incandescent technology..."
It's amazing how quickly the threat of losing your core business to a new technology can drive innovation! Light bulbs have remained largely unchanged for how long? Suddenly there are promises of huge efficiency increases.
Are corporations that manufacture incandescent lights also invested in electricity producing companies? That would be about as good for efficiency as automobile companies owning stock in the oil industry...
"Even if your statements about Open Source are true, this isn't a good idea. It's a pointless, immature rant which will serve no purpose whatsoever."
Again, you are focusing on the implementation. The idea of telling Microsoft: "Okay, you feel we infringe and we don't want to so show us where so we can either fix it or discuss with you how we disagree." is not a bad idea.
But that's what Open Source is about. Taking a good idea and improving the implementation! Rather than bitch about how unprofessional the website is lets take the idea and polish the implementation.
The article would have us believe that Microsoft is using its monopoly position to do harm to its competitors but we all know that Microsoft is above that sort of thing. (Checks nose for increase in length.)
Actually It's Microsoft that's threading to sue. And maybe it is just FUD. But I say we need to respond to Microsoft's aggressive and anti-competitive behavior.
The desperately want to control the Internet. Their.Net technologies are a big part of their plan. I believe we should not support it in any way. Apache servers dominate as Web servers and I believe we should strive to make other ways of serving active web pages the defacto standard. Don't support ASP.NET at all. Use Java, PHP an other technologies that have been freed.
I agree that children tend to be more malleable. The younger bad behavior is caught the better. But I also believe that bullying goes beyond education. I'll qualify that statement with "in some cases." Some children bully because of psychological problems and these are the ones who will probably grow to be work place bullies. One in Ten.
While I understand where you are coming from, I don't totally agree. It would be nice if education could solve all of our social problems but, unfortunately, there is a percentage of the world's population who are assholes. This has always been the case and it always will be.
There are some people who don't care to be "educated" and they will do what they will do period. The sad thing is that bullies on the playground sometimes grow up to be bullies in the work place. One out of ten workers are work place bullies. Europe is ahead of the curve on this one and has laws that address this issue. No amount of education will change a person who is a bully deep down. It goes beyond reasoning.
I'm glad to see that the FBI has its priorities straight so that it can use its limited resources in a way that will protect the people. We wouldn't want them to squander their budget on less important things like tracking down murderers, child molesters and terrorists.
This is the OpenID Administrator. We had a server crash and must rebuild our database. Please click on the link below and begin the process of verifying your OpenID information. Failure to do this will result in your OpenID account being disabled. This request is mandatory for you to comply.
Is open-source software being used by vendors to gain advantages? I assume that's what was meant by "ruthless and self-serving behavior." Although I don't agree that gaining an advantage by releasing code to the world under the GPL can realistically be classified as "ruthless" it is self-serving. There is not much that a large corporation does that isn't. They exist, after all, to make a profit for their stockholders.
But let's look at what may be driving big corporations to embrace open-source: Microsoft.
Really, what choice do they realistically have? Microsoft uses dirty and illegal tactics. They leverage their monopoly products to such a degree that even large corporations know that they can't compete. Microsoft doesn't realize it but they are their own worst enemy. They are like the unsuccessful parasite that kills its host and therefore dies also.
The only choice the IT industry outside of Microsoft has is to ban together in a common strategy to slay Goliath.
Given Microsoft's continued anti-competitive tactics I agree. We should all work together to make Microsoft irrelevant. Don't support them in anything that they do. Don't use technologies that they develop. Let the Mono project die. Don't support it, don't use it. Use free (as in speech) technologies to generate active web pages. Never use ASP.net.
The first link was Slash dotted but I have a few comments about the second. It states:
"Imagine, if you will, that it's the late Nineties. A certain software company based in Redmond, Washington has recently released Visual Studio 97--thereby bundling together many of its development tools for the first time. Now imagine that the company decided to release those tools for free."
Microsoft has released some tools for free (as in beer) and have even allowed companies to view their source code with strict "no compile, "no altering", non-disclosure restrictions but this is not the definition of open source.
Free software as defined by the Open Source community is not about money. How long will it take for people to "get it?" Free software is "free as in speech." Is that so hard to grasp? It is free of restrictions of any kind except that the user may not apply new restrictions upon it. At least that was the intent. Microsoft and Novell may have found a patent loophole in the GPL v2 license. (The slime balls) But this loophole will be closed in GPL v3.
Asking the question : What would the reaction be the author states:
"I think we all know the answer to that one. As James Robertson over at Smalltalk Tidbits, Industry Rants notes: "...had Microsoft released Visual Studio as free software 10 years ago, that almost certainly would have been seen as predatory behavior."
Not if they had released the source code under the GPL. Again, keeping the source code proprietary and releasing only a free (as in beer) executable is a very different thing.
Slashdot Mirror
At 40K or even 4K per customer there appears to be a LOT of money to be made to fix this problem.
Which lobby group convinced the Government that this was a good idea?? Just curious...
"As the article says,'In a memo to his staff, DOT chief information officer Daniel Mintz says he has placed "an indefinite moratorium" on the upgrades as "there appears to be no compelling technical or business case for upgrading to these new Microsoft software products."
Daniel, Daniel, Daniel... You know your Boss's, Boss's, Boss is about to get "THE CALL" don't you?
"Ozzie, who has only made a few appearances since his promotion last June to replace Bill Gates as CSA, told analysts and investors that he has been laying the groundwork for programmers across the company to build Internet-based software."
But what I want to know is if Microsoft plans to leverage its monopoly muscle in the OS and browser marketsto brute force its way into an unrelated market.... yet again...
What I'm trying to say in a round about way is that history has shown that the entertainment industry sues first and thinks later. How many harassment suits have been filed under the DMCA law? How many times has someone been harassed for simply being connected to a P2P network?
I think we can expect that anyone found with any material on their web sites that contain a watermark will be treated as if they are guilty.
Sure, if you have the money you can defend yourself.
Does not our fair use rights allow us to post part of a broad cast? IANAL but I think they do. So what if I post a small portion of a video or sound file allowed under fair use and it happens to contain the watermark?
The fact that patents on software hurt innovation is EXACTLY right and should be the way to frame the discussion.
"It's a proven system, over 200 years old."
Unfortunately wide spread computers and their programs are a relatively new phenomenon. The fact that the patent system is 200 years old should be your first clue that it may not work for such a radically new and different set of circumstances!
You sir are a moron... Oops... Strike that last sentence... (Damn and I was doing so well too!)
This is a non-starter discussion. Microsoft has already been found guiltily of abusing its monopoly power through the tactics I described in earlier posts. I suggest you read the transcripts etc.
The PATRIOT Act (Please don't upper case "act") did amend various laws but in doing so it also altered those laws giving the government powers that it never had before.
Sectons 505 and 805 for example have already been struck down as unconstitutional. I expect more to follow.
I anti-competitive laws are there to ensure that competition occurs. Not just to address lock-in. If Debian were a monopoly then yes, it would and should be illegal to bundle an office product.
"Okay, I agree that it's just common courtesy/ethics..."
Well, no. It's more than a question of courtesy and ethics. It is blatantly illegal to use a monopoly product to gain an advantage over rival products in other markets. I.E. If you have a monopoly OS you may not use that OS to gain an advantage in the browser, word processor or media player markets.
Bundling has that effect. Almost all computers come with Microsoft's OS preinstalled. If they bundle Office with the OS that most people run by default it puts other competing products at an unfair disadvantage since everyone will simply use the bundled product. It doesn't really matter that Microsoft supports other formats because other companies which are trying to sell competing products will still loose the revenue that they may have gained if millions of potential customers didn't already get Microsoft's bundled product.
Where do you see that in my logic???
"GE has announced an advancement in incandescent technology..."
It's amazing how quickly the threat of losing your core business to a new technology can drive innovation! Light bulbs have remained largely unchanged for how long? Suddenly there are promises of huge efficiency increases.
Are corporations that manufacture incandescent lights also invested in electricity producing companies? That would be about as good for efficiency as automobile companies owning stock in the oil industry...
Let us pray...
How long before the fleet is infected with the "launch the nukes" worm? Microsoft's security track record makes this a VERY BAD IDEA!
"Even if your statements about Open Source are true, this isn't a good idea. It's a pointless, immature rant which will serve no purpose whatsoever."
Again, you are focusing on the implementation. The idea of telling Microsoft: "Okay, you feel we infringe and we don't want to so show us where so we can either fix it or discuss with you how we disagree." is not a bad idea.
But that's what Open Source is about. Taking a good idea and improving the implementation! Rather than bitch about how unprofessional the website is lets take the idea and polish the implementation.
Ideas people?
The article would have us believe that Microsoft is using its monopoly position to do harm to its competitors but we all know that Microsoft is above that sort of thing. (Checks nose for increase in length.)
Actually It's Microsoft that's threading to sue. And maybe it is just FUD. But I say we need to respond to Microsoft's aggressive and anti-competitive behavior.
.Net technologies are a big part of their plan. I believe we should not support it in any way. Apache servers dominate as Web servers and I believe we should strive to make other ways of serving active web pages the defacto standard. Don't support ASP.NET at all. Use Java, PHP an other technologies that have been freed.
The desperately want to control the Internet. Their
I agree that children tend to be more malleable. The younger bad behavior is caught the better. But I also believe that bullying goes beyond education. I'll qualify that statement with "in some cases." Some children bully because of psychological problems and these are the ones who will probably grow to be work place bullies. One in Ten.
With Microsoft beating the patent war drums, I would suggest distancing ourselves from anything tainted with Microsoft's stench.
For God's sake man, let Mono die.
"Laws are not the key to solving social problems"
While I understand where you are coming from, I don't totally agree. It would be nice if education could solve all of our social problems but, unfortunately, there is a percentage of the world's population who are assholes. This has always been the case and it always will be.
There are some people who don't care to be "educated" and they will do what they will do period. The sad thing is that bullies on the playground sometimes grow up to be bullies in the work place. One out of ten workers are work place bullies. Europe is ahead of the curve on this one and has laws that address this issue. No amount of education will change a person who is a bully deep down. It goes beyond reasoning.
I'm glad to see that the FBI has its priorities straight so that it can use its limited resources in a way that will protect the people. We wouldn't want them to squander their budget on less important things like tracking down murderers, child molesters and terrorists.
This is the OpenID Administrator. We had a server crash and must rebuild our database. Please click on the link below and begin the process of verifying your OpenID information. Failure to do this will result in your OpenID account being disabled. This request is mandatory for you to comply.
We apologize for this inconvenience.
You're right, I didn't do a very good job reading your post. :-( Sorry.
I don't know enough about SPF to know if it would work. Can spammer's somehow fake it?
Any workable solution that maintains our interent freedoms is better than locking the internet down of course.
Is open-source software being used by vendors to gain advantages? I assume that's what was meant by "ruthless and self-serving behavior." Although I don't agree that gaining an advantage by releasing code to the world under the GPL can realistically be classified as "ruthless" it is self-serving. There is not much that a large corporation does that isn't. They exist, after all, to make a profit for their stockholders.
But let's look at what may be driving big corporations to embrace open-source: Microsoft.
Really, what choice do they realistically have? Microsoft uses dirty and illegal tactics. They leverage their monopoly products to such a degree that even large corporations know that they can't compete. Microsoft doesn't realize it but they are their own worst enemy. They are like the unsuccessful parasite that kills its host and therefore dies also.
The only choice the IT industry outside of Microsoft has is to ban together in a common strategy to slay Goliath.
Given Microsoft's continued anti-competitive tactics I agree. We should all work together to make Microsoft irrelevant. Don't support them in anything that they do. Don't use technologies that they develop. Let the Mono project die. Don't support it, don't use it. Use free (as in speech) technologies to generate active web pages. Never use ASP.net.
The first link was Slash dotted but I have a few comments about the second. It states:
"Imagine, if you will, that it's the late Nineties. A certain software company based in Redmond, Washington has recently released Visual Studio 97--thereby bundling together many of its development tools for the first time. Now imagine that the company decided to release those tools for free."
Microsoft has released some tools for free (as in beer) and have even allowed companies to view their source code with strict "no compile, "no altering", non-disclosure restrictions but this is not the definition of open source.
Free software as defined by the Open Source community is not about money. How long will it take for people to "get it?" Free software is "free as in speech." Is that so hard to grasp? It is free of restrictions of any kind except that the user may not apply new restrictions upon it. At least that was the intent. Microsoft and Novell may have found a patent loophole in the GPL v2 license. (The slime balls) But this loophole will be closed in GPL v3.
Asking the question : What would the reaction be the author states:
"I think we all know the answer to that one. As James Robertson over at Smalltalk Tidbits, Industry Rants notes: "...had Microsoft released Visual Studio as free software 10 years ago, that almost certainly would have been seen as predatory behavior."
Not if they had released the source code under the GPL. Again, keeping the source code proprietary and releasing only a free (as in beer) executable is a very different thing.