Sure, there are Word features that suck - the thing is - 90% of people have no clue how to use 90% of the features.
They even don't bother to learn how to use styles, they can only change font, adjust font size and color, set bold and italic, that's about it.
Whowever really cares about formatting won't use Word (you'd use a specialized authoring tool like InDesign or such), other than that quite a few people _can_ use it to their satisfaction, and a huge majority has no fucking clue how those features work - but they feel it's OK because they are used to the GUI.
The next key feature of an office suite is integration with other productivity tools and that's what MS is focusing on these days (Sharepoint, Exchange, Cisco switches, CRM, etc.). Feature-wise all wordprocessing software is to some extent overbloated, what is going to be important is productivity and integration, so whether X word processor is cheaper or less bloated won't be as important.
>Maybe this is the real way Windows will be made irrelevant
Phew! "Irrelevant"!
And straight to the point - it's not about a nice (cost-effective, elegant, etc.) way to meet user requirement, it's about the demise of Windows, right in the first sentence.
Give me a break and learn to write articles without trolling!
The only thing that will be made irrelevant is Slashdot.org, thanks to highly insightful articles like this.
I agree about the originality of Apache and snort (sodi-mumbo-jumbo-podi I am not familiar with).
Oo - perhaps if it was different people would complain. But also: a) if it was different and better, people wouldn't complain (I never hear people complain about Apache, although it's different from IIS, or Firefox) b) if it is indeed the same, then it's a clone (and bad at that, since it's not better)
Most OSS aren't clones (on the other hand, one possible reason is that Microsoft and Apple were never that focused on office or creative desktop software), but many apps are clones, and bad clones at that.
It's same like with commercial software - some of it is good, some of it is shite.
Outsourcing: I'd go accross the border to China
on
Virtual Girlfriend
·
· Score: 1
I'd rather go accross the border to Shenzhen, China - for almost the same money you can get the real thing...
>What will happen when intelligent machines start inventing things. Who will own the copyright then?
The owner of the intelligent machine.
There's already been a case of that (my Slashdot story submission on this was rejected) where neural network patented by a guy invented two more patents that were subsequently awarded to the inventor/owner of the neural network.
http://www.matr.net/article-9788.html
>And what will you do when you are no longer needed to do anything, i.e., when your labor and expertise is worthless?
I believe nothing will change. You will keep stealing. It will be a while before my labor and expertise becomes worthless. But by then I hope to live off land and capital.
> Any economic system based on labor is stupid.
Mr. Nobel, the/. crowd is eagerly awaiting your whitepapers!
Yeah of course - as soon as you hit Enter, the client could extract keywords and use HTTP protocol to get related Google adset. They could also get abstracts based on the past x lines so that they don't show stupid ads, or show you ads based on your mailbox at Gmail, etc.
>So, it is "insertable" into the kernel, like kernel modules (only less secure and stable).
Less secure? Errh, how so? If "insmod fs" (the Windows equivalent) is controlled by the system and the file system supports standard ACLs, why would it be "less secure"?
If it is less stable, how come there are ISVs that create scalable cluster file systems* for Windows using this kit?
* I am talking about file systems for Windows here (unrelated to extx or ReiserFS on Windows)
As a matter of fact, the old, free PGP (like 8 yrs ago or something like that) had a version called PHPphone or something like that. At the time I had a 14.4Kbps modem, I it could have been '95, I guess.
>I mean compressing am HD movie down to DVD size isn't going to hurt your quality that bad
Don't know if you've tried - it took my PC (Althon 1.6GHz) almost a whole day to convert AVI to VCD... I don't even dare to think how long HD->DVD conversion would take on a home computer.
======== The second problem is that open source when they turn to the general tools they tend to be in the line of "let's implement what we already know" so they will take Microsoft Office and they will clone it. Since we've been criticising Microsoft for years for cloning Apple it is only fair to criticise open source for cloning Microsoft. The point being that you don't move ahead but you have to do something new. ========
Very nicely said - he's not the first or the last to say this, but I am puzzled how many in the OSS community and on/. still dispute that view.
Of course, that is not only obvious but potentially dangerous from the legal perspective. If/when OSS software gets close to endangering some big commercial software, I think this cloning thing will be the first the ISV will present to the court.
BTW, the Pope said something against cloning yesterday - was he complaining about OSS?
> Well if it is a biological influence then the modern laws allow it to be more sympthic to their situation.
That's the point that the grandparent post made - if it is ONLY biological, then murderers should deserve the same sympathy, too. From there it depends whether one is in favor of strict(er) punishment and/or death penalty...
Ultimately it should not matter why. I would support less strict penalties for "biological" criminals (for example, I would not allow death penalty for "biocrims") but I would definitively wouldn't let them off the hook.
If we allowed this genetic/biological excuses to get out of control, then we'd be closer to Pre-Crime Police and certain people would need to get "cured" only if they had certain genetic markup, which is a horrifying thought.
Some closed source anti-spam software isn't available to just anyone and there is no evaluation version - it is available only to corporate users and I think the installation and maintenance process are created in such way so that it makes it hard, even for sysadmin, to perform actions 1-6.
Good point - that's why, in theory, closed-source software that isn't available for free download and in open-source version should be more effective against spam.
Spell checker as anti-spam filter - that would create huge problems for most Americans:-) Otherwise it's a good idea.
I think that even on Slashdot most folks would agree that since MS IE 2.0 Microsoft has had the best browser around.
It is also quite well known that this year many people switched to other browsers (I'm writing this in Firefox) because they got fed up with IE security issues. This proves the point that they did not switch before just because the incentive was too low.
> millions of people use without considering any of the alternatives
This has been discussed on Slashdot many times; I believe that most people don't _want_ to consider alternatives because they can get by just fine with whatever comes in in the box they buy. They can't tell the difference. I made an experiment - I tried to get my friend to use Firefox just to see how she will react - she doesn't want to and I think think the reason is really absurd - probably she doesn't like to remember a different icon on her desktop or something like that. To her it's all the same, so why switch?
>Imagine this angle, a person owns a large yard, they work on this yard every day for several years because it is their year, its not a leased yard, he is not paid to work on it.
In my imagination the owner doesn't get to work on the yard except on weekends, because on regular days, when he gets home it's already too dark to work on the yard and he feels really tired.
>Never read the click-through licences, have you? They all begin with something like: ``This product comes with no warrenty, including without limitation any warrenty of fitness for any particular purpose.''
They surely do, however, I still tend to believe that someone who lives off the software they make will excercise greater care than someone who does it for fun.
Overall, I think there's more incentive on the side of commercial developers to make sure the software works as advertised.
I don't know, I use Google Toolbar in all my browsers, but I found Google Deskbar annoying and impractical to use. If anyone (not only the Big Three) makes a product that's good and integrates well with Linux and Windows, it will quickly climb to the top. I think there's a lot of space in Internet-Desktop (Office/Email) connectivity. Microsoft can do a good job in making a deskbar that works well with Hotmail and MS Office, Google can improve theirs, and ANYONE can make one that works fine on both Linux and Windows OS and with OpenOffice. It's a very open market.
>The only issue here (of course) is that Longhorn will come with the MSN search agent, but people will have to install Google's deskbar app.
That may be true but if the stuff sucks, noone will use it. I tried Yahoo's browser toolbar and uninstalled it, I tried Microsoft's toolbar and did the same. Ten minutes was all I needed to make an informed decision.
>coughmonopolycough
That'd be partially true if Windows was the only OS on the market or if the market was not transparent. Apart from that, I'd say that the fact that both are free and can be downloaded at will gives sufficient choice to customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, there are Word features that suck - the thing is - 90% of people have no clue how to use 90% of the features.
They even don't bother to learn how to use styles, they can only change font, adjust font size and color, set bold and italic, that's about it.
Whowever really cares about formatting won't use Word (you'd use a specialized authoring tool like InDesign or such), other than that quite a few people _can_ use it to their satisfaction, and a huge majority has no fucking clue how those features work - but they feel it's OK because they are used to the GUI.
The next key feature of an office suite is integration with other productivity tools and that's what MS is focusing on these days (Sharepoint, Exchange, Cisco switches, CRM, etc.).
Feature-wise all wordprocessing software is to some extent overbloated, what is going to be important is productivity and integration, so whether X word processor is cheaper or less bloated won't be as important.
>Where is the strategic advantage for everyone to jump on board exactly?
The advantage is that deadbeats who created and contributed nothing at all can use a ready-made anti-spam technique at no cost whatsoever.
Is that so hard to understand?
>Maybe this is the real way Windows will be made irrelevant
Phew! "Irrelevant"!
And straight to the point - it's not about a nice (cost-effective, elegant, etc.) way to meet user requirement, it's about the demise of Windows, right in the first sentence.
Give me a break and learn to write articles without trolling!
The only thing that will be made irrelevant is Slashdot.org, thanks to highly insightful articles like this.
I agree about the originality of Apache and snort (sodi-mumbo-jumbo-podi I am not familiar with).
Oo - perhaps if it was different people would complain. But also:
a) if it was different and better, people wouldn't complain (I never hear people complain about Apache, although it's different from IIS, or Firefox)
b) if it is indeed the same, then it's a clone (and bad at that, since it's not better)
Most OSS aren't clones (on the other hand, one possible reason is that Microsoft and Apple were never that focused on office or creative desktop software), but many apps are clones, and bad clones at that.
It's same like with commercial software - some of it is good, some of it is shite.
I'd rather go accross the border to Shenzhen, China - for almost the same money you can get the real thing...
Well Real Networks have the know-how to play iPod's tunes, but it doesn't mean they can't get cut off any time - they are at complete mercy of Apple.
Once your messenger starts getting cut off twice a month, you'll get fed up with that bullshit.
At least that's why I abandoned Gaim.
>What will happen when intelligent machines start inventing things. Who will own the copyright then?
/. crowd is eagerly awaiting your whitepapers!
The owner of the intelligent machine.
There's already been a case of that (my Slashdot story submission on this was rejected) where neural network patented by a guy invented two more patents that were subsequently awarded to the inventor/owner of the neural network.
http://www.matr.net/article-9788.html
>And what will you do when you are no longer needed to do anything, i.e., when your labor and expertise is worthless?
I believe nothing will change.
You will keep stealing.
It will be a while before my labor and expertise becomes worthless. But by then I hope to live off land and capital.
> Any economic system based on labor is stupid.
Mr. Nobel, the
> I don't really see copying textbooks as wrong.
Let me guess - you are not a book author...
Yeah of course - as soon as you hit Enter, the client could extract keywords and use HTTP protocol to get related Google adset.
They could also get abstracts based on the past x lines so that they don't show stupid ads, or show you ads based on your mailbox at Gmail, etc.
>So, it is "insertable" into the kernel, like kernel modules (only less secure and stable).
Less secure? Errh, how so? If "insmod fs" (the Windows equivalent) is controlled by the system and the file system supports standard ACLs, why would it be "less secure"?
If it is less stable, how come there are ISVs that create scalable cluster file systems* for Windows using this kit?
* I am talking about file systems for Windows here (unrelated to extx or ReiserFS on Windows)
As a matter of fact, the old, free PGP (like 8 yrs ago or something like that) had a version called PHPphone or something like that.
At the time I had a 14.4Kbps modem, I it could have been '95, I guess.
>I mean compressing am HD movie down to DVD size isn't going to hurt your quality that bad
Don't know if you've tried - it took my PC (Althon 1.6GHz) almost a whole day to convert AVI to VCD... I don't even dare to think how long HD->DVD conversion would take on a home computer.
From TFA:
/. still dispute that view.
========
The second problem is that open source when they turn to the general tools they tend to be in the line of "let's implement what we already know" so they will take Microsoft Office and they will clone it. Since we've been criticising Microsoft for years for cloning Apple it is only fair to criticise open source for cloning Microsoft. The point being that you don't move ahead but you have to do something new.
========
Very nicely said - he's not the first or the last to say this, but I am puzzled how many in the OSS community and on
Of course, that is not only obvious but potentially dangerous from the legal perspective.
If/when OSS software gets close to endangering some big commercial software, I think this cloning thing will be the first the ISV will present to the court.
BTW, the Pope said something against cloning yesterday - was he complaining about OSS?
> Well if it is a biological influence then the modern laws allow it to be more sympthic to their situation.
That's the point that the grandparent post made - if it is ONLY biological, then murderers should deserve the same sympathy, too.
From there it depends whether one is in favor of strict(er) punishment and/or death penalty...
Ultimately it should not matter why. I would support less strict penalties for "biological" criminals (for example, I would not allow death penalty for "biocrims") but I would definitively wouldn't let them off the hook.
If we allowed this genetic/biological excuses to get out of control, then we'd be closer to Pre-Crime Police and certain people would need to get "cured" only if they had certain genetic markup, which is a horrifying thought.
http://www.caf.dlr.de/caf/satellitendaten/bilderga lerie/
>Does this mean I'm free to create an open-source psychopath mass-murdering robot?
If that will be the result of your own research into robot ethics, better don't design anything.
In other words, you're free to design your own one or 50 laws of robotics - after all, variety is always good. And you can also use the Asimov's laws.
While it's unethical for a Protestant to accept bribe, it isn't so for some other religions, or in certain countries.
>How so?
Some closed source anti-spam software isn't available to just anyone and there is no evaluation version - it is available only to corporate users and I think the installation and maintenance process are created in such way so that it makes it hard, even for sysadmin, to perform actions 1-6.
Good point - that's why, in theory, closed-source software that isn't available for free download and in open-source version should be more effective against spam.
:-)
Spell checker as anti-spam filter - that would create huge problems for most Americans
Otherwise it's a good idea.
Yes, you will get arrested for your membership in "Powerbook Users" a terrorist organization conspiring to cause global warming
WTF is that Vivismo about?
e ry =bonding&v%3Asources=HP&v%3Aproject=demo&x=0&y =0
e d= 4&ratio=5&spons=1&searchterm=web&start=0&search.x= 0&search.y=0
Try this for a good laugh - supposedly this is a demo page for their excellent result-clustering technology (search: "bonding" site: hp.com):
http://vivisimo.com/search?input-form=simple&qu
Then try this on the visualizing super power Girafa (search for the word "web"):
http://www.girafa.com/vsearch/search.acr?search
That is truly hilarious!
Google should offer them 50 cents each.
> arguably inferior browser with Windows
I think that even on Slashdot most folks would agree that since MS IE 2.0 Microsoft has had the best browser around.
It is also quite well known that this year many people switched to other browsers (I'm writing this in Firefox) because they got fed up with IE security issues. This proves the point that they did not switch before just because the incentive was too low.
> millions of people use without considering any of the alternatives
This has been discussed on Slashdot many times; I believe that most people don't _want_ to consider alternatives because they can get by just fine with whatever comes in in the box they buy. They can't tell the difference. I made an experiment - I tried to get my friend to use Firefox just to see how she will react - she doesn't want to and I think think the reason is really absurd - probably she doesn't like to remember a different icon on her desktop or something like that. To her it's all the same, so why switch?
>Imagine this angle, a person owns a large yard, they work on this yard every day for several years because it is their year, its not a leased yard, he is not paid to work on it.
In my imagination the owner doesn't get to work on the yard except on weekends, because on regular days, when he gets home it's already too dark to work on the yard and he feels really tired.
> Google is developing their own OS. Anyone want to provide the odds?
What a bunch of fucking bullshit!
>Never read the click-through licences, have you? They all begin with something like: ``This product comes with no warrenty, including without limitation any warrenty of fitness for any particular purpose.''
They surely do, however, I still tend to believe that someone who lives off the software they make will excercise greater care than someone who does it for fun.
Overall, I think there's more incentive on the side of commercial developers to make sure the software works as advertised.
>How about the Google Deskbar?
I don't know, I use Google Toolbar in all my browsers, but I found Google Deskbar annoying and impractical to use.
If anyone (not only the Big Three) makes a product that's good and integrates well with Linux and Windows, it will quickly climb to the top.
I think there's a lot of space in Internet-Desktop (Office/Email) connectivity.
Microsoft can do a good job in making a deskbar that works well with Hotmail and MS Office, Google can improve theirs, and ANYONE can make one that works fine on both Linux and Windows OS and with OpenOffice.
It's a very open market.
>The only issue here (of course) is that Longhorn will come with the MSN search agent, but people will have to install Google's deskbar app.
That may be true but if the stuff sucks, noone will use it. I tried Yahoo's browser toolbar and uninstalled it, I tried Microsoft's toolbar and did the same. Ten minutes was all I needed to make an informed decision.
>coughmonopolycough
That'd be partially true if Windows was the only OS on the market or if the market was not transparent.
Apart from that, I'd say that the fact that both are free and can be downloaded at will gives sufficient choice to customers.