Joe6pack:
Sorry, Google, I know you've got a better product and all, but MSN search came with my browser which came with my OS which came with my computer. Switching is too hard, and anyway I heard that MSN search works better with Windows.
So MS illegally uses its OS monopoly to create a monopoly in the browser market, which it will now, in turn, use as leverage to gain an illegal advantage over search/portal competitors.
I guess this is where the DOJ's failure to secure meaningful remedies against Microsoft comes to roost.
Believe it or not, the SWF file format actually is an open standard, but I hear you there... I will be one happy mofo when reliable SVG support comes to the major browsers.
I'm really hoping that Microsoft doesn't try to pull their patented "Our browser now supports X, but our implementation is just different enough from everyone else's as to make it more or less useless" thing with SVG.
Re:As /. has clearly shown
on
The "Techie" Vote?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Good points, good post, but I'm not sure I can agree with your OSS/Communism association. There is a growing and maturing OSS industry which is built on a much more productive model (customers hire experts to implement/extend/develop OSS) than the regressive incumbent model (productized software designed with the goal of enhance profits over quality).
In previous conversations, I've heard it compared to the medical industry: 50 years ago we had a model where individual private-practice doctors were the foundation of the industry, and the majority of the research was done by academics, whereas now health care has been productized to the point where significant numbers of people can't afford it, and it's more a system designed to absorb retirement savings than save and extend lives. In short, whereas before individual attention and personal care created an industry that included compassion, proffessionalism and trust, now it's just about bottom lines.
Look at OSS vs. closed-source in the same light, and you'll see some similarities. Closed-source software companies make decisions based on achieving return business and lock-in rather than on what's best for the security and overall quality of the software product or the needs of their customers. I doubt if anyone here who actually develops open-sourced software does it purely for altruistic reasons. (Looks good on resumes if nothing else). But even with whatever personal-gain reasons they have, most do it because it's just what they do... they like it and they'd do it whether they get any money out of it or not. Just like with medical care, doing it for the right reasons makes for better software, and a better software industry.
The fact that the OSS model favors individuals and small-business entrepeneurs over mega-corps like Microsoft and runs contrary to the aspects of American business culture that create things like SCO, does not necessarily mean that the OSS idea has anything to do with communism or even socialism.
Quicktime and RealPlayer aren't European. While the EU's actions may help European consumers, they don't specifically address Microsoft's anti-competitive violations in the browser market - which directly impact Opera, a European company. People kind of tend to see the USDOJ's fight against Microsoft (which was at least partly about browsers) as a loser. But remember: prosecutors won the case, they just failed to win any meaningful remedies against Microsoft. Why would the EU not address this issue?
It really is weird how many people read the same articles about Microsoft's legal problems with the USDOJ and now the EU, and somehow are unable to pick up on the "illegal trade practices" thing. It's bad for industry and consumers when a company uses it's monopoly position in one market to gain an advantage over competitors in another market, and governments are sort-of obliged to protect their industries and consumers when it happens.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with bundling software (like a browser or media player) with a desktop OS. Other companies do it all the time. KDE? Yes, good example. KDE does it and it's OK. Microsoft does it and it's not OK. Why? Well, because Microsoft has a monopoly share of the desktop OS market.
What is so wrong with a company trying to release the best package possible to the consumer?
Absolutely nothing.
Provided the company doesn't violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in the process. Try to remember that having a monopoly is not illegal, but a company that holds a monopoly has to play by different rules than companies that do not.
Got it now? It's not as simple as, "best package possible" because Microsoft holds a monopoly in the desktop OS market.
A small business CANNOT afford to employ a full time UNIX administrator. Open source solutions just do not have the ease of administration of the Windows GUIs. Until they do, they will not be small business friendly. Windows Small Business Server provides you with one installer that will basically set you up completely (Exchange Server and all).
An Exchange server that was set up with a wizard by someone who just wants to "point, click and go," sounds like a formula for a spectacularly expensive disaster to me.:) I'm going to have to disagree with you, I'm afraid - the implied promise of Windows Small Business Server is that you can fill your small business' IT needs without needing expensive IT employees. That's just not true. Despite the wizards and GUIs, it's no more practical for an inexperienced technician to admin a MS system than a UNIX system. Full time or outsourced, a business large enough to need a server of some kind needs a good sysadmin. A good UNIX sysadmin (and no they aren't more expensive) is a better value for a small business than a good MS admin.
I would have named text-processing as one of Python's weaknesses. I wouldn't say it's bad, but it's certainly more of a PIA than in Perl or PHP. I guess I should read the book.:)
I would counter that the bill does not go far enough!
I would agree in principal that the best software should be chosen (by governments) for the given task, with needs, functionality, TCO, etc., used as the prominent criteria. My taxes have to pay for it, and the quality of public services depends on it. However, my own municipal and state governments have been using this strategy for many years now and they are up to their eyeballs in proprietary software and hogtied by very expensive vendor lock-in.
I read this bill not as an abandonment of the ideas you've mentioned (choosing the best software based on proper criteria) but rather as an adoption of the idea that open-sourced software is, in a broader sense, inherently more secure, functional, practical, etc. than closed software, and that even when there is a closed-source solution that seems better for a particular task, the government's and public's interests are better served when the government becomes involved with an open-sourced project rather than becoming a customer for the closed source product.
That's an idea I don't have any problems with at all. Let's not forget that commercial software vendors write software to increase shareholder value, while open-sourced software is designed to fulfill the needs of users. Suppose the government were to choose an open-sourced software package over a commercial one with more/better features, in direct contravention of the criteria you put forth, and the points the ISC are trying to make. If the government were to then use it's resources (or even just the money it saves) to help develop more/better features for the open-sourced project they've chosen to make up the difference, then not only has the government benefitted, but everyone will benefit from the advancements the government brings to the open-sourced software. The SA bill should go a step further and not only mandate open-sourced software over closed, I think it should mandate that the government actively participate to whatever degree is applicable and practical, with the open-sourced projects it chooses.
I think this is a great idea, and I wish my own local/state/federal governments were considering something like it.
That was my first thought as well.:) One of the arguments I've heard from proponents of the idea of developing IE-only is that while not everyone uses IE, at least everyone HAS IE. (I guess it's just easier to ignore the fact that some people do actually use Linux as their desktop).
The points against this ridiculous notion are really starting to pile up:
Opera, the Geckoes, and even Safari are just better browsers than IE, and people use them for just that reason.
Mac users haven't had access to up-to-date IE for years, and now that's not going to change.
It looks like MS is going to leave all the folks using Win98 in the same spot as Mac users: IE6, which is already way behind other browsers will be the last IE version available to them.
Developing to standards (CSS, ECMA-style Javascript) and ignoring folks using obsolete browsers is easier than ignoring everyone not using WinNewestVersion.
As a web developer, I hear an awful lot of, "Isn't IE the standard?" bullshit from customers and colleagues, but I'm also seeing that people are becoming more interested in the alternatives to IE. We were surprised not too long ago to visit a customer's offices and find that everyone was using (licensed) Opera.
This seems like an everybody wins situation... MS doesn't have to keep developing IE for Mac and answering embarassing questions about PNG's and CSS support, more people will try out Safari and other browsers as MacIE creeps towards obsolescense, and the "let's develop IE-only!" lunacy will hopefully lose some steam.
Ironically, IE5 for Mac was much better than IE5 for PC back when they were both new. The Mac version had better CSS support better support for PNG images, not to metion that it (still) looks cooler.:)
Sure, standards can sometimes slow down innovation. Of course, nothing seems to slow down innovation quite as effectively as the words "de facto".
Frankly, Microsoft has really dropped the ball with IE. Considering the vast resources they have to throw at a project, it really is sort of pathetic that IE isn't any better than it is... sure Gecko has quirks, but it's just a flat-out better web browser than IE on any platform. Sure KHTML has bugs... it's a fuckin' beta -- with tabbed browsing, popup blocking, PNG alpha support, and in some cases better standards compliance.
If Microsoft were more intrested in the quality of their web browser than in integrating it with their operating system and figuring out ways to generate IE-only browser lock-in, they might find that they are in a position to strongly influence the direction web standards take.
True to form, Microsoft has the most widely used browser, but they've failed to make it the best browser because they're too busy trying to make it be the only browser.
I think I'll keep developing for Gecko & KHTML, thanks.
Re:WoW is WoW backwards - but theres still IP
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 1
Huh.
I think you may have just proved that Al Gore does not exist.
Big fat whoop. MS Licensing is a business support contract, and pretty much a standard one at that.
Except that Microsoft holds a monopoly. So maybe your analogy would be a little more, uh, analogous if it went something like this:
1. Buying your house automatically binds you to a contract with Pedro's lawn care.
2. You own the house and the lot, but Pedro owns the grass, and can cut it or not cut it, or do as crappy a job as he likes, and you still have to pay.
3. Bill of Bill's lawn care would like to help, except that Bill's lawn care went out of business after his lawn mower was repo'd by Pedro's Rentals and Loans.
4. Pedro can put big ugly lawn ornaments, his mobile home, or ads for his lawn service on your lawn whenever he wants, and you can't complain, and you still have to pay.
Well, you've made some pretty good points to support the idea that "Windows is quick and easy," while Linux is only for, written and supported by propeller-headed nerds with poor social skills.
In my experience, if you buy software that any fool can set up by clicking through some wizards, you'll inevitably end up with a bunch of fools running all your expensive computers... Which in the long run ends up being more expensive and aggravating than any propeller-headed nerd no matter how poor his social skills.
I know it seems painful now, but we're very quickly approaching a time when there will be two kinds of organizations: the kind that are getting stuff done with OSS, and the kind that are bent over squealing "Thank you sir, may I have another!" every time Microsoft's lawyers think up a new outrage to inflict on them.
So. It's not as pointy-clicky simple as you might like, and I can respect that. Windows is easier, you got me there.
Try to understand that I'm telling you this because it's what helped me, and not just to be a jackass, or to feel superior or anything:
Oh, I don't know, "subliminible messages," still cracks me up and it's been about that long.:)
After 3 yrs it's still the "invented the internet" thing if you want to laugh at Al Gore, but if you want to REALLY laugh, just wait a few minutes and W. will say something way funnier, like: "The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." (No, really, he said that).
I'm a web developer, and I can tell you that I don't get annoyed by people not using IE, I get annoyed by people who still use IE3.
If you've never built a site where you weren't worried about legacy browsers... well, it's a whole lot easier. Given how much CSS puts within reach, there's just no way to justify shutting out non-IE users for some IE-only shortcut.
The only thing that would make it nicer is if IE6's standards compliance were as good as Mozilla's and Opera's.
...the part where it says, "vouchers redeemable for any manufacturer's computer-related products and software."
I hope there aren't a bunch of Californians rushing out to use the vouchers on XBoxen and MS mice because they didn't realise they could use them for, say, O'Reilly's _Learning Red Hat Linux, 2nd Edition_ instead.
OK, so MS can go home feeling pretty good about having gotten the judgement they wanted, and that (from what I've seen here in the US) mainstream media is focusing on how the judgement might bouy the US stock market rather than on the issues of the case or how it will affect the industry. MS will probably view this as a huge win. So huge, in fact, that it's likely that Microsoft (which has never publicly acknowledged any wrongdoing, or expressed any hint of contrition) will regard the ruling as a validation of their aggressive business tactics. The fact remains, however, that the Microsoft monopoly is a Bad Thing(c) in and of itself, and that the unabated weight of it will continue to have a widespread negative impact on the industry, consumers, the economy, security, innovation and progress. Right now, we could impose remedies against MS (revealing source, breaking up the company) that would help mitigate these damages. But since the USDOJ and the justice system have failed to enact meaningful remedies, and given that MS is unlikely to back off their anti-competitive (and often illegal) behavior, is it not more likely now that we're headed into territory where politicians will start thinking about (God help us) regulation to "fix" the problem?
What do you think would have to happen (as if it's not bad enough already) for regulation to rear it's ugly head, and what ramifications do you think regulation would have for OSS?
Yeah, I get really confused when ppl use "best browser" and IE in the same sentence. From where I sit, it's a distant 3rd behind the Gecko's and Opera. Hell, even Konqueror has tabbed browsing nowadays.
Maybe if MS had not used it's desktop monopoly to muscle Netscape out of the running, there would have been a more consistent level of competition over the past several years, and IE would be a better browser now.
If I weren't all the way on the other coast, I'd go.:)
I imagine there will be dozens of San Francisco-ans, hundreds of Californians, and thousands who happened to be in town for the Expo.
I also imagine opponents of the idea will be quick to point out that there's likely to be a lot of non-Californians there demonstrating over a state issue, and they'll use that point to deflate the actual numbers. O'course it's NOT just a state issue, IMHO, since people, companies and organizations outside of California have to communicate with the California state government...
Slashdot Mirror
Hear, hear. Hard as it is to believe, just a month or two out of beta, Safari has very good CSS rendering and better features than IE 6.
Apple and the KHTML team deserve kudos for their work.
Joe6pack: Sorry, Google, I know you've got a better product and all, but MSN search came with my browser which came with my OS which came with my computer. Switching is too hard, and anyway I heard that MSN search works better with Windows.
So MS illegally uses its OS monopoly to create a monopoly in the browser market, which it will now, in turn, use as leverage to gain an illegal advantage over search/portal competitors.
I guess this is where the DOJ's failure to secure meaningful remedies against Microsoft comes to roost.
Believe it or not, the SWF file format actually is an open standard, but I hear you there... I will be one happy mofo when reliable SVG support comes to the major browsers.
I'm really hoping that Microsoft doesn't try to pull their patented "Our browser now supports X, but our implementation is just different enough from everyone else's as to make it more or less useless" thing with SVG.
Good points, good post, but I'm not sure I can agree with your OSS/Communism association. There is a growing and maturing OSS industry which is built on a much more productive model (customers hire experts to implement/extend/develop OSS) than the regressive incumbent model (productized software designed with the goal of enhance profits over quality).
In previous conversations, I've heard it compared to the medical industry: 50 years ago we had a model where individual private-practice doctors were the foundation of the industry, and the majority of the research was done by academics, whereas now health care has been productized to the point where significant numbers of people can't afford it, and it's more a system designed to absorb retirement savings than save and extend lives. In short, whereas before individual attention and personal care created an industry that included compassion, proffessionalism and trust, now it's just about bottom lines.
Look at OSS vs. closed-source in the same light, and you'll see some similarities. Closed-source software companies make decisions based on achieving return business and lock-in rather than on what's best for the security and overall quality of the software product or the needs of their customers. I doubt if anyone here who actually develops open-sourced software does it purely for altruistic reasons. (Looks good on resumes if nothing else). But even with whatever personal-gain reasons they have, most do it because it's just what they do... they like it and they'd do it whether they get any money out of it or not. Just like with medical care, doing it for the right reasons makes for better software, and a better software industry.
The fact that the OSS model favors individuals and small-business entrepeneurs over mega-corps like Microsoft and runs contrary to the aspects of American business culture that create things like SCO, does not necessarily mean that the OSS idea has anything to do with communism or even socialism.
What should we assume about your candidacy by the fact that your web page doesn't validate?
Quicktime and RealPlayer aren't European. While the EU's actions may help European consumers, they don't specifically address Microsoft's anti-competitive violations in the browser market - which directly impact Opera, a European company. People kind of tend to see the USDOJ's fight against Microsoft (which was at least partly about browsers) as a loser. But remember: prosecutors won the case, they just failed to win any meaningful remedies against Microsoft. Why would the EU not address this issue?
It really is weird how many people read the same articles about Microsoft's legal problems with the USDOJ and now the EU, and somehow are unable to pick up on the "illegal trade practices" thing. It's bad for industry and consumers when a company uses it's monopoly position in one market to gain an advantage over competitors in another market, and governments are sort-of obliged to protect their industries and consumers when it happens.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with bundling software (like a browser or media player) with a desktop OS. Other companies do it all the time. KDE? Yes, good example. KDE does it and it's OK. Microsoft does it and it's not OK. Why? Well, because Microsoft has a monopoly share of the desktop OS market.
Got it now? Good.
What is so wrong with a company trying to release the best package possible to the consumer?
Absolutely nothing.
Provided the company doesn't violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in the process. Try to remember that having a monopoly is not illegal, but a company that holds a monopoly has to play by different rules than companies that do not.
Got it now? It's not as simple as, "best package possible" because Microsoft holds a monopoly in the desktop OS market.
An Exchange server that was set up with a wizard by someone who just wants to "point, click and go," sounds like a formula for a spectacularly expensive disaster to me. :) I'm going to have to disagree with you, I'm afraid - the implied promise of Windows Small Business Server is that you can fill your small business' IT needs without needing expensive IT employees. That's just not true. Despite the wizards and GUIs, it's no more practical for an inexperienced technician to admin a MS system than a UNIX system. Full time or outsourced, a business large enough to need a server of some kind needs a good sysadmin. A good UNIX sysadmin (and no they aren't more expensive) is a better value for a small business than a good MS admin.
What are its strengths and its weaknesses?
I would have named text-processing as one of Python's weaknesses. I wouldn't say it's bad, but it's certainly more of a PIA than in Perl or PHP. I guess I should read the book. :)
I would counter that the bill does not go far enough!
I would agree in principal that the best software should be chosen (by governments) for the given task, with needs, functionality, TCO, etc., used as the prominent criteria. My taxes have to pay for it, and the quality of public services depends on it. However, my own municipal and state governments have been using this strategy for many years now and they are up to their eyeballs in proprietary software and hogtied by very expensive vendor lock-in.
I read this bill not as an abandonment of the ideas you've mentioned (choosing the best software based on proper criteria) but rather as an adoption of the idea that open-sourced software is, in a broader sense, inherently more secure, functional, practical, etc. than closed software, and that even when there is a closed-source solution that seems better for a particular task, the government's and public's interests are better served when the government becomes involved with an open-sourced project rather than becoming a customer for the closed source product.
That's an idea I don't have any problems with at all. Let's not forget that commercial software vendors write software to increase shareholder value, while open-sourced software is designed to fulfill the needs of users. Suppose the government were to choose an open-sourced software package over a commercial one with more/better features, in direct contravention of the criteria you put forth, and the points the ISC are trying to make. If the government were to then use it's resources (or even just the money it saves) to help develop more/better features for the open-sourced project they've chosen to make up the difference, then not only has the government benefitted, but everyone will benefit from the advancements the government brings to the open-sourced software. The SA bill should go a step further and not only mandate open-sourced software over closed, I think it should mandate that the government actively participate to whatever degree is applicable and practical, with the open-sourced projects it chooses.
I think this is a great idea, and I wish my own local/state/federal governments were considering something like it.
That was my first thought as well. :) One of the arguments I've heard from proponents of the idea of developing IE-only is that while not everyone uses IE, at least everyone HAS IE. (I guess it's just easier to ignore the fact that some people do actually use Linux as their desktop).
The points against this ridiculous notion are really starting to pile up:
As a web developer, I hear an awful lot of, "Isn't IE the standard?" bullshit from customers and colleagues, but I'm also seeing that people are becoming more interested in the alternatives to IE. We were surprised not too long ago to visit a customer's offices and find that everyone was using (licensed) Opera.
This seems like an everybody wins situation... MS doesn't have to keep developing IE for Mac and answering embarassing questions about PNG's and CSS support, more people will try out Safari and other browsers as MacIE creeps towards obsolescense, and the "let's develop IE-only!" lunacy will hopefully lose some steam.
Ironically, IE5 for Mac was much better than IE5 for PC back when they were both new. The Mac version had better CSS support better support for PNG images, not to metion that it (still) looks cooler. :)
Crap.
Sure, standards can sometimes slow down innovation. Of course, nothing seems to slow down innovation quite as effectively as the words "de facto".
Frankly, Microsoft has really dropped the ball with IE. Considering the vast resources they have to throw at a project, it really is sort of pathetic that IE isn't any better than it is... sure Gecko has quirks, but it's just a flat-out better web browser than IE on any platform. Sure KHTML has bugs... it's a fuckin' beta -- with tabbed browsing, popup blocking, PNG alpha support, and in some cases better standards compliance.
If Microsoft were more intrested in the quality of their web browser than in integrating it with their operating system and figuring out ways to generate IE-only browser lock-in, they might find that they are in a position to strongly influence the direction web standards take.
True to form, Microsoft has the most widely used browser, but they've failed to make it the best browser because they're too busy trying to make it be the only browser.
I think I'll keep developing for Gecko & KHTML, thanks.
Huh.
I think you may have just proved that Al Gore does not exist.
Big fat whoop. MS Licensing is a business support contract, and pretty much a standard one at that.
Except that Microsoft holds a monopoly. So maybe your analogy would be a little more, uh, analogous if it went something like this:
1. Buying your house automatically binds you to a contract with Pedro's lawn care.
2. You own the house and the lot, but Pedro owns the grass, and can cut it or not cut it, or do as crappy a job as he likes, and you still have to pay.
3. Bill of Bill's lawn care would like to help, except that Bill's lawn care went out of business after his lawn mower was repo'd by Pedro's Rentals and Loans.
4. Pedro can put big ugly lawn ornaments, his mobile home, or ads for his lawn service on your lawn whenever he wants, and you can't complain, and you still have to pay.
Well, you've made some pretty good points to support the idea that "Windows is quick and easy," while Linux is only for, written and supported by propeller-headed nerds with poor social skills.
In my experience, if you buy software that any fool can set up by clicking through some wizards, you'll inevitably end up with a bunch of fools running all your expensive computers... Which in the long run ends up being more expensive and aggravating than any propeller-headed nerd no matter how poor his social skills.
I know it seems painful now, but we're very quickly approaching a time when there will be two kinds of organizations: the kind that are getting stuff done with OSS, and the kind that are bent over squealing "Thank you sir, may I have another!" every time Microsoft's lawyers think up a new outrage to inflict on them.
So. It's not as pointy-clicky simple as you might like, and I can respect that. Windows is easier, you got me there.
Try to understand that I'm telling you this because it's what helped me, and not just to be a jackass, or to feel superior or anything:
RTFM
Not bad... that would also invalidate every employment non-disclosure agreement I've ever seen...
Oh, I don't know, "subliminible messages," still cracks me up and it's been about that long. :)
After 3 yrs it's still the "invented the internet" thing if you want to laugh at Al Gore, but if you want to REALLY laugh, just wait a few minutes and W. will say something way funnier, like: "The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." (No, really, he said that).
I'm a web developer, and I can tell you that I don't get annoyed by people not using IE, I get annoyed by people who still use IE3.
If you've never built a site where you weren't worried about legacy browsers... well, it's a whole lot easier. Given how much CSS puts within reach, there's just no way to justify shutting out non-IE users for some IE-only shortcut.
The only thing that would make it nicer is if IE6's standards compliance were as good as Mozilla's and Opera's.
...the part where it says, "vouchers redeemable for any manufacturer's computer-related products and software."
I hope there aren't a bunch of Californians rushing out to use the vouchers on XBoxen and MS mice because they didn't realise they could use them for, say, O'Reilly's _Learning Red Hat Linux, 2nd Edition_ instead.
OK, so MS can go home feeling pretty good about having gotten the judgement they wanted, and that (from what I've seen here in the US) mainstream media is focusing on how the judgement might bouy the US stock market rather than on the issues of the case or how it will affect the industry. MS will probably view this as a huge win. So huge, in fact, that it's likely that Microsoft (which has never publicly acknowledged any wrongdoing, or expressed any hint of contrition) will regard the ruling as a validation of their aggressive business tactics. The fact remains, however, that the Microsoft monopoly is a Bad Thing(c) in and of itself, and that the unabated weight of it will continue to have a widespread negative impact on the industry, consumers, the economy, security, innovation and progress. Right now, we could impose remedies against MS (revealing source, breaking up the company) that would help mitigate these damages. But since the USDOJ and the justice system have failed to enact meaningful remedies, and given that MS is unlikely to back off their anti-competitive (and often illegal) behavior, is it not more likely now that we're headed into territory where politicians will start thinking about (God help us) regulation to "fix" the problem?
What do you think would have to happen (as if it's not bad enough already) for regulation to rear it's ugly head, and what ramifications do you think regulation would have for OSS?
---
...or we could all just start using Linux.
Yeah, I get really confused when ppl use "best browser" and IE in the same sentence. From where I sit, it's a distant 3rd behind the Gecko's and Opera. Hell, even Konqueror has tabbed browsing nowadays.
Maybe if MS had not used it's desktop monopoly to muscle Netscape out of the running, there would have been a more consistent level of competition over the past several years, and IE would be a better browser now.
Funnier still is that IE is the only major browser that still does not correctly render png's with alpha support.
If I weren't all the way on the other coast, I'd go. :)
I imagine there will be dozens of San Francisco-ans, hundreds of Californians, and thousands who happened to be in town for the Expo.
I also imagine opponents of the idea will be quick to point out that there's likely to be a lot of non-Californians there demonstrating over a state issue, and they'll use that point to deflate the actual numbers. O'course it's NOT just a state issue, IMHO, since people, companies and organizations outside of California have to communicate with the California state government...