As I understand it, Massachusetts is planning an upgrade whether they adopt OpenDocument or not. A transition to Microsoft Office 12 will cost the Commonwealth about $50 million. This estimate includes operating system upgrades and associated hardware upgrades, since older Windows versions in use by some government offices do not run the latest version of Windows, and Office 12 will only run on XP or Vista.
The estimated cost of upgrading to OpenOffice.org so that the Commonwealth can standardize on OpenDocument is about $5 million. So we have a cost savings of about $45 million. I don't know about how other Slashdot readers feel about $45 million, but personally I think that's a lot of money. Even if you suppose that the estimate is off by some whopping amount like $20 million in unforseen costs (this is the home of The Big Dig, after all), that's still $25 million in savings.
So if accessability is a major issue for Massachusetts, why not hire programmers to customize the software to suit its needs? I would imagine that hiring a few hackers to contribute to OpenOffice.org would benefit the community, advance the software by making it more desirable to other users, and still save the Commonwealth money. It would also be a nice example to other state and national goverments - if they follow suit and contribute as well, Massachusetts reaps the rewards. Companies are now doing this, so why not governments?
Thanks for clearing this up. The Why was my very first question - obviously bills in Congress are massive things with many facets, and opposition would obviously be related to something not in the article above. The Why was an important inclusion in this post, and I share your surprise that/. didn't amend it.
Yes. This is why I really hope the case is resolved soon. And IBM seems to have the same idea, judging from the fact that they dropped their patent counterclaims. Those were always meant to bleed SCO dry, but now that SCO is faltering under decreased revenue, IBM clearly sees that winning the core case is important for the whole Linux community.
Sure, its memory usage is a bit heavy (though it's worked fine for me), but 80 MB doesn't seem like such a big download, considering what you get. Microsoft Office now spans more than one CD. Even when you omit the media (images, clipart, etc.) that come with MS Office, OOo must still be considerably smaller.
Not that I'm criticising their intentions - if they make it even smaller than 80 MB I won't complain.
Any OS maker has the right - indeed, the responsibility - to secure their system. Integrating security mechanisms into Vista would be fine, not unlike adding iptables to the Linux kernel or requiring an admin password for all security-related operations in Mac OS X. So if Microsoft were to give this away as part of Vista, they could virtually kill Symantec and I would have no problem with it. After all, Symantec has made a killing on compensating for problems in Windows, and fixing those problems is far from bad business.
But if Microsoft intends to charge for their security products, it's a scam. They'd have a vested interest in building only basic security into their OS, because enterprises will otherwise have no reason to buy the security add-ons. I hope Symantec wins this not because Microsoft's entry into this market is wrong, but because they've done it entirely the wrong and corrupt way.
I discovered something interesting about this. I was using Firefox 1.5 beta 1 on Linux and Flash wasn't working for me either, but I decided to put in the specific URL for the SWF file and it worked fine. So I realized that the plugin is fine, but it fails to render the Flash in the context of a web page.
This turned out to be a problem with the Adblock extension. It was encapsulating the Flash elements in Adblock tags, which for some reason Firefox couldn't render. So I disabled Adblock. Right now there is an AMD ad at the top of this Slashdot page, which is a pity but Flash is working fine.
No, admittedly I didn't RTFA, just weighed in on some previous comments regarding GPL'd code and how it fits into copyright law. I don't think a fork would make the community "leeches." The company that owns the code released it under the GPL, and the GPL explicitly allows forking. I don't think there is any moral case against a fork, since not only is it entirely legal under the software's previous license, but also because said license was deliberately chosen by the copyright holder. If forks were immoral and undesirable the company should not have released their code under the GPL. They had that choice.
They can do it, but forks inevitable
on
Nessus Closes Source
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Contrary to a number of comments I'm already reading, Tenable Network Security can do this, as long as they control the copyright to the entire body of work. This would be impossible for some GPL-licensed software for which the copyrights to separate contributions are owned by their contributors. If I am not mistaken, I think Linux falls into this category, so Linux could not be taken out of the GPL unless everyone who holds copyrights over the many parts of the source code all agree on the new license. Won't happen.
For software that is copyrighted by a single entity, be it an individual or a company, the license can easily be changed. However, anyone who obtained the software under the terms of the previous license cannot have the rights that were granted revoked. This means if you downloaded the software and source at any time before the license change, congratulations. You have the GPL'd project in a relatively recent state, and the GPL applies.
This presents an opportunity to fork a GPL version. If enough people are interested, the fork can eclipse the original project, as X.org did to XFree86 when the latter changed its license.
having your critical work depend on a network connection to some internet server is quite a huge risk (especially if you can't call up that internet server and demand instant human support for any little problem).
Here's some more speculation: your reasoning is why I've been wondering if an enirely different product may be in the works. Everyone who has read the rumors seems to be visualizing a GMail-like office suite, which is nice, but perhaps that is only part of the picture. Maybe the real goal is to sell a web-based office server product to businesses. The partnership is with Sun, indicating that this is not about OpenOffice.org, but rather Star Office. Google doesn't need to partner with Sun for OpenOffice.org.
Google could provide a web server that provides Star Office in a browser over local intranet - no Internet access required. This would mean that companies could trust it, since the service and resulting data is all on-site and locally administered. Because Star Office is proprietary, Sun could get revenue through helping Google develop it (unlike with OpenOffice.org, which is LGPL and also free as in beer). Companies could make per-seat considerations largely disappear by buying the mauve-colored Star Office box from Google and ditching MS Office.
I bet the documents you'd create on such a system would be easily searchable.
Google google is fine for google, however for web apps google google would be very easy for Google. But what about Google Google? Google google google would be Google's to google. Consider:
Google
Google
Yahoo, MSN? No, Google!
Google Google - the google of the google google.
Right, that should cover this week's upcoming tech news pretty succinctly.
Anyone who was on the verge of switching before now have virtually no reason not to.
Well, they certainly have no reason not to try Opera. Switch? I do appreciate the open development model of competing browsers like Firefox. As someone who cares about open standards and think the web will get better the more we embrace them, I like the fact that Opera is not Microsoft. Nothing against Redmond, but it matters a lot to me that browser's design is done independently of any server's design.
I'm using the Debian 3.1 version on Ubuntu right now and have to admit it's a pretty snappy browser. It renders Slashdot nicely. I may keep playing with it, but I'm not sure I'll switch from Firefox with Deer Park coming out soon. These browsers are pretty much on par, so I think I'll take the open source one.
I feel kind of bad for Opera. That the browser is now free is an indication that the company realizes it can no longer sell its flagship product. You know, for money. That's got to hurt.
No kidding. Even themes that claim to support Deer Park, the immedite precursor to this beta, do not work in this release.
It's a toss-up whether it's worth using this browser - I personally think it is worth it. I couldn't care less about themes. I use the Web Developer extension and Greasemonkey, but they're not vital. But what I get in exchange for giving up those things (temporarily) is way faster browsing. I can't believe how much faster this thing is than 1.0.6.
To impress an HR person who has been instructed to look for a particular certification.
To provide a personal goal that focuses your study on a topic.
Yes, both are debatable.
I received the Red Hat Certified Engineer certification last year. My reasoning was that I was employeed and saving money, so I might as well get a certification in case I ever lose my job. The last time I lost my job my lack of certification was an issue with some employers. This was a flaw in their reasoning; wiser employers won't care as much about certificates. But when you're looking for a job it's worth seeming qualified to the HR people who can open doors to people more qualified to evaluate your skills. So certification is an insurance policy.
In the process of studying for what was a very challenging test (which I failed on the first attempt), I learned a little bit about more or less everything in an average Red Hat Linux system. The studying itself was a lot of work, and I really valued the knowledge that came of it. I requested and received a raise in my sysadmin job, since I was a more valuable employee after I studied for the RHCE. This may vary from cert to cert (I've run circles around MCSEs when consulting for Microsoft products). But in my case the studying was valuable.
Of course I could have studied the course materials without taking the test, and I'm sure that would be fine for many people. But I liked the idea of having the insurance policy, and the test provided a nice goal.
Most people seem to get the main point that Apple is clearly in the right, even if they didn't file first. The Microsoft patent can be invalidated. But unfortunately it would have to be done via lawsuit.
Here's how the lawsuit would play out: Apple would become worried that Microsoft intends to charge for their "invention" and sues to have the patent invalidated. Microsoft counter-sues. This is why Microsoft files as many patent applications as they file - for ammunition. Microsoft's counter-suit would contain patent infringement claims for UI, iPod, the way Quicktime codecs work and all sorts of other things we can't imagine.
Result: Apple "licenses" the "invention" from Microsoft and provides their own "inventions" for Microsoft's use in a cross-licensing deal.
Winner: lawyers
This suit is a problem for Apple, regarless of the validity of Microsoft's claims. Hopefully it will raise the issue of software patents in the public consciousness. It is important that the opponents of software patents frame the debate.
Thanks for your comment on our comments. At Microsoft we always strive to make our Slashdot comments as reliable and accurate as the technology allows. As part of this commitment to comment quality, some of our text may be filtered through the latest version of our filter, Censor Vista (formerly called ActiveCensor.NET). This may cause some of our comments to sound more rehearsed than typical Slashdot posts.
Rest assured that Microsoft is incorporating patented algorithms into upcoming versions of Censor Vista, introducing the new FirstPost!, M$-is-teh-Shit and In-Soviet-Russia-OpenSource-Studied-Microsoft features. These improvements should render future PR-filtered Microsoft comments in a more Slashdotty fashion.
All those rumors that the feds wanted to use the influence of sci-fi fanaticism to discredit those seeking the truth about UFOs and what's going on at Area 51... well, they're all pretty much confirmed now, aren't they?:)
Firefox does not render Acid2 correctly. The only browser that does is a modified version of Konqueror that will become part of a future version of KDE.
The guy's point is not that Firefox is better than IE at Acid2, but that the IE team with its backing if $50 billion Microsoft can't devote any resources to at least moving in that direction, and doesn't see this omission in its development plans as a problem. With Microsoft's resources and the four-year gap since IE6 Microsoft could hve had an even more compliant browser than Mozilla. As a web designer I'm disappointed... but then again, I'll just keep converting people to Firefox as before.
Of course web standards make a web designer's job easy, which is not something Microsoft is too interested in doing. Developing interfaces for the web is a nail in the coffin of Windows, as standards-compliance is a step toward platform agnosticism. Where I work we have a couple systems that run in a browser but will not work without IE on Windows. Hence the need for Windows. Is the web services were built properly we'd be able to roll out OS X or Linux anywhere we want it. With the lion's share of the browser market Microsoft has no real incentive to risk that happening industry-wide.
Hence the value in a boycott. If a boycott took off, it would decrease the market share further. Another 10% would make it impractical for website designs to be IE-specific. And forget requiring ActiveX plugins. Microsoft would have to take notice, more so than they are now.
The headline to this article does not make sense. Commercial software and open source software are not opposites, nor are they necessarily separate things. There is a lot of overlap because a lot of open source software is also commercial (i.e., for profit). Red Hat Enterprise Linux, for example, is commercial open source software. One might as well ask if hybrid cars and commercial cars can coexist. The two types are not exclusive of one another.
The real distinction is that open source software is not proprietary. That is probably the word the poster of this article was looking for.
I just looked up this article because I recognized it as a dupe, and found that it goes back to November of 2004. There were only 20ish comments about the article, so I thought I'd be the first person who noticed. I was wrong. At least five people had already posted their dupe spottings, and the number is probably rising.
So I thought, what are the odds of my recognizing a dupe from eight months ago? Or of anyone else recognizing it? And then I realized - they're pretty high. I just discovered that I don't tend to miss Slashdot stories, ever, because if I'm away from the site for an extended period I usually scan backwards and browse the recent days, at least to get the basic ideas of the articles if not to go in-depth. In short, I've missed nothing here. Not in a long time. And I'm starting to wonder what that says about my life.
How long do we spend on this site? How much of our lives is lost to this pursuit? What would happen if I didn't come to this site tomorrow, and on Wednesday I ignore the Yesterday articles? Am I capable of this? A Tuesday without Slashdot? Would I suffer from any withdrawal symptoms? Because I'm scared, but I think it's important enough to try.
As for the UN taking over the internet... read any of what I just posted (either the two links or my commentary, whether you subscribe to the same view or not) and tell me how this would make a lick of sense.
So your argument against the UN running the Internet, if I read your last paragraph as you intended it, is that the UN was not set up in the 1940s to run a vast computer network like the Internet, so therefore it shouldn't take over the Internet now.
I'm not sold on the UN running the Internet, but your argument is baloney. You could make exactly the same argument about the United States, which was established in 1776 to create a union of former colonies opposed to British rule in the Americas and to create a joint governing structure for the newly independent states. It was not created in 1776 to run a vast computer network like the Internet. Therefore it shouldn't be running the Internet now.
Except I don't buy your argument whether it is applied to the United States or the United Nations - in either case when we speak of Intenet governance we're talking about proposals for the future, not about the histories of the parent entities.
No, what we really need from the community is some kind of "Standard Base" for Linux-based operating systems. That should solve our most pressing needs.
Slashdot Mirror
As I understand it, Massachusetts is planning an upgrade whether they adopt OpenDocument or not. A transition to Microsoft Office 12 will cost the Commonwealth about $50 million. This estimate includes operating system upgrades and associated hardware upgrades, since older Windows versions in use by some government offices do not run the latest version of Windows, and Office 12 will only run on XP or Vista.
The estimated cost of upgrading to OpenOffice.org so that the Commonwealth can standardize on OpenDocument is about $5 million. So we have a cost savings of about $45 million. I don't know about how other Slashdot readers feel about $45 million, but personally I think that's a lot of money. Even if you suppose that the estimate is off by some whopping amount like $20 million in unforseen costs (this is the home of The Big Dig, after all), that's still $25 million in savings.
So if accessability is a major issue for Massachusetts, why not hire programmers to customize the software to suit its needs? I would imagine that hiring a few hackers to contribute to OpenOffice.org would benefit the community, advance the software by making it more desirable to other users, and still save the Commonwealth money. It would also be a nice example to other state and national goverments - if they follow suit and contribute as well, Massachusetts reaps the rewards. Companies are now doing this, so why not governments?
Most of us have been keeping this a secret, but the 2.7 series source is on a HD-DVD disk hanging from a sky-hook in the basement of the Alamo.
Thanks for clearing this up. The Why was my very first question - obviously bills in Congress are massive things with many facets, and opposition would obviously be related to something not in the article above. The Why was an important inclusion in this post, and I share your surprise that /. didn't amend it.
Yes. This is why I really hope the case is resolved soon. And IBM seems to have the same idea, judging from the fact that they dropped their patent counterclaims. Those were always meant to bleed SCO dry, but now that SCO is faltering under decreased revenue, IBM clearly sees that winning the core case is important for the whole Linux community.
or its mammoth 80MB download size.
Sure, its memory usage is a bit heavy (though it's worked fine for me), but 80 MB doesn't seem like such a big download, considering what you get. Microsoft Office now spans more than one CD. Even when you omit the media (images, clipart, etc.) that come with MS Office, OOo must still be considerably smaller.
Not that I'm criticising their intentions - if they make it even smaller than 80 MB I won't complain.
Any OS maker has the right - indeed, the responsibility - to secure their system. Integrating security mechanisms into Vista would be fine, not unlike adding iptables to the Linux kernel or requiring an admin password for all security-related operations in Mac OS X. So if Microsoft were to give this away as part of Vista, they could virtually kill Symantec and I would have no problem with it. After all, Symantec has made a killing on compensating for problems in Windows, and fixing those problems is far from bad business.
But if Microsoft intends to charge for their security products, it's a scam. They'd have a vested interest in building only basic security into their OS, because enterprises will otherwise have no reason to buy the security add-ons. I hope Symantec wins this not because Microsoft's entry into this market is wrong, but because they've done it entirely the wrong and corrupt way.
Nice. That does work - thanks!
I discovered something interesting about this. I was using Firefox 1.5 beta 1 on Linux and Flash wasn't working for me either, but I decided to put in the specific URL for the SWF file and it worked fine. So I realized that the plugin is fine, but it fails to render the Flash in the context of a web page.
This turned out to be a problem with the Adblock extension. It was encapsulating the Flash elements in Adblock tags, which for some reason Firefox couldn't render. So I disabled Adblock. Right now there is an AMD ad at the top of this Slashdot page, which is a pity but Flash is working fine.
No, admittedly I didn't RTFA, just weighed in on some previous comments regarding GPL'd code and how it fits into copyright law. I don't think a fork would make the community "leeches." The company that owns the code released it under the GPL, and the GPL explicitly allows forking. I don't think there is any moral case against a fork, since not only is it entirely legal under the software's previous license, but also because said license was deliberately chosen by the copyright holder. If forks were immoral and undesirable the company should not have released their code under the GPL. They had that choice.
Contrary to a number of comments I'm already reading, Tenable Network Security can do this, as long as they control the copyright to the entire body of work. This would be impossible for some GPL-licensed software for which the copyrights to separate contributions are owned by their contributors. If I am not mistaken, I think Linux falls into this category, so Linux could not be taken out of the GPL unless everyone who holds copyrights over the many parts of the source code all agree on the new license. Won't happen.
For software that is copyrighted by a single entity, be it an individual or a company, the license can easily be changed. However, anyone who obtained the software under the terms of the previous license cannot have the rights that were granted revoked. This means if you downloaded the software and source at any time before the license change, congratulations. You have the GPL'd project in a relatively recent state, and the GPL applies.
This presents an opportunity to fork a GPL version. If enough people are interested, the fork can eclipse the original project, as X.org did to XFree86 when the latter changed its license.
having your critical work depend on a network connection to some internet server is quite a huge risk (especially if you can't call up that internet server and demand instant human support for any little problem).
Here's some more speculation: your reasoning is why I've been wondering if an enirely different product may be in the works. Everyone who has read the rumors seems to be visualizing a GMail-like office suite, which is nice, but perhaps that is only part of the picture. Maybe the real goal is to sell a web-based office server product to businesses. The partnership is with Sun, indicating that this is not about OpenOffice.org, but rather Star Office. Google doesn't need to partner with Sun for OpenOffice.org.
Google could provide a web server that provides Star Office in a browser over local intranet - no Internet access required. This would mean that companies could trust it, since the service and resulting data is all on-site and locally administered. Because Star Office is proprietary, Sun could get revenue through helping Google develop it (unlike with OpenOffice.org, which is LGPL and also free as in beer). Companies could make per-seat considerations largely disappear by buying the mauve-colored Star Office box from Google and ditching MS Office.
I bet the documents you'd create on such a system would be easily searchable.
Google google is fine for google, however for web apps google google would be very easy for Google. But what about Google Google? Google google google would be Google's to google. Consider:
Google Google - the google of the google google.
Right, that should cover this week's upcoming tech news pretty succinctly.
Looks like your DRM'd if you do, and DRM'd if you don't. (da-dum-dum!)
Well, they certainly have no reason not to try Opera. Switch? I do appreciate the open development model of competing browsers like Firefox. As someone who cares about open standards and think the web will get better the more we embrace them, I like the fact that Opera is not Microsoft. Nothing against Redmond, but it matters a lot to me that browser's design is done independently of any server's design.
I'm using the Debian 3.1 version on Ubuntu right now and have to admit it's a pretty snappy browser. It renders Slashdot nicely. I may keep playing with it, but I'm not sure I'll switch from Firefox with Deer Park coming out soon. These browsers are pretty much on par, so I think I'll take the open source one.
I feel kind of bad for Opera. That the browser is now free is an indication that the company realizes it can no longer sell its flagship product. You know, for money. That's got to hurt.
No kidding. Even themes that claim to support Deer Park, the immedite precursor to this beta, do not work in this release.
It's a toss-up whether it's worth using this browser - I personally think it is worth it. I couldn't care less about themes. I use the Web Developer extension and Greasemonkey, but they're not vital. But what I get in exchange for giving up those things (temporarily) is way faster browsing. I can't believe how much faster this thing is than 1.0.6.
There are two reasons:
Yes, both are debatable.
I received the Red Hat Certified Engineer certification last year. My reasoning was that I was employeed and saving money, so I might as well get a certification in case I ever lose my job. The last time I lost my job my lack of certification was an issue with some employers. This was a flaw in their reasoning; wiser employers won't care as much about certificates. But when you're looking for a job it's worth seeming qualified to the HR people who can open doors to people more qualified to evaluate your skills. So certification is an insurance policy.
In the process of studying for what was a very challenging test (which I failed on the first attempt), I learned a little bit about more or less everything in an average Red Hat Linux system. The studying itself was a lot of work, and I really valued the knowledge that came of it. I requested and received a raise in my sysadmin job, since I was a more valuable employee after I studied for the RHCE. This may vary from cert to cert (I've run circles around MCSEs when consulting for Microsoft products). But in my case the studying was valuable.
Of course I could have studied the course materials without taking the test, and I'm sure that would be fine for many people. But I liked the idea of having the insurance policy, and the test provided a nice goal.
Most people seem to get the main point that Apple is clearly in the right, even if they didn't file first. The Microsoft patent can be invalidated. But unfortunately it would have to be done via lawsuit.
Here's how the lawsuit would play out: Apple would become worried that Microsoft intends to charge for their "invention" and sues to have the patent invalidated. Microsoft counter-sues. This is why Microsoft files as many patent applications as they file - for ammunition. Microsoft's counter-suit would contain patent infringement claims for UI, iPod, the way Quicktime codecs work and all sorts of other things we can't imagine.
Result: Apple "licenses" the "invention" from Microsoft and provides their own "inventions" for Microsoft's use in a cross-licensing deal.
Winner: lawyers
This suit is a problem for Apple, regarless of the validity of Microsoft's claims. Hopefully it will raise the issue of software patents in the public consciousness. It is important that the opponents of software patents frame the debate.
Dear Anonymous,
Thanks for your comment on our comments. At Microsoft we always strive to make our Slashdot comments as reliable and accurate as the technology allows. As part of this commitment to comment quality, some of our text may be filtered through the latest version of our filter, Censor Vista (formerly called ActiveCensor.NET). This may cause some of our comments to sound more rehearsed than typical Slashdot posts.
Rest assured that Microsoft is incorporating patented algorithms into upcoming versions of Censor Vista, introducing the new FirstPost!, M$-is-teh-Shit and In-Soviet-Russia-OpenSource-Studied-Microsoft features. These improvements should render future PR-filtered Microsoft comments in a more Slashdotty fashion.
Regards,
The Microsoft Slashdot Monitoring Team
All those rumors that the feds wanted to use the influence of sci-fi fanaticism to discredit those seeking the truth about UFOs and what's going on at Area 51 ... well, they're all pretty much confirmed now, aren't they? :)
Firefox does not render Acid2 correctly. The only browser that does is a modified version of Konqueror that will become part of a future version of KDE.
The guy's point is not that Firefox is better than IE at Acid2, but that the IE team with its backing if $50 billion Microsoft can't devote any resources to at least moving in that direction, and doesn't see this omission in its development plans as a problem. With Microsoft's resources and the four-year gap since IE6 Microsoft could hve had an even more compliant browser than Mozilla. As a web designer I'm disappointed ... but then again, I'll just keep converting people to Firefox as before.
Of course web standards make a web designer's job easy, which is not something Microsoft is too interested in doing. Developing interfaces for the web is a nail in the coffin of Windows, as standards-compliance is a step toward platform agnosticism. Where I work we have a couple systems that run in a browser but will not work without IE on Windows. Hence the need for Windows. Is the web services were built properly we'd be able to roll out OS X or Linux anywhere we want it. With the lion's share of the browser market Microsoft has no real incentive to risk that happening industry-wide.
Hence the value in a boycott. If a boycott took off, it would decrease the market share further. Another 10% would make it impractical for website designs to be IE-specific. And forget requiring ActiveX plugins. Microsoft would have to take notice, more so than they are now.
The headline to this article does not make sense. Commercial software and open source software are not opposites, nor are they necessarily separate things. There is a lot of overlap because a lot of open source software is also commercial (i.e., for profit). Red Hat Enterprise Linux, for example, is commercial open source software. One might as well ask if hybrid cars and commercial cars can coexist. The two types are not exclusive of one another.
The real distinction is that open source software is not proprietary. That is probably the word the poster of this article was looking for.
I just looked up this article because I recognized it as a dupe, and found that it goes back to November of 2004. There were only 20ish comments about the article, so I thought I'd be the first person who noticed. I was wrong. At least five people had already posted their dupe spottings, and the number is probably rising.
So I thought, what are the odds of my recognizing a dupe from eight months ago? Or of anyone else recognizing it? And then I realized - they're pretty high. I just discovered that I don't tend to miss Slashdot stories, ever, because if I'm away from the site for an extended period I usually scan backwards and browse the recent days, at least to get the basic ideas of the articles if not to go in-depth. In short, I've missed nothing here. Not in a long time. And I'm starting to wonder what that says about my life.
How long do we spend on this site? How much of our lives is lost to this pursuit? What would happen if I didn't come to this site tomorrow, and on Wednesday I ignore the Yesterday articles? Am I capable of this? A Tuesday without Slashdot? Would I suffer from any withdrawal symptoms? Because I'm scared, but I think it's important enough to try.
Read the italicized text at the top of my comment. That was the text I was referring to, and it in turn refers to the previous argument.
As for the UN taking over the internet... read any of what I just posted (either the two links or my commentary, whether you subscribe to the same view or not) and tell me how this would make a lick of sense.
So your argument against the UN running the Internet, if I read your last paragraph as you intended it, is that the UN was not set up in the 1940s to run a vast computer network like the Internet, so therefore it shouldn't take over the Internet now.
I'm not sold on the UN running the Internet, but your argument is baloney. You could make exactly the same argument about the United States, which was established in 1776 to create a union of former colonies opposed to British rule in the Americas and to create a joint governing structure for the newly independent states. It was not created in 1776 to run a vast computer network like the Internet. Therefore it shouldn't be running the Internet now.
Except I don't buy your argument whether it is applied to the United States or the United Nations - in either case when we speak of Intenet governance we're talking about proposals for the future, not about the histories of the parent entities.
No, what we really need from the community is some kind of "Standard Base" for Linux-based operating systems. That should solve our most pressing needs.