I have been using OpenOffice on a consistent basis for the past three months, and I have to say that I like it quite a bit. I know, there are some things to be worked out on version 1.0.1, but I just enjoy being able to create documents without having to worry whether I will be able to send them to others and them not be able to read them in MS Office. Plus, I have both Linux and Win machines, and I can move files between them without having to worry about trying to open them up on the receiving machine.
In the bigger scheme of things, this could be interpreted as another Sun vs. Microsoft battle. MS has been trying to stick it to Sun and Java over Web Services, and this could be Sun's way of responding. Boys, boys, can't you learn to play nice together? The truth is, OASIS has lent OpenOffice some credibility by talking about XML file formats and trying to create a standard using OOo as an example.
If MS is going to use its own markup language that isn't standard XML, it's no longer XML-- it's something else. They are already committed to using XML in their products-- everything from IE to SQL Server. If they want to pull XML from Office, they can probably do so, but they might have some more massaging to do to make Office 11 compatible with some of their prods. It never ceases to amaze me how tenaciously they are at trying to hold on to their way of doing things, as opposed to following someone else's way. But then again, Office is one of the sacred (cash) cows of MS.
I have recently left the retail business, so this story just causes me to sit here in front of my machine and chuckle about how absurd the DMCA has become, and how this law has been abused.
I can tell you that the store where I used to work has a competitive price policy-- we would match the price for the same item if another store had the item currently at a lower price. Of course, to verify this, we would have to call the other store. I can now envision how such a conversation might take place now:
"Hello, I'm calling to find out the price of a Ralph Lauren polo, blue in color?"
"I'm sorry sir, I can't reveal that information without you having a Price Licence-- it's copyrighted, ya know."
Note that this might well be a regular customer, not an employee from a competitor. I assume that this site was posting prices of items from the different stores, and the stores put the whammy on them to discourage shoppers from being able to compare for themselves who had the lowest price. I consider this to be an anticompetitve action which could be prosecuted by the FTC or the Justice Dept.-- but they probably won't be.
Correct, they do want to prevent artists from reaching the people, except through them. And think of it this way: how many musicians, writers, and film makers' works haven't made it to the public, because of the enormous amount of control the studios have over the content that actually makes it out through the normal distribution channels? The 'net is not a channel for "content distribution"; its best and highest purpose is for finding one's voice. The musician, the writer, and perhaps the film maker have a chance to use the 'net to do this. If their stuff is good, people will be interested in purchasing it. I'd much rather obtain it directly from the artist than to go through the media giants. I wonder how much we as a culture are losing from the continued dominance of the mass media?
You're right: the entertainment/media industry runs on technology,and it wouldn't exist without it.
What has them worked up in such a froth is that they don't control the technology like they did when media was all analog. They could charge for each copy or for monthly service.
Now that they don't control the digital technology,they are on the backs of everyone in the tech world to save their ass, um, business model. They want to continue the top-down content delivery methods that the mass media has used for the past 100 years. And, they wanna make a killing in doing so, too.
It seems that they should get to work and improve their watermarking/copy protection/whatever technologies, and buy themselves a brigade of whores (um, I meant programmers and security experts).
Seriously, though, more expansive horizons await us, when high-speed 'net access is commonplace: it will be possible for people to choose what content they want. When it becomes possible for artists to use the 'net to distribute and sell their works with a street performer business model (give some stuff away, play some more songs for dough), the entertainment companies might be out of business.
If Halloween VII makes the Commercial News Network, this can only be a good thing. This is good pub for Linux, for Open Source. MS obviously is not even acknowledging this memo, so it's probably authentic. They obviously understand now that Linux or OSS-bashing doesn't work-- perhaps they think that if they don't draw too much attention to OSS, it will fade from public attention. They've been trying to win the developer community with.NET, too. It is just a strategy to lock organizations into Windows. Love him or hate him, you have to admit that ESR has done a big service to OSS by publishing the Halloween Documents.
I see your point. But though my question was technical in nature (about Windows APIs), it ultimately has everything to do with Microsoft's business practices. If MS is forced to fully reveal all of its existing APIs, and any APIs it discloses in the future, then the playing field is leveled considerably. People may be reluctant to dump their Windows installation for Linux or something else, but if we can encourage users to use other application software instead of what MS offers up, it would be a big step in that direction. In order to ensure good interoperability with Windows, we have to have the APIs, and all the APIs.
IMHO it is in the area of application software, such as MS Office, that they have the most to lose. Packages like OpenOffice or Mozilla could be installed on PCs, no matter what the OS happens to be. As I noted in my response to his answer to my question, the best thing the open source movement can do now is to go to the hardware vendors and make a case for Linux and for OSS as a whole-- and get them to install it and offer it as an option to users.
I don't really buy a lot of CDs, nor do I get a lot of music online. The reason: some of the acts that the record cos. put on platters totally s*ck. The most salutary (and ironic) effect of this trend toward copy protection of CDs, movies, etc. would be for people to drop out of the slavish worship of mass culture-- the top-down delivery of music, movies, literature, and news. Whether it's because you can't afford it anymore, or because you are disgusted with their antics, it is increasingly becoming an attractive alternative.
Wouldn't it be refreshing for us to drop a dime on a local club, where we can hear a band play live music? Hell, even if they are covering someone else's tunes, it would be better than stuffing the pockets of greedy record companies, who feel they owe us nothing and apparently think they own us.
We owe them nothing.
My interest in the Microsoft case was, short of forcing them to reveal code for the OS
kernel(which is the true remedy, IMHO), how much they were going to have to divulge to make
their products interoperable with other software. The case's definition of "middleware" is quite
different than what some of us think of it, which is the protocols that allow interopability between computers over a network. This includes RPC, SSL, LDAP, and for the purposes of the Microsoft case, the SMB/CIFS protocol. Including client programs like browsers, mail clients, and instant messaging software as "middleware" is a logical extension of this concept, as they are the final recipients of content sent over those network protocols.
This definiton of middleware, and the specific inclusion of network services APIs that need to be disclosed, would be satisfactory, if it were not for the exclusions that were granted MS in disclosing APIs for TV set-top boxes, handheld devices, and web services. I presume these areas of potential future growth were excluded since they were outside the scope of the original anti-trust case. Nonetheless, in the time frame of the IT world, the fight over the leveraging of an operating system to destroy a competitor's web browser market share, or an attempt to subvert Java with a faulty VM, is ancient history. The court fails to understand that this is a forward-looking industry, and Microsoft is focusing on these future opportunities for growth at this moment. Microsoft's past history in how it treats new markets and its competitors in those markets is instructive for how it could have been forced to be a fair dealer in the emerging technologies. To the extent that any of these areas are of interest to open-source developers, Microsoft continues to enjoy an advantage, by virtue of the installed Windows market share.
Further, if we are talking about "middleware" as it's described in the case, III. J. of the Final Judgment is troubling. If Microsoft isn't required to disclose "portions of" protocols relating to "encryption or authentication systems", is there any remedial value to this ruling at all, as the company may say "we're not obligated to provide you with that information"? Authentication is a core network service, and the interoperability of Microsoft clients or servers with non-MS clients and servers is called into question if they are not obligated to reveal changes or additions they make to their APIs. This language led to my asking my original question about what APIs they will be required to disclose. Every time they incorporate new APIs in a new version of Windows or middleware, or any service packs or patches, if they are undisclosed APIs, will this require going before a judge to force Microsoft to disclose them, or to determine that they should not be disclosed? For the open source community, this could become an additional obstacle to keeping their products up to date.
To wrap this up, the definition of "middleware" would be acceptable if there were an assurance that enforcement of Microsoft's disclosure of changes or additions to its products will be consistent. Judge Kollar-Kotelly's ruling creates a lot of doubt in my mind that it will be so. I believe that the most effective way for the open source community to compete against Microsoft now is to continue producing good software, and to push hardware vendors to pre-install their products on new PCs, now that Microsoft has no power to stop them. Even if it means only Win32 versions of software like Mozilla or OpenOffice, this is one way that the open source community can take advantage of this ruling and get more exposure of OSS among the broader user community.
Rep. John Kasich isn't in Congress anymore (thank the Lord)-- I don't know why he'd still be on AOTC's list. I live in the district next to his in OH.
I really don't think it's about Democrats or Republicans-- it's about who's taking campaign cash from whom. And, who's on the cluetrain (maybe very few in Congress).
Just how much of their remaining undisclosed APIs does Microsoft have to make public? I found the judge's references to this issue quite confusing; in one place she said that MS would have to reveal all of its "communications" protocols; in another she ruled that MS wouldn't have to reveal anything that pertained to such topics as "encryption" or "digital rights management". Isn't it possible for MS to claim that existing or future new APIs for Windows would fall into the latter category, and thus allow them to keep much of it in the dark? My followup question is: what mechanism did the judge set up for determining whether an API should be public or not?
What if a corporation uses the results of federal research in IT to write software, then wants to turn around and patent it? I realize that there are different intellectual property arrangements out there, and that some corps. patent the results or derivatives of this research. A good example is medical research, where the R&D costs are high. But balance that against the interest of individual taxpayers, who pay more of the freight than corps. ever will. I think we have the right for research results to stay in the public domain, as much as possible. If a company wants to use a BSD-style license for software,that's fine, but the results of the research should be made available to others. If a firm wanted to use the same technology and license it under the GPL, that should be allowed too. What should not be allowed is for a company to take that technology and patent it.
"*Editor's Note: Now that we've successfully converted our writer to a Windows PC, we will be working on getting her to try a Pocket PC. Stay tuned for more developments!"Should be:
"Now that we've successfully converted our writer to crack cocaine, we will be working on getting her to try crank. Stay tuned for more developments!"
Yes, you can code in many languages. Provided, of course, you're willing to buy an alternate.net language tool to do the job. Sounds like it's a good way for ActiveState and other vendors to rake in the dough along with MS. As an independent developer, I prefer not to complicate my life.
The underpinnings of.net and all of MS' products going forward, where it comes to interop, is XML. XML is the language that describes data. XML Schema, in particular, is the part of XML that allows two computers to agree on a common definition of data that both understand. XML, and XML Schema, is what drives this inter-language capability. Every other platform and software product will have an XML feature set from now on. The standard for XML Schema has come along; when we get standards for authentication and security with XML and web services,.net may be irrelevant. If my machines at both ends understand XML and XML Schema, it doesn't matter whether I'm using.net on Windows, J2EE, or Kylix 3 on Linux-- XML facilitates real interoperability. And yes, I can use whatever language I want.
Hackus, you've got it spot on. Linux and Java are the keys to my career/business strategy, too. Choosing an open source platform and open source/open license tools IS the way out of the Microsoft monopoly. With an interest in saving costs in the enterprise, companies aren't going to go with.net-- that would take their costs in the other direction. Java really is the key here. It doesn't matter what platform you have, your software will run on it. All you need is the JRE for that platform
Slashdot Mirror
I have been using OpenOffice on a consistent basis for the past three months, and I have to say that I like it quite a bit. I know, there are some things to be worked out on version 1.0.1, but I just enjoy being able to create documents without having to worry whether I will be able to send them to others and them not be able to read them in MS Office. Plus, I have both Linux and Win machines, and I can move files between them without having to worry about trying to open them up on the receiving machine.
In the bigger scheme of things, this could be interpreted as another Sun vs. Microsoft battle. MS has been trying to stick it to Sun and Java over Web Services, and this could be Sun's way of responding. Boys, boys, can't you learn to play nice together? The truth is, OASIS has lent OpenOffice some credibility by talking about XML file formats and trying to create a standard using OOo as an example.
If MS is going to use its own markup language that isn't standard XML, it's no longer XML-- it's something else. They are already committed to using XML in their products-- everything from IE to SQL Server. If they want to pull XML from Office, they can probably do so, but they might have some more massaging to do to make Office 11 compatible with some of their prods.
It never ceases to amaze me how tenaciously they are at trying to hold on to their way of doing things, as opposed to following someone else's way. But then again, Office is one of the sacred (cash) cows of MS.
I have recently left the retail business, so this story just causes me to sit here in front of my machine and chuckle about how absurd the DMCA has become, and how this law has been abused.
I can tell you that the store where I used to work has a competitive price policy-- we would match the price for the same item if another store had the item currently at a lower price. Of course, to verify this, we would have to call the other store. I can now envision how such a conversation might take place now:
"Hello, I'm calling to find out the price of a Ralph Lauren polo, blue in color?"
"I'm sorry sir, I can't reveal that information without you having a Price Licence-- it's copyrighted, ya know."
Note that this might well be a regular customer, not an employee from a competitor. I assume that this site was posting prices of items from the different stores, and the stores put the whammy on them to discourage shoppers from being able to compare for themselves who had the lowest price. I consider this to be an anticompetitve action which could be prosecuted by the FTC or the Justice Dept.-- but they probably won't be.
Correct, they do want to prevent artists from reaching the people, except through them. And think of it this way: how many musicians, writers, and film makers' works haven't made it to the public, because of the enormous amount of control the studios have over the content that actually makes it out through the normal distribution channels? The 'net is not a channel for "content distribution"; its best and highest purpose is for finding one's voice. The musician, the writer, and perhaps the film maker have a chance to use the 'net to do this. If their stuff is good, people will be interested in purchasing it. I'd much rather obtain it directly from the artist than to go through the media giants. I wonder how much we as a culture are losing from the continued dominance of the mass media?
You're right: the entertainment/media industry runs on technology,and it wouldn't exist without it. What has them worked up in such a froth is that they don't control the technology like they did when media was all analog. They could charge for each copy or for monthly service.
Now that they don't control the digital technology,they are on the backs of everyone in the tech world to save their ass, um, business model. They want to continue the top-down content delivery methods that the mass media has used for the past 100 years. And, they wanna make a killing in doing so, too.
It seems that they should get to work and improve their watermarking/copy protection/whatever technologies, and buy themselves a brigade of whores (um, I meant programmers and security experts).
Seriously, though, more expansive horizons await us, when high-speed 'net access is commonplace: it will be possible for people to choose what content they want. When it becomes possible for artists to use the 'net to distribute and sell their works with a street performer business model (give some stuff away, play some more songs for dough), the entertainment companies might be out of business.
(Pardon my shouting) IT'S ALL ABOUT CONTROL
If Halloween VII makes the Commercial News Network, this can only be a good thing. This is good pub for Linux, for Open Source. MS obviously is not even acknowledging this memo, so it's probably authentic. They obviously understand now that Linux or OSS-bashing doesn't work-- perhaps they think that if they don't draw too much attention to OSS, it will fade from public attention. They've been trying to win the developer community with .NET, too. It is just a strategy to lock organizations into Windows. Love him or hate him, you have to admit that ESR has done a big service to OSS by publishing the Halloween Documents.
I see your point. But though my question was technical in nature (about Windows APIs), it ultimately has everything to do with Microsoft's business practices. If MS is forced to fully reveal all of its existing APIs, and any APIs it discloses in the future, then the playing field is leveled considerably. People may be reluctant to dump their Windows installation for Linux or something else, but if we can encourage users to use other application software instead of what MS offers up, it would be a big step in that direction. In order to ensure good interoperability with Windows, we have to have the APIs, and all the APIs.
IMHO it is in the area of application software, such as MS Office, that they have the most to lose. Packages like OpenOffice or Mozilla could be installed on PCs, no matter what the OS happens to be. As I noted in my response to his answer to my question, the best thing the open source movement can do now is to go to the hardware vendors and make a case for Linux and for OSS as a whole-- and get them to install it and offer it as an option to users.
Just because I buy CDR's, it's presumptuous to believe I'm using them for music-- could be computer files I'm burning on them, too.
I don't really buy a lot of CDs, nor do I get a lot of music online. The reason: some of the acts that the record cos. put on platters totally s*ck. The most salutary (and ironic) effect of this trend toward copy protection of CDs, movies, etc. would be for people to drop out of the slavish worship of mass culture-- the top-down delivery of music, movies, literature, and news. Whether it's because you can't afford it anymore, or because you are disgusted with their antics, it is increasingly becoming an attractive alternative. Wouldn't it be refreshing for us to drop a dime on a local club, where we can hear a band play live music? Hell, even if they are covering someone else's tunes, it would be better than stuffing the pockets of greedy record companies, who feel they owe us nothing and apparently think they own us. We owe them nothing.
Thanks for your reply to my question .
My interest in the Microsoft case was, short of forcing them to reveal code for the OS kernel(which is the true remedy, IMHO), how much they were going to have to divulge to make their products interoperable with other software. The case's definition of "middleware" is quite different than what some of us think of it, which is the protocols that allow interopability between computers over a network. This includes RPC, SSL, LDAP, and for the purposes of the Microsoft case, the SMB/CIFS protocol. Including client programs like browsers, mail clients, and instant messaging software as "middleware" is a logical extension of this concept, as they are the final recipients of content sent over those network protocols.
This definiton of middleware, and the specific inclusion of network services APIs that need to be disclosed, would be satisfactory, if it were not for the exclusions that were granted MS in disclosing APIs for TV set-top boxes, handheld devices, and web services. I presume these areas of potential future growth were excluded since they were outside the scope of the original anti-trust case. Nonetheless, in the time frame of the IT world, the fight over the leveraging of an operating system to destroy a competitor's web browser market share, or an attempt to subvert Java with a faulty VM, is ancient history. The court fails to understand that this is a forward-looking industry, and Microsoft is focusing on these future opportunities for growth at this moment. Microsoft's past history in how it treats new markets and its competitors in those markets is instructive for how it could have been forced to be a fair dealer in the emerging technologies. To the extent that any of these areas are of interest to open-source developers, Microsoft continues to enjoy an advantage, by virtue of the installed Windows market share.
Further, if we are talking about "middleware" as it's described in the case, III. J. of the Final Judgment is troubling. If Microsoft isn't required to disclose "portions of" protocols relating to "encryption or authentication systems", is there any remedial value to this ruling at all, as the company may say "we're not obligated to provide you with that information"? Authentication is a core network service, and the interoperability of Microsoft clients or servers with non-MS clients and servers is called into question if they are not obligated to reveal changes or additions they make to their APIs. This language led to my asking my original question about what APIs they will be required to disclose. Every time they incorporate new APIs in a new version of Windows or middleware, or any service packs or patches, if they are undisclosed APIs, will this require going before a judge to force Microsoft to disclose them, or to determine that they should not be disclosed? For the open source community, this could become an additional obstacle to keeping their products up to date.
To wrap this up, the definition of "middleware" would be acceptable if there were an assurance that enforcement of Microsoft's disclosure of changes or additions to its products will be consistent. Judge Kollar-Kotelly's ruling creates a lot of doubt in my mind that it will be so. I believe that the most effective way for the open source community to compete against Microsoft now is to continue producing good software, and to push hardware vendors to pre-install their products on new PCs, now that Microsoft has no power to stop them. Even if it means only Win32 versions of software like Mozilla or OpenOffice, this is one way that the open source community can take advantage of this ruling and get more exposure of OSS among the broader user community.
You know, they could roll that in under a stinking EULA on a patch/Service Pack, too. It just plain sux.
Rep. John Kasich isn't in Congress anymore (thank the Lord)-- I don't know why he'd still be on AOTC's list. I live in the district next to his in OH. I really don't think it's about Democrats or Republicans-- it's about who's taking campaign cash from whom. And, who's on the cluetrain (maybe very few in Congress).
Just how much of their remaining undisclosed APIs does Microsoft have to make public? I found the judge's references to this issue quite confusing; in one place she said that MS would have to reveal all of its "communications" protocols; in another she ruled that MS wouldn't have to reveal anything that pertained to such topics as "encryption" or "digital rights management". Isn't it possible for MS to claim that existing or future new APIs for Windows would fall into the latter category, and thus allow them to keep much of it in the dark?
My followup question is: what mechanism did the judge set up for determining whether an API should be public or not?
What if a corporation uses the results of federal research in IT to write software, then wants to turn around and patent it? I realize that there are different intellectual property arrangements out there, and that some corps. patent the results or derivatives of this research. A good example is medical research, where the R&D costs are high. But balance that against the interest of individual taxpayers, who pay more of the freight than corps. ever will. I think we have the right for research results to stay in the public domain, as much as possible. If a company wants to use a BSD-style license for software,that's fine, but the results of the research should be made available to others. If a firm wanted to use the same technology and license it under the GPL, that should be allowed too. What should not be allowed is for a company to take that technology and patent it.
"*Editor's Note: Now that we've successfully converted our writer to a Windows PC, we will be working on getting her to try a Pocket PC. Stay tuned for more developments!"Should be:
"Now that we've successfully converted our writer to crack cocaine, we will be working on getting her to try crank. Stay tuned for more developments!"
Yes, you can code in many languages. Provided, of course, you're willing to buy an alternate .net language tool to do the job. Sounds like it's a good way for ActiveState and other vendors to rake in the dough along with MS. As an independent developer, I prefer not to complicate my life.
The underpinnings of .net and all of MS' products going forward, where it comes to interop, is XML. XML is the language that describes data. XML Schema, in particular, is the part of XML that allows two computers to agree on a common definition of data that both understand. XML, and XML Schema, is what drives this inter-language capability. Every other platform and software product will have an XML feature set from now on. The standard for XML Schema has come along; when we get standards for authentication and security with XML and web services, .net may be irrelevant. If my machines at both ends understand XML and XML Schema, it doesn't matter whether I'm using .net on Windows, J2EE, or Kylix 3 on Linux-- XML facilitates real interoperability. And yes, I can use whatever language I want.
Hackus, you've got it spot on. Linux and Java are the keys to my career/business strategy, too. Choosing an open source platform and open source/open license tools IS the way out of the Microsoft monopoly. With an interest in saving costs in the enterprise, companies aren't going to go with .net-- that would take their costs in the other direction.
Java really is the key here. It doesn't matter what platform you have, your software will run on it. All you need is the JRE for that platform