Technicaly, they are not the same. ODF is readable and easy to edit, OpenXML (open?!) is not.
Now, if you meant that both can be readed and written by the same parser, and have the same speed and documment size trade-offs, yes, that is true. But easy to read and understand are also technical measures.
1: It is hard to say that Google is a monopoly. It may be, but you need a court to decide that (by the way, IANAL). Microsoft, otherwise has virtualy all the browsers market, and was declared a onopoly on court.
2: Google giving money and promoting a not-for-profit hardly characterizes as a monopoly levrage. It could be if the Mozilla foundation was a company, but even so, you'd need a very carefull analisis to tell that.
Lucky you! Mine is 127.231.17.68... Much harder to remember. Wait, the net mask is 255.0.0.0... Are we on the same ISP? That must be a huge ISP, to use an entire A space...
There is not much use in comparing a constant to 0. Even more when 0 is a forbiden value for that costant. That is a feature missing from GCC, or more exactly a bug on the warning that is given if you use (!funcName).
Or do you really mean that the compiler shouldn't warn you if you write "if(2 != 3)..."?
Open Source is normaly better for your employer. Taking that point into account when chosing a language is often a sign of wisdon that the last generation needed more than 2 decades to gater. But, well, your boss probably doesn't have that wisdon.
Anyway, there are always some exceptions out there. But if you are starting a project, you are probably not one of those exceptions.
I have alreay use this combo on a project. Worked just fine for me, no perceptible differences from the Sun's JDK. But, I've already seen it fails on a program that I downloded and tryed to use. Of course, now I have the same functionality using a program written in C.
I can see 2 possibilites that will make it useless, the need of an NDA, and a license that forbids you from modifying the programs. Also, forbiding the exchange of paths (and the ideal exchange of all the code) will make it much less usefull.
Where is "that easy to use" or "works out of the box" that eveybody says Windows has? I've never been able to see it, and don't know a user that is able to install Windows (not a lot of people) and not able to install an easy Linux distro.
"Works out of the box" is even the worse possible description of Windows, since it is useless out of the box.
If IE falls as far as to a 30% marketshare, lots of lazy webmasters won't make the tweaks to display their pages well under it. So, people will have even better reasons to switch. It is possible to completely destroy IE, very hard, but possible.
I really don`t know. But there is a previous article today at/. that talked about a fake company, that used an international net of manufacturing plants and vendors to distribute fake Dell machines. That is near the same situation, so, I guess it may be done.
Well, that must work a bit, because the other drivers really don`t see him. Now, if motocyclists stopped driving at the corners, intead of the middle of the tracks, and stopped "cutting" the cars by the sides, they`d be easyer to spot. I guess that when your friend says "drive as if you are invisible", he really meant that.
But there is a problem with that. Some car drivers don`t respect motocyclists, and willfuly pull them to the corner of the track. So, they are dommed if they do, and doomed if they don`t. The result is that motocycles aren`t safe.
I doubt the applications will interact well with the shell. It seems that there are some "anchors" on.NET normal programs that could be called by it. I am not a.NET programmer, so I don`t know what really are those "anchors", but I doubt they will be published. Teoreticaly, you could also use shared libraries on your script, but I didn`t touch Windows since MS released the first versions of this, so I simply don`t know if it does that.
Anyway, the applications will not interact well with the shell because they aren`t free. Since they aren`t free (beer), you can`t expect people to have them. That means that the equivalent of the specialized (sed, awk, perl, make...) hackers that live well on the Linux shells won`t be able to translate their knowledge from system to system, it also means that there will be no portable complex script. Since they aren`t free (speech), you have no way to be sure that the programs will export an usefull interface, and that interface will continue being supported when the time passes. It is even worse when you think about standard interfaces, like the ones that exists on some subsets of common free OSes commands.
So, even if Microsoft really wanted to give the admins a good experience and had competence to do that (two very big IFs), they couldn`t. It is simply not on their power.
My bet is that Microsoft doesn`t "belive" that text is usefull. Their culture is against text, mostly because it is easy to reverse engeneer written stuff.
And if speed is a concern on the scipts you are writting, you are really using the wrong tool for the job. Shell is for simple, hight level scripts.
Just to clarify, in case you or someone else misunderstood: I don`t want the US to go down. Because there is no need for people to go bad, because there is nothing to gain and lots of economical problems, and because it isn`t safe.
But you are going down, and that is not only since Bush's administration (but Bush made it faster). And it is very hard for you to get up again.
People decide what laws to follow around here (Brazil) too. This is good because checks the government actions, but makes it easier to government (all of it, even those not so powerfull people) to steal us. And it is also a nightmare when you have a wana be dictator at the government, because he can enforce it selectively against the people he doesn`t like.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, since you need a mirror to create the laser, you can obviously defend from it with a mirror. The only question is how good the mirror must be.
History can tell us how well it works. It simply doesn't, at least for long.
Yes, but Microsoft showed we lots of times that all those other things really don't matter.
And you can bet that 6.2 King Kongs is exacly what they would do with this money. I can't wait King Kong 63...
Technicaly, they are not the same. ODF is readable and easy to edit, OpenXML (open?!) is not.
Now, if you meant that both can be readed and written by the same parser, and have the same speed and documment size trade-offs, yes, that is true. But easy to read and understand are also technical measures.
Last time I checked, Microsoft wasn't bellow 20% of the browsers marketshare. But thanks for the advice, I'll check it again.
1: It is hard to say that Google is a monopoly. It may be, but you need a court to decide that (by the way, IANAL). Microsoft, otherwise has virtualy all the browsers market, and was declared a onopoly on court.
2: Google giving money and promoting a not-for-profit hardly characterizes as a monopoly levrage. It could be if the Mozilla foundation was a company, but even so, you'd need a very carefull analisis to tell that.
Lucky you! Mine is 127.231.17.68... Much harder to remember. Wait, the net mask is 255.0.0.0... Are we on the same ISP? That must be a huge ISP, to use an entire A space...
There is not much use in comparing a constant to 0. Even more when 0 is a forbiden value for that costant. That is a feature missing from GCC, or more exactly a bug on the warning that is given if you use (!funcName).
Or do you really mean that the compiler shouldn't warn you if you write "if(2 != 3)..."?
Open Source is normaly better for your employer. Taking that point into account when chosing a language is often a sign of wisdon that the last generation needed more than 2 decades to gater. But, well, your boss probably doesn't have that wisdon.
Anyway, there are always some exceptions out there. But if you are starting a project, you are probably not one of those exceptions.
I have alreay use this combo on a project. Worked just fine for me, no perceptible differences from the Sun's JDK. But, I've already seen it fails on a program that I downloded and tryed to use. Of course, now I have the same functionality using a program written in C.
If you read a bit further, you'll see that they registered and are protecting the capitalized "Open Source".
I can see 2 possibilites that will make it useless, the need of an NDA, and a license that forbids you from modifying the programs. Also, forbiding the exchange of paths (and the ideal exchange of all the code) will make it much less usefull.
Where is "that easy to use" or "works out of the box" that eveybody says Windows has? I've never been able to see it, and don't know a user that is able to install Windows (not a lot of people) and not able to install an easy Linux distro.
"Works out of the box" is even the worse possible description of Windows, since it is useless out of the box.
If IE falls as far as to a 30% marketshare, lots of lazy webmasters won't make the tweaks to display their pages well under it. So, people will have even better reasons to switch. It is possible to completely destroy IE, very hard, but possible.
Well, a few fixes, sligtly better security, and a few cosmetic changes are well worth the $0,00 price.
I'll probably upgrade just because the number is bigger. But only when Debian tell me so.
But they still don't know how to create the tools they use. And it is still not sustainable.
I really don`t know. But there is a previous article today at /. that talked about a fake company, that used an international net of manufacturing plants and vendors to distribute fake Dell machines. That is near the same situation, so, I guess it may be done.
Does it work for Perl? If so, we can say it is done.
Well, that must work a bit, because the other drivers really don`t see him. Now, if motocyclists stopped driving at the corners, intead of the middle of the tracks, and stopped "cutting" the cars by the sides, they`d be easyer to spot. I guess that when your friend says "drive as if you are invisible", he really meant that.
But there is a problem with that. Some car drivers don`t respect motocyclists, and willfuly pull them to the corner of the track. So, they are dommed if they do, and doomed if they don`t. The result is that motocycles aren`t safe.
You are assuming that P == NP here. Or that the bot that creates the paper has infinite time to run.
On this specific situation, it may be usefull used with a learnning algorithm. But not on a general case.
I doubt the applications will interact well with the shell. It seems that there are some "anchors" on .NET normal programs that could be called by it. I am not a .NET programmer, so I don`t know what really are those "anchors", but I doubt they will be published. Teoreticaly, you could also use shared libraries on your script, but I didn`t touch Windows since MS released the first versions of this, so I simply don`t know if it does that.
Anyway, the applications will not interact well with the shell because they aren`t free. Since they aren`t free (beer), you can`t expect people to have them. That means that the equivalent of the specialized (sed, awk, perl, make...) hackers that live well on the Linux shells won`t be able to translate their knowledge from system to system, it also means that there will be no portable complex script. Since they aren`t free (speech), you have no way to be sure that the programs will export an usefull interface, and that interface will continue being supported when the time passes. It is even worse when you think about standard interfaces, like the ones that exists on some subsets of common free OSes commands.
So, even if Microsoft really wanted to give the admins a good experience and had competence to do that (two very big IFs), they couldn`t. It is simply not on their power.
My bet is that Microsoft doesn`t "belive" that text is usefull. Their culture is against text, mostly because it is easy to reverse engeneer written stuff.
And if speed is a concern on the scipts you are writting, you are really using the wrong tool for the job. Shell is for simple, hight level scripts.
Just to clarify, in case you or someone else misunderstood: I don`t want the US to go down. Because there is no need for people to go bad, because there is nothing to gain and lots of economical problems, and because it isn`t safe.
But you are going down, and that is not only since Bush's administration (but Bush made it faster). And it is very hard for you to get up again.
People decide what laws to follow around here (Brazil) too. This is good because checks the government actions, but makes it easier to government (all of it, even those not so powerfull people) to steal us. And it is also a nightmare when you have a wana be dictator at the government, because he can enforce it selectively against the people he doesn`t like.