As I've said elsewhere, pdf is well documented, by Adobe. While not open source developed, it is at least an open format.
10yrs from now, you'll still be able to read a pdf in your application of choice.
The.doc format is entirely closed and has been reverse engineered. Microsoft has been known to change it. Since the current incarnation has been reverse engineered it's a safe bet that Microsoft WILL change it again.
Actually Mr. Gates, open source means no profit for big software houses like Microsoft.
MOST programmers work inhouse or for custom development firms which can make as much or more money by using open source software (reduction in development time, cuts expenses licensing 3rd party libraries, the don't have to pay MS for information about API's etc, in many cases others will do most of the work to maintain the project).
"Once some major vendors break that agreement, as Dell and HP seem to be flirting with, your quasi-monopoly is in jeopardy."
How can Dell and HP break vendor lockin?
It's the end-user, not Dell or HP that are locked in. It's the end user with all their data locked in an access database. It's the end user who can't buy a dell or hp if neither of those companies carry windows.
Yes Dell and HP are locked into exclusive contracts. But the vendor lockin I was referring to is at the level of the end user.
Aye there is that. The key problem being we've already let it go too far and MS is actually more powerful than the government.
Then again the goverment has some pretty big guns, if pigs began to fly, they did what I suggested before, then they are just as likely to point them at redmond to settle it as anything in the list;)
Aye the bloat concern is there. I suppose it would depend on the details of implementation. If it was an extension, but one included with the browser and turned on by default.
It could then be turned off by users who don't want it, immediately removing what is bloat for them. Seriously though, like pop-up blocking, I doubt there are many who would turn it off.
"I suppose the politically correct way would be to spend more time time to create the same goddamn thing using OO"
Exactly what part would take longer to make in OO? Unless perhaps your used to the menu's in MS office (which are by no means intuitive).
And yes, it makes perfect sense to me that you'd write promote open software in an open format.
Believe it or not, the open source software you use, like OO. Actually wasn't written and worked on so that leeches such as yourself could get a free ride and then bitch about the people who write the software at every opportunity (while still enjoying your free ride I might add).
So get off your ass and contribute something back. Or take option B and keep leeching off the sweat and blood of others. But if you choose option A rather than B please do us all a favor and STFU because we volunteered to write some software you can use, we didn't volunteer to hear you whine.
"I posited a theoretical situation where Company XYZ is the only maker of widgets."
The problem with this is that it can only happen in theory. In practice company XYZ, like any other corporation exists to make the most profit possible. If it is the only player in the market it will raise prices to the absolute most people will pay.
Company XYZ like every other corporate entity WILL have patents on widget design and otherwise do everything in their power to assure that competition can't spring up to stop them, because it's in their primary interest... profit.
All other actions (including charitable donations and other actions to make them seem like good guys) are simply part of the strategy to make profit.
"Even if PC manufacturers didn't have agreements that prevented Microsoft"
Actually afaik Microsoft contracts with OEM's lean the other way. The OEMS are in no position to demand terms of Microsoft, Microsoft demands terms of them. More likely the contracts state that Microsoft can do exactly this.
Actually no, as far as I know the proceeds from ALL state run lotteries in the US go to the states themselves to supplement taxes, not to charity.
The closest you might find is the procceeds being use to fund schools, but where this is the case you'll find it's instead of rather than in addition to tax funds going to that.
In the US they also have a habit of not reducing taxes when they do something like this, but rather redirecting the funds to some other program or project.
That's a nice theory, but a monopoly in a market is ALWAYS harmful to the customer.
If you break up the monopoly and put their technology into the public domain, it results in more companies springing up to fill the void (competition). Competition causes drops in price, the competitors develop and expand on technology and then compete for price again. All of this creates jobs, more jobs than a single company holding all the market.
The reason is simple, instead of one engineer doing X job, you now 10 in positions which would be redundant in a single company but essential to fill in each of the 10 competiting companies. So on and so forth.
The end result is faster moving innovation and reduced prices for the customer. It means more money moves around, which amounts to a stronger economy, which is also better for the customer.
Since there being a monopoly stifles these things, a monopoly is inherently harmful to the consumer.
Completely crash your entire system, or crash the gui?
I'd wager if you ever bothered going to another system and sshing into your computer a terminal would fire right up, which you could easily use to terminate X, the program which froze.
To you this might not seem like a big thing, your interface crashed and you had no way to input anything. But if your desktop doubled as a server you'd appreciate the difference between the system crashing and the gui locking up;)
"And if that clout is purely the success of your product - and that success is based on either technical superiority OR customer stupidity (the latter is the case with Microsoft)"
Actually that success is based on another product, or standard really. the IBM PC Compatible Architecture, for which MS had the IBM only blessed OS. If you wanted to be compatible on both the hardware and software level, you had to install MS software on your hardware. Those contracts existed then and assured you couldn't mix other OS's into the bunch.
Once that marketshare was attained, MS locked users into it. There is no small amount of hardware which only works with windows, no small amount of software either. 3rd party compatible replacements for MS software are virtually non-existant due to proprietary protocols, formats , and API's (for EVERYTHING). And of course they've kept those restrictive contracts.
Yes it was the success of a product which initially gained MS marketshare, however the retention of that marketshare isn't due to mere customer stupidity. It's due to vendor lockin. If you think otherwise you must not know any companies with 5yrs worth of critical operating data locked up in an access database.
Microsoft is what is called a Monopoly. For an OEM, using Microsoft is not an option. If you sell desktop computers there isn't exactly much room to work with a market of less than 7% (and 7% means you support EVERY non-microsoft OS, which apple assures us we can't do).
Your choice is to support MS windows, or go out of business.
You could choose to not use windows, you could jump off a bridge with no cord also. A monopoly means that market conditions and the actions of the company are such that reasonable competition cannot successfully exist.
Apple is not in direct competition with Microsoft, and Linux exists outside of the market. Linux is a commodity which thrives regardless of economic conditions. There isn't a single successfully operating commercial entity which competes successfully in the desktop marketplace with Microsoft (linux vendors rely on linux, which again is outside the market).
Microsoft is notorious for their blatant lies and underhanded tactics. They've been CAUGHT again and again so blatantly even the government had to admit it. They brought forged videos into their own anti-trust hearings. They've designed incompatible protocols to make standards compliant software appear to not function correctly. They intentionally designed classes into their website to detect the opera web-browser and sent it instructions that make the page appear as if it has been rendered improperly.
You don't believe this company would take an action to try to get more of your money?
Destroy whatever allows them to keep a monopoly. If it's simply money, fine the shit out of them.
If it's proprietary api's and other business practices, forbid them, open the api's to everyone. If it's a patent, void the patent and render the technology public domain. If it's an application, open the source and render it into the public domain.
Quite simply, crush their monopoly or disband them altogether, yielding all proprietary technology public and all funds to the shareholders (minus any and all profits determined to have come from the monopoly practices, ever, which should be dispersed among those exploited).
To use Microsoft as an example case, windows, IE, and office would be rendered into the public domain, along with any further development done to them. All proprietary formats, api's, and internal documentation on the monopoly software would also be rendered into the public domain. And all past and future profits from their monopoly areas would be divided among those who have purchased a copy back to dos 6.22.
This would be what is needed to break their monopoly. Whether or not Microsoft can continue to exist after these changes really doesn't matter. The point is NOT to avoid damaging their business or to handhold them into still existing. The point is break the monopoly at all costs.
The monopolistic company isn't fair, there is no need to be fair to monopoly. If the monopoly IS destroyed, then the employees will be able to find jobs easily among the competitors which spring up as a result. Monopolies HURT the economy with their hordes, and they hurt employment in their industry.. don't ever be fooled by the large number of employees and cash they turn, it pales in comparison with the number of jobs and cash that would turn around if they didn't exist.
Yes but if one dairy company held a monopoly then they could force a price raise to $5 without any change in supply/demand/expense whatsoever.
The consumer would then be forced to purchase at $5. Don't forget they've been running a FUD campaign which has everyone convinced that unless a procedure (to which they own the exclusive patent of course) needs to be performed on milk or else your lifespan will be decreased 10yrs by drinking it.
They also won't allow stores to carry their milk unless they sign a contract agreeing that they will pay double for the milk if they carry any other brands.
As I've said elsewhere, an extension isn't the answer.
Let me get this straight, you want users to figure out IE isn't the internet. Then find and install fire(insertnameoftheday), then discover there are extensions for it, AND figure out how to install one. And then they have to pray it works with their current version of the browser?
Adblock/flashblock functionality needs to be built in.
Whitelisting is far too complex for these users, most of them never even discover they can right click an image and click "block images from...".
Even checking a box to turn this option on is pushing it, that's why I'm suggesting putting the buttons for good and bad flash right on top of the flash image so they don't have to find it.
Ad block is an extension, that may or may not load in my just released yesterday version of firefox.
Further this is something that should be present in the actual browser and not an extension. If it's that much work, there is no way in hell I'll go get it.
Ad-block is also just a static list last I checked. It works just as poorly as squidguard with regex's for blocking naughty content.
It's not exactly much of an endorsement for OSS if you use proprietary formats to distribute that endorsement.
I really wish people would stop pretending that simply because openoffice reads docs is some valid justification for using the format. For one, there is nothing you can put in a doc you can't put in an open format, and most of what is put in a doc should be put in an rtf or txt file.
For another, there is no guarantee MS won't change the doc format tomorrow, which is the entire point of NOT using their formats.
Intelligent mail sorting. I don't mean to different folders, I mean the order in which mail is organized in the inbox.
This should be intelligent and constantly tuned, or you should be able to turn that off and manually specify senders who are high priority... or be able to specify people in your addressbook should be moved to the top.
There could even be an option to do both, manually specify what you want at the top and the rest be sorted via machine learned information.
Those that use flash for ads Those that use flash for content Those that stay the hell away from flash
Rightnow, Firefox doesn't have any way to tell the difference between 1 and 2. But I do, I can clearly see if it's an ad or not. On every flash ad give me the option to tell the browser it's good flash or bad flash and intelligently learn what sites ("sites" also being defined by study of the urls, if I say www.bob.com/~jimbo/whatever.htm and www.john.com/~jimbo/howie.htm and www.curly.com/~jimbo/marthastewart.html are bad it should figure out there is a commonality in the ~jimbo part and apply my preference) have bad flash and block flash content on those sites, instead presenting me with a button to load to allow that content to load.
It should use a number of pieces of information, the url of the page, the url of the flash animation, the size of the animation, the name of the animation, the server the page is being served off of, etc.
First, detect if a user goes to a certain page more often then not from the homepage.
If they do then adjust then ask them if they do then tell them the browser has detected this and present a list of options including not to consider this page for homepage selection in the future and don't use homepage selection.
Yes it's simple to change the homepage manually, never understimate how uninformed, ignorant, or just plain lazy users are. They can and will leave the firefox homepage in place and type www.google.com or slashdot.org every time rather than changing the page.
Also bayasian and blocklist style content filtering. Even give the user the option to transmit (or not transmit, default) the results and coordinate with a center training database.
This relieves the needs for a proxy like squid/squidguard. DRASTICALLY reducing the level of knowledge needed to implement something like this. And since it would work better than voluntary content ratings or the fixed lists in squidguard concerned parents would flock to firebird/fox/whatever it is nowdays.
Put a button at the top of the page indicating the content is inappropriate and to train on it, make sure the button is an object that a WEBSITE cannot remove even from a popup window.
Choosing either a good or bad for the page trains the bays filter, AND adds to the white or blacklist. And then depending on the option chosen transmits that data back to the central database to be reviewed and used for future versions.
If you make sure the results from a given url can only be parsed once and limit submissions from a given domain then database poison should be properly reduced so that legitimate content will have more effect.
Slashdot Mirror
As I've said elsewhere, pdf is well documented, by Adobe. While not open source developed, it is at least an open format.
.doc format is entirely closed and has been reverse engineered. Microsoft has been known to change it. Since the current incarnation has been reverse engineered it's a safe bet that Microsoft WILL change it again.
10yrs from now, you'll still be able to read a pdf in your application of choice.
The
Actually Mr. Gates, open source means no profit for big software houses like Microsoft.
MOST programmers work inhouse or for custom development firms which can make as much or more money by using open source software (reduction in development time, cuts expenses licensing 3rd party libraries, the don't have to pay MS for information about API's etc, in many cases others will do most of the work to maintain the project).
"Once some major vendors break that agreement, as Dell and HP seem to be flirting with, your quasi-monopoly is in jeopardy."
How can Dell and HP break vendor lockin?
It's the end-user, not Dell or HP that are locked in. It's the end user with all their data locked in an access database. It's the end user who can't buy a dell or hp if neither of those companies carry windows.
Yes Dell and HP are locked into exclusive contracts. But the vendor lockin I was referring to is at the level of the end user.
Aye there is that. The key problem being we've already let it go too far and MS is actually more powerful than the government.
;)
Then again the goverment has some pretty big guns, if pigs began to fly, they did what I suggested before, then they are just as likely to point them at redmond to settle it as anything in the list
Aye I understand what you mean. I'm just pointing out that "a monopoly alone" can only exist in theory.
:)
There is no such thing as a monopoly which doesn't abuse it's position and hurt the consumer in the real world.
So while you were right in theory, in practice your friend was right
Aye the bloat concern is there. I suppose it would depend on the details of implementation. If it was an extension, but one included with the browser and turned on by default.
It could then be turned off by users who don't want it, immediately removing what is bloat for them. Seriously though, like pop-up blocking, I doubt there are many who would turn it off.
90% of people with computers can't read doc files either?
Believe it or not, most people DON'T shell out $200-300 for Office after shelling out $500 for a computer.
I'd agree that pdf would be the appropriate choice. The pdf format is well documented.
"I suppose the politically correct way would be to spend more time time to create the same goddamn thing using OO"
Exactly what part would take longer to make in OO? Unless perhaps your used to the menu's in MS office (which are by no means intuitive).
And yes, it makes perfect sense to me that you'd write promote open software in an open format.
Believe it or not, the open source software you use, like OO. Actually wasn't written and worked on so that leeches such as yourself could get a free ride and then bitch about the people who write the software at every opportunity (while still enjoying your free ride I might add).
So get off your ass and contribute something back. Or take option B and keep leeching off the sweat and blood of others. But if you choose option A rather than B please do us all a favor and STFU because we volunteered to write some software you can use, we didn't volunteer to hear you whine.
"I posited a theoretical situation where Company XYZ is the only maker of widgets."
The problem with this is that it can only happen in theory. In practice company XYZ, like any other corporation exists to make the most profit possible. If it is the only player in the market it will raise prices to the absolute most people will pay.
Company XYZ like every other corporate entity WILL have patents on widget design and otherwise do everything in their power to assure that competition can't spring up to stop them, because it's in their primary interest... profit.
All other actions (including charitable donations and other actions to make them seem like good guys) are simply part of the strategy to make profit.
"Even if PC manufacturers didn't have agreements that prevented Microsoft"
Actually afaik Microsoft contracts with OEM's lean the other way. The OEMS are in no position to demand terms of Microsoft, Microsoft demands terms of them. More likely the contracts state that Microsoft can do exactly this.
Actually no, as far as I know the proceeds from ALL state run lotteries in the US go to the states themselves to supplement taxes, not to charity.
The closest you might find is the procceeds being use to fund schools, but where this is the case you'll find it's instead of rather than in addition to tax funds going to that.
In the US they also have a habit of not reducing taxes when they do something like this, but rather redirecting the funds to some other program or project.
Once they get a tax in, they never let it go.
That's a nice theory, but a monopoly in a market is ALWAYS harmful to the customer.
If you break up the monopoly and put their technology into the public domain, it results in more companies springing up to fill the void (competition). Competition causes drops in price, the competitors develop and expand on technology and then compete for price again. All of this creates jobs, more jobs than a single company holding all the market.
The reason is simple, instead of one engineer doing X job, you now 10 in positions which would be redundant in a single company but essential to fill in each of the 10 competiting companies. So on and so forth.
The end result is faster moving innovation and reduced prices for the customer. It means more money moves around, which amounts to a stronger economy, which is also better for the customer.
Since there being a monopoly stifles these things, a monopoly is inherently harmful to the consumer.
Completely crash your entire system, or crash the gui?
;)
I'd wager if you ever bothered going to another system and sshing into your computer a terminal would fire right up, which you could easily use to terminate X, the program which froze.
To you this might not seem like a big thing, your interface crashed and you had no way to input anything. But if your desktop doubled as a server you'd appreciate the difference between the system crashing and the gui locking up
"And if that clout is purely the success of your product - and that success is based on either technical superiority OR customer stupidity (the latter is the case with Microsoft)"
Actually that success is based on another product, or standard really. the IBM PC Compatible Architecture, for which MS had the IBM only blessed OS. If you wanted to be compatible on both the hardware and software level, you had to install MS software on your hardware. Those contracts existed then and assured you couldn't mix other OS's into the bunch.
Once that marketshare was attained, MS locked users into it. There is no small amount of hardware which only works with windows, no small amount of software either. 3rd party compatible replacements for MS software are virtually non-existant due to proprietary protocols, formats , and API's (for EVERYTHING). And of course they've kept those restrictive contracts.
Yes it was the success of a product which initially gained MS marketshare, however the retention of that marketshare isn't due to mere customer stupidity. It's due to vendor lockin. If you think otherwise you must not know any companies with 5yrs worth of critical operating data locked up in an access database.
"You don't *have* to use Microsoft."
Microsoft is what is called a Monopoly. For an OEM, using Microsoft is not an option. If you sell desktop computers there isn't exactly much room to work with a market of less than 7% (and 7% means you support EVERY non-microsoft OS, which apple assures us we can't do).
Your choice is to support MS windows, or go out of business.
You could choose to not use windows, you could jump off a bridge with no cord also. A monopoly means that market conditions and the actions of the company are such that reasonable competition cannot successfully exist.
Apple is not in direct competition with Microsoft, and Linux exists outside of the market. Linux is a commodity which thrives regardless of economic conditions. There isn't a single successfully operating commercial entity which competes successfully in the desktop marketplace with Microsoft (linux vendors rely on linux, which again is outside the market).
Microsoft is notorious for their blatant lies and underhanded tactics. They've been CAUGHT again and again so blatantly even the government had to admit it. They brought forged videos into their own anti-trust hearings. They've designed incompatible protocols to make standards compliant software appear to not function correctly. They intentionally designed classes into their website to detect the opera web-browser and sent it instructions that make the page appear as if it has been rendered improperly.
You don't believe this company would take an action to try to get more of your money?
Destroy whatever allows them to keep a monopoly. If it's simply money, fine the shit out of them.
If it's proprietary api's and other business practices, forbid them, open the api's to everyone. If it's a patent, void the patent and render the technology public domain. If it's an application, open the source and render it into the public domain.
Quite simply, crush their monopoly or disband them altogether, yielding all proprietary technology public and all funds to the shareholders (minus any and all profits determined to have come from the monopoly practices, ever, which should be dispersed among those exploited).
To use Microsoft as an example case, windows, IE, and office would be rendered into the public domain, along with any further development done to them. All proprietary formats, api's, and internal documentation on the monopoly software would also be rendered into the public domain. And all past and future profits from their monopoly areas would be divided among those who have purchased a copy back to dos 6.22.
This would be what is needed to break their monopoly. Whether or not Microsoft can continue to exist after these changes really doesn't matter. The point is NOT to avoid damaging their business or to handhold them into still existing. The point is break the monopoly at all costs.
The monopolistic company isn't fair, there is no need to be fair to monopoly. If the monopoly IS destroyed, then the employees will be able to find jobs easily among the competitors which spring up as a result. Monopolies HURT the economy with their hordes, and they hurt employment in their industry.. don't ever be fooled by the large number of employees and cash they turn, it pales in comparison with the number of jobs and cash that would turn around if they didn't exist.
Yes but if one dairy company held a monopoly then they could force a price raise to $5 without any change in supply/demand/expense whatsoever.
The consumer would then be forced to purchase at $5. Don't forget they've been running a FUD campaign which has everyone convinced that unless a procedure (to which they own the exclusive patent of course) needs to be performed on milk or else your lifespan will be decreased 10yrs by drinking it.
They also won't allow stores to carry their milk unless they sign a contract agreeing that they will pay double for the milk if they carry any other brands.
Still want to go into the dairy business?
As I've said elsewhere, an extension isn't the answer.
...".
Let me get this straight, you want users to figure out IE isn't the internet. Then find and install fire(insertnameoftheday), then discover there are extensions for it, AND figure out how to install one. And then they have to pray it works with their current version of the browser?
Adblock/flashblock functionality needs to be built in.
Whitelisting is far too complex for these users, most of them never even discover they can right click an image and click "block images from
Even checking a box to turn this option on is pushing it, that's why I'm suggesting putting the buttons for good and bad flash right on top of the flash image so they don't have to find it.
Ad block is an extension, that may or may not load in my just released yesterday version of firefox.
Further this is something that should be present in the actual browser and not an extension. If it's that much work, there is no way in hell I'll go get it.
Ad-block is also just a static list last I checked. It works just as poorly as squidguard with regex's for blocking naughty content.
That's hardly the point is it?
It's not exactly much of an endorsement for OSS if you use proprietary formats to distribute that endorsement.
I really wish people would stop pretending that simply because openoffice reads docs is some valid justification for using the format. For one, there is nothing you can put in a doc you can't put in an open format, and most of what is put in a doc should be put in an rtf or txt file.
For another, there is no guarantee MS won't change the doc format tomorrow, which is the entire point of NOT using their formats.
"The State of Open Source GIS"
Gee and here I thought this headline (of the document) indicated this document was ENTIRELY about OSS.
Anyone else have a clue why information about an open source anything would be in a proprietary MS format?
Intelligent mail sorting. I don't mean to different folders, I mean the order in which mail is organized in the inbox.
This should be intelligent and constantly tuned, or you should be able to turn that off and manually specify senders who are high priority... or be able to specify people in your addressbook should be moved to the top.
There could even be an option to do both, manually specify what you want at the top and the rest be sorted via machine learned information.
There are three types of sites in the world:
Those that use flash for ads
Those that use flash for content
Those that stay the hell away from flash
Rightnow, Firefox doesn't have any way to tell the difference between 1 and 2. But I do, I can clearly see if it's an ad or not. On every flash ad give me the option to tell the browser it's good flash or bad flash and intelligently learn what sites ("sites" also being defined by study of the urls, if I say www.bob.com/~jimbo/whatever.htm and www.john.com/~jimbo/howie.htm and www.curly.com/~jimbo/marthastewart.html are bad it should figure out there is a commonality in the ~jimbo part and apply my preference) have bad flash and block flash content on those sites, instead presenting me with a button to load to allow that content to load.
It should use a number of pieces of information, the url of the page, the url of the flash animation, the size of the animation, the name of the animation, the server the page is being served off of, etc.
First, detect if a user goes to a certain page more often then not from the homepage.
If they do then adjust then ask them if they do then tell them the browser has detected this and present a list of options including not to consider this page for homepage selection in the future and don't use homepage selection.
Yes it's simple to change the homepage manually, never understimate how uninformed, ignorant, or just plain lazy users are. They can and will leave the firefox homepage in place and type www.google.com or slashdot.org every time rather than changing the page.
Also bayasian and blocklist style content filtering. Even give the user the option to transmit (or not transmit, default) the results and coordinate with a center training database.
This relieves the needs for a proxy like squid/squidguard. DRASTICALLY reducing the level of knowledge needed to implement something like this. And since it would work better than voluntary content ratings or the fixed lists in squidguard concerned parents would flock to firebird/fox/whatever it is nowdays.
Put a button at the top of the page indicating the content is inappropriate and to train on it, make sure the button is an object that a WEBSITE cannot remove even from a popup window.
Choosing either a good or bad for the page trains the bays filter, AND adds to the white or blacklist. And then depending on the option chosen transmits that data back to the central database to be reviewed and used for future versions.
If you make sure the results from a given url can only be parsed once and limit submissions from a given domain then database poison should be properly reduced so that legitimate content will have more effect.