I think you were responding to the part about MS. I had difficulty finding the relevance to the Java portion of my post. If so...
I agree the MS has embodied the concept of corporate evil. They have done more to slow the progress of computer technology than anyone would have thought possible 2 decades ago. They have made the market fearful by destroying the inventors, and removing their inventions from the world.
We judge people by their past actions. MS has been UNABLE to write a decent program in 30 years, so when I see they have failed at their latest effort, I assume that they just do not understand how to do it. But their large bank account implies some form of competence, and since they consistently demonstrate the ethics of a jackal on a mouse farm, many people assume that their failure to write a good program is due to some evil corporate strategy.
It was just a theory. I believe that Billy got lucky, mostly by picking good parents and being born without a conscience. MS has yet to demonstrate any competence at programming, but you may be correct that their awful programming is just part of the strategy to slow the progress of computer technology.
For an implementation to use the Java trademark, it must pass Sun's tests. The source is already "open" (easily available). Anybody can make changes and call it "Java", as long as it still passes the tests.
That sounds like "open source". We all want Java to retain its portability, so Sun requiring the tests is valid. The tests could be (and effectively are) under the control of the JCP, so that process is "open", although it is design by committee, which frightens me, but is the basic premise of the FSS community.
The issue is how to make Java free to redistribute. Under the current license, no JVM can be included in a totally free distribution. Is there some license that can protect the trademark and portability that allows free distribution? Can such a license be written that is acceptable to Sun?
Transfer the Java trademark to the JCP. Fund the JCP to protect it. Allow the JVM and all associated tchnologies to use the trademark if the tests score 100%. Allow free redistribution of certified code.
You could still modify your JVM for internal use, but you must recertify it if you want to distribute it. Is that close enough to the intent of the GPL to satisfy RMS? (No, they would not be using the GPL, but that should solve all real world issues without allowing Java to fragment.)
--- MS JVM: Why do most people assign to malevolence what can easily be assigned to stupidity?
MS did not write a JVM that met the standards. In THIS case, they did it to add proprietary extensions to better allow virus and other integration with their OS.
But MS has a very lengthy record of not being able to write programs very well. Their original claim-to-fame was the BASIC interpreter that could not interpret the BASIC language. Their version became the standard we all learned to program in the early 80s, but they did not change it because they wanted to steal the market from all those other (nonexistent) BASIC interpreters; they changed it because they did not have the technical ability to write it correctly.
They have since won many software markets. I do not know of one case where the software they sold to capture the market was better than the current leader. The closest examples are when they leveraged MSWindows3 to capture the GUI market while making certain their competitors did not have the APIs to be able to write software for MSWindows3. Usually MS writes programs that work worse than the existing leader, then use their marketing and monopoly to conquer.
Every programmer will tell you that it is easier to write an application when there is already a working version. MS has repeated failed to match the existing functionality for their early releases.
Did MS change the JVM because they wanted to corrupt it? Or was it simply that they did not have the technical expertise to write it without corrupting it?
That license is incredibly restrictive. I think I need better IP lawyers if that is my competition.
While the license says that Sun is in charge, all the anecdotal evidence I have heard (mostly here on Slashdot) is that in practice they do follow all the recommendations of the JCP. (Of course, they are part of it, so they could just veto things from within.)
IBM wrote a JVM. They also wrote WebSphere. What part of the Java platform have they not independently implemented?
It is always possible to write specifications from a working application if you have the source. It may take longer than programming the application, but it is possible. Java seems important enough that somebody should be working on recording the specifications, even if they just start with Java 1.5.
So everybody "changing the JCP specifications" already knows the implementation. Anybody can join the JCP for free to become part of the everybody. So anybody can learn the implementation. If the information about the implementation is that available, then more formal specifications may not be needed.
I have not joined the JCP because I have not cared about it. I expect to be programming Java later this year. The project will start in Java because I can produce the prototype using Java much faster than any other language. Some versions of the production release may be written in C once performance is the priority, but that will never happen without a proof-of-concept.
Would someone please report how easy it is to join the JCP?
So you are saying it is not immoral because it is contrary to law?
Sorry. You are correct. It is possible to be "wrong" without being "immoral".
But "take something that belongs to somebody else" seems to be both an immoral and illegal act, if we assume that "somebody else" did not agree with the taking. Amazon.com wants you to take many of their things under controlled circumstances. I am assuming the movie producers wanted you to watch the movie. People tend to be more likely to buy other movies if they gained something from the purchase. They tend to dislike paying for items they cannot use. Watching the movie is improper, immoral, or illegal only because they passed a law that says you cannot use your property the way it was intended to be used. Something seems wrong with that.
--- The rest of your post is gibberish mostly because you seem to be confusing hardware with software and DVD players with computer DVD drives.
I am confused.
I thought the discussion was because people want to play movie DVDs on their PC while running Linux.
How can there be any issues with a stand-alone DVD player working with Linux? Just take the video output and plug it into hardware that can accept it. The encoding is removed by the DVD Player before the video reaches the PC.
Or is all this discussion because so many people want to build their own Linux-based stand-alone DVD Players?
OK. We agree that there are proprietary standards, and Java is one of them.
Sun kept promising to submit Java to an open standards body Sun did not submit Java to an existing standards-approving organization, but they did set up the JCP. Java (excl. J2ME, which has its own list) is controlled by Apache, Apple, BEA Systems, Borland, Fujitsu, HP, IBM, IONA, Macromedia, Nokia, Oracle, SAP, SCO, Sun Microsystems, and 2 private citizens. Thay have approved all of Sun's recent releases and direct the roadmap for new enhancements. Why is this not good enough?
The APIs are defined at java.sun.com. You do not like them? I would hate to write a compiler from them, but it should be possible.
You complain that Java does not have a specification for a system that permits independent implementation. I thought IBM's JVM fit that description. If having the specification is important, why is the JCP not writing one? It is difficult to recommend changes to a system with no description of how it currently exists.
The JCP does have tools to verify that an implementation fits the standard. I could not find a document that states what is tested, but that may exist in the member-only area. (Individuals can join for free, but I have not joined.)
Parent: I don't see how that interview makes Valenti look like an idiot. Article: I never said anything was immoral in what I was saying. I said it is wrong to take something that belongs to somebody else. Dictionary.com wrong: Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked. Unfair; unjust. Translation: I never said it was wrong; I just said it was wrong. Dictionary.com idiot: A foolish or stupid person. I think Valenti qualifies.
--- licensed DVD player for Linux All DVD Players are already licensed.
A DVD Player is hardware. Any DVD player should play DVDs. If it is compatible with some computer hardware, then it should play DVDs in that computer. Then we learn that you must use specific software on the computer to play a movie DVD, and your choice of OS is removed because the movie industry has convinced the government that your OS is a threat to them, and they have made it illegal for you to use your legally purchased property for its advertised function.
The solution is for every DVD Player manufacturer to give DVD Jon a couple of dollars. Wait, he made the software public domain so they do not need to pay him. Do you need to license the technology from whoever controls the DVD standard? They already paid for a license for that exact piece of hardware you bought. Why don't the manufacturers include the software? Will including a Linux/Unix movie-playing program require a second installation CD? (The installation CD for my Plextor PX-708A DVD Writer is 570MB, but more than 60MB is used for MPGs that I did not know existed until I checked while writing this.) Do they want the DVD manufacturers to pay for 2 licenses for the same piece of hardware when it is impossible for more than one program to be using the hardware to play a movie? Why is it illegal for you to use your licensed device as it was intended?
I don't agree that every action that a robot can take is already predetermined by its programming - there are some highly sophisticated robots out there that are provided with a set of tools for navigating in their environment and the combinations of these systems are often unpredictable.
How many people really understand what their electronic devices do today? How many times has the alarm failed to ring because the device decided that you meant PM when you needed to be woken in the morning? Why did the anti-lock brakes decide 3 mph was the desired speed when I put the brake pedal to the floor? Why does my PC take a nap whenever I accidentally bump into an Acrobat file? How many times has a bug disappeared when a techie is in the room?
Even if all of these things can be determined by reading and understanding the programming, will they still be understandable when the device can modify its programming from experience? A full dump of its memory at the moment before it made a decision will be impractical, since it will not be known to be needed until long after the event. One minute for a human to decide that investigation is needed would allow the trillions-of-operations-per-second device to reprogram itself.
My reputation is based on the ability to see inside proprietary closed source programs and decide how they handle something. Part of it is luck, but mostly I assume the programmers made every possible poor design choice. Will someone with intuition like mine be able to understand the technology when the programs start fixing their code?
About "Open Source": Perens picked the obvious choice and changed the definition slightly. You are correct that nobody was upset that he was redefining a common phrase because it was not common. The top posts discuss the confusion that people think that any source that is available is "open source", which does not fulfill the definition of "Open Source". So while the definition was not common, people still assume the simplest explanation.
[I always use the most common definition of words because it enables communication. Except for "hacker": I have an emotional attachment because I spent my early years hoping to gain the title, and now that I have it, the word has gained negative connotations. It is like growing up hoping to be a "scientist" and having Nehemiah Scudder make science a dirty word.]
About Java: There is a "standard" called Java. It is controlled by Sun. If Java was not a standard, then Sun could not have convinced MS to pay for corrupting it.
I think you are using the word "standard" to imply "open standards". That seems silly after your insistence that we use words correctly. "Big Macs" are a standard. If you want to call food a "Big Mac", you need to satisfy the trademark holder. If you can make it different, then call it "J++".
Sun has made a fatal mistake by lying to, and deceiving the Java community I missed this. Could you elaborate?
The term "open source" never changed meaning: it didn't exist prior to the open source movement.
I was using the phrase "open source" in the early 90s to describe changes in the software world. I remember having a conversation with a client around 1991 who wanted me to modify a program. I explained that while many early programs written in interpreted languages (BASIC, DBase3+) were open source, most current programs were closed source, and the effort to modify them was enormous and probably illegal. I did not use the term "open source" until the contrast with "closed source" programs was needed.
I used "open source" around 1996 to describe HTML and JavaScript. Someone wanted me to hide the code for their web site, and I told them that was impossible because all the code on the web had to be open source so browsers could see it.
--- "free software" could be used without paying for it. The next level was "shareware" with its free trial, but please pay. Then "commercial" with pay now and hope you like it.
"Free Software" is a political movement that wants programs to be open source, and somehow prevent commercial programmers from using any of the code in closed source programs.
--- I do not understand the controversy about Java. Sun owns the trademark. They allow others who fit their standards to use the trademark. IBM wrote their own compiler, and there are others.
Applets and applications are usually easily decompiled; they are not truly open source, but the well-defined interpreted language makes it difficult to hide code. Servlets are not distributed, so it is more difficult to read the code. Code from most Java programs will easily fit into other projects, so sharing is easy. I like that I can use the same code in a browser, on a web server, and on a desktop just by changing the interface.
The Sun Java implementation is not open source, nor is the Java platform in any way an open standard.
Anyone can write software using Java without paying for any software. Anyone can write a Java compiler, and can get it approved for some money or tons of public relations. So Java is a free standard. But Sun controls it, so it is not an open standard.
Will there be an "Open Standards" organization that wants all standards to be open soon? Or is that implied by the "Open Source" movement?
I doubt many people noticed that the LICENSE includes this:
7. Performance. V.92 modems are designed to be capable of receiving data at up to 56Kbps with compatible phone line and server equipment, and transmitting data at up to 31.2Kbps. V.90 modems are designed to be capable of receiving data at up to 56 Kbps from a compatible service provider and transmitting data at up to about 28.8 Kbps. Public networks currently limit download speeds to about 53Kbps. The free version of the drivers is limited to 14.4Kbps. Actual speeds vary and are often less than the maximum possible.
I understand that many people still use dial-up, but would they be willing to use a 56Kbaud modem at 14.4KBaud just to use it with Linux? 14.4Kbaud on Linux might still be faster than 53Kbaud using MSIE on MSWindows, but you can install Mozilla on MSWindows and get the 56Kbaud (unless you broke all your MSWindows installation CDs.)
Would you want to help the BSA, or whoever, crack down on software piracy here if it forces people to seek out alternatives?
One of the earliest cases of a company in the U.S. switching entirely away from MS was Ernie Ball. The BSA raided them, and discovered that they did not wipe the drives when moving engineering PCs to secretarial work, so there was much loaded but unused and unlicensed software. Rather than giving the company notice and some time to clean up, the BSA handed them a very large bill, and talked to all the news outlets about it. Ernie Ball settled for $100,000, and then removed all MS software from the company.
The story is here. I like this part: QUESTION: But there's a real argument now about total cost of ownership, once you start adding up service, support, etc. ANSWER: What support? I'm not making calls to Red Hat; I don't need to. I think that's propaganda...What about the cost of dealing with a virus? We don't have 'em. How about when we do have a problem, you don't have to send some guy to a corner of the building to find out what's going on--he never leaves his desk, because everything's server-based. There's no doubt that what I'm doing is cheaper to operate.
The BSA is our friend. They make businesses think of MS as the enemy.
Slashdotters are supposed to be evangelists for FSS. I would rather not force the library to: 1. Sell CDs, or 2. Dedicate a PC to copying CDs, or 3. Expect visitors to install Linux.
A better method is to follow AOL's business model. Provide CDs with a great label and a box that explains why you want one. Create CDs of FSS that runs on MSWindows. Let the CDs contain: 0. Easy installer that autoruns. Check the boxes and each installer runs without much human intervention. 1. Mozilla (browser, email) 2. OpenOffice.org (word processor, spreadsheet) 3. GIMP (graphics) 4. Games (fun. Make cerain to include 10 versions of solitaire-type card games.) 5. Extras (anything the copier feels would be usable by the public. No repeats of functionality. Must be added to a hidden page of the install wizard if they are ever going to be used.)
Do not try to convince the public to change their OS. Just make available alternative software that works as well or better than what MS provides. Once the public is using apps that do not require MSWindows, then we advertise that they can switch OSes. But that will not happen in the library. That will happen when they order their new Dell and insist that it comes preloaded with Mozilla, OOo, and the GIMP. Then Dell will see that they can lower the price if they use Linux.
Remember the assumption that a very large portion of the public does not install software. Those that do are usually smart enough to insist on a particular OS. The rest only install spyware when a website/virus hits them, and Dell might prefer to sell them a PC that cannot be hit. (Then again, Dell profits by selling PCs to people who do not realize their PC is slow because they are running 47 spyware programs.)
Getting people to take these CDs home and put them in their PC will be a challenge. Do not put price (even $0.25), work (insert blank CD here), or other effort (downloading) to be obstacles. These people have 8 versions of AOL on their hard drives; use the method that works.
Let me buy a set of 50 CDs with display box for a very reasonable price, and I will convince the local library to keep it by the checkout. They can call me when they run low.
No, I will not do it myself. No time. I am not writing and testing the installer. Here is a way for someone to make money on FSS. I expect to read on Slashdot that someone has these CDs for sale very soon. Just make certain the box is very pretty, and the software very easy to install and use. Contact me if you want help writing the marketing. Do not put "GNU", "Linux", "FSS", "OSS" or any other techie words on the box or the CD. Use phrases like "No more internet pop-ups!", "Faster than Microsoft!" and "Free photo editing".
If you want to make a real company out of this, provide (phone) support. Fill the support center with out-of-work Slashdotters, charge $20 per call, and pay half to the techie.
I had a similar idea for a product a few months ago. I mentioned it to my business managers and IP lawyers. It seemed cool, but we are concentrating on software for now, so the idea must wait until very late this year at the earliest.
Then I read the summary of this article and freaked because it seemed someone else was already implementing my idea. Ouch. Wait a week and I'll have another one.
Then I read the linked articles. While they have really explored what COULD be done, they have no clue what SHOULD be done. The idea is presented without any thoughts for real world marketing. I could not find a picture of a working model.
Combined with some of the information/links in the posts, there is a good chance that many aspects of my idea are already patented or will have prior art. But the patent office likes applications that reference a bunch of other patents, so maybe there is still room for patents on the critical elements that the college boys have missed.
Why did they publish an article that explores many of the possibilities without any working models? Why did they give completely unusuable examples for using the idea?
If we do pursue my idea, the Slashdot crowd will believe it was just an application of what this article suggests. We should outsell all the products suggested in the posts.
IBM has given up on turning Notes into a J2EE-based environment running in WebSphere?
I do not think IBM wanted Notes to be part of its Java offerings. They had developed, tested, and released a great JVM for Notes 6. Then they pulled the JVM from Notes 6 to allow for more WebSphere sales. The current JVM is slower than anything I have ever seen, even worse than Notes 5.
They have been stripping Notes of its applications as they add the same application to WebSphere. Again marketing: the applications were selling Notes, so force people to buy WebSphere if they want the latest version of the application.
Notes is not becoming part of WebSphere. Notes competes against WebSphere, and Notes is better for many applications. IBM once sent 2 sales teams to a customer: one sold WebSphere, one sold Notes; and the customer decided to give the business to another company that was not confused.
Notes excels at small applications. Adding DB2 to Notes answers the scalability issues. This may give Notes a boost, or it may be adding an feature unwanted by the market. It will depend on how/if IBM markets Notes 7.
--- IBM pushed WebSphere for 2 purposes: 1. Take Java away from Sun. 2. Sell services.
As this article states, Sun has thrown in the towel, but IBM will continue attacking Sun until it is eliminated.
As I said in the previous post, Notes is a poor platform if you want to sell services because it is too easy. Hopefully adding DB2 will complicate Notes so that services can be sold.
Disclaimer: I am one of the top Notes consultants. Companies usually call me after IBM states that what they want is impossible to implement using Lotus Notes.
Source code specifically, and software in general, are like food recipes.
Protecting software is much worse than protecting a recipe. Someone could try to reverse-engineer a food recipe. Science can discover exactly what elements exist in the finished product, guess how much burned off during cooking, and then figure out how much cinnamon was used, but they still would not have the exact recipe. It would be more difficult with a great chef's special dishes, because they vary the recipe each time to suit the weather or their mood.
Every computer program can be duplicated. Just make an exact copy of the hardware and software.
Every computer program can be reverse-engineered. OK, maybe you are stuck looking at a pile of assembly language, but you can create something that can be modified and recompiled. (Why hasn't anybody actually done that with MSWord to discover every permutation of the.DOC format?)
--- I have a startup. We have an original idea. It depends on the use of software. We are developing software to implement the idea. As soon as the first implentation is done, the whole world will see the revolutionary idea.
We are getting a trademark. Great. Nobody can pretend to be us, so they have to name their product something else. I doubt that will slow anybody.
We are copyrighting the programs. Great. Nobody can steal our code. But they can reverse-engineer the UI from the visible screens. The backend is not trivial, but the data source and outputs are known, so the processing is easy but time-consuming. There are many companies with the resources to invest the time.
The lawyers are trying to write patents so they are granted, defensible, and useful. Getting them granted seems trivial, but the process is costly. Making them defensible and useful means covering every permutation of how our software is used in a way that others cannot infringe without legal hassles from us. One patent will say that we are applying technology where nobody else has applied technology: we saw the market first, so it is ours. That won't stop competitors, but it may slow them down. If they do infringe, it would probably be years of court before the patents have any effect on their business. Then the competitor declares bankruptcy, and we get nothing.
The legal protection is almost useless, but we have to have it. If we did not have the resources to protect it, we would not recover our investment because competitors with more resources would quickly push us out. I would prefer to keep it quiet so we can make enough sales first, but the application is revolutionary enough to make the news.
I doubt the legal measures (including patents) can protect us. Our best bet is to capture the market quickly. That will take much more resources than we have, so the business managers are already looking at VCs, even though we do not have a sale yet.
I do not know how we can have patents that would protect my business without having patents like Amazon's one-click. At what point is the patent trivial and obvious? But without software patents, we would not be attempting to better the world.
For the record, this idea for using technology may not be a pure "software patent", but it comes very close.
IBM still makes a ton of money of their mainframes and their sales are still rising
I am not disagreeing about IBM's hardware sales, but IBM has become a services company, and they leverage services to sell the hardware.
According to this report of IBM revenues, services were $10.4B of total $21.5B for 2003Q3. Almost half the revenues are from services, and the profit margin on services is much higher than the margin on hardware.
This year-end report states that all hardware sales increased, including the mainframes (z-series). But it points out that services revenue grew 17%, while total revenue grew 10%. Do the math. That means the non-services business only grew around 3%. If that trend continues, then in 3 years, service will account for 3/4 of IBM's revenues. Aren't statistics wonderful? While the growth of services may not be maintained, selling hardware keeps becoming more difficult, so these numbers are possible. The first report states that hardware revenues declined 1%, so you guess if IBM's hardware business is actually growing.
--- Software is included on the non-services half. The report states that IBM's software sales have flat-lined. If hardware revenues declined, then software must have grown some to offset the hardware decline to reach the 3% non-services growth. Most of the increase is because IBM keeps (successfully) pushing WebSphere, which competes against free software.
New business model: 1. See Free Software succeeding. 2. Develop proprietary version. 3. Use marketing and support organization of very large company to sell it. 4. Profit.
(I dislike business plans that include "and then a miracle happens". My current startup is depending on several of them, and they will give me ulcers, especially since I am expected to provide the miracles.)
The one real advantage of pushing WebSphere is that development is so complicated that IBM sells more services. IBM stopped pushing Lotus Notes because development is so easy that your receptionist can do it, so it generates much less money from services.
IBM has not been pushing Lotus Notes recently. That may change soon. Lotus Notes dominates because it allows business people to create business applications easily and quickly. Notes 7 will allow the use of DB2 as the internal database structure. Then it can scale to almost any application's needs. It could also mean easy use of DB2 for mobile applications. If they can maintain the ease of development, Notes could take a significant portion of the application market from MS and Java. The issue is whether IBM will market it well. They spent most of the last 7 years positioning Lotus Notes as a competitor to MSExchange. Notes is a much better email system than MSExchange (try administering/supporting both for a while), but Notes shines as an application platform, and IBM buried that message in the competition with MS for number of email users.
-- Back to SUN My first thought was that the deal with MS included unwritten conditions that SUN would stop selling hardware that could not run MS software. Then I realized I was being completely paranoid, because even if Scott has absolutely no idea what to do next, he would not give up the Sparc for just $2B. Right?
Everybody seems to be having fun with my example. The discussion is now "How to choose 50 files for some operation" assuming the names do not follow any pattern.
With the GUI, you can select the files by holding the CTRL key and clicking each with the mouse. Then you drag them into their own folder so you can run the operation.
With the command line, you create a list of the files, then run the operation using the list as a parameter.
My contribution: It is easier to delete than to select. If you want to create a subset of filenames, create a file that contains all the filenames in the directory. Then delete the ones you do not want. Then run your operation against the remaining files.
--- I used this technique for a program that fixes the setuids. The first run finds all the files that could need fixing, and puts the filenames into an exception list. Additional runs will fix all files that are not on the list, and adds those filenames to a fixed list for easy undo. To use, just delete any filenames in the exception list that you are uncertain should be setuid. If a program fails, then run undo, add the filename(s) to the exception list, and run it again. It can be scheduled to automatically keep the system more secure, and the undo makes it easy to test if this program caused any problems. ---
The best way would be to use a GUI that allows flagging of files. The current designers have not thought of that yet. We may have to wait until my new file system is ready. Do not hold your breath as I expect it to be years before it is usable.
It amuses me that people here expect companies to follow the copyright of the GPL but are freely willing to break the copyright of other companies' products simply because it's "easy" and "convenient." Amused me so much, I put it in my sig: Everyone should respect the copyright of the GPL. By the way, the RIAA is evil for going after infringers of copyright.
The Slashdot collective expects companies to follow the law. If they do not want to accept the GPL, then fine. The material reverts to standard copyright. Using it is copyright infringement/plaguarism/stealing, and punishable by law. The GPL allows an exception if certain terms are met.
If Slashdot was made up mostly of musicians, their tune would change (pun intended).
Musicians want their music to spread. That relates to Godwin's point: music sharing (and the sharing of other treasured creative works) is a basic feature of human culture. We want to share the songs we love, the books and movies we love, and so on. I think what we've got to aim for is a legal system that preserves the goals of the Copyright Act while accommodating, to the extent possible, the human impulse to share the cultural creations we love.
It is even more personal because the material is the musician's creation. Except for a few popular artists (who are usually involved in music publishing), musicians want their music to be distributed by any and every means possible. That is why they are willing to give away their interest in the profits from the music for the chance to be popular. The companies that buy those interests are the ones threatened now that the cost of distribution has been eliminated, and they are the ones creating laws to support their obsolete business model.
I am a musician. A significant portion of Slashdotters are too, although less than "mostly". Musical ability and good computer programming often arise from the same talents/personalities. I chose computers over music because the cost associated with being successful was better with computers. I also wanted to avoid the music industry, because I did not want to give up my rights to my music for the chance to become popular. I will be posting my music with a free-for-noncommercial-use license as soon as I have time for recording.
Choose any GUI. Open a directory/folder. Rename all the files that end with ".txt" with ".text". Stop when you get tired.
Now open a ShellWindow/CommandPrompt. Go to the same directory. Rename the files that end with ".text" to ".txt". If the last step took more than one command, please stop reading Slashdot.
I have yet to see any GUI that can change filenames through pattern matching. I could write one, but that feature is missing from the GUIs I have used. It is not necessary because all programmers know how easy it is to use the command line for filename manipulation. Even MS does not have this simple and useful feature. Why not?
This is meant to demonstrate a few things: 1. The command line is still more powerful than a GUI. 2. Programmers only program if the itch cannot be scratched easily. 3. Non-programmers will waste hours on simple tasks because GUI developers leave out features that programmers do not need. 4. Non-programmers are second class citizens when using computers.
Eventually every task possible with a command line will have a GUI. If those GUIs are not designed very well, nobody (including programmers) will use them. GUIs attempt to reduce all the possibilities to what can easily be used by the common user. More features = more controls = less usability. The example seems an easy one to solve, but where do you put the "Rename multiple files" button in the GUI so it is easily found and used?
--- I watched an experienced VB programmer (write and) debug over 100 lines of VB to do a basic task. My first thought was I could do it with about 30 lines of Java. Then I realized I could do it with a 3 line batch file. When I suggested using a batch file, I got a blank look. The programmer had a CompSci BS, 5 years experience with MSAccess, 2 years with MSSQL, and did not know what was a batch file. He knew the GUIs, and could write VB that included tons of SQL statements, but had never written a batch file. GUIs make it possible for even "experienced" programmers to ignore the basic language of the OS.
I recently had a meeting with someone who knew more about how to dominate meetings than about business.
We were selling software software through a reseller. The reseller dissolved, and the partner we knew took her client list to a startup being funded by a VC firm. As far as I can tell, the startup has 2 people: the entrepreneur and a "manager". The manager, Jeff, probably works for the VC firm as a roving manager.
We were lured to a meeting with the entrepreneur to "discuss future possibilities." The meeting time was changed at the last minute (we were already in the car) to the following day so that Jeff could be there.
We arrived at the meeting. The table seated 3 people per side, plus one person on each end. Each team had 3 people. If you want to work with people, sit on the sides so you are close. If you expect conflict, the ends are the power positions. Jeff already had his stuff at one end of the table, with the reseller next to him. So I took the other end, and my associates sat on either side of me.
The reseller greeted us, but Jeff did not appear for about 5 minutes. (Being late implies that everybody else should wait on you.) Then they announced that the entrepreneur would not be joining us.
They already had glasses of water, but my request for some was denied. That is just bad manners. Did Jeff think we would talk less if our mouths were dry? (Later, I left the room while Jeff was talking to have water brought for us.)
Jeff finally entered the room, and as he sat down, he suggested that "Why don't you move closer?" It was a good tactic to get me out of a power seat. (We did not move.)
Then he demanded the source code for the product we sold through the reseller. They wanted to cut us out, and could not support the program without the source. He was quite persuasive saying that he knew they had a right to it because of all his experience and analysis of the situation. I let my business manager debate with Jeff (which he said was fun but pointless), and Jeff never noticed he spent the entire meeting debating with a subordinate. Jeff offered a royalty on future sales, but my manager had Jeff admit they had little interest in selling software. Unfortunately for Jeff, ownership of copyright can only be transferred by written contract, and no such contract existed.
I had fun with Jeff. Even though I have been in the software business for over a decade, and own this company, I gave him the impression that I was the stereotypical unworldly programmer and acted like an egotistical brat. This caused Jeff to make a few mistakes. I did try to move the meeting back to the original purpose of building a partnership relationship, but Jeff dismissed the attempt. At one point, after I interrupted one of Jeff's attacks, he said he was thinking of offering me a job, but now he wouldn't. (If you have read my other posts, you know I would never consider a regular job, and I avoid working with people like Jeff.)
He kept trying to hire my technical assistant. The techie had worked for the reseller and knew the customer's infrastructure. We hired him when he left the reseller. I am uncertain why Jeff tried, since the techie did not talk much in the meeting, and does not have the source. I think Jeff was trying divide-and-conquer, but the techie had already met Jeff, and disliked him intensely.
Jeff "complimented" my business manager by suggesting he should go to college to become a lawyer because "he would be good at it." This happened as we were leaving, so I was able to contain the laughter until we were outside. My business manager has been working in this field since the 70s, and has held upper management positions at several large companies.
Jeff's fatal mistake was to threaten to have the customer's lawyer contact us. Later that week we received a nasty letter from this lawyer. I believe the letter was written by Jeff, since it contained several of the fallacies he used in the meeting. That letter opene
Thanks, AC. Yes, I guess I should have used the term "whitelist". I usually talk to people who have no understanding of technical concepts. I should have assumed the Mozilla developers would understand better if I used technical terms. The request was actually sent from my father's PC, and he understood the message as written.
I use YahooMail as well as HotMail. I use HotMail addresses for sites that I expect will send spam. If I am going to receive spam, I like letting MS pay for the storage. The Yahoo Mail spam filters work much better than HotMail's. I do not use the Yahoo Mail image blocking setting because Mozilla blocks the images. I would need to disable Mozilla's image blocking for Yahoo's to have any effect. (For the record, I also have email accounts with several ISPs and my own domains, some on my own servers.)
So does anybody know if Mozilla1.7 uses an image-blocking whitelist rather than the useless blacklists of earlier releases?
--- Back to what works with Mozilla: YahooMail works OK with Mozilla. It does not work as well with Mozilla as it does with MSIE. The rich-text formatting of email cannot be done unless using MSIE. Yahoo will send a page that uses an IFRAME if the UserAgent says it is MSIE. Mozilla1.5 does not work with the IFRAME and JS on that page (even if you fake the UserAgent.) My father spent quite some time trying to contact Yahoo about it, but they refuse to receive input from customers. (My father is a paid subscriber so he can pop the mail from the Yahoo servers for backup. He likes the webmail interface, although he also uses LotusNotes and MozillaMail for some email addresses.)
For the record, I have NEVER sent an HTML-formatted email, but my father lives to send HTML-formatted email. He always increases the font size and usually plays with the text color. It looks terrible on my 21" monitors, but my grandfather likes it on his 15" monitor. I have not convinced them that the text size should be increased for the receiver's email client rather than in the email sent.
Sorry, that is not enough. I use 1.3, you use 1.4, and I remember checking this in 1.5.
A good security system for images would be to start with "No images" or "Images from originating server only". Then have a list of approved servers using "Allow images from this server."
No version of Mozilla I have used has implemented this properly.
You can "Block images from this server", but that is backwards security. To use this "security" feature, you must start by accepting all images, then block the offensive ones. That offers no protection when using web mail for spam, because you will load the image once (verifying your email address is valid), and may not even know there was an invisible image that needs to be blocked. And spammers will just change the "image" server for each email in case you did block the last server.
You should block everything, then approve allowed servers. Mozilla cannot block all images and then only allow images from approved servers.
I default to allowing the images for originating server only. With Hotmail, I need the ability to allow images for server 207.68.164.24. I do not believe this is possible, but I will check Mozilla1.7 when it is released.
=== Also, why does "View Image" open the image into a new page? The current page already has a location dedicated to where that image belongs. For many cases, the image will only make sense if shown in the context of the page it was to be used. Using "View Image" loses that context.
In Hotmail, the images are used for navigation. Without the images, it is very difficult to discover which empty spot means "go to next email" and which means "delete this email".
For news articles, I want the ability to see the accompanying image, even if it is on a different server, without losing the security for all servers. I want to see the image above the blurb that explains the image, not on a separate page.
=== I sent these ideas to Mozilla feedback back in the 1.1 timeframe. I wish I had the time to become a Mozilla developer, but that will not happen this year. Someone already familiar with the code and the data storage should be able to implement the first change in less than a week (not including QA.) I cannot estimate what it would take to add "View Image in current location on page" without studying the code, but the ability to redraw the page with the additional image should be simple. How did this poor interface survive at least 4 releases? (Make that 6 major releases if these issues are not fixed in 1.7.)
=== GOOD === My "bank" (https://www.usafcu-onlineusa.org/) has always worked great with Mozilla. USAFCU is a credit union with a highly technical membership (includes employees of Unisys), and actually cares about its "customers". (Credit unions do not have customers; every account is for a share holder.)
MyCheckFree.com works in Mozilla. It is a bill-paying website required for PECO Energy, unless you like snail-mailing checks. PECO is rather backwards, and does not have the ability to automatically withdraw from credit cards or bank accounts.
Yahoo, Google, Dictionary.com, IBM, Dilbert.com, and even Microsoft.com work well with Mozilla.
=== BAD === A few weeks ago, ZDNet.com started doing weird things in Mozilla1.3. The tables/layers in the menus do not line up and content can be on top of other content. The article text is usually fine.
Mapquest is useless with my Mozilla settings. It may be my setting for loading images. I use maps.yahoo.com instead.
Hotmail.com also has the issue with images. I am afraid to change it because I do not want to load images for spam. The images are specified using the IP Address. Do later versions of Mozilla have "Allow images from this server"?
[My main PC still uses Mozilla1.3. I have later versions on other PCs, because I install the latest version when I (re)build a PC, but my main PC has been stable for some time.]
Javascript with timers. The way things are right now [in Mozilla], using even one, unless it's VERY tightly coded, will drive CPU utilization up to 100% and just keep it there. Even when tightly coded, it still eats a massive amount of CPU time.
Be careful when using setInterval() and setTimeout(). Mozilla 1.3 cannot use setTimeout() recursively to create the effect of setInterval() without maxing CPU usage. setInterval() works fine. If you want something to happen at regular intervals, use setInterval() to make all browsers happy.
--- One issue where the browsers are different is capturing key events:
MSIE6 requires:
function inputIE(){
addchar(window.event.keyCode); } document.captur eEvents(Event.KEYPRESS); <BODY ONKEYPRESS="inputIE()">
Mozilla1.3 works with:
function input(e){
addchar(e.which); } document.onkeypress = input;
[addchar() is a generic function to handle the processing of each key regardless of the browser.] [Why did Slashcode add a space within the ECODE tags?]
Luckily both sets of code can be on the same page with the KeyPress event being set correctly without testing for the browser names. I prefer the second method because it allows the code to be contained in a.JS file without modifying the BODY tag. This may have been due to misunderstanding MSDN. There is something called a "named script" (<SCRIPT FOR = object EVENT = onkeypress>) that looks awful and is specific to MSIE. Maybe I just did not find the correct object in MS's DOM to set the onkeypress function for the entire page (maybe document.all.onkeypress?) I stopped researching it once the page worked correctly with both browsers.
To be on-topic: Does Mozilla1.7 allow for the awful event model of MSIE? Will this code still work?
being a patent examiner is essentially an entry-level position. Patent examiners tend to be young law-school graduates with technical undergraduate degrees.
I agree with the statements, but the emphasis may be wrong. Patent Examiner may not be the final goal of someone's career, but it should not be entry level. Patents have too much effect to be controlled by people with no experience.
Patent examiners need to: 1. Check if prior art exists. 2. Decide if it is obvious. 3. Make certain the patent is specific enough to be applicable. 4. Make certain the patent is written in legalese so normal people will not know if they are violating it.
Lawyer types have the research ability needed for #1, but so do most information scientists (librarians). Good computer applications would help.
#2 seems to be skipped completely in the current process.
#3 is the responsibility of the applicant's IP lawyer. That is why applying for a patent without your own lawyer is usually a waste of money. The patent office could offer service to assist with this, but not until they have the resources to handle it.
#4 is the part the lawyers enjoy. When they are done editing a patent, even a see-saw can seem to be innovative. ("A manual device for vertical transportation using a lever to create equilibrium between the masses." IANAL. This is still too lucid for a patent.) That is the only part where legal training is essential.
Does the patent office have recognized experts to assist with #1 and #2? It should help the resume of an electronics engineer to have a few years of patent research. Maybe there should be an organization of (amateur) patent examiners. Anybody can assist, but pay only starts (and is a very small annual award) if the peers vote you to the level of "Master", either within the organization or by other professioanl organizations. Each year they award the rank to 30 people, 10 voted in by the community, 3 appointed by the IEEE-USA, others for the skills that are required for the current patent applications. (Add a rule that you cannot be active if you have a patent being processed.)
A public forum could help with this, especially #2, if the patent office had the time to read the responses, but it would have to be done very carefully. Post the issue the patent is claiming to solve. Then read the responses to see how many match the patent. They could even "sell themselves" by suggesting to contributors of unique solutions that they apply for a patent. The responses would also help limit the patent by specifying what is not being patentable.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you were responding to the part about MS. I had difficulty finding the relevance to the Java portion of my post. If so...
I agree the MS has embodied the concept of corporate evil. They have done more to slow the progress of computer technology than anyone would have thought possible 2 decades ago. They have made the market fearful by destroying the inventors, and removing their inventions from the world.
We judge people by their past actions.
MS has been UNABLE to write a decent program in 30 years, so when I see they have failed at their latest effort, I assume that they just do not understand how to do it. But their large bank account implies some form of competence, and since they consistently demonstrate the ethics of a jackal on a mouse farm, many people assume that their failure to write a good program is due to some evil corporate strategy.
It was just a theory. I believe that Billy got lucky, mostly by picking good parents and being born without a conscience. MS has yet to demonstrate any competence at programming, but you may be correct that their awful programming is just part of the strategy to slow the progress of computer technology.
For an implementation to use the Java trademark, it must pass Sun's tests. The source is already "open" (easily available). Anybody can make changes and call it "Java", as long as it still passes the tests.
That sounds like "open source". We all want Java to retain its portability, so Sun requiring the tests is valid. The tests could be (and effectively are) under the control of the JCP, so that process is "open", although it is design by committee, which frightens me, but is the basic premise of the FSS community.
The issue is how to make Java free to redistribute. Under the current license, no JVM can be included in a totally free distribution. Is there some license that can protect the trademark and portability that allows free distribution? Can such a license be written that is acceptable to Sun?
Transfer the Java trademark to the JCP. Fund the JCP to protect it. Allow the JVM and all associated tchnologies to use the trademark if the tests score 100%. Allow free redistribution of certified code.
You could still modify your JVM for internal use, but you must recertify it if you want to distribute it. Is that close enough to the intent of the GPL to satisfy RMS? (No, they would not be using the GPL, but that should solve all real world issues without allowing Java to fragment.)
---
MS JVM:
Why do most people assign to malevolence what can easily be assigned to stupidity?
MS did not write a JVM that met the standards. In THIS case, they did it to add proprietary extensions to better allow virus and other integration with their OS.
But MS has a very lengthy record of not being able to write programs very well. Their original claim-to-fame was the BASIC interpreter that could not interpret the BASIC language. Their version became the standard we all learned to program in the early 80s, but they did not change it because they wanted to steal the market from all those other (nonexistent) BASIC interpreters; they changed it because they did not have the technical ability to write it correctly.
They have since won many software markets. I do not know of one case where the software they sold to capture the market was better than the current leader. The closest examples are when they leveraged MSWindows3 to capture the GUI market while making certain their competitors did not have the APIs to be able to write software for MSWindows3. Usually MS writes programs that work worse than the existing leader, then use their marketing and monopoly to conquer.
Every programmer will tell you that it is easier to write an application when there is already a working version. MS has repeated failed to match the existing functionality for their early releases.
Did MS change the JVM because they wanted to corrupt it? Or was it simply that they did not have the technical expertise to write it without corrupting it?
Thank you.
That license is incredibly restrictive. I think I need better IP lawyers if that is my competition.
While the license says that Sun is in charge, all the anecdotal evidence I have heard (mostly here on Slashdot) is that in practice they do follow all the recommendations of the JCP. (Of course, they are part of it, so they could just veto things from within.)
IBM wrote a JVM. They also wrote WebSphere. What part of the Java platform have they not independently implemented?
It is always possible to write specifications from a working application if you have the source. It may take longer than programming the application, but it is possible. Java seems important enough that somebody should be working on recording the specifications, even if they just start with Java 1.5.
So everybody "changing the JCP specifications" already knows the implementation. Anybody can join the JCP for free to become part of the everybody. So anybody can learn the implementation. If the information about the implementation is that available, then more formal specifications may not be needed.
I have not joined the JCP because I have not cared about it. I expect to be programming Java later this year. The project will start in Java because I can produce the prototype using Java much faster than any other language. Some versions of the production release may be written in C once performance is the priority, but that will never happen without a proof-of-concept.
Would someone please report how easy it is to join the JCP?
So you are saying it is not immoral because it is contrary to law?
Sorry. You are correct. It is possible to be "wrong" without being "immoral".
But "take something that belongs to somebody else" seems to be both an immoral and illegal act, if we assume that "somebody else" did not agree with the taking. Amazon.com wants you to take many of their things under controlled circumstances. I am assuming the movie producers wanted you to watch the movie. People tend to be more likely to buy other movies if they gained something from the purchase. They tend to dislike paying for items they cannot use. Watching the movie is improper, immoral, or illegal only because they passed a law that says you cannot use your property the way it was intended to be used. Something seems wrong with that.
---
The rest of your post is gibberish mostly because you seem to be confusing hardware with software and DVD players with computer DVD drives.
I am confused.
I thought the discussion was because people want to play movie DVDs on their PC while running Linux.
How can there be any issues with a stand-alone DVD player working with Linux? Just take the video output and plug it into hardware that can accept it. The encoding is removed by the DVD Player before the video reaches the PC.
Or is all this discussion because so many people want to build their own Linux-based stand-alone DVD Players?
OK. We agree that there are proprietary standards, and Java is one of them.
Sun kept promising to submit Java to an open standards body
Sun did not submit Java to an existing standards-approving organization, but they did set up the JCP. Java (excl. J2ME, which has its own list) is controlled by Apache, Apple, BEA Systems, Borland, Fujitsu, HP, IBM, IONA, Macromedia, Nokia, Oracle, SAP, SCO, Sun Microsystems, and 2 private citizens. Thay have approved all of Sun's recent releases and direct the roadmap for new enhancements. Why is this not good enough?
The APIs are defined at java.sun.com. You do not like them? I would hate to write a compiler from them, but it should be possible.
You complain that Java does not have a specification for a system that permits independent implementation. I thought IBM's JVM fit that description. If having the specification is important, why is the JCP not writing one? It is difficult to recommend changes to a system with no description of how it currently exists.
The JCP does have tools to verify that an implementation fits the standard. I could not find a document that states what is tested, but that may exist in the member-only area. (Individuals can join for free, but I have not joined.)
Parent: I don't see how that interview makes Valenti look like an idiot.
Article: I never said anything was immoral in what I was saying. I said it is wrong to take something that belongs to somebody else.
Dictionary.com wrong: Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked. Unfair; unjust.
Translation: I never said it was wrong; I just said it was wrong.
Dictionary.com idiot: A foolish or stupid person.
I think Valenti qualifies.
---
licensed DVD player for Linux
All DVD Players are already licensed.
A DVD Player is hardware. Any DVD player should play DVDs. If it is compatible with some computer hardware, then it should play DVDs in that computer. Then we learn that you must use specific software on the computer to play a movie DVD, and your choice of OS is removed because the movie industry has convinced the government that your OS is a threat to them, and they have made it illegal for you to use your legally purchased property for its advertised function.
The solution is for every DVD Player manufacturer to give DVD Jon a couple of dollars. Wait, he made the software public domain so they do not need to pay him. Do you need to license the technology from whoever controls the DVD standard? They already paid for a license for that exact piece of hardware you bought. Why don't the manufacturers include the software? Will including a Linux/Unix movie-playing program require a second installation CD? (The installation CD for my Plextor PX-708A DVD Writer is 570MB, but more than 60MB is used for MPGs that I did not know existed until I checked while writing this.) Do they want the DVD manufacturers to pay for 2 licenses for the same piece of hardware when it is impossible for more than one program to be using the hardware to play a movie? Why is it illegal for you to use your licensed device as it was intended?
I don't agree that every action that a robot can take is already predetermined by its programming - there are some highly sophisticated robots out there that are provided with a set of tools for navigating in their environment and the combinations of these systems are often unpredictable.
How many people really understand what their electronic devices do today? How many times has the alarm failed to ring because the device decided that you meant PM when you needed to be woken in the morning? Why did the anti-lock brakes decide 3 mph was the desired speed when I put the brake pedal to the floor? Why does my PC take a nap whenever I accidentally bump into an Acrobat file? How many times has a bug disappeared when a techie is in the room?
Even if all of these things can be determined by reading and understanding the programming, will they still be understandable when the device can modify its programming from experience? A full dump of its memory at the moment before it made a decision will be impractical, since it will not be known to be needed until long after the event. One minute for a human to decide that investigation is needed would allow the trillions-of-operations-per-second device to reprogram itself.
My reputation is based on the ability to see inside proprietary closed source programs and decide how they handle something. Part of it is luck, but mostly I assume the programmers made every possible poor design choice. Will someone with intuition like mine be able to understand the technology when the programs start fixing their code?
About "Open Source": Perens picked the obvious choice and changed the definition slightly. You are correct that nobody was upset that he was redefining a common phrase because it was not common. The top posts discuss the confusion that people think that any source that is available is "open source", which does not fulfill the definition of "Open Source". So while the definition was not common, people still assume the simplest explanation.
[I always use the most common definition of words because it enables communication. Except for "hacker": I have an emotional attachment because I spent my early years hoping to gain the title, and now that I have it, the word has gained negative connotations. It is like growing up hoping to be a "scientist" and having Nehemiah Scudder make science a dirty word.]
About Java: There is a "standard" called Java. It is controlled by Sun. If Java was not a standard, then Sun could not have convinced MS to pay for corrupting it.
I think you are using the word "standard" to imply "open standards". That seems silly after your insistence that we use words correctly. "Big Macs" are a standard. If you want to call food a "Big Mac", you need to satisfy the trademark holder. If you can make it different, then call it "J++".
Sun has made a fatal mistake by lying to, and deceiving the Java community
I missed this. Could you elaborate?
The term "open source" never changed meaning: it didn't exist prior to the open source movement.
I was using the phrase "open source" in the early 90s to describe changes in the software world. I remember having a conversation with a client around 1991 who wanted me to modify a program. I explained that while many early programs written in interpreted languages (BASIC, DBase3+) were open source, most current programs were closed source, and the effort to modify them was enormous and probably illegal. I did not use the term "open source" until the contrast with "closed source" programs was needed.
I used "open source" around 1996 to describe HTML and JavaScript. Someone wanted me to hide the code for their web site, and I told them that was impossible because all the code on the web had to be open source so browsers could see it.
The new definition of "Open Source" is from the 1998, and describes a political movement that wants programs to be open source.
---
"free software" could be used without paying for it. The next level was "shareware" with its free trial, but please pay. Then "commercial" with pay now and hope you like it.
"Free Software" is a political movement that wants programs to be open source, and somehow prevent commercial programmers from using any of the code in closed source programs.
---
I do not understand the controversy about Java. Sun owns the trademark. They allow others who fit their standards to use the trademark. IBM wrote their own compiler, and there are others.
Applets and applications are usually easily decompiled; they are not truly open source, but the well-defined interpreted language makes it difficult to hide code. Servlets are not distributed, so it is more difficult to read the code. Code from most Java programs will easily fit into other projects, so sharing is easy. I like that I can use the same code in a browser, on a web server, and on a desktop just by changing the interface.
The Sun Java implementation is not open source, nor is the Java platform in any way an open standard.
Anyone can write software using Java without paying for any software. Anyone can write a Java compiler, and can get it approved for some money or tons of public relations. So Java is a free standard. But Sun controls it, so it is not an open standard.
Will there be an "Open Standards" organization that wants all standards to be open soon? Or is that implied by the "Open Source" movement?
I doubt many people noticed that the LICENSE includes this:
7. Performance. V.92 modems are designed to be capable of receiving data at up to 56Kbps with compatible phone line and server equipment, and transmitting data at up to 31.2Kbps. V.90 modems are designed to be capable of receiving data at up to 56 Kbps from a compatible service provider and transmitting data at up to about 28.8 Kbps. Public networks currently limit download speeds to about 53Kbps. The free version of the drivers is limited to 14.4Kbps. Actual speeds vary and are often less than the maximum possible.
I understand that many people still use dial-up, but would they be willing to use a 56Kbaud modem at 14.4KBaud just to use it with Linux? 14.4Kbaud on Linux might still be faster than 53Kbaud using MSIE on MSWindows, but you can install Mozilla on MSWindows and get the 56Kbaud (unless you broke all your MSWindows installation CDs.)
Would you want to help the BSA, or whoever, crack down on software piracy here if it forces people to seek out alternatives?
One of the earliest cases of a company in the U.S. switching entirely away from MS was Ernie Ball. The BSA raided them, and discovered that they did not wipe the drives when moving engineering PCs to secretarial work, so there was much loaded but unused and unlicensed software. Rather than giving the company notice and some time to clean up, the BSA handed them a very large bill, and talked to all the news outlets about it. Ernie Ball settled for $100,000, and then removed all MS software from the company.
The story is here. I like this part:
QUESTION: But there's a real argument now about total cost of ownership, once you start adding up service, support, etc.
ANSWER: What support? I'm not making calls to Red Hat; I don't need to. I think that's propaganda...What about the cost of dealing with a virus? We don't have 'em. How about when we do have a problem, you don't have to send some guy to a corner of the building to find out what's going on--he never leaves his desk, because everything's server-based. There's no doubt that what I'm doing is cheaper to operate.
The BSA is our friend. They make businesses think of MS as the enemy.
Slashdotters are supposed to be evangelists for FSS. I would rather not force the library to:
1. Sell CDs, or
2. Dedicate a PC to copying CDs, or
3. Expect visitors to install Linux.
A better method is to follow AOL's business model. Provide CDs with a great label and a box that explains why you want one. Create CDs of FSS that runs on MSWindows. Let the CDs contain:
0. Easy installer that autoruns. Check the boxes and each installer runs without much human intervention.
1. Mozilla (browser, email)
2. OpenOffice.org (word processor, spreadsheet)
3. GIMP (graphics)
4. Games (fun. Make cerain to include 10 versions of solitaire-type card games.)
5. Extras (anything the copier feels would be usable by the public. No repeats of functionality. Must be added to a hidden page of the install wizard if they are ever going to be used.)
Do not try to convince the public to change their OS. Just make available alternative software that works as well or better than what MS provides. Once the public is using apps that do not require MSWindows, then we advertise that they can switch OSes. But that will not happen in the library. That will happen when they order their new Dell and insist that it comes preloaded with Mozilla, OOo, and the GIMP. Then Dell will see that they can lower the price if they use Linux.
Remember the assumption that a very large portion of the public does not install software. Those that do are usually smart enough to insist on a particular OS. The rest only install spyware when a website/virus hits them, and Dell might prefer to sell them a PC that cannot be hit. (Then again, Dell profits by selling PCs to people who do not realize their PC is slow because they are running 47 spyware programs.)
Getting people to take these CDs home and put them in their PC will be a challenge. Do not put price (even $0.25), work (insert blank CD here), or other effort (downloading) to be obstacles. These people have 8 versions of AOL on their hard drives; use the method that works.
Let me buy a set of 50 CDs with display box for a very reasonable price, and I will convince the local library to keep it by the checkout. They can call me when they run low.
No, I will not do it myself. No time. I am not writing and testing the installer. Here is a way for someone to make money on FSS. I expect to read on Slashdot that someone has these CDs for sale very soon. Just make certain the box is very pretty, and the software very easy to install and use. Contact me if you want help writing the marketing. Do not put "GNU", "Linux", "FSS", "OSS" or any other techie words on the box or the CD. Use phrases like "No more internet pop-ups!", "Faster than Microsoft!" and "Free photo editing".
If you want to make a real company out of this, provide (phone) support. Fill the support center with out-of-work Slashdotters, charge $20 per call, and pay half to the techie.
I had a similar idea for a product a few months ago. I mentioned it to my business managers and IP lawyers. It seemed cool, but we are concentrating on software for now, so the idea must wait until very late this year at the earliest.
Then I read the summary of this article and freaked because it seemed someone else was already implementing my idea. Ouch. Wait a week and I'll have another one.
Then I read the linked articles. While they have really explored what COULD be done, they have no clue what SHOULD be done. The idea is presented without any thoughts for real world marketing. I could not find a picture of a working model.
Combined with some of the information/links in the posts, there is a good chance that many aspects of my idea are already patented or will have prior art. But the patent office likes applications that reference a bunch of other patents, so maybe there is still room for patents on the critical elements that the college boys have missed.
Why did they publish an article that explores many of the possibilities without any working models? Why did they give completely unusuable examples for using the idea?
If we do pursue my idea, the Slashdot crowd will believe it was just an application of what this article suggests. We should outsell all the products suggested in the posts.
IBM has given up on turning Notes into a J2EE-based environment running in WebSphere?
I do not think IBM wanted Notes to be part of its Java offerings. They had developed, tested, and released a great JVM for Notes 6. Then they pulled the JVM from Notes 6 to allow for more WebSphere sales. The current JVM is slower than anything I have ever seen, even worse than Notes 5.
They have been stripping Notes of its applications as they add the same application to WebSphere. Again marketing: the applications were selling Notes, so force people to buy WebSphere if they want the latest version of the application.
Notes is not becoming part of WebSphere. Notes competes against WebSphere, and Notes is better for many applications. IBM once sent 2 sales teams to a customer: one sold WebSphere, one sold Notes; and the customer decided to give the business to another company that was not confused.
Notes excels at small applications. Adding DB2 to Notes answers the scalability issues. This may give Notes a boost, or it may be adding an feature unwanted by the market. It will depend on how/if IBM markets Notes 7.
---
IBM pushed WebSphere for 2 purposes:
1. Take Java away from Sun.
2. Sell services.
As this article states, Sun has thrown in the towel, but IBM will continue attacking Sun until it is eliminated.
As I said in the previous post, Notes is a poor platform if you want to sell services because it is too easy. Hopefully adding DB2 will complicate Notes so that services can be sold.
Disclaimer: I am one of the top Notes consultants. Companies usually call me after IBM states that what they want is impossible to implement using Lotus Notes.
Source code specifically, and software in general, are like food recipes.
.DOC format?)
Protecting software is much worse than protecting a recipe. Someone could try to reverse-engineer a food recipe. Science can discover exactly what elements exist in the finished product, guess how much burned off during cooking, and then figure out how much cinnamon was used, but they still would not have the exact recipe. It would be more difficult with a great chef's special dishes, because they vary the recipe each time to suit the weather or their mood.
Every computer program can be duplicated. Just make an exact copy of the hardware and software.
Every computer program can be reverse-engineered. OK, maybe you are stuck looking at a pile of assembly language, but you can create something that can be modified and recompiled. (Why hasn't anybody actually done that with MSWord to discover every permutation of the
---
I have a startup. We have an original idea. It depends on the use of software. We are developing software to implement the idea. As soon as the first implentation is done, the whole world will see the revolutionary idea.
We are getting a trademark. Great. Nobody can pretend to be us, so they have to name their product something else. I doubt that will slow anybody.
We are copyrighting the programs. Great. Nobody can steal our code. But they can reverse-engineer the UI from the visible screens. The backend is not trivial, but the data source and outputs are known, so the processing is easy but time-consuming. There are many companies with the resources to invest the time.
The lawyers are trying to write patents so they are granted, defensible, and useful. Getting them granted seems trivial, but the process is costly. Making them defensible and useful means covering every permutation of how our software is used in a way that others cannot infringe without legal hassles from us. One patent will say that we are applying technology where nobody else has applied technology: we saw the market first, so it is ours. That won't stop competitors, but it may slow them down. If they do infringe, it would probably be years of court before the patents have any effect on their business. Then the competitor declares bankruptcy, and we get nothing.
The legal protection is almost useless, but we have to have it. If we did not have the resources to protect it, we would not recover our investment because competitors with more resources would quickly push us out. I would prefer to keep it quiet so we can make enough sales first, but the application is revolutionary enough to make the news.
I doubt the legal measures (including patents) can protect us. Our best bet is to capture the market quickly. That will take much more resources than we have, so the business managers are already looking at VCs, even though we do not have a sale yet.
I do not know how we can have patents that would protect my business without having patents like Amazon's one-click. At what point is the patent trivial and obvious? But without software patents, we would not be attempting to better the world.
For the record, this idea for using technology may not be a pure "software patent", but it comes very close.
IBM still makes a ton of money of their mainframes and their sales are still rising
I am not disagreeing about IBM's hardware sales, but IBM has become a services company, and they leverage services to sell the hardware.
According to this report of IBM revenues, services were $10.4B of total $21.5B for 2003Q3. Almost half the revenues are from services, and the profit margin on services is much higher than the margin on hardware.
This year-end report states that all hardware sales increased, including the mainframes (z-series). But it points out that services revenue grew 17%, while total revenue grew 10%. Do the math. That means the non-services business only grew around 3%. If that trend continues, then in 3 years, service will account for 3/4 of IBM's revenues. Aren't statistics wonderful? While the growth of services may not be maintained, selling hardware keeps becoming more difficult, so these numbers are possible. The first report states that hardware revenues declined 1%, so you guess if IBM's hardware business is actually growing.
---
Software is included on the non-services half. The report states that IBM's software sales have flat-lined. If hardware revenues declined, then software must have grown some to offset the hardware decline to reach the 3% non-services growth. Most of the increase is because IBM keeps (successfully) pushing WebSphere, which competes against free software.
New business model:
1. See Free Software succeeding.
2. Develop proprietary version.
3. Use marketing and support organization of very large company to sell it.
4. Profit.
(I dislike business plans that include "and then a miracle happens". My current startup is depending on several of them, and they will give me ulcers, especially since I am expected to provide the miracles.)
The one real advantage of pushing WebSphere is that development is so complicated that IBM sells more services. IBM stopped pushing Lotus Notes because development is so easy that your receptionist can do it, so it generates much less money from services.
IBM has not been pushing Lotus Notes recently. That may change soon. Lotus Notes dominates because it allows business people to create business applications easily and quickly. Notes 7 will allow the use of DB2 as the internal database structure. Then it can scale to almost any application's needs. It could also mean easy use of DB2 for mobile applications. If they can maintain the ease of development, Notes could take a significant portion of the application market from MS and Java. The issue is whether IBM will market it well. They spent most of the last 7 years positioning Lotus Notes as a competitor to MSExchange. Notes is a much better email system than MSExchange (try administering/supporting both for a while), but Notes shines as an application platform, and IBM buried that message in the competition with MS for number of email users.
-- Back to SUN
My first thought was that the deal with MS included unwritten conditions that SUN would stop selling hardware that could not run MS software. Then I realized I was being completely paranoid, because even if Scott has absolutely no idea what to do next, he would not give up the Sparc for just $2B. Right?
Everybody seems to be having fun with my example. The discussion is now "How to choose 50 files for some operation" assuming the names do not follow any pattern.
With the GUI, you can select the files by holding the CTRL key and clicking each with the mouse. Then you drag them into their own folder so you can run the operation.
With the command line, you create a list of the files, then run the operation using the list as a parameter.
My contribution:
It is easier to delete than to select. If you want to create a subset of filenames, create a file that contains all the filenames in the directory. Then delete the ones you do not want. Then run your operation against the remaining files.
---
I used this technique for a program that fixes the setuids. The first run finds all the files that could need fixing, and puts the filenames into an exception list. Additional runs will fix all files that are not on the list, and adds those filenames to a fixed list for easy undo. To use, just delete any filenames in the exception list that you are uncertain should be setuid. If a program fails, then run undo, add the filename(s) to the exception list, and run it again. It can be scheduled to automatically keep the system more secure, and the undo makes it easy to test if this program caused any problems.
---
The best way would be to use a GUI that allows flagging of files. The current designers have not thought of that yet. We may have to wait until my new file system is ready. Do not hold your breath as I expect it to be years before it is usable.
It amuses me that people here expect companies to follow the copyright of the GPL but are freely willing to break the copyright of other companies' products simply because it's "easy" and "convenient." Amused me so much, I put it in my sig:
Everyone should respect the copyright of the GPL. By the way, the RIAA is evil for going after infringers of copyright.
The Slashdot collective expects companies to follow the law. If they do not want to accept the GPL, then fine. The material reverts to standard copyright. Using it is copyright infringement/plaguarism/stealing, and punishable by law. The GPL allows an exception if certain terms are met.
If Slashdot was made up mostly of musicians, their tune would change (pun intended).
Musicians want their music to spread. That relates to Godwin's point:
music sharing (and the sharing of other treasured creative works) is a basic feature of human culture. We want to share the songs we love, the books and movies we love, and so on. I think what we've got to aim for is a legal system that preserves the goals of the Copyright Act while accommodating, to the extent possible, the human impulse to share the cultural creations we love.
It is even more personal because the material is the musician's creation. Except for a few popular artists (who are usually involved in music publishing), musicians want their music to be distributed by any and every means possible. That is why they are willing to give away their interest in the profits from the music for the chance to be popular. The companies that buy those interests are the ones threatened now that the cost of distribution has been eliminated, and they are the ones creating laws to support their obsolete business model.
I am a musician. A significant portion of Slashdotters are too, although less than "mostly". Musical ability and good computer programming often arise from the same talents/personalities. I chose computers over music because the cost associated with being successful was better with computers. I also wanted to avoid the music industry, because I did not want to give up my rights to my music for the chance to become popular. I will be posting my music with a free-for-noncommercial-use license as soon as I have time for recording.
Choose any GUI. Open a directory/folder. Rename all the files that end with ".txt" with ".text". Stop when you get tired.
Now open a ShellWindow/CommandPrompt. Go to the same directory. Rename the files that end with ".text" to ".txt". If the last step took more than one command, please stop reading Slashdot.
I have yet to see any GUI that can change filenames through pattern matching. I could write one, but that feature is missing from the GUIs I have used. It is not necessary because all programmers know how easy it is to use the command line for filename manipulation. Even MS does not have this simple and useful feature. Why not?
This is meant to demonstrate a few things:
1. The command line is still more powerful than a GUI.
2. Programmers only program if the itch cannot be scratched easily.
3. Non-programmers will waste hours on simple tasks because GUI developers leave out features that programmers do not need.
4. Non-programmers are second class citizens when using computers.
Eventually every task possible with a command line will have a GUI. If those GUIs are not designed very well, nobody (including programmers) will use them. GUIs attempt to reduce all the possibilities to what can easily be used by the common user. More features = more controls = less usability. The example seems an easy one to solve, but where do you put the "Rename multiple files" button in the GUI so it is easily found and used?
---
I watched an experienced VB programmer (write and) debug over 100 lines of VB to do a basic task. My first thought was I could do it with about 30 lines of Java. Then I realized I could do it with a 3 line batch file. When I suggested using a batch file, I got a blank look. The programmer had a CompSci BS, 5 years experience with MSAccess, 2 years with MSSQL, and did not know what was a batch file. He knew the GUIs, and could write VB that included tons of SQL statements, but had never written a batch file. GUIs make it possible for even "experienced" programmers to ignore the basic language of the OS.
I recently had a meeting with someone who knew more about how to dominate meetings than about business.
We were selling software software through a reseller. The reseller dissolved, and the partner we knew took her client list to a startup being funded by a VC firm. As far as I can tell, the startup has 2 people: the entrepreneur and a "manager". The manager, Jeff, probably works for the VC firm as a roving manager.
We were lured to a meeting with the entrepreneur to "discuss future possibilities." The meeting time was changed at the last minute (we were already in the car) to the following day so that Jeff could be there.
We arrived at the meeting. The table seated 3 people per side, plus one person on each end. Each team had 3 people. If you want to work with people, sit on the sides so you are close. If you expect conflict, the ends are the power positions. Jeff already had his stuff at one end of the table, with the reseller next to him. So I took the other end, and my associates sat on either side of me.
The reseller greeted us, but Jeff did not appear for about 5 minutes. (Being late implies that everybody else should wait on you.) Then they announced that the entrepreneur would not be joining us.
They already had glasses of water, but my request for some was denied. That is just bad manners. Did Jeff think we would talk less if our mouths were dry? (Later, I left the room while Jeff was talking to have water brought for us.)
Jeff finally entered the room, and as he sat down, he suggested that "Why don't you move closer?" It was a good tactic to get me out of a power seat. (We did not move.)
Then he demanded the source code for the product we sold through the reseller. They wanted to cut us out, and could not support the program without the source. He was quite persuasive saying that he knew they had a right to it because of all his experience and analysis of the situation. I let my business manager debate with Jeff (which he said was fun but pointless), and Jeff never noticed he spent the entire meeting debating with a subordinate. Jeff offered a royalty on future sales, but my manager had Jeff admit they had little interest in selling software. Unfortunately for Jeff, ownership of copyright can only be transferred by written contract, and no such contract existed.
I had fun with Jeff. Even though I have been in the software business for over a decade, and own this company, I gave him the impression that I was the stereotypical unworldly programmer and acted like an egotistical brat. This caused Jeff to make a few mistakes. I did try to move the meeting back to the original purpose of building a partnership relationship, but Jeff dismissed the attempt. At one point, after I interrupted one of Jeff's attacks, he said he was thinking of offering me a job, but now he wouldn't. (If you have read my other posts, you know I would never consider a regular job, and I avoid working with people like Jeff.)
He kept trying to hire my technical assistant. The techie had worked for the reseller and knew the customer's infrastructure. We hired him when he left the reseller. I am uncertain why Jeff tried, since the techie did not talk much in the meeting, and does not have the source. I think Jeff was trying divide-and-conquer, but the techie had already met Jeff, and disliked him intensely.
Jeff "complimented" my business manager by suggesting he should go to college to become a lawyer because "he would be good at it." This happened as we were leaving, so I was able to contain the laughter until we were outside. My business manager has been working in this field since the 70s, and has held upper management positions at several large companies.
Jeff's fatal mistake was to threaten to have the customer's lawyer contact us. Later that week we received a nasty letter from this lawyer. I believe the letter was written by Jeff, since it contained several of the fallacies he used in the meeting. That letter opene
Thanks, AC. Yes, I guess I should have used the term "whitelist". I usually talk to people who have no understanding of technical concepts. I should have assumed the Mozilla developers would understand better if I used technical terms. The request was actually sent from my father's PC, and he understood the message as written.
I use YahooMail as well as HotMail. I use HotMail addresses for sites that I expect will send spam. If I am going to receive spam, I like letting MS pay for the storage. The Yahoo Mail spam filters work much better than HotMail's. I do not use the Yahoo Mail image blocking setting because Mozilla blocks the images. I would need to disable Mozilla's image blocking for Yahoo's to have any effect. (For the record, I also have email accounts with several ISPs and my own domains, some on my own servers.)
So does anybody know if Mozilla1.7 uses an image-blocking whitelist rather than the useless blacklists of earlier releases?
---
Back to what works with Mozilla:
YahooMail works OK with Mozilla. It does not work as well with Mozilla as it does with MSIE. The rich-text formatting of email cannot be done unless using MSIE. Yahoo will send a page that uses an IFRAME if the UserAgent says it is MSIE. Mozilla1.5 does not work with the IFRAME and JS on that page (even if you fake the UserAgent.) My father spent quite some time trying to contact Yahoo about it, but they refuse to receive input from customers.
(My father is a paid subscriber so he can pop the mail from the Yahoo servers for backup. He likes the webmail interface, although he also uses LotusNotes and MozillaMail for some email addresses.)
For the record, I have NEVER sent an HTML-formatted email, but my father lives to send HTML-formatted email. He always increases the font size and usually plays with the text color. It looks terrible on my 21" monitors, but my grandfather likes it on his 15" monitor. I have not convinced them that the text size should be increased for the receiver's email client rather than in the email sent.
Sorry, that is not enough. I use 1.3, you use 1.4, and I remember checking this in 1.5.
A good security system for images would be to start with "No images" or "Images from originating server only". Then have a list of approved servers using "Allow images from this server."
No version of Mozilla I have used has implemented this properly.
You can "Block images from this server", but that is backwards security. To use this "security" feature, you must start by accepting all images, then block the offensive ones. That offers no protection when using web mail for spam, because you will load the image once (verifying your email address is valid), and may not even know there was an invisible image that needs to be blocked. And spammers will just change the "image" server for each email in case you did block the last server.
You should block everything, then approve allowed servers. Mozilla cannot block all images and then only allow images from approved servers.
I default to allowing the images for originating server only. With Hotmail, I need the ability to allow images for server 207.68.164.24. I do not believe this is possible, but I will check Mozilla1.7 when it is released.
===
Also, why does "View Image" open the image into a new page? The current page already has a location dedicated to where that image belongs. For many cases, the image will only make sense if shown in the context of the page it was to be used. Using "View Image" loses that context.
In Hotmail, the images are used for navigation. Without the images, it is very difficult to discover which empty spot means "go to next email" and which means "delete this email".
For news articles, I want the ability to see the accompanying image, even if it is on a different server, without losing the security for all servers. I want to see the image above the blurb that explains the image, not on a separate page.
===
I sent these ideas to Mozilla feedback back in the 1.1 timeframe. I wish I had the time to become a Mozilla developer, but that will not happen this year. Someone already familiar with the code and the data storage should be able to implement the first change in less than a week (not including QA.) I cannot estimate what it would take to add "View Image in current location on page" without studying the code, but the ability to redraw the page with the additional image should be simple. How did this poor interface survive at least 4 releases? (Make that 6 major releases if these issues are not fixed in 1.7.)
=== GOOD ===
My "bank" (https://www.usafcu-onlineusa.org/) has always worked great with Mozilla. USAFCU is a credit union with a highly technical membership (includes employees of Unisys), and actually cares about its "customers". (Credit unions do not have customers; every account is for a share holder.)
MyCheckFree.com works in Mozilla. It is a bill-paying website required for PECO Energy, unless you like snail-mailing checks. PECO is rather backwards, and does not have the ability to automatically withdraw from credit cards or bank accounts.
Yahoo, Google, Dictionary.com, IBM, Dilbert.com, and even Microsoft.com work well with Mozilla.
=== BAD ===
A few weeks ago, ZDNet.com started doing weird things in Mozilla1.3. The tables/layers in the menus do not line up and content can be on top of other content. The article text is usually fine.
Mapquest is useless with my Mozilla settings. It may be my setting for loading images. I use maps.yahoo.com instead.
Hotmail.com also has the issue with images. I am afraid to change it because I do not want to load images for spam. The images are specified using the IP Address. Do later versions of Mozilla have "Allow images from this server"?
[My main PC still uses Mozilla1.3. I have later versions on other PCs, because I install the latest version when I (re)build a PC, but my main PC has been stable for some time.]
Be careful when using setInterval() and setTimeout(). Mozilla 1.3 cannot use setTimeout() recursively to create the effect of setInterval() without maxing CPU usage. setInterval() works fine. If you want something to happen at regular intervals, use setInterval() to make all browsers happy.
---
One issue where the browsers are different is capturing key events:
MSIE6 requires:Mozilla1.3 works with:[addchar() is a generic function to handle the processing of each key regardless of the browser.]
[Why did Slashcode add a space within the ECODE tags?]
Luckily both sets of code can be on the same page with the KeyPress event being set correctly without testing for the browser names. I prefer the second method because it allows the code to be contained in a
To be on-topic:
Does Mozilla1.7 allow for the awful event model of MSIE? Will this code still work?
being a patent examiner is essentially an entry-level position. Patent examiners tend to be young law-school graduates with technical undergraduate degrees.
I agree with the statements, but the emphasis may be wrong. Patent Examiner may not be the final goal of someone's career, but it should not be entry level. Patents have too much effect to be controlled by people with no experience.
Patent examiners need to:
1. Check if prior art exists.
2. Decide if it is obvious.
3. Make certain the patent is specific enough to be applicable.
4. Make certain the patent is written in legalese so normal people will not know if they are violating it.
Lawyer types have the research ability needed for #1, but so do most information scientists (librarians). Good computer applications would help.
#2 seems to be skipped completely in the current process.
#3 is the responsibility of the applicant's IP lawyer. That is why applying for a patent without your own lawyer is usually a waste of money. The patent office could offer service to assist with this, but not until they have the resources to handle it.
#4 is the part the lawyers enjoy. When they are done editing a patent, even a see-saw can seem to be innovative. ("A manual device for vertical transportation using a lever to create equilibrium between the masses." IANAL. This is still too lucid for a patent.) That is the only part where legal training is essential.
Does the patent office have recognized experts to assist with #1 and #2? It should help the resume of an electronics engineer to have a few years of patent research. Maybe there should be an organization of (amateur) patent examiners. Anybody can assist, but pay only starts (and is a very small annual award) if the peers vote you to the level of "Master", either within the organization or by other professioanl organizations. Each year they award the rank to 30 people, 10 voted in by the community, 3 appointed by the IEEE-USA, others for the skills that are required for the current patent applications. (Add a rule that you cannot be active if you have a patent being processed.)
A public forum could help with this, especially #2, if the patent office had the time to read the responses, but it would have to be done very carefully. Post the issue the patent is claiming to solve. Then read the responses to see how many match the patent. They could even "sell themselves" by suggesting to contributors of unique solutions that they apply for a patent. The responses would also help limit the patent by specifying what is not being patentable.