One thing to note about that one (I just read it) is that she's from Melbourne. Though most people don't realise this but Australia is a *very* big country and people in different parts of Australia have different accents, language nuances, and they act differently, just like in America or England.
Besides, it's not a very bad troll, except it's become old and stupid. I still get a chuckle though that the author is too idiotic to change the statement that Linux will remain with greater than 1% of market share unless it fixes its act.
Don't worry when the Free Software Foundation sues a 14 year old child we'll be up in arms about it.
Meanwhile, though I know you're just a troll, I will continue to think anyone who agrees with your message an arsehole for approving of a corperation trying their hardest to destroy a young girls life.
I was slightly disturbed to see a kid about 7 or 8 in front of me in the theatre for Saving Private Ryan though, putting aside the annoyance of the noise he made.
the PDF file has to adhere to strict standards before you can call it PDF. Adobe owns the trademarks and I doubt they'd let Microsoft extend the format.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the definition of 'soon' when used by a public utility/agency/department. Soon, to such an entity, means "maybe one day."
I'd guess it is from the fact that ten independent products have already implemented Open Document without troubles. Would Office be programmed so badly that they couldn't do the same?
I think you're getting confused with what each module of Linux actually handles. Linux layers one thing on top of another, and no alsa sound support is not part of the desktop environment, that is part of the kernal and alsa daemon apps, nor is streaming capabilities, again the job of an app. Nor is installation, that is the job of the distribution applications. Configuration maybe, a module or two for the control centre of the desktop environment couldn't hurt, I'll give you that one. Again though, it's not the job of KDE to set things up.
Lets see, perhaps we'll start with aRts. aRts is a sound server. KDE programs use sound through aRts. Other programs generally do not. If the whole system is lacking in sound then that's not the fault of aRts. Most sound problems don't involve aRts. I'm not sure what the hell aRts has to do with this topic! It's being phased out anyway!
Now then lets look at multimedia streaming capabilities (I'm assuming you mean remote streaming). Again what's that got to do with KDE? Perhaps allowing for a module in Konqueror, but it's still just an app or a plugin.
Thirdly with installing codecs, I'm not sure that that's the fault of KDE. In fact I'm quite sure that's not. KDE is supposed to be independant of the platform that it runs on so by its nature it doesn't include any program for installation that the distro managers can't handle themselves. Again since distro packages (whether on Linux or an alternate system such as *BSD) may have totally different file systems so how can KDE handle installation without comprimising its architecture independence?
We're talking about KDE here and no multimedia capabilities like having the right codec or having ALSA set up properly for the sound card has pretty much *nothing* to do with KDE. KDE is not an operating system, it is a desktop environment. The grandparent's point was totally valid.
I still don't get what the problem is. Why on earth would they even bother to do that? Say they already have code running on the machine so why bother installing a firefox extension of all things? They can just install their spyware and hope the user doesn't notice.
I'm not sure what open source software has to do with things. We're talking about buffer overflows here not replacing Firefox, and buffer overflows are actually easier to spot if you don't look at the source (this isn't a programming strategy, just common sense. If buffer overflows were so easy to spot don't you think the programmer could just look through the code looking for buffer overflows?). The argument here however is that extensions can be installed to the machine and do malicious activities. I'm just saying that this can't be done or isn't feasable simply because there's only one site that you can install extensions from, http://update.mozilla.org/ in a default firefox install.
I haven't in anything except a hardware failure. I live with my brother and his Windows XP machine crashes regularly even on something as simple as playing a game (it BSODed once and stalled completely once just yesterday). The actual computer including RAM seems fine according to the toolsets. My other flatmate actually said to me "does Linux crash? I've noticed that you just leave your computer on and it's on all the time and I've never seen it crash." I just said "no it doesn't crash."
Yes Windows has improved a lot in this case but it's still just not good enough.
I've annotated your comment, hopefully it helps. Excuse me if I get anything inaccurate or people disagree with me.
This is the first I've seen of Yates' letter from Microsoft. He makes some points, and I'm curious to know how their own format compares.
How many different applications from different vendors already support the MS XML format? How does this number compare to the OpenDocument number?
Microsoft XML currently has no releases yet that support it. Wikipedia tells us OpenDocument has 9 seperate software packages that support OpenDocument in a stable release either natively or through extensions, most notably OpenOffice.Org 1.1.5 released a few days ago.
OpenDocument will be usable on a number of CPU and OS platforms. How many CPU and OS platforms will be supported by MS's own XML format? (I use a Solaris workstation at work and do not myself have access to a Windows PC until I get home, at which point I'm not "working" anymore)
Only Windows x86 and probably Apple OSX.
How long ago was MS's own XML standard finalized? And how widely is it in current use today? (I honestly don't know either since MS tools don't run onmy workstation at work, and I don't do this sort of thing at home to be worth buying their stuff myself) Has this been long and wide enough to "prove itself" in comparison to how long and wide OpenDocument's use has been to date?
If MS is losing business due to the choice of standard, why does MS not implement this open standard in their own product?
Because they'd lose more business allowing people to use other products to open their formats. Microsoft maintain their monopoly by not interoperating with anything that is not made by Microsoft, including things like networking, binary compatability, DirectX and their document formats. If they made these open then there's nothing stopping people from using other products if they just happen to be better than Microsoft's. It's arguable whether OO.Org or KOffice is better than the MSOffice suite, that is a matter of interpretation, however the lack of a price tag would be very appealing to many people, dragging business away from Microsoft.
What are the costs involved with implementing MS's own XML format for 3rd party vendors in their tools such as OpenOffice, KOffice, etc?
I don't know but I'd figure quite high. That's a blind guess based on Microsoft's past tactics. Firstly the developers can't actually install Office if they live in most countries and cannot use Microsoft documentation simply because of the licenses they'd be asked to sign most notably the one saying they cant use the code in any open source project (this is the current proposed license, may not actually be the licence Microsoft release the documentation under). Reverse engineering a document format is extremely hard. Just look at how long it's taken and still taking to successfully and fully reverse engineer the.doc format.
MS seems to dictate what capabilities are required for "modern documents". Surely the committee that decided on OpenDocument knew what their own needs are and will be, and could determine if OpenDocument's capabilities were suitable?
Not only this, but if you decide you want to play chess in the middle of writing your document you don't even have to open another program! Such convenience!
They don't have a legal case simply because they have no actual proof that his contract prevents him from doing what he does, so they obviously can't subponea the ISP (besides I don't think that Google like Microsoft enough to give them his IP, if they keep records of it). The article itself says he blogs from his computer at night so there goes that argument . . .
Slashdot Mirror
One thing to note about that one (I just read it) is that she's from Melbourne. Though most people don't realise this but Australia is a *very* big country and people in different parts of Australia have different accents, language nuances, and they act differently, just like in America or England.
Yes it is. Congratulations for amusing him.
Besides, it's not a very bad troll, except it's become old and stupid. I still get a chuckle though that the author is too idiotic to change the statement that Linux will remain with greater than 1% of market share unless it fixes its act.
Wow you managed to pick holes in an argument that is followed by the comment "But in all seriousness". Well Done!
Sorry for being snappy but I really *hate* it when people say something like "Bzzt! Wrong, but thanks for playing."
Don't worry when the Free Software Foundation sues a 14 year old child we'll be up in arms about it.
Meanwhile, though I know you're just a troll, I will continue to think anyone who agrees with your message an arsehole for approving of a corperation trying their hardest to destroy a young girls life.
Sony's a company mate. If that were tomorrow's headline you'd see another headline below "Sony's shares drop rapidly".
The Sun press release.
I was slightly disturbed to see a kid about 7 or 8 in front of me in the theatre for Saving Private Ryan though, putting aside the annoyance of the noise he made.
no if you read the thread he doesn't actually mean like the HTML standard.
I guess I'll just have to buy it then! Unfortunately your web site isn't loading very well for some unknown reason at the moment so I'll order later.
how bout VegaStrike?
the PDF file has to adhere to strict standards before you can call it PDF. Adobe owns the trademarks and I doubt they'd let Microsoft extend the format.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the definition of 'soon' when used by a public utility/agency/department. Soon, to such an entity, means "maybe one day."
Well I suppose we could wait a day for the map...
Or when she slashes Jayne across the chest with a butchers knife and says "you look better in red".
I'd guess it is from the fact that ten independent products have already implemented Open Document without troubles. Would Office be programmed so badly that they couldn't do the same?
"America's part of the world, Fry!"
"Wow, I have been gone a long time."
I think you're getting confused with what each module of Linux actually handles. Linux layers one thing on top of another, and no alsa sound support is not part of the desktop environment, that is part of the kernal and alsa daemon apps, nor is streaming capabilities, again the job of an app. Nor is installation, that is the job of the distribution applications. Configuration maybe, a module or two for the control centre of the desktop environment couldn't hurt, I'll give you that one. Again though, it's not the job of KDE to set things up.
Lets see, perhaps we'll start with aRts. aRts is a sound server. KDE programs use sound through aRts. Other programs generally do not. If the whole system is lacking in sound then that's not the fault of aRts. Most sound problems don't involve aRts. I'm not sure what the hell aRts has to do with this topic! It's being phased out anyway!
Now then lets look at multimedia streaming capabilities (I'm assuming you mean remote streaming). Again what's that got to do with KDE? Perhaps allowing for a module in Konqueror, but it's still just an app or a plugin.
Thirdly with installing codecs, I'm not sure that that's the fault of KDE. In fact I'm quite sure that's not. KDE is supposed to be independant of the platform that it runs on so by its nature it doesn't include any program for installation that the distro managers can't handle themselves. Again since distro packages (whether on Linux or an alternate system such as *BSD) may have totally different file systems so how can KDE handle installation without comprimising its architecture independence?
We're talking about KDE here and no multimedia capabilities like having the right codec or having ALSA set up properly for the sound card has pretty much *nothing* to do with KDE. KDE is not an operating system, it is a desktop environment. The grandparent's point was totally valid.
They can sort out those little issues of implementation like "it's impossible to do" later. Get cracking you "men of science".
I still don't get what the problem is. Why on earth would they even bother to do that? Say they already have code running on the machine so why bother installing a firefox extension of all things? They can just install their spyware and hope the user doesn't notice.
I'm not sure what open source software has to do with things. We're talking about buffer overflows here not replacing Firefox, and buffer overflows are actually easier to spot if you don't look at the source (this isn't a programming strategy, just common sense. If buffer overflows were so easy to spot don't you think the programmer could just look through the code looking for buffer overflows?). The argument here however is that extensions can be installed to the machine and do malicious activities. I'm just saying that this can't be done or isn't feasable simply because there's only one site that you can install extensions from, http://update.mozilla.org/ in a default firefox install.
I've seen Linux based computers run unreliably.
I haven't in anything except a hardware failure. I live with my brother and his Windows XP machine crashes regularly even on something as simple as playing a game (it BSODed once and stalled completely once just yesterday). The actual computer including RAM seems fine according to the toolsets. My other flatmate actually said to me "does Linux crash? I've noticed that you just leave your computer on and it's on all the time and I've never seen it crash." I just said "no it doesn't crash."
Yes Windows has improved a lot in this case but it's still just not good enough.
I've annotated your comment, hopefully it helps. Excuse me if I get anything inaccurate or people disagree with me.
.doc format.
This is the first I've seen of Yates' letter from Microsoft. He makes some points, and I'm curious to know how their own format compares.
How many different applications from different vendors already support the MS XML format? How does this number compare to the OpenDocument number?
Microsoft XML currently has no releases yet that support it. Wikipedia tells us OpenDocument has 9 seperate software packages that support OpenDocument in a stable release either natively or through extensions, most notably OpenOffice.Org 1.1.5 released a few days ago.
OpenDocument will be usable on a number of CPU and OS platforms. How many CPU and OS platforms will be supported by MS's own XML format? (I use a Solaris workstation at work and do not myself have access to a Windows PC until I get home, at which point I'm not "working" anymore)
Only Windows x86 and probably Apple OSX.
How long ago was MS's own XML standard finalized? And how widely is it in current use today? (I honestly don't know either since MS tools don't run onmy workstation at work, and I don't do this sort of thing at home to be worth buying their stuff myself) Has this been long and wide enough to "prove itself" in comparison to how long and wide OpenDocument's use has been to date?
If MS is losing business due to the choice of standard, why does MS not implement this open standard in their own product?
Because they'd lose more business allowing people to use other products to open their formats. Microsoft maintain their monopoly by not interoperating with anything that is not made by Microsoft, including things like networking, binary compatability, DirectX and their document formats. If they made these open then there's nothing stopping people from using other products if they just happen to be better than Microsoft's. It's arguable whether OO.Org or KOffice is better than the MSOffice suite, that is a matter of interpretation, however the lack of a price tag would be very appealing to many people, dragging business away from Microsoft.
What are the costs involved with implementing MS's own XML format for 3rd party vendors in their tools such as OpenOffice, KOffice, etc?
I don't know but I'd figure quite high. That's a blind guess based on Microsoft's past tactics. Firstly the developers can't actually install Office if they live in most countries and cannot use Microsoft documentation simply because of the licenses they'd be asked to sign most notably the one saying they cant use the code in any open source project (this is the current proposed license, may not actually be the licence Microsoft release the documentation under). Reverse engineering a document format is extremely hard. Just look at how long it's taken and still taking to successfully and fully reverse engineer the
MS seems to dictate what capabilities are required for "modern documents". Surely the committee that decided on OpenDocument knew what their own needs are and will be, and could determine if OpenDocument's capabilities were suitable?
I agree.
Not only this, but if you decide you want to play chess in the middle of writing your document you don't even have to open another program! Such convenience!
the user can't install any extensions from a site other than update.mozilla.org without jumping through a few hoops first.
They don't have a legal case simply because they have no actual proof that his contract prevents him from doing what he does, so they obviously can't subponea the ISP (besides I don't think that Google like Microsoft enough to give them his IP, if they keep records of it). The article itself says he blogs from his computer at night so there goes that argument . . .