Point of sale system, right. You don't do that open source because there's no point. Who'd use it that doesn't have a purchasing department and thus can be expected to outlay a little dough
What it sounds like you're saying is that, if you've got a lot of money, you don't really deserve the freedom OS software gives you. The whole point of OS software has NOTHING to do with money. It's about freedom. Why should someone be locked into proprietary software just because they have the money for it? Isn't this just perpetuating the myth that "open source is for those who can't afford better software"?
But aside from that, there are a lot of places that could use it and who DON'T have "purchasing departments". Small, struggling, mom and pop stores for example. There are a LOT more small businesses than large mega-corps. And those small businesses should not be at the mercy of proprietary vendors.
That said, I have to agree with another poster here: an OS POS system isn't likely to happen until some vendors open up their hardware specs. Sure, we could reverse engineer it but then we'd have the DMCA to deal with. On the other hand, as someone who's looking at purchasing and developing for kiosk hardware, it seems that most vendors offer interface guides to the hardware. If this is also true in the POS side of things then it might not be so hopeless. Regardless, someone needs to publish a requirements document.
How does this get in the way of the story from 13 April about needing both sides to contsent to chat recordings?
The April 13 ruling would still apply. Basically, before you can tap or log other peoples chat sessions you need one of two things: 1) mutual consent from both parties or 2) a warrant from a judge. If you have 2 then you don't need to worry about things like consent.
Personally, I don't think a lot of eavesdropping happens on IM. Yeah, employers might do it to their employees (which I think they have a right to do) but the average IM user isn't being logged. Usually, when a third party is interested in logging your chat sessions there is something terribly wrong. You've either ticked the wrong dude off or there will soon be very stark looking men in nice suits knocking on your door.
Why, 43 million of course. It is *clearly* stated on the 'I agree' click-through licenses between lines 7,254 and 7,255, and *everyone* reads those agreements thoroughly, right?
You know, I have a problem with people who gripe about "secret stuff" being installed on their computer "without their consent" even though, had they read the EULA, they would have known exactly what was being installed and what it does.
While I am not a fan of Gator or any of those damn spyware crapware programs I have to wonder why a company is so wrong installing spyware on your computer because you were too lazy to read the EULA? If they don't HAVE a EULA or it's deceptive then that's a different thing but I'm talking about EULA's that clearly spell out what happens in the program and where users just don't take the time to read it.
Why do we call Gator unethical and sleazy (which I do) when if we wrote a program that told the user "Accepting this EULA will format your entire hard disk" and the user didn't read it we'd be saying "stupid user"? When a company meets its responsibility of disclosure and the users are too lazy to read it then how is that the companies fault?
Actually, from a strictly financial standpoint, this will be an incredible investment opportunity. A HUGE user base, money coming in from advertisers, and a proven product. Yeah, it's a sleazy product with no ethics at all but hey, since when has that stopped investors?
Mostly because it's illegal to do so. ANY unauthorized intrusion into someone's computer is against the law - even if you're helping them. This is one of the reason why some people thought it was such a bad idea when the "anti-virus virus" idea was floating around last year.
Why is this the exception? Someone invented hyperlinking technology and it was a revolutionary idea. Why shouldn't they be allowed to patent it? See, it's a very slippery slope. What is an "insane patent" to some is good business to others.
The more I think about it, I'm coming to the belief that banning patents entirely isn't really the answer. The patent system itself is simply flawed. We need to dismantle it, rebuild it, and build in some checks and balances to stop the stupid stuff from happening and make sure everyone can compete on the same terms.
What's happening in Europe is a travesty and I fully support our European brothers and sisters in their fight against software patents. Yes, I can see where patents are very useful tools when used responsibly. But most companies don't use them responsibly. They use them to stifle any competition and that is why I oppose patents.
On another note, why is nobody doing something similar in the USA to oppose the DMCA? Yes, I realize it's already a law but laws are made to be repealed. The DMCA is just as dangerous to us as software patents are to Europe (yes, one in the same). Why aren't more people organizing against it in the USA?
You want to beat Microsoft, fine, quit making neat things and start making real applications that do what users want and not what geeks want
This is exactly what I've been saying for the last three years too. The OS community seems populated with people who create software because it's cool or it scratches a personal itch, etc. This isn't going to get OS into the hands of the masses because most of the masses don't have the same itches a programmer does. You aren't going to take down MS writing yet another compiler or yet another programming language or even yet another distro of Linux. You're going to do it by writing tools that people need. For example: where is a really good OS accounting package? Seriously. There really aren't any. Why? Because most geeks don't need one and it's not fun or sexy to write one "just because". That's one of the main problems with OS.
On the flipside (and almost paradoxical to this) is that I believe that, if OS is to survive and dominate the market, we are going to have to take on MS and other proprietary vendors where they are weak. We must identify and hit them hard in their soft spots. That's not programming tools or operating systems, etc. It's user applications. One of the MAJOR blind spots for proprietary vendors is the small market. I'm talking about the markets that are too small to justify spending $900 million or even $200 million in money to develop applications for. Instead, they try to force the same solutions on small shops that they do on the enterprise. Square peg, round hole sort of thing.
Believe it or not, there is a fortune to be made in these small markets. At least a fortune to most of us. No, we won't make $50 billion dollars developing and selling to them. But we can make quite a nice living from it. I could do with a couple of million here or there. Develop for the small market. Approach them with open solutions. Show them how they save money, cut budget, etc over using proprietary stuff. Show them hard numbers. You won't take down MS with Linux. You will take down MS by eating away slowly at its base and slowly and methodically growing. Linux, coupled with a growing base of high quality applications that USERS (not programmers) want.
Lastly, the OS community needs to get over its idealogical fantasy and realize that, if we are going to compete and beat proprietary vendors like MS we're going to have to make it less about ideals and more about cold, hard cash. Companies, as a rule, couldn't care less about the moral relevance of using OS software as opposed to proprietary software. For most, it's not even an issue. Pitching ideals to customers will get you pegged an idealist, a rebel, and not someone who they'll do business with. Start treating your software like a business -- show numbers, sales figures, cost savings analysis, etc and you'll be taken seriously. Ideals come later. Getting the software accepted is primary.
Unfortunately, I don't really see the state of the OS community changing any time soon and it's really sad. I dearly love OS and would love to see us take on CS vendors head on. But until we get over some of the crap that plauges us the corporate vendors will always have an advantage. Sad, but true. Very sad.
I see a lot of people here saying "mess with their heads: ask if they own X". You are totally missing the point of what HardRadio(tm) is saying.
They are no longer claiming trademark infringement. They are claiming trademark confusion and dilloution(sp). It's the exact same thing that Microsoft(tm) is doing with Lindows. They aren't really saying Lindows is infringing on the Microsoft Windows(tm) trademark but rather that they are creating brand confusion.
So even though FFR might not actually be infringing on the HardRadio(tm) trademark, they might still be ruled against because they are creating brand confusion. Asking questions to the lawyers as suggested wouldn't tie the lawyers. It would just show that he has no idea what he's doing.
I agree with you here. His response probably didn't do his cause any good. It wasn't professional and it really didn't carry any weight (except for what could be perceived as a veiled legal threat). He probably should have simply sent an email saying he was discussing this issue with his attorney and would get back to them in a few days.
That said, we should also remember that FFR isn't a commercial website with a corporation behind it. This guy does the site, and foots the bill, because he loves the music. He's not out to make a killing and his goal isn't to appear like a big corporate giant. So, while his response was probably wrong, it was understandable.
While I am not a lawyer and certainly not an expert in trademark law, I don't think their complaint about using "Hard Radio" in a generic sense has any substance to it at all.
Perhaps, instead of going after FightForRock.com who, admittedly, is making no money for them to get, they should start searching the web for all the big "Hard Radio" stations out there and sue them for trademark infringement. I know of two in my area alone that use the term Hard Radio all the time in both ads and print media.
My advice is to go to a trademark lawyer and ask him to review your case. Chances are they can make you stop using "HardRadio" but not "Hard Radio". Of course, with the Microsoft and Lindows thing going on who knows where they might stand. Talk to a lawyer.
After all, you run as root anyway, might as well just go all the way with the naming, right?
Perhaps you should do a bit of research before you post things to a public forum that you know nothing about. As of version 2.0 Lindows has the abillity to install seperate, non-root, user accounts.
While I understand your argument I think you're missing a part of the point. Some of it has to do with the end user - voters - but a lot of it has to do with the integrity of the system which has nothing to do with the voters.
Even with a paper trail, a closed source system is dangerous because it can be manipulated. Open source ensures that it simply cannot be manipulated without it being caught in an audit.
I think there is an excellent opportunity in the defense community for open source software. In any project, a substantial amount of time, costs, and resources go towards developing, debugging, and testing the software. It has to be rock solid. It can't fail. It need to be predictable. All that sort of stuff.
That said, I'm not terribly sure how a new missile guidance system (open source or not)would be received by the DoD. When I looked at doing something similar to this about two years ago, it seemed that the existing contractors pretty much had a stranglehold on the market. You think the SCO case is contentious? Just wait until you start pitching a low cost missile system to the DoD. You'll have defense contractors putting out hits on you then. LOL But I still do think it's a "possibly" idea. Not sure how you'd break in though.
Another area of defense I think could benefit from open source is biolocation and defense. That's one of my current research projects right now. The idea is that if you can determine a targets unique biological "signature" then you should be able to fairly easily locate the target over a given area. My current interests lie in applying this to satelitte and flyover technology. Imagine being able to put in Osama's unique biological signature and have a satelitte or drone search a given wide area for anything with that signature. I'm seriously thinking about doing this and pitching it to either the DoD or NSA (both could benefit) and it would definately be open source. All I need are a few serious people interested in bioinformatics, biology, and technology who are willing to work for free until we interest the defense community. I'm sure I'll find THAT really quick.
All that to say, I think this is a good idea. Some of the technology has been done already so you wouldn't need to start from scratch. Your main obsticles would be 1)the export restrictions (I'd pitch it to your home country first) and 2) breaking into the industry. Good luck if you're serious!
We're doing something similar for our small town and a few other small towns here in Oklahoma but we're going the wireless mesh route. It's cheaper, easier to maintain, and isn't as confusing for the average user. It also allows for some pretty cool profit sharing opportunities for the subscribers. Even as remote as Austrailia can be, I have to wonder why they didn't use this route. IMHO, satellite seems like overkill for this. Anyone know why mesh wouldn't have worked there?
So anyone who hasn't "lived and breathed open source" is a wannabe? I think, if anything, Novell jumping in with both feet is a LOT bigger testimony to the power of open source than RedHat using open source on all their desktops. RedHat MAKES open source and is quite profitable. Novell had a niche, didn't NEED open source but saw the profit potential and power and jumped in. I applaud Novell a lot more than RedHat.
I think the OP was incorrectly modded as a troll. What he/she is saying is very true. I have customers every day who absolutely love the idea of Linux, free software, etc but are very reluctant to committ to it due to the political and "religious" (one customer used that very word yesterday) atmosphere surrounding it.
It's really time the community get over itself and start to carve out it's place in mainstream society: another choice among many that customers can come to. Yes, it might be the best choice out there but that doesn't matter a hill of beans if customers are scared away from it by all of the zealotry.
We're not talking about vacating ethical responsibility here. We're talking about either forking over cash for licenses or forking over cash to litigate the need to not get those licenses
No, that isn't accurate either. First, even if we are talking about strictly a licensing issue we still are talking about an ethical one. Doing something "to help your business" doesn't mean it without moral or ethical impact. After all, Microsoft and SCO are both doing things to help their companies and increase shareholder profit but what they are doing is unethical.
Secondly, even if EV1 paid as little as $10K for the licenses it probably wouldn't have cost them as much to do as another posted suggested: petition the judge to postpone the case until a decision was reached in the umbrella case of IP. As vague and loose as SCO's case is, most judges would have to be insane not to grant such a request. We're talking a little research, a legal filing, and POSSIBLY a brief argument. Definatley not very costly to EV1.
I think EV1 realizes they made a mistake and are very sorry for it for both business and personal reasons. They have lost customers; they have lost some public goodwill. But they've also costs their shareholders some money and that isn't good. Some of this is "regret" is spin but some of it definately is real and deep regret.
Being a zealot of any kind is a "bad thing". The problem with zealotry is that it blinds you to onjectivity. You focus so much on the positives of your product and the faults of its competitors that you fail to see the limitations and problems that your product has -- and yes, EVERY product, including Linux, has problems. It's never "cool" to be a zealot. It's just stupid.
That was a sad attempt at wit and sarcasm. The truth is that the majority of OSS projects never fork. The ones that do are generally wrapped in conflicted and have major brawls going on in them. Usually, these projects eventually suicide or re-merge with the original project.
One reason not to open source Java is that MS could simply appropriate it, develop and eventually patent a bastardized version that would work only with MS software. The MS market share monopoly would then guarantee the end of "Java as we know it." And Sun could not do a thing about it.
Then why hasn't this happened with other popular oss projects? Microsoft certainly sees the value of projects like Open Office or, say, Linux? Where's the basterdized version?
Mr. McNealy's response to the prospect of open sourcing Java is an excellent example of why small companies who embrace, build, and exploit open source technologies will carry the marketshare of the future. Large companies like Sun think about the immediate: profits and quick return on invested revenue. They lack the vision that would allow them to see the long term benefits and market stability that open source would bring.
I say, "Good move McNealy. You have just driven yet another nail in Sun's coffin".
These are all excellent points and one's I've been making for years. Installing IE and MediaPlayer with windows and making either or both of them uninstallable doesn't lock users into that specific software. Yes, it makes it more likely they will use it because it's "there" but, really, how hard is it for a user to go to a publishers website and download a different program. Microsoft just makes it easy to stay not impossible to leave.
Aside from that, Microsof does a lot of things better than the alternatives. RealPlayer and Netscape are good examples of this. People stay with MS software for a few reasons:
1: It's not terribly bad. Yes, there are security holes. But for the most part those can be patched and users like the abillity to go to one company for most of there needs and be able to standardize around one platform.
2: It's already there. Much of MS's software comes on PC's when they're bought. Because the software isn't bad and it's there already there is little incentive to leave.
3: Open Source is confusing. Imagine you've never operated a computer before and have just bought your first one. You go looking for software and you find an open source site. You're hit with words like POSIX Compliant, GPL'd, "Free as in speech not beer", etc. Then, you go to Microsoft and you see "Works with Microsoft Windows 2000/XP". No confusion. No muddy waters. Nothing to figure out. This is perhaps open source's biggest enemy. Marketing and presentation. Users should not have to be technically literate in order to install a word processor or spreadsheet OR to learn to use it effectively. It's not rocket science. Users are looking for software to meet their needs. They aren't looking for a religion. They aren't looking for a philosophy. They're looking for software. Why make it that hard?
I love Linux and open source and I think that Microsoft practices some pretty weird business. But I really don't think it's illegal or worthy of such a fine.
Slashdot Mirror
What it sounds like you're saying is that, if you've got a lot of money, you don't really deserve the freedom OS software gives you. The whole point of OS software has NOTHING to do with money. It's about freedom. Why should someone be locked into proprietary software just because they have the money for it? Isn't this just perpetuating the myth that "open source is for those who can't afford better software"?
But aside from that, there are a lot of places that could use it and who DON'T have "purchasing departments". Small, struggling, mom and pop stores for example. There are a LOT more small businesses than large mega-corps. And those small businesses should not be at the mercy of proprietary vendors.
That said, I have to agree with another poster here: an OS POS system isn't likely to happen until some vendors open up their hardware specs. Sure, we could reverse engineer it but then we'd have the DMCA to deal with. On the other hand, as someone who's looking at purchasing and developing for kiosk hardware, it seems that most vendors offer interface guides to the hardware. If this is also true in the POS side of things then it might not be so hopeless. Regardless, someone needs to publish a requirements document.The April 13 ruling would still apply. Basically, before you can tap or log other peoples chat sessions you need one of two things: 1) mutual consent from both parties or 2) a warrant from a judge. If you have 2 then you don't need to worry about things like consent.
Personally, I don't think a lot of eavesdropping happens on IM. Yeah, employers might do it to their employees (which I think they have a right to do) but the average IM user isn't being logged. Usually, when a third party is interested in logging your chat sessions there is something terribly wrong. You've either ticked the wrong dude off or there will soon be very stark looking men in nice suits knocking on your door.
You know, I have a problem with people who gripe about "secret stuff" being installed on their computer "without their consent" even though, had they read the EULA, they would have known exactly what was being installed and what it does.
While I am not a fan of Gator or any of those damn spyware crapware programs I have to wonder why a company is so wrong installing spyware on your computer because you were too lazy to read the EULA? If they don't HAVE a EULA or it's deceptive then that's a different thing but I'm talking about EULA's that clearly spell out what happens in the program and where users just don't take the time to read it.
Why do we call Gator unethical and sleazy (which I do) when if we wrote a program that told the user "Accepting this EULA will format your entire hard disk" and the user didn't read it we'd be saying "stupid user"? When a company meets its responsibility of disclosure and the users are too lazy to read it then how is that the companies fault?
Actually, from a strictly financial standpoint, this will be an incredible investment opportunity. A HUGE user base, money coming in from advertisers, and a proven product. Yeah, it's a sleazy product with no ethics at all but hey, since when has that stopped investors?
Mostly because it's illegal to do so. ANY unauthorized intrusion into someone's computer is against the law - even if you're helping them. This is one of the reason why some people thought it was such a bad idea when the "anti-virus virus" idea was floating around last year.
Why is this the exception? Someone invented hyperlinking technology and it was a revolutionary idea. Why shouldn't they be allowed to patent it? See, it's a very slippery slope. What is an "insane patent" to some is good business to others.
The more I think about it, I'm coming to the belief that banning patents entirely isn't really the answer. The patent system itself is simply flawed. We need to dismantle it, rebuild it, and build in some checks and balances to stop the stupid stuff from happening and make sure everyone can compete on the same terms.
On another note, why is nobody doing something similar in the USA to oppose the DMCA? Yes, I realize it's already a law but laws are made to be repealed. The DMCA is just as dangerous to us as software patents are to Europe (yes, one in the same). Why aren't more people organizing against it in the USA?
Join the protest against European software patents!
This is exactly what I've been saying for the last three years too. The OS community seems populated with people who create software because it's cool or it scratches a personal itch, etc. This isn't going to get OS into the hands of the masses because most of the masses don't have the same itches a programmer does. You aren't going to take down MS writing yet another compiler or yet another programming language or even yet another distro of Linux. You're going to do it by writing tools that people need. For example: where is a really good OS accounting package? Seriously. There really aren't any. Why? Because most geeks don't need one and it's not fun or sexy to write one "just because". That's one of the main problems with OS.
On the flipside (and almost paradoxical to this) is that I believe that, if OS is to survive and dominate the market, we are going to have to take on MS and other proprietary vendors where they are weak. We must identify and hit them hard in their soft spots. That's not programming tools or operating systems, etc. It's user applications. One of the MAJOR blind spots for proprietary vendors is the small market. I'm talking about the markets that are too small to justify spending $900 million or even $200 million in money to develop applications for. Instead, they try to force the same solutions on small shops that they do on the enterprise. Square peg, round hole sort of thing.
Believe it or not, there is a fortune to be made in these small markets. At least a fortune to most of us. No, we won't make $50 billion dollars developing and selling to them. But we can make quite a nice living from it. I could do with a couple of million here or there. Develop for the small market. Approach them with open solutions. Show them how they save money, cut budget, etc over using proprietary stuff. Show them hard numbers. You won't take down MS with Linux. You will take down MS by eating away slowly at its base and slowly and methodically growing. Linux, coupled with a growing base of high quality applications that USERS (not programmers) want.
Lastly, the OS community needs to get over its idealogical fantasy and realize that, if we are going to compete and beat proprietary vendors like MS we're going to have to make it less about ideals and more about cold, hard cash. Companies, as a rule, couldn't care less about the moral relevance of using OS software as opposed to proprietary software. For most, it's not even an issue. Pitching ideals to customers will get you pegged an idealist, a rebel, and not someone who they'll do business with. Start treating your software like a business -- show numbers, sales figures, cost savings analysis, etc and you'll be taken seriously. Ideals come later. Getting the software accepted is primary.
Unfortunately, I don't really see the state of the OS community changing any time soon and it's really sad. I dearly love OS and would love to see us take on CS vendors head on. But until we get over some of the crap that plauges us the corporate vendors will always have an advantage. Sad, but true. Very sad.
Man, I wish I had mod points for this one. I'd definately mod it up! Excellent points!
They are no longer claiming trademark infringement. They are claiming trademark confusion and dilloution(sp). It's the exact same thing that Microsoft(tm) is doing with Lindows. They aren't really saying Lindows is infringing on the Microsoft Windows(tm) trademark but rather that they are creating brand confusion.
So even though FFR might not actually be infringing on the HardRadio(tm) trademark, they might still be ruled against because they are creating brand confusion. Asking questions to the lawyers as suggested wouldn't tie the lawyers. It would just show that he has no idea what he's doing.
That said, we should also remember that FFR isn't a commercial website with a corporation behind it. This guy does the site, and foots the bill, because he loves the music. He's not out to make a killing and his goal isn't to appear like a big corporate giant. So, while his response was probably wrong, it was understandable.
Perhaps, instead of going after FightForRock.com who, admittedly, is making no money for them to get, they should start searching the web for all the big "Hard Radio" stations out there and sue them for trademark infringement. I know of two in my area alone that use the term Hard Radio all the time in both ads and print media.
My advice is to go to a trademark lawyer and ask him to review your case. Chances are they can make you stop using "HardRadio" but not "Hard Radio". Of course, with the Microsoft and Lindows thing going on who knows where they might stand. Talk to a lawyer.
Anthony
Perhaps you should do a bit of research before you post things to a public forum that you know nothing about. As of version 2.0 Lindows has the abillity to install seperate, non-root, user accounts.
Anthony Saffer
Open Source Strategies
www.opensource-strategies.com
Even with a paper trail, a closed source system is dangerous because it can be manipulated. Open source ensures that it simply cannot be manipulated without it being caught in an audit.
Anthony
That said, I'm not terribly sure how a new missile guidance system (open source or not)would be received by the DoD. When I looked at doing something similar to this about two years ago, it seemed that the existing contractors pretty much had a stranglehold on the market. You think the SCO case is contentious? Just wait until you start pitching a low cost missile system to the DoD. You'll have defense contractors putting out hits on you then. LOL But I still do think it's a "possibly" idea. Not sure how you'd break in though.
Another area of defense I think could benefit from open source is biolocation and defense. That's one of my current research projects right now. The idea is that if you can determine a targets unique biological "signature" then you should be able to fairly easily locate the target over a given area. My current interests lie in applying this to satelitte and flyover technology. Imagine being able to put in Osama's unique biological signature and have a satelitte or drone search a given wide area for anything with that signature. I'm seriously thinking about doing this and pitching it to either the DoD or NSA (both could benefit) and it would definately be open source. All I need are a few serious people interested in bioinformatics, biology, and technology who are willing to work for free until we interest the defense community. I'm sure I'll find THAT really quick.
All that to say, I think this is a good idea. Some of the technology has been done already so you wouldn't need to start from scratch. Your main obsticles would be 1)the export restrictions (I'd pitch it to your home country first) and 2) breaking into the industry. Good luck if you're serious!
Hey! Those rednecks need network access too :-)
We're doing something similar for our small town and a few other small towns here in Oklahoma but we're going the wireless mesh route. It's cheaper, easier to maintain, and isn't as confusing for the average user. It also allows for some pretty cool profit sharing opportunities for the subscribers. Even as remote as Austrailia can be, I have to wonder why they didn't use this route. IMHO, satellite seems like overkill for this. Anyone know why mesh wouldn't have worked there?
So anyone who hasn't "lived and breathed open source" is a wannabe? I think, if anything, Novell jumping in with both feet is a LOT bigger testimony to the power of open source than RedHat using open source on all their desktops. RedHat MAKES open source and is quite profitable. Novell had a niche, didn't NEED open source but saw the profit potential and power and jumped in. I applaud Novell a lot more than RedHat.
It's really time the community get over itself and start to carve out it's place in mainstream society: another choice among many that customers can come to. Yes, it might be the best choice out there but that doesn't matter a hill of beans if customers are scared away from it by all of the zealotry.
No, that isn't accurate either. First, even if we are talking about strictly a licensing issue we still are talking about an ethical one. Doing something "to help your business" doesn't mean it without moral or ethical impact. After all, Microsoft and SCO are both doing things to help their companies and increase shareholder profit but what they are doing is unethical.
Secondly, even if EV1 paid as little as $10K for the licenses it probably wouldn't have cost them as much to do as another posted suggested: petition the judge to postpone the case until a decision was reached in the umbrella case of IP. As vague and loose as SCO's case is, most judges would have to be insane not to grant such a request. We're talking a little research, a legal filing, and POSSIBLY a brief argument. Definatley not very costly to EV1.
I think EV1 realizes they made a mistake and are very sorry for it for both business and personal reasons. They have lost customers; they have lost some public goodwill. But they've also costs their shareholders some money and that isn't good. Some of this is "regret" is spin but some of it definately is real and deep regret.
Being a zealot of any kind is a "bad thing". The problem with zealotry is that it blinds you to onjectivity. You focus so much on the positives of your product and the faults of its competitors that you fail to see the limitations and problems that your product has -- and yes, EVERY product, including Linux, has problems. It's never "cool" to be a zealot. It's just stupid.
That was a sad attempt at wit and sarcasm. The truth is that the majority of OSS projects never fork. The ones that do are generally wrapped in conflicted and have major brawls going on in them. Usually, these projects eventually suicide or re-merge with the original project.
Then why hasn't this happened with other popular oss projects? Microsoft certainly sees the value of projects like Open Office or, say, Linux? Where's the basterdized version?
I say, "Good move McNealy. You have just driven yet another nail in Sun's coffin".
Aside from that, Microsof does a lot of things better than the alternatives. RealPlayer and Netscape are good examples of this. People stay with MS software for a few reasons:
1: It's not terribly bad. Yes, there are security holes. But for the most part those can be patched and users like the abillity to go to one company for most of there needs and be able to standardize around one platform.
2: It's already there. Much of MS's software comes on PC's when they're bought. Because the software isn't bad and it's there already there is little incentive to leave.
3: Open Source is confusing. Imagine you've never operated a computer before and have just bought your first one. You go looking for software and you find an open source site. You're hit with words like POSIX Compliant, GPL'd, "Free as in speech not beer", etc. Then, you go to Microsoft and you see "Works with Microsoft Windows 2000/XP". No confusion. No muddy waters. Nothing to figure out. This is perhaps open source's biggest enemy. Marketing and presentation. Users should not have to be technically literate in order to install a word processor or spreadsheet OR to learn to use it effectively. It's not rocket science. Users are looking for software to meet their needs. They aren't looking for a religion. They aren't looking for a philosophy. They're looking for software. Why make it that hard?
I love Linux and open source and I think that Microsoft practices some pretty weird business. But I really don't think it's illegal or worthy of such a fine.