Linux comes in again because Linux distributors come now will a full featured netbook product line. OEM want to get discounts, so they will strike some Linux deals to drive Microsoft crazy.
Why is it better with windows? Because without Windows no American company would pay you to use their operating system. And the magic behind the windows cash-in for hardware manufacturers is named Linux.
Asus is a Taiwanese hardware manufacturer. They fund Linux because they know it drives Microsoft crazy and they get better procurement conditions. So when they say "windows is better" than mind that before it was "no choice", and as all competitors know it advises to the opposite. Microsoft will not stop Asus' wise Linux investment, and Taiwanese open source efforts like LXDE.
Hardware manufacturere need a Linux strategy to get like Asus a super return on investment. AOL invested in Mozilla and Microsoft paid them a shitload of money to stay with their browser engine, a few years later the IE dominance is gone. The business of open source with Microsoft, you invest a bit in open source and Microsoft gets really scared and throws money at you.
Asus thinks Windows is better because they now get it almost for free. But the very reason for that was their progressive Linux embracement.
Think about guerilla warfare. They cannot win this as long as there are enough attacks which require wasteful counter-action resources. Microsoft can't win all the time but has to. Otherwise open source gets a bridgehead. Fighting open source makes open source stronger.
"So yes, it "passes all the tests", but that's only because there aren't enough tests."
Sounds like a joke. Apply these standards to the rest of Wine!
It is all about moving the goal post. I can't see why an *optional* dib engine would have to be perfect.
So we will see a wine-dib version which package managers will ship, a fork, and the community will rally about it to make it perfect and test it.
There are many fields where it is like that. "You're not ready" is a classical management problem. Whoever is incapable of deputation should not govern a project or control essential resources. If you are the boss you have to delegate powers and take decisions. Either you develop or you maintain the project. As a lead developer you have to be a mentor and communicate your visions.
3. It is build on the former attempts and probably a matter of diplomacy. Otherwise it could be rejected for "design not b)" reasons. Someone who implements according to b) would be rejected for other reasons, e.g. design not a) or "you should built on x work". It happened before. 4. is reported fulfilled 5. this is why it would be added "optional" to the tree. Looks as if it progresses nicely to resolve issues and the contributor build an ethusiastic community.
You rationalise the "dictator". No part of wine is ready and users expect wine to fail. No one is forced to enable the dib engine.
"When is the right time for project members to fork when their chief maintainer does not respond anymore or pursues an adverse commercial agenda?"
What we find here is a highly skilled maintainer, with a project that calls for contributions but rejects contributions. Not that wine was sanity and beauty, it is a messy project. And of course this mess gives the skilled leader authority. You also cannot criticise the leader because you depend on his grace. So maybe the governance model as a whole is crap.
The fork was discussed in the form that Git enables a decentral development model and many developers test the patch on their branch and help the author as a community to make it better. So anyone except the dictator treats him very well. Even key packagers would be willing to adopt the patch which is a defacto fork.
The author of the patch seems to be very diplomatic although you see he is mobbed. And then there is the reserve army of people who do not contribute anymore to Wine because they are fed up. So how strong is the maintainer lock-in of Wine as a project? How important is the community?
Wine is not even close as an implementation and meanwhile Microsoft has implemented Win32 several times. The problem is not "undocumented" but "incomplete", and an unwillingness to modularize project development and delegate responsibilities with few exceptions. Microsoft does not need to do something to Wine, it is off the radar.
The problem is that the maintainers follow a commercial agenda of their own and have to keep Wine crappier than their product. But never blame to conspiracy what can be explained by incompetence. A good developer is not essentially a good maintainer. Some projects are managed by non-developers as Mozilla. If things are wrong, you have to explain how to improve it. If you cannot your trustes mentors will help the contributor. A project needs good mentors. But when you don't teach the mentors either, no one will ever know, and in most cases it could be simple incompetence or disregard to facts or a commercial agenda.
The simple video game motivation pattern: diddy diddy diddy -- fail diddy diddy diddy WIN diddy diddy - fail diddy diddy diddy WIN diddy diddy WIN WIN fail!! and so on.
Yes, this is why Max did follow the rules in a slavish manner. His engine is optional and needs to get activated, so it won't break anything and could also be removed if it was found obsolete. The typical contribution troll is that in technical discussions you always find reasons to reject a patch. What you should never do is to move the goal post. If Wine had a professional maintainer he would communicate what he wants and set realistic goals. Look at the history: Max does it. Someone tells him that Huw was supposed to work on that. And of course it is never perfect, so in the situation of dictatorial silence the palatines make up their own explanaitions.
Wine has a GIT repository and if package managers take the patch on board it is in, they are willing to do, now the warning was raised: don't do that because then we would have "invalid" bugs in bugzilla (that are not in the official release). So currently, very strange, all related bugs are discussed on the dib engine bug page and unlike the rest of wine bugs they actually get fixed. Everybody seems to be very enthusiatic about Max' work. So the natural next move is to get a "beer" project which is more contributor friendly.
Not even Kroes is required to attend. You just have a hearing officer. They listen to the arguments and write a report. The room will be packed with the people who do the work. But if they don't want a hearing, fine. Maybe Nellie Kroes can then go to Switzerland to the baseless competition politician meeting to get lobbied by Microsoft jerks there.
IT most certainly does! Your evidence and the EU is too vague and bullshitish to even constitute Anti-trust violation. If I was MS, I would just let the EU use Linux for all its computing needs, then see how far they get.
Microsoft had the opportunity to reply to the Opera complaint and did so. Additionally it had the opportunity to state its opinion at the hearing.
What is a violation of antitrust law is determined by the authority. If you disagree Microsoft can feel free to go to court (as last time haha).
The Commissioner (Police President) would have attended the event. It was more the photographers and his bowling colleagues, aka national competition officials who don't have any say in the case.
Yes, but that is not the way you can do it with the European Commission. In the USA it may be common to bully antitrust authorities. In Europe you are expected to shut up, play nice and comply.
"Because they are not complying fully with the original decision. Their documentation is not all there. I said they had to work on that. At least whats out there is better than nothing."
No, this was another case, the first company ever not to comply with a competition ruling saga which took about ten years.
This case is about bundling. Opera filed a complaint. Commission waited one year, said: hmm, true, bundling is illegal under our law for a monopolist, IE is bundled with Windows, here is our statement of objections, Microsoft: haha, the Commission is stupid, haha, what about Apple's bundling of Safari, or, wait, when we comply, that would give Google an advantage, do you want this, bla. So the procedure is that you file a defense and may get an official hearing if you want.
And then your great lobby team says: Oh, we get out hearing but we don't want it now. Commission, fine, so you missed your chance.
The core of the core is that Microsoft does not understand how you have to communicate with an antitrust authority. They think an antitrust investigation compares to a berber market, where you negotiate hard and convince the authority by bullying them. No, doesn't work... unless you have the ultimate Lemming strategy.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux comes in again because Linux distributors come now will a full featured netbook product line. OEM want to get discounts, so they will strike some Linux deals to drive Microsoft crazy.
So you would suggest to fire staff?
Great way to generate news about Windows Vista 7, right? Next we will se a reasonable price reduction.
KOffice 2.0 is just great, brilliant software. The same done right. But I wonder how KOffice can be moved towards the cloud?
What happens when Microsoft plays foul with ODF?
etc.
No, the point is that Hardware manufacturers have to pull a Linux to get better discounts. And guess what, Linux investment is cheap.
Why is it better with windows? Because without Windows no American company would pay you to use their operating system. And the magic behind the windows cash-in for hardware manufacturers is named Linux.
Asus is a Taiwanese hardware manufacturer. They fund Linux because they know it drives Microsoft crazy and they get better procurement conditions. So when they say "windows is better" than mind that before it was "no choice", and as all competitors know it advises to the opposite. Microsoft will not stop Asus' wise Linux investment, and Taiwanese open source efforts like LXDE.
Hardware manufacturere need a Linux strategy to get like Asus a super return on investment. AOL invested in Mozilla and Microsoft paid them a shitload of money to stay with their browser engine, a few years later the IE dominance is gone. The business of open source with Microsoft, you invest a bit in open source and Microsoft gets really scared and throws money at you.
Asus thinks Windows is better because they now get it almost for free. But the very reason for that was their progressive Linux embracement.
Think about guerilla warfare. They cannot win this as long as there are enough attacks which require wasteful counter-action resources. Microsoft can't win all the time but has to. Otherwise open source gets a bridgehead. Fighting open source makes open source stronger.
Ever heard of partisan and guerilla warfare?
But Linux is great to reduce software procurement costs as a bargaining tool.
Currently there is a similar debate in Spain.
Imagine a world where RMS would be the GNU Kernel maintainer, not Linus.
You see!
"So yes, it "passes all the tests", but that's only because there aren't enough tests."
Sounds like a joke. Apply these standards to the rest of Wine!
It is all about moving the goal post. I can't see why an *optional* dib engine would have to be perfect.
So we will see a wine-dib version which package managers will ship, a fork, and the community will rally about it to make it perfect and test it.
There are many fields where it is like that. "You're not ready" is a classical management problem. Whoever is incapable of deputation should not govern a project or control essential resources. If you are the boss you have to delegate powers and take decisions. Either you develop or you maintain the project. As a lead developer you have to be a mentor and communicate your visions.
3. It is build on the former attempts and probably a matter of diplomacy. Otherwise it could be rejected for "design not b)" reasons. Someone who implements according to b) would be rejected for other reasons, e.g. design not a) or "you should built on x work". It happened before.
4. is reported fulfilled
5. this is why it would be added "optional" to the tree. Looks as if it progresses nicely to resolve issues and the contributor build an ethusiastic community.
You rationalise the "dictator". No part of wine is ready and users expect wine to fail. No one is forced to enable the dib engine.
The question was:
"When is the right time for project members to fork when their chief maintainer does not respond anymore or pursues an adverse commercial agenda?"
What we find here is a highly skilled maintainer, with a project that calls for contributions but rejects contributions. Not that wine was sanity and beauty, it is a messy project. And of course this mess gives the skilled leader authority. You also cannot criticise the leader because you depend on his grace. So maybe the governance model as a whole is crap.
The fork was discussed in the form that Git enables a decentral development model and many developers test the patch on their branch and help the author as a community to make it better. So anyone except the dictator treats him very well. Even key packagers would be willing to adopt the patch which is a defacto fork.
The author of the patch seems to be very diplomatic although you see he is mobbed. And then there is the reserve army of people who do not contribute anymore to Wine because they are fed up. So how strong is the maintainer lock-in of Wine as a project? How important is the community?
Wine is not even close as an implementation and meanwhile Microsoft has implemented Win32 several times. The problem is not "undocumented" but "incomplete", and an unwillingness to modularize project development and delegate responsibilities with few exceptions. Microsoft does not need to do something to Wine, it is off the radar.
The problem is that the maintainers follow a commercial agenda of their own and have to keep Wine crappier than their product. But never blame to conspiracy what can be explained by incompetence. A good developer is not essentially a good maintainer. Some projects are managed by non-developers as Mozilla. If things are wrong, you have to explain how to improve it. If you cannot your trustes mentors will help the contributor. A project needs good mentors. But when you don't teach the mentors either, no one will ever know, and in most cases it could be simple incompetence or disregard to facts or a commercial agenda.
The simple video game motivation pattern:
diddy diddy diddy -- fail
diddy diddy diddy WIN diddy diddy - fail
diddy diddy diddy WIN diddy diddy WIN WIN fail!!
and so on.
Yes, this is why Max did follow the rules in a slavish manner. His engine is optional and needs to get activated, so it won't break anything and could also be removed if it was found obsolete. The typical contribution troll is that in technical discussions you always find reasons to reject a patch. What you should never do is to move the goal post. If Wine had a professional maintainer he would communicate what he wants and set realistic goals. Look at the history: Max does it. Someone tells him that Huw was supposed to work on that. And of course it is never perfect, so in the situation of dictatorial silence the palatines make up their own explanaitions.
Wine has a GIT repository and if package managers take the patch on board it is in, they are willing to do, now the warning was raised: don't do that because then we would have "invalid" bugs in bugzilla (that are not in the official release). So currently, very strange, all related bugs are discussed on the dib engine bug page and unlike the rest of wine bugs they actually get fixed. Everybody seems to be very enthusiatic about Max' work. So the natural next move is to get a "beer" project which is more contributor friendly.
Exactly, if the submitted user data to the RIAA no one can use them in court. quite the opposite.
Not even Kroes is required to attend. You just have a hearing officer. They listen to the arguments and write a report. The room will be packed with the people who do the work. But if they don't want a hearing, fine. Maybe Nellie Kroes can then go to Switzerland to the baseless competition politician meeting to get lobbied by Microsoft jerks there.
You cannot bargain with an antitrust authority.
Microsoft had the opportunity to reply to the Opera complaint and did so. Additionally it had the opportunity to state its opinion at the hearing.
What is a violation of antitrust law is determined by the authority. If you disagree Microsoft can feel free to go to court (as last time haha).
That is the way they want to describe it but trust me, the argument is riddiculous.
We request a hearing
We claim (unrelated) observers would participate in event B instead.
We say: no.
Commission says, fine, so no hearing?
Microsoft has no right whatsoever to schedule the hearing.
The Commissioner (Police President) would have attended the event. It was more the photographers and his bowling colleagues, aka national competition officials who don't have any say in the case.
Yes, but that is not the way you can do it with the European Commission. In the USA it may be common to bully antitrust authorities. In Europe you are expected to shut up, play nice and comply.
Would you troll against your judge when in court?
No, this was another case, the first company ever not to comply with a competition ruling saga which took about ten years.
This case is about bundling. Opera filed a complaint. Commission waited one year, said: hmm, true, bundling is illegal under our law for a monopolist, IE is bundled with Windows, here is our statement of objections, Microsoft: haha, the Commission is stupid, haha, what about Apple's bundling of Safari, or, wait, when we comply, that would give Google an advantage, do you want this, bla. So the procedure is that you file a defense and may get an official hearing if you want.
And then your great lobby team says: Oh, we get out hearing but we don't want it now. Commission, fine, so you missed your chance.
The core of the core is that Microsoft does not understand how you have to communicate with an antitrust authority. They think an antitrust investigation compares to a berber market, where you negotiate hard and convince the authority by bullying them. No, doesn't work... unless you have the ultimate Lemming strategy.