A monopoly is a superdominant position in the market (empirical).
Firefox could become a monopoly in the market, IE is.
If we regard the monopolist as a winner in a winner-takes-all scenario where it wins based on its merits, e.g. because firefox is the best and most user friendly browser, there is nothing wrong about that.
If the monopoly is contestable a better market player on performance based criteria can overtake the role of the leader.
In a two party system the winning party takes all the minister seats, the other party becomes the opposition. But that "monopoly" is contestable in elections as opposed to a single party system.
A good strategy is to declare war, for fun, because there is nothing to lose. Microsoft would escalate it and fail big.
Companies just need anti-lock in strategies.
Imagine a government of X to invest 150 million$ in openoffice development. For a government it is pocket money but would totally change the worldwide office software environment. Bailout anyone? The interesting aspect is that hardly any person is actually lobbying for that while Microsoft spents millions on bad lobbyists who try to shot these ideas down. Why not try for fun and let Microsoft kill the idea and blow it up. Large procurement agencies understand how OpenOffice helps them to reduce their license costs. So they need to invest a bit pocket money to get Microsoft nervous.
But that scheme does not function anymore. Open XML is a perfect example, it has its ISO stamp and all governments tell Microsoft its 'interesting' and adopt ODF as their standard. I am not sure ODF would be so popular without that attempt.
Well actually it is fun. We saw it with Firefox. Firefox was inferiour and buggy but it inspired us. Today we can chose from a whole set of good enough free browsers.
Linux Desktop market share is just a matter of critical mass and investment. What is missing is only quality and polishing. Quality means the average usage time to run into a problem you cannot easily fix. If it does not work out of the box with standard hardware, users won't take it.
In short it is a matter of money. We could ask the government for a few 100 million dollar to develop a national operating system based on Linux.
The way to establish ogg as a default format is a) good automated ripping tools with p2p integration, usable for idiots who won't even get what they are doing. b) an ethical piracy ideology which demands use of open standards
I guess their strategy will be to fund development of an entirely new desktop environment flavour, after the Qt hate campaign was so successful. A forkbomb.
Which in other words means that you should really consider to donate a monthly few hundred bucks to open source because it enables you to get lower prices.
What you forget it the genius of Apple's open source strategy: the kernel, webkit, all open source. Still MAC OS X is proprietary like hell.
IE8 does not generate real profits, still they develop it on their own. How much does Microsoft pay for IE development and what are the costs of Firefox development?
What you have to understand that ENISA is a completely useless EU agency residing in Greece. It was installed by the lobby, and is back mostly by BSA members as Symantec, Microsoft,...
This year the Commission attempted to rewind it by merging its competences into a new regulatory institution for the Telecom sector. However the Telecom package debate lead to the rejection of the regulatory authority and thus to the survival to ENISA.
In other words, this institutione is owned by the industry lobby. It is just an advisory institution and its guidance is bullshit so far. It has no competence to propose laws or anything.
The studies carried out so far are of low quality and target imaginary audiences. For them Enisa experts have trivial recommendations. And Enisa openly says it lacks expertise and asks the vendor lobby for input. Enisa is a placebo institution for IT security. Anything that comes out of the body is suspicious.
Slashdot Mirror
Spending your budget on OpenOffice is no problem.
A granted monopoly is a priviledge.
A monopoly is a superdominant position in the market (empirical).
Firefox could become a monopoly in the market, IE is.
If we regard the monopolist as a winner in a winner-takes-all scenario where it wins based on its merits, e.g. because firefox is the best and most user friendly browser, there is nothing wrong about that.
If the monopoly is contestable a better market player on performance based criteria can overtake the role of the leader.
In a two party system the winning party takes all the minister seats, the other party becomes the opposition. But that "monopoly" is contestable in elections as opposed to a single party system.
Let's agree that the Linux Desktop still needs polishing.
And KDE4 needs to mature.
Basically it is all about bug hunting.
What you are talking about is not monopoly but contestability of monopolies
A good strategy is to declare war, for fun, because there is nothing to lose. Microsoft would escalate it and fail big.
Companies just need anti-lock in strategies.
Imagine a government of X to invest 150 million$ in openoffice development. For a government it is pocket money but would totally change the worldwide office software environment. Bailout anyone? The interesting aspect is that hardly any person is actually lobbying for that while Microsoft spents millions on bad lobbyists who try to shot these ideas down. Why not try for fun and let Microsoft kill the idea and blow it up. Large procurement agencies understand how OpenOffice helps them to reduce their license costs. So they need to invest a bit pocket money to get Microsoft nervous.
But that scheme does not function anymore. Open XML is a perfect example, it has its ISO stamp and all governments tell Microsoft its 'interesting' and adopt ODF as their standard. I am not sure ODF would be so popular without that attempt.
Well actually it is fun. We saw it with Firefox. Firefox was inferiour and buggy but it inspired us. Today we can chose from a whole set of good enough free browsers.
Linux Desktop market share is just a matter of critical mass and investment. What is missing is only quality and polishing. Quality means the average usage time to run into a problem you cannot easily fix. If it does not work out of the box with standard hardware, users won't take it.
In short it is a matter of money. We could ask the government for a few 100 million dollar to develop a national operating system based on Linux.
The way to establish ogg as a default format is
a) good automated ripping tools with p2p integration, usable for idiots who won't even get what they are doing.
b) an ethical piracy ideology which demands use of open standards
I think we will see another Desktop Environment emerge that is closer to Windows in its default settings, simpler and signficantly faster.
Then the browser aka the cloud will overtake it.
I find GOS and LXDE good approaches but they are not 100% mature yet.
I guess their strategy will be to fund development of an entirely new desktop environment flavour, after the Qt hate campaign was so successful. A forkbomb.
Which in other words means that you should really consider to donate a monthly few hundred bucks to open source because it enables you to get lower prices.
Well, in the old days of Linspire we had Lsongs which was an iTunes clone.
not the desktop
What you forget it the genius of Apple's open source strategy: the kernel, webkit, all open source. Still MAC OS X is proprietary like hell.
IE8 does not generate real profits, still they develop it on their own. How much does Microsoft pay for IE development and what are the costs of Firefox development?
The important battle was Open XML and Microsoft lost. Governments all around the world are using ODF now and Microsoft is forced to support it.
Yes, it is.
Richard Stallman making a point against software patents: Everybody has cancer - why not you?
You could well lapse the patent.
Prior art = prior patent.
This kind of logic is flawed because it is biased. As patents make no sense for software you can abolish them for hardware as well.
The only problem is that you get disrupted all the time.
Read forbes.com and enjoy the lesson-learned depression.
Exactly.
What about Bilski digging his hole deeper?
Software patents are useless. Period.
The decision is very risky as the quality of the decision of the Circuit Court was very high.
They will make Bilski fail again.
What you have to understand that ENISA is a completely useless EU agency residing in Greece. It was installed by the lobby, and is back mostly by BSA members as Symantec, Microsoft,...
This year the Commission attempted to rewind it by merging its competences into a new regulatory institution for the Telecom sector. However the Telecom package debate lead to the rejection of the regulatory authority and thus to the survival to ENISA.
In other words, this institutione is owned by the industry lobby. It is just an advisory institution and its guidance is bullshit so far. It has no competence to propose laws or anything.
The studies carried out so far are of low quality and target imaginary audiences. For them Enisa experts have trivial recommendations. And Enisa openly says it lacks expertise and asks the vendor lobby for input. Enisa is a placebo institution for IT security. Anything that comes out of the body is suspicious.