They are behind Zim as they are behind Apple. The whole Linux thing is a Microsoft conspiracy to help them to create fear and despair of their developers to force them to write code for less money and develop better software in the Seattle software sweat shop. Before they already used Richard Stallman to combat the vi, then he and Torvalds were instrumental to crush Unix. SCO got it and sued back but it was too late. You can read the whole story on Microsoft's news channel Groklaw.
Okay, but in the case of Microsoft it was bullying and political intervention and in the case of OJ you have to either (a) trust in the functioning of the court system (b) ask for reforms of the court system
Adobe is afraid. Yes, that is true. Look at the low profile they show in lobbying.
As of Linux I think it would be a perfect environment for professional multimedia workstations that reach the performance you need for activities above amateur stage and what you can not do on Vista or don't want to do. I am speaking of the class of > 30000 Eur per seat. So why doesn't Adobe embrace Linux?
It is very simple: Game consoles. The next generation will be based on Linux. Microsoft rather invests in XBox with a huge negative return on investment to prevent their competitors to get a market share that would make them build the Linux game platform.
It is also a matter of negotiations with the hardware companies. Alternatives make them happy and it strengthens their negotiation with Microsoft. Remember that Microsoft paid AOL to continue to use IE instead of their own Mozilla alternative. Back then Firefox was not even ready.
If I would be a hardware vendor I would spent some money on these alternatives. This would give me a good return on investment.
In the end Microsoft will pay for using Windows as it pays for using XBox. Good for the consumer.
As of WinCE I haven't seen many people who want to buy these devices recently. WinCE does not look fresh, like PalmOS.
The criminal sanctions are the wrong instrument. Copyright infringement is a matter of civil enforcement, not criminal enforcement. You cannot spam the Staatsanwaltschaften with copyright infringement.
It is like the SS who hanged ordinary citizens on the fly who didn't want to defend their Fuhrer until the Endsieg and combat Russian tanks. We are close to that Endsieg of the movie industry. It is about to destroy the foundations of the internet and rule of law just to prevent creative destruction that is about to happen anyhow.
Bullshit! An open standard is a patent-free standard. Other standards as ISO etc. might be covered by patents. We call them standards as opposed to "open" standards although the specification is made available. Standards can be Spen Standards but not all standards are open. Proprietary Formats are no "standards" anyway, we speak of de-facto standards.
Generally speaking you can make the Open Source test. If it cannot be implemented using the GPL or BSD it is not an open standard. Otherwise we face a problem of vendor control.
Last September in Seattle, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates met Mark Thompson, the BBC director general, and Ashley Highfield, then director of new media and technology, now known as future media and technology. They signed a non-exclusive memorandum of understanding which aimed to identify areas of common interest between Microsoft and the BBC on which a strategic alliance could be developed.
A central area of potential co-operation is the BBC iPlayer project, for which the BBC Trust last week gave final approval following an open consultation.
So the BBC became a Microsoft drone and stopped its free codec project earlier this year.
Software patents are available in the UK. That is the scandal. The European Patent Convention and most national laws provide no legal base but the patent offices grant them anyway and they tend to be rarely tested in courts.
Yes, it is important to stand firm against software patenting.
Either it is an open standard or it is a patent encumbered format aka "Microsoft Open Standard" or ITU-OpenStandard-is-a-popular-term-and-thus-should-cover-everything-we-did-in-standardisation-during-the-last-70-years.
There are many initiatives now which aim to defend open standards and ask governments to only procure only products which comply with true open standards. For instance the Digital Standards Organization launched the Hague Declaration.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean Jim Zemlin should got for preferential treatment? So far as I can see they don't go for lobbying at all.
what is the difference?
I mean it is an extremely nerdy issue right? It concerns the internals.
Why are these pathes relevant?
People want to *run* Desktop applications and don't care how the OS stores them.
They are behind Zim as they are behind Apple. The whole Linux thing is a Microsoft conspiracy to help them to create fear and despair of their developers to force them to write code for less money and develop better software in the Seattle software sweat shop. Before they already used Richard Stallman to combat the vi, then he and Torvalds were instrumental to crush Unix. SCO got it and sued back but it was too late. You can read the whole story on Microsoft's news channel Groklaw.
What they want? Global might and terror!
Twenty years ago it looked like Unix was dying.
Do they have a strategy against software patents?
Do they lobby for open standards regulations and vendor neutrality?
Nuff said. ...ah and where is the Desktop LSB gone?
I see. This explains a lot.
But but Windows is 'collapsing' says Gartner.
Okay, but in the case of Microsoft it was bullying and political intervention and in the case of OJ you have to either
(a) trust in the functioning of the court system
(b) ask for reforms of the court system
In court?
A open standard has to be open for third party implementations without discrimination.
Open standards allows co-existance of open source and proprietary software.
Patents lock free software out.
I don't agree with Miguel's superbity claim but the spec is not that bad. The problem it the format's design and licensing conditions.
Adobe is afraid. Yes, that is true. Look at the low profile they show in lobbying.
As of Linux I think it would be a perfect environment for professional multimedia workstations that reach the performance you need for activities above amateur stage and what you can not do on Vista or don't want to do. I am speaking of the class of > 30000 Eur per seat. So why doesn't Adobe embrace Linux?
You see, they are afraid.
In the US a "promise" is a legal declaration of will.
It is very simple: Game consoles. The next generation will be based on Linux. Microsoft rather invests in XBox with a huge negative return on investment to prevent their competitors to get a market share that would make them build the Linux game platform.
It is also a matter of negotiations with the hardware companies. Alternatives make them happy and it strengthens their negotiation with Microsoft. Remember that Microsoft paid AOL to continue to use IE instead of their own Mozilla alternative. Back then Firefox was not even ready.
If I would be a hardware vendor I would spent some money on these alternatives. This would give me a good return on investment.
In the end Microsoft will pay for using Windows as it pays for using XBox. Good for the consumer.
As of WinCE I haven't seen many people who want to buy these devices recently. WinCE does not look fresh, like PalmOS.
OpenOffice implements a later version that ISO, right? That is normal. Oh, Vista programs don't run with Win 3.1...
Maybe this is what you are looking for: the Hague Declaration for open standards.
I would say the problem is the "design" of Open XML, not the details.
The criminal sanctions are the wrong instrument. Copyright infringement is a matter of civil enforcement, not criminal enforcement. You cannot spam the Staatsanwaltschaften with copyright infringement.
The RIAA works hard to get the IPRED2 directive adopted which would make criminal sanctions more widely available, effectively messing up the criminal penalty system for the sake of a dying Hollywood movie industry that already lost the war.
It is like the SS who hanged ordinary citizens on the fly who didn't want to defend their Fuhrer until the Endsieg and combat Russian tanks. We are close to that Endsieg of the movie industry. It is about to destroy the foundations of the internet and rule of law just to prevent creative destruction that is about to happen anyhow.
Bullshit! An open standard is a patent-free standard. Other standards as ISO etc. might be covered by patents. We call them standards as opposed to "open" standards although the specification is made available. Standards can be Spen Standards but not all standards are open. Proprietary Formats are no "standards" anyway, we speak of de-facto standards.
Generally speaking you can make the Open Source test. If it cannot be implemented using the GPL or BSD it is not an open standard. Otherwise we face a problem of vendor control.
Ah, and by the way:
So the BBC became a Microsoft drone and stopped its free codec project earlier this year.
Because your information is plain wrong.
Software patents are available in the UK. That is the scandal. The European Patent Convention and most national laws provide no legal base but the patent offices grant them anyway and they tend to be rarely tested in courts.
Yes, it is important to stand firm against software patenting.
Either it is an open standard or it is a patent encumbered format aka "Microsoft Open Standard" or ITU-OpenStandard-is-a-popular-term-and-thus-should-cover-everything-we-did-in-standardisation-during-the-last-70-years.
There are many initiatives now which aim to defend open standards and ask governments to only procure only products which comply with true open standards. For instance the Digital Standards Organization launched the Hague Declaration.
You can sign the petition here.
It is important to lobby for true open standards that do not discriminate free software as those formats covered by RAND terms do.
Are there any videos or news coverages of the incident?