What I find bad is that Mozilla does not offer packages for Ubuntu Gutsy. All this sucks. Once Mozilla was part of the community but they sucked too much money.
Eastern Europe. Maybe they like to download. Everyone is using Firefox.
Because Wine is a hermetic project which requires a lot of specialist knowledge and simple routine tasks with a high entry level. It has a massive tasks and work is not properly distributed, the community does not scale very well. Progress is just linear but things are getting better. With distribution I mean: think e.g. of an external hacking project that is just concerned about getting MS-Office run perfectly under WINE. Or just concerned to get a perfect implementation of a certain API.
I would say that most software runs on WinME. The windows core is pretty stable. But this running is not really the issue. You also cannot say that wine supports WIN95 better than Win Vista.
But Wine gets more and more attractive. And then there are some outstanding issues as Bug 239 testing (controlspy) where you would expect massive activity from users but it does not happen.
The whole project seems to make it extremely difficult to contribute and distribute the work.
It is not even possible to say donate for a full implementation of a certain specific library.
Yes, buit wouldn't it be great to run at least the software we had in 1998?
what about missing applications such as Photoshop or Video editors?
There is a critical mass: If things start to work more people will try to get things work and check out the source.
Esp. for public authorities the lock-in into special applications is severe and keeps them from switching to Linux. these are mostly trivial from a technological standpoint.
So what really matters is critical mass and a development process that makes it not into elitist work of a close cycle.
Re:Note:grousing about rejected submissions is Off
on
ISO Puts OOXML On Hold
·
· Score: 1
So just four instead of six? You notice the potential.
Could be a lot more. Works like this: NB calls on the committee to convene, Microsoft does not sent their guys as they already got their standard, a committee majority decides to file an appeal on procedural matter x. submitted. done.
Yes guys, these are just the appeals on the BRM. There is much much more to complain about. Happy hacking and let them embrace, extend and extinguish the domino...
The Netherlands will create a governmental lobby platform.
It is all about the domino effect, Microsoft is very afraid of it. The critical mass to get a massive shift. Microsoft will combat it and further worsen its position.
As Microsoft finally announced to switch to ODF and refuses to implement the unpublished OOXML format before adding full ODF support there is really no reason to go on with ISO OOXML. Governments should simply mandate ODF as the XML based document standard format in their own administration. The Netherlands are a perfect example. More governments will follow. Microsoft can just embrace the domino effect. Ironically it was the ISO OOXML process that made ODF adoption happen.
Not to mention that the interim draft was not made available as mandated by ISO rules because of the failure of the editor to deliver it. The ISO JTC1 Directives demand the meeting report and the final DIS to be distributed within 1 month of the meeting.
Now Microsoft has a formal excuse for its lazyness to deliver the consolidated text. Blame ISO haha.
The statement about monetary incentives is wrong because what the Commission just expects compliance with its rulings. Usually companies do comply. The competition authority acts similarly to a court. Competitors file a complaint, then the Commission rules, then the convicted monopolist complies. This is the way is works. Microsoft broken the rules and refused to comply, it delayed the process, bullied the Commission, lobbied aggressively, even let foreign nations intervene on their behalf.
The penalties are just for non-compliance, the difficulties of the myriads of Microsoft lobby outfits to "understand" what the Commission wants. When Microsoft sued the Commission it won just another enemy. Microsoft acted like a bully, bought politicians, harassed the Commission. This made so many people fed up. Parliament members file parliament questions on Microsoft. Lobbying for Microsoft got a pretty bad smell if you care about your career in public affairs.
Or given Microsoft's continual appeals and non-payment, are there any other penalties they can exact, such as suspending the business license for Microsoft's European branch?
Say: It was a real blow with a diplomatic Commissioner who did not mention the elephant in the room. The European political class is pissed by Microsoft's lobbying against open standards and interoperability, its software patents agitation, the OOXML debacle and its disobedient treatment of the Commission. Microsoft has public affairs problems in different parts of the Commission. Lobbying for Microsoft is generally perceived as working for Tobacco lobby groups.
b) Nelly spoke of proprietary vs. non-proprietary standards, a terminology not used by the Commission before.
c) Nelly recommended Munich and the Netherlands as best practice.
There is much to learn from other public bodies such as Munich - and I am delighted to have the Mayor of Munich here this morning to tell us about his experience. But Munich is not alone: there is also the German Foreign Ministry [switched to Linux and open standards], and the French Gendarmerie. The Dutch Government and Parliament are also moving towards open standards. d) Munich's Mayor Christian Ude took the floor and explicitely condemned OOXML after her speech and spoke of the 'free software' used in his municipality. Original reason: no extended support for Win NT 4
e) Ditmar Harhoff, an economist, called for patent reform. Europe would be well advised not to follow the US
g) Graham Tailor from Open Forum put emphasis on the Freedom to Leave.
From the speech of the Commissioner:
The Commission must do its part. It must not rely on one vendor, it must not accept closed standards, and it must refuse to become locked into a particular technology â" jeopardizing maintenance of full control over the information in its possession.
This view is born from a hard headed understanding of how markets work â" it is not a call for revolution, but for an intelligent and achievable evolution.
But there is more to this than ensuring our commercial decisions are taken in full knowledge of their long term effects. There is a democratic issue as well.
When open alternatives are available, no citizen or company should be forced or encouraged to use a particular company's technology to access government information.
No citizen or company should be forced or encouraged to choose a closed technology over an open one, through a government having made that choice first.
These democratic principles are important. And an argument is particularly compelling when it is supported both by democratic principles and by sound economics.
I know a smart business decision when I see one - choosing open standards is a very smart business decision indeed. and:
Non-proprietary standards avoid the need for licence agreements and royalties. They avoid the need to ask permission if you want to use or develop the technology â" follow-on innovation may be easier. They avoid subjecting the future development of the standard and the technology to the commercial interests of the technology's originator.
The corruption came with ECMA, so ECMA as the ISO parasitarian instrument needs to be removed: no ECMA fast-track without ECMA's special relationship...
It was the meeting of SC34 and a text from SC34, not ISO.
SC34 is totally controlled by Microsoft. And it invited ECMA to the group!
SC34 will play a role in the maintenance regime for OOXML and they announced to corrupt ODF.
Outside the SC34, the Norwegian committee took the streets.
When I saw the video of his Heise conference talk I thought, he looks like a trade fair presenter without any clue of the underlying technology. I can be wrong. But at least he is no person that appears to have the required independence and integrity required for the job. Why don't they take Miguel who is almost assimilated. At least he is an open mind and has an independent record of achievements outside Microsoft.
I believe that Office on Wine is a pretty inspiring idea of cross-plattform. In the 90th Microsoft wanted Win32 everywhere but then it went on the anti-Linux ideology road and promoted unreasonable patent policies in nations abroad.
When you see how Jason Matusow promoted OOXML you can clearly see that these persons do care less about technologist-friendly business pratices.
Developers, developers, developers, was Ballmers slogan. I start to understand why. The company forgot to take the opinion of its developer community serious and inspire them.
OOXML and ODF are no binary format but a new generation based on XML. That is the point.
OOXML as an XML format is "backward compatible" in the same way ODF as an XML format is "backwards compatible" to the legacy binary formats. It is just a branding argument because you generally would assume that Microsoft is able to do a better job than external parties to achieve the transition. Yet, the claim needs empirical tests.
You wrote a flamebait.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh well. The cakes for Microsoft staff.
What I find bad is that Mozilla does not offer packages for Ubuntu Gutsy. All this sucks. Once Mozilla was part of the community but they sucked too much money.
Eastern Europe. Maybe they like to download. Everyone is using Firefox.
Of course, it is not a perfect or complete implementation yet.
Because Wine is a hermetic project which requires a lot of specialist knowledge and simple routine tasks with a high entry level. It has a massive tasks and work is not properly distributed, the community does not scale very well. Progress is just linear but things are getting better. With distribution I mean: think e.g. of an external hacking project that is just concerned about getting MS-Office run perfectly under WINE. Or just concerned to get a perfect implementation of a certain API.
I would say that most software runs on WinME. The windows core is pretty stable. But this running is not really the issue. You also cannot say that wine supports WIN95 better than Win Vista.
In fact most ported projects where discontinued.
But Wine gets more and more attractive. And then there are some outstanding issues as Bug 239 testing (controlspy) where you would expect massive activity from users but it does not happen.
The whole project seems to make it extremely difficult to contribute and distribute the work.
It is not even possible to say donate for a full implementation of a certain specific library.
Both products need improvements, that is what open file formats as ODF are for. Choose your favourite tool for your specific task.
I am glad that Office07 SP2 will start to support ODF.
Yes, buit wouldn't it be great to run at least the software we had in 1998?
what about missing applications such as Photoshop or Video editors?
There is a critical mass: If things start to work more people will try to get things work and check out the source.
Esp. for public authorities the lock-in into special applications is severe and keeps them from switching to Linux. these are mostly trivial from a technological standpoint.
So what really matters is critical mass and a development process that makes it not into elitist work of a close cycle.
At least everyone can run
http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/users/paulm/WRT/CrossBuilt/winetest-latest.exe
on his windows boxes to support the developers but you really miss a level entry into wine hacking.
The CIA uses opensuse? Interesting.
So CIA uses Wikidot? Why not. Let them do. The paper thing is not really a good idea.
So they embrace and extent the domino effect?
So just four instead of six? You notice the potential.
Could be a lot more. Works like this: NB calls on the committee to convene, Microsoft does not sent their guys as they already got their standard, a committee majority decides to file an appeal on procedural matter x. submitted. done.
Yes guys, these are just the appeals on the BRM. There is much much more to complain about. Happy hacking and let them embrace, extend and extinguish the domino...
Actually this doesn't matter at all as the ministries as users are irrelevant.
http://www.ososs.nl/noiv/en
The Netherlands will create a governmental lobby platform.
It is all about the domino effect, Microsoft is very afraid of it. The critical mass to get a massive shift. Microsoft will combat it and further worsen its position.
As Microsoft finally announced to switch to ODF and refuses to implement the unpublished OOXML format before adding full ODF support there is really no reason to go on with ISO OOXML. Governments should simply mandate ODF as the XML based document standard format in their own administration. The Netherlands are a perfect example. More governments will follow. Microsoft can just embrace the domino effect. Ironically it was the ISO OOXML process that made ODF adoption happen.
Not to mention that the interim draft was not made available as mandated by ISO rules because of the failure of the editor to deliver it. The ISO JTC1 Directives demand the meeting report and the final DIS to be distributed within 1 month of the meeting.
Now Microsoft has a formal excuse for its lazyness to deliver the consolidated text. Blame ISO haha.
The statement about monetary incentives is wrong because what the Commission just expects compliance with its rulings. Usually companies do comply. The competition authority acts similarly to a court. Competitors file a complaint, then the Commission rules, then the convicted monopolist complies. This is the way is works. Microsoft broken the rules and refused to comply, it delayed the process, bullied the Commission, lobbied aggressively, even let foreign nations intervene on their behalf.
The penalties are just for non-compliance, the difficulties of the myriads of Microsoft lobby outfits to "understand" what the Commission wants. When Microsoft sued the Commission it won just another enemy. Microsoft acted like a bully, bought politicians, harassed the Commission. This made so many people fed up. Parliament members file parliament questions on Microsoft. Lobbying for Microsoft got a pretty bad smell if you care about your career in public affairs.
Say: It was a real blow with a diplomatic Commissioner who did not mention the elephant in the room. The European political class is pissed by Microsoft's lobbying against open standards and interoperability, its software patents agitation, the OOXML debacle and its disobedient treatment of the Commission. Microsoft has public affairs problems in different parts of the Commission. Lobbying for Microsoft is generally perceived as working for Tobacco lobby groups.
a) Nelly indirectly endorsed the OFE Open Parliament petition and the Hague Declaration.
b) Nelly spoke of proprietary vs. non-proprietary standards, a terminology not used by the Commission before.
c) Nelly recommended Munich and the Netherlands as best practice. There is much to learn from other public bodies such as Munich - and I am delighted to have the Mayor of Munich here this morning to tell us about his experience. But Munich is not alone: there is also the German Foreign Ministry [switched to Linux and open standards], and the French Gendarmerie. The Dutch Government and Parliament are also moving towards open standards. d) Munich's Mayor Christian Ude took the floor and explicitely condemned OOXML after her speech and spoke of the 'free software' used in his municipality. Original reason: no extended support for Win NT 4
e) Ditmar Harhoff, an economist, called for patent reform. Europe would be well advised not to follow the US
g) Graham Tailor from Open Forum put emphasis on the Freedom to Leave.
From the speech of the Commissioner: The Commission must do its part. It must not rely on one vendor, it must not accept closed standards, and it must refuse to become locked into a particular technology â" jeopardizing maintenance of full control over the information in its possession.
This view is born from a hard headed understanding of how markets work â" it is not a call for revolution, but for an intelligent and achievable evolution.
But there is more to this than ensuring our commercial decisions are taken in full knowledge of their long term effects. There is a democratic issue as well.
When open alternatives are available, no citizen or company should be forced or encouraged to use a particular company's technology to access government information.
No citizen or company should be forced or encouraged to choose a closed technology over an open one, through a government having made that choice first.
These democratic principles are important. And an argument is particularly compelling when it is supported both by democratic principles and by sound economics.
I know a smart business decision when I see one - choosing open standards is a very smart business decision indeed. and: Non-proprietary standards avoid the need for licence agreements and royalties. They avoid the need to ask permission if you want to use or develop the technology â" follow-on innovation may be easier. They avoid subjecting the future development of the standard and the technology to the commercial interests of the technology's originator.
No no no,
this guy here
The corruption came with ECMA, so ECMA as the ISO parasitarian instrument needs to be removed: no ECMA fast-track without ECMA's special relationship...
Sell anti-OOXML T-Shirts?
The real question for me is what can be done now?
- demonstrations? This is what happened in Norway. Sure it would be good to have them elsewhere.
- Virgils? this is what happened in India and almost on the same level.
- moving on a building teams to stifle OOXML adoption by national governments as their standard
- ???
It was the meeting of SC34 and a text from SC34, not ISO.
SC34 is totally controlled by Microsoft. And it invited ECMA to the group!
SC34 will play a role in the maintenance regime for OOXML and they announced to corrupt ODF.
Outside the SC34, the Norwegian committee took the streets.
When I saw the video of his Heise conference talk I thought, he looks like a trade fair presenter without any clue of the underlying technology. I can be wrong. But at least he is no person that appears to have the required independence and integrity required for the job. Why don't they take Miguel who is almost assimilated. At least he is an open mind and has an independent record of achievements outside Microsoft. I believe that Office on Wine is a pretty inspiring idea of cross-plattform. In the 90th Microsoft wanted Win32 everywhere but then it went on the anti-Linux ideology road and promoted unreasonable patent policies in nations abroad. When you see how Jason Matusow promoted OOXML you can clearly see that these persons do care less about technologist-friendly business pratices. Developers, developers, developers, was Ballmers slogan. I start to understand why. The company forgot to take the opinion of its developer community serious and inspire them.
ODF never claimed to be "backwards compatible to the existing corpus of Microsoft documents".
OOXML and ODF are no binary format but a new generation based on XML. That is the point. OOXML as an XML format is "backward compatible" in the same way ODF as an XML format is "backwards compatible" to the legacy binary formats. It is just a branding argument because you generally would assume that Microsoft is able to do a better job than external parties to achieve the transition. Yet, the claim needs empirical tests. You wrote a flamebait.
They ruin the US by wanting Disapproval but voting Approval. This will bring capitalism to its end. Mind Fucko!
Chavez' Venezuela on the other hand is not that cunning. They sell their standard snake oil to Microsoft and voted approval in the september ballot. I wonder what decision they will take this time...