I rather view it in terms of Suse consumer confidence. Everybody was upset with the rough methods the Ximian guys corrupted our Suse product and pushed for immature solutions. There are other Ximian guys SuSe customers want to leave.
My feelings are quite the contrary.
....It strikes me because it is the only sentence stating what Novell will continue doing after the agreements. It's a feel good sentence, sounding like "oh, Novell's continuing Linux development," but really explicitly stating the parts of Linux it will continue on. Considering that Novell was actively developing the Linux Desktop, and Robert Love was "Chief Architect, Linux Desktop, at Novell", it's apparent that the Linux Desktop is one of the items Novell will NOT continue. Exactly. A blunt attempt to annoy Suse customers by enforcing their Gnome stuff on the users. SuSe had a groupware product, what did the Ximian guys do: Develop their own. SuSe had a working package management system. What did the Ximian guys do? Mess it up with RedCarpet. SuSe had a working and enterprise ready desktop, what did the Ximian guys do? Push for their Gnome stuff no customer requested.
Break and run.
It is time for them to leave. Not only Robert Love. We want to see the customers decide what they want, not ruthless technology pushers decide for them.
The magic bullet to get Ms-Office out of the window is to define a corporate policy document which says that the standard document format of the cooperation should be ISO 26300 conform plus other standard stuff, naming convention etc. Then you start a process of standard compliance checks and link it with your corporate quality management...
The point is:
a) Patent dependencies.
b) Silverlight will not take off.
There is a track of failure and Microsoft knows how to fail pretty well. ASPs, important? Sure. But do we need an OSS implementation? Not really.
Same for.NET.
"In fact, you can ignore Mono completely, nobody is forcing you to use it; Nobody is asking you to contribute to the effort, and nobody is in any position to force you to stop using whatever other technology happens to be your favorite one."
But it was included as a standard component in Gnome, hmm?
If soldiers are not able to speak freely why does the media always invoke the impression there was an opinion of soldiers. I mean, we all know that its staged. We know that it sells better to say "support our troops" than "trust your leader". A soldier is an instrument who carries out action.
Okay, but you won't let a bot onto your site, hmm?
Could be real fun to make honeypots for that autonomy bot.
--- Autonomy are a serious company working on pattern recognition, not some fly-by-night cowboys.
Serious companies don't patent software or at least are not proud of it.
Learning it the hard way. Microsoft funds pro-software lobbying, in fact it is the major donor of pro-software patent lobbying. A software company invests into the business model of patent agents. A economically useless patent system.
Shouldn't they better invest in sound patent reform?
There are two different aspects: a) software and its quality b) social behaviour and interaction of developers
I think Linus' criticism is focussed on the second aspect. Gnome got too many developers from corporations involved. Then you also take over their business culture and values. Small medium enterprises, freelancers and initiatives, that is a nice competitive cultural environment. But what is about big corporations? Is it really fun to get them involved?
Look what Novell did with our great SuSE? And what was the response to the patent questions we raised? A Microsoft-Novell deal.
On the one hand civil rights group advocate to criminalise piracy and counterfeit while the proposal of the Commission actually criminalises "all infringements". Plus "incitting, abetting infringements", that is very very broad, hmm? The Open Rights Group explains it very well.
It is not about piratebay or piracy and counterfeit, it is about ordinary online businesses where 'infringement' is unevitable and a matter of everyday business. You get alerted by the rightsholder and take content down. Else a civil court will process the case. When you are a manager of an online community as Youtube, it is not the police that arrests you for "inciting infringements" of intellectual property rights, infringements by user generated context. That would change. Due diligence could well be interpreted as 'intentional infringement'. Someone posts copyright protected content in your web forum, you become a criminal. In civil law there are already similar interpretations.
Or think of grey cases. How easy is it to infringe a trademark or a patent? Because we don't really know the scope of the right.
The business case against ipred2 is very good. Reportedly even the BSA was against it.
We are not talking about rational anti-piracy regulation but insanity which messes up IPR regulation and criminal law.
Well said. But what is even more effective: support those who fight against software patenting. The GPLv3 is just a tool to trigger the debate. It is software engineers which need to kick the layers out.
It is much cheaper to invest in lobbying against software patenting. Europe tells a lesson here. It is just a matter of ressources. Support the anti-softpatent movement.
Although it sounds very grand when whole countries or states or cities make a lot of noise about switching to open source software, if you follow them to the conclusion it always seems to work out the same: they end up sticking with Microsoft. I suspect that Microsoft comes in a makes them a sweet deal (maybe they'll open the source code a little, maybe they'll drop the price) and in the end they stick with Microsoft. As more and more groups do this, I think it's just part of the negotiation.
Yes, but it is a procurement strategy that pays off.
They should invest in open source to reduce their procurement costs. AOL invested in Mozilla, then Microsoft paid AOL for using the IE engine. That's the way open source business is fun.
Open source business is about saving costs. And it saves our government a whole lot of money if they have an alternative product which is somehow mature. Let governments dump 50 million$ on OpenOffice which would result in much less software procurement costs, not to mention all the nice new partnerships and top jobs for current government officials.
It is no excuse for Microsoft. Applications as important on the market place have to work. Microsoft has a tradition of insane binary compatibility. If they don't guarantee it for widespread Apple products than its intentional incompatibility.
Haha, oh we didn't know our users want to use Apple products...
I am thinking in terms of national security. What needs to be done to protect our political system, to protect competition. Many nations have media antitrust laws. In Italy things are somehow different...
I mean, I know bad habits of that company from first hand. The USA spents billions on Iraq. Iraqi Freedom or Oil, I don't care. In business terms it shows how much nations invest in national security. Now, give a public Linux Foundation 1 Billion and let them develop a Desktop Linux which blows Microsoft Windows away. Not for "new projects", more for doing the boring stuff, polishing, feature completeness, testing, conferences.
Throw 150 Million on OpenOffice Development and save much money on the procurement side, even when you take MS Office in the end.
In a similar way as OOXML and SenderID? As a patented technology pushed through fast track procedures by a single provider, Microsoft.
It is urgent time that we gather some ressources to free citizens from that company. We see the progress Open Source has made without significant public subsidies. Why not invest a billion of public money into information freedom, free us from that company which funds all these damn lobbyists in parliament. We don't need Microsoft to tell us what an open standard is. We know what it is. It is 100% patent-free and no-rand community driven development. Free market, free competition, interoperable, open documented.
Before we get a free cyberspace, all these unethical companies need to be told a lesson. Now that Saddam is gone we have to go after rogue companies. It is important to safe our liberty and freedom of business. Unethical businesses need to be punished. Rotten companies are not good for business.
It was Gates who reportedly (their PR person told it Borsen) bribed the Danish Government: Get us software patents or we cut jobs in Denmark. Now he and his foundation are on the biopat lobbying front in Africa.
Article 7 Joint investigation teams The Member States must ensure that the holders of intellectual property rights concerned, or their representatives, and experts, are allowed to assist the investigations carried out by joint investigation teams into the offences referred to in Article 3.
Article 8 Initiation of criminal proceedings Member States shall ensure that the possibility of initiating investigations into, or prosecution of, offences covered by Article 3 are not dependent on a report or accusation made by a person subjected to the offence, at least if the acts were committed in the territory of the Member State.
In fact it reminds me more of a kingdom. The Linux trademark here ressembles an empire crown. When Linux Foundation controls the Linux trademark would it be willing to let an initiative "Eurolinux" lobby against software patents? I think the GPLv3 addressed the problems with patents but what about the Linux trademark? Will I have to rename my new "Elektrolinux" distribution to "Elektrognu" because the Linux foundation does not like me and I criticised them in public? Or because I don't adhere to certain FSG standards and don't take part in an upcoming costly procedure ("certified Linux" by the Linux Foundation?). Linux Foundation sounds very powerful to me and kills many alternative efforts. FSG - it controls open standards, OSDL it has the money to pay core developers, Linux Foundation, it represents "Linux" and employes Linus.
From a Cesar and Countercesar perspective: Control of the capital, control of the empire crown, control of the sword, control of territory, support by the pope/Rome.
Slashdot Mirror
Break and run.
It is time for them to leave. Not only Robert Love. We want to see the customers decide what they want, not ruthless technology pushers decide for them.
The magic bullet to get Ms-Office out of the window is to define a corporate policy document which says that the standard document format of the cooperation should be ISO 26300 conform plus other standard stuff, naming convention etc. Then you start a process of standard compliance checks and link it with your corporate quality management...
The point is: a) Patent dependencies. b) Silverlight will not take off. There is a track of failure and Microsoft knows how to fail pretty well. ASPs, important? Sure. But do we need an OSS implementation? Not really. Same for .NET.
"In fact, you can ignore Mono completely, nobody is forcing you to use it; Nobody is asking you to contribute to the effort, and nobody is in any position to force you to stop using whatever other technology happens to be your favorite one."
But it was included as a standard component in Gnome, hmm?
If soldiers are not able to speak freely why does the media always invoke the impression there was an opinion of soldiers. I mean, we all know that its staged. We know that it sells better to say "support our troops" than "trust your leader". A soldier is an instrument who carries out action.
Either you let him speak freely or not at all.
Convert your CDs to ogg. PirateBay is the real player in the future music market. The whole online music sales business does not work.
Okay, but you won't let a bot onto your site, hmm? Could be real fun to make honeypots for that autonomy bot. --- Autonomy are a serious company working on pattern recognition, not some fly-by-night cowboys. Serious companies don't patent software or at least are not proud of it.
I mean, how to make ogg the industry standard for music files.
Answer: convert all your Music CDs to Ogg files and make torrents out of them.
I mean, it is very simple. All that is needed is a player that defaults to ogg and automatically uploads ogg files to the internet.
Then users will say: oops, I need a player that supports ogg because there are far to many ogg files out there.
Learning it the hard way. Microsoft funds pro-software lobbying, in fact it is the major donor of pro-software patent lobbying. A software company invests into the business model of patent agents. A economically useless patent system. Shouldn't they better invest in sound patent reform?
There are two different aspects:
a) software and its quality
b) social behaviour and interaction of developers
I think Linus' criticism is focussed on the second aspect. Gnome got too many developers from corporations involved. Then you also take over their business culture and values. Small medium enterprises, freelancers and initiatives, that is a nice competitive cultural environment. But what is about big corporations? Is it really fun to get them involved?
Look what Novell did with our great SuSE? And what was the response to the patent questions we raised? A Microsoft-Novell deal.
"ipred.org is set up by Vrijschrift.org"
How to donate to Vrijschrift or FFII? Does money help them? Or is grassroot action required as the Open Rights Group suggests?
The problem could be that infringement is not the same as piracy. The FFII explains where to draw the line. Their recommendation is to adopt the definitions of the Max-Planck-Institution .
On the one hand civil rights group advocate to criminalise piracy and counterfeit while the proposal of the Commission actually criminalises "all infringements". Plus "incitting, abetting infringements", that is very very broad, hmm? The Open Rights Group explains it very well.
It is not about piratebay or piracy and counterfeit, it is about ordinary online businesses where 'infringement' is unevitable and a matter of everyday business. You get alerted by the rightsholder and take content down. Else a civil court will process the case. When you are a manager of an online community as Youtube, it is not the police that arrests you for "inciting infringements" of intellectual property rights, infringements by user generated context. That would change. Due diligence could well be interpreted as 'intentional infringement'. Someone posts copyright protected content in your web forum, you become a criminal. In civil law there are already similar interpretations.
Or think of grey cases. How easy is it to infringe a trademark or a patent? Because we don't really know the scope of the right.
The business case against ipred2 is very good. Reportedly even the BSA was against it.
We are not talking about rational anti-piracy regulation but insanity which messes up IPR regulation and criminal law.
Not really. You think in terms of show of force. But it is very simple to crack the system. It is a downhill battle.
Well said. But what is even more effective: support those who fight against software patenting. The GPLv3 is just a tool to trigger the debate. It is software engineers which need to kick the layers out.
He speaks about the 'tyranny of oil'. Now, who cares about oil? But isn't code the oil of a compueter. And isn't Microsoft...
Time for climate change, Obama will open the windows...
It is much cheaper to invest in lobbying against software patenting. Europe tells a lesson here. It is just a matter of ressources. Support the anti-softpatent movement.
What are they spending the billions on? I see why libertarian propaganda is so common in the US.
Domino effect.
Although it sounds very grand when whole countries or states or cities make a lot of noise about switching to open source software, if you follow them to the conclusion it always seems to work out the same: they end up sticking with Microsoft. I suspect that Microsoft comes in a makes them a sweet deal (maybe they'll open the source code a little, maybe they'll drop the price) and in the end they stick with Microsoft. As more and more groups do this, I think it's just part of the negotiation. Yes, but it is a procurement strategy that pays off. They should invest in open source to reduce their procurement costs. AOL invested in Mozilla, then Microsoft paid AOL for using the IE engine. That's the way open source business is fun. Open source business is about saving costs. And it saves our government a whole lot of money if they have an alternative product which is somehow mature. Let governments dump 50 million$ on OpenOffice which would result in much less software procurement costs, not to mention all the nice new partnerships and top jobs for current government officials.
It is no excuse for Microsoft. Applications as important on the market place have to work. Microsoft has a tradition of insane binary compatibility. If they don't guarantee it for widespread Apple products than its intentional incompatibility.
Haha, oh we didn't know our users want to use Apple products...
Apple should approach the antitrust authorities which keep an eye on VISTA.
;-) OpenID? I meant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_ID
I am thinking in terms of national security. What needs to be done to protect our political system, to protect competition. Many nations have media antitrust laws. In Italy things are somehow different...
I mean, I know bad habits of that company from first hand. The USA spents billions on Iraq. Iraqi Freedom or Oil, I don't care. In business terms it shows how much nations invest in national security. Now, give a public Linux Foundation 1 Billion and let them develop a Desktop Linux which blows Microsoft Windows away. Not for "new projects", more for doing the boring stuff, polishing, feature completeness, testing, conferences.
Throw 150 Million on OpenOffice Development and save much money on the procurement side, even when you take MS Office in the end.
In a similar way as OOXML and SenderID? As a patented technology pushed through fast track procedures by a single provider, Microsoft.
It is urgent time that we gather some ressources to free citizens from that company. We see the progress Open Source has made without significant public subsidies. Why not invest a billion of public money into information freedom, free us from that company which funds all these damn lobbyists in parliament. We don't need Microsoft to tell us what an open standard is. We know what it is. It is 100% patent-free and no-rand community driven development. Free market, free competition, interoperable, open documented.
Before we get a free cyberspace, all these unethical companies need to be told a lesson. Now that Saddam is gone we have to go after rogue companies. It is important to safe our liberty and freedom of business. Unethical businesses need to be punished. Rotten companies are not good for business.
It was Gates who reportedly (their PR person told it Borsen) bribed the Danish Government: Get us software patents or we cut jobs in Denmark. Now he and his foundation are on the biopat lobbying front in Africa.
Currently the European Union discusses the Second Intellectual Property Rights enforcement Directive in the Legal Affairs Committee. This new piece of legislation will also throw criminal measures into the arena.
My favourite: (Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights - Document COM(2006)0168 - Procedure 2005/0127(COD)
Exactly. Even before you read it you'd know.
In fact it reminds me more of a kingdom. The Linux trademark here ressembles an empire crown. When Linux Foundation controls the Linux trademark would it be willing to let an initiative "Eurolinux" lobby against software patents? I think the GPLv3 addressed the problems with patents but what about the Linux trademark? Will I have to rename my new "Elektrolinux" distribution to "Elektrognu" because the Linux foundation does not like me and I criticised them in public? Or because I don't adhere to certain FSG standards and don't take part in an upcoming costly procedure ("certified Linux" by the Linux Foundation?). Linux Foundation sounds very powerful to me and kills many alternative efforts. FSG - it controls open standards, OSDL it has the money to pay core developers, Linux Foundation, it represents "Linux" and employes Linus. From a Cesar and Countercesar perspective: Control of the capital, control of the empire crown, control of the sword, control of territory, support by the pope/Rome.