>>> They've made countless promises to not sue, have had their own staff help the Mono project repeatedly and have supplied tons of documentation to them and have made agreements with Novell to cover the Mono implementation from issues. >>>
So they cannot sue SuSe. And they cannot sue Redhat because Redhat does not use Mono. Whom are they going to sue if it has got to be profitable? They just need the FUD.
I simply cannot come around to use ?????Office as long as it sticks to that name. Yes, there have been plenty of protesters and doubters, but where is the reaction from the Document Foundation?
Possibly, the name OpenOffice can be used again now that Oracle signals white smoke. If not, all it takes is a major GNU/Linux distro to impose a new name. With compliments to the Document Foundation.
Perfect, let's increase choice. I'm waiting for Mark Shuttelworth to buy Qt, hire experienced Qt developers from KDE, port Gnome to Qt, kick out Mono, merge the best of the two desktops, conquer the market.
After which, I hope the idiots fixed on the 'choice' mantra will be satisfied. And we'll get what we need: endless choice but an overwhelmingly predominant platform.
>>> Hell, many cultures never discovered the wheel, or would have developed much later if they hadn't been introduced to it by their neighbors.>>>
Oh my, so the wheel was not discovered simultaneously everywhere? And people were learning from each other? You are credited with an analytical breakthrough.
>>> I would be careful about requesting a name change. >>>
Sure, be careful. Which would include getting away from the current name abomination. Which is a warranty for failure despite the immense good will of the moment.
>>> I actually like the name LibreOffice more than OpenOffice. Also, a new name gives them a chance to shed the negative baggage that was associated with the OpenOffice name while still being able to point back to it for creditability.
The issue is not that you like it more than the old name. The issue is: do you like the new name? You don't and nobody does.
A new name will offer a chance to shed negative baggage associated with old, if the new name is an appealing name - and not a joke,
>>> IMO, what you should do is let Sun and Oracle do what they wish with the ownership of MySQL, as the GPL copy will persist forever and you have freedom to continue its development...
That's fine as long it is your personal recommendation to a particular person. It surely cannot be legal or economic advice at public level. All industrialized countries have introduced anti-trust and supervising agencies in the course of the 20th century.
In the case Oracle-Sun DOJ took 5 months to approve the acquisition. Oracle submitted it to the European Commission late July when the DOJ blessing looked imminent. After the traditional August vacation, the EC managed to issue a preliminary opinion early September. They are working at breakneck speed, forget the lament about delays. And in any event Oracle can cut it short. They just need to answer ONE query, which I'll phrase in different forms as follows:
(1) Why did Oracle want to buy mySQL in 2006? (2) Why was the initial bid by Oracle for Sun restricted to the software bussines? (3) What do they want to do with it now?
>>> Which brings up a good point - why doesn't IBM buy them up (or at least a controlling interest) and finally drop the curtain on SCO's last act? It's got to cost less than any additional litigation.
They have a poison pill. New investors get max. 15% of votes whatever their share.
The European Commission is sluggish by nature. Additionally, in merge or anti-trust issues they like to wait for the US decision first.
In the Oracle-Sun case the DOJ decision is quite fresh and August is sacrosanct holiday month in Brussels. Now the Eurocrats are back to work and there *is* a decision on the merge although not officially finalized. You just have got to read the European oracles.
The decision is: either Oracle sells mySQL or they will face a very lengthy procedure and in the end an adverse outcome. So it is really up to the playboy in charge at Oracle. If he wants an end to uncertainty, he has to dump mySQL now.
>>> If you bring your own bag of chips into a gas station mart, walk around a little, and then hand it to the cashier, they'll scan it and charge you. >>>
Not necessarily so. That particular bag of chips must be on their database as one of their products on offer.
>>> The violation is very clear, they're not asking for outrageous damages, and the law seems clearly in their favor. >>>
They are asking for impossible compliance. The uploader has a chance in hell to get Wikipedia remove the pictures despite being a Wikipedia Administrator.
And what's more they are asking for him to roll back any propagation. Oh mygod, how is he going to do that?
At this moment you really have to ask: what do they really want? It cannot be assumed they are idiots and they know the guy is unable to comply and they cannot sue Wikipedia. So what do they really want?
Slashdot Mirror
"Boy, was that company suckered."
That's John Dvorak in his last column for Infoworld 1985 when Steve Jobs was ousted from Apple.
http://books.google.com/books?id=jC8EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=%2Bdvorak+steve+jobs+leaving+apple+1985+infoworld+suckered&source=bl&ots=pJ8NZY9Wgv&sig=2YM64qODziCzfzYWR3lYJ6Zhu2U&hl=en&ei=t_xVTr6iDsb54QS3l52jDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA
In 1997 Michael Dell added "I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders".
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-203937.html
How could they be so wrong? They weren't. Steve Jobs just had luck, plenty of it.
>>>
The "problem" with replacing X is that it's good enough for most uses.
>>>
Gnome, KDE, OpenOffice, LibreOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird, Opera do not use X. Problem solved.
>>>
They've made countless promises to not sue, have had their own staff help the Mono project repeatedly and have supplied tons of documentation to them and have made agreements with Novell to cover the Mono implementation from issues.
>>>
So they cannot sue SuSe. And they cannot sue Redhat
because Redhat does not use Mono. Whom are they going to sue if it has got to be profitable? They just need the FUD.
>>>
Nuclear energy is one of those things - very easy to dismiss out of hand but the only sane choice if done right...
>>>
If you think some countries did it right, please list them. Otherwise you are just hoping and guessing.
>>>
Glad I gave up on Windows a long time ago. Life is better now, not to mention cheaper, faster, less annoying, and less worrisome.
>>>
On my hardware Windows applications are quicker starting and reacting than corresponding ubuntu apps.
This is even true for apps that exist for both platforms, like Firefox, Thunderbird, Opera. And sorry, they even feel better.
>>> ...misunderstand either how apartheid actually worked in South Africa or ... >>>
The majority opinion in SA is that Israel is an apartheid state.
>>> Are you aware that there are languages other than English? >>>
If you are referring to French and Spanish, LibreOffice is just incomprehensible. You would have to say:
bureau libre
libre officina
I simply cannot come around to use ?????Office as long as it sticks to that name. Yes, there have been plenty of protesters and doubters, but where is the reaction from the Document Foundation?
Possibly, the name OpenOffice can be used again now that Oracle signals white smoke. If not, all it takes is a major GNU/Linux distro to impose a new name. With compliments to the Document Foundation.
>>> The whole idea of linux is choice. >>>
Perfect, let's increase choice. I'm waiting for Mark Shuttelworth to buy Qt, hire experienced Qt developers from KDE, port Gnome to Qt, kick out Mono, merge the best of the two desktops, conquer the market.
After which, I hope the idiots fixed on the 'choice' mantra will be satisfied. And we'll get what we need: endless choice but an overwhelmingly predominant platform.
>>> Hell, many cultures never discovered the wheel, or would have developed much later if they hadn't been introduced to it by their neighbors.>>>
Oh my, so the wheel was not discovered simultaneously everywhere? And people were learning from each other?
You are credited with an analytical breakthrough.
Hello Mark,
You have followed this thread, plenty of people are pessimistic about Qt's future.
Qt's future is you. Buy it, make smartphone developers happy and occasionally port the entire Gnome to it.
It won't make you poor.
Thanks a lot!
>>> But you compile both on a 32-bit platform, then decompile them both, and then say look, that second guy just stole the first guy's code. >>>
Copyrights protect expressions. You have two functions clearly different as they are expressed but after compilation they look the same. So what?
>>> I would be careful about requesting a name change. >>>
Sure, be careful. Which would include getting away from the current name abomination. Which is a warranty for failure despite the immense good will of the moment.
>>> In the long term? Yes I'm sure flash, or some other solid state, based storage will replace magnetic disks.>>>
Give it 6 years and the new resistor memory will have killed off disks, be they spinning or flashing.
Memory will be memory, no RAM, no disks. The SSD manufacturers better hurry up, their time frame is tight.
>>> I actually like the name LibreOffice more than OpenOffice. Also, a new name gives them a chance to shed the negative baggage that was associated with the OpenOffice name while still being able to point back to it for creditability.
The issue is not that you like it more than the old name. The issue is: do you like the new name? You don't and nobody does.
A new name will offer a chance to shed negative baggage associated with old, if the new name is an appealing name - and not a joke,
At this stage it is clear and everybody agrees:
'LibreOffice' is going to be disaster.
Let's start a Slashdot brainstorming, folks.
My entry: Officine.
Yes, it is French but only you and I know
and I'm not sure about you.
>>> Their KDE 4 desktop is perhaps unmatched by any other distro
Perhaps? Does it have a cashew nut in the upper right corner?
>>>
IMO, what you should do is let Sun and Oracle do what they wish with the ownership of MySQL, as the GPL copy will persist forever and you have freedom to continue its development...
That's fine as long it is your personal recommendation to a particular person. It surely cannot be legal or economic advice at public level. All industrialized countries have introduced anti-trust and supervising agencies in the course of the 20th century.
In the case Oracle-Sun DOJ took 5 months to approve the acquisition. Oracle submitted it to the European Commission late July when the DOJ blessing looked imminent. After the traditional August vacation, the EC managed to issue a preliminary opinion early September. They are working at breakneck speed, forget the lament about delays. And in any event Oracle can cut it short. They just need to answer ONE query, which I'll phrase in different forms as follows:
(1) Why did Oracle want to buy mySQL in 2006?
(2) Why was the initial bid by Oracle for Sun restricted to the software bussines?
(3) What do they want to do with it now?
>>>
Which brings up a good point - why doesn't IBM buy them up (or at least a controlling interest) and finally drop the curtain on SCO's last act? It's got to cost less than any additional litigation.
They have a poison pill. New investors get max. 15% of votes
whatever their share.
Can anyone understand what the bank is hoping for just deactivating that gmail account?
Is the bank really going to leave the leaked data unchanged rather than asking the customers to change details as far as possible?
The European Commission is sluggish by nature. Additionally, in merge or anti-trust issues they like to wait for the US decision first.
In the Oracle-Sun case the DOJ decision is quite fresh and August is sacrosanct holiday month in Brussels. Now the Eurocrats are back to work and there *is* a decision on the merge although not officially finalized. You just have got to read the European oracles.
The decision is: either Oracle sells mySQL or they will face a very lengthy procedure and in the end an adverse outcome. So it is really up to the playboy in charge at Oracle. If he wants an end to uncertainty, he has to dump mySQL now.
>>>
If you bring your own bag of chips into a gas station mart, walk around a little, and then hand it to the cashier, they'll scan it and charge you.
>>>
Not necessarily so. That particular bag of chips must be on their database as one of their products on offer.
>>>
The violation is very clear, they're not asking for outrageous damages, and the law seems clearly in their favor.
>>>
They are asking for impossible compliance. The uploader has a chance in hell to get Wikipedia remove the pictures despite being a Wikipedia Administrator.
And what's more they are asking for him to roll back any propagation. Oh mygod, how is he going to do that?
At this moment you really have to ask: what do they really want? It cannot be assumed they are idiots and they know the guy is unable to comply and they cannot sue Wikipedia. So what do they really want?
>>> .NET?
Java is not encumbered, so why the hell should free software use patent encumbered
>>>
Could you help with the following:
is it possible to write Mono apps and have then run on the Java run-time?
> ...and THIS is the guy you want to listen to on the direction of Linux?
No, he is Linux allergic.
> If there has to be a guy at the head, like Bill or Jobs, then let it be Linus.
Linus *is* the head of the Linux kernel project. Free software has no head in that sense.
> "Which guy do YOU want directing where the OS you are using is headed?".
Please be advised that the issue at hands is not any OS, it is the Mono programming language.
> ...anybody that dares to say something bad about RMS will be modded down by his sockpuppet legions.
Quite possible, but how many sockpuppets are necessary to dump you in the gully?