Yes, Microsoft is proposing a Bill of Rights, for open source developers! Can you believe that?
Actually, yes I can. Why? Because the GPL has always been about putting the user's rights above those of the developer. I consider this a good thing, but some developers (who would like to be able to take advantage of GPL software by incorporating it into their proprietary programs) would see it differently.
Yeah, and I could "announce" that I'm the King of France, but that doesn't make it legally binding! When Valve puts it in writing, in the Steam customer agreement, let me know.
Did the writer intend to write "Valve has no intention of charging for (downloadable content for games) like Counter-Strike and Team Fortress 2," using CS and TF2 as examples of "downloadable content?"
Or did he mean to write "Valve has no intention of charging for downloadable content for (games like Counter-Strike and Team Fortress 2)," using CS and TF2 as examples of "games?"
It could be either (but I'll bet it's the latter).
Actually winning or losing the lawsuit becomes rather academic after all the years and dollars M$ can make you waste fighting a pointless battle.
If they sue, they can be forced to show their patents. Keep that in mind.
Now, imagine that a new corporation was created specifically for the purpose of calling MS's bluff. It has no assets, so it has nothing to lose. So, it could just sue MS, get the patents revealed, and then go bankrupt. This would result in the community working around the patents, and MS losing the ability to FUD.
It's always been about Free Software -- or, at least, the philosophy behind Free Software. The OLPC project is actually the evolution of Alan Kay's Dynabook and Squeak projects. If you try out Squeak, you'll quickly see that the whole concept of it absolutely depends on it being open source. For example, you can take any item in the whole environment (apps, GUI widgets, etc), right-click it, open up its source code in an editor, and make changes that are applied instantly. To anything in the entire system. It's kind of like a graphical EMACS: the shell is the development environment, and the development environment is the shell. That's so far out from how Windows works, it's laughable to mention Windows in the same breath.
Handwriting recognition on real Windows (i.e., XP Tablet Edition and Vista) is excellent, so I'd expect it to be pretty good on Windows PDAs too (slower CPU notwithstanding).
Why would that be surprising? Microsoft starts "interoperability" projects all the time! It's the first third of "embrace, extend, extinguish" you know...
Yeah, me too. I absolutely loathe the facts that I'm forced to use Windows and that I'm putting my notes in a proprietary format, but there's really nothing in the Free Software world that even slightly competes with OneNote. It really pisses me off, especially since I'm too busy to do anything about it.
OTOH, people have to get out of the "how do we duplicate Office" mindset, and think beyond Office.
I'd be happy if people got into the "how do we duplicate OneNote" mindset!
I've recommended Ubuntu to him a few times, but his wife likes playing those stupid Popcap-style games she gets from Yahoo and similar places.
In Ubuntu, plenty of "Popcap-style" games are built in -- all you have to do is check the boxes next to them in the package manager and hit "install." Between that and installing Flash (so she could still play online games), his wife would be better off with Ubuntu!
If it helped some kids get some laptops/medicine/water/food, I would take an offer of assistance from Adolph Hitler.
Even if that "assistence" defeated the entire point? What if Hitler agreed to provide water and food to needy Jewish kids, but they had to be put in the concentration camps to get it? Is that still a deal you would make?
Intel's (and Microsoft's, and Apple's) dealings with the OLPC project are counterproductive in exactly the same way: the point isn't about "giving the kids a computer," the point is to give them a tool for learning, based on Free Software, with source code that the kids can explore and modify however they see fit. The hardware is just a means to enable this.
Giving them anything running Windows (even Windows on the XO [the 'OLPC']) would be worse than useless. It would just create another generation of mindless PowerPoint-making losers, which is exactly what the people behind the OLPC project are trying to prevent!
If he truly cared about the kids, he should be willing to work with Intel or anyone else.
That's exactly like saying "if teachers truly cared about the kids, they should be willing to work with the drug dealers in the alley behind the school." 'Cause that's exactly what Intel's trying to do: get the kids hooked on Wintel Crack (TM) before the hippie teachers have a chance to "corrupt" them (or rather, Intel and MS's profits) with Free Software.
No, Negroponte's upset because he's like the teacher actually trying to help the children, while Intel's like the drug dealer hanging around campus trying to get them their first hit of Wintel-brand crack.
I read the article and there is no reason why Negroponte objects to Intel's efforts other than it undercuts his own project.
Actually, there are very good reasons for Negroponte to object, such as the fact that the OLPC project actually has useful educational software, while the Intel thing only exists to brainwash people with Windows. If it's not in the article, then it just means the author was too stupid to understand that.
If you look at the specs, the Intel computer has considerably more muscle than the OLPC...
Who cares? THE SPECS AREN'T THE POINT! The software is the point. Actually fostering learning (for example, by letting the kids explore the guts of the system, which they can't do in Windows) is the point. Having mesh networking and special whiteboard-like software to encourage creativity is the point. Turning them into MS-brainwashed PowerPoint zombies ("oooh, look at the shiny font!") is not the point!!!
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, yes I can. Why? Because the GPL has always been about putting the user's rights above those of the developer. I consider this a good thing, but some developers (who would like to be able to take advantage of GPL software by incorporating it into their proprietary programs) would see it differently.
Yeah, and that's because using corn for fuel is utterly moronic. Switching to hemp or switchgrass would be much more efficient.
What I can't understand is why farmers seem to be Hell-bent on growing corn. What's their problem with just growing something else?!
So? It still doesn't change the principle that I shouldn't have to get permission from anyone else to use my own property!
Yeah, and I could "announce" that I'm the King of France, but that doesn't make it legally binding! When Valve puts it in writing, in the Steam customer agreement, let me know.
Did the writer intend to write "Valve has no intention of charging for (downloadable content for games) like Counter-Strike and Team Fortress 2," using CS and TF2 as examples of "downloadable content?"
Or did he mean to write "Valve has no intention of charging for downloadable content for (games like Counter-Strike and Team Fortress 2)," using CS and TF2 as examples of "games?"
It could be either (but I'll bet it's the latter).
Just out of curiosity, what were his patents about?
If they sue, they can be forced to show their patents. Keep that in mind.
Now, imagine that a new corporation was created specifically for the purpose of calling MS's bluff. It has no assets, so it has nothing to lose. So, it could just sue MS, get the patents revealed, and then go bankrupt. This would result in the community working around the patents, and MS losing the ability to FUD.
So, does that sound like a good strategy?
Aha! I think I've found a good strategy:
In this case, the "..." step is "Free Software community works around patents," and it's the community that profits.
The only danger is if incorporation wasn't sufficient to protect whoever executed the strategy from the wrath of Microsoft's legal department.
Vista's not a service pack. Service packs actually fix problems (usually), not make them worse.
Damn marketing, indeed:
"Popeye's chicken is the shizznit!" -- demon doing product placement in the Adam Sandler movie Little Nicky
It's always been about Free Software -- or, at least, the philosophy behind Free Software. The OLPC project is actually the evolution of Alan Kay's Dynabook and Squeak projects. If you try out Squeak, you'll quickly see that the whole concept of it absolutely depends on it being open source. For example, you can take any item in the whole environment (apps, GUI widgets, etc), right-click it, open up its source code in an editor, and make changes that are applied instantly. To anything in the entire system. It's kind of like a graphical EMACS: the shell is the development environment, and the development environment is the shell. That's so far out from how Windows works, it's laughable to mention Windows in the same breath.
No worries; just replace it with a Congo!
Handwriting recognition on real Windows (i.e., XP Tablet Edition and Vista) is excellent, so I'd expect it to be pretty good on Windows PDAs too (slower CPU notwithstanding).
Hey, it's not any worse than OOXML, where for an application to support it, it has to understand the old binary format from Word 95!
Why would that be surprising? Microsoft starts "interoperability" projects all the time! It's the first third of "embrace, extend, extinguish" you know...
Yeah, me too. I absolutely loathe the facts that I'm forced to use Windows and that I'm putting my notes in a proprietary format, but there's really nothing in the Free Software world that even slightly competes with OneNote. It really pisses me off, especially since I'm too busy to do anything about it.
I'd be happy if people got into the "how do we duplicate OneNote" mindset!
In Ubuntu, plenty of "Popcap-style" games are built in -- all you have to do is check the boxes next to them in the package manager and hit "install." Between that and installing Flash (so she could still play online games), his wife would be better off with Ubuntu!
Even if that "assistence" defeated the entire point? What if Hitler agreed to provide water and food to needy Jewish kids, but they had to be put in the concentration camps to get it? Is that still a deal you would make?
Intel's (and Microsoft's, and Apple's) dealings with the OLPC project are counterproductive in exactly the same way: the point isn't about "giving the kids a computer," the point is to give them a tool for learning, based on Free Software, with source code that the kids can explore and modify however they see fit. The hardware is just a means to enable this.
Giving them anything running Windows (even Windows on the XO [the 'OLPC']) would be worse than useless. It would just create another generation of mindless PowerPoint-making losers, which is exactly what the people behind the OLPC project are trying to prevent!
That's exactly like saying "if teachers truly cared about the kids, they should be willing to work with the drug dealers in the alley behind the school." 'Cause that's exactly what Intel's trying to do: get the kids hooked on Wintel Crack (TM) before the hippie teachers have a chance to "corrupt" them (or rather, Intel and MS's profits) with Free Software.
No, Negroponte's upset because he's like the teacher actually trying to help the children, while Intel's like the drug dealer hanging around campus trying to get them their first hit of Wintel-brand crack.
Hmm... it makes me want to blow up Microsoft headquarters. To each his own, I guess...
Actually, there are very good reasons for Negroponte to object, such as the fact that the OLPC project actually has useful educational software, while the Intel thing only exists to brainwash people with Windows. If it's not in the article, then it just means the author was too stupid to understand that.
Who cares? THE SPECS AREN'T THE POINT! The software is the point. Actually fostering learning (for example, by letting the kids explore the guts of the system, which they can't do in Windows) is the point. Having mesh networking and special whiteboard-like software to encourage creativity is the point. Turning them into MS-brainwashed PowerPoint zombies ("oooh, look at the shiny font!") is not the point!!!
Sure, but so what? How would that be any better or cheaper?
Right: small and durable (and low-power). Hence, a laptop.
Really, even if you were trying not to give them laptops, by the time you analyze the requirements you end up with a laptop anyway! Why fight it?
That's funny, those teachers sure thought they had that right when I was in elementary school...