Patents are under the designation for intellectual property, which is not the same thing as real property. The Fifth Amendment's taking clause (requiring compensation for the taking of real property) does not apply to patents. Note, patents are promulgated by Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution.
As much as the RIAA would like you to think that intellectual property rights (like copyright) are absolute property rights, they aren't. See Prof. Mark Lemley's paper [ssrn.com] on this topic.
I own a 2002 Toyota Prius. Just rolled 50,000 miles tonight. Highest tank MPG was 62. Rock bottom worst was 45 MPG. Normal commuting mileage is 57-58 (without A/C), 52-53 with A/C.
Driving habbits matter. My wife (lead foot, middle name of "Never Say Brake") gets a good 10 points worse than I. Short hops in city/suburb traffic will lower the gas mileage down to the low 40's. Careful use with highway/rush hour traffic will push it toward 60.
It is like anything else. Your mileage may vary, but for me, the government underestimated the mileage.
When I talk about word processors with friends, I don't try to get hyped about it -- they are inevitably disappointed. The bottom line is to phrase the question as: "which one sucks less." Potential MS Office switchers and new computer users factor in price, control (of your own data) and the need/cost/pain for future upgrades. When you lay it out like that, they tend not to be disappointed.
Lets face it, both MS Office and OpenOffice both suck. WordPerfect had a much better interface, was more logically laid out, and it had reveal codes. All of those features made it superior to MS Word. Why does OpenOffice feel compelled to make a clone of the worst mass-market office suite? At the very least, the OpenOffice developers should make a special interface that mimics WordPerfects or something better than Word. Making a better interface, instead of copying what others have done, is one of the opportunities that the open source world has.
Long term, businesses are consumers are better off with a universal document format that they can use/see/edit/store for many years. It is a sad fact, however, that most users (and I include businesses and governments here) don't appreciate that fact. Use of a stable format can have other benefits too. As with other commentators, I've had the most luck when I've avoided Microsoft's formats altogether. However, that goes with *any* word processor (be it AbiWord, WordPerfect, OpenOffice Writer, you-name-it). Incidentally, WordPerfect's format is akin to a tag-based language (ala HTML). How hard would it be to reveal the tags for an XML formatted document?
Microsoft software "indirectly" funding terrorism? Well there is an easy solution! Just GPL all MS software. The price would drop to $0 and the terrorists would be deprived of a source of revenue.
I made the switch in a small law office a few years ago, before the KDE GUI was as good as it is now. I also learned a lot about how different users handle the transition. As others have mentioned, the cultural problems are far worse than the technological issues. Here is what I learned.
0. Find out what you have valid licenses for, and what you don't. If you don't have a valid license for it, consider the cost of going "legal" and switching over to a Linux-based solution. Finding out what has to go first will make many of the decisions for you. Sad to say, but the license/BSA problem is going to be your biggest.
1. Switch the server over to Linux first. This can be accomplished without the users even knowing about it, and servers and their software are one of the most expensive items anyway.
2. Figure out what Windows desktop functionality that you REALLY, REALLY need, and find Linux equivalents, preferrably ones with Windows counterparts, like Open/Star Office. Note, your users will come in four varieties:
A. Computer illiterate
B. Power Users
C. Normal Users
D. Microsoft Junkies
Believe it or not, the Computer Illiterate users will have the easiest time in the transition. If you set KDE up correctly, they will see an icon, click on it, find their program, and move on. I was truly amazed when I saw this happen in real life. I never got a call from one of the computer illiterate users. Several didn't even notice a change at all. These were the ones I worried most about. I shouldn't have.
The Power Users will have more trouble, but they will overcome their problems (usually without much coaching) and will appreciate Linux when they see what they have to work with. They will like and appreciate the tools, stability, and control that they can exert over their desktops.
The Normal Users will go along, because they are sheep anyway (sorry, but it's true). They may grumble, but they will adapt, especially if they know that it will help the company keep them employed.
The last group, the Microsoft Junkies, are those who fancy themselves as savy, but who are really next-to-illiterate. Unfortunately, these are the people who think the Microsoft way is the only _proper_ way for things to be done, and that any other way just isn't "right." These people will drive you nuts. Incidentally, lumping this group as "Microsofties" is not fair. They would have acted the same way if they were first taught on a MAC. For these people, the first way is the "right" way, regardless of which one is first.
3. Carrots work. As one of the other posters mentioned, start small and let it spread out. People fear the unknown, but if others make the transition, it will alay their fears that a transition is possible in the first place. Secondly, once some have made it, they will have more incentive to do it so as not to be "left behind" or so as not to appear to the boss to be inadequate, stupid, or not accommodating to the company.
Better yet, be prepared to give more privleges or goodies to those who migrate to Linux. This is even more incentive for the migration. If users feel that they will get more out of it (that they "get something") they will be more inclinded to accept the transition. Linux has plenty of freebies that can entice users, such as games and such that don't come out of the box with Windows.
4. Sticks work too. This is a harsh tactic, but from a business standpoint, it cannot be refuted and it will work. Tally up the costs of keeping Windows and attendant MS software (i.e., what it will take to get/keep legal and pay for the maintenance fees and attendant hardware upgrades). Tell the users that they can keep Windows if they offer to pay the difference in costs to the company (out of their paychecks). The company is making a perfectly good offer to support their work (for free) if they transition. Otherwise, they pay the difference. Once the employee sees the cost differential, and they know that they have to pay for Windows, then almost all of them will get on the Linux bandwagon. Those that don't, well, they pay and it is their responsibility to get/stay legal. Your company is still on the hook, but they can force the users to supply the correct documentation. Note, even if they do stick with Windows/Office, your company will transition to better (non-MS) file formats for internal documents, and cause the reluctant workers to do more in order to keep their work viewable by the rest of the company. This is akin to making smokers go outside to puff away.
Yes, dead tree books are much easier to use than something electronic. Not only that, you get fair use rights with a dead tree. Not so with the electronic version due to the DMCA.
As for what books I'm looking for, try the following (in order of preference):
Zope
Python (with examples for python/gnome combination and web-based applications with Apache and PostgreSQL)
MySQL or PostgreSQL
Programming in KDE
Programming in Gnome
Kylix
Note, there are already a good many books out there on each of those subjects. Consequently, you should modify your question into something like: "What is it about the current books that you don't like that you would like to see rectified and for which you would be willing to pay money?" To which I would answer:
1. Lower price;
2. More examples (not just one kind of example, but multiple examples that illustrate the common aspects (that you need to program whatever) from the specific aspects needed only for that example); and
3. Better writing.
Unlike one of the previous posters, I don't go for jokes, etc. I want something that I can go to for straight, no-nonsense answers. How to do this, how to do that. A "cookbook" of how to do x, y, or z would be great. Granted, a cookbook would not have a recipie for everything, but if the recipies were well thought out, they would work -- as a whole -- as a learning experience and give the reader the key tools needed to figure out the solution to the problem.
Don't get me wrong, I like to hack, but usually I'm in a hurry to get something out the door quick and don't have time for the finer points or esoterica. I buy books to save time, as well as to enhance my skill set.
I suspect that someone has thought of this, but it bears repeating...
An open source office suite should be designed like the Linux kernel. I.e., it should have a core set of functionality and then use modules for non-oft-used functionality. If a user desired, they could recompile the office program (aka, suite) and roll in what they need into a custom binary. Roll in what you use all the time, module some others, forget the rest.
Better performance, and less bloat to boot (pardon the pun).
I've been a Delphi user since the 1.0 version. However, all of my development work is now in Linux. I've had difficulty adjusting to building GUI applications on this newer (and much better) OS.
I've noticed the comments many people have made about ObjectPascal as a language. Pascal, and particularly Borland's implementation in Delphi, leaves a lot to be desired from an OO perspective. I suggest that Borland take another fork in the road a bit and develop an IDE that has Python as its underlying language. Admittedly, Python is a scripting language, but is is running very well on Linux and Windows. Furthermore, using Python would relieve Borland of porting ObjectPascal immediately. Moreover, Python is easy to learn and it works well in both Linux and Windows -- making the transition phase from Windows to Linux that much easier.
I also suggest that the things that most novice and "corporate power users" liked about Delphi was that the IDE relieved the developer from a lot of tedious overhead issues that are necessary for making programs run. All Borland needs to do is apply their tried and true formula (i.e., making it easy to write good programs quickly) and simply port that over to Linux. No matter what language they use, if Borland puts a familiar façade in front of all those Windows developers, hide the gory details (heresy, I know) and make that functionality work in Linux, Borland will make money and the Linux world will be better for it.
Simply creating an IDE for python would be less work than porting ObjectPascal (with all of its concessions to the Windows OS). Thus, Borland could make its corporate splash onto the Linux scene quickly and take the pressure off of getting a quick Delphi port out the door. Hopefully, Borland would take the opportunity to clean up ObjectPascal and make it a truly object oriented language (particularly in the area of object collections, TCollection sucks).
Slashdot Mirror
Patents are under the designation for intellectual property, which is not the same thing as real property. The Fifth Amendment's taking clause (requiring compensation for the taking of real property) does not apply to patents. Note, patents are promulgated by Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution.
As much as the RIAA would like you to think that intellectual property rights (like copyright) are absolute property rights, they aren't. See Prof. Mark Lemley's paper [ssrn.com] on this topic.
I own a 2002 Toyota Prius. Just rolled 50,000 miles tonight. Highest tank MPG was 62. Rock bottom worst was 45 MPG. Normal commuting mileage is 57-58 (without A/C), 52-53 with A/C.
Driving habbits matter. My wife (lead foot, middle name of "Never Say Brake") gets a good 10 points worse than I. Short hops in city/suburb traffic will lower the gas mileage down to the low 40's. Careful use with highway/rush hour traffic will push it toward 60.
It is like anything else. Your mileage may vary, but for me, the government underestimated the mileage.
There are several open source solutions for the health care industry. See the list [LinuxMedNews.com].
If you can't get to Dean's website, you're not alone. I think the Dean campaign is about to get a dose of the Slashdot effect.
When I talk about word processors with friends, I don't try to get hyped about it -- they are inevitably disappointed. The bottom line is to phrase the question as: "which one sucks less." Potential MS Office switchers and new computer users factor in price, control (of your own data) and the need/cost/pain for future upgrades. When you lay it out like that, they tend not to be disappointed.
Lets face it, both MS Office and OpenOffice both suck. WordPerfect had a much better interface, was more logically laid out, and it had reveal codes. All of those features made it superior to MS Word. Why does OpenOffice feel compelled to make a clone of the worst mass-market office suite? At the very least, the OpenOffice developers should make a special interface that mimics WordPerfects or something better than Word. Making a better interface, instead of copying what others have done, is one of the opportunities that the open source world has.
Long term, businesses are consumers are better off with a universal document format that they can use/see/edit/store for many years. It is a sad fact, however, that most users (and I include businesses and governments here) don't appreciate that fact. Use of a stable format can have other benefits too. As with other commentators, I've had the most luck when I've avoided Microsoft's formats altogether. However, that goes with *any* word processor (be it AbiWord, WordPerfect, OpenOffice Writer, you-name-it). Incidentally, WordPerfect's format is akin to a tag-based language (ala HTML). How hard would it be to reveal the tags for an XML formatted document?
Microsoft software "indirectly" funding terrorism? Well there is an easy solution! Just GPL all MS software. The price would drop to $0 and the terrorists would be deprived of a source of revenue.
Come on, Bill. Do your part.
I made the switch in a small law office a few years ago, before the KDE GUI was as good as it is now. I also learned a lot about how different users handle the transition. As others have mentioned, the cultural problems are far worse than the technological issues. Here is what I learned.
0. Find out what you have valid licenses for, and what you don't. If you don't have a valid license for it, consider the cost of going "legal" and switching over to a Linux-based solution. Finding out what has to go first will make many of the decisions for you. Sad to say, but the license/BSA problem is going to be your biggest.
1. Switch the server over to Linux first. This can be accomplished without the users even knowing about it, and servers and their software are one of the most expensive items anyway.
2. Figure out what Windows desktop functionality that you REALLY, REALLY need, and find Linux equivalents, preferrably ones with Windows counterparts, like Open/Star Office. Note, your users will come in four varieties:
A. Computer illiterate
B. Power Users
C. Normal Users
D. Microsoft Junkies
Believe it or not, the Computer Illiterate users will have the easiest time in the transition. If you set KDE up correctly, they will see an icon, click on it, find their program, and move on. I was truly amazed when I saw this happen in real life. I never got a call from one of the computer illiterate users. Several didn't even notice a change at all. These were the ones I worried most about. I shouldn't have.
The Power Users will have more trouble, but they will overcome their problems (usually without much coaching) and will appreciate Linux when they see what they have to work with. They will like and appreciate the tools, stability, and control that they can exert over their desktops.
The Normal Users will go along, because they are sheep anyway (sorry, but it's true). They may grumble, but they will adapt, especially if they know that it will help the company keep them employed.
The last group, the Microsoft Junkies, are those who fancy themselves as savy, but who are really next-to-illiterate. Unfortunately, these are the people who think the Microsoft way is the only _proper_ way for things to be done, and that any other way just isn't "right." These people will drive you nuts. Incidentally, lumping this group as "Microsofties" is not fair. They would have acted the same way if they were first taught on a MAC. For these people, the first way is the "right" way, regardless of which one is first.
3. Carrots work. As one of the other posters mentioned, start small and let it spread out. People fear the unknown, but if others make the transition, it will alay their fears that a transition is possible in the first place. Secondly, once some have made it, they will have more incentive to do it so as not to be "left behind" or so as not to appear to the boss to be inadequate, stupid, or not accommodating to the company.
Better yet, be prepared to give more privleges or goodies to those who migrate to Linux. This is even more incentive for the migration. If users feel that they will get more out of it (that they "get something") they will be more inclinded to accept the transition. Linux has plenty of freebies that can entice users, such as games and such that don't come out of the box with Windows.
4. Sticks work too. This is a harsh tactic, but from a business standpoint, it cannot be refuted and it will work. Tally up the costs of keeping Windows and attendant MS software (i.e., what it will take to get/keep legal and pay for the maintenance fees and attendant hardware upgrades). Tell the users that they can keep Windows if they offer to pay the difference in costs to the company (out of their paychecks). The company is making a perfectly good offer to support their work (for free) if they transition. Otherwise, they pay the difference. Once the employee sees the cost differential, and they know that they have to pay for Windows, then almost all of them will get on the Linux bandwagon. Those that don't, well, they pay and it is their responsibility to get/stay legal. Your company is still on the hook, but they can force the users to supply the correct documentation. Note, even if they do stick with Windows/Office, your company will transition to better (non-MS) file formats for internal documents, and cause the reluctant workers to do more in order to keep their work viewable by the rest of the company. This is akin to making smokers go outside to puff away.
Good Luck!
Yes, dead tree books are much easier to use than something electronic. Not only that, you get fair use rights with a dead tree. Not so with the electronic version due to the DMCA.
As for what books I'm looking for, try the following (in order of preference):
Zope
Python (with examples for python/gnome combination and web-based applications with Apache and PostgreSQL)
MySQL or PostgreSQL
Programming in KDE
Programming in Gnome
Kylix
Note, there are already a good many books out there on each of those subjects. Consequently, you should modify your question into something like: "What is it about the current books that you don't like that you would like to see rectified and for which you would be willing to pay money?" To which I would answer:
1. Lower price;
2. More examples (not just one kind of example, but multiple examples that illustrate the common aspects (that you need to program whatever) from the specific aspects needed only for that example); and
3. Better writing.
Unlike one of the previous posters, I don't go for jokes, etc. I want something that I can go to for straight, no-nonsense answers. How to do this, how to do that. A "cookbook" of how to do x, y, or z would be great. Granted, a cookbook would not have a recipie for everything, but if the recipies were well thought out, they would work -- as a whole -- as a learning experience and give the reader the key tools needed to figure out the solution to the problem.
Don't get me wrong, I like to hack, but usually I'm in a hurry to get something out the door quick and don't have time for the finer points or esoterica. I buy books to save time, as well as to enhance my skill set.
Isn't that license for the OS? Does the Media Player have the same license?
An open source office suite should be designed like the Linux kernel. I.e., it should have a core set of functionality and then use modules for non-oft-used functionality. If a user desired, they could recompile the office program (aka, suite) and roll in what they need into a custom binary. Roll in what you use all the time, module some others, forget the rest.
Better performance, and less bloat to boot (pardon the pun).
Just my $0.02.
LegalEagle
Okay, who thought of it first?
I've been a Delphi user since the 1.0 version. However, all of my development work is now in Linux. I've had difficulty adjusting to building GUI applications on this newer (and much better) OS.
I've noticed the comments many people have made about ObjectPascal as a language. Pascal, and particularly Borland's implementation in Delphi, leaves a lot to be desired from an OO perspective. I suggest that Borland take another fork in the road a bit and develop an IDE that has Python as its underlying language. Admittedly, Python is a scripting language, but is is running very well on Linux and Windows. Furthermore, using Python would relieve Borland of porting ObjectPascal immediately. Moreover, Python is easy to learn and it works well in both Linux and Windows -- making the transition phase from Windows to Linux that much easier.
I also suggest that the things that most novice and "corporate power users" liked about Delphi was that the IDE relieved the developer from a lot of tedious overhead issues that are necessary for making programs run. All Borland needs to do is apply their tried and true formula (i.e., making it easy to write good programs quickly) and simply port that over to Linux. No matter what language they use, if Borland puts a familiar façade in front of all those Windows developers, hide the gory details (heresy, I know) and make that functionality work in Linux, Borland will make money and the Linux world will be better for it.
Simply creating an IDE for python would be less work than porting ObjectPascal (with all of its concessions to the Windows OS). Thus, Borland could make its corporate splash onto the Linux scene quickly and take the pressure off of getting a quick Delphi port out the door. Hopefully, Borland would take the opportunity to clean up ObjectPascal and make it a truly object oriented language (particularly in the area of object collections, TCollection sucks).