'filtering technology that allows for playback of legitimately purchased content versus non-legitimately purchased content.'
Wait, have they found a fool-proof way of finding whether content is non-legitimately purchased or legitimately non-purchased? How does Microsoft know (especially on limited hardware) whether a video was shot by me or by the MPAA?
I personally don't save in.doc or.xls format unless I absolutely need to send it to someone who probably doesn't have OO.o. Otherwise, I find that the OpenDocument files are a lot smaller than the Microsoft Office ones. I also use ODF because it correctly transfers files between OpenOffice.org and KOffice, of which I use both.
I saw somewhere that someone had made a plugin for SVN that correctly handled ODF, which I thought was a great idea, and something that can't be done with the other formats.
I think it's important to note that when the world/media/whoever stops finding problems with the US government, then we will have a serious problem. The government will never be perfect, and there will always be someone that starts parading against it. If this does stop, there's a problem with free speech somewhere.
Although I do wish that everyone would get off their high horse when pouncing on US transgressions: it happens to even the best governments.
They seem to be working on a widget set to go with their protocol. I agree that this is the way to go. Someone will hack $WIDGET_LIBRARY to use the protocol, and we can unify the look and feel. This is a lot more elegant than hacks like GTK-QT because they must all interface to the one widget set to rule them all.
Abstraction. Because the widgets are implemented on top of a protocol, widget libraries simply have to all talk the same protocol. This means that it doesn't matter what the widget library itself looks like, what language it's implemented in, what object paradigm it uses, or anything else: the look and feel will still be the same. This is markedly different from the current situation with GTK, QT, and all other Unix widget sets, each of which implements its own look and feel. A client/server architecture can, and should, abstract out the look and feel of the widget set.
You're right, it is a significantly different approach, but as I said above, this is not completely incompatible with current widgets.
The freeness of the software has little bearing on the programmer's pockets. In general, if the software doesn't return as OSS/Free Software, then it would have even more trouble as proprietary software, because of a lack of exposure and credibility (there is not much to lose trying OSS/Free Software, just borrow a friend's copy and try it out, but this does not work with
OSS/Free Software).
Please note this should say "proprietary software", somebody needs to get some more sleep...
Society in aggregate does seem to benefit from access to free software, but that benefit is only possible through the hard (and generally unpaid) work of skilled programmers. Advantage: Everyone, Disadvantage: Programmers.
The OSS/Free Software model is a very interesting one. The programmers generally recieve donations from (nice) people who use their program(s). Both the programmer and the user depend on the giving spirit of the other. The programmer gives away the fruits of their labor, and often, the users return the bargain, often through companies (SuSE, RedHat, VA Software) giving back in the spirit of what was freely given to them as OSS/Free Software. I believe Linus recieved some VA and RedHat stock that was, when he sold it, worth several million dollars.
The freeness of the software has little bearing on the programmer's pockets. In general, if the software doesn't return as OSS/Free Software, then it would have even more trouble as proprietary software, because of a lack of exposure and credibility (there is not much to lose trying OSS/Free Software, just borrow a friend's copy and try it out, but this does not work with OSS/Free Software).
One advantage of OSS/Free Software that is not usually mentioned is the more rapidly expanding user base. When such software is allowed to be redistributed, users will share, so there may be thousands of users for every download/purchase. Another reason the user base expands quickly is that the software is usually given away freely. Because it is often given away freely, the cost benefit of OSS/Free Software is significantly greater than that of proprietary software. Even if there are problems, the users can either fix the problems themselves (a great advantage) or hire programmers (usually for money) to fix it for them. These advantages make OSS/Free Software significantly better for everyone.
When a company needs a (custom) software tool, they often don't care about the licensing of the tool, as long as they have an unlimited license (a notable exception is software crucial to that buisness, and it its advantage over competition, such as Pixar's Renderman, which are usually developed in-house for simplicity and many of OSS/Free Software's benefits). In this case, the company will hire the best programmer(s) for the job, even if they plan to make the program OSS/Free Software. The company really only cares about having a good tool for their job. This model also works for additions to projects, for example, a research facility paying Linux developers to provide massive SMP support for Linux. In this case, the code for the solution must be opened to all.
A final buisness model is easily found already, where buisnesses make profits selling OSS/Free Software written by others (RedHat, SuSE/Novell). RedHat pays kernel developers to work on the kernel (mostly) for RedHat's products, but the changes find their way into the next kernel release. This works because RedHat needs to improve the kernel for its own products, and is obligated to release its improvements, both under the GPL, and for multi-platform compatibility for users to recompile their kernels. This model works because OSS/Free Software companies need work to be done, and must pay someone (kernel hackers) to do it.
These models are not seen very often today because of the rather small OSS/Free Software market, as there are so few companies making/selling OSS/Free Software.
In general, when work needs to be done, companies are willing to pay for it to be done, provided it is in their best interest. The programmers just need to find a model that overlaps the needs of the companies and themselves.
Until OSS/Free Software reaches early saturation (when every prospective user knows at least one person using it), it is an uphill battle to get users. The more users a program has, the more likely the programmer is to get paid. One advantage of OSS/Free Software it that it reaches the early satura
There is a separate patent license available to parties interested in implementing software programs that can read and write files that conform...
Simply put, by publishing the "standard" but preventing it from being *USED* as a standard, Microsoft can now BLOCK reverse enginered products from interroperating.
First, IANAL.
What does the patent cover; XML is an open W3C standard, or does it Micro$oft's Schemas, which, being another W3C specification, should not be patented? If Microsoft thinks their patent covers XML word processing documents, then I point to OpenOffice.org as prior art.
They could hold a copyright on the schema, but they just allowed us to use it freely.
SCO will provide 'financial incentives and discounts' to users that switch to 'other operating systems that have a stronger IP basis than Linux.'
I guess that rules out switchiing to any SCO product...
They have already been found to snip BSD copyrights, so I assume their IP is less secure than that of Linux.
"These people are no better than virus writers, and it is no wonder they are such hacks. Besides, if you want the cd to be DRM'd would it not make more sense to actually encrypt the contents rather than to have a software driver encrypt them on the fly? Who thought that was a good idea?"
The next virus/worm/trojan will provide "DRM" to Windows boxes by deleting all their files (%!@$% IP thiefs!). Any attempt to remove the "DRM Technology" will cause massive lawsuits under the DMCA. Any attempt to spread knowledge about the existance of aformentioned virus will also incur massive DMCA lawsuits.
Slashdot Mirror
'filtering technology that allows for playback of legitimately purchased content versus non-legitimately purchased content.'
Wait, have they found a fool-proof way of finding whether content is non-legitimately purchased or legitimately non-purchased? How does Microsoft know (especially on limited hardware) whether a video was shot by me or by the MPAA?
I have this same printer. It's a great (and relatively cheap) printer, but I really wish they'd GPL CUPS drivers for it.
I personally don't save in .doc or .xls format unless I absolutely need to send it to someone who probably doesn't have OO.o. Otherwise, I find that the OpenDocument files are a lot smaller than the Microsoft Office ones. I also use ODF because it correctly transfers files between OpenOffice.org and KOffice, of which I use both.
I saw somewhere that someone had made a plugin for SVN that correctly handled ODF, which I thought was a great idea, and something that can't be done with the other formats.
I think it's important to note that when the world/media/whoever stops finding problems with the US government, then we will have a serious problem. The government will never be perfect, and there will always be someone that starts parading against it. If this does stop, there's a problem with free speech somewhere. Although I do wish that everyone would get off their high horse when pouncing on US transgressions: it happens to even the best governments.
If you eat your pets, you have more problems then just PBDEs
You hear a rumble of distant thunder...
*cough*Y-Windows*cough*
They seem to be working on a widget set to go with their protocol. I agree that this is the way to go. Someone will hack $WIDGET_LIBRARY to use the protocol, and we can unify the look and feel. This is a lot more elegant than hacks like GTK-QT because they must all interface to the one widget set to rule them all.
You're right, it is a significantly different approach, but as I said above, this is not completely incompatible with current widgets.
Please note this should say "proprietary software", somebody needs to get some more sleep...
The OSS/Free Software model is a very interesting one. The programmers generally recieve donations from (nice) people who use their program(s). Both the programmer and the user depend on the giving spirit of the other. The programmer gives away the fruits of their labor, and often, the users return the bargain, often through companies (SuSE, RedHat, VA Software) giving back in the spirit of what was freely given to them as OSS/Free Software. I believe Linus recieved some VA and RedHat stock that was, when he sold it, worth several million dollars.
The freeness of the software has little bearing on the programmer's pockets. In general, if the software doesn't return as OSS/Free Software, then it would have even more trouble as proprietary software, because of a lack of exposure and credibility (there is not much to lose trying OSS/Free Software, just borrow a friend's copy and try it out, but this does not work with OSS/Free Software).
One advantage of OSS/Free Software that is not usually mentioned is the more rapidly expanding user base. When such software is allowed to be redistributed, users will share, so there may be thousands of users for every download/purchase. Another reason the user base expands quickly is that the software is usually given away freely. Because it is often given away freely, the cost benefit of OSS/Free Software is significantly greater than that of proprietary software. Even if there are problems, the users can either fix the problems themselves (a great advantage) or hire programmers (usually for money) to fix it for them. These advantages make OSS/Free Software significantly better for everyone.
When a company needs a (custom) software tool, they often don't care about the licensing of the tool, as long as they have an unlimited license (a notable exception is software crucial to that buisness, and it its advantage over competition, such as Pixar's Renderman, which are usually developed in-house for simplicity and many of OSS/Free Software's benefits). In this case, the company will hire the best programmer(s) for the job, even if they plan to make the program OSS/Free Software. The company really only cares about having a good tool for their job. This model also works for additions to projects, for example, a research facility paying Linux developers to provide massive SMP support for Linux. In this case, the code for the solution must be opened to all.
A final buisness model is easily found already, where buisnesses make profits selling OSS/Free Software written by others (RedHat, SuSE/Novell). RedHat pays kernel developers to work on the kernel (mostly) for RedHat's products, but the changes find their way into the next kernel release. This works because RedHat needs to improve the kernel for its own products, and is obligated to release its improvements, both under the GPL, and for multi-platform compatibility for users to recompile their kernels. This model works because OSS/Free Software companies need work to be done, and must pay someone (kernel hackers) to do it.
These models are not seen very often today because of the rather small OSS/Free Software market, as there are so few companies making/selling OSS/Free Software. In general, when work needs to be done, companies are willing to pay for it to be done, provided it is in their best interest. The programmers just need to find a model that overlaps the needs of the companies and themselves.
Until OSS/Free Software reaches early saturation (when every prospective user knows at least one person using it), it is an uphill battle to get users. The more users a program has, the more likely the programmer is to get paid. One advantage of OSS/Free Software it that it reaches the early satura
This is Microsoft software we are talking about, everyone knows it's insecure.
There is a separate patent license available to parties interested in implementing software programs that can read and write files that conform... Simply put, by publishing the "standard" but preventing it from being *USED* as a standard, Microsoft can now BLOCK reverse enginered products from interroperating.
First, IANAL.
What does the patent cover; XML is an open W3C standard, or does it Micro$oft's Schemas, which, being another W3C specification, should not be patented? If Microsoft thinks their patent covers XML word processing documents, then I point to OpenOffice.org as prior art.
They could hold a copyright on the schema, but they just allowed us to use it freely.
Think inside the bochs.
SCO will provide 'financial incentives and discounts' to users that switch to 'other operating systems that have a stronger IP basis than Linux.'
I guess that rules out switchiing to any SCO product... They have already been found to snip BSD copyrights, so I assume their IP is less secure than that of Linux.
"These people are no better than virus writers, and it is no wonder they are such hacks. Besides, if you want the cd to be DRM'd would it not make more sense to actually encrypt the contents rather than to have a software driver encrypt them on the fly? Who thought that was a good idea?"
The next virus/worm/trojan will provide "DRM" to Windows boxes by deleting all their files (%!@$% IP thiefs!). Any attempt to remove the "DRM Technology" will cause massive lawsuits under the DMCA. Any attempt to spread knowledge about the existance of aformentioned virus will also incur massive DMCA lawsuits.
411 y0ur w1nt3l b0x3n 4r3 b310ng t0 us.