Reading such a story really angers me. Next some companies shall say that public schools are unfair competition to private schools? That government funded healthcare (as many civilized states offer) hinders competition between private hospitals?
This makes me sick, if this is what capitalism is leading to, I don't want to be a part of it.
What such companies do is making the public only shift to radical left (seriously, I'm not at that level yet) and thus destroy themselves in the long run.
Network protocols such as SNA require different types of nodes, some are servers/concentrators or whatever they are called.
The Internet Protocol, in contrast, was designed to be not dependant on centralized components, and any node on the Internet (i.e. anything connected to it that has an address) can send and receive packets to any other node on the net.
The Internet has always been "P2P" long before the word even existed. And it shall remain that way, whether ISP's like it or not. Except if they remove any incoming connections for all of their clients. That would make many applications impossible, including all server-type applications (such as running your own webserver, mail server, ssh login server etc).
Any P2P protocol could "hide" using ever changing ports, or using say the SMTP port (e-mail) and talk its own P2P stuff over that. Better even, you could tunnel all of it over SSH (port 22), noone could ever find out what you're doing, and an ISP could never detect it and block only file swapping programs without blocking any server activity (including ICQ, netmeeting and other widespread popupar applications).
There is only one rational solution: If they are really bothered by upload volume (most ISP's pay their upstream providers not for download volume, but only for upstream (why???)), they must provide metered access, at least for upstream. Above some limit you have to pay the cost price per megabyte; not nice, but not unreasonable either.
Instead of applets, just use Java Web Start. A platform independant mechanism for installing, caching and starting stand alone (swing) java applications. All JRE since 1.3 install it standard.
As for shockwave: I could have said the same about flash. Also disabled. 99% of its use is advertising.
Yes, you can do nice animations with those, but what is so bad with specifying their mime type (application/shockwave or whatever) to launch a shockwave runner as an external app? Then the user can, if he has seen enough, close the app without closing the whole web page. Plugins, from a user perspective, offer no advantages, only lack of control.
What is the use of plugins? I've always wondered. Example PDF, I always disable the plugin and have acrobat launch externally. Inside the browser you don't have much control and the menu is not or only partially visible.
Same can be told of applets, media plugins etc. They only remove end user control. External windows containing an app to display a certain media type (whether a java app, audio or video) gives more control (you can close the app or iconize it and continue reading the page).
Some plugins are so irritating, such as shockwave which is almost only used for advertising, that I have fully disabled them. I can't stand reading a page with blinking and moving parts that I cannot click away.
Yes, even though I am principally opposed to patents, in this case I want to make an exception:). I hope they get their patent and make the Internet plugin free.
Do you really believe that MSFT shall hand the DTD for XDoc(s) over to some external body?!? If they would at least publish that DTD (with good documentation on how to interpret the various tags/attributes) it would be on par with PDF. But I doubt very much they shall do that. If not, XDoc, whether XML based or not, is proprietary, and PDF is not.
Re:PDF is to XML, as Acrobat is to XDocs
on
Microsoft takes on PDF
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Why the hell would Acrobat be more proprietary than some as of yet unknwon XML DTD (or schema)?
The only fundamental difference is: binary format (Acrobat) versus ASCII/Unicode (XML) i.e. 'human readable'.
First, proprietary not human readable. Proprietary means an undisclosed file format.
XML without a published DTD or Schema (published both the scheme and how to interpret it) is just as proprietary as any other undisclosed file format. At best, it might be easier to reverse engineer (which is forbidden in the US).
AFAIK, Acrobat is an open format (yes, even binary formats can be open, gasp). Whether XDoc(s) shall be open remains to be seen.
This irritating misuse of proprietary and concept of 'not binary == good' misleads to many mistakes and creates false understanding.
You're completely right. I have always considered us (europe) to be good allies of the US, but in these absurd times, where the US government is getting almost as bad and rotten as the USSR was in its worst times (Stalin) you can only be glad that we have nukes of our own.
It is very sad that what was once a friend can really turn into an enemy. Maybe (hopefully) I am exaggerating, but one never knows what this madness leads to.
One can only hope that the US gets its act together, ousts the corrupt political system and law system and recreates justice and order.
At least here (in Switzerland) you get DVD+R for about $3 (DVD-R is somewhat more expensive). This makes the per MB price already equal to CD-R price per MB. Soon more price drops are expected (currently DVD+R are only sold in jewel case, not yet as spindle) then DVD+R will actually be cheaper.
In a matter of months most people who buy a new drive shall rather buy a DVD+R(W) instead of CD-R.
You may have a point, but even from this perspective the lax attitude against MSFT is damaging. If other countries dump MSFT because of distrust against one very powerful foreign entity, also the US govt control via MSFT over the worlds desktops shall diminish. If they allow competitors to flourish (I think more than 50% of those, if not more, would also be american) they can try to control many of those and effectively hold on to influence more desktops in the world.
Often it is said that it is only logical, in these times of economic troubles, that the US government does not act too harsh on 'its own' software powerhouse MSFT.
But (apart from the damage it does to other domestic software companies): as can be read in the article, many foreign institutions/governments are very uneasy at the thought of being at the mercy of a single, foreign company (and rightly so). Therefore they abandon (or try to, gradually they shall succeed) MSFT and turn to the only alternative: Linux or other open source solutions.
Not that I oppose this, not at all. But from the perspective of US economic interest, it is clear that this diminishes software export turnover, which is bad. A more effective war against MSFT's illegal behaviour and monopoly would give alternative companies a chance, many of them would also be US companies. They could fill the hole, partly instead of Linux; this would create more choice for everyone, and would make many foreign governments feel more comfortable at the thought of importing and being dependant on foreign software. The net effect for the US trade balance of a harsh attitude against MSFT therefore would surely be positive, instead of negative as is often thought.
How is it "business-friendly" to not pursue the Microsoft case?!? It is only friendly for one business (MSFT) but very unfriendly to many many other business.
Overall, it is "business unfriendly". As is commonly known, monopolies are bad and harmful for the overall economy, disturbing a healthy competition and market. It is extremely short sighted and simplistic to describe not pursuing this as business friendly.
One of them shall go bankrupt (maybe even as part of a hidden agreement). Then the end effect shall be the same (a single monopoly remains) but everyone thinks the FCC did their best to prevent it.
So I suggest that all brick and mortar stores install some terminals where customers can make an " on-line" order while being in the store. After that they can instantly pick up their "on-line" order and avoid paying tax.
I still have an IPAQ 3850; which I will sell soon for less than 50% of new price after only 4 months because I hate it.
I hate having to sync with Outlook (I can't stand outlook). And I've never used multitasking.
In fact, I think multitasking (in a non-MMU protected environment) is a very very bad idea, and is one of the main reasons for the frequent lock-ups and crashes of the operating system.
In the years before with PalmOS devices I hardly had any crashes or problems, but the PocketPC crashes all the time.
Is PalmOS5 a must have now? I was considering an OS4 palm (m515) or clie (T675C). They are small, light and quite versatile (esp. the T675C).
I think Palm apps shall remain compatible with OS4 for a very long time, the Zire and other new models running the dragonball CPU and OS4 have only just hit the market.
I rather buy something a little less up to date for 50% of the price, because you may have to dump it sooner (it'll be outdated sooner) but not twice as soon, i.e. the 'buck per month' ratio shall be better IMO.
Is english your native language? Or is my writing so bad you missed my entire point?
Look if crazy right-wing facists can get 30% of the vote then get a proportional amount of seats, something is wrong.
No english is not my native language, thanks for the compliment:). Apart from that I think our views and understanding of how proportional democratic systems such as found in Europe work are so much apart that we have another misunderstanding here.
It has happened more than once that some lunatic party wins most of the votes (mostly on a lower level such as communal however). But since they are so extreme, none of the other parties want to cooperate with them, so the other 70% will rather form a great coalition excluding the 30% lunatic party from power.
Being the largest party does not automatically mean that you get power, except if you get more than 50%. The only thing that matters is that a coalition of parties that is able to cooperate together (and a common enemy eases such cooperation if necessary) gets more than 50% together.
A recent case in Holland, a right wing somewhat populist party got 15% of the vote out of nothing. Two other middle and right wing parties felt obliged to give them a chance, so they formed a coalition with the three of them (holding 55% of vote in total). The populist party of course had to give up a lot of there more extreme views, the other two had to give in some to the populist party, everyone was kind of happy with the 'government contract'. Now after less than 100 days the government has broken over internal struggles in the populist party, and their voter support (according to polls) has decimated from 15% to 2%. New elections shall follow and everything returns to normal. Well not entirely, because the other parties have understood the message of the voters, and have incorporated some of the issues of the populist party, though in the more moderate and reasonable form.
What if there is one 30% faction and 7 10% factions? Would it be just to give all power to this 30% faction? Your Ross Perot example doesn't fit; in more just systems no single party can ever get all power (except if one party really wins a majority, which is very seldom). Thus the parties must cooperate, make compromises and form a government together. Of course this also conflicts with the concept of a president that concentrates a lot of power in a single person (which is dangrerous IMO).
W.r.t. reversing laws: I don't know, but I was talking about policies in general. Such as, a more left wing president/government increasing taxes and trying to provide health care for the full population, and the next one decreasing taxes and dismantling health care. This does not necessary have to do with laws, but with how the states daily business is being conducted.
Such extreme shifts of policy can be induced, in the U.S. system, if only 5% of votes shift from one party to the other. In european coalition systems, this is hardly possible to be induced by minor shifts of votes.
You seem to be badly informed. Any government must get support of >50% of parliament, that is of the votes (since parliament is elected almost proportionally to the votes). So 2 or more parties must cooperate in a coalition; in practice it is seldom that one party gets a majority, so you get always coalitions.
This creates centrist policies, because the government partners must give and take, so you get more consensus based government style. In the U.S., while as single parties the republicans and the democrats may be closer than some parties you find in Europe (including the so called populists), any party has to give in so in the end the goverment is more moderate, and less susceptible to sudden changes after new elections.
Yes, it is fairer. Is it fair that (in a district system such as the U.S. has) one person gets to represent all people in his area, even if only 60% voted for him? No, if 60% voted, about 60% of influence should go to him, 40% to other(s).
The last presedential election (a few votes making the difference between one person or the other) shows this clearly. In 'european style', like in Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands etc. such things are irrelevant, since no person with much power is directly elected, only the individual members of parliament (chosen in proportion). These members proportially representing the people then see what combination of parties can cooperate and thus form a majority goverment.
Thus, a representative system is better. The parliament reflects the division of political forces/thoughts in society. Because of this you get less concentration of power at a single or at two parties (b.t.w. the UK does not have a 'european' system either).
Another practical advantage is that you do never get one party governments, but usually 2-4 parties make up the government (Switzerland, for example, has had the same 4 parties in the government for 50 years). These must find compromises amoungst them, which leads to less 'fast' but to more stable lawmaking and government.
In 'extreme' systems such as the U.S. chances are that the next government reverses the policies of the former. Instead of gradual evolution you get large changes that nullify what happened before. This is inefficient and shortsighted.
Note: France and the U.K. don't have a representative/proportional system either, this because of a coarse district system which always shifts balance of power to one party. Also in France, the president is directly elected, and he (like in the U.S.) is a person with real power.
In contrast, the german president is only a ceremonial figure who is elected by parlaiment. The dutch king/queen is not elected either and also is only ceremonial. In such system, no single person holding very much power exists, and such persons are never directly elected.
The trouble is when the third party holds the balance of power and can effectively call the tune.
Which can even happen in a two party system as the U.S. has: If I understood well a single person in one of the houses (senate?) left the republican party and almost often votes democrat now, this with a 50-50 split in the house. So here even a single person holds the balance of power.
At least in a european style coalistion there are often 2 or 3 parties making up the government, and once a party sacrifices one of this issues to the other(s) and vice versa.
One big difference: SVG was designed and is intended to be open and understandable. Office formats, using XML or not, are not. I do not believe MSFT would voluntarily cease their lock-in strategy.
XML may be easier to reverse engineer, but must not be, this depending on how complex the DTD/Schema is and if the designer intended it to be easily understandable or not. Apart from that, as a purist I don't like reverse engineering, especially not if the subject of reverse engineering is from an uncooperative company known for its dirty tricks.
A non XML grammar/syntax, if accompandied by a decent and documented EBNF description of it's grammar, is much better to base your program on than an undocumented XML.
Just because the file format, instead of binary, is "human readable", does not make it more open.
For "any programmer with a Perl script and a bit of intelligence" it doesn't make a difference if you read bytes (binary) or XML structures.
As long as you don't get a DTD with extensive comments on how to interpret the elements, along with some promise/guarantee that the DTD won't change every minor release, there is no real improvement at all.
The fact that XML is human readable is irrelevant, since no human shall read the files, but programs such as perl scripts shall. For them it makes hardly any difference; it is only marginally easier since you can use an existent XML parser instead of rolling your own (which is no big deal using the right tools such as YACC).
This 'openness' comes at a good time for Microsoft. They suggest openness in a time that they are criticized and attacked because of file-format lock in. Many 'advisors' shall be mislead, blinded by buzzwords such as XML as they are, and actually believe that this solves the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Reading such a story really angers me. Next some companies shall say that public schools are unfair competition to private schools? That government funded healthcare (as many civilized states offer) hinders competition between private hospitals?
This makes me sick, if this is what capitalism is leading to, I don't want to be a part of it.
What such companies do is making the public only shift to radical left (seriously, I'm not at that level yet) and thus destroy themselves in the long run.
Most windows printing drivers (e.g. from lexmark) can use an "lpr" network port. So you don't need to use samba for printing.
Network protocols such as SNA require different types of nodes, some are servers/concentrators or whatever they are called.
The Internet Protocol, in contrast, was designed to be not dependant on centralized components, and any node on the Internet (i.e. anything connected to it that has an address) can send and receive packets to any other node on the net.
The Internet has always been "P2P" long before the word even existed. And it shall remain that way, whether ISP's like it or not. Except if they remove any incoming connections for all of their clients. That would make many applications impossible, including all server-type applications (such as running your own webserver, mail server, ssh login server etc).
Any P2P protocol could "hide" using ever changing ports, or using say the SMTP port (e-mail) and talk its own P2P stuff over that. Better even, you could tunnel all of it over SSH (port 22), noone could ever find out what you're doing, and an ISP could never detect it and block only file swapping programs without blocking any server activity (including ICQ, netmeeting and other widespread popupar applications).
There is only one rational solution: If they are really bothered by upload volume (most ISP's pay their upstream providers not for download volume, but only for upstream (why???)), they must provide metered access, at least for upstream. Above some limit you have to pay the cost price per megabyte; not nice, but not unreasonable either.
Instead of applets, just use Java Web Start. A platform independant mechanism for installing, caching and starting stand alone (swing) java applications. All JRE since 1.3 install it standard.
As for shockwave: I could have said the same about flash. Also disabled. 99% of its use is advertising.
Yes, you can do nice animations with those, but what is so bad with specifying their mime type (application/shockwave or whatever) to launch a shockwave runner as an external app? Then the user can, if he has seen enough, close the app without closing the whole web page. Plugins, from a user perspective, offer no advantages, only lack of control.
What is the use of plugins? I've always wondered.
:). I hope they get their patent and make the Internet plugin free.
Example PDF, I always disable the plugin and have acrobat launch externally. Inside the browser you don't have much control and the menu is not or only partially visible.
Same can be told of applets, media plugins etc. They only remove end user control. External windows containing an app to display a certain media type (whether a java app, audio or video) gives more control (you can close the app or iconize it and continue reading the page).
Some plugins are so irritating, such as shockwave which is almost only used for advertising, that I have fully disabled them. I can't stand reading a page with blinking and moving parts that I cannot click away.
Yes, even though I am principally opposed to patents, in this case I want to make an exception
From now on, the "BMG" label tells enough: avoid this CD.
Do you really believe that MSFT shall hand the DTD for XDoc(s) over to some external body?!? If they would at least publish that DTD (with good documentation on how to interpret the various tags/attributes) it would be on par with PDF. But I doubt very much they shall do that. If not, XDoc, whether XML based or not, is proprietary, and PDF is not.
Why the hell would Acrobat be more proprietary than some as of yet unknwon XML DTD (or schema)?
The only fundamental difference is:
binary format (Acrobat) versus ASCII/Unicode (XML) i.e. 'human readable'.
First, proprietary not human readable. Proprietary means an undisclosed file format.
XML without a published DTD or Schema (published both the scheme and how to interpret it) is just as proprietary as any other undisclosed file format. At best, it might be easier to reverse engineer (which is forbidden in the US).
AFAIK, Acrobat is an open format (yes, even binary formats can be open, gasp). Whether XDoc(s) shall be open remains to be seen.
This irritating misuse of proprietary and concept of 'not binary == good' misleads to many mistakes and creates false understanding.
You're completely right. I have always considered us (europe) to be good allies of the US, but in these absurd times, where the US government is getting almost as bad and rotten as the USSR was in its worst times (Stalin) you can only be glad that we have nukes of our own.
It is very sad that what was once a friend can really turn into an enemy. Maybe (hopefully) I am exaggerating, but one never knows what this madness leads to.
One can only hope that the US gets its act together, ousts the corrupt political system and law system and recreates justice and order.
At least here (in Switzerland) you get DVD+R for about $3 (DVD-R is somewhat more expensive). This makes the per MB price already equal to CD-R price per MB. Soon more price drops are expected (currently DVD+R are only sold in jewel case, not yet as spindle) then DVD+R will actually be cheaper.
In a matter of months most people who buy a new drive shall rather buy a DVD+R(W) instead of CD-R.
You may have a point, but even from this perspective the lax attitude against MSFT is damaging. If other countries dump MSFT because of distrust against one very powerful foreign entity, also the US govt control via MSFT over the worlds desktops shall diminish. If they allow competitors to flourish (I think more than 50% of those, if not more, would also be american) they can try to control many of those and effectively hold on to influence more desktops in the world.
By being so lax on MSFT.
Often it is said that it is only logical, in these times of economic troubles, that the US government does not act too harsh on 'its own' software powerhouse MSFT.
But (apart from the damage it does to other domestic software companies): as can be read in the article, many foreign institutions/governments are very uneasy at the thought of being at the mercy of a single, foreign company (and rightly so). Therefore they abandon (or try to, gradually they shall succeed) MSFT and turn to the only alternative: Linux or other open source solutions.
Not that I oppose this, not at all. But from the perspective of US economic interest, it is clear that this diminishes software export turnover, which is bad. A more effective war against MSFT's illegal behaviour and monopoly would give alternative companies a chance, many of them would also be US companies. They could fill the hole, partly instead of Linux; this would create more choice for everyone, and would make many foreign governments feel more comfortable at the thought of importing and being dependant on foreign software. The net effect for the US trade balance of a harsh attitude against MSFT therefore would surely be positive, instead of negative as is often thought.
Overall, it is "business unfriendly". As is commonly known, monopolies are bad and harmful for the overall economy, disturbing a healthy competition and market. It is extremely short sighted and simplistic to describe not pursuing this as business friendly.
Maybe they display those adds on any page that has ' microsoft' in the title, in an attempt to counter the expected critisism?
One of them shall go bankrupt (maybe even as part of a hidden agreement). Then the end effect shall be the same (a single monopoly remains) but everyone thinks the FCC did their best to prevent it.
So I suggest that all brick and mortar stores install some terminals where customers can make an " on-line" order while being in the store. After that they can instantly pick up their "on-line" order and avoid paying tax.
I hate having to sync with Outlook (I can't stand outlook). And I've never used multitasking.
In fact, I think multitasking (in a non-MMU protected environment) is a very very bad idea, and is one of the main reasons for the frequent lock-ups and crashes of the operating system.
In the years before with PalmOS devices I hardly had any crashes or problems, but the PocketPC crashes all the time.
Is PalmOS5 a must have now? I was considering an OS4 palm (m515) or clie (T675C). They are small, light and quite versatile (esp. the T675C).
I think Palm apps shall remain compatible with OS4 for a very long time, the Zire and other new models running the dragonball CPU and OS4 have only just hit the market.
I rather buy something a little less up to date for 50% of the price, because you may have to dump it sooner (it'll be outdated sooner) but not twice as soon, i.e. the 'buck per month' ratio shall be better IMO.
It has happened more than once that some lunatic party wins most of the votes (mostly on a lower level such as communal however). But since they are so extreme, none of the other parties want to cooperate with them, so the other 70% will rather form a great coalition excluding the 30% lunatic party from power.
Being the largest party does not automatically mean that you get power, except if you get more than 50%. The only thing that matters is that a coalition of parties that is able to cooperate together (and a common enemy eases such cooperation if necessary) gets more than 50% together.
A recent case in Holland, a right wing somewhat populist party got 15% of the vote out of nothing. Two other middle and right wing parties felt obliged to give them a chance, so they formed a coalition with the three of them (holding 55% of vote in total). The populist party of course had to give up a lot of there more extreme views, the other two had to give in some to the populist party, everyone was kind of happy with the 'government contract'. Now after less than 100 days the government has broken over internal struggles in the populist party, and their voter support (according to polls) has decimated from 15% to 2%. New elections shall follow and everything returns to normal. Well not entirely, because the other parties have understood the message of the voters, and have incorporated some of the issues of the populist party, though in the more moderate and reasonable form.
W.r.t. reversing laws: I don't know, but I was talking about policies in general. Such as, a more left wing president/government increasing taxes and trying to provide health care for the full population, and the next one decreasing taxes and dismantling health care. This does not necessary have to do with laws, but with how the states daily business is being conducted.
Such extreme shifts of policy can be induced, in the U.S. system, if only 5% of votes shift from one party to the other. In european coalition systems, this is hardly possible to be induced by minor shifts of votes.
Any government must get support of >50% of parliament, that is of the votes (since parliament is elected almost proportionally to the votes). So 2 or more parties must cooperate in a coalition; in practice it is seldom that one party gets a majority, so you get always coalitions.
This creates centrist policies, because the government partners must give and take, so you get more consensus based government style. In the U.S., while as single parties the republicans and the democrats may be closer than some parties you find in Europe (including the so called populists), any party has to give in so in the end the goverment is more moderate, and less susceptible to sudden changes after new elections.
Thus, a representative system is better. The parliament reflects the division of political forces/thoughts in society. Because of this you get less concentration of power at a single or at two parties (b.t.w. the UK does not have a 'european' system either).
Another practical advantage is that you do never get one party governments, but usually 2-4 parties make up the government (Switzerland, for example, has had the same 4 parties in the government for 50 years). These must find compromises amoungst them, which leads to less 'fast' but to more stable lawmaking and government.
In 'extreme' systems such as the U.S. chances are that the next government reverses the policies of the former. Instead of gradual evolution you get large changes that nullify what happened before. This is inefficient and shortsighted.
Note: France and the U.K. don't have a representative/proportional system either, this because of a coarse district system which always shifts balance of power to one party. Also in France, the president is directly elected, and he (like in the U.S.) is a person with real power.
In contrast, the german president is only a ceremonial figure who is elected by parlaiment. The dutch king/queen is not elected either and also is only ceremonial. In such system, no single person holding very much power exists, and such persons are never directly elected.
Which can even happen in a two party system as the U.S. has: If I understood well a single person in one of the houses (senate?) left the republican party and almost often votes democrat now, this with a 50-50 split in the house. So here even a single person holds the balance of power.
At least in a european style coalistion there are often 2 or 3 parties making up the government, and once a party sacrifices one of this issues to the other(s) and vice versa.
One big difference: SVG was designed and is intended to be open and understandable. Office formats, using XML or not, are not. I do not believe MSFT would voluntarily cease their lock-in strategy.
XML may be easier to reverse engineer, but must not be, this depending on how complex the DTD/Schema is and if the designer intended it to be easily understandable or not. Apart from that, as a purist I don't like reverse engineering, especially not if the subject of reverse engineering is from an uncooperative company known for its dirty tricks.
A non XML grammar/syntax, if accompandied by a decent and documented EBNF description of it's grammar, is much better to base your program on than an undocumented XML.
Just because the file format, instead of binary, is "human readable", does not make it more open.
For "any programmer with a Perl script and a bit of intelligence" it doesn't make a difference if you read bytes (binary) or XML structures.
As long as you don't get a DTD with extensive comments on how to interpret the elements, along with some promise/guarantee that the DTD won't change every minor release, there is no real improvement at all.
The fact that XML is human readable is irrelevant, since no human shall read the files, but programs such as perl scripts shall. For them it makes hardly any difference; it is only marginally easier since you can use an existent XML parser instead of rolling your own (which is no big deal using the right tools such as YACC).
This 'openness' comes at a good time for Microsoft. They suggest openness in a time that they are criticized and attacked because of file-format lock in. Many 'advisors' shall be mislead, blinded by buzzwords such as XML as they are, and actually believe that this solves the issue.