Maybe when OpenDocument's standard supports enough features to save a Word document to, they'll switch over.
It's too bad that Microsoft couldn't have influenced the OpenDocument standard before it was approved. And it's too bad that Microsoft can't influence new versions of the OpenDocument standard to support all of the features that they need.
Oh, wait. They could have. They chose not to. Guess they're not interested in switching over.
Um... because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist?
Or maybe because Microsoft expends a great deal of effort to make it difficult for other OSes to interoperate with theirs (embrace and extend)?
I agree, however, it is trolling. You wouldn't be able to use the same dig at Apple, though, I doubt that Apple employees are deluded enough to believe that they're the only game in town given their small percentage of the market.
People do like Microsoft Office. And they will still be able to use Microsoft Office. Because this decision by the CIO covers only documents produced for or by the Executive branch of the Massachusetts state government. It doesn't require any citizen of Massachusetts to switch to OpenDocument or OpenOffice. In other words, the decision covers exactly the CIO's area of responsibility.
The problems with Microsoft's format, according to the CIO are:
Each developer who wants to implement or distribute it has to request a license, thus locking out projects based on the GPL.
It is controlled by a single entity, not a standards body.
Microsoft's patent offer (i.e. not to sue) is restrictive.
They had the same complaints about Sun's patent offer, which caused to Sun to restate their patent offer into much broader terms.
Microsoft does have 95% of the market, today. Massachusetts is worried about access to their official state documents hundreds of years from now.
Man, you packed a ton of errors into two sentences.
Rambus was not "circling the drain", they were a hot "internet stock". While its true that they weren't making a profit, their burn rate was low enough that they were likely to be around for a while.
They didn't "unexpectedly" discover Intellectual Property. That's what they do. That's what they've always been (a company that designs memory interfaces and sells the rights to use them).
The Intellectual Property was not ill-gotten and they did own it (see my comment below, however). They actually employ engineers and design things. They just don't build the things they design.
The JEDEC forum did not require them to sign any agreement with regards to patents. In fact, they weren't the only firm that did not disclose patents. That the JEDEC forum should have had patent agreements in place is obvious.
I don't know how to feel about Rambus. Most people just parrot the statements by their opponents in the lawsuits and everything can have a spin on it. Is it "we destroyed documents according to our document retention policy which was created by an outside law firm" or was it "they destroyed documents to cover up their malfeasance"? I just don't know who to believe.
Rambus clearly overstepped when they said (initially) that their patent covered all of SDRAM. Then they changed their tune to say that their patent covered some SDRAM designs and all DDRAM designs. I'm fairly certain that they left JEDEC before the DDRAM design process had started.
The real questions in my mind: Are their patents non-obvious? Are they submarine patents? The USPTO seems to approve a lot of obvious ideas these days. If JEDEC independently designed DDR and it runs afoul of Rambus's patents, that makes me think that their patents likely are for obvious inventions (i.e. the only way to do it).
What I'm saying I guess is that Rambus may indeed be "greedy litigious bastards", I just don't know.
I do not put them in the same category as The SCO Group, however. No matter how bad Rambus may be, they just can't compare to those weasels.
Good, then I guess Microsoft's rigged TCO studies aren't fooling anybody.
I would like to see real apples-to-apples comparisons between Windows 2003 and Linux (at least RedHat). I think that Linux, Windows 2003 and Solaris (particularly x86 Solaris 10, when available) are all interesting for the server space, each with their plusses and minuses. I assume that Microsoft doesn't commission fair comparisons between Windows and Linux because Linux comes out with a lower TCO. But if that is the case, why not admit that Linux is sometimes less expensive and sell based on features. Does Microsoft believe that the only thing they have to offer in the server space is a lower price?
I'm developing software that will remotely managed on Windows 2003 servers and I've been impressed by the stability of our HP servers with Windows 2003. I'm not impressed, however, with the fact that we'll be running Virus-checking software on a remotely managed server!
We're using Windows 2003 because the remote management software we'll be using (developed by another division) only exists for Windows. Up until now we've been a Solaris/Linux shop for the server space and a Solaris/Linux/Windows shop for the APIs.
Our last foray into running our infrastructure on Windows was back in the Windows NT 4 days. Oddly enough, there was no client uptake for that version. My guess is that by the time we had our software ready, our clients had enough experience with Windows NT to know that it shouldn't be used for servers requiring high-availability!
As a developer who writes software and manages software development for banks and trading firms, I can tell you (for our products, anyway) where the market is now (Solaris) and where it is going (Linux). We have a number of large customers who have stated that they are keeping their Solaris machines until the hardware needs replacement (for performance reasons) and when they replace those machines it will be with Linux (RedHat or SuSE) on x86 hardware. Banks have a herd mentality because they are desperate to ensure that their performance and cost-basis is equivalent or better than that of their competitors. Linux has the mind share right now.
Sun could perhaps change that with Solaris x86, because the cost/performance ratio should be near the same. But for the SPARC hardware, in most cases, the decision has already been made. When the current generation of machines are replaced, they will be replaced with x86 hardware. Sun needs Solaris x86 to succeed to stay alive. The higher and higher update rates of the financial markets are forcing the issue.
I agree with much of whay you say. I do believe that the main reason we went to war in Iraq was to create a Democracy in the middle east. Which I do believe is a good goal. However:
It was sold to the congress and the American people and the world under false pretenses (WMD, Al Queda connection, immediate threat).
It is a risky endeavor. One without a fallback position. Democracies are not easy to create (especially by using outside force) and are not easy to keep stable (yes, Iraqis say they don't want a theocracy now).
It needed to be done quickly for us to be seen as liberators rather than occupiers.
It is far from certain that it will lead to a reverse-domino effect of more democracies/freedom in the middle east.
It was undertaken by a President who ridiculed nation-building when he was a candidate.
I don't believe the war is a religous war. But the administration's incompetence (yes, using the words "Crusade", "Infinite Justice", etc.) has allowed the enemy to frame it that way.
I think the key to winning the war on terror is to force a wedge between Islam and Radical Islam (force Islam to deal with its radical elements) using carrots and sticks. That certainly isn't an easy task, but (so far) the Iraq war is pushing Islam away from us (and toward its radical elements) rather than toward us. The invasion of Afganistan was justified, in my view, because the Taliban government was aiding the terrorist groups that target us. Saddam's cash rewards for terrorists that attack Israel aren't enough to justify our invasion.
Also, why would your state increase taxes just because the federal government lowered them? Makes no sense.
Three words: Unfunded federal mandate. The federal government passes laws that it doesn't pay for. Is that directly related to the federal tax cuts? No. But, if you want to cut taxes and make some attempt at keeping the deficit under control, you can pass laws that make the states or local governments or school districts need to spend more money (and thus raise taxes).
And when the federal goverment eventually gets around to the necessary belt tightening to reduce the deficit, who do you think picks up the slack? The federal government isn't going to remove the ADA or NCLB, they're just going to stop paying for it.
As I resident of Illinois, I disagree. I'm not discounting that a large portion of the counties in Illinois are Republican. But I do think that the Illinois Republican Party and Illinois Republicans as a whole are more moderate than those in most of the other "heartland" states (Indiana, for example). This could be just an outgrowth of needing crossover Democratic support to win state-wide office.
While there are numerous reasons for Alan Keyes lack of success at energizing the electorate, I think one of them is that he's just too conservative for a lot of Illinois Republicans.
Could you educate a simple Scotsman, what is a greeter?
The Wal-Mart greeter is an insane old man who thinks he's conversing with a gingerbread cookie -- at least according to the recent (somewhat creepy) Wal-Mart ad.
Except that for most (well, at least the most vocal anyway) _fundamentalist_ Christians "we are being persecuted" means:
1. We aren't being allowed to tell everyone else how they should be living their life.
2. We aren't being allowed to define what all children are taught in school (not just our own children).
3. We aren't being allowed to determine who can and cannot get married.
I realize this isn't entirely fair and that sometimes individuals are persecuted because of their religous beliefs (e.g. Christian Scientists being prosecuted for denying medical care to their children), but it also isn't fair (or reasonable) to declare that all (or most) _fundamentalist_ christians are persecuted.
Slashdot Mirror
Because they're not truly serious about browser interoperability.
This is about making sure that you're using Windows Media even if you are using Firefox, not about making it easy for you to use Firefox.
Maybe when OpenDocument's standard supports enough features to save a Word document to, they'll switch over.
It's too bad that Microsoft couldn't have influenced the OpenDocument standard before it was approved. And it's too bad that Microsoft can't influence new versions of the OpenDocument standard to support all of the features that they need.
Oh, wait. They could have. They chose not to. Guess they're not interested in switching over.
Um ... because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist?
Or maybe because Microsoft expends a great deal of effort to make it difficult for other OSes to interoperate with theirs (embrace and extend)?
I agree, however, it is trolling. You wouldn't be able to use the same dig at Apple, though, I doubt that Apple employees are deluded enough to believe that they're the only game in town given their small percentage of the market.
The problems with Microsoft's format, according to the CIO are:
They had the same complaints about Sun's patent offer, which caused to Sun to restate their patent offer into much broader terms.
Microsoft does have 95% of the market, today. Massachusetts is worried about access to their official state documents hundreds of years from now.
Man, you packed a ton of errors into two sentences.
Rambus was not "circling the drain", they were a hot "internet stock". While its true that they weren't making a profit, their burn rate was low enough that they were likely to be around for a while.
They didn't "unexpectedly" discover Intellectual Property. That's what they do. That's what they've always been (a company that designs memory interfaces and sells the rights to use them).
The Intellectual Property was not ill-gotten and they did own it (see my comment below, however). They actually employ engineers and design things. They just don't build the things they design.
The JEDEC forum did not require them to sign any agreement with regards to patents. In fact, they weren't the only firm that did not disclose patents. That the JEDEC forum should have had patent agreements in place is obvious.
I don't know how to feel about Rambus. Most people just parrot the statements by their opponents in the lawsuits and everything can have a spin on it. Is it "we destroyed documents according to our document retention policy which was created by an outside law firm" or was it "they destroyed documents to cover up their malfeasance"? I just don't know who to believe.
Rambus clearly overstepped when they said (initially) that their patent covered all of SDRAM. Then they changed their tune to say that their patent covered some SDRAM designs and all DDRAM designs. I'm fairly certain that they left JEDEC before the DDRAM design process had started.
The real questions in my mind: Are their patents non-obvious? Are they submarine patents? The USPTO seems to approve a lot of obvious ideas these days. If JEDEC independently designed DDR and it runs afoul of Rambus's patents, that makes me think that their patents likely are for obvious inventions (i.e. the only way to do it).
What I'm saying I guess is that Rambus may indeed be "greedy litigious bastards", I just don't know.
I do not put them in the same category as The SCO Group, however. No matter how bad Rambus may be, they just can't compare to those weasels.
The estate tax in particular exists to prevent that top 1% of families from consolidating their riches over generations and becoming defacto royalty.
Wasn't the estate tax renamed "The Death Tax" by wealthy conservative groups and repealed (over a ten year period)?
Should I be looking for a particular royal person to serve?
They don't?
Good, then I guess Microsoft's rigged TCO studies aren't fooling anybody.
I would like to see real apples-to-apples comparisons between Windows 2003 and Linux (at least RedHat). I think that Linux, Windows 2003 and Solaris (particularly x86 Solaris 10, when available) are all interesting for the server space, each with their plusses and minuses. I assume that Microsoft doesn't commission fair comparisons between Windows and Linux because Linux comes out with a lower TCO. But if that is the case, why not admit that Linux is sometimes less expensive and sell based on features. Does Microsoft believe that the only thing they have to offer in the server space is a lower price?
I'm developing software that will remotely managed on Windows 2003 servers and I've been impressed by the stability of our HP servers with Windows 2003. I'm not impressed, however, with the fact that we'll be running Virus-checking software on a remotely managed server!
We're using Windows 2003 because the remote management software we'll be using (developed by another division) only exists for Windows. Up until now we've been a Solaris/Linux shop for the server space and a Solaris/Linux/Windows shop for the APIs.
Our last foray into running our infrastructure on Windows was back in the Windows NT 4 days. Oddly enough, there was no client uptake for that version. My guess is that by the time we had our software ready, our clients had enough experience with Windows NT to know that it shouldn't be used for servers requiring high-availability!
As a developer who writes software and manages software development for banks and trading firms, I can tell you (for our products, anyway) where the market is now (Solaris) and where it is going (Linux). We have a number of large customers who have stated that they are keeping their Solaris machines until the hardware needs replacement (for performance reasons) and when they replace those machines it will be with Linux (RedHat or SuSE) on x86 hardware. Banks have a herd mentality because they are desperate to ensure that their performance and cost-basis is equivalent or better than that of their competitors. Linux has the mind share right now.
Sun could perhaps change that with Solaris x86, because the cost/performance ratio should be near the same. But for the SPARC hardware, in most cases, the decision has already been made. When the current generation of machines are replaced, they will be replaced with x86 hardware. Sun needs Solaris x86 to succeed to stay alive. The higher and higher update rates of the financial markets are forcing the issue.
If Colin Powell wanted to keep his dignity and honour he should have resigned two years ago!
It was sold to the congress and the American people and the world under false pretenses (WMD, Al Queda connection, immediate threat).
It is a risky endeavor. One without a fallback position. Democracies are not easy to create (especially by using outside force) and are not easy to keep stable (yes, Iraqis say they don't want a theocracy now).
It needed to be done quickly for us to be seen as liberators rather than occupiers.
It is far from certain that it will lead to a reverse-domino effect of more democracies/freedom in the middle east.
It was undertaken by a President who ridiculed nation-building when he was a candidate.
I don't believe the war is a religous war. But the administration's incompetence (yes, using the words "Crusade", "Infinite Justice", etc.) has allowed the enemy to frame it that way.
I think the key to winning the war on terror is to force a wedge between Islam and Radical Islam (force Islam to deal with its radical elements) using carrots and sticks. That certainly isn't an easy task, but (so far) the Iraq war is pushing Islam away from us (and toward its radical elements) rather than toward us. The invasion of Afganistan was justified, in my view, because the Taliban government was aiding the terrorist groups that target us. Saddam's cash rewards for terrorists that attack Israel aren't enough to justify our invasion.
Also, why would your state increase taxes just because the federal government lowered them? Makes no sense.
Three words: Unfunded federal mandate. The federal government passes laws that it doesn't pay for. Is that directly related to the federal tax cuts? No. But, if you want to cut taxes and make some attempt at keeping the deficit under control, you can pass laws that make the states or local governments or school districts need to spend more money (and thus raise taxes).
And when the federal goverment eventually gets around to the necessary belt tightening to reduce the deficit, who do you think picks up the slack? The federal government isn't going to remove the ADA or NCLB, they're just going to stop paying for it.
As I resident of Illinois, I disagree. I'm not discounting that a large portion of the counties in Illinois are Republican. But I do think that the Illinois Republican Party and Illinois Republicans as a whole are more moderate than those in most of the other "heartland" states (Indiana, for example). This could be just an outgrowth of needing crossover Democratic support to win state-wide office.
While there are numerous reasons for Alan Keyes lack of success at energizing the electorate, I think one of them is that he's just too conservative for a lot of Illinois Republicans.
Could you educate a simple Scotsman, what is a greeter?
.sig this
The Wal-Mart greeter is an insane old man who thinks he's conversing with a gingerbread cookie -- at least according to the recent (somewhat creepy) Wal-Mart ad.
sigh, well I hit preview the first time, anyway!
damn!
Except that for most (well, at least the most vocal anyway) _fundamentalist_ Christians "we are being persecuted" means:
1. We aren't being allowed to tell everyone else how they should be living their life.
2. We aren't being allowed to define what all children are taught in school (not just our own children). 3. We aren't being allowed to determine who can and cannot get married.
I realize this isn't entirely fair and that sometimes individuals are persecuted because of their religous beliefs (e.g. Christian Scientists being prosecuted for denying medical care to their children), but it also isn't fair (or reasonable) to declare that all (or most) _fundamentalist_ christians are persecuted.
Actually, while the film does say that HAL was built in Urbana, Illinois, it does not mention the University.
From the script:
"I am HAL 9000 computer. I became operational at the HAL plant in Urbana, Illinois, on January 12th, 1991."