they're only defending *their* open source software
Assuming you mean free software (as in freedom), this is contradictory. If they are protecting their free software, then they are protecting any free software. Because free software is owned by everyone to the same degree. The contradiction is in using the word "only", which implies there is some free software they are not protecting.
Here is why I hate piracy: piracy is the worst enemy of free software (free as in freedom). More than patents.
If everybody had to pay for every software he uses, common people (not just geeks) would become sensible and finally appreciate the value of free software.
If piracy were impossible, I imagine 90% of the software would be free, with the exception of games. Microsoft, in particular, would be relegated to a niche market.
If only "Palladium" were released, things could change --- OTOH we know it won't work: if it did, MS would commit suicide.
"But a man can dream... a man can dream."
----Professor Hubert Farnsworth
Is Linux OO capable of rendering fonts using sub-pixel hinting (for LCD screens), yet?
A friend of mine with an LCD screen had trouble with the fonts and although his desktop was nicely anti-aliased Open Office stubborny refused to show anti-aliased fonts.
You are confusing subpixel hinting and antialiasing. Since it is unlikely that the absence of hinting caused your friend so much trouble, I presume you are referring to antialiasing.
Yes, OpenOffice.org is capable of antialiasing. There have been problems in the past (you had to do some tweaking in the font dialog, and I recall the Debian package didn't do it by default).
A test about prototyping languages which doesn't take Prolog into account is simply not serious. Due to backtracking and unification, Prolog can't be beat in terms of both readability and compact code.
I'm currently compiling a CD of patches that people have to install before they get on the internet
I really wonder how many of these patches would be necessary if Windows and the apps were entirely programmed in.NET (CLR), and how much the current situation will change with Longhorn.
For instance, writing a managed application with.NET prevents most buffer overflows a priori. What do you people think?
Open source is _not_ about competing with anybody else. It is _not_ the goal to create a competing technology to win market share or anything. Open source is an exercise in technology, invention and freedom.
Why should we fear XAML or widespread adaptation of it? And why should we therefore pursue clone technologies?
Because we won't be able to surf the internet with linux anymore.
I'd say it's the right time for "someone important" to write an open letter to the EC (just like they did concerning the patent issue), explaining that
forcing MS to ship competing products is useless and unfair;
what's really required is force MS to open its formats.
This would really pave the way for a market where the best product wins. Be it open or closed source. Which I'm sure is the ideal of everybody, right?:-)
PS: This would not be enough for a fair competition though. IMHO it should also be illegal for hardware vendors to supply drivers for windows only. But it's another matter. Ah, cruel world.
How sad: the only alternatives taken into account by Havoc are C#, Java and C++.
If only the open source movement decided to embrace Mercury (logical paradigm) or Haskell/Clean (functional paradigm), and build.NET-like infrastructures for them, their productivity would be so increased that that they would surpass Microsoft before longhorn comes out.
Instead, you go check and find out that the Mercury and Haskell projects are sponsored by Microsoft. Also ML and Prolog are being ported to.NET.
Well, I suppose we (the OS movement) will get what we deserve for our lack of foresight.
Their browser quirks define what an acceptable webpage is, not standards. Their document formats define what people use in the office. Their media formats, increasingly, define what people listen to.
How true. If only they used that influence to promote good technologies (say Mercury.Net, Haskell.NET)... instead they condemned the whole industry to stick to an outdated technology for another 10 years.
What's wrong with a company pushing people to use their products? I am not a fan of Microsoft, but why shuold they be forced to include third-party software?
There is nothing wrong using your OS to advertise your own browser/player, as long as other people have a chance to do the same, i.e. build another OS and put their own software in it.
But this is not feasible: today you cannot write an OS which can seriously challenge windows, because drivers are a necessary part of any OS, and you cannot write all the drivers yourself. You can write apps, but not drivers, because the HW specs are secret. THerefore you must rely on HW vendors to write drivers. And vendors won't write them until the OS is widespread. And the OS won't be widespread until the drivers are there.
So, MS has an advantage: HW vendors are actually favouring MS. This is the real problem.
Therefore, IMO, hw vendors should be forced to either 1) write drivers for all the OSes 2) open the specs of their hardware.
We should not force MS to ship competing products; we should prevent HW vendors to favour Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming you mean free software (as in freedom), this is contradictory. If they are protecting their free software, then they are protecting any free software. Because free software is owned by everyone to the same degree. The contradiction is in using the word "only", which implies there is some free software they are not protecting.
The same rules don't apply to Linux and Microsoft, because of the difference in market share.
If everybody had to pay for every software he uses, common people (not just geeks) would become sensible and finally appreciate the value of free software.
If piracy were impossible, I imagine 90% of the software would be free, with the exception of games. Microsoft, in particular, would be relegated to a niche market.
If only "Palladium" were released, things could change --- OTOH we know it won't work: if it did, MS would commit suicide.
"But a man can dream... a man can dream." ----Professor Hubert Farnsworth
Could you please stop all this fuzz about polish. Call me old fashioned, but in my PC I want nothing else than good, old english.
Ah, those arrogant immigrant geeks.
You are confusing subpixel hinting and antialiasing. Since it is unlikely that the absence of hinting caused your friend so much trouble, I presume you are referring to antialiasing.
Yes, OpenOffice.org is capable of antialiasing. There have been problems in the past (you had to do some tweaking in the font dialog, and I recall the Debian package didn't do it by default).
A test about prototyping languages which doesn't take Prolog into account is simply not serious. Due to backtracking and unification, Prolog can't be beat in terms of both readability and compact code.
Works fine here with Windows XP installed on hda1 (primary) and redhat on hda7 (extended). Used GRUB with the predefined settings.
Does anybody know if downloading the ISOs via the donkey network is legal?
http://segusoland.sourceforge.net
I said "windows and the apps".
Maybe it's worth to point out that the free edition of suse automatically installs the nvidia drivers (and Flash).
Could you please make examples of some of these nice Suse features, other than illustrating the goods of german cars? :-)
This would really pave the way for a market where the best product wins. Be it open or closed source. Which I'm sure is the ideal of everybody, right? :-)
PS: This would not be enough for a fair competition though. IMHO it should also be illegal for hardware vendors to supply drivers for windows only. But it's another matter. Ah, cruel world.
Actually the post passed from an initial "insightful" to "informative" to "interesting" to "funny"! Ouch!
Man, what you wrote is almost poetic.
How sad: the only alternatives taken into account by Havoc are C#, Java and C++. If only the open source movement decided to embrace Mercury (logical paradigm) or Haskell/Clean (functional paradigm), and build .NET-like infrastructures for them, their productivity would be so increased that that they would surpass Microsoft before longhorn comes out.
Instead, you go check and find out that the Mercury and Haskell projects are sponsored by Microsoft. Also ML and Prolog are being ported to .NET.
Well, I suppose we (the OS movement) will get what we deserve for our lack of foresight.
How true. If only they used that influence to promote good technologies (say Mercury.Net, Haskell.NET)... instead they condemned the whole industry to stick to an outdated technology for another 10 years.
But this is not feasible: today you cannot write an OS which can seriously challenge windows, because drivers are a necessary part of any OS, and you cannot write all the drivers yourself. You can write apps, but not drivers, because the HW specs are secret. THerefore you must rely on HW vendors to write drivers. And vendors won't write them until the OS is widespread. And the OS won't be widespread until the drivers are there.
So, MS has an advantage: HW vendors are actually favouring MS. This is the real problem.
Therefore, IMO, hw vendors should be forced to either 1) write drivers for all the OSes 2) open the specs of their hardware.
We should not force MS to ship competing products; we should prevent HW vendors to favour Microsoft.