Microsoft's code is incomaptible which damages the viability of your GPL code.
Are you honestly attempting to promote the notion that Microsoft gives a rat's ass about compatibility! You're either paid PR, or you don't know jack about Microsoft.
Google is interesting for another reason also. If you have a high Google rank, you increase your probability of getting linked to. Which will increase your page rank. Ad infinitum.
I love Google, but I wonder sometimes if at the same time it makes it easy to find good sites, it also inherently keeps other good sites down (relative to the high ranked sites).
Negotiate a licence with the KDE and GNOME people directly.
Hmm, I'm been scratching my head wondering what these Lindows folks are thinking. Maybe that's it. The GPL, remember, is just a license. A license held by the copyright owner. So perhaps the Lindows folks would like to negotiate different terms with the people who have GPL'd the pieces they have extended. If they can procrastinate, and get some revenue or venture capital, then they might be able to offer the copyright owners better terms in exchange for altering their licensing terms.
Of course this is all just speculation. Speculating is fun.
This type of scenario, though, is all the more reason to demand stringent adherence to the terms of the GPL. If you can bend the rules, then you are obviously working in a manner contrary to the spirit of the GPL.
From the article:... They can, however, design products with DAKOTA and sell their products.
Isn't that contrary to the terms of the GPL?
Ahhh, yes, they speak of a world outside of the digital realm. A material world. But of course it is a fantasy. The amount of information required to describe these so called "corporeal" objects, with their "atoms" and "quarks" and so forth defies the imagination. Don't worry. It would take more 1's and 0's than can be addressed by even Super User to describe the simplest of the fantastical objects said to inhabit this dream world. So relax, and get some sleep. There's nothing to worry about.
Question: if your code is proprietary, how do you prove that someone ripped off your code? It being so trivial for Blizzard to copy bnetd code, for example, how do they prove that the copying actually happened in the other direction? "We wrote it first! Really! I mean it!"
Unless some disinterested third party documented and signed off on the code base beforehand, this would seem difficult to do.
David and Goliath. To anyone following along, who supports the FSF, please consider lending a hand. Any help you can provide is, well, helpful. And the satisfaction of watching evil giants fall...
As long as protocols can be reverse-engineered, there may be no real danger. But what of the day when they can't? Unbreakable encryption comes to mind. The only long term defense against this kind of injustice is the abolition of the DMCA and software patents.
There are so many twists and turns in that particulary obfusicated piece of snarly legalese that you could claim it means almost anything. I think any defense based on the DMCA only servers to further legitimize it; which is in no-one's interest except a few large corporate imperialists.
Seems to me that these patents form the foundation of this offensive maneuver. Otherwise they would have no basis for disallowing alternative implementations.
So then, any chance anyone can find grounds to dismiss the validity of either of these patents? Here are links to the USPTO files:
This means you personally, but it also means the royal "you", as in all of us. I.E. - you personally don't have to pay high priced consultants to obtain advantages from using free software. Without lifting a finger, you benefit from other people's review and contributions. Truly. Now if you'd like to lend a hand, that's great. But it would be ironic, to say the least, to compell people to contribute.
I agree. The only synonyms for freedom I find on www.m-w.com though are "liberty" and "license". It strikes me that "licensed software" doesn't pass muster, and "liberty software" sounds like a trademark for a post 9-11 dot-com. It's also been taken by someone in the Silicon Valley doing Mac consulting. I guess Macs provide freedom from PC's.
There are more opportunities, however, if we look up synonyms for "free": autarchic, autarkic, autonomous, independent, separate, sovereign. For being completely disassociated with any jingo I've ever heard, I'd have to give my vote to "autarkic". Autarkic software. Wow, that's such a good name, I think I'm going to trademark it and sue anyone who copies my idea.;)
it seems like we're slipping into a weird Braveheart parallel universe when two sides rush headlong into battle, both screaming "Freeeeeedom!" at the top of their lungs.
Can you point me to a link? According to this, the VPN 5001 can be swapped for a 3030. The itemized list of clients on the 3000 series page doesn't include Mac.
When he says "must", he means it as in, "you will be required to use free software."
Bullshit. You're quite right - it would be hypocritical for RMS to dictate the terms of freedom. But of course we have nothing to worry about, since he's never indicated any such desire.
Since in your righteous indignation, you feel compelled to cast aspersions, please quote, chapter and verse, evidence to the contrary. Your opinions on the matter have not a whit of relevance. Give us some facts.
I'm not entirely adverse to a proprietary solution that converts from one set of standard protocols to another.
Hmm, which part is proprietary, and which is not? The Cisco VPN clients are proprietary, for example, but the ipsec protocol is not. So I don't feel I'm in much danger of committing to the vagaries of a particular vendor. There must be a java client, if these things word via web browsers. Is that the proprietary piece? I see SSL and certificates mentioned - that part is certainly open.
As for turning the native 2K client on and off - I know that via the mmc ipsec snap-in you can toggle the active state of your defined ipsec policies on and off. Via the Options... dialog, you can limit user actions, and then save the whole thing to the desktop. Not quite as simple as the Cisco client, but not too awful. I've been dealing with the Cisco clients myself, so I'm still figuring this out myself. It's something I've started looking at though, due to the 5001 being discontinued and because of our desire to have some form of redundancy in place. FreeS/WAN on a couple of boxes costs a lot less than a couple of (discontinued/lacking-clients) Cisco boxes. Not sure where we're headed with this yet, though...
I'm also using a 5000 (5001, to be precise). We got it because Cisco provided a Mac client. Like you say, now it's end of life. The equivant 3000 series box they're willing to trade us has no Mac client. Interesting that you say the WINS problem was alleviated by newer clients. I had the same problem. It eventually went away, but enough things had changed that I was never really sure which change actually precipitated the improvement...
The thing that scares me about the Netilla product is the phrase proprietary adaptive Internet protocol (AIP) which can be found on their technology overview page. These both look like very interesting products, but proprietary anything scares me. Because ipsec is an open protocol, I can compare the advantages/disadvantages of using the discontinued 5001, a less-capable 3000 series, or FreeS/WAN, for example. There are also a number of ipsec clients to choose from. What happens if Netilla goes out of business? With no competition, how do I know I'm paying a fair price? Etc.
I haven't been able to find any information about the technology underlying the Neoteris solution.
I guess my basic point is that we've been slowly migrating toward open solutions, where possible. I'd hate to start moving back in the other direction. We willingly paid good money for the convenience that the 5001 offered. I like the idea here, but I really can't see how it's necessary to make something proprietary to sustain a good product.
The primary differentiating factor here seems to be the web based client. Using PFS, 3DES, and proper authentication, there's no need to worry about ipsec security. Ipsec clients come standard w/ Windows 2000 and XP. There are readily available Mac clients as well. I'm also not understanding how, say, browsing SMB shares via a web browser would work. Why not use the highly evolved tools available w/ the OS for doing this?
I could certainly use some more info, but for now, I'm fine w/ ipsec.
The forgone conclusion of John's rant, and of most posts I'm reading seems to be that the rest of the world hates us because "we've run away from them". Our streets are paved with gold, and they're jealous.
How smug.
Consider this: perhaps there are people in the world, and more than a few of them, who fundamentally disagree with our system of values. They don't want to be like us, they want us to be like them. This can be a difficult concept to grasp: it involves pulling your nose out of your navel and not thinking so paternally about those poor brown people over there.
I didn't mean to imply that people don't need financial incentives. I was only trying to say that they were intended to be the means to an end, not the end in themselves. I should have been more clear. I believe in the free market, capitalism, yada yada.
But I don't believe that software patents promote progress. Quite the contrary, they impede progress. Complicated software projects are an edifice, made of many components. The effort involved in making sure that you are not inadvertently stepping on someone's patent is enormous. And if you find patents in your way, you must route around them. You may not create incorporate one-click shopping into your web site, for example. And this promotes progress exactly how? How does compelling everyone to do things in some obscure nonsensical way because someone else has a patent promote progress? Software patents compell people to reinvent the wheel over and over and over and over.
Again, the evidence against software patents is empirical. The quantity and quality and pace of development of free software is testimony enough that imposing patent restrictions is not necessary to promote progress. Software patents benefit few, at the expense of the many. Since this is unnecessary, they should be abandoned.
I understand how, theoretically, patents are supposed to promote progress. Now show me some real-world examples of how patents at work in the software industry. I can think of lots of examples of patents in the software industry impeding progress. Show me some examples of how they have done real good.
I guess what I'm not understanding is that on the one hand you seem to argue that progress occurs just fine without the incentives that patents provide, but then argue that corporations require patent incentives. I'm not asking what you think about the legal status of corporations, I'm asking why do you think we should limit people's rights so that corporations will have an extra advantage? If corporations are less efficient and less productive than other types of organizations, why should they get special treatment?
I'm not questioning the motivations underlying our constitutional provisions for patent protections, I'm questioning why we should put the cart before the horse. The objective is progress, not financial gain. I think we agree about this, but just to be clear: the right of exclusivity, as stated by the constitution, is a means to an end.
Therefore, should patents actually impede progress, as many think they do, then they should not be permitted. I have to say, the burden lies with people like myself, who oppose the status quo, to demonstrate incontravertably that patents impede progress (note: I'm just talking about software. I don't know how I feel about the subject beyond this.) I think the best way to demonstrate the harm they cause is to compare the productivity of commercial vs. free software developers. Like I say, I don't have that data. I'm just being another modern-day activist - "Somebody should do something!";)
the use of that pure knowledge to achieve commercial gains is something else entirely.
Yes it is. And if you read Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution, you will find the legislature empowered to do as you said:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, not to promote financial gain. You seem to agree that the scientific model works well, so I guess I'm not understanding why you think corporations deserve distinguished status. Are we talking strictly about promoting progress here?
Maybe it boils down to you feel that there is more and better commercial software, and I feel there is more and better free software. For the amount of energy expended on producing it, that is. I can't back up my gut feeling about this with irrefutable emperical data, though. Perhaps we'll just have to wait and see. If we can, that is. There's a real danger that in the not-so-distant future, free software will be illegal. Now that would truly be a shame.
Part of the reason, though, that developing large software projects can be such a chore, is that developers cannot recycle existing patented/copyrighted solutions. A company like MS might spend ten years and tens of billions of dollars producing a somewhat stable OS. To me, this is an extraordinary example of inefficiency. It's not exactly an argument in favor of working in a vacuum, that's for sure.
I agree that software is important part of our economy. An important part of the entire economy. Not some isolated junket that should recieve all of our accolades and money.
Most of us want the same thing: high quality software produced and distributed as efficiently as possible. (Of course there are also those who simply want to take as much as they can get.) I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Fewer high-quality programmers who have access to each other's code will produce better code faster than a whole bunch of overpaid amatuers working in isolation.
Forget the handwaving theoretical arguments for a moment. Look around. We have examples of both points of view to compare. On the one hand, we have the closed, proprietary, patented, buttoned up shrink wrap license vendors. On the other hand we have free software. Compare the amount of resources each consumes relative to its output. Tough measurement to make, but I'm strongly inclined to believe that the free software movement is producing better software faster per unit input than their proprietary counterparts. All we need are a few more sponsors like IBM to fuel the fire, and this race will be over.
And this is in spite of the fact the free software crowd oven has to route around existing copyright and patent encumbrances.
Amen. The more times we hear mistaken mantras about Microsoft unfairly leveraging their OS monopoly, the less likely we'll see meaningful reform. The real monopoly is MS Office, not the operating system. Repeat after me: you buy computers for the applications, you buy computers for the applications. Not the operating system. It is Microsoft's monopoly of the desktop applications arena, not operating systems, that gives them their power.
I'm not anti-Microsoft, I'm anti proprietary. I'm especially anti-proprietary file formats and network protocols. If the MS anti-trust proceedings don't diminish MS's control over file formats and protocols that we all need to use in order to do our work, then the states are prosecuting this case in vain. Microsoft will continue to monopolize the computing industry until such time as competing products are able to read and write Word, Excel, SMB, etc. A little proprietary hook here or there is all MS needs to forever erase the threat of competition.
This is why we should beware so-called "compromise" settlements in which MS promises to open their API's. All that accomplishes is a further dependance on MS product. As this product indicates, apparently their API's are already open enough to produce an emulation layer for Linux. This is not good, this is terrible. It's terrible because the operating system is not the threat! The applications are the threat! They are a threat, because they further entrench our dependance on proprietary data and protocols. And because MS controls the protocols, and because we must all use them in order to communicate with our collegues, peers, friends and family, MS will forever dominate the computer industry.
Again, I am not anti-Microsoft. I am pro-competition. I want choices. I want desktop applications to compete on the merits. This will never happen, until MS file formats and network protocols are made completely public.
Come on Microsoft - show us you can win an application showdown fairly. What are you afraid of? You have a pretty good shot, you know. Stop playing dirty tricks, and get back to basics. Make applications that people want to buy because they work better, not because they are the only choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's code is incomaptible which damages the viability of your GPL code.
Are you honestly attempting to promote the notion that Microsoft gives a rat's ass about compatibility! You're either paid PR, or you don't know jack about Microsoft.
It makes the code that was taxpayer-funded inaccessable to the businesses and proprietary software developers who also paid for its creation.
Tell me how dollars Microsoft paid in taxes last year.
Google is interesting for another reason also. If you have a high Google rank, you increase your probability of getting linked to. Which will increase your page rank. Ad infinitum.
I love Google, but I wonder sometimes if at the same time it makes it easy to find good sites, it also inherently keeps other good sites down (relative to the high ranked sites).
Negotiate a licence with the KDE and GNOME people directly.
Hmm, I'm been scratching my head wondering what these Lindows folks are thinking. Maybe that's it. The GPL, remember, is just a license. A license held by the copyright owner. So perhaps the Lindows folks would like to negotiate different terms with the people who have GPL'd the pieces they have extended. If they can procrastinate, and get some revenue or venture capital, then they might be able to offer the copyright owners better terms in exchange for altering their licensing terms.
Of course this is all just speculation. Speculating is fun.
This type of scenario, though, is all the more reason to demand stringent adherence to the terms of the GPL. If you can bend the rules, then you are obviously working in a manner contrary to the spirit of the GPL.
From the article: ... They can, however, design products with DAKOTA and sell their products.
Isn't that contrary to the terms of the GPL?
Ahhh, yes, they speak of a world outside of the digital realm. A material world. But of course it is a fantasy. The amount of information required to describe these so called "corporeal" objects, with their "atoms" and "quarks" and so forth defies the imagination. Don't worry. It would take more 1's and 0's than can be addressed by even Super User to describe the simplest of the fantastical objects said to inhabit this dream world. So relax, and get some sleep. There's nothing to worry about.
Question: if your code is proprietary, how do you prove that someone ripped off your code? It being so trivial for Blizzard to copy bnetd code, for example, how do they prove that the copying actually happened in the other direction? "We wrote it first! Really! I mean it!"
Unless some disinterested third party documented and signed off on the code base beforehand, this would seem difficult to do.
Letting you specify a font or color ... is not [useful].
I wouldn't push this issue too far, or you may find yourself in violation of the Americans With No Abilities Act.
David and Goliath. To anyone following along, who supports the FSF, please consider lending a hand. Any help you can provide is, well, helpful. And the satisfaction of watching evil giants fall...
As long as protocols can be reverse-engineered, there may be no real danger. But what of the day when they can't? Unbreakable encryption comes to mind. The only long term defense against this kind of injustice is the abolition of the DMCA and software patents.
There are so many twists and turns in that particulary obfusicated piece of snarly legalese that you could claim it means almost anything. I think any defense based on the DMCA only servers to further legitimize it; which is in no-one's interest except a few large corporate imperialists.
Seems to me that these patents form the foundation of this offensive maneuver. Otherwise they would have no basis for disallowing alternative implementations.
So then, any chance anyone can find grounds to dismiss the validity of either of these patents? Here are links to the USPTO files:
Patent number 5,265,261
Patent number 5,437,013
At the very least, this sickening abuse of patent rights provides further support for the elimination of software patents.
It means that you can see what the program does
This means you personally, but it also means the royal "you", as in all of us. I.E. - you personally don't have to pay high priced consultants to obtain advantages from using free software. Without lifting a finger, you benefit from other people's review and contributions. Truly. Now if you'd like to lend a hand, that's great. But it would be ironic, to say the least, to compell people to contribute.
I agree. The only synonyms for freedom I find on www.m-w.com though are "liberty" and "license". It strikes me that "licensed software" doesn't pass muster, and "liberty software" sounds like a trademark for a post 9-11 dot-com. It's also been taken by someone in the Silicon Valley doing Mac consulting. I guess Macs provide freedom from PC's.
;)
There are more opportunities, however, if we look up synonyms for "free": autarchic, autarkic, autonomous, independent, separate, sovereign. For being completely disassociated with any jingo I've ever heard, I'd have to give my vote to "autarkic". Autarkic software. Wow, that's such a good name, I think I'm going to trademark it and sue anyone who copies my idea.
it seems like we're slipping into a weird Braveheart parallel universe when two sides rush headlong into battle, both screaming "Freeeeeedom!" at the top of their lungs.
Or "Terrorist!".
Can you point me to a link? According to this, the VPN 5001 can be swapped for a 3030. The itemized list of clients on the 3000 series page doesn't include Mac.
When he says "must", he means it as in, "you will be required to use free software."
Bullshit. You're quite right - it would be hypocritical for RMS to dictate the terms of freedom. But of course we have nothing to worry about, since he's never indicated any such desire.
Since in your righteous indignation, you feel compelled to cast aspersions, please quote, chapter and verse, evidence to the contrary. Your opinions on the matter have not a whit of relevance. Give us some facts.
I'm not entirely adverse to a proprietary solution that converts from one set of standard protocols to another.
Hmm, which part is proprietary, and which is not? The Cisco VPN clients are proprietary, for example, but the ipsec protocol is not. So I don't feel I'm in much danger of committing to the vagaries of a particular vendor. There must be a java client, if these things word via web browsers. Is that the proprietary piece? I see SSL and certificates mentioned - that part is certainly open.
As for turning the native 2K client on and off - I know that via the mmc ipsec snap-in you can toggle the active state of your defined ipsec policies on and off. Via the Options... dialog, you can limit user actions, and then save the whole thing to the desktop. Not quite as simple as the Cisco client, but not too awful. I've been dealing with the Cisco clients myself, so I'm still figuring this out myself. It's something I've started looking at though, due to the 5001 being discontinued and because of our desire to have some form of redundancy in place. FreeS/WAN on a couple of boxes costs a lot less than a couple of (discontinued/lacking-clients) Cisco boxes. Not sure where we're headed with this yet, though...
I'm also using a 5000 (5001, to be precise). We got it because Cisco provided a Mac client. Like you say, now it's end of life. The equivant 3000 series box they're willing to trade us has no Mac client. Interesting that you say the WINS problem was alleviated by newer clients. I had the same problem. It eventually went away, but enough things had changed that I was never really sure which change actually precipitated the improvement...
The thing that scares me about the Netilla product is the phrase proprietary adaptive Internet protocol (AIP) which can be found on their technology overview page. These both look like very interesting products, but proprietary anything scares me. Because ipsec is an open protocol, I can compare the advantages/disadvantages of using the discontinued 5001, a less-capable 3000 series, or FreeS/WAN, for example. There are also a number of ipsec clients to choose from. What happens if Netilla goes out of business? With no competition, how do I know I'm paying a fair price? Etc.
I haven't been able to find any information about the technology underlying the Neoteris solution.
I guess my basic point is that we've been slowly migrating toward open solutions, where possible. I'd hate to start moving back in the other direction. We willingly paid good money for the convenience that the 5001 offered. I like the idea here, but I really can't see how it's necessary to make something proprietary to sustain a good product.
The primary differentiating factor here seems to be the web based client. Using PFS, 3DES, and proper authentication, there's no need to worry about ipsec security. Ipsec clients come standard w/ Windows 2000 and XP. There are readily available Mac clients as well. I'm also not understanding how, say, browsing SMB shares via a web browser would work. Why not use the highly evolved tools available w/ the OS for doing this?
I could certainly use some more info, but for now, I'm fine w/ ipsec.
The forgone conclusion of John's rant, and of most posts I'm reading seems to be that the rest of the world hates us because "we've run away from them". Our streets are paved with gold, and they're jealous.
How smug.
Consider this: perhaps there are people in the world, and more than a few of them, who fundamentally disagree with our system of values. They don't want to be like us, they want us to be like them. This can be a difficult concept to grasp: it involves pulling your nose out of your navel and not thinking so paternally about those poor brown people over there.
I didn't mean to imply that people don't need financial incentives. I was only trying to say that they were intended to be the means to an end, not the end in themselves. I should have been more clear. I believe in the free market, capitalism, yada yada.
But I don't believe that software patents promote progress. Quite the contrary, they impede progress. Complicated software projects are an edifice, made of many components. The effort involved in making sure that you are not inadvertently stepping on someone's patent is enormous. And if you find patents in your way, you must route around them. You may not create incorporate one-click shopping into your web site, for example. And this promotes progress exactly how? How does compelling everyone to do things in some obscure nonsensical way because someone else has a patent promote progress? Software patents compell people to reinvent the wheel over and over and over and over.
Again, the evidence against software patents is empirical. The quantity and quality and pace of development of free software is testimony enough that imposing patent restrictions is not necessary to promote progress. Software patents benefit few, at the expense of the many. Since this is unnecessary, they should be abandoned.
I understand how, theoretically, patents are supposed to promote progress. Now show me some real-world examples of how patents at work in the software industry. I can think of lots of examples of patents in the software industry impeding progress. Show me some examples of how they have done real good.
I guess what I'm not understanding is that on the one hand you seem to argue that progress occurs just fine without the incentives that patents provide, but then argue that corporations require patent incentives. I'm not asking what you think about the legal status of corporations, I'm asking why do you think we should limit people's rights so that corporations will have an extra advantage? If corporations are less efficient and less productive than other types of organizations, why should they get special treatment?
;)
I'm not questioning the motivations underlying our constitutional provisions for patent protections, I'm questioning why we should put the cart before the horse. The objective is progress, not financial gain. I think we agree about this, but just to be clear: the right of exclusivity, as stated by the constitution, is a means to an end.
Therefore, should patents actually impede progress, as many think they do, then they should not be permitted. I have to say, the burden lies with people like myself, who oppose the status quo, to demonstrate incontravertably that patents impede progress (note: I'm just talking about software. I don't know how I feel about the subject beyond this.) I think the best way to demonstrate the harm they cause is to compare the productivity of commercial vs. free software developers. Like I say, I don't have that data. I'm just being another modern-day activist - "Somebody should do something!"
the use of that pure knowledge to achieve commercial gains is something else entirely.
Yes it is. And if you read Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution, you will find the legislature empowered to do as you said:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, not to promote financial gain. You seem to agree that the scientific model works well, so I guess I'm not understanding why you think corporations deserve distinguished status. Are we talking strictly about promoting progress here?
Maybe it boils down to you feel that there is more and better commercial software, and I feel there is more and better free software. For the amount of energy expended on producing it, that is. I can't back up my gut feeling about this with irrefutable emperical data, though. Perhaps we'll just have to wait and see. If we can, that is. There's a real danger that in the not-so-distant future, free software will be illegal. Now that would truly be a shame.
Part of the reason, though, that developing large software projects can be such a chore, is that developers cannot recycle existing patented/copyrighted solutions. A company like MS might spend ten years and tens of billions of dollars producing a somewhat stable OS. To me, this is an extraordinary example of inefficiency. It's not exactly an argument in favor of working in a vacuum, that's for sure.
I agree that software is important part of our economy. An important part of the entire economy. Not some isolated junket that should recieve all of our accolades and money.
Most of us want the same thing: high quality software produced and distributed as efficiently as possible. (Of course there are also those who simply want to take as much as they can get.) I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Fewer high-quality programmers who have access to each other's code will produce better code faster than a whole bunch of overpaid amatuers working in isolation.
Forget the handwaving theoretical arguments for a moment. Look around. We have examples of both points of view to compare. On the one hand, we have the closed, proprietary, patented, buttoned up shrink wrap license vendors. On the other hand we have free software. Compare the amount of resources each consumes relative to its output. Tough measurement to make, but I'm strongly inclined to believe that the free software movement is producing better software faster per unit input than their proprietary counterparts. All we need are a few more sponsors like IBM to fuel the fire, and this race will be over.
And this is in spite of the fact the free software crowd oven has to route around existing copyright and patent encumbrances.
Amen. The more times we hear mistaken mantras about Microsoft unfairly leveraging their OS monopoly, the less likely we'll see meaningful reform. The real monopoly is MS Office, not the operating system. Repeat after me: you buy computers for the applications, you buy computers for the applications. Not the operating system. It is Microsoft's monopoly of the desktop applications arena, not operating systems, that gives them their power.
I'm not anti-Microsoft, I'm anti proprietary. I'm especially anti-proprietary file formats and network protocols. If the MS anti-trust proceedings don't diminish MS's control over file formats and protocols that we all need to use in order to do our work, then the states are prosecuting this case in vain. Microsoft will continue to monopolize the computing industry until such time as competing products are able to read and write Word, Excel, SMB, etc. A little proprietary hook here or there is all MS needs to forever erase the threat of competition.
This is why we should beware so-called "compromise" settlements in which MS promises to open their API's. All that accomplishes is a further dependance on MS product. As this product indicates, apparently their API's are already open enough to produce an emulation layer for Linux. This is not good, this is terrible. It's terrible because the operating system is not the threat! The applications are the threat! They are a threat, because they further entrench our dependance on proprietary data and protocols. And because MS controls the protocols, and because we must all use them in order to communicate with our collegues, peers, friends and family, MS will forever dominate the computer industry.
Again, I am not anti-Microsoft. I am pro-competition. I want choices. I want desktop applications to compete on the merits. This will never happen, until MS file formats and network protocols are made completely public.
Come on Microsoft - show us you can win an application showdown fairly. What are you afraid of? You have a pretty good shot, you know. Stop playing dirty tricks, and get back to basics. Make applications that people want to buy because they work better, not because they are the only choice.
Or contersue for damages arising from a fraudulent claim.
Gee whiz, pretty soon I bet we'll be hearing about wireless television!