Absolutely NOT. We recently had our network affected by a (man in the middle attack) virus which potentially stole lots of very sensitive stuff. CA eTrust couldn't find the blasted thing, but that's because CA was too damn lazy to update their definitions with it. Other antivirus software knew about it two months ago.
I repeat... DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES USE CA - IT IS UTTER CRAP.
Personally I tend to specify Tahoma if present with a fallback of Helv (Helvetica family, which AFAIK is available on Mac computers only with, I think, Tahoma as the PC equivalent).
That's only when I want a specific view (but don't want it falling back to the Times family if not specified). Otherwise I'd just say Helv and let it go at that.
I'm also not thrilled about the anti-GPL clause in the devkit; it will cause interoperability problems with Open Source or Free Software and ISO should get that clause removed before approving. Why should they? FSF wont ever make concessions to allow you to link GPL code in with anything else that isn't some sort of "GPL-compatible" license, why should Microsoft? If anyone cares they can just implement it as a BSD licensed library. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
It's Microsoft who's to blame for pushing politics into technical merits. How dare you blame the victim. Ironically, that RIGHT THERE is exactly the sort of thing the GP was talking about. Noone's the victim in these matters, but everyone's an aggressor. Get it right.
It didn't used to be. Some time ago, Unisys sent a royalty claim to Compuserve (inventors of GIF) based on the GIF format's usage of their patented LZW algorithm (why it is possible to patent algorithms is a mystery - maths shouldn't be patentable) who then, having no other way to pay the outrageous amount, began claiming royalties for any use of GIF images on the internet. I believe it was as a result of this that PNG was initially created.
These days one is always wary of new image formats (or any new format for that matter) produced by a corporation.
Of all the advertising sources I can think of, Google is the only one that does ads in a reasonable, elegant, and even useful way. They don't do popups and annoying flashing graphics. Yes they do. Have you not heard of Doubleclick and the new Google Image Ads?
(Europeans: Yeah, it really *is* that stupid Stateside. Every wireless phone in America costs a minimum of $30/month, no matter how little you use the network. In Soviet America, "wireless competition" means you can choose between the provider offering you "$90 prepaid for 90 minutes that expire every 3 months", and the provider offering you "unlimited minutes and a $30/month subscription fee". Bah!) Woah, woah... let me get this straight... you get unlimited minutes? For the equivalent of your $30 (about $40 here) we'd only get about 400 minutes. Off peak only. Or 100 minutes on peak. But our prepaid does take about a year to expire. And we can buy prepaid in increments of $10. And we only pay the equivalent of ~US$0.50 per minute off peak (~US$1.00 on peak).
There's some big News To Me in this article and I wish the open source community would do a better job of informing the rest of the world of this crap. This article mentions that Microsoft's OOXML format can't be implemented by other vendors. What?!?!? That's News To Me. I'm sure the article is right It's not.
Open != Proprietary. Just because it suits you to claim that it is proprietary, does not change the fact that it has an available specification for it, and if that doesn't float your boat they will even hand you the spec for the binary formats for free (not that you'd ever be able to actually read that - it'd probably be pretty ugly)
That's OK. Our government mandates PDF instead (since there's PDF viewers on, well, every platform).
And no, I don't believe they should mandate ODF - in fact I'd explicitly oppose it. A person shouldn't be forced to download a halfassed ODF plugin for Word or a 90MB office suite to read a document from their government, and there are many free and compact PDF viewers (and to be honest there's no need to change docs you get from a government website)
When "X" program is 90MB and hosted on a website that's slower than frozen molasses, that excuse doesn't fly. It's bad enough when they give you DOCX files and you have to download a 30MB program to open them.
Here's one. It's pretty cheap too (or free, depends if you mind it opening a web page whenever it prints reminding you that for $10 you can remove the pop-up).
I once sent them an email asking when I could expect my cheque for my provisioning of my bandwidth to distribute their patches. They sent me a link to FilePlanet.
Your ideas are completely batshit stupid. Apparently bankruptcy is the only way they can make peace. Actually, your post is proof that the open source community really is all about getting stuff without paying. Just read yourself, and you'll see you look like an arrogant git.
But yes, their abuse of our Open Source trademark was the issue. Yes, 'open source' was used before we estableshed a secondary meaning as a trademark; so what? There's your issue right there, you don't actually have ANY trademark on "Open Source". Try using the truth next time.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, but even OpenOffice.org catches this.
I hope.
Absolutely NOT. We recently had our network affected by a (man in the middle attack) virus which potentially stole lots of very sensitive stuff. CA eTrust couldn't find the blasted thing, but that's because CA was too damn lazy to update their definitions with it. Other antivirus software knew about it two months ago.
I repeat... DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES USE CA - IT IS UTTER CRAP.
And how the fuck does writing a new version of a license specifically to get Microsoft not make you an aggressor?!
Personally I tend to specify Tahoma if present with a fallback of Helv (Helvetica family, which AFAIK is available on Mac computers only with, I think, Tahoma as the PC equivalent).
That's only when I want a specific view (but don't want it falling back to the Times family if not specified). Otherwise I'd just say Helv and let it go at that.
Oh, I'm just applying the same definition of Monopoly that /. users apply to Microsoft. It isn't really one, I know. Nor is Microsoft.
You mean like MP3 Pro? Funnily enough Microsoft has never done the crap you claim. But someone else sure has.
FUD. I vote "depends".
It didn't used to be. Some time ago, Unisys sent a royalty claim to Compuserve (inventors of GIF) based on the GIF format's usage of their patented LZW algorithm (why it is possible to patent algorithms is a mystery - maths shouldn't be patentable) who then, having no other way to pay the outrageous amount, began claiming royalties for any use of GIF images on the internet. I believe it was as a result of this that PNG was initially created.
These days one is always wary of new image formats (or any new format for that matter) produced by a corporation.
I disagree. It looks awfully like they're trying to use their advertising monopoly to monopolise on a new market. Sound familiar?
Why the double standard?
Open != Proprietary. Just because it suits you to claim that it is proprietary, does not change the fact that it has an available specification for it, and if that doesn't float your boat they will even hand you the spec for the binary formats for free (not that you'd ever be able to actually read that - it'd probably be pretty ugly)
That's OK. Our government mandates PDF instead (since there's PDF viewers on, well, every platform).
And no, I don't believe they should mandate ODF - in fact I'd explicitly oppose it. A person shouldn't be forced to download a halfassed ODF plugin for Word or a 90MB office suite to read a document from their government, and there are many free and compact PDF viewers (and to be honest there's no need to change docs you get from a government website)
When "X" program is 90MB and hosted on a website that's slower than frozen molasses, that excuse doesn't fly. It's bad enough when they give you DOCX files and you have to download a 30MB program to open them.
Here's one. It's pretty cheap too (or free, depends if you mind it opening a web page whenever it prints reminding you that for $10 you can remove the pop-up).
Actually, RMS bashing is GNU/Flamebait.
I once sent them an email asking when I could expect my cheque for my provisioning of my bandwidth to distribute their patches. They sent me a link to FilePlanet.
You've never seen Shortland Street have you?
Do it, and you'll be eating those words.
I think it's one of the extremely rare cases where they'll actually pro-rata refund you.
Your ideas are completely batshit stupid. Apparently bankruptcy is the only way they can make peace. Actually, your post is proof that the open source community really is all about getting stuff without paying. Just read yourself, and you'll see you look like an arrogant git.
How childish.
Incoming what? Snide FSF fanboy jeers? Because there's nothing else that'll be incoming just because Sugar have agreements with Microsoft.
No, they actually altered the GPLv3 so as not to piss Google off (Affero GPL compatibility)
The only business the GPL is trying to close is Microsoft - and Stallman and Moglen have pretty much admitted that.