Why should they include a piece of third party software with their operating system? It allows the company that made it to hold them hostage for future versions, introduces a support dependancy outside of microsoft,
No. A proprietary format (like Microsoft has developed) would do those things. A media player would not.
Also what part of being able to play video and music requires that you are able to rip cds? Answer: not one bit.
Wrong. The fact is that people expect to be able to import their CDs to their media player these days.
It's fairly easy to see your motives if one examines your choices [of information to leave out].
If you've something to say, say it. Vague implications just make you look childish.
This is true. On top of that they should be extra because they are separate products. I was talking about the bundling of a media player though, quit changing subjects.
It's the same discussion, directly answering your point. If you can't follow it, that's your fault, not mine.
I seriously doubt that a difference in distrobution model is what changes the bundling of media players from "awesome feature of convenience" to "evil monopolizing practice".
Well then we disagree, but that doesn't make you right, or me wrong. Personally, I'll take me industry knowledge over your seemingly short-sighted version.
What we need to do is let Microsoft bundle whatever they want with Windows as long as any other 3rd party can provide an alternative for anything deemed not part of the operating system.
That would only work if alternatives could be provided with EQUAL distribution, in the OS, with an unbiased choice given at install as to which they want to use. Likewise, choices would need to be given for which codecs CDs should be ripped using (mp3 and xvid vs. the relatively unknown wma and wmv, for instance).
Funny, I thought it was so they could play audio and videos out of the box.
You were wrong. IF they wanted to include a media player, they wouldn't need to develop their own. What's more, they wouldn't deliberately leave out codecs for ripping CDs in the most popular audio format, mp3. It's fairly easy to see their motives if you examine their choices.
Most linux distrobutions include a media player for just this reason, why is it bad when microsoft does it?
Most linux distributions have a TOTALLY different distribution model, which also includes free office suites, free email servers, free databases, free proxy servers, etc. In microsoft's model, all of these things are extra, and MUCH more expensive.
Because the whole reason Media Player is packaged with windows is so microsoft can dominate digital audio/video formats. In other words, it's the audiovisual equivalent of their browser monopoly.
On the main article, don't forget South Korea. Microsoft is basically using the same anti-trust avoidance tactics that they've always used. They're taking advantage of the slowness of individual legal systems, so that when their tactics are ruled illegal in one place, they can continue to work toward dominance elsewhere.
OK, thanks for the information. But, Nvu was pretty horrible last time I looked. Neither Nvu or Dreamweaver seem very useful for modern layout with CSS etc. I'll have to stick to coding by hand for now.
Actually, to do it properly, they'd probably have to design it properly. Taking code that generates non-standard 1997 html and changing it to create modern, fully standards-compliant, accessible markup is a tall order.
The problem here is NOT that they misunderstand free software licenses. It's that they don't understand COPYRIGHT. Companies with proprietary licenses have been selling this piracy thing so much that they've convinced everyone that copyright infringement always happens when software is copied. The fact is, copyright licenses can say almost ANYTHING. It's not the government's place to sell one specific (and incorrect) interpretation of what copyright is. uk.gov needs to completely rethink this.
Did you happen to notice what version of HTML they're using? Presumably it generates nice XHTML with stylesheets accessibility and supports unicode? In other words, can I recommend it as a non-harmful tool for beginners?
"Delivering whatsoever over the internet" is called FTP.
However, that's not really what's being dealt with here. HTML was designed with rich content in mind. It can transfer any kind of file specifiable by mimetype, *including* Flash etc., and was intended to do that interactively, thereby making it a superset of Flash in concept. Java Applets were available in HTML 3.0, which was a LONG time ago now (1995/6, I think?).
Moreover, HTML is superior in design, despite some misuse. It's independent of resolution, browser, etc., and was designed to be future-proof, based on previous future proof document formats. This essentially makes it less implementation-bound and more forward-thinking than the proprietary Flash format.
Also, the very first interactive web apps were done with CGI, developed back in 1993. This uses the very successful and now re-popularised "REST" model, which isn't going anywhere as a modern solution to interactivity.
Resolution independence!! It's really time we got past this idea that 1024x768 is an optimal resolution due to web site design or the lowest common denominator or because some people can't see too well. If my new monitor can draw the curve of an "A" at 300dpi, then that's what what I want to see it at, dammit. Sticking with 96dpi or similar is just dumb.
It'll last as long as they can fiddle the numbers. Notice that this is the number of Unix servers sold, not the number of websites using Free Software unix-likes or the number of sysadmins who have used both extensively and say they prefer windows. Windows sucks for servers, and will do for the foreseeable future.
Hmm. I wasn't aware of this GStreamer issue. Thanks for the heads-up. I guess I'll have to scratch GStreamer off my list of best Free Software efforts in that case, sad as I am to to it.
We really need a decent, well supported, Free Software multimedia framework along GStreamer lines though. It's long overdue. Any other options out there?
It sounds like a proprietary format filled with security problems. Furthermore, it's a webpage, which makes it quite useless for the normal application of PDF files as a print-ready document format. I for one will steer well clear of it.
OpenDocument would be a far better solution. So, thanks for the slashvertisement, but... no thanks.
Most of your other points are good ones, but I have to disagree on this:
Why should they spend a billion dollars to fab the first version of the chip just so they can ship it to Washington so a patent clerk can validate its worthiness?
In cases like this, I think it's the duty of business to donate the required technology to governmental organisations, so that they can keep up. If you want to prove your case to the patent office with software they don't have, then you should provide them with an unlimited license to that software. But then, I also think that any software technology that enables people should be available to all members of society. Otherwise, those "Joe Inventor"-types "working in a garage" are being limited, and so society and technology is being held back. I'm NOT pointing fingers here, but to finish my point... those who use intellectual property to do that don't deserve the protection of our society's intellectual property laws.
quantum computing (which is still mostly theoretical... the largest experimental proof has only involved a few qbits, and for all we know a full-fledged computer will be impractical
I don't see any reason to think it's impractical, beyond perfecting the technology and economies of scale. DVD-RWs were very hard to produce at one time, and VERY costly, but that's no reason to think they'll be impractical in the long-run, given their utility. If any new technology has utility enough to make it worth developing to completeness, it's probably quantum computing. Do you know something I don't on this (it's quite possible:)? If so, I'd like to hear it:)
Perhaps you are not aware of a phrase that states "within current theory" that is implied everytime a theorist speaks. Or weren't you aware of that?
That's pretty obvious. I'm quite sure the grandparent poster was aware of it. However, that does not invalidate his point: that it's unethical to present a theory as a fact.
Yes, that's basically what ethics means to me. By hurting others in our society, we hurt ourselves because we have to live in that society too. So it's much the same as being hostile or selfish. But, as always, finding a simple, catchy way to communicate the issues is the difficulty.
Yep. If the original developers sold out, it probably means they had little interest in continuing development themselves, so this can only be good. Either the buyers will continue open development, or others will, or it will continue to be as valuable as it has ever been.
Slashdot Mirror
No. A proprietary format (like Microsoft has developed) would do those things. A media player would not.
Wrong. The fact is that people expect to be able to import their CDs to their media player these days.
If you've something to say, say it. Vague implications just make you look childish.
It's the same discussion, directly answering your point. If you can't follow it, that's your fault, not mine.
Well then we disagree, but that doesn't make you right, or me wrong. Personally, I'll take me industry knowledge over your seemingly short-sighted version.
That would only work if alternatives could be provided with EQUAL distribution, in the OS, with an unbiased choice given at install as to which they want to use. Likewise, choices would need to be given for which codecs CDs should be ripped using (mp3 and xvid vs. the relatively unknown wma and wmv, for instance).
You were wrong. IF they wanted to include a media player, they wouldn't need to develop their own. What's more, they wouldn't deliberately leave out codecs for ripping CDs in the most popular audio format, mp3. It's fairly easy to see their motives if you examine their choices.
Most linux distributions have a TOTALLY different distribution model, which also includes free office suites, free email servers, free databases, free proxy servers, etc. In microsoft's model, all of these things are extra, and MUCH more expensive.
Actually, it's a she. Better make that an alcopop. Preferably a big brand name alcopop that's popular on TV right now.
Because the whole reason Media Player is packaged with windows is so microsoft can dominate digital audio/video formats. In other words, it's the audiovisual equivalent of their browser monopoly.
On the main article, don't forget South Korea. Microsoft is basically using the same anti-trust avoidance tactics that they've always used. They're taking advantage of the slowness of individual legal systems, so that when their tactics are ruled illegal in one place, they can continue to work toward dominance elsewhere.
OK, thanks for the information. But, Nvu was pretty horrible last time I looked. Neither Nvu or Dreamweaver seem very useful for modern layout with CSS etc. I'll have to stick to coding by hand for now.
Actually, to do it properly, they'd probably have to design it properly. Taking code that generates non-standard 1997 html and changing it to create modern, fully standards-compliant, accessible markup is a tall order.
The problem here is NOT that they misunderstand free software licenses. It's that they don't understand COPYRIGHT. Companies with proprietary licenses have been selling this piracy thing so much that they've convinced everyone that copyright infringement always happens when software is copied. The fact is, copyright licenses can say almost ANYTHING. It's not the government's place to sell one specific (and incorrect) interpretation of what copyright is. uk.gov needs to completely rethink this.
Did you happen to notice what version of HTML they're using? Presumably it generates nice XHTML with stylesheets accessibility and supports unicode? In other words, can I recommend it as a non-harmful tool for beginners?
http://www.mediabistro.com/unbeige/original/Times- New-Roman-A-.jpg :)
"Delivering whatsoever over the internet" is called FTP.
However, that's not really what's being dealt with here. HTML was designed with rich content in mind. It can transfer any kind of file specifiable by mimetype, *including* Flash etc., and was intended to do that interactively, thereby making it a superset of Flash in concept. Java Applets were available in HTML 3.0, which was a LONG time ago now (1995/6, I think?).
Moreover, HTML is superior in design, despite some misuse. It's independent of resolution, browser, etc., and was designed to be future-proof, based on previous future proof document formats. This essentially makes it less implementation-bound and more forward-thinking than the proprietary Flash format.
Also, the very first interactive web apps were done with CGI, developed back in 1993. This uses the very successful and now re-popularised "REST" model, which isn't going anywhere as a modern solution to interactivity.
Resolution independence!! It's really time we got past this idea that 1024x768 is an optimal resolution due to web site design or the lowest common denominator or because some people can't see too well. If my new monitor can draw the curve of an "A" at 300dpi, then that's what what I want to see it at, dammit. Sticking with 96dpi or similar is just dumb.
A quick look at netcraft will clearly show that Apache (ie, mainly Unix-likes) are more popular than IIS (ie, Windows) for internet servers by a factor of 3 to 1.
It'll last as long as they can fiddle the numbers. Notice that this is the number of Unix servers sold, not the number of websites using Free Software unix-likes or the number of sysadmins who have used both extensively and say they prefer windows. Windows sucks for servers, and will do for the foreseeable future.
Hmm. I wasn't aware of this GStreamer issue. Thanks for the heads-up. I guess I'll have to scratch GStreamer off my list of best Free Software efforts in that case, sad as I am to to it.
We really need a decent, well supported, Free Software multimedia framework along GStreamer lines though. It's long overdue. Any other options out there?
You mean it's NOT a working zero point module? Damn, and I was so convinced for a moment there ;)
It sounds like a proprietary format filled with security problems. Furthermore, it's a webpage, which makes it quite useless for the normal application of PDF files as a print-ready document format. I for one will steer well clear of it.
OpenDocument would be a far better solution. So, thanks for the slashvertisement, but... no thanks.
In cases like this, I think it's the duty of business to donate the required technology to governmental organisations, so that they can keep up. If you want to prove your case to the patent office with software they don't have, then you should provide them with an unlimited license to that software. But then, I also think that any software technology that enables people should be available to all members of society. Otherwise, those "Joe Inventor"-types "working in a garage" are being limited, and so society and technology is being held back. I'm NOT pointing fingers here, but to finish my point... those who use intellectual property to do that don't deserve the protection of our society's intellectual property laws.
I don't see any reason to think it's impractical, beyond perfecting the technology and economies of scale. DVD-RWs were very hard to produce at one time, and VERY costly, but that's no reason to think they'll be impractical in the long-run, given their utility. If any new technology has utility enough to make it worth developing to completeness, it's probably quantum computing. Do you know something I don't on this (it's quite possible
That's pretty obvious. I'm quite sure the grandparent poster was aware of it. However, that does not invalidate his point: that it's unethical to present a theory as a fact.
Yes, perhaps :)
Didn't you hear? Quantum computing makes everything happen faster.
Yes, that's basically what ethics means to me. By hurting others in our society, we hurt ourselves because we have to live in that society too. So it's much the same as being hostile or selfish. But, as always, finding a simple, catchy way to communicate the issues is the difficulty.
Yep. If the original developers sold out, it probably means they had little interest in continuing development themselves, so this can only be good. Either the buyers will continue open development, or others will, or it will continue to be as valuable as it has ever been.