Yea but can you really trademark such a term at this point? The use of the phrase open source is so widespread now i think they've lost control of whatever power they had over its use, unless they'd like to argue over the use of capitalization Open Source vs open source.
Not against the sprit of open source, which is what your parent wrote. Now go buy yourself some reading glasses. Maybe we can get a group discount, since lots of posters in this article can't distinguish between open source and Open Source.
Why the fuck is everyone, and especially you getting fucking confused and trying to confuse everyone over the term 'open source' and 'Open Source'? Can you see he DID NOT capitalize it but you did in your post? Do we have to buy everyone reading glasses to show that you're talking about two different things? Microsoft doesn't claim anything is 'Open Source'.
From CodePlex
About CodePlex
CodePlex is Microsoft's open source project hosting web site. Start a new project, join an existing one, or download software created by the community. More About CodePlex...
Microsoft does not control, review, revise, endorse or distribute the third party projects on this site. Microsoft is hosting the CodePlex site solely as a web storage site as a service to the developer community.
You wrote:
Open Source is our phrase. Anyone can use it, but if they use it wrong, it's definitely reasonable that we should step up and point this out. Which is exactly what you said we are doing. Why do you state it like it's a wrong thing to do?
He was talking about open source. NOT Open Source.
Windows was allowed to be trademarked because it referred to a OS, not the thing that a basement does not have. Similarly Apple does not and cannot be a brand of fruits.
Microsoft claims it is 'open source' not Open Source(a trademark attempt by OSI was refused). So you're dead wrong.
This is classic Register bs. From the codeplex site:
About CodePlex
CodePlex is Microsoft's open source project hosting web site. Start a new project, join an existing one, or download software created by the community. More About CodePlex...
Microsoft does not control, review, revise, endorse or distribute the third party projects on this site. Microsoft is hosting the CodePlex site solely as a web storage site as a service to the developer community.
In other words, developers can -gasp- choose the license they want. And they do, including MS. Also, it has nothing to do with the OSI since MS explicitly mentions it's 'open source' and not 'Open Source'(which seems to be hijacked by the OSI as a trademark?). open source != free(as in freedom) software.
'Open Source' is different from 'open source'. Just because a non-profit organization steps it and tries to redefine English phrases doesn't mean the rest of the world has to follow it.
Now phrases are owned by organizations? The OSI took a perfectly common phrase 'open source' and attempts to define it in it's own way. Who gave the OSI the right to bastardize 'open source' with it's own narrow definition?
Apple will never do that because it will cut into the sales of their overpriced hardware bigtime. Why shell out $3000 for a Macbook Pro when you get a midsize tower from Dell for $400 ?
It's Apple's platform, Apple's SDK, and Apple's store. Why should they allow any product on the shelf that competes with their own business?
How does a product that they would sell in their own app store compete with their business, pray tell? They are the gatekeeper. Any application could, potentially, help them sell more iPhones if it's good enough, and at the very least, they make money from the sale of the app. Even free apps encourage people to go to the app store, thus increasing the odds they'll buy something.
With Steve Jobs, it's more about control than money. With Bill Gates it's the opposite.
You let me know when Microsoft starts selling Macs or Linux boxes on their website and we can discuss Apple not wanting to sell competing products. Hell, even better, let me know when I can download OpenOffice from Microsoft.com. Or maybe when they put the whole myriad of Exchange replacements on their website.
You let us know when Microsoft App store is the only way(via DRM like on the iPhone) to get Windows applications, and when the only way to get Open Office running is to have a unsupported hack on your machine that breaks everytime you do a Windows update.
People can easily(without jumping through hoops to hack stuff and without paying a 30% Apple tax) download any Windows program out there and install it with a few clicks. Whereas Apple rejecting an App leaves the vendor with hardly any options to get it running except for the 0.1% of jailbroken phones.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. From any vendor.
When did MS disallow a FPS game competing with Halo on the XBox. Imagine sinking millions into a game and THEN get denied because it's competing with another game, that would suck balls, just like what happened in the TFA. Come back when that happens.
It sounds like the app was not approved because it was basically a carbon copy of Mail - same functions with no additional, differentiating features. So, if they approved it, people would buy the app, download it, realize they got duped into buying something that comes with the iPhone OS, get pissed and complain - the later two being things Apple wants to avoid. Rather than go that route, they did not approve the app. Had the developer actually developed something - spent some time and effort adding additional features that made the app different (and probably better) than Mail - Apple almost certainly would have approved it.
How posts like yours get modded up are beyond me. Melodramatic drivel alongside false information. Normally Slashdot reviewers get it right but sometimes they just miss the boat...
I think you really need to RTFA or atleast the summary before spouting off RDF tainted BS.
No wonder it plugs a Mac site and is clearly written by a Mac zealot. I bet there were a ton of other submissions related to this, why was this lame one picked?
So you mean if something runs on Linux, the Linux developers have made it? What's more important, the underlying algorithm or the OS it runs on? Nice karma whoring though, looks like the mods fell for it.
There is no real advantage to upgrading to Vista or BluRay for most people
Actually, both come with a major disadvantage, DRM. Coincidence, I think not!
WTF are you talking about? One can do anything in Vista that you could do in XP, in addition you can play things like BluRay movies. Stop spreading dumb FUD like a moron to get karma points.
I think open office will take off like crazy regardless, but this might give it a bit of a push.
Having an option to rent Office is going to give OO.o a push? Huh? If anything, it will slowdown the adoption of OO.o because of people who can't afford to buy Office but can rent it instead.
Buying a MacBook and switching from 2GB of 667MHz DDR2 to 4GB -- across two 2,048MB DIMMS -- using the Apple Web site will cost an extra £120. Doing that same swap with the Dell XPS M1330 costs just £40.01. Again, Apple is charging around 200 per cent more than Dell....
Going from a 120GB 5,400rpm drive to a 250GB 5,400rpm drive will set you back £90.01 from the Apple configurator. Doing the same upgrade with a Dell XPS M1330 costs just £30.01 on the Dell site. Here, Apple is a whopping 200 per cent more expensive than Dell.
Slashdot Mirror
Paranoia much? They call it open source, not Open Source like you do. Stop getting confused and trying to confuse both the terms.
Yea but can you really trademark such a term at this point? The use of the phrase open source is so widespread now i think they've lost control of whatever power they had over its use, unless they'd like to argue over the use of capitalization Open Source vs open source.
OSI already tried and failed a long time ago.
When something is Open Source (note the capitals), it has a very specific meaning that goes beyond "is the source available openly".
Hmm. I wonder if it would be possible for FSF to get a trademark on "Open Source"? That might put an end to the word games...
OSI tried...and were denied, a long time ago because it was too generic. So, you're dead wrong.
Not against the sprit of open source, which is what your parent wrote. Now go buy yourself some reading glasses. Maybe we can get a group discount, since lots of posters in this article can't distinguish between open source and Open Source.
About CodePlex CodePlex is Microsoft's open source project hosting web site. Start a new project, join an existing one, or download software created by the community. More About CodePlex... Microsoft does not control, review, revise, endorse or distribute the third party projects on this site. Microsoft is hosting the CodePlex site solely as a web storage site as a service to the developer community.
You wrote:
Open Source is our phrase. Anyone can use it, but if they use it wrong, it's definitely reasonable that we should step up and point this out. Which is exactly what you said we are doing. Why do you state it like it's a wrong thing to do?
He was talking about open source. NOT Open Source.
Windows was allowed to be trademarked because it referred to a OS, not the thing that a basement does not have. Similarly Apple does not and cannot be a brand of fruits. Microsoft claims it is 'open source' not Open Source(a trademark attempt by OSI was refused). So you're dead wrong.
Then why did the attempt to trademark the term 'Open Source' fail? Because of the so called 'dweebs' and 'corporate totalitarianism'?
About CodePlex CodePlex is Microsoft's open source project hosting web site. Start a new project, join an existing one, or download software created by the community. More About CodePlex... Microsoft does not control, review, revise, endorse or distribute the third party projects on this site. Microsoft is hosting the CodePlex site solely as a web storage site as a service to the developer community.
In other words, developers can -gasp- choose the license they want. And they do, including MS. Also, it has nothing to do with the OSI since MS explicitly mentions it's 'open source' and not 'Open Source'(which seems to be hijacked by the OSI as a trademark?). open source != free(as in freedom) software.
'Open Source' is different from 'open source'. Just because a non-profit organization steps it and tries to redefine English phrases doesn't mean the rest of the world has to follow it.
Now phrases are owned by organizations? The OSI took a perfectly common phrase 'open source' and attempts to define it in it's own way. Who gave the OSI the right to bastardize 'open source' with it's own narrow definition?
Apple will never do that because it will cut into the sales of their overpriced hardware bigtime. Why shell out $3000 for a Macbook Pro when you get a midsize tower from Dell for $400 ?
It's Apple's platform, Apple's SDK, and Apple's store. Why should they allow any product on the shelf that competes with their own business?
How does a product that they would sell in their own app store compete with their business, pray tell? They are the gatekeeper. Any application could, potentially, help them sell more iPhones if it's good enough, and at the very least, they make money from the sale of the app. Even free apps encourage people to go to the app store, thus increasing the odds they'll buy something.
With Steve Jobs, it's more about control than money. With Bill Gates it's the opposite.
You let me know when Microsoft starts selling Macs or Linux boxes on their website and we can discuss Apple not wanting to sell competing products. Hell, even better, let me know when I can download OpenOffice from Microsoft.com. Or maybe when they put the whole myriad of Exchange replacements on their website.
You let us know when Microsoft App store is the only way(via DRM like on the iPhone) to get Windows applications, and when the only way to get Open Office running is to have a unsupported hack on your machine that breaks everytime you do a Windows update. People can easily(without jumping through hoops to hack stuff and without paying a 30% Apple tax) download any Windows program out there and install it with a few clicks. Whereas Apple rejecting an App leaves the vendor with hardly any options to get it running except for the 0.1% of jailbroken phones.
You mean like the XBox?
If you don't like it, don't buy it. From any vendor.
When did MS disallow a FPS game competing with Halo on the XBox. Imagine sinking millions into a game and THEN get denied because it's competing with another game, that would suck balls, just like what happened in the TFA. Come back when that happens.
It sounds like the app was not approved because it was basically a carbon copy of Mail - same functions with no additional, differentiating features. So, if they approved it, people would buy the app, download it, realize they got duped into buying something that comes with the iPhone OS, get pissed and complain - the later two being things Apple wants to avoid. Rather than go that route, they did not approve the app. Had the developer actually developed something - spent some time and effort adding additional features that made the app different (and probably better) than Mail - Apple almost certainly would have approved it. How posts like yours get modded up are beyond me. Melodramatic drivel alongside false information. Normally Slashdot reviewers get it right but sometimes they just miss the boat...
I think you really need to RTFA or atleast the summary before spouting off RDF tainted BS.
But by using a different distribution method (jailbroken device + cydia or installer.app) you could duplicate the functionality of apple's own apps.
And also simultaneously reduce your potential customer base by 99.999%, thus giving Apple what they want.
holy flamebait summary, batman!
No wonder it plugs a Mac site and is clearly written by a Mac zealot. I bet there were a ton of other submissions related to this, why was this lame one picked?
So you mean if something runs on Linux, the Linux developers have made it? What's more important, the underlying algorithm or the OS it runs on? Nice karma whoring though, looks like the mods fell for it.
There is no real advantage to upgrading to Vista or BluRay for most people
Actually, both come with a major disadvantage, DRM. Coincidence, I think not!
WTF are you talking about? One can do anything in Vista that you could do in XP, in addition you can play things like BluRay movies. Stop spreading dumb FUD like a moron to get karma points.
And it still performs like ass.
Any references to back that up or are you full of hot air?
DirectX is not a user-interface API. It's a graphic programming API.
Uninstall the AV and get a 100% improvement in speed. Happened to my friend who had McAfee pre-installed.
I think open office will take off like crazy regardless, but this might give it a bit of a push.
Having an option to rent Office is going to give OO.o a push? Huh? If anything, it will slowdown the adoption of OO.o because of people who can't afford to buy Office but can rent it instead.
Buying a MacBook and switching from 2GB of 667MHz DDR2 to 4GB -- across two 2,048MB DIMMS -- using the Apple Web site will cost an extra £120. Doing that same swap with the Dell XPS M1330 costs just £40.01. Again, Apple is charging around 200 per cent more than Dell. ...
Going from a 120GB 5,400rpm drive to a 250GB 5,400rpm drive will set you back £90.01 from the Apple configurator. Doing the same upgrade with a Dell XPS M1330 costs just £30.01 on the Dell site. Here, Apple is a whopping 200 per cent more expensive than Dell.
In your rush to diss Verizon, you conveniently forgot that Sprint with 52 million US customers uses CDMA. Verizon users can switch to Sprint.