Given this is the real world and not a graphic novel, if you are right then what happens is this:
GPLV3 discourages companies from dealing with Microsoft, but if your organization is bigger than the Five Man Electrical Band, or if computers are incidental to your business, choosing not to deal with Microsoft would be choosing to shoot yourself in the foot. So you remain part of the vast market for Windows-compatible products (open-source or otherwise) whose demand will be supplied by ISVs and OEMs.
If I'm an ISV or OEM in that marketplace I have a number of choices:
I can build solely for Windows. In return for no licensing nonsense I give up less than 10% of the market—maybe even less if it's a stand-alone product and the customer doesn't care what's inside.
If it's embedded, I can build on one of the many excellent platforms (e.g. QNX) available with great developer support, low unit cost, and no licensing nonsense. This is Tivo's best response.
If support is not an issue and I don't care what happens to my code, I can build on BSD with its excellent toolbase, zero unit cost and no licensing nonsense.
I can also build on a platform of GPLV2 software if I don't mind supporting a fork or if I think GPLV3 will become irrelevant. Licensing nonsense is minimal.
I can build my product with the code under GPLV3, tied up with licensing conditions so that anyone who wants to use my code in another product will need a lawyer to help decide whether or not it's safe to do so. I get the social benefit of membership in an elite group (the Fosseratti) while minimizing the risk that a competitor will use my code.
The Tivo issue didn't happen in a vacuum. Other OEMs are watching and more than one development manager is being told by the people with money that they don't want to be the next Tivo. An OEM is not going to invest in a technology that preempts all future decisions regarding product and patent licensing models.
GPLV3 interferes with doing business. That by itself will probably render it and GPLV3 products irrelevant in the long run. World domination schemes don't work, because they depend on the tacit approval of their victims.
Well, given that the GPLv3 was written specifically to make those "patent protection deals" untenable,...
There's another way of seeing this if we can assume that the effect is proof of the motive: that GPLV3 was written specifically to encourage developers to build products that would not be indemnified by those "patent protection deals".
Richard stuck a spear in the ground and assumed Microsoft would run into it. What's comical is the number of people surprised or upset that they went around it instead.
Writing code under GPLV3 is about to become a great deal like putting your head in the lion's mouth while guessing that he won't like the taste of your hair cream or that he doesn't have any teeth. After all, it could be that Microsoft doesn't really have any actionable software patents.
There's A4 and 8.5 x 11. 'Letter size' is the usual term that applies to both, since both are the normal size for letters in their respective jurisdictions.
I do *NOT* consider myself to be anything "above average" in any capacity
I'm going to have to beg to differ. A clearly written post with four-syllable words, no spelling errors, complete sentences, and (except for unusual use of ellipses) excellent punctuation, make it clear that you are above average for Slashdot at least. Although it's not always evident from the postings here, that means you are way above the general average.
It's not politically correct to say so, but half of the population suffers below-average intelligence. How desperate that condition is is demonstrated by the number of above-average people whose first reaction is to reject that statement. They aren't particularly stupid. It's just that you are particularly smart but haven't been put in a position to really comprehend the vast gulf between a 130 and a 100 IQ.
I've been involved with word processors since they were called memory typewriters and 'text processors' before that. I trained and designed training on a lot of products. What I found is that, independent of the product, the typical non-technical office worker (above-average intelligence required) needs five days of training to be able to produce and edit non-trivial documents. If they don't get it in a controlled environment, they will pick it up the hard way (reading help, consulting "power users") and use more of their time and that of others than you could possibly save by skipping or shortening the training. They will also tend to produce documents that are a pain to edit.
That's why I always have a real camera in my pocket. Canon, 6mpx, 3:1 zoom, image stab, and smaller than a pack of Camels. It replaces my similarly-sized Olympus A-10 film camera. When you need a picture, you want a camera, not a web-cam.
As to 'just-a-phone', the Samsung A-6xx line has other stuff, but it's not intrusive and if you stay off the Menu button, the thing behaves like just-a-phone. Nice display, good keyboard and big numbers.
Just-a-phone, just-a-camera, just-a-PDA, just-a-computer...I have lots of pockets, no compromises, and life is good.
I really have to get the "For Sale" signs up on my bridges.
The consensus here seems to be that, for some reason, Microsoft is afraid of ODF. Does anyone honestly believe that Microsoft is not capable, or believes it is not capable, of delivering the best and most able word processor producing ODF files?
This is not really news. Japan is an active member of just about every international standards body there is. The Japanese government has always favored standards-based products and actively supported Japanese companies in establishing standards where there were none. It's all good for business and, in Japan, what's good for business is good for the country.
I'd say the ODF is easily pleased.
BTW, what would a "closed international standard" be?
Where are you most comfortable—talking about things or doing them? If the former, go for CS. Otherwise, you are welcome to join the rest of us in the gritty real world.
Kidding aside, if you really do have a broad range of interests and want room to tinker and explore, you would probably find the narrowness of a CS curriculum stultifying. Tech will give you all the interesting and useful parts of CS and a rich gamut of other topics as well.
Compared to a game, it's a chat room. What I'm saying is that SL's distant ancestor is a BBS, not Pong. Games are about the destination—winning or losing. SL is about the trip.
As you've discovered, VR worlds allow a great deal of creativity, not least because you can do things that would violate the laws of physics in RL. But if someone wants an adrenalin rush, they should join WoW—that's a game.
It's an abbreviation for "the fact that exceptions are few and notable proves the validity of the general rule". The flip side of that coin is that only rare events make headlines; something to keep in mind when estimating risks.
you can do anything you want with GPLed software except make it non-free.
There is nothing anyone can do to make GPLd software non-free; it's already out there and available.
What GPLV3 does is force you to make your own stuff free if it touches GPLV3d code, and requires that you GPLV3 your stuff so that anyone who uses your code, and anyone who uses their code, ad infinitum, has to "pass it on". One thing this community usually agrees on is that there are no good viruses. I don't see a reason to exempt GPLV3.
I don't think Linus or anyone else needs to worry about GPLV3 in any case. It contains the seeds of its own destruction. GPLV3 doesn't allow a mixed configuration so there are only two options: give up the rights to your work or avoid GPLV3d products.
GPLV3 may be the best thing to have happened to GPLV2. Most everyone agrees that GPL is a good concept, but using GPLV3 products creates unforeseeable future liabilities, GPLV2 does not. If I'm an ISV, how much work am I willing to risk having to throw away if some future version needs proprietary code, forcing a platform change (Tivo's problem, as we speak)? If I'm a CIO, do I want to risk not being able to upgrade or extend my systems because the drivers or add-ons I need are non-GPLV3? Should I feel warm and fuzzy about the fact that the community I would be depending on is at war with more than a few of my suppliers? GPLV3 creates a market for GPLV2 and BSD-licensed products. I can't think of any way that market would fail to be served enthusiastically by developers who don't "get it" but do "get paid".
Something I can't figure out from the text is whether or not GPLV3 forces you to make your own stuff free if it is used by GPLV3d code. Maybe someone with a more Machiavellian brain than mine could clarify this point?
The longer-term success and stability of human society and culture is irrelevant. In the long run, the only thing that counts is the number of your descendants.
Some is, some isn't. Simple programming is easy; we teach it to children. My kids were writing Logo programs to generate fractal graphics before they were eight.
Sure enough, VB makes it possible for amateurs to write small programs that perform useful work while simultaneously violating every best practice we know of. On the other hand, VBA, VB6 or VB.Net in the hands of an expert will sing as fine a melody as C++ and be easier to keep in tune than Java.
We can't blame programmers who have invested huge amounts of time becoming proficient in one or more of the "better" languages for being upset with the quantity of VB code out there and the ease with which it was produced by people of lesser status. You can't deny others of us a little chuckle either.
As an aside, Ruby on Rails looks to be a worthy successor to VB as the plebian development environment of choice for web apps. The learning curve is shallow, the "time to first result" is short, and the hard stuff that usually takes an expert is already there in the libraries. Now that's annoying.
This discussion suggests an entertaining scenario:
Microsoft has the resources, and OS sales are a small part of MS revenue; most comes from applications that sell well on any platform. Gates assigns a good project manager—one with a ripe sense of humor—to put together a crack team to fork linux/gnu based on pre-GPLV3 code only. The new source is scrupulously annotated, open and available. It is licensed with whatever terms both satisfy GPLV2 and cause the greatest rending of shirts among the Fosserati.
The most important new code in the fork is an extension of the APIs so that Windows applications run native alongside linux applications without virtualization. It includes virtualization anyway. New developments can mix and match. It supports.Net.
It is released as Microsoft New Generation Linux, sold in a pretty box loaded with advertising for MS applications. The OS is on a non-DRM self-installing DVD loaded with the OS, every driver known to man, a selection of best of breed free applications, and all the source. Microsoft pulls out all the stops in applying everything they've learned from the millions it has spent on usability research. The box includes a really well-written user guide, and discount certificates for the Windows Office Suite. Distributors like Dell are given a deal that fails to draw a substantial distinction between MS Windows and MS NG Linux.
Between the manuals and the DVD, ordinary consumers can install and use all of this without actually coming into contact with the linux community or its online resources. The great mass of consumers, who would rather spend a few bucks than become their own tech specialists, will buy more software, much of it from MS.
Experienced linuchim, if they have any interest, can buy it, get a copy from someone (it's legal), or download the three-gigabyte distribution file.
Slashdot Mirror
Lose, choose, chews—loose, spruce, deuce. Except for urban graffiti, English is not a phonetically spelled language.
Given this is the real world and not a graphic novel, if you are right then what happens is this:
GPLV3 discourages companies from dealing with Microsoft, but if your organization is bigger than the Five Man Electrical Band, or if computers are incidental to your business, choosing not to deal with Microsoft would be choosing to shoot yourself in the foot. So you remain part of the vast market for Windows-compatible products (open-source or otherwise) whose demand will be supplied by ISVs and OEMs.
If I'm an ISV or OEM in that marketplace I have a number of choices:
- I can build solely for Windows. In return for no licensing nonsense I give up less than 10% of the market—maybe even less if it's a stand-alone product and the customer doesn't care what's inside.
- If it's embedded, I can build on one of the many excellent platforms (e.g. QNX) available with great developer support, low unit cost, and no licensing nonsense. This is Tivo's best response.
- If support is not an issue and I don't care what happens to my code, I can build on BSD with its excellent toolbase, zero unit cost and no licensing nonsense.
- I can also build on a platform of GPLV2 software if I don't mind supporting a fork or if I think GPLV3 will become irrelevant. Licensing nonsense is minimal.
- I can build my product with the code under GPLV3, tied up with licensing conditions so that anyone who wants to use my code in another product will need a lawyer to help decide whether or not it's safe to do so. I get the social benefit of membership in an elite group (the Fosseratti) while minimizing the risk that a competitor will use my code.
The Tivo issue didn't happen in a vacuum. Other OEMs are watching and more than one development manager is being told by the people with money that they don't want to be the next Tivo. An OEM is not going to invest in a technology that preempts all future decisions regarding product and patent licensing models.GPLV3 interferes with doing business. That by itself will probably render it and GPLV3 products irrelevant in the long run. World domination schemes don't work, because they depend on the tacit approval of their victims.
You forgot the "Nya Ha Ha Ha Ha!"
Well, given that the GPLv3 was written specifically to make those "patent protection deals" untenable,...
There's another way of seeing this if we can assume that the effect is proof of the motive: that GPLV3 was written specifically to encourage developers to build products that would not be indemnified by those "patent protection deals". Richard stuck a spear in the ground and assumed Microsoft would run into it. What's comical is the number of people surprised or upset that they went around it instead.
Writing code under GPLV3 is about to become a great deal like putting your head in the lion's mouth while guessing that he won't like the taste of your hair cream or that he doesn't have any teeth. After all, it could be that Microsoft doesn't really have any actionable software patents.
I wonder what comic book adventure that came from.
There's A4 and 8.5 x 11. 'Letter size' is the usual term that applies to both, since both are the normal size for letters in their respective jurisdictions.
I do *NOT* consider myself to be anything "above average" in any capacity
I'm going to have to beg to differ. A clearly written post with four-syllable words, no spelling errors, complete sentences, and (except for unusual use of ellipses) excellent punctuation, make it clear that you are above average for Slashdot at least. Although it's not always evident from the postings here, that means you are way above the general average.
It's not politically correct to say so, but half of the population suffers below-average intelligence. How desperate that condition is is demonstrated by the number of above-average people whose first reaction is to reject that statement. They aren't particularly stupid. It's just that you are particularly smart but haven't been put in a position to really comprehend the vast gulf between a 130 and a 100 IQ.
I've been involved with word processors since they were called memory typewriters and 'text processors' before that. I trained and designed training on a lot of products. What I found is that, independent of the product, the typical non-technical office worker (above-average intelligence required) needs five days of training to be able to produce and edit non-trivial documents. If they don't get it in a controlled environment, they will pick it up the hard way (reading help, consulting "power users") and use more of their time and that of others than you could possibly save by skipping or shortening the training. They will also tend to produce documents that are a pain to edit.
the power of the internet is quickly destroying office software for a lot of people
That's why the demand for letter-size paper continues to grow at about 10% per year.
That's why I always have a real camera in my pocket. Canon, 6mpx, 3:1 zoom, image stab, and smaller than a pack of Camels. It replaces my similarly-sized Olympus A-10 film camera. When you need a picture, you want a camera, not a web-cam.
As to 'just-a-phone', the Samsung A-6xx line has other stuff, but it's not intrusive and if you stay off the Menu button, the thing behaves like just-a-phone. Nice display, good keyboard and big numbers.
Just-a-phone, just-a-camera, just-a-PDA, just-a-computer...I have lots of pockets, no compromises, and life is good.
I really have to get the "For Sale" signs up on my bridges.
The consensus here seems to be that, for some reason, Microsoft is afraid of ODF. Does anyone honestly believe that Microsoft is not capable, or believes it is not capable, of delivering the best and most able word processor producing ODF files?
Thanks for the chuckle.
There are 11 types of people in the world, those who know binaries and those who don't.
Apparently, you're one of those who don't.
This is not really news. Japan is an active member of just about every international standards body there is. The Japanese government has always favored standards-based products and actively supported Japanese companies in establishing standards where there were none. It's all good for business and, in Japan, what's good for business is good for the country.
I'd say the ODF is easily pleased.
BTW, what would a "closed international standard" be?
Where are you most comfortable—talking about things or doing them? If the former, go for CS. Otherwise, you are welcome to join the rest of us in the gritty real world.
Kidding aside, if you really do have a broad range of interests and want room to tinker and explore, you would probably find the narrowness of a CS curriculum stultifying. Tech will give you all the interesting and useful parts of CS and a rich gamut of other topics as well.
Compared to a game, it's a chat room. What I'm saying is that SL's distant ancestor is a BBS, not Pong. Games are about the destination—winning or losing. SL is about the trip.
As you've discovered, VR worlds allow a great deal of creativity, not least because you can do things that would violate the laws of physics in RL. But if someone wants an adrenalin rush, they should join WoW—that's a game.
It's an abbreviation for "the fact that exceptions are few and notable proves the validity of the general rule". The flip side of that coin is that only rare events make headlines; something to keep in mind when estimating risks.
you can do anything you want with GPLed software except make it non-free.
There is nothing anyone can do to make GPLd software non-free; it's already out there and available.
What GPLV3 does is force you to make your own stuff free if it touches GPLV3d code, and requires that you GPLV3 your stuff so that anyone who uses your code, and anyone who uses their code, ad infinitum, has to "pass it on". One thing this community usually agrees on is that there are no good viruses. I don't see a reason to exempt GPLV3.
I don't think Linus or anyone else needs to worry about GPLV3 in any case. It contains the seeds of its own destruction. GPLV3 doesn't allow a mixed configuration so there are only two options: give up the rights to your work or avoid GPLV3d products.
GPLV3 may be the best thing to have happened to GPLV2. Most everyone agrees that GPL is a good concept, but using GPLV3 products creates unforeseeable future liabilities, GPLV2 does not. If I'm an ISV, how much work am I willing to risk having to throw away if some future version needs proprietary code, forcing a platform change (Tivo's problem, as we speak)? If I'm a CIO, do I want to risk not being able to upgrade or extend my systems because the drivers or add-ons I need are non-GPLV3? Should I feel warm and fuzzy about the fact that the community I would be depending on is at war with more than a few of my suppliers? GPLV3 creates a market for GPLV2 and BSD-licensed products. I can't think of any way that market would fail to be served enthusiastically by developers who don't "get it" but do "get paid".
Something I can't figure out from the text is whether or not GPLV3 forces you to make your own stuff free if it is used by GPLV3d code. Maybe someone with a more Machiavellian brain than mine could clarify this point?
(Excel Is Not A Fucking DataBase)
The neither were DBase or Paradox. Excel does everything they did and more.
WORST ON-LINE GAME EVER
That would be a relevant comment if SL were a game. It isn't. It's a really big VR chat room.
I can't help but wonder whether the increased incidence of most of these diseases over the last decade or so is a result of the war on smokers.
Do you really think the astronauts go to space because they want to benefit mankind? I have a very nice bridge for sale you may be interested in.
You need to avail yourself of the very large body of knowledge concerning why people, particularly young men, take risks.
The longer-term success and stability of human society and culture is irrelevant. In the long run, the only thing that counts is the number of your descendants.
COMPUTING IS HARD
Some is, some isn't. Simple programming is easy; we teach it to children. My kids were writing Logo programs to generate fractal graphics before they were eight.
Sure enough, VB makes it possible for amateurs to write small programs that perform useful work while simultaneously violating every best practice we know of. On the other hand, VBA, VB6 or VB.Net in the hands of an expert will sing as fine a melody as C++ and be easier to keep in tune than Java.
We can't blame programmers who have invested huge amounts of time becoming proficient in one or more of the "better" languages for being upset with the quantity of VB code out there and the ease with which it was produced by people of lesser status. You can't deny others of us a little chuckle either.
As an aside, Ruby on Rails looks to be a worthy successor to VB as the plebian development environment of choice for web apps. The learning curve is shallow, the "time to first result" is short, and the hard stuff that usually takes an expert is already there in the libraries. Now that's annoying.
This discussion suggests an entertaining scenario:
Microsoft has the resources, and OS sales are a small part of MS revenue; most comes from applications that sell well on any platform. Gates assigns a good project manager—one with a ripe sense of humor—to put together a crack team to fork linux/gnu based on pre-GPLV3 code only. The new source is scrupulously annotated, open and available. It is licensed with whatever terms both satisfy GPLV2 and cause the greatest rending of shirts among the Fosserati.
The most important new code in the fork is an extension of the APIs so that Windows applications run native alongside linux applications without virtualization. It includes virtualization anyway. New developments can mix and match. It supports .Net.
It is released as Microsoft New Generation Linux, sold in a pretty box loaded with advertising for MS applications. The OS is on a non-DRM self-installing DVD loaded with the OS, every driver known to man, a selection of best of breed free applications, and all the source. Microsoft pulls out all the stops in applying everything they've learned from the millions it has spent on usability research. The box includes a really well-written user guide, and discount certificates for the Windows Office Suite. Distributors like Dell are given a deal that fails to draw a substantial distinction between MS Windows and MS NG Linux.
Between the manuals and the DVD, ordinary consumers can install and use all of this without actually coming into contact with the linux community or its online resources. The great mass of consumers, who would rather spend a few bucks than become their own tech specialists, will buy more software, much of it from MS.
Experienced linuchim, if they have any interest, can buy it, get a copy from someone (it's legal), or download the three-gigabyte distribution file.
It's only in the last 5~10 years that any serious research was done towards creating bacteria that is useful/economical on an industrial scale.
Ever heard of beer?—or cheese?
Microsoft is offering patent indemnities to linux users. That is one sure-fire way to scare large corporations away from linux.
I don't usually think of Slashdot as a source of comic relief, but what the hey.