good point but at ~14% efficiency and $.17/KWh cost, CSP( or PV ) are not fiscally practical without subsidization funds.
One could argue that the existing KWh pricing is already tax subsidized via huge DoD budgets to keep foreign oil flowing to the USA. But do you think the US energy industry is willing to start direct taxing of their products? I don't think so.
BTW, my main point was that CSP needs to double their efficiency to 28% to be viable. Currently, electricity is purchased at around $.10/KWh so at a cost of $.17/KWh, CSP runs at $.07/KWh loss. With double the efficiency and therefore a cost of $.085/KWh there's atleast $.015/KWh profit at the current rate of $.10/KWh purchase price.
CSP may be green but like hydrogen cars, it's not currently a financially viable option. And yes, PV isn't either.
This is old and proven technology as there have been CSP systems in operation for over 20 years. They have increased efficiencies in the collection systems slightly over recent years with better glass insulators/collectors and better transmission fluids, along with heat storage mechanisms. But, those systems have been operating in the 90% efficiency range already yet the whole system runs at around 14% conversion efficiency. Fourteen percent is where Solar PV is and that number hasn't changed much in 20 years for CSP. Funding new CSP plants with tax $$$ is not what's needed and won't solve anything.
From what I've seen, these people backing the CSP systems like or insist on steam turbine generating systems because that is what's used for coal, gas, etc. The existing utilities know how to spec these generating systems and their TCO( total cost of ownership ) is well known. Unfortunately, these are not so efficient and there seems to be opposition to other technologies for conversion from heat to electricity. It's an old school mentality which will keep this out of mainstream use and that is really what the existing energy industry wants anyways.
So the only thing I have heard is that government funding making this an option because it is "green" technology. That is the wrong approach IMO. Until someone puts a $$$ value on carbon, health, environmental effects on a per KWh basis, this will remain more expensive than other energy industry owned power systems and remain a fringe and subsidized player. Again, just what the status quo wants. IMO.
LoB
got Mono - stay away or risk infection w/MS germs
on
GNOME 2.20 Released
·
· Score: -1, Troll
All I had to do was look at the Tomboy site and see that it is based on MS C# and their DotNyet stuff. Therefore, it is not safe to touch Gnome 2.20 due to Microsoft infection and MS MIB knocking on your door. Let Novell announce this is all free of Microsoft's IP before touching it. KDE is the better choice in this regard. IMO.
Mossberg expects/wants users to stay dumb and ignorant of actual computer use. Maybe what he wants is a general purpose appliance everyone magically understands how to operate without opening the manual.
IMO, people don't understand what a computer is, businesses don't train employees on even the basic of computer tasks, and all they end up figuring out is what sequence of buttons to click to get a task done or started. Pure memorization and that's if you're lucky. I recently heard someone tell me of a business person they needed to get a spreadsheet from before a software product could be pre-configured and delivered. They recieved a printout of the document and they found there were a couple of items left off the document. So, they asked if those could be updated and resent. The person didn't know that the file could be saved. That's right, every document ever written on the computer was printed and discarded when the word processor or spreadsheet app was closed. This was a contractor for the DoD and not a young school kid.
So Mossberg should be talking about how dumb users are instead of how even simple tasks are difficult for such users. It's hard to believe people used to use DOS hearing how often people keep crying about having to change/edit a text file to change how something works. I guess it's just too hard to teach these people since they can only seem to learn key sequences, not concepts. Therefore, they'd have to learn every key sequence to change say,/etc/X11/xorg.conf and/etc/hosts instead of just needing to know the section and field to change. This is simple shit IMO but if you can't keep one hand on the mouse, these people are lost.
Mossberg should be showing them how easy it is to add this stuff and if learned, how easy it is to add thousands of things to their systems for free. IMO.
the ECMA brought it to ISO via the existing Fast-Track mechanisms already in place. ISO is following it's rules in how it handles the Fast-Track process with ECMA. The fact that Microsoft picked through the process and found and is exploiting holes in it are all part of the way Microsoft does "business".
So the ISO is following the rules of the organization with regard to this. Unfortunately, that's all it is doing. Even after it has seen how the rules are being manipulated to further push a very bad specification through the process. From what I've seen, the "process" now is to allow the comments regarding the "spec" to be discussed and Microsoft is given the right to respond to the comments. A vote will be taken after Microsoft responds and this vote could accept the MS OOXML as an ISO spec even without corrections but promises of corrections. It's all a scam and the ISO as an organization is allowing itself to be scammed. IMO.
yes, there is a problem here isn't there? For one, an open spec is usually accepted and governed by an industry organization. So ISO, after years of working with industry partners on ODF, maintains the ODF formats/specs. But the Microsoft spec, well that is and EMCA spec and ECMA allows proprietary IP in their spec and allows the charging of licensing fees. Also, MS OOXML was created be and is controlled by Microsoft. They effectively purchased their way into the ECMA standards process with their sole ownership of the product. It was intended that they would use a special "fast-track" mechanism the ECMA and ISO have, and use it to quickly sidetrack much of the public forums an ISO spec goes through.
But back to the point of who manages an open spec. So ISO has a spec they are managing and it's called ODF. Now, Microsoft wants them to also spend their time/efforts on the MS OOXML spec and it would be ISO's job to maintain both specs. The thing to realize here is that never has Microsoft intended to do this for open access to their file formats. This whole thing has been devised as a scheme to block acceptance of ODF and is a reaction to ODF. Remember, ODF took years to get through the process. Not to mention that Microsoft has been fooling the public+dog with it's open XML talk for over 10 years now. It is all bull shit. It is Microsoft. Need I say more?
That is correct and the state of Massachusetts has already caved on ODF and allowed MS OOXML as an "acceptable" open standard.
It blows me away how ignorant people are about Microsofts motives after over 15 years of anti-competitive business practices/methods. But then again, someone voted for Bush in 2004 even after no WMD's were found and most of them believed Iraq was tied to the 9/11 attacks... Boy does the US education system suck. IMO.
don't fool yourself, Microsoft has no intention of letting other compete and/or have open access to its application file formats. Microsoft Office generates over 30% of Microsoft's profits, yes profits, and they will not give that up.
All this stuff about openness is about keeping Open Office and its ODF fileformat from being chosen as a government standard.
So don't kid yourself an believe there is any other motive or that they would consider implementing those comments to clean up the spec. Hey, there's nothing in their history to suggest they want to compete in this sector. They own it now, it's worth billions in profit annually, and they will not give it up. So let's stop fooling ourselves into thinking it is anything else.
that way, the Novell engineers can play backgammon all day with the Sun engineers since they've been busy doing little for so long already. I'd mention the Microsoft engineers but Microsoft probably doesn't send any and just hires people off the street corners, tags-em with Microsoft badges and then tells them to talk about the weather when asked a question, any question. They wouldn't know how to play backgammon or even learn it. The Sun people are most likely starving for new players.
But really, are these people really thinking anything enabling Linux to compete with Windows is going to come of this? WTF are they smoking and how long have they had their heads in the sand and/or clouds? When was the last time that has happened.
I guess there is SOMETHING different in the 'kill Linux' plans at Microsoft now. That's the embedding of Microsoft IP into OSS. So, as unusual as it is and yes, snowballs show up on Lucifer doorstep, there might actually be some little tidbits that comes out of this. Those will still likely be poison but something just might pop out of this shit hole called the Microsoft and Novell Interoperability Lab. But I wouldn't touch it. IMO.
LoB
Re:And the Windows Vista one is even better...
on
DOS 5 Upgrade Video
·
· Score: 1
that was hilarious. But that fancy new machine should have had cold cathode lighting installed behind the case window. Especially with all the features it came with for installing Vista.;-)
wasn't that in the 1991 timeframe? IIRC, DOS was so yesterday by that time and if you wanted real multi-tasking, and multi-user, UNIX 386 was the way to go. I've still got my copy of Consensys UNIX 386 diskettes and remember installing it over hours of floppy swapping. Included networking and X-Windows GUI system and the multi-user part was cool so your roommates could also use the PC from VT terminals( cheaper ). I was heavy into SCSI disks and peripherals back then too since MFM was so slow for a multi-tasking system.
That was the time I realized how crappy Microsoft software was but also realized how the UNIX software market was hurting itself by doubling the price for the UNIX software. I remember WordPerfect for DOS was ~$250 and the UNIX version was $500. That sucked but in a multi-user setup, splitting the cost helped. Shortly after this, I also looked at the new Windows called NT while already messing with OS/2 v2 betas. OS/2 blew NT away in all respects. Windows 95 was a joke but Microsoft sucked the press/world into thinking it was something new . Once Windows 95 shipped, they directed hundreds of millions more in marketing over to NT to pretty much bury OS/2 and Netware in the higher end and server markets. Marketing genius but technology dolts, that's Microsoft yesterday and today.
So I too remember DOS 5. It was so 'yesterday' on the day it shipped. Reminds me of Windows Vista.;-)
what's wrong with Damn Small Linux( DSL ) for that task? You did say CD, so is 50MB still too much for ya.
Also, head over to rPath and see what you can build yourself. Heck, I've even seen OS/2 stripped down to a 10MB partition and 8MB of RAM doing GUI networking, email and web browsing. Dump X and you could probably do close to the same with Linux though a full featured browser is going to take more than 8MB itself.
come on, the lemmings who still continue using Microsoft products will keep on using it and just say, "thank you sir, may I have another" as they bend over and purchase another license to get their systems running again. Corporate management will pull billions from their core product/services budgets to feed the still ballooning Microsft based IT infrastructure budgets. It's been going on for a couple of decades and you know, nobody gets fired for using Microsoft. Failures from crappy Microsoft software can/has taking down FAA communications systems, railroad signal systems, shutdown city government departs, and cause city wide blackouts but what do they all keep using? Simple is as simple does...
If Microsoft does not shut down the networking on this 'nongenuine' machine than they also just provided alot more CPU resources to the botnet owner. Just think what resources have been freed up by killing the Windows desktop and task bar.
I wonder if the Accept/Deny dialogs will still pop up asking the user to allow installing software to view naked Portman pictures?;-)
I believe IBM wrote some code based, in part, on a Microsoft spec for adaptive tech(MS-COM based), and in part on extensions IBM developed to that spec(iAccessible2). Basically, IBM extended an MS spec, released the combination and then implemented that in code. IBM released the extended spec to The Linux Foundation but is now releasing the implementation/code of that extended spec to the OOo group. I'm guessing that the IBM spec had some IBM license on it initially but then was given/released to the Linux Foundation under some other license.
In much of the open standards industry, having one or two actual implementations of a spec validates the spec and provides potential adopters with proof of the specs viability and capabilities. IIRC, ISO requires implementation code for its approved specs and OMG might also. Besides validating the spec, implementations also provide test points and sample code for other implementers. Counter that with how Microsoft provides garbage specs(MS-OOXML) and no complete sample implementation code because they really don't want anybody to implement it.
This is great news since it will eliminate one of the big talking points Microsoft has used to keep MS Office in place even when ODF was mandated( MA. ).
I've often wondered why they'd not excluded all that unspec'ed/referenced stuff and just submitted the pure text and unpatented XML stuff. But then I remembered, we're talking about Microsoft. It's all clear then since the whole purpose of this excercise is not to provide a spec others can use to compete with Microsoft but to provide a spec they can control and one which can give the appearance of being open for all. Control is what it's all about and they are not going to give up over 30% of their total profits( via MS Office ) by handing away their monopoly on office applications. WTF was I thinking there could be any other way but one Microsoft way.
So stop fooling yourself by thinking that this MS OOXML spec is for any purpose but to derail ODF and any threat that has on MS Office market share.
I think they are laughing their asses off at how much this guy is willing to screw over open source developers. Microsoft did not pick Novell for their sucker license for nothing. Because of Mono and its ties to Microsoft's patented MS.Net software, they already had the suckers and then they were able to make them think the deal was all about Microsoft wanting interoperability with Suse Linux. Yup, all was smelling like roses to Novell and they never knew the stink bomb was that last minute little thing about patent protection. Nope, they never saw it coming and Miguel is as blinded by Microsoft's spell as he's ever been. And with Novell still approving of this, WTF are they thinking? It appears there's still no intelligent life at Novell.
What idiots for even thinking anything with Microsoft would be good for anybody but Microsoft. IMO.
Thanks, that sounds less like the "duh" comment I originally had. After all these years, I hope they are now launching systems with fuel balancing mechanisms in place and also a refueling dock. The dock would be just incase some drone can be launched from the ISS or a shuttle in the future.
"It looks like a funny pair of forceps with curved sharp teeth," said evolutionary biologist Rita Mehta
Have they never seen Xenomorph in action, tearing people apart? Great, now it looks like the nightmares might be coming back and it'll be back in therapy and the sleeping pills again.;-)
they're just leveraging the fact that there are many who've been suckered into using Windows Live and now those same people are going to be force fed Microsoft's latest stuff. Now Microsoft can pump up the numbers of users for press releases to make it seem like the world+dog love their shit. You know, just like how they paid off companies like GoDaddy to put parked domains on Windows to pump up MS IIS numbers against Linux/Apache. They also end up with a bunch of beta testers who aren't savvy enough to do any public damage when things fail. They won't be posting to/. that's for sure.
that's about right. Adobe put its target on its back when they turned Flash into a dynamic rich media platform with Flex. The double whammy was that not only was Flash already on millions of PC and every one shipped, they also were cross platform. Pretty much the same reasons why Microsoft went after Netscape.
I've known Microsoft for 20+ years and I have no misconception that they would continue cross platform support once they reach the 70% market share number. They are all about protecting the Windows operating system and since there's little to no money in this, it's all about protection.
IMO, if Adobe, Google, AJAX, etc keep developers and Microsoft Silverlight ends in the gutter, we'll all be better off from the competition. If Microsoft wins, we all lose. Personally, I'd rather see the open market move this sector and not have Microsoft involved. They only ever screw the developer over in the long run. IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
good point but at ~14% efficiency and $.17/KWh cost, CSP( or PV ) are not fiscally practical without subsidization funds.
One could argue that the existing KWh pricing is already tax subsidized via huge DoD budgets to keep foreign oil flowing to the USA. But do you think the US energy industry is willing to start direct taxing of their products? I don't think so.
BTW, my main point was that CSP needs to double their efficiency to 28% to be viable. Currently, electricity is purchased at around $.10/KWh so at a cost of $.17/KWh, CSP runs at $.07/KWh loss. With double the efficiency and therefore a cost of $.085/KWh there's atleast $.015/KWh profit at the current rate of $.10/KWh purchase price.
CSP may be green but like hydrogen cars, it's not currently a financially viable option. And yes, PV isn't either.
LoB
This is old and proven technology as there have been CSP systems in operation for over 20 years. They have increased efficiencies in the collection systems slightly over recent years with better glass insulators/collectors and better transmission fluids, along with heat storage mechanisms. But, those systems have been operating in the 90% efficiency range already yet the whole system runs at around 14% conversion efficiency. Fourteen percent is where Solar PV is and that number hasn't changed much in 20 years for CSP. Funding new CSP plants with tax $$$ is not what's needed and won't solve anything.
From what I've seen, these people backing the CSP systems like or insist on steam turbine generating systems because that is what's used for coal, gas, etc. The existing utilities know how to spec these generating systems and their TCO( total cost of ownership ) is well known. Unfortunately, these are not so efficient and there seems to be opposition to other technologies for conversion from heat to electricity. It's an old school mentality which will keep this out of mainstream use and that is really what the existing energy industry wants anyways.
So the only thing I have heard is that government funding making this an option because it is "green" technology. That is the wrong approach IMO. Until someone puts a $$$ value on carbon, health, environmental effects on a per KWh basis, this will remain more expensive than other energy industry owned power systems and remain a fringe and subsidized player. Again, just what the status quo wants. IMO.
LoB
All I had to do was look at the Tomboy site and see that it is based on MS C# and their DotNyet stuff. Therefore, it is not safe to touch Gnome 2.20 due to Microsoft infection and MS MIB knocking on your door. Let Novell announce this is all free of Microsoft's IP before touching it. KDE is the better choice in this regard. IMO.
http://www.gnome.org/projects/tomboy/
LoB
I heard that purchasing Zimbra was a pre-requisite for Microsoft purchasing Yahoo. ;-)
LoB
Mossberg expects/wants users to stay dumb and ignorant of actual computer use. Maybe what he wants is a general purpose appliance everyone magically understands how to operate without opening the manual.
/etc/X11/xorg.conf and /etc/hosts instead of just needing to know the section and field to change. This is simple shit IMO but if you can't keep one hand on the mouse, these people are lost.
IMO, people don't understand what a computer is, businesses don't train employees on even the basic of computer tasks, and all they end up figuring out is what sequence of buttons to click to get a task done or started. Pure memorization and that's if you're lucky. I recently heard someone tell me of a business person they needed to get a spreadsheet from before a software product could be pre-configured and delivered. They recieved a printout of the document and they found there were a couple of items left off the document. So, they asked if those could be updated and resent. The person didn't know that the file could be saved. That's right, every document ever written on the computer was printed and discarded when the word processor or spreadsheet app was closed. This was a contractor for the DoD and not a young school kid.
So Mossberg should be talking about how dumb users are instead of how even simple tasks are difficult for such users. It's hard to believe people used to use DOS hearing how often people keep crying about having to change/edit a text file to change how something works. I guess it's just too hard to teach these people since they can only seem to learn key sequences, not concepts. Therefore, they'd have to learn every key sequence to change say,
Mossberg should be showing them how easy it is to add this stuff and if learned, how easy it is to add thousands of things to their systems for free. IMO.
LoB
the ECMA brought it to ISO via the existing Fast-Track mechanisms already in place. ISO is following it's rules in how it handles the Fast-Track process with ECMA. The fact that Microsoft picked through the process and found and is exploiting holes in it are all part of the way Microsoft does "business".
So the ISO is following the rules of the organization with regard to this. Unfortunately, that's all it is doing. Even after it has seen how the rules are being manipulated to further push a very bad specification through the process. From what I've seen, the "process" now is to allow the comments regarding the "spec" to be discussed and Microsoft is given the right to respond to the comments. A vote will be taken after Microsoft responds and this vote could accept the MS OOXML as an ISO spec even without corrections but promises of corrections. It's all a scam and the ISO as an organization is allowing itself to be scammed. IMO.
LoB
yes, there is a problem here isn't there? For one, an open spec is usually accepted and governed by an industry organization. So ISO, after years of working with industry partners on ODF, maintains the ODF formats/specs. But the Microsoft spec, well that is and EMCA spec and ECMA allows proprietary IP in their spec and allows the charging of licensing fees. Also, MS OOXML was created be and is controlled by Microsoft. They effectively purchased their way into the ECMA standards process with their sole ownership of the product. It was intended that they would use a special "fast-track" mechanism the ECMA and ISO have, and use it to quickly sidetrack much of the public forums an ISO spec goes through.
But back to the point of who manages an open spec. So ISO has a spec they are managing and it's called ODF. Now, Microsoft wants them to also spend their time/efforts on the MS OOXML spec and it would be ISO's job to maintain both specs. The thing to realize here is that never has Microsoft intended to do this for open access to their file formats. This whole thing has been devised as a scheme to block acceptance of ODF and is a reaction to ODF. Remember, ODF took years to get through the process. Not to mention that Microsoft has been fooling the public+dog with it's open XML talk for over 10 years now. It is all bull shit. It is Microsoft. Need I say more?
LoB
That is correct and the state of Massachusetts has already caved on ODF and allowed MS OOXML as an "acceptable" open standard.
It blows me away how ignorant people are about Microsofts motives after over 15 years of anti-competitive business practices/methods. But then again, someone voted for Bush in 2004 even after no WMD's were found and most of them believed Iraq was tied to the 9/11 attacks... Boy does the US education system suck. IMO.
LoB
don't fool yourself, Microsoft has no intention of letting other compete and/or have open access to its application file formats. Microsoft Office generates over 30% of Microsoft's profits, yes profits, and they will not give that up.
All this stuff about openness is about keeping Open Office and its ODF fileformat from being chosen as a government standard.
So don't kid yourself an believe there is any other motive or that they would consider implementing those comments to clean up the spec. Hey, there's nothing in their history to suggest they want to compete in this sector. They own it now, it's worth billions in profit annually, and they will not give it up. So let's stop fooling ourselves into thinking it is anything else.
LoB
that way, the Novell engineers can play backgammon all day with the Sun engineers since they've been busy doing little for so long already. I'd mention the Microsoft engineers but Microsoft probably doesn't send any and just hires people off the street corners, tags-em with Microsoft badges and then tells them to talk about the weather when asked a question, any question. They wouldn't know how to play backgammon or even learn it. The Sun people are most likely starving for new players.
But really, are these people really thinking anything enabling Linux to compete with Windows is going to come of this? WTF are they smoking and how long have they had their heads in the sand and/or clouds? When was the last time that has happened.
I guess there is SOMETHING different in the 'kill Linux' plans at Microsoft now. That's the embedding of Microsoft IP into OSS. So, as unusual as it is and yes, snowballs show up on Lucifer doorstep, there might actually be some little tidbits that comes out of this. Those will still likely be poison but something just might pop out of this shit hole called the Microsoft and Novell Interoperability Lab. But I wouldn't touch it. IMO.
LoB
that was hilarious. But that fancy new machine should have had cold cathode lighting installed behind the case window. Especially with all the features it came with for installing Vista. ;-)
LoB
wasn't that in the 1991 timeframe? IIRC, DOS was so yesterday by that time and if you wanted real multi-tasking, and multi-user, UNIX 386 was the way to go. I've still got my copy of Consensys UNIX 386 diskettes and remember installing it over hours of floppy swapping. Included networking and X-Windows GUI system and the multi-user part was cool so your roommates could also use the PC from VT terminals( cheaper ). I was heavy into SCSI disks and peripherals back then too since MFM was so slow for a multi-tasking system.
;-)
That was the time I realized how crappy Microsoft software was but also realized how the UNIX software market was hurting itself by doubling the price for the UNIX software. I remember WordPerfect for DOS was ~$250 and the UNIX version was $500. That sucked but in a multi-user setup, splitting the cost helped. Shortly after this, I also looked at the new Windows called NT while already messing with OS/2 v2 betas. OS/2 blew NT away in all respects. Windows 95 was a joke but Microsoft sucked the press/world into thinking it was something new . Once Windows 95 shipped, they directed hundreds of millions more in marketing over to NT to pretty much bury OS/2 and Netware in the higher end and server markets. Marketing genius but technology dolts, that's Microsoft yesterday and today.
So I too remember DOS 5. It was so 'yesterday' on the day it shipped. Reminds me of Windows Vista.
LoB
open up Synaptic and find kubuntu-desktop and install it. For good or bad, KDE is easier for Windoze users and the defaults are not brown.
You'll also be one click away from removing Novells Gnome/.Net stuff when Microsoft claims their patented IP is there.
LoB
what's wrong with Damn Small Linux( DSL ) for that task? You did say CD, so is 50MB still too much for ya.
Also, head over to rPath and see what you can build yourself. Heck, I've even seen OS/2 stripped down to a 10MB partition and 8MB of RAM doing GUI networking, email and web browsing. Dump X and you could probably do close to the same with Linux though a full featured browser is going to take more than 8MB itself.
LoB
if an API spec is GPL'ed then wouldn't mean that if you use the spec:
...
you can change it and use that changed version for internal uses without giving those changes back
you can change it but if you provide that to others, you must provide the "source"/spec to those who ask
Just thinking that the GPL is applied to the document and in this case, it's an API spec, not implementation source code.
LoB
come on, the lemmings who still continue using Microsoft products will keep on using it and just say, "thank you sir, may I have another" as they bend over and purchase another license to get their systems running again. Corporate management will pull billions from their core product/services budgets to feed the still ballooning Microsft based IT infrastructure budgets. It's been going on for a couple of decades and you know, nobody gets fired for using Microsoft. Failures from crappy Microsoft software can/has taking down FAA communications systems, railroad signal systems, shutdown city government departs, and cause city wide blackouts but what do they all keep using? Simple is as simple does...
LoB
If Microsoft does not shut down the networking on this 'nongenuine' machine than they also just provided alot more CPU resources to the botnet owner. Just think what resources have been freed up by killing the Windows desktop and task bar.
;-)
I wonder if the Accept/Deny dialogs will still pop up asking the user to allow installing software to view naked Portman pictures?
LoB
I believe IBM wrote some code based, in part, on a Microsoft spec for adaptive tech(MS-COM based), and in part on extensions IBM developed to that spec(iAccessible2). Basically, IBM extended an MS spec, released the combination and then implemented that in code. IBM released the extended spec to The Linux Foundation but is now releasing the implementation/code of that extended spec to the OOo group. I'm guessing that the IBM spec had some IBM license on it initially but then was given/released to the Linux Foundation under some other license.
In much of the open standards industry, having one or two actual implementations of a spec validates the spec and provides potential adopters with proof of the specs viability and capabilities. IIRC, ISO requires implementation code for its approved specs and OMG might also. Besides validating the spec, implementations also provide test points and sample code for other implementers. Counter that with how Microsoft provides garbage specs(MS-OOXML) and no complete sample implementation code because they really don't want anybody to implement it.
This is great news since it will eliminate one of the big talking points Microsoft has used to keep MS Office in place even when ODF was mandated( MA. ).
LoB
Good point and I'm sorry to say that it includes AMD/ATI driver code. Looks like we'll have to stick with the binary from AMD/ATI for awhile longer.
LoB
I've often wondered why they'd not excluded all that unspec'ed/referenced stuff and just submitted the pure text and unpatented XML stuff. But then I remembered, we're talking about Microsoft. It's all clear then since the whole purpose of this excercise is not to provide a spec others can use to compete with Microsoft but to provide a spec they can control and one which can give the appearance of being open for all. Control is what it's all about and they are not going to give up over 30% of their total profits( via MS Office ) by handing away their monopoly on office applications. WTF was I thinking there could be any other way but one Microsoft way.
So stop fooling yourself by thinking that this MS OOXML spec is for any purpose but to derail ODF and any threat that has on MS Office market share.
LoB
I think they are laughing their asses off at how much this guy is willing to screw over open source developers. Microsoft did not pick Novell for their sucker license for nothing. Because of Mono and its ties to Microsoft's patented MS .Net software, they already had the suckers and then they were able to make them think the deal was all about Microsoft wanting interoperability with Suse Linux. Yup, all was smelling like roses to Novell and they never knew the stink bomb was that last minute little thing about patent protection. Nope, they never saw it coming and Miguel is as blinded by Microsoft's spell as he's ever been. And with Novell still approving of this, WTF are they thinking? It appears there's still no intelligent life at Novell.
What idiots for even thinking anything with Microsoft would be good for anybody but Microsoft. IMO.
LoB
Thanks, that sounds less like the "duh" comment I originally had. After all these years, I hope they are now launching systems with fuel balancing mechanisms in place and also a refueling dock. The dock would be just incase some drone can be launched from the ISS or a shuttle in the future.
LoB
And these guys think it's funny!
;-)
"It looks like a funny pair of forceps with curved sharp teeth," said evolutionary biologist Rita Mehta
Have they never seen Xenomorph in action, tearing people apart? Great, now it looks like the nightmares might be coming back and it'll be back in therapy and the sleeping pills again.
LoB
they're just leveraging the fact that there are many who've been suckered into using Windows Live and now those same people are going to be force fed Microsoft's latest stuff. Now Microsoft can pump up the numbers of users for press releases to make it seem like the world+dog love their shit. You know, just like how they paid off companies like GoDaddy to put parked domains on Windows to pump up MS IIS numbers against Linux/Apache. They also end up with a bunch of beta testers who aren't savvy enough to do any public damage when things fail. They won't be posting to /. that's for sure.
LoB
that's about right. Adobe put its target on its back when they turned Flash into a dynamic rich media platform with Flex. The double whammy was that not only was Flash already on millions of PC and every one shipped, they also were cross platform. Pretty much the same reasons why Microsoft went after Netscape.
I've known Microsoft for 20+ years and I have no misconception that they would continue cross platform support once they reach the 70% market share number. They are all about protecting the Windows operating system and since there's little to no money in this, it's all about protection.
IMO, if Adobe, Google, AJAX, etc keep developers and Microsoft Silverlight ends in the gutter, we'll all be better off from the competition. If Microsoft wins, we all lose. Personally, I'd rather see the open market move this sector and not have Microsoft involved. They only ever screw the developer over in the long run. IMO.
LoB