Patent law allows the patent holder to prevent anyone from using the patented invention for the purpose of one of the patent claims.
If you do not know how an invention works, and you invent something to do the same thing, you may or may not need the patent holder's permission to use it. If it uses the same invention described in the patent, you need permission.
Wouldn't this be considered illegal under the DMCA, since they reverse engineered AOL's proprietary protocol? If AOL had meant for it to be public, then they would have put it out themselves.
No. Reverse engineering algorithms protected only by copyright is always legal. DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent or reverse engineer copyright protection schemes. There is no evidence anything of the sort has been done.
Bill Gates was a law student at Harvard before he left to found Microsoft. I am sure he learned some these tricks through there as well from his father who is a very sucessfull lawyer.
Bill Gates didn't finish two years of college, much less approach anything reminiscient of a law student. This becomes obvious from the accounts of any of the CEOs who have had to deal with him. He is a shrewd dealmaker who acts like a four year old when he cannot make the deal go his way.
Software is like prostitution. You got the product. You sell the product. You still got the product. The consumer doesn't get money back just because he's done with the product, it's a totally different concept than just buying tangible things.
Copyright protection allows full transfer and/or resale of copyrighted material and all copies made for personal backup. Software does not get an exemption .
In Germany, this has been further extended. You can even resell your Microsoft Windows OEM license as a full blown license, provided you transfer all copyrighted associated material.
In the US, the issue becomes more complex for EULA protected software. One issue is that the company claims the consumer agrees to a contract he never has a chance to read before purchase. The contract allows the consumer to be refunded for the software, but not from the software owner, Microsoft. No. You have to get the refund from the resaler. In practice this does not happen so you are forced into accepting a license whose terms you cannot read before purchase.
There is some reason to think that EULAs of this form will ultimately be stricken as illegal, and software only protected by copyright. In fact, some people think this is already the case (read http://cr.yp.to/).
So, to sumarize, software is not like tangible things. In some views, it is just like copyright, and is completely re-sellable. Even after use.
If you do not own or license a Microsoft or Mac operating system, you cannot play the Sorenson codec Quicktime movies. There are no work-arounds that are free.
There is no support for the sorenson codec for linux.
Apple OWNS the licensing rights to the codec, and they are doing EVERYTHING they can to retain control of video distribution on the internet. They have NOT released Quicktime for linux, unix, FreeBSD, or anything other than Windows and MacOS. Nor will they.
Quicktime supports many codecs, and few are protected like the Sorenson codec. Apple uses this specifically, because there are other equally good unprotected codecs in use. So they KNOW a priori that when they get something released using the Sorenson codec, then the consumer may only view it using software that Apple chooses to provide. And they choose to provide NOTHING for linux.
Xanim, for example, is a quicktime player for linux. But whereas it can play Radius and Intel codecs, it cannot play apple sorenson codecs.
And that is how Apple wants it. Contacts with Sorenson result in them stating bluntly that Apple has ALL the rights. I am wholely against patent protection of common media distribution format. It was screwed up with GIFs, and it is screwed up with Quicktime.
If someone could save the movie as an MPEG, I would be mighty thankful. I really want to see it, but I do not have access to a Sorenson compatible Quicktime viewer.
Re:I refuse to download a official kernel until ..
on
Linux Kernel 2.4.10
·
· Score: 2
You will have to ask Linus.
I think the big issue is that there was an oops associated with autofs/nfs usage, and that this oops was fixed just a week or two ago.
So I suspect Linus is letting it percolate in the ac series now.
Or maybe the ext3 team has not asked for it to be merged in the stable kernels yet. They are pretty conservative in adding stuff to stable kernels.
Anyhow, I've been using ext3 for a while now, crashed a few times, no worries in replaying the journal and booting really fast.
Ext3 may eventually debut in the 2.5.0 series and be re-merged back into the 2.4. But there will be patches for 2.4.10, I am sure.
The vast vast majority of Microsoft's money comes from OEM installations of Office and operating systems
OEM revenue was $4.72 billion in 1998, $6.40 billion in 1999, and $7.01 billion in 2000.
Since the revenue was $15.2bil in 1998, $19.7bil in 1999 and $23.0bil in 2000, that's hardly the "vast majority".
Sorry. I meant PROFIT when I said MONEY. Not gross revenue.
In the case of computers, most users are not like gamers. They do not want or need the latest and greatest. If you surveyed most people, you would find that their business needs are completely met by Windows 95. They do not need another OS that requires 4 times more RAM to provide them the same user interface, the same office suite, and a few new bells and whistles that were mostly non-functional from the business point of view.
Indeed, this is Microsoft's entire motivation for getting people into XP. People are buying computers less frequently now. Microsoft sees this as a direct hit in the wallet. In a licensing scheme, however, they can stop the loss. XP is all about licensing software instead of buying it. In a licensing scheme, people pay Microsoft yearly whether they NEED it or not. They have no choice.
MS doesn't make any hardware. Why would they bloat the system on purpose?
The vast vast majority of Microsoft's money comes from OEM installations of Office and operating systems.
If no one buys new computers, no one buys Microsoft products. So far so good.
Now the tough part. Microsoft has to CONVINCE consumers that they NEED the new operating system. They achieve this is a few ways. First, they discontinue support and patches for old products. They say "That is an old product - please upgrade to Windows and Office XP". Secondly, they only support new hardware in the new operating system. Thus, if you get a new computer, you HAVE to have the new OS. Third, they make it very easy for users of the new Office software to make documents that are not backward compatible. About a third of all people who need a new version of Office will just buy a new computer to get it pre-installed.
The plan is multi-faceted, but has proven to work in the past. The easiest solution for most people is to buy a new computer. And if they buy a new computer, they will only have the pre-install option of getting Office XP. Then they get onto licensing terms, which get worse every year, until all of your dollars are belong to Billy G.
And you still end up with an OS that provides the same basic functionality to 99% of all computer users that Windows 3.1 did.
What type of bull-ass-shit FUD is that? Excuse me, Mr Eben Moglen, but what information do you have to base this claim on? This is hardly surprising that this would up on/. with a classic gem like that in there. For-your-information I am using XP now as I type, and there is quite a lot of innovation that went into this product.
How does it run on a x586 with 32 MBytes of RAM ?
Will it require a new machine for the vast majority of computer users to be a viable operating system ?
Will it change the fact that for most users an operating system allows them to write letters, write email, and surf the web ?
Moore's law: the CPU speed doubles every 18 months.
Gates' law: the speed of the operating system halves every 18 months.
Dell's law: the average computer user needs a new machine every 18 months.
Note that the third is a product of the first two.
It doesn't really matter, all the application's you're going to want to run on such a small screen have naitive PPC versions. That includes my favorite: Linux. If there really were no good apps for MacOS, and you really couldn't interoperate with the rest of the world do you think Apple would still be in business?
If this is true then Transmeta has no business plan. Luckily for them, there are 9 x86 binary computer users for every ppc person. And that is who they are catering to. I mean, if you prefered Mac to x86 anyway, Transmeta is pretty useless.
They just don't offer substantial battery saving wrt Macs.
People will buy Transmeta to save battery life while running x86 binaries. Or Transmeta will go out of business. I don't think it is all that relevant to bring up MacOS for a product that is irrelevant to the Mac laptop market.
Or is there some way in which iBooks are relevant that I am missing ?
This is the real question.. The iBook is just as thin, weighs the same, includes a DVD/CD-RW drive, Mac OS 9.2/Mac OS X, a 12" (1024x768) screen, 4+ hour battery life, and costs less ($1800 for the top of the line iBook as opposed to $2k for the model discussed in the article)..
How well does the iBook execute x86 binaries ?
That is the market for the Crusoes. The have no appeal to anyone would would choose a MacOS machine. The appeal is in providing long battery life for the 95% of the world's laptop users who want to run x86 binaries.
If big name vendors such as IBM/Lotus and Corel/WordPerfect could field full featured suites and utterly fail to compete on price with Microsoft, it won't be any different with Sun.
That is right.
Microsoft's ONLY software competition for office suites and desktops is free.
But they scream they are not a monopoly.
The truth hurts. And the truth is there are many free alternative office suites that would fill the VAST VAST majority of the world's office needs. Some people have already figured this out. Most of these are better than Word, and Excel, and especially PowerPoint (which really sucks rocks compared to the competition).
The truth is that free software exists in as large a capacity as it does today because other computer companies cannot work with or against Microsoft if the market is IP software. Instead, everyone else is settling for a service based market in which the total gross income is 1% of the income in Microsoft's market, but at least anyone can jump in if they can provide quality service. This means IBM, Sun, HP, SGI, Compaq, Dell, and other newer much smaller players like RedHat, Caldera, SuSE and Mandrakesoft.
Once a good set of filters are out there, Microsoft WILL change the file formats, guaranteed. Ask the OS/2 people what maintaining compatibility with M$ was like, and how much it helped them.
Whereas this was once true, it is no longer. Microsoft cannot change formats so quickly that it makes their own legacy software incompatible. If someone cannot read a DOC format in Office97, Microsoft stands to lose.
However, it is worth discussing briefly the DOC and XLS formats. Both of them can insert objects through COM under Windows. This means that almost anything that can be an object in Windows can be in a DOC format. In case you do not get it yet, this means the entire operating system's APIs need to be cloned to import a document completely and properly
I think it is safe to say this will never happen.
Powerpoint is less relevant. It sucks rocks, plenty of free better alternatives exist, and people exchange powerpoint slides a LOT LOT less than they exchange office documents and spreadsheets. What REALLY needs to happen is that people need to insist document exchanges occur in common formats. For read-only things, pdf works great. For editable documents, an old version of word doc format works (with text only), or html, or xml.
When someone sends you a DOC format, immediately email them back to ask for it in a standardized format. If this becomes commonplace, standardized formats will become more common as well, and EVERYONE will benefit from true competition among office suites.
Right now the only competition to Word is free office suites. And that is not a competitive market.
You should watch CNBC once in a while. Intel is still at 50% margins, or something close to it. Plenty of tech companies, especially those in enterprise market have mafia like profit margins.
Profite Margins from Yahoo! finance
Intel: 17.7%
Microsoft: 30.5% (it was 40% earlier in the year)
Adobe: 21.3%
AOL/TimeWarner: -3.7%
Sun Microsystems: 5.4%
IBM: 9.4%
HP: 2.9%
Oracle: 23.6%
AMD: 15.8%
Motorola: -1.8%
Verizon: 8.4%
Microsoft haters still have something to worry about. The company operates with a 40% profit margin. Only the mob and the phone company can get away with that kind of margin.
What this means is that Microsoft could substantially reduce all their prices and still make a reasonable margin - one comparable to other companies like AOL whose margin is 1%.
All Microsoft really needs to do as free competition arises is reduce price structure enough to keep the free solutions out because it costs to much to switch. This cost of re-tooling will ring true with CTOs, and they will be quite happy to keep paying what they've been paying.
However, Microsoft wants it all. The new licensing strategy with XP intends to increase company gross by 60% over the next 5 years or so. Or kill it, one of the two. But a monster with 30 BILLION dollars hard cash in the bank is pretty hard to kill. They can come back failure after failure if necessary, and still buy all their competitors.
As to the credibility of the story, I find it entirely believable. One of the large issues is that the story compares fairly incompetent NT engineers with competent linux ones. Even so, server administration requires much less admin time on linux - we estimate it is a 3 to 1 difference.
so open it in QT, and save it as.MPEG for all you care.
How exactly am I supposed to do this ?
Opening it requires use of the patent, and software that doesn't exist except under MacOS and Windows - operating systems I do not use.
It doesn't exactly help for streaming software either.
Free Unices have exactly NO viable QT viewers that can use the Sorenson codec, which is used by almost everything. The patent doesn't expire for another decade plus. Users of these operating systems are blocked from viewing free (as in beer) copyrighted content on the web.
Apple could solve this merely by making an agreement with the writer of xanim, who has a QT viewer that supports other patented codecs by Intel and Radius Cinepak. So far they will not. Steve Jobs would rather those users not be able to see content, or be forced to buy Windows or MacOS to be able to use free players.
The point I'm trying to make is that Apple hasn't stopped you from writing a Quicktime client. They simply haven't provided you with a CODEC which they're paying to license from Sorenson.. It's a big difference..
They not only have not provided the CODEC, they have also not allowed its algorithm to be coded. It is a big difference. They are blocking me from viewing copyrighted content I own on the operating system I prefer using software patents.
Re:jobs killed quicktime for linux
on
Quicktime In Linux
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
looking for Apple to just HAND you stuff?
They provide Quicktime viewers for Windows and MacOS. They make the Sorensen codec the default for creating video content.
Adobe provides PDF viewers for ALL operating systems, and has made their document format, PDF, into an OPEN standard. Even if they didn't provide a viewer, I could write my own.
Apple, OTOH, uses patents to block me from viewing copyright content I own under linux.
God, I'm sick of whiny people expecting stuff to be open sourced. Apple says sorenson won't allow a linux version, not them.
Stop lying. Apple has exclusive licensing rights. They can do whatever the heck they want with Sorensen.
Just what Mostly useless code are you talking about? Apple is more standards-compliant than MS, Quicktime files are pretty open format, it's the sorenson codec that's closed. MPEG-4 is based on QT's file format.
It would be great if the Sorensen codec were only closed - then it could be reverse engineered. Instead, it is patented, so Apple has the exclusive right to refuse anyone else the right to use it. Apple will not allow the Sorensen codec to be used.
Apple is SHITTY at open source. They use it as a powerful business would - whenever and however it benefits them most without concern for any non-MacOS users. And in some instances, with specific disrespect for non-MacOS users. Such as Quicktime.
I can't wait for Jobs to think about how he could use the TrueType patents...
The Sorensen codec uses patents issue in the early to mid 90s - they will not expire until 2012 or so. Until then, Jobs will effectively block users on a per-OS basis from being able to receive streaming video.
IBM contributes to open source BECAUSE they derive value from service. Until Mac moves to such a model, they will be viewed as a true enemy by anyone that uses only open software.
Don't think for a second that MS execs' stomachs are not turning over about this deal.
This is a key financial services application, and opens the door for acceptance of linux in key financial markets. Microsoft was going to undersell and overmarket traditional UNIX vendors and eat into the server market. Once their foot was in the door, extend and embrace.
Guess what - the markets grow from the bottom. It happened with DOS against MacOS. It happened with Windows95 against OS/2. It happened with NT against Unix. And now it is happening with linux against Windows.
This could have been a HUGE win for Microsoft. Instead, it is another notch in IBM's belt, and a huge boost for linux in the perception of CTOs. Microsoft can't buy that kind of publicity.
There are many people in this country who do object to this sort of research. Bush views on this subject were known during last election and since there was enough people to get him elected there are just as many people who do object to this research.They do pay taxes and therefore have a right to decide how that money will be spent.
Similar arguments are made in all such cases. The most basic point is that Dubya decided to pull the rug out of stem cell research in the US. He did this to please his constituency, who have religious-based arguments to back them up - not logical ones.
We go through this all the time with animal research. If you really are against use of animals in research, will you turn down known efficacious treatment that was dependent on such research ?
The answer is inevitably no. Ronald Reagan, the conservative's conservative, supports stem cell research. He supports it because his family's pain and suffering is more important to him than the life of a group of amorphous cells that would oneday become a person.
If Bush's father had Alzheimer's he would support it too. Hindsight is always 20/20, and Bush will KNOW that stem cell research is of great benefit to the entire world in another 10-15 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Patent law allows the patent holder to prevent anyone from using the patented invention for the purpose of one of the patent claims.
If you do not know how an invention works, and you invent something to do the same thing, you may or may not need the patent holder's permission to use it. If it uses the same invention described in the patent, you need permission.
There are not any.
The protocol may be protected by copyright, patent, or as a trade secret.
Reverse engineering of methods described in copyrighted material is legal.
Reverse engineering of trade secrets is legal.
Reverse engineering of patented inventions is illegal.
Bypassing copyright protection schemes through reverse engineering is illegal.
Reverse engineering protocols is similar to what the SAMBA team does already - of the NTFS team, or the VFAT team, or the HFS team etc...
Wouldn't this be considered illegal under the DMCA, since they reverse engineered AOL's proprietary protocol? If AOL had meant for it to be public, then they would have put it out themselves.
No. Reverse engineering algorithms protected only by copyright is always legal. DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent or reverse engineer copyright protection schemes. There is no evidence anything of the sort has been done.
Bill Gates was a law student at Harvard before he left to found Microsoft. I am sure he learned some these tricks through there as well from his father who is a very sucessfull lawyer.
Bill Gates didn't finish two years of college, much less approach anything reminiscient of a law student. This becomes obvious from the accounts of any of the CEOs who have had to deal with him. He is a shrewd dealmaker who acts like a four year old when he cannot make the deal go his way.
Software is like prostitution. You got the product. You sell the product. You still got the product. The consumer doesn't get money back just because he's done with the product, it's a totally different concept than just buying tangible things.
Copyright protection allows full transfer and/or resale of copyrighted material and all copies made for personal backup. Software does not get an exemption .
In Germany, this has been further extended. You can even resell your Microsoft Windows OEM license as a full blown license, provided you transfer all copyrighted associated material.
In the US, the issue becomes more complex for EULA protected software. One issue is that the company claims the consumer agrees to a contract he never has a chance to read before purchase. The contract allows the consumer to be refunded for the software, but not from the software owner, Microsoft. No. You have to get the refund from the resaler. In practice this does not happen so you are forced into accepting a license whose terms you cannot read before purchase.
There is some reason to think that EULAs of this form will ultimately be stricken as illegal, and software only protected by copyright. In fact, some people think this is already the case (read http://cr.yp.to/).
So, to sumarize, software is not like tangible things. In some views, it is just like copyright, and is completely re-sellable. Even after use.
It requires the Windows version.
I do not own a copy of Windows.
If you do not own or license a Microsoft or Mac operating system, you cannot play the Sorenson codec Quicktime movies. There are no work-arounds that are free.
It would be against patent law otherwise.
There is no support for the sorenson codec for linux.
Apple OWNS the licensing rights to the codec, and they are doing EVERYTHING they can to retain control of video distribution on the internet. They have NOT released Quicktime for linux, unix, FreeBSD, or anything other than Windows and MacOS. Nor will they.
Quicktime supports many codecs, and few are protected like the Sorenson codec. Apple uses this specifically, because there are other equally good unprotected codecs in use. So they KNOW a priori that when they get something released using the Sorenson codec, then the consumer may only view it using software that Apple chooses to provide. And they choose to provide NOTHING for linux.
Xanim, for example, is a quicktime player for linux. But whereas it can play Radius and Intel codecs, it cannot play apple sorenson codecs.
And that is how Apple wants it. Contacts with Sorenson result in them stating bluntly that Apple has ALL the rights. I am wholely against patent protection of common media distribution format. It was screwed up with GIFs, and it is screwed up with Quicktime.
If someone could save the movie as an MPEG, I would be mighty thankful. I really want to see it, but I do not have access to a Sorenson compatible Quicktime viewer.
You will have to ask Linus.
I think the big issue is that there was an oops associated with autofs/nfs usage, and that this oops was fixed just a week or two ago.
So I suspect Linus is letting it percolate in the ac series now.
Or maybe the ext3 team has not asked for it to be merged in the stable kernels yet. They are pretty conservative in adding stuff to stable kernels.
Anyhow, I've been using ext3 for a while now, crashed a few times, no worries in replaying the journal and booting really fast.
Ext3 may eventually debut in the 2.5.0 series and be re-merged back into the 2.4. But there will be patches for 2.4.10, I am sure.
Take a CD player with digital outputs, and a sound card with digital inputs.
La Voila.
The vast vast majority of Microsoft's money comes from OEM installations of Office and operating systems
OEM revenue was $4.72 billion in 1998, $6.40 billion in 1999, and $7.01 billion in 2000.
Since the revenue was $15.2bil in 1998, $19.7bil in 1999 and $23.0bil in 2000, that's hardly the "vast majority".
Sorry. I meant PROFIT when I said MONEY. Not gross revenue.
In the case of computers, most users are not like gamers. They do not want or need the latest and greatest. If you surveyed most people, you would find that their business needs are completely met by Windows 95. They do not need another OS that requires 4 times more RAM to provide them the same user interface, the same office suite, and a few new bells and whistles that were mostly non-functional from the business point of view.
Indeed, this is Microsoft's entire motivation for getting people into XP. People are buying computers less frequently now. Microsoft sees this as a direct hit in the wallet. In a licensing scheme, however, they can stop the loss. XP is all about licensing software instead of buying it. In a licensing scheme, people pay Microsoft yearly whether they NEED it or not. They have no choice.
MS doesn't make any hardware. Why would they bloat the system on purpose?
The vast vast majority of Microsoft's money comes from OEM installations of Office and operating systems.
If no one buys new computers, no one buys Microsoft products. So far so good.
Now the tough part. Microsoft has to CONVINCE consumers that they NEED the new operating system. They achieve this is a few ways. First, they discontinue support and patches for old products. They say "That is an old product - please upgrade to Windows and Office XP". Secondly, they only support new hardware in the new operating system. Thus, if you get a new computer, you HAVE to have the new OS. Third, they make it very easy for users of the new Office software to make documents that are not backward compatible. About a third of all people who need a new version of Office will just buy a new computer to get it pre-installed.
The plan is multi-faceted, but has proven to work in the past. The easiest solution for most people is to buy a new computer. And if they buy a new computer, they will only have the pre-install option of getting Office XP. Then they get onto licensing terms, which get worse every year, until all of your dollars are belong to Billy G.
And you still end up with an OS that provides the same basic functionality to 99% of all computer users that Windows 3.1 did.
What type of bull-ass-shit FUD is that? Excuse me, Mr Eben Moglen, but what information do you have to base this claim on? This is hardly surprising that this would up on /. with a classic gem like that in there. For-your-information I am using XP now as I type, and there is quite a lot of innovation that went into this product.
How does it run on a x586 with 32 MBytes of RAM ?
Will it require a new machine for the vast majority of computer users to be a viable operating system ?
Will it change the fact that for most users an operating system allows them to write letters, write email, and surf the web ?
Moore's law: the CPU speed doubles every 18 months.
Gates' law: the speed of the operating system halves every 18 months.
Dell's law: the average computer user needs a new machine every 18 months.
Note that the third is a product of the first two.
It doesn't really matter, all the application's you're going to want to run on such a small screen have naitive PPC versions. That includes my favorite: Linux. If there really were no good apps for MacOS, and you really couldn't interoperate with the rest of the world do you think Apple would still be in business?
If this is true then Transmeta has no business plan. Luckily for them, there are 9 x86 binary computer users for every ppc person. And that is who they are catering to. I mean, if you prefered Mac to x86 anyway, Transmeta is pretty useless.
They just don't offer substantial battery saving wrt Macs.
People will buy Transmeta to save battery life while running x86 binaries. Or Transmeta will go out of business. I don't think it is all that relevant to bring up MacOS for a product that is irrelevant to the Mac laptop market.
Or is there some way in which iBooks are relevant that I am missing ?
This is the real question.. The iBook is just as thin, weighs the same, includes a DVD/CD-RW drive, Mac OS 9.2/Mac OS X, a 12" (1024x768) screen, 4+ hour battery life, and costs less ($1800 for the top of the line iBook as opposed to $2k for the model discussed in the article)..
How well does the iBook execute x86 binaries ?
That is the market for the Crusoes. The have no appeal to anyone would would choose a MacOS machine. The appeal is in providing long battery life for the 95% of the world's laptop users who want to run x86 binaries.
If big name vendors such as IBM/Lotus and Corel/WordPerfect could field full featured suites and utterly fail to compete on price with Microsoft, it won't be any different with Sun.
That is right.
Microsoft's ONLY software competition for office suites and desktops is free.
But they scream they are not a monopoly.
The truth hurts. And the truth is there are many free alternative office suites that would fill the VAST VAST majority of the world's office needs. Some people have already figured this out. Most of these are better than Word, and Excel, and especially PowerPoint (which really sucks rocks compared to the competition).
The truth is that free software exists in as large a capacity as it does today because other computer companies cannot work with or against Microsoft if the market is IP software. Instead, everyone else is settling for a service based market in which the total gross income is 1% of the income in Microsoft's market, but at least anyone can jump in if they can provide quality service. This means IBM, Sun, HP, SGI, Compaq, Dell, and other newer much smaller players like RedHat, Caldera, SuSE and Mandrakesoft.
Once a good set of filters are out there, Microsoft WILL change the file formats, guaranteed. Ask the OS/2 people what maintaining compatibility with M$ was like, and how much it helped them.
Whereas this was once true, it is no longer. Microsoft cannot change formats so quickly that it makes their own legacy software incompatible. If someone cannot read a DOC format in Office97, Microsoft stands to lose.
However, it is worth discussing briefly the DOC and XLS formats. Both of them can insert objects through COM under Windows. This means that almost anything that can be an object in Windows can be in a DOC format. In case you do not get it yet, this means the entire operating system's APIs need to be cloned to import a document completely and properly
I think it is safe to say this will never happen.
Powerpoint is less relevant. It sucks rocks, plenty of free better alternatives exist, and people exchange powerpoint slides a LOT LOT less than they exchange office documents and spreadsheets. What REALLY needs to happen is that people need to insist document exchanges occur in common formats. For read-only things, pdf works great. For editable documents, an old version of word doc format works (with text only), or html, or xml.
When someone sends you a DOC format, immediately email them back to ask for it in a standardized format. If this becomes commonplace, standardized formats will become more common as well, and EVERYONE will benefit from true competition among office suites.
Right now the only competition to Word is free office suites. And that is not a competitive market.
You should watch CNBC once in a while. Intel is still at 50% margins, or something close to it. Plenty of tech companies, especially those in enterprise market have mafia like profit margins.
Profite Margins from Yahoo! finance
Intel: 17.7%
Microsoft: 30.5% (it was 40% earlier in the year)
Adobe: 21.3%
AOL/TimeWarner: -3.7%
Sun Microsystems: 5.4%
IBM: 9.4%
HP: 2.9%
Oracle: 23.6%
AMD: 15.8%
Motorola: -1.8%
Verizon: 8.4%
That rings true with my experience, but would you also agree that initial setup and deployment takes much more admin time on Linux?
I think my first install of Windows95 from scratch was much more difficult than my first install of linux from scratch.
I still think that if I know nothing about a box, and I try to install an OS, linux is easier than Windows.
On installing many boxes, linux can parallelize quite well.
OTOH, receiving an OEM Windows box is much easier than installing a linux box.
Microsoft haters still have something to worry about. The company operates with a 40% profit margin. Only the mob and the phone company can get away with that kind of margin.
What this means is that Microsoft could substantially reduce all their prices and still make a reasonable margin - one comparable to other companies like AOL whose margin is 1%.
All Microsoft really needs to do as free competition arises is reduce price structure enough to keep the free solutions out because it costs to much to switch. This cost of re-tooling will ring true with CTOs, and they will be quite happy to keep paying what they've been paying.
However, Microsoft wants it all. The new licensing strategy with XP intends to increase company gross by 60% over the next 5 years or so. Or kill it, one of the two. But a monster with 30 BILLION dollars hard cash in the bank is pretty hard to kill. They can come back failure after failure if necessary, and still buy all their competitors.
As to the credibility of the story, I find it entirely believable. One of the large issues is that the story compares fairly incompetent NT engineers with competent linux ones. Even so, server administration requires much less admin time on linux - we estimate it is a 3 to 1 difference.
so open it in QT, and save it as .MPEG for all you care.
How exactly am I supposed to do this ?
Opening it requires use of the patent, and software that doesn't exist except under MacOS and Windows - operating systems I do not use.
It doesn't exactly help for streaming software either.
Free Unices have exactly NO viable QT viewers that can use the Sorenson codec, which is used by almost everything. The patent doesn't expire for another decade plus. Users of these operating systems are blocked from viewing free (as in beer) copyrighted content on the web.
Apple could solve this merely by making an agreement with the writer of xanim, who has a QT viewer that supports other patented codecs by Intel and Radius Cinepak. So far they will not. Steve Jobs would rather those users not be able to see content, or be forced to buy Windows or MacOS to be able to use free players.
The point I'm trying to make is that Apple hasn't stopped you from writing a Quicktime client. They simply haven't provided you with a CODEC which they're paying to license from Sorenson.. It's a big difference..
They not only have not provided the CODEC, they have also not allowed its algorithm to be coded. It is a big difference. They are blocking me from viewing copyrighted content I own on the operating system I prefer using software patents.
looking for Apple to just HAND you stuff?
They provide Quicktime viewers for Windows and MacOS. They make the Sorensen codec the default for creating video content.
Adobe provides PDF viewers for ALL operating systems, and has made their document format, PDF, into an OPEN standard. Even if they didn't provide a viewer, I could write my own.
Apple, OTOH, uses patents to block me from viewing copyright content I own under linux.
God, I'm sick of whiny people expecting stuff to be open sourced. Apple says sorenson won't allow a linux version, not them.
Stop lying. Apple has exclusive licensing rights. They can do whatever the heck they want with Sorensen.
http://xanim.va.pubnix.com/xa_unsupported.html
Just what Mostly useless code are you talking about? Apple is more standards-compliant than MS, Quicktime files are pretty open format, it's the sorenson codec that's closed. MPEG-4 is based on QT's file format.
It would be great if the Sorensen codec were only closed - then it could be reverse engineered. Instead, it is patented, so Apple has the exclusive right to refuse anyone else the right to use it. Apple will not allow the Sorensen codec to be used.
Apple is SHITTY at open source. They use it as a powerful business would - whenever and however it benefits them most without concern for any non-MacOS users. And in some instances, with specific disrespect for non-MacOS users. Such as Quicktime.
I can't wait for Jobs to think about how he could use the TrueType patents...
The Sorensen codec uses patents issue in the early to mid 90s - they will not expire until 2012 or so. Until then, Jobs will effectively block users on a per-OS basis from being able to receive streaming video.
IBM contributes to open source BECAUSE they derive value from service. Until Mac moves to such a model, they will be viewed as a true enemy by anyone that uses only open software.
Don't think for a second that MS execs' stomachs are not turning over about this deal.
This is a key financial services application, and opens the door for acceptance of linux in key financial markets. Microsoft was going to undersell and overmarket traditional UNIX vendors and eat into the server market. Once their foot was in the door, extend and embrace.
Guess what - the markets grow from the bottom. It happened with DOS against MacOS. It happened with Windows95 against OS/2. It happened with NT against Unix. And now it is happening with linux against Windows.
This could have been a HUGE win for Microsoft. Instead, it is another notch in IBM's belt, and a huge boost for linux in the perception of CTOs. Microsoft can't buy that kind of publicity.
There are many people in this country who do object to this sort of research. Bush views on this subject were known during last election and since there was enough people to get him elected there are just as many people who do object to this research.They do pay taxes and therefore have a right to decide how that money will be spent.
Similar arguments are made in all such cases. The most basic point is that Dubya decided to pull the rug out of stem cell research in the US. He did this to please his constituency, who have religious-based arguments to back them up - not logical ones.
We go through this all the time with animal research. If you really are against use of animals in research, will you turn down known efficacious treatment that was dependent on such research ?
The answer is inevitably no. Ronald Reagan, the conservative's conservative, supports stem cell research. He supports it because his family's pain and suffering is more important to him than the life of a group of amorphous cells that would oneday become a person.
If Bush's father had Alzheimer's he would support it too. Hindsight is always 20/20, and Bush will KNOW that stem cell research is of great benefit to the entire world in another 10-15 years.
Despite his objections and obstruction.