I don't think that Google will ever try and push something like GoogleOS. They are primarily an advertising- and service-based company, operating through your local web browser.
They might be forced to, though. What are Google going to do when Microsoft starts trying to compete with them by making Windows use MSN search as the default search engine and making it difficult to change the default to Google?
Microsoft want to compete with Google and Google's response of developing software for Windows only and playing friendly with Microsoft isn't going to cut it in the long-term.
People lose more than half of their lives (along with time that could be spent with family/friends) by working full-time jobs. This is how most people have chosen to live their lives.
If somebody has to shell out millions to develop the food that you are duplicating without providing any sort of compensation? Certainly, and they would be in the right.
Uhh... no. They wouldn't be in the right, they would be in the stupid.
Wouldn't you have to be kind of dumb to invest millions of dollars into developing food if you know that people will just duplicate it? If you know that is going to happen, and you still go ahead with it, you are doing so under the assumption that you will still make a profit. If you turn out to be wrong, why should laws be created to protect you from losing your investment?
It's not as though food/software wouldn't be created if these people didn't invest. The rules do not need to be changed for them.
No need to buy a country. We just need to organise for all free software people to move to a country with a relatively small population. Then we vote in the FSF.
Are you serious? So, in other words, in the long run, releasing non-free (as in speech) software may lead to suppression, loss of human rights, oligarchy and tyranny? Oh come on!
Yes.
Microsoft have demonstrated that proprietary software can lead to a monopoly. Microsoft would never have been able to sustain their monopoly if they had documented and allowed others to freely implement the Windows API and support for Windows-related (eg. Office) file formats. That would've resulted in heaps of OSes that were compatible with Windows programs and that could interoperate with Windows. Suddenly, no one would want Windows anymore.
Loss of human rights is coming. Humans are growing increasingly dependent on computers, and hardware/software companies are decreasing the level of control people have over their computers, using initiatives such as Palladium. Imagine if, in the future, one organisation could quickly gain control over almost every single computer in the world. Wouldn't this be achievable through the internet, if Windows had a kernel-level "phone home for instructions" feature?
Similarly, any government interested in invading the privacy of their citizens would regard this as a most excellent first step.
I just bought a laptop from Dell today. Why? The laptop was cheap ($1550 AUD), small (12-inch screen, weighs 1.7kg), and the hardware works reasonably well in Linux.
I don't really have any problems with Dell, apart from the software, and the only thing that bugs me about that is that they force me to buy Windows.
Can you imagine what would happen if they decided to release the code under a more restrictive license? The project would be forked quicker than you could say "fork it!"... and then no one would be using their product. Bad idea. Even Microsoft knows that people using your product but not paying for it is better than no one using your product at all.
One way or another, Microsoft would not allow kids to start growing up using Free Software. They would sooner pay kids to use Windows than let them grow up using some Linux-based OS.
Allowing that to happen would be disastrous for their future sales. People use what they are used to. It might be a good idea to try providing this laptop in US schools, but only as an attempt to get Microsoft to offer a better deal than they currently are. It could have an unwanted side-effect, though. Proprietary software companies could gang up on all of the people who produce Free Software, suing them for software patent infringement.
Keeping someone alive but not educating them will only keep them alive as long as you are around, giving them everything they need. Of course people are not going to sit down and use a laptop when they haven't got anything to eat and don't have clean water, but if people don't get educated they will never be able to support themselves.
How many years until every computer running proprietary software can be controlled via "Trusted Computing"? Five to ten, perhaps?
Think about it. Computers are already extremely important in our day-to-day lives, and they're only going to get more important.
Now think about what someone could do if, in 5 or 10 years from now, they could suddenly control effectively every computer in the world. Whoever controls the computers in the future does more or less control the world. They will be able to fabricate news, block news, intercept communications, and so on. "Trusted Computing" and DRM is about a lot more than just pay-per-play music files.
Imagine trying to sell a new version of Windows/Office that looks exactly the same as the previous version of Windows/Office. They have to do something to make them look different.
You're right. The collaboration features will be too complicated for the majority of office workers. Imagine someone who isn't comfortable using computers trying to understand what CVS does and how the CVS system works. I'm sure Microsoft have tried to make the collaboration as simple as possible, but if it's too simple, it won't be powerful. If it's powerful, it won't be simple.
A collaboration tool that is both simple and powerful is extremely difficult to do, if not impossible. At best, companies might be able to train computer illiterates to make it work more or less by accident. More likely is that people will just use internal email, as they currently do for collaboration, though.
Yeah, this new Office might be "improved" for you, but what about people who are not comfortable using computers? That's the majority of the population, last time I checked, by the way...
Many people who currently use Office have memorised what they need to click on to do a particular set of tasks rather than having learnt how to use a GUI to do any task. For these people, the new Office will be unusable without them being trained how to use a computer all over again.
The original poster is right. Microsoft don't seem to understand the needs of their users. It's absolutely incredible that they don't, but it seems to be the case. Big UI changes should be a no-no, but I suppose it is rather difficult to improve a program without changing the UI.
We're not arguing that the new Office isn't improved for people who can use it, but that it will be a distaster because lots of people won't know how to use it.
If anything, it's commercial software that funds terrorists. If all software was available for free, and freely distributable, then terrorists would only be able to get funding if they provided support for that software.:P
What are the terms of the DLJ license that Sun has created for this? What part of it is Red Hat not happy with? The article doesn't seem to mention any of these details, except that Sun has changed to this new license, and that Red Hat doesn't think it goes far enough.
It's so true. Apple is 100% marketing, and their "fans" can't get enough of it... they buy any product with an Apple logo on it! I know a guy who went and bought a two-button Apple mouse the day those came out, despite the existence of other brands of two-button mice well before that, which would have worked with his Mac via USB.... and right now on apple.com, they're marketing a laptop that is so good, why? Because it can do blogging and podcasting! As though no other laptops can do those things. You can't help but be very worried about how moronic some people are when they fall for this crap.
My latest idea is to start selling poo in a box on ebay, but with an Apple logo on it. I'll call it The iPoo, and I figure that if I can manage 3 poos per day, and sell them to Apple fanboys for around $33 each, I'll be making almost $700 a week from iPoo!
Once that gets old, I'll paint them different colours and announced to the fanboys "iPoo now comes in colour! Do not eat Apple iPoo!"
Anyone who truly believes that software should be free (as in freedom) would have been silly to pick the BSD license in the first place. The GPL simply ensures freedom, no more, no less.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that Google will ever try and push something like GoogleOS. They are primarily an advertising- and service-based company, operating through your local web browser.
They might be forced to, though. What are Google going to do when Microsoft starts trying to compete with them by making Windows use MSN search as the default search engine and making it difficult to change the default to Google?
Microsoft want to compete with Google and Google's response of developing software for Windows only and playing friendly with Microsoft isn't going to cut it in the long-term.
People lose more than half of their lives (along with time that could be spent with family/friends) by working full-time jobs. This is how most people have chosen to live their lives.
If somebody has to shell out millions to develop the food that you are duplicating without providing any sort of compensation? Certainly, and they would be in the right.
Uhh... no. They wouldn't be in the right, they would be in the stupid.
Wouldn't you have to be kind of dumb to invest millions of dollars into developing food if you know that people will just duplicate it? If you know that is going to happen, and you still go ahead with it, you are doing so under the assumption that you will still make a profit. If you turn out to be wrong, why should laws be created to protect you from losing your investment?
It's not as though food/software wouldn't be created if these people didn't invest. The rules do not need to be changed for them.
How much does it cost you if I steal one of your chairs or desks?
How much does it cost you if I copy one of your CDs?
See the difference?
No need to buy a country. We just need to organise for all free software people to move to a country with a relatively small population. Then we vote in the FSF.
Are you serious? So, in other words, in the long run, releasing non-free (as in speech) software may lead to suppression, loss of human rights, oligarchy and tyranny? Oh come on!
Yes.
Microsoft have demonstrated that proprietary software can lead to a monopoly. Microsoft would never have been able to sustain their monopoly if they had documented and allowed others to freely implement the Windows API and support for Windows-related (eg. Office) file formats. That would've resulted in heaps of OSes that were compatible with Windows programs and that could interoperate with Windows. Suddenly, no one would want Windows anymore.
Loss of human rights is coming. Humans are growing increasingly dependent on computers, and hardware/software companies are decreasing the level of control people have over their computers, using initiatives such as Palladium. Imagine if, in the future, one organisation could quickly gain control over almost every single computer in the world. Wouldn't this be achievable through the internet, if Windows had a kernel-level "phone home for instructions" feature?
Similarly, any government interested in invading the privacy of their citizens would regard this as a most excellent first step.
I just bought a laptop from Dell today. Why? The laptop was cheap ($1550 AUD), small (12-inch screen, weighs 1.7kg), and the hardware works reasonably well in Linux.
I don't really have any problems with Dell, apart from the software, and the only thing that bugs me about that is that they force me to buy Windows.
Can you imagine what would happen if they decided to release the code under a more restrictive license? The project would be forked quicker than you could say "fork it!" ... and then no one would be using their product. Bad idea. Even Microsoft knows that people using your product but not paying for it is better than no one using your product at all.
One way or another, Microsoft would not allow kids to start growing up using Free Software. They would sooner pay kids to use Windows than let them grow up using some Linux-based OS.
Allowing that to happen would be disastrous for their future sales. People use what they are used to. It might be a good idea to try providing this laptop in US schools, but only as an attempt to get Microsoft to offer a better deal than they currently are. It could have an unwanted side-effect, though. Proprietary software companies could gang up on all of the people who produce Free Software, suing them for software patent infringement.
Keeping someone alive but not educating them will only keep them alive as long as you are around, giving them everything they need. Of course people are not going to sit down and use a laptop when they haven't got anything to eat and don't have clean water, but if people don't get educated they will never be able to support themselves.
If you think about it, it's actually true.
How many years until every computer running proprietary software can be controlled via "Trusted Computing"? Five to ten, perhaps?
Think about it. Computers are already extremely important in our day-to-day lives, and they're only going to get more important.
Now think about what someone could do if, in 5 or 10 years from now, they could suddenly control effectively every computer in the world. Whoever controls the computers in the future does more or less control the world. They will be able to fabricate news, block news, intercept communications, and so on. "Trusted Computing" and DRM is about a lot more than just pay-per-play music files.
Imagine trying to sell a new version of Windows/Office that looks exactly the same as the previous version of Windows/Office. They have to do something to make them look different.
Office workers don't know about databases, and I very much doubt any of them want to know about databases.
You're right. The collaboration features will be too complicated for the majority of office workers. Imagine someone who isn't comfortable using computers trying to understand what CVS does and how the CVS system works. I'm sure Microsoft have tried to make the collaboration as simple as possible, but if it's too simple, it won't be powerful. If it's powerful, it won't be simple.
A collaboration tool that is both simple and powerful is extremely difficult to do, if not impossible. At best, companies might be able to train computer illiterates to make it work more or less by accident. More likely is that people will just use internal email, as they currently do for collaboration, though.
Yeah, this new Office might be "improved" for you, but what about people who are not comfortable using computers? That's the majority of the population, last time I checked, by the way...
Many people who currently use Office have memorised what they need to click on to do a particular set of tasks rather than having learnt how to use a GUI to do any task. For these people, the new Office will be unusable without them being trained how to use a computer all over again.
The original poster is right. Microsoft don't seem to understand the needs of their users. It's absolutely incredible that they don't, but it seems to be the case. Big UI changes should be a no-no, but I suppose it is rather difficult to improve a program without changing the UI.
We're not arguing that the new Office isn't improved for people who can use it, but that it will be a distaster because lots of people won't know how to use it.
If anything, it's commercial software that funds terrorists. If all software was available for free, and freely distributable, then terrorists would only be able to get funding if they provided support for that software. :P
Two projects: The Microsoft rent-a-computer project, and the $100 laptop project.
One of these projects is attempting to empower the 3rd world, and the other project is attempting to enslave the 3rd world.
Can you guess which is which?
Incidentally, that's what they intend to do! Notice how they're pushing hard for "Trusted Computing"?
Calm down. He lost.
Nothing. They probably won't link to it, though...
Google videos actually are MPEG-4, but you're right - the Creative Commons license that they chose forbids derivative works, unfortunately.
Yes, that's the idea behind software patents.
What are the terms of the DLJ license that Sun has created for this? What part of it is Red Hat not happy with? The article doesn't seem to mention any of these details, except that Sun has changed to this new license, and that Red Hat doesn't think it goes far enough.
Anyone have the details, please?
It's so true. Apple is 100% marketing, and their "fans" can't get enough of it... they buy any product with an Apple logo on it! I know a guy who went and bought a two-button Apple mouse the day those came out, despite the existence of other brands of two-button mice well before that, which would have worked with his Mac via USB. ... and right now on apple.com, they're marketing a laptop that is so good, why? Because it can do blogging and podcasting! As though no other laptops can do those things. You can't help but be very worried about how moronic some people are when they fall for this crap.
My latest idea is to start selling poo in a box on ebay, but with an Apple logo on it. I'll call it The iPoo, and I figure that if I can manage 3 poos per day, and sell them to Apple fanboys for around $33 each, I'll be making almost $700 a week from iPoo!
Once that gets old, I'll paint them different colours and announced to the fanboys "iPoo now comes in colour! Do not eat Apple iPoo!"
Anyone who truly believes that software should be free (as in freedom) would have been silly to pick the BSD license in the first place. The GPL simply ensures freedom, no more, no less.