...Humiliated by the experience, Ball told his IT department he wanted Microsoft products out of his business within six months. "I said, 'I don't care if we have to buy 10,000 abacuses,'" recalled Ball, who recently addressed the LinuxWorld trade show. "We won't do business with someone who treats us poorly."
...What I really thought is that you ought to treat people the way you want to be treated. I couldn't treat a customer the way Microsoft dealt with me...I went from being a pro-Microsoft guy to instantly being an anti-Microsoft guy...
What I am saying, is yes, as is, ODF may leave some non-standard functionality outside its spec as the parent said. But then I argue two things: If one needs these non-standard functionality, he is free to use proprietary formats to achieve it. ODF is something like a common denominator for the majority of functionality commonly used. On the other hand, when this funtionality is standardized, there is no problem in embedding this in a later version of ODF. The problem currently with ODF as the OP said was embedding non-standard data inside it. This is the vector microsoft could use to close up ODF. Instead, ODF says nothing of the sort is OK and any non-standard data should be saved seperately.
Microsoft is really good at using words and its funny how they turned a Open standard initiative into a lack-of-features argument while at the same time their own OpenXML IS NOT OPEN (or if it is, they lack legally binding words to that direction which effectively is the same).
You have alot of anger in you. Let's take this calmly one-by-one:
Ok, in who's eyes? From the Open Office people's point of view it is non-discriminatory, but from Microsoft and companies that offer more features it is very discriminatory.
How is it discriminatory in microsoft's eyes exactly? Because it is not their format? Why do they support the wide variety of formats they support in word? (wordperfect, RTF,...) Do they all have the features OpenXML has? Why do they not drop support for these formats. I'm sure wordperfect format was not built with microsoft support in mind.
How about from the user's persepective? I imagine they would say, "Oh, I would love to write this on my TablePC, or I would love to drop in Voice Notes with this letter or include an animation or a video or slideshow, but I have to 'publish' in ODF and it doesn't support any of these features." (Talk about dis-empowering people with software 'constraints')
I thought this was an Open advocacy site, how in the 'fek' do people think that just because they slap 'Open' on the front of something, then 'force' people to use it that this is about openness or empowering people?
I don't get your point. For microsoft to support ODF officialy, microsoft is obligated to make its apps support the 'subset' of features that ODF currently includes in its spec. Nothing more, nothing less. If something is not supported by the ODF spec, no one is saying the user can not use OpenXML. No one is asking microsoft to drop its default file format, just include ODF support. This is what I think most microsoft advocates are missing when they are yelling 'ODF doesn't support this x feature'.
If it was truly non-discriminatory then ODF would look at Microsoft's proposals and work with them instead of trying to TELL Microsoft and OTHER companies how the ODF people think it should be done. They are NOT the sole experts here, PERIOD.
Microsoft is a member of the OASIS consortium. They never chose to become actively involved in it, they just rolled their own. So if it is someone claiming expertise and not cooperating, I think you're pointing at the wrong side.
Open should be truly open, not a just a standard FORCED on the industry with the word OPEN slapped on the front of it.
I could make a new 'open' Image format, call it OpenTNAImage, and then tell the industry that this is the only true 'open' image standard, sell it to some politicians that don't know a pixel from a light bulb. Then tell the rest of the world that they cannot have any say in my 'open standard' format.
Sound good? How about when I tell you that my new OpenTNAImage format is only 256pixels by 500pixels maximum and is only black and white, but HECK, it is OPEN so the entire world should just use it and convert all their images to my 'open' format even if it means the loss of image quaility. As long as I can sell it to non-tech politicians, then it must be the 'best'. Geesh.
How can people truly not get that ODF needs to be truly 'open' and 'extendible'? Not just a standard by people with 'agendas' with the word Open on the front of it?
Well, you might want to read a legal analysis of the OpenXML licensing scheme. Technical merit is dandy and all, but in the business world, legal risk in competing applications with OpenXML support is not going to fly. I would love for you or anyone else to explain how microsoft has addressed the specific legal concerns in Marbux's analysis. This has nothing to do with technical merit, but legal bullshit that businesses pay attention to. This is why competitors cannot just adopt OpenXML. What about Brian Jones saying it is GPL incompatible. And it's not only the GPL applications that are being excluded a
"Competitors are... effectively precluded from bidding against Microsoft or its suppliers for any... contract specifying use of Microsoft's software file formats." He first noted that the patent license for the format "is structured to be read restrictively, in Microsoft's favor... it states that: 'All rights not expressly granted in this license are reserved by Microsoft. No additional rights are granted by implication or estoppel or otherwise.' This is not the customary 'all rights reserved' phrase more commonly encountered... If you cannot find words in the license explicitly stating that you have the right to do something, you don't get that right." Then, by examining the patent license in detail, he found a number of omissions and conditions that suppress competition: there is no integration clause, no license for the schemas themselves, no grant of copyright was included in the patent license, no commitment to delivering any future changes to the schemas or right to develop software implementing them under the same or more liberal license (this particular issue may have been resolved later by Microsoft), no identification of the Microsoft patents involved, no identification of third-party patents, no right to sell or sublicense implementing software, a prohibition against sale and licensing of implementing software, a prohibition against software having functions other than to read and write files using the specification without modification, no license to convert files to and from other formats, no right to write files using the schemas, vagueness and ambiguities will deter implementation by developers and adoption by end users, and a discriminatory incompatibility with F/OSS licensing, and discriminatory incompatibility with proprietary software competitors. In short, he believes Microsoft's license prohibits effective competition from using the format." (Marbux, 2005)
How about ''That's Alpha Geek to you, newbie. Now listen and learn from your betters...''
Depending on setting you might want to slap cow-orker in the back of the head too.
You nicely summed up the problem in two lines right there. I used to be part of a team assigned to educate a company's employees on how to use MS Office more efficiently. The inertia I found these people had to learn anything new was amazing. It was topped only by their 'know all' attitude. And we're talking about basic skills here, not VBScripting. I seriously believe slapping them across the face would actually up their productivity more than my polite responses...
According to a couple of friends of mine who work in Greece, the job market is too MS-friendly, so I would be surprised that there are Univ's pro-Unix. That is a good thing though.
Actually, while MS is dominant in workstations in the job market, my experience is that they don't really rely on microsoft tools (like.net). But that's just the companies I know of, so YMMV!:)
Again, it is unfair to condemn MS for this specific thing. All large companies have a large patent portfolio for their protection. If they start using them for devious purposes, then we blame them, not before. Imagine if a patent troll company bought these patents. You think the linux world would be safer?
That's just an excuse. Let's leave aside that the patent system is fucked up for a moment. If microsoft were acting in good faith, they would license their patent for free use by the OpenGL consortium of which they are part of. The real deal is that microsoft views OpenGL as a threat. Again read Judge Jackson's findings and see how nicely OpenGl fits the description of an application that exposes it's own APIs etc. Other than that, take a look at the halloween documents, or see microsoft's response if, as some people do, you believe they were a hoax. Actually the part of microsoft's case I posted earlier was one were microsoft stopped intel from actually doing something good! The way they sabotaged Java with their own JVM, Internet explorer bundling, wmv pushing. They are more than evil...
After my i80386sx I had over 10 cpus, all AMD (starting with am486 DX4), for the simple reason that when I was budget conscious they had the performance/price, and when I could afford expensive processors they had both the performance/price and max performance. Still, they have a small market share. It is obvious that intel has done something far worse than MS, because MS did not have someone outperforming them for years and years (while at the same time being compatible!)... Hmm, a Mac fanboy might jump into this now, but there are far too many reasons why Mac OS does not qualify as an AMD equivalent of the software world...
Actually, with the logic you are applying, it is _really_ wierd that either linux or Mac OSX haven't gained a bigger market share. They are in many ways superior to windows. But other than that, you are right AMD offerings currently are superior to Intels'. Tech savvy people here insist on AMD.:)
Hehe, akou leei "patriotaki";) I might not be a pro web designer, as I said, but I have done a little designing, including an undergrad thesis that involved porting the interface of a very complex multimedia database from VB to ASP. While they expected activeX (Greek University - "MS rulez";), I made EVERYTHING to be cross-browser, and for the challenge I left only form validation client side (e.g. my own collapsible treeviews designed server-side with a tree status encoding string passed as form data), so the thing turned out to do everything the original interface did, plus it would run on any ancient browsen even without scripting (ok, with the inconvenience of server-side form validation). My point is that you can work on any browser, no matter how lame it is. It is just a matter of deciding it is good practice. If you start using MS-only non-standard stuff for the web you do not respect Linux or Mac users, or future generations (MS security updates often break sites).
Kudos to you arhonta! But that is rather telling of the hoops you have to go through to do something that can be done somewhat trivially with, say, CSS!:) I'm not a pro web designer either, alot of friends of mine are. As for Greek Universities, my experience differs a bit. I would say my department may be 50%-50% Windows-Unix (Sun, linux, Irix), but the majority of profs are pro-Unix fortunately.
I don't see any news since 2002. It seems MS did not actually do anything. Correct me if I am wrong.
They do not need to do anything. As long as there is a threat, it's enough to 'scare people away' from OpenGL. Not that I'm saying it is the main reason there are no commercial games for linux, it's not. Small user base is.
Not exactly relevant to what I was replying to, but nice to see someone pressuring Intel the way Intel pressures smaller guys! Ok, I have to admit, I am an "AMD fanboy"...;)
:) Now that the 'masks are off', I have been an 'AMD Fanboy' ever since the am486! But, IMHO, while intel is a bit anticompetetive, microsoft takes the cake in this area.:)
No, I live in NY so I was referring to Time Warner Cable. I call them with reasonable requests and get negative answers. Once I dared say "but.. with other cable providers..." to get the response "WE ARE NOT OTHER PROVIDERS ande WE DON'T CARE WHAT THEY DO. WE ARE TIME WARNER" - All your base belong to us!
But OTE (Greek national Telecom) is also mocking the public. They increased phone and internet prices to crazy heights (if I remember correctly it was something like $2/hour to call your neighbor) and then ran these TV commercial of how "OTE is the most profitable organization in Greece" DUH!!!
Yeah, sorry about that. OTE bashing is rather common in Greece and rightfully so. It's no coincidence "kleftes" (thieves) in Greek brought up OTE.gr (funny google bombing). "Pseftes" (liars) still brings up the party that's in power currently and that promised lower rates in telephony.:) You may be right about Time Warner Cable, but last time I was in the States, it seemed competition was fierce between telcos. A far cry from what is happening in Greece currently. They were more annoying with phonecalls nagging you to change companies than not offering advantages. But you could be right. Why don't you just tell them 'na pa na gamitheite' (go fuck yourselves) and just jump ship?
I haven't really followed the issue (I have only used rather mainstream parts that have decent support for linux), but isn't the basic reason for this linux's GPL licence? Now that Linux has gained some market share and companies might think about devoting a few resources to Linux support, can they ship proprietary drivers to be included in the kernel? Somebody who knows this issue, please enlighten me.
Sure they can, while proprietary drivers are a grey area in the GPL. They are considered a viability for future support, but furthermore, most companies don't even provide binary drivers.
I really don't think MS is at fault here. WMV is proprietary, but I don't like it and it is generally not that used anyway. However the basic problem is that DRM and content encryption is demanded by the studios and can only be implemented in a non GPL OS. While it should be obvious that I don't have issues with MS, I do have big issues with MPAA, RIAA etc and everyone that tries to take away all of my fair use rights.
WMV is heavily used. It's not the default standard yet, but most big sites use it. Also, look at common DVD players and wmv support. Why do you suppose they support wmv and not, say, quicktime which IMHO is a better format? You are right about DRM though...
It should be obvious that you cannot bash MS for being a monopoly by conquering the market. Therefore, Linux not being lucrative to software houses is not a monopoly abuse by MS. Unless you complain because MS does not make Linux games?:)
I have never bought a system with a preinstalled anything. If say "decent computer" and in fact mean "Dell", what are you doing on Slashdot?
And my company has bought Linux laptops from smaller boutiques.
People on slashdot are not the problem. Most know and have chosen over if they will use linux or not. Preinstalled linux would make the differance for people not so tech savvy. Unfortunately, linux faces a chicken and egg problem.
So, the incompetence of web designers is MS's fault too? I have always cross-browser tested my pages and I am not a professional web designer. Instead of flooding bad designer's mail boxes, it is easier to post on slashdot and complain about MS?
Obviously you are not a pro web designer. If you were, patriotaki, you would know exactly how much a PITA IE actually is. All other browsers are more or less standards compliant. To get the same functionality out of IE, more often than not, you have to resort to IE hacks. This is frustrating. the only reason Web Devs put up with such bullshit is because they are sure 90% of people on earth have IE and they can't risk not supporting it.
Again, it is not illegal to hold the largest market share (and there has never been doubted that the OS market was gained fairly). You might be "pretty sure", but I do have doubts that MS used the same stronghold tactics that Intel used, for the obvious reason that the gains for a company by getting a rebate on the volume licensing of an OS would not be substantial enough for denying options that would benifit the consumer. Unless the vendor is ruthless and does not care about the client. But why are you then STILL bashing MS and letting DELL go its merry way?
You might want to read up on Judge Jackson's findings of fact. I wouldn't say microsoft wasn't exactly a boyscout when gaining market share, neither is it one in keeping it. The history linked shows the court's findings of microsoft's misbehaviour. Funny you mentioned Intel:
102. Microsoft was not content to merely quash Intel's NSP software. At a second meeting at Intel's headquarters on August 2, 1995, Gates told Grove that he had a fundamental pro
Do you know how Orcs first came into being? They were once Elves. Taken by the Dark Powers in the First Age-tortured, mutilated-a ruined and terrible form of life, bred into a slave race.
-Saruman
Calling an orc an elf might technically be true, but you might want to keep a reasonable distance from it...
I believe you are both right. As it is written, it would be pronounced mee-torrent in modern Greek, but I have observed that in english a mee is often pronounced moo. That pronounciation may have its roots in how it was pronounced in archaic-Greek (some letters were pronounced slightly different than in modern Greek). Anyway, whenever a mee is put in front of something else, it often is an abbreviation for 'micro'. Just as um (slashdot apperantly doesn't support Greek characters, sorry) is an abbreviation for micro-meter.
How should I do this? Should I print out the SANE HCL and bring it into the store? That's a lot of ink and paper, and many of us would need to buy a printer first.
After you ask the salesman if the scanner is supported in linux and he politely refuses having any knowledge of linux, ask to have access to the sane-project website from the store you buy your scanner from. I'm sure the salesman won't refuse you that request, especially if he believes he will make a sale...
Show me a person who doesn't check if his hardware is compatible with linux and I'll show you a person who will encounter problems with linux. Just as a person who didn't check if his hardware is compatible with XP had problems with XP. My SMC network adaptors were windows ready. Try explaining to grandma why windows XP is different than windows 2000...
So why are flatbed scanner manufacturers not necessarily "coming" to the task of producing SANE drivers for Free operating systems?
The same reason stupid governments rule the world. People actually vote for them to do the least they can for the people and the most for themselves.
If an enlighted manufacturer comes out with SANE support and they do not see a rise in their income as a result, they'll simply drop the extra costs. What people need to do is consider linux support as added value that supports their choice in the future. The same way you should avoid a winmoden and almost always go for the external serial modem... The best solution: Buy scanners that are only completely supported under sane. The problem you are addressing is similar to the chicken-and-egg problem alternative OSs face as found by Judge Jackson in the US vs Microsoft anti-trust case...
I remember a time when hardware didn't fail half as much as it does today. The reason it fails more often today is because the majority of consumers don't buy relyability...
So to paraphrase JFK: The question is not what linux can do for you, but what you can do for linux. Do you really want linux as a viable alternative or are you ok with windows' shortcomings?
This is a parallel scanner, parallel scanners are not supported under
the TWAIN standard in Win XP. EPSON will only support scanners under
the TWAIN standard, therefore it is not possible to install this
scanner in WIn XP with EPSON drivers, period.
This is a very old scanner and will not have a useful lifespan left,
you can buy a more reliable and higher spec unit for less than =A370
($100).
It looks like you're out of luck. After Win 2000 came out, Visioneer said they wouldn't update the 6000b driver to work with Win 2000 - which almost certainly means it won't work with XP either.
http://www.ntcompatible.com/story346.html
How are you going to convince me to replace a perfectly working scanner just to upgrade my OS?:) It looks to me like linux is not the only OS that doesn't support all hardware. The difference being, once supported in linux, support never goes away. On the other side, windows support is built by the same people that make the hardware, thus the fast initial support but also the small period of support. When upgrading PC+OS, more likely than not, you _will_ have older peripherals, probably not currently supported by their vendors. So, I'll boldly say that while linux may cost _you_ money, it also may save money to others in other circumstances.
This happens because at least 51 percent of consumers[2] in the United States don't care enough about freedom. Case in point: Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate, lost the 2004 Presidential election.
Well, you could always vote with your wallet and incourage others to do the same...;-)
The price of the substitute product would have to include the price for a substitute for the hardware as well.
As would the cost of any substitute hardware needed to run Vista *cough* bloat *cough* in an equally productive manner. Also, it is funny the added cost of upgrades down the road never gets counted, or the value of freedom subtracted...;-)
However, there are no independent, objective metrics. A company cannot know whether or not it is a monopoly until a court tells it.
Well, the Clayton Act should have rung some bells at the microsoft legal department when they were "cutting Netscape's air supply":
Sec. 13a. Discrimination in rebates, discounts, or advertising service charges; underselling in particular localities; penalties
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to be a party to, or assist in, any transaction of sale, or contract to sell, which discriminates to his knowledge against competitors of the purchaser, in that, any discount, rebate, allowance, or advertising service charge is granted to the purchaser over and above any discount, rebate, allowance, or advertising service charge available at the time of such transaction to said competitors in respect of a sale of goods of like grade, quality, and quantity; to sell, or contract to sell, goods in any part of the United States at prices lower than those exacted by said person elsewhere in the United States for the purpose of destroying competition, or eliminating a competitor in such part of the United States; or, to sell, or contract to sell, goods at unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor.
Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
The law is clear enough for microsoft's legal team to have noticed that they were well over the boundries of the law. If the law is vague, I urge you to explain where it is and why microsoft didn't use your explanation in its case against the US. It would be very informative. Microsoft were/are using monopolistic practices. The thing is, abusing a monopoly and crossing the line of legality is worth it, as it turns out. Also:
How many popular, mainstream software products can you think of that *haven't* improved themselves via the "bundling" of features found in other software ?
How many other OSes can you name that *don't* come with "media players, etc" ? If a competitor improves its product via the integration (or "bundling", if you prefer) of certain functionaly (eg: a media player) then how can a company in a "monopoly" position similarly improve their product without being ruled abusive ?
Microsoft could have provided this functionality as a seperate CD/DVD/download. Or they could permit the uninstalling of these features as linux in particular does. The software 'bundled' with linux is easily interchangeable and in no way promotes a lock-in strategy of any sort.
How many popular, mainstream software products can you think of that *haven't* improved themselves via the "bundling" of features found in other software ?
How many other OSes can you name that *don't* come with "media players, etc" ? If a competitor improves its product via the integration (or "bundling", if you prefer) of certain functionaly (eg: a media player) then how can a company in a "monopoly" position similarly improve their product without being ruled abusive ?
This can still be done by providing these applications as add-on components. And if that is too 'mispleasing', an uninstall option would be enough to get the law off microsoft's back.
So why did (and does) the same logic not apply to CPU schedulers, network stacks, memory management, hardware drivers, widget sets, text editors, calculators, disk repair tools, compression tools, backup utilities, shells, GUIs, etc, etc.
All these features have, at some time in the past, been provided by "competitors" to DOS and Windows (many still are). All have since been "bundled" into Windows. No-one seems to get too hung up on the fact Windows "bundles" notepad, a disk defragmenter and a TCP/IP stack.
Dude, seriously. Judge Jackson defines middleware in the findings:
6. Middleware
28. Operating systems are not the only software programs that expose APIs to application developers. The Netscape Web browser and Sun Microsystems, Inc.'s Java class libraries are examples of non-operating system software that do likewise. Such software is often called "middleware" because it relies on the interfaces provided by the underlying operating system while simultaneously exposing its own APIs to developers. Currently no middleware product exposes enough APIs to allow independent software vendors ("ISVs") profitably to write full-featured personal productivity applications that rely solely on those APIs.
29. Even if middleware deployed enough APIs to support full-featured applications, it would not function on a computer without an operating system to perform tasks such as managing hardware resources and controlling peripheral devices. But to the extent the array of applications relying solely on middleware comes to satisfy all of a user's needs, the user will not care whether there exists a large number of other applications that are directly compatible with the underlying operating system. Thus, the growth of middleware-based applications could lower the costs to users of choosing a non-Intel-compatible PC operating system like the Mac OS. It remains to be seen, though, whether there will ever be a sustained stream of full-featured applications written solely to middleware APIs. In any event, it would take several years for middlware and the applications it supports to evolve from the status quo to a point at which the cost to the average consumer of choosing a non-Intel compatible PC operating system over an Intel-compatible one falls so low as to constrain the pricing of the latter systems.
It's a broad enough definition that includes the browser. If we're going to say that it photographs some particular app, I'd say that the Java Virtual Machine fits this definition more than IE does. Here's a part of the conclusion's definition:
"Microsoft Middleware Product" means
1. the functionality provided by Internet Explorer, Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger, Outlook Express and their successors in a Windows Operating System Product, and
2. for any functionality that is first licensed, distributed or sold by Microsoft after the entry of this Final Judgment and that is part of any Windows Operating System Producta. Internet browsers, email client software, networked audio/video client software, instant messaging software or
b. functionality provided by Microsoft software that --i. is, or in the year preceding the commercial release of any new Windows Operating System Product was, distributed separately by Microsoft (or by an entity acquired by Microsoft) from a Windows Operating System Product;
ii. is similar to the functionality provided by a Non-Microsoft Middleware Product; and
iii. is Trademarked.
Functionality that Microsoft describes or markets as being part of a Microsoft Middleware Product (such as a service pack, upgrade, or bug fix for Internet Explorer), or that is a version of a Microsoft Middleware Product (such as Internet Explorer 5.5), shall be considered to be part of that Microsoft Middleware Product.
And in J. "microsoft middleware" is defined as a superset of these listed here. Also note how they made it future proof.
The court decision, between other things, kills a key microsoft tactic of controling middleware. It does so because it finds microsoft having and abusing a monopoly. The 'problem with this ruling' is that it is not being enforced enough. I also would personaly love to see other decisions against microsoft so that competition will bloom, but keep in mind the court has the power to restrain microsoft within the boundries of the law. What other decisions do you have in mind that wasn't addressed by this ruling?
Winamp is known because it was/is enormously successful and was the best way to play mp3s for a long time.
Exactly my point. The name doesn't matter that much, the functionality of the applications does. The name is a trivial barrier as long as it's not something extraordinary complex.
The difference here is that there are licensed players for Windows which means that Dell will sell you a copy of PowerDVD when you buy the machine. I think there would be serious legal issues with Dell installing a linux distro that uses a non-licensed player. It may be they would address this issue by developing a licensed player before they shipped a distro. This is certainly not an insurmountable problem, I just used it as an example of something simple that Linux cannot currently do out of the box that a user is going to expect to have work.
Non sense. A linux distribution can grant a license to use DVD playback and the sort. All commercial CDs of any distro do (The commercial version of mandrake, SuSE, Linspire...), the Free ones don't. It is actually one of the things you pay for. Linspire has this issue solved, as much as I personally prefer other distros. Also you are not examining how things work in Europe (a considerably big market), were the issue of DVD playback being illegal is a non-issue.
Finally your argument does nothing to address the software shortfall, which is really the biggest hurdle for wide linux adoption.
What software does linux lack, other than professional niche tools like photoshop or AutoCAD (where you can't just switch to linux), or major commercial games? If someone fits into this category, yes a switch to linux is painful if not impossible. But, not everyone depends on photoshop or AutoCAD (I would say they are a minority) and a big number of windows users do not play games on their PC (although the number of people who do, is big). I don't see how I have not justified how linux can gain a considerable market share on the applications that currently exist.
(of course, part of the reason we don't have OS competition is because of the incompetence of the Microsoft's competitors, but that's a different story).
All of this is addressed in the findings linked above. why we cannot have OS competition as long as microsoft is holding an 'application barrier to entry'. This is addressed also in the conclusions posted (opening up APIs and the sort). So you can bark all you want about it being in the context of the browser, but the whole case does not stop at that point. Also, if you may, please tell me one area linux is incompetent that is not a result of something mentioned in the findings and is also not a matter of preference to the end user (lack of familiarity of how the OS works compared to previous knowledge of windows). You'll be surprised as to how wrong you are...
D. Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product, via the Microsoft Developer Network ("MSDN") or similar mechanisms, the APIs and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product. For purposes of this Section III.D, the term APIs means the interfaces, including any associated callback interfaces, that Microsoft Middleware running on a Windows Operating System Product uses to call upon that Windows Operating System Product in order to obtain any services from that Windows Operating System Product. In the case of a new major version of Microsoft Middleware, the disclosures required by this Section III.D shall occur no later than the last major beta test release of that Microsoft Middleware. In the case of a new version of a Windows Operating System Product, the obligations imposed by this Section III.D shall occur in a Timely Manner.
...
EU anyone?
...
1. Microsoft shall not retaliate against any ISV or IHV because of that ISV's or IHV's:
a developing, using, distributing, promoting or supporting any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any software that runs on any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software, or
b exercising any of the options or alternatives provided for under this Final Judgment.
...
Looks they address ALOT more than just bundling the browser here. While it was the one point played out more in the media at that time, it's hardly the only thing said and judged in the whole procedure. It's an interesting read if you have the time.
You can't make the argument that Linux is easy because it's all point and click...you know launching oo.org, running firefox, checking that email with evolution, etc and then have non point and click instructions to perform other basic tasks like dvd playback.
What are you talking about? Installing xine is as easy as launching the package manager in your distro and selecting the package that is described as 'plays DVDs you n00b'. =)
Don't mistake the CLI way as the only way, although it is the fastest way to do it.
About the naming: I never saw anyone having a problem with winamp, or Nero, although their names don't make sense immediantly.
I don't know about SuSE, but the rest are as easy as two clicks to install, or worst case senario, click add and write in a repository. Still we are talking about Dell preinstalling some distro, so all this 'linux cannot play DVDs' is bullshit. So is all the 'I need to go CLI to install my nvidia drivers'. Dell will ship with an image of linux that does this right out of the box. Last time I checked, windows XP doesn't play DVDs out of the box either. I just tried it yesterday and was searching for my PowerDVD CD all over the place...
Lastly, the lack of games is a problem for gamers. So is lack of some professional software like photoshop. But linux really does have to offer alot to a user that is not in need of niche applications or games.
Today it would be near impossible. But by 2015, you're right, that could become a reality. But as I have replied to you in the past, the best way to defy such a future is to make that 2% a considerable 10% by actually 'showing the finger' to TPM and using linux or any other non-tpm platform. This is why you (as a developer if I sensed right) should be striving for a TPM-free future and not 'get stuck on' a scanner.;)
Unless your ISP amends its TOS to require that all residential customers use Windows Vista or Mac OS X 10.5 or newer and uses Trusted Computing to enforce this. Would you be willing to go back to dial-up at the close of this decade?
What would motivate them to exclude customers like that?
what i was talking about is a feature in the MS virtual desktop manager power toy, i can click a button and it goes full screen showing screenshots of all four desktops and the apps open on them. i haven't found a way to do this in kde or any other WM in linux yet, but it is a nice feature... i may have to send in a feature request to the kde devels.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually your post reminded me of a bookmark I had laying around quite a while about why Ernie Ball dumped microsoft. FTA:
...Humiliated by the experience, Ball told his IT department he wanted Microsoft products out of his business within six months. "I said, 'I don't care if we have to buy 10,000 abacuses,'" recalled Ball, who recently addressed the LinuxWorld trade show. "We won't do business with someone who treats us poorly."
...What I really thought is that you ought to treat people the way you want to be treated. I couldn't treat a customer the way Microsoft dealt with me...I went from being a pro-Microsoft guy to instantly being an anti-Microsoft guy...
What I am saying, is yes, as is, ODF may leave some non-standard functionality outside its spec as the parent said. But then I argue two things: If one needs these non-standard functionality, he is free to use proprietary formats to achieve it. ODF is something like a common denominator for the majority of functionality commonly used. On the other hand, when this funtionality is standardized, there is no problem in embedding this in a later version of ODF. The problem currently with ODF as the OP said was embedding non-standard data inside it. This is the vector microsoft could use to close up ODF. Instead, ODF says nothing of the sort is OK and any non-standard data should be saved seperately.
Microsoft is really good at using words and its funny how they turned a Open standard initiative into a lack-of-features argument while at the same time their own OpenXML IS NOT OPEN (or if it is, they lack legally binding words to that direction which effectively is the same).
You have alot of anger in you. Let's take this calmly one-by-one:
Ok, in who's eyes? From the Open Office people's point of view it is non-discriminatory, but from Microsoft and companies that offer more features it is very discriminatory.
How is it discriminatory in microsoft's eyes exactly? Because it is not their format? Why do they support the wide variety of formats they support in word? (wordperfect, RTF,...) Do they all have the features OpenXML has? Why do they not drop support for these formats. I'm sure wordperfect format was not built with microsoft support in mind.
How about from the user's persepective? I imagine they would say, "Oh, I would love to write this on my TablePC, or I would love to drop in Voice Notes with this letter or include an animation or a video or slideshow, but I have to 'publish' in ODF and it doesn't support any of these features." (Talk about dis-empowering people with software 'constraints')
I thought this was an Open advocacy site, how in the 'fek' do people think that just because they slap 'Open' on the front of something, then 'force' people to use it that this is about openness or empowering people?
I don't get your point. For microsoft to support ODF officialy, microsoft is obligated to make its apps support the 'subset' of features that ODF currently includes in its spec. Nothing more, nothing less. If something is not supported by the ODF spec, no one is saying the user can not use OpenXML. No one is asking microsoft to drop its default file format, just include ODF support. This is what I think most microsoft advocates are missing when they are yelling 'ODF doesn't support this x feature'.
If it was truly non-discriminatory then ODF would look at Microsoft's proposals and work with them instead of trying to TELL Microsoft and OTHER companies how the ODF people think it should be done. They are NOT the sole experts here, PERIOD.
Microsoft is a member of the OASIS consortium. They never chose to become actively involved in it, they just rolled their own. So if it is someone claiming expertise and not cooperating, I think you're pointing at the wrong side.
Open should be truly open, not a just a standard FORCED on the industry with the word OPEN slapped on the front of it.
I could make a new 'open' Image format, call it OpenTNAImage, and then tell the industry that this is the only true 'open' image standard, sell it to some politicians that don't know a pixel from a light bulb. Then tell the rest of the world that they cannot have any say in my 'open standard' format.
Sound good? How about when I tell you that my new OpenTNAImage format is only 256pixels by 500pixels maximum and is only black and white, but HECK, it is OPEN so the entire world should just use it and convert all their images to my 'open' format even if it means the loss of image quaility. As long as I can sell it to non-tech politicians, then it must be the 'best'. Geesh.
How can people truly not get that ODF needs to be truly 'open' and 'extendible'? Not just a standard by people with 'agendas' with the word Open on the front of it?
Well, you might want to read a legal analysis of the OpenXML licensing scheme. Technical merit is dandy and all, but in the business world, legal risk in competing applications with OpenXML support is not going to fly. I would love for you or anyone else to explain how microsoft has addressed the specific legal concerns in Marbux's analysis. This has nothing to do with technical merit, but legal bullshit that businesses pay attention to. This is why competitors cannot just adopt OpenXML. What about Brian Jones saying it is GPL incompatible. And it's not only the GPL applications that are being excluded a
Maybe because:
"Competitors are... effectively precluded from bidding against Microsoft or its suppliers for any... contract specifying use of Microsoft's software file formats." He first noted that the patent license for the format "is structured to be read restrictively, in Microsoft's favor... it states that: 'All rights not expressly granted in this license are reserved by Microsoft. No additional rights are granted by implication or estoppel or otherwise.' This is not the customary 'all rights reserved' phrase more commonly encountered... If you cannot find words in the license explicitly stating that you have the right to do something, you don't get that right." Then, by examining the patent license in detail, he found a number of omissions and conditions that suppress competition: there is no integration clause, no license for the schemas themselves, no grant of copyright was included in the patent license, no commitment to delivering any future changes to the schemas or right to develop software implementing them under the same or more liberal license (this particular issue may have been resolved later by Microsoft), no identification of the Microsoft patents involved, no identification of third-party patents, no right to sell or sublicense implementing software, a prohibition against sale and licensing of implementing software, a prohibition against software having functions other than to read and write files using the specification without modification, no license to convert files to and from other formats, no right to write files using the schemas, vagueness and ambiguities will deter implementation by developers and adoption by end users, and a discriminatory incompatibility with F/OSS licensing, and discriminatory incompatibility with proprietary software competitors. In short, he believes Microsoft's license prohibits effective competition from using the format." (Marbux, 2005)
More detail here.
Maybe OpenXML is _A_ standard, but it is not an "Open standard" in the way ODF is (non-discriminatory)...
The modern concept of politeness is bad.
;)
You're absolutely right. I found that out the hard way!
How about ''That's Alpha Geek to you, newbie. Now listen and learn from your betters...''
Depending on setting you might want to slap cow-orker in the back of the head too.
You nicely summed up the problem in two lines right there. I used to be part of a team assigned to educate a company's employees on how to use MS Office more efficiently. The inertia I found these people had to learn anything new was amazing. It was topped only by their 'know all' attitude. And we're talking about basic skills here, not VBScripting. I seriously believe slapping them across the face would actually up their productivity more than my polite responses...
According to a couple of friends of mine who work in Greece, the job market is too MS-friendly, so I would be surprised that there are Univ's pro-Unix. That is a good thing though.
.net). But that's just the companies I know of, so YMMV! :)
:)
Actually, while MS is dominant in workstations in the job market, my experience is that they don't really rely on microsoft tools (like
Again, it is unfair to condemn MS for this specific thing. All large companies have a large patent portfolio for their protection. If they start using them for devious purposes, then we blame them, not before. Imagine if a patent troll company bought these patents. You think the linux world would be safer?
That's just an excuse. Let's leave aside that the patent system is fucked up for a moment. If microsoft were acting in good faith, they would license their patent for free use by the OpenGL consortium of which they are part of. The real deal is that microsoft views OpenGL as a threat. Again read Judge Jackson's findings and see how nicely OpenGl fits the description of an application that exposes it's own APIs etc. Other than that, take a look at the halloween documents, or see microsoft's response if, as some people do, you believe they were a hoax. Actually the part of microsoft's case I posted earlier was one were microsoft stopped intel from actually doing something good! The way they sabotaged Java with their own JVM, Internet explorer bundling, wmv pushing. They are more than evil...
After my i80386sx I had over 10 cpus, all AMD (starting with am486 DX4), for the simple reason that when I was budget conscious they had the performance/price, and when I could afford expensive processors they had both the performance/price and max performance. Still, they have a small market share. It is obvious that intel has done something far worse than MS, because MS did not have someone outperforming them for years and years (while at the same time being compatible!)... Hmm, a Mac fanboy might jump into this now, but there are far too many reasons why Mac OS does not qualify as an AMD equivalent of the software world...
Actually, with the logic you are applying, it is _really_ wierd that either linux or Mac OSX haven't gained a bigger market share. They are in many ways superior to windows. But other than that, you are right AMD offerings currently are superior to Intels'. Tech savvy people here insist on AMD.
Hehe, akou leei "patriotaki" ;) I might not be a pro web designer, as I said, but I have done a little designing, including an undergrad thesis that involved porting the interface of a very complex multimedia database from VB to ASP. While they expected activeX (Greek University - "MS rulez" ;), I made EVERYTHING to be cross-browser, and for the challenge I left only form validation client side (e.g. my own collapsible treeviews designed server-side with a tree status encoding string passed as form data), so the thing turned out to do everything the original interface did, plus it would run on any ancient browsen even without scripting (ok, with the inconvenience of server-side form validation). My point is that you can work on any browser, no matter how lame it is. It is just a matter of deciding it is good practice. If you start using MS-only non-standard stuff for the web you do not respect Linux or Mac users, or future generations (MS security updates often break sites).
:) I'm not a pro web designer either, alot of friends of mine are. As for Greek Universities, my experience differs a bit. I would say my department may be 50%-50% Windows-Unix (Sun, linux, Irix), but the majority of profs are pro-Unix fortunately.
;)
:) Now that the 'masks are off', I have been an 'AMD Fanboy' ever since the am486! But, IMHO, while intel is a bit anticompetetive, microsoft takes the cake in this area. :)
:) You may be right about Time Warner Cable, but last time I was in the States, it seemed competition was fierce between telcos. A far cry from what is happening in Greece currently. They were more annoying with phonecalls nagging you to change companies than not offering advantages. But you could be right. Why don't you just tell them 'na pa na gamitheite' (go fuck yourselves) and just jump ship?
Kudos to you arhonta! But that is rather telling of the hoops you have to go through to do something that can be done somewhat trivially with, say, CSS!
I don't see any news since 2002. It seems MS did not actually do anything. Correct me if I am wrong.
They do not need to do anything. As long as there is a threat, it's enough to 'scare people away' from OpenGL. Not that I'm saying it is the main reason there are no commercial games for linux, it's not. Small user base is.
Not exactly relevant to what I was replying to, but nice to see someone pressuring Intel the way Intel pressures smaller guys! Ok, I have to admit, I am an "AMD fanboy"...
No, I live in NY so I was referring to Time Warner Cable. I call them with reasonable requests and get negative answers. Once I dared say "but.. with other cable providers..." to get the response "WE ARE NOT OTHER PROVIDERS ande WE DON'T CARE WHAT THEY DO. WE ARE TIME WARNER" - All your base belong to us! But OTE (Greek national Telecom) is also mocking the public. They increased phone and internet prices to crazy heights (if I remember correctly it was something like $2/hour to call your neighbor) and then ran these TV commercial of how "OTE is the most profitable organization in Greece" DUH!!!
Yeah, sorry about that. OTE bashing is rather common in Greece and rightfully so. It's no coincidence "kleftes" (thieves) in Greek brought up OTE.gr (funny google bombing). "Pseftes" (liars) still brings up the party that's in power currently and that promised lower rates in telephony.
I haven't really followed the issue (I have only used rather mainstream parts that have decent support for linux), but isn't the basic reason for this linux's GPL licence? Now that Linux has gained some market share and companies might think about devoting a few resources to Linux support, can they ship proprietary drivers to be included in the kernel? Somebody who knows this issue, please enlighten me.
:)
Sure they can, while proprietary drivers are a grey area in the GPL. They are considered a viability for future support, but furthermore, most companies don't even provide binary drivers.
I really don't think MS is at fault here. WMV is proprietary, but I don't like it and it is generally not that used anyway. However the basic problem is that DRM and content encryption is demanded by the studios and can only be implemented in a non GPL OS. While it should be obvious that I don't have issues with MS, I do have big issues with MPAA, RIAA etc and everyone that tries to take away all of my fair use rights.
WMV is heavily used. It's not the default standard yet, but most big sites use it. Also, look at common DVD players and wmv support. Why do you suppose they support wmv and not, say, quicktime which IMHO is a better format? You are right about DRM though...
It should be obvious that you cannot bash MS for being a monopoly by conquering the market. Therefore, Linux not being lucrative to software houses is not a monopoly abuse by MS. Unless you complain because MS does not make Linux games?
Well, you surely cannot blame MS for not developing linux games, but what about using patents against OpenGL?
I have never bought a system with a preinstalled anything. If say "decent computer" and in fact mean "Dell", what are you doing on Slashdot? And my company has bought Linux laptops from smaller boutiques.
People on slashdot are not the problem. Most know and have chosen over if they will use linux or not. Preinstalled linux would make the differance for people not so tech savvy. Unfortunately, linux faces a chicken and egg problem.
So, the incompetence of web designers is MS's fault too? I have always cross-browser tested my pages and I am not a professional web designer. Instead of flooding bad designer's mail boxes, it is easier to post on slashdot and complain about MS?
Obviously you are not a pro web designer. If you were, patriotaki, you would know exactly how much a PITA IE actually is. All other browsers are more or less standards compliant. To get the same functionality out of IE, more often than not, you have to resort to IE hacks. This is frustrating. the only reason Web Devs put up with such bullshit is because they are sure 90% of people on earth have IE and they can't risk not supporting it.
Again, it is not illegal to hold the largest market share (and there has never been doubted that the OS market was gained fairly). You might be "pretty sure", but I do have doubts that MS used the same stronghold tactics that Intel used, for the obvious reason that the gains for a company by getting a rebate on the volume licensing of an OS would not be substantial enough for denying options that would benifit the consumer. Unless the vendor is ruthless and does not care about the client. But why are you then STILL bashing MS and letting DELL go its merry way?
You might want to read up on Judge Jackson's findings of fact. I wouldn't say microsoft wasn't exactly a boyscout when gaining market share, neither is it one in keeping it. The history linked shows the court's findings of microsoft's misbehaviour. Funny you mentioned Intel:
102. Microsoft was not content to merely quash Intel's NSP software. At a second meeting at Intel's headquarters on August 2, 1995, Gates told Grove that he had a fundamental pro
Do you know how Orcs first came into being? They were once Elves. Taken by the Dark Powers in the First Age-tortured, mutilated-a ruined and terrible form of life, bred into a slave race.
-Saruman
Calling an orc an elf might technically be true, but you might want to keep a reasonable distance from it...
I believe you are both right. As it is written, it would be pronounced mee-torrent in modern Greek, but I have observed that in english a mee is often pronounced moo. That pronounciation may have its roots in how it was pronounced in archaic-Greek (some letters were pronounced slightly different than in modern Greek). Anyway, whenever a mee is put in front of something else, it often is an abbreviation for 'micro'. Just as um (slashdot apperantly doesn't support Greek characters, sorry) is an abbreviation for micro-meter.
How should I do this? Should I print out the SANE HCL and bring it into the store? That's a lot of ink and paper, and many of us would need to buy a printer first.
After you ask the salesman if the scanner is supported in linux and he politely refuses having any knowledge of linux, ask to have access to the sane-project website from the store you buy your scanner from. I'm sure the salesman won't refuse you that request, especially if he believes he will make a sale...
Show me a person who doesn't check if his hardware is compatible with linux and I'll show you a person who will encounter problems with linux. Just as a person who didn't check if his hardware is compatible with XP had problems with XP. My SMC network adaptors were windows ready. Try explaining to grandma why windows XP is different than windows 2000...
So why are flatbed scanner manufacturers not necessarily "coming" to the task of producing SANE drivers for Free operating systems?
The same reason stupid governments rule the world. People actually vote for them to do the least they can for the people and the most for themselves.
If an enlighted manufacturer comes out with SANE support and they do not see a rise in their income as a result, they'll simply drop the extra costs. What people need to do is consider linux support as added value that supports their choice in the future. The same way you should avoid a winmoden and almost always go for the external serial modem... The best solution: Buy scanners that are only completely supported under sane. The problem you are addressing is similar to the chicken-and-egg problem alternative OSs face as found by Judge Jackson in the US vs Microsoft anti-trust case...
I remember a time when hardware didn't fail half as much as it does today. The reason it fails more often today is because the majority of consumers don't buy relyability...
So to paraphrase JFK: The question is not what linux can do for you, but what you can do for linux. Do you really want linux as a viable alternative or are you ok with windows' shortcomings?
Costs for hardware substitution is not found only on the linux side.
:) It looks to me like linux is not the only OS that doesn't support all hardware. The difference being, once supported in linux, support never goes away. On the other side, windows support is built by the same people that make the hardware, thus the fast initial support but also the small period of support. When upgrading PC+OS, more likely than not, you _will_ have older peripherals, probably not currently supported by their vendors. So, I'll boldly say that while linux may cost _you_ money, it also may save money to others in other circumstances.
;-)
How about PaperPort 6.5?
Note: PaperPort 6.5 is not supported on Windows XP.
How about Epson GT-6000?
This is a parallel scanner, parallel scanners are not supported under the TWAIN standard in Win XP. EPSON will only support scanners under the TWAIN standard, therefore it is not possible to install this scanner in WIn XP with EPSON drivers, period. This is a very old scanner and will not have a useful lifespan left, you can buy a more reliable and higher spec unit for less than =A370 ($100).
How about the visioneer 6000 series?
It looks like you're out of luck. After Win 2000 came out, Visioneer said they wouldn't update the 6000b driver to work with Win 2000 - which almost certainly means it won't work with XP either. http://www.ntcompatible.com/story346.html
How are you going to convince me to replace a perfectly working scanner just to upgrade my OS?
This happens because at least 51 percent of consumers[2] in the United States don't care enough about freedom. Case in point: Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate, lost the 2004 Presidential election.
Well, you could always vote with your wallet and incourage others to do the same...
The price of the substitute product would have to include the price for a substitute for the hardware as well.
;-)
As would the cost of any substitute hardware needed to run Vista *cough* bloat *cough* in an equally productive manner. Also, it is funny the added cost of upgrades down the road never gets counted, or the value of freedom subtracted...
However, there are no independent, objective metrics. A company cannot know whether or not it is a monopoly until a court tells it.
Well, the Clayton Act should have rung some bells at the microsoft legal department when they were "cutting Netscape's air supply":
Sec. 13a. Discrimination in rebates, discounts, or advertising service charges; underselling in particular localities; penalties It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to be a party to, or assist in, any transaction of sale, or contract to sell, which discriminates to his knowledge against competitors of the purchaser, in that, any discount, rebate, allowance, or advertising service charge is granted to the purchaser over and above any discount, rebate, allowance, or advertising service charge available at the time of such transaction to said competitors in respect of a sale of goods of like grade, quality, and quantity; to sell, or contract to sell, goods in any part of the United States at prices lower than those exacted by said person elsewhere in the United States for the purpose of destroying competition, or eliminating a competitor in such part of the United States; or, to sell, or contract to sell, goods at unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
The law is clear enough for microsoft's legal team to have noticed that they were well over the boundries of the law. If the law is vague, I urge you to explain where it is and why microsoft didn't use your explanation in its case against the US. It would be very informative. Microsoft were/are using monopolistic practices. The thing is, abusing a monopoly and crossing the line of legality is worth it, as it turns out. Also:
How many popular, mainstream software products can you think of that *haven't* improved themselves via the "bundling" of features found in other software ? How many other OSes can you name that *don't* come with "media players, etc" ? If a competitor improves its product via the integration (or "bundling", if you prefer) of certain functionaly (eg: a media player) then how can a company in a "monopoly" position similarly improve their product without being ruled abusive ?
Microsoft could have provided this functionality as a seperate CD/DVD/download. Or they could permit the uninstalling of these features as linux in particular does. The software 'bundled' with linux is easily interchangeable and in no way promotes a lock-in strategy of any sort.
How many popular, mainstream software products can you think of that *haven't* improved themselves via the "bundling" of features found in other software ? How many other OSes can you name that *don't* come with "media players, etc" ? If a competitor improves its product via the integration (or "bundling", if you prefer) of certain functionaly (eg: a media player) then how can a company in a "monopoly" position similarly improve their product without being ruled abusive ?
This can still be done by providing these applications as add-on components. And if that is too 'mispleasing', an uninstall option would be enough to get the law off microsoft's back.
So why did (and does) the same logic not apply to CPU schedulers, network stacks, memory management, hardware drivers, widget sets, text editors, calculators, disk repair tools, compression tools, backup utilities, shells, GUIs, etc, etc. All these features have, at some time in the past, been provided by "competitors" to DOS and Windows (many still are). All have since been "bundled" into Windows. No-one seems to get too hung up on the fact Windows "bundles" notepad, a disk defragmenter and a TCP/IP stack.
All these fe
Dude, seriously. Judge Jackson defines middleware in the findings:
6. Middleware
28. Operating systems are not the only software programs that expose APIs to application developers. The Netscape Web browser and Sun Microsystems, Inc.'s Java class libraries are examples of non-operating system software that do likewise. Such software is often called "middleware" because it relies on the interfaces provided by the underlying operating system while simultaneously exposing its own APIs to developers. Currently no middleware product exposes enough APIs to allow independent software vendors ("ISVs") profitably to write full-featured personal productivity applications that rely solely on those APIs.
29. Even if middleware deployed enough APIs to support full-featured applications, it would not function on a computer without an operating system to perform tasks such as managing hardware resources and controlling peripheral devices. But to the extent the array of applications relying solely on middleware comes to satisfy all of a user's needs, the user will not care whether there exists a large number of other applications that are directly compatible with the underlying operating system. Thus, the growth of middleware-based applications could lower the costs to users of choosing a non-Intel-compatible PC operating system like the Mac OS. It remains to be seen, though, whether there will ever be a sustained stream of full-featured applications written solely to middleware APIs. In any event, it would take several years for middlware and the applications it supports to evolve from the status quo to a point at which the cost to the average consumer of choosing a non-Intel compatible PC operating system over an Intel-compatible one falls so low as to constrain the pricing of the latter systems.
It's a broad enough definition that includes the browser. If we're going to say that it photographs some particular app, I'd say that the Java Virtual Machine fits this definition more than IE does. Here's a part of the conclusion's definition:
"Microsoft Middleware Product" means
1. the functionality provided by Internet Explorer, Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger, Outlook Express and their successors in a Windows Operating System Product, and
2. for any functionality that is first licensed, distributed or sold by Microsoft after the entry of this Final Judgment and that is part of any Windows Operating System Product a. Internet browsers, email client software, networked audio/video client software, instant messaging software or
b. functionality provided by Microsoft software that -- i. is, or in the year preceding the commercial release of any new Windows Operating System Product was, distributed separately by Microsoft (or by an entity acquired by Microsoft) from a Windows Operating System Product;
ii. is similar to the functionality provided by a Non-Microsoft Middleware Product; and
iii. is Trademarked.
Functionality that Microsoft describes or markets as being part of a Microsoft Middleware Product (such as a service pack, upgrade, or bug fix for Internet Explorer), or that is a version of a Microsoft Middleware Product (such as Internet Explorer 5.5), shall be considered to be part of that Microsoft Middleware Product.
And in J. "microsoft middleware" is defined as a superset of these listed here. Also note how they made it future proof.
The court decision, between other things, kills a key microsoft tactic of controling middleware. It does so because it finds microsoft having and abusing a monopoly. The 'problem with this ruling' is that it is not being enforced enough. I also would personaly love to see other decisions against microsoft so that competition will bloom, but keep in mind the court has the power to restrain microsoft within the boundries of the law. What other decisions do you have in mind that wasn't addressed by this ruling?
A link to synaptic may be great for debian and ubuntu. Other distro's require at least a little work to get apt setup.
Every modern distro has its equivalent to apt/synaptic. Mandrake has URPMI, SuSE has YAST, all with easy graphical front-ends. I don't get your point.
Winamp is known because it was/is enormously successful and was the best way to play mp3s for a long time.
Exactly my point. The name doesn't matter that much, the functionality of the applications does. The name is a trivial barrier as long as it's not something extraordinary complex.
The difference here is that there are licensed players for Windows which means that Dell will sell you a copy of PowerDVD when you buy the machine. I think there would be serious legal issues with Dell installing a linux distro that uses a non-licensed player. It may be they would address this issue by developing a licensed player before they shipped a distro. This is certainly not an insurmountable problem, I just used it as an example of something simple that Linux cannot currently do out of the box that a user is going to expect to have work.
Non sense. A linux distribution can grant a license to use DVD playback and the sort. All commercial CDs of any distro do (The commercial version of mandrake, SuSE, Linspire...), the Free ones don't. It is actually one of the things you pay for. Linspire has this issue solved, as much as I personally prefer other distros. Also you are not examining how things work in Europe (a considerably big market), were the issue of DVD playback being illegal is a non-issue.
Finally your argument does nothing to address the software shortfall, which is really the biggest hurdle for wide linux adoption.
What software does linux lack, other than professional niche tools like photoshop or AutoCAD (where you can't just switch to linux), or major commercial games? If someone fits into this category, yes a switch to linux is painful if not impossible. But, not everyone depends on photoshop or AutoCAD (I would say they are a minority) and a big number of windows users do not play games on their PC (although the number of people who do, is big). I don't see how I have not justified how linux can gain a considerable market share on the applications that currently exist.
(of course, part of the reason we don't have OS competition is because of the incompetence of the Microsoft's competitors, but that's a different story).
All of this is addressed in the findings linked above. why we cannot have OS competition as long as microsoft is holding an 'application barrier to entry'. This is addressed also in the conclusions posted (opening up APIs and the sort). So you can bark all you want about it being in the context of the browser, but the whole case does not stop at that point. Also, if you may, please tell me one area linux is incompetent that is not a result of something mentioned in the findings and is also not a matter of preference to the end user (lack of familiarity of how the OS works compared to previous knowledge of windows). You'll be surprised as to how wrong you are...
Actually... No. The findings in that document are alot broader than just bundling a browser. Even more persuasive:
...
...
THE FINAL JUDGMENT
(November 12, 2002)
Alot of the settlement includes:
D. Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product, via the Microsoft Developer Network ("MSDN") or similar mechanisms, the APIs and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product. For purposes of this Section III.D, the term APIs means the interfaces, including any associated callback interfaces, that Microsoft Middleware running on a Windows Operating System Product uses to call upon that Windows Operating System Product in order to obtain any services from that Windows Operating System Product. In the case of a new major version of Microsoft Middleware, the disclosures required by this Section III.D shall occur no later than the last major beta test release of that Microsoft Middleware. In the case of a new version of a Windows Operating System Product, the obligations imposed by this Section III.D shall occur in a Timely Manner.
...
EU anyone?
...
1. Microsoft shall not retaliate against any ISV or IHV because of that ISV's or IHV's:
a developing, using, distributing, promoting or supporting any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any software that runs on any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software, or
b exercising any of the options or alternatives provided for under this Final Judgment.
Looks they address ALOT more than just bundling the browser here. While it was the one point played out more in the media at that time, it's hardly the only thing said and judged in the whole procedure. It's an interesting read if you have the time.
You can't make the argument that Linux is easy because it's all point and click...you know launching oo.org, running firefox, checking that email with evolution, etc and then have non point and click instructions to perform other basic tasks like dvd playback.
What are you talking about? Installing xine is as easy as launching the package manager in your distro and selecting the package that is described as 'plays DVDs you n00b'. =)
Don't mistake the CLI way as the only way, although it is the fastest way to do it.
About the naming: I never saw anyone having a problem with winamp, or Nero, although their names don't make sense immediantly.
I don't know about SuSE, but the rest are as easy as two clicks to install, or worst case senario, click add and write in a repository. Still we are talking about Dell preinstalling some distro, so all this 'linux cannot play DVDs' is bullshit. So is all the 'I need to go CLI to install my nvidia drivers'. Dell will ship with an image of linux that does this right out of the box. Last time I checked, windows XP doesn't play DVDs out of the box either. I just tried it yesterday and was searching for my PowerDVD CD all over the place...
Lastly, the lack of games is a problem for gamers. So is lack of some professional software like photoshop. But linux really does have to offer alot to a user that is not in need of niche applications or games.
Today it would be near impossible. But by 2015, you're right, that could become a reality. But as I have replied to you in the past, the best way to defy such a future is to make that 2% a considerable 10% by actually 'showing the finger' to TPM and using linux or any other non-tpm platform. This is why you (as a developer if I sensed right) should be striving for a TPM-free future and not 'get stuck on' a scanner. ;)
Unless your ISP amends its TOS to require that all residential customers use Windows Vista or Mac OS X 10.5 or newer and uses Trusted Computing to enforce this. Would you be willing to go back to dial-up at the close of this decade?
What would motivate them to exclude customers like that?
No Problem. Glad it was helpful! =)
what i was talking about is a feature in the MS virtual desktop manager power toy, i can click a button and it goes full screen showing screenshots of all four desktops and the apps open on them. i haven't found a way to do this in kde or any other WM in linux yet, but it is a nice feature... i may have to send in a feature request to the kde devels.
Something like kompose?
If that's what you are looking for, it can be found here.