It also saves him from having to deal with compliance issues. He doesn't have to audit that which he doesn't use. He should be made aware of that. And, to get people trained in OOo is a great thing because they take that home with them and they educate their family and friends about it.
Lotus Notes provided a lot of workflow capability when it first gained prominence. You could put together (with little training) a decent workflow set up for a small group of people. With the advent of other facilities Lotus Notes looses it's raison d'etre. No doubt business entities that relied on it would migrate to those other options.
IBM has mandated the use of Lotus Symphony (which is just OOo under another umbrella). It take sometimes decades to switch and the switch is likely hindered by legacy file formats. When the file format is open and standard rather than proprietary the switch will likely happen faster.
I use open office in my business and I install it on every computer I repair. Many businesses I do business with use it. They realize they can continue to use it without having to pay the hefty price (as you can't use the Student and Home edition for commercial purposes). If they need to write letters, create spreadsheets, etc., small business can greatly benefit from the freedom from costs and lock-in.
I think you put the cart before the horse. Hardware costs have come down. It was through open source that OEM bundle costs came down because software costs came down due to OSS forcing the issue. Why pay $500 for Office when Open Office will do the trick. Why pay $399 for an OS when you can install Linux for free.
If you had to consider the costs of the computer to be the hardware and the actual software costs, then the cost would be quite significant. In the days of yore when the 286, 386, 486 etc were being sold a lot of full featured software was bundled. Trial-ware was non-existent (unless you consider share-ware trial-ware).
In actuality, it was OSS that drove down the cost by providing a quality free option. Though I'd not postulate that it was the only or even the major reason, but, certainly I don't believe for a minute that hardware costs came down because software costs did, and that's what lead to the success of OSS (in other words, if hardware costs were high we'd still have OSS, and most likely it would be even more successful). It is just a matter that the end-user no longer pays for the software bundle, rather, instead they are bloated with trial-ware (which when purchased should be considered part of the cost of the computer, just as the OS is considered part of the cost of the computer).
What most fail to see is that each journey begins with a simple step, and you can't complete that journey without completing many steps. Just consider that that journey has begun and Linux is making the necessary steps. Before you know it, Linux will be everywhere and in everything. People will be using it without even thinking about it. That's a milestone that's somewhat been achieved. As time goes by more milestones will become visible and achievable. What the pro-Microsoft camp representatives would have you believe is that Linux is just about providing free to kids in Africa. That's more manipulation than it is reality.
H.264 patent licensing will bring (in the not so near future) some very negative impacts on the software industry. Licensing others' patents isn't what I'm talking about. Besides there are always competitors that are free, such as the Codec placed into the open source community by Google. H.264 is patent encumbered and the Google competitor isn't. Patents are encumbrances not vehicles to the future.
The assumption is that Open Source would never have been created, that there'd be no advancement, that the world needed a Microsoft to foster a competitive environment.
I followed the industry from the very beginnings of Microsoft and have been part of that industry for nearly 3 decades. What I can say is that had it not been for Microsoft the industry would be much bigger, more competition would have been fostered, greater improvements in the computer and interface would have been made, there'd be more markets and more competitors in each market, which easily would have dwarfed what Microsoft "might" have done in the off-hand way you describe. I give them no credit.
Microsoft sustains itself on billions of dollars every quarter. I doubt a free Windows and Office would lead to other services and products that could sustain them.
It is inevitable that Windows and Office will fall by the way-side. That's one of the major complaints about Microsoft. When those products go what else do they have? A patent war?
There's a group of companies that contribute some of their patent portfolio to protect Linux. Attempts at squishing Linux with Microsoft's patent portfolio will only result in a nuclear meltdown in a patent war. Just don't live with the false impression that Linux can't defend itself. And remember, Microsoft is on the loosing end of most patent lawsuits.
Never forget. Microsoft has never helped open source. They have only contributed to their own version of it, which is very much unlike open source as it was defined 10+ years ago.
Peter Norton's history and the products (for the time) were very cool. Today Norton is just a name and has little value. There's absolutely nothing of value to me in any of their products.
The way that program works is that it looks at the window title of the active window and dumps it into the background or minimizes it. Anyone can write a program like that.
You can probably start the magic jack program as a service instead of as a start up program that way it will load in the back ground but not require you to log in to your computer. Though, I personally see no value in having passwords on your account (which is why you aren't logging in) or you have multiple accounts (which I don't recommend either), or you have the asp.net account (in which case I would recommend you delete the account). That way, when you start the computer the magic jack program will start in the background and you will go to your desktop once you turn the computer on.
Do you have an ISP that shapes? Though that much being transferred is tiny there are problems with cable networks. The TK6000 product is in continual disconnect mode when you use it on Comcast. Apparently if you use a DSL service the problem doesn't exist or isn't that bad. With the TK6000 and Comcast you have to keep picking up the phone every so often to keep it alive. You also have to pick the call up within a couple rings or you get a busy signal when you finally do.
The magic jack doesn't have as big of a problem as the TK6000. I have both and use neither. I set up a free phone number from sipgate (I believe they are out of numbers now due to an article posted on Lifehacker) in conjunction with my google voice. It runs on a computer running freepbx (a linux based PBX system). I have a Linksys voip box connected to a phone. All incoming and outgoing calls are free in the US and Canada.
I've heard people say they've tried Linux over the years. I too had tried Linux over the years. But, seriously, there's more to this than "trying". What gets people is the "trying", (mostly) trying it with the mindset of a windows user. Attempts consist of a few weeks, but never a real commitment to trying. Put Windows aside for a few months, say 6, **and take the time to learn it** (you didn't learn Windows over night) while always keeping in mind that you should forget your Window's mindset. Granted there's a lot in common. Until you really try it you are just essentially "batting an eye" at it (so to speak) without the commitment to the relationship.
Linux has had sound issues, though these days minor and almost not related to the Linux OS. It's all in how the distribution put things together. For instance, K/Ubuntu put together a half hearted attempt at Pulse Audio. But other distributions did it very well and their sound issues were uncommon. Sound technology has changed. In Vista you can adjust the sound properties on a per application basis. The modern sound systems in Linux are doing the same thing. The nature of Linux is to have new and inventive technologies created that compete with the existing ones. I think few people would say that's the case with Windows and directx/direct sound. In Linux if someone finds a better way they can create it. This is sort of antagonistic to the other pre-existing technologies, yet in the end we end up with much better more flexible easily programmed, cross platform technologies that benefit everyone.
Windows had some very bothersome issues with the High definition audio bus. Finding a way to get that working at times was near impossible. The point is that sound issues exist(ed) in Windows (until not long ago).
What this article is saying is that sound issues are mostly non-existent today even so, they are spending more time and research on putting together even better ways that are more friendly to the user. You are reading it wrong. The point of the article wasn't to say sound sucked, but to say it's great and even so, here you go, we are making it better with this new capability.
And, in case you didn't understand it, KDE is a desktop manager that runs atop the GUI that runs atop the OS.
What he's saying is that the network manager applet in KDE (up until a couple recent releases of Kubuntu) was horrid. And he's right, at least as far as wireless went.
He's also saying that pulse audio was also an issue. And he's right. It was horrendous also, often not working, stopping, locking up programs, etc. For instance if you had pulse audio loaded and tried to use XBMC it would lock and you had to terminate XBMC by opening another session and terminating it at the CLI. Most of the posts from various sources indicated that the Kubuntu folks hadn't set PA up properly.
As of the current release of Kubuntu and KDE 4.4.5 it is working well, though I often get messages indicating that the audio subsystem isn't working for some reason or the other. Usually running a multimedia program resets it and it works again.
Then what the hell is Obama rallying his allies for? Our laws protect those that allegedly commit crimes against us, even foreigners. If war crimes have been committed by our people and information regarding those crimes are leaked it doesn't make those leaking them, nor those publishing them, criminals. They have to be tried in a court of law. War-time situations is when we hold enemy combatants indefinitely, or until the war is over, and treaties signed.
I viewed Obama's actions as simply a way for him to skirt our laws. We have laws that protect whistle blowers. Other do not. I have the impression that this is his way of overcoming that legal limit--get your allies to attack when our laws fail you, even if they are there to protect against retaliation.
I doubt they'd be leaking police informants names unless those informants were out breaking the law on the public's dime and weren't being held accountable.
The moment Wikileaks stops leaking everything that's when their credibility wanes and people stop paying attention. Pressure him to withhold and he becomes something less than a site where real information can be brought to light.
Slashdot Mirror
It also saves him from having to deal with compliance issues. He doesn't have to audit that which he doesn't use. He should be made aware of that. And, to get people trained in OOo is a great thing because they take that home with them and they educate their family and friends about it.
Lotus Notes provided a lot of workflow capability when it first gained prominence. You could put together (with little training) a decent workflow set up for a small group of people. With the advent of other facilities Lotus Notes looses it's raison d'etre. No doubt business entities that relied on it would migrate to those other options.
IBM has mandated the use of Lotus Symphony (which is just OOo under another umbrella). It take sometimes decades to switch and the switch is likely hindered by legacy file formats. When the file format is open and standard rather than proprietary the switch will likely happen faster.
I use open office in my business and I install it on every computer I repair. Many businesses I do business with use it. They realize they can continue to use it without having to pay the hefty price (as you can't use the Student and Home edition for commercial purposes). If they need to write letters, create spreadsheets, etc., small business can greatly benefit from the freedom from costs and lock-in.
I think you put the cart before the horse. Hardware costs have come down. It was through open source that OEM bundle costs came down because software costs came down due to OSS forcing the issue. Why pay $500 for Office when Open Office will do the trick. Why pay $399 for an OS when you can install Linux for free.
If you had to consider the costs of the computer to be the hardware and the actual software costs, then the cost would be quite significant. In the days of yore when the 286, 386, 486 etc were being sold a lot of full featured software was bundled. Trial-ware was non-existent (unless you consider share-ware trial-ware).
In actuality, it was OSS that drove down the cost by providing a quality free option. Though I'd not postulate that it was the only or even the major reason, but, certainly I don't believe for a minute that hardware costs came down because software costs did, and that's what lead to the success of OSS (in other words, if hardware costs were high we'd still have OSS, and most likely it would be even more successful). It is just a matter that the end-user no longer pays for the software bundle, rather, instead they are bloated with trial-ware (which when purchased should be considered part of the cost of the computer, just as the OS is considered part of the cost of the computer).
What most fail to see is that each journey begins with a simple step, and you can't complete that journey without completing many steps. Just consider that that journey has begun and Linux is making the necessary steps. Before you know it, Linux will be everywhere and in everything. People will be using it without even thinking about it. That's a milestone that's somewhat been achieved. As time goes by more milestones will become visible and achievable. What the pro-Microsoft camp representatives would have you believe is that Linux is just about providing free to kids in Africa. That's more manipulation than it is reality.
H.264 patent licensing will bring (in the not so near future) some very negative impacts on the software industry. Licensing others' patents isn't what I'm talking about. Besides there are always competitors that are free, such as the Codec placed into the open source community by Google. H.264 is patent encumbered and the Google competitor isn't. Patents are encumbrances not vehicles to the future.
The assumption is that Open Source would never have been created, that there'd be no advancement, that the world needed a Microsoft to foster a competitive environment.
I followed the industry from the very beginnings of Microsoft and have been part of that industry for nearly 3 decades. What I can say is that had it not been for Microsoft the industry would be much bigger, more competition would have been fostered, greater improvements in the computer and interface would have been made, there'd be more markets and more competitors in each market, which easily would have dwarfed what Microsoft "might" have done in the off-hand way you describe. I give them no credit.
Microsoft sustains itself on billions of dollars every quarter. I doubt a free Windows and Office would lead to other services and products that could sustain them.
It is inevitable that Windows and Office will fall by the way-side. That's one of the major complaints about Microsoft. When those products go what else do they have? A patent war?
There's a group of companies that contribute some of their patent portfolio to protect Linux. Attempts at squishing Linux with Microsoft's patent portfolio will only result in a nuclear meltdown in a patent war. Just don't live with the false impression that Linux can't defend itself. And remember, Microsoft is on the loosing end of most patent lawsuits.
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
Never forget. Microsoft has never helped open source. They have only contributed to their own version of it, which is very much unlike open source as it was defined 10+ years ago.
It is not net neutral if you filter. That's the point of neutrality.
McAfee is called McAfee. What will it be called now?
Peter Norton's history and the products (for the time) were very cool. Today Norton is just a name and has little value. There's absolutely nothing of value to me in any of their products.
The way that program works is that it looks at the window title of the active window and dumps it into the background or minimizes it. Anyone can write a program like that.
You can probably start the magic jack program as a service instead of as a start up program that way it will load in the back ground but not require you to log in to your computer. Though, I personally see no value in having passwords on your account (which is why you aren't logging in) or you have multiple accounts (which I don't recommend either), or you have the asp.net account (in which case I would recommend you delete the account). That way, when you start the computer the magic jack program will start in the background and you will go to your desktop once you turn the computer on.
Do you have an ISP that shapes? Though that much being transferred is tiny there are problems with cable networks. The TK6000 product is in continual disconnect mode when you use it on Comcast. Apparently if you use a DSL service the problem doesn't exist or isn't that bad. With the TK6000 and Comcast you have to keep picking up the phone every so often to keep it alive. You also have to pick the call up within a couple rings or you get a busy signal when you finally do.
The magic jack doesn't have as big of a problem as the TK6000. I have both and use neither. I set up a free phone number from sipgate (I believe they are out of numbers now due to an article posted on Lifehacker) in conjunction with my google voice. It runs on a computer running freepbx (a linux based PBX system). I have a Linksys voip box connected to a phone. All incoming and outgoing calls are free in the US and Canada.
I've heard people say they've tried Linux over the years. I too had tried Linux over the years. But, seriously, there's more to this than "trying". What gets people is the "trying", (mostly) trying it with the mindset of a windows user. Attempts consist of a few weeks, but never a real commitment to trying. Put Windows aside for a few months, say 6, **and take the time to learn it** (you didn't learn Windows over night) while always keeping in mind that you should forget your Window's mindset. Granted there's a lot in common. Until you really try it you are just essentially "batting an eye" at it (so to speak) without the commitment to the relationship.
Linux has had sound issues, though these days minor and almost not related to the Linux OS. It's all in how the distribution put things together. For instance, K/Ubuntu put together a half hearted attempt at Pulse Audio. But other distributions did it very well and their sound issues were uncommon. Sound technology has changed. In Vista you can adjust the sound properties on a per application basis. The modern sound systems in Linux are doing the same thing. The nature of Linux is to have new and inventive technologies created that compete with the existing ones. I think few people would say that's the case with Windows and directx/direct sound. In Linux if someone finds a better way they can create it. This is sort of antagonistic to the other pre-existing technologies, yet in the end we end up with much better more flexible easily programmed, cross platform technologies that benefit everyone.
Windows had some very bothersome issues with the High definition audio bus. Finding a way to get that working at times was near impossible. The point is that sound issues exist(ed) in Windows (until not long ago).
What this article is saying is that sound issues are mostly non-existent today even so, they are spending more time and research on putting together even better ways that are more friendly to the user. You are reading it wrong. The point of the article wasn't to say sound sucked, but to say it's great and even so, here you go, we are making it better with this new capability.
And, in case you didn't understand it, KDE is a desktop manager that runs atop the GUI that runs atop the OS.
What he's saying is that the network manager applet in KDE (up until a couple recent releases of Kubuntu) was horrid. And he's right, at least as far as wireless went.
He's also saying that pulse audio was also an issue. And he's right. It was horrendous also, often not working, stopping, locking up programs, etc. For instance if you had pulse audio loaded and tried to use XBMC it would lock and you had to terminate XBMC by opening another session and terminating it at the CLI. Most of the posts from various sources indicated that the Kubuntu folks hadn't set PA up properly.
As of the current release of Kubuntu and KDE 4.4.5 it is working well, though I often get messages indicating that the audio subsystem isn't working for some reason or the other. Usually running a multimedia program resets it and it works again.
So, no, he's not trolling.
Just because a soldier commits a war crime on the battle field doesn't mean he was always ordered to do so.
Then what the hell is Obama rallying his allies for? Our laws protect those that allegedly commit crimes against us, even foreigners. If war crimes have been committed by our people and information regarding those crimes are leaked it doesn't make those leaking them, nor those publishing them, criminals. They have to be tried in a court of law. War-time situations is when we hold enemy combatants indefinitely, or until the war is over, and treaties signed.
Who's the famous director that was accused of statutory rape and still is being pursued?
I get a troll rating for saying the same thing everyone commenting on my post said?
I viewed Obama's actions as simply a way for him to skirt our laws. We have laws that protect whistle blowers. Other do not. I have the impression that this is his way of overcoming that legal limit--get your allies to attack when our laws fail you, even if they are there to protect against retaliation.
There are many war criminals that are criminals before they loose, even before they sometimes win.
I doubt they'd be leaking police informants names unless those informants were out breaking the law on the public's dime and weren't being held accountable.
The moment Wikileaks stops leaking everything that's when their credibility wanes and people stop paying attention. Pressure him to withhold and he becomes something less than a site where real information can be brought to light.
It's been failing.