RMS and Linus say you have the right to do that freely, but Microsoft says you must pay them a tax even if you aren't using their device to do it, because they must have some patent on that act of butt fucking. Only they won't tell you which patent covers their act thus fucking you over.
And in Microsoft's world your privacy is gone and your quality will go down as they DRM you into oblivion.
Dude, get it straight. We can do with our computers what we want. The world isn't Microsoft's. It is ours. Stop getting so fanboy excited that you are creaming in Ballmer's coffee.
And by your logic all prior versions of any spreadsheet (or software for that matter) are unusable. The only thing worth using is the latest version.
We all know that is not true. It isn't a question of perfection, it is a question of reality. Please don't distort reality in your quest for perfection.
I used spreadsheets for many years. I started with Lotus 123 for DOS. I also used Excel for years. I have also put considerable work into Open Office Calc. Take the time to friggen use it before you start spouting off. Hell, it reads and writes Excel files. That means it understands how to use the goodies in those spreadsheets. Stop with the FUD, sheesh.
I'd created spreadsheets that were massive, did huge calculations, look up, multi sheets, multi files, huge charting, printing, and macros.
What you are saying is that no product but the latest is a capable product. It just isn't true. Those older products were immensely powerful and capable spreadsheets. Open Office calc is far far far more advanced and capable.
So, get off your high horse. Open Office is a good solid alternative and should be the recommended choice by these educational institutions.
They are probably receiving funding from Microsoft through grants to get students to use their product because they believe that those students will demand and purchase those same products when they graduate into business.
BTW, the whole pre-college system was designed around the blue collar businesses to get workers trained for blue collar jobs. It is well documented.
What' he's claiming qualifies as copyright infringement and license violation. The only way it can be an IP violation is if he has a patent on it. Which he does not. Technically, if that was taken verbatim he's right. It still hasn't been proven. Of course, it is sad that if it is his work and was taken and used in an unauthorized way I'd vote for some way to compensate. But it certainly isn't a patent issue and hence really isn't IP theft. It is simply pirating of software.
Soon, we'll have music companies or bands patenting the way thier music sounds so no one can imitate them. Pretty sad and all. Artists will patent how their pictures look or the process used to create the music or the pictures.
Those are better covered with copyright instead of patents. That's how this guy should be covering his.
From what I understand the same thing happened with the broadcom wireless chipset features that were reverse engineered for linux and someone from the BSD community of products copied it verbatim.
Microsoft is not claiming that open source is in violation of their copyrights. They are claiming that open source stole their IP. They claim 235 patents are being violated. That's an accusation of IP theft. What this guys is claiming is nothing more than copyright infringement or even a violation of the license. That's no IP theft.
It is pure and flawless until it is proven to be flawed. This isn't traffic law that we are talking about here. It isn't a matter of people speeding or going through red lights or not stopping fully at stop signs or not having insurance or not paying the meter and getting away with it.
We are talking about serious implications if people believe that Linux is in violation of others intellectual property. If false word spreads then people will believe it because it is easier to take the simpler approach to problems than it is to dig deep and find the real truth.
If you believe they should just believe the surface accusation then you are just like Microsoft in that you can claim, in an attempt to harm the Linux industry, by stating that Linux violates it's patents. But alas, Microsoft only makes the claim without stating the patents nor the court cases to back it up. So in essence, by just trying to get others to believe something that hasn't been proven you are doing exactly what Microsoft was doing--spreading FUD.
It is well established that in a court in the US you are believed to be innocent until proven guilty, so in the US there has been no violations. In a civil court the plaintiff must prove with a preponderance of the evidence, whereas in a criminal court the case against the defendant must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Since there have been no cases of OSS loosing a suit and very few OSS projects being sued at all theres a greater chance that none are in violation of anyone's IP. It is pretty simple. You innocent until you are proven guilty.
The main reason Microsoft does not want to disclose which IP are in violation is that they would be sued by these various organizations such as the EFF and FSF to prove their case, and for slander and libel. This would cost Microsoft dearly. It isn't that every one and their brother would challenge Microsoft because everyone and their brother can already challenge the claim. You simply need to do so by sending a certified letter demanding that Microsoft disclose to you the actual IP in question and which project (as you are being threatened as an end-user). Your letter should state that if Microsoft fails to respond fully with full disclosure by a certain date then you and those related to these IP violations are to consider the matter addressed and closed. The point is that if they really felt threatened by all those that would challenge them on the patents they can already be challenged without even knowing the IP in question.
So, all of their posturing was simply for FUD and since it has never been proven that any laws or anyones property was stolen there is no breaking of the laws and nothing was stolen.
Are there crimes that go unpunished because the culprits are not caught? Yes. We all know that. Are there serious crimes that go unpunished because the culprits are not caught? Absolutely. Is everyone using Linux or developing projects committing serious crimes? Depends on how you look at it. But if we are all committing serious crimes and we are being accused of those crimes we deserve to know what they are and an opportunity to defend ourselves. If you are of the mindset that we are only committing crimes akin to traffic violations then we still need to know what crimes and still are to be given the opportunity to defend ourselves, and it is still up to the proper authorities to bring those changes and to have those charges settled in a court of law with jurisdiction. Otherwise, to just let it foster is to simply spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
The only way to offset that is to ensure that those reading the claims understand that more is at stake than just the claims (as the average persons don't go out and investigate, they just tend to read the headlines).
Now there's an even greater issue here. The average commercial entity producing software is probably in violation of more IP than any OSS project is (by your logic). At least with the OSS project anyone (including you) c
Utterly false. No Linux code violates other's IP. Period! Stop spreading FUD. There's no violation until a court of law states there is. As far as I can recall there hasn't been a single OSS product that was taken to court and lost a case of IP infringement. On the other hand OSS has been taken to court and become the victor, and as far as I recall nearly 100% of Microsoft's IP related cases resulted in them loosing in a court of law, some for very serious money, including near multi-billion judgements.
So, don't go off claiming something that is absolutely untrue and that has never ever been proven in any court.
There's as much chance as a snowball's chance in hell of Microsoft getting much support from OSS. Utter incompetence is involved in their attempt to embrace and extinguish campaign.
Really, they have Ballmer yelling extortion attempts at every Linux user and they have some maverick manager or programmer, that while in Asia, claiming that 2007 is the year of the death of OSS.
These people are not only distorted, they are crazy foolish.
Microsoft needs to just understand that OSS will sooner or later out develop them. They need to also understand that everyone is on guard like a farmer with a shotgun protecting their daughters from the Microsoft Bible salesmen.
It was a $2 billion ring as of yesterday in the news. But we know who has been exaggerating these numbers. More likely the $2 billion is more like $2 million. It is hard to get $2 billion of anything, so we all know that's utter nonsense. If they have $2 billion they can easily afford to defend themselves. And, since when did China adopt US copyright practices. And since when is $2 billion dollars equal to $2 billion dollars in China? Not really possible.
It's not a conviction unless a contract/license violation is considered a crime in Germany. They simply lost the civil case and were found in violation. That's pretty much it. Hopefully we'll see more lawsuits against other companies such as TiVO.
Hopefully there's some monetary reward in this and that it will teach Skype and others a big lesson.
Linux ensures privacy. On Windows Vista you have a DRM nightmare with even the hardware manufacturers being "drafted" into Microsoft's DRM lock in mechanism--lock in meaning that once you invest in that hardware and the content for that hardware you will be forever locked into Windows. Those 47 programs that Microsoft put into Vista to collect your personal data and send it back to them is another example of the violation of your privacy. The very fact that they are looking at your computer and tracking your activities and reporting them back is just obscene. Do automobile companies do that? Do developers of land and of homes do that? Do the police do that? These things aren't done by those companies because it is a violation of your privacy to track and maintain that information. Microsoft is doing it because they are a monopoly and the vast majority of users don't know that they have a choice or even that Microsoft is spying on them.
How would you like it if a Walmart employee showed up at your home to inspect your belongings in your home (a computer, BTW, is an extension of your home) because you are a regular shopper at Walmart? You would not like that. No more should you like that than allowing Microsoft to put hidden cameras in your home nor hidden program on your computer. It is your computer, your home, and your privacy they are violating.
Microsoft has also locked you into the OS through other technologies such as DirectX. That's a failure to create closed proprietary technologies to lock you in. They have created closed file formats to keep you from moving to other Office suites. They have kept certain APIs hidden to keep other developers from creating programs with the ease and key features with more rapid development (not having to resort to hacks to accomplish the same thing)--video format are an example, network interoperability is another example.
There's quite a list of things that Microsoft has done which though have given them a monopoly status in the end will bite them and create market share loss and ultimately will have failed on the desktop. Linux and OSX has not had these problems.
Why he's getting the response he is, is because of the claim that Linux is a failure, which only feeds the Windows fanboys. Linux is in no way a failure on the desktop. It just isn't as widely accepted as a viable desktop due to so many people not knowing anything about it as a desktop OS, or that it even exists. Focusing on that--getting the word out--is what will ensure Linux on the desktop.
The good thing is that Linux, GNU, and Open Source development are moving along at a faster pace than Windows is and sooner or later it will begin to surpass other OSes and GUIs in features, stability, flexibility, future potential, etc (if it already hasn't). There are weak spots as all products have them. I think Open Source will respond better to enhancing those features faster than a monolithic monopoly ever could. Not to mention there are huge numbers of potential developers that will be creating prior art and even IP that companies such as Microsoft can only steal if they want to move ahead. That's a tremendous boom.
What also troubles me is that Linux, GNU, and Open Source tend to react to technologies instead of really developing new technological ideas. We see that feature such and such has been created and that is often reproduced, though maybe in a superior way. What I'd like to see are more unique ideas coming from the Linux community itself thus ensuring that some key new technological concepts come from Open Source. It is sort of like when John Warnock created Adobe and created PostScript for the Apple Mac and the Laser printer. It was a technology like that which propelled Apple to the front of certain markets and it is that which made John Warnock the rich man he is today. I just can see some killer app being developed for Linux which draws people into the industry created and supported by so many of us. Also, convincing companies such as Adobe to adapt their applications to Linux will also help change the landscape. The issue is why would a company develop for such a small market? Well, as we have seen in the past couple years with Ubuntu having approximately 20 million users world wide and then with all the other distributions combined we come near 100 million users world wide. That's a huge market vs. what Adobe had when it was working on the Postscript and the laser printer with Apple. Certainly a much greater potential market for even some of the smaller technologies. Personally, I don't care if software costs money. And I know software can be developed for the Open Source operating systems without forcing them to use Open Source code. So, the potential is there for a huge market to make some people very rich selling software to Linux users.
I don't recall the guys name nor his exact quote nor the precise context of the quote, but I do recall what he was getting at when he said something like "in our fight for racial equality we should have put more emphasis on buying land/property and being less strict about fighting for equality, as equality is bound to happen in a free society." What he meant was if they had bought land they'd have it as a valuable resource--something to ensure the future. They should have focused on that as much as they did on just getting equal rights as equal rights were bound to happen. Maybe it would have taken longer but it was bound to happen. This is what I perceived he meant. What I'm getting at with this story is that Linux should be focusing on building up (as in every participant, every volunteer, every developer) the IP and prior art to keep companies such as Microsoft from getting patents on them. We'll get parity sooner or later on the desktop. Let's own the land upon which the IP is based so that the monolithic monopoly doesn't lock Open Source out of some key advances. I'd rather see Open Source lock out the commercial entities than have the freedoms that I desire held hostage to the extortion attempts we've seen Microsoft use in the past.
Linux has not failed on the desktop. Any article with a title such as this is just FUD. Linux is growing on the desktop like wildfire. There's an estimated 100 million Linux users world wide. No way can you consider 100 million of anything a failure.
Are there optimizations that can be taken into account to clean up Linux? Sure. As with any OS. But Linux is no way a failure. The biggest problem Linux has had is the failure to communicate it's existence to the masses. Yeah, there were issues with the zealots killing Linux a couple years ago but you can tell that more reasonable minds have prevailed.
The Windows zealots believing they can kill Linux with their FUD simply brings Linux into the minds of more potential users.
I'd say we just let it ride and everyone do their best to bring awareness about it to others and we'll see how it grows.
And XP sales are noticeably higher than expected. And being a monopoly you'd expect Vista to grow marketshare as old hardware is discontinued and new hardware is purchased. But Vista is a misery to all as it is a DRM and spyware nightmare.
Not all countries have the same laws as the US. Protection in the US isn't the same in other countries. Some countries don't recognize patents nor copyright. This is meant for those people. If they are in a country that has such laws and they honor US patents and copyright then you may be breaking the law. Otherwise, if the country does not you are not breaking the law so you can use them freely.
This clause is meant to address those in other countries that may not have laws that make using the codecs illegal. It also is a warning that if you are in a country where it is illegal you use them at your own risk of being prosecuted.
These are copyright violations possibly, IMHO, in the tiniest form.
What needs to be done is that these ventures that make/license these codecs really should make them available to other OSes other than Windows and the Mac. I would pay for a commercial set of codecs that are legal from these companies even though I use Linux so that I can play my movies, etc without breaking the law.
I don't think they are worried about the other 250 distro's causing a split and thus impacting the acceptance of Open Source and the Linux Distributions. What the Unix argument worried about was the single split affecting the impact.
Consistency is very important to the average Joe out there that uses a computer. They don't understand, because they shouldn't have to understand, all the ins and outs of different versions, different OSes, and different Distros. Their jobs are to raise their children, pay their bills, and do the best they can at their jobs. It isn't to try to figure out and understand these differences. This isn't to say that they can't do this but that they are NOT required to and never should be.
Consistency is important. You can see how even some variations on offerings of Vista (with their numerous different versions) impacts the consumer purchasing decisions. Rather than upgrade they decide to not even do a taste test. They stay with what they have because Vista is not necessary nor is it desired. Vista just doesn't offer anything more than XP offers. Why move on to a different OS which is inconsistent with your current OS? People don't like change.
So, so many distros for Linux can and does hurt the acceptance. The question is how much or, rather a better question is, how much longer will Open Source advocates be patient in waiting for better acceptance. Large distros help considerably because they bring consistency to the desktop. Large distros such as RH bring consistency to the server. Competition between the distros brings advancement in certain technologies. We all know that software installation under Linux was horrendous. It was a pathetic stinking pile of shit. Through all the competition with other distros we have a better solution, tho not quite as solid as you see on the Macintosh or under Windows.
So, the fragmentation has both positive and negative affects. Sooner or later we'll have to wonder how much longer we are willing to wait for the consumer to catch up and give us the attention we need. A big part of that can be handled in other ways. For instance, we can overcome the inconsistency problem by literally ignoring it and then get into promoting Linux and Open Source within our circle of friends and family. Promote it heavily and sooner than later we'll get much more solid support, such as we got from Dell, such as the Wallmart PC offerings having Open Office. People want free software and would rather use it than pay $500 for an office suite. But most don't know that Open Office exists and how quality it is. Through our promoting Linux to family and friends we advance Open Source and Linux.
That's not 3 hundred copies. The world wide estimate is 100 million Linux copies. What you mean is 300 distributors of the Linux and other Open Source software packages.
Actually Microsoft decided that technologies such as Java could kill their OS and that was the reason they did what they did. It is well documented in the courts that Microsoft felt this way and acted as they did because of it.
Your sentiments are similar to those that surrounded Standard Oil many years ago. Now we don't have a Standard Oil.
Fortunately most of Microsoft's tactics have been revealed and companies are aware of them. They realize that cooperation with Microsoft ultimately means theft of their ideas, a violation of their ideas, and then their demise. Fortunately, though the rest of the world knows that these things have happened and know that there are alternatives. Whole countries use alternatives to Microsoft's products. Open source Linux is huge in other countries. Standardization on open technologies is extremely important to them. A country wishing to make a technology infrastructure needs to focus on open standards. That means the OS as well as the applications and the data formats. They realize they can't get that from Microsoft.
It is important to realize that Microsoft has a position that has never been seen before in history. They control so much of the world's computers. Countries know that it is important to not allow one company to continue. Even governments know it is important to not permit one company with a reputation of criminal activity to control their country's computers. Even in the US we are beginning to realize this.
No one is saying that Microsoft's demise will be immediate nor even noticeable for some time, but it will occur and it will occur because the rest of the world wasn't taken in by Microsoft's tactics. Battles will be won and lost by Microsoft and there will be times when it appears that Microsoft is winning again, but in the end common sense and a value system that is based in the rights of a country and the rights of the people instead of utter flagrant disregard for the rights and privacy of the people. Microsoft's 47 programs used to spy on the consumer as well as the WGA/WGN and other hidden tools in Vista should be enough to tell everyone that this inappropriate behavior on Microsoft's part must cease.
When all understand the building blocks that Microsoft uses (mostly proprietary technologies), such as DRM, such as DX10, such as closed document format, such as various programming APIs, then you'll understand that it is important to fight those technologies at all cost to ensure that we don't get locked into Microsoft's technologies which help to shore up their monopoly and to build monopolies in other technologies.
Microsoft is the company known to restrict choice. Open source has never restricted choice. Microsoft has a reputation and a conviction in federal court for restricting choice. Open source has a reputation for open choices. These Microsoft folks are real shitheads. In the future Microsoft will become synonymous with "bad" instead of with "software". That's the reputation they are building. Did Microsoft hire politicians to write their press releases? This is pathetic of them to even infer that open source denies choice. It never has.
What's the best choice? Open source ODF of course. Hands down it is the winner. It has the best world-wide support. It is pledged to stay open and not be ridiculously modified from the standard once it is adopted. Microsoft won't pledge their closed source format will remain standardized. We know they play serious games with other people's technologies. It is a pretty unsavory game once you understand they are playing it.
We really don't need Microsoft's entry. Even without it we have choice because ODF is open. It's that simple.
I've seen Mandrake from years ago and I was not satisfied with it. Also, Mandriva required that you pay $60 per year (that last time I looked at it) in order to even download the latest version. After a couple years that cost was greater than purchasing Windows XP Home straight up. That was the primary reason I did not continue with Mandrake.
Then they changed their name. Mandriva sounded too much like drivel. I know, I'm sorry, but that's what goes through my mind. Even pidgin reminds me too much of an unclean unhealthy bird that infests our cities and craps on everything. Oh well.
But the primary reason was the cost. I was not willing to pay even for 2 years the cost of Mandrake's fees. I felt it was too much like selling the software, unless I wanted to use an older release and deal with all the updates.
Ubuntu puts together a good desktop with what the average person would use. Prior to Ubuntu I used only KDE but since Ubuntu I don't even want to look at KDE.
The updates to Ubuntu are regular and near automatic. The forum and IRC support are first rate. The repositories are filled with good programs. And we have a good person with a good goal running Ubuntu. Regular releases and no pressure to do more than you want to assist. It makes for a freedom of using computers like no other. Have to hand it to Mark S. He did a great job and it continues to propel Linux into the future and into the minds and hearts of the average user.
The wireless thing is not an issue exclusively with Ubuntu. Consider the hardware manufacturer in the equation and their lack of support for nearly 100 million linux users that may use their product.
He's a confusing writer and has confused some points so you sort of get lost in the message. What is really at stake is whether Linux is growing and what distro is the distro driving the Linux growth. I think he's saying Ubuntu is at the expense of the other distros. So, what do you do? Do you politely disagree with him or do you do something about it? Is he just saying Linux is growing or is he saying that you can't grow your user base of new users with the complexity found in some Linux distros (such as Slackware)? Is he trying to drive these more difficult to use distros to accept a more user friendly model?
It doesn't matter who wins the market for Linux. Linux is growing at a very good rate. New and advanced users can and do use it and are very happy, even though some aspects of Ubuntu are left wanting. Unfortunately he doesn't indicate which elements of the distro need attention.
All in all though, on a feature by feature basis for most feature sets Linux does what Vista does and more and is better at doing it even with less powerful hardware. No, I don't want to encourage others to throw older hardware at it. If you can throw as much hardware at Linux as you possibly can. You'll make your life much easier.
There are great things in the world of Linux. The Linux industry is very industrious. We are all benefiting from the opportunities that the industry called Linux is providing the world. With an estimated 100 million Linux users there's potential for every kind of development, including commercial proprietary software such as games.
What the Linux community does need is a solid installer that is cross distro and universal and able to install offline. It also needs much better support for gaming. I use Linux to game and when a game is targetted at OpenGL they play very very very well under Linux. They have advantages that even Windows can't provide due to technical limitations that Windows has. As well, developing under OpenGL opens your market to other platforms, not just Linux--OSX, Windows and Linux are great markets for your OpenGL platform.
Granted Microsoft has used its monopoly power to stint the potential growth of OpenGL (and thus Linux), thus attempting to create another monopoly using that monopoly power. We'll see what happens in the future.
So, get those gaming developers working. Get those universal installer concepts down and get developing. We'll all benefit regardless of which distro holds the lead market share.
Good for Linux. Good for competition. Good for choice. Good for the world.
Slashdot Mirror
RMS and Linus say you have the right to do that freely, but Microsoft says you must pay them a tax even if you aren't using their device to do it, because they must have some patent on that act of butt fucking. Only they won't tell you which patent covers their act thus fucking you over.
And in Microsoft's world your privacy is gone and your quality will go down as they DRM you into oblivion.
Dude, get it straight. We can do with our computers what we want. The world isn't Microsoft's. It is ours. Stop getting so fanboy excited that you are creaming in Ballmer's coffee.
That's not what they said. Read it again.
And by your logic all prior versions of any spreadsheet (or software for that matter) are unusable. The only thing worth using is the latest version.
We all know that is not true. It isn't a question of perfection, it is a question of reality. Please don't distort reality in your quest for perfection.
The purpose of the computer was to have it alleviate the need for you to perform repetitive tasks. That's what it does very well.
I used spreadsheets for many years. I started with Lotus 123 for DOS. I also used Excel for years. I have also put considerable work into Open Office Calc. Take the time to friggen use it before you start spouting off. Hell, it reads and writes Excel files. That means it understands how to use the goodies in those spreadsheets. Stop with the FUD, sheesh.
I'd created spreadsheets that were massive, did huge calculations, look up, multi sheets, multi files, huge charting, printing, and macros.
What you are saying is that no product but the latest is a capable product. It just isn't true. Those older products were immensely powerful and capable spreadsheets. Open Office calc is far far far more advanced and capable.
So, get off your high horse. Open Office is a good solid alternative and should be the recommended choice by these educational institutions.
They are probably receiving funding from Microsoft through grants to get students to use their product because they believe that those students will demand and purchase those same products when they graduate into business.
BTW, the whole pre-college system was designed around the blue collar businesses to get workers trained for blue collar jobs. It is well documented.
What' he's claiming qualifies as copyright infringement and license violation. The only way it can be an IP violation is if he has a patent on it. Which he does not. Technically, if that was taken verbatim he's right. It still hasn't been proven. Of course, it is sad that if it is his work and was taken and used in an unauthorized way I'd vote for some way to compensate. But it certainly isn't a patent issue and hence really isn't IP theft. It is simply pirating of software.
Soon, we'll have music companies or bands patenting the way thier music sounds so no one can imitate them. Pretty sad and all. Artists will patent how their pictures look or the process used to create the music or the pictures.
Those are better covered with copyright instead of patents. That's how this guy should be covering his.
From what I understand the same thing happened with the broadcom wireless chipset features that were reverse engineered for linux and someone from the BSD community of products copied it verbatim.
Microsoft is not claiming that open source is in violation of their copyrights. They are claiming that open source stole their IP. They claim 235 patents are being violated. That's an accusation of IP theft. What this guys is claiming is nothing more than copyright infringement or even a violation of the license. That's no IP theft.
It is pure and flawless until it is proven to be flawed. This isn't traffic law that we are talking about here. It isn't a matter of people speeding or going through red lights or not stopping fully at stop signs or not having insurance or not paying the meter and getting away with it.
We are talking about serious implications if people believe that Linux is in violation of others intellectual property. If false word spreads then people will believe it because it is easier to take the simpler approach to problems than it is to dig deep and find the real truth.
If you believe they should just believe the surface accusation then you are just like Microsoft in that you can claim, in an attempt to harm the Linux industry, by stating that Linux violates it's patents. But alas, Microsoft only makes the claim without stating the patents nor the court cases to back it up. So in essence, by just trying to get others to believe something that hasn't been proven you are doing exactly what Microsoft was doing--spreading FUD.
It is well established that in a court in the US you are believed to be innocent until proven guilty, so in the US there has been no violations. In a civil court the plaintiff must prove with a preponderance of the evidence, whereas in a criminal court the case against the defendant must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Since there have been no cases of OSS loosing a suit and very few OSS projects being sued at all theres a greater chance that none are in violation of anyone's IP. It is pretty simple. You innocent until you are proven guilty.
The main reason Microsoft does not want to disclose which IP are in violation is that they would be sued by these various organizations such as the EFF and FSF to prove their case, and for slander and libel. This would cost Microsoft dearly. It isn't that every one and their brother would challenge Microsoft because everyone and their brother can already challenge the claim. You simply need to do so by sending a certified letter demanding that Microsoft disclose to you the actual IP in question and which project (as you are being threatened as an end-user). Your letter should state that if Microsoft fails to respond fully with full disclosure by a certain date then you and those related to these IP violations are to consider the matter addressed and closed. The point is that if they really felt threatened by all those that would challenge them on the patents they can already be challenged without even knowing the IP in question.
So, all of their posturing was simply for FUD and since it has never been proven that any laws or anyones property was stolen there is no breaking of the laws and nothing was stolen.
Are there crimes that go unpunished because the culprits are not caught? Yes. We all know that. Are there serious crimes that go unpunished because the culprits are not caught? Absolutely. Is everyone using Linux or developing projects committing serious crimes? Depends on how you look at it. But if we are all committing serious crimes and we are being accused of those crimes we deserve to know what they are and an opportunity to defend ourselves. If you are of the mindset that we are only committing crimes akin to traffic violations then we still need to know what crimes and still are to be given the opportunity to defend ourselves, and it is still up to the proper authorities to bring those changes and to have those charges settled in a court of law with jurisdiction. Otherwise, to just let it foster is to simply spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
The only way to offset that is to ensure that those reading the claims understand that more is at stake than just the claims (as the average persons don't go out and investigate, they just tend to read the headlines).
Now there's an even greater issue here. The average commercial entity producing software is probably in violation of more IP than any OSS project is (by your logic). At least with the OSS project anyone (including you) c
Utterly false. No Linux code violates other's IP. Period! Stop spreading FUD. There's no violation until a court of law states there is. As far as I can recall there hasn't been a single OSS product that was taken to court and lost a case of IP infringement. On the other hand OSS has been taken to court and become the victor, and as far as I recall nearly 100% of Microsoft's IP related cases resulted in them loosing in a court of law, some for very serious money, including near multi-billion judgements.
So, don't go off claiming something that is absolutely untrue and that has never ever been proven in any court.
There's as much chance as a snowball's chance in hell of Microsoft getting much support from OSS. Utter incompetence is involved in their attempt to embrace and extinguish campaign.
Really, they have Ballmer yelling extortion attempts at every Linux user and they have some maverick manager or programmer, that while in Asia, claiming that 2007 is the year of the death of OSS.
These people are not only distorted, they are crazy foolish.
Microsoft needs to just understand that OSS will sooner or later out develop them. They need to also understand that everyone is on guard like a farmer with a shotgun protecting their daughters from the Microsoft Bible salesmen.
You know what? So Fucking What! I could care less. That's like Bill Gates saying he only likes Borg.
It was a $2 billion ring as of yesterday in the news. But we know who has been exaggerating these numbers. More likely the $2 billion is more like $2 million. It is hard to get $2 billion of anything, so we all know that's utter nonsense. If they have $2 billion they can easily afford to defend themselves. And, since when did China adopt US copyright practices. And since when is $2 billion dollars equal to $2 billion dollars in China? Not really possible.
It's not a conviction unless a contract/license violation is considered a crime in Germany. They simply lost the civil case and were found in violation. That's pretty much it. Hopefully we'll see more lawsuits against other companies such as TiVO.
Hopefully there's some monetary reward in this and that it will teach Skype and others a big lesson.
Linux ensures privacy. On Windows Vista you have a DRM nightmare with even the hardware manufacturers being "drafted" into Microsoft's DRM lock in mechanism--lock in meaning that once you invest in that hardware and the content for that hardware you will be forever locked into Windows. Those 47 programs that Microsoft put into Vista to collect your personal data and send it back to them is another example of the violation of your privacy. The very fact that they are looking at your computer and tracking your activities and reporting them back is just obscene. Do automobile companies do that? Do developers of land and of homes do that? Do the police do that? These things aren't done by those companies because it is a violation of your privacy to track and maintain that information. Microsoft is doing it because they are a monopoly and the vast majority of users don't know that they have a choice or even that Microsoft is spying on them.
How would you like it if a Walmart employee showed up at your home to inspect your belongings in your home (a computer, BTW, is an extension of your home) because you are a regular shopper at Walmart? You would not like that. No more should you like that than allowing Microsoft to put hidden cameras in your home nor hidden program on your computer. It is your computer, your home, and your privacy they are violating.
Microsoft has also locked you into the OS through other technologies such as DirectX. That's a failure to create closed proprietary technologies to lock you in. They have created closed file formats to keep you from moving to other Office suites. They have kept certain APIs hidden to keep other developers from creating programs with the ease and key features with more rapid development (not having to resort to hacks to accomplish the same thing)--video format are an example, network interoperability is another example.
There's quite a list of things that Microsoft has done which though have given them a monopoly status in the end will bite them and create market share loss and ultimately will have failed on the desktop. Linux and OSX has not had these problems.
Why he's getting the response he is, is because of the claim that Linux is a failure, which only feeds the Windows fanboys. Linux is in no way a failure on the desktop. It just isn't as widely accepted as a viable desktop due to so many people not knowing anything about it as a desktop OS, or that it even exists. Focusing on that--getting the word out--is what will ensure Linux on the desktop.
The good thing is that Linux, GNU, and Open Source development are moving along at a faster pace than Windows is and sooner or later it will begin to surpass other OSes and GUIs in features, stability, flexibility, future potential, etc (if it already hasn't). There are weak spots as all products have them. I think Open Source will respond better to enhancing those features faster than a monolithic monopoly ever could. Not to mention there are huge numbers of potential developers that will be creating prior art and even IP that companies such as Microsoft can only steal if they want to move ahead. That's a tremendous boom.
What also troubles me is that Linux, GNU, and Open Source tend to react to technologies instead of really developing new technological ideas. We see that feature such and such has been created and that is often reproduced, though maybe in a superior way. What I'd like to see are more unique ideas coming from the Linux community itself thus ensuring that some key new technological concepts come from Open Source. It is sort of like when John Warnock created Adobe and created PostScript for the Apple Mac and the Laser printer. It was a technology like that which propelled Apple to the front of certain markets and it is that which made John Warnock the rich man he is today. I just can see some killer app being developed for Linux which draws people into the industry created and supported by so many of us. Also, convincing companies such as Adobe to adapt their applications to Linux will also help change the landscape. The issue is why would a company develop for such a small market? Well, as we have seen in the past couple years with Ubuntu having approximately 20 million users world wide and then with all the other distributions combined we come near 100 million users world wide. That's a huge market vs. what Adobe had when it was working on the Postscript and the laser printer with Apple. Certainly a much greater potential market for even some of the smaller technologies. Personally, I don't care if software costs money. And I know software can be developed for the Open Source operating systems without forcing them to use Open Source code. So, the potential is there for a huge market to make some people very rich selling software to Linux users.
I don't recall the guys name nor his exact quote nor the precise context of the quote, but I do recall what he was getting at when he said something like "in our fight for racial equality we should have put more emphasis on buying land/property and being less strict about fighting for equality, as equality is bound to happen in a free society." What he meant was if they had bought land they'd have it as a valuable resource--something to ensure the future. They should have focused on that as much as they did on just getting equal rights as equal rights were bound to happen. Maybe it would have taken longer but it was bound to happen. This is what I perceived he meant. What I'm getting at with this story is that Linux should be focusing on building up (as in every participant, every volunteer, every developer) the IP and prior art to keep companies such as Microsoft from getting patents on them. We'll get parity sooner or later on the desktop. Let's own the land upon which the IP is based so that the monolithic monopoly doesn't lock Open Source out of some key advances. I'd rather see Open Source lock out the commercial entities than have the freedoms that I desire held hostage to the extortion attempts we've seen Microsoft use in the past.
Linux has not failed on the desktop. Any article with a title such as this is just FUD. Linux is growing on the desktop like wildfire. There's an estimated 100 million Linux users world wide. No way can you consider 100 million of anything a failure.
Are there optimizations that can be taken into account to clean up Linux? Sure. As with any OS. But Linux is no way a failure. The biggest problem Linux has had is the failure to communicate it's existence to the masses. Yeah, there were issues with the zealots killing Linux a couple years ago but you can tell that more reasonable minds have prevailed.
The Windows zealots believing they can kill Linux with their FUD simply brings Linux into the minds of more potential users.
I'd say we just let it ride and everyone do their best to bring awareness about it to others and we'll see how it grows.
And XP sales are noticeably higher than expected. And being a monopoly you'd expect Vista to grow marketshare as old hardware is discontinued and new hardware is purchased. But Vista is a misery to all as it is a DRM and spyware nightmare.
Not all countries have the same laws as the US. Protection in the US isn't the same in other countries. Some countries don't recognize patents nor copyright. This is meant for those people. If they are in a country that has such laws and they honor US patents and copyright then you may be breaking the law. Otherwise, if the country does not you are not breaking the law so you can use them freely.
This clause is meant to address those in other countries that may not have laws that make using the codecs illegal. It also is a warning that if you are in a country where it is illegal you use them at your own risk of being prosecuted.
These are copyright violations possibly, IMHO, in the tiniest form.
What needs to be done is that these ventures that make/license these codecs really should make them available to other OSes other than Windows and the Mac. I would pay for a commercial set of codecs that are legal from these companies even though I use Linux so that I can play my movies, etc without breaking the law.
By the very act of dissenting against this you are acting against Iraqi political reform and against Iraqi reconstruction.
Executive Orders are not laws and they can be deemed unconstitutional. Wait till they are heard by the Supreme Court before they are considered legal.
I don't think they are worried about the other 250 distro's causing a split and thus impacting the acceptance of Open Source and the Linux Distributions. What the Unix argument worried about was the single split affecting the impact.
Consistency is very important to the average Joe out there that uses a computer. They don't understand, because they shouldn't have to understand, all the ins and outs of different versions, different OSes, and different Distros. Their jobs are to raise their children, pay their bills, and do the best they can at their jobs. It isn't to try to figure out and understand these differences. This isn't to say that they can't do this but that they are NOT required to and never should be.
Consistency is important. You can see how even some variations on offerings of Vista (with their numerous different versions) impacts the consumer purchasing decisions. Rather than upgrade they decide to not even do a taste test. They stay with what they have because Vista is not necessary nor is it desired. Vista just doesn't offer anything more than XP offers. Why move on to a different OS which is inconsistent with your current OS? People don't like change.
So, so many distros for Linux can and does hurt the acceptance. The question is how much or, rather a better question is, how much longer will Open Source advocates be patient in waiting for better acceptance. Large distros help considerably because they bring consistency to the desktop. Large distros such as RH bring consistency to the server. Competition between the distros brings advancement in certain technologies. We all know that software installation under Linux was horrendous. It was a pathetic stinking pile of shit. Through all the competition with other distros we have a better solution, tho not quite as solid as you see on the Macintosh or under Windows.
So, the fragmentation has both positive and negative affects. Sooner or later we'll have to wonder how much longer we are willing to wait for the consumer to catch up and give us the attention we need. A big part of that can be handled in other ways. For instance, we can overcome the inconsistency problem by literally ignoring it and then get into promoting Linux and Open Source within our circle of friends and family. Promote it heavily and sooner than later we'll get much more solid support, such as we got from Dell, such as the Wallmart PC offerings having Open Office. People want free software and would rather use it than pay $500 for an office suite. But most don't know that Open Office exists and how quality it is. Through our promoting Linux to family and friends we advance Open Source and Linux.
That's not 3 hundred copies. The world wide estimate is 100 million Linux copies. What you mean is 300 distributors of the Linux and other Open Source software packages.
Actually Microsoft decided that technologies such as Java could kill their OS and that was the reason they did what they did. It is well documented in the courts that Microsoft felt this way and acted as they did because of it.
Your sentiments are similar to those that surrounded Standard Oil many years ago. Now we don't have a Standard Oil.
Fortunately most of Microsoft's tactics have been revealed and companies are aware of them. They realize that cooperation with Microsoft ultimately means theft of their ideas, a violation of their ideas, and then their demise. Fortunately, though the rest of the world knows that these things have happened and know that there are alternatives. Whole countries use alternatives to Microsoft's products. Open source Linux is huge in other countries. Standardization on open technologies is extremely important to them. A country wishing to make a technology infrastructure needs to focus on open standards. That means the OS as well as the applications and the data formats. They realize they can't get that from Microsoft.
It is important to realize that Microsoft has a position that has never been seen before in history. They control so much of the world's computers. Countries know that it is important to not allow one company to continue. Even governments know it is important to not permit one company with a reputation of criminal activity to control their country's computers. Even in the US we are beginning to realize this.
No one is saying that Microsoft's demise will be immediate nor even noticeable for some time, but it will occur and it will occur because the rest of the world wasn't taken in by Microsoft's tactics. Battles will be won and lost by Microsoft and there will be times when it appears that Microsoft is winning again, but in the end common sense and a value system that is based in the rights of a country and the rights of the people instead of utter flagrant disregard for the rights and privacy of the people. Microsoft's 47 programs used to spy on the consumer as well as the WGA/WGN and other hidden tools in Vista should be enough to tell everyone that this inappropriate behavior on Microsoft's part must cease.
When all understand the building blocks that Microsoft uses (mostly proprietary technologies), such as DRM, such as DX10, such as closed document format, such as various programming APIs, then you'll understand that it is important to fight those technologies at all cost to ensure that we don't get locked into Microsoft's technologies which help to shore up their monopoly and to build monopolies in other technologies.
Microsoft is the company known to restrict choice. Open source has never restricted choice. Microsoft has a reputation and a conviction in federal court for restricting choice. Open source has a reputation for open choices. These Microsoft folks are real shitheads. In the future Microsoft will become synonymous with "bad" instead of with "software". That's the reputation they are building. Did Microsoft hire politicians to write their press releases? This is pathetic of them to even infer that open source denies choice. It never has.
What's the best choice? Open source ODF of course. Hands down it is the winner. It has the best world-wide support. It is pledged to stay open and not be ridiculously modified from the standard once it is adopted. Microsoft won't pledge their closed source format will remain standardized. We know they play serious games with other people's technologies. It is a pretty unsavory game once you understand they are playing it.
We really don't need Microsoft's entry. Even without it we have choice because ODF is open. It's that simple.
I've seen Mandrake from years ago and I was not satisfied with it. Also, Mandriva required that you pay $60 per year (that last time I looked at it) in order to even download the latest version. After a couple years that cost was greater than purchasing Windows XP Home straight up. That was the primary reason I did not continue with Mandrake.
Then they changed their name. Mandriva sounded too much like drivel. I know, I'm sorry, but that's what goes through my mind. Even pidgin reminds me too much of an unclean unhealthy bird that infests our cities and craps on everything. Oh well.
But the primary reason was the cost. I was not willing to pay even for 2 years the cost of Mandrake's fees. I felt it was too much like selling the software, unless I wanted to use an older release and deal with all the updates.
Ubuntu puts together a good desktop with what the average person would use. Prior to Ubuntu I used only KDE but since Ubuntu I don't even want to look at KDE.
The updates to Ubuntu are regular and near automatic. The forum and IRC support are first rate. The repositories are filled with good programs. And we have a good person with a good goal running Ubuntu. Regular releases and no pressure to do more than you want to assist. It makes for a freedom of using computers like no other. Have to hand it to Mark S. He did a great job and it continues to propel Linux into the future and into the minds and hearts of the average user.
The wireless thing is not an issue exclusively with Ubuntu. Consider the hardware manufacturer in the equation and their lack of support for nearly 100 million linux users that may use their product.
He's a confusing writer and has confused some points so you sort of get lost in the message. What is really at stake is whether Linux is growing and what distro is the distro driving the Linux growth. I think he's saying Ubuntu is at the expense of the other distros. So, what do you do? Do you politely disagree with him or do you do something about it? Is he just saying Linux is growing or is he saying that you can't grow your user base of new users with the complexity found in some Linux distros (such as Slackware)? Is he trying to drive these more difficult to use distros to accept a more user friendly model?
It doesn't matter who wins the market for Linux. Linux is growing at a very good rate. New and advanced users can and do use it and are very happy, even though some aspects of Ubuntu are left wanting. Unfortunately he doesn't indicate which elements of the distro need attention.
All in all though, on a feature by feature basis for most feature sets Linux does what Vista does and more and is better at doing it even with less powerful hardware. No, I don't want to encourage others to throw older hardware at it. If you can throw as much hardware at Linux as you possibly can. You'll make your life much easier.
There are great things in the world of Linux. The Linux industry is very industrious. We are all benefiting from the opportunities that the industry called Linux is providing the world. With an estimated 100 million Linux users there's potential for every kind of development, including commercial proprietary software such as games.
What the Linux community does need is a solid installer that is cross distro and universal and able to install offline. It also needs much better support for gaming. I use Linux to game and when a game is targetted at OpenGL they play very very very well under Linux. They have advantages that even Windows can't provide due to technical limitations that Windows has. As well, developing under OpenGL opens your market to other platforms, not just Linux--OSX, Windows and Linux are great markets for your OpenGL platform.
Granted Microsoft has used its monopoly power to stint the potential growth of OpenGL (and thus Linux), thus attempting to create another monopoly using that monopoly power. We'll see what happens in the future.
So, get those gaming developers working. Get those universal installer concepts down and get developing. We'll all benefit regardless of which distro holds the lead market share.
Good for Linux. Good for competition. Good for choice. Good for the world.