Do some research on the past 3 years with Delta and it does show somewhat a positive revue of his involvement with that company. Like I said, I'm impressed.
I've always had a positive view of Red Hat. They were consistent when it came to how they handled their updates. All in all Red Hat has done a lot for the community and they have been extremely consistent. They can be slow at times but IMHO they are the most consistent, fastest and stable Linux distro out there. They even stood firm with their convictions when the deal between MS and Novell went down. All around these guys have done more for Linux than any distro out there. It sounds like flamebait, especially here on/. but it's what I believe, take it or leave it.
Highly skeptical that an airline exec can learn the open source business. What Red Hat needs is somebody who can go play with the community. Now there is the claim he runs Linux and was once a programmer, OK, that is tech credentials of sorts. A far cry from participating in a tech organization or having a clue how the community off which Red Hat feeds works and works together. Who is going to teach him that? Matt? No sir. Matt is basically not there with the community. A few speeches, platitudes, lots of talk, very little walk. Has a bad habit of hiring managers with no open source credentials whatsoever, who busy themselves with laying waste to whatever community spirit Red Hat once had.
I would mod you up for this comment alone if I hadn't used up all my points. It would've been nice if someone with open source credentials would've been put into that position. Hell, it would've been nice if someone with patent law experience would've been put into that position. While his background is impressive, I do have concerns about any shift of power involving the patents behind the Linux community. Linux could benefit from a dedicated strategist and I suspect it will help out but at the same time his intent has to be consistent to what the community has been founded on. Otherwise the community will end up spending too much time educating than producing. Outside of my concern, he does impress me and depending on who works along side of him, something interesting might come out of this.
Yeah, the persona of evil kind of hovers around any business out there that wishes to expand. Conspiracies theories pop up here and there saying that the business operates in a cavern twenty miles under the ground waiting for something to trigger the apocalypse. "The world will be ours" echo's in their thoughts, etc., etc., etc. It would be nice to find some kind of adventure to be a hero in but the world is a little more complicated than heroes and villains.
I used to know several people that ended up working for Microsoft one way or another and from what I remember they were good people. I sort of miss their company and their conversations when I actually had enough nerve to speak up and say something. Things might have changed but their core was honest. Interoffice politics can do strange things to a business and the people who work for it. Without adequate flexibility a bad public image is almost inevitable.
From old guilds come new guilds. Some old guilds adapt and maintain power. All in all, power shifts. It happens and there are exceptions to the rule.
Yes, short-sided and pointless. Like it says in the article:
Why stick around a guild where your leader can't inspire, your friends are becoming enemies and the people you grew up with are leaving to play World of Warcraft?
Walk down the street in most major metropolitan areas and you see people making money off other peoples hard work.
you forgot about the flea markets.
This isn't a bill written to make the constituents happy... I'm glad the DOJ is doing more than following along.
Goes to show that regardless of how much money you have, if you put responsibility of enforcement on a Democratic Government, the businesses have to live by that government's limitation.
You got a good point about people not caring. That's the point, they want something that works. For businesses or individuals with vested interests in the net they want something that can bring them more people knocking on their door. A lot of people use IE because it's there and they don't want to think more about it. Most of the time you have to spend your energies on Browser redirects and then program scripts specific to each browser. This takes time and money and if you don't any reason for it you simply wont do it. The problem is that's it's so much more easier to program for other browsers. Scripting is horrible and less functional in IE. MS hurts developers with their browser by forcing them to be strict to their language. It's not a good type of script either because what supposed to make sense on paper, it's a different story when actually getting the damn thing to work right in MSIE.
On the contrary, Opera is the least complicated browser to program for. Opera blends the functionality of both MSIE and Firefox pretty evenly. You can use a lot of CSS, HTML, JavaScript features from both browsers fairly easily within Opera. It thinks what's going on here is because Opera is getting tired of trying to keep up with all the things Microsoft has been doing with their browser. While I prefer Firefox, Opera is a strong Internet Browser by itself.
HTML has been out long before MS got involved. While they are active now, you have to realize how they started in the server market. PWS was fun to play around with but it was more of a hobby project than anything. They only got involved because companies like Yahoo were getting a lot of attention within the business market.
Microsoft publicly denounced standards as I recall. They try their best to avoid them. They comply with them because they have to. They have that right and in certain respects it's good for them to do that. For your average web developer who needs things to work a certain way, it becomes complicated and for the most part standards help with compatibility between browsers thus limiting the power of one company's dream for everyone else.
Yeah, I agree except for one point. They do make some money off of it. If they could corner the server market they could develop a dependency for users to exploit full functionality between their browsers and servers. More depencancy on their servers means more money for Microsoft. More functionality for their browsers mean more eye candy and more innovations to lure more people into their market share. If they did go open source, they would give up rights to some of their so called "server innovations" which they would wish to profit from. They have a right to protect themselves from getting ripped off but by doing so they spend so much time and energy trying to bring credibility to their servers within the market.
Microsoft commands about 39 percent of active sites on the net. http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/11/23/november_2007_web_server_survey.html I believe this is mainly because of the deal they made with Godaddy to host parked domains on Windows servers. Active hosting of fully developed and public websites should show a completely different picture. It would show that people spend a lower percentage visiting websites hosted on Windows servers than they do with visiting sites hosted on Apache. If Microsoft gets more active interest for hosting completed sites on their servers then they could possibly consider to release a separate version of IE to be open because the server market would be profitable for them to compensate any loss incured by that browser. It's all speculation from my point of view but from a stance of someone who would try to protect their IP, it seems more than likely that this is the cause for all that goes on in their world.
About standards, Macromedia and Sun really did change the scope of how the internet ended up. Without Flash and Java, Microsoft would have been the true driving force behind the Internet. MS has been playing catch up for quite a long time now. The competition of innovations has forced them to do patchy work inside that market and for some weird reason they haven't really adapted well. If they did then their latest products would do more than just speed up transactions using XML. While it's nice to have things run fast, it would be even better if they could provide specific and adequate solutions for invididuals to fit their needs. They can only do so much of that because they know what can become of that. The kind of support to accomodate something like that would hurt them a lot, not to mention more lawsuits involving trusts, monopolies and stolen IP from unrecognized developers.
All in all, I've spent so much time watching the entire market evolve. I've started back when the whole thing with Javascrip/Jscript was going on and have been researching everything up to that time just to catch up on this stuff. While I don't have much stature in the bigger things in life, I do have a strong feeling in my gut that things are going to get a lot more complicated in the next 5 years. Even if Adobe and Sun sides up with Microsoft, it really wouldn't make that much difference in the bigger scheme of things. Even if MS would go open source to the American Public, it would provide a small opening for the US to speed up its innovation. While I believe and defend Open Source, I do believe in America and in dealing with this stuff you have to take into account of American/Democratic/Capatalist Interests. That's a whole other rant.
Also it would complicate the whole process all around. Two departments, two conflicting POVs, all around it slows the whole process down not to mention what it would cost. While on one side it might help, on the other side enforcement can get awkward depending on how each side wants to act. No coordinated effort leads to slowing down the prosecution of any alleged copyright infringers.
Yeah, I've been using KDE for a while now. Almost forgot that I'm in it sometimes. I hate the quirkiness but there is a lot more functionality than gnome. I still want to use gnome as a primary but I've gotten used to KDE so much it's kind of annoying. The last thing is that KDE does put up faster than gnome. It's more stable and refined than it used to be a couple of years ago. I've had less app crashes overall and like I said before, I like gnome but KDE is starting to creep up into my primary desktop.
I hate responding to cowards but what the hell. What's funny is that the OPLC runs around $180. Even with Academic MS software for the OS and Office installed one will end up paying $180 on software alone. It's not a matter of MS is being shut out. They shut themselves out. Even if they were to donate software, donations wouldn't meet demand and sooner or later they would demand the price be raised. It really is about the kids, well in a realistic economic sense.
Yep, standards would be great but if Microsoft had it their way, it would be based on something they develop. IE development is a pain. Firefox and even Opera are more functional for development than IE. I operate about 10 different websites and throughout my experience I've encountered more problems coding in IE than an any other browser. IE is less functional overall. The extra functions IE does have are considered security risks if that's any indicator of how bad it is.
Transfer was never satisfied in any agreement, SCO was only granted administrative privilege on handling new clients. The way I took it was that basically the agreement was that they were middle men for Novell. SCO knew what they were doing. They understood the terms of the agreement but worked hard to find loopholes within that agreement. There's a lot of information stating that SCO knew they didn't own the patents after the lawsuit was filed against Novell. On top of that, if SCO made agreements with any company for money, they would have to pay Novell the entire amount earned through those agreements. SCO would then get 5% commission back. Well, SCO made deals with Microsoft and Sun but Novell never saw a dime of what was agreed to in the contract. It wasn't sloppy, it was greed and it was very explicit.
Parent, basically that's it in a nutshell. Through most of the case, SCO implied a lot of stuff. There was a very limited administrative agreement which stated what SCO was entitled to. Their lawyers were competent when they agreed to the terms of the contract but yet tried to poke holes in it. They knew what they were doing. If they didn't then they wouldn't have sent letters requesting Novell to transfer their patents over to them after they started the lawsuit.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and our bodies can create enough energy to power our machine overlords...
As long as they don't have anonymous cybersex during my presentation...
Can't go on faith alone but his background is impressive. You have to question things to educate yourself about changes that can effect people.
/. but it's what I believe, take it or leave it.
investing.businessweek.com
Do some research on the past 3 years with Delta and it does show somewhat a positive revue of his involvement with that company. Like I said, I'm impressed.
I've always had a positive view of Red Hat. They were consistent when it came to how they handled their updates. All in all Red Hat has done a lot for the community and they have been extremely consistent. They can be slow at times but IMHO they are the most consistent, fastest and stable Linux distro out there. They even stood firm with their convictions when the deal between MS and Novell went down. All around these guys have done more for Linux than any distro out there. It sounds like flamebait, especially here on
I would mod you up for this comment alone if I hadn't used up all my points. It would've been nice if someone with open source credentials would've been put into that position. Hell, it would've been nice if someone with patent law experience would've been put into that position. While his background is impressive, I do have concerns about any shift of power involving the patents behind the Linux community. Linux could benefit from a dedicated strategist and I suspect it will help out but at the same time his intent has to be consistent to what the community has been founded on. Otherwise the community will end up spending too much time educating than producing. Outside of my concern, he does impress me and depending on who works along side of him, something interesting might come out of this.
Yeah, the persona of evil kind of hovers around any business out there that wishes to expand. Conspiracies theories pop up here and there saying that the business operates in a cavern twenty miles under the ground waiting for something to trigger the apocalypse. "The world will be ours" echo's in their thoughts, etc., etc., etc. It would be nice to find some kind of adventure to be a hero in but the world is a little more complicated than heroes and villains.
I used to know several people that ended up working for Microsoft one way or another and from what I remember they were good people. I sort of miss their company and their conversations when I actually had enough nerve to speak up and say something. Things might have changed but their core was honest. Interoffice politics can do strange things to a business and the people who work for it. Without adequate flexibility a bad public image is almost inevitable.
I'm sensing a foreigner trying to pretend he cares about the US.
Yes, short-sided and pointless. Like it says in the article:
People have to go somewhere.
you forgot about the flea markets.
Goes to show that regardless of how much money you have, if you put responsibility of enforcement on a Democratic Government, the businesses have to live by that government's limitation.
Unfortunately, that's the truth of it.
You got a good point about people not caring. That's the point, they want something that works. For businesses or individuals with vested interests in the net they want something that can bring them more people knocking on their door. A lot of people use IE because it's there and they don't want to think more about it. Most of the time you have to spend your energies on Browser redirects and then program scripts specific to each browser. This takes time and money and if you don't any reason for it you simply wont do it. The problem is that's it's so much more easier to program for other browsers. Scripting is horrible and less functional in IE. MS hurts developers with their browser by forcing them to be strict to their language. It's not a good type of script either because what supposed to make sense on paper, it's a different story when actually getting the damn thing to work right in MSIE.
Second coming... hmm, next version will be able to walk on water and raise the dead. I could only dream.
On the contrary, Opera is the least complicated browser to program for. Opera blends the functionality of both MSIE and Firefox pretty evenly. You can use a lot of CSS, HTML, JavaScript features from both browsers fairly easily within Opera. It thinks what's going on here is because Opera is getting tired of trying to keep up with all the things Microsoft has been doing with their browser. While I prefer Firefox, Opera is a strong Internet Browser by itself.
Microsoft publicly denounced standards as I recall. They try their best to avoid them. They comply with them because they have to. They have that right and in certain respects it's good for them to do that. For your average web developer who needs things to work a certain way, it becomes complicated and for the most part standards help with compatibility between browsers thus limiting the power of one company's dream for everyone else.
Microsoft commands about 39 percent of active sites on the net. http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/11/23/november_2007_web_server_survey.html I believe this is mainly because of the deal they made with Godaddy to host parked domains on Windows servers. Active hosting of fully developed and public websites should show a completely different picture. It would show that people spend a lower percentage visiting websites hosted on Windows servers than they do with visiting sites hosted on Apache. If Microsoft gets more active interest for hosting completed sites on their servers then they could possibly consider to release a separate version of IE to be open because the server market would be profitable for them to compensate any loss incured by that browser. It's all speculation from my point of view but from a stance of someone who would try to protect their IP, it seems more than likely that this is the cause for all that goes on in their world.
About standards, Macromedia and Sun really did change the scope of how the internet ended up. Without Flash and Java, Microsoft would have been the true driving force behind the Internet. MS has been playing catch up for quite a long time now. The competition of innovations has forced them to do patchy work inside that market and for some weird reason they haven't really adapted well. If they did then their latest products would do more than just speed up transactions using XML. While it's nice to have things run fast, it would be even better if they could provide specific and adequate solutions for invididuals to fit their needs. They can only do so much of that because they know what can become of that. The kind of support to accomodate something like that would hurt them a lot, not to mention more lawsuits involving trusts, monopolies and stolen IP from unrecognized developers.
All in all, I've spent so much time watching the entire market evolve. I've started back when the whole thing with Javascrip/Jscript was going on and have been researching everything up to that time just to catch up on this stuff. While I don't have much stature in the bigger things in life, I do have a strong feeling in my gut that things are going to get a lot more complicated in the next 5 years. Even if Adobe and Sun sides up with Microsoft, it really wouldn't make that much difference in the bigger scheme of things. Even if MS would go open source to the American Public, it would provide a small opening for the US to speed up its innovation. While I believe and defend Open Source, I do believe in America and in dealing with this stuff you have to take into account of American/Democratic/Capatalist Interests. That's a whole other rant.
Ugh, I wish I could give simple answers. :(
Also it would complicate the whole process all around. Two departments, two conflicting POVs, all around it slows the whole process down not to mention what it would cost. While on one side it might help, on the other side enforcement can get awkward depending on how each side wants to act. No coordinated effort leads to slowing down the prosecution of any alleged copyright infringers.
Yeah, I've been using KDE for a while now. Almost forgot that I'm in it sometimes. I hate the quirkiness but there is a lot more functionality than gnome. I still want to use gnome as a primary but I've gotten used to KDE so much it's kind of annoying. The last thing is that KDE does put up faster than gnome. It's more stable and refined than it used to be a couple of years ago. I've had less app crashes overall and like I said before, I like gnome but KDE is starting to creep up into my primary desktop.
No, I'm afraid the second coming of Christ would happen before either of them come out.
not going to do it.
I hate responding to cowards but what the hell. What's funny is that the OPLC runs around $180. Even with Academic MS software for the OS and Office installed one will end up paying $180 on software alone. It's not a matter of MS is being shut out. They shut themselves out. Even if they were to donate software, donations wouldn't meet demand and sooner or later they would demand the price be raised. It really is about the kids, well in a realistic economic sense.
Yep, standards would be great but if Microsoft had it their way, it would be based on something they develop. IE development is a pain. Firefox and even Opera are more functional for development than IE. I operate about 10 different websites and throughout my experience I've encountered more problems coding in IE than an any other browser. IE is less functional overall. The extra functions IE does have are considered security risks if that's any indicator of how bad it is.
Transfer was never satisfied in any agreement, SCO was only granted administrative privilege on handling new clients. The way I took it was that basically the agreement was that they were middle men for Novell. SCO knew what they were doing. They understood the terms of the agreement but worked hard to find loopholes within that agreement. There's a lot of information stating that SCO knew they didn't own the patents after the lawsuit was filed against Novell. On top of that, if SCO made agreements with any company for money, they would have to pay Novell the entire amount earned through those agreements. SCO would then get 5% commission back. Well, SCO made deals with Microsoft and Sun but Novell never saw a dime of what was agreed to in the contract. It wasn't sloppy, it was greed and it was very explicit.
Parent, basically that's it in a nutshell. Through most of the case, SCO implied a lot of stuff. There was a very limited administrative agreement which stated what SCO was entitled to. Their lawyers were competent when they agreed to the terms of the contract but yet tried to poke holes in it. They knew what they were doing. If they didn't then they wouldn't have sent letters requesting Novell to transfer their patents over to them after they started the lawsuit.
Big blue, small green, become one it will. Destiny misquoted. Chosen one am I.
A proper mature response to the troll would be, "no, you move."
Yeah, us none /. cowards are really arrogant because paying a grand for a one dollar song is fair in any book. Would you like fries with that troll?