Dear all,
In midst of the Microsoft Linux deals, Novell, Xandros, Linspire, ..., etc. The question arises will Red Hat fall into Microsoft's deals?
http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/070614/38396_id.html?.v=1
Inquiring minds want to know. I hope that it does not fall into these kinds of pacts.
Regards,
Antonio
____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
Antonio Olivares wrote:
Dear all,
In midst of the Microsoft Linux deals, Novell, Xandros, Linspire, ..., etc. The question arises will Red Hat fall into Microsoft's deals?
http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/070614/38396_id.html?.v=1
Inquiring minds want to know. I hope that it does not fall into these kinds of pacts.
Regards,
Antonio
Some have speculated that with the SCO copyright farce winding down MS has to try a new tactic against linux. It looks like software patents are the next big show.
Patent fights are nothing new, and a lot of case law and legal strategy is on the books. How and when to launch an IP/patent attack, when to fight or pull back, etc.
Kudos to RedHat for sticking to their guns. Unix predates MS-anything by decades so it's all kind of humorous.
I don't think s/w patents even existed when Unix, X-Window, MS-Windows, Mac, Dos, Apple I/II/Lisa, CP/M, etc. were originally written, let alone all the Sperry-Univac, DEC, IBM monolithic systems.
That's a lot of prior art. Useful in an IP battle.
--- John
On Saturday, June 16, 2007 1:50 am Skunk Worx wrote:
Kudos to RedHat for sticking to their guns. Unix predates MS-anything by decades so it's all kind of humorous.
It is, isn't it?
What you have to remember is that this is the Microsoft marketing machine going to work. Microsoft has spent millions over the years to create the illusionary image that they are single-handedly responsible for all innovation in the tech industry, and this whole patent nonsense is simply an extension of that. They don't want to name patents, they just want to make PHB's think that FLOSS is stealing ideas from Microsoft without paying. Which of course is complete BS.
Skunk Worx wrote:
[snip]
Kudos to RedHat for sticking to their guns. Unix predates MS-anything by decades so it's all kind of humorous.
I'm not sure this is true, but even if it were, Linux is not UNIX. What we commonly call Linux is actually Linux (the kernel) which doesn't predate MS products, and GNU, which, as we all know, means GNU is Not UNIX. So, Unix dates have nothing to do with this discussion.
Mike
Mike McCarty wrote:
Skunk Worx wrote:
[snip]
Kudos to RedHat for sticking to their guns. Unix predates MS-anything by decades so it's all kind of humorous.
I'm not sure this is true, but even if it were, Linux is not UNIX. What we commonly call Linux is actually Linux (the kernel) which doesn't predate MS products, and GNU, which, as we all know, means GNU is Not UNIX. So, Unix dates have nothing to do with this discussion.
Actually, my recollection is that I started using Linux 0.12 some time in the 1992 time frame. About this time Windows 286 and Windows 386 were the MS offerings along with their DOS 3.x, 4.0x products. UNIX had been around quite a long time at that point. I had been using versions SunOS at work since 1985 or so. It wasn't until Windows for Workgroups (and DOS 5.0? or 6.0?) that MS had an OS that was worthy of running in a professional office networked environment and even then you had to find/install their TCP/IP network drivers to get interoperability with "real" networked computers. Even so, MS didn't have a complete OS and system until they released Windows 95 so in that regard, Linux does predate Windows 95, even if the recent kernels do not. And Unix certainly does pre-date most of Windows, getting its start on some early DEC computers. I remember there being some UNIX computers when I was in college (1974-1978). In fact, some UNIX features (like file units and pipes) made it into CP/M, CP/M-86 and PC-DOS (before it became MS-DOS).
While the exactness of the OP's statement is probably hard to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, I do believe his statement that "Unix predates MS-anything" is generally true.
Mike
Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
Skunk Worx wrote:
[snip]
Kudos to RedHat for sticking to their guns. Unix predates MS-anything by decades so it's all kind of humorous.
I'm not sure this is true, but even if it were, Linux is not UNIX. What we commonly call Linux is actually Linux (the kernel) which doesn't predate MS products, and GNU, which, as we all know, means GNU is Not UNIX. So, Unix dates have nothing to do with this discussion.
Actually, my recollection is that I started using Linux 0.12 some time in the 1992 time frame. About this time Windows 286 and Windows 386 were the MS offerings along with their DOS 3.x, 4.0x products. UNIX had been around quite a long time at that point. I had been using versions
Like 1970s time frame.
[snip]
While the exactness of the OP's statement is probably hard to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, I do believe his statement that "Unix predates MS-anything" is generally true.
MicroSoft produced stuff for CBM machines at approximately the time they were introduced. In any case, Unix and Linux have nothing to do with each other, except that GNU is modelled after Unix, and is commonly included in the term "Linux".
Mike
Kevin J. Cummings:
While the exactness of the OP's statement is probably hard to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, I do believe his statement that "Unix predates MS-anything" is generally true.
Mike McCarty:
MicroSoft produced stuff for CBM machines at approximately the time they were introduced.
Unless you believe that Microsoft was involved in mainframes back in the 1960s, Unix definitely predates it. But, as pointed out, this may be about apples and oranges. If Microsoft is carrying on about GUI-related patents, they *may* have been the first to do it that way (though they, and Apple, copied others before them). But we don't know what Microsoft is concerned over. There's many other aspects to computing beyond the GUI. Microsoft is but a spotty teenager.
Tim wrote:
[snip]
GUI. Microsoft is but a spotty teenager.
I would reply off-list, but you seemingly do not supply a way for me to do so.
I'm afraid I don't understand the term "spotty teenager". Maybe an Aussieism? I used to know a little Aussie slang, but I'm afraid it's all very old, now. Terms like "fair dinkum".
Mike
Around 07:03pm on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 (UK time), Mike McCarty scrawled:
GUI. Microsoft is but a spotty teenager.
I would reply off-list, but you seemingly do not supply a way for me to do so.
I'm afraid I don't understand the term "spotty teenager". Maybe
Spotty - full of zits = acne riddeno
In England, anyway.
Steve
Mike McCarty wrote:
Skunk Worx wrote:
[snip]
Kudos to RedHat for sticking to their guns. Unix predates MS-anything by decades so it's all kind of humorous.
I'm not sure this is true, but even if it were, Linux is not UNIX. What we commonly call Linux is actually Linux (the kernel) which doesn't predate MS products, and GNU, which, as we all know, means GNU is Not UNIX. So, Unix dates have nothing to do with this discussion.
Mike
I'm thinking along the lines of the traditional meaning of 'patent' (as a layman) that is, if the 'central idea' of the patent in question has been in common use elsewhere prior to the IP claimant's application the patent may be proven invalid in a court of law.
IANAL so if actual case law differs that's my bad. Still, if I am correct, then UNIX has everything to do with the discussion.
The key word being 'elsewhere', not necessarily linux.
Bell Labs "UNIX Programmer's Manual" (Wikipedia) November, 1971. Apple II (Wikipedia) 1977. CP/M (Wikipedia) 1977. MS-DOS 1.14 (Wikipedia) July, 1981. MS Windows 1.0 (Wikipedia) November 1995.
Personally, I was using CP/M and/or ZCPR throughout 1980-1984.
For a short time, I worked for Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), whose primary claim to fame was a fortran compiler dating back to around the late 1950's/early 1960's. Why would they create a frickin' compiler if there were no OS to run it? Or coders to code for it?
I also know one person who claims MS hired a batch of X-Window programmers away from MIT (Big Iron Unix) to do their Windows underpinnings, and specifically recalls the news item as the event occurred.
Let alone the IP mix when MS pulled the primary engineering staff from DEC. Remember : WNT = (VMS)++
Or all the cross licensing that went on between IBM and MS during the NT-OS/2 collaboration.
It gets really messy if anyone in the big iron category (ATT, SGI, Sun, IBM, Unisys, TOG etc.) bothered to patent any UNIX related IP around the time that software patents became legal (mid-1990's).
The unspoken idea here is that TOG, SGI, IBM etc. were conscious of MS' patent activity and took action to protect their IP.
MS appears to promote the idea that no computer would boot if not for their tireless efforts. I think history and the facts speak for themselves.
--- John
On Saturday, June 23, 2007 1:46 am Skunk Worx wrote:
MS Windows 1.0 (Wikipedia) November 1995.
Don't you mean 1985? IIRC, Windows 3.1 was out in 1992...
Skunk Worx:
MS Windows 1.0 (Wikipedia) November 1995.
Kelly:
Don't you mean 1985? IIRC, Windows 3.1 was out in 1992...
Even then, they were still pipped at the post by other OSs long before then for GUI systems, networking, file systems, etc. There's only one thing I'd accept Microsoft patenting - their blue screen of death (which always sounds like an Doctor Who story title from the Tom Baker era, to me). ;-)
Kelly wrote:
On Saturday, June 23, 2007 1:46 am Skunk Worx wrote:
MS Windows 1.0 (Wikipedia) November 1995.
Don't you mean 1985? IIRC, Windows 3.1 was out in 1992...
Yes, thanks, my bad. The first Windows was demo'd at comdex in 1983 and there was no 1.0 release.
Windows 1.01 was released in Nov. 1985.
http://oldfiles.org.uk/powerload/timeline.htm
Also the Amiga 1000 and the Atari ST were popular for GUI interfaces around that time.
--- John
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 12:51:51 -0700 Skunk Worx skunkworx@verizon.net wrote:
Kelly wrote:
On Saturday, June 23, 2007 1:46 am Skunk Worx wrote:
MS Windows 1.0 (Wikipedia) November 1995.
Don't you mean 1985? IIRC, Windows 3.1 was out in 1992...
Yes, thanks, my bad. The first Windows was demo'd at comdex in 1983 and there was no 1.0 release.
Windows 1.01 was released in Nov. 1985.
http://oldfiles.org.uk/powerload/timeline.htm
Also the Amiga 1000 and the Atari ST were popular for GUI interfaces around that time.
The Atari ST was GEM which was originally on DOS platforms and goes back before windows somewhat.
Alan
On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 22:46 -0700, Skunk Worx wrote:
MS appears to promote the idea that no computer would boot if not for their tireless efforts. I think history and the facts speak for themselves.
Whether or not they assert that as a matter of history, it's clearly their goal for the future.
[Currently enduring an Exchange rollout. Talk about nanny software...]
Mike McCarty wrote:
Skunk Worx wrote:
[snip]
Kudos to RedHat for sticking to their guns. Unix predates MS-anything by decades so it's all kind of humorous.
I'm not sure this is true, but even if it were, Linux is not UNIX. What we commonly call Linux is actually Linux (the kernel) which doesn't predate MS products, and GNU, which, as we all know, means GNU is Not UNIX. So, Unix dates have nothing to do with this discussion.
Of course they do. Linux is designed to emululate unix and the underlying technology described in the 1985 SVID interface documentation can't be eligible for someone to patent later. X was working in 1984 and pretty much the current protocol by 1987. In those timeframes, Microsoft's biggest innovations were the 640K memory limit and 32Meg disk limit, along with single tasking until competition from DRDOS 5 forced them to provide equivalent features. Someone should accumulate a list of features that Microsoft has added _only_ after a potential competitor has shipped them just in case anyone could possibly think permitting anti-competitive behavior should even be considered.
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 13:48 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
Dear all,
In midst of the Microsoft Linux deals, Novell, Xandros, Linspire, ..., etc. The question arises will Red Hat fall into Microsoft's deals?
http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/070614/38396_id.html?.v=1
Inquiring minds want to know. I hope that it does not fall into these kinds of pacts.
Regards,
Antonio
Gee I have the opposite opinion. You mean you are against Red Hat increasing its income by having their software supplied by companies like Dell? -- ======================================================================= Mason's First Law of Synergism: The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut. ======================================================================= Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam@sbcglobal.net
Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 13:48 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
Dear all,
In midst of the Microsoft Linux deals, Novell, Xandros, Linspire, ..., etc. The question arises will Red Hat fall into Microsoft's deals?
http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/070614/38396_id.html?.v=1
Inquiring minds want to know. I hope that it does not fall into these kinds of pacts.
Regards,
Antonio
Gee I have the opposite opinion. You mean you are against Red Hat increasing its income by having their software supplied by companies like Dell?
--
Mason's First Law of Synergism: The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut. ======================================================================= Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam@sbcglobal.net
Aaron: What are you talking about? Tom
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 08:55 -0500, Tom Poe wrote:
Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 13:48 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
Dear all,
In midst of the Microsoft Linux deals, Novell, Xandros, Linspire, ..., etc. The question arises will Red Hat fall into Microsoft's deals?
http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/070614/38396_id.html?.v=1
Inquiring minds want to know. I hope that it does not fall into these kinds of pacts.
Regards,
Antonio
Gee I have the opposite opinion. You mean you are against Red Hat increasing its income by having their software supplied by companies like Dell? --
Aaron: What are you talking about? Tom
I guess the question relates to what is the original poster is talking about. I assumed he was talking about the availability of machines with a MS OS and a Linux OS. Currently it is Suse people are mentioning that will be supplied as a companion to a MS operating system. If that happens I assume money must be transferred to Suse by the Hardware manufacturers. Why not some money to Red Hat?
If there is some other kind of agreement that is being talked about then I don't know what exactly the OP is referring to.
-- ======================================================================= If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it. ======================================================================= Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam@sbcglobal.net
Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 08:55 -0500, Tom Poe wrote:
Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 13:48 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
Dear all,
In midst of the Microsoft Linux deals, Novell, Xandros, Linspire, ..., etc. The question arises will Red Hat fall into Microsoft's deals?
http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/070614/38396_id.html?.v=1
Inquiring minds want to know. I hope that it does not fall into these kinds of pacts.
Regards,
Antonio
Gee I have the opposite opinion. You mean you are against Red Hat increasing its income by having their software supplied by companies like Dell? --
Aaron: What are you talking about? Tom
I guess the question relates to what is the original poster is talking about. I assumed he was talking about the availability of machines with a MS OS and a Linux OS. Currently it is Suse people are mentioning that will be supplied as a companion to a MS operating system. If that happens I assume money must be transferred to Suse by the Hardware manufacturers. Why not some money to Red Hat?
If there is some other kind of agreement that is being talked about then I don't know what exactly the OP is referring to.
--
If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam@sbcglobal.net
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20061218045851480 This is groklaw's rundown on MS-Novell. Xandros and Linspire are in similar straits. Some think what MS is doing with universities, is being translated to the OSS community, now. The idea, I suppose is going to distill down to principles. Do we want to contribute to a community, either as users, or coders, that does "business" with MS, or what? I really liked the post that defends MS, by attempting to associate them as being just like IBM, good people, and contributing significantly through such acts as providing tools for research. The students get real excited when they get a nice laptop to keep when they're done, the university gets to share in the IP license, and MS controls how that research is monetized. What do you think? Nice way to see FOSS move down the road? Tom
Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 08:55 -0500, Tom Poe wrote:
Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 13:48 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
Dear all,
In midst of the Microsoft Linux deals, Novell, Xandros, Linspire, ..., etc. The question arises will Red Hat fall into Microsoft's deals?
http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/070614/38396_id.html?.v=1
Inquiring minds want to know. I hope that it does not fall into these kinds of pacts.
Regards,
Antonio
Gee I have the opposite opinion. You mean you are against Red Hat increasing its income by having their software supplied by companies like Dell? --
Aaron: What are you talking about? Tom
I guess the question relates to what is the original poster is talking about. I assumed he was talking about the availability of machines with a MS OS and a Linux OS. Currently it is Suse people are mentioning that will be supplied as a companion to a MS operating system. If that happens I assume money must be transferred to Suse by the Hardware manufacturers. Why not some money to Red Hat?
If there is some other kind of agreement that is being talked about then I don't know what exactly the OP is referring to.
--
If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam@sbcglobal.net
I don't believe what I'm hearing/reading here! You mean there's Linux fans out there that don't even know what the Open Source/Free Software movement was/is all about? Do you think Novell/SuSE's or whomever's real interest is to get more users out there familiar with their distro, so they (and any other followers) cut a deal with MS to allow their Linux flavor integrate better with Windows? For some time now I've been seeing more and more people/companies use the FREE work of many many people to try to reach that big (multi-)billion dollar pie-in-the-sky, and I just think that's immoral, and now to try to latch on to MS for a free ride (oops, did I say free?).
Don't get me wrong, I've paid good money for many versions of Linux from many vendors, including SuSE and RedHat, but that's because I felt the money went to paying them for the work involved in making their distro usable (or user friendly), something that I couldn't do myself, until now, and I was very interested technically in Linux.
Also, for all of us who are interested enough in an alternate OS, we can get it easily enough through various means, and manage to get it running on our machines with (or without) the giant. We don't need a deal cut with MS, and for anybody that might, well, Linux is a high-tech OS (much more high-tech and advanced than other OSes) and really was not meant to be overly simplified for the young school kid or his/her grandparents.
So in my opinion, I see these major distro companies heading in the wrong direction (and for the wrong reasons), and I'm wanting less and less to do with them. I might as well go back to MS Windows. Instead of one monopoly, we're going to have half-a-dozen, or more.
Robert Cates wrote:
I don't believe what I'm hearing/reading here! You mean there's Linux fans out there that don't even know what the Open Source/Free Software movement was/is all about?
I think there is a rather large base that doesn't see it as a religious issue and would prefer for everything to work together, letting them use whatever is best for any situation, making their own decisions about the cost vs. value of the proprietary parts. That's more or less what open source is about, and where it differs from the free software movement.
So in my opinion, I see these major distro companies heading in the wrong direction (and for the wrong reasons), and I'm wanting less and less to do with them. I might as well go back to MS Windows. Instead of one monopoly, we're going to have half-a-dozen, or more.
Any number larger than one is better than only one. And if they all interoperate correctly without worrying about whether they have to use an infringing library to do it, so much the better.
On Sunday, June 24, 2007 7:36 pm Les Mikesell wrote:
Any number larger than one is better than only one. And if they all interoperate correctly without worrying about whether they have to use an infringing library to do it, so much the better.
I'd agree, except for the identity of the company proposing "interoperability". Microsoft doesn't have a history of that; rather, it has a history of EEE and lock-out, and considering Windows is one of their two big cash cows, I do not believe for a second that they really want interoperability. I suspect what they'd prefer is a method of forcing people from Linux to Windows, but not vice-versa (they did the same thing with O/S2).
Kelly wrote:
On Sunday, June 24, 2007 7:36 pm Les Mikesell wrote:
Any number larger than one is better than only one. And if they all interoperate correctly without worrying about whether they have to use an infringing library to do it, so much the better.
I'd agree, except for the identity of the company proposing "interoperability". Microsoft doesn't have a history of that; rather, it has a history of EEE and lock-out, and considering Windows is one of their two big cash cows, I do not believe for a second that they really want interoperability. I suspect what they'd prefer is a method of forcing people from Linux to Windows, but not vice-versa (they did the same thing with O/S2).
Of course that's what they want. Why does that matter?
Kelly:
I'd agree, except for the identity of the company proposing "interoperability". Microsoft doesn't have a history of that; rather, it has a history of EEE and lock-out, and considering Windows is one of their two big cash cows, I do not believe for a second that they really want interoperability. I suspect what they'd prefer is a method of forcing people from Linux to Windows, but not vice-versa (they did the same thing with O/S2).
Les Mikesell:
Of course that's what they want. Why does that matter?
Just so long as they don't succeed (at the "forcing," or just continuing to make life very difficult for everyone else).
Tim wrote:
Kelly:
I'd agree, except for the identity of the company proposing "interoperability". Microsoft doesn't have a history of that; rather, it has a history of EEE and lock-out, and considering Windows is one of their two big cash cows, I do not believe for a second that they really want interoperability. I suspect what they'd prefer is a method of forcing people from Linux to Windows, but not vice-versa (they did the same thing with O/S2).
Les Mikesell:
Of course that's what they want. Why does that matter?
Just so long as they don't succeed (at the "forcing," or just continuing to make life very difficult for everyone else).
Give me one example of how they can make my life difficult.
Have fun ;-)
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Tim wrote:
Kelly:
I'd agree, except for the identity of the company proposing "interoperability". Microsoft doesn't have a history of that; rather, it has a history of EEE and lock-out, and considering Windows is one of their two big cash cows, I do not believe for a second that they really want interoperability. I suspect what they'd prefer is a method of forcing people from Linux to Windows, but not vice-versa (they did the same thing with O/S2).
Les Mikesell:
Of course that's what they want. Why does that matter?
Just so long as they don't succeed (at the "forcing," or just continuing to make life very difficult for everyone else).
Give me one example of how they can make my life difficult.
Have fun ;-)
My wife had three experiences the last week or so.
1) Missed ER. You can watch it online... http://www.channel4.com/4od/index.html ... if you are specifically on XP with specifically WMP10 and specifically IE.
2) Attempted to attach a PDF while sending from her hotmail account. New special feature on Hotmail: you have to have specifically IE to attach anything. Obviously there is zero technical reason for that.
3) Was sent a Word document from a friend she couldn't open in Open Office, because of the deliberate incompatibilities introduced by Microsoft in each version of office in the apps' default saving format.
Let's not pretty it up: Microsoft are an evil Mammon-worshipping corporation.
-Andy
Andy Green wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Tim wrote:
Just so long as they don't succeed (at the "forcing," or just continuing to make life very difficult for everyone else).
Give me one example of how they can make my life difficult.
My wife had three experiences the last week or so.
1, 2, 3
I'm sorry the obvious incompatibilities and lack of companies paying attention make anyone's life difficult, but it doesn't apply to me or at least doesn't make my life any more difficult.
Let's not pretty it up: Microsoft are an evil Mammon-worshipping corporation.
They're evil alright.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Andy Green wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Tim wrote:
Just so long as they don't succeed (at the "forcing," or just continuing to make life very difficult for everyone else).
Give me one example of how they can make my life difficult.
My wife had three experiences the last week or so.
1, 2, 3
I'm sorry the obvious incompatibilities and lack of companies paying attention make anyone's life difficult, but it doesn't apply to me or at least doesn't make my life any more difficult.
Well... they are deliberate proprietary incompatabilities in all three cases. Particularly the hotmail one... how about Software Patents in the EU then, because MSFT lobby for it... this would definitely hurt someone in .nl... livna is in .fr...
http://eupat.ffii.org/players/microsoft/
Or if you live in or visit the 99.1% Windows penetration South Korea and want https or ssh on your Linux box...
http://www.kanai.net/weblog/archive/2007/01/26/00h53m55s http://openweb.or.kr/?page_id=60
Or if you think state entities paid for by tax money should use Open Document Format, because sleek Microsoft "lobbyists" are slithering and crawling all over the legislatures in your geographic region cajoling and threatening (and getting officials that don't agree with them sacked pour encourager les autres)
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&...
-Andy
At 12:52 25/06/2007, you wrote:
They're evil alright.
They get a mention here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil in the "Evil in business" section.
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:05:14 +0100 Andy Green andy@warmcat.com wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Tim wrote:
Give me one example of how they can make my life difficult.
Have fun ;-)
My wife had three experiences the last week or so.
- Attempted to attach a PDF while sending from her hotmail account.
New special feature on Hotmail: you have to have specifically IE to attach anything. Obviously there is zero technical reason for that.
Hello, Everyone I just tried to attach and send three jpeg's while logged into my Hotmail account. The jpeg's weighed in at 2.41 MB. Using the only two graphical browsers that I have installed on our Fedora Core 6 system, it worked perfectly.
That said, even though the above worked for me (but not for your wife,) when my wife tries to go to the following website (http://www.marykayintouch.com) using Firefox, she is redirected to the following page: http://applications.marykayintouch.com/Login/main/RequireIE.aspx
Here is the text that you would see if you browsed to the above link using Firefox (in my case, 2.0.0.4 Bon Echo compiled from source):
Intouch has detected that your Mozilla browser must be upgraded. Browser Name: Mozilla Major Version: 1 Minor Version: 0.8 Platform: UNIX
The InTouch Community requires a 4.0 compliant browser like IE 5.0
Click to download the latest version of Internet Explorer
The thing that is really embarrassing about the above error message, and the resultant inability to access this site with Firefox (on Linux, anyway...) is that if I go to the same site using Konqueror 3.5.7, it works perfectly. In my case Konqueror is set to identify itself as: "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3.5; Linux) KHTML/3.5.7 (like Gecko)"
I would be interested in seeing how/why this site seems to think that that is superior to the latest Firefox....
Apparently this is how Bon Echo identifies itself: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070621 BonEcho/2.0.0.4
Here is how the Firefox that ships with FC6 identifies itself: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.12) Gecko/20070530 Fedora/1.5.0.12-1.fc6 Firefox/1.5.0.12
I've even had one site (can't remember what it is right now) that the only browser I could use under Linux to access that site was Konqueror. The REALLY cool part about that site was that I had to set Konqueror to NOT IDENTIFY ITSELF! So, if the site detected that Konqueror identified itself as what it really was, or if I set it to identify itself as some version of Internet Explorer, it would not work. BUT, if I set Konqueror to not identify itself at all, the site worked perfectly... I will leave it to all of you experts to interpret that one...
Steven P. Ulrick
On Monday, June 25, 2007 4:13 pm Steven P. Ulrick wrote:
The thing that is really embarrassing about the above error message, and the resultant inability to access this site with Firefox (on Linux, anyway...) is that if I go to the same site using Konqueror 3.5.7, it works perfectly. In my case Konqueror is set to identify itself as: "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3.5; Linux) KHTML/3.5.7 (like Gecko)"
I would be interested in seeing how/why this site seems to think that that is superior to the latest Firefox....
IE identifies itself using the following pattern:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1...
So obviously what's going on here is the script is looking for the word compatible (automatically assuming that everyone uses Internet Explorer).
Mozilla doesn't use the compatible syntax, so the script can't find compatible; I assume the script then acts as if the browser HAS to be Netscape Navigator, and gives the "You have to upgrade" message.
Old, old detection syntax.
I've even had one site (can't remember what it is right now) that the only browser I could use under Linux to access that site was Konqueror. The REALLY cool part about that site was that I had to set Konqueror to NOT IDENTIFY ITSELF! So, if the site detected that Konqueror identified itself as what it really was, or if I set it to identify itself as some version of Internet Explorer, it would not work. BUT, if I set Konqueror to not identify itself at all, the site worked perfectly... I will leave it to all of you experts to interpret that one...
I can't even guess at that one...
(I know a bit about how the browser identification works because I wrote a script, http://crystalsanctuary.rpgsource.net/dp_stuff/php/ustest/uitest.php , which can detect specific browser/OS combinations for the purposes of stat collection ).
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 15:13 -0500, Steven P. Ulrick wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:05:14 +0100 Andy Green andy@warmcat.com wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Tim wrote:
Give me one example of how they can make my life difficult.
Have fun ;-)
My wife had three experiences the last week or so.
- Attempted to attach a PDF while sending from her hotmail account.
New special feature on Hotmail: you have to have specifically IE to attach anything. Obviously there is zero technical reason for that.
Hello, Everyone I just tried to attach and send three jpeg's while logged into my Hotmail account. The jpeg's weighed in at 2.41 MB. Using the only two graphical browsers that I have installed on our Fedora Core 6 system, it worked perfectly.
That said, even though the above worked for me (but not for your wife,) when my wife tries to go to the following website (http://www.marykayintouch.com) using Firefox, she is redirected to the following page: http://applications.marykayintouch.com/Login/main/RequireIE.aspx
Here is the text that you would see if you browsed to the above link using Firefox (in my case, 2.0.0.4 Bon Echo compiled from source):
Intouch has detected that your Mozilla browser must be upgraded. Browser Name: Mozilla Major Version: 1 Minor Version: 0.8 Platform: UNIX
The InTouch Community requires a 4.0 compliant browser like IE 5.0
Click to download the latest version of Internet Explorer
The thing that is really embarrassing about the above error message, and the resultant inability to access this site with Firefox (on Linux, anyway...) is that if I go to the same site using Konqueror 3.5.7, it works perfectly. In my case Konqueror is set to identify itself as: "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3.5; Linux) KHTML/3.5.7 (like Gecko)"
I would be interested in seeing how/why this site seems to think that that is superior to the latest Firefox....
Apparently this is how Bon Echo identifies itself: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070621 BonEcho/2.0.0.4
Here is how the Firefox that ships with FC6 identifies itself: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.12) Gecko/20070530 Fedora/1.5.0.12-1.fc6 Firefox/1.5.0.12
I've even had one site (can't remember what it is right now) that the only browser I could use under Linux to access that site was Konqueror. The REALLY cool part about that site was that I had to set Konqueror to NOT IDENTIFY ITSELF! So, if the site detected that Konqueror identified itself as what it really was, or if I set it to identify itself as some version of Internet Explorer, it would not work. BUT, if I set Konqueror to not identify itself at all, the site worked perfectly... I will leave it to all of you experts to interpret that one...
Steven P. Ulrick
-- 14:50:27 up 6 days, 22:25, 2 users, load average: 0.57, 0.63, 0.48
For any commercial site, contact the system admin and copy the CEO. Tell them that you use Linux, and that you do not have and do not want windows. If they insist on Windows, you believe that that indicates their true relationship to customer needs and wants, and will take your business else where, and also copy the CEO with the email you posted to the fedora list.
We may be small, but in the world of retail sales, especially with small margins, losing a few percent of customers is sometimes all it takes to move a company to successful to an historical after thought.
Regards, Les H
On Jun 25 Steven P. Ulrick did spake thusly:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:05:14 +0100 Andy Green andy@warmcat.com wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Tim wrote:
Give me one example of how they can make my life difficult.
Have fun ;-)
My wife had three experiences the last week or so.
- Attempted to attach a PDF while sending from her hotmail account.
New special feature on Hotmail: you have to have specifically IE to attach anything. Obviously there is zero technical reason for that.
Hello, Everyone I just tried to attach and send three jpeg's while logged into my Hotmail account. The jpeg's weighed in at 2.41 MB. Using the only two graphical browsers that I have installed on our Fedora Core 6 system, it worked perfectly.
That said, even though the above worked for me (but not for your wife,) when my wife tries to go to the following website (http://www.marykayintouch.com) using Firefox, she is redirected to the following page: http://applications.marykayintouch.com/Login/main/RequireIE.aspx
Here is the text that you would see if you browsed to the above link using Firefox (in my case, 2.0.0.4 Bon Echo compiled from source):
Intouch has detected that your Mozilla browser must be upgraded. Browser Name: Mozilla Major Version: 1 Minor Version: 0.8 Platform: UNIX
The InTouch Community requires a 4.0 compliant browser like IE 5.0
Click to download the latest version of Internet Explorer
The thing that is really embarrassing about the above error message, and the resultant inability to access this site with Firefox (on Linux, anyway...) is that if I go to the same site using Konqueror 3.5.7, it works perfectly. In my case Konqueror is set to identify itself as: "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3.5; Linux) KHTML/3.5.7 (like Gecko)"
I would be interested in seeing how/why this site seems to think that that is superior to the latest Firefox....
Apparently this is how Bon Echo identifies itself: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070621 BonEcho/2.0.0.4
Here is how the Firefox that ships with FC6 identifies itself: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.12) Gecko/20070530 Fedora/1.5.0.12-1.fc6 Firefox/1.5.0.12
I've even had one site (can't remember what it is right now) that the only browser I could use under Linux to access that site was Konqueror. The REALLY cool part about that site was that I had to set Konqueror to NOT IDENTIFY ITSELF! So, if the site detected that Konqueror identified itself as what it really was, or if I set it to identify itself as some version of Internet Explorer, it would not work. BUT, if I set Konqueror to not identify itself at all, the site worked perfectly... I will leave it to all of you experts to interpret that one...
This is nothing to do with firefox or mozilla or KDE or gnome or fedora, it's simply a crap web designer/programmer who needs shooting. Complain to the website if you can't access it, there's no reason at all for you not being able to
Scott van Looy wrote:
On Jun 25 Steven P. Ulrick did spake thusly:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:05:14 +0100 Andy Green andy@warmcat.com wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Tim wrote:
Give me one example of how they can make my life difficult.
<SNIP>
This is nothing to do with firefox or mozilla or KDE or gnome or fedora, it's simply a crap web designer/programmer who needs shooting. Complain to the website if you can't access it, there's no reason at all for you not being able to
This falls on deaf ears many times.
Our corporate WWW site has just moved to some Microsoft portal software and in Linux or Firefox, keep getting popups about not being IE. I contacted the admin and their response was everyone was using IE. At least they thought this. I spent almost 30 minutes on the phone with this person and found out that they were living in a bubble of what they were taught. I even pointed out that if they updated their software, it would support Firefox.
At present, much of the corporate WWW site is not easily accessible to me as I use Linux.
Robin Laing wrote:
Scott van Looy wrote:
This is nothing to do with firefox or mozilla or KDE or gnome or fedora, it's simply a crap web designer/programmer who needs shooting. Complain to the website if you can't access it, there's no reason at all for you not being able to
This falls on deaf ears many times.
Our corporate WWW site has just moved to some Microsoft portal software and in Linux or Firefox, keep getting popups about not being IE. I contacted the admin and their response was everyone was using IE. At least they thought this. I spent almost 30 minutes on the phone with this person and found out that they were living in a bubble of what they were taught. I even pointed out that if they updated their software, it would support Firefox.
I recall working at a company where nearly everyone used Sun workstations. But the corporate office used PCs with MicroSoft products. Someone there decided that there were some special memos that everyone should read, and started sending out e-mails with Word for Windows Documents as attachments. Some of them were megs in size. Of course, to my mail reader (I used Pine) it was just a lot of binary goop MIME base-64 encoded.
I wrote her a polite e-mail letting her know that I couldn't read what she sent, and asked her please not to send me more like that.
I got back a very patient e-mail explaining that all I had to do was click on the attachment and it would pop up.
I wrote back that I had no way to do that, and politely requested that she not send me more memos.
I got another polite message explaining how to set up Outlook.
I wrote back that I didn't have Outlook, or any other mail reader running with Windows, because I used a Sun with SunOS.
She wrote back that I just needed to install it, and explained how to do that in Windows NT.
I gave up.
She sent me another memo, and I simply sent it back, quoted as she sent it, with a little explanation that this was what she sent me, and now she could see how it looked to me, and politely requesting that she stop sending me these huge balls of goop.
I got back a bewildered question as to why I sent her such a large amount of goop, along with a request not to send her such stuff. I tried to explain over three or so e-mail exchanges, that SHE SENT IT TO ME.
Anyway, after I sent her back megs of stuff several times, she started threatening me to report me to the corporate people and get me stopped/in trouble/fired/whatever she could.
I asked her please to do so, because then maybe we could get things straightened out.
I got a telephone call a few days later from a guy who was pretty angry with me for annoying his staff. I carefully explained the situation, and sent him copies of my patient requests not to send such goop. After a few moments he understood what was going on, and went to look at her e-mail history to verify my story. He called me back in about an hour and became polite and even somewhat apologetic, and the lady was told to use a different alias, which just went to "corporate all", not "company wide all".
The memos weren't interesting or useful to the engineering staff, anyway. I don't think she ever understood why I was "being so rude". She was just glad that I stopped sending her all that mysterious weird megs of goop.
That stuff was going to over 5,000 engineers who couldn't read any of it.
At present, much of the corporate WWW site is not easily accessible to me as I use Linux.
With such kinds of people, your mileage WON'T vary.
Mike
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 12:38 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
That stuff was going to over 5,000 engineers who couldn't read any of it.
That's probably the best thing, anyway (not being able to read corporate balderdash). Ooh, yes, there are ways to rubbish things without swearing, but not in modern lingo. ;-)
But back to the thread, this is the sort of thing that "forces" people into Windows by forcing them away from what they want to use. With the you join us or you miss out attitude.
And that was what my comment about them making life difficult was about. Not that they'd send the goons over to rough you up, but they'd make it so damn hard for you to continue to use your software, that you'd cave in and use theirs.
Tim wrote:
That's probably the best thing, anyway (not being able to read corporate balderdash). Ooh, yes, there are ways to rubbish things without swearing, but not in modern lingo. ;-)
But back to the thread, this is the sort of thing that "forces" people into Windows by forcing them away from what they want to use. With the you join us or you miss out attitude.
It wasn't even a matter of "what I wanted to use". It was the corporate wide standard machine, required for all engineers to use: Sun + SunOS.
I was responding to the "people living in a bubble" comment.
And that was what my comment about them making life difficult was about. Not that they'd send the goons over to rough you up, but they'd make it so damn hard for you to continue to use your software, that you'd cave in and use theirs.
She was going to send over the goons, but not to try to make me use Outlook + WinNT, I guess.
Mike
Mike McCarty wrote:
Robin Laing wrote:
Scott van Looy wrote:
This is nothing to do with firefox or mozilla or KDE or gnome or fedora, it's simply a crap web designer/programmer who needs shooting. Complain to the website if you can't access it, there's no reason at all for you not being able to
This falls on deaf ears many times.
Our corporate WWW site has just moved to some Microsoft portal software and in Linux or Firefox, keep getting popups about not being IE. I contacted the admin and their response was everyone was using IE. At least they thought this. I spent almost 30 minutes on the phone with this person and found out that they were living in a bubble of what they were taught. I even pointed out that if they updated their software, it would support Firefox.
I recall working at a company where nearly everyone used Sun workstations. But the corporate office used PCs with MicroSoft products. Someone there decided that there were some special memos that everyone should read, and started sending out e-mails with Word for Windows Documents as attachments. Some of them were megs in size. Of course, to my mail reader (I used Pine) it was just a lot of binary goop MIME base-64 encoded.
I wrote her a polite e-mail letting her know that I couldn't read what she sent, and asked her please not to send me more like that.
I got back a very patient e-mail explaining that all I had to do was click on the attachment and it would pop up.
I wrote back that I had no way to do that, and politely requested that she not send me more memos.
I got another polite message explaining how to set up Outlook.
I wrote back that I didn't have Outlook, or any other mail reader running with Windows, because I used a Sun with SunOS.
She wrote back that I just needed to install it, and explained how to do that in Windows NT.
I gave up.
She sent me another memo, and I simply sent it back, quoted as she sent it, with a little explanation that this was what she sent me, and now she could see how it looked to me, and politely requesting that she stop sending me these huge balls of goop.
I got back a bewildered question as to why I sent her such a large amount of goop, along with a request not to send her such stuff. I tried to explain over three or so e-mail exchanges, that SHE SENT IT TO ME.
Hum, I like that.
The move to exchange server has been a headache for most. I myself only check my mail when I feel like it or I know something is there for me to read. I know windows users that do the same thing because they hate Outlook's interface.
I wish I could access my mail with Pine and do the same thing. :)
Some here have actually gotten second computers just for email. Even some Windows users.
Les Mikesell:
Of course that's what they want. Why does that matter?
Tim:
Just so long as they don't succeed (at the "forcing," or just continuing to make life very difficult for everyone else).
Jeroen van Meeuwen:
Give me one example of how they can make my life difficult.
Have fun ;-)
Kereboros, NTLM, Exchange, non-MIME or broken MIME e-mail, any number of non-standard file formats, pressganging media suppliers into only using DRM media...
Tim wrote:
Les Mikesell:
Of course that's what they want. Why does that matter?
Tim:
Just so long as they don't succeed (at the "forcing," or just continuing to make life very difficult for everyone else).
Jeroen van Meeuwen:
Give me one example of how they can make my life difficult.
Have fun ;-)
Kereboros, NTLM, Exchange, non-MIME or broken MIME e-mail, any number of non-standard file formats, pressganging media suppliers into only using DRM media...
Please specify how these things should make my life any more difficult.
BTW, I really thought the topic had something to do with M$ striking deals potentially creating momentum to actually make a move on the patent and license "issues".
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
Jeroen van Meeuwen:
Give me one example of how they can make my life difficult.
Have fun ;-)
Tim:
Kereboros, NTLM, Exchange, non-MIME or broken MIME e-mail, any number of non-standard file formats, pressganging media suppliers into only using DRM media...
Jeroen van Meeuwen:
Please specify how these things should make my life any more difficult.
You're trolling, aren't you? You want me to come up with an example that's specific to you, alone. I'm not going to play that game.
I gave general answers.
e.g. How Microsoft have taken something that works (like Kereboros), broken it to suit themselves, and then made life difficult for others (those who need it to work in the manner it was designed to work in).
e.g. Microsoft servers on a network that only allows NTLM authentication, so all other clients are *forced* to be Microsoft ones, or they just can't network.
And so on, and so forth...
Tim wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen:
Give me one example of how they can make my life difficult.
Have fun ;-)
Tim:
Kereboros, NTLM, Exchange, non-MIME or broken MIME e-mail, any number of non-standard file formats, pressganging media suppliers into only using DRM media...
Jeroen van Meeuwen:
Please specify how these things should make my life any more difficult.
You're trolling, aren't you? You want me to come up with an example that's specific to you, alone. I'm not going to play that game.
I'm not, I'm seriously asking you how you think any conglomerate would be able to sue me, or you, or make our lives difficult (IRL). As far as technical is concerned, they can barely bring us back to the early 90's from an infrastructural point of view by bringing down distributors (and thus infrastructure?), but not the technical advancements we've made since then. And that is the worst case scenario, in which they litigate like numerous years and win in court and software patents being enforced in Europe and Asia and no-one in the other court's bench being left behind alive.
They're simply never gonna be able to really take away, from anyone, that what is owned by everyone. In a very vague and unlikely future, they may barely be able to make it just a little harder for us.
What are they gonna do, sue all of us?
I gave general answers.
And I know what you mean as I'm certified by these bastards but my point was directed at how they're gonna stop you, or me, from doing whatever it is we do, in a world that consists of code floating everywhere owned by everyone. It's not their derivative Kerberos, nor NTLM, nor Exchange, nor (...) that is going to stop us from doing whatever we do, right?
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
Les Mikesell wrote:
Sorry to reply through you, Les. Somehow I lost the original on this.
Robert Cates wrote:
I don't believe what I'm hearing/reading here! You mean there's Linux fans out there that don't even know what the Open Source/Free Software movement was/is all about?
There are a lot of Linux users who disagree with what some of the promoters of Free Software have as goals. I, for one, disagree strongly with Richard Stallman and his goals.
I think there is a rather large base that doesn't see it as a religious issue and would prefer for everything to work together, letting them use whatever is best for any situation, making their own decisions about the
Absolutely, Les.
cost vs. value of the proprietary parts. That's more or less what open source is about, and where it differs from the free software movement.
I can't imagine that I'll ever use the GPL or LGPL for anything I produce.
So in my opinion, I see these major distro companies heading in the wrong direction (and for the wrong reasons), and I'm wanting less and less to do with them. I might as well go back to MS Windows. Instead of one monopoly, we're going to have half-a-dozen, or more.
A multitude of monopolies is an oxymoron.
Any number larger than one is better than only one. And if they all interoperate correctly without worrying about whether they have to use an infringing library to do it, so much the better.
We agree here, Les.
Mike
Ed Greshko wrote:
Reminds me of the infamous suits between Motorola and Hitachi, in which Motorola claimed that Hitachi was using information garnered from possession of the masks for the MC680x0, and attempted to get serious monies out of Hitachi, while Hitachi then counter sued claiming that the CMOS technology Motorola used to create the MC680x0 (VFET) infringed its patents and tried to suppress Motorola marketing the '30. Both sides prevailed, then immediately licensed the technologies under dispute to each other when they realized that neither could benefit from being deprived of marketing their products.
Mike
Antonio Olivares wrote:
Dear all,
In midst of the Microsoft Linux deals, Novell, Xandros, Linspire, ..., etc. The question arises will Red Hat fall into Microsoft's deals?
http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/070614/38396_id.html?.v=1
Inquiring minds want to know. I hope that it does not fall into these kinds of pacts.
Regards,
Antonio
Here's a fresh one : Mark Shuttleworth says no to MS FUD :
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/125#comment-112738
"Neither Canonical nor the Ubuntu project have any interest in signing an agreement with Microsoft on the back of the threat of unspecified patents."
It's nice to see RedHat does not have to fight this battle alone.
Also jeers to Sun Microsystems and Oracle for undercutting RedHat's RHEL pricing at such a sensitive time.
Talk about David vs. Goliath...RedHat has a lot of huevos going up against this crowd...more like David vs. three Goliaths.
--- John
On 6/15/07, Antonio Olivares olivares14031@yahoo.com wrote:
Dear all,
In midst of the Microsoft Linux deals, Novell, Xandros, Linspire, ..., etc. The question arises will Red Hat fall into Microsoft's deals?
http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/070614/38396_id.html?.v=1
Inquiring minds want to know. I hope that it does not fall into these kinds of pacts.
These deals have 0% to do with law and 100% to do with politics/PR (something that could likely be said about software patents in general).
MS is trying hard to divide the community with moves like these. Novell/Linspire/Xandros should be cautious about getting into bed with MS just to try give Redhat a bloody nose or isolate them as some sort of business-unfriendly communists. I believe that protecting their customers has little to do with their motivation.