| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
MS-backed group lobbies against government open source | |
|
||
| Time: 09:11 EST/14:11 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
A new lobbying group called Software Choice, backed by Microsoft and other high-tech companies, hopes to stop governments from encouraging the use of open-source software such as Linux. Microsoft and other software companies are ramping up a lobbying effort aimed at convincing governments to think again where it comes to adopting open-source software. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 328 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:39:09 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2960 (156.80.64.113) at 8/13/2002 9:27:06 AM |
|
My God, this is pathetic :(
TL BTW... The pop-unders are starting to get out of hand! |
| #2 By 3 (62.253.128.4) at 8/13/2002 9:38:17 AM |
| We'll see what we can do about the popunders - but as we're paying $1000 a month for the server we probably won't get rid of them as they are ending up as the highest amount of revenue. |
| #3 By 2 (12.226.195.102) at 8/13/2002 10:01:57 AM |
| There are two pop-up ads and two pop-unders currently selected, I really hate them (I really, really hate them) too but we need the money! Soon as it gets better they are outta there! |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 8/13/2002 10:54:21 AM |
|
Here's the proposal...
http://www.redhat.com/opensourcenow/bill_opensource.html Frankly it strikes me as a "We can't compete in a free market, so we are asking the government to make our competitors illegal." I see no other justification for the particular wording of this proposal. The thing is, this law impacts far more than Microsoft, it also hurts Peoplesoft, ESRI, Oracle and thousands of small businesses who supply software to business. I used to work for one such company, and the impact to our business would have been devastating such that we probably would not have developed our mapping product if this law had been in effect. If you read the proposal most of it sounds fair... not being locked in to a data format, verifying security and so forth. Where I have issues is in Section 3, with items e and f. These are there solely for the purpose making commercial software illegal. Frankly the whole idea is pretty pathetic, and it's time that developers started fighting back against these Open Source zealots who obviously cannot see how much damage they are doing to our industry. I'm glad to see Microsoft and others in the industry are beginning to address this. This post was edited by sodablue on Tuesday, August 13, 2002 at 10:56. |
| #5 By 2960 (156.80.64.113) at 8/13/2002 10:55:54 AM |
|
Guys,
The one Pop-Up per visit was manageable, though I still dispise them. This last visit, I got no less than 5 and they just piled on every time I changed screens. That is TOO much. Any more, and I'm going to expect a massage :) Thanks :) TL |
| #6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 8/13/2002 11:04:15 AM |
|
Maybe you should start selling a popup filtering program for IE as a fundraiser? :-)
|
| #7 By 20 (143.166.17.49) at 8/13/2002 12:07:16 PM |
| How come when they mention the 9 States persecuting, erm I mean prosecuting Microsoft, they don't say "MS-Competitor back 9 States Attornies General..." or "Sun/AOL-TimeWarner/Novell-back 9 States..."? |
| #8 By 2459 (24.206.97.178) at 8/13/2002 12:28:52 PM |
| media bias |
| #9 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 8/13/2002 12:29:22 PM |
| soda, very nice idea. |
| #10 By 415 (199.8.71.121) at 8/13/2002 1:51:55 PM |
|
Why doesn't Activewin package it's entire website engine and sell that instead?!? Or some small pieces of it??? Every website can use a data driven, remotely managed, news engine!
:) I would start by rewriting it in ASP.NET... This post was edited by IronCladLou on Tuesday, August 13, 2002 at 13:54. |
| #11 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 8/13/2002 3:00:32 PM |
|
From Soda's Link:
In the preamble its says: The law does not forbid the production of proprietary software; The law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software; The law does not dictate which software to use; The law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought; and The law does not limit the terms under which software can be licensed. Then in Section 2: For all new software acquisitions, the State of California and all of its agencies and branches shall acquire software meeting the requirements of Section 3. Then Section 3: All software developed for use or used by the State or its agencies shall have: A. Unrestricted use of the program for any purpose. B. Unrestricted access to the respective source code. C. Exhaustive inspection of the working mechanisms of the program. D. Use of the internal mechanisms and arbitrary portions of the software, to adapt them to the needs of the user. E. Freedom to make and distribute copies of the software. F. Modification of the software and freedom to distribute said modifications of the new resulting software, under the same license of the original software. Now lets compare section 3 with the definition of "Open Source Software or Program" A. Unrestricted use of the program for any purpose. B. Unrestricted access to the respective source code. C. Exhaustive inspection of the working mechanisms of the program. D. Use of the internal mechanisms and arbitrary portions of the software, to adapt them to the needs of the user. E. Freedom to make and distribute copies of the software. F. Modification of the software and freedom to distribute said modifications of the new resulting software, under the same license of the original software. Then the definition of Proprietary Software: (closed source software) - That which does not fulfill all the requirements listed in Open Source. Sounds to me like they are saying that the state can only use Open Sourced Software... or am I misunderstanding. This most definitely nullifies their statement "The law does not dictate which software to use;". "which" is a very loosely used Term in that statement if they are saying what it "means" to say. Truely they are dictating "which" software to use if they are classifying software to be in two classes (Open/Proprietary) and saying "which" one is to be used. |
| #12 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 8/13/2002 3:21:35 PM |
|
Also lets examine the use of the word Proprietary:
Webopedia: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/p/proprietary.html proprietary Last modified: Sunday, September 01, 1996 Privately owned and controlled. In the computer industry, proprietary is the opposite of open. A proprietary design or technique is one that is owned by a company. It also implies that the company has not divulged specifications that would allow other companies to duplicate the product. Increasingly, proprietary architectures are seen as a disadvantage. Consumers prefer open and standardized architectures, which allow them to mix and match products from different manufacturers. I see proprietary as both good in some instances and bad in others. It allows a company to "own" software and related code which provides not only a revenue stream for the company that builds it but also an asset which can be controlled. This is a bad thing if the Software does not support standards for interfaceing with other applications or network transports etc. This is a good thing in that programmers like you and me can get paid by these companies to build the software since they are making money off of it. The use of prorietary to describe software that Microsoft makes is using the definition of the word to the strictest sense. It is owned by MS and you do not have the source code and you cannot distribute it freely. When I think of a product as proprietary in a bad way it means that I cannot, it in any way, interface with it from other applications both third party and my own. For the most part this is not the case with MS products both OS and their applications. I personally don't have a problem with paying for "owned" software since it is just another source of revenue for our economy. You pay people to do something you don't know how to do or you don't have time to do. That is the value you pay for. This all boils down to people being cheap and whiney. Which is what seems to be happening all across america at this time. Also, I don't have problems with Linux Zealots who are helping to develop Linux and its applications. They are contributing to their cause and they deserve to be pumped about it. Its all of the Linux Zealots who A: can't write a line of code to save their life or B: to freaking lazy to help out and just want a free ride to them I say <cartman>Damn Hippies</cartman>. |
| #13 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 8/13/2002 3:32:32 PM |
|
Mr. Humpty - You are absolutely right. I really dislike it when people are disingenuous as these Linux zealots are by trying to claim the law does not prohibit sale/use of commercial software when the terms of compliance quite clearly state that it does.
The Open Source community has gone too far on this one. |
| #14 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 8/13/2002 4:05:17 PM |
| Could AW put a DONATE button somewhere on the site... and when I donate $10... I don't get pop-unders for a year? |
| #15 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 8/13/2002 5:45:52 PM |
|
Holy Crap #18 that is the best idea yet... I'd gladly pay for no pop-ups or unders... AW what do you think?
Figure out how much revenue you get per popup per pageview for like 20 pageviews a day... double it multiply it by 365 and that might be number I'll gladly shell out, unless it like $1000 or something |
| #16 By 2459 (24.206.97.178) at 8/13/2002 6:05:43 PM |
|
There already is a donate button.
Scroll down, looking on the left side of the page. You will eventually come upon a white PayPal DONATE button (directly under the last menu item). |
| #17 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 8/13/2002 6:55:41 PM |
| Yea.... I've seen that one... but I want to pay to get rid of the pop-ups/unders etc. |
| #18 By 2 (152.163.188.65) at 8/13/2002 9:48:46 PM |
| I'll ask Will...might work. |
| #19 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 8/14/2002 9:17:38 AM |
| sounds cool bob... if you guys need help pulling it off let me know... i'll be glad to help if you need an extra hand |
| #20 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 8/14/2002 3:17:50 PM |
| ... waiting with $10 in hand... |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 328 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:39:09 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
