Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #2687 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Brendan Simon <Brendan@BrendanSimon.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-04-06 14:40 +1000 |
| Last post | 2011-04-07 06:43 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 102 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Brendan Simon <Brendan@BrendanSimon.com> - 2011-04-06 14:40 +1000
Re: Python benefits over Cobra harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-06 03:03 -0500
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-06 18:26 +1000
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-06 12:29 +0000
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-06 23:06 +1000
[OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-04-07 07:50 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 00:03 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-07 07:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 11:33 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Mel <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2011-04-07 17:15 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-08 05:55 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-10 21:49 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 00:53 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 01:36 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-12 03:53 -0500
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-04-12 13:32 -0400
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 11:44 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-04-12 15:39 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-11 09:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 11:17 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-11 22:28 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 15:55 -0700
Re: [even more OT than before] Arithmetic [was Free software versus software idea patents] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-12 11:34 +0000
Re: [even more OT than before] Arithmetic [was Free software versus software idea patents] geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 11:11 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-04-12 10:02 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-12 03:15 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 09:54 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 00:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 23:36 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 02:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 09:51 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-16 00:21 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 23:46 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Algis Kabaila <akabaila@pcug.org.au> - 2011-04-16 21:01 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-16 23:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-17 10:31 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-16 18:35 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-18 01:29 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-18 00:34 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-04-12 13:43 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-12 23:56 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 17:05 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-07 07:39 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-07 18:17 +1000
Re: Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) flebber <flebber.crue@gmail.com> - 2011-04-07 03:51 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 10:31 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Benjamin Kaplan <benjamin.kaplan@case.edu> - 2011-04-07 11:50 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Adam Tauno Williams <awilliam@whitemice.org> - 2011-04-07 13:55 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 14:37 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-08 01:30 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-08 01:37 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-09 23:55 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-10 19:04 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 10:18 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-10 20:48 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-10 21:01 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 11:26 -0600
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-12 04:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 06:59 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents CM <cmpython@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 10:48 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 11:13 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 15:56 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 00:50 -0500
Re: Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 23:38 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 02:29 -0500
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2011-04-14 08:42 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents CM <cmpython@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 09:48 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-15 23:27 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 13:37 -0600
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-12 23:45 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 01:04 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 19:15 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-14 14:02 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 00:11 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 13:46 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-15 02:21 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-04-14 22:52 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 13:50 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-04-14 21:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 08:01 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-04-14 22:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-15 01:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 15:23 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-04-14 22:55 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-15 02:09 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 12:31 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-04-14 22:43 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2011-04-14 14:20 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 02:28 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 10:49 -0600
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 13:51 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 15:05 -0600
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 03:31 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-08 01:41 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-08 07:14 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2011-04-08 09:10 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2011-04-09 07:45 +0100
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> - 2011-04-07 14:18 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-04-10 11:53 +1000
Re: Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) sturlamolden <sturlamolden@yahoo.no> - 2011-04-12 09:04 -0700
Re: Python benefits over Cobra harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 00:25 -0500
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-07 06:43 +0000
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 23:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <4da4e6c1$0$29986$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #3066 |
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:43:00 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote: > Anyone here who does not understand how absurd software patents can get > should contemplate the following (based on a real patent from about 20 > years ago, when CDroms were new. > > A Methods for Ensuring that the Correct CDROM is in the CDROM drive. > > While the correct cdrom is not in the drive: > Display a message asking the user to insert the correct CD. > > Buried in a page of verbiage, that was it, completely obvious and > unoriginal. There's no doubt that, for some reason, the US Patent Office has an institutional blind-spot in certain areas. As the joke goes, you can take any existing patent, scrawl "on the Internet" over it in red crayon, and they will grant you a patent on it. But I'm also sure that if you look hard enough, there will be hardware patents that are as inane. For the longest time, you could patent perpetual motion machines. Now you can patent perpetual motion machines so long as you don't use the words "perpetual motion" or "free energy". The real question should not be "how bad are the worst patents?", or "how good are the best patents?", but "overall, does the patent system make things better or worse in general, and how can we reduce the harm done in favour of more good?". (I'll also point out that there's remarkably little evidence that *hardware* patents promote and support innovation and invention, even though it is conventional wisdom that it does. People on *both* sides of the debate are amazingly resistant to the idea of evidence-based policy.) >> That is what made the last Supreme Court decision (from this argument >> in part) so important... because for the first time the U.S. Supreme >> Court is beginning to buy it ... in part. > > What might help lawyers understand the obsurdity of software patents > would be to have them contemplate the possibility of patents on laws and > legal arguments, so that a legislature could not write a law, nor a > lawyer submit a legal brief, without possibly having to pay royalties or > violate a patent. That would be a patent on a business process, which is allowed. In fact, as I recall, at least one lawyer has made an attempt to patent a business process relating to law. Too-lazy-to-google-for-it-ly y'rs, -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 17:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.296.1302653114.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3103 |
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: <snip> > That would be a patent on a business process, which is allowed. In fact, > as I recall, at least one lawyer has made an attempt to patent a business > process relating to law. IBM tried patenting the business of patent trolling, which I found hilarious. Geremy Condra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 07:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) |
| Message-ID | <4d9d6a4a$0$29992$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #2723 |
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 07:50:56 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes:
>
>> Mono is free, open source software that is compatible with .NET
> […]
>
> It's difficult to take a claim of “free” seriously for a technology
> (Mono) that knowingly implements techniques (the “C#” language, the
> “.NET” platform, etc.) covered by specific idea patents held by an
> entity that demonstrates every intention of wielding them to restrict
> the freedom of software recipients.
It's astonishing how anti-Mono FUD just won't die. (Something can be
true, and still FUD. "Oh no, people might *choke* on a peanut, or have an
allergic reaction, we must label every piece of food May Contain Nuts
just in case, because you never know!!!")
Let's reword your concern slightly:
It's difficult to take a claim of “free” seriously for
technologies (including, but not limited to, HTML, CSS, C++,
XML, Public Key Cryptography, packet-based multimedia, IPv6)
that knowingly or unknowingly [the later not being a defence
against infringement] implement techniques covered by specific
idea patents held by an entity that allegedly demonstrates
every intention, or at least some intention, of wielding them
to restrict the freedom of software recipients.
Perhaps every piece of software should be labeled May Infringe Patents.
I've seen a lot of FUD about Mono, but nothing to suggest that it is at
more risk than any other piece of non-trivial software. As far as I know,
there is only one major piece of FOSS that *has* actually been sued for
patent infringement, and it's not Mono.
> Software idea patents are incompatible with free software. Every
> non-trivial program likely violates countless such patents, but most of
> those patents are not yet enforced even in the unlucky jurisdictions
> where they are recognised by law.
Right. So why single out Mono? Python likely violates "countless" such
patents, so obviously we can't take the idea of Python being free
seriously either. Same with Perl, and the Linux kernel, and the entire
Gnu tool set. As you say, quite probably every piece of non-trivial
software you have used, or ever will use, or write, infringes.
By this logic, we can't take the idea of FOSS software seriously at all,
since no software can be expected to be free from infringing some patent
somewhere.
But of course, the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Yes, Mono
is at risk from patents, *possibly even from Microsoft*. So is everything
else. So why single out Mono as non-serious?
(Although it is in Microsoft's best interest to tolerate Mono. It's in
their best interests to tolerate FOSS. And as their recent actions show:
http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft-cozies-up-to-open-source-donates-100000-to-Apache/1217018107
http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/07/24/linus-torvalds-speaks-out-on-the-microsoft-gpl-code-contribution/
at least parts of Microsoft have finally come to recognise this.)
More here:
http://www.jprl.com/Blog/archive/development/mono/2009/Jan-19.html
> Microsoft, though, is clearly a vigorous enforcer of software idea
> patents they hold. They have been very cagey about stating what they
> will and won't enforce about patents they hold on .NET – and none of
> those statements are binding.
This is complete FUD. I suggest you start with this:
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx
Perhaps what you mean is, none of the licences granted are *irrevocable*.
But the same applies to the GPL -- break the GPL's (generous) terms, and
you too could find that your licence is revoked.
Is it possible that there could be portions of .NET or Mono which are
unclear patent-wise? Of course it is possible, it's even likely. Software
patents are truly a mess. But there is zero evidence I have seen that Mono
is more of a mess patent-wise, or more of a risk, than any other non-trivial
piece of software. With large portions of Mono protected by the Microsoft
Community Promise licence, it may even be that Mono is *safer* than most
FOSS software.
Microsoft is far less vigorous at enforcing patents than many other
companies. (This is possibly a bad thing, when they darkly drop hints
that there are secret patent infringements in Linux and some day there
will be a reckoning...) Given the tens, or is it hundreds, of thousands
of patents they hold, they've barely used them.
Do you want to know who scares me? Google and Apple. Google, because
they're turning software from something you run on your own computer to
something you use on a distant server you have no control over. And
Apple, because they're turning the computer from a general purpose
computing device you control, to a locked-down, restricted, controlled
specialist machine that only runs what they permit you to run. But I
digress.
> The freedom of a software work isn't a matter of the copyright license
> alone; it's a matter of the freedoms each recipient has in the work.
> What the copyright license grants, the applicable patents held by
> demonstrably litigious parties can take away.
>
>> http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/03/13/squashing-a-few-myths-about-mono-development/
>
> It squashes some myths, but does not address the restrictions imposed by
> the .NET software idea patents at all AFAICT.
>
> Here are some links that do address this:
>
> <URL:http://nocturn.vsbnet.be/content/get-facts-mono>
> <URL:http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono>
The first URL is by Guy Van Sanden, who wrote:
"I will not watch and stand by while we expose the Free Software desktop
to MS extortion racket."
http://nocturn.vsbnet.be/content/cleaning-mono-your-system#comment-2665
Extortion racket, huh?
He also describes Microsoft as "one of the biggest patent trolls on the
planet". That's palpably untrue: one might not approve of Microsoft's
behaviour, or of software patents in general, but they certainly don't
meet any of the characteristics of patent trolling:
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2010/05/is_microsoft_a.html
Judging by his posts, I don't believe that gvansanden is a reliable,
unbiased source for "facts about Mono".
And for the second, Richard Stallman's post merely takes as a given that
"Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations
underground some day". Planning, he says. Does he have any evidence for
this? How sure is he about that "probably"? Is that 99.999% sure, or
50.001% sure? Microsoft can *plan* to build their corporate headquarters
on the Sun, for all I care, what are their chances of succeeding?
Stallman even says that it's a good thing that there are free
implementations of C#, and points out that there's a GNU version of C#
too. He doesn't call for the removal of Mono, but merely that we should
avoid encouraging people to use C# *just in case*.
Look, patent threats are real, but we don't gain anything by exaggerating
the threat, and we *especially* don't gain anything by treating one patent
holder as the Devil Incarnate while ignoring threats from others.
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 18:17 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) |
| Message-ID | <mailman.104.1302164252.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #2757 |
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > Do you want to know who scares me? Google and Apple. Google, because > they're turning software from something you run on your own computer to > something you use on a distant server you have no control over. And > Apple, because they're turning the computer from a general purpose > computing device you control, to a locked-down, restricted, controlled > specialist machine that only runs what they permit you to run. But I > digress. I agree about Apple, but Google are not "turning software... into"; they are providing an option that involves such things. They are not stopping you from running software on your own computer, and they never can. One of my hobbies is running (and, let's face it, playing) online games. The MUD system is similar to what Google does, only more so; the server has *everything* and the client is just basic TELNET. Yes, some clients have some nice features, but they don't need to, and some of my players use extremely basic terminals. But nobody complains that they're playing a game they have no control over (and the only complaints about "a distant server" relate to ping times). Having the option to cloud things is a Good Thing. Yes, you lose control if you put your data on someone else's cloud, but if you want the functionality, you pay the price. If you don't like that price, you stick with your desktop software. Chris Angelico
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | flebber <flebber.crue@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 03:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) |
| Message-ID | <f2c4f183-70ad-4a01-8e42-edbe4ff6690a@w21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2761 |
On Apr 7, 7:17 pm, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Steven D'Aprano > > <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > > Do you want to know who scares me? Google and Apple. Google, because > > they're turning software from something you run on your own computer to > > something you use on a distant server you have no control over. And > > Apple, because they're turning the computer from a general purpose > > computing device you control, to a locked-down, restricted, controlled > > specialist machine that only runs what they permit you to run. But I > > digress. > > I agree about Apple, but Google are not "turning software... into"; > they are providing an option that involves such things. They are not > stopping you from running software on your own computer, and they > never can. > > One of my hobbies is running (and, let's face it, playing) online > games. The MUD system is similar to what Google does, only more so; > the server has *everything* and the client is just basic TELNET. Yes, > some clients have some nice features, but they don't need to, and some > of my players use extremely basic terminals. But nobody complains that > they're playing a game they have no control over (and the only > complaints about "a distant server" relate to ping times). > > Having the option to cloud things is a Good Thing. Yes, you lose > control if you put your data on someone else's cloud, but if you want > the functionality, you pay the price. If you don't like that price, > you stick with your desktop software. > > Chris Angelico Currently Oracle's actions seem far more concerning than anything microsoft could cook up. Look at the "Open"jdk http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/04/openjdk_rules/ now thats a joke... >As I see it, C# has never had more than an 8% market share. But perhaps >you have some better data. Jobs posted in Sydeny in the last 3 days on our major search seek.com.au; Jobs % of total Jobs c# 134 17.1% java 422 53.9% python 29 3.7% c++ 79 10.1% Ruby 16 2.0% asp.net 103 13.2% scala 0 0.0% Total 783
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 10:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <6Nknp.10080$lx3.7480@newsfe02.iad> |
| In reply to | #2757 |
Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Let's reword your concern slightly: > > > It's difficult to take a claim of “free” seriously for > technologies (including, but not limited to, HTML, CSS, C++, > XML, Public Key Cryptography, packet-based multimedia, IPv6) > that knowingly or unknowingly [the later not being a defence > against infringement] implement techniques covered by specific > idea patents held by an entity that allegedly demonstrates > every intention, or at least some intention, of wielding them > to restrict the freedom of software recipients. Steve, this is a straw man argument. Its not good argument to reword 'his' concern, nor to provide a non-related analogy, nor to build a straw man that you can easily knock down. In doing so, your argument loses merit (bad enough) but also you end up missing the other point. No one is 'singling out' Mono. Mono and .NET are just examples of evil proprietary frameworks|software designed to lock-in market share and usurp freedom. There are *many* other examples that we might talk about. But the main point is that if you value freedom, you will not support proprietary frameworks. So, if a software package, like just for example (Cobra), relies on .NET (or Mono) then Cobra is a bad thing for freedom in computer scinece. If Python is free software ( at least GPL compatible license ) then Python is a 'good thing' from the standpoint of freedom in computer science. That was the comparison. There is no FUD here... NO FEAR Absolutely CERTAIN NO DOUBT kind regards, m harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Benjamin Kaplan <benjamin.kaplan@case.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 11:50 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.112.1302191455.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #2779 |
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:31 AM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> >> Let's reword your concern slightly: >> >> >> It's difficult to take a claim of “free” seriously for >> technologies (including, but not limited to, HTML, CSS, C++, >> XML, Public Key Cryptography, packet-based multimedia, IPv6) >> that knowingly or unknowingly [the later not being a defence >> against infringement] implement techniques covered by specific >> idea patents held by an entity that allegedly demonstrates >> every intention, or at least some intention, of wielding them >> to restrict the freedom of software recipients. > > Steve, this is a straw man argument. Its not good argument to reword 'his' > concern, nor to provide a non-related analogy, nor to build a straw man that > you can easily knock down. In doing so, your argument loses merit (bad > enough) but also you end up missing the other point. > > No one is 'singling out' Mono. Mono and .NET are just examples of evil > proprietary frameworks|software designed to lock-in market share and usurp > freedom. There are *many* other examples that we might talk about. But the > main point is that if you value freedom, you will not support proprietary > frameworks. >So, if a software package, like just for example (Cobra), relies > on .NET (or Mono) then Cobra is a bad thing for freedom in computer scinece. > If Python is free software ( at least GPL compatible license ) then Python > is a 'good thing' from the standpoint of freedom in computer science. That > was the comparison. > Cobra does not rely on a proprietary framework. It runs on Mono, which is an open source implementation of the ECMA-334 and ECMA-335 standards. The only difference between it and Python is that Python was developed at a research institute while .NET was developed at a corporation. > There is no FUD here... > > NO FEAR > Absolutely CERTAIN > NO DOUBT > >>At this point Microsoft has absolutely nothing to offer the computer science community at large except bzillions of euros ( or dollars ) of wasteful litigation and head-ache. Looks like FUD and smells like FUD. Unless you happen to be on Microsoft's legal team and know that they're about to sue everyone who's using Mono. > kind regards, > m harris > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Adam Tauno Williams <awilliam@whitemice.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 13:55 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.118.1302200288.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #2779 |
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 11:50 -0400, Benjamin Kaplan wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:31 AM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote: > > Steven D'Aprano wrote: > ...n Mono, which > is an open source implementation of the ECMA-334 and ECMA-335 > standards. The only difference between it and Python is that Python > was developed at a research institute while .NET was developed at a > corporation. +1 Please read <http://www.jprl.com/Blog/archive/development/mono/2009/Jan-19.html> If you still do not understand why this is a bogus issue then just go away. Most important bit being: <quote> What I find even "funnier" is that Microsoft supposedly holds a number of patents in a number of areas frequently used by open-source projects, such as HTML, CSS, C++, XML, and others. So why don't we ever see any suggestions to avoid these technologies because the Big Bad Microsoft might sue? For that matter, (again) considering how vague software patents tend to be, wouldn't many Microsoft patents on .NET stand a chance at being applicable toward Java, Python, and other projects? (Again) Why just focus on Mono? </quote> > > There is no FUD here... > > NO FEAR > > Absolutely CERTAIN > > NO DOUBT > >>At this point Microsoft has absolutely nothing to offer the computer science community at large except bzillions of euros ( or dollars ) of wasteful litigation and head-ache. > Looks like FUD and smells like FUD. Unless you happen to be on > Microsoft's legal team and know that they're about to sue everyone > who's using Mono. +1 Not to mention that they've collaborated with Mono on numerous occasions, and other projects [like Samba], so it suing them would pretty a change of precedent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 14:37 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <Ynonp.2277$YL5.1440@newsfe05.iad> |
| In reply to | #2794 |
Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> Please read
> <http://www.jprl.com/Blog/archive/development/mono/2009/Jan-19.html>
>
> If you still do not understand why this is a bogus issue then just go
> away.
Good blog--- off the point, but a nice rant none-the-less.
===== block quote ====
With all this in mind, you can see why patent FUD is hard to fight,
because there's no way to dismiss it. Software patents are a reality,
they're ugly, but they can't be avoided. (Yet they must be ignored, to
avoid increased liability.)
===== /block quote ====
His primary error in thought, suggests that we must live with
software patents forever... wrong. They must be eliminated.
===== block quote ====
My problem is that the anti-Mono people only seem to focus on patents
with respect to Mono and Microsoft, ignoring the rest of the software
industry. They're ignoring the (gigantic) forest so that they can pay
attention to a single tree, Microsoft.
===== /block quote ====
Also, wrong. In fact, Mono is at the bottom of my list. Even
though Mono encourages .NET C#, it at least is open source software...
my primary targets (there are hundreds of them) are way more important
than Mono...
===== block quote ====
What I find even "funnier" is that Microsoft supposedly holds a number
of patents in a number of areas frequently used by open-source projects,
such as HTML, CSS, C++, XML, and others. So why don't we ever see any
suggestions to avoid these technologies because the Big Bad Microsoft
might sue?
===== /block quote ====
This is because the patents are so obviously bogus (and vague)
that even non-lawyers know that they wouldn't stand a chance in court.
No, the dangers lie elsewhere. Microsoft is a bully... and how they
choose their battles has been a mystery to many of us... like the B&N
case... who knew?... frankly, I'm not concerned about Mono... at the
moment Microsoft needs them... for the moment...
===== block quote ====
For that matter, (again) considering how vague software patents tend to
be, wouldn't many Microsoft patents on .NET stand a chance at being
applicable toward Java, Python, and other projects? (Again) Why just
focus on Mono?
Final note: I am a Software Engineer, not a patent lawyer.
===== /block quote ====
At least he admits that he doesn't know what he is talking about.
That is refreshing.
No one is focusing on *just* Mono... nobody... its just one area
of concern. The reason Mono gets hit (from others besides me) is that
they are in partnership and collaboration with Microsoft, consciously
and unconsciously. This must be punished. Microsoft is a corporate
bully, a terrible citizen, and officially (district and federal) a
criminal, guilty of breaking anti-trust laws. FOSS should not
collaborate with Microsoft, in any way. We won our class action suit
against Microsoft here in Minnesota... out of which I received a
smallish payout... and that is a start. Microsoft must cease to exist
(as a business interest if necessary) as a corporate bully, and FOSS
should have nothing to do with aiding them.
This is not just business... this is principle. If you give up
principle (Mono, or anyone else) even if you win, you lose.
kind regards,
m harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 01:30 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <4d9e6551$0$29991$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #2804 |
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 14:37:27 -0500, harrismh777 wrote: > The reason Mono gets hit (from others besides me) is that they are in > partnership and collaboration with Microsoft, consciously and > unconsciously. This must be punished. Just like Python, Apache, and the Linux kernel. What are you going to do to punish them? -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 01:37 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <Z2ynp.10498$0s5.3031@newsfe17.iad> |
| In reply to | #2822 |
Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> The reason Mono gets hit (from others besides me) is that they are in >> > partnership and collaboration with Microsoft, consciously and >> > unconsciously. This must be punished. > Just like Python, Apache, and the Linux kernel. What are you going to do > to punish them? What do you mean 'just like"....? They are nothing alike. (which is why the community is upset by sone, but not the others: hint) The punishment? ... withdraw support and use of the project as well as continue to aggressively support activism in all areas of freedom for computer science, including but not limited to the following: 1) I, nor my family, will ever purchase another Microsoft anything, from anyone, connected in any way, nor for any reason. Microsoft gets no more money from me, ever. 2) I do not use non-free software at any level nor for any reason at any time regardless of pain or inconvenience. 3) I work hard to advocate for free software alternatives to proprietary software at all levels... including bios and firmware. 4) I help to fund free software initiatives, choices, and development; conversely I refuse to fund (in any way) proprietary software initiatives and projects. 5) I educate the public in my sphere of influence for freedom and freedom choices, including the software engineering venue, and whenever possible persuade users of non-free software and Microsoft collaborative software to use only free software and only frameworks that are removed from Microsoft direction and control. 6) I actively advocate with vendors of free software at all levels to drop non-free software from their distros and to similarly punish Microsoft collaborative software initiatives and projects. (networking, communication, education, awareness training) 7) I write lots and lots of letters... to computer distributors, software houses, &etc., with the message of freedom; a plea for the openness of a free society and sanity in the marketplace of ideas. I make my marketing intentions clear to vendors who would like me to spend my dollars with them ( cards, drivers, printers, cameras, comp hardware desk, notebook, netbook, others) clearly indicating that their products must be open, not require Microsoft proprietary drivers, and be free from non-free software and firmware. Freedom isn't free... you have to fight for it... always.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-09 23:55 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <4da0f1e1$0$29986$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #2826 |
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 01:37:45 -0500, harrismh777 wrote: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>> The reason Mono gets hit (from others besides me) is that they are in >>> > partnership and collaboration with Microsoft, consciously and >>> > unconsciously. This must be punished. >> Just like Python, Apache, and the Linux kernel. What are you going to >> do to punish them? > > What do you mean 'just like"....? They are nothing alike. All three of Python, Apache and Linux have accepted donations from Microsoft. Microsoft is a corporate sponsor of the PSF. Microsoft is not in the business of donating money and time to competitors out of the goodness of their heart. If Microsoft is giving them money or code, they must be getting something out of it. All three projects actively collaborate with Microsoft from time to time, some more than others. .NET's IronPython is one of the "big four" Python implementations (the others being CPython, PyPy, and Jython), and actively supported by Microsoft. What's good for Python is good for IronPython and Microsoft. Perhaps I should also have included Firefox and Thunderbird, which actively court Windows users and developers, sometimes at the expense of Linux users (e.g. the use of SQLite), thus legitimizing Windows as an OS for the FOSS community as well as improving the user-experience for Windows users. Or Samba, which doesn't merely compete with Microsoft's SMB, but spreads it into the Unix world and legitimizes Microsoft's protocol among FOSS users. The Samba project has even worked side-by-side with Microsoft to solve technical issues with Vista connectivity (or at least the Samba-TNG project has). You paint a very attractive picture of Good versus Evil, but real life is not as black and white as you make out. Mono fails to live up to your extremely high standards of FOSS purity, and so you dump on it. But so do some of the most important and widespread FOSS projects, yet you give them a free pass. Curious. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-10 19:04 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <cArop.17646$sS4.7406@newsfe11.iad> |
| In reply to | #2920 |
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> > What do you mean 'just like"....? They are nothing alike.
> All three of Python, Apache and Linux have accepted donations from
> Microsoft. Microsoft is a corporate sponsor of the PSF. Microsoft is not
> in the business of donating money and time to competitors out of the
> goodness of their heart. If Microsoft is giving them money or code, they
> must be getting something out of it.
Not so fast there, Steve. If they [Microsoft] are paying anything
(unsubstantiated, unknowable) to Python, Apache, or (Linux, whatever you
mean by that term...) there are only two motives:
1) Embrace, Extend, Kill...
2) They are paying for interoperability (revealing their underlying
proprietary frameworks) in exchange for not being left out in the cold
when the rest of the world dumps their system and moves to a free society.
Microsoft is between the proverbial rock and that hard place you always
hear about.
The problem with motive number (1) is that nobody cares for (nor needs)
their extensions, and its very hard to kill *anything* that is GPLd or
licensed under a GPL compatible license. There really isn't a lot they
can do... except threaten litigation or to use a front to threaten
litigation.
The deal with motive number (2) is that there are fewer and fewer teams
who are concerned with interoperability. For instance (my team), we
moved our stuff to gnulinux based systems and dumped Microsoft
completely... we have no need for them at all (they're dead). The Linux
Foundation president made a splash the other day by saying that bashing
Microsoft was like kicking a puppy (the server cloud war is over, and
Microsoft lost... big). The desktop is all that is left... and that is
dying... rapidly. Their lockin is well entrenched (like Borg implants )
but the number of mom & pops ( like my entire extended family, for
instance) who are moving to Ubuntu (themselves) is astounding! It will
not be long and Microsoft will die... and none too soon.
> All three projects actively collaborate with Microsoft from time to time,
Again, this is not true. There is a huge difference between active
collaboration, and accepting donations from Greeks bearing gifts... :)
> some more than others. .NET's IronPython is one of the "big four" Python
> implementations (the others being CPython, PyPy, and Jython), and
> actively supported by Microsoft. What's good for Python is good for
> IronPython and Microsoft.
I'm not interested in any of those mentioned above, except Python
(PSF). I don't support the others.... in any way. Period.
> Perhaps I should also have included Firefox and Thunderbird, which
> actively court Windows users and developers, sometimes at the expense of
> Linux users (e.g. the use of SQLite),
Again, not true. What is happening with Firefox and Thunderbird is
to provide the most common interfaces mom & pops use (freely, actively,
functionally, easily) so that they are "freed" from the Borg implant of
IE. Then, when mom & pop try the live cd from Ubuntu, or Gentoo, or
BLAG, or gNewSense, whatever... they have interfaces that they are
comfortable using. Clever,huh? None of this is at the expense of the
gnulinux community... on the contrary, these tactics are for our benefit
and must be supported; with time, attention, education, and yes, even
our money.
IE is dead. It is flat dead... almost nobody is using it... not
even die-hard Windows gaming fanboys... we're on our way to freedom.
> Or Samba, which doesn't merely compete with Microsoft's SMB, but spreads
> it into the Unix world and legitimizes Microsoft's protocol among FOSS
> users.
Samba is almost (almost) not necessary any longer either. Most
shops today are supporting CUPS and the shops who provide Windows print
servers are supporting the SMB interface so that all the Linux and Macs
can still print... I'm thinking here mostly of the university setting
(where I'm @ these days) where 9 out of 10 computers is a Mac Book and
half of all remaining notebooks are running Ubuntu... again, this is
not to legitimize Windows as a platform, but merely *in place* to
expedite the rapid migration of users to *nix platforms. When finished,
we turn off Samba and everyone is running CUPS... end of a sad sad story
for Microsoft, and the dawning of a bright new day for freedom.
> You paint a very attractive picture of Good versus Evil, but real life is
> not as black and white as you make out.
Real life is all I'm interested in... that is why I'm an activist,
as well as a computer scientist; I care. Free software - Free society.
The time is now, and the timing is critical. Microsoft and the
representative oligarchy must die. We don't need them any longer and
they have crippled the entire world for far too long....
> Mono fails to live up to your extremely high standards of FOSS purity
This is one of the few things you have said that I can agree with,
sort-of; kind-of. Mono is deliberately acting against the best interests
of the FOSS community... which is why the general FOSS community hammers
on them... not just me. Ben Finney's response to you (I hope you saw it,
it was his response to your straw man argument against his viewpoint)
was right on the mark, so I will not reiterate that here. But, almost
needless to say, there is a fundamental distinction that is being made
in the community regarding patronizing of .NET and C#. There is simply
no reason for it, and 'it' must be resisted with vigor. Freedom in the
21st century demands that the software oligarchy of the 20th century
die. This must happen at all cost. It is imperative. The time is now.
kind regards,
m harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-11 10:18 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.204.1302481106.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #2963 |
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:04 AM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote: > Not so fast there, Steve. If they [Microsoft] are paying anything > (unsubstantiated, unknowable) to Python, Apache, or (Linux, whatever you > mean by that term...) there are only two motives: http://www.python.org/psf/ - Microsoft is listed. I would assume one does not become a "sponsor member" without paying money (or a whole lot of something that translates to money, like staff hours). http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html - again, Microsoft is listed (in the top category, "Platinum Sponsors"). Feel free to continue discussing the merits of these donations, but it is definitely substantiable and knowable. Microsoft has money, and they're prepared to spend it on what they believe in. (My view is that they believe in positive PR more than they believe in Python or Apache or whatever.) Chris Angelico
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-10 20:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <Q5top.974$do3.874@newsfe02.iad> |
| In reply to | #2964 |
Chris Angelico wrote: >> Not so fast there, Steve. If they [Microsoft] are paying anything >> > (unsubstantiated, unknowable) to Python, Apache, or (Linux, whatever you >> > mean by that term...) there are only two motives: > http://www.python.org/psf/ - Microsoft is listed. > http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html - again, Microsoft is listed > (My view is that they believe in positive PR more than they believe in Python or Apache > or whatever.) Yes, my view as well. I should clarify... what I mean by unsubstantiated and unknowable is that from a sponsorship list alone it is not possible to determine (as an outsider) what real level the sponsorship has attained, nor what political force for influence or reciprocity has occurred. Microsoft has much to gain from playing well in what remains of their corner of the sandbox. But, talk about a day late and a dollar short... kind regards, m harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-10 21:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.206.1302494547.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #2963 |
On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 10:18 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:04 AM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote: > > Not so fast there, Steve. If they [Microsoft] are paying anything > > (unsubstantiated, unknowable) to Python, Apache, or (Linux, whatever you > > mean by that term...) there are only two motives: > > http://www.python.org/psf/ - Microsoft is listed. I would assume one > does not become a "sponsor member" without paying money (or a whole > lot of something that translates to money, like staff hours). > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html - again, Microsoft is > listed (in the top category, "Platinum Sponsors"). > > Feel free to continue discussing the merits of these donations, but it > is definitely substantiable and knowable. Microsoft has money, and > they're prepared to spend it on what they believe in. (My view is that > they believe in positive PR more than they believe in Python or Apache > or whatever.) > > Chris Angelico I'm sure they're using both products for in-house stuff. Who isn't? ^_^
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-11 11:26 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.219.1302542844.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #2963 |
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 6:04 PM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote: > The deal with motive number (2) is that there are fewer and fewer teams who > are concerned with interoperability. For instance (my team), we moved our > stuff to gnulinux based systems and dumped Microsoft completely... we have > no need for them at all (they're dead). The Linux Foundation president made > a splash the other day by saying that bashing Microsoft was like kicking a > puppy (the server cloud war is over, and Microsoft lost... big). The desktop > is all that is left... and that is dying... rapidly. Their lockin is well > entrenched (like Borg implants ) but the number of mom & pops ( like my > entire extended family, for instance) who are moving to Ubuntu (themselves) > is astounding! It will not be long and Microsoft will die... and none too > soon. So what is that number? Anecdotes are unreliable; I would like to see the actual data. The only non-techie I personally know who uses Linux is my wife, and she only uses it because it's what's installed at home. My brother-in-law was a Linux fan at one time but has regressed. > IE is dead. It is flat dead... almost nobody is using it... not even > die-hard Windows gaming fanboys... we're on our way to freedom. I'm sorry, but that is patently false. Just look at the actual data: http://www.getclicky.com/marketshare/global/web-browsers/ http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0&qptimeframe=M# http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-monthly-201103-201103-bar http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?year=2011&month=3 Depending on the source, IE's market share is anywhere from 39% to 56%, and all of those sources list it higher than Firefox or any other single browser. To say "IE is dead" is either prevarication or unsubstantiated wishful thinking. Cheers, Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 04:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <sRUop.2627$7N3.197@newsfe10.iad> |
| In reply to | #2984 |
Ian Kelly wrote:
>> > The desktop
>> > is all that is left... and that is dying... rapidly. Their lockin is well
>> > entrenched (like Borg implants ) but the number of mom& pops ( like my
>> > entire extended family, for instance) who are moving to Ubuntu (themselves)
>> > is astounding! It will not be long and Microsoft will die... and none too
>> > soon.
> So what is that number? Anecdotes are unreliable; I would like to see
> the actual data. The only non-techie I personally know who uses Linux
> is my wife, and she only uses it because it's what's installed at
> home. My brother-in-law was a Linux fan at one time but has
> regressed.
This is very difficult... and I'm not dodging the ball here... its
just the truth. The 'market share' data are bogus. Reason? ... because
the free software 'market' is not a market. It is not measured in any
way, and it is almost impossible to determine therefore in any accurate
fashion. There really are no data... what we need here is a census of sorts.
Here is an anecdote for you... our tax prep this year was done
on-line via Firefox. We use software through a large and well-known tax
company which for this purpose supports *only* Firefox 3.6 or higher...
go figure. Is not that interesting..? I know, just an anecdote.
Here is another anecdote for you.... the university is supporting
*only* Firefox for Moodle and Blackboard usage... very interesting.
Well, since most students are carrying a Mac Book, and the rest are
running Ubuntu, they really cannot support *only* IE can they? They are
supporting one browser, and Firefox got the job. I know, just an anecdote.
IE is dead. It is flat dead... almost nobody is using it...
The market data are worthless in this discussion, because free
software and free software platforms are not measured in the 'market'.
Please allow me one more anecdote... I have purchased several machines
over the last ten years... all of them preloaded with Windows
(something) and all of them running IE (something). NONE of those
machines ever saw the light of day as "Windows" machines. I purchased
the hardware *only* recovered my cost on the M$ license, and quickly
loaded my linux system of choice... and I've used them all, believe me.
The point here is that the 'market' data would show that my
machines were purchased, installed, and running... activated even. But
the truth is that *Best Buy* activated them, not me, and Microsoft is
claiming that I am using their popular operating system (which I'm not)
and the market data shows Microsoft doing so well in the Desktop market.
The truth is something quite different. I am not and have not used
Microsoft products for over 12 years now. (not at all) And, all of my
systems today are running *only* free software (not even kernels with
'blobs' in them). I use only free (as in freedom) software on all of my
systems (Desk and server) as does my *entire* family (well, I influenced
them, of course).
I read in the blogs today that Microsoft is now claiming that
Windows 7 has 39% market share... SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM I don't
like SPAM ! ... just eggs and ham... Give me a break !!! I don't
even know one person who has Win7 installed, running, and likes it...
not even one. Where is all this 39% market share...?? Probably the
numbers from *Best Buy* on preloads... that get reloaded... or
corporations that buy bulk preloads, and then reload their images over
the top...
<sigh>
kind regards,
m harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 06:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.257.1302616776.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3036 |
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 04:22 -0500, harrismh777 wrote: > Ian Kelly wrote: > >> > The desktop > >> > is all that is left... and that is dying... rapidly. Their lockin is well > >> > entrenched (like Borg implants ) but the number of mom& pops ( like my > >> > entire extended family, for instance) who are moving to Ubuntu (themselves) > >> > is astounding! It will not be long and Microsoft will die... and none too > >> > soon. > > > So what is that number? Anecdotes are unreliable; I would like to see > > the actual data. The only non-techie I personally know who uses Linux > > is my wife, and she only uses it because it's what's installed at > > home. My brother-in-law was a Linux fan at one time but has > > regressed. > > This is very difficult... and I'm not dodging the ball here... its > just the truth. The 'market share' data are bogus. Reason? ... because > the free software 'market' is not a market. It is not measured in any > way, and it is almost impossible to determine therefore in any accurate > fashion. There really are no data... what we need here is a census of sorts. > Here is an anecdote for you... our tax prep this year was done > on-line via Firefox. We use software through a large and well-known tax > company which for this purpose supports *only* Firefox 3.6 or higher... > go figure. Is not that interesting..? I know, just an anecdote. > Here is another anecdote for you.... the university is supporting > *only* Firefox for Moodle and Blackboard usage... very interesting. > Well, since most students are carrying a Mac Book, and the rest are > running Ubuntu, they really cannot support *only* IE can they? They are > supporting one browser, and Firefox got the job. I know, just an anecdote. > > IE is dead. It is flat dead... almost nobody is using it... > > The market data are worthless in this discussion, because free > software and free software platforms are not measured in the 'market'. > Please allow me one more anecdote... I have purchased several machines > over the last ten years... all of them preloaded with Windows > (something) and all of them running IE (something). NONE of those > machines ever saw the light of day as "Windows" machines. I purchased > the hardware *only* recovered my cost on the M$ license, and quickly > loaded my linux system of choice... and I've used them all, believe me. > The point here is that the 'market' data would show that my > machines were purchased, installed, and running... activated even. But > the truth is that *Best Buy* activated them, not me, and Microsoft is > claiming that I am using their popular operating system (which I'm not) > and the market data shows Microsoft doing so well in the Desktop market. > The truth is something quite different. I am not and have not used > Microsoft products for over 12 years now. (not at all) And, all of my > systems today are running *only* free software (not even kernels with > 'blobs' in them). I use only free (as in freedom) software on all of my > systems (Desk and server) as does my *entire* family (well, I influenced > them, of course). > > I read in the blogs today that Microsoft is now claiming that > Windows 7 has 39% market share... SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM I don't > like SPAM ! ... just eggs and ham... Give me a break !!! I don't > even know one person who has Win7 installed, running, and likes it... > not even one. Where is all this 39% market share...?? Probably the > numbers from *Best Buy* on preloads... that get reloaded... or > corporations that buy bulk preloads, and then reload their images over > the top... > > <sigh> > > kind regards, > m harris > > > > The pre-builts from Best Buy that get reloaded, reloaded with what? I live in California, the center of software development. I only know one person who uses Linux, and they only use it for work (he doesn't even live in CA anymore). I have say your delusions about the use of free software are somewhat hilarious.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CM <cmpython@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 10:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <48d420d4-1a60-4080-b363-f43a18ef2a83@x1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3036 |
> I don't even know one person who has Win7 installed, running, and likes it... > not even one. Hi, m harris, nice to meet you. Now you do. To the online community: Is there a name for trolling for A by advocating for not-A in a way that discredits your point of view an case so that A now seems much more reasonable? It's not really "concern trolling". What would this be called?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web