Besides the new UI....I believe this to be the KILLER feature of O12.
I wouldn't say that as when you use that term it is more appropriate for products that do not have the largest share. It is part of OpenOffice, so is not really a 'killer' feature. A very useful feature though, that should have been part of Office a long time
XiXora wrote:hmm, notice his moving around in his chair. he grabs the chair too.
odd body language dont you think? wants to stay, wants to go? seems very nervous?
Thats the effects of sitting around a computer since the age of 12, I do that all the time when I'm talking to somebody sitting in a chair with a handrest. Sometimes your back gets sore quick staying in one position and your muscles get sore too, so you kind
of wrap your hands around the chair to feel more comfortable and relaxed.
Maybe he was nervous about being interviewed by The scobleizer
Seriously, the RSS button is uber-geeky. Pass the mom test? Hardly. Call it Subscribe.
I'm all for playing well, but you have to simplify when transitioning it to the mass market.
RSS is too specific. Firefox made agood choice when they changed the RSS icon into something none format specific. IE7 should do something like that. What if there was a format that ended up superior and simpler than RSS and Microsoft liked it? The RSS button
would seem obsolete then.
Syndicate or feed or something better and future proof should be used.
If you want to go by numbers, I imagine that "no license" and "Pay me and get no source at all" trounce all the open source licenses combined.
There's also the wee issue of some lawsuit by AT&T that kept BSD rather occupied for a number of years.
Still shows out of all the open source licenses, GPL is far more popular.
The GPL is probably most popular with Universities and non-profits who cannot afford proprietary software.
When was that lawsuit?
Conversely, BSD benefits those who don't like overly restrictive copyrights and just want the code to be out there. Some of us have better things to do with our time than treat users of our code as criminals from the get-go by forcing them to do the right thing.
BSD is probably better for those that want to make money on software, but for those that sell services and support, the GPL might be better. After all you still need people to write the code. Like what RedHat does with its distribution. Linux is more rapidly
developed than FreeBSD, so developers do write more GPL code than BSD, just not developers for major software development companies.
RedHat may spend months on developing it and then it gets released and people create alternatives based on it for free. It appreciates that it may lost some customers due to this, but someone may come along and add features that are benefitial to everyone.
That may end up with gaining them more customers as they would want support and far more prompt updates (with derivitives updates may be a day or two later).
The ones that may actually add the new features may be some that would not use there software otherwise.
There's nothing in the GPL that guarantees faster development. If it did, HURD would be more than Richard Stallman's attempt to have done something useful in the last decade or so that didn't involve political arguing and turning software into a moral
battleground. I'd say that Apple has done some pretty good stuff with BSD licensed software and at a pretty good clip too. They couldn't have done most of it if BSD was 100% GPL'd.
No license can guarantee fast development. But if Linux was not released under the GPL (i.e. under a BSD license instead), it would not be where it is today. Didn't BSD get released before Linux? Yet there are only three major distributions I know of (FreeBSD,
NetBSD and OpenBSD). I'm sure there are more, but nowhere near as many as those based on Linux.
Surely there are more Linux users than Apple MacOSX users? They have done a good job, but I suspect RedHat or SuSE have greater market share.
Ah, the infamous "GPL Condom". Yeah...that's a great idea....create multiple barriers so that your work isn't infected by the GPL. By doing that, you do show, however that the GPL isn't the great guarantee of "WE WILL MAKE YOU GIVE US YOUR SOURCE" that
you think it is. In the end, for a business, the BSD license is simpler, and gives the people writing the code a choice in what to do with it. Last I heard, choice is good, and forcing someone to do something isn't choice at all.
Yes you do need choice. BSD is good for some, GPL is good for others.
Anyone who wants to write an application either has to write it from scratch, use BSD code or use GPL code or another license. The difference with GPL software is that it can only really get better - as if you add improvements, other people have to have them
as well. People shouldn't complain about the GPL - the only reason to do so is if there is similar software to what they do, only yours is not free. You do not have to use GPL code - it just means you may need to do more work.
What will customers choose? Often the free alternative. Unless you can offer better value through services and support.
MySQL and RedHat have proved that you can build a business on open source. The major powers on the internet use open source (not just GPL licensed, but BSD and others) - Google, Yahoo, Amazon. ASP.NET and Coldfusion seem to be the only platforms that compete
with the open source alternatives (PHP, Perl).
Back on topic. I don't feel that any license that Microsoft comes out will appease GPL developers. Perhaps when the next version of the GPL is out it might be possible.
At the moment, the only real alternative to Microsoft Office (Open Office) is under the GPL license so I don't see it supporting this new format, unless the filters used are not governed by it. I could imagine users requiring Star Office to open these formats
though as Sun is the main one behind OpenOffice.
sbc wrote:For the formats to be truly open, GPL software should be able to read and write them (without users having to agree to anything other than the GPL). Despite what people think of the GPL, it is a popular license and has wide
adoptation in the open source world (far more so than BSD and similar licenses, which allow proprietary derivatives - thus giving less incentive for contribution to the code (i.e. take someone elses work and make money on it, while giving nothing back)).
As Jordan Hubbard, one of the main *BSD folks says:
The GPL is not something we really considered to be a license so much as a political manifesto, and speaking purely for myself, I prefer to keep my license agreements and my politics separate. I feel that code which isn't being used in a situation where
it COULD be used is code which isn't achieving its full potential and the GPL scares a lot of potential users away, which is simply counter-productive in my opinion. I don't care whether or not the users give their changes back to me, that's just an added
bonus if it happens and nothing I'd want to try and enforce at the point of a gun.
Forcing people to give code back is a limitation on how you use the original code, and is no more or less onerous than any other license agreement. BSD is still, and always has been more open and more free than the GPL, and is a much better license for
those who aren't sure what they plan on doing with their code.
I find it a bit of a surprise that there are licenses that have no projects. I would expect at least one (from the license writer) - although the files could be hosted somewhere else.
BSD benefits those that want to take someones work and give nothing back in return (or they want to release freeware, as they have some code that may be valuable for them - i.e. used in future products, or licensed to other). Although for small, simple projects
BSD may be worth it (i.e. something you have written in a couple of hours). The authors of a license will always say theres is superior, but different licenses are needed for different software.
BSD is good for commercial entities, but when you use the GPL, software can evolve more rapidly, as changes have to be made available.
Can you work around the GPL by writing a 'wrapper' library and using the LGPL? Perhaps if that is not enough do a wrapper of the wrapper with a BSD license.
For the formats to be truly open, GPL software should be able to read and write them (without users having to agree to anything other than the GPL). Despite what people think of the GPL, it is a popular license and has wide adoptation in the open source
world (far more so than BSD and similar licenses, which allow proprietary derivatives - thus giving less incentive for contribution to the code (i.e. take someone elses work and make money on it, while giving nothing back)).
Why are the whitepapers in Word format? Surely they should be in PDF format?
I wonder why people want Windows 2003 Server to be supported? After all it is a
Server product, and this is MSN Desktop Search. Users this is really targetted at won't run Windows 2003 as a client desktop system.
The thing with this is that it will be the only desktop search tool that will only search Microsoft formats (without installing anything extra) - I can see Google and Yahoo searching other formats and clients (Firefox, Thunderbird), but not MSN. It may be possible
to index Thunderbird/Firefox, but that is unlikely to happen (toolbar integrated into IE only, and those developers into these tools are generally not always Microsoft friendly).
Beagle could turn out to be very good. Supports OpenOffice, Ogg Vorbis as well as Microsoft formats. Plus it may eventually work on multiple platforms (as it is written in Mono/C#/Gtk# - that may impact indexing
speed though). Now that would be a good desktop search tool - work across many platforms, and not be limited to a particular vendors formats.
Of course it's a lot for someone on 56k, but do you really know a single person still using 56k? 5 years ago this would have been an issue, but now literally everyone has broadband, even the most sporadic web users... In the country where I live every home
has cable, and broadband internet over cable or ADSL is so damn cheap, that nobody would even consider still using a modem because that is charged by the minute, and even light users are doing profit with taking ADSL... (in fact, there is one provider offering
completely free ADSL too (just normal telephone charges); and that includes a free ADSL modem!).
Of course I don't know where you live, but really, I don't know a single person still using a modem in our country (and I know lots of people).
I wouldn't say everyone uses broadband (at least here in the UK). There are those on dialup and you say to them to get broadband because it is faster - which is not always appealing (as all they do is check/send email, and would have to pay extra to get it).
Plus you don't get 100% coverage, even people in a town with broadband may not (too far from the exchange).
Also another good thing about tabs - they do not interfere with your normal browser habit - so if you click a link that opens in a new window it will do the same as IE and open up a new instance of Firefox. Tabbed browsing appeals to the power user, they
don't have to be used if you don't want to use them.