Pangloss

I'll take the blame for that. It's tricky to moderate a discussion and take a specific point of view at the same time, especially if it's an unpopular one. I probably should have focused the discussion a little more tightly at the beginning and steered off some tangential posts rather than responding to them. We're on the same page here.

It isn't a vote. This is a far different argument than your initial reaction, and in fact corresponds more or less to my opinion. See how much more productive it is when you don't leap to conclusions about the people you're speaking with?

I've no idea. I don't know if I believe that. People's been writing applications that output files in Word format for years. But perhaps I have an incomplete picture here. But that has nothing to do with whether Word 2007 is "superficially open" or not. The Word 2007 format is no less open because of that inclusion.

Nope, we shouldn't ignore that. That's what I mean when I say that open source has had a positive impact on competition between the two approaches.

And I'm surprised that you seem not to know about the common and generally accepted refutations to the alleged harmfulness of DDT in the environment. You'll note that I don't follow-up on that surprise by expressing any suggestions about what kind of reading you should do, your knowledge level about environmental matters, or your IQ in general. I hope we've finally put that mode of yours behind us. Sounds great. This is all well and good but I think you missed the point. DDT is toxic, that's it's job. It's supposed to be toxic. It wouldn't be any good if it wasn't. You're not supposed to dump it in your mouth (or anyone else's mouth), you're supposed to use it properly. Are you planning to stop purchasing gasoline for your car because it's toxic? What you need to be demonstrating is why it's worse to use it than to not use it. Let me elaborate by quoting from the very same Wikipedia article you quoted from: And specifically regarding the US ban:

That's in direct contradiction to what Cap'n Refsmmat said after your post. His post and the Wikipedia article jives with what I remember, which is that Linus Torvalds does indeed control what goes into the kernel. However, I await enlightenment with an open mind. And that's fine, Cap'n, certainly some loose definitions of "open source" have floated around. But you have no more say about what goes into the Linux kernel than I do. I'm just pointing out that, contrary to some fanboys' closed-minded ideological beliefs, Linux is indeed quite thoroughly controlled. (And in fact that control is essential to its success.) You want to say that's a better to control software, more power to you. (My opinion isn't that Microsoft's way is better, but rather than the competition between the two approaches benefits us all. But that's another subject.) Regarding Office 2007's XML file format, I think it's important that people remember that XML is *supposed* to be defined at the program level. That's the entire point. You wrap your data in XML and define (in a schema) what each column of data represents. I realize this is not what you're talking about, but I think it's important to make that distinction in this discussion for the benefit of those who may not understand that XML is essentially a blank slate until a program does this. It's "universal", yes, but it's not a universal content format, e.g. PDF. That's a GOOD thing. Anyway, getting to your point, I don't see how including a backward compatibility tag as a stated field in its XML schema is a violation of the open standard. It'd be silly not to include something like that, and what difference does it make to third party developers? They're not going to demand access to an old file format when they can simply write data in the new file format. After all, the target audience can't open newly developed XML-file content in an old copy of Microsoft Word anyway!

What "browser market"? You're talking about a "product" that's free. The purpose of integrating Internet Explorer into Windows wasn't to "capture the browser market", it was to maintain Windows dominance by adding vertical value to it. Of course the impact on Netscape was the same either way, but this is relevent because Apple is attempting to do exactly the same thing -- dominate a market. I agree that's a distant target, but shouldn't we apply the same scrutiny to their trade practices that we should have applied to Microsoft's trade practices early on, when we had a chance to actually do something about them BEFORE the damage was done and the consumers were happy with the resulting status quo? ---- Which brings me to my last point (to the thread in general, not in response to Swansont's post above), which is that when people point out that consumers WANT what Apple is doing (like that quote I posted above where a consumer was happy that Apple was restricting developer access to the iPhone desktop), this has to be seen as irrelevent to the issue of whether or not it is fair. After all, most consumers also wanted a free browser included with Windows.

Well that would seem to be a reasonable distinction, but I would point out that there's a reason why Torvalds has that control -- to maintain compatibility. If other people start cranking out differing kernels, you lose that compatibility advantage. So the question becomes: Is voluntary domination better than involuntary? (Or is it really involuntary if we bought into it by purchasing a Windows-equipped computer?)

I'm not sure I followed your question. Are you basically asking if it's okay for companies to make the browser an integrated part of the operating system so long as it doesn't lead them to market domination? If so it's an interesting question, with implications both "pro" and "con".

Again, I'm talking about the kernel here, not the entire operating system. I brought this up in response to another person's question about the Windows kernel, so I think it's worth a separate answer. I don't disagree that Linux is more open than Windows -- of course it is. The question is whether the Linux kernel is really "open source", or if it is in fact controlled by Linus Torvalds. (And is that term really nullified if he does control it?) Please revisit this question with a more thorough and less ideologically-spun answer. No, that was clearly not the original purpose of this thread. Another nice try falling well short of the mark.

Yeah since I made the statement above that I thought all Mac users use Firefox, I've had several Mac users correct me on that point at work, so I have amended my opinion and learned something as well.

I told you we'd agree on something sooner or later, bombus.

Incorrect presumption, 1veedo, but nice try. On to more relevent postings: That's my understanding.... (re: Linux kernel being controlled by Linus & Co.) I think Mooeypoo brought it in with post #4. Yeah I didn't mind either so I went with it. (shrug) Reasonable points, I agree. I guess the thing I worry about is that we're so busy bending over backwards to hobble Microsoft to the specific advancement of other gigantic multinationals that we're basically robbing Peter to pay Paul. Does anybody really believe that there's something inherently, fundamentally, intrinsically built-into Microsoft's corporate firmament that causes it to behave that way? Isn't it more accurate to say that they're doing what all companies will do given the proper motivation and insufficiently morally-balanced and/or legally-hobbled talent?

Thanks Cap'n. I was out travelling over the weekend and wasn't able to pay attention to these threads and I appreciate you jumping on this. I'm disappointed that it degraded to this extent.

Ok, I felt that mod stuff needed to be in a separate thread. Now let me address your questions, bombus, and let me just say (since the above may have seemed like I was cracking down on you) that I do appreciate that you're making some effort to be more compatible with this board's specific debate culture. No, I'd like proof that DDT poisons the environment, which was your claim. "Silent Spring" is opinion, not proof. Proof would consist of evidence such as a scientific study, and I suggest you look carefully because as far as I know what evidence there is has been refuted by other scientists. No more rhetoric. No more asides. No more slipping and sliding. Just proof, please. Provide it.

Ok folks, subtle and not-so-subtle hints aren't working, so I'm laying down the law on the "if you don't agree with me then you must not know anything about that subject/history/life/civilization/etc" type comments. Knock it off. Further comments to that effect will be deleted AND infractions (with points) will be issued. There WILL be civil discourse here, according to the rules we all agreed to. 'Nuff said. <mod hat off>

Isn't the Linux kernel closed and proprietary? We can extend it but we don't get to decide what goes into it. And is the lack of Linux viruses due to inherent security or lack of interest? Apple doesn't see many viruses either, but we know the vulnerabilities exist in all three operating systems and their commonly-used browsers -- they're reported almost daily. With regard to iPhone, how do you think monopolies come to exist? Linux 1fanboy answer: Whatever Microsoft is doing this week. Correct Answer: Monopolistic trade practices (whomever is doing them). But the point I was making about the iPhone was more to address the proprietary subject rather than the monopolistic practices subject. Google gets to write apps for the Apple desktop; nobody else does (unless they get "approval" from Big Brother -- isn't THAT ironic?). But if you want me to extend that into the subject of monopolistic trade practices, this is hardly different from what Microsoft did with Internet Explorer, and I'll just remind you that when they did that they hardly had a monopoly on the browser market. Then, unsurprisingly, they acquired one. In this case it doesn't look like there's ever going to be a "market" to begin with, because Apple won't allow one to be created. That may seem like a small thing, but is it really? Aren't cell phones the fastest-growing segment of computer "desktops" in the forseeable future? Do we want that market dominated by one or two companies working in cohoots? Apparently so, so long as those companies aren't Microsoft. That's the answer the community is putting forth these days. Fair is fair. Either the same criticisms apply to all companies that perpetrate unfair practices, or they do not. Either a practice is legitimate, or it is not. Doesn't matter who perpetrates it. Either we're going to stop that from happening, or we are just going to let this sort of thing happen over and over and over again. We are as much to blame as Microsoft, and it's fanboy attitudes that perpetuate these problems.

Maybe. I think the picture on that issue is so muddy right now you might as well ask the Magic 8-ball what's really happening. The bit about Office file formats is at least partially revisionist (these programs far predate not only the concept of internet-common standards but even the appearance of open source in the computer industry), and wrong (Off07 = XML; how much more open source does it get than XML?). There are counterpoints and offsetting arguments to each other other points you raised as well (not that I have any intention of acting as Microsoft apologist here -- I'm the devil's advocate, not a true believer, though you may think whatever you choose). But all of this just confirms the original point of this thread, which is that people will fall all over themselves to condemn Microsoft regardless of its actions, while thoroughly excusing companies undertaking exactly the same kinds of practices or worse. To answer your question about Google, why isn't it seen as exactly the same kind of monopolistic practice when they (and they alone) get to put applications on the iPhone's desktop, or corner the market in a dozen different Web-based applications? Do you really believe that Google engineers don't have Patent Cubes littering their desktops just like Microsoft engineers? For that matter, why does Apple get a pass on open source altogether? Mac fanatics are falling all over themselves to make excuses for Apple, ranging all the way to the ridiculous, 1980's-esque "it's a GOOD thing to control who can write applications for this computer". (!) My goodness, can you imagine the outcry if Microsoft tried to do that with Windows CE? It woulda been World War Three.

I'm kinda sorry to hear what gcol is saying. I was enjoying the notion that the Queen had read Rushdie's books, weighed the political implications, and made the decision herself, in one of those rare but shining moments where the situation calls for nothing short of autocratic dictate. Too bad. I know such gumption doesn't exist in a Democracy, but apparently it doesn't exist in a constitutional monarchy either. (sigh)

Come to think on it, I think Newt DID have an above-the-urinal political ad back in the 1980s. Amusing that it made you think of that, and that you've sparked that rapidly fading engram in my rapidly aging memory.

See how politically incorrect it is to ask these questions? You're ridiculed and accused of being "practically blind". Never mind the stuff that Microsoft actually did -- that's all forgotten and unlearned. All that matters today is that the Linux caused be advanced, whatever the cost, even if the product is actually inferior, and defaming whomever and whatever has to be defamed in the process. The ironic thing is the promotion of the concept of competition, and yet at the same time doing everything to thwart it, up to and including ignoring good products in favor of inferior ones. That's not a good thing. It's a bad thing. And I don't care how cool it is.

Amusing AdSense banner taken from right here on SFN. I had no idea he was being held!

Winning in Iraq is about as possible as winning this debate. (grin) Time for some agree-to-disagree.

Would've been better if they'd stayed private to serve the impulses of their creators, I agree. Of course, then it would've just been inhereted later by some Paris Hilton type.

Great works of philosophy are generally not found on Joost either.