La Voz De La Revoluccion

Bloomberg.com: Microsoft Profit Drops; Forecast May Miss Estimates

The world's biggest software maker said sales of Windows for PCs sank 24 percent and revenue from its online advertising unit came in at the low end of its projections. Microsoft's report contrasted with positive comments from chipmaker Intel Corp. and computer company International Business Machines Corp.

Is the monopoly starting to fade? Windows sales were down 24% from last quarter, even as other reports said that PC sales were up by 15%. Considering how many buyers of computers with Vista installed are going back to buy XP, this is really big. It looks like someone is going to be Sleepless in Seattle for a while.

Certainly Apple's sales are rising, as are Linux PCs. In fact, today was the release day for Ubuntu 8.04 "Hardy Heron". Downloads are heavy. With three computers and a 5Mb/s connection, it is still taking about 12 hours to update each of these computers. So it isn't that the market isn't buying computers. Maybe the market isn't buying computers with Windows Vista.

My suggestion for the folks in Redmond is to make "Windows 7" kind of a slimmed-down and more secure version of Windows XP. Forget the security nanny from Vista, and all the technological usage restrictions ("TUR", often euphemized as "DRM"). Even drop the extreme requirements for device drivers. When Windows cannot install a USB laser mouse (using a driver that is built into Windows) because it is "missing required security information", something is really wrong with the security model.

Here's a hint. Like everything else about using a computer, the user is the key. A trained, educated, trusted user is a blessing to work with. On the other hand, an untrained, uneducated, untrusted user is a problem in the making. There is no technology that can completely overrule this. It is a matter of making sure the user knows what to do and what not to do (and most importantly, why, so he/she knows how to tell the difference).

While we do not wish ill toward Microsoft, we see reduced market share as healthy for the entire industry and consumers, even if it is temporarily bad for Microsoft.

Thanks to James Robertson for the tip.

In this brief period after the Ballot Resolution Meeting in which over 700 substantive comments and their proposed fixes were voted on, the pressure is on all around the world to get ISO national bodies to change their "no" votes into "yes" votes.

In fact, Bill Gates himself went to Washington DC to lobby (successfully, I might add) INCITS to vote its approval of this flawed standard becoming ISO certified.

Microsoft OOXML Format rejected by India ? D' Technology Weblog: Technology, Blogging, Tips, Tricks, Computer, Hardware, Software, Tutorials, Internet, Web, Gadgets, Fashion, LifeStyle, Entertainment, News and more by Deepak Gupta.

The BIS LITD 15 Committee has rejected
Microsoft?s document format OOXML. According to sources, out of 19
members, five of them did not attend the meeting, one of them
abstained, five voted in favour of OOXML and the rest voted against.
The meeting took place today in Delhi at the BIS office.

I realize that Rick Jelliffe believes that opposing the ISO-ification of OOXML (DIS29500) is all anti-Microsoft hysteria, but I believe that most of us (and certainly myself) would heartily endorse a standard that was truly open, with truly safe intellectual property rights requirements, and truly specified behavior and which was going to be used in exactly the same form by Microsoft's own products. Particularly for public sector usage, there are, or should be, stricter requirements to be met by a standard.

In my opinion, Mr. Jelliffe is in the wrong. Not because OOXML should be perfect, but because it should be implementable by parties other than its sponsor, without fear of legal action or being locked out by unspecified secret sauce or choked in superfluous (and deprecated) details. Because it fails this test, it needs to be sent back for changes, even changes incompatible with the present implementation in MS Office 2007. OOXML should not be an anti-competitive weapon, but a means to bring multiple vendors' data files into compatibility.

We know that the age when one could keep data and source code locked up and charge hundreds of times the cost of development is ending, and that multiple well-known software companies must adapt or die. The OOXML standards push was at first an attempt to forestall this reality, but it will not accomplish this. Openness will continue to grow, despite any obstacles. Eventually, even Microsoft will be forced to change.


Technorati Tags: ooxml, open standards, dis29500

The Open Way Works

C|Net open source blogger (and Alfresco vice-president) Matt Asey gives an example of open software being the better choice for an organization that is informed about its needs and involved in creating solutions that fill those needs.  Using NASA as an example, he shows how a technically-competent organization can make use of FLOSS to better meet its own needs.

If your organization is technically-competent, why are you running the Windows nanny operating system when you could better serve the organization's needs with an open system such as Linux or one of the BSDs?

Late in 2006, Novell signed a patent license agreement with Microsoft. What was particularly galling about it was that the agreement was specially-written to get around restrictions in patent licensing that were built into the GPLv2, the license that covers Linux. The license was also designed to apply to Novell's paid customers, but not to any other users of Linux and other Free / Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS).

Under the agreement, Novell is establishing clear leadership among Linux platform and open source software providers on interoperability for mixed-source environments. As a result, Microsoft will officially recommend SUSE Linux Enterprise for customers who want Windows and Linux solutions. Additionally, Microsoft will distribute coupons for SUSE Linux Enterprise Server maintenance and support, so that customers can benefit from the use of an interoperable version of Linux with patent coverage as well as the collaborative work between the two companies.

By mid-2007, Xandros and Linspire had also signed such deals.

One of the biggest and most important things that happened this year, from a user freedom perspective, is the release of the GNU General Public License, version 3.  This version of the license is meant to patch a couple of holes that were found in GPLv2. 

FSF head Richard M. Stallman speaks about the reasoning behind the new license. [OGG VORBIS audio]  At its release, RMS spoke about these things. [OGG THEORA video, if your media player cannot view this, I recommend VLC.]

Looking back in five to ten years, this will be one of the three biggest events in software this year, the other two being Microsoft's launch of Vista to a decidedly unenthusiastic reception, and the international community's rejection of Microsoft's OOXML file formats (despite attempts to bulldoze over the objections) with the steady take-up of the competing ODF file formats.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: GPLv3, ODF, OOXML

Mac Expected To Gain Market Share

An article in Investor's Business Daily forecasts increased market share for Apple's Macintosh computers. Thanks to OLPC, I expect increased market share for computers that run on Linux (and BSD) as well. The truth is, the days when people blindly bought whatever Microsoft offered are ending. It may not be next year, but a major market share slide is ahead for Microsoft.

The August 2007 Netcraft Web server survey shows Apache losing a number of sites, going from 66144734 to 65153417.  This 1.5% decline, 991317 sites in one month, shows up as a drop in market share (-1.73%).

Apache still has about 23 million more sites than IIS.  Put this another way, Apache currently has about 1.5 times as many sites as IIS. 

These figures include parked sites.  In active sites, the results are even closer.  Apache has 1.29 parked sites for each active site.  IIS has 1.05 parked sites for each active site.

I believe that this is both bad news and good news.  The surge in growth for IIS portends ill for those whose sites are developed using non-Microsoft technologies (such as this one).  It really speaks to the chosen platforms of the big hosting companies, and it indicates that many of them are promoting their Windows hosting services above their heretofore popular LAMP platform hosting services.

On the other hand, Lighttpd is finally being counted. For too long, the whole FLOSS world hid behind Apache. Because of surveys like Netcraft's, it was important to hide the true platform and put more clout behind Apache.  Otherwise, the proprietary give-us-the-control crowd would be crowing about their presumed victory.  While they may yet do this within a year or two, I think the fact that lighttpd is now counted shows us the way forward: common standards, diverse implementations.  I look forward to having a dozen free and open source Web servers with enough market share to be included in the surveys.

This does require that we make sure standards are clear and concise, including specifying extension mechanisms and how one should deal with unknown extensions. 

Finally, I notice that the Security Space survey shows quite different results, 

Barely 18 months ago, there were some rumors that Microsoft would give the IIS source code to one of their semi-open-source projects, hoping that by turning it loose with a sort-of open source license, it would gain some traction.  Now, IIS is within striking distance of Apache.

There is pretty of bawling out there, but this can be a good thing.

There are now three active branches of Apache: the 1.3.x line, the 2.0.x line, and the 2.2.x line.  All three are extremely versatile and fairly complex.  For a number of environments, a simpler and smaller alternative is better suited.  Those sites should consider Lighttpd or other lighter-weight Web servers. The open source way is to "let a hundred flowers bloom."

Depending on one single kind of anything, whether it be operating system, database, programming or scripting language, or Web server, is an invitation for someone to find the one flaw that takes it out. Just as we should not all use one office suite, we should not all use one Web server.  Now let's go out and build up a dozen FLOSS web servers and get them all on the list with an overall share that far exceeds closed-source proprietary products.

The forces of the "evil empire" decided to pack the committee in an attempt to win outright in the ANSI / INCITS vote, but were unsuccessful.  This is just one stage in the process, which will continue.  The committee was deadlocked.  One can expect the pro-ONXML (Office Not-so-open XML) crowd to continue to resort to dirty and underhanded tactics in their fight to force their unwanted format on the world.

Marbux has an interesting take on the process: 

Letters to Congress Critters complaining about NIST's improper delegation of governmental functions to an industry consortium would likely be far more effective than buying into the practice of responding to the illegal stuffing of the ballot box by a countering effort to outdo the other side in the illegal stuffing.

Asking elected federal representatives and senators to explain how NIST acquired the legal authority to represent the U.S. government at ISO and how it legally acquired the right to delegate such authority to an industry consortium (both clearly set out in the memorandum of understanding) asks the right questions AND will result in massive pressure on NIST to intervene. That is because the Congress critters will forward those letters/emails to NIST for response and NIST folk know who writes the checks for their salaries and programs. I speak from long experience here.

In other words, when money and lack of ethics corrupt the process and the representative is a private industry group acting on the behalf (or as a delegate) of a government agency, it is time to involve Congress.

I have news for you: whether the movement toward freedom prevails on this issue or not, the movement toward freedom is continuing to build strength.  Corporatism is the idea that large organizations are more important than individuals and smaller organizations, and should therefore be catered to in politics, law, taxation, and any other areas where their desires conflict with the desires of individuals and smaller organizations. Corporatism will lose its struggle against freedom and openness.

 Take a look at some of the key conflicts:

• Net Neutrality -- large telephone and cable television companies wish to use their ownership of the wire and fiber coming into our homes and businesses to squeeze out content providers that compete for our business. 
  
• "Locked" Mobile Devices --  because there are only a few large service providers for mobile phone service, they are able to force device -makers to restrict their products' functionality and interoperability.  In an opinion piece in USA Today [Thursday 2007-07-12], Steve Largent, head of the industry trade group, opposes efforts to devote a segment of public spectrum to unlocked devices where a consumer could use his or her phone with any compatible provider (that has bandwidth in that segment of spectrum).
• Single-vendor "Standards" -- the controversy over ONXML has focused attention on just how many of the goods and services we use every day are designed according to standards that get set in smoke-filled rooms, without any input from the people that will actually have to use the items.  Single-vendor standards prevent competition which could lower prices or spur invention.  Open standards, on the other hand, can be freely implemented by any competitor in the market, including competitors that are not yet in the market, which benefits the consumer because it forms a basis for competition and therefore stimulates invention.
• Corporate Compensation Disparities -- the guy in the corner office practicing his putting contributes less to the success of the company than the people who actually make the products, provide the services, and convince customers to place their orders, yet he is likely to make in excess of twenty times the amount that one of the productives earns.  The CxO not only gets more cash, he gets options and bonuses, he gets medical / dental / vision insurance, and he gets a retirement package that dwarfs what the productives get.
• Anti-Consumer Contracts -- the majority of consumer contracts are in "take it or leave it" form, when a contract's terms should be negotiated between the parties.  What's more, many such contracts include language such as "we can change the terms of this agreement at any time."  The consumer can't change the terms at all, but the company can unilaterally change the terms and they are binding upon the consumer?  That is unconscionable!  The worst contracts, of course, are credit card and other financial agreements, where companies routinely tack on outrageous and unjustifiable fees.
• Banks and Insurance Companies -- as people in the Gulf Coast found, even when you have insurance, the company that was so happy to take your money all these years suddenly looks for any excuse to refuse to give your money back when they are supposed to.  Banks are masters of bait-and-switch, using their right to unilaterally change interest rates, fees, and terms to stick you between the buttocks with the checking account they told you was "free."
• Copyrights -- using undue influence in our political system, the Robbers In Adamantium Armor (RIAA) and their friends (MPAA & BSA) bought themselves a law that makes it a crime for you to put a folder on your computer for music and then share it across your in-house network with your daughter.  No one wants to harm the artists, but the corporate types that prey on them add no value now that we do not have to hear a song on our local radio station and then drive to the local record store.

Each of these apparently separate conflicts is part of a society-wide conflict between individual rights and freedoms and those of corporations.  For the past several years, the balance has tipped really heavily in favor of corporations.

The good news is, change is coming.  Many of us will walk away from corporate employment and from giving our paychecks to support the corporations that fight so vehemently against us.  Instead of supporting the companies that are outsourcing our jobs to foreign nations, we will establish and buy from locally-owned businesses that have locally-designed and produced products made with locally-produced raw materials.  We will use locally-produced services, from locally-owned businesses.

There will be no need for large corporations any more.  They will not matter.

 

Microsoft recently made claims that free and open source software (FLOSS) such as the Linux operating system and the OpenOffice.org office applications suite violate hundreds of its patents.

A broad community of developers, from individuals to large companies like IBM, is constantly working to improve it and introduce new features. No wonder the business world has embraced it so enthusiastically: More than half the companies in the Fortune 500 are thought to be using the free operating system Linux in their data centers.

But now there's a shadow hanging over Linux and other free software, and it's being cast by Microsoft. The Redmond behemoth asserts that one reason free software is of such high quality is that it violates more than 200 of Microsoft's patents. And as a mature company facing unfavorable market trends and fearsome competitors like Google, Microsoft is pulling no punches: It wants royalties. If the company gets its way, free software won't be free anymore.

There are a few misunderstandings about free software in the article, but let us focus directly on the point that is being made: Microsoft is threatening to use patents to eliminate competition that meets users' needs better than Microsoft's own offerings do, at a lower cost to those users.

Patents should not apply to software anyway, as software is merely the embodiment of mathematical algorithms.  Can you imagine being required to license the Pythagorean Theorem in order to use it?  A² + B² = C².  That would put every middle school and high school math teacher out of business.  Within a few years, the cashiers at Gree-C-Burger would not be able to count up change and the industry would have to use remote call centers to handle drive-through ordering. Just wait until someone installs a cash collector similar to the ones in vending machines that never work correctly.

There is even a new patent for the use of coded URLs to enable single-click orders of repeat items.  That one has lots of prior art, but it also has the ability to be manipulated: somebody's bot could crawl through and trigger hundreds of orders unintentionally. 

Patents are for new inventions, that is, physical objects that do something in an previously unknown way.  When we misuse them in areas where they aren't suited, such as software and business processes, we wind up with needing to license the right to embed a USERID code in a link when we send out e-mail newsletters or licensing the right to use an online "campus" site for education and training purposes.

Free software is not necessarily freeware.  Freeware is software with a price of zero.  Free software, on the other hand, may cost money, but comes with a license that guarantees your freedom.  Free software is good for the end user and the programmer, and anyone that opposes that is actually arguing against their own  customers and employees.

We watched Netcraft's Web server share numbers last month.

This month's numbers are a little less positive for Apache.  In part, this is due to Netcraft attempting to make their reports more accurate and detailed.  In recent months, they have started reporting the share of Lighttpd, for example.  Prior to this, at least one site spoofed lighttpd as Apache, so that it would be counted in some FLOSS server instead of being ignored.

This month's decline in Apache's share is explained this way by Netcraft:

With this month's survey, Netcraft has begun tracking Google's custom web server software known as GFE (Google Front End), which is currently found on 2.7 million hostnames, or 2.3% of all sites....  The GFE hostnames had previously been grouped under Apache, which sees a reduction in sites. As a result, Apache's market share slips by 2.86 percent to 56 percent ....

I do not know whether GFE began as an Apache derivative, so I have no opinion as to whether this improves the accuracy of the survey's division of its results into server software product "families", such as Apache (which, I believe, includes 1.x and 2.x branches as well as derivatives such as Advanced Extranet Server and Stronghold) and Microsoft (includes IIS and PWS).

I notice that Apache still grew in the number of active sites using the platform, to 31,896,813.

Lighttpd, mentioned above, is also FLOSS, so we wish to see it continue to grow both in the number and percentage of sites hosted with the software.