Today I’m going to talk about why software – any software, all software – actually matters, what the different types of software are, and why you should care about its properties (no matter who you are, or what you do).
Editorial Notice: All opinions are those of the author and not necessarily those of osnews.com
You should care because – as sensationalist as it may sound – you may one day no longer be allowed to listen to your MP3’s, read your MS Word documents, or send messages over the ‘net to friends and relatives.You may think you will be able to continue these simple tasks forever because, like most people, you believe you actually own most of what is stored on your computer. But that’s where you’re wrong!
This simple tale will hopefully enlighten you as to why you should care
about the politics and freedoms associated with various types of
software, and not simply for pedantic reasons. You see, not only do you
not own that copy of MS Word, that game, or even that MP3 player, but
you also don’t own any other way of accessing your information.
“But I’ll always have my computer, it’s mine! No one can stop
me listening to my (perfectly legal) music collection!” I hear you
shout. Not quite. Not even slightly. But to get into that we must
first delve into the murky world of software licenses.
A software “license” (which is actually a form of contract) has become
the most common form of software distribution today. When installing a
new program on your computer you may recall having to click “I Agree”,
or “Okay”, or something to that effect. That was you signing a
contract.
This contract is supposedly legally binding, although they have not
(for
the most part) been tested in court. It is important to know that
even if it wasn’t you who clicked “I Agree”, as the owner of the
computer on which the software is running you are responsible for
ensuring the license is legal. Make sure you know what programs are on
your computer and what comes pre-installed when you buy it, although
there does not appear to be any legal reason why the sales guy from
Dell
should be permitted to accept the terms of a contract on your behalf.
I’m going to take a rather simplistic approach here and divide all
software licenses (contracts) into two, distinct categories. We will
call them “Closed” and “Open”. I make no assertions as to the monetary
cost or technical quality of the software distributed under a
particular
license, a great deal of people hold quite strong opinions on that
matter and it would take far longer than this essay to explain the
merits and pitfalls of each. Lets start with “Closed” licenses,
as
they are currently the most common type.
Closed licenses are (usually) fairly restrictive in regards to what you
are (and are not) allowed to do with the software in question – You are
typically only allowed to use one license per computer, you are not
allowed to pass copies on to any friends, you are most certainly not
permitted to resell it, and you are in no way allowed to make changes
to
the software.
Let’s take a moment to examine our MP3 player a little closer. We
have now come to realise that no, we don’t actually own the program
that
plays our Best of Celine Dion Album, even though we paid good
money for both the program and the album in question (guess which I
regret more). But what about those nifty little iPods and Nomads?
Surely
you can “own” one of those? Again, the answer is both yes and no.
Although you may have bought the actual physical little box, you have
only licensed a copy of the program running on the box.
All we have paid for is permission to use the program.
The important thing to note here is that most closed software licenses
don’t actually sell you anything you can keep, they merely give you
permission to run the software under a very specific set of
circumstances. If I license a chess game for sale with, for
example, the clause “this game may only be used when wearing
fluorescent
green panties on your head” then, legally, those without fluorescent green panties on
their head are not permitted to run the program. Even after they pay me
money. Here is where the distinction between licensing
(renting) and purchasing (buying) software becomes important.
When people say “I am going to buy a copy of Photoshop,” they actually
mean “I am going to buy a license
to run a copy of Photoshop, and hope that I meet all the
criteria stipulated in the license contract.” Purchasing
implies ownership, and we all know that although you can do whatever
you
damn well please to that old Monaro you just bought off the guy down
the
street, but just try sticking mag wheels and a spoiler on a rent-a-car
and see how far you get. We have come to an agreement we hand over some
money and we are allowed to use the car. But if we abuse the car
then the owner has every right to stop us from using it. Now
you’re beginning to get the idea.
At this point most people would say “So what? I run MS Word/Windows. It
does what I want. Why should I care? They can’t come into my house and
take it away from me. Get that microphone out of my face.” Well, that
brings
us to the next part. Control. When you use licensed software
you have very little (if any) control over the software you are
running.
I’m not talking about picking screen savers and font sizes, I mean
control over how the program operates.
If one day Apple decides that its operating system will no longer read
or write normal email, only “Apple Email” (or iMail :), then you can
bet
your banjos that’s what’s going to happen. “But I’ll just keep running
my old version – they can’t change what I’ve got,” I hear you mutter
incoherently. You’re right, they would probably have a hard time
finding
you, however they are well within their rights to make running old
versions of their software illegal. I realise I’m talking mostly
to people running pirated copies of Windows XP, but bear with me.
Disregarding the possibility of their changing the terms of your
current, existing
license
(yes, they can do that, it’s usually written into the original
contract), you are now forced to use old, outdated, software. Yippee.
Do
you know how many banks out there are still running OS/2?
You see, the way those MP3s you’re playing seem to magically squeeze
all that music down into bite-size chunks was originally developed and
(very kindly) published by the Fraunhofer Institute. But even
though they are giving you instructions on how to use their method for
storing music, that doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want with
it. Not a chance. Did you know that any product that makes
money out of MP3s must pay a royalty to the Fraunhofer Institute? nice
little money maker they’ve got there, and quite rightly so. But
did you know they also have the right to stop you from using it?
Hmm.. So that means, even though we know how MP3s work, the people that
own the “rights” to MP3s always control who may use them. So,
perhaps one day they will decide that they don’t want anybody using
them, and that everyone should move on to MP4. And then MP5. In
this way the Fraunhofer Institute always retains control.
The programs you are using right now do something you like, in a way
that you have become accustomed to. A future version may be
entirely different, however because you are using someone elses method
of storing your own information, they still retain complete control
over
how you work. You have no way of changing that. This is quite a
dill of a pickle of a jam we’ve gotten ourselves into. So, what
now?
“Ah, well, when that happens to (program ABC) I’ll just switch to a
different product. They know I would switch, so they’d never get rid of
(feature XYZ).” Yes, this is almost true. Well done. Now we
are beginning to understand what it is they control that is so
important. Communication. When I was using a
commodore 64 to type school essays (yes, I did that) I didn’t care how
my essays were saved. A message came up saying “Please insert
disk,” so that’s what I did. When I wanted the essay back I’d put the
disk back in and press “Open.” Simple. However, things are
now a
little more complicated. Now I’ll go and write an essay with MS
Word and save it. Word will save it as a “Microsoft Word Document.”
Here’s where the problems start. No one in the world really
knows how to open a Word document, except Microsoft. There’s nothing
illegal about that, much in the same way that there was nothing illegal
about only my Commodore 64 being able to my essays, but not my
neighbour’s Atari. The issue is now that anyone who wants to be
absolutely sure that they are correctly opening a Word document is required
to use (and pay for) a copy of Word, sold only by Microsoft. Sure,
some people have done an excellent job of guessing how they
work (OpenOffice.org, for example)
but they’re never one-hundred-percent sure. We are now required
to
pay someone money to be able to communicate with each other, or listen
to our music. This is not unique to the world of essays and
office
memos, the same is true of ordinary CDs and DVDs. If you design a
method
to create a CD that can be played on an ordinary stereo, you must then
pay royalties. No exceptions.
I’m going to diverge from software a bit here and talk about something
called “Standards.” A standard is a way for something to work. MP3 is a
standard. DVD is a standard. PDF is a standard. The phillips head screw
is a standard. HTML (the language of the World Wide Web) is a
standard. A standard is what people refer to when they say “You
know what? I could make a really kick-ass MP3 player. lets find out
how.” Standards allow me to buy a wheel that fits a car, and a
nut
that fits a bolt. Most of the time people can simply look at a
standard – such as the phillips head screw – and say “Okay, now I can
make a phillips head screwdriver, because I can see how this thing
works.” Unfortunately, In the world of computers it is possible
to
have things called “Closed Standards”, where it is impossible to “see”
how things work. If the person who designed the system doesn’t
explicitly tell you how something works then you will not be able
to imitate it. For example, if you wanted to create a
program
that could save Microsoft Word documents then you would possibly have
the
following conversation:
You: Hello? Yes, I’d like to know how Word documents are saved, you see
I’m trying to..
Microsoft: You’d like to know what?
You: I’d like to know how Word documents are saved, I’m trying to..
Microsoft: I’m sorry, we cannot reveal that information.
You: Why?
Microsoft: It’s a trade secret. It’s our intellectual property.
You: But I have ten years worth of essays, articles, assignments,
photos, music, and other memorabilia saved as Word documents. My copy
of
Word is right now somewhere on the tarmac of the Iceland International
Airport, so I’m going to ask a friend of mine, who is quite good with
computers, to ..
Microsoft: I’m terribly sorry, but you’ll have to buy a copy of
Word if you wish to access those files.
You: But I play my MP3s without buying anything (except the
original CDs, of course).
Microsoft: Yes, but MP3 is a published standard. At
Microsoft we believe in tight control over our intellectual property.
You: But I don’t want to buy a copy of Word.
Microsoft: Well, I’m sorry. I can’t help you.
You: But if Word is a standard then surely everyone needs to know
how it works?
Microsoft: I’m sorry sir. Anyone who wishes to use
Microsoft Word Documents must buy a copy of Microsoft Word from us.
You: Well, could you convert them for me?
Microsoft: No, sir. If you wish to work with Word Documents then
I’m afraid you must buy a copy of Word.
You: So if my friend emails me a Word Document then I must buy a
copy of Word from you to read my friends letter?
Microsoft: Yes, Sir.
You: I See. You know, in my country people are hung for
this sort of thing.
*click*
You: Hello?
So, now you’ve got ten years worth of essays, articles, assignments,
photos, music, and other memorabilia saved as a file that no-one else
knows for certain how to open, or is not legally allowed to. I’ll say
again, this
type of restriction is not illegal. No company is
required
to release how their programs work, and they are most certainly not
required to let anybody go around imitating them willy nilly. This use
of closed standards results in what is known in the industry
as “Vendor Lock-In”, and is a well known strategy of large software
houses. You must keep buying products from the same company if you want
to keep up to date software, and you’re up the creek if they decide to
no longer support a feature you really need, or they refuse to grant
license to other companies to work with the types of files you are
using. And they could always cause problems for people running
old
versions – such as IBM refusing to support OS/2 – leaving people who
are
still using their systems high and dry. If software vendors never
put “Save as.. Plain Text (for example)” in their products then you’d
never be able to leave at all. This principle extends to
everything. The so-called “Microsoft Windows Networking” (aka
NetBEUI)
that most home networks use still remains completely unpublished,
leaving people who want to work with these systems to rely on guesswork
and reverse engineering (Kudos to the SAMBA team.)
So, how can we actually have complete control over the files we save?
Well, as we said before, some companies publish full specifications of
their file formats – such as Adobe with their PDF files, and the
Fraunhofer institute, with MP3s – allowing us to create tools to, say,
play our MP3s, or convert a bunch of MP3s into an audio CD. Even
though companies still retain the intellectual rights
to
these formats, we have (as a gesture of goodwill) been given complete
blueprints on how to use them. So, should we all just use
well-documented formats? Not quite. As we found out earlier, if
you use someone elses method for storing information (be it music,
photos or essays) they still retain the right to decide who
may use their method. Well, that’s a tricky one. I, in
Australia, can write an essay and email it to a friend of mine in the
country of Pretendistan,
where Microsoft does not permit its products to be used or sold. I
am using
someone elses method of storing information, and I am relying on a
third
party (Microsoft) to provide a method for my friend to retrieve it.
That’s awfully trusting of me. Of course, I could just record the
essay as a spoken word MP3 – which we have been given the blueprints
to,
and know how to create and play very well – but then the Fraunhofer
Institute may go and put an export restriction on any MP3 based
products
being sold in Pretendistan. Back to square one.
So, who can I actually buy software from, and be able to do
with it what I like? Technically, no one. But some people are giving it
away.
I must let you in on a little secret. Some standards created by
large companies, such as Adobe’s PostScript (the predecessor to PDF),
are given to the community for free, in the true sense of the word. No
strings attached. We have been given complete instructions on how
to use, create, save, print and mince PostScript documents – all
without
having to pay any royalties. This will remain the case forever,
Adobe may never rescind on this generous donation. If Adobe
Corporation fades into history then we will still be able to use our
PostScript files, without any legal issues. This is a Good Thing.
The second type of software license I mentioned at the very beginning
was “Open” Software. Most Open licenses, with some minor differences,
allow you to add, remove, modify or cover with green cheese anything
you
like. They give the software away. You may initially have to
pay for a copy, but when you click “I Agree” on a copy of Red Hat Linux
you are, from then on, permitted to do whatever you like with the
software. If there is a feature you want, then you (or that friend of
yours down the street who is pretty good with that sort of thing) may
add it. If you want to add lots of features and sell it to someone
else,
that’s okay too. If the people who originally wrote the program go out
of business, then you (or anyone else, for that matter) are completely
free to start a new business selling a “New! Improved!” version of what
the original firm went out of business selling. Or you could just
keep on using OpenOffice.org, happy in the knowledge that you will
always, not matter what, be able to get to your documents. You see,
“Open” software, by design, lets everyone (well, anyone who
cares to look) know how everything works under the hood. This spirit of
“Open” is that no single person should be dependent on any third party
to use their own property.
Remember what a “Standard” is? Well, there are things called “Open
Standards.” You can probably see where this is going, but I’m
going to spell it out anyway. An open standard defines how
something works, but it isn’t owned by anybody. Sure, there
may be some non-profit organisation in charge of maintaining a
reference, but no-one needs to pay money to write a HTML web page,
since
it’s an open standard.
Now imagine combining the power of open software and open
standards. Anyone could communicate perfectly with anyone else,
without being dependent on any third party.
This is happening today. It’s called Open Source.
No one could ever (legally) have access to enough information to
perfectly open a MS Word document, or sell an MP3 player without having
to pay for the privilege. But there are now (as we speak)
thousands upon thousands of programs that read and write (perfectly)
OpenOffice.org documents, OGG Vorbis audio files, PNG images, and a
countless
number
of other, Open, formats. Imagine if the taxation
department kept all their records as Excel files, and then MS went out
of business. Things then become more than simply inconvenient.
“Open” standards are owned by the community. By you. By
your neighbour. By your boss, and your best friend. There
are no royalties to pay because they belong to everyone. Why does
this happen? Well, some people believe that by sharing with each
other we can create bigger, better things than if we were to work alone.
These standards exist right now, and are easily available. Go and
try Ogg Vorbis instead of MP3. Try OpenOffice.Org instead of
Microsoft Office. Try Linux instead of Windows. This isn’t
about politics, it’s about whether you – as an individual,
professional,
or an organisation – think it is worthwhile depending on a third party
for access to you personal information. At this stage you have
only your freedom to gain.
“Open” Software means freedom. Don’t let yourself get locked in, just
because it appear to be too much hassle to do otherwise. Don’t
let
others control your life. Yes, you can work just as well, perhaps
even better, and this time you can be sure you stay in control.
If you would like to see your thoughts or experiences with technology published, please consider writing an article for OSNews.
Go and try Ogg Vorbis instead of MP3
I’ll give everyone a reason to use OGG. It’s better. Better sound/compression trade off than MP3. I use FLAC now though and it’s amazing. Lossless audio in half the space, and it’s open.
Just to clearify: FLAC is half the size of a WAV file, but the lossless audio remains.
Agreed, Ogg Vorbis is a truly great format. Too bad it’s taking so much time to develop (many reasons for that, read the xiph mailinglist) the next version.
If you guys want an MP3 player that also supports Ogg Vorbis, check out iRiver and Rio. Rio also supports FLAC.
Don’t forget the Neuros http://www.neurosaudio.com heck, last time I checked they had lots of open source development going on, I think they have usb 2 now. btw, this is a great article, breaks it down for people who don’t get it yet.
Nice article, but your analogies and examples seem a bit too extreme. Might turn down some people.
This article might be of interest to Uncle Joe running windows, but I’m pretty sure that everybody that reads osnews is fully aware of all of these issues as they have been discussed thousands of times before.
Excellent article. Sure, maybe the information will only be NEW to “Uncle Joe running windows”, but even as a non-Uncle-Joe type I find it refreshing to see an informed argument for open source and open standards that isn’t mere zealotry and flamebait.
I found it to be pretty good mostly, however it seemed to get a bit, I dunno, almost preacher-like at some points. Sort of a… “I’ll bait you with this example and then… AHAH! See! You knew there was a trick somewhere here and then I delivered! Yay for me!” thing… But yeah, I think that those of us who know non-computer-types could easily point them to this article for at least a starter explanation on why closed software isn’t the best idea for our future.
http://compukid.no-ip.org/dev/papers/computer_politics/
great article. for some people who think open source is ‘evil’ and closed source is ‘the way of life’.
BTW there are plenty of open source apps that can open MSWord Documents
Nice article. I hope this will convince someone to usr Free Sofrware.
>for some people who think open source is ‘evil’ and closed
>source is ‘the way of life’.
The title of the article is wrong. Open source is nice, but it is not the closed source that is the main problem.
Closed standards are the problem. Not knowing how the data is saved, and not being able to find out, should not be accepted by any organisation.
Free Software matters, but Free and Open Standards matter more.
/regards
picz
that when they looked into microsoft for antitrust lawsuits that they would consider forceing them to put forth current and future data on filetypes, network protocols, file systems and so on. basicly then the idea of vendor lock-in becomes a nonissue and we would see ms dies a very horrible death or actualy start makeing quality poducts to stay afloat…
I just want to say ‘Thank you’ for posting such a good, clear article on why open source and open standards matter. Although most open source advocates probably understand these issues as well or better than I do, I found it a pleasure to read an article that explains it as well as this one did. Here’s hoping the author will keep on doing such a good job.
Martin
You: So if my friend emails me a Word Document then I must buy a copy of Word from you to read my friends letter?
Microsoft: Yes, Sir.
Microsoft: No, Sir, you can download the word viewer from the microsoft website…
I dont know about the ipod, but there is open source firmware for my archos mp3 player (http://rockbox.haxx.se/).
Anyway i think the author is being a bit pessimistic here, there is allways an equlibrium in these things, if a company imposes too many restrictions on their software people wont buy it, they’ll buy something else, take the author’s example about apple only letting you read email with apples software, if they did that who the hell would buy a mac? I’m not being anti oss here, just pragmatic, i use oss whenever i can, but i’m not going to stop using (closed) software that i like. I run a xp/linux dual boot at home, a lot of the software i use on xp is closed, most of it i got for free (sygate, winamp, trillian, etc) other i paid for, mostly games, and i’m not going stop playing medal of honor or civ 3 to play tux racer just because it’s oss….
Howabout BSD, what’s the problem?
Can everyone talking about this kind of thing stop pushing everything towards Linux and talk about Free software as in BSD and MIT and other similar…
Nice article….but you call yourself an Aussie and then refer to the analogy of “under the hood”…..shouldnt that be “under the bonnet”?
Also, most people wouldnt know what a Monaro is.
I must let you in on a little secret. Some standards created by large companies, such as Adobe’s PostScript (the predecessor to PDF), are given to the community for free, in the true sense of the word. No strings attached. We have been given complete instructions on how to use, create, save, print and mince PostScript documents – all without having to pay any royalties.
That’s why Apple switched from DisplayPS (postscript) in the NeXT operating system, to the PDF based Quartz, because of high licensing fees for postscript from Adobe.. I seriously hope you are not suggesting to use postscript to mail any documents you have, you could as well send a word document with automatic executing macros in it.
But there are now (as we speak) thousands upon thousands of programs that read and write (perfectly) OpenOffice.org documents
Thousands? Name 3! I hate OpenOffice.org, way too bloated, so I would like a lightweight word processor that runs natively on Mac OS X, and reads those OpenOffice.org documents perfectly.
>Microsoft: No, Sir, you can download the word viewer from the
>microsoft website…
You: shall I install it under /usr/local or under /opt on my Solaris workstation?
Microsoft: Solawhat?
You: No Solaris version? What about Linux?
Microsoft: Linux is evil
You: Nevermind. Just send me a Mac OS X version.
Microsoft: Sorry…
You: I would also write a perl script, that extracts references to local drives from the companys Word documents, moves referenced files to a network drive and changes the document to point to new reference.
Microsoft: We can sell you our brand new .NET package
The data formats used by DTP programs such as Quark XPress, InDesign or Pagemaker are just as closed as the Word doc format. Good luck to anyone needing to view or edit a Quark document.
The only DTP program with a fully documented file format is Pagestream.
http://www.grasshopperllc.com
Good article. I’ve used OpenOffice but it didn’t meet my business needs however I think most people would be able to use it for at least opening word documents. Ogg vorbis simply rocks. I don’t use linux because I’m not interested in becoming an admin at home. It has its merits though and I think if it followed MacOSX’s lead of making things easier it could really become a hit.
We need more open standards apps to challenge the closed ones like Office, Flash, <your favorite-but-closed app here> but if they cannot produce at least equal value it may be difficult to get users onboard.
Actually this article is a piece of trash. Seem the author want to influence every one againts microsoft. Other close source stated above is just a porn to hide some political issues about microsoft. I like both OSS and Microsoft. Seem this article is a little bit bias to specific products. You want to turn 95% of desktop monopoly to OSS using this way, you r kidding right?
I’ll give everyone a reason to use OGG. It’s better.
I’ve been trying to convince swedish radio to use OGG but they keep ignoring me and I keep getting angrier. Seems that when it comes to computer technology even people in the know are afraid.
The reason I’ve been trying to push them to use OGG is because they are a public service company, they pretty much owe people to use open formats. They currently use RA and WMA for their internet broadcast and that’s like saying that you need either a Sony or a Panasonic radio to listen to their FM broadcast. And they call themselve an independant company in the service of the public. geez.
You: Nevermind. Just send me a Mac OS X version.
Microsoft: Sorry…
Microsoft: Okay, I’ll send you the new Office 2004 for Mac.
What are you talking about? Office came out on the Mac long before it was released on the PC.
Not all fights between open Standards and closed Standards are between OSS and MS. Just because every Open standard out there has been perverted by MS isn’t any reason to assume that. Why are there IE only websites because MS perverted HTML, Javascript, ASP, for their own goals. Not to improve the products but to make them their own.
The Ideal Software would prevent specific vendor lock-in. That list of companies includes, Apple, MS, Palm, Symbian, & every other software vendor. Some are better than others at following the standards but all are trying to create the standards. Instead of working together to create good software, they fight each other to create the next standard.
You: So if my friend emails me a Word Document then I must buy a copy of Word from you to read my friends letter?
Microsoft: Yes, Sir.
Microsoft: No, Sir, you can download the word viewer from the microsoft website…
You: So I still need to buy a copy of Windows to install the Viewer onto?
Microsoft: Yes, Sir. Do you wish to tell me your Credit Card details?
I’ve been reviewing the (generally positive) comments here, and I’d like to thank everyone for their feedback. As most people have realised, the article was written to point out – in simple terms – why closed software and standards are bad for the consumer. Yes, the title is a bit of a misnomer, however “Free” catches regular peoples eyes far quicker than “Open.”
Some people are taking a particularly pragmatic approach in arguing against the general ideas I am presenting, however I believe they are missing the point. Open Standards – implemented correctly – have the ability to level the currently skewed playing field that is the software industry, and Open Source Software accelerates this process by allowing small, disparate groups and individuals to easily build on the work of others. Everything else is just a corollary.
Remember: It’s all about the Standards!
Regards,
Sean.
Amen, brother. A more detailed version of Stallman’s “The Right To Read”, and right on.
[quote]trash
By Simple-Plan (IP: 210.186.80.—) – Posted on 2004-04-13 11:25:38
Actually this article is a piece of trash. Seem the author want to influence every one againts microsoft. Other close source stated above is just a porn to hide some political issues about microsoft. I like both OSS and Microsoft. Seem this article is a little bit bias to specific products. You want to turn 95% of desktop monopoly to OSS using this way, you r kidding right?
[/quote]
Let’s say that I, being very fond of *nixes and OS, sort of disagree with the FORM this article was stated. It was beautified more that wanted.
Despite of this fact, the most important thing out of the article is the closed standard (if such a status can be called standard).
Let’s say that to output a document in ASCII, HTML, JPEG, GIF, TAR, ZIP, ISO… can be ment a standard document for it uses a widely available documented format that different applications can process as well.
Talking about MS, they just abuse the fact that their systems, office applications and other products are widely spread out and used (legally or ilegally). That is why the hate or dislikes towards this company (and many other in different bussiness areas) are borne.
Open source just offers a possibility to create applications compatible with the other ones by respecting their format in case they describe their nonstandard.
I fear that in the future the Open Source will be abused for some dirty bussiness/political purposes that average users may not even notice at its very begining.
The need of the hour is that all governments should enforce Open standards and only make their purchases from vendors who agree on those standards.
Thanks for this article Sean, very well articulated, I’ll send to some friends of mine who are a bit too tied to MS and closed standards, so they can think about it (no I don’t want to “convert” them, but just make them more aware)
Now I’ll pigback the thread and make slightly off-topic question, hope it’s OK: is there a program for Linux which does “batch conversion” from MP3 to Ogg? Does Ogg support ID3 tags?
“is there a program for Linux which does “batch conversion” from MP3 to Ogg?”
I wouldn’t recommend converting mp3 to ogg. Both are lossy compression formats, meaning some of the sound quality is lost. So converting mp3 to ogg will result in even worse sound quality. You basically end up getting tho worst from both mp3 and ogg. When you’re ripping cd’s, ogg vorbis is probably a better choice than mp3, though (quality wise).
“Does Ogg support ID3 tags?”
If I’m not mistaking, ogg vorbis has it’s own way of storing artist and track name etc in the file. I don’t think any programs capable of playing ogg, have trouble reading/writing the info, though.
“is there a program for Linux which does “batch conversion” from MP3 to Ogg?”
Yes. You can decode a MP3 to WAV and then encode that to OGG. You could even write a script for that. You could use XMMS Disk Writer, LAME, etc and for OGG encoding OGG Encoder. A script which does this automagically is mp32ogg. It makes use of Perl.
However converting one lossy format to one other means a quality loss. You won’t get lost data back either. Thereofore i rather suggest you rerip your CD’s directly to OGG, with a bitrate depending on how much you play the CD, how much diskspace you have, etc. VBR is also good, the only huge disadvantage is that it can’t be used for streaming.
“Does Ogg support ID3 tags?”
Something like that yes, but better (ID3v1 isn’t very powerful). To edit these, you can use XMMS, TagEdit, Prokyon3.
MP3 might be an open standard, but the standard isn’t worldwide Free because of patents. Many people simply do not know this, which is unfortunate.
I’m all about free and open. So much so that my neighbor, an ex-MS’er cringes everytime I mention it. But ya gotta admit, there is a lot of FUD here. “Oh my, what’s going to happen tomorrow???”. But on the otherhand, what makes me mad is that the content of the file is mine, and could be copywritten and maybe even patented by me… And I could be denied access to that data… it just does not seem right.
GoBeProductive offers a “hassle-free” license because it’s “customer-friendly”.
Q: How flexible is the GoBeProductive Hassle-Free License?
A: The Hassle-Free License lets you install GoBeProductive on every desktop and notebook PC in your home, then also install it on one desktop or notebook PC where you work. GoBeProductive includes a copy of the license, as well as an explanation for your employer permitting a single workplace installation.
There have been some legal arguments with respect to whether a contract can be enforced if it is “signed” by clicking the “I Accept” on a click-through. I forget the legal term for the basis of a contract… but I believe one of the three criteria for a contract are not satisfied because of the click through. There must be a signature, to the best of my knowledge.
I love these contracts that state things like, we can change the terms of the contract anytime and it is your responsibility to check our website for an updated version.
Hmmmm…. how often do I need to check the contract? What if it has changed 2,3, maybe 4 times since I last consulted the web site?
Software licenses and many of these “contracts” will likely be unenforcable in a court of law. But then again… you never know 😉 It a crazy world.
Hey, this is another good heartfelt article that was a pleasure to read on this topic. I agree wholeheartedly with the author on this stance and perspective on the way things are happening in the world today.
There is one thing which came to mind as a result of reading about the Microsoft Word format lock-down.
If I create a document, everything that I put into that document I could claim is my own intellectual propery. It is my copyrighted material. All the images I create, all the text I write, all the borders and layout that I choose, it’s all my creation. I can own it if I so choose.
Now, if I own that content, and I save it as a Microsoft Word file, supposedly I am not permitted to access that content without someone else’s permission.
Is it just me, or is it OBVIOUS that the two licenses clash completely? How can I have a license which says that I own the content, while at the same time Microsoft through their Word format is saying that they own it? We end up with a situation where the two parties are claiming ownership.
I am saying to Microsoft that the content I create is my own and they may not use it. Microsoft is saying back that since the content is stored in one of their file formats, they own it. Ownership means posession of access rights. When Microsoft prevents me from accessing the word document in any way they are claiming ownership of the document content, are they not? I know, they aren’t forbidding access to the document, just not access to a description of how the document is stored. In other words, they will have taken something that is mine, confiscated it and emprisoned it, allowing me only to have access to it if I have the right key.
If I create content and claim ownership of it, posession is mine, and access to it for me should be absolutely open. Yes, I could access it openly and freely, if I only knew how. Surely, by Microsoft owning the know-how, they are in effect preventing access? If I can only access the content properly by using their Word software, and I don’t want to use that software, then my access to that file is hindered and limited. Surely this is against my copyright.
I think the moral of this story, overall, is that when ANYONE claims ownership over ANY part of the world in which we live and create, it causes problems for someone else. When any TWO people claim ownership over access to the same part of the world – ie content in a document, there is a tug of ware and a stalemate.
If everyone decided to a) not own the content they create and b) not restrict access to the format that the content is stored in … ie if nobody get’s into the ownership business at all, then we would all be better of.
My point is, it’s one thing to wish that others do not place ownership on a standard or a file format, but by the same token we must also relinquish ownership of everything we create or store using those techniques.
Freedom means freedom for all, after all.
let me get this straight, both work by removeing sounds that go outside of the hearing range of the avarage human ear right? the real diffrence is what they do to the rest of the data. so converting from one to the other should in theory mean close to 0, only that with a ogg you could get a smaller file with about the same quality. sure bitrate have something to say about the finer points but anything outside of analog will lossy in that respect. but then there is the audiophiles that back of from “lossy” compression like a religius person backs away from a discussion about flaws in theyre religion. to bad we cant prove that they hear or dont have what they claim unless we set them up with a clinical test, and why bother, its theyre own money they are burning anyways…
That’s what you get with crappy character stream filesystems.
Software products are not comparable to traditional manufactured goods. Closed fileformats – no matter how precious their “intellectual property” is to their owners – work against competition. If there is patents-laws protecting intellectual properties, there should also be laws that prevent patent-owners abusing markets with this type of “fileformat-traps”.
Lossy compression mainly discards sounds that are inaudible due to masking. There are two kinds, transient masking (you don’t hear something quiet if something loud happens straight after it) and frequency masking (you don’t hear a particular frequency if there is a louder one within a few hz of it).
The sounds discarded are not out of the range of human hearing, you hear them, but ignore them in preference to other louder sounds at the same time.
Different lossy compression methods use different methods and thresholds to work out what should and should not be audible.
Therefore, what one codec assumes is important information may be discarded by another.
So when you re-encode with another codec it discards a different set of information.
Re-encoding with the same codec also produces a different result, as the quieter sounds that led it to discard information during the initial encoding are no longer present.
The net effect of this is that transients become smeared (temporal masking) and quiter sounds are rendered more inaudible (frquency masking).
When A/B tests have been done, the artifacts of this process are audible to most people.
Well, i’m sorry if there were any good points in this article they were lost in this guy coming off as a tinfoil hat nut job.
In what he said he pretty much voided his own argument. If you agreed to the license when you install it thats that. You know what you have got yourself into. Therefore this is no bitching later on. You don’t have to use computers. It’s pretty crazy to expect companies to make something then let you go nuts doing whatever you want. If you don’t agree with it, oh well.
I agree that things should use open standards. That is what matters. And I also think it’s fine if you have to pay to see the spec. As long as the company that created the format is open about if you want to see it you can, you just have to pay. If they are selective about who gets to pay to see it then thats not very great. To see the source of the app frankly doesn’t matter. But if your files are in a open format that others can use then everything is ok.
Next people seam to be going after office and such saying things like “if i recive a .doc i can’t read it, i use linux” this is not MS’s problem, you decided to use linux. No company should be required to support your doings if thats not what they were going for. Take things up with the person who sent you a .doc file. Stop blaming software firms for such issues. Blame people who use such formats. It’s fine your you to hold certain values and ideals when it comes to things, but don’t expect others to care or work around what you want.
People have to accept that software doesn’t follow our normal rules or property. With software to make a copy or dubplicate something is so incredibly easy. Which phyiscal items this is not the case. The reason companies have such agreements on their products is they have to. If there was a way to make software un-copyiable or shareable, (basicly give it all the attributes of a physical item) they wouldn’t needs such things. But thats not the case.
I think he definitly took some ideas and stretched them way past reality. I don’t think MS would ever some how manage to be alowed to force destroy every version of word on every computer in the world and every .doc file every made. Or what ever he was trying to get at. At some point you have to apply reality to things, not hypothetical what ifs that odd very close to zero.
I just had chuckle at the fact a “Monaro” (rock-on, being a former GTS-Monaro and XU-1 owner) was mentioned in the whole diatribe. Albeit doom and gloom, but still a truism from a licencing point of view and potential future for all of us wanting to “play by the rules” legally speaking…..
The entire rant on the second page is ruined by the availability of a FREE word document viewer. But I guess the author wants to be able to create and modify word documents, too? Without paying anything. Stick with free software instead of whinging that pay software is not free!
So, download the viewer, and read all the documents you want:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9BBB9E60-E…
Otherwise, stop embarassing yourself in front of others with your ill-informed whining.
The entire rant on the second page is ruined by the availability of a FREE word document viewer
No. The entire second page is about open standards, and Word was just an example, could be anything else. Next time you read something try to understand the ideas, not the examples.
Otherwise, stop embarassing yourself in front of others with your ill-informed whining.
Ditto.
> So, download the viewer, and read all the documents you want:
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9BBB9E60-E…..
Hmmm, but say I have a sparc64…
I use Linux, and I am an advocate of Open Source Software.
However, these kinds of articles don’t help the cause any. They only make the cause look more desperate than it actually is. It’s like the little guy in the back of the room flailing his arms saying look at me, I matter, why isn’t anybody looking at me…
Unless you start seeing articles from Microsoft, titled why Microsoft matters there should never be an article like this put out. We should be walking the walk and talking the talk like we are the big guys and Microsoft should be looking up at us.
Did you read it, he didn’t say anything rare or false. It’s largely common knowledge and all true. If you can’t see something inately wrong with licensed software you haven’t read much about the power it gives software companies.
The article isn’t really against closed source, it’s against restrictive licensing. I don’t see your problem with it, it’s quite informative and well written. Even a closed source advocate should appreciate the idea of actually buying a copy of software which you can use to it’s fullest extent (even it it’s a binary you can’t modify).
“However, these kinds of articles don’t help the cause any.”
Speak for yourself.
“However, these kinds of articles don’t help the cause any. They only make the cause look more desperate than it actually is. It’s like the little guy in the back of the room flailing his arms saying look at me, I matter, why isn’t anybody looking at me… ”
I guess this shows your viewpoint as just being different. You perhaps don’t value these freedoms as much since they are somewhat subtler. If subtlety is not your thing, which appears to be the case judging by your bold attitude of conquering just like Microsoft, then I can well understand why you would think this is a big mountain when it should be a molehill. I think it takes a greater depth and sensitivity to recognize the importance of these kind of issues.
Also, as Richard Stallman clearly also states on his website and in other places, Open Source software is not the same thing as what he envisages as Free Software. *Most* Open Source developers are not developing based on an interest in the ethical or spiritual ramifications of their development model. They want to share source to be productive, foster ideas, speed up development and allow contributions from many people. This is only a subset of what Free Software is about… ie, that people have an ethical and spiritual right to access and alter software, not just because it is more productive but because it is a reflection of their birthrights.
I see a lot of people equate Open Source with Linux and with the kind of content in this article, but in fact they are not the same anyway. Similar, but not the same. Unless you share your code on grounds that it is ethical to do so, rather than that it has development benefits, you’re not on the same wavelength as what he is saying.
Closed standards are the problem. Not knowing how the data is saved, and not being able to find out, should not be accepted by any organisation.
Well said and I agree completely. I felt the article was well-written, but the arguments for open source software were less convincing than the arguments for open standards or open file formats. I don’t particularly mind if the software is closed-source as long as the file or data it handles is open and fully documented. HTML is a perfect example of this – an open standard that has spawned thousands of closed and open-source applications. I firmly believe that the Web would not have grown so rapidly were it not for the simple, open specification of HTML.
I wasn’t saying anything wrong with the article. I was saying the community needs to stop acting like the small guy. The Linux server has x percent of the market, which is more than what Microsoft has. But the Linux community still wants to act like the little guy, because they don’t know how to be anything else. I am just saying we need to stop these stupid little articles that just reenforce how much Linux people love Linux.
Let’s start posting these articles to Neowin or many of the other Windows Centric sites.
Also for all those who accused me of not reading the article, you obviously didn’t read what I had to say and really thought about it. If you look at the comments all of them are the normal reteric that comes out of the OSS community. You hate freedom, you don’t know what Linux is about, you don’t know what you want out of a OS, and blah-blah-blah.
We need to grow up as a community and stop acting so childish. The problem with Linux is there is no corporate mandated focus, and that is part of the problem. In addition there is not marketing of Linux, there is marketing of products built of Linux, but the HP, and IBM name always overshadows the Linux name in the comercial.
My mother actually asked me after she saw the IBM commerical. Who would actually name thier kid Linux. That floored me because what that says to me is that IBM is really only marketing to people that know what Linux is, instead of marketing to people that don’t know what Linux is.
These are many of the problems that I have seen, and as a marketing person, I see Linux failing. As a peice of technology Linux is thriving though. That is one of the problems. Microsoft is accelerating in both marketing and the technical aspect. (Listen I don’t want any of the normal comments, such as Microsoft doesn’t innovate, that is getting old and know body actually beleives it any more, plus that is one of the childish remarks that I talked about above.) Linux needs a marketing campaign that isn’t attached to any company, and that is the only way Linux is actually going to succeed.
I am just wondering, why when people talk about freedom in software does the conversation come around to open source? Open sourced software is not the same thing as the free software that Richard Stallman advocates. There is a difference of intention and motivation. His article is talking about the impingement of freedoms, not about source-code availability. Open source is about sharing sourcecode to reap development rewards. Free Software is about sharing because it’s ethically right.
His article isn’t even about open source, or about linux. It’s about basic human freedom. We should have the freedom to acquire and alter and redistribute software, not because that’s a groovy sexy development model, but because that is in accordance with our human spirit. When people get on the open source bandwagon without being in touch with that sentiment, they are not talking about the same thing. There is a fine but definite line between the two.
See this quote from the author’s website outlining this distinction:
Relationship between the Free Software movement and Open Source movement
The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are like two political camps within the free software community.
Radical groups in the 1960s developed a reputation for factionalism: organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy, and then treated each other as enemies. Or at least, such is the image people have of them, whether or not it was true.
The relationship between the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement is just the opposite of that picture. We disagree on the basic principles, but agree more or less on the practical recommendations. So we can and do work together on many specific projects. We don’t think of the Open Source movement as an enemy. The enemy is proprietary software.
We are not against the Open Source movement, but we don’t want to be lumped in with them. We acknowledge that they have contributed to our community, but we created this community, and we want people to know this. We want people to associate our achievements with our values and our philosophy, not with theirs. We want to be heard, not obscured behind a group with different views. To prevent people from thinking we are part of them, we take pains to avoid using the word “open” to describe free software, or its contrary, “closed”, in talking about non-free software.
So please mention the Free Software movement when you talk about the work we have done, and the software we have developed–such as the GNU/Linux operating system.
Also I quote…
The official definition of “open source software,” as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” is “You can look at the source code.” This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also includes semi-free programs such as Xv, and even some proprietary programs, including Qt under its original license (before the QPL).
HTML is an international standard, unless you use Internet Explorer which MS Extended and modified HTML to be MSpecial. why are pages written for IE only when there are millions who don’t use IE. I stopped using IE when mozilla was 0.9 and I haven’t looked back.
I’m not sure who the audience for this essay is but the tone is particularly patronizing. So much so, I had to stop half way through, go and calm down for a few minutes and return to read the rest. And we already know all of this anyway. The examples are very extreme doomsday scenarios and unlikely to occur in real life. I don’t think this is a very well written essay at all for the tone, style, grammar and content!
< quote>HTML is an international standard, unless you use Internet Explorer which MS Extended and modified HTML to be MSpecial. why are pages written for IE only when there are millions who don’t use IE. I stopped using IE when mozilla was 0.9 and I haven’t looked back. </ quote>
Oh yeah and the blink tag is definitly part of the international standard. Let me ask you this you said millions of people aren’t using IE, but what about those millions that aren’t using it times 10? Are we suppose to cadder to the less than 10% who choose not to use IE?
Let me ask you this, who owns the standard that everybody is using? The people with 10% of the share or the people with the 90% of the share? I say the “standard” is the people with the 90% of the share.
Personally I think standards are very realative to who actually wants to impliment them. The supposed standard of the web is suppose to be PNG image format. Now if I was to ask you what the standard for image formats on the web, you would tell me JPEG or GIF. So are you wrong, because you aren’t following the standard of a self proclaimed group? I say no, the standard is with the majority of people who use one thing over the other.
So stop this they aren’t following the standards bull crap. No body bitches at OpenOffice for not following the standards of a Microsoft Word Document when they try to generate one. It is only when Microsoft decides to deviate from the god given plan of the Linux Guru’s that they get critized. So top you bitching and go back into your hole.
How many people are running priated Windows XP license? Because he says most of this audiance is doing that. I don’t know about the rest of you but as a Software Developer I beleive in paying for software and that is just what I did for Windows XP. Who else here is on the same wave length as me?
The trusted computing initiative (TCPA) takes a lot of these “de facto” freedoms (the vendors can’t take away software I’ve already got on my system or completely cut me off from my data or monitor what other software I’m using) and makes it possible for the vendors to enforce their restrictions using the computer architecture:
http://www.bitsplitter.net/blog/index.php?p=240
Paul, you might be one of Stallman’s minions that is assigned to troll boards like this to announce that the FSF/Stallman created the concept of source code availability, but everybody knows you didn’t. I was using Public Domain before the GPL/GNU/FSF was a twinkle in Stallman’s eye.
Stallman and his followers like you are just bitter that people don’t really care for Stallman’s political and semantical games with the word freedom. Do yourself a favor and pull yourself out of the cult now.
You: Hello, my Russian friend! Thanks again for configuring Windows XP Home on my new EMachines computer. Yes, I’d like to know how Word documents are saved.
Me: You’d like to know what?
You: I’d like to know how Word documents are saved, I’m trying to find someone to write a new software application to be a replacement for MS Word I had.
Me: I’m sorry, but I think Microsoft cannot reveal that information for free, you’ll have to pay.
You: Why?
Me: It’s their intellectual property. They believe that intellectual property has a material value.
You: But I have ten years worth of essays, articles, assignments, photos, music, and other memorabilia saved as Word documents. My copy of Word is right now somewhere on the tarmac of the Iceland International Airport. A friend of mine, Steve, who is quite good with computers, told me I’ll have to buy a copy of Word if I wish to access those files.
Me: I’m terribly sorry, but he played practical joke on you! You do not have to buy a copy of Word if you wish to access those files, there are plenty of alternatives, some are free of charge, some will costs you, some will cost you a lot.
You: But I play my MP3s without buying anything (except the original CDs, of course).
Me: Before we continue, I need you to agree that it is OK to pay for software. Software developers like to be paid. You like to be paid for job you are doing. The money to pay salaries has to come from somewhere. If you do not pay for driving on highway, it does not mean it costs nothing to build and maintain roads.
You: OK, OK, chill man. I need your help with that Wordy stuff, so I am going to agree it is OK to pay for software in one or other way- just to make you happy.
Me: So, back to your trouble: you had been able to create Word documents before, for the last ten years to be exact, what’s your problem now?
You: This new EMachines you set for me, I don’t want to buy another copy of Word for it. I can retrieve my old copy of MS Office eventually, but I need something now!
Me: Fear not! I can help you. Won’t cost you a dime. Anything else?
You: I have a question: if Word is a standard then surely everyone needs to know how it works?
Me: You have new Toyota Prius that made me jealous, with that overly complex hybrid engine and automatic transmission as a standard option. Do you know how they work?
You: No… On car dashboard there is flashy screen that tells me my current MPG. Low numbers make me happy, high numbers make me reconsider my driving habits.
Me: Your ignorance in basic and advanced automotive concepts did not stop you from buying and driving this car… Next question!
You: My friend Steve told me that I am in danger of losing my ten years collection of documents if Microsoft stops supporting MS Office and MS Word becomes obsolete.
Me: Well, what I am going to say means nothing to you, but please repeat the following to Steve exactly as I say: “Do you know how many banks out there are still running OS/2?” As for you, my friend, allow no uncertainty in your mind: you can still use your old Word to open, edit and print your old Word documents.
You: My friend Steve also told me I lease software, not own it, so that Microsoft well within their rights to make running old versions of their software illegal.
Me: You told me before that you lease your Prius. What would happen if dealership you leased it from revoke your lease and legally take away your car from you and also from every Prius owner?
You: I will never have business with that dealership, I will not buy cars from that car manufacturer ever again, and I’ll sue their collective asses in a high profile class action lawsuit!
Me: So, even if you would not go so far as to start a law suit, I know you are a peaceful man, would you agree it is suicidal for a for profit public company that sells its products for money to alienate their customer base that way- especially when alternatives are plenty?
You: No doubt!
Me: Well, these car analogies really work! I should use them more often. Next question!
You: If my friend emails me a Word document then I do not have to buy a copy of Word from Microsoft to read my friends letter?
Me: You do not have to. You can, and it would be right thing to do if you like Microsoft Word, but no- you do not have to.
You: I See. My friend Steve also told me that open standards are better than anything else.
Me: There are open standards, and there are de-facto standards. De-facto standards appear when a specific product implementing them becomes very popular. Then, competition catches with it, and starts supporting it- boom, suddenly you have plenty of choice. It is exactly like Word documents: it is de-facto standard from Microsoft but you do not need to have software from Microsoft to use it.
You: Don’t be so evasive, are open standards always better?
Me: I hate words like “always,” they belong to the religion. What if new and very popular SuperOffice supports open standard for documents that your Office does not? What would you do if your friend emails you a document in SuperOffice native document format? You will have to wait until your Office vendor makes an upgrade to their product- which could or could not be free of charge. Alternatively, you could switch to SuperOffice- which could or could not be painless. Even getting viewer for SuperOffice document format may not be an easy task, if your computer runs PC-DOS or OS/2, for example. Never mind PC-DOS, in any case, establishing open standard as a new de-facto standard is not so simple as it sounds when Steve tells you.
You: Steve, Steve… You know, in my country people are hung for this sort of thing.
Me: That is why you and me left our countries for America. But do not be so harsh. Steve wants you to live in a better world. I am willing to help you live better in your world.
You: Hello?
Me: See ya soon. Will be at your house shortly to fix your Wordy problem and then I can drink a glass of vodka with you. It’s OK, my wife will be driving, she wants to see your new Prius too.
Me (Scientist): Dear journal X, please accept the attached manuscript for publication…
Journal X: Dr. Dyer, please send us a word format, we do not accept the XXX format.
Me (Scientist): Sure, you’ll find the attached .doc format (from OpenOffice)
Journal X: Dr. Dyer, none of our MS Office applications can read your formulas.
Me (Scientist): Sure, please see the attached .doc format (from Office MacX)
Journal X: Dr. Dyer, your equations are fine, however, we can’t see your images.
Me (Scientist): Do you accept LaTeX?
Journal X: Look pal, we’re not into anything kinky here…
Me (Scientist): How about ps, pdf, dvi, rtf, …
Journal X: Dr. Dyer, our reviewers typically use Office 2000, however out typesetters use something else and we sometimes have problems, that is why we are requiring Office XP.
Me (Scientist): Journal X, KMA. I’m spending more time trying to standardize on the so called “de facto” standard that it is eating into my research. I’m going to journal Y that takes LaTeX.
Blame Microsoft!
You: So if my friend emails me a Word Document then I must buy a copy of Word from you to read my friends letter?
Microsoft: No, Sir, you can download the word viewer from the microsoft website…
You: Why doesn’t my document look right? The formatting is all wrong…
Microsoft: That’s because the Word viewer hasn’t been updated in more than 5 years and is only compatible with Word 97. You should try a more recent full version of Word.
Let me ask you this, who owns the standard that everybody is using? The people with 10% of the share or the people with the 90% of the share? I say the “standard” is the people with the 90% of the share.
I say you’re confounding standards and de facto standards. Computer standards are usually guidelines. De facto standards aren’t guidelines: it’s all about the majority.
Personally I think standards are very realative to who actually wants to impliment them. The supposed standard of the web is suppose to be PNG image format. Now if I was to ask you what the standard for image formats on the web, you would tell me JPEG or GIF. So are you wrong, because you aren’t following the standard of a self proclaimed group?
Once again, you’re confounding “standard” and “most used”. The W3C never said that you must use PNG images. Furthermore, they never discouraged the use of JPEGs or any other image format other than GIF. They just can’t recommend it due to some patenting issues in many countries.
[i]I say no, the standard is with the majority of people who use one thing over the other.
Using your logic, MS Windows is a standard on desktops. Yet you cannot interoperate with it flawlessly except with another version of MS Windows as Microsoft don’t publish their specifications. That’s what a standard is all about.
It is only when Microsoft decides to deviate from the god given plan of the Linux Guru’s that they get critized.
One word: no. I don’t need to elaborate further as you’re just plain wrong.
So top you bitching and go back into your hole.
Nice idea, you should exactly do that. Bye!
I totally agree with u that if open aggrement are not given then the user is restricted from using a software to its full.
Here is my question in many countries and even in USA a huge amount of people are not so well educated in the computer line, to modify the open source one must know how to change the script I myself know no computer language but when i see some of my freinds trying to make a change in linux then i feel not knowing C of C++ of java is a limitation faced by a lot if not most of the people.
What about them are they not better of just using what they can rather then modifying and making a mess of things.
Thunderknight
The Prius story was a pretty good read, and it was well-written. However, you don’t use cars to make lasting things. If your lease company takes away your Prius, you can get a different car and still drive on the same roads.
The point of the article was about “lock-in”. Once you have a bunch of Word documents, you can’t easily move to a different platform and still access those documents. This is certainly not a Microsoft-specific issue, by the way, although MS seems to be particularly good at using this dependence to their advantage.
If Toyota made a Prius which only runs on special “Prius-fuel”, started taking over gasoline stations one by one to sell this Prius-fuel, and make it illegal to reverse-engineer the chemical structure of Prius-fuel, you would have a similar situation to the software world of today.
Lock-in is a very efficient business practise, so companies will probably try to get away with it when they can. This is why you need to be very aware of it. The same type of lock-in is possible for, eg., telephone providers – making it cheap to call people using the same provider and very expensive to call people using a different one. Once the majority of people is using a particular provider, this would quickly push the others out of the market. Which is why governments regulate these things.
You’re right in that most people don’t know how to program.
However that’s not really a requirement.
The truly important thing here is: you do not NEED to modify the source, you MAY do it! (or in fact let anyone else knowledgeable about it do it for you according to your requirements…).
Just try to pay a software developer to fix your problems with your favourite closed-source program… good luck!
So yes, most people won’t care too much about being able to tamper with the program, but they SHOULD CARE about the long-time guarantees which only open source code provides, by being able to ask OTHER people to adapt or improve a program.
Ahmen. You took the words right out of my mouth. I have been trying to come up with a good word for what I was talking about and I guess it already has one. De-Facto standards.
“Using your logic, MS Windows is a standard on desktops. Yet you cannot interoperate with it flawlessly except with another version of MS Windows as Microsoft don’t publish their specifications. That’s what a standard is all about.”
Yes for many developers and users around the world Microsoft Windows in the standard. Well using your same logic, Linux is a standard. Yes you cannot interoperate with it flawlessly except with other versions (sometimes) of Linux. Microsoft doesn’t have to publish their standards, that is the nice thing about creating you own stuff. How would you like it if spent years designing and drawing scetches and everything for a product that you had. Then all of the studden somebody came along and started making your product after you put all that work into it. Would you feel jipped. Hell yeah you would.
You are probably one of those people that think generic drugs help lower the cost of perscriptions. When that is totally wrong. Drugs are so costly because they spend 20 years making a drug that has about a 25% chance of getting approved. So they spend billions of dollars, and then they have to try and make it back in 20 years before every company with a chemist can make it. So they not only have to make back the money for the research of that drug, plus all the failed drugs. Perscriptions would be alot less if the patent process was 40 years.
My point is if there is no way of protecting work, then the work is meaningless, and not worth doing. Because as soon as you release it anybody that knows the process can start making the same thing. Thus you have all the costs to make back, but you cannot because every moron with a computer is making your product. So what is the use of puttying anything out.
Microsoft does this, Sun does this, IBM does this, HP does this, and on and on and on. So if you have a problem with the practices of Microsoft, why don’t you ask Sun to release the source code for Solaris or Java, or IBM for DB2, or HP for a number of their drivers for their printers or their medical equipment. So that other companies can start making medical equipment too.
Stop being so biased and really take a look at your views, and get rid of the hate, because it doesn’t help you argument and everybody sees through the biased, in addition it is not healthy to have so much hate.
Interesting article. Some of the commenters are missing the point, there IS s/w that can open a Word document. But they arent legal and have to play catch-up each time a new format is released.
While we mention contracts, there was a service pack for Windows Media Player a while ago. By accepting that ‘contract’ you actually effectively gave MS rights to do whatever they wanted with all the data on your PC.
Something else that only one person has touched on, which is actually a VERY scary extenstion of this article is Paladium aka ‘TPCA’. THINK along these lines (im not saying this is what WILL happen, but is the sort of thing that TPCA COULD be used for).
Say you get your next version of Word (which happens to use some new format). Convert all your docs. Your PC blows up. Because TPCA is hardware keyed, Word wont open those docs you had nicely backed up to CD on another PC. Its important that I have this doc for a meeting… PLEASE HOLD FOR THE NEXT MS REPRESENTATIVE…
Or, for another example, Word15 has just come out and its TPCA enabled. You no longer buy your licenses, but rent them on a time-period basis (sound familiar – this is what MS are giving as an option now with corporate licensing). Maybe you didnt pay your bill, or maybe MS just THINK you havent paid your bill. They make the TPCA key invalid until its sorted. But now you have no access to any of YOUR intellectual property. Another, similar example is new versions. Say Word 16 comes out. MS tells the key that only Word16 can open Word docs. Thus, to get at your documents, you must upgrade.
This isnt just vendor or format lock-in, its complete DATA lock in. I imagine that those documents will be encrypted as you save them in Word and the only way you will be able to open them is if your TPCA key says you can.
As I said, just examples… but the technology for making this sort of DRM happen is just around the corner… in fact MS are slating 2005 for releasing TCPA style DRM. It will be for music and videos at the start…
Let’s just make all software web-based with generic formats and be done with it.
HTML-based word processor and spreadsheet program anyone?
|/|. |<.
>> You: So if my friend emails me a Word Document then I must
>> buy a copy of Word from you to read my friends letter?
>> Microsoft: Yes, Sir.
> Microsoft: No, Sir, you can download the word viewer from
> the microsoft website…
You still need to buy a copy of Windows to run it.
> No body bitches at OpenOffice for not following the
> standards of a Microsoft Word Document when they try to
> generate one. It is only when Microsoft decides to deviate
> from the god given plan of the Linux Guru’s that they get
> critized.
The problem is there is no public specifications of Microsoft’s (and other companies’) “standards”. So when OpenOffice wants to implement MS Office format, the implementation won’t be “perfect” since nobody (except Microsoft) really know how the MS Office format is supposed to work. On the other side, when you implement an open standard, you can know exactly how your program is supposed to react. So deviating from that standard it and still pretending you use it is silly (the example that come to mind is Internet Explorer and w3c web standards).
I agree with Steve absolutely.
Excellent, but I think it should mention auto-updating software and examples of devolution that it can cause, which would discredit the ‘no company would actually enforce’ arguments..
Also the emerging threats from patents and trusted computing…
Not being computer savvy (I thought a motherboard was a sex toy), I was naturally delighted to read an article that was capable of explaining something potentially rather complicated to me in an entertaining and friendly manner. I wouldn’t say that the article has given me an opinion about anything (which is a good thing) but it has certainly introduced me to what looks like a very interesting topic and one which I, now, should be able to look into further. Oh, and congratulations on getting engaged, Sean.
Dumd. Truly, truly dumb. The free software was just sounding like a broken record. Now it’s sounding like a broken recoird that never contained anything but silliness.
If yu want anyone to belive in free software, then give us free software that’s better than what MS gives us. All the shrill cries to the contrary, most of the free software out there is nothing but junk when compared to proprietary software.
And the kind of ludicrous, nonsensical, completely foolish warning in this article would drive any thinking person as far away from free software as it’s possible to get.