I think it is probably a bad idea to rely on the expensive patent process to protect open source. Isn't it better to make the software available and visible so that it can be clearly established that it is prior art, i.e. already known by all, when someone tries to patent drawing rectangles on the screen, or whatever?

The summary doesn't mention this, but a part of what Open Invention Network does is exactly that. Apparently patent examiners only look in certain places for prior art, and OIN can help you publish your work there.

LibreOffice is such a better piece of software after all the hard work done since the fork. But sometimes even when talking to my techy friends I have to elaborate when I say I created the doc in "LibreOffice".

^ So, so much this. Seems like only the geeks have figured out that LibreOffice exists, and these numbers only confirm my suspicions.

LibreOffice needs some kind of marketing push to get people to switch.

I just wish there was more consistency to open source projects. For every OpenStack there are craploads of half-finished projects that are basically in a perpetual beta stage.

Most open source projects don't have any funding, they're just someone's hobby project that they work on when they feel like it. You can't compare something backed by big corporations (like Linux, OpenStack, Firefox, etc.) to something a 16 year old wrote between high school classes.

You don't seem to understand how democracy works. Unless the incentives are in place, people won't vote in favor of public transit projects.

I agree though, if this were a dictatorship option 2 would be sensible.

So pay the cab fare, or petition to build better public transit, or move to an urban area that already has public transit. But please don't drive drunk just because it's legal.

I can agree that "Windows Blew."

Remember COBOL? Remember what it was intended for?

Those who forget history are doomed to... um... something, right?

DRM is not Open. (This is simply its nature.)

That depends how you define "open." There's no reason whatsoever that you couldn't have an open source DRM system, for example. And let's not forget that the entire point of this is to add an open standard for DRM.

By the way, didn't members of the Zuck PACk create, fund, and appear on Code.org, which lamented the sad state of U.S. CS education and featured a slick documentary showing technically clueless little kids, just weeks before launching their pro-techie immigration push? Hey, all's fair in love and lobbying!

I don't know what point you think you're making, but bringing smart people into the country and educating Americans are not mutually exclusive goals.

Hopefully this means my old college buddy Marc can finally graduate. :p

I don't think it's fair to place the blame for this on any one company or project, but it's been disappointing to see how inoperable all the smartphone OSes are so far.

It's particularly disappointing when it comes to open source phones, since interoperability was always one of the purported benefits of open technology.

It's worse than that:

In the past three years, Chromebook sales have been worse than even three months worth of WindowsRT sales. Perhaps users are heeding Stallman's warning on Chromebooks.

Hint: when writing Slashdot summaries, make sure the sentence you'e writing isn't directly contradicted by the previous one.

Ubuntu Phone apps

Let's be clear: Canonical's vision doesn't involve "phone apps." They want the same apps running on your phone and on your desktop.

If your idea of a company running outdated software is IE6, let me say this: welcome to the industry! You're obviously new here.

Guess which kind of users are prevalent?

It's my understanding that most of Adobe's customers are businesses. A pay-as-you-go model means there's less chance of wasting money on licenses you don't need. After all, many businesses use temps, interns and contractors. And sometimes you'll need to switch an employee from one project where they need photoshop to another project where they need something else.