Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Clear Conflict of Interest (Score 1) 589

by kn (#33923100) Attached to: Oracle Asks OpenOffice Community Members To Leave

I think Omnifarious' example (in another post) of Netscape/Mozilla more accurately reflects this situation. Those examples cited by you are different companies contributing to the same project. Xfree86 vs Xorg is also more similar, where the catalyst there was license change, as I'm sure you're already aware. As we all know, in that particular example, there wasn't room for both competing projects to prosper and Xorg thankfully won out. Hopefully LibreOffice will too!

Comment: Re:!COI (Score 1) 589

by kn (#33923074) Attached to: Oracle Asks OpenOffice Community Members To Leave

Just take a look at how Oracle managed the OpenSolaris fiasco. They just failed to release, and failed to take any part in board discussions. They didn't even provide a representative for board meetings. That was their strategy where the board wasn't (afaik) an Oracle majority. In the end, the board imploded because they couldn't do their job with Oracle hindering things.

I think that proves beyond a doubt that Oracle either have no interest in maintaining open source software and would rather others didn't either, or that they just have no clue about how to handle an open source project and no thought of stepping back to allow those that do have a clue to run the projects instead.

I personally think that what should happen in this case, is that the members who founded LibreOffice should just resign from the OpenOffice board, and wait patiently for everyone to jump from the sinking ship. In my opinion, this is the most reasonable course of action, as even if they stay on the board, it seems like they have no capability to push community interests with a majority-Oracle board.

If you read my posts, you will note that I am not saying that Oracle is a great company and that these people shouldn't have forked. To the contrary, I think they should have, but I also don't think they should remain on the OpenOffice board, and as a general concept I find it difficult to accept that it is not a conflict of interest (even if manufactured), although I am giving this more thought after reading the other comments.

As for why Oracle purchased Sun? I have no idea. The whole thing just seems so inappropriate to me. I would much rather the IBM deal went ahead instead. Then maybe I wouldn't have had to abandon OpenSolaris.

Comment: Re:!COI (Score 1) 589

by kn (#33923020) Attached to: Oracle Asks OpenOffice Community Members To Leave

To my knowledge, Sun purchased Star Office and then open sourced it. I expect they are referring to working on Star Office before Sun acquired it, but I really have no idea.

It is possible that some of the independents also worked on it previously, but it isn't evident from the logs.

My knowledge is more accurately just vague memories of articles about Sun acquiring Star Office many years ago, and then again about them open sourcing the codebase.

Comment: Re:Clear Conflict of Interest (Score 2, Insightful) 589

by kn (#33922738) Attached to: Oracle Asks OpenOffice Community Members To Leave

Thanks for clarifying that. I noticed that some were absent, but it was not made clear from the log whether they were independent or more Oracle.

The fact that the board is overwhelmingly employed by Oracle is a sign that there is no community oversight to speak of, and probably an excellent reason for a fork. I'm still not entirely convinced that being on two boards of competing projects is tenable, however some other posters are opening my mind to the possibility.

Ultimately, the end result will be that the community backing of OpenOffice will disappear, if it hasn't already. Not because of the board asking for resignations, but because the project itself is under Oracle's collective thumb.

Comment: Re:Clear Conflict of Interest (Score 1) 589

by kn (#33922686) Attached to: Oracle Asks OpenOffice Community Members To Leave

This is a very interesting point of view, which I had not considered. I'm still not convinced that it is workable, and cannot note any other significant projects where this occurs on a large scale, but it does offer a reasoned alternative perspective on a matter that otherwise seemed to me to be very clear-cut.

Comment: Re:!COI (Score 1) 589

by kn (#33922664) Attached to: Oracle Asks OpenOffice Community Members To Leave

If that is the case, such was not noted in the posted IRC log, whereas the point I noted was. I stated very clearly that I am a complete outsider, and therefore it could be reasonably assumed that I would not be aware of such things.

I take offence at you suggesting I am a troll. There is nothing trollish or even unreasonable about the assessment I made in the original post. There is certainly room for argument, however.

I am intrigued by some of the earlier comments in reply to my post, but your post serves little more than to insult me, which I think most would consider rather trollish behaviour.

I was also not suggesting that Oracle are totally in the right; just that on casual observation there appeared to me to be a very obvious conflict of interest. I am personally in favour of the fork (and any other fork away from Oracle, who seem incapable of open source project management in general), but I would have thought that the members of the fork would distance themselves from Oracle's project, which would appear to satisfy any apparent conflict of interest.

Comment: Clear Conflict of Interest (Score 5, Interesting) 589

by kn (#33922332) Attached to: Oracle Asks OpenOffice Community Members To Leave

As a complete outsider, having read through the logs, it is hard for me to understand how this could possibly not be a conflict of interest.

I'm all for some Oracle bagging, as an ex-OpenSolaris user, but the comments so far seem rather unjustified in this case.

The board seems to be composed of Oracle Employees, and 3 independents (possibly more who were not present?). Comments are made that indicate that some of the Oracle employees have been involved in OpenOffice since before Sun's acquisition of Star Office. The 3 independents have all formed a competing project, and fail to understand how forming a separate project constitutes a conflict of interest. They justify this position by mentioning that they invited Oracle to join the board of their competing project. The concept of some mysterious cloud office is mentioned by one of the independents, seemingly indicating that there is no conflict. Most reasonable people would ordinarily conclude that the independents are crazy; however, due to Oracle's involvement it is apparently they who are in error.

Oracle may well have been uncooperative or something to bring forth a situation that necessitated a fork, but that hardly makes the current predicament anything less than a conflict of interest.

Comment: Re:More evidence of the W3C's increasing irrelevan (Score 1) 205

by kn (#33818260) Attached to: W3C Says Don't Use HTML5 Yet

I totally agree. The W3C will surely lose relevance if they don't seriously wake up. It has already begun with WHATWG's work being the basis for HTML5. W3C only holds onto an strand of credibility by their decision to eventually back HTML5.

W3C has lost sight of the things that put them into the position of a governance body. I believe that they have failed to understand that their authority comes from the widespread support of their standards, not their control over the standards. When their standards no longer have widespread support, they cease to be the standards body, just as in the case of WHATWG with HTML5.

Something similar happened with Xfree86 and X.org, and it's looking to happen with W3C in the future, of course with differing catalysts.

Looking at W3C's work over the last few years, it appears as though there is too much theoretical and not enough practical in their recent specifications (before HTML5). The resultant works have been overly complex without any significant benefits, and I use the term resultant lightly, noting that works almost never reach completed stage, which is a joke in itself.

Too many cooks in the kitchen, perhaps, and not enough oversight by people with common sense.

Comment: Re:Consumers are cheap. (Score 1) 1140

by kn (#33817968) Attached to: Why Are We Losing Vertical Pixels?

I'm glad that I'm not alone on this issue. We've taken one step forwards, two steps back. And it's all so that panel manufacturers can improve efficiencies by converging monitors and TV's.

I would gladly pay more for a panel that had a higher DPI.

On the upside, with Apple pushing the "retina display" on the new iPhone it might bring some more attention to the issue of DPI. I was just yesterday reading about a new Hitachi 6.6" display (presumably targeting tablets) that was just over 300ppi. With some luck, this will take off in larger panels, too.

Comment: Re:Cleartype fails. (Score 1) 1140

by kn (#33817882) Attached to: Why Are We Losing Vertical Pixels?

You're dead right about sub-pixel antialiasing. I haven't used a rotated monitor in quite a while, but when I last did, it was the text that turned me away from it more than anything else. Please post back if you do find a solution, as I'm sure we're not the only ones interested in this.

The viewing angle issue largely comes down to the type of LCD panel that you are using. TN panels are notorious for this, but IPS panels are quite acceptable when rotated.

In short, if you plan to rotate the screen, ensure you don't have a TN LCD panel (usually the cheap ones are TN).

God only knows why the manufacturers include a rotation capability on a display with a TN panel!

Comment: Re:Sideways! (Score 1) 1140

by kn (#33817830) Attached to: Why Are We Losing Vertical Pixels?

That comes down to the type of LCD panel that you are using. TN panels are notorious for this, but IPS panels are quite acceptable when rotated.

In short, if you plan to rotate the screen, ensure you don't have a TN LCD panel (usually the cheap ones are TN).

God only knows why the manufacturers include a rotation capability on a display with a TN panel!

Comment: Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! (Score 1) 222

by kn (#33558922) Attached to: Australia's National Broadband Network To Go Ahead

Before you post next time, take a deep breath and re-read the post you intend to flame.

My post made no mention of big business using DSL. I made the case that even DSL for business (small, mid, whatever) is expensive. Fiber is even more so. I made the case that big business would see significant benefits from cheaper access to acceptable interconnects between sites (the NBN will be cheaper than their current infrastructure - whatever it may be). I made that case that more affordable infrastructure may make Australia more attractive to international business considering setting up in Australia.

Wasting money is never a good thing. This is not a waste of money. People much smarter than I (and you) have made the case that it will pay for itself over the mid-term. This is infrastructure. My point related exactly to people like you who claim that this (and other expenses) are a waste.

I think that there is such a separation of equality between internet exposure in the rural parts of Australia and the cities that this is necessary, and now. The opposition was proposing to spend a little under 1% GDP on infrastructure that would need to be replaced and upgraded many times over the lifetime of the fiber infrastructure. Their proposal was literally a waste.

Take a chill pill. You're ruining the perception that Aussies are laid back and ride kangaroos to work.

Comment: Re:Sweet! 43 Billion! (Score 2, Insightful) 222

by kn (#33531694) Attached to: Australia's National Broadband Network To Go Ahead

Are you suggesting that the high price of speedy internet in Australia comes at "no cost to the nation"?

On top of providing first class internet access for Australians, it will bring the ongoing cost of accessing broadband down significantly. Already, the mere talk of an NBN has broken Telstra's anticompetitive back. Sol was arguably forced out of Telstra as a direct result of the NBN announcement. Until this announcement, Telstra was holding all Australian's back at 8mbps maximums.

You also clearly have no idea as to the cost of networking infrastructure for business in Australia. Have you ever wondered why a 24/1 connection can be had for under $100/mo, yet a business can expect to pay thousands for 2/2 symmetrical? Perhaps you didn't even know. This is because of the current monopoly practices of the telecommunications giants. Businesses need upstream as much as they do downstream, whereas your average punter has little need for upsteam.

The NBN will make Australia a more attractive home for big business than it presently is. A large company can expect to pay tens of thousands of dollars a month (or more) for acceptable interconnects between their offices. Australia has competitive tax rates, and there was talk recently about making them even more attractive. The addition of NBN may serve as an additional sweetener to bring business to Australia.

On a sidenote, I'm always surprised to hear people talking about governments wasting money. I would be pretty unimpressed to find out that the government was taking my taxes and hording the money for god only knows what. We pay taxes precisely so that the government can implement major infrastructure like this. Sure, I'm all for saving up a surplus for a rainy day, but over the past 15 years there's been room for more public spending in my opinion.

Comment: Re:Big enough to give you everything you want (Score 1) 222

by kn (#33531608) Attached to: Australia's National Broadband Network To Go Ahead

Some noticed the snake and made a judgement call assuming that the Greens would hold the balance of power; they voted Labor in the house of reps and Greens in the senate. As it turns out, the Greens will hold the balance of power in the senate; opposing censorship was one of their campaign promises.

I agree with you in suggesting that most people don't want censorship. None of the people I have talked to are in favor of it. Australia is composed largely of moderates these days, as shown by the election outcome. Religious extremists and the like are a very small minority.

The current PM of Australia stated publicly that she does not believe in god, and still got into power (although she only scraped through - but I think we can all agree this was mainly for reasons unrelated).

The tree of research must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of bean counters. -- Alan Kay

Working...