Recent Forum Posts
From categories:
page »
Related articles by sacha 2012sacha 2012, 20 Mar 2012 11:16

Oh, here you go; you have Metro, but then you also have the "Classic" interface. Would this mean the Classic interface allows software to be installed without constraints (App Store, pseudo interface criteria, etc.)?

LOL yes. I think they want to mention the spec and whatever "industrial design" logic they have in mind. But it's clear to me this directive has never been written or reviewed by any developer. A spec gets written, or the developer writes it (the latter does not happen to often…) and then the software is developed based on this. Any "preparatory design" aside the spec falls short from the reality.

I'm curious: are you aware of any developer who got in trouble because of this directive?

It's hard to understand how this pervasive this bug might be, although I'm sure it's not "one" bug but why is it always a date / leap year issue is intriguing.

Re: Here we go by interophackerinterophacker, 08 Mar 2012 09:53

Or we might as well do two different things:

Alternative solutions by interophackerinterophacker, 08 Mar 2012 09:51

This sounds like a recurrent issue now !

Here we go by sacha 2012sacha 2012, 05 Mar 2012 16:59

Good reminders indeed - see subdivisions :

- "Who Develops and Sets The Standards"
- "How Do Standards-Developing Bodies Work"
- "Royalties - How Are They Calculated And What Is 'Reasonable'"

Interesting article by sacha 2012sacha 2012, 05 Mar 2012 16:52
Re: At least it makes sense by sacha 2012sacha 2012, 05 Mar 2012 16:39

In French "le matériel de conception préparatoire".. :x
Paper and ink.. ?

My first opinion would be that this "preparatory design material" means something like specifications. Do I understand this as a notion that you must embed these specs to prove you're not infringing on someone else's patent portfolio? Maybe my mind is twisted on this… :-)

It's happening in the now famous US jurisdiction of East Texas, but the plaintiff is a Luxembourg holding company owned by MSFT and Nokia:

Well, MS has strong ties with Facebook, through its search engine mostly. But G+ increasingly appears to be more than a social network, and rather different from Fecebook. And in any case, it's still Google taking customers and products away from MS.

Re: Which arguments by interophackerinterophacker, 05 Mar 2012 11:01

"The term 'computer programs' shall include their preparatory design material."

It appears that MS did a good work to convince everybody that OOXML and MS Office mean the same.. Whereas the specification is in fact unusable either by competitors or by themselves.

Semantic issue by athena21athena21, 03 Mar 2012 14:50

It is not clear to me what arguments MS has against Google + here. I mean, MS is not trying to develop a similar product - unless I missed something ?

Which arguments by athena21athena21, 03 Mar 2012 14:09

Hey, how about investing in the draft of a book on manipulations tips used by malicious lobbyists and distribute it to policy makers ? Well, this won't help with the ones that are financially corrupted but could be useful for the others.

Re: Manipulation Rule # 1 by athena21athena21, 03 Mar 2012 13:52

I love to see my enemies using Manipulation Rule # 1, ie. taking the other party's arguments and simply reverse them. This always sounds like a confession. For ex here : MS saying that "the definition of open standards adopted in the government ICT strategy would hamper innovation and restrict 'freedom of choice for citizens'." This is just so BiG.

Manipulation Rule # 1 by athena21athena21, 03 Mar 2012 13:46

The use of the terms "commercial software" instead of "proprietary software" is deliberate. It is hard to believe that an Open Source expert can ignore that "open source" does not mean "gratis". As for the paragraph regarding a model with a "core of commercial software with layers of openness around it".. Wtf ??! If this is not meant to get the readers and users confused please tell me what it is !

page »