fyi (from /.)... while this may seem a little OT, I think it is important for all stakeholders to recognise that the work done by both profit (Red Hat) and non-profit (Canonical) organisations is real, palpable, and has an effect on the economical operations of software services, whether it be at the individual or enterprise level. What makes this filing by MS stand out is that it acknowledges the reality of organisations that believe in open standards. ["Microsoft for the first time has named Linux distributors Red Hat and Canonical as competitors to its Windows client business in its annual filing to the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The move is an acknowledgment of the first viable competition from Linux to Microsoft's Windows client business, due mainly to the use of Linux on netbooks, which are rising in prominence as alternatives to full-sized notebooks. ... 'Client faces strong competition from well-established companies with differing approaches to the PC market,' Microsoft said in the filing. 'Competing commercial software products, including variants of Unix, are supplied by competitors such as Apple, Canonical, and Red Hat.'"]
http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/U0BFgFKhDTI/Microsoft-Acknowledges-Linux-Threat-To-Windows Today's ET has a column from what is called the India Development Foundation. Need I add that, being in ET, the column is a naked (and rather ridiculously so) paean of praise for multiple standards, employing practically all the obfuscation and misleading statements on the issue that can be crammed into 3-400 words. No qualifier to explain where IDF gets its funding, and the site is not very forthcoming either. The board, however, has a couple of IDB/IMF heavyweights, aside from the usual splash plates (Amartya Sen, Naresh Chandra) [http://www.idfresearch.org/board.asp]. (Pure gossip for listmembers who may not have had much to do with the Indian government): the last name was famously termed India's most powerful bureaucrat, regardless of which position he occupied. It was said that a fly sitting in his waiting room would have been able to predict Indian government policy by just noting his visitors. On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:09 AM, prabir <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/8/5 Ajay Pal Singh Atwal <[email protected]>: > > 2009/8/5 Pranesh Prakash <[email protected]>: > >> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 20:02, jtd<[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Only an idiot will commit a folly of proposing and approving multiple > >>> standards when there exists an opportunity of avoiding it. > >> > >> That assumes that there are costs involved in multiple standards, > >> which is what I'm seeking to question (not necessarily to refute). > > Fortunately in India the cost would not arise out of use of standards > > (thanks to no software patents in India) but the cost would be from > > the software that work on these standards. > > > >>snip > There is no software patents in India is still not settled as an > issue. The Patents office has accepted patents which can be construed > as software patents and has also put a draft a manual which allows > software patents if it is a technical application, whatever that > means. This is quite close to EPO provisions. I do believe that this > is a longer term issue that the FOSS community needs to engage with, > but some here believe that it should not be part of a common minimum > agenda. > This leaves two ways of dealing with it -- we deal with it outside > FOSSCOMM or we consider this to be an interest only of some of the > members and form a sub group of people interested in this issue. > Prabir > _______________________________________________ > network mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in > -- Vickram http://communicall.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
