Singing aerials

In article , PeterC
wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 12:37:31 +0100, Jim Lesurf wrote:


And of course there will presumably be the usual 'churning' pressures
from 'improved' sic file formats, expectation of 'compability' with
what the shops are flogging innocent punters, etc.


File formats etc. are the biggest worry for me. I'm using Quicken from
about '98, Dialog, PowerDesk Pro that's not exactly recent and some very
handy utilities. OSs are getting like modern cars: not too resposive to
screwdriver and hammer!


Hence the point of "free as in freedom" and open source for file formats as
well as source code.

I can't help feeling the current situation would change a lot if
governments enacted two simple changes.

1) They would only buy and use software whose documents/files used a
publically and correctly defined format that anyone else could use.

2) That they had to be given the source code of any program they bought,
and had the right to modify it. (Thus being able to either mod it
themselves to handle other filetypes, or choose between competing third
parties for such 'upgrades'.) To meet this, the original vendor would have
to supply sufficient and accurate documentation of the code.

Anything else should be regarded as anti-competitive. If some software
makers don't want to meet the above, I suspect the cash would tempt others
into doing so.

This would help break down the 'churning' we all end up paying for via our
taxes even if we personally use other OSs and open software. It would also
mean buggy software could be fixed and not have to be dumped as a deal loss
waste of money.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 10:33:30 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , PeterC
wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 12:37:31 +0100, Jim Lesurf wrote:


And of course there will presumably be the usual 'churning' pressures
from 'improved' sic file formats, expectation of 'compability' with
what the shops are flogging innocent punters, etc.


File formats etc. are the biggest worry for me. I'm using Quicken from
about '98, Dialog, PowerDesk Pro that's not exactly recent and some very
handy utilities. OSs are getting like modern cars: not too resposive to
screwdriver and hammer!


Hence the point of "free as in freedom" and open source for file formats as
well as source code.

I can't help feeling the current situation would change a lot if
governments enacted two simple changes.

1) They would only buy and use software whose documents/files used a
publically and correctly defined format that anyone else could use.

2) That they had to be given the source code of any program they bought,
and had the right to modify it. (Thus being able to either mod it
themselves to handle other filetypes, or choose between competing third
parties for such 'upgrades'.) To meet this, the original vendor would have
to supply sufficient and accurate documentation of the code.

Speaking as a developer I would be fine with this if clients are
willing to pay the extra necessary to agree to such terms. IME they
are usually not.

Anything else should be regarded as anti-competitive. If some software
makers don't want to meet the above, I suspect the cash would tempt others
into doing so.

This would help break down the 'churning' we all end up paying for via our
taxes even if we personally use other OSs and open software. It would also
mean buggy software could be fixed and not have to be dumped as a deal loss
waste of money.

Good companies will offer maintenance contracts which should not lead
to anyone dumping software due to unfixed bugs.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 06:11:46 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Andy Burns
wrote:
And W7 doesn't seem very good - perhaps another SP'll help, same as with XP.

I didn't expect to like Win7, but various customers were making noises
about it, so I thought I ought to get up to speed, turns out that unlike
XP it installs with drivers for almost everything out of the box (like
Linux has for years) and I only have a couple of minor niggles about how
it works, minor things in explorer and the start menu that have been
removed, which I'd grown used to on NT4/XP/2003.

It's possible to configure something like the old XP Start menu in W7 just by
customising and renaming the "Documents" menu, making it point to a
folder/subfolder system full of shortcuts you can create anywhere you like using
Windows Explorer.

What do you and others mean by "Start menu"? If you mean the Quick
Launch bar, that facility is lurking in the undergrowth of W7 and can be
enabled. I have done so on W7 and it works happily.
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windo...-in-windows-7/

It's also easy to configure Ubuntu (the "classic" desktop, not the snazzy new
one) to combine the best features of XP and W7, and let's be honest, they both
do have some good features. The default arrangement has two taskbars (or
"panels" as they call them), the lower of which has hardly anything on it, so I
delete the lower one and move the upper one to the bottom, ending up with a
combination of something like the XP classic menu and the W7 taskbar, both of
which are intuitive and easy to use.

Rod.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

In message , PeterC
writes
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 14:07:25 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

PeterC wrote:

And W7 doesn't seem very good - perhaps another SP'll help, same as with XP.

I didn't expect to like Win7, but various customers were making noises
about it, so I thought I ought to get up to speed, turns out that unlike
XP it installs with drivers for almost everything out of the box (like
Linux has for years) and I only have a couple of minor niggles about how
it works, minor things in explorer and the start menu that have been
removed, which I'd grown used to on NT4/XP/2003.

I'd have to get rid of UAC. The couple of times that I've worked on W7 a bit
I got annoyed v. quickly.

It can be turned off.
--
Ian

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 10:06:45 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

====snip====


From what I hear of WIN 8 so far there's no compelling reason to go for
it;!...

That won't stop the rot. If that, quite reasonable, argument were to have
actually been considered by the great unwashed, it would have put a stop
to winXP. The fact that it failed to put a stop to the even more execrable
Vista and win7 proves that the great unwashed will never pause to consider
any compelling reason to actively reject Microsoft's latest crap, however
bad it may be.

--
Regards JB Good

On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 10:33:30 +0100, Jim Lesurf wrote:

2) That they had to be given the source code of any program they bought,
and had the right to modify it. (Thus being able to either mod it
themselves to handle other filetypes, or choose between competing third
parties for such 'upgrades'.) To meet this, the original vendor would have
to supply sufficient and accurate documentation of the code.

What about the tools used to build it? Some people seem to love inventing
horrendously complicated build systems which use myriads of bizarre tools
which you have no real understanding of what they do and how they work.

I just love debugging other people's build systems... NOT.

In article , Mark
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 10:33:30 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:


I can't help feeling the current situation would change a lot if
governments enacted two simple changes.

1) They would only buy and use software whose documents/files used a
publically and correctly defined format that anyone else could use.

2) That they had to be given the source code of any program they
bought, and had the right to modify it. (Thus being able to either mod
it themselves to handle other filetypes, or choose between competing
third parties for such 'upgrades'.) To meet this, the original vendor
would have to supply sufficient and accurate documentation of the code.

Speaking as a developer I would be fine with this if clients are willing
to pay the extra necessary to agree to such terms. IME they are usually
not.

That is because at present they have the choice of paying less to sacrifice
their future. My point is that the government should mandate its own action
by law to always require the relevant code, etc.

The benefit to the software creator is that they can compete on the basis
that they *all* can charge on the basis that their competitors *also* have
to abide by the same requirements. So they can compete fairly and may get
more for the sale.

It may cost more in the first instance. But the buyer is not then 'tied in'
so that any extensions or fixes *have* to be obtained from a sole supplier
since no-one else has the source or is allowed to fiddle with the code.

It would also, I think, help to undermine the more general tendency for big
firms to quasi-monopolise and dominate a range of markets on the back of
having sold to government and big business when then pressure everyone else
to 'fall into line'.

It seems to me quite fair that the seller would get more when required to
provide the source, etc. And fair that they can compete on the basis that
*all other bidders would have to do likewise*.

Anything else should be regarded as anti-competitive. If some software
makers don't want to meet the above, I suspect the cash would tempt
others into doing so.

This would help break down the 'churning' we all end up paying for via
our taxes even if we personally use other OSs and open software. It
would also mean buggy software could be fixed and not have to be dumped
as a deal loss waste of money.

Good companies will offer maintenance contracts which should not lead to
anyone dumping software due to unfixed bugs.

But 'bad' companies may either not do so or employ legal eagles to wriggle
in exchange for undercutting the 'good' ones and stealing the sale on an
unfair basis.

IMHO The problem here isn't what 'good' companies do. It is how to deal
with the ones who grow rich and fat on exploiting close source and tricks
like format churning. If all competitors were 'good', no rules would be
needed. Alas, tain't like that...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article [email protected], Johny B Good
wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 10:06:45 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

====snip====


From what I hear of WIN 8 so far there's no compelling reason to go
for it;!...

That won't stop the rot. If that, quite reasonable, argument were to
have actually been considered by the great unwashed, it would have put
a stop to winXP. The fact that it failed to put a stop to the even
more execrable Vista and win7 proves that the great unwashed will
never pause to consider any compelling reason to actively reject
Microsoft's latest crap, however bad it may be.

So far as I can see, most people have no idea they have any choice. They
just go and buy a 'PC'. The shop sells them the 'newest and best' (and most
expensive!) they can promote. The buyer may have no concept of 'operating
system', etc. Just 'a computer'. For many, that means a box that shows the
current Microsoft startup screen. No awareness of any alternative.

So on the one side we have big companies and government buying in bulk. On
the other, those who walk into high street shops and buy what is on the
shelf as a 'computer'.

Its made to *sell*, and the market works on the basis that a 'new one' will
be needed soon enough. Have to keep up, don't we! ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 10:33:30 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

2) That they had to be given the source code of any program they
bought, and had the right to modify it. (Thus being able to either mod
it themselves to handle other filetypes, or choose between competing
third parties for such 'upgrades'.) To meet this, the original vendor
would have to supply sufficient and accurate documentation of the code.

What about the tools used to build it? Some people seem to love
inventing horrendously complicated build systems which use myriads of
bizarre tools which you have no real understanding of what they do and
how they work.

I just love debugging other people's build systems... NOT.

Agreed. If specific tools (and their documentation, instructions, etc) are
needed, then they by default become part of the required source. Up to the
vendor to ensure they are provided and included in the price to the buyer.
The vendor can then decide what tools they wish to employ on that basis.

The requirement for a patent is that it has to describe all the things
needed to replicate what is patented beyond 'public domain' or 'obvious'
understanding of a practitioner in the field. A similar basis could be
applied here.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Monday, October 10th, 2011 at 13:30:46h +0000,
Paul Ratcliffe complained again:

I just love debugging other people's build systems... NOT.

scons?