in reply to Re^7: Perl 6 Module manager
in thread Perl 6 Module manager

On the monopoly issue, I agree with you. It's a shame that the DoJ watered down their ruling so that it amounted to little more than a slap on the wrist. (Makes you wonder why? But that's a different conspiracy theory:). Maybe the EU will do something more effective?

I wonder if Apple, and Sony, and DELL and a raft of smaller players aren't moving in the same direction? I'm not a lover of government intervention in business, it usually just creates red-tape and costs that we consumers have to bear, but maybe it will take action and legislation by governments to sort out these issues in the modern world.

As for your "quality of life". Is that any more important (other than to you), than that of all those who's quality of life would be severely curtailed if they couldn't use their computers to conduct their lives as they currently do?

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^9: Perl 6 Module manager
by wfsp (Abbot) on Apr 21, 2006 at 07:27 UTC
    If business stopped intervening in government I might be a bit more sympathetic to government not intervening in business. :-)

[reply]
Re^9: Perl 6 Module manager
by BerntB (Deacon) on Apr 21, 2006 at 11:58 UTC
    I'm not a lover of government intervention in business
    Only (some) politicians and lawyers are! :-)

    But monopolies and oligopoles are generally harmful to consumers. (There would probably be attempts to go the regulation way even without Microsoft.)

    About "Quality of life" -- I wasn't clear enough, it seems.

    Microsoft systems are written to be too complex to be compatible with. Or even to interact with the document formats!! That is arguably bad for every user and programmer.

[reply]

      I'm not sure that I buy the too complex argument. RTF is pretty well supported elsewhere and supports most of what word supports, except the bits that probably shouldn't be incorporated into a document format anyway, like some of the macro stuff which is just plain dangerous.

      A little documentation goes a long way. If the word format(s) were documented, it would be possible for other programs to interoperate with them. But that takes will, and the vision to see that open formats generally benefit everyone, not just the originators. Proprietory formats are not illegal, or even immoral, just bad for business--for everyone, producers and consumers alike--but try convincing marketing types of that.

      With the word format, I often think that the reluctance to document it is as much to do with embarrassment over some of the cruft that made it's way in there in the early years, and persists for compatibility, as any malevolance. The same applies in other areas also.

      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]
        (I do not want to talk about rtf. A long time ago, I tried to get different versions of Word to accept rtf from a generator I wrote. It might be better today.)

        With the word format, I often think that the reluctance to document it is as much to do with embarrassment over some of the cruft that made it's way in there in the early years
        Non-monopolies generally don't have trouble with integration. Microsoft could at any time publish internal documentation for the modern formats.

        It is a basic strategy of monopolies to avoid interoperability. Microsoft is an example, e.g. the problem with protocols for file servers are well known -- and is a part of the EU complaints, IIRC.

        I really don't understand how you can argue against this? It seems quite well documented, etc.

[reply]

In Section Meditations