Posts by Neil Lewis

eBay refiddles with auction fees

Moving stuff away

I've been selling old vinyl disks on eBay for a few years and it used to be a profitable little sideline. These days, the fees and enforced "free" postage mean it's hard to make anything. Fake bidders are a problem, too and eBay has removed the only practical ways to block them. The free p&p thing was billed as being to keep buyers happy, but everyone knows p&p isn't really free. This just forces sellers include p&p in the item costs so that eBay get a bigger share of the total.

My solution? Build my own site to sell my stock of vinyl (over 7,000 disks at present) and use eBay auctions just as a way of advertising it. Every disk will now go out with a slip telling buyers they can buy the same things cheaper on TheTraxster.com. Don't bother looking it up just yet, cos it ain't finished yet. Try around the end of February though :-) Should save me around £10,000 per year.

Discounts damage for Microsoft Windows 7 PC boost?

It's worse than that

If it's true that consumers are finally choosing PCs based on the real functionality and cost of the whole package rather than being taken in by expensive, glossy advertising then MS has a lot more worrying to do.

It would signal that the forced upgrades which generate most of their profits have been spotted for what they are. Consumers have already refused to replace a working albeit old system (XP) when the new systems (Vista/Win7) don't do anything new of any real significance or relevance to them. In future, new OS or apps will need to be much better and find real new functionality and added value if they are to be popular. A few tweaks and a glossy new look simply won't do it anymore unless the upgrade is free.

Growth in netbooks was an obvious trend. Now people have got used to the idea of cheap, basic but capable small PCs it will be harder to persuade them to go for something bigger and more expensive. They have seen that a cheap netbook can do what they need.

If consumers really do start to understand that general desktop applications and operating systems are commodity wares and that high prices cannot be justified, they will have much less resistance to trying new (to them) and cheaper alternatives to the whole Windows platform. With the current free software alternatives being so good, maybe a time of massive desktop Linux growth really is approaching at last.

Microsoft goes green to win IE 8 and Bing users

Microsoft? Green?

If ever a company was the antithesis of "green", MS would be it. Their whole business model depends on forcing people to use ever more bloated software that needs ever more power hungry hardware to do the exact same things as before. They and Intel between them are responsible for huge quantities of unnecessary emissions. Hmmm. That could sound like a juvenile joke about pr0n but it's not.

Vodafone Magics up a little Google glitter

Buying Android rather than Google

I was very happy to buy a G1 specifically because it used Linux/Android. The promise of an open platform means a lot more to me than the name of any individual company. Though Google may "control" Android, its open nature means it is less restricted by narrow, commercial interests than a proprietary platform could ever be. Google may control the Android Market, but apps can be easily had from independent sources. Freedom will help keep Google "honest" and Android valuable over time in a way that Apple, Symbian and MS are not.

Samsung Tocco Ultra Edition S8300

Why?

So, it's more expensive than a G1, doesn't have a G1's WiFi, doesn't have a G1's qwerty keyboard and doesn't have a G1-size screenl for web surfing or email. And it uses a closed, proprietary o/s instead of Android. Why exactly should I want one of these again?

Microsoft yanks preferred status from Daddy Gates' old firm

Nice

Isn't it nice that MS can choose from a wide range of independent suppliers, each of which has to compete on service and value. Just as well the US hasn't started allowing patents on laws. Yet.

eBay endures revenue shrinkage deja vu

Auction volume shrinkage is down to policies

I've been selling on ebay for a few years, have a solid multi-thousand sales record and feedback at 100%. Ebay sales consttute a viable secondary income for me but even I have been reducing the quantity of my listings because of new seller-hostile listing policies. They recently started to dictate maximum p&p charges on some types of items. On the face of it, this is okay, but in practice it;s just not flexible enough and so many items I would have listed I now won't, because I can't charge realistic p&p on them and I'm not prepared to make a loss just to make ebay look good. Then there's the much publicised "positive feedback only for buyers" policy. I've hardly ever had to leave anything else, but now when a buyer clearly takes the piss, I can't warn other sellers about them. That rankles, so I've stopped shipping to many parts of the world to minimise the problems. That means less auction sales too. Increased FV fees are another problem. I sell a lot of items on commission for other people, and that means I have to reduce the percentage I pay them. They don't like that, so they don't give me so many items to sell. The list of problems goes on. Ebay is still a viable opportunity if you do it right, but it's not the route to sensible profits it was.

Cuba crafts extra-communist Linux distro

Linux "a natural fit with communism" is ignorance or misinformation

To equate free software with communism is something tat might be encouraged by the entrenched commercial software companies, but is at best a sign of ignorance and at worst deliberate misinformation.

In truth, free software world is based on the same principles as the academic world and is politically agnostic in capitalist/communist terms. The free software model encourages competition with a very low threshold to entry, leading to rapid and continuous evolution. It does not favour monopolies of any sort, neither commercial nor state sponsored.

Gartner: open source software 'pervasive'

Even when it IS simple, consumers can't be bothered

There distinction between "open source" and "home grown" code is artificial and misleading.

In every sense, software developed in house is "open source" - free in fact, in the GPL sense. It doesn't have to be distributed or availanle to others outside the developing body to be so. Provided the code can be run, used in any way the user requires and modified by the user if necessary then it satisfies the requirements.

Also, it's worth pointing out that the "companies who do not have the luxury of being purists" are the same companies who have big problems when the closed source code to which they don't have access fails or is obsoleted and there is nothing they can do about it. Access to and the ability to maintain business-critical code should be an essential prerequisite for any business.

UK Unix group vows to appeal OOXML ruling

Lawyers are mostly technically incompetent

A judge couldn't be expected to understand the technical issues involved. Having dealt with many over the years in my own professional capacity I've often found that Lawyers are a pretty ignorant bunch in areas outside of their own expertise.

He apparently only said that the UK standards body had not obviously broken any of their own rules or procedures. Still, you'd have to wonder whether he bothered to look at the history of dodgy dealings around OOXML and it's known technical shortcomings. It's certainly very odd that a specification that hasn't been implemented by anyone, is clearly not intended to be implement by others and shows no sign of being adoopted anyway could ever be reasonably put forward as a standard.

It makes one wonder just how many palms were greased to make it happen.

Perhaps we'll find out what really happened in court. More power to the UKUUG, I say!

Microsoft's 'Vista Capable' appeal thrown out

Misleading labels+misleading adverts=misleading

The fact is, most of MS adverts/publicity for Vista emphasised the Aero interface and whizzbang new features. MS weren't so forthcoming about the limited nature of the Basic version.

Unless buyers were specifically told that their "Vista Capable" machines could only run a cut down version I believe they would have been justified in expecting them to be able to use the Vista they had been told about (loudly) by MS in the mainstream media.

Vista or any other MS stuff will never poison any of my Linux boxes, but I can understand the average non-tech-savvy buyer being misled.

This sort of trick is not new where MS (or other IT players) are concerned, but MS are still the biggest and it's the nail that stands up that gets hammered.

Small print is ignored and needs a rethink, govt study says

Even when it IS simple, consumers can't be bothered

I have run my small business for almost forty years. We keep all booking contracts in very simple, plain English. Even so, consumers just can't be bothered to read the information we provide. Even if we keep agreements as short as a dozen lines and mark out key phrases in bold, red, underlined type, people still don't read them.

Bald fact based on long experience - consumers get into trouble because they're lazy. No amount of government tweaking will change that.

Microsoft puts a figure on open source 'patent infringements'

SCO Vs IBM & MS Vs "Linux" are not the same thing

While there are similarities, there are also important differences. Primarily SCO's arguments were mainly about copyright while this is about patents; a completely different issue.

This is precisely why FSF etc. have been warning us all about the evils of software patents for ages. The problem with a patent is that it can be violated just by implementing a similar procedure. The code doesn't have to be similar if it achieves the same result.

To make a literary comparison, it's like the Tolkein estate patenting epic adventures involvng mythical creatures pitting good against evil. Even Harry Potter would be in danger of violating that, despite obviously being a completely different piece of work.

Leaving that aside, I'd guess that the FUD will continue, countered by similar from IBM and others showing that MS has infringed on their patents. That's the way software patents have always been used - to keep squash the little guy who doesn't have a patent arsenal to use in retaliation. Bu in his case, FUD is all it can ever truly be so long as IBM and the others keep to their pledge to defend Linux, because each and every one of the "little guys" in this case is using the self same "violating" stuff.

It's also worth bearing in mind that we're mainly talking about the US here. Most other parts of the world have resisted the idea of software patents anyway, rendering the MS claim a total non-issue.

On the Office format wars

OK for the present, but a shame about the lack of foresight

The author makes a few logical presumptions, then effectively contradicts himself. For example, he states that MS Office is the de facto standard, which is true enough at present, then extends that to mean that OpenXML is the de facto standard, which it is not - not even close. It's only used in the latest version of MS Office, which puts it more or les on a par with ODF for installed business users at present. (That's according to your own survey, guys!) He also makes tha point that there is severe loss of productivity when there are even minor changes to the way MS Office works, so how exactly does he think businesses are reacting to Office 2007 with it's huge changes? That's right, they're increasingly looking to OOo as an alternative, perhaps as much as anything because it's closer to the older MS Office in terms of the interface.

Now let's look to the future and also to the fundamental reasons for establishing a true open standard for office documents. In truth, while IBM (and Sun, Novell and lots of other companies) are pushing ODF, the reason it's significant is precisely because it's truly open for anyone else to implement. Governments are apparently worried less about relatively small cost savings on software costs and more about having huge volumes of public information archived away which, in fifty years time, no-one will sell a program capable of reading. Only with a true open standard can that be avoided. The lack of true openness in "OpenXML" has been covered ad infinutum elsewhere. Fact is, if you really need an open standard, ODF is it.

Microsoft debuts Windows for the Poor

How many more times....It's not just about price

This is about education, and a Windows system with an office suite is just an expensive substitute for a typewriter. Any other software will still cost these users.an arm and a leg, and pretty well all the software will be proprietary and closed source - designed to be consumed rather than understood. Not only that, this is XP that's being offered - an OS that MS itself already regards as obsolete.

The XO/OLPC is designed around a free OS, not just because the software (that's all the software, not just the OS and some office apps) is free of charge, but also because a computer running a free OS with open source code is a much more powerful tool for learning. The OS is based on a standard Linux kernel, which can be updated as necessary for the foreseeable future, as can all the other XO/OLPC software.

Finally, the XO/OLPC is much more than just a cheap regular laptop. It has been designed specifically for the circumstances where it is intended to be used - ruggedised, with very low power needs, with a built in power supply of it's own when needed, wireless networking designed to share internet and other resources and a multi-mode display to handle very wide ambient lighting variations. There is no normal laptop with a specification anything like this, so there is no reasonable comparison, regardless of price.

To give one of the popular motor car analogies, it's like choosing between impractical stretch limos with their bonnets welded shut and no manuals and jeeps with manuals, tools, free spares for life and help from the people who actuall desgned and built it.