Strange. It is true the files are in the proprietary WMV format. However this format is supported by both MPlayer and the Xine/Totem player. These packages are included in most Linux distributions. So, it is just not true that Linux users are being left out.
The fact is that the WMV format is proprietary, but this is a different story.

The fact is also that the EU Council’s contractor for video streaming, ie Belgian telecom operator Belgacom, has demonstrated its own cluelessness. In its FAQ dated 1st January 2007 (in Google cache), they stated “We cannot support Linux in a legal way. So the answer is: No support for Linux”. This is mistaken of course, as demonstrated above. The newest version of their FAQ deleted the offending sentence. However, they still do not mention the fact that WMV files can indeed be played under Linux.

This raises the question if one would hire Belgacom to do the video streaming, knowing the company is apparently not able to do a simple homework of googling for “Linux WMV” ? The same question applies to the ZDNet staff writer, by the way. Can you trust an IT information source where journalists seem unable to do some research before publishing a paper ?

However, I agree the EU should use open file formats for publishing information on the Internet. This is why most docs on the EU web sites are posted in PDF format. Soon, documents will also be available in ODF format, where they were previously only in the proprietary MS Office formats. For video streaming, there is still a need to do more. Do we have one open file format that is allows live streaming that compatible with MS Windows, MacOSX and all the different flavours of Linux and *BSD ?

Update: I tried and it failed. The issue is not so much the actual streaming, but the javascript and AJAX put around the URL so that it displays in your current browser window rather than launching another one.

A man with such a high sense of morality must be congratulated. There are so many among the people I know who would find a way to justify undefendable behaviours by their employer, even if this means twisting their own values.

This is a great day. Not only is Linux bringing a brand new life to my laptop, as reported earlier. I now know SCO won’t go after me.

The first posting shows the Microsoft open source lab has no clue on how to deal with spam, proposing an utility which is outdated, as pointed out by a reader. MS reply is that not all users are as advanced as said user and it should keep it simple. However their suggestion is giving a false impression of protection. Add to that every open source OS these days includes Spamassassin. Very much better.

The link (in dutch) and comments at ZDNet (in English)

Sender-ID was proposed to the IETF Marid working group last year by Microsoft. However, the working group refused it because it is covered by a patent. MS was willing to give free access (for how long ?) to its technology to others but the open source community said they was no way they could incorporate this into open source software implementations. As a result, the Marid group disbanded with no agreement.

The Internet is based on open standards. Sender-ID is not. So, from next November, I intend to refuse all mail coming from Hotmail.* and MSN.* and suggest the poor owners of these e-mail addresses to go look elsewhere. After all, there are enough free services available, from Yahoo, Gmail and many others.

Update: it seems the IESG has approved Sender-ID on 24th June. It is not yet clear how the patent issue will be handled.

As usual, should we say, the USPTO did a bad job at researching prior art, although the RFCs are publicly posted on the Internet. 2 minutes of googling would have produced evidence. So, if one needs an additional reason for NOT patenting sofware, we can invoke the fact that patent offices (and this includes the EPO) do a bad job at searching for prior art, even when obvious references exist on the Internet.

If Microsoft has its way to have the USPTO moving to a “first-to-file” system, as opposed to a “first-to-invent” system, no engineer if an IETF meeting will ever want to suggest anything, lest some competitor will walk out of the room to quickly file a patent. This could bring the entire IETF process to a halt. As the article describes it: “The IETF has a rule that states that such engineers sit on working groups solely on the basis of personal interest in the technology, a stance that many find naively ignores the fact that employers exert influence on their engineer employees”. Obviously yes. Whatever you do, you look at who’s signing your paycheck.