Mac OS only on Apple's x86's?

Apple announced a few months ago that they are planning on switching from Motorola's PowerPC processors to Intel's x86 processors. Today, we have a demonstration from ZDNet of OS X running on a Toshiba laptop with an x86 processor. Their article mentions that Apple's intent is that the Mac OS will be "bound directly to the hardware by a special security chip," says ZDNet. What I'm wondering is why Apple is adding the security chip when they know that it won't work. Just as the DRM encumbering songs from the iTunes store is cracked rapidly and repeatedly, Apple must expect that their security chip will be quickly circumvented. Why bother? The security chip cuts into their profits-- is it supposed to act as a symbolic deterrent?

Where is the AJAXy word processor that reads OpenDocument released under the GPL?

The organization that I work for has been struggling to find a way to exchange editable text documents across platforms (Windows, OS X and Linux) without also exchanging viruses or relying on a server at the far end of our T1 line.

What I really want is an AJAX word processor like Writely, but released under the GPL. Writely looks decent, and I found a mention that they plan on supporting OpenDocument by Thanksgiving 2005. Unfortunately, I can't run Writely on our local network, because the Writely folks, like most proprietary software companies, will not share their code. This means that if our rather shaky Internet connection were to go down, we'd lose access to all our documents, which is not acceptable. I also have some concerns about the security of our data on their servers, but given the lax security of our network, it's not as much of a concern as network unreliability. Maybe it will turn out that Writely will let us run a precompiled local version on a server on our network-- if we can afford it, that could be great.

FCKEditor, on the other hand, is released under the GPL and sports the AJAXy goodness, but doesn't support OpenDocument yet. I haven't seen any mention of FCK adding support for ODF, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened.

We'd also consider Microsoft's new Office Live, when it's released, but we've previously had trouble with Word files as a virus vector. Given that history and the price (I'm guessing around $50 per user, similar to the price we pay now for Office), I'm hesitant to stay with them. Anyone else know about any competitors I'm missing?

Direct transcription of Pacheco exchange

David Berlind of ZDNet has a lengthy analysis of the Halloween hearing of Massachusetts' Committee on Post Audit and Oversight. He also has what he claims is a transcription of the passage I quoted yesterday from Andy Updegrove's "rough transcription." Additionally, he has the audio available for download. From Berlind:

**[MP@44:05]** In the proposal that the Library of Congress has before them, have they opted for OpenOffice?
**
LH:** OpenDocument Format and PDF **MP:** It's different.  You can do OpenDocument Format with out saying OpenOffice, right?  So we have a proposal that is before us with ETRM that basically requires the OpenDocument Format and anybody that's going to run that system, and I asked this recently, will realize, in the OpenOffice [DB: I think he was implying that the ODF was a system that would have to run in OpenOffice, or, in other words, that OpenOffice is required to support ODF]. So has the Library of Congress taken a position on that?
**
LH:** Senator, like ITD the Library of Congress is referring to a document format. Not to an office application that supports it. ITD has never come out and said that agencies have to use OpenOffice. To the contrary, there are multiple distributors . . . **MP:** If you could just answer my question: Has the Library of Congress taken a position saying yes, or no. Have they done this, yes or no, that OpenOffice is the product that should be implemented. ** LH:** Like ITD, they have not Senator. Just like ITD, they have not.  They came out in favor of OpenDocument Format as we have. And, ITD has never specified that agencies have to use OpenOffice and in fact, interestingly enough, because OpenDocument Format .. ** MP:** Isn't that the practical reality in terms of the implementation of the policy if it was to go into effect tomorrow..isn't that the practical reality of where things are, at least at this time?  In other words, the support systems that are out there.. listen.. As we're sitting here, I'm sure some time in the future that even some the people that may be opposing this like IBM was two years ago and now all of the sudden they're in a different situation now.. I'm sure there will be all kinds of things happening down the road, but as we are sitting here today, it is my understanding that it's OpenOffice is the product that can be used right now. ** LH:** Senator, that is not ITD's understanding. ITD understands that there are multiple office applications that support OpenDocument Format and we know from Microsoft's recent adoption of the PDF format that it's quite possible -- even for the vendor that owns 90 percent of the desktops that you fund -- that they too could support OpenDocument Format if they chose to do so. A gentleman whose last name is.. ** MP:** Within the timeline that your talking about. You're talking about January 2007.  I know because I had the same feeling that you just expressed.  Why can't we do this with PDF and it's my understanding that PDF took well over a year to develop. I know we just had an annoucement but there was a lot of development going on before that announcement took place.

I'm downloading the audio right now. It appears that a section of Pacheco's statements (not the one quoted above) that Berlind claims occurs at 31:30 actually occurs at 33:30.

Comparison of Microsofts Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas to OASIS OpenDocument

In the dispute with the Massachusetts state government over their planned adoption of the OpenDocument format, Microsoft has claimed that their Open XML formats, which they recently announced will be the default format for the pending Office 12, will be "published and made available under the same royalty-free license that exists for the Microsoft Office 2003 Reference Schemas—openly offered and available for broad industry use." While the 2003 Reference Schemas specifications are freely available (for example, the Word 2003 XML Reference) under a royalty-free license, saying that the specifications are "openly offered" is disingenuous. Microsoft has patented techniques used to in their "open" formats. The license for the specifications includes a patent license, which states that "Except as provided below, Microsoft hereby grants you a royalty-free license under Microsoft's Necessary Claims to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise distribute Licensed Implementations solely for the purpose of reading and writing files that comply with the Microsoft specifications for the Office Schemas." Unfortunately, the provisions below include: "You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights." The last clause precludes, for example, writing a program that uses the new formats and then letting your friend tweak the code to do something else. Your friend might make your code do something that wasn't "solely for the purpose of reading and writing files that comply with the Microsoft specifications," and even if he didn't, you can't transfer your royalty-free license to Microsoft's patents to him. Handily, this eliminates all of the GPL software in the world. On the other hand, the OASIS OpenDocument format is truly open. Its specification is available from OASIS, which guarantees that the OpenDocument license is royalty free. Furthermore, "By ratifying this document, OASIS warrants that it will not inhibit the traditional open and free access to OASIS documents for which license and right have been assigned according to the procedures set forth in this section. This warrant is perpetual and will not be revoked by OASIS or its successors or assigns." Additionally, Sun Microsystems, one of the companies involved in the development of the standard, has stated that it will not assert its patents as they relate to the standard.