Google Gives Reason Why it is Built on Linux

Rob writes "A common reason why more governments and enterprises around the world are moving to open source software is unhappiness, it was revealed during a panel discussion at the LinuxWorld Conference in San Francisco yesterday. Google Inc open source programs manager Chris DiBona said the search giant has stuck with Linux throughout the company's life, in part, because it was unhappy with the terms of another software company. Which borgware company is he referring to?"

Comments

Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

He was refering to Microsoft!

Re:Microsoft

[gbulmash]

TFA is slashdotted, so I'll have to speculate. Could have been Oracle. It's one of the world's best known database vendors.

With all the talk about mult-core processors, there has often been mention of Oracle's per-core licensing fees. And remember the whole debacle with the state of California's Oracle contract.

- Greg

Re:Microsoft

[RoadkillBunny]

Nah, I think he was refering to SCO.

Re:Microsoft

[ooh456]

Yeah right. As if Google would use MS servers to serve Google. Probably referring to Sun or some other Unix vendor.

Re:Microsoft

[SeventyBang]

There are two, other, long-shot possibilities!

1) BeOS?

2) Early implementations of FORTH?
(O/S + compiler in a 7k footprint, interactively compiled.

But on an OT thought, I have to wonder what would happen to it if MS got their paws on it, then shoehorned it into .NET. ;)

Re:Microsoft

[weg]

The license fee for Windows is a ridiculous amount of money compared to what Oracle charges you for their database. I've heard from several companies, that "Oracle does not scale financially". The operating system is not the only software you have to pay for! It's just a piece of software that everybody happens to need...

Re:Microsoft

[killtherat]

At first glance it may seem so, but only for those not in the know. If you really read in between the lines you would have seen that it was an obvious dig at DEC/Compac/HP for VMS.

Which borgware company is he referring to?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which borgware company is he referring to?

It's Apple.

Surprise.

Re:Which borgware company is he referring to?

[mattjb0010]

Apple Surprise

A camping recipe from Patty. This recipe can be made in quantity for as many as you want to serve in the campground.

INGREDIENTS:

• 3 - 4 apples
• shelled walnuts
• butter or maple syrup

PREPARATION:

Cut apples into slices and take out core. Place apples on aluminum foil. Add walnuts and butter or maple syrup. Fold foil leaving an opening for ventilation. Place on campfire and cook at least 45 minutes, or until apples are soft, not mushy.

Servings: 4
Preparation time: 15 minutes

Re:Which borgware company is he referring to?

[Garion Maki]

"Place on campfire and cook at least 45 minutes"
and
"Preparation time: 15 minutes"

does this also include a blueprint for the time machine that you'll need?

Re:Which borgware company is he referring to?

[mattjb0010]

Preparation time is how long it takes you to get all the ingredients preared for cooking. So the total time is 15+45=60 not 15-45=-30.

Re:Which borgware company is he referring to?

[Doctor Faustus]

Shouldn't there be something surprising in the "apple surprise"? Bacon could work.

Re:Which borgware company is he referring to?

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Isn't there a standard joke which lists the ingredients and instructions to something like "apple surprise", and the end instruction says "take the knife and stab the person you're serving"? Yeah, THAT would be surprising.

Re:Which borgware company is he referring to?

[ArsonSmith]

Mmmmmmmm baaaacooon.......

Re:Which borgware company is he referring to?

[swelke]

Ya' know, I used to make those with butter and brown sugar. They're good.

Obviously....

[ultraslacker]

SCO OpenServer!

Apple?

[stoolpigeon]

Seriously-- yeah it is MS, but the problem exists with any proprietary technology. The company doesn't need to be borg-like, just closed.
 
I've had plenty of jobs where we got locked in on the O.S. or on applications and it sucks. It is a rotten feeling when you want something changed but it is either impossible or it will cost you an arm and a leg. (Then you have to wait on their timing too)
 
I know throwing apple out there is a bit inflammatory around here but it proves the point. There are plenty of bad options out there without even pointing out Microsoft.

Re:Apple?

[liangzai]

Apple was an extremely bad example of yours. Ever heard of Darwin? It is open source, runs on PPC and Intel. You can tweak it as much as you want (like Google wants), and if you are a government employee (like in the remainder of the article) you can just boot up the full Mac OS X to get a usability that linux will never come close to.

Re:Apple?

[OreoCookie]

Seriously, the "I need to be able to modifiy the OS" argument is lame. There are many good reasons to use Linux but that one is a red herring. It's a rare person who has the skills (or time) to go mucking about in the OS code. 99.9% of companies aren't bleeding edge tech companies like Google and they don't want to pay you to tinker with the OS or get "locked into" a one-off custom build.

Re:Apple?

[puetzc]

There are a lot of modifications that could be needed that don't involve mucking around in the OS. In a business that just uses computers, not develops/extends or whatever it is that Google does to them, we are constantly stymied by wanting to pass an older computer on, or deploy it for another use only to find that it is missing some trivial software component, or worse, has it but in some incompatible version. The basic hardware isn't worth the cost of upgrades, especially with corporate procurement processes, and "help" desk involvement. I know that the problem is partially of our own making, but with open source, or even site licensed products the problem simply doesn't exist. The result of commercial solutions is that every computer becomes a "one off" solution, as we cannot replicate configurations as we need them. We are currently running every version of Windows from '98 on. No reasonable organization would choose to do that, but the practical alternative would be to scrap the computers.

Re:Apple?

[wickedsteve]

"There are plenty of bad options out there without even pointing out Microsoft." But it looks like when most people think of bad options M$ is at the top of the list.

Re:Apple?

[jericho4.0]

I modified my kernel to give me a black text on white background for my Sun monitor.

It made me feel warm inside.

Re:Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

no it's not.

my employer wouldn't be considered a "bleeding edge tech" company, but we've had to modify the linux kernel source in order for it to work properly in the networking environment it was placed. I've also had to modify getty and a couple other packages to get the system to work with the oddball hardware we use and to satisfy a user requirement. The patches went back to RedHat and whether they used them for a future product is up to them.

I'm no Alan Cox and my changes weren't monumental, but I was still able to do it because the source was available.

Re:Apple?

[fermion]

The issue is competative pressure to produce an increasingly compelling product at lower costs thus increasing value to the customer. Clearly, most IT firms feel such pressure and attempt to meet changing technology and consumer demand head on. To take your example Apple has done this by providing a five user site license for the complete OS X for less than MS charges for a single full license of XP. Combine this with the fact that XP builds on an outdated OS that was scheduled to be retired by now, and OS X is a state of the art OS that MS is still a year away from matching.

This is the same for MS Office. MS has not really provided compelling value. MS Office is aging technology, and the base price should really be $100 for everyone. The full bloat version can still be $300. We have not seen a real update in 5 years, which, for a flagship product, really indicates the indifference MS has to the market.

I am not really defending or attacking anyone, simply stating that MS is a unique postiona and therefore has unique issues. In the timeframe that we are talking, Apple would not have been a contender. If it had, Google could have just taken darwin, as it did not need the gui. The point has not been proven because the licensing issues with MS stems from a monopoly status, in the same way that IBM once effectively was. Other IT firms, like Sun and SGI were the best in a field, and if one needed it, the price was not too much. Most of the time one was looking to solve a problem, and the licensing was often not the overiding issue. If google specifically needded transparency of source, the Linux is the clear winner as no one else can solve that problem as cheaply.

Re:Apple?

[Tony-A]

Parent illustrates WHY OSS is so valuable.
That level of support is available with a lot of money and a lot of clout. I doubt that either alone is sufficient.
The skill required is not that great. It is entirely reasonable to fix one bug you care about and cause 10 bugs you do not know or care about. The patches go back to RedHat who has the non-trivial task of figuring out if they are worthwhile in general. (If accepted, it's much easier the next time;)

Re:Apple?

[criquet]

you can just boot up the full Mac OS X to get a usability that linux will never come close to

And "640K ought to be enough for anybody."

I remember many years ago when everyone was saying Linux will never be a desktop OS. I've been using it as by desktop exclusively for at least two years.

Now I'm not saying Linux will ever be as nice and easy as an Apple GUI but I also don't think you can discount it. In fact, there are probably some people that already consider a Linux GUI to be better.

Re:Apple?

[jargoone]

So, in summary: Google had a good reason for choosing Linux. Thanks for your 3 paragraph jusitification that everyone has known for the last 4 years.

Re:Apple?

[gromitcode]

MS Office is aging technology? you really don't know a lot about their office suite do you? for the average home user sure there is nothing much extra in it, but really what more does a home user need in an office product. Go have a look at corporate features for deployment, integration and management and you will see MS has had massive upgrades to office over the last 5 years. Sure OS X you can get cheap, but then hell apple could practically give it away with how they screw you on the hardware price.

Re:Apple?

[smallguy78]

For google's distributed cluster setup it makes sense to choose any open source OS, however paying a 3rd party company (and having to wait), although very true, probably adds up to the same cost as doing it yourself with an open source offering.

Unless you're Google and have the luxury of a small army of linux-kernel gurus, you'd still need to pay a consultant or expert, or team of experts to modify the OS. Or a hire people full-time to do it.

You could argue that this would cost roughly the same amount as requesting a change from a closed source company selling a similar product.

Re:Apple?

[cascadefx]

I am not really defending or attacking anyone, simply stating that MS is a unique postiona and therefore has unique issues. In the timeframe that we are talking, Apple would not have been a contender. If it had, Google could have just taken darwin, as it did not need the gui.

If it was all an issue of timing, why didn't Google just take FreeBSD then (like Apple did to "make" Darwin)? That's what Yahoo! did after all.

Your argument doesn't wash, sorry. It's not like the Google Engineers are kicking themselves saying "If only Darwin had been available!" From every interview and presentation I have seen with them, this is simply not the case. They chose Linux because they could get it to run easily on the disparate hardware avialable to them and its source and architecture was completely open to their tinkering. Since then, Linux has grown with them so there has been no need to switch.

This comment is not a knock on FreeBSD, which is a fine OS. It is however a knock on the idea that Darwin would have been the choice if only it had been around at the time. Phewie.

Re:Apple?

[King Rayray]

Linux has come a long way in the GUI department. (and generally *nix, too) Have you seen Enlightenment DR17? http://get-e.org/ =)

Re:Apple?

[npsimons]

I know throwing apple out there is a bit inflammatory around here but it proves the point. There are plenty of bad options out there without even pointing out Microsoft.

Who cares if it's inflammatory? It's true. Just because there are a lot of Apple apologists doesn't change a thing. I've often said that I don't mind Apple so much as it's fan club disgusts me. That said, if IBM hadn't launched Microsoft into power in 1984, Apple would be the Microsoft of today.

Re:Apple?

[monkeydo]

Well, the article is about why Google uses Linux, and as far as I'm concerned, they gave the best possible answer. Basically, it best meets their business and technical needs. That's not lame at all. Lame would be if an executive of a public corporation said sonething like, "Information wants to be free," or "Bill Gates is the devil," or "Free Software rules!"

Re:Apple?

[jc42]

yeah it is MS, but the problem exists with any proprietary technology. The company doesn't need to be borg-like, just closed.

Exactly right. One of my favorite examples: Some years ago, I worked on a series of projects at a company where the development teams were more or less divided between those that used Sun workstations and those that used Apollos. There was an ongoing discussion of the merits of both. The main argument of the Apollo developers was that you got roughly twice the computing power for a given price with Apollo. Sun was "overpriced and underpowered".

But Sun slowly won out. What would happen on any project is that you'd be debugging your stuff, and inevitably you'd be led into a system library routine that didn't behave like you expected. With Apollo, when you called Customer Support, the answer was usually "That's proprietary. We can't tell you." Brick wall. You're on your own, and all you can do is start guessing.

When this happened with Sun, we usually didn't even contact Sun's CS. We asked on one or more of the Sun newsgroups and mailing lists. Within a few hours, we'd usually have an answer. More often than not, the answer came from a Sun engineer. It often came with a chunk of the source, with an offer to send more source if we needed.

As a result, the Sun developers had working, sellable products much sooner than the Apollo developers. Having a product that works is always better than having a product that doesn't work, even if the price is a bit higher. The company slowly scaled down its use of Apollos. This may have had something to do with why Apollo no longer exists (though www.apollo.com still exists - try it ;-).

Since then, of course, Sun has slowly taken its systems more and more proprietary. But that's OK, because linux has since arisen to fill Sun's old niche. Same argument: With Sun, you inevitably hit the "We can't tell you - it's proprietary" brick wall. With linux, you have all the source you want, plus a world-wide flock of linux hackers who love to show off their expertise by answering your dumb questions.

The fun thing in this case is that linux and other open-source software now comes with a license that pretty much prevents anyone from ever closing off access. So it's a lot safer bet for a platform than anything proprietary, no matter how open a company may appear right now.

Of course, the *BSD systems are about as good in this respect. One might argue that linux is now sufficiently successful that it could use a bit more competition. Maybe we should be pushing the BSDs a bit more loudly. Those people who don't like choice might object, but we'd probably all be better off for it.

And I wonder how OS X fits into all this? I have a Mac Powerbook, but I've found it much more difficult and time consuming to find reliable low-level information about its innards than with linux. It's only partly for proprietary reasons. Usually it's the "Don't worry your little head about it; it Just Works" attitude. This is very frustrating when you have decades of C hacking behind you, and you're trying to get some low-level code to just work the way you want it to. Instead of a brick wall, you're beating your head against a very soft, fuzzy wall.

In any case, I'd think that a reasonable software rule now would be: Don't build your product on any platform unless you have all the source. This is now feasible; you get full source with linux and the *BSD systems. So why use a platform that doesn't provide full source?

And if you don't understand why you need full source, you aren't competent to make business decisions about software development. Hand the decision over to someone who understands. Hire them if you need to. Otherwise, you're risking your business on a foundation of quicksand.

Re:Apple?

[poot_rootbeer]

Apple was an extremely bad example of yours.

Of course it was. But since the story submission was a leading question to which we were supposed to assume the answer was "Microsoft", we're all being contrarian and naming very unlikely "borg-like" OS companies.

Myself, I'm pretty sure he was referring to Be, Inc.

Re:Apple?

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

Seriously-- yeah it is MS

Are you sure, Windows is more of a desktop / small server OS, it does not scale up that well. My guess would be more in the direction of Solaris.

What is the largest MS server farm in the world? Hotmail? It will be at least one order of magnitude smaller than Google.

The decision between one of the BSDs and Linux must have been more marginal. OpenBSD (?) is more secure but does not support the same range of hardware and is not as well known (non-professionals are less familiar with it). Nowadays that is not a problem for Google, but it will have been when they started up as a two man outfit.

Re:Apple?

[criquet]

If I was trying to brag, then your comment might be relevant in some way. It figures you're a coward. So as it stands, what's your point?

I was simply making a statement that linux is usable as a desktop and has been for _me_ for at least two years. Did I make any statement that implies that I think I approved Linux as a desktop OS because of my use? NO! You honestly think that someone's acknowledgement of use implies their approval for everyone else's use?! Ridiculous!

Re:Apple?

[pabs]

This comment needs a lot more love.

Re:Apple?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Apple was an extremely bad example of yours. Ever heard of Darwin? It is open source, runs on PPC and Intel.

Apple runs on Apple hardware, not commodity, and during the timeframe when Google was small, Apple hardware was much more expensive and also hostile to stuff like BSD installs. Commodity hardware and easily changed OSes make for really easy operational control. If Google had needed, they could have taken 2 or 3 linux cluster nodes and installed BSD or some random thing on them. Not so with Apple.

Re:Apple?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I modified my kernel to give me a black text on white background for my Sun monitor.

Your kernel? What does the kernel care about terminal displays?

Re:Apple?

[jc42]

It's hard to love a computer company, after they've all let you down so many times. ;-)

Once, a lot of us felt a kind of love for Digital, but she was taken over by "GQ" Bob Palmer, who took her whoring after the PC market that rightly belonged to the likes of Dell and Compaq. It was her undoing, of course, and we haven't forgotten.

Many of us have a friendly, supportive feeling for Apple, but we don't trust her not to jilt us.

Maybe the growing feeling we have for linux i,s because of all this. She is legally bound to maintain her independence and not drop us when a wealthy suitor comes along. And she's a strong, smart sort, who can take care of herself, but who also needs friends and companions. Who could be better for a geek? Maybe we can learn trust again ...

(Gack! This is getting too deep for me. ;-)

Re:Apple?

[pabs]

I was agreeing with you. I don't trust Apple and their closed-source shenanigans any farther than I can throw them. I like Apple, Macs, and OSX, but all the glitter and polish in the world doesn't change the fact that I can't fix problems in Aqua when I find them, can't adapt Aqua to do what I want, and can't share my Aqua changes with others. I see no reason to kneecap myself with licensing restrictions when there are plenty of unencumbered alternatives.

I thought your comment was apt, insightful, and entertaining, so I quoted it on my page.

Unsurprising!

[Tiberius_Fel]

Google does a lot of things differently than most OSes are meant for. It's only logical that they'd choose one that they can customize to their needs...

Re:Unsurprising!

[brilinux]

They had a talk here at CMU by a Kernel hacker at Google ... he was talking about how they were able to add code to the kernel to get an incredibly close view at exactly what was going on in the kernel so that they could pinpoint problems and bottlenecks - something that they could not do with a proprietary system. (The speaker, BTW, was Richard Sites, who also helped design the Alpha architecture).

Re:Unsurprising!

[raptor21]

You mean like using DTrace on OpenSolaris. I guess that would make OpenSolaris a perfect platform for google. OSS and tracing tools not to mention fault management.

Windows isn't the only option out there!

Re:Unsurprising!

[Karzz1]

That, and OpenSolaris is only what, about 8 years late?

Re:Unsurprising!

[subgrappler]

where is this code? if it was added to the linux kernel then id imagine it's available for anyone to use?

Re:Unsurprising!

[timmyf2371]

Not if the kernel was then redistributed by Google, which I don't *think* it has.

its all lies...

[Schrambo]

It was just cheaper.

Re:its all lies...

[varmittang]

I would think that too. Since they started Google back in college, the days when you have no extra money to spend. So the cheapest thing they could find that was well supported was Linux. So they went with it, and it turns out to be a great platform. Enough said.

Re:its all lies...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily. When I was in computer engineering school I could get pretty much whatever I wanted from Microsoft, especially if there was a chance it might drive sales for them in the future. I just call up the campus rep and say "I need a this (whatever) for a project I am working on..." and they would send it to me.

Re:its all lies...

[varmittang]

Well, when I was in college, 2000-04, you could only get one license of all MS software, and could only install it on ONE computer. Not get the software, and load up 4, 5, 10 computers. Only the administration or the IT staff could load up multiple computers since the school had a license to do so, but the students were not on the same license. And every school is different, I asked for another copy of Visual Studio for a second computer and I got a flat out NO, only one install. And for the first install, I had to return the install disks after a week or so, or would have been given fine I believe. Of course I made copies, but we were not suppose to have copies either. And this was Penn State. Then, how are you suppose to go from students on a students MS license to an actual company. All that costs to get the correct licenses. You think MS would have let them get away without getting the correct licenses.

Re:its all lies...

[Schrambo]

sounds like a sweet deal you had there, however it may be different to what the googlers had. Which I could imagine being so.

Not so sure

[einhverfr]

He was refering to Microsoft!

The article seems to imply that. But on closer reading, it indicates that Microsoft was just used as an example. The same would have been equally true of Sun, SGI, IBM, etc. And when you really look at what they were doing with Google, I think that Sun is actually more likely to have been the target than Microsoft.

Re:Not so sure

[Col. Bloodnok]

Much more likely to be one of the real enterprise PC box shifters of that era. Compaq I'd say.

Re:Not so sure

[chrisd]

In fact, I'm not even sure I said Microsoft at all during my few minutes up there. I was trying to say that one of thde truly cool things about Linux is that you don't have to talk to anyone outside the company or whatever if you want to mess with it.

I may have said 'Microsoft, or any other commercial os'. I mean, hate to say it, but the Microsoft XP Kernel isn't terrible, I just don't want all the stuff around it (windowing systems, etc..).

Chris

Re:Not so sure

[jiushao]

Sun would be a bit of an odd target since Google has (maybe still do?) run some systems on Sun/Solaris machines (the web crawlers used to be the example I believe). Also there are many references to Google working to keep their internal systems portable between Linux and Solaris.

More importantly Sun is the only classic commercial vendor for which "if Google used Windows, or any other non-open source software program, to make changes to that system he would be required to essentially ask permission from that vendor" no longer is true, with the OpenSolaris project. I know that a lot of people have ideological and political problems with Sun's approach, but it quite clearly offers the same practical business advantages as other OSS while also playing off Sun's classic strengths a bit.

In addition Solaris 10 does run quite well on commodity x86 machines, not as wide hardware support as Linux sure, but if you are buying the machines for the purpose you have no trouble.

This is not to say that Google should use Sun (or that anyone should), but Sun really has positioned themselves in a place where this type of complaints don't really hold. Which is apparently the right place to be in the current climate.

Re:Not so sure

[Gob Gob]

C'Mon Garth

We are not worthy, we are not worthy! :-)

Re:Not so sure

[Akoma The Immortal]

You are making some valid points. But when was google started? And did Sun "open sourced" their Solaris?

Is there any time between the both actions?

I tough so.

Pascal

Re:Not so sure

[jiushao]

Sure, but that was not really the point of the post. Of course Google will keep on using Linux since they are already on it, no need to switch away from what works.

On the other hand it is not reasonable to speak out against Sun/Solaris at this point either, since they are open-source now (absolutely no need to put quotes around it, the CDDL is just a cleaned up Mozilla license and is OSI approved).

So no doubt the Google employee can not have been refering to Solaris when he speaks of the disadvantages with non-OSS systems.

Re:Not so sure

[schon]

I'm not even sure I said Microsoft at all during my few minutes up there

According to TFA, they say (or at least imply) you said "Windows" in reference to the OS (although not in the part that's quoted.)

'DiBona pointed out that if Google used Windows, or any other non-open source software program, to make changes to that system he would be required to essentially ask permission from that vendor.'

They may have inserted the word as a clarification to their readers (who may not know what an OS is) but the article definitely gives the impression that you mention the Beast from Redmond by name.

Re:Not so sure

[erroneous]

Please don't allow your inconvenient alleged "facts" and "first-hand knowledge" and the fact that the story is about "you" get in the way of a good old-fashioned slashdot Microsoft bash.

Re:Not so sure

[justinpfister]

Sorry to point out the obvious.. But I just want to take a moment to thank this community and Google for being so amazing. Here we are talking about an issue and the person in question is right here talking with us. AWESOME! Microsoft to Google - Responsiveness to change is the big picture. Open source and close source respond to change on different frequencies.

Re:Not so sure

[starfishsystems]

Licensing aside, it's a good practice when designing a system to think about portability. It buys a certain amount of "future-proofing" and it also tends to improve the design. There's also that old wisdom within the IETF about wanting to see at least two working implementations of a thing. These might have been considerations for Google.

When I write applications for Unix, my primary concern is that they work correctly in both Linux and Solaris. That nicely exercises most of the portability issues, and as Unix APIs go, they're not very far from the ideal center of mass. I find that when I do this, I can adapt to other Unix variants quite easily, whereas I end up doing a lot of grumbling and fiddly refactoring of IFDEFs if I go the other way around.

Re:Not so sure

[RapmasterT]

I've seen a lot more companies dump Sun and Oracle over blackmail licensing schemes than I have Microsoft. As far as licensing enterprise software goes, MS pretty much stands alone in their methodology and pricing (there's a hint buried in here Ellison).

Say what you will about MS software, but I don't know too many companies saying "know what, SQL server is too cheap, let's move to Oracle".

Re:Not so sure

[Breakfast Pants]

I don't know if you realize this but he used to work for slashdot.

Re:Not so sure

[justinpfister]

Thanks for that fact, I wasn't aware of that. I wonder what % of tech companies Slashdot has infiltrated? I think Slashdot still has plenty of tech depts to crash into. I presonally talk to a few techs at bigger companies and they don't even have the internet at their house, not to mention know the url of Slashdot. I don't know how that works.

Why

[HoodCrowd]

Why can't I run the really cool stuff like Google Earth on my Debian machine

Re:Why

[meowsqueak]

Because Google Earth wasn't written by Google - it was written by Keyhole which was subsequently acquired by Google. There's no reason to presume there will never be a Linux version (but there's also no reason to presume there will be, either).

Re:Why

[Fishead]

Sure, there is plenty of reason to presume there will be. The Google prime directive (do no evil) clearly implies that they will eventually port it to Linux. Come on, how evil is that for a company like Google (pro-linux? At the least, Linux neutral?) to release a product that is anti-linux?

I want a Linux friendly Google Earth too, and I hope they are putting a decent amount of effort into it.

I also want more resolution over my house ;-)

Re:Why

[akeyes]

Because the integrated browser is IE.

Re:Why

[Scaba]

For the same reason you can't buy flubber at a fueling station.

Re:Why

[dj245]

Google Earth is frusterating even for those who use it. I know high-resolution B&W photos of my area exist because Microsoft's TerraServer has them. But Google insists on showing me the colour ones which has 15m resolution instead of the B&W photos 1m resolution. Thats a big difference and the difference between a city looking like a big blob and, well, a city. Try looking up 04401 for a good example (Bangor, ME).

For more shenanigans with the color/B&W photos, try 04730- half the city is light and half taken on a really dark day. Split right down the city center. I really wish they would stick to one kind of photo mixing them up is creating only problems.

Re:Why

[meowsqueak]

I wouldn't say not releasing a Linux port is anti-Linux.

I hope I didn't come across negative - I'd definitely like to see a Google Earth for Linux too :)

I'd like more resolution too - at the moment, the largest sports stadium in my city is 4 green pixels wide.

Re:Why

[meowsqueak]

They don't need to do this - it doesn't run under Wine for me anyway - I've tried :(

Re:Why

[dtfinch]

I'm sure we'll see it eventually. Even back when they released the free edition of Google Earth, their site had a screenshot of it running in KDE.

Re:Why

[dtfinch]

It's not just a color/BW issue. I distinctly remember Google Maps originally showing my city in high resolution color. Now it's a green blob. The pixels are bigger than houses.

Re:Why

[Excelsior]

Transgaming's subscribers get to vote every month for what they want development efforts to be put towards. July's polls included Google Earth, and it placed seventh out of thirty polls.

So perhaps you'll be able to play...err run Google Earth on Cedega (Transgaming's version of Wine) in the future. Of course, I realize paying Transgaming to use free (as in beer) software isn't high on everyone's wish list.

Re:Why

[mhearne]

Are you sure you can't? It works on my Mandrake machine.

http://earth.google.com/

Michael

Re:Why

[Reservoir Penguin]

They werent screenshots of a free version, they were made from the enterprise version that is availible for Linux even now.

Re:Why

[weg]

Oh, come on, they didn't even manage to port GMail Notifier to Linux and OS X yet, so I don't expect them to become enthusiastic Linux supporters soon.

Re:Why

[HoodCrowd]

earth.google.com is a little different then Google earth the program

Re:Why

[weg]

I didn't claim that there are no alternatives, I just said that GMail notifier is Windows only, though Google has promised (a long time ago) to port it to Linux and Mac OS X.

Re:Why

[FreeUser]

I didn't claim that there are no alternatives, I just said that GMail notifier is Windows only, though Google has promised (a long time ago) to port it to Linux and Mac OS X.

As another said, I'd rather they used those resources to port google earth to Linux instead. My gmail notifier plugin in firefox works just fine, and as others have said, if I want a notifier on my desktop I can use any atom/rss feed notifier and plop it into my KDE toolbar.

The problem that GMail notifier solves has already been solved several other ways. Far better to put one's resources into solving problems that haven't been solved--like not being able to run google earth on anything but a monopolist's shoddy operating system.

Re:Open source is broken

[ciroknight]

That's why I like Apple's approach. Open up a lot of the product, especially the parts dealing with security, allowing them to be scrutinized and fixed by everyone on the planet.

Meanwhile, charge for the good bits like graphical eye candy and blindingly cool features.

Hardware lock-in's a development model, and it's one we could see change, but I doubt it it will gain momentum very quickly..

Slackware

[cbelle13013]

I had a circuits professor who had either done some contract work or worked at Google back in 2000. He told me and a couple other students that they used Salckware and ran the entire site from RAM, OS and all. Before that talk I never new you could run entire systems directly from RAM. Wild.

Re:Slackware

[cbelle13013]

and by "Salckware" I meant Slackware.

/spelling police have got me paranoid!

Re:Slackware

[elsilver]

and by "new," I assume, you mean "knew."

E.

Re:Slackware

[cbelle13013]

Did mom not cook you what you wanted tonight?

Re:Slackware

[darkonc]

I never new you could run entire systems directly from RAM.

You boot off of the net. Most PCs these days have support for it. Linux works real well that way. I've run classrooms off of one knoppix CD, using the Knoppix Terminal Server (penguin menu -> services -> Start KNOPPIX Terminal Server). Takes all of a couple of minutes to start up. No need even for disk drives (although swap space is sometimes nice).

When Microsoft tries to FUD about 'difficult installs for Linux', they're obviously doing their damndest not to look at things like Knoppix -- The hardest thing is setting the BIOS to boot off of the NIC.

Re:Slackware

[Robertatwork]

The first place I heard of running the OS in ram was (I know people hate this one) SCO. SCO provided the opperating system for the Abrams Tank. The trouble was that the hard drives were not able to handle the shaking that they were subjected to when the tank went off-road. The solution was to run the entire OS in RAM and shut down the hard drives once the tank was booted up.

Re:Slackware

[ciroknight]

The hardest thing is setting the BIOS to boot off of the NIC.

And by being hard, he means he actually has to go into bios and choose "NetBoot" as the default option.

Other options include unplugging the HD/CDROM/Floppy (we do this at our school, as it's the easiest way; you save files to a USB keychain, iPod or email them to yourself).

It's not as difficult as one thinks, and Dell makes it extremely easy (which, most schools have contracts with to get their hardware). I can't speak for HP or IBM though, but I would assume it is exactly the same. I've even been told that the way Dell puts an operating system on their machines is netboot and image, through a Ghost-like proecss.

Re:Slackware

[aussersterne]

Ahh, the knowledge that has been lost.

When I was a CS student in the late '80s and early '90s, we had entire labs full of Sun and HP machines that had no hard drives. They booted off the net and ran entirely in RAM.

Years before that, when I was a kid with a PC, there were RAMdisks in most operating systems at the time that were easy to use, and if you had a fancy schmanzy expansion card with some godawful amount of RAM on it (like 512MB ;-) you could run your BBS entirely from an RAMdisk and it was FAST.

Linux still has RAMdisk drivers in it somewhere that lead to something like /dev/r0 or /dev/ram0 or similar, which you can format and mount and use like a hard drive. Or at least, it used to. I haven't checked in a few years, and I never actually built it into my kernel, but OSes like Slack did use it for their boot/root floppies, etc.

In any case, getting back to diskless workstations netbooting... this is a MAJOR win when you have rooms full of hardware. There's no reason each of them needs their own hard drive if every single one of those hard drives will just have the same data and enough RAM to run w/o excessive paging/swapping is cheap. You save on initial cost. You save on power. You save on failures of other hardware due to heat. You save on failures of all those freaking drives. You save on the labor it would take to re-image and replace them. And you save on complexity, since all systems then become essentially interchangeable--just plug it into a network port and go, no need to worry about whether it's been "configured" right or whats on its hard drive (or isn't on its hard drive, as the case may be).

Re:Slackware

[dubl-u]

Before that talk I never new you could run entire systems directly from RAM. Wild.

Yes, it's very cool. Done right, response times are dumbfounding. And if you take an approach like Prevayler you can still have reliability and transactional integrity.

Re:Slackware

[surprise_audit]

I'll risk being flamed by saying Sun was doing this back in the 80's - booting off the net, that is. I set up some Sun 3/50 workstations (68030 cpu, 4Mb memory, no disks) to boot off a Sun 3/250 (rackmount) server. It wasn't truly "all in ram", because each client workstation had its own root and swap partitions on the server, with /usr and /home partitions shared via NFS. I even managed to compile X11R3 on one, though it took all weekend...

Heh, actually screwed up a job interview over that - the interviewer saw it on my resume and asked what I'd had to do to get X11 to work. I told him, nothing special, just unpacked it, compiled it and ran it. He'd tried the exact same thing and couldn't make it work at all...

Re:Slackware

[Fishead]

We have the same problem with harddrives on ships. Historically our controller runs Win2k off a horribly expensive solid state 2gig harddrive. We recently however found a large demand for a different sort of product which requires a significant re-design. I was able to convince those that needed convincing, that we could do the whole thing with a tiny SBC running Linux off a Compact Flash drive. The computer will be MUCH cheaper, the software licensing will be gone, and hopefully we can make one controller work with all our different systems. Problem is that I am a Linux Newby so we're gonna have to rent a Uber Geek to get us off the ground.

Re:Slackware

[EnderWiggnz]

they sure as hell dont have a patent on netbooting, at least not a general, valid one...

Re:Slackware

[WolfWithoutAClause]

I expect it to come back RSN.

The bandwidth of most peoples network connection is approaching that of 10M ethernet... so you should be able to boot over the internet pretty soon.

Re:Slackware

[jericho4.0]

I did this with an Indy. Took out the hard drive, and the fan for the power supply and cooling (what the hell), and stuck in lots of RAM. Bingo, dead silent workstation/thin client with a 21 inch monitor for $50 CAN.

Re:Slackware

[xoplytnk]

Citrix functions in much the same manner as the old diskless workstations used to. At one of my employers (back in the late 80's early 90's) we literally had thousands of HP (Unix) diskless workstations for all the reasons that you mentioned. It's what the bootp protocol (RFC 951) was built for.

Re:Slackware

[kayak334]

Although you didn't get modded funny... I laughed out loud when I read that. :)

Re:Slackware

[bennomatic]

I remember these diskless machines. Haven't thought of them in years. The diskless HP/Apollo workstations in the basement of Evans Hall at UCB, in the OCF. Hailstorm. Plague. Tempest. A few other natural disasters. You didn't want to get Tsunami, though. It was the file server for all 10 stations, and it was noisy and slow.

I'm giving away my age here, but I have fond memories of being amazed by what you could find on *gasp* the UseNet. No web then; gopher was the closest thing to an easy-to-use file browser. MUDs, MUCKs and IRC dominated many students' free time (including mine), and if you went there in the middle of the night, you could play Nettrek against other time-wasting students all over the country.

I remember when 14.4kbps modems came about, finally fast enough to support TCP/IP at a reasonable rate, and spending hours trying to get MacSLIP and MacPPP working on my system with zero support. When all that stuff got integrated into the MacOS (system 7.1?), it was awesome. Windows folks had to wade through things like Chameleon and WinDUST and other strange hacks until Gates admitted that the Internet was not just a passing fad.

But this old man does digress...

Re:Slackware

[aussersterne]

Heh... Yup, I'm from your generation. :-) I have an HP/Apollo desktop here somewhere (one of the later workstations) that hasn't powered on in years. I also have a stack of SS/10s with dual SM71 CPUs and dual CG6 framebuffers that I can't part with because they cost a year's budget and were SO DAMN AMAZINGLY FAST AND POWERFUL when we got them, and somewhere deep down inside I know they're still the coolest machines on the planet and somehow must still be worth $$$ (even though intellectually I realize that they're worth at best $ and really probably actually just !!??).

I remember thinking the WWW was basically useless for a couple of years at least when all of the content was still on gopher and I was getting UseNet over a UUCP feed. My bang-path was hellgate.utah.edu!onlybbs!yaga!perfekt or something to that effect.

And then of course later on when smarthosts came around and everything was in transition it got all wierd, something like onlybbs%hellgate!yaga!perfekt@hellgate or something like that. It was hard to keep up with the changing standards as everyone went to the DNS system.

I still remember how sad I was once the very last ISP to sell full UUCP feeds in my area stopped. I thought I'd die. :-P

Until I discovered Mosaic and Term and the fact that by then people had started putting content on the WWW. :-) I remember the first page I ever loaded from home was some CS student @hellgate with a page that was basically three band pictures of The Cure and a tracks list from one of their early CDs. I called all my roommates in to Oooh and Aaaah. :-D

How times change.

I still have some casette tapes and 8" floppies in a file cabinet somewhere with some BASIC code I wrote to link some older systems at a local nonprofit to my UUCP feed.

Whew. 2005. I'm sitting here with a dual Athlon running @2GHz with wireless 54mbit net, a gig of RAM, 250GB of hard drive space, and a dedicated 3D processor that can push hundreds of millions of triangles, and the kids think this gear is slow and outdated. I feel old suddenly, like the WWI generation must have felt, knowing that typewriters were still hi-tech while watching punch cards make them oh-so-obsolete.

Re:Slackware

[Herkules]

If you like Prevayler you should really try
"Persisted Object Tree" pot.forgeahead.hu.

It like it bettar as it lets me have my data as i want it and not all of it in one Map as it is with Prevayler.

Re:Slackware

[zippthorne]

Why does a tank need an OS?

Re:Slackware

[Robertatwork]

Two parts of the targeting quickly come to ming. First, the Abram was the first tank with true fire on the move capability. It compared the current vector with the target vector and then delivered the solution to the gun. Before this, to fire with any reasonable degree of accuracy, the tank had to stop to shoot. The second feature (still rudementary, but good and getting better) is in IFF (Identify Friend of Foe) and the ability to query a potential target using GPS and calculated target position. This has to happen as fast as the triger is pulled. There are just two things a tank uses a computer for. Communications and engine management would provide dozens of other examples (of course IFF can be considered communication).

Re:Slackware

[Loonacy]

Dead, silent workstation? Maybe you should have left the cooling in?

Re:Slackware

[dubl-u]

Interesting! I'll check it out. It's funny that my post got two responses: one saying I should take it a step further and one saying the approach was completely insane. :-)

By the way, Prevayler doesn't require you to keep everything in a Map. But it does require that there be one root object for the tree. Generally I make that a custom object (often called Domain) that holds the rest of the goods.

Re:Slackware

[zippthorne]

I guess I should've been more specific but thanks for pointing out all of the various systems that need computers. What I really wanted to know was why does a tank need a single multipurpose computer with an OS rather than many, dedicated, single-purpose controllers?

Re:Slackware

[schon]

Why does a tank need an OS?

To run Minesweeper, obviously!

Re:Slackware

[HighBit]

it doesn't.

in fact, I would think that not having a single point of failure would be a good design decision.

of course, any time you have something that would make sense, you can count on the military not doing it that way :)

Re:Open source is broken

[cyberfunk2]

Broken assumption: You assume everyone wants to profit from OSS... they dont. I've seen plenty of OSSoftware written for the mac that's free, usable and easy to work with.

Re:Free

[aaza]

In this case, the freedom to use the bits you need, not everything that's bundled with it.

Also, the freedom to change the bits that you need changed. Don't like that particular piece of software? Change it. Don't ask any other company - just do it.

You can't do that with most commercial products. All you can do is put in a feature request, and hope that it is implemented before the sun goes cold. (Yes, I know that some companies do, but some do not.)

giving back

[mattfite]

if they've relied on it so much, it would be nice if some of their apps would run on linux.

Re:giving back

[HulkProtector1]

I think they are doing their fare share with their open-source program, as well as the Summer of Code grants.

-Sam

Re:giving back

[Martin Marvinski]

There is talk about having the GPL 3 force companies to release the code in instances like google.

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3 495981

Re:giving back

[Fjornir]

Ignoring, for instance, the Summer of Code (and all of the other grants they've made) Google has made one contribution to Linux users everywhere: google.com.

To start with, Google is the most well-known poster-child of Linux success. If you don't think that adds value to every other opensource project, well... *shrug*

As a more tangible and direct benefit I can say that google.com is an immense resource as far as answering any Linux question which comes my way. Between the web search and usenet search features they provide to everyone free it makes using Linux a lot easier. Stop in on any Linux IRC channel and you'll see what I mean. I volunteer off and on doing Linux support and I can tell you that without Google there would be a lot of questions that I would be unable to answer.

Just a thought...

Re:giving back

[pauljlucas]

You can never force a company to release its source code. It's not going to happen. You will, however, force one of two alternate things:

1. You'll force the company to use some other solution (e.g., FreeBSD).
2. You'll force the company to make changes to the code just as they're doing now, but keep it quiet and thus violate the license terms. It will be very hard to prove they're in violation.

Re:giving back

[strider44]

How will it affect Google? Even though it uses Linux, the Linux kernel is set at GPL2.2 without the "any later version" provision. Other software that they'd use for a server is either under the BSD license or Apache.

Re:giving back

[zerocool^]

http://www.google.com/linux

Re:giving back

[Feanturi]

without Google there would be a lot of questions that I would be unable to answer

I hear ya, it saves my bacon almost daily. I do tech support, and I've got a lot of other resources but without Google I'd be fairly hobbled. Had a caller yesterday who'd already talked to a few technicians before me about his problem, and had been led astray to the point of buying a new video card to get better performance out of an older game made when '98 was still the most advanced windows out there. The game was still blowing chunks after the hardware upgrade and various performance tweaking. On a P4. After about ten minutes that included some hemming and hawing, and trying to work it out on my own, taking an occasional swipe at the fact that he'd cheaped out and bought a low-end video card, making a stab or two at how naturally sucky the performance is in XP compared to '98, I finally went to Google. I typed in 'need for speed high stakes xp' and bang: The top search result took me to a forum page where I was able to see immediately that this game just sucks in XP regardless of hardware, and it went on to explain about the two patches and a few steps needed to fix it. The caller had already spent a few hours on the phone tweaking this and that to no avail, but Google gave us joy in the time it took me to type the search string. That's my typical everyday Google experience.

Re:giving back

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I volunteer off and on doing Linux support and I can tell you that without Google there would be a lot of questions that I would be unable to answer.

You presume that in the absence of google, some other, perhaps even superior,
resource would not have risen to serve the same need that google does today.

Somehow, I doubt things would be so simple as that.

Re:giving back

[kavau]

There's also code.google.com, which features some open-source software that originates from Google.

Re:giving back

[88NoSoup4U88]

http://www.google.com/microsoft

Re:giving back

[Cpyder]

I'm sure you meant http://www.google.com/bsd :)

(there used to be an apple search as well, but that seems to be gone)

Re:giving back

[maxwell demon]

Google confirms: Apple is dying! :-)

Re:giving back

[Tim C]

To start with, Google is the most well-known poster-child of Linux success.

But does anyone outside of the Linux/slashdot/techy community *know* that google uses Linux?

Re:giving back

[Omnifarious]

I agree. The new keyhole thing doesn't run on Linux, and they have no plans to port it. They aren't going to make any of their desktop stuff run on Linux. It's kinda disappointing.

I'm not saying that google hasn't given back. They've given a lot. They're no Amazon in that regard.

But really, the thing that would really make sure Microsoft's monopoly died the true death would be a good Open Source desktop alternative. If google really wants to help Linux, they'll start making sure any end-user apps run on Linux, and make that support public and official.

Re:giving back

[Fjornir]

Well, yes. Given the amount of coverage their IPO story got and the number of blurbs about them tied to their stock performance and the frequency with which it is mentioned I would hazard to guess that quite a few businessmen, day-traders, and so on are at least peripherally aware of this fact.

Re:giving back

[Fjornir]

No, I don't really make that assumption at all and you're really missing the point. "Somebody else coulda done it and maybe better" in no way causes this contribution to have less value.

Re-read your post again a few times but try replacing "Google" with some other tools you use to do your job: Linux, GCC, ... In each case although it is arguably true that someone else could have made that contribution and possibly done a better job of it -- but that doesn't devalue the contribution at all.

Re:giving back

[endoplasmicMessenger]

This runs on linux: http://www.google.com/linux

Re:giving back

[Omnifarious]

This isn't true. I believe there are many instances in which companies have opened their code after being shown the text of the GPL and having it pointed out they're in violation.

The whole Mauisoft debacle with CherryOS has also proved you wrong. They went under instead of giving out code.

As for the internal code they use to run their own website, you might very well have a point.

Re:giving back

[pauljlucas]

I believe there are many instances in which companies have opened their code after being shown the text of the GPL and having it pointed out they're in violation.

Unless you can cite many specific, known cases, I really doubt it. They're not going to just roll over and say, "Well, OK, here you go" and release their proprietary code.

The whole Mauisoft debacle with CherryOS has also proved you wrong. They went under instead of giving out code.

Uh, no, it didn't prove me wrong: you jsut said they didn't give out their code which is my entire point.

Re:giving back

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Regardless of what you meant, what you said is that without google you would be unable to do the job.

Re:giving back

[Fjornir]

Seriously, does it give you pleasure being so pedantic that you're unable to come to reasonable conclusions based on the context of a statement?

Re:giving back

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Your context was not clear until you followed up to my post, and even then it still dilly-dallied with further distraction. You outta be thanking my ass for giving you editorial review.

Re:giving back

[Noltar]

It seems to have moved to: http://www.google.com/mac

Re:giving back

[xocp]

Hmmm... http://www.google.com/microsoft

Of course, Linux is more free market

[argoff]

When you look at copyrights like a government regulation that controlls how people use information, rather than some kind of "property" right. Then it becomes clear that Linux is truely more accountable to free market paradigms, and in the information age - as information becomes commoditized, that will be even more so - as the companies that treat unrestricted copying over the internet like a threat will loose, and those that treat it like an advantage will win.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[RealityProphet]

When you look at copyrights like a government regulation that controlls how people use information, rather than some kind of "property" right. Then it becomes clear that Linux is truely more accountable to free market paradigms, and in the information age - as information becomes commoditized, that will be even more so - as the companies that treat unrestricted copying over the internet like a threat will loose, and those that treat it like an advantage will win.

This is wrong on so many levels. Google uses linux because they don't give a shit about having to give back modifications to the OS. They aren't in the OS business. They are in the search business. And if you cannot understand this in the context of your "information is free" paradigm, just ask Google to kindly explain to you the details of their search algorithms. I'm sure they'll be eager to oblige you.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[ScentCone]

as the companies that treat unrestricted copying over the internet like a threat will loose, and those that treat it like an advantage will win.

People who create information for a living do not benefit when they cannot be paid for their work. And if the people who produce professsional quality information (novelists, musicians, film makers, and so on) have to, say, flip burgers because everyone except them get the "advantage" of their work being unpaid for, then we'll have a society where the best brains and talent either go to waste, or are your pet information/entertainment slaves.

When you look at copyrights like a government regulation that controlls how people use information, rather than some kind of "property" right

But why would you look at it that way? Because it bolsters the whole "information wants to be free" pablum that's used to make people feel better about ripping off artists? Copyrights aren't government regulation, because the copyright holder can do whatever they want with it, including waive it entirely. It is a property right, because it protects that which people have created - their property - should they choose to exercise that right.

as information becomes commoditized, that will be even more so

Why would you consider creative work a commodity? Why would you want or expect that to be more so? The only explanation I can think of would be that it makes it easier to excuse taking it without paying its creators what they ask for it. If people actually earned a living with all of the energy they put into coming up with new ways to justify pirating music, they wouldn't feel too cheap to actually pay their supposedly favorite musicians what those musicians say they want for their work.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[dnoyeb]

This is wrong on so many levels. Google uses linux because they don't give a shit about having to give back modifications to the OS.

Google does not have to.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[servognome]

Then it becomes clear that Linux is truely more accountable to free market paradigms, and in the information age - as information becomes commoditized, that will be even more so

The problem is that information reproduction has been commoditized, not creation. It still takes some kind of investment to create new information. Open source is not more or less free market than closed source, there are many advanatages and disadvantages for each.
Google and IBM use Linux because its license offers them technical and business advantages over other licenses, both closed source and open source. With Linux they get the ease of an open source backbone, while still maintaining many of the proprietary rights of their own code.

as the companies that treat unrestricted copying over the internet like a threat will loose, and those that treat it like an advantage will win.

It's not about embracing unrestricted copying, it's about figuring out how to make it work. iTunes is still restrictive, but could be considered a "win."
The companies that can strike the balance between consumers and content creators will be the winners.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a property right, because it protects that which people have created - their property - should they choose to exercise that right.

A perfectly circular argument.

Try again.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[argoff]

People who create information for a living do not benefit when they cannot be paid for their work...

You don't get the information age. If your information is wanted, you create far more opportunity for yourself by putting it out in the world freely with your name on it. For example, a small artist is far better off doing every thing possible to have his music creations distributed freely to make a name for himself than suing the crap out of anyone who coppies hopeing that he gets some kind of million dollar record deal. Sure the music industry would like you to believe that, but if you do you're playing their game and you'd both be full of it.

.... make people feel better about ripping off artists? ....

This is sorta knee jerkish, see above.

Copyrights aren't government regulation, because the copyright holder can do whatever they want with it, including waive it entirely. It is a property right, because it protects that which people have created - their property - should they choose to exercise that right.

The right to controll information you have created is a privacy right, not a property right. Once the cat is out of the bag, then it is no longer about controlling information, but controlling people. It is no longer about allocating resources that have natural limits in supply and demand, it's about distribution monopoly. Information has no natural limits in supply and demand, the time and efforts of people who create it do. If you believe in free markets then the natural limits of latter should determine price, not artifically creating scarcity for the former by thugisim and law. Translation, charge by the hour, charge for a concert, charge for public speaking, teaching, make a reputation for yourself ... I'm sure if you're smart enough to create something usefull for society, then you're smart enough to figure out a way to capitalize on it without a government regulation that microcontrolls how everyone uses information at their disposal.

...Why would you consider creative work a commodity? ....

You don't understand. Commoditisation of a market happens when the service of that market becomes more valuable than the item that market is dealing with. For example, when there is more money to be made from selling information services than selling information.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[Planesdragon]

Copyrights aren't government regulation,

Yes, they are. In fact, they're exactly how government regulation is supposed to work.

Government sees something that needs to be done. Government then sets rules that give a duty/right to part of the governed. Government only steps in to aid the aforementioned governed in excerising their duty/right.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[argoff]

The problem is that information reproduction has been commoditized, not creation.....

That premise doesn't make any sense, so neither do the conclusions that follow. Information became commodotozed when there was more money to be made from selling information services than selling information. Content producers are more than free to participate in that service, and in fact are better positioned than most. Madonna is still free to give concerts, book writers are free to be high paid consultants in their field, etc ...

Google and IBM use Linux because its license offers them technical and business advantages over other licenses, both closed source and open source. With Linux they get the ease of an open source backbone, while still maintaining many of the proprietary rights of their own code.

Well, sounds to me like Linux and FOSS are more acountable to free market forces and are slowly displacing the closed source methods.

It's not about embracing unrestricted copying, it's about figuring out how to make it work.

That's a logical fallicy. It is just another way of promoting that if they can't make as much money as with their old distribution monopolies than we should figure out a way to make it work for them, and it totally ignores the moral implications of allowing one set of people to controll how another set of people use information at their disposal.

The information age demands the free flow of information just as the industrial revolution demanded the free flow of labor and the death of controlled labor like the plantation system. There were those who wanted the free states to just get along with the slave states. They didn't get it - slavery was not about property, but controll. Copyrights are not about "intellectual" property, they are about controll of how other people use information at their disposal.

Let there be no uncertain terms about it. Copyright monopolies are not property, they are not just, they deserve to die because they controll people, they need to die for society to enter the information age, and they will die because forces that are bigger than life are going to force them to die. Thank God, I can't wait.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[ScentCone]

A perfectly circular argument.

Not at all. Copyright protects your property if you choose to use it. You don't have to use it, of course. If you find that you're serving your purposes better by not protecting your material, then there's nothing stopping you.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[TecKnow]

Don't be silly. Musicians don't set the price for thier music, generally. Nor do novellists set the price for thier books. As a software engineer I will be lucky to own about 1% of what I create in a professional capacity in my life and it is highly unlikely that my pay will be explicitly correlated to how well any product I contribute to sells. Many creative people are paid for the creation of their work and never again.

Creative arts have worked on a system of patronage before, and in effect they still do. When your publisher patron tires of you, you're done.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[ScentCone]

You don't get the information age. If your information is wanted, you create far more opportunity for yourself by putting it out in the world freely with your name on it.

OK, so you've created something, and put it out there with no strings attached. Now you have the opportunity to... what? Do that again? Charge for the next thing you create? That's an option, obviously. But I'm responding to a comment that indicates that we're all moving to a new environment in which all things move around for "free." Not just some garage band's first recording, but all information. There is no opportunity to make a living when there's no mechanism for compensation.

For example, a small artist is far better off doing every thing possible to have his music creations distributed freely to make a name for himself than suing the crap out of anyone who coppies hopeing that he gets some kind of million dollar record deal

You're describing a false dichotomy. There's a vast middle ground between working for free and suing people for a living. It's called selling your work in a marketplace that recognizes the value of the creation in question. We have that, still, sort of.

Commoditisation of a market happens when the service of that market becomes more valuable than the item that market is dealing with.

Exactly. And when an artist asks to be paid for her work, but the market is distorted because thousands (or millions) of her "fans" choose not to pay her for the entertainment she's providing, they've indicated that her work has no value. They value it enough to look around for a way to lay hands on the creative work outside the terms that the artist has asked them to respect, but that's it. Of course, the stunning hypocrisy of saying they like the artist while simultaneously giving her the finger is always pretty grim to watch. I like to imagine someone doing that in person: "Gee, I love your music. I have all of your recordings. I really respect your creativity and intellect. Just, um, not enough to pay you what you're asking. By the way, when's your next creative work coming out? I want it. Just not enough to pay you for it."

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[servognome]

Information became commodotozed when there was more money to be made from selling information services than selling information

A songwriter can be hired to provide a service as a consultant, but the results of that is still the creation of new information. The consulting fee is the necessary investment for the creation of information, only the business model has changed.
Rather than peddling a precreated information product, a service approach results in the creation of information as works for hire. This means the investment by the ultimate consumer must be made upfront. (eg people donating for an author to write a book, or another season of Enterprise).

Well, sounds to me like Linux and FOSS are more acountable to free market forces and are slowly displacing the closed source methods.

It's not open vs. closed source, it's one product vs another product. Closed source could still change it's policies to become more competitive. Both open and closed source are accountable to free market forces

It is just another way of promoting that if they can't make as much money as with their old distribution monopolies than we should figure out a way to make it work for them

No. Ultimately it is the artists/programmer/movie maker that creates the product. If there is a system in place that lets them bypass the current distribution channels and make money they will follow it.
Freely distributing their works on P2P hasn't worked for many independent bands. The hype machine of the labels does, like it or not, provide an important service to the content creators. Right now, just giving your content away is far less likely to work than selling out to a label, since people are more likely to be looking to download the latest pop idol.
iTunes is an example of a system that works. While profits probably have shrunk, consumers are happy using it, and artists are happy to get paid.

The information age demands the free flow of information just as the industrial revolution demanded the free flow of labor and the death of controlled labor like the plantation system.

The industrial revolution promoted greater control of labor. The higher cost of capital for business meant many workers could no longer work independantly, but rather had to be parts of a larger company. The beginning of the industrial revolution was scarred by low wages, poor labor conditions, workers who lived in company owned housing. Unionization and goverment regulation, both which are artificial restrictions on labor were required to maintain conditions for the workforce.
The information age demands similar protections for information, such that workers (in this case creators of information) are protected. I'm not saying the current systems in place work, in fact I think copyright law as it stands is far too restrictive. I'm saying that some sort of restrictions are still necessary to continue to promote investment.

Copyright monopolies are not property, they are not just, they deserve to die because they controll people, they need to die for society to enter the information age, and they will die because forces that are bigger than life are going to force them to die.

All laws control people in some way. If we really want the information age to continue, we need to ensure that some regulation is in place to promote investment, without being overly restrictive.
Creating new ideas is not free, that's the point of IP. Nobody would make $100M blockbuster movies, or spend $10M on promotion and recording studio time, or $5M designing a new game, if there were no way to recoup the invesment. Even the most liberal open source licenses typically have restrictions, such as giving credit to the original code writers. While it isn't much it still restricts how people can use the code. Of course it only seems fair to ensure the right person gets credit for creating something, right?
That's the key issue that needs to be solved. Promoting free exchange of ideas, but ensuring the original creator gets some sort of fair compensation.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[ScentCone]

That has nothing to do with the circularity of your original argument.

Which wasn't the case, and which you haven't demonstrated. I said:

It is a property right, because it protects that which people have created - their property - should they choose to exercise that right.

To use different words: It's referred to as a property right because what it does is defend your rights to your property. You can make use of that right, or not. There's nothing "circular" about any of that - it's an explanation of the term's meaning, and mention of your option to use it, or not.

You can choose not to take advantage of the government's offer to stick its nose into the affairs of those to which you have sold or shown information that you produced.

The government's not "offering" to do that any more than it is any time two people have a disagreement about any contract. If two people enter into a contract, and someone decides to blow off the terms of that contract, then the injured party (to stay legal) can only turn to the courts for relief. The only other alternatives are to say that contracts mean nothing, or that enforcement of them should be left up to private action, which would be nothing but trouble.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[citog]

Schwartz, is that you?

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[shmlco]

We live in an enlightened society that recognizes that ideas have value. We live in a society created by the founding fathers, who, in turn, recognized that "information" is not a commodity, and that "information" doesn't just appear out of thin area.

People have to have the time needed to create it. ithave to make the investment needed to create them. They have to have the talent, and the drive, and the abilty, and the INCENTIVE needed to create it.

Many do so on speculation, built on nothing more than the faintest glimmer of a hope of a greater reward. Name a budding artist that doesn't secretly dream of being the next Clancy, or Spielberg, or the next rock star, or starting the next Google.

Such incentive drives them. And we, as a whole, as a society, benefit from it from their efforts. But their books are not our property. Their movies are not our property. Their music is not ours to do with as we would.

The medium is not the message. We pay to experience the book's contents. We pay to be entertained. We pay to be enriched and enlightened and enthralled.

Do I want my favorite author to be writing new books and creating new worlds for me to explore, or flipping burgers at a "real" job? Do I want my favorite singer creating new music, or recycling her old tunes in a bar in Seattle?

Do I want to see what Spielberg comes up with next, or are we better off having him make infomercials because people steal his work the second it's produced, and no one will finance his work because no one has to pay for it?

Open source is a great innovation, and has produced wonderful products. But the majority of the contributors have "real" jobs. Are we better off that they're working someplace "real", or would we as a whole be better off if somehow they were free to concentrate on their creations full time?

Are we better served having the most brilliant artists of our time actually producing art, or spending their time running around searching for patrons and begging for scraps, as was done in the dark ages?

We need the incentives provided by copyright so that such people can create for us. We need to recognize that these people are a gift beyond price. We need to recognize the merits and the value of what they provide, to recognize the time and effort and sweat and tears that it took to create the results of their art, and to encourage them to produce even more of it.

We need to recognize that justice lies in not stealing their work, just because we've "progressed" to the point that we can.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[gribbly]

You mean like this:

http://www.db.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html

?

grib.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[SillyNickName4me]

People who create information for a living do not benefit when they cannot be paid for their work.

Abolishing copyright alltogether does in no way mean such people cannot be payed for their work, it does however mean that they will not receive royalties (ie, they are not going to be payed again and again and again and again for the same work, rather, like everyone else basicly, they will get payed for the time they spent once)

And if the people who produce professsional quality information (novelists, musicians, film makers, and so on) have to, say, flip burgers because everyone except them get the "advantage" of their work being unpaid for, then we'll have a society where the best brains and talent either go to waste, or are your pet information/entertainment slaves.

Nothing says they have to produce it for free and if they do not want to then they go do somethign else. Nothing is turning anyone into whatever kind of slave, stop trying to make silly emotional claims.

You make the wrong assumption that just because someone happens to be able to write (for example) that that also means they have to be payed for each time someone obtains a copy of their writing in order for the writer to get compensated.

This model did work for a while untill those who represent all those lovely film makers, writers, musicsians etc, managed to get the copyright term extended into the absurd.

You may not like this, but copyright, and any other interlectual property 'rights' are government granted exclusive rights, granted ONLY because it serves society to grant them, not to 'protect' the creator, that is a mere side effect.

That this is such, and that those are not 'natural rights' as you are trying to suggest is too bad for you, but is clear from the fact that the concept of physical property only has to be codified in law to get rid of physical property, while interlectual property as a concept needs to be codified in law to exist at all (note I am talking about the concept, not about all kinds of laws regulating the concept)

But why would you look at it that way? Because it bolsters the whole "information wants to be free" pablum that's used to make people feel better about ripping off artists?

Ask a question if you are interested in an answer, which you don't seem to be.

I suggest you go read up on this whole Open Source thing, and see how sharing information can work. None of it has anything to do with ripping off anyones creative work at all, rather, it has to do with the people creating that work sharing it on purpose, and seeing a huge payback as a result.

Before you judge a new model that is completely unlike the model you have been using so far, I strongly suggest you try to actually understand the new model.

Copyrights aren't government regulation, because the copyright holder can do whatever they want with it, including waive it entirely.

They are, go read your local version of copyright law. If it weren't for that law, copyright would not exist, whereas no laws are needed at all for the notion of physical property to exist. Again, you may not like this, but notion of copyright is not universal,

It is a property right, because it protects that which people have created - their property - should they choose to exercise that right.

You assume that what you created is yours. I doubt we are going to have any disagreement when it comes to physical objects, but I rather think you are completely failing to understand that quite a few people do not believe that this applies to ideas and expressions of those ideas. You have a choice between sharing it or not sharing it, and that is really where it ends. Anything beyond that is artificial.

In short, your argument is based on assumptions that are at the least not shared by everyone, and in some cases those assumptions are obviously wrong.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[SillyNickName4me]

You're describing a false dichotomy. There's a vast middle ground between working for free and suing people for a living. It's called selling your work in a marketplace that recognizes the value of the creation in question. We have that, still, sort of.

Well, you might consider doing something called a live performance, and have people pay for seeing and hearing it? I know, it means actually having to work for the money but that is really what most of us have to do.

I create quite a bit of interlectual property myself, and I often get payed by the hour for doing so. Once it is created, its there, and no more efford from my side is required. I just fail to see why I should get compensated still from that point of on, I already did get compensated.

Availability of my work to others just means more peopel get to see it, and more peopel ask me to create something new that they have a need for.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[scum-e-bag]

Do I want my favorite singer creating new music, or recycling her old tunes in a bar in Seattle?

Thats where most of them end up, recycling their old tunes... with the current system there is no incentive for them to create any more. Why should they put the effort into creating something new when they can simply live off work they have already done.

Hrmmm... That doesn't sound quite right to me...

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[groomed]

Well, you might consider doing something called a live performance, and have people pay for seeing and hearing it?

The revenue an artist can expect from a performance is marginal. Oftentimes artists will perform for free just to get some exposure. And regardless, most people don't pay to see something they've never heard of.

I just fail to see why I should get compensated still from that point of on, I already did get compensated.

In that case you won't mind sending me all your work so I can resell it. Of course I won't compensate you; after all, you were already compensated.

Availability of my work to others just means more peopel get to see it, and more peopel ask me to create something new that they have a need for.

When's the last time you paid a writer or a musician to write a book or a song for you?

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[groomed]

For example, a small artist is far better off doing every thing possible to have his music creations distributed freely to make a name for himself than suing the crap out of anyone who coppies hopeing that he gets some kind of million dollar record deal.

How does the small artist make money from this free distribution? How is he recompensed for the labor and effort that went into creating his music?

Translation, charge by the hour, charge for a concert, charge for public speaking, teaching, make a reputation for yourself ... I'm sure if you're smart enough to create something usefull for society, then you're smart enough to figure out a way to capitalize on it without a government regulation that microcontrolls how everyone uses information at their disposal.

This is a nightmare scenario. Luckily it doesn't make much sense either.

Being smart doesn't mean you're a good artist. Being a good artist doesn't mean you're good at capitalizing your art. And art isn't "useful" in any meaningful sense of the word. This is the part that doesn't make sense.

A world in which good artists are forced to reduce themselves to blabbering, self-publicizing celebrities and media whores, that is the nightmare part.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[SillyNickName4me]

The revenue an artist can expect from a performance is marginal. Oftentimes artists will perform for free just to get some exposure. And regardless, most people don't pay to see something they've never heard of.

I suggest you go ask to some artists, what you are saying here is not true for the large majority of artists, famous or not. Exceptions are mostly those who do not perform live and the few who manage to sell milions of copies of a record. In general, selling records (CDs or whatever) is not and has never been profittable for musicians.

For any example you can find where it was in fact proffitable, there are at least a few thousand examples where it was not proffitable.

Selling records is proffitable for record companies however.

In that case you won't mind sending me all your work so I can resell it. Of course I won't compensate you; after all, you were already compensated.

I don't mind you copying my work when you find it. If you want me to do the service of sending it to you then pay me for it.

When's the last time you paid a writer or a musician to write a book or a song for you?

I'd change the question a bit. What was the last time I payed an artist to do something regardless of copyright? About 5 days ago now (last saterday while watching a live performance)

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[CheeseyDJ]

Duh!

They fully explained how their search algorithms work three years ago.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[maxpublic]

I suggest you go ask to some artists, what you are saying here is not true for the large majority of artists, famous or not.

And I suggest you go ask some writers - the folks who actually put food on the table by selling their creative effort, not the fanfic and slash sort. Nearly every one of them will tell you to "fuck off".

I don't mind you copying my work when you find it.

I do mind if you copy my work without paying me for it and I'll sue you if I discover that you've done just that. Your choice here is to either a) pay me what I ask, or b) refuse to purchase what I'm selling. You don't get an option c).

Max

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[groomed]

The only reason performances make marginal income is because there is an income flow from recorded music.

A venue costs X to rent. Promotion costs Y. The performer's fee and associated costs (travel, equipment rental, lodging, handlers) costs Z. These expenses have to be recouped from ticket sales, merchandise sales, and (possibly) sponsorships.

But sponsorships come with corporate strings attached, which is basically the situation we have now. So that's a no-no.

Merchandise sales are tiny. Merchandise is generally sold at just above or even below cost, and accounted as promotion costs.

What remains is ticket sales. How many tickets you sell depends on the performer, on the venue, and on the ticket price. These are all interconnected: if the performer is very famous, you can set a very high ticket price and rent a huge venue, generating huge revenue. But if the performer isn't famous (which is what we're talking about), you have to keep the ticket price down and less people will buy a ticket to boot. This means you generate modest revenue.

From this revenue you need to pay the venue, the promotion, and the performer's fee and associated costs. The venue generally has a fixed price so you can't skimp on that. Promotion is essential for a small band, otherwise nobody will show up. So you can't really skimp on that either. Few artists will settle for substandard equipment and/or lousy lodging, so you can't skimp on that. The only thing which remains which can be significantly reduced is the performer's fee.

So that's exactly what happens.

Shut that off, and things go back to the way they were for musicians, live performance and patrons.

In other words, with a few exceptions, you want musicians to stop being professionals and become amateurs. They'll have to accept the odd gig at a wedding or bachelor party here and there. Of course they won't be free to play what they really want to play at those occassions: they'll mostly be reduced to endlessly recycling a handful of evergreens. Which is how things used to be.

There's no reason why recorded music can't be the advertisement for live performance rather than the other way around.

The reason is that a recording scales to a huge audience; a live performance doesn't.

How did Homer (or the many homeric poets) support themselves before the days of copyright?

That's pretty damned irrelevant, unless you want to argue that life in Homeric times (with its slavery and perpetual wars) is by and large the same as it is today.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[maxpublic]

You make the wrong assumption that just because someone happens to be able to write (for example) that that also means they have to be payed for each time someone obtains a copy of their writing in order for the writer to get compensated.

That isn't a wrong assumption; it's a legal one. Just because you don't happen to like the legality doesn't make it wrong. Clearly the vast majority of Americans are just fine with paying authors and musicians for their work and have no problem with reasonable copyright laws.

None of it has anything to do with ripping off anyones creative work at all, rather, it has to do with the people creating that work sharing it on purpose, and seeing a huge payback as a result.

So I write a book, you distribute for free, and I get...what? A condescending pat on the back from you because I bowed down before your false moral position? And that feeds my family...how?

I have a better idea. We stick with the current idea of copyright and you protest the idea by refusing to purchase anything that's copyrighted. That way we're both happy.

They are, go read your local version of copyright law. If it weren't for that law, copyright would not exist, whereas no laws are needed at all for the notion of physical property to exist. Again, you may not like this, but notion of copyright is not universal

The notion of physical property isn't universal, either. Whackos in every form abound.

You assume that what you created is yours.

Indeed. I created it, therefore it's mine.

but I rather think you are completely failing to understand that quite a few people do not believe that this applies to ideas and expressions of those ideas.

A tiny minority, at best. The vast majority of people would laugh in your face if you demanded that the very idea of copyright be abolished.

In short, your argument is based on assumptions that are at the least not shared by everyone

So the fuck what? Reality isn't defined by a consensus viewpoint.

Max

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[ScentCone]

Gosh... I'm getting a little choked up, here! I rarely run into anyone that actually, well, feels the same way about this. No, strike that. I rarely run into someone Don Quixote-ish enough (like me) to think that saying something about this in the crazy slashdot sanitarium is worth the few moments it takes to type.

The Open Source Crazies either really do think that the merits of OS somehow also apply to, say, the latest Coldplay CD, or don't think that at all, but are trying to use it as cover so they can at least say they don't feel bad about ripping it off. It's just all so transparent, and they're SO missing the point about what will happen if artists who invest months or years on a project lose any prospect of getting paid based on the success/popularity of the work. Thanks for having a clue, and using it.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[ScentCone]

I'm sorry, if you're going to be rational, you're going to have find another forum. Slashdot is reserved for people who don't think about what it actually costs to be a creative artist or to entertain people, and who assume that they'll keep getting Peter Jackson-grade movies even when Peter Jackson isn't allowed to attract financing based on an informed gamble about income after the "performing" of the material. What do these people think? That we should quit having things like his recent LOTR films and go back to strictly live plays? I love the theatre. But I also love films that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make. Wow, oh wow, oh wow are people clueless. He'd be better off asking what Homer would do if he had the communications tools we have now, and whether he'd like the idea of a royalties contract now that it's possible.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[groomed]

I don't mind you copying my work when you find it

You don't get it; I won't just copy your work, I'll claim credit for it, so that people come to me for new work, not to me.

This is exactly what has happened with Napster and it's descendants: when people hear a great tune, they don't go to the artist; they go to Napster to get more.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[ScentCone]

How did Homer (or the many homeric poets) support themselves before the days of copyright?

That's like asking how he kept his dairy products fresh before we had refrigeration. You're trotting out a guy who died millenia ago to make your point, and not thinking that perhaps he would have been the Peter Jackson of his day, producing even more epic material and depending on royalties to produce even more - for an even wider audience.

I always enjoy being told that we need to "think out of the box" by people (especially anonymous cowards) who basically spend their day trying justify being too cheap to pay artists for their work.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[Lars83]

They aren't in the OS business.

Yet. ;)

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[ScentCone]

What was the last time I payed an artist to do something regardless of copyright? About 5 days ago now (last saterday while watching a live performance)

Boy, I could sure go for the epic presenation of a huge work of literature. I think I'll call up Peter Jackson and see when his ensemble cast will be performing the entire LOTR trilogy at my local playhouse this month. What? That sort of material can't be performed live? Huh. I guess we'll just have to give it up, then. And all of that trash that Pixar creates... pointless, no question!

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[sgtrock]

I suggest that you read this:

http://www.baen.com/library/

An article written by a published fiction author which analyzes when exactly he sees his revenues go up. It may help open your eyes to some possible opportunities for exposure (and revenue!) that you may be ignoring.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[SillyNickName4me]

You don't get it; I won't just copy your work, I'll claim credit for it, so that people come to me for new work, not to me.

That is not what is going on, don't try to change things to make them fit your argument.

You can redistribute my work without having to pay me, regardless of asking money for it. Claiming you made it is something else, and seperate from copyright, it is an outright lie.

This is exactly what has happened with Napster and it's descendants: when people hear a great tune, they don't go to the artist; they go to Napster to get more.

No it is entirely unlike what Napster did. Napster replaced the labels, not the artist. They never claimed to produce the work himself.

People did not and do not usually go to artists to buy their work, especially not musicians. People go to a distributor for that, and artists have to plea with distributors to get their work published.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[SillyNickName4me]

What? That sort of material can't be performed live? Huh. I guess we'll just have to give it up, then.

Why not watch it in a cinema, thats what I did (regardless of the fact that I already had a copy of it before I saw it in the cinema)

You may even consider buying the DVDs if you want to provide some encouragement..

This still does not require copyright.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[groomed]

I'm not trying to redress the argument to suit my needs.

You say that you don't care whether someone copies your work and makes money off of it, because you assume that people will come to you when the need new work.

What I'm trying to explain to you is that this assumption is not necessarily true. People will not come to you, they will come to the person that sold them the service or product; either because a contract compels them to do so or simply because this is how people work: they will seek to contact the people they have had previous contact with.

People did not and do not usually go to artists to buy their work, especially not musicians. People go to a distributor for that, and artists have to plea with distributors to get their work published.

So according to you musicians can't make money at all: the record companies rip them off and customers don't buy direct. The problem with this view is that it doesn't reflect reality.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[SillyNickName4me]

That isn't a wrong assumption; it's a legal one. Just because you don't happen to like the legality doesn't make it wrong. Clearly the vast majority of Americans are just fine with paying authors and musicians for their work and have no problem with reasonable copyright laws.

Legal is not the same as right.

I have no problem with REASONABLE copyright laws either, but first of all I do not believe copyright law to be reasonable as it is, and second, I do not believe it is needed in any form that resembles what it is now.

That most people don't mind current copyright law is because of ignorance, not because they actually know what it is about.

So I write a book, you distribute for free, and I get...what? A condescending pat on the back from you because I bowed down before your false moral position? And that feeds my family...how?

What actually makes you think you have a right to earn your money with writing a book? There are many things I do, like to do, and find usefull to do without getting compensation for them, I just don't turn them into a job.

I have a better idea. We stick with the current idea of copyright and you protest the idea by refusing to purchase anything that's copyrighted. That way we're both happy.

Come back when we actually get to see the advantages copyright is supposed to have for society, ie, when there is a REASONABLE term to copyright (and reasonable is definitely not longer then 50 years)

Indeed. I created it, therefore it's mine.

Someone wants back that great idea called a wheel and such..

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[ScentCone]

Why not watch it in a cinema, thats what I did (regardless of the fact that I already had a copy of it before I saw it in the cinema)

If there were no copyright protection on the film, a cinema chain would be under no obligation to compensate the film maker. Likewise on DVDs. If the artist can't control the way in which they sell the use of their work, they'll never be able to invest what it takes to produce it - especially the big stuff (sticking with the Jackson example).

This still does not require copyright

Right - so long as everyone around the world has the integrity to pay for the work anyway. That won't happen.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[SillyNickName4me]

I'm not trying to redress the argument to suit my needs.

Yes you did. You changed it from copying and/or distributing (for proffit or not) into taking credit for creating a work.

You say that you don't care whether someone copies your work and makes money off of it, because you assume that people will come to you when the need new work.

You are right about what I said, but the reason you give is not correct. I hope people will come to me for new works because I have the ability to create them. If someone else can do that better then obviously people will go to someone else.

The person who distributed the work could try to write something new, fine with me, I trust my ability to do that better however.

Just for your info, I am not against copyright as such, but I do not believe current copyright law is serving its stated purpose, and I do not believe it is just either. If you want to know what I'd think to be better, look here

So according to you musicians can't make money at all: the record companies rip them off and customers don't buy direct. The problem with this view is that it doesn't reflect reality.

That view reflects reality for the large majority of musicians out there. As said, there are exceptions, but for each such exception, you can find thousands of examples of the opposite.

I am not going to judge if record companies rip them off, and I can see there being a valid argument in record companies providing a service which if the artist wants/needs it, has a price.

Matter of fact is that virtually all artists contracted by recording companies have to pay a very substantial part of the cost of producing and marketing a record, and a record has to sell extremely well to break even on that. It is not unusual to start record sales with a substantial debt, and end it with a smaller debt. Ending with a proffit is not the rule however. (interestingly, record companies claim this as being one of the reasons why they need the huge proffit margins on CDs and the like, while in virtually all cases the artists pay most of the bill for it)

This is somewhat different with smaller recording companies (cost of marketing is lower when there is less marketing done for example), but it is still not easy at all to make a proffit, let alone a living from that.

On the other hand, I have half a dozen people in my friends circle alone who live from performing music (mostly rock and symphonic)

The picture you are painting is really only true for the very very tiny group of extremely well selling musicians.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[SillyNickName4me]

If there were no copyright protection on the film, a cinema chain would be under no obligation to compensate the film maker.

They have to get the film first. There is no reason why the film maker cannot guarantee proper compensation by means of a contract there.

Oh, the cinema chain is going to copy it from another chain? I'm sure that other chain is wanting to let go of part of its customers... (not to mention that the same contract mentioned earlier can solve this at least legally)

This is a bigger issue for DVDs indeed. I do buy originals of those as well (eventho where I live it is perfectly legal to borrow/rent them and copy them for your own use) because of many reasons, wanting to compensate the creator of the work being just one. Nice merchandice being another, wanting to 'own an original' also being an important one at times.

Right - so long as everyone around the world has the integrity to pay for the work anyway. That won't happen.

I think I showed pretty well why that is not true in case of cinemas, and why there are more reasons then that to go buy a DVD or CD.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[groomed]

Yes you did. You changed it from copying and/or distributing (for proffit or not) into taking credit for creating a work.

This is what copyright is. Copyright is the exclusive right of an author to distribute his work. If I distribute your work without your permission, I am implying that I have the right to distribute your work, in other words, that I'm the author (or at least have reached some sort of understanding with you regarding distribution of your work).

The person who distributed the work could try to write something new, fine with me, I trust my ability to do that better however.

"Better" applies to functional work such as chairs and software. It doesn't really apply to art. The market is a pretty good judge of the functionality of a product like a chair or a piece of software, but it's a remarkably poor judge of the value of a work of art.

Matter of fact is that virtually all artists contracted by recording companies have to pay a very substantial part of the cost of producing and marketing a record, and a record has to sell extremely well to break even on that.

You say this like it's some kind of injustice. Why shouldn't the record companies charge for their services? Basically they're extending huge credits to extremely risky clients. For every artist who makes it and generates sufficient revenue there are dozens who end up never making any money and who are written off.

This is somewhat different with smaller recording companies (cost of marketing is lower when there is less marketing done for example), but it is still not easy at all to make a proffit, let alone a living from that.

Yes; but how does unlimited distribution make this any easier?

On the other hand, I have half a dozen people in my friends circle alone who live from performing music (mostly rock and symphonic)

What you must ask yourself is where the money comes from. You will find that in almost all cases it comes from direct or indirect subsidies and/or sponsorships.

But sponsorships are exactly what record companies provide. The only difference is that in the case of record companies, the deal is a lot more transparent and the requirements of the record companies are a lot more stringent. But then, the potential payoff is a lot bigger.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[SillyNickName4me]

This is what copyright is. Copyright is the exclusive right of an author to distribute his work. If I distribute your work without your permission, I am implying that I have the right to distribute your work, in other words, that I'm the author (or at least have reached some sort of understanding with you regarding distribution of your work).

Right to distribute is not the same as having created a work. It is pretty normal that the distributor and creator are not the same. People are pretty much used to the fact that there is a song writer and one or more mucisians creating a work and that those are usually not the ones distributing the result.

Please stop twisting things to suit your argument.

"Better" applies to functional work such as chairs and software. It doesn't really apply to art. The market is a pretty good judge of the functionality of a product like a chair or a piece of software, but it's a remarkably poor judge of the value of a work of art.

Commercial enterprices interested in making money instead of art are also a very bad judge of the value of a work of art (unless you mean the direct commercial value maybe)

If promoting art is the idea then maybe look again at that dreaded state funded public broadcasting corporation in the UK for an example of how that can be done.

You say this like it's some kind of injustice. Why shouldn't the record companies charge for their services? Basically they're extending huge credits to extremely risky clients. For every artist who makes it and generates sufficient revenue there are dozens who end up never making any money and who are written off.

And why did you forget to read and quote the lines just above it where I stated that I believe that it is quite valid for recording companies to charge for their services.

Are you just picking a few things you disagree with in order to repeat your argument over and over or something?

Yes; but how does unlimited distribution make this any easier?

Unlimited distribution makes it easier to get a larger public to know you and may very well help getting more people to see you perform live also.

What you must ask yourself is where the money comes from. You will find that in almost all cases it comes from direct or indirect subsidies and/or sponsorships.

But sponsorships are exactly what record companies provide. The only difference is that in the case of record companies, the deal is a lot more transparent and the requirements of the record companies are a lot more stringent. But then, the potential payoff is a lot bigger

Sponsorship and subsidies are quite important for symphonic music here, a lot less so for rock music.

This may be a bit less transparant maybe then record companies, the resulting art is generally of a much higher value then the next one trick pony act comming out of those recording companies.

But honestly, a decent street mucisian overhere can already make the equivalent of a few 100 USD a day. Maybe not a fantastic income, but definitely enough to live on. Quite a few are not good enough to manage that, but as with any profession, you can only live from it as long as you are good enough (or demand is high enough so that standards drop).

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[LaCosaNostradamus]

The revenue an artist can expect from a performance is marginal.

I'm afraid you're "pwned" on this one. Live performances are essentially the only way a band can make their own livings at music. They sure as hell can't make a living off of selling music through the modern Robber Barons we laughingly call the record companies.

Bands tour and perform because it makes them the GREATER part of their livings from music. Of course, record companies are now taking even that away from bands who are foolish enough to sign with them, by placing clauses in contracts that give the companies control over touring.

Bands who sign with record companies are really just slaves. The contracts are essentially lottery tickets and only ever pay off for certain bands who "hit it big". If anything, your statement must be changed to:

The revenue an artist can expect from a record contract is marginal.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[LaCosaNostradamus]

In other words, with a few exceptions, you want musicians to stop being professionals and become amateurs.

Well, nice way to try to control the debate, but once again you've failed to propagandize.

It is false that musicians are only contrained to be amateurs or professionals. With the web and small production houses (that can crank out CDs like a major player), the NEW stereotypical amateur band can achieve a professional-level of exposure.

You might want to look around every so often, as record-company execs apparently don't. You'd notice that things have changed. Take writing for instance. I used to write stuff by hand, and then I was able to own a typewriter, and now I can be my own production house (even being able to afford large scale printing that can produce thousands of copies of my work). Things have changed and technology is making a VAST middle ground between amateur and professional.

Of course, that would obliterate your point and your bias AGAINST artists and FOR the oppressive corporations who are trying to own them, so I'm sure you won't even respond to my post. You are, after all, completely OWNED.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[groomed]

Right to distribute is not the same as having created a work.

Evidently, but under copyright law the only person who has the right to distribute things (or to transfer that right) is the author. So the right to distribution and authorship are closely related.

Commercial enterprices interested in making money instead of art are also a very bad judge of the value of a work of art (unless you mean the direct commercial value maybe)

Yes and no. It would be true if all record companies and book publishers existed solely to generate as much profit as possible.

In reality, most record companies employ A&R execs and talent scouts who love music and know a lot more about music than the average Jim Bob. Similarly publishers seek out and nourish those writers they think are good.

The commercial motive is very strong, and probably only getting stronger, but still (fortunately) not the sole factor in determining whether a writer or a musician gets the deal.

If promoting art is the idea then maybe look again at that dreaded state funded public broadcasting corporation in the UK for an example of how that can be done.

I don't know what you mean by this. Presumably it's a sarcastic comment that purports to show that state funding can yield great art. I don't know why you brought it up. I certainly haven't disputed that and I don't see what bearing it has on the issue of unauthorized distribution.

And why did you forget to read and quote the lines just above it where I stated that I believe that it is quite valid for recording companies to charge for their services.

Yes, I noticed that, you seem to be confused about your attitudes towards the music industry. First you say they should be free to offer the service they're offering, then the next paragraph you make it sound like there is something unethical or unjust about that service. So what is it?

Are you just picking a few things you disagree with in order to repeat your argument over and over or something?

No.

Unlimited distribution makes it easier to get a larger public to know you and may very well help getting more people to see you perform live also.

Artists can grant unlimited distribution today. Very few do. Why? Because the number of artists that have used this route to gain major success is almost zero (and I'm being generous here). The alternative route, via the record companies, simply has a much better track record.

Furthermore, the files most shared on the P2P networks are those by major artists; Britney, etc. The argument that P2P leads people to discover new music and bands and that this might bring those bands riches and fame is totally unfounded.

Sponsorship and subsidies are quite important for symphonic music here, a lot less so for rock music.

Dig deeper and you'll find that most of the money comes from sponsors and subsidies, even for rock music -- unless, of course, the band is fairly popular, but then they fall outside of the scope of this argument.

This may be a bit less transparant maybe then record companies, the resulting art is generally of a much higher value then the next one trick pony act comming out of those recording companies.

Right, because artists like Madonna, Kurt Cobain, Prince, Michael Jackson, Snoop Dog, N.E.R.D., Missy Elliott are all one trick ponies...

But honestly, a decent street mucisian overhere can already make the equivalent of a few 100 USD a day.

Nonsense.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[ScentCone]

and why there are more reasons then that to go buy a DVD or CD

So, if the person who invests huge money in producing that content thinks you're right, and that they'll be better able to pay back their investors if more people get the work without paying for it, then surely they can waive their copyright and say, "Hey! Please feel free to copy this!" But for those that find that their work sells only a few copies before it's torrented all over the place and sales fall way off - why not leave them the choice?

And, for those people so idealogically horrified by artists that want to retain copyright control, surely they don't like those people anyway, right? Why would they want to be entertained by someone for whom they have such disdain? That's the real heart of the hypocrisy, I think. The people that are so sure that free distribution of the creative work is better for everyone (including the people who are trying to earn a living from it)... if those people are making such a good case, then why aren't more artists giving away their work? Some are. The vast majority are not, or do so only under very specific circumstances. Why? Because the people that say it should be free are not very convincing about how the artist will be able to own a decent home or send their children to a nice college (or just buy a very nice new piece of digital recording equipment or $50,000 video editor for that matter) based on free distribution of their work.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[runderwo]

Whatever. Genius is not as common as you seem to think it is. Art can be heavily inspired, almost to the point of copying, from other art, and in our culture it most often is, because there is a significant incentive (pseudo-eternal copyright) to doing so. This incentive can be increased or decreased to modify the ratio of originality to imitation in the culture. Our legislators have chosen that we want to maximize the level of imitation. Since the average voter has no idea how copyright works, the only feedback such legislators receive is their campaign contributions from media and publishing interests.

Thus we have a framework where artists can invest months or years into a highly derivative work and still obtain a return from it, enjoying enforcement of their copyright with your tax dollars. You like this idea. Others do not, and feel that there a better balance to be struck, one that is more in line both with how people actually behave and that encourages more original development. Others still feel that copyright protection is somehow immoral, but I've rarely encountered one of these sorts who doesn't also cherish the set of protections that the GNU license provides, enabled only by the legal framework of copyright.

Genius does not need incentive to create, only opportunity. The original copyright regime in the US provided a framework for exactly that, promoting the progress of the sciences and useful arts through providing copyright for a limited time. This provided the opportunity for someone with a creative idea to develop it and to cover the costs of doing so by disallowing others to copy it, for a reasonably limited time wherein it was assumed he would have ample opportunity to do so. Over time this foundation changed due to the Adam Smith philosophy pervading political thought. The thought arrived that the progress of the sciences and useful arts is indirectly best served by whatever mechanism allows copyright holders to profit the most. (This may have continued to be true if individuals usually retained their copyrights, but unfortunately publishers have become the significant majority of copyright interest these days.) So the copyright was extended incrementally until it reached an indefinite term, and the powers of the copyright holder have also been extended through the courts to include certain self-enforcement mechanisms.

To some extent, the importance of copyright to the individual has been restored through self-publishing on the Internet, but at the same time two more problems arrived. One is that there is so much creation going on that it is difficult to sift through it and find what you are looking for. Publishers retain the advantage here because they can afford large marketing campaigns. The other is that the Internet at the same time made it easier to publish information but also easier to copy and disseminate it without permission. Distribution of copyrighted material via the Internet is still an open problem because of the inherent lack of scarcity in any work that is in digitized form.

One fallacy surrounding the idea of reducing copyright to a level reflecting the capacity for self-publishing involves attribution of works in the public domain. Once something enters the public domain, it is said that anyone can change words or make subtle modifications to change the message of the work, and the author has no recourse against having his view misrepresented to buyers of the knockoff work. I think this is most logically addressed through trademark. You may be able to publish a knockoff legally, but you cannot legally use my trademark or any potentially confusing facsimile thereof, so buyers will be able to tell the difference.

I see no reason why life of copyright holder + 100 years, in addition to private enforcement powers, provides more incentive for original works. If anything, it reduces incentive by allowing someone to profit from a derivative work where an original work may go ignored. Why would this be the case when the buyer has a choice?

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[argoff]

To use different words: It's referred to as a property right because what it does is defend your rights to your property.

You're working off the false premise that government can create property rights, or at least the false one that property revolves arround feelings and not things like natural limits in supply and demand. As nice as it is to see artists make it, society doesn't owe anyone a distribution monopoly.

Also, you cant have it both ways. First it's declared that open copying is illegal, and then when it's pointed out that that the law is unenforcable, then it's declared that open copying is immoral because artists can't make it, and then when it's pointed out that they can, then the next thing declared is this .....

The government's not "offering" to do that any more than it is any time two people have a disagreement about any contract. If two people enter into a contract, and someone decides to blow off the terms of that contract, then the injured party (to stay legal) can only turn to the courts for relief. The only other alternatives are to say that contracts mean nothing, or that enforcement of them should be left up to private action, which would be nothing but trouble.

I don't renember signing any contract. I don't renenber any 2 way binding agreements. First it's called a "property" right, and then when that turns out to be bogus it's called a contract? Well Fine. Keep the information private to yourself, and your buddies who agree to the terms of the contract - and if you don't then you're violating those terms and I can do whatever the hell I want with information that comes my way.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[SillyNickName4me]

Evidently, but under copyright law the only person who has the right to distribute things (or to transfer that right) is the author. So the right to distribution and authorship are closely related.

That in no way means that distributing something is the same as claiming to be the author, and that was the claim you made (with the flawed napster example)

Yes and no. It would be true if all record companies and book publishers existed solely to generate as much profit as possible.

For as far as they are public companies, they have a duty to their shareholders to maximize profit. Good art is a nice to have thing in that, but commercial value is the deciding factor.

Yes, I noticed that, you seem to be confused about your attitudes towards the music industry. First you say they should be free to offer the service they're offering, then the next paragraph you make it sound like there is something unethical or unjust about that service. So what is it?

Asking money for their services is no problem. Letting artists pay the bill and then claiming to the public that the record companies pay it is not ethical.

Then, that paragraph was there to point out why most mucisians never make a proffit from a record, not to argue that what happened was ethical or not.

Artists can grant unlimited distribution today. Very few do. Why? Because the number of artists that have used this route to gain major success is almost zero (and I'm being generous here). The alternative route, via the record companies, simply has a much better track record.

Maybe, maybe not. maybe only a few tried so far.

Furthermore, the files most shared on the P2P networks are those by major artists; Britney, etc. The argument that P2P leads people to discover new music and bands and that this might bring those bands riches and fame is totally unfounded.

Riches and fame eh? well, getting that through the 'regular' way of recording companies doesn't have much of a chance either. THere are just not that many people who have what it takes to become that.

Dig deeper and you'll find that most of the money comes from sponsors and subsidies, even for rock music -- unless, of course, the band is fairly popular, but then they fall outside of the scope of this argument.

Ah yes, the tiny few artists who did well with record companies are in scope, and those who do well with other means are not? I get it now..

Right, because artists like Madonna, Kurt Cobain, Prince, Michael Jackson, Snoop Dog, N.E.R.D., Missy Elliott are all one trick ponies...

Nope, and there are more examples, tho finding examples from the last 15 years is a lot more difficult then ones from 30 years ago, and those are all still the exception and not the rule.

You may want to go listen to Prince for a bit to hear some more about recording companies and ethics and what they really do for an artist btw, he has some interesting experience to share there.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[groomed]

can crank out CDs like a major player), the NEW stereotypical amateur band can achieve a professional-level of exposure.

This is utterly and completely beside the point even if it were true. The point is how it benefits people if someone else starts copying and selling their product. This is why modern (digital) technology is disruptive. The quality of the demos is still pretty much as good or bad (mostly bad) as it was in the age of the 8-track.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[groomed]

Bands tour and perform because it makes them the GREATER part of their livings from music.

Use your head, man. Where the hell do you think this money is coming from? Either it comes from ticket sales if the band is popular (and how do you think this happened?), or from a sponsor trying to build his brand (but again, then the band has to be popular in some sense first), or it comes from the record companies trying to promote their artist. They hope to recoup the costs by selling more records. So ultimately the funds don't come from the performance; they come from increased record sales as a result of the performance.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[groomed]

That in no way means that distributing something is the same as claiming to be the author, and that was the claim you made (with the flawed napster example)

OK. Whatever. <shrug>

For as far as they are public companies, they have a duty to their shareholders to maximize profit. Good art is a nice to have thing in that, but commercial value is the deciding factor.

This is just not true. The number of recordings, books and movies which fail or whose costs are never recouped is staggering. You might want to read "The Big Picture" by Edward Epstein. The entertainment industry is a lot less rational than you might think.

those are all still the exception and not the rule.

Excellence _is_ the exception. This has nothing to do with any real or perceived evilness of the record companies.

You may want to go listen to Prince for a bit to hear some more about recording companies and ethics and what they really do for an artist btw, he has some interesting experience to share there.

Yeah, they sure ruined him! *rolls eyes*

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Where the hell do you think this money is coming from?

My head has long told me that this is an unsupported conclusion of the pro-corporate forces that are trying to control that slippery product called "music". There is no proof whatsoever that touring is only possible due to the promotions of the record companies.

Firstly, it's completely obvious and true that touring itself is its own promotion mechanism. "Touring" of course encompasses everything from bar-room gigs, to concert starters, to main-event concerts.

And secondly, it's far more likely that touring itself was the cause of the rise of the record companies. As one of the obvious nitwits who have been lulled by that perversity called Western civilization, you engage in wilfull ignorance that bands existed before the Robber Barons (i.e. record companies) did.

Of course, this supports the "amateur" nature of sustainable music production, and from other posts you are definitely against that.

At any rate, your "OWNED" score is rising so rapidly now that epileptics are imperiled by viewing the flipping of the digits. You should stop before your mouth emits more stupidity (i.e. corporate propaganda). One thing that you should learn about talking on the Internet is that your lies and myths can be countered by someone knowledgable in about 1.2 seconds.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[SillyNickName4me]

Excellence _is_ the exception. This has nothing to do with any real or perceived evilness of the record companies.

I'm not claiming that recording companies are evil perse but I do not like quite a few of the 'anti piracy' arguments that are being used by them, and I think that some of the arguments are outright lies and that that is not very ethical to do.

I also believe that just as the ability to reprint books changed the world for writers, the invention of decent enough quality sound recording changed the world for mucisians (in both cases it didn't destroy them at all eventho it at first glance made most of them not needed anymore) and now the internet is changing the world for those who made their business out of distribution.

And then I believe that while copyright in itself is a usefull tool that can work in the advantage of all, its current implementation is hopelessly broken both due to basicly never expiring and failing to adapt to the current state of technology.

With regards to Prince, please go read what he has to say, it comes down to him not wanting to have anythign to do with them anymore. Also, getting rich seldom has to do with ethics, and if it does it is more often lack of ethics that makes one rich.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Firstly, if you're going to propagandize, at least be good at it. You aren't.

Secondly, my point is entirely true. An amateur band can come up with the cash to produce 100s to 1000s of professional-looking packaged CDs. As I said before, technology has vastly lowered the bar for professional production. Any fool can look around and see that this is generally true. Those who don't agree are merely lying or engaging in that more subtle form of lying: willful ignorance.

Thirdly, small productions can approach other small infringing productions as equals. You may recall that there is something laying around called "law" and "court". There is always redress possible through the legal system. (Note: this does not apply to file-sharers. Each sharer is far too small to effectively use law enforcement upon. HENCE ... file sharers are instead social change and there's nothing anyone can do about them that doesn't involve destroying basic personal liberty.)

Fourthly, digital duplication has been the most beneficial technology to affect music since the (bakelite?) record disc. No sane man can arrive at the conclusion that digitech is somehow "disrupting" music. As with all technology that vastly enables small producers, said tech has various clients of effect that have positive and negative sides for each client.

Sure, if you're an innately unfair person who advocates double standards, I'm sure that digitech DOES look disruptive now. After all, digitech should have stayed in the backrooms where the digital priesthood could monopolize it, hence rationing out the production to a subject population of consumers who would be forced to only accept or deny.

But digitech's vast capacity is available to anyone who can scrape together up to $2000 for the equipment to not only produce many digital copies of one's own work, but to also copy the works of others. The freedom to do one is the freedom to do the other.

So, tough titty for the likes of you. Corporations were pretty happy with digitech for all the efficiency it offered them, and also for the quality of production they could attain, but once it reached the common man those same corporations started to cry foul. But the genie's out of the bottle. It's about equal rights. If a corporation has to right to take a person's song and effectively steal it, then burn it onto 1000s of pieces of media and sell it, then a small operation in a person's garage also has the same right. And -- oh yeah -- it's not by accident that the same person's garage can produce 1000s of absolutely legal copies of their own work for distribution to the same retail outlets that the corporations have monopolized access to for years.

It's no coincidence that corporations are complaining about the tech's piracy capabilities at this time. They are complaining since their monopoly is in dire danger of collapsing due to the pervasive efficiency and empowerment made possible by digitech. The public availability of a powerful production method is at stake. The copyright issue is just a smokescreen.

We already have a legal system, and anyone can bring suit against infringement, so piracy is actually no public issue whatsoever. If you weren't such a corporate bitch, you'd see this.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[groomed]

My head has long told me that this is an unsupported conclusion of the pro-corporate forces that are trying to control that slippery product called "music". There is no proof whatsoever that touring is only possible due to the promotions of the record companies.

Well, there are plenty of other possibilities. There are many, many heavily sponsored events and concerts, and there is a thriving (albeit much smaller) non-profit scene.

However, the sponsored events by and large rely on popular artists to draw a crowd. This popularity is mostly (but not always) the result of the promotion efforts of a record company.

The non-profit scene has some very interesting stuff going on, but it hasn't really shown the ability to grow its audience. Not in the last place because the few enterprising individuals who succeed in doing so are accused of having "sold out".

So although it certainly is true that touring is possible without the record companies, this is a bit like saying that life on earth can continue without human beings. It's true, but largely irrelevant.

And secondly, it's far more likely that touring itself was the cause of the rise of the record companies.

Exactly. Touring necessitated the kind of support provided by the record companies.

As one of the obvious nitwits who have been lulled by that perversity called Western civilization

The only perversion here is your silly rhetoric.

you engage in wilfull ignorance that bands existed before the Robber Barons (i.e. record companies) did.

Of course they did. I never claimed otherwise. But by and large they were signficantly worse off than they are today. They had less freedom, less money, and less support.

Of course, this supports the "amateur" nature of sustainable music production, and from other posts you are definitely against that.

Sustainable music production? You mean we are running out of notes? Oh, my!

epileptics are imperiled by viewing the flipping of the digits.

Nice turn of phrase. Pity you wasted it on Slashdot.

One thing that you should learn about talking on the Internet is that your lies and myths can be countered by someone knowledgable in about 1.2 seconds.

Yes, well. Instead I met you.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[ltbarcly]

You make the following claims as though they are factual statements. Please revise or provide support:

it is a false premise that government can create property rights

it is a false premise that property revolves arround feelings and not things like natural limits in supply and demand

that society doesn't owe anyone a distribution monopoly

that it is nice to see artists make it

Further, your claims are ambiguous. When you say "government doesn't owe" do you mean in a legal sense? Becuase according to US law the government owes the US Postal service a monopoly on distribution of mail.

When you say that it is false that 'government can create property rights', where do property rights come from, and who, if anyone, creates them?

When you say "natural limits in supply and demand" what the hell are you talking about? Do you truly believe your 4th grade understanding of economics makes you some sort of expert to lecture others?

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[SillyNickName4me]

So, if the person who invests huge money in producing that content thinks you're right, and that they'll be better able to pay back their investors if more people get the work without paying for it, then surely they can waive their copyright and say, "Hey! Please feel free to copy this!" But for those that find that their work sells only a few copies before it's torrented all over the place and sales fall way off - why not leave them the choice?

So far there is no reason to believe that the fact that things appear on p2p networks affect sales. If you are going to tell me now how sales dropped over the last few years I'd like to point out that both the economy didn't do that well in that time, and people have been buying way more DVDs and can spend their money only once.

And, for those people so idealogically horrified by artists that want to retain copyright control, surely they don't like those people anyway, right? Why would they want to be entertained by someone for whom they have such disdain?

Which ignores the fact that in many cases the copyright is actually transfered to the record company.

That's the real heart of the hypocrisy, I think. The people that are so sure that free distribution of the creative work is better for everyone (including the people who are trying to earn a living from it)... if those people are making such a good case, then why aren't more artists giving away their work? Some are. The vast majority are not, or do so only under very specific circumstances. Why? Because the people that say it should be free are not very convincing about how the artist will be able to own a decent home or send their children to a nice college (or just buy a very nice new piece of digital recording equipment or $50,000 video editor for that matter) based on free distribution of their work

So it has een tried by few so far, and you compare the results with that of an industry that has been around for a century? That surely makes sense. Lets talk again about comparing those some 20 years from now or so to se what actually works better.

This of course completely ignores the fact that the large majority of artists that get to deal with record companies never get to make a profit from that, and of course the small fact that most musicians never get to get a contract from a record company, and those who can live from that, let alone actually buy that nice video mixer, are an extremely small minority.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[groomed]

Firstly, if you're going to propagandize, at least be good at it. You aren't.

Oh come off it.

I'm singularly unimpressed by your pigheaded distortions of Marxist theory and your facile and blunt application thereof to a wholly inappropriate medium and sphere of industry.

I've released tunes on labels both small and big; have you? I've recorded tracks in my home studio and written my own software (GPL'd no less) to do so; have you? I've recorded in professional studios; have you? I've managed tours; have you?

I ask because all you've done so far is blather in exceedingly general terms about things you obviously don't understand.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[ScentCone]

My head has long told me that this is an unsupported conclusion of the pro-corporate forces that are trying to control that slippery product called "music". There is no proof whatsoever that touring is only possible due to the promotions of the record companies.

Rather than use "your head," why not use your eyes? There's a reason that most "touring" bands that are not tied in with a larger business process that's also generating airplay and sales of recordings are living out of the back of an old van, down by the river. Playing in an endless series of bars, and living (literally) off of peanuts is not the living that many musicians hope for. Why do you suppose that so many of them end every set begging the drunks in the audience to see Vinny, by the door on the way out, who is selling their CDs? Of course you can tour absent a larger promotional packaging, but the big tours, filling large venues, are part of much larger business projects. The costs and risks are simply too high, otherwise. Most bands couldn't possibly even afford the insurance associated with larger-scale road productions, absent the operational backing of a larger production company. It makes perfect sense that the company the artist is already using for their other business purposes would be the ones to work with on travel, booking, labor union contracting, customs, and a jillion other logistical and cash-up-front issues.

Firstly, it's completely obvious and true that touring itself is its own promotion mechanism.

In terms of any sort of rent-paying success, only if you've already got a reputation. Sometimes that can only happen when you've already had airplay - because your music immediately attracts an audience. You think Steely Dan needed to tour to earn a living? No, they were a studio band that only toured much, much later, and only drew nostalgic audiences because of decades of airplay. If that band simply started out driving from bar to bar, they would probably never have bothered. They were pros that didn't want to live like that.

it's far more likely that touring itself was the cause of the rise of the record companies

Complete crap, and the facts are already there in front of anyone bothering to look. The fact that you even use a phrase like "far more likely" means that you're coloring your comments with how you wish things had gone so that it would back up your muddled philosophical position. Radio was the rise of the record companies. People heard music on the air and went out to buy the album. Period. The artists and their partner record companies depended hugely on airplay to create a market for those sales. Word of mouth helped, but a lot of acts only made personal appearances in order to produce press coverage that went towards boosting their main source of revenue: record sales. Just like movie stars doing talk shows. People only rarely went to "see" the Beatles - they went city to city to play some (scarcely profitable at the door, but that didn't matter) gigs, but reaped enormous results in the subsequent record sales.

that perversity called Western civilization

Presuming you prefer, say, the Cultural Revolution approach things? That really worked out well for China. They're just now starting to enjoy their blossoming prosperity and personal chances at liberty because they beat that nonsense back down person by person (despite the totalitarian socialists in power)... embracing a more Western approach to commerce and daily life. And what shock - the most "westernized" part of that society (Taiwan) is the most stable and prosperous, kills off the fewest of its student protesters, and probably made at least some of the hardware that's letting you read slashdot.

Of course, this supports the "amateur" nature of sustainable music production, and from other posts you are definitely against that

False dichotomy. There's nothing at all stopping amateurs from doing whate

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[shmlco]

"...when they can simply live off work they have already done."

You're right. Going along with that train of thought, I guess we need to ban paid vacations too. I mean, you weren't working for two weeks, so why should you collect a check?

And employee retirement plans need to be outlawed post haste. I mean, why should someone collect money today for work they did years ago? Hardly seems fair.

Oh. Wait. You're saying that the work they did years ago is still of some value today? Hmmmmmm......

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[scum-e-bag]

1) I've never been paid to take a vacation, so lets remove that from everyone... that sounds fair to me.
2) Employee retirement plans? Thats what superannuation and saving for your retirement is all about.
3) profit???

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[shmlco]

The point is that a great many "real" jobs where people work as employees offer benefits such as sick days, health insurance, paid vacations, employee stock options, and retirement/pension plans.

A writer or singer, however, has none of those things and is pretty much a self employed individual. If they produce enough popular "work" during their career, however, the royalty stream can help cover sickness, vacations, and retirement.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[scum-e-bag]

is pretty much a self employed individual.

...and this makes them a small business in the world of capitalisim. Like any other small business, if it doesn't make any money, it can no longer remain in business and continue to trade.

Re:Of course, Linux is more free market

[shmlco]

Precisely. Exactly. Total agreement. They're in business as long as people are willing to pay for their product... e.g. their music.

So people pay to see them live, and pay for discs and tapes to hear them when they're elsewhere, and if they're popular enough people may even buy their posters and t-shirts.

If they don't produce new music however, or generally fail to keep up with the times, people will gradually stop buying their music. They can't force people to buy their work if they don't want it, and they can't drive people into their concerts at gunpoint. Bands disappear all the time. Free market at work.

Finally...

[darthgnu]

It's good to see some company finally step up to the plate and publicly admits that free/open source software provides independence and freedom. IBM, Novell, HP always put out the "cheaper" argument which is seen as "less value".

Re:Finally...

[superpulpsicle]

I have nothing against their proprietory OS.

But until I see IBM get rid of Aix, Novell get rid of Netware, HP get rid of Hpux... they are all BANDWAGONERS.

Re:Finally...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

IBM get rid of Aix, Novell get rid of Netware, HP get rid of Hpux

I've heard rumours about IBM and the future of AIX but nothing specific. But I can say that inside HP the linux kernel group is growing while at the same time the hpux kernel group is shrinking. There is no way any of those vendors is going to drop their OS products wholesale -- if for no other reason than that they have contractual obligations to support their OSes on new hardware going forward.

But they are all steadily increasing their emphasis on linux which is entirely consistent with a smooth, well managed transition.

Re:Finally...

[MOooOD]

Wrong: "Cheaper" is not IBM's key argument; in fact, every presentation about IBM's software strategy stresses the fact that open standards and open source lie at the core of the strategy to eliminate dependencies and create freedom to act.
Please read corporate strategies and look at the ongoing activities before posting a rant about them.
Take a look at http://www-306.ibm.com/software/info/topic/ if you want to learn more, for instance in articles like "Beyond TCO - The Unanticipated Second Stage Benefits of Linux" focuses on business applications and mission critical workloads on Linux and the often unanticipated second stage benefits that leading edge Linux users enjoy today.

Re:Finally...

[MOooOD]

Sorry, but I have to correct you on this one:
"Cheaper" is not IBM's key argument; in fact, every presentation about IBM's software strategy stresses the fact that open standards and open source lie at the core of the strategy to eliminate dependencies and create freedom to act.
Please read corporate strategies and look at the ongoing activities before posting a rant about them.
Take a look at http://www-306.ibm.com/software/info/topic/ if you want to learn more, for instance in articles like "Beyond TCO - The Unanticipated Second Stage Benefits of Linux" focuses on business applications and mission critical workloads on Linux and the often unanticipated second stage benefits that leading edge Linux users enjoy today.

Re:Finally...

[poot_rootbeer]

IBM, Novell, HP always put out the "cheaper" argument which is seen as "less value".

Seen by idiots, maybe.

"Value" is a ratio of performance and/or features to cost. Given a static level of performance/features, as cost decreases value must INCREASE.

How can somebody be capable of making technology decisions without even a basic grasp of mathematics?

OT: Traffic impact by Google Personalized Homepage

[vinlud]

This is offtopic, but because it didn't survive the submission I did I thought it would be best to post it attached to another Google story.

A few days ago I noticed several websites which are linked by default in the Google Personalized Homepage show staggering increases in web traffic and page views. According to Alexa.com Wired more than doubled and also Slashdot , the NY Times and the Washington Post show remarkable growth at the end of july.

Is this a redefinition of 'slashdotting' or is there something else going on?

Re:Open source is broken

[Neo-Rio-101]

Rubbish. If you make an open source OS that is blindingly simple to install and use, there are going to be some enterprises that STILL want to have the OS backed by a company for their own piece of mind, security, and as an outlet to yell at in case they have a problem.

Licensing restrictions = per-CPU licensing

[tyates]

Google can't pay $90 a CPU for Windows XP Professional Global Oppression Server or whatever. (I'm a Mac guy so I don't know exactly what Windows is calling itself now.) I bet both Microsoft and Sun are kicking themselves for not cutting Google a deal. Imagine the PR Sun could have gotten by using Google as a reference customer.

Re:Licensing restrictions = per-CPU licensing

[hungrygrue]

It doesn't matter how much of a discount they could have gotten on XP. Even if XP were free, it is not a flexable toolkit from which you could reasonably build a system like Google. You can not customise and build complex systems based around it as easily as you can around Linux.

Re:Licensing restrictions = per-CPU licensing

[darkonc]

RTFA. Paying for an entire OS when you're essentially using it as a boot loader wasn't the biggest thing to stick in Google's craw. Having to go ask for permission to be able to stick your nose deep into the kernel and pull out, tweak or seriously crank parts of the OS is what really irked them -- and now that Bill considers Google to be their competition, I can easily see Microsoft yanking them around on a chain at every opportunity.

Imagine being a Professional Nascar team, and having to ask Gates Motors (GM) for permission every time they re-tune their machine ... then finding out that the President of GM has gotten into Nascar racing. ... Then they start asking you to provide full details of your tuning methods "to ensure that our cars don't get a bad safety reputation".
It's all downhill from there.

Re:Licensing restrictions = per-CPU licensing

[drsmithy]

You can not customise and build complex systems based around it as easily as you can around Linux.

Of course you could - if you were prepared to negotiate appropriate licensing with Microsoft.

Re:Licensing restrictions = per-CPU licensing

[hungrygrue]

The ease of customizing would be nowhere near what Linux offers. Any component can be replaced or rebuilt however needed. A Linux system is a collection of independent components, not a monolithic product like Windows.

Re:Licensing restrictions = per-CPU licensing

[Thanatopsis]

That's the point of the article - If Google had negotiated "the appropriate" contract terms, when it came to time to renegotiate - WHAM! Here comes the Microsoft hammer. Don't think so? Why not? They would have had Google by the balls. You cannot put your ball in the MS vice and not expect them to squeeze.

Re:Licensing restrictions = per-CPU licensing

[grcumb]

"Of course you could - if you were prepared to negotiate appropriate licensing with Microsoft."

You mis-spelled 'reaming'. 8^)

Re:Licensing restrictions = per-CPU licensing

[ciroknight]

So, this begs the question: Why didn't they use a BSD?

Just being able to tune the kernel while it was running probably wasn't the entire concern. The number of eyes on the source probably influenced the decision as well. More eyes are on the Linux kernel than any other Open Source kernel, including all of the BSDs, and I'd hazard to say "combined".

Hell, Redhat and IBM practically run their businesses (well, IBM's software business) on tweaking and prodding and fixing bugs within the Linux kernel. All of this is free money to Google, as they never pay a cent to fix those bugs or get those tweaks, and yet at the same time they get an extremely fast, flexible, and effecient operating system.

Linux is best suited for the server room, and Google has leveraged this to a tee.

Re:Licensing restrictions = per-CPU licensing

[Anonymous Coward]

So, this begs the question: Why didn't they use a BSD?

It raises the question. Begging the question is a particular type of logical fallacy. Don't use phrases you don't know the meaning of.

Re:Licensing restrictions = per-CPU licensing

[thoth]

Why didn't they use a BSD?

Probably because Google's founders went to Stanford! ;)

goooogle

[gadzook33]

Even if he is referring to MS, it's not as if google can be considered impartial. They must have known they'd be competing with redmond on one level or another. How would it sound if someone said to them, yeah but doesn't your search technology run on Windows? Not horrible but not great either. Especially if the competition becomes even more heated.

Re:goooogle

[l3v1]

How would it sound if someone said to them, yeah but doesn't your search technology run on Windows?

... ridiculous ? lame ?

And don't forget...

[iendedi]

Besides being customizable, Google uses oodles of servers. At $300 / seat for something proprietary, they are saving ungodly amounts of money.

In the end though, it is always about control.

Re:And don't forget...

[Chandon Seldon]

That really depends on how big the oodles are. Millions of dollars do add up, even for large companies.

Re:And don't forget...

[ozmanjusri]

$300 * oodles = a drop in the ocean at Google. It's not about the money.

The money would add up to $25-30 million. That may not seem like a lot of cash to you, but I'd still get out of bed for it.

Re:And don't forget...

[tobiasly]

The money would add up to $25-30 million. That may not seem like a lot of cash to you, but I'd still get out of bed for it.

I'm not saying it's not a lot of money. I'm saying that isn't the reason Google uses Linux. I'm sure they're just pleased as punch that it also saves them a bunch of money, but if the tables were turned and they could have saved $30M by using a bloated, inefficient, closed OS, they still would have gone with Linux.

Google and IBM use Linux, why won't others follow?

[heffel]

With well known companies like Google and IBM endorsing Linux, I wonder why it isn't more widely used in the enterprise?

I wrote some thoughts about that in my website earlier today.

Re:Open source is broken

[Anonymous Coward]

Open source can never be very easy to use and easy to run.

Never? Maybe if people sat down and said "gee, here is what we need to do to make it easy, without making it utterly stupid" it might get done.

The problem is, is that "ease of use" for most people means "microsoft crayola". Where, ok, if you want to disable that autorun thing, you can dig around in the system control panel under hardware to disable it for your cdrom drive. I could walk my mother through that on the phone. If you want Windows XP to stop trying to autoplay your 200GB USB drive for an hour while it scans every damn file on it over USB1.1 for an autorun file, THAT takes editing a group policy with the policy editor. I couldn't even figure that out on my own.

Come up with something where we don't have to cripple our cool toys to make it easy enough for an idiot to use, and we'll happily do it.

Re:Open source is broken

[walt-sjc]

Open source can never be very easy to use and easy to run

Ever hear of a product called Tivo? Runs Linux. Or maybe a linksys router...
I guess those products are beyond your ability to use or run...

Re:OT: Traffic impact by Google Personalized Homep

[Werkhaus]

I wish I had mod points. This is far more news-worthy than some of the slashvertising that gets approved.

Re:OT: Traffic impact by Google Personalized Homep

[Eightyford]

Why else do you think there is so many google stories? The owners of Slashdot are kissin some serious ass to be on that page.

Re:borgware?

[vectorian798]

Hahha I totally agree. (And I am not biased, I am dual bootin Ubuntu and Windows 2003 EE)

The worst part is when a company refuses to

[crovira]

implement a change because they don't see a need to. Of course they don't see any need to. They're not in your business, so they get in your face.

And your product goes begging.

Closed source has probably killed as many good ideas as PHBs.

Re:The worst part is when a company refuses to

[Cro Magnon]

Actually, that's the 2nd worst. THE worst is when the company refuses to make a change because they've decided to compete with you.

They've come a long way

[dubbreak]

In their computer technology. Lego to server farms!

Re:They've come a long way

[The Kiloman]

Not to nitpick, but any true Lego fan would notice that those bricks are WAY too big to be Lego blocks. They look like Duplo to me.

Re:They've come a long way

[syylk]

Oh the irony!

That display is in the BILL GATES building basement at Stanford...

Two things come to mind: "karma" and "thorn in the side". :)

Re:They've come a long way

[Itanshi]

i believe they are megablock brand 'duplos' ^^;

Re:Open source is broken

[Joe U]

A few points:

Tivo is not open source. It runs Linux and you can get your very own version of Linux from the source code, but you do not have a Tivo when you are done, because that code is not open.

Linksys routers are an appliance, and not completely open as well. e.g. Broadcomm drivers are closed.

Re:Let me tell you why

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you going to back up your bullshit statement or are you just trolling?

Business guys still haven't quite figured it out..

[GGardner]

I love this quote:
IDC predicts Linux revenues at $35bn worldwide within the next three years.

I wonder how much "Linux revenues" google has contributed to? How many Linux licenses have they purchased for their 100k machine farm?

Borgware, hmm... let me guess...

[Junior J. Junior III]

Amiga?

No, no wait... DEC. Yeah! Google is so fast because it does NOT run on a PDP-10.

Re:Open source is broken

[KwKSilver]

If you make an open source OS that is blindingly simple to install and use, you won't get any money from your support contracts.

Which is what Debian and Ubuntu and FreeBSD have done. The first and last have been around a while.

Linux success b/c of Google

[bach37]

Linux is successful many say because of Google- Google being the free 24/7 searchable customer support for your Linux problem. Somewhat ironic that Google's success is in part from using Linux.

Re:Linux success b/c of Google

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not ironic.

Re:Linux success b/c of Google

[wenchmagnet]

Check out http://www.google.com/linux

Re:borgware?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you'd be biased if you actually had to pay for 03EE.

Re:borgware?

[oGMo]

Hint: this isn't about you. No one cares about you. This is about Google, and why they chose Linux. They've grown from a few servers to a hugely successful do-no-evil public company. They made a big decision along the way to use Linux. This is what we're interested in.

Who the hell are you?

Re:OT: Traffic impact by Google Personalized Homep

[generic-man]

When a popular web site links to another web site, the link target gets a lot of hits.

Slashdot is one example of this. Fark is another. SomethingAwful's Awful Links of the Day are another. Netscape's "What's Cool" is one of the first. I don't see what the big deal is. Google could start soliciting payments to link more sites -- oh wait, as a company that makes nearly all its money from advertising, that's what Google always does!

licencing

[nounderscores]

I always wondered what would happen to licencing if somebody invented a computer with no seat, no monitor, no keyboard and no definable cpu - just a big expanse of FPGA chips connected at the edges to network and power.

Re:licencing

[Chandon Seldon]

That'll be $1 per watt of power your computer consumes at max usage.

Re:Google and IBM use Linux, why won't others foll

[afidel]

Personally I am much more impressed by the fact that Oracle runs almost their entire business, including business line apps off of Oracle RAC on Linux.

Convenience, too.

[lheal]

In my 50-node-and-smaller networks, it's just so much nicer to be able to install the OS on the machines and not have to mess with licensing. I think that goodness would be that much sweeter on a 500-node network.

They could have used *BSD, but that would have been like Harvard boys using Yale locks. A bunch of Stanford grads use Berkeley-derived stuff? Get real :-).

Re:Convenience, too.

[A beautiful mind]

Actually i believe the main reason they used Linux vs. BSD is that apart from all the pros for BSD, BSD does NOT scale well, admittedly so. Google has a huge array of servers, they need scalability almost as much as the ability to modify stuff.

Re:Convenience, too.

[heatdeath]

Like Berkley Sockets?

Yes, no way google would use that.

Re:Convenience, too.

[ezzzD55J]

Actually i believe the main reason they used Linux vs. BSD is that apart from all the pros for BSD, BSD does NOT scale well, admittedly so. Google has a huge array of servers, they need scalability almost as much as the ability to modify stuff.

What are you talking about? How can a single OS be a factor in scalability when the type of scalability you mean is the number of machines? The only scalability concern there is efficiency and cleverness of inter-node communication (protocols, really). Totally OS independent, I'd say. So, would you like to clarify?

Re:borgware?

[Hadur]

The selection of Software available for Graphic and Media are simply pathetic for Linux.
Pathetic? You have got to be kidding. First off, video support sucks under Windows. Let's see... I need Windows Media Player for wmv and mpeg, Quicktime for mov, RealPlayer for real, a proprietary DVD-codec for DVD's, etc. etc.
Linux? mplayer
Let's go to the audio now. First, you get Windows Media Player that can play mp3 and wav. OK. Then, I need to search through the Internet to find codecs for all of my ogg's and numerous other streaming formats, etc.
Linux? gstreamer
Even the performance of Linux is vastly superior to Windows when it comes to audio and video. A whole flame war almost erupted on the kernel-mailing-list because Linus changed the hertz polling time to a sane value instead of 1000Hz. This caused some audiophiles to cry out because they would miss a couple frames every now and then. BTW, just for comparison, Windows is set at 100Hz.

If you want to flame Linux, do it based on its shortcomings (for example, Office suite, video drivers, games). But, don't do it in the area that Linux shines under - especially when so much development is ongoing with projects like amaroK.

- Stan

okay okay, google uses linux

[dezmund]

so does amazon and many other huge names. But lets not get carried away: Your busines can use Linux, and it probably won't become the next google or amazon. Linux is just a small part of the equation that made google a success. And hey! ebay uses windows, WTF? do your own research at http://www.netcraft.com/

Re:okay okay, google uses linux

[coolGuyZak]

If I had mod points, I'd mod him "offtopic". Why? Because the point of the presentation wasn't "google is successful because of linux", but "This is why we chose linux". It is obvious that using linux doesn't automatically make your business successful. The same goes for any operating system. However, why a company chooses 1 tool over another is most definitely important.

Re:Open source is broken

[Neo-Rio-101]

Sorry, should have been "peace of mind".

Somehow "piece of mind" must have jumped into my head when I recall how some customers give support companies a piece of their mind as they try to deflect them blame for downtime when their higher-ups come calling.

Re:Open source is broken

[RoadWarriorX]

Wow, that sounded a lot like an employer that I had. For instance, there was an issue where a COM+ server was throwing access violations. After taking some time and using literally basic debugging tools, I found the problem in the disassembly and traced it back to something in COM+ constructor strings. My company still needed to open a ticket to Microsoft because "they were the experts". Low and behold, they found the same thing... five days later. The moral of the story is that no matter how many talented, well-qualified geeks we have, the business people still want the assurance of their vendor. Google, having engineered their solution on their own without a vendor, took the risks and was rewarded handsomely.

Server room

[Trogre]

While showing a slide show of Google's hardware evolution, which began humbly with an odds-and-ends collection of "spare computers that were lying around Stanford" (hobbled together, literally, with pieces of Lego and duct tape) and ended with a present-day photo of Google's current server room (darkened to the point of being indistinguishable, for competitive reasons), DiBona said Google has used Linux all the way.

Forget software licensing, I just want to see the slide with their server room!

Any links?

Re:Server room

[Frogg]

i don't speak hebrew, but i believe this pic shows the early google setup at stanford, complete with lego and duct tape.
http://tidno1.exteen.com/20050222/server-google

i'm sure i've seen a pic showing racks of beige-boxed pcs, before google went for the rack mount kit - but i can't seem to find it now.

but nowadays, google's data centres are just like any one elses
http://www.prweaver.com/blog/2004/09/03/8-google-d ata-centers
http://www.mrx.no/San-Francisco/A_cluster_of_cooln ess_Google_History.html

hth?

It's called synergy

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not uncommon for things to operate to the benefit of each other. Another way of putting it is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This kind of thing is an unpredicted benefit. It gives open source a competitive advantage over proprietary software. Of course, Rome wasn't built in a day and it will be a long time before Microsoft's domination is broken but things like this assure that the day will come.

Re:It's called synergy

[Winkhorst]

I think the word you are looking for is "symbiotic." Keep in mind, though, that as Wild Bill Burroughs has pointed out, symbiotic relationships often deteriorate into parasitic ones. If I recall correctly, "synergy" was a buzz word of some multinational corporate monstrosity that they used in their TV advertising. "Better living through synergy," or some such muck.

Re:It's called synergy

[Bimo_Dude]

synergy

AOL TimeWarner

'Nuff said

I find what ISN'T said to be more interesting

[fzammett]

I find it interesting that there didn't seem to be any mention of Linux' technical superiority over Windows. That doesn't seem to be one of Googles' reasons for going with Linux. This is interesting because many people claim Linux is far superior to Windows in terms of basic architecture and technical design, yet Google didn't see fit to mention that reason, if that is one of their reasons at all. And it MAY BE one of their reasons and they just forgot to mention it, but it's an intersting, ah, Freudian non-slip I suppose :)

Re:I find what ISN'T said to be more interesting

[LurkerXXX]

because many people claim Linux is far superior to Windows in terms of basic architecture and technical design

And many of those people would be Linux zealots.

Seriously, there are plenty of reasons for them to use Linux (or a BSD) without invoking massive technical superiority.

1) Google was a startup. They've only gone public and become zillionares recently. Before that they had to run off of venture capital. They knew they would be running (tens of) thousands of servers. One license for an OS isn't much. Three or four (or five) magnitudes of order more is.

2) Even if somehow MS, gives you free copies of windows server, you still are putting an OS with a hefty GUI on servers which are going to sit headless and run database queries all day. Once again, buying the little bit of additional RAM necessary for the GUI overhead is nothing for that server you have in your office at work. Multiply it by tens of thousands... it starts adding up to real money being sucked out of your investment capital for no reason.

3) As they said, they have full access to the source code, and they have enough technical talent in-house that they can really take advantage of tweaking it. Not a lot of companies have those kind of resources in-house. They did and they needed to for the job they were working on.

Basically they chose the right tool for the job. That doesn't make it a better tool than Windows, Solaris, MacOS, or any other OS for other jobs, it doesn't make it technically superior, it just makes it the right tool for the job. Someday some of the zealots out there will grow up and realize that.

Re:I find what ISN'T said to be more interesting

[fzammett]

I absolutely agree... they made probably the best choice they could under the circumstances. More than that, it sounds very much like they would have made the same choice even if they had money growing on trees in the office. They had some good reasons for choosing Linux, and although I don't consider myself a Linux fan, I think they made a great decision that has served them well.

My only point was that they didn't say they choose the technically superior solution, which is an interesting omission in light of all the zealots out there (as you correctly call them) who claim Linux couldn't have been engineered better by God herself :)

Re:I find what ISN'T said to be more interesting

[pe1chl]

There is some internal writeup circulating about what issues were found when Microsoft converted Hotmail.com from Solaris+Linux to Windows.
They had the same problems. Managing a cluster of thousands of servers was much simpeler with Linux than with Windows. Probably that has changed, but still... for this job of running a massive website cluster, Linux was more suitable than Windows.
(of course they still changed it, but they had different objectives than Google)

Re:I find what ISN'T said to be more interesting

[l3v1]

And many of those people would be Linux zealots.

And many of them would just be professionals with their feet on the ground. As surely as many Windows defenders are nothing but ignorant zealots. So what's your point ?

The "zealot" argument for dismissing some mass opinion doesn't hold ground for long now.

Their ingenuity lies both in being able to pick the right OS to go with and in being able to turn it to really suit their needs. Choosing Linux (or almost any free OS of that thime) let them have the right environment for customization and development. That's all that counts.

plenty of reasons for them to use Linux (or a BSD) without invoking massive technical superiority

I've always found the argumentation about Linux being only "good" because it's "free" absolutely ignorant. And besides that yes, there are plenty of professional and technical reasons to choose Linux/BSD/etc. for such a task over Windows or any/some closed sourced OSes of that time.

Re:I find what ISN'T said to be more interesting

[LurkerXXX]

Most companies have only a handful of servers. That means eating up a little extra RAM to handle the heafty gui. When it's not doing anything, the GUI isn't sucking up CPU. It's just a RAM expense. As I said. For most companies who only run a few servers, that little bit extra doesn't matter a bit. When you are running tens of thousands of servers it's a different matter.

Re:I find what ISN'T said to be more interesting

[LurkerXXX]

Who said it's only good because it's free? I said they had many reasons for choosing it and didn't need in any way to invoke a massive technical superiority. It was just the right tool for the job at hand. How exactly is that saying it's only good because it's free? Just because someone doesn't praise Linux that doesn't mean they are dissing it. Don't be so defensive.

BTW, I'm an OpenBSD and MacOS user as well as Windows. I'm not a "windows defender".

OOPS, I mean 512KB ;-)

[aussersterne]

The past is receding on me, too, it would seem. I meant 512KB, not 512MB. And it would take 64 DRAM chips!

Re:OOPS, I mean 512KB ;-)

[Wolfier]

Are they 4164 chips? ;-) How time has flied!

Re:OOPS, I mean 512KB ;-)

[aussersterne]

Yup. :-) @250ns. And if you piggybacked them and clipped some of the power pins, you could turn them into 4464s and fill the boards out with 4x as much memory. Or something like that, it's been a long time. :-)

Re:OOPS, I mean 512KB ;-)

[Wolfier]

Yeah...haha I still remember buying 250 ns 41256 chips to put onto a memory card (for 256 KB!!) for my Apple //e...15 years ago, or replacing 4116 with 4164, bend a few pins, waste 75% of the capacity...and it still worked! It was fun when hardware were that hackable.

Come to think about it, 250ns ~ 4 Mhz DRAM...still quite a bit faster than the seek time of an average 10000 RPM hard drive ;)

Re:borgware?

[Makarakalax]

Lol, calm down.

OSS Advantages

[Mandrel]

I'm amazed at how increasingly irrelevant Microsoft products are becoming to my use of computers, both privately and as a developer. With OSS, the fact that I can fix it myself trumps any modest disparity in features, maturity, or price.

And the price of OSS is not its main draw. I chose to develop a number of projects with Java rather than Visual Studio because VS was expensive to buy, while Java cost nothing. But then I was frustrated by my dependence on Sun to fix problems in the closed VM and class libraries. So I'm now developing on an OSS language and framework.

Re:OSS Advantages

[kbrannen]

I agree in so many ways. I run Win2K in VMware on my Linux machine for that last couple of apps I haven't managed to wean myself away from.

But I just found MS's OneNote which looks to be a really cool and very useful app. I really don't want to buy it, but it looks so useful. If anyone knows an app that run on Linux that does the same thing (OSS or commercial), please point it out!

Re:OSS Advantages

[Mandrel]

OSS development can be so damn agile I'm sure some OneNote clone or variant will soon be competitive. MS's bulwark is their patent frenzy.

Re:OSS Advantages

[meadowsp]

So which problems in the Java VM are these then?

Re:OSS Advantages

[Mandrel]

So which problems in the Java VM are these then?

I had an installed machine control system crashing with a VM error about every two weeks, luckily eventually fixed by upgrading the JRE to a later patch version.

As for the class libraries, the desktops of the machines are littered with hs_err files from a still unresolved problem with the plugin library. Plus there is a mod I would like to make to the serial port library if I had access to the code (no response from Sun to my requests to look at a fix). There's RxTx, but now I've got to get my client to pay for the changeover.

Sun have started to open parts of Java, but I've moved to alternatives where possible for new projects.

Re:OSS Advantages

[deKernel]

Not sure what apps you are using, but you might want to give WINE a shot. It runs all the Windows apps that I still need (Quicken, Work to produce resumes)

Re:OSS Advantages

[willCode4Beer.com]

I think one of the problems MS and other comapnies have is, they are trying to provide the "one size fits all" type of solution. They try to do research into what they think prople need and build accordingly.
OSS, generally starts off by someone trying to solve a specific problem for their own needs. They decide to share their solution. People with similar needs modify it to meet their needs, and share their solutions. People with different needs choose a different option.
I tend to think the large collection of OSS as a large library of custom code that evoles to be more generic over time. Proprietary software tends to start over-generic, and then evolves to handle more specific cases through patches and plugins.
The result of this is, the OSS tends to increase in quality over time, and the proprietary code gets more spaghetti-ized over time.
(These are just generalizations and don't hold true in all cases; just most cases)
What to choose? It depends on your needs and what's available to most closely meet them.

Re:OSS Advantages

[Mandrel]

Yes proprietory software can't be easily customized, particularly if it can't be scripted or take plugins, so its complexity has to grow.

Microsoft should ensure all their software can be easily customized through scripts and plugins, even to the extent of over-riding parts of the code via published hook APIs. This would allow closed source products to be patched.

Re:OSS Advantages

[ciggieposeur]

Plenty of times. Off the top of my head:

1) The ability to find the size of a filesystem without resorting to JNI to execute stat_vfs(). http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id =4057701 Claims to be fixed but fix is irrelevant until our J2EE app server upgrades to that version -- Sun's fix is scheduled for release in 2Q 2006.

2) Erroneous OutOfMemoryErrors being thrown under Solaris on Sun JDK (1.2.x, 1.3.x) for our J2EE app (lots of EJBs): http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id =4390238 Had to use the workaround described in the bug. We encountered the bug and could faithfully reproduce it two years after it was closed as "not reproducible".

3) JDK 1.2.2: HttpURLConnection.getErrorStream() returned null because the Sun developer never implemented the method. I had to re-implement an HTTP client just to have this function (and to avoid other problems in the API such as throwing FileNotFoundException for 404's).

4) JVM for our app server (1.2.2, 1.3.1) on linux cored when DISPLAY was exported over ssh.

5) JVM 1.3.x cored on Solaris when using DBCS Japanese locale. 1.2.x cored when DBCS X11 fonts were missing.

We tended to see new reproducible JVM crash cases (server side only, J2EE, 1.2.x, 1.3.x, IBM and Sun JVMs, AIX Linux Solaris Windows) about once a month. Sometimes it was the mix in with native database drivers and app server plugins, other times DBCS locales, many times just J2EE long-lived server having to do weird desktop-isms (chart generation was a huge pain before Headless AWT).

YMMV. Reliability has improved over time.

Re:OSS Advantages

[justine_avalanche]

> Visual Studio and MS office are more than enough
> to make linux irrelevant.
that's because you use it as a desktop tool, I don't think google's talking about what tool is best to develop c code. They probably care about servers processing huge amounts of data.
as for linux on the desktop, it's another topic all together.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:GPL V3.....

[AuMatar]

We'd need to see the GPL v3 first. But probably not unless they altered a piece of GPLed code- for example if they run a modified linux kernel they'd have to release those mods, or if they run a modified apache those mods. If their search algorithms are user level (likely), those can stay proprietary.

Re:Why didn't they pick BSD?

[putko]

Apparently I've gored some sacred cow here: my original question "Why didn't they pick BSD" got ranked "overrated", when it hadn't even been rated.

Thanks moderators.

Here we go again: why didn't they pick BSD? All things being equal, I figure that just due to having more expeirence with BSD, they would have gone with it over Linux.

Re:borgware?

[NullProg]

What an annoying poke at Microsoft, but I suppose I shouldn't expect anything less from the ass-puppets at Slashdot. It must be nice to have all your worlds problems boiled down to one fucking target... a FUCKING HUGE target.

Chill, we would still be bitching about OS/2 or DrDos if they were around. But they are not. I bitch at the KDE/Gnome teams as much as I want too.

Linux works fine, but it doesn't allow me to be productive. I leave Linux to do its job where it really shines: Office labor, Servers, etc. The selection of Software available for Graphic and Media are simply pathetic for Linux.

Ok, its your choice. But if you really wanted quality sound you'd still be running an Apple 2GS with 32 simultaneous channels. If you really wanted quality video you would still be running that Amiga 4000 with a video toaster. Generic Dell/Gateway whatever Windows PCs wont give you either. Neither will generic Linux PCs.

My Wifes $200 Naked PC equipped with Audigy and ATI running SuSE gives me a little of both worlds without the cost of a Windows license. I invested a day to learn how Audacity and Broadcast2000 work. It took me two days to teach her how the programs worked. We do video/audio editing just fine.


I prefer to use a Mac or XP for that.

Knock yourself out. I have two Macs here at the compound (no XP). I was trying to be helpfull, and please don't trash what your not willing to experience yourself.

Enjoy,

Um... it would do what ever you made it for...

[NotQuiteReal]

... but I'd hate to pay for the first one!

Love that ASP!

[Stalin]

This was at the bottom of the article when I read it:

Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server error '80040e31'

Timeout expired /CBRincludes/related_news.asp, line 137

Re:Love that ASP!

[Kremit]

Good point, but at least PHP returns a decent error message, and not a fucking hex code from some undocumented documentation.

Re:Love that ASP!

[A beautiful mind]

Actually both are kind of wrong.

The correct solution would be (like i'm doing in perl) is to throw a 500 - internal server error and log the error into a server log. That way at least they would be forced to fix their site aswell.

Re:Love that ASP!

[Stalin]

The comedy is in the irony.

Microsoft Cluster Server?

[Bananatree3]

Why not just move the entire Google code base to Microsoft Cluster Server? I know it would mean a complete rewrite from the bottom up, and would require a whole new training program. You would also have to worry about serious security issues in the OS because you can't inspect the code. You would have to rely on a competitor to patch up problems. You would have to wait during "patch turnround time" which could be months (or never if Microsoft thinks its not really a big deal). You would have to be forced in to doing things the way Microsoft wants you to do things, and use their own "Super Secure" programs. And thats just the OS. You would have to pay through the nose on those pesky Site licences. To upgrade, theres another several hundred thousand (or millions) of dollars. And when they release Version 2.0, you have to go around and upgrade all the machines the way Microsoft wants you too.

But! You would have the comfort of knowing that you are running a Certified Microsoft(R) Product!

Re:Microsoft Cluster Server?

[lems1]

OMG!

I have never read such a nice response, so concise and so clear! I'll need to copy and paste this and printed so that I can post it all over the office.

You rock dude!

Re:Microsoft Cluster Server?

[fishbowl]

"Why not just move the entire Google code base to Microsoft Cluster Server?"

The only reason you need is: You are not the CTO of Google. Get there, or some other position with decision making authority, and knock yourself out.

Re:Microsoft Cluster Server?

[dtfinch]

The licensing alone will set them back at least 100 million dollars.

Re:Microsoft Cluster Server?

[isorox]

Why not just move the entire Google code base to Microsoft Cluster Server?

We had a situation that brought down part of a broadcast critical program yesterday, a fileserver based on windows server 2003 cluster decided to die. One machine ran out of resources, but responded to pings, which mean that the smbshare wasn't available, as the raid or IP didn't fail over to machine b.

Of course as part of outsourcing parts of the company off, we had to contact a helpdesk 100 miles away to solve the problem and it took 90 minutes to reboot the freaking machine.

Still, another bow in the arrow to replace the server with a redhat cluster server (we have another file server that's been running for 2 1/2 years and never had a single minute of downtime), and bring it back under our control rather than buying a "managed service" from a german company

Re:OT: Traffic impact by Google Personalized Homep

[jcnnghm]

I personally never visited Wired until I added it to my google homepage. Now I visit whenever a story catches my eyes (generally two to four times daily). I could definitely see google dramatically altering sites traffic.

S^HFlakware

[grcumb]

"SCO provided the opperating system for the Abrams Tank."

'Long haired smellies' the world over quake in fear at the news....

Re:Open source is broken

[Trelane]

Where can I get the source for linksys' router OS?

Three places off the top of my head: linksys, sveasoft, openwrt. The only closed part (tmk) are the broadcomm drivers.

So what?

[James A. D. Joyce]

It's all well and good if the kernel is open source, but an operating system is much more than a kernel.

Re:Google and IBM use Linux, why won't others foll

[fishbowl]

"With well known companies like Google and IBM endorsing Linux, I wonder why it isn't more widely used in the enterprise?"

Why do you think it's not widely used in the enterprise? There may be as many as 30 million hosts running Linux. What was the estimate of the maximum number of OS/2 installations, by the way?
How many businesses use Unixware? (A large supermaket chain in my region does, their inventory, bookkeeping and personnel systems run on it).

It's all over the "enterprise"
where I work -- a very large, very well known publicly traded telecommunications company. Every place where we don't actually need huge Sun hardware or specific Solaris application support, we've got Linux.

Where do you believe Linux *isn't*?

Re:Free

[macdaddy357]

Free software is a plot between godless communists and moozlim ayrab terrists who don't pray to jesus like we do here in 'marika to destroy capitalism and the entire western economy, 'specially 'marika's. That gul durn googley is in on it, so I uses Yahoo. Puh-raise Bill Gates! Puh-raise microsoft! /troll

Re:Open source is broken

[nolife]

Does anyone wonder why Open Source and Linux in general have a bad rep?

I don't.
OSS only gets a bad rep from the closed source companies in direct competition and the ones that tried and failed to make money from it or those that can not find a way to make money from it. That is not a reflection of the open source software itself.

The common model of making money with open source is to sell you a support contract.

Open source software is here and will always be here. Those that desire to try to make a profit from it does not change that. If they fail to make a profit, it is not because of the open source software caused the failure. The open source software will be around before, during, and after any of those companies come and go.

In conclusion, OSS is not broken at all like you claim. Some of the business methods and plans to make money from it are. This is not unique, MANY closed source companies have and continue to go out of business for the same exact reasons.

MIRROR

[firepacket]

Article mirror:
http://firepacket.net/mirror/unhappy.html

"communist nazis"?

[Stalin]

That one tripped me up. A communist nazi would be a very conflicted person indeed.

Let me help you out with some terms:

Communism -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Fascism -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Nazism -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
Stalinism -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

All very similar but not all the same thing.

Re:"communist nazis"?

[daigu]

Communism is not fascism or vice versa. Put both together and you have an oxymoron. Nor is the U.S. a democracy, it is a republic. People just use words nowadays without knowing what they even mean. Buy a dictionary or do a web search already.

Re:"communist nazis"?

[glib909]

Think that's bad? Try "zionist nazis", which some have used to rationalize the motives of the U.S. of late.

Those Zionist Nazi bastards! *raises fist to the heavens*

"Bushevik" is another idealogically contradictory term I've heard thrown around, too.

Gotta wonder about some people sometimes ... and other people, all of the time.

Cost per seat probably isn't a factor...

[NotQuiteReal]

Goog is now has a market cap of $USD 79+B

I don't think "$300 / seat for something proprietary" really matters that much. Even if they re-bought that license every single year, it is less than $1/day to match whatever they are paying the butt that sits in the seat. I have to imagine that even peons are getting more than $100/day.

More likely, they just found that Linux did what they needed, and the non-cost, per seat, was a bonus.

It's the "big idea" that google is, that makes it a multi-billion dollar enterprise... not the fact that they may or may not have pinched a few pennies here and there.

Re:Cost per seat probably isn't a factor...

[strider44]

Most of their machines wouldn't cost $300 for them. Plus these are servers so they wouldn't be paying anyone to actually maintain them. I read once that when a computer breaks down Google doesn't even notice or care, let alone replace it. The things a complex net of servers, if one component breaks down there's still hundreds to fill the gap.

Re:Cost per seat probably isn't a factor...

[Excelsior]

It's the "big idea" that google is, that makes it a multi-billion dollar enterprise... not the fact that they may or may not have pinched a few pennies here and there.

Hey, hey - A penny saved is a penny...aw fuck it, he's right.

Re:Cost per seat probably isn't a factor...

[Gumber]

I don't think "$300 / seat for something proprietary" really matters that much. Even if they re-bought that license every single year, it is less than $1/day to match whatever they are paying the butt that sits in the seat.

I think you are missing a couple of things. First off, Google wasn't always a multibillion dollar company. They were a startup first, and when you are a startup with no revenue, capital is damn scarce. In that environment, avoiding the cost of software licenses is an obvious way to economize.

Fast forward to the day you start earning some revenue, and maybe even an operating profit. You have lots of demands for reinvesting the money for further growth. You could put some of it into software licenses for a commercial OS, and the costs of converting your infrastructure and porting your code, or you could put it into more hardware (for the cost of OS licenses, google could probably have bought 20-30% more capacity), to handle more customers, and more engineers, to improve your product, and marketing/sales to keep stoking your growth.

The biggest reason to go with a commercial vendor is that you can take advantage of the investment they are amortizing over a large sales volume. This can be a good thing if you have rather ordinary problems you are trying to solve, but someone like google (or amazon, etc) doesn't have ordinary problems, so they are forced to create their own solutions (which also gives them a competitive advantage). Overtime, the rest of the world might catch up to the point that commercial vendors now offer solutions, but again, the value you gain from replacing your existing solutions has to be weighed against the other things you could do with the money.

Re:Cost per seat probably isn't a factor...

[timmarhy]

your forgetting that that $300 is just for a useless paper license. it doesn't do what they want, so you still need that butt in the seat....

Re:Cost per seat probably isn't a factor...

[mrchaotica]

I'm sure they at least log the failure somewhere, so that they can eventually replace a whole group of failed ones at once.

Re:Cost per seat probably isn't a factor...

[pallmall1]

I don't think "$300 / seat for something proprietary" really matters that much.

Google wasn't always worth billions. $300 bucks for anything is a lot of money to most college students. And if it shouldn't matter to Google, then it really shouldn't matter to Microsoft.

However, if it's not so much to you, then could you mail me $300? I'll be glad to pay it back should I ever become worth billions. :)

Re:Cost per seat probably isn't a factor...

[RoLi]

I don't think "$300 / seat for something proprietary" really matters that much. Even if they re-bought that license every single year, it is less than $1/day to match whatever they are paying the butt that sits in the seat.

First of all, it's not really about "seats", most Google-computers are in clusters.

Second, when they would have chosen Windows, they would have never got off the ground. Just RTFA, they started with some random computers they gathered - and now imaging to build something like Google on top of computers running Windows 95, 98, ME, NT4 and 2K. All in different flavours.

Re:Cost per seat probably isn't a factor...

[Eivind]

There are *noone* sitting in the "seat" infront of 99% of Googles machines. That's the point you're missing.

Re:Cost per seat probably isn't a factor...

[d99-sbr]

We had a Google rep. come visit us at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm in April or so, to round up fresh engineers.

As far as I remember it, they are now on version three of their cluster design, and today it is simply rack mounted machines like you find in any cluster, but up until and including version two it was simply motherboards stacked on top of each other. And like the grand parent said, they were never replaced simply because you couldn't get them out of the stack. So the dead ones were just sitting there.

He showed us a few photos of it, it looked worse than any geek closet I have ever seen.

Re:Cost per seat probably isn't a factor...

[Simon Brooke]

don't think "$300 / seat for something proprietary" really matters that much. Even if they re-bought that license every single year, it is less than $1/day to match whatever they are paying the butt that sits in the seat. I have to imagine that even peons are getting more than $100/day.

This is Google we're talking about. There isn't any seat and there isn't any butt, and there isn't any peon to be paid. Or rather, to be specific, there's about one butt on one seat per 10,000 nodes. So if they were paying $300 per node for licences, they would be spending something like $3M in licences for every tech they employed. I don't think their techs are on $3M...

Re:Cost per seat probably isn't a factor...

[justforaday]

I don't think "$300 / seat for something proprietary" really matters that much. Even if they re-bought that license every single year, it is less than $1/day to match whatever they are paying the butt that sits in the seat.

Well, remember that we're talking about their ~40,000 machine clusters here. So even at $1/day per machine, you're talking $40,000 a day. Try telling us again that that's not a substantial amount.

Re:Cost per seat probably isn't a factor...

[LPetrazickis]

This is Google we're talking about. There isn't any seat and there isn't any butt, and there isn't any peon to be paid.

You appear to be misinformed. Everyone one of their computers has a specially designed seat for the pigeon using it. Google is built on pigeons, and they treat their pigeons well. That's how PageRank works.

Re:Free

[kfg]

Yes, I know that some companies do, but some do not.

Look Bub, you don't know that at all. . .

The sun hasn't gone cold yet.

KFG

You can

[arodland]

it runs exceptionally well under qemu.

Re:BSD would have fit better?

[theendlessnow]

Fine... your belligerent post has provoked response.

For some strange and unknown reason, you believe that the value is in your code and NOT in you. I suppose you are happy with the idea of being out sourced since under your definition of "cool" and not being a "nazi/communist" you have placed ALL of the value in the code. If this is what BSD is... then you can have it!

GPL protects ideas and people. Unlike BSD and other licenses which ONLY serve to support patent protected software farms. Rather than supporting the ideas of "dead projects" and "forgotten shelfware" and "replaceable people" (the BSD way you've defined here), the GPL ensures that good ideas, good people and good software do not go the way of the dodo.

Figures that you are a Microsoft...err.. I mean Solaris fan.

If there's any good news to your post.. its that not all BSD folks think like you.

Re:Let me tell you why

[oldwolf13]

I agree... 100% Google has a huge database of user info.

The thing is, this is one time were I AGREE to it. Their services are good, and make me lower my walls a bit. I am generally very anal about companies collecting information, but this is one time were I am a hypocrite.

Google is just another company to me and their "Do no evil" policy is meaningless (I mean do other companies actually sit around in high backed chairs and think of how to "do evil"?) Unfortunately the provide great services, and their "spying" has little impact on me... so if they need to do it to survive and provide good things, then they can have it.

This once... period... you other fuckers be warned :)

Re:It's DEC isn't it

[Detritus]

What GUI? Auto-configure worked OK if you followed DEC's guidelines for device addressing. The only thing ODT required was a break key, which used to be standard on teletypes and video terminals. If your system locks up from initializing a CSR with interrupts enabled, your code is broken.

I miss my PDP-11.

Money from support?

[DogDude]

The parent poster didn't mention whether or not they've been around for a while. He said that they won't make money. Last I checked, Debian and FreeBSD don't make money. Hell, does either group actually employ a single person?

Re:Money from support?

[colinrichardday]

Then that poster was wrong about needing support contracts to have a good reputation. After all, do Debian and FreeBSD have bad reputations? Or did that poster mean some other reputation?

Maybe thread performance

[cyfer2000]

I assume they need to bring a lot of threads on those machines, so performance difference may be a factor.

Re:Why didn't they pick BSD?

[guacamole]

If you were in CS in academia in the 90s you were most likely raised on Sun Solaris and perhaps DEC Unix and not BSD. Nowdays, those are installations are being actively replaced with Linux.

"Seat" is a misnomer here

[cduffy]

Remember, they're running a cluster made of hordes of cheap, little machines -- vastly more machines than they have employees.

Also remember that they didn't always have that market cap, or any.

Re:"Seat" is a misnomer here

[temojen]

Furthermore, Market Cap != Liquid Assets. Market Capitalization is the sum of the current value of all outstanding shares, not what they sold the shares to the brokers for.

Imagine a small company that sells 50000 shares to the IPO brokers at $10. Due to buzz, rumours, or manipulation, the shares go up to $1000 per share. The company's market capitalization is now 50 million, but the company only has 1/2 million in the bank.

Re:"Seat" is a misnomer here

[enjo13]

See: JAMDAT (you know, the bowling game on your phone).

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=JMDT

Market Cap: 720.06M
Revenue: 44.67M

Or an amazing 16 times over revenue.

Re:Why didn't they pick BSD?

[pmj]

The B is BSD stands for Berkeley. They were Stanford kids. Isn't it obvious? :)

Doubt it...

[Junta]

Though diskless workstations were very very common in *nix networks of the late 80s/early 90s (disks were *huge* physically and the only feasible approach was to have them somewhere far from the workstations and share them), the amount of the base system that ran in memory was typically just the kernel, which had the network support built in and booted nfsroot. As constrained hard drives were, memory was even tighter back then, consuming it as a ramdisk would've made the systems much less powerful.

Ahh, the days of running systems nfs off of 10base5 hub networks connecting to the huge servers with the 540 meg hard drives that took more than 4U (been so long, cant remember) each.

Re:Doubt it...

[ksheff]

we had a Sun-3 that had an external drive chassis about the size of a small dishwasher. It must have originally been hooked up to a VAX or some other mini. It had removable platters and when it was very busy, it would rattle and shake a lot.

Re:GPL V3.....

[AuMatar]

Thats part of what the GPL 3 is supposed to address- if you use modified GPL code to supply a web service to the outside, you'll have to release the modifications. The web service and patent holes are why they're writing version 3.

But for what Google does it is enough

[SuperKendall]

It's a little more thana kernel really. Only the OSX GUI is really closed.

But Google would not need that part for a million headless boxes in a rack. Being able to modify Darwin would let them do as much customizing as they have done with Linix.

However of course when you have a million boxes any licencing fee is too much, so they are really better off with Linux anyway as it's been hammered on a lot more, even though they could have just grabbed Darwin and gone with it.

Re:But for what Google does it is enough

[weg]

Only the OSX GUI is really closed

If the drivers for Airport extreme are open, why has nobody ported them to Linux, yet? (That's the main reason why I don't use Linux on my Powerbook - no Airport extreme support). If it's not open: Of what use is an open source kernel without open sourced hardware drivers?

Re:But for what Google does it is enough

[azuretek]

You get the privilege to use OS X and the main reason you aren't using linux is no support for your wifi card? for shame, I would never even think of switching to linux on my PB, it's people like you who make me cry to sleep every night.

Re:But for what Google does it is enough

[newrisejohn]

I agree with you. Even though I would not use Linux on my iBook, there are still several Apps out there that would benefit from the release of the Extreme drivers source, namely Kismac.

Re:But for what Google does it is enough

[muuh-gnu]

And its people like you, who "thank" in the public on their knees for the "privilege" to use OSX, that make me laugh every time I see it.

Re:But for what Google does it is enough

[Dan Ost]

When my wife upgrades from her iBook, I'll throw Linux on it and use it myself.
OS X is both functional and pretty, but it is simply not my preferred
environment.

Can OS X do everything I need it to? Probably.
Can it do my workload at least as well as Linux? Probably
Can I make the GUI get out of my way as easily as I can on Linux? Not that I've discovered.

Linux it is, then, for me.

Re:But for what Google does it is enough

[cascadefx]

You're arguing "history" with one of the faithful... if Steve decrees it, it is so.

Stop.

Continuing this discussion is like, as my father-in-law likes to say, wrestling with a pig; You get dirty and the pig just enjoys itself.

Re:But for what Google does it is enough

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

However of course when you have a million boxes any licencing fee is too much, so they are really better off with Linux anyway as it's been hammered on a lot more, even though they could have just grabbed Darwin and gone with it.

Licensing fee? I don't know what you mean by that. Linux really is a good choice for them, simply because there is so much momentum behind it. Pretty much every open source project runs on Linux and is up to date, which is not always going to be the case with the BSDs or Darwin. Linux is a very good fit for them as a service company.

Re:But for what Google does it is enough

[Bazzalisk]

It has to be pointed out that the Darwin kernel, whilst fine for a desktop or workstation, would suck mightily on a server.

Why?

Because it's a microkernel (intended for use with usrspace drivers) hidden inside a shell intended to emulate the monolithic BSD kernel. That's just a recipe for poor multi-threaded behaviour.

Re:borgware?

[dotlin]

the ass-puppets at Slashdot.

Like whoever moderated your comment as Insightful?

If you take away your flamebait tone and your off-topic remarks about graphic and media software support which are not relevant for Google's server farm it sounds like the point you're making is to "use the right tool for the job". From this article for Google it looks like the right tool for their purposes is an OS that lets them make their own customizations.

If that is an annoying poke at Microsoft and other proprietary vendors then so be it. For this particular job they aren't the right tool.

Not sure it's that interesting

[SuperKendall]

They also didn't state the sky is blue and they need a mix of oxygen and nitrogen to breathe.

Some things just go without saying... :-)

Re:borgware?

[oldwolf13]

I'll bite back too... as I wish Linux had better media creation tools.

Blender -> crazy interface, substandard third party support (if any)
Vector Images -> open office draw was very limited, and not meant (IMO for any intensive vector work... more for office charts and such stuff you add in to documents) I don't do as much vector work anymore, but when I did, Illustrator and Freehand (strangely my favorite) were much more advanced then anything I've seen on Linux to date.
Gimp -> If you think it's better then photoshop, all the power to you, many do not, I included.

I use Linux, Windows, and *BSD extensivelly, and as soon as the free tools are up to the job, I will replace them. But for now, sadly no.

Don't even get me started on audio... yes, Audacity is nice... Where's FruityLoops, Logic (Damn APPLE for this one), Reason, Rebirth, Cubase...etcetc.

Multimedia... where's Premier, After Effects, and stuff like that... I know Linux has a pretty high end composite application (forget the name, but it uses a server-node model), but you need a farm to run it on.

There is a Linux version of Maya, SoftImage, and Houdini around, but a lot of artists I know use 3DS Max/Lightwave... and trying to change an artists tools can be quite difficult (if not impossible)

I'm not trying to downplay Linux, what the community has done is phenomenal, and I applaud them. I anxiously await the day I won't need my windows machines anymore...except maybe for games :)

Re:borgware?

[uhlume]

Gee, Mister Coward, that's spiffy: you can open and play with files. But show me one graphic design or 3d modeling professional who uses any of those packages (with the possible exception of Blender) for any significant quantity of their daily work. (Hint: it's not going to be easy. Know why?)

('Nother hint: it's not because we love spending thousands of dollars on software, or because we've never tried the Open Source alternatives, so kindly take any condescension and shove it.)

Re:GPL V3.....

[aichpvee]

They're one of the primary reasons there has been a proposal to add web services language to the GPL in the first place.

Funny thought

[SuperKendall]

Perhaps the whole reason Google was created in the first place was someone sick of trying to find how to change resolutions in X-Windows for Linux using only AltaVista wanted a batter way.

I could see that being possible...

Re:Open source is broken

[nate nice]

"A. Open source can never be very easy to use and easy to run.
B. The common model of making money with open source is to sell you a support contract.
C. If you make an open source OS that is blindingly simple to install and use, you won't get any money from your support contracts."

Or even better you can make a system that is relatively easy to use, sell support contracts and even make them buy the software. This is why William Gates is so wealthy.

Re:borgware?

[mollog]

Yes, Borgware. Microsoft crushes both its competitors and its 'partners' alike. What's really cool about the success of Google is that, first, it comes on a non-Microsoft platform, and two, Google's success comes at the expense of Microsoft. Google is taking business that Microsoft wants.

Google is doing this by using a business model that is orthogonal to Microsoft's model; Google is open, non-proprietary, platform agnostic. Google does not restrict browser traffic, does not exclude 'competitors' sites, browsers, platforms, etc.

Google helps provide more for less. If Google helps bring Microsoft to heel, that's a good thing.

Borgware

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that the nature of F/OSS is to assimilate things, wouldn't that make it the real borgware?

Re:Borgware

[A beautiful mind]

Assimilate ('Assimilation, from Latin assimilatio meaning "to render similar"') != copy.

Microsoft finds something, then assimilates it: makes a "standard" similar to the original, but different in details, making it impossible to use both properly. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

F/OSS on the other hand like the Ferengi (partly) without money: a huge market of ideas.

Re:Borgware

[bhirsch]

Open source projects assimilate pieces of other open source projects all of the time. With the GPL, resistence really is futile. In the fairly grotesque world of analogies, it would seem that borgware is more appropriate to describe F/OSS than Microsoft. The conotation of evil is there, but one has to think Microsoft is already evil for the comparison to ring true.

Re:BSD would have fit better?

[plierhead]

A lot of people get way too hung up on licenses and the BSD vs GPL vs XYZ debate. It all depends on where you sit in the giant technology ecosystem.

Our own niche is that we write specialised business software and then license it to people in exchange for money. We also sometimes also sub-license it to other people, which then further license it themselves.

We use open source as much as possible since it is free, open and empowers us. We often give back along the way by contributing fixes, etc., and also by freely attributing our own success to the platform we use (e.g. Linux). However, giving back to the community is NOT our primary goal - that is making enough money to pay ourselves and feed our families.

Our particular software is not of a variety that we could open source it and then make money off the services side. It is also not of a variety that we could release it under GPL, build up a demand and a hobbyist/tinkerist user base, and then sell it under propetary license for money. These are perfectly valid - but different - ways that other people make money in the open source community.

Based on all of the factors, we have a particular view of the merits of different licenses. Thats view is quite different from someone who gets their money by consulting off some open source software which they have contributed to - and different again from someone who lives at home, who's aprents buy their food, and who is immersed ni the community with a capital C and gets purely emotional reward from that.

So in our own, selfish view:

1) GPL is quite acceptable to us as long as we don't link to it. Therefore we use linux - after all, its a great OS. Linking to any GPL code is a complete no-no, as this would force us to release our own code when we sub-license.

2) Where we don't link to something, eg web server, we don't give a rat's arse. Currently its linux/apache just because those are great products. Who cares what license they fall under - we don't link to them thus it doesn't affect our ability to sell our own code.

3) Where we do link to something, it must be either LGPL, BSD or similar. This allows us to sub-license our code - one of the ways we survive as mentioned earlier.

4) We have absolutely no intention of ever releasing our code under any form of open source license. In fact, when we sub-license it, the terms explicitly forbid the licensees to do that either. Were they to do so, this would destroy our ability to earn money off our code.

My long-winded point here is that if people on slashdot were to calm down and consider that other people have quite different viewpoints - based on how they need to earn their money - or in fact whether they need money at all - then the pseudo-religious arguments about GPL vs. BSD would be seen as what they are - academic.

Perhaps we are evil because we sell our code, and build on the back of the open source community. I don't think so, since we do give back, and frankly, the nature of our software is so specialised that an open source version would never survive.

I personally feel that other open source approaches are more "evil" - for example, getting people hooked on your stuff under the GPL and then making them pay money for a commercial license - but hey, everyone has to make a living.

Re:Open source is broken

[raptor21]

You mean like this: I just picked one at random and guess what not source the GPL link is grayed out.

http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?childpage name=US%2FLayout&packedargs=page%3D2%26cid%3D11154 16835852%26c%3DL_Content_C1&pagename=Linksys%2FCom mon%2FVisitorWrapper&SubmittedElement=Linksys%2FFo rmSubmit%2FProductDownloadSearch&sp_prodsku=112119 4966438

I really dislike generalization!!

Re:borgware?

[sinewalker]

Premier, After Effects: try Jahshaka (jahshaka.org), which looks suspiciously similar to the effects tools used by Peter Jackson's Weta Digital team. Also CinePaint (a high-bitdepth version of GIMP) is written by and widely used by the big movie studio pros, for whom Photoshop doesn't cut it. Not to mention linux farms (getting a little closer to the original topic) used by ILM for Star Wars II and III (and Weta use these too). Duh. For sound studio work, really serious stuff, who uses PCs anyway? Amiga maybe, or propper DSP equipment. I find JACK on Linux to be okay if you really heavily tweak it (or hack the kernel). But if you are using a general purpose PC, then you're screwed whatever OS you run -- they just don't cut it on the latency. Oh, unless you are a "live performance" DJ and have everything pre-mixed... And yes, you can even spend money and commercial product running on Linux if you want. I would prefer that to having to pay for every Windoze seat and hoping I don't get a BSOD, or having to wait for Windoze to stop swapping so I can have my frigging mouse back (a problem I currently have right now at work).

Re:Why didn't they pick BSD?

[putko]

My understanding is that they were at Stanford in the early nineties. They probably used Sun/Dec stuff, like I did.

The geeks I knew back then, who wanted to get PC running something useful, were really excited about BSD 4.4 and its derivatives. Yahoo! uses FreeBSD because of this: it was the closest free thing to what they knew.

Perhaps the Stanford/Berkeley rivalry explains it.

Which borgware company is he referring to?

[samdu]

Erm... ALL of it?

Re:OT: Traffic impact by Google Personalized Homep

[stefanlasiewski]

there something else going on?

Google has a very different model then the traditional news sites.

Remember how the News companies work: Traditional news websites & TV stations, like CNN, MSNBC have news editors who pick their news tidbits as they see fit, either subconsciously or purposely, regardless of what the viewers find interesting. They pick the stories based on how much ad revenue the story will bring. This can be a very flawed analysis-- Sometimes they are right on, other times they are way off the mark. Do you ever watch the news and wonder why they spent 30 seconds on an important news story while discussing Star Wars for 3 minutes?

There is a disconnect between what the viewers find interesting, and what the news editors believes that the viewers will find interesting. It's a somewhat flawed model.

News.google.com and the Google Personalized Homepage works differently--there is no news editors. The top news stories make it to the top of the list because people find the stories more interesting, and click on those links more often. Google analyzes the viewer's behavior to determine which headlines should be at the top of the page. Everything is done programmatically, and some people claim it's more democratic.

For instance, the morning of the Spanish Train Bombings the Spanish Government first blamed the bombings on the Basque separatists. As such, the news was not very interesting to the news editors at CNN, MSNBC, Good Morning America, etc. The big news stations and news websites were mostly discussing results of American Idol and the Laci Peterson Murder Trial. Later, when Al Qaida entered the picture, the news stations started covering the Train Bombings nonstop. All of a

On the other hand, News.google.com always had the headlines in the correct order-- as the visitors selected the news-- Spanish Train Bombings were top topics, Laci Peterson & American Idol were way at the bottom of the list. Google's model works pretty well.

I remember this pretty clearly-- I could not find any news on the Train Bombings for an hour, except for one line of scrolling text at the bottom of the screen.

Which borgware company is he referring to?

[leoxx]

Clearly it was Commodore.

Re:BSD would have fit better?

[fishbowl]

The guys at Google did stuff differently from the way you'd have done it if you had been in charge.

The only thing I take from that is, they were monumentally successful, and you're talking down to them about "putting food on the table."

Ya beat me to it

[IvyKing]

I was going to say the same thing...

Having been a Cal grad from the time that BSD was getting started.

Re:Business guys still haven't quite figured it ou

[Slashcrunch]

You could look at it that way. I prefer to think about how much code Google have contributed back to Linux to help make it faster, more flexible and more stable. This in turn helps make Linux more attractive to purchase *preloaded* on a server a company may want to purchase.

Also, the $35bn figure is probably referring to the projected total spent on server sales that ship with Linux, not on the distro's and support alone. Do MS server sales with MS OSes on them only count the OS price? I think not.

Name-dropping for BSD (Re:Convenience, too.)

[mi]

BSD does NOT scale well, admittedly so.

???? Sure scales well enough for Yahoo!, Weather.com, and for the former Hotmail...

Re:Name-dropping for BSD (Re:Convenience, too.)

[mi]

You must be referring to this quote in your link:

He said the performance improvements and 64-bit support in the Linux 2.6 kernel fueled the decision to considering porting some of the applications. "From a performance and scalability standpoint, earlier versions of the kernel couldn't meet our requirements without heavy customization," he said.

Quite clearly, it talks about "problems scaling" in Linux (pre 2.6), not FreeBSD...

Why move from FreeBSD at all? I guess, because the hardware vendors are pushing it... Opteron-servers are available from Sun, HP, and, perhaps, from IBM, but only with the vendors' own OSes or Linux :-(

Re:Name-dropping for BSD (Re:Convenience, too.)

[mi]

As well Hotmail has pretty much switched over to Windows.

Of course -- because Microsoft bought them (they are now part of MSN). They had to move to a Microsoft's OS at any cost, or else it would've been too embarassing for the new owners...

This is why I said "former" Hotmail in my original post.

Re:BSD would have fit better?

[glitch0]

This is probably the most ignorant post about Linux I have ever read. I love the way he bashes the GPL for not generating money when the philosophy of the GPL is not to just make money, but to better society. I also love how he ignores that most GPLed software is written by coders who are paid to write it. Remind me where in the GPL it says that you cannot sell a product under the GPL? It is possible to release source and make money. Damn flamebait.

Re:Why didn't they pick BSD?

[nanoyak]

It's Berkeley Software Distribution. Stanford would rather jump off a cliff....

Re:borgware?

[Com2Kid]

Pathetic? You have got to be kidding. First off, video support sucks under Windows. Let's see... I need Windows Media Player for wmv and mpeg, Quicktime for mov, RealPlayer for real, a proprietary DVD-codec for DVD's, etc. etc.

Linux? mplayer

Lets see, after you copy various DLL files from a Windows install, which neccessitates first INSTALLING those codecs onto a Windows box (or downloading from just the needed DLLs from the net), and depending on your distro follow a different convoluted set of steps to get any other missing codecs installed, and work your butt off every time there are any major changes to the codecs that you need to update. Yah; it all just works. ...

Oh on Windows? ffdshow and Winamp. Yes you need to install Real Player as well to get Winamp to play EVERYTHING, but hey, nothing is perfect. As a bonus, Winamp also comes with an INTERFACE.

An additional plus, the total time needed to download and install both ffdshow and Winamp on Windows is going to be far less than the equivilent time to get the equivilent alsa/mplayer trifucktica working. Actually I never HAVE gotten ALSA working on this one machine of mine (I shouldn't say that, it works on RANDOM REBOOTS, great, that is so freaking reliable, what type of software works randomly when you reboot your machine? What the hell am I using here, Windows 95??) and when it DID work I could only have one app playing sound at a time, OSS solved both those problems, though I don't get any pretty graphical mixers.

Let's go to the audio now. First, you get Windows Media Player that can play mp3 and wav. OK. Then, I need to search through the Internet to find codecs for all of my ogg's and numerous other streaming formats, etc.

Misinformed aren't you?

ffdshow plays all of those as well. Alternativly Winamp plays almost all codecs by itself (with the exception of Real, for which you have to download Real Player, install a plugin, and then it works. All of which is STILL easier than messing around with a Linux box to make it work!)

Even the performance of Linux is vastly superior to Windows when it comes to audio and video.

In theory? Sure. On high performance systems designed for doing A/V work on? Sure.

On my laptop?

BROWSING THE WEB MAKES MY FREAKING AUDIO SKIP.

Ok granted this is more the fault of Firefox sucking down, well, let me check:

com2kid 17527 10.1 24.0 /usr/lib/MozillaFirefox/firefox-bin

com2kid 17531 0.0 24.0 /usr/lib/MozillaFirefox/firefox-bin
com2kid 17532 0.0 24.0 /usr/lib/MozillaFirefox/firefox-bin
com2kid 17550 0.0 24.0 /usr/lib/MozillaFirefox/firefox-bin

Yah well, there is that. It is a 2.6GHZ machine BTW. Mind you, X is not much better:

root 8931 4.0 17.1 /usr/X11R6/bin/X -dpi 100 -dpi 100

44% of my CPU is being eaten up by processes that SHOULD be nearly idle. I cannot PLAY VIDEOS in Linux without massive skippage. This is a Gentoo box, SuSE was worse.

Granted the problem is I am running KDE, (and all you pro-KDE people SHUT UP, bloat looks like this:

com2kid 29013 0.0 4.4 kdeinit: Running...

com2kid 29016 0.0 4.0 kdeinit: dcopserver --nosid
com2kid 29018 0.0 4.5 kdeinit: klauncher
com2kid 29021 1.5 5.4 kdeinit: kded
com2kid 29042 0.0 5.9 kdeinit: knotify
com2kid 29047 0.0 4.9 kdeinit: ksmserver
com2kid 29048 0.0 6.2 kdeinit: kwin -session 1073a9af92000111191061100000043360000_1117052795_4 02377
com2kid 29054 0.0 6.9 kdeinit: kdesktop
com2kid 29067 0.1 7.3 kdeinit: kicker
com2kid 29085 0.3 5.5 kdeinit: klipper
com2kid 29087 0.0 5.0 kdeinit: kh

Re:Let me tell you why

[shmlco]

gmail, and every other google service forces you to accept cookies from google.com if you want to use said service...

First, do you have some magic method you want to share for automatically logging into, and staying logged onto, an account-based service w/o cookies?

...the same cookies that store the IP and info of every single search that is done on google.

Wow! The 1K max size cookie on my computer stores the IP and info of every single search that is done on google?

Forget search revenues, they need to patent and sell that compression algorithm!

Re:BSD would have fit better?

[talo]

Those who go GPL and they go "dude, I have no income!! But I have a penguin sticker!!" yeah, I hope that Penguin sticker gets you chicks because it ain't puttin' dinner on the table..

Yes I'd say that google has no income and the guys starve. The way you put it is just plain stupid, you don't allways have to sell the code/program it self, you can build your business by selling services around it.

Re:Let me tell you why

[log2.0]

People *think* that when you type in a search and the previous search history comes up is a cookie. We know better of course :) I had a mate who I convinced to use firefox and he complained that these "cookies" were staying there even when he told FF to remove them! Heh, the public have no idea sometimes :)

Last reboot??

[psychosystem]

So ebay runs windows, and from the netcraft page:
Last reboot 11 days ago

Re:borgware?

[ZombieRoboNinja]

"First off, video support sucks under Windows. Let's see... I need Windows Media Player for wmv and mpeg, Quicktime for mov, RealPlayer for real, a proprietary DVD-codec for DVD's, etc. etc.
Linux? mplayer"

Funny, because I need every program you just mentioned PLUS VLC to run video on my Mac.

Here's a hint: Windows Media, Real, and Apple all have shiny new codecs that ONLY work in their own media players. MPlayer can't play them all - believe me, I've tried it, and I have no reason to believe it would work in Linux if it doesn't in OSX.

As for audio, I've never seen (heard?) an audio file that WinAmp couldn't play.

And just for the record, the Gimp is still inferior to Photoshop.

Re:Google and IBM use Linux, why won't others foll

[dtfinch]

Where do you believe Linux *isn't*?

My grandmother plays solitaire on a 486 running Windows 95.

Machine with no hard drive for sale - OS is in RAM

[Corey Hart]

I'll sell my machine with lots of RAM integrated on board. It uses a state of the art 6510 and it can play the fastest Jumpman games! And best of all, you don't need a hard drive for it to boot up the operating system!

It's made by a little known company by the name of Commodore...

Re:GPL V3.....

[mrchaotica]

They would need to do more than alter GPL'd code -- they'd need to alter version 3 GPL'd code. I would imagine they'd stay with a fork of the last GPL v.2 version than give up their search algorithms, if they were indeed integrated into the kernel (or some other program).

(Of course, they're a smart company; they'd eventually refactor their code into a separate module so that they could keep it proprietary and not have to maintain a fork of the GPL'd code.)

Really ?

[abhinavmodi]

Is this why Google Earth, Google Desktop Bar, Google Web Accelerator all support Windoze only ? Google might be harnessing the power of Linux behind the scenes, but all of its innovations for desktop users are on M$ only. Granted, that they are Beta/Preview versions .. but Linux could be a great candidate too !

Re:Really ?

[jotux]

I know! What kind of retarded company targets the MAJORITY of people on the internet!?

Re:Really ?

[pe1chl]

I can understand that. Not only is Linux not yet very widely used on the desktop yet, but its userbase is also so hopelessly fragmented between "distributions" that it is quite difficult to release an end-user-installable desktop tool for Linux.

Re:Really ?

[abhinavmodi]

Not only is Linux not yet very widely used on the desktop yet, but its userbase is also so hopelessly fragmented between "distributions" that it is quite difficult to release an end-user-installable desktop tool for Linux.

From the release perspective, While this distro-flood may be true to a large extent, this has not stopped a lot of popular software from being presented to the users in a distro-agnostic manner. Examples that come to mind are realplayer, gaim (which uses autopackage), even Java ..

I would say that it is not a major issue, especially for the creative and fertile minds at google !

Re:Really ?

[pe1chl]

this has not stopped a lot of popular software from being presented to the users in a distro-agnostic manner

But I think it has prevented even more software from being released for Linux!
Sure you can work around it, but let's face it: for Windows you buy one of those packaging tools that handle installation on 98/2000/XP for you and you only have to supply your files and where they have to go.
On Linux, it could potentially have been simpler, because the packaging tools are delivered with the OS. No need to package everything as a .EXE, you can build a .RPM that contains only your package.

But there the nightmare starts. Will your user be able to install the RPM with a commandline or via the sysadmin GUI? If the latter, where would he/she have to click? How do you write your installation manual?
Does the system support RPM at all? Or do you need to supply multiple formats?

Small wonder that the few successful packages had to fall back to a custom installation program. This means a lot of extra work (proportionally more when the program to be installed is smaller, like some toolbar).

IMHO it is a major holdback for deployment of Linux on your average desktop. Users want to download something, and install it using clear instructions not longer than a few paragraphs. Like "click on the YaST icon, choose install additional software, select the program you downloaded", or "doubleclick on the program you downloaded and type the password for software installation".
Not "first find out if your system uses RPM or DEB, then download the appropriate package. Or select the tarball if it supports neither of these. Then, when you chose RPM, open a Shell window and type 'rpm -Uvh the_name_of_this_program.rpm'. when you downloaded the DEB file, .... etc"

Re:Really ?

[Felonious Ham]

As the GP mentioned, any-distro, painless install is the dream and reality of autopackage.

Re:Really ?

[10Ghz]

Is this why Google Earth

Made by a third-party, only recently acquired by Google

Google Desktop Bar

Linux-users had no need for it because browsers on Linux are clearly superior to IE.

Google Web Accelerator

Which is not even available anymore.

Re:Really ?

[$sjfsjf]

What ever happend to make install?

They are Hardcore

[(PA)Storm Shadow]

I did a contract job for Google over the past four days. There is a silver BMW M5 in the lot over by building 42 that has a license plate that says:

I[Heart]LINUX

I should have snapped a picture of that car with it's two little penquins in the back window. Poor little things are being subjected to 368 lb/ft of torque on a daily basis.

Re:Google and IBM use Linux, why won't others foll

[afidel]

AFAIK Oracle is moving more and more of their stuff to 10g clusters running on x86. Dell has also moved the majority of their european operations to Oracle 10g running on their own x86 servers. In fact if you look through the Oracle ROI press releases almost all of them involve running a business line app on oracle RAC and/or 10g with Linux and x86. Obviously it's not just Oracle that thinks this stuff is ready for prime time, a LOT of their customers do as well. Since you are already paying boatloads for Oracle licenses it's not like the selection of OS is a big consideration as far as cost is concerned. Running Oracle on x86 hardware and Linux is just a smart move for many of their customers.

Re:It's DEC isn't it

[Duhavid]

I miss your PDP-11 also...

Suicide by tank?

[myowntrueself]

"\"SCO provided the opperating system for the Abrams Tank.\"

'Long haired smellies' the world over quake in fear at the news...."

So yeah, when some poor sucker commits suicide by 'diving' in front of an Abrams Tank, any connection to that persons relationship with the 'Santa Cruz Operation' is *purely* coincidental.

Re:Open source is broken

[mrchaotica]

Not all Linksys products are based on Linux, I think. The WRT54G is, though -- try downloading the source for it.

Re:Let me tell you why

[Anonymous Coward]

First, do you have some magic method you want to share for automatically logging into, and staying logged onto, an account-based service w/o cookies?

I never log into google to do searches. And yet it keeps cookies. This stores my language preferences and keeps track of my searches so that they can target advertising and who knows what else.

Wow! The 1K max size cookie on my computer stores the IP and info of every single search that is done on google?

Yes. It's 1K on the client machine, but who knows how big the data associated with it is on the server?

The history of your searches are not in the cookie. The cookie is a key to some data structure in a hash table or tree that resides in the server, which stores further information about you.

Please look into how this stuff works before you start posting.

Re:borgware?

[kbielefe]

The selection of Software available for Graphic and Media are simply pathetic for Linux.

I wonder what you know that these people don't?

Re:borgware?

[cujo_1111]

And when you get those mod points, you can't give any to this guy because you have posted in this article...

Didn't think that comment through, did you?

Re:borgware?

[narduk]

www.google.com/ig does not work on my P900 running the Symbian UIQ OS. Platform agnostic I think not. If the bastards really cared about interoperability I would be able to use my custom google page on my phone. Got 1,000 shares at 90 bucks. w00t. GOOG could be running on a cluster of servers running who gives a dick OS playing mindwalker on amiga. Shareholders are happy :-)

Re:Let me tell you why

[thirdrock]

The history of your searches are not in the cookie. The cookie is a key to some data structure in a hash table or tree that resides in the server, which stores further information about you.

And this key works even though I set Firefox to delete cookies at the end of each session and I regularly obtain a new IP from the DHCP server?

Re:Let me tell you why

[shmlco]

And yet it keeps cookies. This stores my language preferences...

And content rating preferences and so on. Or would you rather reset them each time? But unless you signed up for an actual account (e.g. gmail), Google had no idea who you were dispite the cookie. All it knew was that someone, somewhere, kept looking for free porn.

And I know how cookies and servers work. It's my job. But read the sentence, "...the same cookies [sic] that store the IP and info of every single search that is done on google."

Given that sentence, is it obvious that the OP understands these things? For that matter, was it not obvious from the tone of the reply that I was being just a little sarcastic?

Please reread the posts before responding to them...

Netcraft Results

[potpie]

I went Netcrafting some popular sites. Here are my findings:

Ebay
http://www.ebay.com/
Uptime Summary Time in Days
Plotted Value No. samples Max Latest
Windows 2000 109 155.82 155.82
Windows Server 2003 55 172.18 7.19
90-day Moving average 431 61.25 61.17

Slackware
http://www.slackware.com/
Up time Summary Time in Days
Plotted Value No. samples Max Latest
Linux 1276 463.28 150.07
90-day Moving average 1719 156.60 105.02

Yahoo
http://www.yahoo.com/
Uptime Summary Time in Days
Plotted Value No. samples Max Latest
FreeBSD 788 414.05 315.62
90-day Moving average 1231 219.01 216.84

Microsoft
http://www.microsoft.com/
U ptime Summary Time in Days
Plotted Value No. samples Max Latest
Windows Server 2003 223 110.83 6.72
90-day Moving average 617 44.35 31.47

Slashdot
http://slashdot.org/
Uptime Summary Time in Days
Plotted Value No. samples Max Latest
Linux 345 397.67 397.67
90-day Moving average 674 168.98 68.77

The Best Page in the Universe
http://maddox.xmission.com/
uses linux - uptimes unknown

Google
http://www.google.com/
uses linux - uptimes unknown

The formatting is screwed up, but it would take too long to fix it. All the information is there. You can see that Microsoft's own site won't stay up as long as the sites listed running Linux (those with known uptimes). There could be a lot of reasons for that, however; I'm sure Microsoft has some extra troubles just because it's so huge. Also note that not all Linux-run sites stay up much longer than Microsoft-run sites, but on average they seem to win hands down.

Re:Netcraft Results

[pe1chl]

Remember that Microsoft sites have to reboot at least once every month after installing patches.

Linux sites often can avoid this (at least as far as Netcraft is concerned; restarting Apache does not cut the uptime), however there have been so many kernel updates last year that a Linux system with a year of uptime is a bit questionable as well.

(of course most kernel updates are for local exploits only; one could decide a properly firewalled system does not need them)

Re:Netcraft Results

[cschmidt]

XMission is a local Utah ISP that actively promotes Linux (they have a link to this on their main page) and also provide mirrors for many open source projects. They use Linux for their web servers as well as for users' web space. One of the best ISPs out there.

Re:Netcraft Results

[megarich]

You can see that Microsoft's own site won't stay up as long as the sites listed running Linux

Silly we all know windows machines needs to be rebooted after those critical updates are installed every other day :)

Re:Let me tell you why

[zootm]

I believe that it's different because they're not trying to hide what they collect, and why, from anyone.

Re:Let me tell you why

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I jumped to conclusions, as is common here on Slashdot. :-) Over the years I haven't come to expect much from the Slashdot crowd and that makes me sort of agressive around here. So if you see an angry AC (never bothered creating an account, or, I did a few times and forgot the passwords and usernames) and it happens to be me, mea culpa.

I do agree (and thought about putting in my post but was too lazy) that it's not a HUGE problem, as, first, you can delete the cookie, and second, it'd take a lot of extra work for Google to really take its data and use it for malicious purposes -- work that no one has the time to do for each and every one of google's millions of users.

But. I too am a bit suspicious of Google. Why would a company have to come out and say "Do no evil" unless they had something to hide? :-) I think, when it comes to the corporate world, "Do no evil" doesn't exist. Google really does find itself in a position with a lot of power, and power is something I don't trust. Maybe that makes me in line with the tinfoil hat crowd, or maybe I'm just crazy like a fox.

Mod Parent Down

[Will Sargent]

Prevayler is not a reliable system. It does not have any transactional integrity. You can't run "entire systems" from it because you are limited to the maximum heap size of the JVM.

I thought it sounded like a scam just reading the documentation, and I've never seen a technical explanation of the "black magic" that enables it to magically outperform Oracle or even MySQL.

This is completely confirmed on reading Mike Spille's blog. Spille's a solid, no-bullshit kind of guy, and his technical calls are right on every time I've had independent knowledge, so I trust him on this. Check out the link:

http://www.pyrasun.com/mike/mt/archives/2004/12/25 /15.02.00/index.html

"The key thing to realize here is that the "transactional" capability that Prevayler is giving you here is serialized execution of Transactions, and that it won't write to the log if the transaction can't be pulled off. And of course, on success it will write to the transactional log. That's it. There's no rollback/undo, no locking, no thought whatsoever for concurrency in any form."

Yay. I feel so safe.

Will.

Re:Mod Parent Down

[dubl-u]

For somebody who has never tried it and admits not understanding how it works, I think "Mod Parent Down" is a little strong. Just because you're scared of new ideas doesn't mean you have to take it out on my karma.

Prevayler is not a reliable system. It does not have any transactional integrity. You can't run "entire systems" from it because you are limited to the maximum heap size of the JVM.

Look. One of us has built production systems using Prevayler. And it isn't you.

It indeed does have transactional integrity: all changes are done through transactions, which are completely reliable. If your application dataset fits in RAM (and given the price of RAM, an awful lot of them do) then Prevayler works just fine. In my experience it's very reliable: one production application has been up 11 months now with no downtime except a couple of planned 5-minute upgrade windows. And, of course, no data corruption.

Prevayler isn't suitable for every application, but there are plenty of applications where it works just fine. And given how lightweight it is (runs in the JVM, no external tools, no schema that duplicates your object model, a code base you can patch yourself, no concurrency worries), I felt development with Prevayler was much easier and more pleasant. The whole team walked away happy with the experience.

Spille's a solid, no-bullshit kind of guy, and his technical calls are right on every time I've had independent knowledge, so I trust him on this.

He may be smart generally, but here he misses the point entirely. If your transactions execute in a couple of milliseconds or less, you don't need locking or concurrency. Or rather, you need exactly one lock, which is what Prevayler has. And on a modern box, if everything is in RAM, a couple of milliseconds is a really long time: most of our Prevayler transactions were well under a millisecond.

It's true there's no rollback/undo. Our team never needed that. And had we needed it, we could have coded it. If you can't figure out how to write programs without rollback and also can't code what you need, then by all means you shouldn't use Prevayler. Of course, you also shouldn't write the next Microsoft Word, Quake, or Google: none of those apps use an SQL database, either, and all of them run in RAM.

Yay. I feel so safe.

If you want to feel safe with it, try writing some tests against it. Before we committed to it, we did extensive load testing and did our very best to break it. We couldn't. If you can, both I the Prevayler team would love to hear from you. Until then, maybe you should stick to ranting about things you understand, eh?

Re:Mod Parent Down

[Will Sargent]

You say "if you take an approach like Prevayler you can still have reliability and transactional integrity."

Prevayler does not provide ACID transactions. Saying "you don't need rollback or undo" is all well and good, but you can't call it a transaction. It's not atomic, and it's not consistent.

So if you use Prevayler, do you have "reliability" and "transactional integrity"? No. It's something you have to code yourself. Among other things, you have to make sure no code in a transaction ever throws a RuntimeException: http://www.prevayler.org/wiki.jsp?topic=RollbackIs Needless. So your statement is incorrect.

Re:Mod Parent Down

[dubl-u]

Prevayler does not provide ACID transactions. Saying "you don't need rollback or undo" is all well and good, but you can't call it a transaction. It's not atomic, and it's not consistent.

Used properly, that's incorrect. It provides all of the ACID properties.

So if you use Prevayler, do you have "reliability" and "transactional integrity"? No. It's something you have to code yourself. Among other things, you have to make sure no code in a transaction ever throws a RuntimeException:

I'd agree that if you don't know whether you can write your code to be reliable, then maybe you're not ready to use Prevayler. That wasn't an issue for us. We did our validation well before we reached the point of making a change. That's why we didn't need to write any rollback logic.

But in Prevayler 2.0, which has been out for quite a while, there's something for people who are afraid they'll be writing buggy code. I believe they call it the "Royal Food Taster". You pay in extra memory usage and a performance hit during rollback. I wouldn't recommend it for people for whom NullPointerExceptions are a way of life, but it's a reasonable solution if you want an extra safety belt. In our case, we eventually turned it off.

Of course, if a shop is not sure they can write reliable code, I don't know that any product will really help. The places I've seen like that still managed to make a hash of their persistent data because their troubles coding everything else also meant they had trouble drawing their transaction boundaries, handling in-transaction failures, and properly dealing with edge cases.

I'm not, by the way, saying that there's no use for the RDBMS approach to things. On a current project we just decided to use a typical SQL database because it was the best match for the business problem we're solving. But I am saying that you can build systems of equally high quality with either approach.

If you don't know how to use Prevayler to achieve that, fine, say so. But enough of this "It's impossible!" and "Mod him down!" stuff. I've used it and it's fine. If you want to learn how we did it, go ahead and ask. But if you're just looking to bitch and rant, I've got better things to do.

Re:Mod Parent Down

[Will Sargent]

You are still missing my point. I'm not saying that it's impossible, or even hard to write transactionally aware code. I'm saying that Prevayler doesn't provide that functionality for you, and it is a mistake to say that it does.

I bitch and rant because for every aware practitioner like yourself who examines the technology carefully and can fill in the gaps, there are ten or more people who take it at face value, stick some code in, go live without testing, and then wonder what they did wrong.

Re:Mod Parent Down

[dubl-u]

You are still missing my point. I'm not saying that it's impossible, or even hard to write transactionally aware code. I'm saying that Prevayler doesn't provide that functionality for you, and it is a mistake to say that it does.

As I said before, the food taster stuff provides exactly the functionality you want, which is rollback on errors in the code you write. If you have some code that demonstrates a problem with it, post it to the Prevayler list.

I bitch and rant because for every aware practitioner like yourself who examines the technology carefully and can fill in the gaps, there are ten or more people who take it at face value, stick some code in, go live without testing, and then wonder what they did wrong.

If you go talk to pretty much any sailing instructor, they'll tell you to learn in the smallest, most responsive boat you can find. The sooner you make mistakes, the sooner you learn from them, and the better you learn how to handle making mistakes.

I feel the same way about code. If the problem is shitty coders who don't test, the solution isn't to make it so that 90% of the time they don't notice. By doing that, you enable them to write nine times as much crappy code before they stop and say, "Wait, something's not right here!" And now they have nine times as many bad habits to unlearn.

Let's take as a given that there are people out there who will grab a radically new technology, stick some code in, and go live, only to be somehow shocked that there might be issues. (Personally, I doubt this. They've certainly never turned up on the Prevayler list.) Is bitching about Prevayler really the best way for you to help them? While we're at it, why is it your job to save them from themselves? And do you find your approach is reducing the percentage of people acting like idiots?

Personally, I prefer to wait until they're in the "wondering what they did wrong" stage. People are much better at listening to advice on how to drink responsibly when they're in the middle of the hangover.

Re:Google's success is "ambiguous"

[jericho4.0]

WTF!? Are you suggesting that Linux is somehow not deterministic!? Are you insane? I'm typeing this on a Linux box, and when I hit the 'a' key, an 'a' appears. Just like it always does.

Must stop using slashdot vocabulary

[Hydraulix]

I almost got my ass kicked for using the word "borgware" today.

Re:BSD would have fit better?

[Lonewolf666]

Yes, you communist nazi's, if you do work, you should get paid for it. [...] Those who go GPL and they go "dude, I have no income!! But I have a penguin sticker!!" yeah, I hope that Penguin sticker gets you chicks because it ain't puttin' dinner on the table..

In case you did not notice, selling mods to the OS is NOT Google's business. They are earning their money from advertising and doing just fine. Giving away a few enhancements to Linux will hardly be visible in their financial results.

Concerning the SCO business, if you follow the news at Groklaw it becomes increasingly clear that SCO's case does NOT look good. SCO can consider itself lucky if it reaches a settlement that allows it to survive. So I would not worry about that angle anymore.

BSA AUDIT

[erroneus]

Prior to my getting hired by the company I presently work for, there was a painful BSA audit. I can say with 100$ certainty that the BSA is the main reason for our migration to Linux.

Re:BSA AUDIT

[Zoolander]

Music to my ears... Go BSA! :)

Re:BSA AUDIT

[l3v1]

100$ certainty

I couldn't have said it better. No, really. Intentional or not, that dollar sign there just gives the meaning.

Re:BSA AUDIT

[dmccarty]

$100 of certainty, eh? You sound so sure of yourself!

While I can say with certainty that at my company we still use Windows because everyone knows it, I can only say it with about $29 of certainty.

Re:It's DEC isn't it

[MichaelSmith]

I miss my PDP-11.

I had to think about that one. They had fantastic build quality. The electronics would still be going when the foam padding had turned to dust and dropped into the backplane.

If I pulled out the CPU and both disk boxes at the same time (and forgot to pull out the stabiliser bar) the whole rack could tip over and that would be it, especially as most of our 11/84's were at remote sites.

You could get SCSI for the 11/84 bus but to get the interrupts working you had to:

1. Check that the rack can't tip over
2. Pull out CPU box (on sliders)
3. Remove the bottom of the box
4. Gaze in horror at the rats nest of wire wrap
5. Pick out the appropriate wire
6. Upwrap and rewrap in the right position
7. Power up and cross fingers.

The 240V AC fans lasted more or less forever.

I saw a quote recently that a DEC CEO in the late 70's basically rejected any idea of people having computers in the home. I think that was the beginning of the end for DEC. Its a shame, but the world had to move on.

Re:Zero

[maxwell demon]

you don't have to buy linux liscenses.

SCO thinks otherwise :-)

Why hasn't Google released their Linux kern. mods?

[njyoder]

They have licensed out their servers for other businesses now, doesn't that mean they're required to disclose their changes to the Linux kernel and other relevent software? Or do they get around this somehow by licensing their servers under a lease of some kind, where it's still google's property to avoid GPL requirements?

I also know that some kinds of proprietary drivers can be made to work with Linux due to more lax licensing requirements, so perhaps their changes are all in driver forms. It could also be purely userland stuff, but I doubt it.

Other companies had to disclose their modifications too (e.g. Linksys, TiVo), so if Google could get around it, why couldn't they using the same methods?

Re:Let me tell you why

[Flaming Foobar]

Google is the biggest spyware company on the planet!

I Doubt It

Re:borgware?

[Karaman]

Well, I have Maya Unlilmited for Linux, I just need Photoshop 7 for Linux (not wine-d) and I would like to run Delphi for Linux, not Kylix. Given that I throw the Windows out of the window :). Unfortunately I will never do that :(

Re:OT: Traffic impact by Google Personalized Homep

[dirtyhippie]

Ever heard of a tracking cookie?

I'd bet if you're running windows, you have an alexa cookie on your computer right now.

Re:Let me tell you why

[l3v1]

First, do you have some magic method you want to share for automatically logging into, and staying logged onto, an account-based service w/o cookies?

Actually many forums use storing/sending/receiving/checking session ids along with requests (...?sid=xxx to and fro) if cookies are disabled and/or e.g. firewalls make impossible correct cookie or session handling. It's nothing new.

Re:Business guys still haven't quite figured it ou

[l3v1]

Slashdot. The place on this planet where ignorance can get you insightful.

Re:GPL V3.....

[kasperd]

how would the web services proposal of GPL v3 affect google's web service's?

I don't know how the license is going to end up looking, and I don't know if copyright even can be used to impose additional restrictions. Copyright limits the copying of a work, using the work is something different. Even if they manage to come up with a way to impose such restrictions in GPL version 3, Google could keep using the same software as they do today which will still be covered by GPL version 2.

If GPL version 3 impose restrictions not imposed by GPL version 2, then merging the two would be a violation of the GPL version 2 license unless the software includes the "or (at your option) any later version" statement. Most projects do, but Linux does not, so for Linux it will always be GPL version 2 that applies. It would be kind of weird if GPL version 2 is going to be incompatible with GPL version 3.

Re:Open source is broken

[l3v1]

Google, having engineered their solution on their own without a vendor

Sometimes, having good talents, and trusting them to make the job, can make miracles.

Re:Open source is broken

[l3v1]

Does anyone wonder why Open Source and Linux in general have a bad rep?

Lemme guess, because ignorant folk like you stand up in the hundreds shouting it sucks ?

Re:OT: Traffic impact by Google Personalized Homep

[Frogg]

end of July?

just a thought, but maybe traffic is up on those sites because all the schools, colleges and universities have closed for the summer?

Re:Let me tell you why

[jacksonj04]

No, if you remove the cookie you remove the key so Google no longer knows who you are.

Alternatively, if you log on to Google before searching it makes no difference.

Yay for unhappiness!

[Avumede]

For bringing more people to Linux, I saw Hooray for unhappiness. here's how I think the whole process works:

Step 1 - Cluelessness - Buy Windows 95
Step 2 - Anger - Buy Windows NT
Step 3- Unhappiness - move to Linux
Step 4 - Confusion - move to Macintosh
Step 5 - Bankruptcy - move to Tibet and become a Buddhist monk.

You heard it hear first, folks. move to Tibet now before the rush comes in!

Re:Yay for unhappiness!

[51mon]

Step 6 - Prophet

Re:Let me tell you why

[thirdrock]

Alternatively, if you log on to Google before searching it makes no difference.

What is this "logging on" of which you speak? I have never "logged on" to Google. Is this for g-mail or some other service?

Can you log on for additional search engine features?

I am curious. Perhaps there is a world of search features that I am missing out on ? :(

Bad example

[Nice2Cats]

I've seen plenty of OSSoftware written for the mac that's free, usable and easy to work with.

This might not be the best example, because the software world for OS X is full of pissy shareware applications of stuff that you get completely free (in both senses) for Linux. In fact, this was probably my greatest shock after switching from Gentoo (after the usual mouse thing) -- some guy wants $15 for something that Gentoo had out of the b- ah, off the wire. I still can't believe that the only decent DVD/CD burning software, Toast, is commercial.

Don't get me wrong, Apple has some beautiful platforms out there and the time I save because it "Just Works" is important enough to keep me with my iBook instead of going through the hassle of installing Gentoo on a ThinkPad. But the free selection for Mac OS X is a disaster.

It's funny...

[ninja_assault_kitten]

I was a Linux/FreeBSD zealot for SO many years. I wrote all my code with 23423 platform portability in mind, things were good. Then I realized that I didn't have any real experience writing apps for Windows and I thought I should give it a try. I picked up some books on VS (Visual Studio) and started with C# (I had quite a bit of Java experience all ready so it was pretty easy to pick up the language). Then something very strange happened. I began to really like it. I found I was able to write applications which would have taken weeks in C using VIM or even a week in Java using Visual Age. I became a much more efficient programmer. Mostly due to .NET and the absolutely amazing IDE that is Visual Studio. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a pure Windows guy now, but I do have an XP SP2 workstation and I spend quite a bit of time in VS.

Re:It's funny...

[pavkb]

In all fairness to M$, they do a have good suite of dev tools. They are geared more towards quick programming NOT effective programming.

Ofcourse, you could develope plain old C/C++ low level programs on Windows but that would be HELL compared to similar programs on NIX's.

Re:Let me tell you why

[Winkhorst]

What is this gmail system? You mean you don't have your own email system on your own website? What, has Slashdot been taken over by a herd of little old ladies in flower hats?

Re:Let me tell you why

[Shaper_pmp]

Not to come off as a Google conspiracist (I like and trust them... for the moment), but there are several misconceptions in your post:

"First, do you have some magic method you want to share for automatically logging into, and staying logged onto, an account-based service w/o cookies?"

As others have noted this can generally be adequately accomplished using session ids stored in the URL. Now, there might be things that session IDs can't do, but the only one I can think of offhand is "track users between visits", which is exactly what people are objecting to.

"Wow! The 1K max size cookie on my computer stores the IP and info of every single search that is done on google?"

Basically, yes, but not in the way you think. It's far simpler (and more technically correct) to capture all your user-behaviour at the server, and record it in a database. Your cookie merely stores a unique user id, and Google's servers capture that userid and use it to lookup your records stored in their database.

All you need from the cookie is to store a unique number for each user, and you can store a hell of a large number in 1K (8 * 2^1024, off the top of my head).

My maths is a bit rusty, but for reference, the number of atoms in the universe is estimated to be about 10^79. So, with 1K of memory per userid, we could index every atom in the universe, more than 900 times over.

1K is plenty big enough.

"Forget search revenues, they need to patent and sell that compression algorithm!"

The sad thing is, it's trivial, unoriginal and obvious, and it's probably already been granted.

Re:Open source is broken

[Joe U]

You want to know why OSS and Linux has a bad rep?

You and people like you.

I didn't use the word sucks, nor did I imply it sucks. I said it was broken.

You read broken=sucks. Living in your fantasy world where petty little people can't resist throwing words like 'borgware' into an article.

An article that never even went close to slamming other companies was turned into a puerile propaganda story by a group of moronic zealots.

You ruin Linux.

Re:Let me tell you why

[Grayputer]

It does if you're logging in :). If you log in, I can chain the cookies or update the current cookie you are using. Simply store the one TRUE cookie in the login context and use that cookie to 'bind' them all or to replace as necessary.

Re:Let me tell you why

[pixr99]

What is this "logging on" of which you speak? I have never "logged on" to Google. Is this for g-mail or some other service? Can you log on for additional search engine features?

http://www.google.com/ig
I wouldn't say a world of search features but it's definitely handy.

Re:Let me tell you why

[Bimo_Dude]

Holy Shit!

Are you telling me that a webserver actually logs a requesting IP address? Does this apply to all websites?

Man, I'm trading in my computer for an abacus.

BTW, what does a webserver logging IP addresses have to do with the CEO's personal information?

Re:Business guys still haven't quite figured it ou

[sean23007]

Is there a record of how much Google has actually contributed back to the Linux kernel? I've heard they don't send patches upstream. They wouldn't have to, after all, since they're not redistributing it (though I suppose those servers they sell to companies for internal searches must count as redistribution).

Also, the vanilla kernel probably has little use for Google's additions, since few Linux users have much use for the ability to run a cluster of hundreds of thousands of machines with the entire OS and data in RAM.

Anyhow, does anyone know if/what Google has contributed?

Re:BSD would have fit better?

[sean23007]

If you look, most BSD's have a "lite" version, and a pro version, and you get the lite for free, and the pro version requires money.

What. Mind pointing out evidence of that? Because I've used FreeBSD and OpenBSD and there's absolutely no mention of free and pro versions of it. Well, I've heard of a free version, and a pro version, but since they're the same thing, I don't think you can really call them versions. You want a BSD? You go download it. You want to support the developers? Buy the CDs, but remember that you're getting exactly the same OS as you would if you'd just downloaded it.

Free and Pro versions of "most BSD's"??? Have you even gone to their websites, much less used them?

Re: Diskless workstations

[johnjaydk]

In any case, getting back to diskless workstations netbooting... this is a MAJOR win when you have rooms full of hardware. There's no reason each of them needs their own hard drive if every single one of those hard drives will just have the same data and enough RAM to run w/o excessive paging/swapping is cheap.

Booting and running OS plus apps across the net is all nice and dandy but you shure-as-hell doesn't want to page/swap across the net. It slows the machine down to a crawl. We had a few of those back at uni. We used to call them dickless workstations....

Re:Why hasn't Google released their Linux kern. mo

[syylk]

They're required by GPL to distribute the kernel mods if they distribute the kernel.

Somehow I doubt they need to give away the software, and as GPL allows, use the modified version "only internally" at the company.

That everyone with a net access over the planet can benefit of those "mods" is irrelevant. They aren't redistributing nor selling their modified kernel.

Re:Let me tell you why

[tassii]

Simply store the one TRUE cookie in the login context and use that cookie to 'bind' them all or to replace as necessary.

One Cookie to Rule Them All
One Cookie to find them
One Cookie to bring them all
and in the OS bind them.

Re:OT: Traffic impact by Google Personalized Homep

[ChessellTech]

Google homepage gave some massive exposure to a few websites when it was first released, which would naturally increase traffic to them. I don't think its the same as the /. effect though. Maybe it was at first, but as they add more optional content to the Google homepage, things will sort of get lost in the crowd, so they probably won 't see the same traffic increases as at first, when there were only a few options. However, getting /.ed is like having a targeting laser pointed at your site, its a strong focus that only points to one thing at a time.

Re:Let me tell you why

[pilkul]

I also notice you have this huge "post push down" thing in your account history to attempt to hide your older comments. Dude, you're even more paranoid than I am.

In related news ..

[loconet]

Has anyone tried to see what entering "linux" on google gives you now a days? At-least on my Canadian "copy" of google (actually, even on google.com/linux), I get an interesting sponsored link at the top of my search results (not on the right side as usual):

Windows vs Linux
www.microsoft.ca/getthefacts Read In-Depth 3rd Party Performance Analysis on Linux & Windows!

Microsoft's marketing/advertising department working hard...

Re:borgware?

[Noaccess0]

Linux is a Operating System. mplayer and gstreamer are applications that are bundled with some distro's. Office suite, video drivers and games are shortcomings of specific distributions that also include the Linux kernel, but have nothing to do with the functionality of the kernel.

The difference is important.

Re:Google and IBM use Linux, why won't others foll

[fishbowl]

Your grandmother fits in where in the "IT Enterprise"?

I can't wait for the day...

[gosand]

I really can't wait for the day when you don't have to justify why you use anything other than Microsoft's products.

Do YOU really need this?

[Jeff Hornby]

Interesting article, but I think it has very little to do with the life of the average programmer.

Let's face it, there are very few applications that would actually benefit significantly from changes to the O/S kernel. Certainly Google is one of them, but how many Google's are there?

If you're writing a web store, an internal corporate application or most other applications, choosing Linux just because you can hack on the kernel is not really relevant.

Re:Let me tell you why

[jacksonj04]

It also enables you to use Personalised Searching based on your search history. Head over to https://www.google.com/accounts/ to see all the options.

Re:Business guys still haven't quite figured it ou

[Donny Smith]

> (though I suppose those servers they sell to companies for internal searches must count as redistribution).

Good point, I hope someone asks them to provide the source code. Then again, does "leasing" of appliances count as redistribution (in case that's what they call it)?

>Anyhow, does anyone know if/what Google has contributed?

If anything came out, it'd probably be contributions to the kernel, which can be searched, grepped and "wc -l"-ed.
I don't have the source at hand, though.

Re:Let me tell you why

[3nd32]

erm... Your math's a bit off. 1K of memory == 1024 bytes == 8*2^10 bits.

Re:Let me tell you why

[evilandi]

What is this "logging on" of which you speak? I have never "logged on" to Google. Is this for g-mail or some other service?

Yes, exactly right. IIRC it originally began as a legacy log-on when Google acquired DejaNews; my Google login is exactly the same as my old DejaNews login, and works with all Google services which allow login, such as Google Maps and Google Local which can remember where I live.

The amusing counter-anecdote about this is, of course, that my email address and personal profile which was carried forward from DejaNews ceased to be accurate about ten years ago. In fact its funnier than that; my sign-on email address is a "nospam" adulterated address of a subdomain under an ISP I stopped using way back when.

Which makes me wonder exactly how much evil anyone could get up to with Google's data, which is, after all, completely unverified. It's about as useful as that survey which asked people their passwords in exchange for a bar of chocolate. "Yeah, sure, my password is, erm, iwantsomefreechocolate. Yeah, honestly, that's my password. Honest, guv'nor."

I mean, really, does anyone actually tell the whole truth on these sign-up forms?

Take my free IT industry magazine subscriptions. I know they're only going to send it if I say I'm the finance director of a large company. So that's what I say. Now imagine how confused any evil data miner is going to be when they sell my name to a bunch of fraudsters thinking that I sign the cheques. Or, indeed, imagine how said evil data miner is going to be kneecapped by said fraudster's burly pals.

Re:Let me tell you why

[jimmypw]

Right im going to be anal (|) here... Its the same method as a barcode.

Credibility

[djfray]

I take this statement to be representing the views of Google's open source programs manager, and not as from Google itself. If you think about it, most people in that position are going to do the best they can to pump up open source. If Larry Page, Sergey Brin or Eric Schmidt made this statement, it would represent Google. It is misleading to declare Chris DiBona's opinion as the truth behind the corporate decisions of Google.

Re: Maybe some of you missed this...

[CatMan79]

But the parent poster is the person about whom the article is written. I think we can consider him an authority on what he actually said.

(And he thinks Windows XP is good? Google loves Microsoft! We knew it...)

Re:Let me tell you why

[WillWare]

I mean do other companies actually sit around in high backed chairs and think of how to "do evil"?

We have found that regular chairs work fine for this.

Re:Let me tell you why

[sigloiv]

Does anyone else notice that the only people who are getting extremely angry here are the people who take the side of the "anti-cookies". Anyone who is..."pro-cookies" is just sort of joking around and couldn't care less about Google logging what I search.

Besides, what is Google going to do with my hundreds of queries about Linux problems? Are they going to hunt me down for it?

To me, it's almost like that program that encrypts your e-mail for you (can't remember what it was called). If you have nothing to hide, why are you hiding it?

A litmus test for linux maturity

[beforewisdom]

I use gnu/linux exclusively at home and if I had my choice I would use it exclusively at work.

In addition to Google many organizations say the use linux because of licensing issues and/or cost.

There are always discussions about how/when linux will have matured as an operating system.

I say it will be the day when organizations that are not necessarily OSS enthusiasts say the use linux because it is the most reliable and easy to use operating system.

Apple has proved that nix can be absolutely easy to use.

The Free/SecureBSD people have proved that the nix back end can be made easier to deal with, more secure, and more solid.

Re:Why didn't they pick BSD?

[xouumalperxe]

Because they're from Stanford rather than Berkley?

Re:Open source is broken

[hackstraw]

...there are going to be some enterprises that STILL want to have the OS backed by a company for their own piece of mind, security, and as an outlet to yell at in case they have a problem.

I hear this argument all the time, yet it does not make much sense in reality. I'm not trying to bash Microsoft here, but they are a well known and easy example to use. Answer these questions:

Does licensing MS software provide a company with peace of mind?

Does licensing MS software provide security?

Does licensing MS software provide an outlet to yell at in case they have a problem?

Maybe the last question. Sure you can yell all you want. From my understanding, Microsoft doesn't have a warrantee or guarantee that their software will do anything to any level of competence. Also, you can buy security through something like Trusted Solaris and I believe MS has a similar product. But overall, I don't see these PHB questions answered by most commercially licensed products.

Re:Let me tell you why

[B1ackD0g]

One Cookie to rule them all
One Cookie to find them
One Cookie to bring them all
And in the darkness bind them

Dang!

[B1ackD0g]

Beat to the punch.

Re:Let me tell you why

[Dr. Evil]

It's a filesystem: http://richard.jones.name/google-hacks/gmail-files ystem/gmail-filesystem.html

I'm planning to use it to host my imap folders for my squirrelmail server.

Stupidest post I've read in the past 5 minutes.

[Wakko Warner]

Congratulations.

Google is the biggest spyware company on the planet! They are just clever enough to use a search "honeypot", instead of invading your dinky system.

Proof? This is slashdot, we don't need to prove what we say here.

- A.P.

OSS is more than just price and being open...

[RedMage]

OSS Software's advantages are often cited as being 1: free, and 2: Open. Both of these are strong advantages in some situations, but not necessarily in all. Most companies aren't firstly concerned with direct purchase price. In fact, many OSS projects have commercial components that provide custimization and support for a fee. Open software is a strong pull for those of use in the software field, but usually doesn't translate for the end user of software directly.
For me, the biggest advantage of OSS is that of availability and access. If I need a widget right now to solve a problem, I don't have to go through a formal purchase process with PO's and the like, I can just find what I need NOW. Then the other advantages kick in, because I can now modify it to exactly meet my needs. Yes, this translates to price via time saved, but not actual dollars. And yes, we do support OSS project with cash.

Fink/ports

[SuperKendall]

Actually pretty much everything runs on OS X, just look at suppoted apps on fink or the OS X version of ports.

Google wouldn't really care about many sorts of apps though for the large farm they have, certainly not GUI ones at any rate - it would be mostly management tools that would probably work out of the box with a make configure.

Re:Fink/ports

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I know that most packages run on OS X/Darwin and I'm not talking about GUI applications, but there are always small dependancy problems or libraries that have not been updated. Heck Darwin may be an inherently better architecture than Linux, but that does not mean maintaining a product built upon it is as easy as Linux. Being involved in two large commercial products, one built on NetBSD and one built on Linux I can tell you with some certainty that Linux is just easier because that is what most of the development is happening on.

It's not a huge difference and either way is possible, it is just nice to have the most up-to-date tools upon occasion.

Re:Let me tell you why

[Pollardito]

or maybe they're just more successful at that hiding?

Re:Let me tell you why

[Castar]

(I mean do other companies actually sit around in high backed chairs and think of how to "do evil"?)

Have you ever had dealings with a credit card company?

Just askin'.

Re:Let me tell you why

[zootm]

Always a possibility. But then if they're hiding it that well, it ceases to be marketable, I suppose.

Re:Google's success is "ambiguous"

[Anonymous Coward]

[jericho4.0 wrote:] WTF!? Are you suggesting that Linux is somehow not deterministic!? Are you insane? I'm typeing this on a Linux box, and when I hit the 'a' key, an 'a' appears. Just like it always does.

However, if you are writing a graphically based application, will cut-and-paste work uniformly for the user so that the text will appear correctly in another application, with font information intact? Can you say with confidence that the end-user's cut-and-paste will work properly for pictures from one application to the other with no problems? Can you write a program and distribute it without worrying about whether the end-user is running Gnome or KDE properly installed with proper version numbers? Will your installation package work no problem with Gentoo and RedHat and SuSE? Are fonts standardized? The X-Window management system has historically always had a problem with these issues. Indeed, Linux vendor RedHat complained

X Windows' lack of TrueType Font Engine
X Windows originally supported only bitmap fonts, i.e. fonts for which a physical representation for how a font should appear at a particular point size is pre-computed and stored. The problem with this model is when the X server requests a font size which is not precalculated, the font system shrinks or reduces one of the existing bitmaps until it achieves the proper point size. The result is blocky when enlarged, and often illegible when reduced.

Various proprietary scalable font engines were added by proprietary Unix vendors in an effort to combat the bitmap font problem. Scalable fonts contain only an outline, or description, of how the font should be drawn, as well as some hints on how to handle very small point sizes. Theoretically, scalable fonts can be displayed at any size without any of the "blockiness" inherent to their bitmapped siblings. Several of these engines were even donated back to the X Consortium, who maintained the core X Window System, as Free Software. IBM donated a PostScript Type1 font renderer, and BitStream a renderer for their proprietary Speedo type format. Unfortunately, the Type1 engine does a rather poor job with small font sizes, and the Speedo font format has largely been supplanted by other formats. As Apple and Microsoft made TrueType font technology the de-facto standard in the 1990's, Linux users were largely left out in the cold.

X Windows' Cryptic Font Configuration Model
In addition to lack of support for modern fonts, X makes adding and removing fonts difficult. In addition to modifying the system's /etc/X11/XF86Config to add or remove a directory containing to new fonts, if X is currently running, the user must also use the cryptic xset command to modify their runtime font path. When fonts are installed into an existing font directory (which is typical), the mkfontdir must be employed, which isn't much better. Even worse, it does not support Type1 fonts, the only reasonable scalable font technology that comes standard with the X Window System.

Printing System Didn't Share Fonts
Most Linux systems use GhostScript as the foundation of the printing sub-system, as it is a very good PostScript interpreter supporting a wide range of printers. Red Hat Linux is no exception. Until recently, GhostScript made use of bitmap fonts which were similar, but incompatible with X Windows. The German font foundry URW++ Design and Development Inc. graciously donated a set of high quality PostScript Type1 fonts to the public domain, which GhostScript quickly adopted, enabling higher quality printed output. While these fonts were compatible with the X Type1 font engine, they were stored in a different location and were not configured to be easily used with X.

And these are issues that Google never has to worry about. Google has a lower threshold of acceptability and their front-end application is so elementary (it's just a single form with a text field) that it does not test the system in the way a word processor might.

Good point

[solomonrex]

Which is why MSN.com is on the bottom and Google's on the top.

In the non-sexual sense, of course.

Re:Let me tell you why

[shmlco]

It's often said that with great power comes great responsibility. I prefer to think of the "Do no evil" mantra as an ever present acknowledgement of that fact.

It was a lot of fun

[K-Man]

I once spent a summer figuring out how to write device interfaces by trial and error. ODT was my closest friend.

Alas, I think slashdot is going the way of the PDP-11. I post a joke in response to a story about nothing, and I get marked "off-topic".

Re:Let me tell you why

[dbenhur]

I mean do other companies actually sit around in high backed chairs and think of how to "do evil"?

Of course they do, they just describe it in code words like "synergize our value add", "optimize our risk senarios", "innovate", or "increase shareholder value".

Re: Diskless workstations

[xoplytnk]

You wouldn't swap/page across the network, if that were occurring the w/s would be outfitted with a local drive for that function and that function only. Planning and testing were critical to environment functionality to ensure that swap/paging did not happen. If something went wrong with the internals of the w/s, you swapped the pizza box out for a new one, updated the MAC address in the servers bootptab and reboot the w/s. 5 minutes later you were online with the application running on a CDE desktop. And this was all done on a 10BT NIC in the w/s and 100BT LAN backbone.

Re:Let me tell you why

[KingVance]

See...I will let them do all this as long as they do not shove said ads down my throat...

Google does not do that...they can collect and sit the text ads in front of me all day, as long as 1) they dont give me popups and 2) they dont give me spyware that eats up system resoursces and takes away from my valueable WoW time.

Re:Let me tell you why

[shmlco]

Have you ever tried coding a site where every link has to persist all of the state data used be everyone else on the site? Nightmare.

And which doesn't change the fact that the next time you type google.com into the address bar you still have to reset your preferences.

Re:Why hasn't Google released their Linux kern. mo

[njyoder]

Yes they are. Google licenses out their google search appliance to businesses, that's teh whole point. I even stated in my comment that was the case, but two people missed that. They physically hand over a little 1U server to a business to search their own stuff.

Re:Let me tell you why

[thirdrock]

I mean, really, does anyone actually tell the whole truth on these sign-up forms?

Apparently it occurs every day. In fact I think my wife regularly puts in personal details into these sign-up forms. But then, my wife tends to trust the world for no apparent reason.

As for myself, I do not. If it is required (for purchasing stuff for example), I put in my PO Box, and then if that is not suitable, then only my real address with the greatest of reluctance.

Thanks for the information on Google's extra services BTW.

Re:Let me tell you why

[thirdrock]

Cool (I think ... hmmmmm ..... I don't have my tin foil hat on today ... perhaps I should be more paranoid about signing into Google)

and the twain shall meet.

[adamgolding]

i'm still waiting for the dupe on this one--thought it would be in a few hours ago? /** slashdot source-code pwn3d! */
public main(String[] args) {
for (int i = 0; i SIZE_OF_INTERNET; i++) {

        if (URLs[i].topic().equals("google")) {
              URLs[i].post();
            }

        if (URLs[i].topic().equals("linux")) {
              URLs[i].post();
            }
      }
}

Re:Let me tell you why

[confused.brit]

And firefox remembers the searches using a MRU or most recently used list, same as winzip uses to list to you the last ten zip files you open.

"look into how this stuff works before you start posting"...

Look who's talking.

Re:Get a Clue Fink!

[chawly]

Somebody here needs to get a clue - very true. HP is getting slowly into selling PC's with Linux pre-installed. It is hard for them. Thinking is hard. But they are trying (sometimes they are very trying, if you'll excuse me for my little joke)- don't discourage them would be my suggestion.

Re:Let me tell you why

[blengino]

and the number representation that you can do with 2^13 bits is 2^(2^13) or 2^(8192) wich sums aproximatelly (considering 2^10 = 10^3) 4 * 10^(2457) a rather large number

Re:Get a Clue Fink!

[chawly]

Oh but I agree completely - with you, with HP, and even (begod!) with Microsoft. There is a huge installed base out there - really silly to alianate it. All I wanted to do was point out that HP are doing Linux as well as Microsoft. HP is a supplier - should therefore supply the demand. I think they would be crazy to try to leave Windows - because of the size of the installed base. I'm just happy that the "big bucks" have noticed that Windows is not the only game in town. The choice lies with us - the users - for myself, I prefer Linux, but many of my friends are into Windows and happy. Clues need looking for - my view on the thing. The only thing I've got to say about the idea of a "fink" on Slashdot is that the originator has a mind like the north end of a south-bound camel and should be ...... well, I hope he/she/it will have a happy life - I take leave to doubt it though. Be happy.

LSD

[jahknow]

No wait, that would be the ol' Berkeley Surprise!

Re:LSD

[Doctor Faustus]

That's too slow. You wouldn't even know it was the apple surprise that did it.

Re:Let me tell you why

[einhverfr]

Does anyone else notice that the only people who are getting extremely angry here are the people who take the side of the "anti-cookies". Anyone who is..."pro-cookies" is just sort of joking around and couldn't care less about Google logging what I search.

First there could be all sorts of good reasons for Google to store the search information. They store more than just user searches too. Click-throughs, etc. are stored. So theoretically, Google can tie your cookie to sites you viewed too which might be a bit disturbing...

But.... Think about it.... Most of us are not too concerned about things at work where we might have proxies, but at home, where we almost certainly have a trackable IP address, we have already given up any possibility of anonymity on any sites we visit.

Besides, what is Google going to do with my hundreds of queries about Linux problems? Are they going to hunt me down for it?

Maybe if you apply for a job there, they will reject you because your queries are for basic problems ;-) Just kidding....

To me, it's almost like that program that encrypts your e-mail for you (can't remember what it was called). If you have nothing to hide, why are you hiding it?

Which one? Outlook/Outlook Express both handle X509-based encryption. I presume most FOSS clients do too. Or maybe you are thinking of PGP.

Anyway, it is a bad analogy. I could have all kinds of legitimate needs to hide information. If you don't believe that, care to post your credit card numbers and bank account info in reply to this post?

Similarly, what about customer lists, etc. for a company? What about emails that include trade secrets? Should these not be encrypted? Do I have anything to hide? Sure :-) We all do. Is it because I am feeling guilty about somethign or am afraid of retribution if a fact was known? No. But I would have to cancel accounts, report credit cards lost/stolen, etc.

Re:Cookies are NOT needed to log into some sites

[einhverfr]

But what is the big deal? If you are logging in from home, cookies or not, they still have your IP address, and this can be traced directly to you...

Re:Let me tell you why

[cfuse]

I mean do other companies actually sit around in high backed chairs and think of how to "do evil"?

I'm afraid so. DuPont, Monsanto, Bayer CropScience

Re:Let me tell you why

[game kid]

You forgot:

In the land of Google where Searches lie.

Tolkien wouldn't be pleased. Then again, you might not have read the famous book trilogy, The Cache of the Cookies, too well.

That would be stupid

[Roadkills-R-Us]

One of the main reasons a lot of companies were afraid of GNU software in the early days (as recently as the mid 90s, maybe even today) was fear of just this. While OSS has a lot more inertia and acceptance, and the GPL and its drivers have certainly helped in that arena, trying to force this on companies would be a death knell.

It would be seen as attempting to force communism down the companies' throats. That'll play in a few countries, but not in many.