Ahh, I was sure this day was bound to come sooner or later! This is the beginning of the end for the Dinosaur monopolies and cartels that control this country, and so some respect, the world. Who do you think built the culture we have, that already allows us to be bullied this way? Well if you're 20-something like myself, you can safely point the blame in the direction of your grandparents' and great-grandparents' generations.My grandma's only 65, but its obvious she doesn't have as much power in the world as she used to. This is also true with many large corporations. The people who built these vast empires are trying to pass on their ideology, because they want to perpetuate what they've created, long after they are dead. Then we have my generation, which will inherit the earth in the next 10-20 years. Who bitches the most about our freedoms being taken away? Fairly young people. Anyone ove 40 in here who gets the big picture? You? Great, you're one of us, grab a beer. You see, these megalocomglomerates absoluately do have a huge amount of influence on Capitol Hill. Anyone disagree? You're wrong, its a fact. Now take a look at the cut-throat capitalistic society that we live in (here in the U.S.). These are not what ails our society, but are merely a symton of what does. Times have radically changed in my short lifetime, and the world has moved on, infortunately the masses don't get to move along with it. Just look at the technological marvels in the last 50 years! We've made a quantum leap in the last century. The problem is that public mindset (or the powers that influence it) have not caught up. Thus, the ruling parties in this country are still stuck in an old paradigm that cannot stablally exist in our now technological (and intellectual) status. We are at a time of imbalance, where either our technogical wealth will be used to enslave us (overly dramatic maybe, but you get the idea) if the old ruling class retains power. Or, a new social paradigm develops and gains control, and our technological weath is actually put to work for the masses.
This is just another attempt by the aging ruling-class, in order to better guarantee thier ongoing control. However, they play a big risk here by bringing this neo-civil war into the public eye, and unless they can keep the masses under thier thumb, they will lose public support (they being the evil corporations and the currupt government), and well, some sort of skirmish for domination is almost a foregone conclusion.
I think this newest step by the powers that be is a great thing, because it forces the issue, and there are reasonable alternatives already in existance. As many have said, information demands to be free, and you know what, its never failed to find a way yet. Hopefully true freedom can again be attained when our terribly corrupt government is exposed for what it is, and the public actually dares to do something about it.
Hmm, too bad the government has the military on thier side...
The only assumption is that their subscribers will increase to 50 mil. by 2010.
That's a HUGE assumption, and I have no faith in it whatsoever. The problem is that for every one of those new users, the speed of other users' connections will slow down. At the same time, other options - DSL et al. - are going to become much more widely available, and won't suffer from this congestion.
It is a very huge assumption! Strictly speaking in the U.S, there are around 300 Million people. Giving the benefit of the doubt, lets say that EVERY person has thier own internet access accounts in 2010. Thats 300 million accounts. For excite@home to assume that they will control 1/6 market share of all internet connections in the US is simply ridiculous. A good deal of the populous of this country lives outside the possible reach of DSL/Cable/Hardline solutions. The only way someone living outside of town can get access is either via phone line/modem (which is very antiquated even today), or some sort of wireless setup (which is fairly expensive by common Joe terms). I work as a marketing executive for a large global total internet solutions company which shall remain nameless (not excite@home or ATT), and I can tell you thier assumptions are wild beyond belief!
The most likely scenario is that ATT (who I believe is a shareholder) has paid off the excite@home execs to file bankruptcy, so ATT can pick up the pieces at a nominal cost (and not have to pay excite@home's debts), and grow thier market-share in broadband internet access.
If this is the case, its a wise short-term strategy for ATT, but at the price of sacrificing long-term longevity. Cable and DSL are not the media that people will be using to connect to the internet in 5-10 years. Any company looking to turn a profit in internet service solutions knows that you can't throw millions of dollars in infrastructure to gain 5% of the possible market, when by doing so you totally elmininate your ability to tap the other 95%. ISPs should be (and some are) developing infrastructures that are not only able to potentially reach and service 100% of the market, but also do so reliably and cheaply (for the lowest common denominator), while still being able to turn a profit after all expenses/further R&D.
The reason that more ISPs aren't doing just that is that there are of course quite a few variables there. Its also the reason why companies like excite@home are filing for bankruptcy. They had a good idea, (piggybacking on the existing cable infrastructure), but failed to realize how the initial cost savings (vs. laying thier own lines/towers/whatever)comes at the price of being extremely limited as to who they could and couldn't service. Basically they wagered everything that they had a winning hand, instead of taking many more smaller bets. Bad Idea(TM).
Its discouraging that the only real losers in this scenario are the customers.
On a positive note though, this will force consumers to demand a higher level of stability in their service providers, and will usher in the next level of faster/cheaper/better net connections. Plus, it creates the perfect scenario for my company to take advantage of, which is a win/win situation for us, and consumers alike.
I said this before Napster was shut down, and I will say it again. Its obvious that there is a demand for file sharing networks. The whole ideology of the internet from its inception is the free exchange of data. Yes, swapping copyrighted material is arguably a Bad Thing(TM), but its quite obvious that its never going to stop.
In the case of (illegal) digital music distribution, its been happening since before the advent of the MP3 format. It used to be that you had to find FTP sites to get your music fix. For some reason those FTP sites became scarce and hard to find, then Napster appeared and flourished for some time. Other sharing services like Audiogalaxy sprung up before the demise of Napster, and now those services are being threatened as well.
Keep in mind that we're currently in the 3rd generation of sharing services. Its quite clear to me that the demand still exists, and will continue to be met as long as it exists.
In short, the most the RIAA can hope to do is cause minor disturbances every couple years. At this point the RIAA still has some level of control, or at least the ability to shut these services down. What they fail to realize though, is that as long as they keep forcing the issue, more advanced solutions are going to manifest themselves. The envelope will eventually be pushed enough that the RIAA will no longer have any control over unauthorized distribution methodss (Think along the lines of decentralized P2P networks that actually work WELL).
Fortunately (at least in the US), the RIAA has a new weapon. Now that the US government has passed "anti-terrorism" laws that effectively negate our constitutional rights (privacy, freedom of speech), the RIAA can just claim these decentralized networks are groups of anarchistic indidivudals with the intent of undermining the well-being of the United States Government. Would anyone really be surprised?
I do have a sort-of off-topic question though, since I didn't pay enough attention in Civics class: If there exists a law that blatantly contradicts the constitution, is that law actually valid? If the new anti-terrorism legistlation effectively invades my privacy and puts my freedom of speech (and press) in jeopardy, would that not directly contradict the constitution? Its my understanding as a US Citizen that the Constitution is what gives the government its power, so I see this kind of legislation as the government biting the hand that feeds it, in more ways than one. How in the hell is illegally (in my mind) monitoring my computer any different than the government requring me to wear a microphone and vidcam so they can monitor all of my daily life? Perhaps I'm grossly misunderstanding current anti-terrorism legislation, and if so, please enlighten me.
Some famous US forefather said that anyone willing to sacrifice liberty for safety deserves neither (paraphrased, I know). I agree with that.
I've already been down that avenue, and sorry to say, that your comment is just idealist fluff. You know what makes popular music popular? A lot of people like it, duh! I speak from experience since I play bass, guitar, and piano. I don't particularly like classical, blues, jazz, or whatever (unless I'm high, of course). I like punk and alternative. I know what good music is. Its what I like. I also know what I consider good music, you probably consider shite. Thats how it works.
Ever been in a music shop, and watch some dude come in and wail away on drums or guitar, try a few different instruments out, buy some strings and leave? Those unknown musicians are the music revolution. The ones that make your jaw drop when you see them rip it all up. Thats what its about. Its about giving those musicians a chance to get thier music out. Right now, thats impossible, because the big labels only cater to artists (hah) that will probably make the label big bux. Some of the smaller labels are way more open, but they don't necessarily have the means to help an artist promote themselves. What would be nice is if the recording industry as a whole didn't have such a high level of disparity. How can an artist on an independant label hope to compete with someone under contract with say AOL/Time/Warner blah blah whatever? Of course they can't. Are the artists that are under the wing of AOL/Time/Warner more talented than independant artists? Not a chance. In fact, I'd say that its quite the inverse.
Remember about 10 years ago, when "Alternative" music blew up? Nobody was complaining about the radio then... take a look at the difference between then and now... what's changed?
I must say I do find this whole scenario quite disturbing. Now, I don't necessarily think police should be able to abuse technology in this manner, but what the taxpayer feels means precisely dick these days, so whatever I think is a moot point. Police have been using radar for speed detection for many years. Its surely no coincidence that "fuzz-busters" are quite illegal in many states. Why do ya think this is? Admittedly, radar is about the only halfway reliable and accurate means to measure speed, so it sort-of makes sense that the cops wouldn't want you to have a fuzz-buster.
However, there are plenty of reliable and accurate means of identifing a person without the eye of big brother scanning crowds and tagging people. I highly doubt that shit can be done in realtime anyways, so its efficiency sure as hell doesn't justify the intrusion of rights. I figure someone will find some technological way to fool big brother's eye, and you can bet that it will be outlawed in short order. Question: So is wearing a mask in public going to be illegal too?
Think about that shit people. Where does the long arm of the law reach to? Just far enough to suffocate lady liberty, I guess. Its getting to the point where I think there should be a law that basically states that any device which negates the effectiveness of a tool of law enforcement must remain legal for a citizen to possess and use. Consider it an opt-out. If the cops want to bust my ass for something, maybe they should consider doing it via good old fashioned police work, instead of lowering everything to the lowest common denominator by using technology in this fascion (sic).
Just another reason why I'm not proud to be an American.
You know, I thought the same exact thing with the author gushing about Cisco's Tech Support. And especially after reading so many very positive comments about Cisco's service and commitment to its customers. I must say I am really impressed. Its enough to make we want to finish my CCNA;-)
Ummm maybe I've just had too much to drink and totally didn't understand this, but PostgreSQL has been the default DB in RedHat distros since at least RH5.0 (unless that changed somewhere in 5.x). I just must not get it... whats the big fuckin deal? I actually always kinda wondered why mysql wasn't ever the default in RH distros, its always been PostgreSQL... so is this really any surprise at all?
Z in graphics is depth. Period. Say "you know, Z is supposed to be up" to an old SGI hacker and he'll roll his eyes at you.
Yessir, this is the only factual statement in your whole post. However, you seem to imply that since Doom has apparent depth, it must be 3D.
No. Ask yourself this: In Doom, do you have X,Y, and Z all at once? Sorry, no. In Doom, your character does not move at all. It is the rest of the environment that changes based on your input.
Carmack himself said that Doom is not 3D. But its not exactly 2D either. The rendering techniques simulate something I think he called 2.5D. That is, yes, you can move up a flight of stairs, but anything directly under those stairs is solid. There is no closet behind the stairwell.
Sorry bub, you're wrong. If you'd ever bothered to develop maps for games like Doom (or Duke Nukem 3D heh), you'd know full well that Doom was absolutely positively _NOT_ 3D! Ever notice in Doom that there are NO spiral staircases, or true multi-tier structures. Whether you are shooting on an angle or not is entirely pointless. Imagine an apartment building with balconies outside every floor. In Doom, it is impossible to build this structure, as it is a true 3-dimensional model. You cannot start in one room (1A), then go up a flight of stairs and wind up in 2A. You _CAN_ in Quake. Doom uses some cheap hacks to make you think you can do so, but you cannot map one floorspace directly above another, with a hollow space inbetween. Looks like Carmack did a pretty good job of his quote "2.5D" in Doom. If you knew a damn thing about actually creating an environment in Doom and Quake, you'd know immediately what I was talking about. Thats why in Doom you can't have the aformentioned apartment building, but you can shoot at an angle.
And sorry sir, but a real 3D game does not have 6 degrees of freedom instead of 3. Unless you are a time traveller, degrees (directions, pivot points, angles) are a function of 3 dimensions. A true 3D game has 3 major degrees, the X, Y, and Z axis. A true 3D game has infinite degrees of freedom, just like real life. How do you get infinite degrees of freedom? Thats your function of X, Y, and Z, man. Also, a computer generated 3D environment has NOTHING to do with the pretty graphics, whether sprites, skins or texture maps. Its not necessary to fully render vines on a wall in 3D since its just for decoration anyway. And you said it yourself. Skins are wrapped around hollow cores.
For a thing to be hollow, it must have 3 dimensions. Quake uses skins wrapped around a "hollow" frane, Doom uses 2D sprites. Would it make you feel better if those hollow frames were solid instead? Why abuse the graphics engine with polys you'll never see?
As for that swimming comment, I assume that you mean that you can't swim naturally in Quake (as in face first, feet last). I think you are confusing whether or not Quake is 3D with its game physics. Is there any compelling reason to position a model this way to swim? Not particularly. This would force the model to have a higher poly count so it can contort itself into this position. Polys are a big factor as to how hard the graphics card has to work (less unnecessary polys=good). Its not practical to render this in 3D when its such a unimportant factor of gameplay. But the fact is there is no reason that the Quake engine can't support this. If you've seen some of the cooler taunt actions that some user-made models have, you'd know that.
Funny, I learned all that shit doing Doom and Duke maps as a 14 year old, and I could grasp the concept perfectly even then.. Why can't you?
See if you can find an archive of Carmack's old.plan files somewhere. He spells it all out there.
Get real! Its a proven fact that M$ will play dirty pool if its threatened enough (see Netscape v. Microsoft in the browser wars). Yeah, you're right, M$ may want to test the validity of the GPL in court, but M$ is smart enough to cover thier bases. Lets look at some reasons M$ would be so vocal to the general public about the GPL (remember, Joe Sixpack isn't reknowned for giving a shit about licenses):
By trying to convince the general consumer that the GPL is bad, it makes M$ look like the helpful innovative company that they wish they were. "Hey people, these GPL commies are trying to destroy our economy!"
Since Microsoft _has_ been so vocal, it seems to me they have weighed the possibility of testing the GPL in court. They wouldn't call attention to something unless they were willing to face it head on. M$ might not take on the GPL in court, but I'd dare to bet that someone will, and probably pretty soon. M$ will be watching.
Its an obvious attempt to try to distract and fragment the open source community. United, we are a very real threat to MS, but if we start squabbling about liscenses (GPL vs MPL vs BSD flamewars), we'll be a little too preoccupied to worry about what M$ is up to. M$ has tried this experiment before, and they know full well we fall for it everytime. Its a diversion alright
With all the dot coms going belly up, its a good I toldja so from M$. M$ could quite easily quote quite a few companies (RH, VA, Caldera) who have had quite the hard time generating positive net earnings. Of course alot of closed source companies had the same problem, but M$ is known for leaving out details.
When it comes down to it, M$ is up to something more than just flaming the GPL. Sure, us OSS zealots would like to think its because M$ is scared of the GPL. Yes, they are, but we'd be naive to think it ends there. It does not. M$ will take pot shots like this at us, BECAUSE IT BUYS THEM TIME! It gives them time to develop something new, and market it as the Next-Big-Thing(tm) that the consumer HAS to have. And it will conspicuously have no OSS alternative.
It would be in our best interests if Slashdot (and open source developers in general) stopped paying attention to the M$ FUD machine. It'd be infinitely more wise to pay attention to what M$ is doing not what its saying.
As its been said multiple times already, its obvious that M$ is attacking the GPL because it is a potential serious competitor (insofar that GPL software can be implemented in a similar fashion to M$ software, negating M$ profitability). I fail to understand something, however. M$ is a multimillion (billion?) dollar company. I find it hard to believe that the well paid staff at M$ can't come up with some real good ideas that could net them even more.
The problem with M$ is that they use a idealistic business model. That is, let others develop (and innovate in the true sense of the word), and then either buy out the company, or fuck them over. Either way, M$ wins. They get more for thier money that way.
Unfortunately, in the real world, this business model is inherently flawed, as it causes the company (M$) to become very fat and lazy. M$ only has 2 things currently that are keeping it afloat.
A large warchest for buying out the competition
A stranglehold on the current market
These 2 weapons prove most useful for M$, except where GPL software is concerned, as GPL is not hindered by either. M$ lacks the one weapon (outside of buying off politicians) that can protect itself from the GPL. They lack creativity and a drive to produce the highest quality product possible. Its not that M$ employees are inherently stupid or mindless code monkeys, its that the management has the wrong goals in mind.
No matter how you feel about M$, remember that they introduced a generation to computers. Nevermind how, or what generation (hint: its mine). M$ once stood the chance of making it into the history books in a positive light. They've ruined that chance now, as they've already destroyed everything that they worked so hard for. Thats too bad. Greed tends to supercede all, I guess. Suffice it to say that my children will be raised on Linux and BSD instead.
A word to the wise for the masses of Linux GPL/OSS/Free Software developers: Forget about making money with your software for now. Have you guys looked at the latest SUSE/RedHat/Debian distros released in the last 2 years? Sorry guys, but I was happier with RH 5.1. Concentrate more on doing what it is you do well, than expecting to be paid for it. Well crafted code will line your pockets in due time. Just don't make the same mistake M$ did. ALWAYS put the product before profitability.
Re:All too familiar: OT (karma be damned!)
on
Review: Atlantis
·
· Score: 1
Ahhh yes. First come the dilated pupils, then come the paranoid delusions of persecution.
<rant intensity="militant">
How is that a paranoid delusion? The editors around here get ripped for a lot of shit around here. I must have read your post wrong. Quite honestly I would have had much the same attitude as Taco. So far as I know, writing an editorial means giving your take on something, yet the/. editors get flamed for doing just that all the time. You know, like:
"WTF is this doing on slashdot?!"
"Get off your high horse (insert hated editor here)"
"Blah blah blah, now that Taco and Hemos are millionaires, how can they cater to us?"
IMNSHO, I could only hope to have an editorial job and retain right of creative control (not sure if this is true with/. but anyway), and I don't blame the/. editors for anything they post (yes, even Katz, though he annoys me to no end).
Pissed off because/. doesn't have some earth-shattering news to report? Make it happen! Go out and develop an awesome and practical new technology, or at least get me my damn cheap and reliable cold-fusion. Otherwise, close the browser and get back to your boring and socially unimportant e-commerce devel job (or whatever) before your boss catches you.
</rant>
Apologies, but the shit the editors take (while it comes along with the job) is oftentimes unwarranted, and as such, an occasional negative outburst is justified.
I think Microsoft is setting the stage for a real grandiose event.
M$ has been on the warpath about the GPL lately (and spreading Open Source == GPL fallacies), and this is to fool the public. Why would the public care, you ask?
They don't, and M$ knows this. (And really, is living proof that people don't read licenses, or M$ would go belly-up real quick, but I digress)
What I think M$ is doing is harping about the GPL, because sooner or later, the GPL is gonna have to be tested in court. Guess who is going to be doing the testing? M$. They will try to show that the GPL is counterproductive to the software industry, and its mere existance is stifling the software industry's ability to make comparable products at a competitive price. They will argue that Open Source software stunts thier IP rights via "infection". This is not the first time that M$ lackeys have referred to Open Source/Free Software/Linux as some type of incurable virus that permeates anything it comes in contact with.
Though, M$ has made a mistake which may prove to be quite crippling to them in a few years. They are fighting on _WAY_ too many fronts. They have *XP, they have.NET, they have xBox, and they are fighting Open Source. Any battle fought wrongly by M$ stands to bite them in the ass later. Its possible that an action they take on one front will affect them negatively in another. The consumer will be affected as well. Its getting to the point where even Joe Sixpack is becoming aware that they have alternatives to having a BSOD everyday. (I thought W2K was supposed to cure that... it doesn't on my box at least).
M$ is fighting the GPL, because it offers a strong alternative to the masses. The general public can't quite grasp what GPL (or other Open Source) software means to them, because its still a bitch to get an alternative OS installed, much less use it for daily work.
In the case of Linux anyway, we've made good progress in this department, but any Linux distro I've used (RH, Debian, Mandrake) are all still a pain in the ass to install and get set up. Don't expect the general public to really warm up to anything besides M$ until you can simplify things. Apple is very aware of this, and thats how come OS X exists. The problem with Open Source software is that we don't fucking need 15 different text editors. I think development energies could be focused in more productive ways. Don't get me wrong, its nice that there is so much choice, but it might be a better idea to concentrate on the OS that that software will run on first instead.
From the consumer prospective, Windows came first, and beget windows software later. In the case of Linux, it looks more like the software is a higher priority than the OS. Thats cool, but dammit, Linux needs a SIMPLE installer, and a stable standard GUI (or two). Tell me why it is that Mandrake 8.0 (or RH 7.x)_CRASHES_ for no apparent reason! Not just X, but the whole damned system. Maybe its the 2.4.x kernel. RH 6.1 was a helluva lot more stable for me.
Don't get me wrong, its just that I consider myself to be good with computers, and even I have a helluva time. Do you expect Joe Sixpack to put up with it?
No sir. Meanwhile, M$ is going to try to destroy the GPL/Open Source so that the day Joe Sixpack can say "Hey, this Open Source stuff really works well" never comes.
Its the same tired old game M$ has been playing for years to ensure thier survival. Its the same principle they used when bundling IE with windows to kill off Netscape. You can tell M$ tried hard, because IE works WAY better for me than any version of Netscape/Mozilla does, sorry.
It won't work that way this time around though. Open Source software is the only thing that can provide healthy competition for M$, and if they destroy it, I doubt any other corporation is gonna be able to compete with the demons in Redmond.
So I have to make extra CD for him or copy the source on to his computer.
Don't have a CD-RW not enough room on neighbor HD to fit source. Can't "give" software to neighbor.
Um, yeah but thats irrelevant though. The license isn't whats restricting you from giving the software to a neighbor. However, almost ALL binary programs have an about or --help feature which makes it quite clear who wrote the program, and how they can be contacted, (and in the case of GPL'd code, where to go to get the source, if you so choose). The fact remains that your neighbor still has the same right to the source code as you do.
Whether or not RMS complains about privacy is also irrelevant, because, well who cares what any one person thinks? It doesn't change what the license says. Just because RMS complains doesn't have anything to do with the Free Software Definition. People all have thier own personal agendas.
I can't comment on the APSL, but the GPL pretty much asks of the same thing. If you're not going to accompany binary programs with the source, you have to make it quite clear where they can get it. How is that different?
Seriously, I've only actually read the GPL a few times, and I sure don't remember all the details of it, so its no surprise to me that others have the same problem. Perhaps if the OSI could post some "official" and correct outlines of each license, we could avoid utterly offtopic posts where everyone tries to sound smart.
I've had DSL for a couple months now, and have ZERO problems with anything... heck, the connection serves 3 PCs on a switched LAN (with IP maquerading on the gateway), and it has continuted to work without a hitch since day one!
True, we had to wait a few weeks for them to get our *free* DSL modem in, it was well worth the wait. The installation took all of 30 minutes, and setting up the rest of the network was cake.
Of course, we have a few things in our favor... Our house is only a few blocks from the CO, and the house was already wired for it (they actually did this when we got our phone installed!).
We get a consistant 256Kbps downstream, and around 192Kbps upstream, which is quite speedy, and the latencies are nominal. I finally got to join the ranks of the LPB's!;-)
The funniest thing is that when we moved in last summer, we asked our phone and cable companies when we could expect to see broadband. The phone company said probably not till Q3 2001, and the cable company said Q1 2001. Guess what, DSL has been here for months, and cable has yet to make an appearance (which is just as well, since I here @home sucks).
Yes, we have the potential to consciously direct our own evolution... we also ALREADY HAVE unconsciously altered our own evolution. Humans do _NOT_ adhere to the "survival of the fittest" rules. If so, we wouldn't have such a problem with disease. All those susceptible to a certain disease would die, leaving only the immune to survive. Unfortunately, we just come up with vaccines and medication to control diseases. This allows the weak to flourish amid an environment that would otherwise destroy them.
So, the only way we can fix this problem is with a bunch of patches to the human source code, if you will. I can see the benefits to this if it helps to make the general population immune to a certain disease (HIV, for example).
However, I'm not so crazy about haphazardly changing the source before its compiled, so to speak. I'd be much more comfortable with a diff and a recompile.
That is to say, I can see tremendously more benefit in being able to do to the doctor, and get injected with a virus that edits your genetic code in specific ways to negate the danger of certain diseases and whatnot. I don't find it very appealing to choose whether my child has blonde hair or blue eyes, has a aversion toward aggression, whatever. I want my child to be just that... the continuation of myself. I want to see myself in my offsping. Maybe thats narcissistic, but thats how I feel. If I got to pick my kid thru genetics, I just as well forgo the whole thing and just adopt a child that adheres to my shopping list. Sounds a little sick to me.
But at the same time, It'd be nice if my children weren't predisposed to suffer from the same clinical depression that I do, that both my parents did, and thier parents, etc etc. That alone is enough deter me from reproducing. How can I do so with good conscience, when I know they will suffer the same fate as me?
Maybe they'll have a genetic version of prozac then....
I think that the patent would only be good till 2007, so there'd be an absolute max of 6 years. With the right licencing terms a manufacturer might be better off sucking it up for 6 years rather than go through the expense of switching technologies
Perhaps monetarily speaking, this would be true. The companies may be better off sucking it up, but there are also incentives for the companies NOT to pay RamBUST and develop some open standardL
RamBUST is being a bunch of assholes, so the companies could do it just out of spite. God knows I would
The technology in the RamBUST patents will be effectively antequated long before 2007. Something bigger and better is bound to come along. Some new type of RAM will most likely be used before long, and it'd be a shame if it developed by the likes of RamBUST. The companies aren't going to want to go thru this scenario again in 6 years.
RamBUST are a bunch of assholes.
HOW many patents does RamBUST allege have been violated? 50 some? Come on, RamBUST knows full well that not every single one of those patents was violated. They waved all thier patents at the judge and said, "Teacher! Infineon is copying my paper!!". RamBUST needs to be disciplined like the immature brats of the IT industry that they are.
RamBUST are a bunch of assholes
Besides, I personally think RamBUST is holding its patents in an unconstitutional way. RamBUST is clearly not holding those patents with the whole "advancement of Science and useful Arts" (paraphrased) deal in mind. They are holding the patents to suck money in. Are they using ANY of that money to develop new, superior technology?
As I was reading the comments, the very same thought occurred to me. If you are gonna patent a piece of software, it should go without saying that you should have to provide the source. How else can it be proven whether or not there is prior art? I could make a program that say, behaves like winzip, but uses my own invented compression algorithm. I'm pretty sure that upon marketing my program, winzip is probably gonna send a lawyer to my door with a summons. If my code is patented, I have no reason not to show the source, because its protected anyway. And better yet, if they wanted to claim prior art, they'd have to provide that code, in source form as well.
I think thats very fair. But then again, if people just grab my source and compile it themselves, whats the incentive for me to market the program? The second people see the source, it might as well be public domain. I can't say I have an easy answer to that. Like it or not, commercial software does have its place, just as free software does. But then again, as it has been mentioned, getting a patent is costly, much less defending one (even when you are in the right).
And all of this, really, is why the US patent system is so screwed up... there are a lot of tough calls, and its all but impossible to really be fair. I sure wouldn't want the task of trying to create a patent reform bill!;-)
Here's my schedule for this week alone:
Monday: Day off
Tuesday: 3PM - 6AM
Wednesday: 3PM - 11PM
Thursday: 3PM - 7AM
Friday: 3PM - 4AM
Saturday: 7PM - 1AM (short one!)
Sunday: 3PM - 7AM
Unfortunately, I don't work in the (mostly) lucrative IT industry. I'm just a lowly line cook, and the majority of the hours I work are by myself (we're supposed to have 2 people, but help is hard to come by these days). Maybe worst of all is that my base wage is USD $7.25, and overtime is 1.5x
On the other hand, its a rare occasion that I don't get to sit on my ass or otherwise slack off for a least a few hours a day;-)
Maybe the real Ask Slashdot question should have been "How many hours are you actually productive per week?". In which case, I'm probably productive for approx. 45 hours out of 60+
The funny thing is my boss tells me I'm due for a raise any day now... the same thing he's been saying for the better part of 3 years.
I suppose most will probably scoff and say I'm insane for working so much for so little (but hey, I get $20 to myself a month after bills are paid). Yes, its true, I could get make more money working only 40 hours a week somewhere else... but I would _HATE_ the job. Maybe I should go see if the local school needs someone to wrangle thier network/teach the kids how to use Linux or something... hehe..
Thank you for summing up exactly what I think.
I'm trying to get a band together (just for something to do, really), and its not about making money (that would be assuming we'd be any good at all:-)
Some of my friends and I are just bored. Any artist who is making millions of dollars, well, lets just say its hard to be _really_ creative.
Those of us who lead _real_ lives can do better than that.
So, maybe we'll start getting more talented artists in the industry (and trust me most talented artists ARENT), and maybe there will someday be a reason to switch on MTV.
I am a Linux user, and I have paid for the RedHat Linux Distibution multiple times. I've always found RH's distro to be a decent balance between being easy to use, and able to get stuff done. Its worth the money, though now its more convienient for me to just download the newest version (a fast net connection is to blame:-)
Freeware software isn't to be trusted, if you're using it on a Windows, Mac, or just about every proprietary OS. This is because its very likely that you are being given a binary with no souce code available. Because of this, you never know how those programs run, or what they REALLY do.
Enter the realm of Open Source. In this model, you download the source code for a program (which yes, is often free, but subject to license isssues), which means that you are privy to anything and everything the program does. So is anyone else who gets the source.
Red Hat Linux conforms to the Open Source model, and the source code is all available. It makes no difference what RedHat Linux is used for, because that is beside the point. If there are bugs or security issues that need to be worked out, they are done so in a timely and professional manner. Why? Because everyone can see/edit/mangle the source!
See a pattern here? In one sense, it could be said that RedHat shouldn't be trusted.... shouldn't be trusted any more (or less) than any other Open Source distro. Since they use the same distribution (as in GPL) methods, their level of trust has to be assessed by basically knowing the intentions of the company... just like with anything else.
<nitpick>
Oh, and freeware is not technically what RedHat is. RedHat would be better descibed as an open-source project than freeware. Freeware is commonly known as readily available software (no charge), but the source is not available.
By the time I was 15 I was pulling in several hundred dollars a week, working my ass off!
I do believe the federal labor laws specify you can work a "normal" job at the age of 15.
Course, any 12 year old can get a job on a local farm and pull in some decent money, if ya don't mind the elbow grease and (insert domesticated animal here) shit.
There's no excuse for whining cuz mommy won't buy a new computer.
BTW, I am 19, not some crotchety 85 year old man who thinks he still works harder than everyone else;-)
Did I mention that I've owned my fourth PC for a couple of years now? Just thought I'd throw that in for good measure
You call a G3 "old" hardware?;-)
I'm running a PII/300!
(course, its beefed up with >60 Gigs of drive space, 256MB Ram, antequated V3 2000 video card, etc etc).
I totally agree that an average computer is already expected to do a variety of things, and as such, newer ones are well equipped to do so.
However, I can think of at least one more killer app that your garden-variety PC doesn't do yet...
Virtual Reality
Or even a cheap imitation thereof! I personally think it'd be pretty damned cool to run "Linux VR" on a day-to-day basis, quite literally surfing the net, exploring VR models of Ancient Greece and Rome, or maybe just places I've never been able to travel to. Aside from the requisite cybersex, I think VR has some really neat potential applications. Simple stuff even... Build and test products, stuff like that. God what I wouldn't give to actually build a railgun prototype in VR...
hmmm.. Railgun...
Can you say Quake VR?
That aughtta get the gamers the hard on for hardware that they seem to need.
If only the cost was somehow negligible... for some reason I bet a system that can accurately manifest VR objects with realtime physics would be a bit pricey... unless you've got millions of dollars lying around!
So thats the next killer app... VR for the masses
While I am not going to refute what you say in your post, because alot of it really is true, america puts a price-tag on everything.
However, keep in mind that this is mostly an effect of mass-media coupled with how susceptible americans are to suggestion. Not all americans are this way... most of the poorer class if americans (which I consider myself a part of) can't be bothered with britney spears, mcdonalds, and limp bizkit. Unfortunately, this poorer class is a minority in the US.
With that said, you can't really go and say For once you Americans should try, just try to think about life in terms other than dollars and cents. Its what prevents you from developing a real civilised culture, as opposed to the 'MTV McDisney' culture you have at the present time.
Its not that simple. You can't blame people for being brainwashed by the media.. its not because they are stupid, its because they can afford to be brainwashed (oooh! Look at that 50,000 SUV!! I gotta have one!). Those of us who can't afford to be brainwashed are mercifully left out of the loop, but at the price of remaining poor.
So, I'll leave you with just this, whats really wrong with America? The fact that money breeds stupidity.
1. improved productivity, thanks to the improvements in software effected between upgrades
I hate to break it to you, but as far as software is concerned, "improvement" is a relative term. I can't say that Netscape 6 is any kind of improvement over Netscape 4, in terms of productivity. Newer != better, and updated software is certainly no guarantee that a given individual (or company) is going to be more productive. (The only reason I bother to argue this at all is that your point here sounds about like the standard marketroid blather I expect to hear when companies start to try to convince joe sixpack that he MUST have subscription based software).
2. no compatibility issues - again these cost money; by constantly being up-to-date, we have no risk of not being able to read that vital document.
Only if all your subscription-software comes from the same company, and even then there is no guarantee. Do you really want your whole os/software to be coming in distro form from, say, M$ for example? I sure as hell don't... you can bet your ass that you can't get Netscape xxxx for such a subscription-distro...
3. better budgeting. If we know that our software will cost $x/year, every year, we can budget for that. There is then no risk of unseen costs.
How do you know the company isn't going to change the price sporadically (once a year even?). Other service based companies (electric, gas, etc) do that ALL THE TIME, usually at whim, with no basis for why the price has now changed. Its pretty damned hard to budget for a moving target, as anyone who's gotten a $400 gas bill lately can tell you. What makes you so sure this is any different?
4. reduced impact on cashflow. Subscriptions mean that there is a lower initial cost - this means there is more money available to develop the business *now*.
I'm not sure whether you're talking about the business supplying the subscriptionware, or a business trying to make use of it. If you're talking about a business trying to make use of the subscriptionware, you're right, solely based on the fact that most (smart) businesses try to get the latest and greatest (insert favorite OS/office suite/whatever here). However, for Joe Sixpack, the savings may be in getting good old "foreverware" instead. Why? Face it, most people who have a computer at home, and are not a computer geek/developer/rich bitch, simply will not shell out for the latest and greatest, because there is no incentive for them to, which brings me to your next point...
The thing is, subscriptions are just being realistic - if you pretend that you're still going to be using those P3's running Office xxxx in 5 years time, you're wrong.
Still? Hell son, my best box has a P2/300 under the hood, and it suits me just fine (and I consider myself both a computer geek and a developer). In 5 years I see myself probably being right at about P3 level... though I'd much rather have an Athlon;-)
Anyway, moral of the story is that subscriptionware seems to me to be best suited for large corporations, who stand the most to gain, while Joe Sixpack is just going to go and buy Windoze xxxx and Office xxxx (or better yet, just install Linux or *BSD).
I guess I assume that subscriptionware will require some level of broadband connection, and that alienates most Joe Sixpacks. Hell, I've had a dialup connection for ~6 years due to nothing faster being available (no ISDN, Cable, T-1, or even dual 56K!), but as luck would have it, my DSL connection is getting installed today... thank god I live in town... I feel bad for all those poor saps a few miles down the road who can't get it;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh, I was sure this day was bound to come sooner or later! This is the beginning of the end for the Dinosaur monopolies and cartels that control this country, and so some respect, the world. Who do you think built the culture we have, that already allows us to be bullied this way? Well if you're 20-something like myself, you can safely point the blame in the direction of your grandparents' and great-grandparents' generations.My grandma's only 65, but its obvious she doesn't have as much power in the world as she used to. This is also true with many large corporations. The people who built these vast empires are trying to pass on their ideology, because they want to perpetuate what they've created, long after they are dead. Then we have my generation, which will inherit the earth in the next 10-20 years. Who bitches the most about our freedoms being taken away? Fairly young people. Anyone ove 40 in here who gets the big picture? You? Great, you're one of us, grab a beer. You see, these megalocomglomerates absoluately do have a huge amount of influence on Capitol Hill. Anyone disagree? You're wrong, its a fact. Now take a look at the cut-throat capitalistic society that we live in (here in the U.S.). These are not what ails our society, but are merely a symton of what does. Times have radically changed in my short lifetime, and the world has moved on, infortunately the masses don't get to move along with it. Just look at the technological marvels in the last 50 years! We've made a quantum leap in the last century. The problem is that public mindset (or the powers that influence it) have not caught up. Thus, the ruling parties in this country are still stuck in an old paradigm that cannot stablally exist in our now technological (and intellectual) status. We are at a time of imbalance, where either our technogical wealth will be used to enslave us (overly dramatic maybe, but you get the idea) if the old ruling class retains power. Or, a new social paradigm develops and gains control, and our technological weath is actually put to work for the masses.
This is just another attempt by the aging ruling-class, in order to better guarantee thier ongoing control. However, they play a big risk here by bringing this neo-civil war into the public eye, and unless they can keep the masses under thier thumb, they will lose public support (they being the evil corporations and the currupt government), and well, some sort of skirmish for domination is almost a foregone conclusion.
I think this newest step by the powers that be is a great thing, because it forces the issue, and there are reasonable alternatives already in existance. As many have said, information demands to be free, and you know what, its never failed to find a way yet. Hopefully true freedom can again be attained when our terribly corrupt government is exposed for what it is, and the public actually dares to do something about it.
Hmm, too bad the government has the military on thier side...
It is a very huge assumption! Strictly speaking in the U.S, there are around 300 Million people. Giving the benefit of the doubt, lets say that EVERY person has thier own internet access accounts in 2010. Thats 300 million accounts. For excite@home to assume that they will control 1/6 market share of all internet connections in the US is simply ridiculous. A good deal of the populous of this country lives outside the possible reach of DSL/Cable/Hardline solutions. The only way someone living outside of town can get access is either via phone line/modem (which is very antiquated even today), or some sort of wireless setup (which is fairly expensive by common Joe terms). I work as a marketing executive for a large global total internet solutions company which shall remain nameless (not excite@home or ATT), and I can tell you thier assumptions are wild beyond belief!
The most likely scenario is that ATT (who I believe is a shareholder) has paid off the excite@home execs to file bankruptcy, so ATT can pick up the pieces at a nominal cost (and not have to pay excite@home's debts), and grow thier market-share in broadband internet access.
If this is the case, its a wise short-term strategy for ATT, but at the price of sacrificing long-term longevity. Cable and DSL are not the media that people will be using to connect to the internet in 5-10 years. Any company looking to turn a profit in internet service solutions knows that you can't throw millions of dollars in infrastructure to gain 5% of the possible market, when by doing so you totally elmininate your ability to tap the other 95%. ISPs should be (and some are) developing infrastructures that are not only able to potentially reach and service 100% of the market, but also do so reliably and cheaply (for the lowest common denominator), while still being able to turn a profit after all expenses/further R&D.
The reason that more ISPs aren't doing just that is that there are of course quite a few variables there. Its also the reason why companies like excite@home are filing for bankruptcy. They had a good idea, (piggybacking on the existing cable infrastructure), but failed to realize how the initial cost savings (vs. laying thier own lines/towers/whatever)comes at the price of being extremely limited as to who they could and couldn't service. Basically they wagered everything that they had a winning hand, instead of taking many more smaller bets. Bad Idea(TM).
Its discouraging that the only real losers in this scenario are the customers.
On a positive note though, this will force consumers to demand a higher level of stability in their service providers, and will usher in the next level of faster/cheaper/better net connections. Plus, it creates the perfect scenario for my company to take advantage of, which is a win/win situation for us, and consumers alike.
I said this before Napster was shut down, and I will say it again. Its obvious that there is a demand for file sharing networks. The whole ideology of the internet from its inception is the free exchange of data. Yes, swapping copyrighted material is arguably a Bad Thing(TM), but its quite obvious that its never going to stop.
In the case of (illegal) digital music distribution, its been happening since before the advent of the MP3 format. It used to be that you had to find FTP sites to get your music fix. For some reason those FTP sites became scarce and hard to find, then Napster appeared and flourished for some time. Other sharing services like Audiogalaxy sprung up before the demise of Napster, and now those services are being threatened as well.
Keep in mind that we're currently in the 3rd generation of sharing services. Its quite clear to me that the demand still exists, and will continue to be met as long as it exists.
In short, the most the RIAA can hope to do is cause minor disturbances every couple years. At this point the RIAA still has some level of control, or at least the ability to shut these services down. What they fail to realize though, is that as long as they keep forcing the issue, more advanced solutions are going to manifest themselves. The envelope will eventually be pushed enough that the RIAA will no longer have any control over unauthorized distribution methodss (Think along the lines of decentralized P2P networks that actually work WELL).
Fortunately (at least in the US), the RIAA has a new weapon. Now that the US government has passed "anti-terrorism" laws that effectively negate our constitutional rights (privacy, freedom of speech), the RIAA can just claim these decentralized networks are groups of anarchistic indidivudals with the intent of undermining the well-being of the United States Government. Would anyone really be surprised?
I do have a sort-of off-topic question though, since I didn't pay enough attention in Civics class: If there exists a law that blatantly contradicts the constitution, is that law actually valid? If the new anti-terrorism legistlation effectively invades my privacy and puts my freedom of speech (and press) in jeopardy, would that not directly contradict the constitution? Its my understanding as a US Citizen that the Constitution is what gives the government its power, so I see this kind of legislation as the government biting the hand that feeds it, in more ways than one. How in the hell is illegally (in my mind) monitoring my computer any different than the government requring me to wear a microphone and vidcam so they can monitor all of my daily life? Perhaps I'm grossly misunderstanding current anti-terrorism legislation, and if so, please enlighten me.
Some famous US forefather said that anyone willing to sacrifice liberty for safety deserves neither (paraphrased, I know). I agree with that.
I've already been down that avenue, and sorry to say, that your comment is just idealist fluff. You know what makes popular music popular? A lot of people like it, duh! I speak from experience since I play bass, guitar, and piano. I don't particularly like classical, blues, jazz, or whatever (unless I'm high, of course). I like punk and alternative. I know what good music is. Its what I like. I also know what I consider good music, you probably consider shite. Thats how it works.
Ever been in a music shop, and watch some dude come in and wail away on drums or guitar, try a few different instruments out, buy some strings and leave? Those unknown musicians are the music revolution. The ones that make your jaw drop when you see them rip it all up. Thats what its about. Its about giving those musicians a chance to get thier music out. Right now, thats impossible, because the big labels only cater to artists (hah) that will probably make the label big bux. Some of the smaller labels are way more open, but they don't necessarily have the means to help an artist promote themselves. What would be nice is if the recording industry as a whole didn't have such a high level of disparity. How can an artist on an independant label hope to compete with someone under contract with say AOL/Time/Warner blah blah whatever? Of course they can't. Are the artists that are under the wing of AOL/Time/Warner more talented than independant artists? Not a chance. In fact, I'd say that its quite the inverse.
Remember about 10 years ago, when "Alternative" music blew up? Nobody was complaining about the radio then... take a look at the difference between then and now... what's changed?
I must say I do find this whole scenario quite disturbing. Now, I don't necessarily think police should be able to abuse technology in this manner, but what the taxpayer feels means precisely dick these days, so whatever I think is a moot point. Police have been using radar for speed detection for many years. Its surely no coincidence that "fuzz-busters" are quite illegal in many states. Why do ya think this is? Admittedly, radar is about the only halfway reliable and accurate means to measure speed, so it sort-of makes sense that the cops wouldn't want you to have a fuzz-buster.
However, there are plenty of reliable and accurate means of identifing a person without the eye of big brother scanning crowds and tagging people. I highly doubt that shit can be done in realtime anyways, so its efficiency sure as hell doesn't justify the intrusion of rights. I figure someone will find some technological way to fool big brother's eye, and you can bet that it will be outlawed in short order. Question: So is wearing a mask in public going to be illegal too?
Think about that shit people. Where does the long arm of the law reach to? Just far enough to suffocate lady liberty, I guess. Its getting to the point where I think there should be a law that basically states that any device which negates the effectiveness of a tool of law enforcement must remain legal for a citizen to possess and use. Consider it an opt-out. If the cops want to bust my ass for something, maybe they should consider doing it via good old fashioned police work, instead of lowering everything to the lowest common denominator by using technology in this fascion (sic).
Just another reason why I'm not proud to be an American.
You know, I thought the same exact thing with the author gushing about Cisco's Tech Support. And especially after reading so many very positive comments about Cisco's service and commitment to its customers. I must say I am really impressed. Its enough to make we want to finish my CCNA ;-)
Oops, forgot to close the .
;-)
Toldja I was drunk!
Ummm maybe I've just had too much to drink and totally didn't understand this, but PostgreSQL has been the default DB in RedHat distros since at least RH5.0 (unless that changed somewhere in 5.x). I just must not get it... whats the big fuckin deal? I actually always kinda wondered why mysql wasn't ever the default in RH distros, its always been PostgreSQL... so is this really any surprise at all?
Z in graphics is depth. Period. Say "you know, Z is supposed to be up" to an old SGI hacker and he'll roll his eyes at you.
.plan files somewhere. He spells it all out there.
Yessir, this is the only factual statement in your whole post. However, you seem to imply that since Doom has apparent depth, it must be 3D.
No. Ask yourself this: In Doom, do you have X,Y, and Z all at once? Sorry, no. In Doom, your character does not move at all. It is the rest of the environment that changes based on your input. Carmack himself said that Doom is not 3D. But its not exactly 2D either. The rendering techniques simulate something I think he called 2.5D. That is, yes, you can move up a flight of stairs, but anything directly under those stairs is solid. There is no closet behind the stairwell.
Sorry bub, you're wrong. If you'd ever bothered to develop maps for games like Doom (or Duke Nukem 3D heh), you'd know full well that Doom was absolutely positively _NOT_ 3D! Ever notice in Doom that there are NO spiral staircases, or true multi-tier structures. Whether you are shooting on an angle or not is entirely pointless. Imagine an apartment building with balconies outside every floor. In Doom, it is impossible to build this structure, as it is a true 3-dimensional model. You cannot start in one room (1A), then go up a flight of stairs and wind up in 2A. You _CAN_ in Quake. Doom uses some cheap hacks to make you think you can do so, but you cannot map one floorspace directly above another, with a hollow space inbetween. Looks like Carmack did a pretty good job of his quote "2.5D" in Doom. If you knew a damn thing about actually creating an environment in Doom and Quake, you'd know immediately what I was talking about. Thats why in Doom you can't have the aformentioned apartment building, but you can shoot at an angle.
And sorry sir, but a real 3D game does not have 6 degrees of freedom instead of 3. Unless you are a time traveller, degrees (directions, pivot points, angles) are a function of 3 dimensions. A true 3D game has 3 major degrees, the X, Y, and Z axis. A true 3D game has infinite degrees of freedom, just like real life. How do you get infinite degrees of freedom? Thats your function of X, Y, and Z, man. Also, a computer generated 3D environment has NOTHING to do with the pretty graphics, whether sprites, skins or texture maps. Its not necessary to fully render vines on a wall in 3D since its just for decoration anyway. And you said it yourself. Skins are wrapped around hollow cores. For a thing to be hollow, it must have 3 dimensions. Quake uses skins wrapped around a "hollow" frane, Doom uses 2D sprites. Would it make you feel better if those hollow frames were solid instead? Why abuse the graphics engine with polys you'll never see?
As for that swimming comment, I assume that you mean that you can't swim naturally in Quake (as in face first, feet last). I think you are confusing whether or not Quake is 3D with its game physics. Is there any compelling reason to position a model this way to swim? Not particularly. This would force the model to have a higher poly count so it can contort itself into this position. Polys are a big factor as to how hard the graphics card has to work (less unnecessary polys=good). Its not practical to render this in 3D when its such a unimportant factor of gameplay. But the fact is there is no reason that the Quake engine can't support this. If you've seen some of the cooler taunt actions that some user-made models have, you'd know that.
Funny, I learned all that shit doing Doom and Duke maps as a 14 year old, and I could grasp the concept perfectly even then.. Why can't you?
See if you can find an archive of Carmack's old
- By trying to convince the general consumer that the GPL is bad, it makes M$ look like the helpful innovative company that they wish they were. "Hey people, these GPL commies are trying to destroy our economy!"
- Since Microsoft _has_ been so vocal, it seems to me they have weighed the possibility of testing the GPL in court. They wouldn't call attention to something unless they were willing to face it head on. M$ might not take on the GPL in court, but I'd dare to bet that someone will, and probably pretty soon. M$ will be watching.
- Its an obvious attempt to try to distract and fragment the open source community. United, we are a very real threat to MS, but if we start squabbling about liscenses (GPL vs MPL vs BSD flamewars), we'll be a little too preoccupied to worry about what M$ is up to. M$ has tried this experiment before, and they know full well we fall for it everytime. Its a diversion alright
- With all the dot coms going belly up, its a good I toldja so from M$. M$ could quite easily quote quite a few companies (RH, VA, Caldera) who have had quite the hard time generating positive net earnings. Of course alot of closed source companies had the same problem, but M$ is known for leaving out details.
When it comes down to it, M$ is up to something more than just flaming the GPL. Sure, us OSS zealots would like to think its because M$ is scared of the GPL. Yes, they are, but we'd be naive to think it ends there. It does not. M$ will take pot shots like this at us, BECAUSE IT BUYS THEM TIME! It gives them time to develop something new, and market it as the Next-Big-Thing(tm) that the consumer HAS to have. And it will conspicuously have no OSS alternative.It would be in our best interests if Slashdot (and open source developers in general) stopped paying attention to the M$ FUD machine. It'd be infinitely more wise to pay attention to what M$ is doing not what its saying.
The problem with M$ is that they use a idealistic business model. That is, let others develop (and innovate in the true sense of the word), and then either buy out the company, or fuck them over. Either way, M$ wins. They get more for thier money that way.
Unfortunately, in the real world, this business model is inherently flawed, as it causes the company (M$) to become very fat and lazy. M$ only has 2 things currently that are keeping it afloat.
These 2 weapons prove most useful for M$, except where GPL software is concerned, as GPL is not hindered by either. M$ lacks the one weapon (outside of buying off politicians) that can protect itself from the GPL. They lack creativity and a drive to produce the highest quality product possible. Its not that M$ employees are inherently stupid or mindless code monkeys, its that the management has the wrong goals in mind.
No matter how you feel about M$, remember that they introduced a generation to computers. Nevermind how, or what generation (hint: its mine). M$ once stood the chance of making it into the history books in a positive light. They've ruined that chance now, as they've already destroyed everything that they worked so hard for. Thats too bad. Greed tends to supercede all, I guess. Suffice it to say that my children will be raised on Linux and BSD instead.
A word to the wise for the masses of Linux GPL/OSS/Free Software developers: Forget about making money with your software for now. Have you guys looked at the latest SUSE/RedHat/Debian distros released in the last 2 years? Sorry guys, but I was happier with RH 5.1. Concentrate more on doing what it is you do well, than expecting to be paid for it. Well crafted code will line your pockets in due time. Just don't make the same mistake M$ did. ALWAYS put the product before profitability.
Ahhh yes. First come the dilated pupils, then come the paranoid delusions of persecution.
/. editors get flamed for doing just that all the time. You know, like:
/. but anyway), and I don't blame the /. editors for anything they post (yes, even Katz, though he annoys me to no end).
/. doesn't have some earth-shattering news to report? Make it happen! Go out and develop an awesome and practical new technology, or at least get me my damn cheap and reliable cold-fusion. Otherwise, close the browser and get back to your boring and socially unimportant e-commerce devel job (or whatever) before your boss catches you.
<rant intensity="militant">
How is that a paranoid delusion? The editors around here get ripped for a lot of shit around here. I must have read your post wrong. Quite honestly I would have had much the same attitude as Taco. So far as I know, writing an editorial means giving your take on something, yet the
"WTF is this doing on slashdot?!"
"Get off your high horse (insert hated editor here)"
"Blah blah blah, now that Taco and Hemos are millionaires, how can they cater to us?"
IMNSHO, I could only hope to have an editorial job and retain right of creative control (not sure if this is true with
Pissed off because
</rant>
Apologies, but the shit the editors take (while it comes along with the job) is oftentimes unwarranted, and as such, an occasional negative outburst is justified.
I think Microsoft is setting the stage for a real grandiose event.
.NET, they have xBox, and they are fighting Open Source. Any battle fought wrongly by M$ stands to bite them in the ass later. Its possible that an action they take on one front will affect them negatively in another. The consumer will be affected as well. Its getting to the point where even Joe Sixpack is becoming aware that they have alternatives to having a BSOD everyday. (I thought W2K was supposed to cure that... it doesn't on my box at least).
M$ has been on the warpath about the GPL lately (and spreading Open Source == GPL fallacies), and this is to fool the public. Why would the public care, you ask?
They don't, and M$ knows this. (And really, is living proof that people don't read licenses, or M$ would go belly-up real quick, but I digress) What I think M$ is doing is harping about the GPL, because sooner or later, the GPL is gonna have to be tested in court. Guess who is going to be doing the testing? M$. They will try to show that the GPL is counterproductive to the software industry, and its mere existance is stifling the software industry's ability to make comparable products at a competitive price. They will argue that Open Source software stunts thier IP rights via "infection". This is not the first time that M$ lackeys have referred to Open Source/Free Software/Linux as some type of incurable virus that permeates anything it comes in contact with.
Though, M$ has made a mistake which may prove to be quite crippling to them in a few years. They are fighting on _WAY_ too many fronts. They have *XP, they have
M$ is fighting the GPL, because it offers a strong alternative to the masses. The general public can't quite grasp what GPL (or other Open Source) software means to them, because its still a bitch to get an alternative OS installed, much less use it for daily work.
In the case of Linux anyway, we've made good progress in this department, but any Linux distro I've used (RH, Debian, Mandrake) are all still a pain in the ass to install and get set up. Don't expect the general public to really warm up to anything besides M$ until you can simplify things. Apple is very aware of this, and thats how come OS X exists. The problem with Open Source software is that we don't fucking need 15 different text editors. I think development energies could be focused in more productive ways. Don't get me wrong, its nice that there is so much choice, but it might be a better idea to concentrate on the OS that that software will run on first instead.
From the consumer prospective, Windows came first, and beget windows software later. In the case of Linux, it looks more like the software is a higher priority than the OS. Thats cool, but dammit, Linux needs a SIMPLE installer, and a stable standard GUI (or two). Tell me why it is that Mandrake 8.0 (or RH 7.x)_CRASHES_ for no apparent reason! Not just X, but the whole damned system. Maybe its the 2.4.x kernel. RH 6.1 was a helluva lot more stable for me.
Don't get me wrong, its just that I consider myself to be good with computers, and even I have a helluva time. Do you expect Joe Sixpack to put up with it? No sir. Meanwhile, M$ is going to try to destroy the GPL/Open Source so that the day Joe Sixpack can say "Hey, this Open Source stuff really works well" never comes.
Its the same tired old game M$ has been playing for years to ensure thier survival. Its the same principle they used when bundling IE with windows to kill off Netscape. You can tell M$ tried hard, because IE works WAY better for me than any version of Netscape/Mozilla does, sorry.
It won't work that way this time around though. Open Source software is the only thing that can provide healthy competition for M$, and if they destroy it, I doubt any other corporation is gonna be able to compete with the demons in Redmond.
So I have to make extra CD for him or copy the source on to his computer. Don't have a CD-RW not enough room on neighbor HD to fit source. Can't "give" software to neighbor.
;-)
Um, yeah but thats irrelevant though. The license isn't whats restricting you from giving the software to a neighbor. However, almost ALL binary programs have an about or --help feature which makes it quite clear who wrote the program, and how they can be contacted, (and in the case of GPL'd code, where to go to get the source, if you so choose). The fact remains that your neighbor still has the same right to the source code as you do.
Whether or not RMS complains about privacy is also irrelevant, because, well who cares what any one person thinks? It doesn't change what the license says. Just because RMS complains doesn't have anything to do with the Free Software Definition. People all have thier own personal agendas.
I can't comment on the APSL, but the GPL pretty much asks of the same thing. If you're not going to accompany binary programs with the source, you have to make it quite clear where they can get it. How is that different?
Seriously, I've only actually read the GPL a few times, and I sure don't remember all the details of it, so its no surprise to me that others have the same problem. Perhaps if the OSI could post some "official" and correct outlines of each license, we could avoid utterly offtopic posts where everyone tries to sound smart.
I guess I'm doing that myself right now...
I've had DSL for a couple months now, and have ZERO problems with anything... heck, the connection serves 3 PCs on a switched LAN (with IP maquerading on the gateway), and it has continuted to work without a hitch since day one!
;-)
True, we had to wait a few weeks for them to get our *free* DSL modem in, it was well worth the wait. The installation took all of 30 minutes, and setting up the rest of the network was cake.
Of course, we have a few things in our favor... Our house is only a few blocks from the CO, and the house was already wired for it (they actually did this when we got our phone installed!).
We get a consistant 256Kbps downstream, and around 192Kbps upstream, which is quite speedy, and the latencies are nominal. I finally got to join the ranks of the LPB's!
The funniest thing is that when we moved in last summer, we asked our phone and cable companies when we could expect to see broadband. The phone company said probably not till Q3 2001, and the cable company said Q1 2001. Guess what, DSL has been here for months, and cable has yet to make an appearance (which is just as well, since I here @home sucks).
Anyone else have a positive experience with DSL?
Yes, we have the potential to consciously direct our own evolution... we also ALREADY HAVE unconsciously altered our own evolution. Humans do _NOT_ adhere to the "survival of the fittest" rules. If so, we wouldn't have such a problem with disease. All those susceptible to a certain disease would die, leaving only the immune to survive. Unfortunately, we just come up with vaccines and medication to control diseases. This allows the weak to flourish amid an environment that would otherwise destroy them.
So, the only way we can fix this problem is with a bunch of patches to the human source code, if you will. I can see the benefits to this if it helps to make the general population immune to a certain disease (HIV, for example).
However, I'm not so crazy about haphazardly changing the source before its compiled, so to speak. I'd be much more comfortable with a diff and a recompile.
That is to say, I can see tremendously more benefit in being able to do to the doctor, and get injected with a virus that edits your genetic code in specific ways to negate the danger of certain diseases and whatnot. I don't find it very appealing to choose whether my child has blonde hair or blue eyes, has a aversion toward aggression, whatever. I want my child to be just that... the continuation of myself. I want to see myself in my offsping. Maybe thats narcissistic, but thats how I feel. If I got to pick my kid thru genetics, I just as well forgo the whole thing and just adopt a child that adheres to my shopping list. Sounds a little sick to me.
But at the same time, It'd be nice if my children weren't predisposed to suffer from the same clinical depression that I do, that both my parents did, and thier parents, etc etc. That alone is enough deter me from reproducing. How can I do so with good conscience, when I know they will suffer the same fate as me?
Maybe they'll have a genetic version of prozac then....
Perhaps monetarily speaking, this would be true. The companies may be better off sucking it up, but there are also incentives for the companies NOT to pay RamBUST and develop some open standardL
Besides, I personally think RamBUST is holding its patents in an unconstitutional way. RamBUST is clearly not holding those patents with the whole "advancement of Science and useful Arts" (paraphrased) deal in mind. They are holding the patents to suck money in. Are they using ANY of that money to develop new, superior technology?
Naw, a patent-lawyer costs too much.
As I was reading the comments, the very same thought occurred to me. If you are gonna patent a piece of software, it should go without saying that you should have to provide the source. How else can it be proven whether or not there is prior art? I could make a program that say, behaves like winzip, but uses my own invented compression algorithm. I'm pretty sure that upon marketing my program, winzip is probably gonna send a lawyer to my door with a summons. If my code is patented, I have no reason not to show the source, because its protected anyway. And better yet, if they wanted to claim prior art, they'd have to provide that code, in source form as well.
;-)
I think thats very fair. But then again, if people just grab my source and compile it themselves, whats the incentive for me to market the program? The second people see the source, it might as well be public domain. I can't say I have an easy answer to that. Like it or not, commercial software does have its place, just as free software does. But then again, as it has been mentioned, getting a patent is costly, much less defending one (even when you are in the right).
And all of this, really, is why the US patent system is so screwed up... there are a lot of tough calls, and its all but impossible to really be fair. I sure wouldn't want the task of trying to create a patent reform bill!
Here's my schedule for this week alone:
;-)
Monday: Day off
Tuesday: 3PM - 6AM
Wednesday: 3PM - 11PM
Thursday: 3PM - 7AM
Friday: 3PM - 4AM
Saturday: 7PM - 1AM (short one!)
Sunday: 3PM - 7AM
Unfortunately, I don't work in the (mostly) lucrative IT industry. I'm just a lowly line cook, and the majority of the hours I work are by myself (we're supposed to have 2 people, but help is hard to come by these days). Maybe worst of all is that my base wage is USD $7.25, and overtime is 1.5x
On the other hand, its a rare occasion that I don't get to sit on my ass or otherwise slack off for a least a few hours a day
Maybe the real Ask Slashdot question should have been "How many hours are you actually productive per week?". In which case, I'm probably productive for approx. 45 hours out of 60+
The funny thing is my boss tells me I'm due for a raise any day now... the same thing he's been saying for the better part of 3 years.
I suppose most will probably scoff and say I'm insane for working so much for so little (but hey, I get $20 to myself a month after bills are paid). Yes, its true, I could get make more money working only 40 hours a week somewhere else... but I would _HATE_ the job. Maybe I should go see if the local school needs someone to wrangle thier network/teach the kids how to use Linux or something... hehe..
Thank you for summing up exactly what I think. I'm trying to get a band together (just for something to do, really), and its not about making money (that would be assuming we'd be any good at all :-)
Some of my friends and I are just bored. Any artist who is making millions of dollars, well, lets just say its hard to be _really_ creative. Those of us who lead _real_ lives can do better than that.
So, maybe we'll start getting more talented artists in the industry (and trust me most talented artists ARENT), and maybe there will someday be a reason to switch on MTV.
I am a Linux user, and I have paid for the RedHat Linux Distibution multiple times. I've always found RH's distro to be a decent balance between being easy to use, and able to get stuff done. Its worth the money, though now its more convienient for me to just download the newest version (a fast net connection is to blame
Enter the realm of Open Source. In this model, you download the source code for a program (which yes, is often free, but subject to license isssues), which means that you are privy to anything and everything the program does. So is anyone else who gets the source.
Red Hat Linux conforms to the Open Source model, and the source code is all available. It makes no difference what RedHat Linux is used for, because that is beside the point. If there are bugs or security issues that need to be worked out, they are done so in a timely and professional manner. Why? Because everyone can see/edit/mangle the source!
See a pattern here? In one sense, it could be said that RedHat shouldn't be trusted.... shouldn't be trusted any more (or less) than any other Open Source distro. Since they use the same distribution (as in GPL) methods, their level of trust has to be assessed by basically knowing the intentions of the company... just like with anything else.
<nitpick> Oh, and freeware is not technically what RedHat is. RedHat would be better descibed as an open-source project than freeware. Freeware is commonly known as readily available software (no charge), but the source is not available.
By the time I was 15 I was pulling in several hundred dollars a week, working my ass off!
;-)
I do believe the federal labor laws specify you can work a "normal" job at the age of 15.
Course, any 12 year old can get a job on a local farm and pull in some decent money, if ya don't mind the elbow grease and (insert domesticated animal here) shit.
There's no excuse for whining cuz mommy won't buy a new computer.
BTW, I am 19, not some crotchety 85 year old man who thinks he still works harder than everyone else
Did I mention that I've owned my fourth PC for a couple of years now? Just thought I'd throw that in for good measure
You call a G3 "old" hardware? ;-)
I'm running a PII/300!
(course, its beefed up with >60 Gigs of drive space, 256MB Ram, antequated V3 2000 video card, etc etc).
I totally agree that an average computer is already expected to do a variety of things, and as such, newer ones are well equipped to do so.
However, I can think of at least one more killer app that your garden-variety PC doesn't do yet...
Virtual Reality
Or even a cheap imitation thereof! I personally think it'd be pretty damned cool to run "Linux VR" on a day-to-day basis, quite literally surfing the net, exploring VR models of Ancient Greece and Rome, or maybe just places I've never been able to travel to. Aside from the requisite cybersex, I think VR has some really neat potential applications. Simple stuff even... Build and test products, stuff like that. God what I wouldn't give to actually build a railgun prototype in VR...
hmmm.. Railgun...
Can you say Quake VR?
That aughtta get the gamers the hard on for hardware that they seem to need.
If only the cost was somehow negligible... for some reason I bet a system that can accurately manifest VR objects with realtime physics would be a bit pricey... unless you've got millions of dollars lying around!
So thats the next killer app... VR for the masses
Disclaimer: I am a 5th-generation American
While I am not going to refute what you say in your post, because alot of it really is true, america puts a price-tag on everything.
However, keep in mind that this is mostly an effect of mass-media coupled with how susceptible americans are to suggestion. Not all americans are this way... most of the poorer class if americans (which I consider myself a part of) can't be bothered with britney spears, mcdonalds, and limp bizkit. Unfortunately, this poorer class is a minority in the US.
With that said, you can't really go and say
For once you Americans should try, just try to think about life in terms other than dollars and cents. Its what prevents you from developing a real civilised culture, as opposed to the 'MTV McDisney' culture you have at the present time.
Its not that simple. You can't blame people for being brainwashed by the media.. its not because they are stupid, its because they can afford to be brainwashed (oooh! Look at that 50,000 SUV!! I gotta have one!). Those of us who can't afford to be brainwashed are mercifully left out of the loop, but at the price of remaining poor.
So, I'll leave you with just this, whats really wrong with America? The fact that money breeds stupidity.
ummm okay, where to being... ah..
;-)
;-)
1. improved productivity, thanks to the improvements in software effected between upgrades
I hate to break it to you, but as far as software is concerned, "improvement" is a relative term. I can't say that Netscape 6 is any kind of improvement over Netscape 4, in terms of productivity. Newer != better, and updated software is certainly no guarantee that a given individual (or company) is going to be more productive. (The only reason I bother to argue this at all is that your point here sounds about like the standard marketroid blather I expect to hear when companies start to try to convince joe sixpack that he MUST have subscription based software).
2. no compatibility issues - again these cost money; by constantly being up-to-date, we have no risk of not being able to read that vital document.
Only if all your subscription-software comes from the same company, and even then there is no guarantee. Do you really want your whole os/software to be coming in distro form from, say, M$ for example? I sure as hell don't... you can bet your ass that you can't get Netscape xxxx for such a subscription-distro...
3. better budgeting. If we know that our software will cost $x/year, every year, we can budget for that. There is then no risk of unseen costs.
How do you know the company isn't going to change the price sporadically (once a year even?). Other service based companies (electric, gas, etc) do that ALL THE TIME, usually at whim, with no basis for why the price has now changed. Its pretty damned hard to budget for a moving target, as anyone who's gotten a $400 gas bill lately can tell you. What makes you so sure this is any different?
4. reduced impact on cashflow. Subscriptions mean that there is a lower initial cost - this means there is more money available to develop the business *now*.
I'm not sure whether you're talking about the business supplying the subscriptionware, or a business trying to make use of it. If you're talking about a business trying to make use of the subscriptionware, you're right, solely based on the fact that most (smart) businesses try to get the latest and greatest (insert favorite OS/office suite/whatever here). However, for Joe Sixpack, the savings may be in getting good old "foreverware" instead. Why? Face it, most people who have a computer at home, and are not a computer geek/developer/rich bitch, simply will not shell out for the latest and greatest, because there is no incentive for them to, which brings me to your next point...
The thing is, subscriptions are just being realistic - if you pretend that you're still going to be using those P3's running Office xxxx in 5 years time, you're wrong. Still? Hell son, my best box has a P2/300 under the hood, and it suits me just fine (and I consider myself both a computer geek and a developer). In 5 years I see myself probably being right at about P3 level... though I'd much rather have an Athlon
Anyway, moral of the story is that subscriptionware seems to me to be best suited for large corporations, who stand the most to gain, while Joe Sixpack is just going to go and buy Windoze xxxx and Office xxxx (or better yet, just install Linux or *BSD).
I guess I assume that subscriptionware will require some level of broadband connection, and that alienates most Joe Sixpacks. Hell, I've had a dialup connection for ~6 years due to nothing faster being available (no ISDN, Cable, T-1, or even dual 56K!), but as luck would have it, my DSL connection is getting installed today... thank god I live in town... I feel bad for all those poor saps a few miles down the road who can't get it