Yeah, I'm sure Clinton did too, and I have no doubt that he is intelligent. In fact, in terms of intellectual ability and rhetorical abilities, I suspect Clinton is more capable than Bush (though I would not same the same for Gore), but I believe Bush makes up for it in spades in other areas. i.e., better organized, solid people skills, common sense, focus, no hubris, strong people under him, less Party baggage (as in overall better objectives insofar as the Presidency goes), ethics, loyalty, etc. I think the Bush will ultimately win the public over, no matter how much the Press wants to tar and feather him.
The idiot in the Whitehouse is certainly not someone I would trust to ensure that safety standards were enforced. The administration has reneged on pledges to not drill off the coast of Florida and to implement C02 emissions caps, arsenic in drinking water is OK. And that is the crew to be trusted to regulate nuclear power?
Yet you trusted Clinton when he allowed even HIGHER levels of arsenic throughout most of his term? It was only at the end that Clinton pushed those regulations through (highly suspect); it's not as if science made a sudden break through there. CO2 emissions? Neither Clinton or Gore accomplished anything on that issue, beyond lots of hyperbole. Bush has practically just arrived in office and he's said he has issues with the Kyoto Protocol (so have other European countries), but that does not mean he will not do anything about it. The fact is that CONGRESS must pass it and they were not inclined to. Despite the fact that a large percentage of Americans would LIKE to reduce emissions, they're unwilling to PAY for it. If Bush were a dictator, you might be right to critize his immediate policy, but since most of his power is derived from the public and his ability to persuade, his best options to further any given objective is not always the most direct.
I would not at all be suprised if Bush accomplishes more that Clinton and Gore on global warming and other fundamental environmental issues. The problem is that the press is willing and able to exploit the slightest bit of hestitation on Bush's because he is a Republican and was previously involved in oil.
Efficiency GOOD, protectionism BAD.
on
Fission in a Box
·
· Score: 2
He shouldn't have to. Anyone that has ever studied economics knows that, as a general rule, efficiency is the path to wealth. If we had followed your sentiments for the past 200 years most of us would still be working on farms from sunrise to sunset. [Not to mention unemployment, GDP, public health, and other such issues]. Hell, compare employment figures between countries that try to protect jobs like that and those that don't. You'll find that countries that protect jobs the most tend to have the highest unemployment and the lower GDP per capita.
Take this example (ignoring the environmental concerns and such). We reduce our energy costs by 20% using this fission method. Sure, some workers lose their jobs in the short run, but the job markets are tight and they would be absorbed. Consumers get cheaper energy, meaning that you have to work less to get the same amount of energy. Furthermore, industry is then allowed to produce cheaper goods and services because they no longer have to pay for this waste, which transfers back into consumers pockets. When people have more money to spend on other things, guess what? They spend more. Meaning that there is more demand for OTHER goods and services that people would RATHER have.
Re:I would like to point out that you underestimat
on
Eazel On The Ropes
·
· Score: 2
Yes, I agree that differences in "itches" is one of the major problems (I think I at least implied that in one of my previous comments in this thread). However, it's not quite that absolute. I could see (and have seen) a handful of hackers putting _some_ energy into helping newbies, rather than themselves (e.g., make sure a GUI is easy to use and complete, rather than merely pretty or "feature" packed). The problem is that complete UIs require a lot more work than that. In other words, there is not enough motivation to organize enough hackers to work long and hard enough at it.
Furthermore, I believe that organization ties into motivation itself. In other words, with the ESR's "itch" hackers are personally motivated to solve problems that they find (though I could dispute this from a cost/benefit point of view, I won't...for the time being). The problem is that when we have no "itch", no particular problem for the casual hacker to focus their energy towards, just a mass of problems for OTHER people, there is no naturally occuring way for each and every problem to get solved. The open source developers have to know what the problems are. Even if the individual developer knows what the problems are, unless there is a proper division of labor amongst a sufficient number of hackers, that individual is going to be very much discouraged because he will not be able to create tangible results because everything else will be broken. In short, allocation of resources--not just on a macro level but on a micro level--is an issue.
People I encounter, newbies and techies alike, are always _hugely_ impressed with the UI's.
People may be impressed by the eye candy; afterall windows is pretty ugly. However, that doesn't mean they'd be happier actually using it. Even ignoring the lack of applications, I think most users would not want to use Linux UIs. Take, for instance, installing applications. Do any UI's / installers actually install a GUI icon from the user now, or does the user have to know where the application is, how to invoke it, and then setup an icon...? How about hardware? How about help systems?
I'm not sure there troubles really discount that model because something like 1 in 20 businesses fail anyway.
Sort of unrelated, but most of those "20" businesses are sole-proprietorships and parterships, as in the numerous small businesses that you see near you, like restaurants and retail stores. They're generally not companies that recieve millions of dollars in external financing. Although I grant you that venture capitalists often do make stupid investments; that hardly lets Eazel's business model off the hook.
Modular, yes (but so is Nautilus, and what's wrong with modular). Derivative, maybe. Relatively simple to organize? You have got to be kidding. Lends itself to casual hacking? Drivers - yes, but the core of the kernel - no. The core of the kernel is quite a bit more sophisticated than what you'll find in Nautilus. And the design of the kernel is very consistent and focused and strongly guided by the vision of one person. I personally find it amazing that kernel development has scaled up to the present code size and number of developers. That's a testament to just how well designed the kernel is and how well organized the team is.
It's basically a given that Linux WAS developed by casual hackers, since very few of them work at it full time (most all are part time at best) and because many are not that skilled. Anyways, completely ignoring this simple and undeniable fact, Linux is a poor way to disprove my statement since so many things cloud the question. Firstly, the assorted drivers, modules, and optionals comprise a very large part of the kernel. Secondly, it is derivative--meaning it has had decades of design experience before it--it's not too different from coloring by numbers, so far as the design process is concerned. Thirdly, what little is sophisticated, a few of the core elements, is modular--meaning that organizational abilities are substantially less important. Fourthly, Linux has taken quite a long time to develop. Sixthly, it is the ONE project that you can really put on the table with a straight face, compared to hundreds and thousands of commercial efforts. It is a widely recognized effort which many geeks both find entertaining and find recognition for. Did it ever occur to you that, no matter how flawed an example believe Linux to be, it is a maverick? After all, where was all the hype before Linux came along? In any event, which horse would you bet on?
I could comment on your other replies, but that'd be redundant.
If I'm catching your drift right, what you like about Windows is that it's one monolithic entity to you. You don't have to think about different distributions, kernel versions, GUI toolkits, window managers, package formats, etc. Since everything is developed by one company, you only get one way to do everything. You would prefer to trade off flexibility and choice in favor of consistency. Fine. I can appreciate that.
No, it's more than just the fact that Windows/MacOS is an easier development target because of their singularity. It's a demonstration of sustained development that meets some (or all, even if both are quite flawed examples) of the criteria that I don't believe open source is capable of. e.g.:
a) originality -- as in very little copying of design and/or code.
b) low degree of modularity / high degree of sustained complexity throughout.
c) relatively low entertainment value / geek cred potential
d) successfully carried to fruition
Now you might think that some open development efforts meet one or two of these requirements, but I don't think any ever have come close to meeting them all, nor do I think it will for some of the reasons listed previously.
Re:I would like to point out that you underestimat
on
Eazel On The Ropes
·
· Score: 2
Yes, I am extropolating, but such is life. Just as I extropolate that an open development process is not going to create a complete and solid UI, you extropolate that it does (or could, if so desired) produce what you regard as "many large, complex, well designed, high quality software projects" . It is not written. Furthermore, I'm not just extropolating from the lack of examples of UIs, I'm extropolating from: all other open developed end products, the attitudes I've seen in open source development efforts, the effort I've seen in complex development efforts, human nature, and many other things. That said, give me an example of open development that has met all four of these conditions (or even in part):
a) originality -- as in very little copying of design and/or code.
b) low degree of modularity / high degree of sustained complexity throughout.
c) relatively low entertainment value / geek cred potential
d) successfully carried to fruition
Now that is not to say that anything that does not meet these 4 criteria is worthless or less worthy than the alternatives (e.g., not a "hacker toy"). Rather I simply assert that a great many things require this and that open development is not capable of doing this with any real probablity.
Re:I would like to point out that you underestimat
on
Eazel On The Ropes
·
· Score: 2
I don't exactly mean to say that it must be a commercial organization. It could also theoretically be a non-profit or a government agency (although I have my doubts), my problem with "open" development efforts is one of organization, motivation, direction, and skill. All of these elements CAN and HAVE been succesfully fit under the tent of for-profit companies developing proprietary software. It may be possible for open-source companies as well (though that remains to be seen in my opinion--in terms of their financial success). I just don't think they're remotely probable when they're developed like Linux. e.g., mostly everyone working part time at best, when there is no clear heirarchy, when the objectives are unclear, when motivation is in doubt [as in, developers may want features X,Y,Z...when users want/need features A,B,C,...quite the opposite], and even when the number of skilled developers is limited.
Re:I would like to point out that you underestimat
on
Eazel On The Ropes
·
· Score: 2
My disapproval is with the end-result, KDE (it sucks), not TrollTech workers themselves.
Unfinish, crappy, and missing are all quite appropriate terms to describe the same problem. There is not and will NOT be a decent UI for non-technical Linux users made by Linux-style development efforts.
Both Apple and Microsoft allow the non-technical user to do what they need to get done. While both have far more bugs than they should and have less than perfect design (although I do think Apple's interface is quite a lot better), that does not mean that any other attempts by the linux-style development efforts will ever be as good of an option. Say what you will, but even when Windows must be rebooted 5x a day by the average user, the average user is better off than with any existing Linux system in the home environment.
Re:I would like to point out that you underestimat
on
Eazel On The Ropes
·
· Score: 1
Huh? I never said I disapprove of TrollTech employees working anywhere; I just think the KDE leaves (and will always leave--so long as it is developed like Linux) a lot to be desired, it simply is not a replacement for Windows for 99.99% of the users out there--despite the fact that it has SIGNIFICANT contributions from more traditional companies. The issue is not so much with QT, as it is with the KDE development, or lack thereof.
Guru uberhacker? Nope, but I am competent developer that has had enough to exposure to engineering and software development efforts to know the difference. Since I live in this world, I have to make certain judgements based on imperfect information. Time will prove me wrong if you are correct. In fact, it should have already, it's been long enough. Think about it for a minute, here we have a major piece of the Free Software world missing, the non-existent or often crappy User Interfaces for Linux and kin. Ask yourself why.
I think the reason is two-prong: lack of proper desire [as in desire to accomplish what the user needs in the way that the user needs it--not the way that some geeks are momentallarily inspired to create a toy that amuses them] and lack of direction/organization of skill. A half million programmers of assorted skills working part time towards whatever interests them at the moment is simply insufficient for oh so many projects.
Re:I would like to point out that you underestimat
on
Eazel On The Ropes
·
· Score: 1
You do realize that most users would rather shoot themselves in the head than try to use ANY existing Linux UI? Incidentally, KDE is highly dependent on QT, which was developed by TrollTech, a commercial company. Furthermore, I believe a fair amount of its development (despite my disapproval) has been handled by QT's developers. The kernel is like comparing apples to oranges. It's highly derivative, very much modular, exciting for "geeks" to work on in it (as opposed to say, a seamless help system for the user or an installer), etc. It lends itself to casual hacking by the masses, but I would not trust them to develop a seemless full blown user experience. Anyways, that's besides the point, they HAVE not (despite the fact that the "itch" exists for millions, and that many have tried), this is why companies like Eazel exist, even if their focus is relatively narrow.
Linux? Highly modular, very derivative, relatively simple to organize. The type of thing that lends itself to casual hacking. Yes, there is some sophistication, but it's for limited duration and it can be isolated quite well.
Apache? Quite simple when you actually sit down and think about it. It listens, opens up files, and sends them over the network, plus or minus a little caching, logging, vhosting and other features. Yes, it is efficient and good at what it does, but that's not the same thing.
Samba? Not much different, the only hard part is reverse engineering MS's "extensions".
XEmacs? Who cares?
XFree86? Relatively simple, modular. Truely lacking in many regards.
KDE? Bloated piece of crap. It also depends very much on QT, which was developed by a company.
Gnome? More trouble then it's worth. Also being funded by RedHat as of late. That means more (but not nearly enough) full time programmers and leaders.
Just because some things are succesfull in terms of number of installations does not mean they're feats of engineering.
I'm sorry, but I must draw a major distinction between original, sophisticated and well concieved projects that are carried to fruition, not leaving any holes for the user to fall through, and all of these projects that you mention. Yes, there are a lot of man hours in these other projects, but brute force does not work for everything. Some projects require a lot of focus, clear thinking, and follow through, that can only be found in a structured, full-time, and highly skilled environment. In other words, I'd only accept ~20 (or more) accomplished programmers working full time with ONE direction and ONE leader, not a half million programmers of varied skills following their own agendas while working part-time at best.
As much as Microsoft annoys me and despite all windows' bugs, I don't believe I'll ever see the day that Linux-style open source will ever create a user experience that rivals windows--end to end system that allows the user to do everything that they need and want to do. (Even though I think windows is horrible in many ways, there is a level of involvement in its totality that the open source community does not fully appreciate). I think Eazel (or a similar company) is as close as Linux is ever going to get, and when and if it dies, it'll be a real loss for the Linux community that'll never be made up by the hundreds of open source wanna-bes.
I would like to point out that you underestimate..
on
Eazel On The Ropes
·
· Score: 1
the complexity of engineering software of that size and sophistication. That said, I fail to see how you can dismiss the death of a Eazel by saying that free hackers will fix it, when Eazel's efforts are, by definition, being driven by a corporation. If a ragtag collection of Linux-like programmers can do what Eazel can do, then Eazel should be unnecessary. Unfortunately, it is not, Eazel is necessary. Software developed in the truely Open environment has yet to demonstrate (to me at least) that it is capable of driving complex and focused development.
While it may be fair to believe the open source community is capable of simple patches in Eazel's software (just perhaps a nominal improvement over closed source companies), the community is not going to fix any highly involved problems and they're certainly not going to maintain Eazel's level of development (not to mention the services). If Eazel dies, the people that use it are at a major disadvantage and the software would eventually become obscure. If anything, I feel that the customer faces a higher risk with a company like Eazel, since their open source nature vastly increases their risk of insolvency; I'd rather face a much smaller chance of no simple patches than a much greater risk of zero sustained development and ultimate obsolescence.
That said, I like what Eazel is doing and I hope they survive, but I'm highly skeptical.
The first argument for intellectual property is that people are entitled to the results of their labour. Hettinger's response is that not all the value of intellectual products is due to labour. Nor is the value of intellectual products due to the work of a single labourer, or any small group. Intellectual products are social products.
When the producer of intellectual property recieves intellectual property protection, the producer almost always only recieves protection on what the producer adds. In other words, even though that piece of IP is probably ultimately derived from public works, it is truely not the public works that are adding the value to the end product or service. If the IP producer adds nothing of value, he simply won't sell his product or service (because all that is public can already be had by other means); nor will the public be deprived of the works that the producer derived his work from. If, on the other hand, the producer adds value the public still gets to keep all that was public, while recieving the benefit of the producer's innovation, albeit for a price.
Now granted, there have been some rare and notable exceptions, but these are issues of abuse of the system, not the system itself. I don't have time to address the other "points", maybe later...
Heh, I would be the first to tell you that the internet was, and still is, overhyped. I do not see the internet as a social scheme (although there might well be some modest implications, I simply don't care to debate them), rather I see the internet as offerering the modest potential for economic benefit. Some goods and services can only be delivered cost effectively online, others are simply delivered more efficiently online, even if the vast majority of offerings online offer no benefit beyond hype and a zero dollar price tag. Put simply, while the pundits of yesterday and today price the Internet as offering a trillion plus dollar economy, I see it as offering a couple billion and that the only way it can be effectively exploited is if it is valued reasonably. (hint: Yahoo and the like are still way overvalued in my opinion).
So yes, I agree that some customers were drawn online just because some things were free, but those services were mostly things that should never have been online. For services that offer the customer real value, customers will eventually come around to the realization that there is no such things as free lunch, and they will be willing to pay for it. In short, money will be made online, even if all of those that hyped it are now saying the exact opposite. Financially speaking, this is not terribly unlike the BioTech crash ~10 years ago. Just like the DotComs, the VCs, hedge funds, and investment banks were throwing money at anything associated with Biotech, no matter how stupid the investment was. The end result was that a lot of bad companies crashed and burned, taking good companies out with them in part or in whole (by sucking up good capital and/or distorting the market). Then, after the market crashed, those same VCs and such wouldn't touch very good companies. However, although solid companies were harmed while it was hyped and harmed when it crashed, astute investors that were willing to seperate themselves from the herd made a LOT of money, ultimately.
Although I generally agree with most of what you said, I think you ignore some equally large underlying issues. However, the only thing that I wish to comment on is the mindset that "the majority of people do not wish to pay for products or services, and if threatened with this, will move to another product or service." People will pay for products and services if the only way they can get it (or something of like quality) is by paying for it. To the extent that this is true online, it largely owes to the fact that billions of dollars in venture capital and IPO monies were being spent subsidizing this mind grab effort. Once the vast majority of these internet businesses cut their losses (they either do or die), customers will simply have a choice between paying or getting nothing. Neither will customers keep expecting "free" services online, since hardly anyone is going to be providing them in the months and years to come.
In other words, I believe that a good number of these Internet businesses will start charging money, directly or indirectly, in the next year or two and have some success (about as much as can be expected, given that so many schemes were ridiculous). Furthermore, I firmly believe that the overinflation of the Internet by VCs, investment bankers, and the like has actually done far more to harm Internet businesses then it has to help. When the party line in the financial community is to grow grow grow at all costs, it essentially forced more stable strategies out the window. If you were a startup that needed capital, you had to accept that philosophy. Even if you were free from having to raise money, the problem was that all of your competitors were following this strategy, drowning out your more sober plans by essentially buying customers; very few startups can afford to go without significant revenue for long.
Although I'm no expert on riots by any extent of the imagination, it seems to me that one of the things that encourages otherwise reasonably well behaved individuals to act up, is the fact that they can commit these crimes with relative safety, knowing that the size of their numbers gives them both an immediate physical shield from the police (short-term protection) and a degree of anonymity (longer-term protection). Since it has been demonstrated time and time again that it is extremely difficult and often dangerous for the police to attempt to subdue much larger crowds, this method of photographing and identifying the problem causers appears to be the best possible solution. If the rioters _know_ that if they participate in rioting, that they will be punished within a few days or weeks, then that should prevent the vast majority of them from acting up. While an extremely small percentage may not be sane enough to restrain themselves, the police can handle them more easily, especially since the sane crowd will want to disassociate themselves from the troublemakers (rather then cheering, aiding, and what not). As long as the police execute this photographing properly, the benefits far far outweigh the costs (e.g., someone not being anonymous in a rioting crowd, even if they themselves are not rioting). I don't see how anyone can consider this and still find it objectionable.
I agree that slashdot is often extremely hypocritical and clueless. However, I think many of the criticisms of MacOSX/Apple have been quite unfair. While it is true that we may not accept certain things from Microsoft, Microsoft is in a consirably different position. Quite simply, they dominate the market; they can afford to (and can hardly afford not to) make sure that certain features are in at release date. Apple, on the other hand, is a much smaller company targeting a much smaller niche. In essense, you're comparing apples to oranges (no pun intended). Furthermore, MacOS X is essentially a completely new operating system, totally unlike anything Microsoft has attempted to date. In short, it's a very demanding effort that is being supported by a company with limited resources.
Now this is not to say that we should ignore the software itself; rather it is a suggestion that we might be well served to try cutting Apple a little bit of slack. The "problems" that we see in MacOS X seem to be symptomatic of a slight lack of resources, not of lack of effort, care, direction, or what have you. With a little bit of time, we might well expect these criticisms to be solved. If Apple fails to solve the problems with MacOS X in a reasonable amount, then we should write them off, since they're either not capable of bringing the resources to bear or because they simply don't care.
As for the whole Linux thing, I think Linux is, and has basically always been, doomed to mediocrity. Linux's problem is probably not lack of caring per se, but rather a combination of lack of effort (in absolute terms) and resources; none of which will ever be solved in a GPL/idealists world.
a) You could setup a Linux box to run ipmasquerading (NAT). Or you could buy one of those new NAT cable modem router/hub-type things from linksys, dlink, and others.
b) Yes, it'll probably involve one of these service people to install a cable outlet on the third floor. Or you could keep the cable on the 1st floor or basement and have someone run CAT5 cabling for you. (Or go wireless--though that will slow you down a bit and might not work too well, depending on your house)
c) Mine is static and so are all of the ones with comcast @ home from what I've seen. I've had my same IP for 3 years now. No propreitary junk, very easy to setup in Linux or whatever.
Dont have much time to get into the details now though, maybe some other time.
In fact, they're trying to determine the optimal first move for Tic Tac Toe down the exact box. I bet you never knew there was so much math involved, eh?
First, Napster is most emphatically not competing with RIAA.
Second, your prices totally fail to take into account the fact that marketing and promoting those 15 dollar CDs that you like to listen to IS very expensive. Now you combine that expense with the fact that they industry takes a certain amount of risk by promoting a song that may well fail, and you have to add more money on.
Third, they're not fixing Napster's "price". Napster has no price, it's a totally artificial "market". They effectively leach off the industry.
First off, the industry themselves is not restraining YOU. Either a judge says so or Napster themselves does so. Second, if you really own the song, you can certainly vouch for it, so you would be unlikely to get blocked, just inconvenienced, at the most. Third, the odds are slim that anyone really wants your techo track, especially if you need to rely on Napster to do so. There are hundreds of other protocols and methods to get your songs out to as large, or a larger audience, without putting a huge burden on the copyright owners that are disproportionately pirated. Fifth, RIAA's intent is clearly not to block you, they just want their own music protected and a system of enumerated "legal downloads" is the most equitable solution in my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I'm sure Clinton did too, and I have no doubt that he is intelligent. In fact, in terms of intellectual ability and rhetorical abilities, I suspect Clinton is more capable than Bush (though I would not same the same for Gore), but I believe Bush makes up for it in spades in other areas. i.e., better organized, solid people skills, common sense, focus, no hubris, strong people under him, less Party baggage (as in overall better objectives insofar as the Presidency goes), ethics, loyalty, etc. I think the Bush will ultimately win the public over, no matter how much the Press wants to tar and feather him.
I would not at all be suprised if Bush accomplishes more that Clinton and Gore on global warming and other fundamental environmental issues. The problem is that the press is willing and able to exploit the slightest bit of hestitation on Bush's because he is a Republican and was previously involved in oil.
He shouldn't have to. Anyone that has ever studied economics knows that, as a general rule, efficiency is the path to wealth. If we had followed your sentiments for the past 200 years most of us would still be working on farms from sunrise to sunset. [Not to mention unemployment, GDP, public health, and other such issues]. Hell, compare employment figures between countries that try to protect jobs like that and those that don't. You'll find that countries that protect jobs the most tend to have the highest unemployment and the lower GDP per capita.
Take this example (ignoring the environmental concerns and such). We reduce our energy costs by 20% using this fission method. Sure, some workers lose their jobs in the short run, but the job markets are tight and they would be absorbed. Consumers get cheaper energy, meaning that you have to work less to get the same amount of energy. Furthermore, industry is then allowed to produce cheaper goods and services because they no longer have to pay for this waste, which transfers back into consumers pockets. When people have more money to spend on other things, guess what? They spend more. Meaning that there is more demand for OTHER goods and services that people would RATHER have.
Furthermore, I believe that organization ties into motivation itself. In other words, with the ESR's "itch" hackers are personally motivated to solve problems that they find (though I could dispute this from a cost/benefit point of view, I won't...for the time being). The problem is that when we have no "itch", no particular problem for the casual hacker to focus their energy towards, just a mass of problems for OTHER people, there is no naturally occuring way for each and every problem to get solved. The open source developers have to know what the problems are. Even if the individual developer knows what the problems are, unless there is a proper division of labor amongst a sufficient number of hackers, that individual is going to be very much discouraged because he will not be able to create tangible results because everything else will be broken. In short, allocation of resources--not just on a macro level but on a micro level--is an issue.
People may be impressed by the eye candy; afterall windows is pretty ugly. However, that doesn't mean they'd be happier actually using it. Even ignoring the lack of applications, I think most users would not want to use Linux UIs. Take, for instance, installing applications. Do any UI's / installers actually install a GUI icon from the user now, or does the user have to know where the application is, how to invoke it, and then setup an icon...? How about hardware? How about help systems?
Sort of unrelated, but most of those "20" businesses are sole-proprietorships and parterships, as in the numerous small businesses that you see near you, like restaurants and retail stores. They're generally not companies that recieve millions of dollars in external financing. Although I grant you that venture capitalists often do make stupid investments; that hardly lets Eazel's business model off the hook.
I could comment on your other replies, but that'd be redundant.
No, it's more than just the fact that Windows/MacOS is an easier development target because of their singularity. It's a demonstration of sustained development that meets some (or all, even if both are quite flawed examples) of the criteria that I don't believe open source is capable of. e.g.:
a) originality -- as in very little copying of design and/or code.
b) low degree of modularity / high degree of sustained complexity throughout.
c) relatively low entertainment value / geek cred potential
d) successfully carried to fruition
Now you might think that some open development efforts meet one or two of these requirements, but I don't think any ever have come close to meeting them all, nor do I think it will for some of the reasons listed previously.
Yes, I am extropolating, but such is life. Just as I extropolate that an open development process is not going to create a complete and solid UI, you extropolate that it does (or could, if so desired) produce what you regard as "many large, complex, well designed, high quality software projects" . It is not written. Furthermore, I'm not just extropolating from the lack of examples of UIs, I'm extropolating from: all other open developed end products, the attitudes I've seen in open source development efforts, the effort I've seen in complex development efforts, human nature, and many other things. That said, give me an example of open development that has met all four of these conditions (or even in part):
a) originality -- as in very little copying of design and/or code.
b) low degree of modularity / high degree of sustained complexity throughout.
c) relatively low entertainment value / geek cred potential
d) successfully carried to fruition
Now that is not to say that anything that does not meet these 4 criteria is worthless or less worthy than the alternatives (e.g., not a "hacker toy"). Rather I simply assert that a great many things require this and that open development is not capable of doing this with any real probablity.
I don't exactly mean to say that it must be a commercial organization. It could also theoretically be a non-profit or a government agency (although I have my doubts), my problem with "open" development efforts is one of organization, motivation, direction, and skill. All of these elements CAN and HAVE been succesfully fit under the tent of for-profit companies developing proprietary software. It may be possible for open-source companies as well (though that remains to be seen in my opinion--in terms of their financial success). I just don't think they're remotely probable when they're developed like Linux. e.g., mostly everyone working part time at best, when there is no clear heirarchy, when the objectives are unclear, when motivation is in doubt [as in, developers may want features X,Y,Z...when users want/need features A,B,C, ...quite the opposite], and even when the number of skilled developers is limited.
My disapproval is with the end-result, KDE (it sucks), not TrollTech workers themselves.
Unfinish, crappy, and missing are all quite appropriate terms to describe the same problem. There is not and will NOT be a decent UI for non-technical Linux users made by Linux-style development efforts.
Both Apple and Microsoft allow the non-technical user to do what they need to get done. While both have far more bugs than they should and have less than perfect design (although I do think Apple's interface is quite a lot better), that does not mean that any other attempts by the linux-style development efforts will ever be as good of an option. Say what you will, but even when Windows must be rebooted 5x a day by the average user, the average user is better off than with any existing Linux system in the home environment.
Huh? I never said I disapprove of TrollTech employees working anywhere; I just think the KDE leaves (and will always leave--so long as it is developed like Linux) a lot to be desired, it simply is not a replacement for Windows for 99.99% of the users out there--despite the fact that it has SIGNIFICANT contributions from more traditional companies. The issue is not so much with QT, as it is with the KDE development, or lack thereof.
I give a legitimate and honest position to the slashdot dogma and I get marked as troll? What a joke.
Guru uberhacker? Nope, but I am competent developer that has had enough to exposure to engineering and software development efforts to know the difference. Since I live in this world, I have to make certain judgements based on imperfect information. Time will prove me wrong if you are correct. In fact, it should have already, it's been long enough. Think about it for a minute, here we have a major piece of the Free Software world missing, the non-existent or often crappy User Interfaces for Linux and kin. Ask yourself why.
I think the reason is two-prong: lack of proper desire [as in desire to accomplish what the user needs in the way that the user needs it--not the way that some geeks are momentallarily inspired to create a toy that amuses them] and lack of direction/organization of skill. A half million programmers of assorted skills working part time towards whatever interests them at the moment is simply insufficient for oh so many projects.
You do realize that most users would rather shoot themselves in the head than try to use ANY existing Linux UI? Incidentally, KDE is highly dependent on QT, which was developed by TrollTech, a commercial company. Furthermore, I believe a fair amount of its development (despite my disapproval) has been handled by QT's developers. The kernel is like comparing apples to oranges. It's highly derivative, very much modular, exciting for "geeks" to work on in it (as opposed to say, a seamless help system for the user or an installer), etc. It lends itself to casual hacking by the masses, but I would not trust them to develop a seemless full blown user experience. Anyways, that's besides the point, they HAVE not (despite the fact that the "itch" exists for millions, and that many have tried), this is why companies like Eazel exist, even if their focus is relatively narrow.
Linux? Highly modular, very derivative, relatively simple to organize. The type of thing that lends itself to casual hacking. Yes, there is some sophistication, but it's for limited duration and it can be isolated quite well.
Apache? Quite simple when you actually sit down and think about it. It listens, opens up files, and sends them over the network, plus or minus a little caching, logging, vhosting and other features. Yes, it is efficient and good at what it does, but that's not the same thing.
Samba? Not much different, the only hard part is reverse engineering MS's "extensions".
XEmacs? Who cares?
XFree86? Relatively simple, modular. Truely lacking in many regards.
KDE? Bloated piece of crap. It also depends very much on QT, which was developed by a company.
Gnome? More trouble then it's worth. Also being funded by RedHat as of late. That means more (but not nearly enough) full time programmers and leaders.
Just because some things are succesfull in terms of number of installations does not mean they're feats of engineering.
I'm sorry, but I must draw a major distinction between original, sophisticated and well concieved projects that are carried to fruition, not leaving any holes for the user to fall through, and all of these projects that you mention. Yes, there are a lot of man hours in these other projects, but brute force does not work for everything. Some projects require a lot of focus, clear thinking, and follow through, that can only be found in a structured, full-time, and highly skilled environment. In other words, I'd only accept ~20 (or more) accomplished programmers working full time with ONE direction and ONE leader, not a half million programmers of varied skills following their own agendas while working part-time at best.
As much as Microsoft annoys me and despite all windows' bugs, I don't believe I'll ever see the day that Linux-style open source will ever create a user experience that rivals windows--end to end system that allows the user to do everything that they need and want to do. (Even though I think windows is horrible in many ways, there is a level of involvement in its totality that the open source community does not fully appreciate). I think Eazel (or a similar company) is as close as Linux is ever going to get, and when and if it dies, it'll be a real loss for the Linux community that'll never be made up by the hundreds of open source wanna-bes.
the complexity of engineering software of that size and sophistication. That said, I fail to see how you can dismiss the death of a Eazel by saying that free hackers will fix it, when Eazel's efforts are, by definition, being driven by a corporation. If a ragtag collection of Linux-like programmers can do what Eazel can do, then Eazel should be unnecessary. Unfortunately, it is not, Eazel is necessary. Software developed in the truely Open environment has yet to demonstrate (to me at least) that it is capable of driving complex and focused development.
While it may be fair to believe the open source community is capable of simple patches in Eazel's software (just perhaps a nominal improvement over closed source companies), the community is not going to fix any highly involved problems and they're certainly not going to maintain Eazel's level of development (not to mention the services). If Eazel dies, the people that use it are at a major disadvantage and the software would eventually become obscure. If anything, I feel that the customer faces a higher risk with a company like Eazel, since their open source nature vastly increases their risk of insolvency; I'd rather face a much smaller chance of no simple patches than a much greater risk of zero sustained development and ultimate obsolescence.
That said, I like what Eazel is doing and I hope they survive, but I'm highly skeptical.
topic.
When the producer of intellectual property recieves intellectual property protection, the producer almost always only recieves protection on what the producer adds. In other words, even though that piece of IP is probably ultimately derived from public works, it is truely not the public works that are adding the value to the end product or service. If the IP producer adds nothing of value, he simply won't sell his product or service (because all that is public can already be had by other means); nor will the public be deprived of the works that the producer derived his work from. If, on the other hand, the producer adds value the public still gets to keep all that was public, while recieving the benefit of the producer's innovation, albeit for a price.
Now granted, there have been some rare and notable exceptions, but these are issues of abuse of the system, not the system itself. I don't have time to address the other "points", maybe later...
Heh, I would be the first to tell you that the internet was, and still is, overhyped. I do not see the internet as a social scheme (although there might well be some modest implications, I simply don't care to debate them), rather I see the internet as offerering the modest potential for economic benefit. Some goods and services can only be delivered cost effectively online, others are simply delivered more efficiently online, even if the vast majority of offerings online offer no benefit beyond hype and a zero dollar price tag. Put simply, while the pundits of yesterday and today price the Internet as offering a trillion plus dollar economy, I see it as offering a couple billion and that the only way it can be effectively exploited is if it is valued reasonably. (hint: Yahoo and the like are still way overvalued in my opinion).
So yes, I agree that some customers were drawn online just because some things were free, but those services were mostly things that should never have been online. For services that offer the customer real value, customers will eventually come around to the realization that there is no such things as free lunch, and they will be willing to pay for it. In short, money will be made online, even if all of those that hyped it are now saying the exact opposite. Financially speaking, this is not terribly unlike the BioTech crash ~10 years ago. Just like the DotComs, the VCs, hedge funds, and investment banks were throwing money at anything associated with Biotech, no matter how stupid the investment was. The end result was that a lot of bad companies crashed and burned, taking good companies out with them in part or in whole (by sucking up good capital and/or distorting the market). Then, after the market crashed, those same VCs and such wouldn't touch very good companies. However, although solid companies were harmed while it was hyped and harmed when it crashed, astute investors that were willing to seperate themselves from the herd made a LOT of money, ultimately.
Although I generally agree with most of what you said, I think you ignore some equally large underlying issues. However, the only thing that I wish to comment on is the mindset that "the majority of people do not wish to pay for products or services, and if threatened with this, will move to another product or service." People will pay for products and services if the only way they can get it (or something of like quality) is by paying for it. To the extent that this is true online, it largely owes to the fact that billions of dollars in venture capital and IPO monies were being spent subsidizing this mind grab effort. Once the vast majority of these internet businesses cut their losses (they either do or die), customers will simply have a choice between paying or getting nothing. Neither will customers keep expecting "free" services online, since hardly anyone is going to be providing them in the months and years to come.
In other words, I believe that a good number of these Internet businesses will start charging money, directly or indirectly, in the next year or two and have some success (about as much as can be expected, given that so many schemes were ridiculous). Furthermore, I firmly believe that the overinflation of the Internet by VCs, investment bankers, and the like has actually done far more to harm Internet businesses then it has to help. When the party line in the financial community is to grow grow grow at all costs, it essentially forced more stable strategies out the window. If you were a startup that needed capital, you had to accept that philosophy. Even if you were free from having to raise money, the problem was that all of your competitors were following this strategy, drowning out your more sober plans by essentially buying customers; very few startups can afford to go without significant revenue for long.
Although I'm no expert on riots by any extent of the imagination, it seems to me that one of the things that encourages otherwise reasonably well behaved individuals to act up, is the fact that they can commit these crimes with relative safety, knowing that the size of their numbers gives them both an immediate physical shield from the police (short-term protection) and a degree of anonymity (longer-term protection). Since it has been demonstrated time and time again that it is extremely difficult and often dangerous for the police to attempt to subdue much larger crowds, this method of photographing and identifying the problem causers appears to be the best possible solution. If the rioters _know_ that if they participate in rioting, that they will be punished within a few days or weeks, then that should prevent the vast majority of them from acting up. While an extremely small percentage may not be sane enough to restrain themselves, the police can handle them more easily, especially since the sane crowd will want to disassociate themselves from the troublemakers (rather then cheering, aiding, and what not). As long as the police execute this photographing properly, the benefits far far outweigh the costs (e.g., someone not being anonymous in a rioting crowd, even if they themselves are not rioting). I don't see how anyone can consider this and still find it objectionable.
I agree that slashdot is often extremely hypocritical and clueless. However, I think many of the criticisms of MacOSX/Apple have been quite unfair. While it is true that we may not accept certain things from Microsoft, Microsoft is in a consirably different position. Quite simply, they dominate the market; they can afford to (and can hardly afford not to) make sure that certain features are in at release date. Apple, on the other hand, is a much smaller company targeting a much smaller niche. In essense, you're comparing apples to oranges (no pun intended). Furthermore, MacOS X is essentially a completely new operating system, totally unlike anything Microsoft has attempted to date. In short, it's a very demanding effort that is being supported by a company with limited resources.
Now this is not to say that we should ignore the software itself; rather it is a suggestion that we might be well served to try cutting Apple a little bit of slack. The "problems" that we see in MacOS X seem to be symptomatic of a slight lack of resources, not of lack of effort, care, direction, or what have you. With a little bit of time, we might well expect these criticisms to be solved. If Apple fails to solve the problems with MacOS X in a reasonable amount, then we should write them off, since they're either not capable of bringing the resources to bear or because they simply don't care.
As for the whole Linux thing, I think Linux is, and has basically always been, doomed to mediocrity. Linux's problem is probably not lack of caring per se, but rather a combination of lack of effort (in absolute terms) and resources; none of which will ever be solved in a GPL/idealists world.
I live Haverford. For:
a) You could setup a Linux box to run ipmasquerading (NAT). Or you could buy one of those new NAT cable modem router/hub-type things from linksys, dlink, and others.
b) Yes, it'll probably involve one of these service people to install a cable outlet on the third floor. Or you could keep the cable on the 1st floor or basement and have someone run CAT5 cabling for you. (Or go wireless--though that will slow you down a bit and might not work too well, depending on your house)
c) Mine is static and so are all of the ones with comcast @ home from what I've seen. I've had my same IP for 3 years now. No propreitary junk, very easy to setup in Linux or whatever.
Dont have much time to get into the details now though, maybe some other time.
In fact, they're trying to determine the optimal first move for Tic Tac Toe down the exact box. I bet you never knew there was so much math involved, eh?
First, Napster is most emphatically not competing with RIAA.
Second, your prices totally fail to take into account the fact that marketing and promoting those 15 dollar CDs that you like to listen to IS very expensive. Now you combine that expense with the fact that they industry takes a certain amount of risk by promoting a song that may well fail, and you have to add more money on.
Third, they're not fixing Napster's "price". Napster has no price, it's a totally artificial "market". They effectively leach off the industry.
First off, the industry themselves is not restraining YOU. Either a judge says so or Napster themselves does so. Second, if you really own the song, you can certainly vouch for it, so you would be unlikely to get blocked, just inconvenienced, at the most. Third, the odds are slim that anyone really wants your techo track, especially if you need to rely on Napster to do so. There are hundreds of other protocols and methods to get your songs out to as large, or a larger audience, without putting a huge burden on the copyright owners that are disproportionately pirated. Fifth, RIAA's intent is clearly not to block you, they just want their own music protected and a system of enumerated "legal downloads" is the most equitable solution in my opinion.