The same can be said for engineering, medicine, law, etc. Only to a greater extent. You can much more easily review a compiler, and the code, than you could the works of other professionals who don't live in a digital world. If an engineer builds a brige and it falls, they might try to argue that it was poor construction, faulty materials, bad maintence, etc. However, even there you have blueprints. If there is a design flaw, it most likely could be spotted by a team of professionals. This is even more true in software. You have the source code, and the binary. These are static things that do not change, and it is far easier to isolate the outside variables.
On another note, the FDA does require certification for software/hardware for medtech devices. These controls and reviews are very stringent. I think this is mostly a good thing.
Europe and other third world countries have more 'make work' than we have in the US. Their state welfare programs are far larger, and they only aggravate unemployment problems. In France and Germany for example, there are many employment laws that make it difficult to fire an employee. As a result, the employeer thinks twice before hiring a potential employee. This has a large impact on small businesses.
I downloaded and installed Q3 last night, it was very slick, especially given the fact that it was running on my PP200. However, I had a problem with my mouse. For some reason, I can't use both mouse buttons at the same time. eg: I have one button bound to run, and the other to shoot. I can run, and I can shoot seperately. But I can't run and shoot at the same time. This configuration works just fine in Quake1 and Quake2, albeit in console. Is this an X problem? Or a problem with Q3test? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
It is better to have the patent system in place, as flawed as it may be, than to not have any at all. To make the argument that the patent system has sickened to an extent such that it has stopped innovation is foolish. The US is still leading the world in this department while many other countries have far more liberal views on intellectual property. It has nothing to do with natural resources, or the intelligence of our people, or our size, etc, etc, etc.
Granted, there are some problems with the USPTO. However, I think most of these problems are an unavoidable side effect of having a very busy system and parties who are naturally going to have disagreements. This does not mean that it is better to kill it all together.
I too use and buy RedHat's 'official' releases. I also think RedHat has made many vital contributions to Linux. But if you look at each one of these, these are not major efforts, they are significant because Linux is/was so small and they're badly needed. They've just addressed what no one else had, ease of use issues and what not. The question is: Can RedHat, and operations like it, get a return on their future efforts. I really don't think they can. If they were to go out today, and spend 50 million dollars (which is never going to happen) on Gnome -- and make it every bit as good as Windows95 from the beginners perspective -- how would this be a wise business decision? Even IF the software market jumps at this enough to cause 2billion dollars worth of Linux sales -- who says its going to be RedHat with the lions share? Thus far all of RedHat's competition has tried to make it on there own, but there is nothing stopping them from literally duplicating Linux's distributions and offering it for 3 dollars.
Both are protected by copyrights and patents. RedHat is not. What I'm telling you is that there are really no barriers to entry. IBM could come in right now, copy everything that is good with RedHat, byte for byte, maybe even add a few packages. Whom do you think has more clout in terms of brand equity? While some may argue that Coca-Cola and the rest taste differently, the same argument can not be made for a byte for byte copy of software.
RedHat is still a very tiny company which has yet to prove itself to the powers that be. Even if we could warp forward in time, in a universe where RedHat's distribution is king, they _might_ be able to retain it with brand equity. But RedHat simply is not at this point yet. Linux is still very immature from a commercial viewpoint. RedHat may be on top of the heap today, but its commercial validity as a serious contender against real competition of the future I question.
Have you ever wondered why RedHat is reluctant to join the Linux Standard Board? I think this is atleast partially about RedHat trying to differentiate themselves. Their argument that the LSB is too slow might be partially valid. However, I think their real motivation is that they want to differentiate themselves. Assuming that RedHat becomes the unofficial standard, and that the other vendors are too proud to clone RedHat lay out, this would give them a leg up. Both in the distribution and the support business.
This article was far too short and didn't say much. He never really explained what he meant by 'fraud'. However, I'm assuming that he was attacking RedHat's business model. If this is the case, I think he does have a point. In other words, this is not a company you would want to invest in. Redhat doesn't have any propietary software. 99% of their package is developed by the general open source community, the other 1% by their in house staff. They have no propietary software, I'm not even sure if they have exclusive rights to their own documentation. It can all be downloaded with source for free! Right now their cash cow is the convience factor. They make money by packaging Linux up on a CD in a nice convenient easily installable package with documentation. The problem with this is that when and if Linux takes off, what stops competition from coming in and copying their packages exactly and selling them for 2 dollars? The fact of the matter is that even right now most slashdotters only buy the 2 dollar cheapbytes' versions of RedHat. People new to Linux and RedHat actually buy the 50 dollar CD from RedHat. But eventually this market is going to slip away when the market begins to mature someone going to figure out just how easy it is to pirate RedHat's cash cow. Ok, now from the Linux communities perspective. What can RedHat add, never mind their profit margins. The amount of money that they can sink into Open Source projects like Gnome is extremely limited. They simply can't afford it. The only way they can get a return on their money, is in minor trimmings that get added to their own distribution. When other companies start mirroring these additions you'll see these projects get strangled.
Certainly some of you will clammor that 'RMS says that he doens't mind them making money on support'. This may be true. Theoretically, RedHat could make money by offering support. I've yet to see any proof that this business model even works. Certainly RedHat hasn't shown it. I doubt that their support operations are even breaking even right now. The support operations are even questionable in the long run. What makes RedHat the ideal source to answer questions about Linux? If MS were to suddenly die tommarow and Linux declared THE new OS of the masses, who do you think is in the best position to offer support for Linux? Since there is nothing propietary, nothing secret, in Redhat Linux distribution what makes RedHat any better at support than anyone else? IBM and many other companies are in great positions to jump on markets like these. They just need to train the right people, but they have the resources and the people to do it.
Anyhow, my point is not that RedHat can't possibly make money. I'm sure they're going to make a fair amount of money in the short run. However, I think they're going to fall victim to their own hype. They're going to believe their own line, and they're going to start playing their chips foolishly. I believe the only way that RedHat's investors are going to make out well in the next 5 years, is if they understand their limitations. It may very well be prudent for them to cash out in the next year or so.
"You proceed from a false assumption. They are not subject to the same laws as you or I. If they make moral decisions the same way that you or I do, they risk going to jail. It is the Law that they try to maximize profit. People usually try to make profit too, but are also motivated by other desires as well."
While it may be the managements job to maximize profits it doesn't mean that they throw all morals out the window. Companies that do are really a very small minority. Most people on slashdot who make such claims have never really seen capitalism at work. There is alot more to capitalism other than the monster corporation. Secondly, there is also the 'enlightened interest' theory by Milton. Which pretty much states that a company will do things that don't directly further their bottom line. Companies also contribute a great deal of money to various charitable organizations such as schools, education campaigns, you name it. On a dollar charity vs. assets ratio, I wouldn't be amazed if companies donate more than individuals on the aggregate.
First off, there is nothing preconcieved about my notions. I've read a great number of Katz spiels. The word preconceived implies that I had an opinion before I read this particular article. Bu even if this were the case, I've read articles of his previously. All of them have been similar. Are you trying to tell me that I must approach all of his detritus with an 'open' mind? Like you must read all of the KKK's materials, or what have you, with an open mind?
"I'm sorry that someone out there has suggested that a member of your Holy Circle"
^ I never said it was my circle. I never said it was perfect. This IS a preconceived notion.
Oh so now i'm a sychophant? I read slashdot, I use mp3, I run Linux, I'm a capitalist. I've been doing so for a long time. Capitalism is not the 'in' thing on slashdot. If anything, its very unpopular to be pro-business these days. I used Linux longer than 95% of the readership on slashdot, yet I have my doubts about its long term success. What about this makes me a sycophant? Please tell me what group I follow, I'd really like to know so I can get some company here.
I believe that the internet is going to have a nominal effect on society at best. I strongly disagree with the likes of Katz and Al Gore. Who believe, or atleast espouse the belief, that all you need to do is plug this magic internet pipe and everything somehow gets better. I'm telling you, based on my own experience, that I think the internet is closer to the goldrush than anything else. Not a great deal of wealth is going to be created as a result. Sure some people will get rich, but like the goldrush, it'll be those who sell the supplies. Not those who blindly jump on futurists' bandwagons such as Katz.
Corporations are a part of humanity. The interests of the invididual are no more in the interests of the country, are they? No matter how humanity organizes itself it doesn't remove the human elements of it. Corporations don't have a lock on self-interest, this is a human trait.
The law essentially views the corporation as an individual. While I do not agree with lobbyists, this is protected by the constitution to some extent. Its called Freedom of Speech. Legally a corporation just as entitled to political speech as the individual. The right to make contributions to certain political parties is also a right. Corporations aren't the only entities with lobbyists mind you. The NRA, Farmers Unions, Unions, Environment groups, all have lobbies. There is some need for corporations to speak their minds. I do, however, believe that these huge lobbies need to be drastically curbed. While companies like ADM have used lobbying to actually grow their business (impose tarrifs on foreign sugar, so they can sell their wares,etc), this is an exception to the rule. Most corporations don't have this kind of power.
I believe that Katz is a fairly smart guy, yet I don't believe he is sincere. This whole essay is a farce. His argument that corporations run this country is designed to get you nerds riled up. Don't you see that? While I agree that certain companies like MS and ADM are scary, they're subject to the same laws that you and I are. The corporation is manned by human beings -- not androids and what have you. Do you honestly believe that these humans are that evil? That they can keep this conspiracy intact and secret? And mp3.com the revolution? What a load of bullshit. I've been an op in #mp3 on irc for almost 4 years now. And yet this neophyte tells me that its going to change the world? What a load. I think mp3s are great, but they ain't going to change the face of this world. Maybe the recoding industry is a little concerned, but its their job to worry about these things. The bulk of these fears are due to the fact that people, shareholders and stock analysts, actually believe this kind of hype. He completely ignores the importance of the worst comporation in my opinion, MTV and co. Distribution is just a small part of the equation. Exposure and what not will still keep certain corporations in power, the most the internet distribution model will do is shuffle the deck a bit. Just because a few artists jump on the mp3 band wagon doesn't mean much either. These artists have been jumping on and off various band wagons for years now, be it the environmental movement or what have you. I don't believe that they have the staying power. Also I assure you that even if this current generation does, what kind of contracts do you think the next generation of Pop artists are going to sign? There will be provisions in there making sure that if they want exposure they stay with company A and give them their cut. And don't even get me started on the actual power of OSS......
Katz just thrives off of this kind of drivel and there are enough sycophants out there to keep him clothed for some time.
The stuff at PARC never took off, it was apple that MADE it a reality after getting permission from Xerox. Two fundamental components of real innovation: Risk and Effort. While Xerox spent a fair sum on their R&D they were afraid to move on the fruits it bore. But none of the projects were anything close to marketable. It was apple that put it all on the line and -WORKED- to make the GUI a reality for the consumer.
I do think MS needs to be dealt with, but I think that RMS is out of line. We don't need to go that far. If MS were split up, such that their applications and operating systems division would be seperate, it would no longer be in the OS companies interest to create secret standards and what not. The current MS API situation is setup to give MS a major leg up in developing applications -- while crushing the competition. It would not help the OS company at all to keep their standards and APIs from developers. They would want to make their OS as competetive as possible with Linux and the like. This means that they'd release the specs openly and document them as best as they know how, such that the best software can be written for their platform. Linux could be at somewhat of a loss in this respect.
The applications division would also want to maximize profits. This means that they'd port their applications to other platforms, where profitable. Linux would most certainly be a candidate. The installation base is certainly large enough to warrant a porting effort.
This being said, I do have a few concerns about splitting up applications and operating system companies out right. While there is clearly a potential for abuse, it is also some what neccessary at certain stages. When a company is first developing a new operating system, say Windows CE, they'd want to make sure that there are some decent, if not 'killer', applications. This in some cases means that you have to allow the company to develop and sell software for their operating system. It might even be wise to allow them a leg up, for a certain period of time. But once the operating system acquires a certain momentum it should have to cut its applications loose. Or at the very least, have some sort of immediate checks on their usage.
NT4.0 is fairly secure SOTB(Straight Out of the Box). For two reasons: a) Not much runs on it by default b) It is highly inflexible
This is not to say that MS has any real security genius. Its just RedHat doesn't seem to feel that SOTB security is that important. Furthermore, if you look at the number of exploitable bugs relative to the number of services and programs offered RedHat really isn't any worse off. NT enjoys two things -- in the short run:
a) Low visibility b) Security through obscurity.
If and when NT ever supplants Unix, I guarantee you that it will be far more vulnerable to script kiddies. As it stands now the current system admin is totally ignorant as to the security layout of his NT system(s). There is very little review of NT's security -- it is closed source. However, this security through obscurity thing will burn off shortly. NT hacking simply doesn't have enough inertia yet. If NT ever gains the same install base on high profile systems many security people and hackers will start coding overflows and what not for NT, it will have a snowball effect. There will be far more eyes on NT's security holes, albeit with debuggers and hex editors, than there will be eyes on security looking at the source. These exploits will be passed around underground-- it'll most certainly be distributed faster than MS will respond.
As it stands now, if I were a going to setup a network today, knowing what I know, and ignoring performance issues, i'd definetly run Linux or BSD. Because I can simply know with a reasonable level of confidence that I am secure. This can never be said for NT.
The script kiddy was clearly in the wrong and, in this case, deserves to get his teeth knocked in. But I only have so much sympathy for someone who takes their security and backup so lightly. Especially when that person advocates the use of Linux over NT -- blindly. If it wasn't the script kiddies rm -rf/, it'd be a mistake at your own hands at some point or another. Cheap backups systems can be had for next to nothing. At the very least, you log to a remote system to discourage the kiddy from rm -rf / -ing as a method of covering his tracks.
I agree, the issue is one of displacement.
on
ShutUp Software
·
· Score: 1
The issue is not so much that the act of reading undesirable posts is a detriment to me, rather it is an issue of displacement. Most everyone only has a finite amount of time in their day, the act of reading lame posts simply takes up free time that one could be spending reading good ones. I, for one, believe that only a small percentage of what is found on the net is worth reading. You combine this in with the fact that it takes a couple seconds to load each page, and I simply don't have enough time to read all of them.
Like you said, this process of filtering is nothing new. When one goes to a library or bookstore, they don't just pick out a book randomly, even in a given topic. They select one or two that they think is probably good. I find it hard to believe that even Katz would argue that we should pick a book in whatever order they happen to come at us. This leads me to believe that selection is primarily a function of the level of resources available to the person in question. eg: Time, Money, etc. Katz may have plenty of time to read the ditritus, in fact, its probably a requirement in his new age fad-dish writing industry -- to know who is readership is and what they want to hear. This does not entitle him to preach to the rest of the world about how they should or should not read.
I atleast would buy a Rio. It is light, shockproof, and can sport a reasonable collection of music. This is perfect for when I workout. I also suspect the internals hold up just fine because it has no moving parts, but the Rio looks chinsy on the outside. As for the sound quality, I couldn't give a rats ass. MP3 is extremely close to CD quality as far as the human ear can tell. The fact of the matter is that the headphones (or speakers) you use contribute far more noise and distortion than the difference between digital technologies. I'm not going to be lugging around large headphones, I'm going to be using those little cheap 'sports' type headphones for the most part.
This combined with the fact that I have a rather large collection of mp3s, means that the Rio makes far more sense than a Minidisc. The only place where i'd really use a minidisc, would be on a long trip. You are essentially bound to your PC if you wish to swap music. I also would not recommend a minidisc to the rest of the world, but for my specific needs and wants its just about perfect. I just wish they'd clean up the design a bit.
MS is very capable of killing software companies, but its interest and power to kill services such as Yahoo is pretty weak. The name of the game with MS is to prevent marginalization of their platform. That is to say, that they will do their best to insure that all usefull products are exclusively operable on the windows platform. Thats why they've killed Netscape. That why they're promoting DirectX (over GL) in a big way. Thats why they've tried to push Real Audio out of the picture and replace it with their own standard. Not because they like it. Not because they really believe that their standard will deliver higher performance to their customer. They want to make it very hard to switch platforms without loosing a whole lot of software.
Netscape is(or was) essentially a service. The majority of their profits have come from NetCenter, which is an internet portal much like Yahoo. It comes preconfigured in Netscape browsers to load it automatically, so NetCenter gets lots of traffic. As MS gains browser market share, Netcenter will lose corresponding proportions. MS can just as easily force out certain online sites with this kind of muscle. While I can hardly see it being in their interest to rape eBay or Amazon, I wouldn't say this for other sites. Lets say that mp3.com starts to gain popularity via word of mouth, and MS decides that this mp3 technology further marginalizes Windows. A few changes to their preconfigured 'portal', and you're on some alternative music site which just happens to only serve up clips in the latest propietary MS audio encoding format. This is pretty significant power.
I never claimed my statement to be a rational argument. Secondly, I made two fairly obvious typos, that is not the end of the world. I'm sick of incomplete and incoherant arguments that claim to prove that IP is unneccessary and detrimental to society on the aggregate. My typos do not directly degrade my point. The author, and those who espouse similar notions, was writing an essay, whereas I was just writing a quick response. These require different levels of proof reading and structure. If you care to defend this author, defend the content. The act of bringing a few typos in my tirade to light does absolutely nothing to repair such a flawed piece of work.
I find it really hard to believe that this guy is a VC. The fact that he'd use Red Hat and companies that don't even have presence yet to support his argument that a non-IP world can work, demonstrates his ignorance. Look at what Red Hat has contributed: a few tk interfaces, gnome, installation menus, etc. While I like Red Hat and I believe that they make an important contribution to Linux, one must remember that their actual man hours(dollars) invested into software development is pretty damn small. They're paying about 3 or 4 developers for gnome, rather meager salaries at that. Furthermore, Red Hat is just a startup company, there is no proof that this business model is even viable. They're still a private company, no one except the few equity holders have seen their financial statements. This argument would be equivelent to trumpeting Yahoo's young execs as proof that young inexperienced kids can run a mature business, only worse.
Intellectual Property is a neccessity to maintain today's rate of innovation, It shouldn't even require argument. While a few ignorant fools may trumpet Red Hat as proof that a company can survive without 'owning' any IP, they do not even address weather or not it is capable of supplanting classic capitalism. There are so many flaws in their 'argument', that it is laughable. However, I'll save my breath -- because I know that 98% of the readers on/. are essentially poorly read pyschophants, and any rational argument I put forth will be greeted with mioptic FSF dogma.
Most of Adam Smith's theories still hold today. While it may be true that the US has adopted Keynesian economic policy and a few other ideas, these for the most part leave Smith in place. His arguments for intellectual property still very much hold. I have no objection with a group of people who wish to collaborate to create free software, in fact, I support it. However, I take extreme exception to people who would attempt to abolish all forms of intellectual property. This demonstrates ignorance to me. Atleast if they're going to espouse these ideas, they can demonstrate that they've read some economic texts, not just FSF propaganda. The problem with people that advocate destruction of IP, is that they don't have it all together thought out. I don't have time to get into it, but one of the biggest problems is that there is some considerable need to reward to innovator.
While many geeks may be happy with 'free software', I can't think of any 'free' software that really serves the end users' needs and wants. How does this help people? This of course goes well beyond just software. More significant industries are ones where large investments are required to bring a product to market. Such as the Medical technology industry. The arguments against intellectual property in MedTech may appear to be superficially stronger than it is in software, because people can theoretically be priced out of treatment. Most MedTech markets take millions of dollars to research, more to develop, and more to get through the FDA, not to mention liability issues. There is a great deal of risk involved, you simply need intellectual property, or you will destroy 99% of the MedTech advancements. Without the 'government granted' intellectual property monopoly, the money would never be spent on MedTech research. Not only do the companies need a chance to recoop their direct investment but you need to look at the industry on the larger scale. The fact is that like 1 out of 10 of these ventures fail, those ventures which succeed must pay off a great deal. While many geeks froth at the mouth in the defence of free software, yet they don't contribute to worthy causes such as Aids research. Even if they did, the available research dollars would be a fraction of what they are now.
"Any property that must be propped up by the State is not property in my book."
This includes a great deal beyond just intellectual property. This would include land ownership, enforcement of contracts, etc. A 'pure' system, would be anarchy. A system where only might makes right. Without government enforcement the system simply would not operate as smoothly as it does. In regards to the intellectual property issues, please do yourself a favor and read some Adam Smith. Without his research our current system today would not be in existance.
This article is not anti-mp3 by any stretch of the imagination. He is analytically evaluating the commercial possibilities of mp3. I have been an #mp3 op on irc (undernet) for 3 or 4 years now, and I must agree with most of what he said. The Diamond Rio is not for the main stream and mp3.com is not going to make the big bucks. Mp3s will only thrive in certain niche groups. eg: college students and technically literate individuals who have convienient access to illegal mp3 copies, nerds, anti-establishment types, people who want to sample small bands, etc. I'd say the compressed internet distribution method will live on, even if mp3 dies. Like he points out, mp3 is just a means to an end. I don't imagine marginally superior encoding technologies supplanting the existing fringe mp3 user base.
However, mp3s as it stands now it simply can not supplant audio CDs. It needs broad commercial support. It will only make it big if one can go to a certain web site and download(or purchase) just about everything they want. There is nothing technically wrong with the mp3 format, or the current mp3 playback devices. The problem is the distribution method. There is no central place where the uninitiated can go and find what they want, when they want it. While the recording industry will never be able to effectively stamp out the fringe mp3 crowd, as long as it keeps up the pressure, it can make mp3s undesirable for the average user. Thus I would not bet the farm on mp3.com.
I can easily see some alternative format coming into the commercial market like gang busters. While the recording industry is not omnipotent, I think it would be foolish to under estimate their power. Given the fact that mp3s will not take the industry any time soon, it is just a matter of time before something else slips in. The recording industry knows that it needs to find a way to slip its foot in the Internet door. I don't believe it would be too hard for them to do so. With a minimal investment, they could collaborate and setup ONE central online music site on the internet. Put everything they have into that format, and make it readily available. They would probably also have to give the market confidence that they plan on sticking with it. And they'd probably have to make the media cheaper than CDs to encourage growth. But I could see it happening. All they'd need is to find some niche consumer market, and hardware manufacturers would jump in. Hell, with Sony and what not a member of RIAA they'd probably have a model developed before the site is even up.
Slashdot Mirror
The same can be said for engineering, medicine, law, etc. Only to a greater extent. You can much more easily review a compiler, and the code, than you could the works of other professionals who don't live in a digital world. If an engineer builds a brige and it falls, they might try to argue that it was poor construction, faulty materials, bad maintence, etc. However, even there you have blueprints. If there is a design flaw, it most likely could be spotted by a team of professionals. This is even more true in software. You have the source code, and the binary. These are static things that do not change, and it is far easier to isolate the outside variables.
On another note, the FDA does require certification for software/hardware for medtech devices. These controls and reviews are very stringent. I think this is mostly a good thing.
Europe and other third world countries have more 'make work' than we have in the US. Their state welfare programs are far larger, and they only aggravate unemployment problems. In France and Germany for example, there are many employment laws that make it difficult to fire an employee. As a result, the employeer thinks twice before hiring a potential employee. This has a large impact on small businesses.
I downloaded and installed Q3 last night, it was very slick, especially given the fact that it was running on my PP200. However, I had a problem with my mouse. For some reason, I can't use both mouse buttons at the same time. eg: I have one button bound to run, and the other to shoot. I can run, and I can shoot seperately. But I can't run and shoot at the same time. This configuration works just fine in Quake1 and Quake2, albeit in console. Is this an X problem? Or a problem with Q3test? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
It is better to have the patent system in place, as flawed as it may be, than to not have any at all. To make the argument that the patent system has sickened to an extent such that it has stopped innovation is foolish. The US is still leading the world in this department while many other countries have far more liberal views on intellectual property. It has nothing to do with natural resources, or the intelligence of our people, or our size, etc, etc, etc.
Granted, there are some problems with the USPTO. However, I think most of these problems are an unavoidable side effect of having a very busy system and parties who are naturally going to have disagreements. This does not mean that it is better to kill it all together.
I too use and buy RedHat's 'official' releases. I also think RedHat has made many vital contributions to Linux. But if you look at each one of these, these are not major efforts, they are significant because Linux is/was so small and they're badly needed. They've just addressed what no one else had, ease of use issues and what not. The question is: Can RedHat, and operations like it, get a return on their future efforts. I really don't think they can. If they were to go out today, and spend 50 million dollars (which is never going to happen) on Gnome -- and make it every bit as good as Windows95 from the beginners perspective -- how would this be a wise business decision? Even IF the software market jumps at this enough to cause 2billion dollars worth of Linux sales -- who says its going to be RedHat with the lions share? Thus far all of RedHat's competition has tried to make it on there own, but there is nothing stopping them from literally duplicating Linux's distributions and offering it for 3 dollars.
Both are protected by copyrights and patents. RedHat is not. What I'm telling you is that there are really no barriers to entry. IBM could come in right now, copy everything that is good with RedHat, byte for byte, maybe even add a few packages. Whom do you think has more clout in terms of brand equity? While some may argue that Coca-Cola and the rest taste differently, the same argument can not be made for a byte for byte copy of software.
RedHat is still a very tiny company which has yet to prove itself to the powers that be. Even if we could warp forward in time, in a universe where RedHat's distribution is king, they _might_ be able to retain it with brand equity. But RedHat simply is not at this point yet. Linux is still very immature from a commercial viewpoint. RedHat may be on top of the heap today, but its commercial validity as a serious contender against real competition of the future I question.
Have you ever wondered why RedHat is reluctant to join the Linux Standard Board? I think this is atleast partially about RedHat trying to differentiate themselves. Their argument that the LSB is too slow might be partially valid. However, I think their real motivation is that they want to differentiate themselves. Assuming that RedHat becomes the unofficial standard, and that the other vendors are too proud to clone RedHat lay out, this would give them a leg up. Both in the distribution and the support business.
This article was far too short and didn't say much. He never really explained what he meant by 'fraud'. However, I'm assuming that he was attacking RedHat's business model. If this is the case, I think he does have a point. In other words, this is not a company you would want to invest in. Redhat doesn't have any propietary software. 99% of their package is developed by the general open source community, the other 1% by their in house staff. They have no propietary software, I'm not even sure if they have exclusive rights to their own documentation. It can all be downloaded with source for free! Right now their cash cow is the convience factor. They make money by packaging Linux up on a CD in a nice convenient easily installable package with documentation. The problem with this is that when and if Linux takes off, what stops competition from coming in and copying their packages exactly and selling them for 2 dollars? The fact of the matter is that even right now most slashdotters only buy the 2 dollar cheapbytes' versions of RedHat. People new to Linux and RedHat actually buy the 50 dollar CD from RedHat. But eventually this market is going to slip away when the market begins to mature someone going to figure out just how easy it is to pirate RedHat's cash cow. Ok, now from the Linux communities perspective. What can RedHat add, never mind their profit margins. The amount of money that they can sink into Open Source projects like Gnome is extremely limited. They simply can't afford it. The only way they can get a return on their money, is in minor trimmings that get added to their own distribution. When other companies start mirroring these additions you'll see these projects get strangled.
Certainly some of you will clammor that 'RMS says that he doens't mind them making money on support'. This may be true. Theoretically, RedHat could make money by offering support. I've yet to see any proof that this business model even works. Certainly RedHat hasn't shown it. I doubt that their support operations are even breaking even right now. The support operations are even questionable in the long run. What makes RedHat the ideal source to answer questions about Linux? If MS were to suddenly die tommarow and Linux declared THE new OS of the masses, who do you think is in the best position to offer support for Linux? Since there is nothing propietary, nothing secret, in Redhat Linux distribution what makes RedHat any better at support than anyone else? IBM and many other companies are in great positions to jump on markets like these. They just need to train the right people, but they have the resources and the people to do it.
Anyhow, my point is not that RedHat can't possibly make money. I'm sure they're going to make a fair amount of money in the short run. However, I think they're going to fall victim to their own hype. They're going to believe their own line, and they're going to start playing their chips foolishly. I believe the only way that RedHat's investors are going to make out well in the next 5 years, is if they understand their limitations. It may very well be prudent for them to cash out in the next year or so.
"You proceed from a false assumption. They are not subject to the same laws as you or I. If they make moral decisions the same way that you or I do, they risk going to jail. It is the Law that they try to maximize profit. People usually try to make profit too, but are also motivated by other desires as well."
While it may be the managements job to maximize profits it doesn't mean that they throw all morals out the window. Companies that do are really a very small minority. Most people on slashdot who make such claims have never really seen capitalism at work. There is alot more to capitalism other than the monster corporation. Secondly, there is also the 'enlightened interest' theory by Milton. Which pretty much states that a company will do things that don't directly further their bottom line. Companies also contribute a great deal of money to various charitable organizations such as schools, education campaigns, you name it. On a dollar charity vs. assets ratio, I wouldn't be amazed if companies donate more than individuals on the aggregate.
First off, there is nothing preconcieved about my notions. I've read a great number of Katz spiels. The word preconceived implies that I had an opinion before I read this particular article. Bu even if this were the case, I've read articles of his previously. All of them have been similar. Are you trying to tell me that I must approach all of his detritus with an 'open' mind? Like you must read all of the KKK's materials, or what have you, with an open mind?
"I'm sorry that someone out there has suggested that a member of your Holy Circle"
^ I never said it was my circle. I never said it was perfect. This IS a preconceived notion.
Oh so now i'm a sychophant? I read slashdot, I use mp3, I run Linux, I'm a capitalist. I've been doing so for a long time. Capitalism is not the 'in' thing on slashdot. If anything, its very unpopular to be pro-business these days. I used Linux longer than 95% of the readership on slashdot, yet I have my doubts about its long term success. What about this makes me a sycophant? Please tell me what group I follow, I'd really like to know so I can get some company here.
I believe that the internet is going to have a nominal effect on society at best. I strongly disagree with the likes of Katz and Al Gore. Who believe, or atleast espouse the belief, that all you need to do is plug this magic internet pipe and everything somehow gets better. I'm telling you, based on my own experience, that I think the internet is closer to the goldrush than anything else. Not a great deal of wealth is going to be created as a result. Sure some people will get rich, but like the goldrush, it'll be those who sell the supplies. Not those who blindly jump on futurists' bandwagons such as Katz.
Corporations are a part of humanity. The interests of the invididual are no more in the interests of the country, are they? No matter how humanity organizes itself it doesn't remove the human elements of it. Corporations don't have a lock on self-interest, this is a human trait.
The law essentially views the corporation as an individual. While I do not agree with lobbyists, this is protected by the constitution to some extent. Its called Freedom of Speech. Legally a corporation just as entitled to political speech as the individual. The right to make contributions to certain political parties is also a right. Corporations aren't the only entities with lobbyists mind you. The NRA, Farmers Unions, Unions, Environment groups, all have lobbies. There is some need for corporations to speak their minds. I do, however, believe that these huge lobbies need to be drastically curbed. While companies like ADM have used lobbying to actually grow their business (impose tarrifs on foreign sugar, so they can sell their wares,etc), this is an exception to the rule. Most corporations don't have this kind of power.
I believe that Katz is a fairly smart guy, yet I don't believe he is sincere. This whole essay is a farce. His argument that corporations run this country is designed to get you nerds riled up. Don't you see that? While I agree that certain companies like MS and ADM are scary, they're subject to the same laws that you and I are. The corporation is manned by human beings -- not androids and what have you. Do you honestly believe that these humans are that evil? That they can keep this conspiracy intact and secret? And mp3.com the revolution? What a load of bullshit. I've been an op in #mp3 on irc for almost 4 years now. And yet this neophyte tells me that its going to change the world? What a load. I think mp3s are great, but they ain't going to change the face of this world. Maybe the recoding industry is a little concerned, but its their job to worry about these things. The bulk of these fears are due to the fact that people, shareholders and stock analysts, actually believe this kind of hype. He completely ignores the importance of the worst comporation in my opinion, MTV and co. Distribution is just a small part of the equation. Exposure and what not will still keep certain corporations in power, the most the internet distribution model will do is shuffle the deck a bit. Just because a few artists jump on the mp3 band wagon doesn't mean much either. These artists have been jumping on and off various band wagons for years now, be it the environmental movement or what have you. I don't believe that they have the staying power. Also I assure you that even if this current generation does, what kind of contracts do you think the next generation of Pop artists are going to sign? There will be provisions in there making sure that if they want exposure they stay with company A and give them their cut. And don't even get me started on the actual power of OSS......
Katz just thrives off of this kind of drivel and there are enough sycophants out there to keep him clothed for some time.
The stuff at PARC never took off, it was apple that MADE it a reality after getting permission from Xerox. Two fundamental components of real innovation: Risk and Effort. While Xerox spent a fair sum on their R&D they were afraid to move on the fruits it bore. But none of the projects were anything close to marketable. It was apple that put it all on the line and -WORKED- to make the GUI a reality for the consumer.
I do think MS needs to be dealt with, but I think that RMS is out of line. We don't need to go that far. If MS were split up, such that their applications and operating systems division would be seperate, it would no longer be in the OS companies interest to create secret standards and what not. The current MS API situation is setup to give MS a major leg up in developing applications -- while crushing the competition. It would not help the OS company at all to keep their standards and APIs from developers. They would want to make their OS as competetive as possible with Linux and the like. This means that they'd release the specs openly and document them as best as they know how, such that the best software can be written for their platform. Linux could be at somewhat of a loss in this respect.
The applications division would also want to maximize profits. This means that they'd port their applications to other platforms, where profitable. Linux would most certainly be a candidate. The installation base is certainly large enough to warrant a porting effort.
This being said, I do have a few concerns about splitting up applications and operating system companies out right. While there is clearly a potential for abuse, it is also some what neccessary at certain stages. When a company is first developing a new operating system, say Windows CE, they'd want to make sure that there are some decent, if not 'killer', applications. This in some cases means that you have to allow the company to develop and sell software for their operating system. It might even be wise to allow them a leg up, for a certain period of time. But once the operating system acquires a certain momentum it should have to cut its applications loose. Or at the very least, have some sort of immediate checks on their usage.
NT4.0 is fairly secure SOTB(Straight Out of the Box). For two reasons:
a) Not much runs on it by default
b) It is highly inflexible
This is not to say that MS has any real security genius. Its just RedHat doesn't seem to feel that SOTB security is that important. Furthermore, if you look at the number of exploitable bugs relative to the number of services and programs offered RedHat really isn't any worse off. NT enjoys two things -- in the short run:
a) Low visibility
b) Security through obscurity.
If and when NT ever supplants Unix, I guarantee you that it will be far more vulnerable to script kiddies. As it stands now the current system admin is totally ignorant as to the security layout of his NT system(s). There is very little review of NT's security -- it is closed source. However, this security through obscurity thing will burn off shortly. NT hacking simply doesn't have enough inertia yet. If NT ever gains the same install base on high profile systems many security people and hackers will start coding overflows and what not for NT, it will have a snowball effect. There will be far more eyes on NT's security holes, albeit with debuggers and hex editors, than there will be eyes on security looking at the source. These exploits will be passed around underground-- it'll most certainly be distributed faster than MS will respond.
As it stands now, if I were a going to setup a network today, knowing what I know, and ignoring performance issues, i'd definetly run Linux or BSD. Because I can simply know with a reasonable level of confidence that I am secure. This can never be said for NT.
The script kiddy was clearly in the wrong and, in this case, deserves to get his teeth knocked in. But I only have so much sympathy for someone who takes their security and backup so lightly. Especially when that person advocates the use of Linux over NT -- blindly. If it wasn't the script kiddies rm -rf
The issue is not so much that the act of reading undesirable posts is a detriment to me, rather it is an issue of displacement. Most everyone only has a finite amount of time in their day, the act of reading lame posts simply takes up free time that one could be spending reading good ones. I, for one, believe that only a small percentage of what is found on the net is worth reading. You combine this in with the fact that it takes a couple seconds to load each page, and I simply don't have enough time to read all of them.
Like you said, this process of filtering is nothing new. When one goes to a library or bookstore, they don't just pick out a book randomly, even in a given topic. They select one or two that they think is probably good. I find it hard to believe that even Katz would argue that we should pick a book in whatever order they happen to come at us. This leads me to believe that selection is primarily a function of the level of resources available to the person in question. eg: Time, Money, etc. Katz may have plenty of time to read the ditritus, in fact, its probably a requirement in his new age fad-dish writing industry -- to know who is readership is and what they want to hear. This does not entitle him to preach to the rest of the world about how they should or should not read.
test
I atleast would buy a Rio. It is light, shockproof, and can sport a reasonable collection of music. This is perfect for when I workout. I also suspect the internals hold up just fine because it has no moving parts, but the Rio looks chinsy on the outside. As for the sound quality, I couldn't give a rats ass. MP3 is extremely close to CD quality as far as the human ear can tell. The fact of the matter is that the headphones (or speakers) you use contribute far more noise and distortion than the difference between digital technologies. I'm not going to be lugging around large headphones, I'm going to be using those little cheap 'sports' type headphones for the most part.
This combined with the fact that I have a rather large collection of mp3s, means that the Rio makes far more sense than a Minidisc. The only place where i'd really use a minidisc, would be on a long trip. You are essentially bound to your PC if you wish to swap music. I also would not recommend a minidisc to the rest of the world, but for my specific needs and wants its just about perfect. I just wish they'd clean up the design a bit.
MS is very capable of killing software companies, but its interest and power to kill services such as Yahoo is pretty weak. The name of the game with MS is to prevent marginalization of their platform. That is to say, that they will do their best to insure that all usefull products are exclusively operable on the windows platform. Thats why they've killed Netscape. That why they're promoting DirectX (over GL) in a big way. Thats why they've tried to push Real Audio out of the picture and replace it with their own standard. Not because they like it. Not because they really believe that their standard will deliver higher performance to their customer. They want to make it very hard to switch platforms without loosing a whole lot of software.
Netscape is(or was) essentially a service. The majority of their profits have come from NetCenter, which is an internet portal much like Yahoo. It comes preconfigured in Netscape browsers to load it automatically, so NetCenter gets lots of traffic. As MS gains browser market share, Netcenter will lose corresponding proportions. MS can just as easily force out certain online sites with this kind of muscle. While I can hardly see it being in their interest to rape eBay or Amazon, I wouldn't say this for other sites. Lets say that mp3.com starts to gain popularity via word of mouth, and MS decides that this mp3 technology further marginalizes Windows. A few changes to their preconfigured 'portal', and you're on some alternative music site which just happens to only serve up clips in the latest propietary MS audio encoding format. This is pretty significant power.
I never claimed my statement to be a rational argument. Secondly, I made two fairly obvious typos, that is not the end of the world. I'm sick of incomplete and incoherant arguments that claim to prove that IP is unneccessary and detrimental to society on the aggregate. My typos do not directly degrade my point. The author, and those who espouse similar notions, was writing an essay, whereas I was just writing a quick response. These require different levels of proof reading and structure. If you care to defend this author, defend the content. The act of bringing a few typos in my tirade to light does absolutely nothing to repair such a flawed piece of work.
I find it really hard to believe that this guy is a VC. The fact that he'd use Red Hat and companies that don't even have presence yet to support his argument that a non-IP world can work, demonstrates his ignorance. Look at what Red Hat has contributed: a few tk interfaces, gnome, installation menus, etc. While I like Red Hat and I believe that they make an important contribution to Linux, one must remember that their actual man hours(dollars) invested into software development is pretty damn small. They're paying about 3 or 4 developers for gnome, rather meager salaries at that. Furthermore, Red Hat is just a startup company, there is no proof that this business model is even viable. They're still a private company, no one except the few equity holders have seen their financial statements. This argument would be equivelent to trumpeting Yahoo's young execs as proof that young inexperienced kids can run a mature business, only worse.
Intellectual Property is a neccessity to maintain today's rate of innovation, It shouldn't even require argument. While a few ignorant fools may trumpet Red Hat as proof that a company can survive without 'owning' any IP, they do not even address weather or not it is capable of supplanting classic capitalism. There are so many flaws in their 'argument', that it is laughable. However, I'll save my breath -- because I know that 98% of the readers on
Most of Adam Smith's theories still hold today. While it may be true that the US has adopted Keynesian economic policy and a few other ideas, these for the most part leave Smith in place. His arguments for intellectual property still very much hold. I have no objection with a group of people who wish to collaborate to create free software, in fact, I support it. However, I take extreme exception to people who would attempt to abolish all forms of intellectual property. This demonstrates ignorance to me. Atleast if they're going to espouse these ideas, they can demonstrate that they've read some economic texts, not just FSF propaganda. The problem with people that advocate destruction of IP, is that they don't have it all together thought out. I don't have time to get into it, but one of the biggest problems is that there is some considerable need to reward to innovator.
While many geeks may be happy with 'free software', I can't think of any 'free' software that really serves the end users' needs and wants. How does this help people? This of course goes well beyond just software. More significant industries are ones where large investments are required to bring a product to market. Such as the Medical technology industry. The arguments against intellectual property in MedTech may appear to be superficially stronger than it is in software, because people can theoretically be priced out of treatment. Most MedTech markets take millions of dollars to research, more to develop, and more to get through the FDA, not to mention liability issues. There is a great deal of risk involved, you simply need intellectual property, or you will destroy 99% of the MedTech advancements. Without the 'government granted' intellectual property monopoly, the money would never be spent on MedTech research. Not only do the companies need a chance to recoop their direct investment but you need to look at the industry on the larger scale. The fact is that like 1 out of 10 of these ventures fail, those ventures which succeed must pay off a great deal. While many geeks froth at the mouth in the defence of free software, yet they don't contribute to worthy causes such as Aids research. Even if they did, the available research dollars would be a fraction of what they are now.
"Any property that must be propped up by the State is not property in my book."
This includes a great deal beyond just intellectual property. This would include land ownership, enforcement of contracts, etc. A 'pure' system, would be anarchy. A system where only might makes right. Without government enforcement the system simply would not operate as smoothly as it does. In regards to the intellectual property issues, please do yourself a favor and read some Adam Smith. Without his research our current system today would not be in existance.
This article is not anti-mp3 by any stretch of the imagination. He is analytically evaluating the commercial possibilities of mp3. I have been an #mp3 op on irc (undernet) for 3 or 4 years now, and I must agree with most of what he said. The Diamond Rio is not for the main stream and mp3.com is not going to make the big bucks. Mp3s will only thrive in certain niche groups. eg: college students and technically literate individuals who have convienient access to illegal mp3 copies, nerds, anti-establishment types, people who want to sample small bands, etc. I'd say the compressed internet distribution method will live on, even if mp3 dies. Like he points out, mp3 is just a means to an end. I don't imagine marginally superior encoding technologies supplanting the existing fringe mp3 user base.
However, mp3s as it stands now it simply can not supplant audio CDs. It needs broad commercial support. It will only make it big if one can go to a certain web site and download(or purchase) just about everything they want. There is nothing technically wrong with the mp3 format, or the current mp3 playback devices. The problem is the distribution method. There is no central place where the uninitiated can go and find what they want, when they want it. While the recording industry will never be able to effectively stamp out the fringe mp3 crowd, as long as it keeps up the pressure, it can make mp3s undesirable for the average user. Thus I would not bet the farm on mp3.com.
I can easily see some alternative format coming into the commercial market like gang busters. While the recording industry is not omnipotent, I think it would be foolish to under estimate their power. Given the fact that mp3s will not take the industry any time soon, it is just a matter of time before something else slips in. The recording industry knows that it needs to find a way to slip its foot in the Internet door. I don't believe it would be too hard for them to do so. With a minimal investment, they could collaborate and setup ONE central online music site on the internet. Put everything they have into that format, and make it readily available. They would probably also have to give the market confidence that they plan on sticking with it. And they'd probably have to make the media cheaper than CDs to encourage growth. But I could see it happening. All they'd need is to find some niche consumer market, and hardware manufacturers would jump in. Hell, with Sony and what not a member of RIAA they'd probably have a model developed before the site is even up.
hahah