While it may a sys-admin may technically be called the end user, this is not the definition I intended. However, there are plenty of people who administrate systems who do not find text based interfaces an acceptable solution. This is why NT is winning over small offices. While I agree that Linux is vastly superior to NT, it is the software companies' ultimate duty to satiate the person who makes the purchasing decision.
Gnome is quite nice, but they're still behind the eight ball. RedHat is paying for this. They are technically a for profit company. While Gnome may be under GPL, continued work depends on the success of RedHat. Since Red Hat can not profit directly from the creation of Gnome, they are going to have to depend on their support and 'convience' operation growing. I have my doubts about both of these. If Linux matures, and Red Hat code becomes the standard, I assure you companies will come in and 'borrow' all of RedHat's GPLd code. All they'd have to do is stick it on CD, and write their own manual. The support thing is shaky.
Red Hat also does not have a great deal a capital. Given the fact that Gnome is driven 99% by RedHat's capital, how do you expect projects like these to compete with larger firms that have far larger profit margins.
I think a pure 'free' software system would fail miserably. I think the system is fine just the way it is now. Both 'free' and commercial software can operate side by side uninhibited by one another, for the most part.
Free software simply doesn't exist for the same reasons that commercial software does. Free software exists for coders, by coders. It exists to 'scratch an itch', the developers itch. Commercial software exists to make money, the only way to do that is by filling customers needs. Where customers have needs, there is money, more often than not. Where there is money, there will be software.
The same can not be said for free software. Free software exists only at the pleasure of the coder. While there may on occassion be some intersection, between what the rest of the world wants and what the coder codes, it is slim by its very nature.
Can you name one piece of free software that meets the end users needs and wants, and does a better job of it than commercial software? While Linux is a great system, it is a system that appeals to a very small segment of the population, a segment which has a great deal in common with the coders. It is most certainly not intended to be easy to use or setup. Technical merits come before ease of use issues in linux. The whole recent wave of 'end userness' (user friendliness) in Linux is essentially a fad. The free software community desperately wants to prove itself, to slay the beast that is Microsoft. It is not a natural component. Nor is the flood of recently announced free end user applications. eg: Office suites, etc. How many free developers are really interested in weather or not Joe Executive can do his work under free software.
Anyhow, I dont have enough time to finish this thread....good bye;)
Marx may have popularized socialism, but he was by no means the definitive author of it. While RMS may lean into the communist camp, his basic philosophy has a great deal in common with socialist philosophy. It is socialist to the extent that he believes that their should be no private intellectual property. He also believes such a system can work. Either that, or he'd rather have a mediocre 'free' system, than a thriving restrictive one.
Weather or not Stallman advocates governmental enforcement of his philosophy is irrelevant to me. What I will say, is that for a man who believes in 'freedom', he says alot of stuff to the contrary. If he could have it his way, people would not be able to enter into contractual relations(licenses). I do not regard this as freedom. Neither do I see the ability of an individual to protect his source code as a detriment to society. The alternative, no protection, is much worse.
RMS doesn't represent America. No one does, but particularly not RMS. His very beliefs conflict with the entreprenuerial spirit which is heavily ingrained into american culture. If anything, France and other countries lean closer towards RMS' beliefs. It is essentially a socialist philosophy.
However, I agree with you. The whole freedom of software argument doesn't hold any water. Nothing I code on my own actually detracts from anyone's life. While my license or usage restrictions might be somewhat restrictive, you still have a choice. You can buy it, or you can find an alternative. If my 'restrictive' software simply didn't exist you would be no further along. In fact, I'd say free software would be no where if it weren't able to latch on to advances made by the commercial software industry. The free software alternatives come along slower. To RMS this may be preferable, having absolute freedom over the software he uses, even if that means that he doesn't get software as soon, if at all. This is simply not acceptable to me.
Due process has not failed here. Not only is Mitnick a criminal and a punk, but he is directly at fault for his current situation. He waived his right to a speedy trial. He was convicted of crimes previously. Before his current imprisonment he ran from the law. What is the law supposed to do? If not imprisoned during the trial, he would run. He has already demonstrated a willingness to run. He has no stable job. He has no strong family ties. There is nothing to keep him at home.
What is a society to do, given the fact that you yourself admit that their should be penalties? All that can be offered is due process, and that has not failed here.
The media enjoys a qualified privilege in defamation cases. Basically this means that they're protected wether or not the information is true, as long as they published without malice or reckless disregard as to the validity of what they publish. Both of these are very hard to show in court.
This combined with the fact that Mitnick is a criminal with previous convictions makes his case laughable.
Did you ever consider that perhaps Dell can't live, or thrive, without MS. I covered this in the above thread, but basically. What really sets Dell apart from the rest of the OEMs is deals and 'understandings' with the likes of MS. What it boils to is essentially a symbiotic relationship. The name brand recognition is overplayed, only in the short run would this work and allow them to retain the same profit margins.
The argument that the destruction of the MS monopoly would be in the interest of Dell is weak. Any price reductions in software would immediatly be matched by their competition, they wouldn't enjoy significantly higher margins. The only thing that allows Dell to keep its market share in the long term is the existence of MS. If RedHat became the de facto OS, it would most likely be a pretty flat price for all OEMs. It would marginalize Dell relative to competition. They would lose their market share, and hence their profits would shrink.
I'd say Dell and MS have a symbiotic relationship, only MS doesn't depend heavily on Dell. If you think about it, what really sets Dell apart from the rest of the OEMs? A name brand, sure. But how about prices? None of these OEMs really have propietary technology of their own, none of them have any particular magic that can't be done by the rest of the pack. While Dell is high volume, it doesn't make THAT big of a difference in terms of hardware. I suspect Dell and MS have a mutual understanding of sorts. Dell promotes MS, and MS gives them price reductions, software deals, and what not. If Dell angers MS, MS can screw them. It is a stick and carrot approach, and a very effective one at that. Dell needs every break it can get or they'll be swallowed. It wouldn't do Dell any good to squeal to the Feds because this would permanently ruin the relationship. An injunction against MS may free them of the stick, but they can't do without that carrot. Dell's latest linux moves are just P.R., I wouldn't be suprised if MS gave them the nod.
I am not the least bit impressed by this article. The poster on/. hailed it as addressing Linux FUD, but I don't see it. He briefly touched on what is common knowledge, that MS uses FUD very effectively. He supposedly dispelled Linux FUD, but it was very superficial coverage. I am no fan of MS, but come on. Today getting on the internet from Windows 95 on MOST isps is as simple as entering your local POPs #, login, and passwd. Now granted, MS enjoys the benefit of being the standard and they also enjoy their clout, but this is a significant aid for the average user none the less. While Linux can be configured to work with just about any ISP, it takes a significant amount of time.
However, the main flaws in OSS and Linux are more fundamental than merely the status quo of today's Linux. They are inherant structural flaws in the OSS development method. This kind of attack is hard to argue, and it relies mostly on intuition and reason. I believe that Linux's lack of user friendly features is a shadow of the true nature of OSS development, not something that time will ever address entirely. OSS, as described by ESR, exists to 'scratch an itch'. It doesn't take a great leap of faith to assume that it is the developers itch that is getting scratched. Neither does it take a leap to assume that OSS developers are different from the rest of the world. Thus their needs, 'itches', are different as well. An experienced hacker doesn't code an intuitive and coherant graphical help system to help himself. He may do it to prove a point, that Linux can be user friendly, but I don't believe this is an integral feature of OSS. Once this point is 'proved', then what. What keeps the hacker asking, "What does the user want?" I have strong doubts about OSS' ability to meet and sustain the needs and wants of the average user. Both in quantitative and qualitive aspects.
I also think that people need to bear in mind that software is not a static thing. Commercial software will continue to raise the bar and mix things up. It is not as if OSS can slowly rise to level of commercial software. It must move rapidly if it is to have any chance of supplanting commercial products in any arena.
Do you believe that OSS could thrive if all code contributions were anonymous? The more code, the more niches, the more anonymous each author really becomes. Alot of coding is drudgery, its not as if writing say tax software is a major challenge. It is not as if this will earn you major hacker credits in the community.
OSS tries to meet the developers needs. These needs are different than the end users. While you may see some push by OSS developers towards the end user, I believe, if success is ever had, the developers will get apathetic. The only thing keeping OSS interests somewhat inline with the rest of the worlds' is the desire to 'prove itself'. All of this is of course assuming that OSS gets this far, and I have serious doubts about that as well.
I know precisely what man pages are, and how to use them. But what other documentation does the OSS world offer. A hand full of HOW-TOs, a few RFCs, etc. There is no central repository. Its nothing close to being user friendly. How else do you think O'Rielly sells so many books?
Are you really going to tell me that man and vi are viable alternatives for the average computer user? Sure, they could learn it, but they don't want to.
Software developers, and especially OSS developers, are a different breed. To say that their needs and wants are identical to the needs and wants of the other 95% of the software market is foolish. How many OSS developers really spend a great deal of time doing financial planning? Or working with CAD systems? Most of these people are in the SOFTWARE industry, or at the very least in the computer industry. They have some form of technical training. Contrast this with the needs of the average accountant, salesman, clerk, businessman, etc.
Almost by definition, the OSS developers have more time than they know what to do with. This alone sets them miles apart from many people that I know. You try telling a 'real' succesfull entreprenuer that he has enough time to develop software in his free time. To many people the statement that they have enough time to work and tend to their family is laughable. These people don't have the time to mess around installing and learning Linux. And they most certainly don't have the time to develop software.
In other words, if OSS does indeed exist to scratch an itch, it will never exist where the developers never have an itch. Put simply, one market which will totally escape them is the needs of the business executive. There are many many more, I assure you.
RMS and co. seem to believe that 'free software' is capable of supplanting commercial software entirely. By success, I mean that they would prove this empirically. This would mean that 'free' software would be a viable and superior alternative in most sectors. In other words, you would need 'free' games like quake 3. You would need free MRP systems. Free Real Video. Free 3d graphics APIs. Free music compression technology similar to mp3. You would need free word processors that can compete feature by feature with Word if this is what consumers want. Etc, Etc, Etc.....
I agree with you for the most part. The computer industry will continue to evolve at a rapid rate, and thus it will constantly present a number of challenging technical obstacles for software developers. However, I have my doubts that OSS will continue to be popular once it has already 'succeeded'.
The question you really have to ask yourself is: Do you think Open Source could survive today if all work HAD to be contributed anonymously? I, for one, do not believe this to be the case. While OSS developers may still continue to attack certain problems, it will be problems that appeal to them only in the most personal sense. Not the kind of broad scale supplantation that RMS and others seem to hope for.
Another point, although off topic, is my beef with 'innovation' and OSS. I don't believe that OSS is neccessarily innovative. I certainly can't point to many empirical examples. Furthermore, I think most people are basically motivated by self interest. Sure, you can point to Linux. But this was a collaborative effort by neccessity, Linus himself couldn't have gotten anywhere without the Open Source Community. But what about projects that simply don't need a huge community. Lets say if you have a really great idea, and you know with reasonable certainty that you can make millions off of it if you and your buddy spend the next couple of months developing it. Are you really going to consider giving this to the public for free. I don't think most people are. I can't think of any OSS luminaries who have done so either. Even RMS can't claim he has done so. Emacs, gcc, etc, are all nice, but I don't think he ever had the opportunity to make commercial profits from them.
While this help may be precise and accurate, you try telling this to the end user. This format is not sufficient for 95% of the population. Secondly, man pages tend to be a little less than complete. When is the last time you ever heard of anyone learning C based on the man files?
The 'user friendly' aspect of this is just one of my points. My central issue with OSS is that is has divergent interests. That is, the developers and the end users have different needs and wants. For this reason, you'll never see easily digestible documentation. You'll never see OSS MRP systems. Etc, Etc, Etc. Now sure, some projects might happen to be OSS, but they won't be the driving force behind the product.
If OSS is indeed created the scratch an itch, the developers itch, how do needs that the developers don't have get met? Do you really believe that there are enough talented developers in every possible niche in all aspects of each software package to meet those various needs. eg: built in help systems. While developers and those fluent in the ways of computers may not mind reading a singular large piece of documentation, or reading many differently incoherants pieces of documentation, alot of people do. I do not believe that it is essentially impossible for these needs to be met, not merely improbable. For this to happen, the end users needs and the developers needs must converge into one. While there may be some effort to make Linux and what not more user friendly, I do not believe it will be obtained and sustained. OSS developers are essentially trying to prove a point. When that point is 'proven', that OSS software can be every bit as functional as commercial software, I believe it will die down.
I do not believe that today's OSS is truely a 'gift economy'. Linus and other hackers write because they enjoy doing so, the giving part is small part of it in my opinion. They enjoy a certain amount of prestige, they enjoy the opportunity to be part of something big, etc. The question is, what happens when Linus and those who would follow in his footsteps merely dissolve into the background. When they no longer have anything tangible to prove and they no longer enjoy the lime light, will they still produce? It essentially will become a chore, and one that people will ultimately avoid.
While it may be true that a company will 'hold back' certain technologies on occassion, there are normally reasons for it beyond just the desire to maximize short term profits. Additionally, it is not as if their patent on it really holds advancement back for any extended period. IBM owned the PC industry, Compaq sliced and diced them and came up with compatible machines.
Earlier in this thread, someone pointed out that GM has had efficient internal combustion engines for some time, but didn't bother introducing them until the 1970's. The fact of the matter is that demand for efficient machines before that 1970's didnt really exist. Only when the oil crisis hit did people really begin to think about it. My point is basically, that even if this technology was 'open and free' it wouldn't have been implimented anyways. You simply can't force people to use it. If it were 'open and free', there wouldn't have been any incentive for the auto industry to invest the millions that they have in new and better ways.
Furthermore, many times the latest advancement or tweak isn't really in the interest of the greater population. There is a thing known as standards. While IBM did not get everything 'right' or 'fastest' when they created their PCs, they did set a standard. Eventually, Compaq reverse engineering their bios and was able to replicate the entire platform. It essentially became an 'open' standard. This has led to tremendous advances in personal computing. Even today, there are faster platforms and machines nipping at the PC industries heels. Yet the world sticks with this standard. While I agree that there are many things wrong with it, I do not think we would be aided in any way by an industry which only follows the latest and fastest. Anyways, these alternative platforms keep the PC industry on its heels.
The fact of the matter is that this withholding of technology doesn't just happen in commercial industry. Witness IPv4 vs IPv6. IPv4 has served us fairly well, but IPv6 is really the better protocol. Yet IPv6 has not been implimented. Linus has frequently rejected the latest and 'best' techniques in favor of the tried and true standard. You can only reinvent the wheel so many times before you begin to break the greater machine.
I would also go on to point out the fact that "Open Source" is not an "Open Standard", many people seem to think it is. This is simply not the case. Except for the internet RFCs, there are very few 'standards' in the open source world that seem to be fully met. The Linux world has yet to agree on a single widget set or desktop for X -- all of these are open source. There are more examples -- but I haven't thought of all of them. One thing I'm sure of, is that if Linux does really take off, we will see problems like these grow(amongst the open source community). I would say it is Linus' common sense and his control over the Linux kernel that has made it a success.
Sengan is clueless - he subscribes to anything pro-'free', regardless of how contrived or poorly written. I was writing a good in depth reply for this thread but X actually crashed on me while writing it, so scratch that.
Classic economic texts don't assume a zero sum economy either. Zero sum would imply that nothing new is being created, and that all transactions are merely trading previous existing things of equal value. This is simply not the case, empirically or by classic theory. The author seems to complete skip the theory of value added. And he fails to draw any meaningfull conclusions about what he admits is a growing free market economy. This 'growing economy' is essentially a measure of what has been added -- a hell of alot. Thousands of new goods, services, and ideas are produced every day.
How exactly is it that Linus giving his code away for free 'adds' something to this world, yet AT&T creating Unix isn't. In one case, nothing is paid. In the other, some nominal fee is applied. I can see him arguing possibly, in his own screwed up logic, that 'more' value is created by Linus. But how is it that AT&T adds nothing. They charge you a few bucks, and in return you get a kick ass OS. If the money you pay and the OS are worth the exact same amount of money, then the transaction would probably not occur. The other possibility is that the item in the other party's hand is simply worth more to you, than your money is. While you may sacrifice a little of your money to obtain it, it doesn't cancel out the softwares existence. The author is playing with semantics, but he's not following any logic.
Maybe I just have too much money, but so what. To me this technology is usefull, if you don't like it, don't buy it. The fact of the matter is that for people like me, renting videos/laserdisks/dvds is a pain in the ass. I frequently rack up late fees far in excess of the divx rental fee. Its a matter of simple math for me, DIVX is cheaper.
I can see some concern about being stuck with a DIVX player if the company goes belly up. But my worry, although minimal, is really only cost of the machine and that of hassle. For approximately 100 dollars extra, I can get DVD functionality too.
I also see some advantages in availability of titles. It may very well be that video rental stores that carry DIVX will keep all titles in stock. Given the fact that the disks themselves have no value, and they can be produced very cheaply. It would make more sense for them to buy 100 divx cds of the latest hit at 50 cents or whatever a pop then to risk turning away potential customers.
While I would prefer a non-propietary solution, I'm willing to accept this 'risk'. They'll never totally corner the market anyways, with other technologies rolling out at a break neck pace, they'll be forced to lower their margins.
If it is elistist to demand proper communication, then I am by all means elitist.
Most of what Rowan said was _obvious_ to the informed individual. To the uninformed individual there is no argument supporting his positions. He certainly does not have the kind of clout for anyone to just take his word for it. The point is that this paper really has no point. Other than something for 15 year old slashdotters to clammor around.
For example, while he does point out that there is a lack of unity in window managers he doesn't really offer a good reason why there should be. Or the fact that "Open development" might actually have a few inherant flaws. While some believe that "Open Source is the ultimate standard", I would beg to differ. Empirical evidence backs me up on this, eg: window managers, GUI libraries, etc. Just because you release your source, does not mean people will rally around yours. It takes a great deal more than this. This is one strength that the corporate world has enjoyed.
When IBM entered the PC market, there were already many other machines out there. All of them incompatible. IBM became THE standard virtually overnight. The writing was on the wall, virtually everyone knew it. IBM had sufficient clout to make it happen. While some may argue that the IBM PC was not the optimal platform, I'll still argue that this was the best thing for the industry and the end user. Having ONE platform, meant that individuals and companies could code for ONE platform and be able to rely on it still being there when they're done. Companies could develop sound cards, and video cards, etc. As the market grew, IBM compatibles started rolling in... Overall this was a good thing.
This is one quality that the Open Source movement lacks simply lacks. This is in some ways a desirable feature. Perhaps some will say there is a certain amount of personal clout that will achieve the same effect. That RMS, Torvalds, Raadt, and co. can bring similar forces to bear. While this may be true to some extent, I do not believe it is anything as close. There will still be significant fragmentation.
Let us imagine if the Linux community wanted to create ONE 3d graphics API, sort of like OpenGL, only absolutely free. There is a certain neccessity for unity if we desire hardware accelerated video cards. I suspect it would never happen, atleast not on a large enough basis to really compete with the alternatives such as OpenGL. You would still have Joe Schmoe, saying. Hey wait, I can do it just a little bit better. And a few bleeding edge types who say 'you know, he's right'. This happens all the time. Unlike the commercial market Joe Schmoe is coding for his own personal edification, not for profits. The fact that he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell in getting it off the ground won't deter him. The end result is fragmentation, and maybe excessive fragmentation.
My point is not that Linux, or OSS sucks. Rather that OSS has certain qualities. Not all of them are optimal. I wish people would speak frankly about these issues, so maybe they can be addressed. I'm sick of hearing 'arguments', that all needs will be meet(and better than the commercial markets) because 'if there is an itch, someone will scratch it'. This is not an argument, it is conjecture. Let us think as individuals, don't just take RMS' words at face value.
If you are trying to spread your ideas than the optimal form is in the most logical order. As I stated earlier in the thread, it wasn't the typos, spelling mistakes, or minor grammer errors that bothered me. It was the basic structure, or lack thereof. Most people will simply stop reading an article this poorly written. It was less than optimal to say the least. To compound the error the author has no programming credentials and no authority that will compel the majority of people, even Red Dotters, to pay heed to your words. When one is in such a situation, one's best bet is to make a strong, clear, and concise argument. Proper grammer is a plus.
This essay was poorly formed. It rambled on with no real direction. There was no real argument made, and damn little evidence given. It wouldn't matter much if this were written in French, German, or what have you. I can tolerate mispellings, a few overly literal translations, etc. I definetly get the indication that this person has next to no experience writing essays and argumentation. Hence, I assume him to be young. I did not say that the writer was neccessarily unintelligent. His product, however, is essentially worthless in my opinion.
That article was a total waste of my time. It is poorly written, poorly structured, and poorly supported. Granted there is a language barrier, but even in his native tongue it would still be shoddy. He sounds like he is 14 years old. Please don't post 'essays' like this!
I could easily see the creator getting away with it. Depending on the manner in which the news of the GUID case was broken. If they published it before the FBI could get a search warrant, they'll have no hard evidence. Unless AOL is able to produce logs of his email, phone records confirming it, etc. All he needs to do is say that someone hex edited the files to frame him. It is entirely possible and certainly this enters within the domain of reasonable doubt.
Slashdot Mirror
While it may a sys-admin may technically be called the end user, this is not the definition I intended. However, there are plenty of people who administrate systems who do not find text based interfaces an acceptable solution. This is why NT is winning over small offices. While I agree that Linux is vastly superior to NT, it is the software companies' ultimate duty to satiate the person who makes the purchasing decision.
Gnome is quite nice, but they're still behind the eight ball. RedHat is paying for this. They are technically a for profit company. While Gnome may be under GPL, continued work depends on the success of RedHat. Since Red Hat can not profit directly from the creation of Gnome, they are going to have to depend on their support and 'convience' operation growing. I have my doubts about both of these. If Linux matures, and Red Hat code becomes the standard, I assure you companies will come in and 'borrow' all of RedHat's GPLd code. All they'd have to do is stick it on CD, and write their own manual. The support thing is shaky.
Red Hat also does not have a great deal a capital. Given the fact that Gnome is driven 99% by RedHat's capital, how do you expect projects like these to compete with larger firms that have far larger profit margins.
I think a pure 'free' software system would fail miserably. I think the system is fine just the way it is now. Both 'free' and commercial software can operate side by side uninhibited by one another, for the most part.
Free software simply doesn't exist for the same reasons that commercial software does. Free software exists for coders, by coders. It exists to 'scratch an itch', the developers itch. Commercial software exists to make money, the only way to do that is by filling customers needs. Where customers have needs, there is money, more often than not. Where there is money, there will be software.
The same can not be said for free software. Free software exists only at the pleasure of the coder. While there may on occassion be some intersection, between what the rest of the world wants and what the coder codes, it is slim by its very nature.
Can you name one piece of free software that meets the end users needs and wants, and does a better job of it than commercial software? While Linux is a great system, it is a system that appeals to a very small segment of the population, a segment which has a great deal in common with the coders. It is most certainly not intended to be easy to use or setup. Technical merits come before ease of use issues in linux. The whole recent wave of 'end userness' (user friendliness) in Linux is essentially a fad. The free software community desperately wants to prove itself, to slay the beast that is Microsoft. It is not a natural component. Nor is the flood of recently announced free end user applications. eg: Office suites, etc. How many free developers are really interested in weather or not Joe Executive can do his work under free software.
Anyhow, I dont have enough time to finish this thread....good bye
Marx may have popularized socialism, but he was by no means the definitive author of it. While RMS may lean into the communist camp, his basic philosophy has a great deal in common with socialist philosophy. It is socialist to the extent that he believes that their should be no private intellectual property. He also believes such a system can work. Either that, or he'd rather have a mediocre 'free' system, than a thriving restrictive one.
Weather or not Stallman advocates governmental enforcement of his philosophy is irrelevant to me. What I will say, is that for a man who believes in 'freedom', he says alot of stuff to the contrary. If he could have it his way, people would not be able to enter into contractual relations(licenses). I do not regard this as freedom. Neither do I see the ability of an individual to protect his source code as a detriment to society. The alternative, no protection, is much worse.
RMS doesn't represent America. No one does, but particularly not RMS. His very beliefs conflict with the entreprenuerial spirit which is heavily ingrained into american culture. If anything, France and other countries lean closer towards RMS' beliefs. It is essentially a socialist philosophy.
However, I agree with you. The whole freedom of software argument doesn't hold any water. Nothing I code on my own actually detracts from anyone's life. While my license or usage restrictions might be somewhat restrictive, you still have a choice. You can buy it, or you can find an alternative. If my 'restrictive' software simply didn't exist you would be no further along. In fact, I'd say free software would be no where if it weren't able to latch on to advances made by the commercial software industry. The free software alternatives come along slower. To RMS this may be preferable, having absolute freedom over the software he uses, even if that means that he doesn't get software as soon, if at all. This is simply not acceptable to me.
What, you thought MS actually does software research?
Due process has not failed here. Not only is Mitnick a criminal and a punk, but he is directly at fault for his current situation. He waived his right to a speedy trial. He was convicted of crimes previously. Before his current imprisonment he ran from the law. What is the law supposed to do? If not imprisoned during the trial, he would run. He has already demonstrated a willingness to run. He has no stable job. He has no strong family ties. There is nothing to keep him at home.
What is a society to do, given the fact that you yourself admit that their should be penalties? All that can be offered is due process, and that has not failed here.
The media enjoys a qualified privilege in defamation cases. Basically this means that they're protected wether or not the information is true, as long as they published without malice or reckless disregard as to the validity of what they publish. Both of these are very hard to show in court.
This combined with the fact that Mitnick is a criminal with previous convictions makes his case laughable.
Did you ever consider that perhaps Dell can't live, or thrive, without MS. I covered this in the above thread, but basically. What really sets Dell apart from the rest of the OEMs is deals and 'understandings' with the likes of MS. What it boils to is essentially a symbiotic relationship. The name brand recognition is overplayed, only in the short run would this work and allow them to retain the same profit margins.
The argument that the destruction of the MS monopoly would be in the interest of Dell is weak. Any price reductions in software would immediatly be matched by their competition, they wouldn't enjoy significantly higher margins. The only thing that allows Dell to keep its market share in the long term is the existence of MS. If RedHat became the de facto OS, it would most likely be a pretty flat price for all OEMs. It would marginalize Dell relative to competition. They would lose their market share, and hence their profits would shrink.
I'd say Dell and MS have a symbiotic relationship, only MS doesn't depend heavily on Dell. If you think about it, what really sets Dell apart from the rest of the OEMs? A name brand, sure. But how about prices? None of these OEMs really have propietary technology of their own, none of them have any particular magic that can't be done by the rest of the pack. While Dell is high volume, it doesn't make THAT big of a difference in terms of hardware. I suspect Dell and MS have a mutual understanding of sorts. Dell promotes MS, and MS gives them price reductions, software deals, and what not. If Dell angers MS, MS can screw them. It is a stick and carrot approach, and a very effective one at that. Dell needs every break it can get or they'll be swallowed. It wouldn't do Dell any good to squeal to the Feds because this would permanently ruin the relationship. An injunction against MS may free them of the stick, but they can't do without that carrot. Dell's latest linux moves are just P.R., I wouldn't be suprised if MS gave them the nod.
I am not the least bit impressed by this article. The poster on
However, the main flaws in OSS and Linux are more fundamental than merely the status quo of today's Linux. They are inherant structural flaws in the OSS development method. This kind of attack is hard to argue, and it relies mostly on intuition and reason. I believe that Linux's lack of user friendly features is a shadow of the true nature of OSS development, not something that time will ever address entirely. OSS, as described by ESR, exists to 'scratch an itch'. It doesn't take a great leap of faith to assume that it is the developers itch that is getting scratched. Neither does it take a leap to assume that OSS developers are different from the rest of the world. Thus their needs, 'itches', are different as well. An experienced hacker doesn't code an intuitive and coherant graphical help system to help himself. He may do it to prove a point, that Linux can be user friendly, but I don't believe this is an integral feature of OSS. Once this point is 'proved', then what. What keeps the hacker asking, "What does the user want?" I have strong doubts about OSS' ability to meet and sustain the needs and wants of the average user. Both in quantitative and qualitive aspects.
I also think that people need to bear in mind that software is not a static thing. Commercial software will continue to raise the bar and mix things up. It is not as if OSS can slowly rise to level of commercial software. It must move rapidly if it is to have any chance of supplanting commercial products in any arena.
Do you believe that OSS could thrive if all code contributions were anonymous? The more code, the more niches, the more anonymous each author really becomes. Alot of coding is drudgery, its not as if writing say tax software is a major challenge. It is not as if this will earn you major hacker credits in the community.
OSS tries to meet the developers needs. These needs are different than the end users. While you may see some push by OSS developers towards the end user, I believe, if success is ever had, the developers will get apathetic. The only thing keeping OSS interests somewhat inline with the rest of the worlds' is the desire to 'prove itself'. All of this is of course assuming that OSS gets this far, and I have serious doubts about that as well.
I know precisely what man pages are, and how to use them. But what other documentation does the OSS world offer. A hand full of HOW-TOs, a few RFCs, etc. There is no central repository. Its nothing close to being user friendly. How else do you think O'Rielly sells so many books?
Are you really going to tell me that man and vi are viable alternatives for the average computer user? Sure, they could learn it, but they don't want to.
Software developers, and especially OSS developers, are a different breed. To say that their needs and wants are identical to the needs and wants of the other 95% of the software market is foolish. How many OSS developers really spend a great deal of time doing financial planning? Or working with CAD systems? Most of these people are in the SOFTWARE industry, or at the very least in the computer industry. They have some form of technical training. Contrast this with the needs of the average accountant, salesman, clerk, businessman, etc.
Almost by definition, the OSS developers have more time than they know what to do with. This alone sets them miles apart from many people that I know. You try telling a 'real' succesfull entreprenuer that he has enough time to develop software in his free time. To many people the statement that they have enough time to work and tend to their family is laughable. These people don't have the time to mess around installing and learning Linux. And they most certainly don't have the time to develop software.
In other words, if OSS does indeed exist to scratch an itch, it will never exist where the developers never have an itch. Put simply, one market which will totally escape them is the needs of the business executive. There are many many more, I assure you.
RMS and co. seem to believe that 'free software' is capable of supplanting commercial software entirely. By success, I mean that they would prove this empirically. This would mean that 'free' software would be a viable and superior alternative in most sectors. In other words, you would need 'free' games like quake 3. You would need free MRP systems. Free Real Video. Free 3d graphics APIs. Free music compression technology similar to mp3. You would need free word processors that can compete feature by feature with Word if this is what consumers want. Etc, Etc, Etc.....
PS: I mean 'free' as defined by RMS
I agree with you for the most part. The computer industry will continue to evolve at a rapid rate, and thus it will constantly present a number of challenging technical obstacles for software developers. However, I have my doubts that OSS will continue to be popular once it has already 'succeeded'.
The question you really have to ask yourself is: Do you think Open Source could survive today if all work HAD to be contributed anonymously? I, for one, do not believe this to be the case. While OSS developers may still continue to attack certain problems, it will be problems that appeal to them only in the most personal sense. Not the kind of broad scale supplantation that RMS and others seem to hope for.
Another point, although off topic, is my beef with 'innovation' and OSS. I don't believe that OSS is neccessarily innovative. I certainly can't point to many empirical examples. Furthermore, I think most people are basically motivated by self interest. Sure, you can point to Linux. But this was a collaborative effort by neccessity, Linus himself couldn't have gotten anywhere without the Open Source Community. But what about projects that simply don't need a huge community. Lets say if you have a really great idea, and you know with reasonable certainty that you can make millions off of it if you and your buddy spend the next couple of months developing it. Are you really going to consider giving this to the public for free. I don't think most people are. I can't think of any OSS luminaries who have done so either. Even RMS can't claim he has done so. Emacs, gcc, etc, are all nice, but I don't think he ever had the opportunity to make commercial profits from them.
While this help may be precise and accurate, you try telling this to the end user. This format is not sufficient for 95% of the population. Secondly, man pages tend to be a little less than complete. When is the last time you ever heard of anyone learning C based on the man files?
The 'user friendly' aspect of this is just one of my points. My central issue with OSS is that is has divergent interests. That is, the developers and the end users have different needs and wants. For this reason, you'll never see easily digestible documentation. You'll never see OSS MRP systems. Etc, Etc, Etc. Now sure, some projects might happen to be OSS, but they won't be the driving force behind the product.
OSS is not a be all and end all.
If OSS is indeed created the scratch an itch, the developers itch, how do needs that the developers don't have get met? Do you really believe that there are enough talented developers in every possible niche in all aspects of each software package to meet those various needs. eg: built in help systems. While developers and those fluent in the ways of computers may not mind reading a singular large piece of documentation, or reading many differently incoherants pieces of documentation, alot of people do. I do not believe that it is essentially impossible for these needs to be met, not merely improbable. For this to happen, the end users needs and the developers needs must converge into one. While there may be some effort to make Linux and what not more user friendly, I do not believe it will be obtained and sustained. OSS developers are essentially trying to prove a point. When that point is 'proven', that OSS software can be every bit as functional as commercial software, I believe it will die down.
I do not believe that today's OSS is truely a 'gift economy'. Linus and other hackers write because they enjoy doing so, the giving part is small part of it in my opinion. They enjoy a certain amount of prestige, they enjoy the opportunity to be part of something big, etc. The question is, what happens when Linus and those who would follow in his footsteps merely dissolve into the background. When they no longer have anything tangible to prove and they no longer enjoy the lime light, will they still produce? It essentially will become a chore, and one that people will ultimately avoid.
Sengan has no problem attacking others and capitalism -- blindly.
While it may be true that a company will 'hold back' certain technologies on occassion, there are normally reasons for it beyond just the desire to maximize short term profits. Additionally, it is not as if their patent on it really holds advancement back for any extended period. IBM owned the PC industry, Compaq sliced and diced them and came up with compatible machines.
Earlier in this thread, someone pointed out that GM has had efficient internal combustion engines for some time, but didn't bother introducing them until the 1970's. The fact of the matter is that demand for efficient machines before that 1970's didnt really exist. Only when the oil crisis hit did people really begin to think about it. My point is basically, that even if this technology was 'open and free' it wouldn't have been implimented anyways. You simply can't force people to use it. If it were 'open and free', there wouldn't have been any incentive for the auto industry to invest the millions that they have in new and better ways.
Furthermore, many times the latest advancement or tweak isn't really in the interest of the greater population. There is a thing known as standards. While IBM did not get everything 'right' or 'fastest' when they created their PCs, they did set a standard. Eventually, Compaq reverse engineering their bios and was able to replicate the entire platform. It essentially became an 'open' standard. This has led to tremendous advances in personal computing. Even today, there are faster platforms and machines nipping at the PC industries heels. Yet the world sticks with this standard. While I agree that there are many things wrong with it, I do not think we would be aided in any way by an industry which only follows the latest and fastest. Anyways, these alternative platforms keep the PC industry on its heels.
The fact of the matter is that this withholding of technology doesn't just happen in commercial industry. Witness IPv4 vs IPv6. IPv4 has served us fairly well, but IPv6 is really the better protocol. Yet IPv6 has not been implimented. Linus has frequently rejected the latest and 'best' techniques in favor of the tried and true standard. You can only reinvent the wheel so many times before you begin to break the greater machine.
I would also go on to point out the fact that "Open Source" is not an "Open Standard", many people seem to think it is. This is simply not the case. Except for the internet RFCs, there are very few 'standards' in the open source world that seem to be fully met. The Linux world has yet to agree on a single widget set or desktop for X -- all of these are open source. There are more examples -- but I haven't thought of all of them. One thing I'm sure of, is that if Linux does really take off, we will see problems like these grow(amongst the open source community). I would say it is Linus' common sense and his control over the Linux kernel that has made it a success.
Sengan is clueless - he subscribes to anything pro-'free', regardless of how contrived or poorly written. I was writing a good in depth reply for this thread but X actually crashed on me while writing it, so scratch that.
Classic economic texts don't assume a zero sum economy either. Zero sum would imply that nothing new is being created, and that all transactions are merely trading previous existing things of equal value. This is simply not the case, empirically or by classic theory. The author seems to complete skip the theory of value added. And he fails to draw any meaningfull conclusions about what he admits is a growing free market economy. This 'growing economy' is essentially a measure of what has been added -- a hell of alot. Thousands of new goods, services, and ideas are produced every day.
How exactly is it that Linus giving his code away for free 'adds' something to this world, yet AT&T creating Unix isn't. In one case, nothing is paid. In the other, some nominal fee is applied. I can see him arguing possibly, in his own screwed up logic, that 'more' value is created by Linus. But how is it that AT&T adds nothing. They charge you a few bucks, and in return you get a kick ass OS. If the money you pay and the OS are worth the exact same amount of money, then the transaction would probably not occur. The other possibility is that the item in the other party's hand is simply worth more to you, than your money is. While you may sacrifice a little of your money to obtain it, it doesn't cancel out the softwares existence. The author is playing with semantics, but he's not following any logic.
Maybe I just have too much money, but so what. To me this technology is usefull, if you don't like it, don't buy it. The fact of the matter is that for people like me, renting videos/laserdisks/dvds is a pain in the ass. I frequently rack up late fees far in excess of the divx rental fee. Its a matter of simple math for me, DIVX is cheaper.
I can see some concern about being stuck with a DIVX player if the company goes belly up. But my worry, although minimal, is really only cost of the machine and that of hassle. For approximately 100 dollars extra, I can get DVD functionality too.
I also see some advantages in availability of titles. It may very well be that video rental stores that carry DIVX will keep all titles in stock. Given the fact that the disks themselves have no value, and they can be produced very cheaply. It would make more sense for them to buy 100 divx cds of the latest hit at 50 cents or whatever a pop then to risk turning away potential customers.
While I would prefer a non-propietary solution, I'm willing to accept this 'risk'. They'll never totally corner the market anyways, with other technologies rolling out at a break neck pace, they'll be forced to lower their margins.
If it is elistist to demand proper communication, then I am by all means elitist.
Most of what Rowan said was _obvious_ to the informed individual. To the uninformed individual there is no argument supporting his positions. He certainly does not have the kind of clout for anyone to just take his word for it. The point is that this paper really has no point. Other than something for 15 year old slashdotters to clammor around.
For example, while he does point out that there is a lack of unity in window managers he doesn't really offer a good reason why there should be. Or the fact that "Open development" might actually have a few inherant flaws. While some believe that "Open Source is the ultimate standard", I would beg to differ. Empirical evidence backs me up on this, eg: window managers, GUI libraries, etc. Just because you release your source, does not mean people will rally around yours. It takes a great deal more than this. This is one strength that the corporate world has enjoyed.
When IBM entered the PC market, there were already many other machines out there. All of them incompatible. IBM became THE standard virtually overnight. The writing was on the wall, virtually everyone knew it. IBM had sufficient clout to make it happen. While some may argue that the IBM PC was not the optimal platform, I'll still argue that this was the best thing for the industry and the end user. Having ONE platform, meant that individuals and companies could code for ONE platform and be able to rely on it still being there when they're done. Companies could develop sound cards, and video cards, etc. As the market grew, IBM compatibles started rolling in... Overall this was a good thing.
This is one quality that the Open Source movement lacks simply lacks. This is in some ways a desirable feature. Perhaps some will say there is a certain amount of personal clout that will achieve the same effect. That RMS, Torvalds, Raadt, and co. can bring similar forces to bear. While this may be true to some extent, I do not believe it is anything as close. There will still be significant fragmentation.
Let us imagine if the Linux community wanted to create ONE 3d graphics API, sort of like OpenGL, only absolutely free. There is a certain neccessity for unity if we desire hardware accelerated video cards. I suspect it would never happen, atleast not on a large enough basis to really compete with the alternatives such as OpenGL. You would still have Joe Schmoe, saying. Hey wait, I can do it just a little bit better. And a few bleeding edge types who say 'you know, he's right'. This happens all the time. Unlike the commercial market Joe Schmoe is coding for his own personal edification, not for profits. The fact that he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell in getting it off the ground won't deter him. The end result is fragmentation, and maybe excessive fragmentation.
My point is not that Linux, or OSS sucks. Rather that OSS has certain qualities. Not all of them are optimal. I wish people would speak frankly about these issues, so maybe they can be addressed. I'm sick of hearing 'arguments', that all needs will be meet(and better than the commercial markets) because 'if there is an itch, someone will scratch it'. This is not an argument, it is conjecture. Let us think as individuals, don't just take RMS' words at face value.
If you are trying to spread your ideas than the optimal form is in the most logical order. As I stated earlier in the thread, it wasn't the typos, spelling mistakes, or minor grammer errors that bothered me. It was the basic structure, or lack thereof. Most people will simply stop reading an article this poorly written. It was less than optimal to say the least. To compound the error the author has no programming credentials and no authority that will compel the majority of people, even Red Dotters, to pay heed to your words. When one is in such a situation, one's best bet is to make a strong, clear, and concise argument. Proper grammer is a plus.
This essay was poorly formed. It rambled on with no real direction. There was no real argument made, and damn little evidence given. It wouldn't matter much if this were written in French, German, or what have you. I can tolerate mispellings, a few overly literal translations, etc. I definetly get the indication that this person has next to no experience writing essays and argumentation. Hence, I assume him to be young. I did not say that the writer was neccessarily unintelligent. His product, however, is essentially worthless in my opinion.
That article was a total waste of my time. It is poorly written, poorly structured, and poorly supported. Granted there is a language barrier, but even in his native tongue it would still be shoddy. He sounds like he is 14 years old. Please don't post 'essays' like this!
I could easily see the creator getting away with it. Depending on the manner in which the news of the GUID case was broken. If they published it before the FBI could get a search warrant, they'll have no hard evidence. Unless AOL is able to produce logs of his email, phone records confirming it, etc. All he needs to do is say that someone hex edited the files to frame him. It is entirely possible and certainly this enters within the domain of reasonable doubt.