This isn't going to change anything. Microsoft will still be able to use their monopolies to hold and gain market share in other markets. While they might be reshuffling the deck, the fact of the matter is that Bill Gates is still the dealer. Nothing meaningful is going to change unless equity interests are split up along with that.
Only when the director of the applications portion of the company is furthering share holder interests by maximizing THEIR market share will we benefit. Right now that is not so. It would not benefit MS to make a full blown Office 2000 on alternative operating systems. Doing so would do long term damage to the Microsoft monopoly. It would sacrifice long term health, in pursuit of short term benefits. It would marginalize MS operating systems relative to the competition. Making MS operating systems more replaceable, thus hurting their bottom line. Linux and Macintosh would grow faster.
I think this whole GNU/Linux thing is academic. While I have a certain amount of respect for RMS, he is only human. To me 'free software' means just that, free. He is, atleast in theory, giving something the community. Not so he can improve his reputation, but so the world can benefit. Demanding recognition is to me not much different than demanding money for services provided. While RMS may have little need for money, he does have an ego just like the rest of us. I do not believe his demanding recognition is 'wierd', I think its human. But human motivations do not strike me as being entirely in accord with the whole GNU philosophy.
I could appreciate his being concerned about what will happen to the GNU philosphy if people continue to call Linux Linux. If he believes that Linux is entirely contrary to 'free software', that would be one thing. That would be a selfless concern. That has not been that primary argument for naming Linux 'GNU/Linux'.
I think even this argument is weak. Even if people start adopting 'GNU/Linux', it will not change people. The corporate world, if forced to call it 'GNU/Linux' are not going to suddenly have an epiphany. To them, Linux and GNU seem all too similar anyways.
While Linus may not be entirely in accord with RMS' views, Linus' product is pretty damn close. People are collaborating, it is free, etc. The fact of the matter is that Linux has succeeded where Hurd hasn't. It has found a wide audience and increased the appreciation for GNU many times over.
Where do we stop splitting hairs. Is Hurd honestly going to be called "GNU/Herd". One can easily make the same argument. That while Herd might be GNU, it does not acknowledge all the other people who have produced essential GNU tools that are part of the Herd package. And how about certain contributions made to Linux by the BSD community. Does it become GNU/BSD/Linux/etc.... Its all strikes me as being rather pointless.
According to the article he holds 6 software patents. How dare he! He must be ignorant, according to many slashdotters. The thought that he might want to make a little money off of his good work. He is denying you freedom by creating anything that isn't 'free software', according to RMS. It must be detrimental to society, right?
In all seriousness. For all the talk of innovation in 'free software', I find that it doesn't keep pace with even Bell Labs.
You do have a point here. However, one major difference is that a difference in opinion isn't going to result in a division of efforts in a corporation. Atleast not under normal circumstances. There is always ONE person in charge, and a direction will be settled on. While it is true that occasionally this may result in a key individual leaving the firm, it will not result in a division of efforts.
I'm sure some of you will say that this is not true. That with Linux, Linus has the final say. While this may be technically true, there is nothing stopping say Alan Cox leaving the effort and forking the code. I think this would be damaging.
My point, here, is not that one is neccessarily better than the other. But that there are differences. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.
It is not that I think it is impossible to find any good writing on the web, I just think you are less likely. How is one to discern good journalism from the bad on an 'open' forum? Would you really trust someone on slashdot if they told you that Intel was going to file chapter 11 in the next year, unless they could back it up with a RESPECTABLE url? Honestly? I also think the concept of an editor is still a valid one. While some may find it appealing to hear from just anyone, I'd rather hear from someone who actually knows what they're talking about. And what about research? While I'm sure a few niche magazines may thrive on an internet forum, I don't think these will detract from old school magazines. While it is possible that the transition from paper to electronic news may introduce some new blood, I believe that it'll eventually set up again. What you'll be left with is a few respectable internet news sites, which are essentially 'elitist' and unreachable by 'the people'. Those who enjoy the tabloids other sites
As for the likes of Wired.com, I've had personal run-ins with them before, and I'm none too impressed with their journalistic skills. Their writing is none too impressive, it certainly offers nothing new, and their researching and checking of sources leaves alot to be desired. They'll print just about anything. When I saw the number of blatant factual errors in a few articles that I had first hand knowledge of, I swore off wired forever.
All the rainbow story served to illustrate was one characteristic of the internet, not a reason why mainstream journalists should feel threatened.
The internet IS overhyped by the mass media beyond that which it is capable of. That is my basic point.
As to the other issues, while some things may be technically feasible and while they may indeed be growing there are other limiting factors. I can see something as an internet grocer for example making off like gang busters. If done properly. But if you've ever studied marketing, you'd know that the vast majority of purchases are made on impulse. The internet simply lacks many of these impulses. So yes, I can see a busy upper middle class family making use of a grocer. In order to have certain staples delivered on a regular and scheduled basis. eg: milk, toilet paper, etc. But I don't see people taking much to the idea of buying fresh produce and a good steak online.
My main beef with Katz is his suggestion that ol school journalism and what not is going to die. While it may supplant the likes of USA today or people magazine, I can't imagine it ever replacing good solid journalism that you see in the Economist or in the New York Times. It may be that the printed magazine goes out of Vogue, and they make ultimately take to the internet, but I don't buy the fact that people are going to start reading from some communal online magazine. I get the impression that Katz pulls most of these out of his ass. He is at the very least lacking in argument. The fact that some lady with far too much time on her hands generates happy joy messages and distributes them to thousands of users over the internet does nothing to further his statement.
I see the internet more in terms of creating new forms of commerce and communication, rather than merely destroying or shifting previously existing entities. Granted, some things will get steam rollered. Such as standard snail mail, but this is already happening. I also can't envision the masses reading electronic novels in front of their computer screens. Hopefully, we'll have electronic reusable paper soon.
While I think mp3 and the internet distribution might do those lucky few some good, I still hardly imagine is being brought down to the average users level. While it may now be technically feasible to distribute your music/word/etc to the world now, there is still the issue of attracting your audience and marketing. It would be nice to see music dropping in price, but even there someone will find a way to get the lions share of the profits. At least with Popular music. The billboard charts and MTV play a huge role in capturing the limelight. Not that i'm a fan of either, but thats just how it is. I can easily envision truely small time bands scratching their way to the top on some sort of 'community supported' web site, such as slashdot. There they would rate and distribute music samples of various artists in a given genre. I'd hazard a guess, but i'd say this would probably cut out the middlemen and agents. The top dogs will still probably keep most of their cut, and if not them, then someone else.
I never said the internet is useless, merely that it is getting far more press attention then it deserves. The internet IS basically just another communications medium. Granted, it has some advantages, but it also has some draw backs. My point is not that new services won't emerge on the internet, I believe they will, but rather that day to day life and what not is not going to be changed all that much. Certainly the internet as it stands now is not all that impressive. And no, I'm not talking about bandwidth or bottlenecks, or latency, or any other physical constraints. There is something to be said for an investment of capital and time. There are millions of books and other resources that are simply not even currently accessible over the internet. Most research can not CURRENTLY be done on the internet. Unless you have an account with an expensive database service. eg: Nexis/Lexis, etc. When is the last time that you tried to get your hands on a back publication of some academic journal published in London in the 20s? There is also a problem of indexing the data. I do not believe this free for all will ever work effectively. Some entities need to put it all in one place, and index it.
I do believe that the internet is going to open the door to many niche companies and organization. For example, a database for professionals in field X. Where you might only have 100 or 200 people in every major city who can and will afford the money to pay for access. The company can now consolidate all of their resources into one server, and give access to people all over the world. I, however, don't envision seeing this happening on a large scale for the masses unless some commercial entity or the government gets behind it. Imagine the entire library of congress digitized? This, however, is only what the internet physically is capable of. It is not what it currently is right now. Which is a free for all.
I do not envision the internet entirely replacing today's book store, library, magazine, grocery store, etc in its current state. More likely you're going to see existing chains and companies simply expanding their operations more onto the internet. My problem is not that I think the internet lacks potential. My beef is that those who speak of it in the most glowing terms are usually the least knowlegable. When they describe its future, they point to all the wrong reasons. eg: Everyone in the world can communicate with everyone, yadda yadda yadda. While this may be a strength in some aspects, its a major failing in others.
I did not imply that news is the sole purpose of the internet. I have been using the internet for many years now. I believe the internet has some potential. But I view it from a rational and analytical light, rather than this emotional bubbling that it'll end inequality and bring the world closer together. It is simply another communications medium. One that perhaps facilitates small groups and individuals to spread their word more easily. eg: Open Source hackers. I was addressing the attitude that its going to take a bat to society as we know it. You might find a few new purely internet news sites that will pop up, but I assure you that the NY times, The economist, etc will still have a healthy readership. Nor do I believe that Open Source, which is effectively spawned by the internet, will kill commercial software.
In regards to your news habits, I'd be willing to bet that most of those news sources are all main stream or derivatives there of. eg: the AP, Reuters, etc. If not, I say your news is probably something less than reliable. Of course, that is your perogative, but it is also my right to speak my mind and address what I regard as blatant hype.
The internet is far too over-rated for my taste. It may bring some new things into existence, but to say that it'll neccessarily alter other aspects of life is foolish. Do people really need interactive TV? TV on demand sure, but you don't need the internet for that. Does the internet obliterate the need for proper grammer and good journalism? I think not. Wired.com, nor slashdot, nor any other strictly internet source even comes close to providing the 'news' that I need. While the internet has most definetly facilitated open source growth, I don't believe that it is going to surplant commercial/propietary software and time soon. I wish people would re-evaluate the internet, and challenge these future seers assertions. Just my.02;)
A rolex is a finely tuned instrument. The ones that you see on the street aren't even remotely similar on the inside. The same does not apply to pirated software. A byte per byte copy is the exact same thing that you get from your retail shelf, as you'd get off your nearest jaurez pups site.
How exactly do you propose for idsoftware to make money, and thus continue producing excellent games, if I can create a site called www.iripit.com. For less than 5 dollars i'll fedex you a copy of any game or software on the retail shelf.
In academia the saying is 'Publish or Perish'. While a professor or graduate student may not directly reap the benefits of his work, his job depends on it. It is still essentially about money. Once tenure is had the neccessity to publish diminishes. Furthermore, many times the university recieves monies in exchange for the rights to the work. Universities are horrible models for development. Name one finished product that has even come from a university. The allocation of resources is poor. Those who get the most funds are those with the best credentials at the best schools. As if MIT or Harvard have a monopoly on intelligence, intuition, and the like. I'd say Universities are the least equitable, and the most inefficient way to produce anything. They also discourage risk.
There is a saying: 'Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.'
When you are born do you have god given right to land, to property, etc. Are you entitled to more land than another individual? All of these concepts are inventions of society. But all of these concepts are neccessary for a healthy society. While there may be some inequity in the system, that does not mean we should abolish it entirely.
If I were to sell a piece of software and keep the source private, the only restriction being that you can't copy the binary, how would this actually take something away from your 'freedom'. Granted it may be nice if you could have it for free, but its not as if it is somehow detracting from your life style. GPL equivelents could still attempt to duplicate my product without abusive patents. The publishing and recording industry really isn't any different from the software industry. They borrow sounds and themes from each other all the time. I happen to believe that one should have the right to the product of their own mind. I do not believe that 'obvious' patents are truely a product of ones' own mind. IP is responsible for most of the major software products. GPL and open alternatives are few and lacking more often than not. How can Stallman honestly say that Joe Schmoe would be better served if no one were entitled to monopoly rents on the product of their own mind, when the 'free' industry has produced damn little that the average user is interested in? Or are you honestly going to tell me that Emacs is well suited for the average user? You might argue that 'free' software hasnt been around that long, but I atleast dont buy that argument for a minute. Many innovations have been made since, and GPL software hasn't kept pace. I don't think it ever will for a multitude of reasons.
I think the best thing that could happen for the free/open software movement would be a cleaning up of IP. eg: fix the software patent system. Restrict frivilous lawsuits. Free/open software and commercial/propietary software can coexist for the most part, they'd both be best served this way.
Get real. The fact that O'Rielly is successfull only serves to illuminate the failings of GPL and the like. Feel free to write your own meticulous documentation any time you want to. I've yet to see a SINGLE piece of free/open electronic documentation that even comes close to comparing with O'Reilly's. Do you really honestly believe that GPL'd software can and will meet every software need? I, like Tim, believe that Open licenses do have certain advantages. However, I do not believe for a minute that it will ever replace the majority of commercial/propietary software.
I would beg to differ...
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
As I stated initially better GUIs may have come along AFTER the fact. Henry Ford made the first affordable car, only to be overtaken by competition who catered to customers whims. Just as Apple made the first affordable GUI. Like it or not, it has raised, if not placed, the bar. My analogy still holds.
I also disagree about the allocation of credit to Steve Jobs, but that is entirely besides the point. It is the company that is at issue. Apple has created products that Stallman finds some value in. Stallman would LIKE to appropriate it for his 100% free/open/socialist uses. My point is that this license is in improvement. The conditions are known and published, no suprises or deceptions here. It in NO WAY takes away from anyones' freedom. They MADE something, and while you may not be able to do everything that you like with it, it in no way robs you of your personal freedom. If GNU is such a wonder machine it can create its own superior versions based entirely on unique code. It does not entitle Stallman to advocate software piracy and the like.
I do not think Stallman is elloquent or particularly rational when it comes to his 'freedom limiting' arguments. I believe that propietary/commercial software and free/open software can coexist for the most part(The only real issues are ludicrous and obvious patents and the like). If you ignore the IP abuses, there is no valid reason why they can't exist uninhibited by one another. Stallman effectively asserts that if a company sells a piece of software, and merely witholds the source code that they are some how limiting ones freedom. The only IP restrictions being that you can't copy the binaries. Without IP interference what is stopping anyone from creating their own original software? GNU has created damn little software of value. The real problem is that this ideological view does not work. It is shortsighted in a way.
Apple is definetly the innovator
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
The keyword here is innovation. Apple was THE catalyst which brought the GUI revolution. Sure Xerox, and god knows how many other companies, might have had rough GUIs at forbidding prices well before. Sure Apple borrowed the basic GUI, laser printer, mouse, etc. While Steve Jobs may not have been the master coder, it was his vision that made it happen. He PUSHED and PULLED and got the money on the table, and risked alot to make the macintosh a success. He may have failed in the long run, but you can not say that he hasn't had a positive impact on the creation of the GUI.
What is this GUI 201 that you speak of? I am no fan of MS and I never much cared for the restrictive GUI which Mac had, but this it is still this same GUI that is practically a house hold item now. That would be like saying Henry Ford doesn't deserve a mention, because:
a) previous cars existed b) there have been better cheaper cars since c) He ultimately lost out to competition
It is Henry Ford that brought the Automobile to Joe Schmoe. Likewise, Jobs can be credited in the same manner.
Regardless of the ineptitude or ineffectivity of the user, the law is still pretty clear. Should the secret service ignore a would be assasin just because he probably wouldn't be successfull?
And on your last comment, commercial speech is limited as well. Many people get taken by these scams, in fact publishers clearing house just got sued I believe.
I do not feel the need to defend myself from a twit such as yourself. But for your information, far more Europeans smoke than Americans. Secondly, you know as well as I do that the USA is responsible for 99% of the computer technology. While NT might be a product of the USA, so was AT&T Unix, so was Berkley, so is the semiconductor industry. And lets not forget Cisco. And MIT.....I could go on, but lighten up. Oh yeah, I'd be willing to bet that I am a great deal more literate than you are.
Private citizens do not enjoy an absolute privilege, unlike members of congress and those in the court room.
I could not for example, announce that I am an employee of Boeing and that management uses defective parts. This would both be untrue and publicized. It _would_ obviously hurt Boeing's shareholders, management, employees, etc. If Boeing could prove that I was never an employee, they are legally entitled to damages. Why should the government protect such speech. It would be very hard to show why a private citizen is entitled to this. The courts have decided that various entities are entitled to varying degrees of free speech. Journalists, for example, are given a great deal more latitude in their publishing standards. If they make a reasonable attempt to verify somethings validity, they are protected even if it later turns out to be untrue. Likewise the courts and various individuals in the government are protected when attending to official business. If the courts started holding Congressmen liable, they would be hestitant to challenge, try, inspect, etc.
People can get hysterical sometimes, when it comes to personal safety issues and what not. There have actually been a few perfectly good airplanes that ceased to be produced because the media and what not wrongly pinned the blame in the airframe, when in fact it was the engine.....and other issues. This is a billion dollar type of wound, its not so minor. You tell that the to employees who lose a job as a result, its not just 'the suits' who get hurt in these things.
I believe that slashdot would be protected under the standing parts of the CDA. In fact, you may expose yourself to liability, only IF you make an attempt to censor slanderous conduct. Basically it is not reasonable to expect you to monitor the behavior of private individuals. It could, and has been, argued rather easily that expecting web sites to censor would have a chilling effect on free speech. The only argument I could see is if you POSTED, like on the front page, an article that you knew to be false, and somehow made commercial profits by intentionally republishing this inflamatory content. Anyhow, I've gotta run, but I can show you some precedents when I get back.
Jobs may not have been a master hacker. But he was, as you say, a visionary. He assembled the team that brought the GUI to the end user. He made it happen plain and simple. This you can not deny.
I see OSS's historical failures as a general trend, not just something left in history. I think this slow development will continue. I have given my reasons, and I've seen a general trend that confirms this. Time will tell. I hope Linux suceeds in knocking MS down. But I suspect that if it does, it'll suceed only in cooperation with commercial outfits.
The key word here is innovation. The distinction between innovation and invention is one of the finer points of capitalism. You are right to say that PARC invented the first GUI, laser printer, networking, etc. None of these products however were ready for the real world. Most of them were pretty crude, and expensive. Steve Jobs brought these products into the real world, where they actually did people some good. You may scoff at the distinction, but it is a large one none the less.
Id software has developed a whole series of games that people have enjoyed for a long time now. These games may not have been 100% state of the art, but they've certainly done the users alot more good than Crystal Space has.
Where are the GPL'd equivelents in anything that might be regarded as fun. Where are the GPL'd Word processors......
I hate people who attempt to break down every posting into minute details in an attempt to somehow get a leg up. But...
'There will always be someone to create anything.'
^ May I quote you on this? If this is true, then why is it that everyone in Linux is awaiting the ports of all these different applications from the wintel platform.
In regards to the GUI. Xerox may have invented the GUI, but it never came anything even close to being capable of leaving the lab. Steve Jobs _made_ it a reality. This is called innovation. It is one of the finer points of capitalism. There is a world of difference between pure research and actually developing a working product. By the way, Xerox had email in PARC, they had filesharing, they had a laser printer, and many other things.
I never once said _all_ Open Source projects are predated by commercial software. I merely said that the projects were essentially inevitable. Not only that, but they are relatively few. The web was primarily a fluke.
Ok, so maybe RMS was still in academia at the time of Macintosh's development. But this does not let Free software off the hook. Why is there no half powerfull GUI word processors, spreadsheet programs, MRP systems, 3d software, first person 3d shooter games. Why is it that, gulp, NT had true SMP before Linux. Linux would not be where it was if MS wasn't such a crappy company. Why is it that most coders need to turn to O'Rielly to get sufficient documentation to learn a new language.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't going to change anything. Microsoft will still be able to use their monopolies to hold and gain market share in other markets. While they might be reshuffling the deck, the fact of the matter is that Bill Gates is still the dealer. Nothing meaningful is going to change unless equity interests are split up along with that.
Only when the director of the applications portion of the company is furthering share holder interests by maximizing THEIR market share will we benefit. Right now that is not so. It would not benefit MS to make a full blown Office 2000 on alternative operating systems. Doing so would do long term damage to the Microsoft monopoly. It would sacrifice long term health, in pursuit of short term benefits. It would marginalize MS operating systems relative to the competition. Making MS operating systems more replaceable, thus hurting their bottom line. Linux and Macintosh would grow faster.
I think this whole GNU/Linux thing is academic. While I have a certain amount of respect for RMS, he is only human. To me 'free software' means just that, free. He is, atleast in theory, giving something the community. Not so he can improve his reputation, but so the world can benefit. Demanding recognition is to me not much different than demanding money for services provided. While RMS may have little need for money, he does have an ego just like the rest of us. I do not believe his demanding recognition is 'wierd', I think its human. But human motivations do not strike me as being entirely in accord with the whole GNU philosophy.
I could appreciate his being concerned about what will happen to the GNU philosphy if people continue to call Linux Linux. If he believes that Linux is entirely contrary to 'free software', that would be one thing. That would be a selfless concern. That has not been that primary argument for naming Linux 'GNU/Linux'.
I think even this argument is weak. Even if people start adopting 'GNU/Linux', it will not change people. The corporate world, if forced to call it 'GNU/Linux' are not going to suddenly have an epiphany. To them, Linux and GNU seem all too similar anyways.
While Linus may not be entirely in accord with RMS' views, Linus' product is pretty damn close. People are collaborating, it is free, etc. The fact of the matter is that Linux has succeeded where Hurd hasn't. It has found a wide audience and increased the appreciation for GNU many times over.
Where do we stop splitting hairs. Is Hurd honestly going to be called "GNU/Herd". One can easily make the same argument. That while Herd might be GNU, it does not acknowledge all the other people who have produced essential GNU tools that are part of the Herd package. And how about certain contributions made to Linux by the BSD community. Does it become GNU/BSD/Linux/etc.... Its all strikes me as being rather pointless.
According to the article he holds 6 software patents. How dare he! He must be ignorant, according to many slashdotters. The thought that he might want to make a little money off of his good work. He is denying you freedom by creating anything that isn't 'free software', according to RMS. It must be detrimental to society, right?
In all seriousness. For all the talk of innovation in 'free software', I find that it doesn't keep pace with even Bell Labs.
PS: Where is the GPL'd Plan9 equivelent?
You do have a point here. However, one major difference is that a difference in opinion isn't going to result in a division of efforts in a corporation. Atleast not under normal circumstances. There is always ONE person in charge, and a direction will be settled on. While it is true that occasionally this may result in a key individual leaving the firm, it will not result in a division of efforts.
I'm sure some of you will say that this is not true. That with Linux, Linus has the final say. While this may be technically true, there is nothing stopping say Alan Cox leaving the effort and forking the code. I think this would be damaging.
My point, here, is not that one is neccessarily better than the other. But that there are differences. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.
It is not that I think it is impossible to find any good writing on the web, I just think you are less likely. How is one to discern good journalism from the bad on an 'open' forum? Would you really trust someone on slashdot if they told you that Intel was going to file chapter 11 in the next year, unless they could back it up with a RESPECTABLE url? Honestly? I also think the concept of an editor is still a valid one. While some may find it appealing to hear from just anyone, I'd rather hear from someone who actually knows what they're talking about. And what about research? While I'm sure a few niche magazines may thrive on an internet forum, I don't think these will detract from old school magazines. While it is possible that the transition from paper to electronic news may introduce some new blood, I believe that it'll eventually set up again. What you'll be left with is a few respectable internet news sites, which are essentially 'elitist' and unreachable by 'the people'. Those who enjoy the tabloids other sites
As for the likes of Wired.com, I've had personal run-ins with them before, and I'm none too impressed with their journalistic skills. Their writing is none too impressive, it certainly offers nothing new, and their researching and checking of sources leaves alot to be desired. They'll print just about anything. When I saw the number of blatant factual errors in a few articles that I had first hand knowledge of, I swore off wired forever.
All the rainbow story served to illustrate was one characteristic of the internet, not a reason why mainstream journalists should feel threatened.
How many times do I need to say this?
The internet IS overhyped by the mass media beyond that which it is capable of. That is my basic point.
As to the other issues, while some things may be technically feasible and while they may indeed be growing there are other limiting factors. I can see something as an internet grocer for example making off like gang busters. If done properly. But if you've ever studied marketing, you'd know that the vast majority of purchases are made on impulse. The internet simply lacks many of these impulses. So yes, I can see a busy upper middle class family making use of a grocer. In order to have certain staples delivered on a regular and scheduled basis. eg: milk, toilet paper, etc. But I don't see people taking much to the idea of buying fresh produce and a good steak online.
My main beef with Katz is his suggestion that ol school journalism and what not is going to die. While it may supplant the likes of USA today or people magazine, I can't imagine it ever replacing good solid journalism that you see in the Economist or in the New York Times. It may be that the printed magazine goes out of Vogue, and they make ultimately take to the internet, but I don't buy the fact that people are going to start reading from some communal online magazine. I get the impression that Katz pulls most of these out of his ass. He is at the very least lacking in argument. The fact that some lady with far too much time on her hands generates happy joy messages and distributes them to thousands of users over the internet does nothing to further his statement.
I see the internet more in terms of creating new forms of commerce and communication, rather than merely destroying or shifting previously existing entities. Granted, some things will get steam rollered. Such as standard snail mail, but this is already happening. I also can't envision the masses reading electronic novels in front of their computer screens. Hopefully, we'll have electronic reusable paper soon.
While I think mp3 and the internet distribution might do those lucky few some good, I still hardly imagine is being brought down to the average users level. While it may now be technically feasible to distribute your music/word/etc to the world now, there is still the issue of attracting your audience and marketing. It would be nice to see music dropping in price, but even there someone will find a way to get the lions share of the profits. At least with Popular music. The billboard charts and MTV play a huge role in capturing the limelight. Not that i'm a fan of either, but thats just how it is. I can easily envision truely small time bands scratching their way to the top on some sort of 'community supported' web site, such as slashdot. There they would rate and distribute music samples of various artists in a given genre. I'd hazard a guess, but i'd say this would probably cut out the middlemen and agents. The top dogs will still probably keep most of their cut, and if not them, then someone else.
I never said the internet is useless, merely that it is getting far more press attention then it deserves. The internet IS basically just another communications medium. Granted, it has some advantages, but it also has some draw backs. My point is not that new services won't emerge on the internet, I believe they will, but rather that day to day life and what not is not going to be changed all that much. Certainly the internet as it stands now is not all that impressive. And no, I'm not talking about bandwidth or bottlenecks, or latency, or any other physical constraints. There is something to be said for an investment of capital and time. There are millions of books and other resources that are simply not even currently accessible over the internet. Most research can not CURRENTLY be done on the internet. Unless you have an account with an expensive database service. eg: Nexis/Lexis, etc. When is the last time that you tried to get your hands on a back publication of some academic journal published in London in the 20s? There is also a problem of indexing the data. I do not believe this free for all will ever work effectively. Some entities need to put it all in one place, and index it.
I do believe that the internet is going to open the door to many niche companies and organization. For example, a database for professionals in field X. Where you might only have 100 or 200 people in every major city who can and will afford the money to pay for access. The company can now consolidate all of their resources into one server, and give access to people all over the world. I, however, don't envision seeing this happening on a large scale for the masses unless some commercial entity or the government gets behind it. Imagine the entire library of congress digitized? This, however, is only what the internet physically is capable of. It is not what it currently is right now. Which is a free for all.
I do not envision the internet entirely replacing today's book store, library, magazine, grocery store, etc in its current state. More likely you're going to see existing chains and companies simply expanding their operations more onto the internet. My problem is not that I think the internet lacks potential. My beef is that those who speak of it in the most glowing terms are usually the least knowlegable. When they describe its future, they point to all the wrong reasons. eg: Everyone in the world can communicate with everyone, yadda yadda yadda. While this may be a strength in some aspects, its a major failing in others.
Exactly
I did not imply that news is the sole purpose of the internet. I have been using the internet for many years now. I believe the internet has some potential. But I view it from a rational and analytical light, rather than this emotional bubbling that it'll end inequality and bring the world closer together. It is simply another communications medium. One that perhaps facilitates small groups and individuals to spread their word more easily. eg: Open Source hackers. I was addressing the attitude that its going to take a bat to society as we know it. You might find a few new purely internet news sites that will pop up, but I assure you that the NY times, The economist, etc will still have a healthy readership. Nor do I believe that Open Source, which is effectively spawned by the internet, will kill commercial software.
In regards to your news habits, I'd be willing to bet that most of those news sources are all main stream or derivatives there of. eg: the AP, Reuters, etc. If not, I say your news is probably something less than reliable. Of course, that is your perogative, but it is also my right to speak my mind and address what I regard as blatant hype.
The internet is far too over-rated for my taste. It may bring some new things into existence, but to say that it'll neccessarily alter other aspects of life is foolish. Do people really need interactive TV? TV on demand sure, but you don't need the internet for that. Does the internet obliterate the need for proper grammer and good journalism? I think not. Wired.com, nor slashdot, nor any other strictly internet source even comes close to providing the 'news' that I need. While the internet has most definetly facilitated open source growth, I don't believe that it is going to surplant commercial/propietary software and time soon. I wish people would re-evaluate the internet, and challenge these future seers assertions. Just my
A rolex is a finely tuned instrument. The ones that you see on the street aren't even remotely similar on the inside. The same does not apply to pirated software. A byte per byte copy is the exact same thing that you get from your retail shelf, as you'd get off your nearest jaurez pups site.
How exactly do you propose for idsoftware to make money, and thus continue producing excellent games, if I can create a site called www.iripit.com. For less than 5 dollars i'll fedex you a copy of any game or software on the retail shelf.
In academia the saying is 'Publish or Perish'. While a professor or graduate student may not directly reap the benefits of his work, his job depends on it. It is still essentially about money. Once tenure is had the neccessity to publish diminishes. Furthermore, many times the university recieves monies in exchange for the rights to the work. Universities are horrible models for development. Name one finished product that has even come from a university. The allocation of resources is poor. Those who get the most funds are those with the best credentials at the best schools. As if MIT or Harvard have a monopoly on intelligence, intuition, and the like. I'd say Universities are the least equitable, and the most inefficient way to produce anything. They also discourage risk.
There is a saying:
'Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.'
When you are born do you have god given right to land, to property, etc. Are you entitled to more land than another individual? All of these concepts are inventions of society. But all of these concepts are neccessary for a healthy society. While there may be some inequity in the system, that does not mean we should abolish it entirely.
If I were to sell a piece of software and keep the source private, the only restriction being that you can't copy the binary, how would this actually take something away from your 'freedom'. Granted it may be nice if you could have it for free, but its not as if it is somehow detracting from your life style. GPL equivelents could still attempt to duplicate my product without abusive patents. The publishing and recording industry really isn't any different from the software industry. They borrow sounds and themes from each other all the time. I happen to believe that one should have the right to the product of their own mind. I do not believe that 'obvious' patents are truely a product of ones' own mind. IP is responsible for most of the major software products. GPL and open alternatives are few and lacking more often than not. How can Stallman honestly say that Joe Schmoe would be better served if no one were entitled to monopoly rents on the product of their own mind, when the 'free' industry has produced damn little that the average user is interested in? Or are you honestly going to tell me that Emacs is well suited for the average user? You might argue that 'free' software hasnt been around that long, but I atleast dont buy that argument for a minute. Many innovations have been made since, and GPL software hasn't kept pace. I don't think it ever will for a multitude of reasons.
I think the best thing that could happen for the free/open software movement would be a cleaning up of IP. eg: fix the software patent system. Restrict frivilous lawsuits. Free/open software and commercial/propietary software can coexist for the most part, they'd both be best served this way.
Get real. The fact that O'Rielly is successfull only serves to illuminate the failings of GPL and the like. Feel free to write your own meticulous documentation any time you want to. I've yet to see a SINGLE piece of free/open electronic documentation that even comes close to comparing with O'Reilly's. Do you really honestly believe that GPL'd software can and will meet every software need? I, like Tim, believe that Open licenses do have certain advantages. However, I do not believe for a minute that it will ever replace the majority of commercial/propietary software.
As I stated initially better GUIs may have come along AFTER the fact. Henry Ford made the first affordable car, only to be overtaken by competition who catered to customers whims. Just as Apple made the first affordable GUI. Like it or not, it has raised, if not placed, the bar. My analogy still holds.
I also disagree about the allocation of credit to Steve Jobs, but that is entirely besides the point. It is the company that is at issue. Apple has created products that Stallman finds some value in. Stallman would LIKE to appropriate it for his 100% free/open/socialist uses. My point is that this license is in improvement. The conditions are known and published, no suprises or deceptions here. It in NO WAY takes away from anyones' freedom. They MADE something, and while you may not be able to do everything that you like with it, it in no way robs you of your personal freedom. If GNU is such a wonder machine it can create its own superior versions based entirely on unique code. It does not entitle Stallman to advocate software piracy and the like.
I do not think Stallman is elloquent or particularly rational when it comes to his 'freedom limiting' arguments. I believe that propietary/commercial software and free/open software can coexist for the most part(The only real issues are ludicrous and obvious patents and the like). If you ignore the IP abuses, there is no valid reason why they can't exist uninhibited by one another. Stallman effectively asserts that if a company sells a piece of software, and merely witholds the source code that they are some how limiting ones freedom. The only IP restrictions being that you can't copy the binaries. Without IP interference what is stopping anyone from creating their own original software? GNU has created damn little software of value. The real problem is that this ideological view does not work. It is shortsighted in a way.
The keyword here is innovation. Apple was THE catalyst which brought the GUI revolution. Sure Xerox, and god knows how many other companies, might have had rough GUIs at forbidding prices well before. Sure Apple borrowed the basic GUI, laser printer, mouse, etc. While Steve Jobs may not have been the master coder, it was his vision that made it happen. He PUSHED and PULLED and got the money on the table, and risked alot to make the macintosh a success. He may have failed in the long run, but you can not say that he hasn't had a positive impact on the creation of the GUI.
What is this GUI 201 that you speak of? I am no fan of MS and I never much cared for the restrictive GUI which Mac had, but this it is still this same GUI that is practically a house hold item now. That would be like saying Henry Ford doesn't deserve a mention, because:
a) previous cars existed
b) there have been better cheaper cars since
c) He ultimately lost out to competition
It is Henry Ford that brought the Automobile to Joe Schmoe. Likewise, Jobs can be credited in the same manner.
Regardless of the ineptitude or ineffectivity of the user, the law is still pretty clear. Should the secret service ignore a would be assasin just because he probably wouldn't be successfull?
And on your last comment, commercial speech is limited as well. Many people get taken by these scams, in fact publishers clearing house just got sued I believe.
I do not feel the need to defend myself from a twit such as yourself. But for your information, far more Europeans smoke than Americans. Secondly, you know as well as I do that the USA is responsible for 99% of the computer technology. While NT might be a product of the USA, so was AT&T Unix, so was Berkley, so is the semiconductor industry. And lets not forget Cisco. And MIT.....I could go on, but lighten up. Oh yeah, I'd be willing to bet that I am a great deal more literate than you are.
Private citizens do not enjoy an absolute privilege, unlike members of congress and those in the court room.
I could not for example, announce that I am an employee of Boeing and that management uses defective parts. This would both be untrue and publicized. It _would_ obviously hurt Boeing's shareholders, management, employees, etc. If Boeing could prove that I was never an employee, they are legally entitled to damages. Why should the government protect such speech. It would be very hard to show why a private citizen is entitled to this. The courts have decided that various entities are entitled to varying degrees of free speech. Journalists, for example, are given a great deal more latitude in their publishing standards. If they make a reasonable attempt to verify somethings validity, they are protected even if it later turns out to be untrue. Likewise the courts and various individuals in the government are protected when attending to official business. If the courts started holding Congressmen liable, they would be hestitant to challenge, try, inspect, etc.
People can get hysterical sometimes, when it comes to personal safety issues and what not. There have actually been a few perfectly good airplanes that ceased to be produced because the media and what not wrongly pinned the blame in the airframe, when in fact it was the engine.....and other issues. This is a billion dollar type of wound, its not so minor. You tell that the to employees who lose a job as a result, its not just 'the suits' who get hurt in these things.
I believe that slashdot would be protected under the standing parts of the CDA. In fact, you may expose yourself to liability, only IF you make an attempt to censor slanderous conduct. Basically it is not reasonable to expect you to monitor the behavior of private individuals. It could, and has been, argued rather easily that expecting web sites to censor would have a chilling effect on free speech. The only argument I could see is if you POSTED, like on the front page, an article that you knew to be false, and somehow made commercial profits by intentionally republishing this inflamatory content. Anyhow, I've gotta run, but I can show you some precedents when I get back.
Jobs may not have been a master hacker. But he was, as you say, a visionary. He assembled the team that brought the GUI to the end user. He made it happen plain and simple. This you can not deny.
I see OSS's historical failures as a general trend, not just something left in history. I think this slow development will continue. I have given my reasons, and I've seen a general trend that confirms this. Time will tell. I hope Linux suceeds in knocking MS down. But I suspect that if it does, it'll suceed only in cooperation with commercial outfits.
The key word here is innovation. The distinction between innovation and invention is one of the finer points of capitalism. You are right to say that PARC invented the first GUI, laser printer, networking, etc. None of these products however were ready for the real world. Most of them were pretty crude, and expensive. Steve Jobs brought these products into the real world, where they actually did people some good. You may scoff at the distinction, but it is a large one none the less.
Id software has developed a whole series of games that people have enjoyed for a long time now. These games may not have been 100% state of the art, but they've certainly done the users alot more good than Crystal Space has.
Where are the GPL'd equivelents in anything that might be regarded as fun. Where are the GPL'd Word processors......
I hate people who attempt to break down every posting into minute details in an attempt to somehow get a leg up. But...
'There will always be someone to create anything.'
^ May I quote you on this? If this is true, then why is it that everyone in Linux is awaiting the ports of all these different applications from the wintel platform.
In regards to the GUI. Xerox may have invented the GUI, but it never came anything even close to being capable of leaving the lab. Steve Jobs _made_ it a reality. This is called innovation. It is one of the finer points of capitalism. There is a world of difference between pure research and actually developing a working product. By the way, Xerox had email in PARC, they had filesharing, they had a laser printer, and many other things.
I never once said _all_ Open Source projects are predated by commercial software. I merely said that the projects were essentially inevitable. Not only that, but they are relatively few. The web was primarily a fluke.
Ok, so maybe RMS was still in academia at the time of Macintosh's development. But this does not let Free software off the hook. Why is there no half powerfull GUI word processors, spreadsheet programs, MRP systems, 3d software, first person 3d shooter games. Why is it that, gulp, NT had true SMP before Linux. Linux would not be where it was if MS wasn't such a crappy company. Why is it that most coders need to turn to O'Rielly to get sufficient documentation to learn a new language.