Apache, Bind, Sendmail, etc are all very nice pieces of software. What they are not is innovative. They are predominantly all 'open' approaches to the original work for the most part. Granted, they are superior, more efficient, etc. But free/open is not perfect. None of these Open Projects developed all that rapidly. They represent years of work and they are relatively few.
The fundamental problem with free software is that of direction of resources. The only areas which OSS is successfull in is in areas where there is an obvious need. eg: previously existing and well used commercial software. Let us imagine that I have a great idea, and this idea is to create the first MRP system. How would I, an OSS developer, go about recruiting talented people to join my project. How can I get them to put in the majority of their hours to get the product out the door. The issue is that not all great ideas sound so great on face value. Or perhaps its just an issue of passing the next, seemingly insurmountable, obstacle. In OSS all you can do is pull and hope. Atleast with commercial software you can pull and push, you have salaries to draw talented individuals to YOUR vision, you have stock options to get them psyched, etc.
Then you have the issue of divergent interests. Might it have ever occurred to you that what interests the programmer who wants to develop an OSS project might not appeal to 99% of the population. The fact that 99% of the population seems to want popup menus, integrated help system, etc, has eluded the OSS world for far too long. I find it hard to believe that you're going to find 100 interested programmers who want to create a really good piece of tax software. And remember, these programmers are only working part time on this. Where was Richard Stallman and Co when Macintosh brought the GUI to the end user.
Anyhow, I can point out many rational flaws in the free software logic, but I prefer the empirical examples. Commercial software has continued to break ground long before free software has. Where is the free mp3 algorthym. Why is it that a certain commercial firm has a lock on PGP. Why are there no OSS 3d shooters. Why hasn't there been a free GUI spreadsheet program until only recently.......
Unix was invented by AT&T. The internet was created by the US military originally. Granted that the Berkley had a large and positive effect on Unix, but it was not a rapidly innovative approach. The internet was not the first networking protocol. The internet's success has been largely due to Open Standards. Open Standards != Open Source. If you'd look carefully you'd see that the initial and the larger implimentations were commercial products.
I totally agree. The only reason RMS is griping is because many times there is great propietary software out there when there is no Open software. If there is superior free software out there, that does a better job then closed source software is a non issue. The fact is that 'free' software has only been marginally successfull.
I respect RMS, but come on. Granted GPL and OSS has brought us Linux and other great things, but to say that propietary software can bring us nothing good is foolish. This GPL/OSI software isnt exactly that innovative. Where are the RealNetworks, the Id softwares, Macintosh, etc of the 'free' software community. There are some fundamental problems with 'free' software. Granted Linux is a great OS precisely because it is Open and Free, but it is not ground breaking. It has evolved relatively slowly, its features have been gradually improved upon by the community.
I think Cuba is a pretty miserable place, but ignoring that. Why is it that Cuban-American immigrants send millions of dollars back to their families. Even the relatively poor here, in the US, are 10x better off than in Cuba.
My arguments are fundamental capitalism issues, I do not view large corporations as being bastions of this. More times than not it is the little guy that does something truely revolutionary. I will not say that capitalism is not without faults. What I will say is that this is the real world. Sure it would be nice if everyone was 'equal', but such world could not prosper. Capitalism is a proven winner over all, it has been shown to work. Socialism is a failure. Many say it looks fine on paper..... Even on paper, when you break it down into its components, it is lacking. One major point, is why should the individual take risk. Risk takers in capitalistic society are rewarded in the aggregate. In socialist societies, more times then not there are disincentives for risk taking. One failure, and you could be out of that job...
Anyhow, what I was arguing initially was that the government should not appropriate advances made by Medtech firms. My whole point is that non-profits and for-profits can theoretically coexist. Those who believe in doing the right thing for 'free', may continue to research. Those for profit corporations may as well. The issue is, is that it is the for-profit firms that are bringing these advances. If the non-profit machine fails to work, why should you break the for-profit machine. That is essentially what you do when you start to mess with it.
Yes, I would say it does. A business is no better than the people who run it. People are not fundamentially evil people. Just because I put on a suit before I go to work, does not mean I enter evil mode. Sure, you can point to a few bad companies, and even bad actions of otherwise good companies. This does not mean that all companies are overall bad. People have killed for money, but far more people have killed for idealism. Did Adolf Hitler sell the Mein Kampf? Just because its free doesn't make it any better.
I fail to see what makes a medtech company that produces an artificial pancreas for diabetics inately evil. What makes you think that the employees do not recieve stock options? What makes you think that this company pollutes their environment? Pushes neighboors out, etc. Many, Many, Companies contribute to the quality of life of people, without some 'leaching' from the lives of others. So yes, I do take it personally when some Red Dot Zealot implies that all capitalistic actions are somehow tainted. There is nothing inherantly wrong with money, this is how people put food on the table. The ideas that many slashdoters propose would do a great deal of damage to our society.
The initial fixed costs(eg: development) for many software products are in the millions. I admit that I love Linux, but I can not say that Linux or any other OSS product is particularly innovative. The barrier in OSS, is the commitment of time and resources. Less money. All of the strong OSS programs essentially boil down to one core leader, and a large following. Well not all great ideas seem so great from the get go. Many people will say a thing is impossible, or that they don't see a use for it. Besides, where is the forum to find qualified people interested in making an OSS MRP system. I doubt there are many coders who are thinking right now, gee I really want to create an MRP system. In capitalism atleast, the almighty buck serves to commit others to one mans' vision. (No I am not an MS supporter):)
I was talking about innovation, not garbage collection and other essential services. I guess it might be possible for the government to produce some innovation, but frankly there is damn little you can point to for this kind of success in any government. With the exception of perhaps the Manhattan project and other similar war efforts.
My point is not that everyone in private industry suceeds. Far from it. It is basically darwinian, survival of the fittest and all that. If a company doesn't produce, they cease to exist. If a government agency fails to produce, they keep on going for ages afterwards, while continuing to gobble resources. In private industry, big money tends to follow success not credentials. In the government, money just seems to be an accepted fact, its not based on performance. I could go on.....but I think you get the point.;)
Well for every one product that you can show me that the government is directly responsible for, there are 10000 others produced by private industry. The fact is the government is not the best at allocating resources. I shudder to think of a world in which the government is responsible for all scientific innovation. Think U.S.S.R. They produced damn little for all the money they spent. Even in the military sector, most of their advances were mere copies of the wests. It is not that the USSR lacked great minds, there are many.
You don't know the first thing about business. Microsoft is the exception to the rule. They are one of the few cases where government intervention is neccessary. Most companies don't act like MS does. Most companies can't afford to. MS is a monopoly, and one that, if you didn't notice, the government is trying to break up. Most businesses CANT afford to operate the way MS does.
I know plenty successfull businessmen, and while profits are nice, it doesn't mean that you rape your customers. The CEO's obligation to the shareholders is indeed to maximize profits, not maximize prices. They are not one in the same.
Secondly, the third world lacks even trained doctors for the most part. Their problems go far beyond a simple lack of money. But there is a thing known as discriminative pricing. This effectively means that you charge more to people who can afford it, and less to those who can't.
Finally, whatever your personal views on capitalism is. It works. If you want to refute my points, try bringing some hard evidence in and rational arguments, not this emotional crap that you call an argument. The fact is, if capitalistic interests can produce where non-profit interests fail, who are you to say that NO ONE can benefit from the capitalists. That is effectively what you do when you advocate curbing of profits.
Where are the "Free" advances in modern medicine. Which were brought all the way into fruition without capitalistic intentions. If you truely believe that Open */ Free * works so well, then do so. Open Medicine can _attempt_ to develop advances on its own. But I ask you, if it fails, you conceed the fact that it didn't work in the given situation, and that you _must_ allow capitalism to go about its business. Please don't espouse movements to shutdown a process that performs far better than idealistic theories. It may have some flaws, but in the end it gets the job done better.
I happen to know a thing or two about the biotech industry, but let me reduce it for you like this:
Let us assume that you have your way. That all important biotech advances are given to the public for free. Who is going to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into research and development for no return. Are you willing to spend the better part of your income to further these advances? I think not. Most people are not. Let us suppose that you say, ok fine, the inventors can get reimbursed for their costs and maybe even get a little profit. Well that sounds fine. But ventures like these involve a great deal of risk, many ventures fail before a successful cure/treatment/etc is found. When you begin to curb profits, this does have an effect on research dollars. The theoretical profits waiting at the end of the 'rainbow', if you will, figure into the equation when computing risk. The greater the risk for the company, the greater the payoffs must be. Aids is extremely high risk, many billions of dollars have already been spent.
While your intentions may be honorable, you reduce the rate of innovation. Also, it is important to remember that even though the government grants a monopoly on the specific intellectual property it doesnt take long for competitors to come in with cheaper replacements and generics. Which drives prices down further. (Another reason why you have to allow the inventing company to make monopoly profits initially).
Another point is that the capitalistic model allocates resources far more efficiently. In non-capitalistic societies, the government partions out what funds go where. Frequently, it is to those with the best credentials. Well let me tell you something, more times than not, it is those in industry with lesser credentials who get a working 'cure' out first.
While I would have ethical problems with a company that would let thousands of poor people die, I would be hesitant to stick my foot in the middle. Innovation is not a ONE shot process. It is a continual process, if you start muddling with it, you cripple it. The end result would be that poor people get their treatment later, rather than later, if at all.
I dont know why this really suprises people
on
Windows ID
·
· Score: 1
I have personally known that MS sticks your registration info in every document you create for a rather long time. What is news to me is the fact that MS also sticks your MAC addy in there. I think the potential for abuse in this case is rather small, but none the less I don't think they should be doing it. This ironically might prove to be yet another hacking tool. Imagine this scenario. A windows user has their netbios partially open, sharing certain selected documents with network. And those documents contain that users MAC addy, and maybe other machines.... There are some tricks that can be played on DHCP and bootp, amongst other things, that are made much easier when provided with the MAC address. I don't think this attack ever be trivial enough to reduce to a single exploit/warez program, but I do think it might end up being used by some hacker type. Never mind the fact that netbios already has a hundred other bugs.....;)
Mathemeticians don't build things, nor do other academics for the most part. Programming is about alot more than just an idea, the hard part is development. My central point is not that OSS is absolutely incapable of innovation. It is that:
a) OSS pursues different goals then that that the average consumer needs or wants.
b) OSS actually lacks a thing or two when it comes to real innovation.
The Internet is based around RFCs and open standards. Open standards are not entirely new. Anyone can spec out a protocol, this is not THAT difficult. Developing a mature product in a timely fashion is entirely different.
The internet wasn't the first network. There were propietary protocols long before. It was originally military funded anyways. I wouldn't call this a significant innovation. OSS platforms were not the first machines online mind you....The internet happpened mainly by chance, and "Open" part is coincidental for the most part. Although it has improved its stability and succesfullness.
Significant innovation is in my opinion the act of making a piece of software to fill a new niche, to do something that it couldn't effectively do before. I would definetly say apple/Macintosh innnovated for example. Even though Xerox technically invented the first GUI, and wysiwyg, and the laser printer......none of them were properly working. Xerox dropped the ball. It was Apple that made this a reality. Or more precisely, Steve Jobs. Innovation is indeed hard work. My point is that OSS lacks the push factor. Steve Jobs had a certain vision of what a computer should look like, and he pushed, and payed to make this a reality. I don't see this sort of thing happening in the OSS world, neither conceptually or empirically. For anything to really fly in the OSS world, it has to be a vision shared by many people. Even if this vision exists, I don't think the OSS timeline can compete against well run commercial organization. I predict that the next great apps of tommarow will NOT come from the OSS world. OSS might however come along after the fact, when there is a clear and obvious need and fill in for the failings of previous companies.
Geeks are Geeks are geeks. You are saying that they are geeks, so you are admitting that they are indeed somehow different. Their needs and wants are different as well. Most people will only consider using a computer when it will actually SAVES them time, this is not true for many geeks. Many geeks have plenty of time to burn, and its those geeks that are usually writing these programs. Do you honestly believe that the only thing that seperates the alternative OSS equivalents apart from their commercial cousins is marketing? 99% of these types of programs are secondary projects of even the author(s), they are considered to be beta and unstable, etc etc etc. They require a fair amount of time and sophistication to learn. Many of these programs involve more than mere coding skills, they involve updating them based on the latest tax laws, etc etc etc. How about an OSS MRP system. How about the thousands of other niche markets. How about projects which actually take a direct infusion of cash to make into a reality? On TV I recently saw a product that creates US mail postage using a laser printer, the user can purchase 'electronic' stamps online. OSS would _never_ make this happen. This took some persuasion to get the post office to allow it. Not to mention the fact that there needs to be a web site to support it. Granted, there is some 'hardware' involved in this, but my point still stands.
I don't mind superlatives. Time will prove me right. The basic problem is that there needs to be a sufficient geek population in every niche to fill every demand OSS style. This is simply not the case. None of the strong OSS projects are a one man operation. Even the geeks need to work for a living. One geek working part time simply can't compete with a strong commercial operation. End of story.
I will not address most of his arguments. All of us here know that MS software is mediocre at best, and that its quality is absolutely inexcusable. However, I do think Linux has some fundamental problems. While it is true that Linux continues to evolve and improve upon itself while Windows remains relatively stagnent, I must say that Linux development is far from perfect. People who say that Linux is particularly innovative are kidding themselves. Name one totally new creation that OSS has brought us. I will not say that the OSS community will never innovate, because they will. It is the rate that I question. I believe the saying that Linux/OSS is designed to 'scratch an itch' is pretty accurate. The question is, whose itch. OSS developers fix their own problems, and impress their friends and what not. Do they really worry about weather or not 'a suit' can run his accounting software or spread sheet program in Linux. 90% of the slashdot community is excessively anti-commercial. Slashdoters seem to lose sight of the fact that most all commercial products only make money by offering some redeeming value to the consumer. Nor do they worry a great deal about ease of installation. Most all of the linux installation development has been at the hands of COMMERCIAL interests such as Redhat.
OSS will never even address most software needs. Nor do I believe that it'll break a whole lot of new ground. I myself have no problem with paying for software, I have a problem with crappy software. That is why I use Linux. There is a certain amount of benefit to be obtained from Open Source code and community contribution, but it is not, and will never be the be all and end all.
Granted it is. But the engine is the skeleton upon which everything rests. My point is that it is still inconsistent with the strengths of the OSS model.
I am talking about Open Source Software(tm), as in Free. Not merely code that has been eventually released to the general public.
Ok so quake is a work of art. But I've yet to see even an OSS proof of concept model that even compares to the Quake 1 engine. In my opinion, the real meat and potatoes of these games is the engine and the client server code. As you point out, thousands of users have already created custom mods. How many people created Quake2? Do you know? It was certainly more than one man.
Gnome, Window Manager, etc are all nice and efficient code. But they certainly didnt invent truely improve upon the GUI in any major way. They've made the GUI code more efficient, removed alot of the bloat, etc.
This essay illustrates a few points that many slashdoters can't seem to grasp. The fact that OSS isn't right for everything. It really pisses me off to hear people say that Quake2 should be open source. If the OSS movement is so perfect, then why is there no OSS 3d shooter? No demand? I think not. Millions of Quakers can attest to that. Perhaps the code is simply too involved, and requires full and prompt attention before it becomes obselete. And what about thousands of niche markets. I've never seen an OSS MRP system.
For all the talk of innovation in OSS, in reality I don't believe that there is a great deal of major innovation. Does everyone here honestly believe that every great idea sounds appealing on its face? So then how does one go about finding interested programmers when the project seems daunting or unappealing. Where would I go? Which page would I post on? Might it be that not every capable programmer is currently seeking out such a project. In commercial software atleast, you can hire people and get their attention with a salary. OSS is good for certain things, but not everything. Like the essay illustrates, Open Source is good to sort of fill in the blanks. When there is an obvious demand for the product, yet the existing commercial products are lacking in quality/support/etc.
One minor point. I think the author is wrong about why open source software exists. I believe that, for the most part, it exists to serve both the hacker and other advanced users. People write code to impress their friends, and what not. These friends are generally technically literate people. This is evident by the lack of easily digestible documentation, installation, and configuration(which the end user needs). Atleast Commercial software ultimately depends on the end user finding some redeeming quality in the product, which creates the demand that drives profits. The same can not always be said for OSS. That being said, I think OSS rules supreme in some areas. Such as networking APIs, security, etc. A thousand eyes looking at the code, improving technically upon it......
We have a thing in this country called a trademark. It has been a part of everyday life for some time now. I can understand why Apple might be worried that someone can abuse this. And there is certainly no reason why these kids need this domain. This is not like veronica.(com,org,net), where the name veronica is a questionable trademark. There can be no doubt that when someone says AppleImac, they mean the computer company. What if the kids decide they want to provide a new appleboot disk that installs Linux on the unknowing users' machines, God forbid!;P
No one goes into politics for the money, atleast not in the US. Most all of these congressmen could make far more money in the private sector. None the less they have families and mouths to feed. Do you really honestly believe that the average citizen is equipped to make decisions of great magnitude. Granted Congress has made plenty of mistakes, but so have other governments and other branches. Cutting salaries is not going to fix anything.
First off, a CPU with a built in id# is not in and of itself a way to track you. You need to run software which utilizes this. If you run linux and what not I hardly imagine this is going to be an issue for you.
Secondly, the fact that it is turned off by default makes no difference. If a few web sites start asking users to switch it on and run software that uses it, you'll be left with two choices. Be identified or not. The effect is still the same. Previously you still had the option of not running an OS, software, etc that doesn't access the feature. You the consumer still have the freedom to decide. I can see some concerns with the abuse of tracking and what not. But this is still a free country. If you don't like the PIII feature, buy AMD. If enough of you care, there will be a market for non-marked chips.
Thirdly, there are some COMMERCIAL applications (God forbid saying this on/.) for this. Time will tell if this feature is worthwhile. While I have little sympathy for the likes of MS, piracy is an issue for smaller software companies. If this can allow say internet enabled software, so be it. Lets say if you were buy or download Quake3 shareware version at the store or off the internet. If you like this game, they could send you a set of binaries customized around your id#. Now I'm sure someone will find a way to defeat it, but that is not the point. Intel has every right to make this chip, most consumers probably do not mind. The privacy advocates who protest this chip have not made a rational and strong argument, they've been operating on fear of big brother and the like.
The Economist is the best magazine out there in my opinion. I don't find it suprising in the least that they'd do a good job of reporting this issue. They tend not to jump on the band wagon, they don't repeat the sentiments of the industry 'pundits' and the like. The economist is more worthwhile than all of the American newspapers combined.;P
Slashdot Mirror
Apache, Bind, Sendmail, etc are all very nice pieces of software. What they are not is innovative. They are predominantly all 'open' approaches to the original work for the most part. Granted, they are superior, more efficient, etc. But free/open is not perfect. None of these Open Projects developed all that rapidly. They represent years of work and they are relatively few.
The fundamental problem with free software is that of direction of resources. The only areas which OSS is successfull in is in areas where there is an obvious need. eg: previously existing and well used commercial software. Let us imagine that I have a great idea, and this idea is to create the first MRP system. How would I, an OSS developer, go about recruiting talented people to join my project. How can I get them to put in the majority of their hours to get the product out the door. The issue is that not all great ideas sound so great on face value. Or perhaps its just an issue of passing the next, seemingly insurmountable, obstacle. In OSS all you can do is pull and hope. Atleast with commercial software you can pull and push, you have salaries to draw talented individuals to YOUR vision, you have stock options to get them psyched, etc.
Then you have the issue of divergent interests. Might it have ever occurred to you that what interests the programmer who wants to develop an OSS project might not appeal to 99% of the population. The fact that 99% of the population seems to want popup menus, integrated help system, etc, has eluded the OSS world for far too long. I find it hard to believe that you're going to find 100 interested programmers who want to create a really good piece of tax software. And remember, these programmers are only working part time on this. Where was Richard Stallman and Co when Macintosh brought the GUI to the end user.
Anyhow, I can point out many rational flaws in the free software logic, but I prefer the empirical examples. Commercial software has continued to break ground long before free software has. Where is the free mp3 algorthym. Why is it that a certain commercial firm has a lock on PGP. Why are there no OSS 3d shooters. Why hasn't there been a free GUI spreadsheet program until only recently.
Unix was invented by AT&T. The internet was created by the US military originally. Granted that the Berkley had a large and positive effect on Unix, but it was not a rapidly innovative approach. The internet was not the first networking protocol. The internet's success has been largely due to Open Standards. Open Standards != Open Source. If you'd look carefully you'd see that the initial and the larger implimentations were commercial products.
I totally agree. The only reason RMS is griping is because many times there is great propietary software out there when there is no Open software. If there is superior free software out there, that does a better job then closed source software is a non issue. The fact is that 'free' software has only been marginally successfull.
I respect RMS, but come on. Granted GPL and OSS has brought us Linux and other great things, but to say that propietary software can bring us nothing good is foolish. This GPL/OSI software isnt exactly that innovative. Where are the RealNetworks, the Id softwares, Macintosh, etc of the 'free' software community. There are some fundamental problems with 'free' software. Granted Linux is a great OS precisely because it is Open and Free, but it is not ground breaking. It has evolved relatively slowly, its features have been gradually improved upon by the community.
I think Cuba is a pretty miserable place, but ignoring that. Why is it that Cuban-American immigrants send millions of dollars back to their families. Even the relatively poor here, in the US, are 10x better off than in Cuba.
My arguments are fundamental capitalism issues, I do not view large corporations as being bastions of this. More times than not it is the little guy that does something truely revolutionary. I will not say that capitalism is not without faults. What I will say is that this is the real world. Sure it would be nice if everyone was 'equal', but such world could not prosper. Capitalism is a proven winner over all, it has been shown to work. Socialism is a failure. Many say it looks fine on paper..... Even on paper, when you break it down into its components, it is lacking. One major point, is why should the individual take risk. Risk takers in capitalistic society are rewarded in the aggregate. In socialist societies, more times then not there are disincentives for risk taking. One failure, and you could be out of that job...
Anyhow, what I was arguing initially was that the government should not appropriate advances made by Medtech firms. My whole point is that non-profits and for-profits can theoretically coexist. Those who believe in doing the right thing for 'free', may continue to research. Those for profit corporations may as well. The issue is, is that it is the for-profit firms that are bringing these advances. If the non-profit machine fails to work, why should you break the for-profit machine. That is essentially what you do when you start to mess with it.
Yes, I would say it does. A business is no better than the people who run it. People are not fundamentially evil people. Just because I put on a suit before I go to work, does not mean I enter evil mode. Sure, you can point to a few bad companies, and even bad actions of otherwise good companies. This does not mean that all companies are overall bad. People have killed for money, but far more people have killed for idealism. Did Adolf Hitler sell the Mein Kampf? Just because its free doesn't make it any better.
I fail to see what makes a medtech company that produces an artificial pancreas for diabetics inately evil. What makes you think that the employees do not recieve stock options? What makes you think that this company pollutes their environment? Pushes neighboors out, etc. Many, Many, Companies contribute to the quality of life of people, without some 'leaching' from the lives of others. So yes, I do take it personally when some Red Dot Zealot implies that all capitalistic actions are somehow tainted. There is nothing inherantly wrong with money, this is how people put food on the table. The ideas that many slashdoters propose would do a great deal of damage to our society.
The initial fixed costs(eg: development) for many software products are in the millions. I admit that I love Linux, but I can not say that Linux or any other OSS product is particularly innovative. The barrier in OSS, is the commitment of time and resources. Less money. All of the strong OSS programs essentially boil down to one core leader, and a large following. Well not all great ideas seem so great from the get go. Many people will say a thing is impossible, or that they don't see a use for it. Besides, where is the forum to find qualified people interested in making an OSS MRP system. I doubt there are many coders who are thinking right now, gee I really want to create an MRP system. In capitalism atleast, the almighty buck serves to commit others to one mans' vision. (No I am not an MS supporter)
I was talking about innovation, not garbage collection and other essential services. I guess it might be possible for the government to produce some innovation, but frankly there is damn little you can point to for this kind of success in any government. With the exception of perhaps the Manhattan project and other similar war efforts.
My point is not that everyone in private industry suceeds. Far from it. It is basically darwinian, survival of the fittest and all that. If a company doesn't produce, they cease to exist. If a government agency fails to produce, they keep on going for ages afterwards, while continuing to gobble resources. In private industry, big money tends to follow success not credentials. In the government, money just seems to be an accepted fact, its not based on performance. I could go on.....but I think you get the point.
Well for every one product that you can show me that the government is directly responsible for, there are 10000 others produced by private industry. The fact is the government is not the best at allocating resources. I shudder to think of a world in which the government is responsible for all scientific innovation. Think U.S.S.R. They produced damn little for all the money they spent. Even in the military sector, most of their advances were mere copies of the wests. It is not that the USSR lacked great minds, there are many.
You don't know the first thing about business. Microsoft is the exception to the rule. They are one of the few cases where government intervention is neccessary. Most companies don't act like MS does. Most companies can't afford to. MS is a monopoly, and one that, if you didn't notice, the government is trying to break up. Most businesses CANT afford to operate the way MS does.
I know plenty successfull businessmen, and while profits are nice, it doesn't mean that you rape your customers. The CEO's obligation to the shareholders is indeed to maximize profits, not maximize prices. They are not one in the same.
Secondly, the third world lacks even trained doctors for the most part. Their problems go far beyond a simple lack of money. But there is a thing known as discriminative pricing. This effectively means that you charge more to people who can afford it, and less to those who can't.
Finally, whatever your personal views on capitalism is. It works. If you want to refute my points, try bringing some hard evidence in and rational arguments, not this emotional crap that you call an argument. The fact is, if capitalistic interests can produce where non-profit interests fail, who are you to say that NO ONE can benefit from the capitalists. That is effectively what you do when you advocate curbing of profits.
Where are the "Free" advances in modern medicine. Which were brought all the way into fruition without capitalistic intentions. If you truely believe that Open */ Free * works so well, then do so. Open Medicine can _attempt_ to develop advances on its own. But I ask you, if it fails, you conceed the fact that it didn't work in the given situation, and that you _must_ allow capitalism to go about its business. Please don't espouse movements to shutdown a process that performs far better than idealistic theories. It may have some flaws, but in the end it gets the job done better.
I happen to know a thing or two about the biotech industry, but let me reduce it for you like this:
Let us assume that you have your way. That all important biotech advances are given to the public for free. Who is going to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into research and development for no return. Are you willing to spend the better part of your income to further these advances? I think not. Most people are not. Let us suppose that you say, ok fine, the inventors can get reimbursed for their costs and maybe even get a little profit. Well that sounds fine. But ventures like these involve a great deal of risk, many ventures fail before a successful cure/treatment/etc is found. When you begin to curb profits, this does have an effect on research dollars. The theoretical profits waiting at the end of the 'rainbow', if you will, figure into the equation when computing risk. The greater the risk for the company, the greater the payoffs must be. Aids is extremely high risk, many billions of dollars have already been spent.
While your intentions may be honorable, you reduce the rate of innovation. Also, it is important to remember that even though the government grants a monopoly on the specific intellectual property it doesnt take long for competitors to come in with cheaper replacements and generics. Which drives prices down further. (Another reason why you have to allow the inventing company to make monopoly profits initially).
Another point is that the capitalistic model allocates resources far more efficiently. In non-capitalistic societies, the government partions out what funds go where. Frequently, it is to those with the best credentials. Well let me tell you something, more times than not, it is those in industry with lesser credentials who get a working 'cure' out first.
While I would have ethical problems with a company that would let thousands of poor people die, I would be hesitant to stick my foot in the middle. Innovation is not a ONE shot process. It is a continual process, if you start muddling with it, you cripple it. The end result would be that poor people get their treatment later, rather than later, if at all.
I have personally known that MS sticks your registration info in every document you create for a rather long time. What is news to me is the fact that MS also sticks your MAC addy in there. I think the potential for abuse in this case is rather small, but none the less I don't think they should be doing it. This ironically might prove to be yet another hacking tool. Imagine this scenario. A windows user has their netbios partially open, sharing certain selected documents with network. And those documents contain that users MAC addy, and maybe other machines.... There are some tricks that can be played on DHCP and bootp, amongst other things, that are made much easier when provided with the MAC address. I don't think this attack ever be trivial enough to reduce to a single exploit/warez program, but I do think it might end up being used by some hacker type. Never mind the fact that netbios already has a hundred other bugs.....
Science and Academic Discovery != Innovation
Mathemeticians don't build things, nor do other academics for the most part. Programming is about alot more than just an idea, the hard part is development. My central point is not that OSS is absolutely incapable of innovation. It is that:
a) OSS pursues different goals then that that the average consumer needs or wants.
b) OSS actually lacks a thing or two when it comes to real innovation.
The Internet is based around RFCs and open standards. Open standards are not entirely new. Anyone can spec out a protocol, this is not THAT difficult. Developing a mature product in a timely fashion is entirely different.
The internet wasn't the first network. There were propietary protocols long before. It was originally military funded anyways. I wouldn't call this a significant innovation. OSS platforms were not the first machines online mind you....The internet happpened mainly by chance, and "Open" part is coincidental for the most part. Although it has improved its stability and succesfullness.
Significant innovation is in my opinion the act of making a piece of software to fill a new niche, to do something that it couldn't effectively do before. I would definetly say apple/Macintosh innnovated for example. Even though Xerox technically invented the first GUI, and wysiwyg, and the laser printer......none of them were properly working. Xerox dropped the ball. It was Apple that made this a reality. Or more precisely, Steve Jobs. Innovation is indeed hard work. My point is that OSS lacks the push factor. Steve Jobs had a certain vision of what a computer should look like, and he pushed, and payed to make this a reality. I don't see this sort of thing happening in the OSS world, neither conceptually or empirically. For anything to really fly in the OSS world, it has to be a vision shared by many people. Even if this vision exists, I don't think the OSS timeline can compete against well run commercial organization. I predict that the next great apps of tommarow will NOT come from the OSS world. OSS might however come along after the fact, when there is a clear and obvious need and fill in for the failings of previous companies.
Geeks are Geeks are geeks. You are saying that they are geeks, so you are admitting that they are indeed somehow different. Their needs and wants are different as well. Most people will only consider using a computer when it will actually SAVES them time, this is not true for many geeks. Many geeks have plenty of time to burn, and its those geeks that are usually writing these programs. Do you honestly believe that the only thing that seperates the alternative OSS equivalents apart from their commercial cousins is marketing? 99% of these types of programs are secondary projects of even the author(s), they are considered to be beta and unstable, etc etc etc. They require a fair amount of time and sophistication to learn. Many of these programs involve more than mere coding skills, they involve updating them based on the latest tax laws, etc etc etc. How about an OSS MRP system. How about the thousands of other niche markets. How about projects which actually take a direct infusion of cash to make into a reality? On TV I recently saw a product that creates US mail postage using a laser printer, the user can purchase 'electronic' stamps online. OSS would _never_ make this happen. This took some persuasion to get the post office to allow it. Not to mention the fact that there needs to be a web site to support it. Granted, there is some 'hardware' involved in this, but my point still stands.
I don't mind superlatives. Time will prove me right. The basic problem is that there needs to be a sufficient geek population in every niche to fill every demand OSS style. This is simply not the case. None of the strong OSS projects are a one man operation. Even the geeks need to work for a living. One geek working part time simply can't compete with a strong commercial operation. End of story.
I will not address most of his arguments. All of us here know that MS software is mediocre at best, and that its quality is absolutely inexcusable. However, I do think Linux has some fundamental problems. While it is true that Linux continues to evolve and improve upon itself while Windows remains relatively stagnent, I must say that Linux development is far from perfect. People who say that Linux is particularly innovative are kidding themselves. Name one totally new creation that OSS has brought us. I will not say that the OSS community will never innovate, because they will. It is the rate that I question. I believe the saying that Linux/OSS is designed to 'scratch an itch' is pretty accurate. The question is, whose itch. OSS developers fix their own problems, and impress their friends and what not. Do they really worry about weather or not 'a suit' can run his accounting software or spread sheet program in Linux. 90% of the slashdot community is excessively anti-commercial. Slashdoters seem to lose sight of the fact that most all commercial products only make money by offering some redeeming value to the consumer. Nor do they worry a great deal about ease of installation. Most all of the linux installation development has been at the hands of COMMERCIAL interests such as Redhat.
OSS will never even address most software needs. Nor do I believe that it'll break a whole lot of new ground. I myself have no problem with paying for software, I have a problem with crappy software. That is why I use Linux. There is a certain amount of benefit to be obtained from Open Source code and community contribution, but it is not, and will never be the be all and end all.
WHERE?
Granted it is. But the engine is the skeleton upon which everything rests. My point is that it is still inconsistent with the strengths of the OSS model.
I am talking about Open Source Software(tm), as in Free. Not merely code that has been eventually released to the general public.
Ok so quake is a work of art. But I've yet to see even an OSS proof of concept model that even compares to the Quake 1 engine. In my opinion, the real meat and potatoes of these games is the engine and the client server code. As you point out, thousands of users have already created custom mods. How many people created Quake2? Do you know? It was certainly more than one man.
Gnome, Window Manager, etc are all nice and efficient code. But they certainly didnt invent truely improve upon the GUI in any major way. They've made the GUI code more efficient, removed alot of the bloat, etc.
This essay illustrates a few points that many slashdoters can't seem to grasp. The fact that OSS isn't right for everything. It really pisses me off to hear people say that Quake2 should be open source. If the OSS movement is so perfect, then why is there no OSS 3d shooter? No demand? I think not. Millions of Quakers can attest to that. Perhaps the code is simply too involved, and requires full and prompt attention before it becomes obselete. And what about thousands of niche markets. I've never seen an OSS MRP system.
For all the talk of innovation in OSS, in reality I don't believe that there is a great deal of major innovation. Does everyone here honestly believe that every great idea sounds appealing on its face? So then how does one go about finding interested programmers when the project seems daunting or unappealing. Where would I go? Which page would I post on? Might it be that not every capable programmer is currently seeking out such a project. In commercial software atleast, you can hire people and get their attention with a salary. OSS is good for certain things, but not everything. Like the essay illustrates, Open Source is good to sort of fill in the blanks. When there is an obvious demand for the product, yet the existing commercial products are lacking in quality/support/etc.
One minor point. I think the author is wrong about why open source software exists. I believe that, for the most part, it exists to serve both the hacker and other advanced users. People write code to impress their friends, and what not. These friends are generally technically literate people. This is evident by the lack of easily digestible documentation, installation, and configuration(which the end user needs). Atleast Commercial software ultimately depends on the end user finding some redeeming quality in the product, which creates the demand that drives profits. The same can not always be said for OSS. That being said, I think OSS rules supreme in some areas. Such as networking APIs, security, etc. A thousand eyes looking at the code, improving technically upon it......
We have a thing in this country called a trademark. It has been a part of everyday life for some time now. I can understand why Apple might be worried that someone can abuse this. And there is certainly no reason why these kids need this domain. This is not like veronica.(com,org,net), where the name veronica is a questionable trademark. There can be no doubt that when someone says AppleImac, they mean the computer company. What if the kids decide they want to provide a new appleboot disk that installs Linux on the unknowing users' machines, God forbid!
No one goes into politics for the money, atleast not in the US. Most all of these congressmen could make far more money in the private sector. None the less they have families and mouths to feed. Do you really honestly believe that the average citizen is equipped to make decisions of great magnitude. Granted Congress has made plenty of mistakes, but so have other governments and other branches. Cutting salaries is not going to fix anything.
First off, a CPU with a built in id# is not in and of itself a way to track you. You need to run software which utilizes this. If you run linux and what not I hardly imagine this is going to be an issue for you.
Secondly, the fact that it is turned off by default makes no difference. If a few web sites start asking users to switch it on and run software that uses it, you'll be left with two choices. Be identified or not. The effect is still the same. Previously you still had the option of not running an OS, software, etc that doesn't access the feature. You the consumer still have the freedom to decide. I can see some concerns with the abuse of tracking and what not. But this is still a free country. If you don't like the PIII feature, buy AMD. If enough of you care, there will be a market for non-marked chips.
Thirdly, there are some COMMERCIAL applications (God forbid saying this on
The Economist is the best magazine out there in my opinion. I don't find it suprising in the least that they'd do a good job of reporting this issue. They tend not to jump on the band wagon, they don't repeat the sentiments of the industry 'pundits' and the like. The economist is more worthwhile than all of the American newspapers combined.