The question is, can free-as-in-beer, inferior open source compete against free-as-in-beer, superior closed source?
[troll]My guess: nope. The problem here is know-how. Every field in open-source which requires extensive know-how on the level of hardware or marketing struggles. The standard devcycles normally evolve into providing conspiracy-theories.[/troll]
You should take into account that this is standard software development. Pareto analysis reflects this: after a package has matured you're spending more time on less results - most notably bugs. As feature-richness increases new bugs get in and become difficult to get rid of as the implementation becomes complexer - the software starts to accumulate problems and maintenance becomes a hurdle. Every few years you simply start again, normally with a new approach to implement the functionality. This normally happens after your software distribution got a beating when feature X revealed to open a backdoor or started annoying happy users.
These software cycles are common practise. They also keep the marketing folks happy as it allows them to come up with new buzzwords for "cutting edge" or "radically new" ways of developing.
Hmm, looks like we're going to end up in a yes/no game of definitions, hopefully this answers your question
A -> something which offers me the possibility to deploy my own app/api - which I don't find back on google.
B -> wasn't my intention, they were the first examples from the top of my head that steers clear from PHP. Could have added Java to the list. Anyways, you're probably wondering where I'm going with this. In genetics - computationally hard stuff like biclustering of gene-expression data - there's a hunger for this kind of platforms. Up to now it's pretty much a collection of clusters - each university or R&D group has its own and it's a pain in the butt to build larger clusters. You're constantly re-inventing the wheel to glue them together. Cloud computing could open the way in this, but this entails some real "OS-behaviour", e.i. dynamic task assignment, mem allocation, dynamic networks,... with a minimum of consideration to questions like "how many banks are online" or "did those idiots in France reboot again?". Classical approaches in distributed computing are working but we're eager to try all alternatives. The ones you gave as an examples don't differ much from typical servers where you run some PHP. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Granted, those are not load-balancers. But here's what I try to convey: The examples you give from Google are services, written by google and made available within a perimeter. Google doesn't offer a platform but a set of services in the form of Apps and APIs.
Can I sign up and write/compile.NET or C# on Google's infrastructure? Nope. Where can I do that ? Dunno.
The examples you give are merely load-balancing servers which have been dubbed with cloud. If you look at the specs you'll see they use Microsoft & Linux servers.
Phase 1: Deployment of hundreds of small businesses, no major advantages
Phase 2: a few killer applications emerge
Phase 3: the whole thing is hyped and MS cashes in
Phase 4: FOSS community accuses MS of monopolization and some other clichees
Phase 5: the whole thing becomes common practise, FOSS starts to develop and lags 5 years behind on everything
The replies here become predictable, to use an understatement. It suffices to add one word in a post to get a completely polarized set of comments.
Cloud computing may or may not be a bubble, but whichever way you turn and twist it someone has to start. It'll take baby-steps and corrections along the way, but so far this is the first real attempt at it.
Nonsense. Copying and distributing is typical for proprietary software, not for FOSS - which is typically obtained from the source. To be honest I can't remember ever being offered a burned copy with foss.
You're correct. In the same reasoning an application is uninstalled faster when it's larger and doesn't meet the expectations. My point is that many people try it out, and uninstall it. The report on the number of downloads assumes that all downloads result in satisfied users - which is grossly exaggerated.
You have to make a difference between Fabs which produce ICs and companies that produce Fab equimpent. Off course they're intertwined but AMD and the likes is an architecture Co, where Companies like ASML drive Fab technology. The "slow rate" is set by industry agreements - milestones - to keep the cost of Fab tech R&D minimal. The shrink step is a factor 2 for surface, resulting in a factor sqrt(2) for feature size. Litho tech companies use this step because the market is not viable for developing Fab tech which takes a different approach: litho is just a fraction in the hundreds of steps it takes to produce an IC. If you were to implement a new Fab litho technique which differs from the roadmap you won't have customers because the technology isn't in sync with the other processes.
In other words: this new technology is only viable if the others jump on the bandwagon, so far it's "only" proof of concept. The field of Fab tech R&D is filled with new concepts, but that's just a small part of the story.
This bogus statistic keeps resurfacing. Having x downloads doesn't mean you have x users.
The statistic I'm interested in is the percentage of people that downloaded it and then later updated - that's a much better representation of satisfied customers. The time between update release and downloaded update by a user is correlated to how much that user relies on the software package, especially so for OSS which is typically low in pre-release testing on different boxes compared to commercial software.
Could anyone tell me what the mechanism behind an accelerating wavefront is ? The caption creates the impression that this is physics for 12 year olds...
Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now
on
GIMP 2.6 Released
·
· Score: 1
Surely, it's not one or the other, pretty much all professional photo manipulation offers both possibilities.
Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now
on
GIMP 2.6 Released
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps you are after a programmer who adapts to the wishes of the user? You can get yourself one, but unfortunately, they are not cheap.
Warning: I'm trolling here
Isn't that one of the main point of FOSS: getting the software tax down ? People who program for Gimp are by definition people who cater for a larger audience, i.e. don't just program for themselves. Did you just acknowledge that Gimp programmers have no interest in user feedback?
Slashdot Mirror
The question is, can free-as-in-beer, inferior open source compete against free-as-in-beer, superior closed source?
[troll]My guess: nope.
The problem here is know-how. Every field in open-source which requires extensive know-how on the level of hardware or marketing struggles.
The standard devcycles normally evolve into providing conspiracy-theories.[/troll]
It costs less money and demotivates as hell.
...let him strike down...
I think that's a lot to ask from a super-being that's generally known for doing shit for eternity.
and love nothing more than to hurt Jesus
So, a global scam to undermine some small ridiculous minority religion? I think not, Pinky.
You should take into account that this is standard software development. Pareto analysis reflects this: after a package has matured you're spending more time on less results - most notably bugs. As feature-richness increases new bugs get in and become difficult to get rid of as the implementation becomes complexer - the software starts to accumulate problems and maintenance becomes a hurdle. Every few years you simply start again, normally with a new approach to implement the functionality. This normally happens after your software distribution got a beating when feature X revealed to open a backdoor or started annoying happy users.
These software cycles are common practise. They also keep the marketing folks happy as it allows them to come up with new buzzwords for "cutting edge" or "radically new" ways of developing.
Stick to what WorksForMe.
Cheers for that tip.
Hmm, looks like we're going to end up in a yes/no game of definitions, hopefully this answers your question
... with a minimum of consideration to questions like "how many banks are online" or "did those idiots in France reboot again?". Classical approaches in distributed computing are working but we're eager to try all alternatives. The ones you gave as an examples don't differ much from typical servers where you run some PHP. Correct me if I'm wrong.
A -> something which offers me the possibility to deploy my own app/api - which I don't find back on google.
B -> wasn't my intention, they were the first examples from the top of my head that steers clear from PHP. Could have added Java to the list. Anyways, you're probably wondering where I'm going with this. In genetics - computationally hard stuff like biclustering of gene-expression data - there's a hunger for this kind of platforms. Up to now it's pretty much a collection of clusters - each university or R&D group has its own and it's a pain in the butt to build larger clusters. You're constantly re-inventing the wheel to glue them together. Cloud computing could open the way in this, but this entails some real "OS-behaviour", e.i. dynamic task assignment, mem allocation, dynamic networks,
The amazon cloud was a complete unknown to me.
Freddy's undecided on that. Call it denial.
The force is strong in this one.
.NET or C# on Google's infrastructure? Nope. Where can I do that ? Dunno.
Granted, those are not load-balancers. But here's what I try to convey: The examples you give from Google are services, written by google and made available within a perimeter. Google doesn't offer a platform but a set of services in the form of Apps and APIs.
Can I sign up and write/compile
Ehr, wrong !
The examples you give are merely load-balancing servers which have been dubbed with cloud. If you look at the specs you'll see they use Microsoft & Linux servers.
OS != server
Or ...
Phase 1: Deployment of hundreds of small businesses, no major advantages
Phase 2: a few killer applications emerge
Phase 3: the whole thing is hyped and MS cashes in
Phase 4: FOSS community accuses MS of monopolization and some other clichees
Phase 5: the whole thing becomes common practise, FOSS starts to develop and lags 5 years behind on everything
The replies here become predictable, to use an understatement. It suffices to add one word in a post to get a completely polarized set of comments.
Cloud computing may or may not be a bubble, but whichever way you turn and twist it someone has to start. It'll take baby-steps and corrections along the way, but so far this is the first real attempt at it.
... or how to launch a site using slashdot and a poorly written summary of vague buzzwords.
Nonsense. Copying and distributing is typical for proprietary software, not for FOSS - which is typically obtained from the source. To be honest I can't remember ever being offered a burned copy with foss.
You're correct. In the same reasoning an application is uninstalled faster when it's larger and doesn't meet the expectations. My point is that many people try it out, and uninstall it. The report on the number of downloads assumes that all downloads result in satisfied users - which is grossly exaggerated.
Corrected
You have to make a difference between Fabs which produce ICs and companies that produce Fab equimpent. Off course they're intertwined but AMD and the likes is an architecture Co, where Companies like ASML drive Fab technology. The "slow rate" is set by industry agreements - milestones - to keep the cost of Fab tech R&D minimal. The shrink step is a factor 2 for surface, resulting in a factor sqrt(2) for feature size. Litho tech companies use this step because the market is not viable for developing Fab tech which takes a different approach: litho is just a fraction in the hundreds of steps it takes to produce an IC. If you were to implement a new Fab litho technique which differs from the roadmap you won't have customers because the technology isn't in sync with the other processes. In other words: this new technology is only viable if the others jump on the bandwagon, so far it's "only" proof of concept. The field of Fab tech R&D is filled with new concepts, but that's just a small part of the story.
This bogus statistic keeps resurfacing. Having x downloads doesn't mean you have x users.
The statistic I'm interested in is the percentage of people that downloaded it and then later updated - that's a much better representation of satisfied customers. The time between update release and downloaded update by a user is correlated to how much that user relies on the software package, especially so for OSS which is typically low in pre-release testing on different boxes compared to commercial software.
They called it Windows 7 because 7 is a lucky number, and they need all the luck they can get.
Elaborate please.
thanks
Could anyone tell me what the mechanism behind an accelerating wavefront is ? The caption creates the impression that this is physics for 12 year olds ...
Reply?
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/asteroid-2008-tc3-hits-sudan/
Surely, it's not one or the other, pretty much all professional photo manipulation offers both possibilities.
Perhaps you are after a programmer who adapts to the wishes of the user? You can get yourself one, but unfortunately, they are not cheap.
Warning: I'm trolling here
Isn't that one of the main point of FOSS: getting the software tax down ? People who program for Gimp are by definition people who cater for a larger audience, i.e. don't just program for themselves. Did you just acknowledge that Gimp programmers have no interest in user feedback?