legitimitely interested in giving freedom and flexibility to his clients but not giving up his business by just giving his product away.
I just want to modify that statement (I hope you don't mind modification and redistribution of your comment:-) ).
by not giving up his business plan by just allowing redistribution
While it is true that there are some businesses who haven't figured out that they need to charge for their work, I think they have mostly died out. Charging for your product is one way to make money. Using this method you must create artificial scarcity of your product so that you can charge for making a copy (which is virtually free). Thus you must restrict your customers from making their own copies and distributing them.
Another way to make money is to charge for your work. Someone pays you to do some programming. You do it. You give them the software. They do whatever they want with it (including redistributing it). Notice how you are paid in the first step. There is no need for artificial scarcity and no need to restrict your customer from distribution.
You can make money using both business plans. Thus "giving away your product" is not equivalent to "giving up your business". But if you do it, you obviously must change your business plan. In other words, you better make sure that you are getting paid for the work you are doing. Setting up your business this way can be quite challenging if you aren't used to it. But there are also some pretty serious advantages to doing so (the primary being that you don't need a lot of capital up front).
and Linux can do it on what, 1/100th the budget (veeeery rough estimation, folks)?
Actually, you'd be surprised. Some of these numbers are coming from my own rather faulty memory, but I think it's a lot closer in cost than you think.
IIRC, Vista took about 5 years and $5 Billion to make. At a loaded labour rate of $120,000 per year, that's 8,333 employees. I don't know if that is all R&D, but let's assume it is.
According to the Linux Foundation there are more than 1000 active developers and between 70 and 95% are paid (IIRC, another report found that 75% are full time paid developers).
So the total cost of developing the kernel is already 1/10 of that of developing Vista. And we have to take into consideration that Vista is more than the kernel (i.e., we can lump in gnome or KDE, GTK or QT, etc, etc). So, probably the actually amount of money spent is closer to 1/5th of that of Vista.
The big advantage of open source software from the developers point of view is not the overall cost reduction (there may not be any). It's that each individual contributor only pays a portion of that cost. IBM, Redhat, Novell, Canonical, are only paying a very small fraction of the overall development cost, while enjoying the benefits of the whole.
One of the things about free software is that often developers write what they want to write rather than what other people need. Actually, I have to use OpenOffice every day, and I hate it with a passion. Even though I'm a programmer, I work on my own project (infinitely less popular) rather than OpenOffice. Yes, this can be sub-optimal in some ways, but on the other hand we can often get free software applications in niche areas that nobody would ever write in a proprietary fashion since there's no real possibility of a large ROI.
In the end I think it's an advantage. Maybe the pure eye candy that's being written right now has no real value. But possibly someone will find some very useful way of representing data. I'd rather have them working away on what they love rather than grinding away at something else even if I'd benefit in the short term.
BTW, I don't mean to denigrate OO, since a lot of people like it. Really, I need to do text/graphical layout, not word processing. Also, all my documents are a mix of Japanese and English and there are some huge bugs jumping between languages in the version of OO I have. I really need to find a different solution...
OSS lacks QA - show me a OSS project that government is likely to use that has any quality assurances. the big font stating "use at own risk" is a massive turn off for government and rightly so.
Um.. Microsoft's EULA basically says the same thing.
Not only that, but with OSS you can actually do a risk assesment by inspecting the source code. In the case of proprietary software that gives no warantee, how can I asses my risk?
What I find interesting is that in most cases you really want to "use at your own risk", after having assessed that risk properly. Because, if I buy a piece of software from Mario's Super Software company for $100, but it blows up in my face for $10 million.... my $100 refund isn't going to comfort me all that much...
Absolutely! I hear you brother. I've totally lost confidence in *them*. Let's face it. Every time *they* have predicted the end of the world, *they* have been wrong. EVERY SINGLE TIME!
I mean, if once -- only one time -- *they* got it right, I'd be willing to listen. But let's face it. *They* must be absolutely insane, because in my long life (and my father's and his father's before him) I have *never* EVEN ONCE died a horrible death from a world wide disaster of our own making.
And like you say, technology *always* saves us (a fact that *they* are always too eager to sweep under the rug). Every time technology has saved us from imminent disaster, every single time mind you, it has been *technology* that has saved us. *They* would have us think that there are limits to what technology can do for us. But who are *they* anyway to say such nonsense. Let's just look at history.
I'm just so tired of all this crap. I say, let's forget these stupid scare mongers and get back to something *important* like getting terrorists out of our beautiful country! ]
The first thing you might have to do is change the way you look at things. In most free software development, we don't start with an idea and then try to sell it. Instead we start with a need and then try to fulfill it.
One of the reasons free software developers don't think about marketing is that it is often irrelevant to their goals. They have a need. They write software to fill the need. They are happy. If others also have their need filled, then the original developer is even more happy.
So doing things like market research isn't needed. It's the tail wagging the dog. We already know what we need, because otherwise we wouldn't be building it (we'd be on the couch drinking beer with the rest of humanity).
As a marketing person, you will have to ask yourself, "What do I want to accomplish?" What is *your* need? If it's that you want to "save the world", then maybe you should talk to the FSF. They have many projects for educating users about free software in general.
Maybe you simply want to help people around you. For instance, I like to help people learn how to use free software in the school I work at. So I volunteer some time to give demos and seminars. Other things you can do is work with people doing "install fests" of Linux. You can meet many ordinary people just wanting to try free software out.
Perhaps you just enjoy the intellectual exercise of finding the "next big thing". In that case, do your market research and present your findings. These days "Bar Camps" are an excellent way to show this kind of information. As you get more of a reputation, more people are likely to listen to you. As others have pointed out, having a tech blog is an excellent way to do this to. Write reviews, interview users, etc, etc, etc.
Finally, maybe you want to make money. Free software companies often need people in sales and marketing. The job entails making cold calls and convincing potential clients that your company can install a custom build of free software for *less* than buying generic software off the shelf. Probably not many places doing that right now, but Red Hat or IBM might be places to throw a resume.
Anyway, I hope that helps. Sometimes it's hard to understand that free software development is practically the reverse of other kinds of development. But one of the most powerful advantages is that initiatives are driven from the individual, not the group. We don't wait around for somebody to tell us what we should be doing. And you don't have to either. Do what you think is best. See what reaction you get. Modify to improve. Repeat. I'm sure you'll get there!
I disagree:-) (sounds like you are looking for someone to disagree with you!)
No matter what the actual contribution, activity is what feeds an open source project. I would welcome even the worst patch over cash on my projects. I don't care whether your code is good or bad, all I'm interested in is your interest. Because that's what keeps me writing code.
So don't hold back. Even writing a bug report, making a comment on a mailing list, submitting a 1 liner fix... all of it is invaluable. And if you go to the trouble to do something large, even if it isn't perfect, personally I would be thrilled to receive it.
Because without the support, a free software author can feel a bit like the "unicoder", sitting in a shack in the middle of nowhere:-P
That's really strange. A few years ago I got a quote in Ottawa for $10K. As others have mentioned, a lot depends on the circumstances. In my case, there was no problem getting a backhoe in and I could run an open system, so it definitely cuts back on cost.
But I still wonder about $30K. Seems quite expensive to me.
For cold/hot days. The parent is Canadian, so sometimes you don't get enough sunlight to counter extremely frigid temps.
Also, geo heat pumps work great as air conditioners as well. Depending on how much thermal mass his house has, it might be quite hot in the summer.
Finally, you can rig them to help with hot water as well.
If I was building a new house, it would be my *first* option for heating/cooling. In fact, in my last house I needed to replace my furnace and if I wasn't moving in a few months I would have sprung for one. I remember getting a quote around the $10K range, which is fantastic given it's flexibility.
I probably shouldn't reply. But I've got a high fever so I'm delerious enough to get into any discussion;-)
I will answer your question in a second (don't worry, I'm not pulling a bait and switch on you!). But I'll answer some other questions first because I think it is important in understanding my thinking. I want to discuss what weapon *I* would choose in the various circumstances.
First, if he is unarmed, I prefer to be unarmed. I'm trained in unarmed combat, so that's definitely going to be best for me. Also, there is something to be said (a lot to be said, actually) for not bringing a weapon into a fight if you don't need to. It increases the danger level, because no matter how well trained you are, accidents happen. The chances for accidents are less with fewer weapons.
If he has a bat, then it depends on my distance to him. If I can touch him, I prefer to be unarmed. Same reasons as before. At close distance, the bat is less effective than unarmed as well. If I'm several feet away, it really depends. While I am trained in pole weapons, my training is woefully incomplete. So I might choose a bat, but I might not. Probably it depends on the other person. If they look comfortable with the bat, then probably I'll go for it. Otherwise I'll stay unarmed, trusting in my ability to disarm him without getting too injured.
Attacking someone with a weapon is also very stupid because if you miss (highly likely if you aren't well trained), they will kill you. It's much better not to attack.
I don't want a gun because I'm not trained in gun. If the guy rushes me and gets within 2 or 3 feet he has the advantage. It becomes a game of chance. Either I kill/serious wound him, or he kills me. Actually if he comes hard enough he can kill me even if I kill him (bullets don't make people fly backward...) And if I miss, I risk hitting other people.
If he has a gun, I don't want a weapon. I'm not trained in gun. If we have a gun fight I will almost certainly lose. My only hope is to convince him not to attack. Now, if I were well trained in gun (in close combat situations), I might choose a different answer (but I'm still not sure -- won't know unless I become very well trained in gun).
Note that my original thesis was that having a gun when you aren't trained in gun is not a good idea. I have no problem with people who are well trained in guns to have them (and I mean trained in combat situations, not target shooting). To me it's just another weapon.
Also, I believe firmly that if *I* have a gun and *he* has a gun, he will shoot me. Probably 99% of the time. But just like my previous question, if I *don't* have a gun, then the chances are much better that he won't shoot me (why shoot someone who isn't posing a threat). He might still do so.
Now maybe I can shoot him and kill him before he can pull the trigger. But the odds are *not* 50:50. I'm not trained in gun. And I know from fighting people who have even a small amount of training, you can't beat them if you haven't trained. So I don't want a gun -- at all!
Now to your question. If I have a gun, what do I want him to have? Well, basically I'm fucked. Because the guy is probably going to attack me. I *really*, *really* don't want that. So I will get rid of the gun, no matter what he has. Of course I prefer that he is unarmed. But my point is that unless I am trained in gun, I don't want one.
Again, people have this completely irrational thought that they have decent odds of surviving a gunfight even when they are untrained. To those people, I highly encourage them to try it out with paintball or something. Find a gangbanger willing to practice with you and see how well you do... I already know my answer because I've fought with gangbangers before (in controlled situations). I didn't fare well... They fight *a lot*.
I hope that answers your question properly. A gun is a weapon. If you can wield it well, then I have no problem with you having on
Let me ask you this question. Let's suppose you have a gun and you see someone poking around in your house. You notice he has a gun too. What would you do?
Now let me ask you the same question except that you can clearly see that the person poking around your hose *doesn't* have a gun. Does it affect how you respond?
In which situation are you more likely to shoot the person?
If you are more likely to shoot the person if they have a gun, why do you feel that they are *less* likely to shoot you if *you* have a gun?
I'm not opposed to people carrying weapons if they are extremely well trained in their use. If they are expecting close combat (like in their house), they should also train themselves for those scenarios.
However, it baffles me that people think that carrying a gun will somehow protect them from the bullets of other people carrying guns. I suppose "As long as I kill him first, I won't get hit". But I don't get where people have the confidence that they will win so overwhelmingly (especially if they aren't trained).
Personally, I have a lot more confidence in my ability to convince someone with a gun not to shoot me when I'm unarmed.
I understand what you are saying. But Windows is often filling a gap of it's own making. For instance synching a windows mobile device -- of course it works well with Windows. It's specifically designed to.
It's not so much that Windows is filling a gap that Linux cannot, is that some popular devices are not designed to work with Linux. Of course, they could be, but the developers choose not to do so. As consumers we have a choice of what devices to buy. If we buy devices that work with Linux, then there is no gap to fill.
What's frustrating for me as a Linux user is that it isn't always obvious what I can buy without difficulty. This is more a problem with my vendors than with the Linux kernel -- obviously no OS works with *all* hardware (not even Windows). But with Windows, almost all of the vendors will tell you reliably what will work.
And this is where these small victories are necessary. One by one if we can convince vendors that our money is desirable, then it makes life easier for us. And really, for the most part it's pretty easy right now. I can easily buy a laptop or desktop computer mail order that is guaranteed to work.
Where we really need work is in accessories (although I've not personally had problems in the areas you mention -- not entirely sure what difficulty you've had). Also, you're right that we need to keep writing free software to replace proprietary software.
Whether or not it's junk science, there is still a benefit to carbon credits. I've never liked the idea of "carbon neutrality" from the perspective of "Hey, now I'm not polluting", because obviously you *are* still polluting.
But, let's pretend (for the sake of argument) that we want to move from a non-renewable petro-chemical based energy system to a renewable and varied system. Man, that's next to impossible because the infrastructure cost is enormous. Who's going to pay for all that?
If you view carbon credits merely as a tax on petro chemical use, that is used to pay for renewable energy generation infrastructure, then it makes a lot more sense. However, things like tree planting (as much as I like trees) *can't* be included. And there has to be *much* better accounting of how much power is actually being generated by these renewable systems. And there has to be some guarantee that the systems actually get built (i.e., you can't issue a carbon credit for spending money to an organization that *might* build power generation capacity "if everything goes as planned").
Personally, I like the idea of carbon credits. However, their implementation (especially in North America) leave *much* to be desired...
Damn I wish I had mod points. This is a really important point that people overlook. Energy costs dollars. And within a certain range, it costs roughly the same wherever you go. So you can calculate the worst case energy usage in anything you buy.
Also, if you want to conserve energy, one of the best things to do is simply to stop buying things. pretty much everything you buy has used a fair percentage of it's cost in energy. So if you can avoid buying it, you save the energy that went into making/transporting/displaying/etc it.
Of course, this is pretty easy advice to follow in today's economy:-)
Probably a few things would be a lot easier (programming by telling the computer what to do in a natural language rather than having to write objects and procedures in a high-level computer language...
Actually, I don't think programming would be any easier at all. We already have people telling programmers what they want in human language (PGMs) and the result is universally horrible. In reality, the hard part about programming is sorting out the nitty gritty details. Transcribing the solution to the computer is not difficult. And I would *not* want to try to discuss these solutions in such detail in natural language.
This is precisely why design documentation tends to go out of date very quickly -- it's written in the wrong language. We can't easily specify the level of detail we require in natural languages and so defer it to programming.
With respect to the point that choosing the GPL cuts you off from sources of development, you are exactly right. And even in the FSF philosophy pages on their websight they say that releasing your code to the public domain is the easiest way to make your code free.
I believe that when you choose to write free software, choosing your license depends on what you value. If you value development contribution over all other things, then of course the less restrictions the better (usually, although even that might not be true in certain circumstances).
But take my project, for instance. It is a Japanese drill program. I want *users*, not coders (well, coders are OK too:-) ). I want them using the program and contributing to the *content*. In this circumstance, the GPL serves my purposes *much* better.
It means if someone else takes my project and improves it, I will likely be able to get those improvements. But it also means that I don't have to compete against a proprietary product that uses *my own* code base. Again, I'm interested in users, not developers, so this competition is important to me.
When you look at applications and libraries that are licensed under the GPL, I think you'll find that *most* of the time (though not always) the author has chosen the correct license for their purpose. It's just that their purpose is not to help you out. They are more interested in their users than another developer. And while they would probably welcome contributions, for their values it isn't worth the cost.
You can test this next time you see a nice GPL library you want to use. Just send the author a nice email explaining that you like the code and want to include it in a proprietary product. Offer to give patches, or money, or whatever. If they say no, it's probably because the value of your contributions isn't worth the cost of their code base being included in a proprietary product.
If on the other hand they say, "Oh crap! I didn't realize that I was losing out on this valuable resource", then you have persuaded one person to move away from the GPL. However, I suspect there will be few takers.;-)
Of course, I'm not RMS, but I *do* try to follow what he writes. And I feel confident in saying that there is no rule that makes it morally wrong for you to use anything. You are the end user.
If you choose to use proprietary software it is unfortunate. Unfortunate because you deprive yourself of freedom. RMS *does* say you "shouldn't" run proprietary software, but that is for your benefit (in the long term).
What he characterizes as morally wrong, is writing and distributing non-free software. It is the act of depriving *others* that is morally wrong. What you do to yourself is your own business.
People get very confused because they see "immoral" on one hand and "shouldn't" on the other and assume that the two are connected. I really don't believe they are connected at all. An example might be that one considers it immoral to sell cigarettes to children. Children shouldn't smoke, but it is not immoral for a child to smoke. It's just unfortunate if the child choses to do so.
So, it is not "wrong" that you choose Ubuntu over something like gnuSense. It is simply unfortunate that you have chosen to use proprietary binary blobs (or other proprietary software that you can easily install from Ubuntu).
Now, having said all that, I don't agree with this position. I don't believe it is immoral to write or distribute proprietary software. However, I agree with him that free software is much better for everyone, so we should avoid proprietary software. And in fact, I believe it enough that I quit writing proprietary software.
Anyway, I really hope that helps. Perhaps you agree with my assesment, or perhaps not. But at least I hope it allows you to look at the issue from another perspective.
The FSF has published a fairly straight forward article describing their thoughts on whether software should be released under the GPL or a more permissive license such as the LGPL.
The exceptions in the Qt license are all free software licenses. Some of them are already compatible with the GPL, but some are not.
This makes the Qt license less restrictive than the GPL, but more restrictive than the LGPL (all of those licenses and more would be acceptable under the LGPL).
The FSF's stated position is that a less restrictive license should be chosen when the library in question doesn't offer advantages that would sway people away from proprietary projects. But the overriding consideration is that the choice of license should try to increase the number of free software contributors.
In the case of Qt, I think it is clear that the exceptions are geared towards allowing people to choose a different free license. The reason (AFAICT) is that otherwise they might go with a different (probably proprietary) option. Thus the exception in the case of Qt is unquestionably good.
In fact, I did a quick google search and found no criticism from the FSF on this subject. Whether you agree with RMS or not, I think we can all agree that he has been very outspoken about his opinion of Qt licensing in the past. Thus, I am sure that the FSF is quite happy with the license as it is.
I agree with this. However one thing to keep in mind is that artists and content creators are *artistic*. Even I have a hard time thinking of ways to make open source games make money. But artistic people often aren't in it for the bucks. There's a reason for the phrase "starving artist".
The reason we have lots of coders is that in programming we have a culture of free software. Slowly, the concept of free media is seeping into other areas (art, music, etc). But before we see big time games showing up that are completely free (as in speech), we're going to have to invite these people into our culture.
I like the idea of Creative Commons repositories for things. But I think it's also important for current free software game developers to take advantage of the resources that already exist. For example, there is a lot of music around that could be used in games. But I don't see many people using it (not invented here syndrome?). We need to show musicians and artists that making their work available in this form can push their careers forward.
So if there are any game developers out there, beat the bushes for good free content and then promote the hell out of the artists. This will help everybody.
OK. I've got the math. However, I'm afraid I only have data for CO2 emmisions. You can convert to energy usage if you want.
Shipping by container ship emits about 17 grams of carbon dioxide per ton km, while trains release 56 grams per ton km, trucks spew 102 grams per ton km, and jet aircraft belch 570 grams per ton km. A Honda Civic 2 door hatchback diesel CTDI S spews 134 grams per km.
The distance between Hong Kong and San Francisco is about 11,100 km. The distance from from Mexico City to San Francisco is about 3000 km (I just picked arbitrary cities).
Thus the CO2 emissions on a slow boat from China is about 188.7 kg per tonne. The CO2 emissions for rail from Mexico city is about 168 kg per tonne.
Let's say you are in Chicago and the light bulbs are shipped by truck from San Francisco. That's very nearly 3000 km as well. The CO2 emissions would be 306 kg per tonne. And let's say that *nobody* is stupid enough to air freight light bulbs (but I bet somebody is...:-P )
Now let's say you live 5 km from your local store and you drive your fairly fuel efficient Civic hatchback 10km round trip on a special trip to buy 5 lightbulbs. So the drive will emit 1340 grams total for the trip.
Based on some googling around, I found that the average CO2 emmisions for power generation in the US (in the year 2000) was 610 grams per KWh. The replacement for a 100w incandescnet bulb seems to be about 25w, which is a savings of 75W. Thus it takes 13.3 hours to save 1 KWh.
I'm going to assume that the lightbulb plus associated packaging is 200 grams. The total shipping cost for the CFLs from China is: 98.94 grams to get to the store. The incandescents from Mexico are 94.8 grams each.
So the difference in shipping emissions will take about 5.25 minutes of CFL use to equalize. So it is indeed false to say that shipping from China will take more energy than is saved in the lifetime of the bulb (as long as your bulbs are lasting longer than 5 minutes).
The more important point is that the 5 bulbs being shipped from china cost 500 grams of CO2. While the cost of picking them up by driving to the store is 1340 grams. We need to worry less about the distance things come from and more about what *we* do as individuals once they are here!
Actually, it shouldn't (I'd say can't but you never know...). The patent is for *three dimensional* networked games.
What's bad about this patent is that it doesn't talk at all about 3D. The vast majority of the patent is talking about how to route messages to the clients (in a *very* vague way).
This is a great example of a patent that must be struck down. There are *no* details describing how they accomplish most of the claims. And even those things that have details, they are vague. For instance, they describe how a message is sent to a specific client. They simply say that they put the avatar's name in the message. That's not a method!
how you would react to someone who didn't give a shit about confidentiality and would jeopardise a reasonable settlment for reasons that they would not espouse if they were properly represnted
I think you are making an assumption that things like disclosure are not important. For a great many people involved in lawsuits, it's the principle of the thing and not the money that's the issue. So they would rather not settle for "reasonable settlement" if it included non-disclosure.
A person may be motivated to protect themselves, but they may also be motivated to protect others as well. And often disclosure is the only way to protect others. To some people there may not be enough money in the world to get them to shift from that position. Such people are not necessarily unreasonable.
Actually, there are a lot of cost advantages to living in a city. One of the biggest is that you don't need to have a car. A bicycle is fine (and the occasional public transport for carrying big things if you need to).
The downside, as you've alluded to, is that you don't have much land. But if you forgo the livestock and eat vegan meals, you can cut down on your land requirements enormously. You can grow sprouts and shoot with *very* little land.
I'm currently living in a townhouse with a small patio and driveway. I've started to grow my own food there. I think I have about 100 square feet of growing room. I've been quite surprised how much food I can grow if I'm careful.
If you don't have outside land, there is also hydroponics, which is surprisingly affordable given that electricity in most cities is dirt cheap. When I lived in Ottawa, my 16 square feet of hydroponics cost me about $15 a month in electricity. It scales up pretty efficiently, so 100 square feet probably wouldn't cost more than say $50 per month.
I'm trying to live a bit like the GP. Last year I spent less than $10K. I get subsidized housing, though, and I don't have a wife or kids. So I'm not doing nearly as well as him. However, I am sooo much happier living like this. Previously I was making around $100K and working my ass off. After taxes I guess that's something like $65K.
So, I'm spending $55K less per year, but I've got my life back. Personally, I think it's more than worth it. Just consider how much your time is worth to *you*.
You're absolutely right. It doesn't matter if most people don't want to crack things. If your audience numbers in the hundreds of millions, the odds that there will be a few brilliant people who love to crack things in it approaches 100%.
What's even worse is that there's almost no way to hire someone more brilliant than the crackers. Your talent pool for hiring is vastly smaller than the pool of potential crackers (everyone watches, or is exposed to movies -- how many people submit resumes to work at Sony?).
Slashdot Mirror
legitimitely interested in giving freedom and flexibility to his clients but not giving up his business by just giving his product away.
I just want to modify that statement (I hope you don't mind modification and redistribution of your comment :-) ).
by not giving up his business plan by just allowing redistribution
While it is true that there are some businesses who haven't figured out that they need to charge for their work, I think they have mostly died out. Charging for your product is one way to make money. Using this method you must create artificial scarcity of your product so that you can charge for making a copy (which is virtually free). Thus you must restrict your customers from making their own copies and distributing them.
Another way to make money is to charge for your work. Someone pays you to do some programming. You do it. You give them the software. They do whatever they want with it (including redistributing it). Notice how you are paid in the first step. There is no need for artificial scarcity and no need to restrict your customer from distribution.
You can make money using both business plans. Thus "giving away your product" is not equivalent to "giving up your business". But if you do it, you obviously must change your business plan. In other words, you better make sure that you are getting paid for the work you are doing. Setting up your business this way can be quite challenging if you aren't used to it. But there are also some pretty serious advantages to doing so (the primary being that you don't need a lot of capital up front).
and Linux can do it on what, 1/100th the budget (veeeery rough estimation, folks)?
Actually, you'd be surprised. Some of these numbers are coming from my own rather faulty memory, but I think it's a lot closer in cost than you think.
IIRC, Vista took about 5 years and $5 Billion to make. At a loaded labour rate of $120,000 per year, that's 8,333 employees. I don't know if that is all R&D, but let's assume it is.
According to the Linux Foundation there are more than 1000 active developers and between 70 and 95% are paid (IIRC, another report found that 75% are full time paid developers).
So the total cost of developing the kernel is already 1/10 of that of developing Vista. And we have to take into consideration that Vista is more than the kernel (i.e., we can lump in gnome or KDE, GTK or QT, etc, etc). So, probably the actually amount of money spent is closer to 1/5th of that of Vista.
The big advantage of open source software from the developers point of view is not the overall cost reduction (there may not be any). It's that each individual contributor only pays a portion of that cost. IBM, Redhat, Novell, Canonical, are only paying a very small fraction of the overall development cost, while enjoying the benefits of the whole.
One of the things about free software is that often developers write what they want to write rather than what other people need. Actually, I have to use OpenOffice every day, and I hate it with a passion. Even though I'm a programmer, I work on my own project (infinitely less popular) rather than OpenOffice. Yes, this can be sub-optimal in some ways, but on the other hand we can often get free software applications in niche areas that nobody would ever write in a proprietary fashion since there's no real possibility of a large ROI.
In the end I think it's an advantage. Maybe the pure eye candy that's being written right now has no real value. But possibly someone will find some very useful way of representing data. I'd rather have them working away on what they love rather than grinding away at something else even if I'd benefit in the short term.
BTW, I don't mean to denigrate OO, since a lot of people like it. Really, I need to do text/graphical layout, not word processing. Also, all my documents are a mix of Japanese and English and there are some huge bugs jumping between languages in the version of OO I have. I really need to find a different solution...
OSS lacks QA - show me a OSS project that government is likely to use that has any quality assurances. the big font stating "use at own risk" is a massive turn off for government and rightly so.
Um.. Microsoft's EULA basically says the same thing.
Not only that, but with OSS you can actually do a risk assesment by inspecting the source code. In the case of proprietary software that gives no warantee, how can I asses my risk?
What I find interesting is that in most cases you really want to "use at your own risk", after having assessed that risk properly. Because, if I buy a piece of software from Mario's Super Software company for $100, but it blows up in my face for $10 million.... my $100 refund isn't going to comfort me all that much...
Absolutely! I hear you brother. I've totally lost confidence in *them*. Let's face it. Every time *they* have predicted the end of the world, *they* have been wrong. EVERY SINGLE TIME!
I mean, if once -- only one time -- *they* got it right, I'd be willing to listen. But let's face it. *They* must be absolutely insane, because in my long life (and my father's and his father's before him) I have *never* EVEN ONCE died a horrible death from a world wide disaster of our own making.
And like you say, technology *always* saves us (a fact that *they* are always too eager to sweep under the rug). Every time technology has saved us from imminent disaster, every single time mind you, it has been *technology* that has saved us. *They* would have us think that there are limits to what technology can do for us. But who are *they* anyway to say such nonsense. Let's just look at history.
I'm just so tired of all this crap. I say, let's forget these stupid scare mongers and get back to something *important* like getting terrorists out of our beautiful country!
]
The first thing you might have to do is change the way you look at things. In most free software development, we don't start with an idea and then try to sell it. Instead we start with a need and then try to fulfill it.
One of the reasons free software developers don't think about marketing is that it is often irrelevant to their goals. They have a need. They write software to fill the need. They are happy. If others also have their need filled, then the original developer is even more happy.
So doing things like market research isn't needed. It's the tail wagging the dog. We already know what we need, because otherwise we wouldn't be building it (we'd be on the couch drinking beer with the rest of humanity).
As a marketing person, you will have to ask yourself, "What do I want to accomplish?" What is *your* need? If it's that you want to "save the world", then maybe you should talk to the FSF. They have many projects for educating users about free software in general.
Maybe you simply want to help people around you. For instance, I like to help people learn how to use free software in the school I work at. So I volunteer some time to give demos and seminars. Other things you can do is work with people doing "install fests" of Linux. You can meet many ordinary people just wanting to try free software out.
Perhaps you just enjoy the intellectual exercise of finding the "next big thing". In that case, do your market research and present your findings. These days "Bar Camps" are an excellent way to show this kind of information. As you get more of a reputation, more people are likely to listen to you. As others have pointed out, having a tech blog is an excellent way to do this to. Write reviews, interview users, etc, etc, etc.
Finally, maybe you want to make money. Free software companies often need people in sales and marketing. The job entails making cold calls and convincing potential clients that your company can install a custom build of free software for *less* than buying generic software off the shelf. Probably not many places doing that right now, but Red Hat or IBM might be places to throw a resume.
Anyway, I hope that helps. Sometimes it's hard to understand that free software development is practically the reverse of other kinds of development. But one of the most powerful advantages is that initiatives are driven from the individual, not the group. We don't wait around for somebody to tell us what we should be doing. And you don't have to either. Do what you think is best. See what reaction you get. Modify to improve. Repeat. I'm sure you'll get there!
I disagree :-) (sounds like you are looking for someone to disagree with you!)
No matter what the actual contribution, activity is what feeds an open source project. I would welcome even the worst patch over cash on my projects. I don't care whether your code is good or bad, all I'm interested in is your interest. Because that's what keeps me writing code.
So don't hold back. Even writing a bug report, making a comment on a mailing list, submitting a 1 liner fix... all of it is invaluable. And if you go to the trouble to do something large, even if it isn't perfect, personally I would be thrilled to receive it.
Because without the support, a free software author can feel a bit like the "unicoder", sitting in a shack in the middle of nowhere :-P
That's really strange. A few years ago I got a quote in Ottawa for $10K. As others have mentioned, a lot depends on the circumstances. In my case, there was no problem getting a backhoe in and I could run an open system, so it definitely cuts back on cost.
But I still wonder about $30K. Seems quite expensive to me.
For cold/hot days. The parent is Canadian, so sometimes you don't get enough sunlight to counter extremely frigid temps.
Also, geo heat pumps work great as air conditioners as well. Depending on how much thermal mass his house has, it might be quite hot in the summer.
Finally, you can rig them to help with hot water as well.
If I was building a new house, it would be my *first* option for heating/cooling. In fact, in my last house I needed to replace my furnace and if I wasn't moving in a few months I would have sprung for one. I remember getting a quote around the $10K range, which is fantastic given it's flexibility.
I probably shouldn't reply. But I've got a high fever so I'm delerious enough to get into any discussion ;-)
I will answer your question in a second (don't worry, I'm not pulling a bait and switch on you!). But I'll answer some other questions first because I think it is important in understanding my thinking. I want to discuss what weapon *I* would choose in the various circumstances.
First, if he is unarmed, I prefer to be unarmed. I'm trained in unarmed combat, so that's definitely going to be best for me. Also, there is something to be said (a lot to be said, actually) for not bringing a weapon into a fight if you don't need to. It increases the danger level, because no matter how well trained you are, accidents happen. The chances for accidents are less with fewer weapons.
If he has a bat, then it depends on my distance to him. If I can touch him, I prefer to be unarmed. Same reasons as before. At close distance, the bat is less effective than unarmed as well. If I'm several feet away, it really depends. While I am trained in pole weapons, my training is woefully incomplete. So I might choose a bat, but I might not. Probably it depends on the other person. If they look comfortable with the bat, then probably I'll go for it. Otherwise I'll stay unarmed, trusting in my ability to disarm him without getting too injured.
Attacking someone with a weapon is also very stupid because if you miss (highly likely if you aren't well trained), they will kill you. It's much better not to attack.
I don't want a gun because I'm not trained in gun. If the guy rushes me and gets within 2 or 3 feet he has the advantage. It becomes a game of chance. Either I kill/serious wound him, or he kills me. Actually if he comes hard enough he can kill me even if I kill him (bullets don't make people fly backward...) And if I miss, I risk hitting other people.
If he has a gun, I don't want a weapon. I'm not trained in gun. If we have a gun fight I will almost certainly lose. My only hope is to convince him not to attack. Now, if I were well trained in gun (in close combat situations), I might choose a different answer (but I'm still not sure -- won't know unless I become very well trained in gun).
Note that my original thesis was that having a gun when you aren't trained in gun is not a good idea. I have no problem with people who are well trained in guns to have them (and I mean trained in combat situations, not target shooting). To me it's just another weapon.
Also, I believe firmly that if *I* have a gun and *he* has a gun, he will shoot me. Probably 99% of the time. But just like my previous question, if I *don't* have a gun, then the chances are much better that he won't shoot me (why shoot someone who isn't posing a threat). He might still do so.
Now maybe I can shoot him and kill him before he can pull the trigger. But the odds are *not* 50:50. I'm not trained in gun. And I know from fighting people who have even a small amount of training, you can't beat them if you haven't trained. So I don't want a gun -- at all!
Now to your question. If I have a gun, what do I want him to have? Well, basically I'm fucked. Because the guy is probably going to attack me. I *really*, *really* don't want that. So I will get rid of the gun, no matter what he has. Of course I prefer that he is unarmed. But my point is that unless I am trained in gun, I don't want one.
Again, people have this completely irrational thought that they have decent odds of surviving a gunfight even when they are untrained. To those people, I highly encourage them to try it out with paintball or something. Find a gangbanger willing to practice with you and see how well you do... I already know my answer because I've fought with gangbangers before (in controlled situations). I didn't fare well... They fight *a lot*.
I hope that answers your question properly. A gun is a weapon. If you can wield it well, then I have no problem with you having on
Let me ask you this question. Let's suppose you have a gun and you see someone poking around in your house. You notice he has a gun too. What would you do?
Now let me ask you the same question except that you can clearly see that the person poking around your hose *doesn't* have a gun. Does it affect how you respond?
In which situation are you more likely to shoot the person?
If you are more likely to shoot the person if they have a gun, why do you feel that they are *less* likely to shoot you if *you* have a gun?
I'm not opposed to people carrying weapons if they are extremely well trained in their use. If they are expecting close combat (like in their house), they should also train themselves for those scenarios.
However, it baffles me that people think that carrying a gun will somehow protect them from the bullets of other people carrying guns. I suppose "As long as I kill him first, I won't get hit". But I don't get where people have the confidence that they will win so overwhelmingly (especially if they aren't trained).
Personally, I have a lot more confidence in my ability to convince someone with a gun not to shoot me when I'm unarmed.
I understand what you are saying. But Windows is often filling a gap of it's own making. For instance synching a windows mobile device -- of course it works well with Windows. It's specifically designed to.
It's not so much that Windows is filling a gap that Linux cannot, is that some popular devices are not designed to work with Linux. Of course, they could be, but the developers choose not to do so. As consumers we have a choice of what devices to buy. If we buy devices that work with Linux, then there is no gap to fill.
What's frustrating for me as a Linux user is that it isn't always obvious what I can buy without difficulty. This is more a problem with my vendors than with the Linux kernel -- obviously no OS works with *all* hardware (not even Windows). But with Windows, almost all of the vendors will tell you reliably what will work.
And this is where these small victories are necessary. One by one if we can convince vendors that our money is desirable, then it makes life easier for us. And really, for the most part it's pretty easy right now. I can easily buy a laptop or desktop computer mail order that is guaranteed to work.
Where we really need work is in accessories (although I've not personally had problems in the areas you mention -- not entirely sure what difficulty you've had). Also, you're right that we need to keep writing free software to replace proprietary software.
The whole concept is junk science.
Whether or not it's junk science, there is still a benefit to carbon credits. I've never liked the idea of "carbon neutrality" from the perspective of "Hey, now I'm not polluting", because obviously you *are* still polluting.
But, let's pretend (for the sake of argument) that we want to move from a non-renewable petro-chemical based energy system to a renewable and varied system. Man, that's next to impossible because the infrastructure cost is enormous. Who's going to pay for all that?
If you view carbon credits merely as a tax on petro chemical use, that is used to pay for renewable energy generation infrastructure, then it makes a lot more sense. However, things like tree planting (as much as I like trees) *can't* be included. And there has to be *much* better accounting of how much power is actually being generated by these renewable systems. And there has to be some guarantee that the systems actually get built (i.e., you can't issue a carbon credit for spending money to an organization that *might* build power generation capacity "if everything goes as planned").
Personally, I like the idea of carbon credits. However, their implementation (especially in North America) leave *much* to be desired...
Damn I wish I had mod points. This is a really important point that people overlook. Energy costs dollars. And within a certain range, it costs roughly the same wherever you go. So you can calculate the worst case energy usage in anything you buy.
Also, if you want to conserve energy, one of the best things to do is simply to stop buying things. pretty much everything you buy has used a fair percentage of it's cost in energy. So if you can avoid buying it, you save the energy that went into making/transporting/displaying/etc it.
Of course, this is pretty easy advice to follow in today's economy :-)
Probably a few things would be a lot easier (programming by telling the computer what to do in a natural language rather than having to write objects and procedures in a high-level computer language...
Actually, I don't think programming would be any easier at all. We already have people telling programmers what they want in human language (PGMs) and the result is universally horrible. In reality, the hard part about programming is sorting out the nitty gritty details. Transcribing the solution to the computer is not difficult. And I would *not* want to try to discuss these solutions in such detail in natural language.
This is precisely why design documentation tends to go out of date very quickly -- it's written in the wrong language. We can't easily specify the level of detail we require in natural languages and so defer it to programming.
With respect to the point that choosing the GPL cuts you off from sources of development, you are exactly right. And even in the FSF philosophy pages on their websight they say that releasing your code to the public domain is the easiest way to make your code free.
I believe that when you choose to write free software, choosing your license depends on what you value. If you value development contribution over all other things, then of course the less restrictions the better (usually, although even that might not be true in certain circumstances).
But take my project, for instance. It is a Japanese drill program. I want *users*, not coders (well, coders are OK too :-) ). I want them using the program and contributing to the *content*. In this circumstance, the GPL serves my purposes *much* better.
It means if someone else takes my project and improves it, I will likely be able to get those improvements. But it also means that I don't have to compete against a proprietary product that uses *my own* code base. Again, I'm interested in users, not developers, so this competition is important to me.
When you look at applications and libraries that are licensed under the GPL, I think you'll find that *most* of the time (though not always) the author has chosen the correct license for their purpose. It's just that their purpose is not to help you out. They are more interested in their users than another developer. And while they would probably welcome contributions, for their values it isn't worth the cost.
You can test this next time you see a nice GPL library you want to use. Just send the author a nice email explaining that you like the code and want to include it in a proprietary product. Offer to give patches, or money, or whatever. If they say no, it's probably because the value of your contributions isn't worth the cost of their code base being included in a proprietary product.
If on the other hand they say, "Oh crap! I didn't realize that I was losing out on this valuable resource", then you have persuaded one person to move away from the GPL. However, I suspect there will be few takers. ;-)
I'm posting this in the hope that it helps.
Of course, I'm not RMS, but I *do* try to follow what he writes. And I feel confident in saying that there is no rule that makes it morally wrong for you to use anything. You are the end user.
If you choose to use proprietary software it is unfortunate. Unfortunate because you deprive yourself of freedom. RMS *does* say you "shouldn't" run proprietary software, but that is for your benefit (in the long term).
What he characterizes as morally wrong, is writing and distributing non-free software. It is the act of depriving *others* that is morally wrong. What you do to yourself is your own business.
People get very confused because they see "immoral" on one hand and "shouldn't" on the other and assume that the two are connected. I really don't believe they are connected at all. An example might be that one considers it immoral to sell cigarettes to children. Children shouldn't smoke, but it is not immoral for a child to smoke. It's just unfortunate if the child choses to do so.
So, it is not "wrong" that you choose Ubuntu over something like gnuSense. It is simply unfortunate that you have chosen to use proprietary binary blobs (or other proprietary software that you can easily install from Ubuntu).
Now, having said all that, I don't agree with this position. I don't believe it is immoral to write or distribute proprietary software. However, I agree with him that free software is much better for everyone, so we should avoid proprietary software. And in fact, I believe it enough that I quit writing proprietary software.
Anyway, I really hope that helps. Perhaps you agree with my assesment, or perhaps not. But at least I hope it allows you to look at the issue from another perspective.
Sigh... I'm giving up my moderations for this...
The FSF has published a fairly straight forward article describing their thoughts on whether software should be released under the GPL or a more permissive license such as the LGPL.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
The exceptions in the Qt license are all free software licenses. Some of them are already compatible with the GPL, but some are not.
This makes the Qt license less restrictive than the GPL, but more restrictive than the LGPL (all of those licenses and more would be acceptable under the LGPL).
The FSF's stated position is that a less restrictive license should be chosen when the library in question doesn't offer advantages that would sway people away from proprietary projects. But the overriding consideration is that the choice of license should try to increase the number of free software contributors.
In the case of Qt, I think it is clear that the exceptions are geared towards allowing people to choose a different free license. The reason (AFAICT) is that otherwise they might go with a different (probably proprietary) option. Thus the exception in the case of Qt is unquestionably good.
In fact, I did a quick google search and found no criticism from the FSF on this subject. Whether you agree with RMS or not, I think we can all agree that he has been very outspoken about his opinion of Qt licensing in the past. Thus, I am sure that the FSF is quite happy with the license as it is.
Hope that helps!
I agree with this. However one thing to keep in mind is that artists and content creators are *artistic*. Even I have a hard time thinking of ways to make open source games make money. But artistic people often aren't in it for the bucks. There's a reason for the phrase "starving artist".
The reason we have lots of coders is that in programming we have a culture of free software. Slowly, the concept of free media is seeping into other areas (art, music, etc). But before we see big time games showing up that are completely free (as in speech), we're going to have to invite these people into our culture.
I like the idea of Creative Commons repositories for things. But I think it's also important for current free software game developers to take advantage of the resources that already exist. For example, there is a lot of music around that could be used in games. But I don't see many people using it (not invented here syndrome?). We need to show musicians and artists that making their work available in this form can push their careers forward.
So if there are any game developers out there, beat the bushes for good free content and then promote the hell out of the artists. This will help everybody.
OK. I've got the math. However, I'm afraid I only have data for CO2 emmisions. You can convert to energy usage if you want.
Shipping by container ship emits about 17 grams of carbon dioxide per ton km, while trains release 56 grams per ton km, trucks spew 102 grams per ton km, and jet aircraft belch 570 grams per ton km. A Honda Civic 2 door hatchback diesel CTDI S spews 134 grams per km.
The distance between Hong Kong and San Francisco is about 11,100 km. The distance from from Mexico City to San Francisco is about 3000 km (I just picked arbitrary cities).
Thus the CO2 emissions on a slow boat from China is about 188.7 kg per tonne. The CO2 emissions for rail from Mexico city is about 168 kg per tonne.
Let's say you are in Chicago and the light bulbs are shipped by truck from San Francisco. That's very nearly 3000 km as well. The CO2 emissions would be 306 kg per tonne. And let's say that *nobody* is stupid enough to air freight light bulbs (but I bet somebody is... :-P )
Now let's say you live 5 km from your local store and you drive your fairly fuel efficient Civic hatchback 10km round trip on a special trip to buy 5 lightbulbs. So the drive will emit 1340 grams total for the trip.
Based on some googling around, I found that the average CO2 emmisions for power generation in the US (in the year 2000) was 610 grams per KWh. The replacement for a 100w incandescnet bulb seems to be about 25w, which is a savings of 75W. Thus it takes 13.3 hours to save 1 KWh.
I'm going to assume that the lightbulb plus associated packaging is 200 grams. The total shipping cost for the CFLs from China is: 98.94 grams to get to the store. The incandescents from Mexico are 94.8 grams each.
So the difference in shipping emissions will take about 5.25 minutes of CFL use to equalize. So it is indeed false to say that shipping from China will take more energy than is saved in the lifetime of the bulb (as long as your bulbs are lasting longer than 5 minutes).
The more important point is that the 5 bulbs being shipped from china cost 500 grams of CO2. While the cost of picking them up by driving to the store is 1340 grams. We need to worry less about the distance things come from and more about what *we* do as individuals once they are here!
Actually, it shouldn't (I'd say can't but you never know...). The patent is for *three dimensional* networked games.
What's bad about this patent is that it doesn't talk at all about 3D. The vast majority of the patent is talking about how to route messages to the clients (in a *very* vague way).
This is a great example of a patent that must be struck down. There are *no* details describing how they accomplish most of the claims. And even those things that have details, they are vague. For instance, they describe how a message is sent to a specific client. They simply say that they put the avatar's name in the message. That's not a method!
Obviously I'm not NYCL, but you asked,
how you would react to someone who didn't give a shit about confidentiality and would jeopardise a reasonable settlment for reasons that they would not espouse if they were properly represnted
I think you are making an assumption that things like disclosure are not important. For a great many people involved in lawsuits, it's the principle of the thing and not the money that's the issue. So they would rather not settle for "reasonable settlement" if it included non-disclosure.
A person may be motivated to protect themselves, but they may also be motivated to protect others as well. And often disclosure is the only way to protect others. To some people there may not be enough money in the world to get them to shift from that position. Such people are not necessarily unreasonable.
Actually, there are a lot of cost advantages to living in a city. One of the biggest is that you don't need to have a car. A bicycle is fine (and the occasional public transport for carrying big things if you need to).
The downside, as you've alluded to, is that you don't have much land. But if you forgo the livestock and eat vegan meals, you can cut down on your land requirements enormously. You can grow sprouts and shoot with *very* little land.
I'm currently living in a townhouse with a small patio and driveway. I've started to grow my own food there. I think I have about 100 square feet of growing room. I've been quite surprised how much food I can grow if I'm careful.
If you don't have outside land, there is also hydroponics, which is surprisingly affordable given that electricity in most cities is dirt cheap. When I lived in Ottawa, my 16 square feet of hydroponics cost me about $15 a month in electricity. It scales up pretty efficiently, so 100 square feet probably wouldn't cost more than
say $50 per month.
I'm trying to live a bit like the GP. Last year I spent less than $10K. I get subsidized housing, though, and I don't have a wife or kids. So I'm not doing nearly as well as him. However, I am sooo much happier living like this. Previously I was making around $100K and working my ass off. After taxes I guess that's something like $65K.
So, I'm spending $55K less per year, but I've got my life back. Personally, I think it's more than worth it. Just consider how much your time is worth to *you*.
Man: God smote me down, I tell you!
Does workers comp pay for acts of god?
You're absolutely right. It doesn't matter if most people don't want to crack things. If your audience numbers in the hundreds of millions, the odds that there will be a few brilliant people who love to crack things in it approaches 100%.
What's even worse is that there's almost no way to hire someone more brilliant than the crackers. Your talent pool for hiring is vastly smaller than the pool of potential crackers (everyone watches, or is exposed to movies -- how many people submit resumes to work at Sony?).