And RH-like companies' ability to make money off OSS is proportional to the lock-in effect they can create with their distribution or application
"Lock-in" is exactly what customers should seek to avoid. Customers will continue to use your services if you prove to be skilled and conscientious at using the software in question. Our own experience is that we are more attractive to customers by the very fact that they feel they can up anchor and shift to alternative support / suppliers if necessary.
So where's the R&D? Well between 10 and 20% of our turnover goes into R&D, much of it supporting external OSS projects (Debian, Moodle, and a few of our own as well). I think we are in good company. About 50% of IBMs turnover comes from services. Same goes for about 80% of IT companies.
So, not only is the model sustainable due to highly motivated and skilled enthusiasts, it sustains the industry, which frankly was beginning to flag and stale under the proprietary model (hence the popularity of gouging schemes like software patents).
PS, the stupid in the subject line is not to be taken personnally, like Bill Clinton, I have it pinned above my desk, least I forget).
Well, here's a thing. I recently joined my Dad to help purchase a new laptop which came pre-installed with XP (unpatched). Would the shop patch to SP 2 or even supply SP2 - no. Why? Because there was:
1. No financial reward in it for them 2. They would have to support the customers whose machines were fscked by the upgrade 3. They claimed it wouldn't actually stop most of the exploits out there.
Anyway, I purchased some firewall/AV software (crappy McAffe), made sure Firefax, Thunderbird and OOo were the tools of choice and watched as attempts were made on his new machine's life as soon as he connected to the internet.
The point is, he bought a computer in good faith, he is not a computer expert and like everyone else who bought a PC from the same very large UK chain he would have been rooted from the word go. From my own personal experience the article is bang on the money - nothing sensationalist there.
It *is* valid to talk about unpatched machines, whether they be Linux desktops or Windows.
1. Collect royalties directly from the end user 2. Issue an injunction to the end user to cease using their IP - immediately.
Why? Because they don't like MS, maybe or they have a goal that doesn't include MS. Why is there always an assumption that MS can or even want to buy their way out of trouble?
The point is, the choice is not with MS or the end user on how to react to proven patent infringements. With an open source product you have much more freedom and flexibility on how to react and much clearer and available development history.
By the way, through OSRM (which, by the way, is non-profit makeing) the FOSS community were able to offer indemnity insurance for an OSS product. Notice how others followed, including HP and Novell. In fact, soon it began to look like it was only MS that was offering no guarantees. So they were last to market, again, now they have a very limited indemnity offer they are making out they're the only show in town!
Agreed. Particualrly when you consider that Novell, Caldera/SCO, Canopy all come from the same Noorda stable and seem to share a common business model. Buy a struggling company a sue the shit out'a somebody bigger. They sure have had some big payouts in the last ten years or so.
Still, the article in question does makes a very valid point about why the case should be followed from a FOSS perpective.
McAfee is a pox. It has the most useless update facility in the world that seems to rely on hopelessly long downloads of fixes to its own software (even if that particular program is disabled) rather than just updates to its virus databases. Oh, and it also murders the performance of any machine its loaded on. Grrr, McAfee, send your requests for references to me, please.
Yes, I was recently forced back to the Windows world for one mind numbing week.
Well you do not RC, sorry. Kerry has simply said he will protect peoples' right to have their vote recounted. IIRC the 2000 debacle was caused by a refusal to hold a recount in certain closely fought districts. In all other democracies I know of the right to hold a recount is fundamental, and requried to maintain confidence in the system. Only in America has the right now been challenged.
I'm not quite clear why critiques of SCO's actions should be prefaced with what schism of the Christian (or other) faith one belongs to. No one, as far as I'm aware have asked Bill Gates fellow church goers to speak out a criticise him. BTW I belong to no faith but am just confused by this constant call for Mormons to stand up.
It's worse than that now. The "media" is very aware of Groklaw these days and very seldom prints straight SCO press releases (I know because I will call and email journalists if I think they have mis-represented a point).
Obviously rather than tell the truth (that they are were lying) SCO have only one recourse - discredit the most thourough analytical source.
This, to SCO and MS, is now even more urgent as Groklaw (and others) are turning their attention to IP laws and I predict this will have the same public impact as it has had on the credibility of SCO's case.
PS Still looking for a "+5 Astroturfer" on this thread, comeon SCO.
There are a few other comments in a similar vien. But this is where articles like the one we've just read, the EFF and (recently) proven community based defences like Groklaw are really proving their worth. Won't take many "scary" cases to fall over before they are just not scary any more.
Well, these days I only read at +5 so maybe I'm missing something.
The arguements that are coming through have very little to do with the rights and wrongs of pirating. They have to do with the fact that an organisation with huge vested interest is:
1. Vastly overstating the case 2. Ignoring the benefits of having people "preview" their software.
Of course, in your world only point 1 applies, but it is still very relevant.
Now that post is certainly worth more - moderators.
Having user and developer experience in both environments I will reserve the right, however, to (more) respectfully disagree with parts of your analysis but I would understand how in a college lab environment some of your users are prone to acts of vandalism.
Those are both perfectly valid "realities", further more I believe you! See that wasn't so hard. The grandparent poster won't believe people have issues with Windows. Good luck to him, I say, and if he works for MS then better luck to the purveyors of alternatives.
add regular and easy updates. I use debian at work ('cuase that's what our sysadms have set up) and Mandrake at home. For some reason I just love the fact that I can easily update Gnome, the kernel and my apps with the minimum of fuss. I never did that under Windows as I just knew I'd be out of action for a good while.
Slashdot Mirror
2 provinces: South Holland and North Holland combined ...which we English speakers mistakenly refer to as "double Dutch".
Read the second article for your answers, save you time, here's the link.
In fact, save you even more time researching such a boring subject, it will definitely be bad.
- addressing climate change will lead to American job losses (go figure)
And RH-like companies' ability to make money off OSS is proportional to the lock-in effect they can create with their distribution or application
"Lock-in" is exactly what customers should seek to avoid. Customers will continue to use your services if you prove to be skilled and conscientious at using the software in question. Our own experience is that we are more attractive to customers by the very fact that they feel they can up anchor and shift to alternative support / suppliers if necessary.
So where's the R&D? Well between 10 and 20% of our turnover goes into R&D, much of it supporting external OSS projects (Debian, Moodle, and a few of our own as well). I think we are in good company. About 50% of IBMs turnover comes from services. Same goes for about 80% of IT companies.
So, not only is the model sustainable due to highly motivated and skilled enthusiasts, it sustains the industry, which frankly was beginning to flag and stale under the proprietary model (hence the popularity of gouging schemes like software patents).
PS, the stupid in the subject line is not to be taken personnally, like Bill Clinton, I have it pinned above my desk, least I forget).
Well, here's a thing. I recently joined my Dad to help purchase a new laptop which came pre-installed with XP (unpatched). Would the shop patch to SP 2 or even supply SP2 - no. Why? Because there was:
1. No financial reward in it for them
2. They would have to support the customers whose machines were fscked by the upgrade
3. They claimed it wouldn't actually stop most of the exploits out there.
Anyway, I purchased some firewall/AV software (crappy McAffe), made sure Firefax, Thunderbird and OOo were the tools of choice and watched as attempts were made on his new machine's life as soon as he connected to the internet.
The point is, he bought a computer in good faith, he is not a computer expert and like everyone else who bought a PC from the same very large UK chain he would have been rooted from the word go. From my own personal experience the article is bang on the money - nothing sensationalist there.
It *is* valid to talk about unpatched machines, whether they be Linux desktops or Windows.
Well, in my defence I would point you to a comment by PJ over at Groklaw. She says that "Users are liable whether they know about a patent or not."
Here is the link.
As I said, IANAPL or even AL but it seems pretty clear. I have also read of cases where companies have refused to settle with MS over patent issues.
IANAPL, but if what you say is correct, just to whome is OSRM selling insurance and what on earth are Novell, HP et al indemnifying us against?
Colour me confused.
...or maybe the patent owner will decide to:
1. Collect royalties directly from the end user
2. Issue an injunction to the end user to cease using their IP - immediately.
Why? Because they don't like MS, maybe or they have a goal that doesn't include MS. Why is there always an assumption that MS can or even want to buy their way out of trouble?
The point is, the choice is not with MS or the end user on how to react to proven patent infringements. With an open source product you have much more freedom and flexibility on how to react and much clearer and available development history.
By the way, through OSRM (which, by the way, is non-profit makeing) the FOSS community were able to offer indemnity insurance for an OSS product. Notice how others followed, including HP and Novell. In fact, soon it began to look like it was only MS that was offering no guarantees. So they were last to market, again, now they have a very limited indemnity offer they are making out they're the only show in town!
Agreed. Particualrly when you consider that Novell, Caldera/SCO, Canopy all come from the same Noorda stable and seem to share a common business model. Buy a struggling company a sue the shit out'a somebody bigger. They sure have had some big payouts in the last ten years or so.
Still, the article in question does makes a very valid point about why the case should be followed from a FOSS perpective.
McAfee is a pox. It has the most useless update facility in the world that seems to rely on hopelessly long downloads of fixes to its own software (even if that particular program is disabled) rather than just updates to its virus databases. Oh, and it also murders the performance of any machine its loaded on. Grrr, McAfee, send your requests for references to me, please.
Yes, I was recently forced back to the Windows world for one mind numbing week.
Although how you screw up an optical scan vote is beyond my comprehension.
Let us aid your comprehension here in New Zealand...
As a quick Google search will show.
At least they had the ballots to recount (albeit very slowly).
Does it mean, however, that provisional votes will not be counted?
Well you do not RC, sorry. Kerry has simply said he will protect peoples' right to have their vote recounted. IIRC the 2000 debacle was caused by a refusal to hold a recount in certain closely fought districts. In all other democracies I know of the right to hold a recount is fundamental, and requried to maintain confidence in the system. Only in America has the right now been challenged.
I'm not quite clear why critiques of SCO's actions should be prefaced with what schism of the Christian (or other) faith one belongs to. No one, as far as I'm aware have asked Bill Gates fellow church goers to speak out a criticise him. BTW I belong to no faith but am just confused by this constant call for Mormons to stand up.
Please explain?
It's worse than that now. The "media" is very aware of Groklaw these days and very seldom prints straight SCO press releases (I know because I will call and email journalists if I think they have mis-represented a point).
Obviously rather than tell the truth (that they are were lying) SCO have only one recourse - discredit the most thourough analytical source.
This, to SCO and MS, is now even more urgent as Groklaw (and others) are turning their attention to IP laws and I predict this will have the same public impact as it has had on the credibility of SCO's case.
PS Still looking for a "+5 Astroturfer" on this thread, comeon SCO.
There are a few other comments in a similar vien. But this is where articles like the one we've just read, the EFF and (recently) proven community based defences like Groklaw are really proving their worth. Won't take many "scary" cases to fall over before they are just not scary any more.
Well, these days I only read at +5 so maybe I'm missing something.
The arguements that are coming through have very little to do with the rights and wrongs of pirating. They have to do with the fact that an organisation with huge vested interest is:
1. Vastly overstating the case
2. Ignoring the benefits of having people "preview" their software.
Of course, in your world only point 1 applies, but it is still very relevant.
Yep. The main way I build new business is by providing ideas and hopefully useful intput to existing a perspective clients.
No sources cited. Don't you just love "FACTS" being presented without any back up.
FACT: Christians torture and kill their prisoners - this torture is extreme and cruel.
Islam has at least as diverse and wide ranging views as any other religion. Islam had their Renaissance centuries before the "West" got in on the act.
Why not try researching your topic - better still - moderators, why not try thinking before your moderate?
eof
Now that post is certainly worth more - moderators.
Having user and developer experience in both environments I will reserve the right, however, to (more) respectfully disagree with parts of your analysis but I would understand how in a college lab environment some of your users are prone to acts of vandalism.
Those are both perfectly valid "realities", further more I believe you! See that wasn't so hard. The grandparent poster won't believe people have issues with Windows. Good luck to him, I say, and if he works for MS then better luck to the purveyors of alternatives.
I find it extremely hard to believe that your entire system would begin to constantly crash for some unknown reason.
Mate, this is many people's reality. You don't need to believe, the evidence is there right infornt of us.
Good that you get +4 for being able to suspend your belief, however.
add regular and easy updates. I use debian at work ('cuase that's what our sysadms have set up) and Mandrake at home. For some reason I just love the fact that I can easily update Gnome, the kernel and my apps with the minimum of fuss. I never did that under Windows as I just knew I'd be out of action for a good while.
here's the link, without which my comment is a nonsense (of for a preview butto...)