FYI if you took some vitamin clue you would know Linux is not that far behind MS on security exploits. Now now now, before the Linux zealots bash get real and look it up. Linux is the second most attacked machine... but you'd be looking for an excuse to justify the shoddy security put into Linux.
FYI, this has nothing to do with "shoddy security put into Linux". Fact is, a properly secured Linux server is overall more secure than a properly secured Windows server. The problem is that most *distros* (and yes, this includes Debian) have fairly shoddy security by default. Then you have a lot of people who don't know what they're doing trying to use these distros to run real-world sites. Therefore, they are an easy target. (and generally more "interesting" to crackers.. what fun/glory is a compromised Windows box?) From the explanation given, it does not sound like the Debian admins had enough security experience (or paranoia:). You simply DO NOT run a high-profile site without an ACL-protected kernel (ie. LIDS, SELinux, etc.) This is not because Linux itself cannot be trusted, but because some of your services may not be. Even better is to also use kernel stack protection. But anyhow, the Debian admins will learn from their mistakes and the project will be stronger as a result.
now I won't go into the BSD's, because I just won't nor will I go into Solaris, but do your homework, Linux `used to be` all that, nowadays I look at it as LiNuX vErSiOn v.666... A toy nothing more and don't even use it anymore, nor will I advocate it. It went from something cool into the new MS'like farce
Now you're really blowing a lot of random hot air. Either you're a silly troll or you're one of those trendy anti-trend folks who thinks anything popular can't be cool/good. I guess IBM has decided to refocus its corporate vision around selling toys, eh? Riiight..
Re:it still isnt gonna go mainstream
on
Linux in 2004?
·
· Score: 1
its been said before, and i'll say it again, until my mom and dad can run linux without calling me every day, and they can just install something or simply copy and paste from one app in X to another, linux is just gonna stay a hobbist/server OS.
Bzzz.. wrong. It's true that Linux/OSS isn't quite ready to become the standard home desktop OS, but for mid-size/corporate business desktops, it's an entirely different story. Fact is, IT staff can very easily deal with administering Linux boxes even if your parents can't yet. If they do it right, they can save a lot of admin time/cost as well. (ex. by using network filesystems so apps only need installed/upgraded once for hundreds/thousands of machines) In the next 5 years, all smart companies are going to deploy Linux/OSS on at least some of their desktops.
And incidentally, you must not have used Linux/OSS for a long while if you think the "copy/paste issue" is still a significant one.
Linux is going a lot farther and a lot faster than you think. I'm sorry if you work for M$ or other antiquated proprietary tech company. You'll just have to deal with it.
1. What good is global distribution for a small band that only plays small clubs locally?
If they're smart, they'll set their sights higher than small local clubs. Many musicians need to start thinking like entrepreneurs if they want to make a career out of their art. Then again, others play publically just for the fun of it. Some of my other engineer friends and I used to do this.
2. Even for a big-name band, it's damn near impossible to organize a single large-venue concert without the backing of a major label and concert promoter. Pearl Jam tried a few years ago and couldn't pull it off.
And this will change as the cartel weakens due to competition. Concert halls and amphitheaters will naturally want whatever bands will draw the highest ticket prices and largest audiences. It won't matter if they are big-label affiliated or not. The change won't happen overnight, but it's nearly inevitable.
Forget $1000+ store-bought projectors and their $300 replacement bulbs. You can build your own LCD projector for $300-500. I've done it myself and the results are simply outstanding. I now have an bright, sharp, 8-foot-wide 1024x768 screen powered by a $30 metal-halide bulb that lasts 10,000 hours. Can't beat that. And it was a fun, minimal-time hobby project too!
The following site has quality plans and even sells the specialized parts you'll need. (the guy who runs the site researches and bulk orders parts)
http://www.diylabs.org/projector/main.htm
There's also a good forum for DIY builders here: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/forumdisplay .php?fo rumid=12
Looks like this 'digital music' thing is starting to catch on with the bigwigs. Finally.
One problem: 'digital music' doesn't need bigwigs.
Nor do we want them. For they bring us DRM, low quality audio, inflated prices, and they still screw our favorite artists.
At least the next logical step is in place, however: Artists ditch their labels and sell directly online. Followed by: Artists forget about selling music itself because it's such cheap advertisement thanks to rapid online distribution that *everyone* now uses.
A question remains though - and it's a rhetorical damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't type - if Red Hat worked with the Debian project and ported, among other things, the Anaconda installer over, wouldn't the majority of Debian users flinch at the "dumbing down" of their brand of Linux? Would we see the same venomous outcry against Red Hat from the zealots for "tainting" Debian? Maybe.
It's funny you mention the Anaconda installer. Check this out: http://www.debianplanet.org/node.php?id=1006 #comme nt
Overall, I don't think many people in the Debian project care if there are easy installers for newbies, people who value their time, etc. In fact, the lack thereof is seen as something holding the project back from being more widely used. Frankly, I get a little tired of doing simple install/admin tasks myself and wish there were some GUI tools for certain things. I wish I could install Debian in 30min for a friend and have it be immediately useable for them. That is the sort of thing that helps Linux spread. If there are a handful of elitists who think Debian needs to be experts-only, we can do without them anyhow. They may be vocal, but they are not the norm.
Bingo, and that is the flaw. There is no way you can compete on cost with developers in Russia, India, China,... The original developer will lose control of the future direction of their creation. Not that this can't happen now, it just doesn't that often. But this new fiscal dynamic could changes things. And since it is open source there is nothing you can do to stop it either.
In practical application, people will trust the original developer/team more than a third party hired to add a feature. If a third party developer strays too far off course, their work will not be included in the mainstream code and therefore the user will lose the benefit of continued community development. (new versions, etc.) They'll have created a fork by going with a crappy low-bidder. No doubt this will happen, but people will learn quickly. The proposed OCM system also has rules and checks to prevent this thing from happening easily. See the original article.
Now, suppose that many overseas developers do an excellent job and write code that very nicely integrates and aligns with the original developers direction for the project. The worry here is that US developers won't be able to compete. But, in fact, this could really be a good thing! The free market is working! US developers will simply move on to bigger and better things, like becoming consultant-developers (which tend to be much higher paid than ordinary code monkeys). Incidentally, it is also important to remember that the majority of IT jobs are in-house anyhow, so the total economic impact will be fairly minimal at this stage.
In summary, Open Code Markets and other similar ideas will re-define the software industry. Those who are smart will adapt rather than complain.
Realy shouldn't be to difficult, didn't some guy named John F. Nash get a Nobel Prize in economics for basicaly the same thing?
Yes, in essense, he proved mathematically that there are cases where collaboration is far more efficient than a purely rivalrous market.
His work has been used in anti-trust cases (illegal collusion) but also other legitimate market analysis. This proposed "Open Code Market" and the OSS community in general would most definitely be relevant. (Anybody looking for a thesis idea?)
Re:this all sounds great... but it's not a market
on
The Open Code Market
·
· Score: 1
The true product in this market is not the software, but the developer time.
That is precisely correct. This is a market for labor and services, not a market for goods. Software only needs produced once.
It is not at all redundant because the distros exist for different reasons and attract different users. The person who is more used to a GUI like Windows will feel more at home in Red Hat than Debian/Gentoo because most everything "works" right out of the box with minimal fuss.
That is a BS argument. The only reason why Debian is more expert-oriented is that those involved with the project haven't traditionally cared as much about GUI installers and automation. (although this is changing..) It's precisely the same software otherwise and everything else about the project is vastly superior. (package system, platforms supported, distribution / updates, size of community, social contract, etc.) If the Fedora folks joined the Debian project instead, they could help with the "ease of use" issues and then everyone would be happy (and better off). But instead, they insist on re-doing absolutely everything themselves. This is a pointless waste.
There are places for diversity, but this is not one of them.
Non-enterprise RedHat fit the bill perfectly for small sites, but SuSE might be too expensive given the lack of a download-only release. I'd assume IBM was hoping Fedora might be a good substitute for non-enterprise RedHat, but if not, which way will they turn?
It would behoove IBM to support a community distro that they can have some influence over and that won't disappear randomly. That influence comes simply by helping out to improve it as needed to better meet their customers' needs. Debian is the largest, most mature, and most professional effort. It would therefore be the most logical way to turn at this stage.
Fedora represents a shift to a new development model which is more community centric; of COURSE there are going to be problems with the 1.0 release. Is that a reason to bag the whole thing and declare it dead? Please!
Fedora should never have been started. It's redundant. It's a waste of people's talents. There's no need for multiple community projects packaging the exact same software. Debian and Gentoo already fill this need. And even Gentoo is probably redundant, though at least it brings something slightly unique to the table.
Meantime I'm going to reflect on the fact, that people seem to like to forget, that the whole OSS community owes a debt of gratitude to RedHat. RedHat has consistently failed to live up to conspiracy theories about "betraying the community".
I personally think that it's good that RedHat has finally decided to specialize and aim for a reachable market. They weren't doing much good otherwise. Now if only they would build upon Debian as the core of their 'Enterprise' solutions, they could focus on a standard distro and save some resources as well.
What makes you think the goal of the Linux O/S is to replace Windows XP?
Probably because it is fully capable and so some people will use it for this goal. OSS is about people working together to meet their needs efficiently, not specific goals.
The Gulf War had far greater significance to the emerging post-cold war world than simply reversing Iraqi aggression and restoring Kuwait. Its magnitude and significance impelled us from the outset to extend our strategic vision beyond the crisis to the kind of precedent we should lay down for the future. From an American foreign-policymaking perspective, we sought to respond in a manner which would win broad domestic support and which could be applied universally to other crises. In international terms, we tried to establish a model for the use of force. First and foremost was the principle that aggression cannot pay. If we dealt properly with Iraq, that should go a long way toward dissuading future would-be aggressors. We also believed that the U.S. should not go it alone, that a multilateral approach was better. This was, in part, a practical matter. Mounting an effective military counter to Iraq's invasion required the backing and bases of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.
The important point here is that we had a general mid-east foreign policy of containment and tolerance. The thought was that if we didn't step on the toes of the Arab nations, they would play nice and everybody could generally get along. While this seemed logical--and certainly would have worked in most cases--it didn't account for the brewing religious fanaticism of the jihadists and their rapidly increasing influence over those in power in the region. It is a scenario not unlike the rise of the Nazi party in Germany. Both deviant groups represent a violent goal of intolerance and eradication. For the Nazi's, it was the Jews and other non-Aryans. For the jihadists, it is western civilization. Trouble is, these types of groups are not dissuaded by passifism or concessions. It is fallacy to believe that their cause is based upon attainable political goals or even revenge. These people hate irrationally because that is what they have been brainwashed to do. Like Germany in the 20's and 30's, the largely impoverished Arab world is a breeding ground for radicalism. As a backdrop to all of this radicalism, we have the rest of the civilian population. While most are not actually radicals, they are still bombarded with state-sponsored propaganda and controlled by fear. In Germany, it was propaganda about how much of a 'problem' the Jews were and how glorious the third reich would be. For the Arab world, it is propaganda about how 'evil' the western world is and how it should be fought and subdued.
So what's the solution? There certainly is no easy answer. If we pull out completely, the jihadist infection continues to spread, brewing more hate, disillusionment, and eventually international terrorism. (while at the same time ruining the lives of ordinary civilians in those countries) It's really a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. Ultimately, as with Naziism, the only answer is to destroy the radicals and then help the rest of the civilians move on, even while many may still hate us until propaganda and national pride subsides.
Puleeease. JS + DOM is a last-minute hack-on to HTML. It is fine for e-brochures, but not business forms.
Back in the days of Netscape 4, yes, JS and DOM were hacked add-ons. Today, they have been refined into solid standards that fit together beautifully. I've found it quite possible to create quality business forms that are indistinguishable from standard GUI counterparts.
but I'm ever so happy the matrix-within-a-matrix theories were unfounded.
The thing about this whole silly series is that the producers can keep up making BS forever and people will keep going to see it. (and even if there are holes in the plot, people will theorize around it!) The whole premise is that you don't the full truth, hence, you can keep adding new twists. In 3 years, there'll be a new Matrix movie where we find out that Neo and Trinity are still alive because they just transcended to the next layer of the Matrix. (heck, they could be played by different actors) Or if not that, it'll be something more mundane like the machines take over again and enter a new version of Neo and Smith. But that likely wouldn't sell as well..
It is my strong belief that if we the people can stop Microsoft by tying our need to their products, then we won't need to resort to getting Washington to do it.
I guess you've never had to deal with proprietary MS data formats like Office, have you? Formats that are purposely obfuscated and get changed every 2-3 years to keep the competition from becoming compatible. That is very clear anti-competitive practice. It's really surprising that this has not been brought up more often. It certainly affects more people.
A fair and effective solution to the MS monopoly problem would be to force them to release full documentation of all of their API's and proprietary document formats. Don't be mistaken--this is the very core of their monopoly power -- not browsers, not trying to kill Java, not OEM licensing. Until this core issue is resolved, MS will continue to be a monopoly because nobody can gain a strong enough foothold to compete for existing installed-base. 90% compatibility often isn't enough. However, if all the API's and formats were opened, Microsoft would have to compete solely on quality.
Incidentally, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there some sort of FCC guideline where a proprietary communications technology that reaches a certain market dominance must be opened for public use. If so, could this not apply in some cases here?
It's like a software license. It's not like you buy all these songs and all of a sudden they tell you you can't these things with the songs. You know what you can or cannot do when you purchase the songs. It is completely fair because you know exactly what you are getting into.
Well, it's not a very fair tradeoff in my book, so they can forget about my business. You should also note that in many cases, Fair Use supercedes the restrictions of a license or copyright notice. For example, you can reverse engineer software for compatibility purposes, regardless of what the license claims. DRM is the one exception, thanks to the unconstitutional DMCA.
iTunes allows for the multiple computers with it's library sharing and it seems to work pretty well.
What if I cannot or do not want to use iTunes? I want to use my own multimedia software which is far more powerful. What then?
DRM is not bad. It is necessary unless you can somehow stop all illegal p2p filesharing which isn't going to happen. If there is no DRM, I think the number of cds released will drop. They aren't going to be making any money off them so why produce them? Why have a record label? Just tour and get music to radio stations.
You're believing a huge load of lies there bud.
#1.) DRM does not stop unauthorized copying and it never will. Once one person cracks it, it's gone for good. For example: how does iTunes DRM implementation stop P2P sharing? Burn a CD, rip to MP3, put it on P2P networks. What's the point? #2.) There is no compelling reason to stop unauthorized P2P filesharing. CD sales are not down more than overall consumer spending. The vast majority of people who use P2P still buy what they really like. An unauthorized copy is not a loss if it wouldn't have been a sale otherwise. #3.) CD's have no DRM and never will because it's not part of the format. Nobody is talking about stopping CD production out of P2P swapping fears. #4.) Cheap advertising is sufficient incentive to produce free recorded music. Successful musicians already make the vast majority of their profits on touring. In fact, only the top 10% see any album royalties. #5.) You're correct on one point. We don't need record labels. Just tour and get music to radio stations. (and P2P)
DRM is not here to stay because it doesn't work. There is always a way around it. Apple's implementation, while minimal, is still a hastle to legitimate consumers and is therefore unacceptable.
DRM as a way to control music is entirely justified. Many people seem to be ok with some level of DRM, but I haven't met a person that trusts microsoft to do it.
DRM is not justified because it cannot work, because it *always* hastles legitimate consumers, and because it is inherently incompatible with Open Source software by nature of being security through obscurity. I'm surprised you don't realize this, having even mentioned MythTV in your original post. DRM makes projects like this useless because you can only use an "approved" player to access the content.
As far as 'fair use' is concerned, Apple seems to have taken a decent approach- you can burn endless cd's of AAC-encoded itunes-store songs, but you can only have it active on 3 pc's at a time. That sounds pretty flexible to me.
Fair use is that which is unauthorized, but still legally allowed. Any DRM scheme trumps fair use. What if I have 4 computers? What if I don't have an iPod, but don't feel like having to burn to CD and re-rip to MP3? What if I want to edit some content together as part of a school project? What if I want to give a friend a recorded TV episode that he wasn't home to see. All of these are fair uses that DRM makes impossible.
Fedora has a *very* short time to prove itself worthy.
Why do we need more than one community project to produce a general-purpose distro? It's a waste of our limited resources at this stage of the game. As you already mentioned, Debian is a more solid distribution. It also has by far the largest and most mature community and a high degree of professionalism. If the Fedora people (and others) joined forces, we could more quickly smooth out the couple rough edges of Debian and make it THE distribution of choice for the mainstream.
1.) Shut down the router 2.) Disconnect the power 3.) Remove all network cables 4.) Remove router from rack, replacing it with a cheap Linux box with some high-end network cards, a hardened kernel and a good iptables script. 5.) Return your Cisco router to original styrofoam packaging. Lock it away somewhere safe. 6.) Your Cisco router is now protected 7.)... 8.) Profit!!
Quick, easy, and here's the best part: you don't care about file-swappers because you get the customer at the exact point where they decide they like the music. You don't care if the 5 billion people who never come to your club swap this music around. What you care about is that your club (and the artist who gets a cut) made some extra money from a customer. You win, they win and the band wins.
That's a great idea and really the direction things need to head: the music industry should be rooted solely in income from live performances. I would go further to say that larger bands should have their own "club" of sorts to remain in complete control of their enterprise and to remain as connected as possible to their 'customers'. They also ought view their recorded work (studio or live or both) as either cheap or free promotional material, useful to increase concert ticket sales and merchandising. Although I would say that some people still like to pay a few bucks for a high-quality CD with nice over art, insert, etc. even if the content itself is free.
The key (as I'll admit to having banged on about on/. before:) was simply deliberate and considered planning of development beforehand. I feel as long as you plan ahead and have a solid foundation, your able to cope with the curveballs you'll inevitably get thrown (and not have to re-dig your foundations later).
Thanks, that was very insightful. I am currently overhauling the database design for a fairly complex project I'm working on. Numerous people in the past with less than a full clue have suggested things like "just throw ADOdb on top of it" whereas I'm aiming for the "tedious planning to do it right the first time" approach. (-:
Due to the lower price of distribution, imports, exports, tariffs etc. this method of providing music should stop the whiners, because now they have access to music at an affordable price, and should have no need for illegal P2P.
$1 per track is still not "affordable" to many people and worse yet, this money is largely still not getting to the artists if they are RIAA-member signed. Then you have the problem of old music where the authors are dead or else long retired. Under a reasonable copyright system, say 14 year terms, this would all be public domain. People should not be expected to pay for this content.
So everyone wins. Well everyone who isn't solely driven by greed at least, and will continue to use the substandard illegal P2P programs.
No, actually the only people that win are the people solely driven by greed: the big RIAA members. Everybody else gets substandard compressed-audio with annoying DRM, lack of standards, lack of platform support, etc. And once again, the artists are still screwed.
Slashdot Mirror
FYI if you took some vitamin clue you would know Linux is not that far behind MS on security exploits. Now now now, before the Linux zealots bash get real and look it up. Linux is the second most attacked machine ... but you'd be looking for an excuse to justify the shoddy security put into Linux.
:). You simply DO NOT run a high-profile site without an ACL-protected kernel (ie. LIDS, SELinux, etc.) This is not because Linux itself cannot be trusted, but because some of your services may not be. Even better is to also use kernel stack protection. But anyhow, the Debian admins will learn from their mistakes and the project will be stronger as a result.
FYI, this has nothing to do with "shoddy security put into Linux". Fact is, a properly secured Linux server is overall more secure than a properly secured Windows server. The problem is that most *distros* (and yes, this includes Debian) have fairly shoddy security by default. Then you have a lot of people who don't know what they're doing trying to use these distros to run real-world sites. Therefore, they are an easy target. (and generally more "interesting" to crackers.. what fun/glory is a compromised Windows box?) From the explanation given, it does not sound like the Debian admins had enough security experience (or paranoia
now I won't go into the BSD's, because I just won't nor will I go into Solaris, but do your homework, Linux `used to be` all that, nowadays I look at it as LiNuX vErSiOn v.666... A toy nothing more and don't even use it anymore, nor will I advocate it. It went from something cool into the new MS'like farce
Now you're really blowing a lot of random hot air. Either you're a silly troll or you're one of those trendy anti-trend folks who thinks anything popular can't be cool/good. I guess IBM has decided to refocus its corporate vision around selling toys, eh? Riiight..
its been said before, and i'll say it again, until my mom and dad can run linux without calling me every day, and they can just install something or simply copy and paste from one app in X to another, linux is just gonna stay a hobbist/server OS.
Bzzz.. wrong. It's true that Linux/OSS isn't quite ready to become the standard home desktop OS, but for mid-size/corporate business desktops, it's an entirely different story. Fact is, IT staff can very easily deal with administering Linux boxes even if your parents can't yet. If they do it right, they can save a lot of admin time/cost as well. (ex. by using network filesystems so apps only need installed/upgraded once for hundreds/thousands of machines) In the next 5 years, all smart companies are going to deploy Linux/OSS on at least some of their desktops.
And incidentally, you must not have used Linux/OSS for a long while if you think the "copy/paste issue" is still a significant one.
Linux is going a lot farther and a lot faster than you think. I'm sorry if you work for M$ or other antiquated proprietary tech company. You'll just have to deal with it.
1. What good is global distribution for a small band that only plays small clubs locally?
If they're smart, they'll set their sights higher than small local clubs. Many musicians need to start thinking like entrepreneurs if they want to make a career out of their art. Then again, others play publically just for the fun of it. Some of my other engineer friends and I used to do this.
2. Even for a big-name band, it's damn near impossible to organize a single large-venue concert without the backing of a major label and concert promoter. Pearl Jam tried a few years ago and couldn't pull it off.
And this will change as the cartel weakens due to competition. Concert halls and amphitheaters will naturally want whatever bands will draw the highest ticket prices and largest audiences. It won't matter if they are big-label affiliated or not. The change won't happen overnight, but it's nearly inevitable.
Forget $1000+ store-bought projectors and their $300 replacement bulbs. You can build your own LCD projector for $300-500. I've done it myself and the results are simply outstanding. I now have an bright, sharp, 8-foot-wide 1024x768 screen powered by a $30 metal-halide bulb that lasts 10,000 hours. Can't beat that. And it was a fun, minimal-time hobby project too!
y .php?fo rumid=12
The following site has quality plans and even sells the specialized parts you'll need. (the guy who runs the site researches and bulk orders parts)
http://www.diylabs.org/projector/main.htm
There's also a good forum for DIY builders here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/forumdispla
Looks like this 'digital music' thing is starting to catch on with the bigwigs. Finally.
One problem: 'digital music' doesn't need bigwigs.
Nor do we want them. For they bring us DRM, low quality audio, inflated prices, and they still screw our favorite artists.
At least the next logical step is in place, however: Artists ditch their labels and sell directly online. Followed by: Artists forget about selling music itself because it's such cheap advertisement thanks to rapid online distribution that *everyone* now uses.
A question remains though - and it's a rhetorical damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't type - if Red Hat worked with the Debian project and ported, among other things, the Anaconda installer over, wouldn't the majority of Debian users flinch at the "dumbing down" of their brand of Linux? Would we see the same venomous outcry against Red Hat from the zealots for "tainting" Debian? Maybe.
6 #comme nt
It's funny you mention the Anaconda installer. Check this out:
http://www.debianplanet.org/node.php?id=100
Overall, I don't think many people in the Debian project care if there are easy installers for newbies, people who value their time, etc. In fact, the lack thereof is seen as something holding the project back from being more widely used. Frankly, I get a little tired of doing simple install/admin tasks myself and wish there were some GUI tools for certain things. I wish I could install Debian in 30min for a friend and have it be immediately useable for them. That is the sort of thing that helps Linux spread. If there are a handful of elitists who think Debian needs to be experts-only, we can do without them anyhow. They may be vocal, but they are not the norm.
Bingo, and that is the flaw. There is no way you can compete on cost with developers in Russia, India, China, ... The original developer will lose control of the future direction of their creation. Not that this can't happen now, it just doesn't that often. But this new fiscal dynamic could changes things. And since it is open source there is nothing you can do to stop it either.
In practical application, people will trust the original developer/team more than a third party hired to add a feature. If a third party developer strays too far off course, their work will not be included in the mainstream code and therefore the user will lose the benefit of continued community development. (new versions, etc.) They'll have created a fork by going with a crappy low-bidder. No doubt this will happen, but people will learn quickly. The proposed OCM system also has rules and checks to prevent this thing from happening easily. See the original article.
Now, suppose that many overseas developers do an excellent job and write code that very nicely integrates and aligns with the original developers direction for the project. The worry here is that US developers won't be able to compete. But, in fact, this could really be a good thing! The free market is working! US developers will simply move on to bigger and better things, like becoming consultant-developers (which tend to be much higher paid than ordinary code monkeys). Incidentally, it is also important to remember that the majority of IT jobs are in-house anyhow, so the total economic impact will be fairly minimal at this stage.
In summary, Open Code Markets and other similar ideas will re-define the software industry. Those who are smart will adapt rather than complain.
Realy shouldn't be to difficult, didn't some guy named John F. Nash get a Nobel Prize in economics for basicaly the same thing?
Yes, in essense, he proved mathematically that there are cases where collaboration is far more efficient than a purely rivalrous market.
His work has been used in anti-trust cases (illegal collusion) but also other legitimate market analysis. This proposed "Open Code Market" and the OSS community in general would most definitely be relevant. (Anybody looking for a thesis idea?)
The true product in this market is not the software, but the developer time.
That is precisely correct. This is a market for labor and services, not a market for goods. Software only needs produced once.
Somebody mod parent up!
It is not at all redundant because the distros exist for different reasons and attract different users. The person who is more used to a GUI like Windows will feel more at home in Red Hat than Debian/Gentoo because most everything "works" right out of the box with minimal fuss.
That is a BS argument. The only reason why Debian is more expert-oriented is that those involved with the project haven't traditionally cared as much about GUI installers and automation. (although this is changing..) It's precisely the same software otherwise and everything else about the project is vastly superior. (package system, platforms supported, distribution / updates, size of community, social contract, etc.) If the Fedora folks joined the Debian project instead, they could help with the "ease of use" issues and then everyone would be happy (and better off). But instead, they insist on re-doing absolutely everything themselves. This is a pointless waste.
There are places for diversity, but this is not one of them.
Non-enterprise RedHat fit the bill perfectly for small sites, but SuSE might be too expensive given the lack of a download-only release. I'd assume IBM was hoping Fedora might be a good substitute for non-enterprise RedHat, but if not, which way will they turn?
It would behoove IBM to support a community distro that they can have some influence over and that won't disappear randomly. That influence comes simply by helping out to improve it as needed to better meet their customers' needs. Debian is the largest, most mature, and most professional effort. It would therefore be the most logical way to turn at this stage.
Fedora represents a shift to a new development model which is more community centric; of COURSE there are going to be problems with the 1.0 release. Is that a reason to bag the whole thing and declare it dead? Please!
Fedora should never have been started. It's redundant. It's a waste of people's talents. There's no need for multiple community projects packaging the exact same software. Debian and Gentoo already fill this need. And even Gentoo is probably redundant, though at least it brings something slightly unique to the table.
Meantime I'm going to reflect on the fact, that people seem to like to forget, that the whole OSS community owes a debt of gratitude to RedHat. RedHat has consistently failed to live up to conspiracy theories about "betraying the community".
I personally think that it's good that RedHat has finally decided to specialize and aim for a reachable market. They weren't doing much good otherwise. Now if only they would build upon Debian as the core of their 'Enterprise' solutions, they could focus on a standard distro and save some resources as well.
What makes you think the goal of the Linux O/S is to replace Windows XP?
Probably because it is fully capable and so some people will use it for this goal. OSS is about people working together to meet their needs efficiently, not specific goals.
Although this is a worthy goal, IMHO.
The Gulf War had far greater significance to the emerging post-cold war world than simply reversing Iraqi aggression and restoring Kuwait. Its magnitude and significance impelled us from the outset to extend our strategic vision beyond the crisis to the kind of precedent we should lay down for the future. From an American foreign-policymaking perspective, we sought to respond in a manner which would win broad domestic support and which could be applied universally to other crises. In international terms, we tried to establish a model for the use of force. First and foremost was the principle that aggression cannot pay. If we dealt properly with Iraq, that should go a long way toward dissuading future would-be aggressors. We also believed that the U.S. should not go it alone, that a multilateral approach was better. This was, in part, a practical matter. Mounting an effective military counter to Iraq's invasion required the backing and bases of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.
The important point here is that we had a general mid-east foreign policy of containment and tolerance. The thought was that if we didn't step on the toes of the Arab nations, they would play nice and everybody could generally get along. While this seemed logical--and certainly would have worked in most cases--it didn't account for the brewing religious fanaticism of the jihadists and their rapidly increasing influence over those in power in the region. It is a scenario not unlike the rise of the Nazi party in Germany. Both deviant groups represent a violent goal of intolerance and eradication. For the Nazi's, it was the Jews and other non-Aryans. For the jihadists, it is western civilization. Trouble is, these types of groups are not dissuaded by passifism or concessions. It is fallacy to believe that their cause is based upon attainable political goals or even revenge. These people hate irrationally because that is what they have been brainwashed to do. Like Germany in the 20's and 30's, the largely impoverished Arab world is a breeding ground for radicalism. As a backdrop to all of this radicalism, we have the rest of the civilian population. While most are not actually radicals, they are still bombarded with state-sponsored propaganda and controlled by fear. In Germany, it was propaganda about how much of a 'problem' the Jews were and how glorious the third reich would be. For the Arab world, it is propaganda about how 'evil' the western world is and how it should be fought and subdued.
So what's the solution? There certainly is no easy answer. If we pull out completely, the jihadist infection continues to spread, brewing more hate, disillusionment, and eventually international terrorism. (while at the same time ruining the lives of ordinary civilians in those countries) It's really a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. Ultimately, as with Naziism, the only answer is to destroy the radicals and then help the rest of the civilians move on, even while many may still hate us until propaganda and national pride subsides.
Puleeease. JS + DOM is a last-minute hack-on to HTML. It is fine for e-brochures, but not business forms.
Back in the days of Netscape 4, yes, JS and DOM were hacked add-ons. Today, they have been refined into solid standards that fit together beautifully. I've found it quite possible to create quality business forms that are indistinguishable from standard GUI counterparts.
but I'm ever so happy the matrix-within-a-matrix theories were unfounded.
The thing about this whole silly series is that the producers can keep up making BS forever and people will keep going to see it. (and even if there are holes in the plot, people will theorize around it!) The whole premise is that you don't the full truth, hence, you can keep adding new twists. In 3 years, there'll be a new Matrix movie where we find out that Neo and Trinity are still alive because they just transcended to the next layer of the Matrix. (heck, they could be played by different actors) Or if not that, it'll be something more mundane like the machines take over again and enter a new version of Neo and Smith. But that likely wouldn't sell as well..
Once again, MS is trying to push aside real industry standards by creating their own proprietary ones.
There is *already* a W3C replacement for the proprietary Flash format: Javascript + DOM + SVG
The Mozilla and KHTML developers and others would be wise to put heavy emphasis on getting SVG support fully working ASAP.
It is my strong belief that if we the people can stop Microsoft by tying our need to their products, then we won't need to resort to getting Washington to do it.
I guess you've never had to deal with proprietary MS data formats like Office, have you? Formats that are purposely obfuscated and get changed every 2-3 years to keep the competition from becoming compatible. That is very clear anti-competitive practice. It's really surprising that this has not been brought up more often. It certainly affects more people.
A fair and effective solution to the MS monopoly problem would be to force them to release full documentation of all of their API's and proprietary document formats. Don't be mistaken--this is the very core of their monopoly power -- not browsers, not trying to kill Java, not OEM licensing. Until this core issue is resolved, MS will continue to be a monopoly because nobody can gain a strong enough foothold to compete for existing installed-base. 90% compatibility often isn't enough. However, if all the API's and formats were opened, Microsoft would have to compete solely on quality.
Incidentally, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there some sort of FCC guideline where a proprietary communications technology that reaches a certain market dominance must be opened for public use. If so, could this not apply in some cases here?
It's like a software license. It's not like you buy all these songs and all of a sudden they tell you you can't these things with the songs. You know what you can or cannot do when you purchase the songs. It is completely fair because you know exactly what you are getting into.
Well, it's not a very fair tradeoff in my book, so they can forget about my business. You should also note that in many cases, Fair Use supercedes the restrictions of a license or copyright notice. For example, you can reverse engineer software for compatibility purposes, regardless of what the license claims. DRM is the one exception, thanks to the unconstitutional DMCA.
iTunes allows for the multiple computers with it's library sharing and it seems to work pretty well.
What if I cannot or do not want to use iTunes? I want to use my own multimedia software which is far more powerful. What then?
DRM is not bad. It is necessary unless you can somehow stop all illegal p2p filesharing which isn't going to happen. If there is no DRM, I think the number of cds released will drop. They aren't going to be making any money off them so why produce them? Why have a record label? Just tour and get music to radio stations.
You're believing a huge load of lies there bud.
#1.) DRM does not stop unauthorized copying and it never will. Once one person cracks it, it's gone for good. For example: how does iTunes DRM implementation stop P2P sharing? Burn a CD, rip to MP3, put it on P2P networks. What's the point?
#2.) There is no compelling reason to stop unauthorized P2P filesharing. CD sales are not down more than overall consumer spending. The vast majority of people who use P2P still buy what they really like. An unauthorized copy is not a loss if it wouldn't have been a sale otherwise.
#3.) CD's have no DRM and never will because it's not part of the format. Nobody is talking about stopping CD production out of P2P swapping fears.
#4.) Cheap advertising is sufficient incentive to produce free recorded music. Successful musicians already make the vast majority of their profits on touring. In fact, only the top 10% see any album royalties.
#5.) You're correct on one point. We don't need record labels. Just tour and get music to radio stations. (and P2P)
DRM is not here to stay because it doesn't work. There is always a way around it. Apple's implementation, while minimal, is still a hastle to legitimate consumers and is therefore unacceptable.
DRM as a way to control music is entirely justified. Many people seem to be ok with some level of DRM, but I haven't met a person that trusts microsoft to do it.
DRM is not justified because it cannot work, because it *always* hastles legitimate consumers, and because it is inherently incompatible with Open Source software by nature of being security through obscurity. I'm surprised you don't realize this, having even mentioned MythTV in your original post. DRM makes projects like this useless because you can only use an "approved" player to access the content.
As far as 'fair use' is concerned, Apple seems to have taken a decent approach- you can burn endless cd's of AAC-encoded itunes-store songs, but you can only have it active on 3 pc's at a time. That sounds pretty flexible to me.
Fair use is that which is unauthorized, but still legally allowed. Any DRM scheme trumps fair use. What if I have 4 computers? What if I don't have an iPod, but don't feel like having to burn to CD and re-rip to MP3? What if I want to edit some content together as part of a school project? What if I want to give a friend a recorded TV episode that he wasn't home to see. All of these are fair uses that DRM makes impossible.
DRM is bad. Always.
Fedora has a *very* short time to prove itself worthy.
Why do we need more than one community project to produce a general-purpose distro? It's a waste of our limited resources at this stage of the game. As you already mentioned, Debian is a more solid distribution. It also has by far the largest and most mature community and a high degree of professionalism. If the Fedora people (and others) joined forces, we could more quickly smooth out the couple rough edges of Debian and make it THE distribution of choice for the mainstream.
1.) Shut down the router ...
2.) Disconnect the power
3.) Remove all network cables
4.) Remove router from rack, replacing it with a cheap Linux box with some high-end network cards, a hardened kernel and a good iptables script.
5.) Return your Cisco router to original styrofoam packaging. Lock it away somewhere safe.
6.) Your Cisco router is now protected
7.)
8.) Profit!!
Quick, easy, and here's the best part: you don't care about file-swappers because you get the customer at the exact point where they decide they like the music. You don't care if the 5 billion people who never come to your club swap this music around. What you care about is that your club (and the artist who gets a cut) made some extra money from a customer. You win, they win and the band wins.
That's a great idea and really the direction things need to head: the music industry should be rooted solely in income from live performances. I would go further to say that larger bands should have their own "club" of sorts to remain in complete control of their enterprise and to remain as connected as possible to their 'customers'.
They also ought view their recorded work (studio or live or both) as either cheap or free promotional material, useful to increase concert ticket sales and merchandising. Although I would say that some people still like to pay a few bucks for a high-quality CD with nice over art, insert, etc. even if the content itself is free.
The key (as I'll admit to having banged on about on /. before :) was simply deliberate and considered planning of development beforehand. I feel as long as you plan ahead and have a solid foundation, your able to cope with the curveballs you'll inevitably get thrown (and not have to re-dig your foundations later).
Thanks, that was very insightful. I am currently overhauling the database design for a fairly complex project I'm working on. Numerous people in the past with less than a full clue have suggested things like "just throw ADOdb on top of it" whereas I'm aiming for the "tedious planning to do it right the first time" approach. (-:
Due to the lower price of distribution, imports, exports, tariffs etc. this method of providing music should stop the whiners, because now they have access to music at an affordable price, and should have no need for illegal P2P.
$1 per track is still not "affordable" to many people and worse yet, this money is largely still not getting to the artists if they are RIAA-member signed. Then you have the problem of old music where the authors are dead or else long retired. Under a reasonable copyright system, say 14 year terms, this would all be public domain. People should not be expected to pay for this content.
So everyone wins. Well everyone who isn't solely driven by greed at least, and will continue to use the substandard illegal P2P programs.
No, actually the only people that win are the people solely driven by greed: the big RIAA members. Everybody else gets substandard compressed-audio with annoying DRM, lack of standards, lack of platform support, etc. And once again, the artists are still screwed.