Microsoft's success would seem to make the argument pointless: Can $250 billion in market capitalization be wrong?
Of course it can. Having the marketing muscle to force lousy products down people's throats does not make one a success. Nor does it say anything about the intelligence of people working at M$. Perhaps if the brains there had some common sense as well, they'd have jumped ship long ago and started making a positive difference in the industry.
Well, they need to be unless you want the economy of California (and probably the rest of the country) to crumble. In some idealistic Libertarian fantasy land, maybe having established corporations that employ hundreds of thousands of people (and a few million indirectly) crumble makes sense. But in this REAL WORLD(TM), there is no way in hell that any elected official is going to vote against some measure of protection for this industry.
So basically, what you're implying is that "big media / software" is a necessary evil because inefficient corporations employ lots of people. I wholly disagree. If these companies crumble because the market shifts out from under them, the folks they employ directly or indirectly will simply work for smaller, more efficient companies instead. Studios and production companies will still exist. Software companies (well.. consulting and services) will still exist. They just won't monopolize and force-feed the market the way existing ones do. And the economy will be a lot healthier as a result.
Part of my point is that change is going to happen regardless of the law. State-run churches didn't want people printing and owning their own Bibles--after all, they had a monopoly on religion--but the technology enabled this to become a reality regardless. Technology will continue to press changes forward. The question is more how many legal casualties will be inflicted along the way against those on the cutting edge.
No fair issuing "buggy whip" analogies. The buggy whip folks had ample time and opportunity to retool to other leather goods. The rapid increase of technology has not allowed the same luxury to these industries.
I don't think this analogy really fits anyhow. The existing content industry is about selling control, not products. Those who produce actual products--the artists, musicians, coders, etc.--will always have a market for their works, performances, and services.
But you asked about positive legislative steps, which is a harder question. The holy grail here is a non-harmful proposal that reassures legislators about the continued viability of the music and movie industries.
The assumption that the existing music and movie industries NEED to be viable any longer is the biggest mistake of all. Until this assumption is torn down, we'll continue see all sorts of garbage legislation to try to prop up failing businesses. Let capitalism run it's course for crying out loud! The music industry (read: RIAA members) is already dying due to independent artists, lack of big name album successes, and the general public's unwillingness to pay for old music that ought to be public domain by now. Hollywood may not be too far behind considering how many independent films have recently enjoyed smash successes. Compare also, the proprietary software industry is headed for total collapse due to the Open Source movement. Microsoft is already going down in flames, looking at its stock, the continual bad PR, industry alliances forming against it. (IBM/HP/etc.) Face it, society is striving to become more open! I know it's an overused analogy, but we're seeing the "printing press" revolution all over again.
If you want positive legislation in this area, the best hope is a compulsory license, which would charge all users of the Net a small, mandatory fee.
So basically, the aging big-shot players get to impose a tax on everyone using the internet to prop up failing businesses since their customers have already left for greener pastures. And regardless of whether I partake in the crappy content, I still have to pay. This type of system is straight out socialism. Great idea, Felten. Not.
"Some bastions of capitalism are getting into the open-source spirit"
This really isn't unexpected seeing as how Open-Source itself is a natural bastion of democracy and capitalism.. unlike certain very socialist-style "intellectual property" regimes of broad government-issued monopoly powers.
Software development and support should be a service! (:
We actually thought about making our source open for the benefit of non-profit organisations (it's a project-management software). Has anybody made any experience with something like this? We are talking about enterprise-level software here..
I think it depends on how much your revenue stream relies on this software. It also depends on how similar your software is to existing free solutions (there are dozens of OSS project management packages, for example..) I firmly believe that there is plenty of money in providing free software, but you can't just jump right into it blindly without first thinking about how you're actually going to make money. (assuming the software *itself* is currently a significant source of revenue.. if not, there's no excuse for it to be closed) In my experience, customers have two criteria when choosing software: 1.) a solution that works perfectly for their needs and 2.) software that is reliably supported in case something goes wrong or the sysadmin quits or whatever. Neither of those require proprietary licensing to find a market. It's all about TCO. If you don't charge money for licensing, you can afford to charge *more* for support / customization services as long as what you offer is still overall cheaper / better than your competitors' solutions.
It is true that some potential customers will choose to free-ride on the software if it is openly licensed. However, those who do this also tend to be the ones with enough technical experience to contribute back.. to fix your bugs, offer valuable suggestions, or even add features that paying customers will then enjoy. And if not, there's no reason to feel like you must support them in any way. They're using the software as-is and if they need help, they must pay for a support contract.
Choice of open source licenses is also important. Using the BSD license potentially helps your proprietary competitors and should be avoided. (it allows them to take your code, modify it, and then *sell* it as a different and closed-source product.) GPL and many others force modifications to be re-released to the community. So even if a competitor was to decide to base their business on software you originally developed, they can't claim any rights to modifications and improvements. All they can do is offer competing support services. In practice, this is unlikely because they will lack credibility, product image, and your own intimate knowledge of the code. There are, of course, other licensing choices. You can, for example, forbid forks of the code into new projects or require that the certain trademarks, product names, and credits remain intact. Technically, this makes the software less than free, but it's still better than closed source from a purist perspective.
And remember, you can always experiment.. try opening up some software and see how it goes. Good luck! (:
"Sentient" machines..
on
AI in Sci-Fi
·
· Score: 1
Well, the first question to answer is whether or not machines can ever truly be sentient vs. just give the illusion of being sentient. This, of course, opens the can of worms on what does it truly mean to be sentient. Certainly, most would agree that humans are sentient. We are aware not only of our surroundings but also of our own existance and the nature of our existance. We can sit back and reflect upon ourselves and this essense of existance. But what allows us to do this? If our existance is limited to the physical world--as any machine is--then ultimately our brains, our thoughts are deterministic at some level. One may argue that the "new physics" transcends this determinism, but I would argue that this label is only an acknowledgement that we do not yet understand the deterministic natural processes behind the phenomena we observe. (And the history of science is filled with examples of phenomena thought to be magical or ethereous until better understood!) If our existance is then deterministic, we would not truly be able to reflect upon ourselves, being limited to a finite existance and unable to gain an outside view. Our free will would thus be an illusion and we would be no more sentient than a rock or a puddle of chemicals. Unless, as I believe, we humans are uniquely coupled to a spiritual existance that transcends our physical existance. If sentience relies on a being having a spiritual nature, then machines will never be sentient. And alternatively, if our existance is deterministic, then life has no meaning. I don't think many folks would agree with that. (Or, phrased differently, no man is truly an atheist at heart, though he may argue intellectually otherwise.)
Microsoft will *have* to go Open Source or else die off completely. The difference is that by the time this happens, they will be an insignificant, ultra-downsized corporation with little industry clout. Granted, we're talking perhaps 5-15 years here, but the tide is quickly shifting against them--both among techies and now also in the corporate world. Even if the Open Source movement takes that long to overtake their marketshare, it will happen eventually. It has to, simply for the fact that slow and steady will win the race. Over time, all weaknesses of existing OSS will be fixed and all missing applications will be developed. How long that process will take is entirely up to us--and how many people make OSS development / consulting their full-time career.
It seems to me that all parties involved need to cool down and then come back to the table with a reasonable attitude and work out these issues. Keith has some valid points about the sluggish response of XFree86 development in certain areas, although I disagree with his means of protest. A fork would likely only cause chaos and be detrimental to the cause of unified desktop standards and Open Source acceptance. It is my opinion that there are times when standards and compatibility are far more important than performance and eye candy.
Keith, if you are listening, may I suggest that you formally and thoroughly document your objections to current XFree86 development and provide constructive criticism on how it might be improved? If there are technical complaints, such as relating to performance, perhaps you can write code to prove the need for change.
XFree86 team, if you are listening, may I suggest that a patch tracking feature be added to the official web site? For example, if a patch is submitted to support a new XRender feature but not yet committed to CVS, show this and offer the patch for download right there. As a user, it greatly frustrates me to not have any idea when new features and support will be added and you must admit, the XFree86 release cycle is rather slow. As a user/developer, it would be greatly beneficial to me if I could see precisely where the work is being done. And if extra help is needed in some area, advertise this openly. Relating specifically to driver patches, may I suggest that driver changes be added with far less caution than changes to core libraries? I personally believe that if someone like responsible like ATI submits a patch to support their latest hardware, there is absolutely no need to sit on that patch. Get it out there and get it tested ASAP.
This was perhaps one of the most M$ tainted and downright worthless articles I've *ever* seen Slashdot link to. Slashdot ops, you'd have my vote to purge this article from the system. Oh, and fire the idiot who entered it so this sort of thing doesn't happen again.
Although the topics are pretty banal, he makes some interesting comments suggesting where Open Source can make inroads in small/medium business:
Symantec's Act! and Intuit's QuickBooks are Microsoft's ace in the hole. Until file compatible equivalents are developed, Linux will have a hard time capturing the small business desktop in the U.S.. Both companies are closely tied to Microsoft, so QuickBooks won't be ported until it's too late to save Intuit from Microsoft Great Plains.
What we need is for a group of businesses to pool some funds and create an Open Source project to entirely replace the need for Quickbooks and other expensive off-the-shelf accounting and business management software. Why should they do this? Out fo the goodness of their hearts? No!! Because it'll be cheaper for them in the long run.
The author of the article almost gets it, but not quite:
Paradoxically, a strong open source alternative is the best hope for a revived commercial software industry. Much software needed by businesses is simply of no interest to open source developers. As Linux becomes a mainstream business operating system, the market for commercial software running on Linux expands.
When he states that business software is of no interest to OSS developers, he is making the assumption that all OSS developers work without pay and only a hobby. Geeks, listen up! The business world needs Open Source business apps to make free operating systems like Linux and BSD useful to them. Commercial software running on Linux is not the answer--not for them, not for the development community at large. We need to educate businesses that collaboration and pooling of resources is more efficient at meeting needs than buying proprietary software. Open Source is not just about getting a free lunch--it's about getting your needs met cheaply and effectively. Just as the Apache Group has functioned as a consortium and pool of resources for people who need web server software, we need equivalent projects for all major business management and accounting software.
There are precisely 2 things keeping the Evil Empire from falling: 1.) lack of a sufficient replacement for MS-Office 2.) lack of commodity business software for alternative platforms
If I understand correctly, this fuss is about the chips that Lexmark puts on their cartridges to prevent them from working after they've been refilled. And "circumvention" in this case is about somehow re-programming / resetting the chip so that the printer thinks it has a brand new cartridge. So how about some specs and code to make our own programmers? Surely somebody has this info. And Lexmark isn't the only company that does this..
I wasn't really addressing whether it is right to have software patents or not, but based on the fact that they do legally exist, I was addressing the fact that if anyone should pay for a breach of patent it should be the software maker, and not the software purchaser. This is somewhat directly related to the implied warranty of merchantability (assuming the EULA didn't kill it). It is stated that the product is fit for the purpose for which it is designed, and that the whole point of the warranty law is that it puts the costs and burdens on the seller/manufacturer to ensure that the product does what it is supposed to. Now if I go out and buy a product from a store, one of the things I am expecting is that the product is not against the law. And there is no way I could verify either before or after buying it that the closed-source software is breaching patents. So why should I as a end-user have to pay?
On the other hand, not all software is written for the purpose of sale and merchantability, whether that is formally stated or not. You asserted that Open Source developers were responsible for their actions and the legality of their code. I wholly disagree. To suggest otherwise would be to severely limit their freedom of speech. And if you really want to get technical, code only 'describes' a patented algorithm/process/whatever.. much like the patent office record describes it but just in a different language.
That line you see forming.. It's not for the next Star Wars movie.. It's not another anti-war rally... It's freedom-loving people lining up ready to show some outright, no-holds-barred civil disobediance towards the Digital Millenium Copyright Act by cracking the DRM crap in Office 11 documents and spreading the circumvention code the heck all over the globe faster than a recipe for the world's best chocolate chip cookies. If Microsoft tries to use this nonsense to lock competitors out of their document formats, I predict all gloves come off.
While I see your point about open source developers being hurt if they were made responsible, you also need to consider software ethics.
You are way off base. Software patents themselves are unethical. Saying that I cannot write and freely publish software in my own free time without worrying about being legally harassed is a blatant violation of my first amendment right to free speech. Would you favor patents on literature or mathematics? Well, software patents are the same level of stupidity! That's why the US is one of the few countries in the world that even acknowledge them--and we NEED to change this!
I for one, as much as I hate them, hope that Microsoft will show some backbone and bring into question the very legitimacy of software patents to begin with. Software patents are anti-innovation and they hurt EVERYONE.
This whole situation, by the way, is a great example of another reason not to use ANY proprietary software. If we can kill off the proprietary dinosaurs, software patents will naturally disappear because there's no use for them in the Open Source realm.
Upgrading studio equipment to HDTV standards: $150,000
Additional makeup and digital processing to cover up newly visible flaws in prime-time soap stars: $2,000 per episode
Paying off government officials to mandate HDTV and draconian DRM systems: $100,000 per senator
Watching consumer-whore lemmings run to the nearest electronics retailer to fork over big bucks for your "new" technology: $... Priceless
But seriously folks.. it's just television. If you want a large, high-resolution display, get an LCD projector or build one yourself. (Search google for dozens of plans)
There are dozens of routes a person can take with their CS background, even within the field of professional programming. Yes, unfortunately, Office Space and Dilbert are a fairly realistic portrayal of the majority of the corporate / clueless-business world. But this is by no means the only option! To those geeks among us who dread the idea of turning into a Dilbert or Peter Gibbons, let me share two words of advice: small business. Start your own, team up with your like-minded buddies, or find someone to help you with the business-end. Or maybe you can find an existing small firm with a wholesome company attitude and a product/service you'd feel proud to be a part of. Jobs should not be pure drudgery and the bane of your existance.
Yes, Apple's notebooks have improved drastically over the past year or so, but are you really getting that great of deal? What most people don't seem to remember is that the G3/G4's are solidly outperformed by P3/P4/Athlon's. While it is true that (in some tasks) the PowerPC chips can provide more performance per clock speed, this lead is 20% at the most. And in some cases, such as the incredibly weak FPU of the G3, performance is MUCH worse per clock speed than with competing x86 chips. A P3-800 will outperform a G3-800 in almost every task. A P3-1Ghz. will about match a G4-800, each with its areas of slight advantage. An Athlon 2Ghz. will fully outperform any G4 chip on the market. They may not be as elegant, but the reality is that x86 chips still have a large performance AND price advantage.
OK, so what about battery life? Apple folks claim to run 4-5 hours on a full charge, while (most) PC laptops tend to hover in the 2-3 hour range. BUT, the PC laptops are running at higher clock speeds that give them greater performance. I propose this challenge: Take a well-designed PC laptop that gets 3 hours battery life with an Athlon or P4 running in the 1.8-2.2Ghz. range. Now, clock that system down to the range in which it matches the performance of a G4 in one of Apple's notebooks. I'd almost guarantee you can get the same, if not better, battery life than the Apple product.
What about quality of construction / features? Apple hardware is very well built and nicely feature-rich. It is unfortunate that some PC laptop manufacturers/OEM's have given PC laptops such a bad name in this area. But, here's the trick: don't buy from the "big name" PC laptop vendors. These companies have tended to produce increasingly shoddy / cut-rate laptop products. The plastic is cheap, the movable parts are flimsy, and the custom engineering involves a lot of cut corners to shave costs. You wouldn't in your right mind actually buy a desktop machine from these guys, right?.. so why a laptop? Look for a well built OEM unbranded PC laptop and then find a vendor that sells it the cheapest. As a side note, one thing I specifically dislike about Apple's laptops is the lower resolution LCD's they use. 1024x768 is still the norm in the 14-15" Powerbook line, while many PC laptops now offer 1400x1050.
This is just my experience and YMMV. I'm not in any way saying that Apple hardware is bad. But in my opinion, it is still overpriced for what you get. Unless you actually want/need MacOSX, get a quality PC and run Linux/FreeBSD. Sure, you can run a lot of your favorite Open Source software in MacOSX, but it's more hastle to get it working than using Linux distros' package managers or BSD ports.
All this P2P stuff was (originally?) supposed to fossilize the likes of the RIAA and transform the music industry into one where middlemen were eliminated, artists were (finally) fairly paid, and consumers reaped the benefits of abundant free content. But none of this happened.
A comparable analogy would have been if the Open Source community, instead of creating their own, superior free software, had all turned into lazy warez junkies. You can't win a war relying on your enemy's resources
So what we need is an "Open Music" revolution. But that will require educating artists who don't spend their days reading Slashdot. They need to learn that a record label deal is not the holy grail of their career, but rather in most cases, a hindrance. Artists need to treat their talent as a personal enterprise, not a raffle ticket to ride the gravy train.
When this dream is realized, the lawsuits will end, the fascist laws will be repealed, the manufactured pop-icons will vanish, and the world will be a better place. Get to it.
Re:A little more information
on
Adopt a KDE Geek
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
KDE developers put their computers through a lot of work. Building KDE on my modern desktop (1.4 GHz Athlon, 512 MB RAM) takes 6-8 hours. Many developers are working on systems which cannot fully build KDE in under 24 hours, and many KDE developers do so several times a week. Profiling and debugging tools for optimizing code are very processor and memory intensive. Hardware often is a bottleneck to KDE developers' productivity.
What doesn't make sense is that hardware is so cheap these days and yet some of these developers are using old crap. Why? Are they really that dirt poor? Seriously! We're talking about like ~$50 Athlon xp 1700, ~$50 motherboard, ~$80 512 MB RAM. Lets say $200 with shipping. Is there anyone who can't afford that kinda upgrade even if they have to save a couple months? $200 is a drop in the hat even with a $30k/year income. It seems these guys either have no concept of managing their personal finance or else they're purposely living in poverty / self-pity. I would hope it's simply the former, because KDE is a really excellent project and its developers deserve a lot more than they give themselves credit for.
Just a thought: Try consulting on the side.. A handful of consistent clients is enough to support a reasonable lifestyle.
I don't have any numbers, but I'd be willing to bet the environmental impact of transportation, wasteful packaging, advertising, and retail outlet shelf-time are far greater than that of manufacturing most technology products. Then, take into account the office buildings / transportation / materials / etc. used by all the middlemen and worthless-job suits who mull around all day doing nothing of value with regards to actual production.
It's my opinion that if we want to reduce the environmental impact of industry, we (globally) need to make the economy efficient before we even think of cutting production. Progress and the enhancement of our standard of living is not hurting the environment. Inefficiency in the way we go about it is.
For example, you simply can't buy a decent sounding studio vocal microphone for less than $1000, and you should be spending more like $3000 to get something that sounds nice
- A bunch of nice mics (5 - 10 mics at $1000+ each) - A bunch of good quality inputs for those mics - Then something to mix it with, record it on, etc - that's almost a detail
Well, that all depends on what you're recording. For a large band / orchestra or with proper positioning at live rock stage concerts / clubs / etc., you can get excellent quality from a good stereo pair of mics. (Modified Panasonic WM-61's + custom low-noise pre-amps anyone?) Now of course, I realize you're talking about near-field studio recording, but it depends on how anal you want to be with control. I've heard great recordings that didn't use seperate miking on each drumset element, relying rather on natural acoustics and some experimentation. (and frankly, if you're gonna mike every drum and mix and process and tweak the heck out of it anyways, you might as well be using an electronic set to begin with.:) But alas, it all depends on the style of music.
On the other hand, budding musicians shouldn't be afraid of basement recordings as long as they know what they're doing. Done correctly, they can sound excellent even with low-cost / home-made equipment. In the end, it's the music that matters. It can always be re-mixed / recorded later.
Actually, I wouldn't want my grocer to disable the RFID tags on purchased food items. If I had my own RFID reader, it would make for a quite convenient way to update an inventory of what food I have on hand. This, in turn, would allow me to do many neat things:
- automatically generate shopping lists - compare food inventory against a recipe database to see what meal options I have - automatically track food expiration - optimize food usage (ie. less waste) by planning meals a week in advance
Of course, this would also require tracking of inventory depletion. However, with recipe planning and perhaps a touchscreen interface, this would be pretty simple and would allow you to track your nutrition at the same time.
As a side-note, these things are nowhere near a threat to privacy:
1.) They are trivially easy to destroy 2.) Regardless of how small the chip is, you still need an antenna matching the wavelength of the RFID detector's transceiver. Simple physics guarantees that the antenna will be plainly visible or else highly inefficient and narrow-banded. (not much use if you're trying to power a chip with it). Sure, these limitations may be slowly overcome by advances in nanotech and ultra-low-power design, but it'll also make the chips more fragile.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's success would seem to make the argument pointless: Can $250 billion in market capitalization be wrong?
Of course it can. Having the marketing muscle to force lousy products down people's throats does not make one a success. Nor does it say anything about the intelligence of people working at M$. Perhaps if the brains there had some common sense as well, they'd have jumped ship long ago and started making a positive difference in the industry.
Well, they need to be unless you want the economy of California (and probably the rest of the country) to crumble. In some idealistic Libertarian fantasy land, maybe having established corporations that employ hundreds of thousands of people (and a few million indirectly) crumble makes sense. But in this REAL WORLD(TM), there is no way in hell that any elected official is going to vote against some measure of protection for this industry.
So basically, what you're implying is that "big media / software" is a necessary evil because inefficient corporations employ lots of people. I wholly disagree. If these companies crumble because the market shifts out from under them, the folks they employ directly or indirectly will simply work for smaller, more efficient companies instead. Studios and production companies will still exist. Software companies (well.. consulting and services) will still exist. They just won't monopolize and force-feed the market the way existing ones do. And the economy will be a lot healthier as a result.
Part of my point is that change is going to happen regardless of the law. State-run churches didn't want people printing and owning their own Bibles--after all, they had a monopoly on religion--but the technology enabled this to become a reality regardless. Technology will continue to press changes forward. The question is more how many legal casualties will be inflicted along the way against those on the cutting edge.
No fair issuing "buggy whip" analogies. The buggy whip folks had ample time and opportunity to retool to other leather goods. The rapid increase of technology has not allowed the same luxury to these industries.
I don't think this analogy really fits anyhow. The existing content industry is about selling control, not products. Those who produce actual products--the artists, musicians, coders, etc.--will always have a market for their works, performances, and services.
But you asked about positive legislative steps, which is a harder question. The holy grail here is a non-harmful proposal that reassures legislators about the continued viability of the music and movie industries.
The assumption that the existing music and movie industries NEED to be viable any longer is the biggest mistake of all. Until this assumption is torn down, we'll continue see all sorts of garbage legislation to try to prop up failing businesses. Let capitalism run it's course for crying out loud! The music industry (read: RIAA members) is already dying due to independent artists, lack of big name album successes, and the general public's unwillingness to pay for old music that ought to be public domain by now. Hollywood may not be too far behind considering how many independent films have recently enjoyed smash successes. Compare also, the proprietary software industry is headed for total collapse due to the Open Source movement. Microsoft is already going down in flames, looking at its stock, the continual bad PR, industry alliances forming against it. (IBM/HP/etc.) Face it, society is striving to become more open! I know it's an overused analogy, but we're seeing the "printing press" revolution all over again.
If you want positive legislation in this area, the best hope is a compulsory license, which would charge all users of the Net a small, mandatory fee.
So basically, the aging big-shot players get to impose a tax on everyone using the internet to prop up failing businesses since their customers have already left for greener pastures. And regardless of whether I partake in the crappy content, I still have to pay. This type of system is straight out socialism. Great idea, Felten. Not.
"Some bastions of capitalism are getting into the open-source spirit"
This really isn't unexpected seeing as how Open-Source itself is a natural bastion of democracy and capitalism.. unlike certain very socialist-style "intellectual property" regimes of broad government-issued monopoly powers.
Software development and support should be a service! (:
We actually thought about making our source open for the benefit of non-profit organisations (it's a project-management software). Has anybody made any experience with something like this? We are talking about enterprise-level software here..
I think it depends on how much your revenue stream relies on this software. It also depends on how similar your software is to existing free solutions (there are dozens of OSS project management packages, for example..) I firmly believe that there is plenty of money in providing free software, but you can't just jump right into it blindly without first thinking about how you're actually going to make money. (assuming the software *itself* is currently a significant source of revenue.. if not, there's no excuse for it to be closed) In my experience, customers have two criteria when choosing software: 1.) a solution that works perfectly for their needs and 2.) software that is reliably supported in case something goes wrong or the sysadmin quits or whatever. Neither of those require proprietary licensing to find a market. It's all about TCO. If you don't charge money for licensing, you can afford to charge *more* for support / customization services as long as what you offer is still overall cheaper / better than your competitors' solutions.
It is true that some potential customers will choose to free-ride on the software if it is openly licensed. However, those who do this also tend to be the ones with enough technical experience to contribute back.. to fix your bugs, offer valuable suggestions, or even add features that paying customers will then enjoy. And if not, there's no reason to feel like you must support them in any way. They're using the software as-is and if they need help, they must pay for a support contract.
Choice of open source licenses is also important. Using the BSD license potentially helps your proprietary competitors and should be avoided. (it allows them to take your code, modify it, and then *sell* it as a different and closed-source product.) GPL and many others force modifications to be re-released to the community. So even if a competitor was to decide to base their business on software you originally developed, they can't claim any rights to modifications and improvements. All they can do is offer competing support services. In practice, this is unlikely because they will lack credibility, product image, and your own intimate knowledge of the code. There are, of course, other licensing choices. You can, for example, forbid forks of the code into new projects or require that the certain trademarks, product names, and credits remain intact. Technically, this makes the software less than free, but it's still better than closed source from a purist perspective.
And remember, you can always experiment.. try opening up some software and see how it goes. Good luck! (:
"and has a habbit of ripping earthquakes.."
habbit? Is that like a hobbit with a habit?
Well, the first question to answer is whether or not machines can ever truly be sentient vs. just give the illusion of being sentient. This, of course, opens the can of worms on what does it truly mean to be sentient. Certainly, most would agree that humans are sentient. We are aware not only of our surroundings but also of our own existance and the nature of our existance. We can sit back and reflect upon ourselves and this essense of existance. But what allows us to do this? If our existance is limited to the physical world--as any machine is--then ultimately our brains, our thoughts are deterministic at some level. One may argue that the "new physics" transcends this determinism, but I would argue that this label is only an acknowledgement that we do not yet understand the deterministic natural processes behind the phenomena we observe. (And the history of science is filled with examples of phenomena thought to be magical or ethereous until better understood!) If our existance is then deterministic, we would not truly be able to reflect upon ourselves, being limited to a finite existance and unable to gain an outside view. Our free will would thus be an illusion and we would be no more sentient than a rock or a puddle of chemicals. Unless, as I believe, we humans are uniquely coupled to a spiritual existance that transcends our physical existance. If sentience relies on a being having a spiritual nature, then machines will never be sentient. And alternatively, if our existance is deterministic, then life has no meaning. I don't think many folks would agree with that. (Or, phrased differently, no man is truly an atheist at heart, though he may argue intellectually otherwise.)
Microsoft will *have* to go Open Source or else die off completely. The difference is that by the time this happens, they will be an insignificant, ultra-downsized corporation with little industry clout. Granted, we're talking perhaps 5-15 years here, but the tide is quickly shifting against them--both among techies and now also in the corporate world. Even if the Open Source movement takes that long to overtake their marketshare, it will happen eventually. It has to, simply for the fact that slow and steady will win the race. Over time, all weaknesses of existing OSS will be fixed and all missing applications will be developed. How long that process will take is entirely up to us--and how many people make OSS development / consulting their full-time career.
It seems to me that all parties involved need to cool down and then come back to the table with a reasonable attitude and work out these issues. Keith has some valid points about the sluggish response of XFree86 development in certain areas, although I disagree with his means of protest. A fork would likely only cause chaos and be detrimental to the cause of unified desktop standards and Open Source acceptance. It is my opinion that there are times when standards and compatibility are far more important than performance and eye candy.
Keith, if you are listening, may I suggest that you formally and thoroughly document your objections to current XFree86 development and provide constructive criticism on how it might be improved? If there are technical complaints, such as relating to performance, perhaps you can write code to prove the need for change.
XFree86 team, if you are listening, may I suggest that a patch tracking feature be added to the official web site? For example, if a patch is submitted to support a new XRender feature but not yet committed to CVS, show this and offer the patch for download right there. As a user, it greatly frustrates me to not have any idea when new features and support will be added and you must admit, the XFree86 release cycle is rather slow. As a user/developer, it would be greatly beneficial to me if I could see precisely where the work is being done. And if extra help is needed in some area, advertise this openly. Relating specifically to driver patches, may I suggest that driver changes be added with far less caution than changes to core libraries? I personally believe that if someone like responsible like ATI submits a patch to support their latest hardware, there is absolutely no need to sit on that patch. Get it out there and get it tested ASAP.
Hackers: We make Microsoft obsolete.
Real hackers that is.. people who write Free Software.
This was perhaps one of the most M$ tainted and downright worthless articles I've *ever* seen Slashdot link to. Slashdot ops, you'd have my vote to purge this article from the system. Oh, and fire the idiot who entered it so this sort of thing doesn't happen again.
Although the topics are pretty banal, he makes some interesting comments suggesting where Open Source can make inroads in small/medium business:
Symantec's Act! and Intuit's QuickBooks are Microsoft's ace in the hole. Until file compatible equivalents are developed, Linux will have a hard time capturing the small business desktop in the U.S.. Both companies are closely tied to Microsoft, so QuickBooks won't be ported until it's too late to save Intuit from Microsoft Great Plains.
What we need is for a group of businesses to pool some funds and create an Open Source project to entirely replace the need for Quickbooks and other expensive off-the-shelf accounting and business management software. Why should they do this? Out fo the goodness of their hearts? No!! Because it'll be cheaper for them in the long run.
The author of the article almost gets it, but not quite:
Paradoxically, a strong open source alternative is the best hope for a revived commercial software industry. Much software needed by businesses is simply of no interest to open source developers. As Linux becomes a mainstream business operating system, the market for commercial software running on Linux expands.
When he states that business software is of no interest to OSS developers, he is making the assumption that all OSS developers work without pay and only a hobby. Geeks, listen up! The business world needs Open Source business apps to make free operating systems like Linux and BSD useful to them. Commercial software running on Linux is not the answer--not for them, not for the development community at large. We need to educate businesses that collaboration and pooling of resources is more efficient at meeting needs than buying proprietary software. Open Source is not just about getting a free lunch--it's about getting your needs met cheaply and effectively. Just as the Apache Group has functioned as a consortium and pool of resources for people who need web server software, we need equivalent projects for all major business management and accounting software.
There are precisely 2 things keeping the Evil Empire from falling: 1.) lack of a sufficient replacement for MS-Office 2.) lack of commodity business software for alternative platforms
resistant hardware damage YOU!!
If I understand correctly, this fuss is about the chips that Lexmark puts on their cartridges to prevent them from working after they've been refilled. And "circumvention" in this case is about somehow re-programming / resetting the chip so that the printer thinks it has a brand new cartridge. So how about some specs and code to make our own programmers? Surely somebody has this info. And Lexmark isn't the only company that does this..
I wasn't really addressing whether it is right to have software patents or not, but based on the fact that they do legally exist, I was addressing the fact that if anyone should pay for a breach of patent it should be the software maker, and not the software purchaser. This is somewhat directly related to the implied warranty of merchantability (assuming the EULA didn't kill it). It is stated that the product is fit for the purpose for which it is designed, and that the whole point of the warranty law is that it puts the costs and burdens on the seller/manufacturer to ensure that the product does what it is supposed to. Now if I go out and buy a product from a store, one of the things I am expecting is that the product is not against the law. And there is no way I could verify either before or after buying it that the closed-source software is breaching patents. So why should I as a end-user have to pay?
On the other hand, not all software is written for the purpose of sale and merchantability, whether that is formally stated or not. You asserted that Open Source developers were responsible for their actions and the legality of their code. I wholly disagree. To suggest otherwise would be to severely limit their freedom of speech. And if you really want to get technical, code only 'describes' a patented algorithm/process/whatever.. much like the patent office record describes it but just in a different language.
That line you see forming.. It's not for the next Star Wars movie.. It's not another anti-war rally... It's freedom-loving people lining up ready to show some outright, no-holds-barred civil disobediance towards the Digital Millenium Copyright Act by cracking the DRM crap in Office 11 documents and spreading the circumvention code the heck all over the globe faster than a recipe for the world's best chocolate chip cookies. If Microsoft tries to use this nonsense to lock competitors out of their document formats, I predict all gloves come off.
While I see your point about open source developers being hurt if they were made responsible, you also need to consider software ethics.
You are way off base. Software patents themselves are unethical. Saying that I cannot write and freely publish software in my own free time without worrying about being legally harassed is a blatant violation of my first amendment right to free speech. Would you favor patents on literature or mathematics? Well, software patents are the same level of stupidity! That's why the US is one of the few countries in the world that even acknowledge them--and we NEED to change this!
I for one, as much as I hate them, hope that Microsoft will show some backbone and bring into question the very legitimacy of software patents to begin with. Software patents are anti-innovation and they hurt EVERYONE.
This whole situation, by the way, is a great example of another reason not to use ANY proprietary software. If we can kill off the proprietary dinosaurs, software patents will naturally disappear because there's no use for them in the Open Source realm.
Upgrading studio equipment to HDTV standards: $150,000
Additional makeup and digital processing to cover up newly visible flaws in prime-time soap stars: $2,000 per episode
Paying off government officials to mandate HDTV and draconian DRM systems: $100,000 per senator
Watching consumer-whore lemmings run to the nearest electronics retailer to fork over big bucks for your "new" technology: $... Priceless
But seriously folks.. it's just television. If you want a large, high-resolution display, get an LCD projector or build one yourself. (Search google for dozens of plans)
There are dozens of routes a person can take with their CS background, even within the field of professional programming. Yes, unfortunately, Office Space and Dilbert are a fairly realistic portrayal of the majority of the corporate / clueless-business world. But this is by no means the only option! To those geeks among us who dread the idea of turning into a Dilbert or Peter Gibbons, let me share two words of advice: small business. Start your own, team up with your like-minded buddies, or find someone to help you with the business-end. Or maybe you can find an existing small firm with a wholesome company attitude and a product/service you'd feel proud to be a part of. Jobs should not be pure drudgery and the bane of your existance.
Yes, Apple's notebooks have improved drastically over the past year or so, but are you really getting that great of deal? What most people don't seem to remember is that the G3/G4's are solidly outperformed by P3/P4/Athlon's. While it is true that (in some tasks) the PowerPC chips can provide more performance per clock speed, this lead is 20% at the most. And in some cases, such as the incredibly weak FPU of the G3, performance is MUCH worse per clock speed than with competing x86 chips. A P3-800 will outperform a G3-800 in almost every task. A P3-1Ghz. will about match a G4-800, each with its areas of slight advantage. An Athlon 2Ghz. will fully outperform any G4 chip on the market. They may not be as elegant, but the reality is that x86 chips still have a large performance AND price advantage.
OK, so what about battery life? Apple folks claim to run 4-5 hours on a full charge, while (most) PC laptops tend to hover in the 2-3 hour range. BUT, the PC laptops are running at higher clock speeds that give them greater performance. I propose this challenge: Take a well-designed PC laptop that gets 3 hours battery life with an Athlon or P4 running in the 1.8-2.2Ghz. range. Now, clock that system down to the range in which it matches the performance of a G4 in one of Apple's notebooks. I'd almost guarantee you can get the same, if not better, battery life than the Apple product.
What about quality of construction / features? Apple hardware is very well built and nicely feature-rich. It is unfortunate that some PC laptop manufacturers/OEM's have given PC laptops such a bad name in this area. But, here's the trick: don't buy from the "big name" PC laptop vendors. These companies have tended to produce increasingly shoddy / cut-rate laptop products. The plastic is cheap, the movable parts are flimsy, and the custom engineering involves a lot of cut corners to shave costs. You wouldn't in your right mind actually buy a desktop machine from these guys, right?.. so why a laptop? Look for a well built OEM unbranded PC laptop and then find a vendor that sells it the cheapest. As a side note, one thing I specifically dislike about Apple's laptops is the lower resolution LCD's they use. 1024x768 is still the norm in the 14-15" Powerbook line, while many PC laptops now offer 1400x1050.
This is just my experience and YMMV. I'm not in any way saying that Apple hardware is bad. But in my opinion, it is still overpriced for what you get. Unless you actually want/need MacOSX, get a quality PC and run Linux/FreeBSD. Sure, you can run a lot of your favorite Open Source software in MacOSX, but it's more hastle to get it working than using Linux distros' package managers or BSD ports.
All this P2P stuff was (originally?) supposed to fossilize the likes of the RIAA and transform the music industry into one where middlemen were eliminated, artists were (finally) fairly paid, and consumers reaped the benefits of abundant free content. But none of this happened.
A comparable analogy would have been if the Open Source community, instead of creating their own, superior free software, had all turned into lazy warez junkies. You can't win a war relying on your enemy's resources
So what we need is an "Open Music" revolution. But that will require educating artists who don't spend their days reading Slashdot. They need to learn that a record label deal is not the holy grail of their career, but rather in most cases, a hindrance. Artists need to treat their talent as a personal enterprise, not a raffle ticket to ride the gravy train.
When this dream is realized, the lawsuits will end, the fascist laws will be repealed, the manufactured pop-icons will vanish, and the world will be a better place. Get to it.
KDE developers put their computers through a lot of work. Building KDE on my modern desktop (1.4 GHz Athlon, 512 MB RAM) takes 6-8 hours. Many developers are working on systems which cannot fully build KDE in under 24 hours, and many KDE developers do so several times a week. Profiling and debugging tools for optimizing code are very processor and memory intensive. Hardware often is a bottleneck to KDE developers' productivity.
What doesn't make sense is that hardware is so cheap these days and yet some of these developers are using old crap. Why? Are they really that dirt poor? Seriously! We're talking about like ~$50 Athlon xp 1700, ~$50 motherboard, ~$80 512 MB RAM. Lets say $200 with shipping. Is there anyone who can't afford that kinda upgrade even if they have to save a couple months? $200 is a drop in the hat even with a $30k/year income. It seems these guys either have no concept of managing their personal finance or else they're purposely living in poverty / self-pity. I would hope it's simply the former, because KDE is a really excellent project and its developers deserve a lot more than they give themselves credit for.
Just a thought: Try consulting on the side.. A handful of consistent clients is enough to support a reasonable lifestyle.
I don't have any numbers, but I'd be willing to bet the environmental impact of transportation, wasteful packaging, advertising, and retail outlet shelf-time are far greater than that of manufacturing most technology products. Then, take into account the office buildings / transportation / materials / etc. used by all the middlemen and worthless-job suits who mull around all day doing nothing of value with regards to actual production.
It's my opinion that if we want to reduce the environmental impact of industry, we (globally) need to make the economy efficient before we even think of cutting production. Progress and the enhancement of our standard of living is not hurting the environment. Inefficiency in the way we go about it is.
For example, you simply can't buy a decent sounding studio vocal microphone for less than $1000, and you should be spending more like $3000 to get something that sounds nice
:) But alas, it all depends on the style of music.
- A bunch of nice mics (5 - 10 mics at $1000+ each)
- A bunch of good quality inputs for those mics
- Then something to mix it with, record it on, etc - that's almost a detail
Well, that all depends on what you're recording. For a large band / orchestra or with proper positioning at live rock stage concerts / clubs / etc., you can get excellent quality from a good stereo pair of mics. (Modified Panasonic WM-61's + custom low-noise pre-amps anyone?) Now of course, I realize you're talking about near-field studio recording, but it depends on how anal you want to be with control. I've heard great recordings that didn't use seperate miking on each drumset element, relying rather on natural acoustics and some experimentation. (and frankly, if you're gonna mike every drum and mix and process and tweak the heck out of it anyways, you might as well be using an electronic set to begin with.
On the other hand, budding musicians shouldn't be afraid of basement recordings as long as they know what they're doing. Done correctly, they can sound excellent even with low-cost / home-made equipment. In the end, it's the music that matters. It can always be re-mixed / recorded later.
Actually, I wouldn't want my grocer to disable the RFID tags on purchased food items. If I had my own RFID reader, it would make for a quite convenient way to update an inventory of what food I have on hand. This, in turn, would allow me to do many neat things:
- automatically generate shopping lists
- compare food inventory against a recipe database to see what meal options I have
- automatically track food expiration
- optimize food usage (ie. less waste) by planning meals a week in advance
Of course, this would also require tracking of inventory depletion. However, with recipe planning and perhaps a touchscreen interface, this would be pretty simple and would allow you to track your nutrition at the same time.
As a side-note, these things are nowhere near a threat to privacy:
1.) They are trivially easy to destroy
2.) Regardless of how small the chip is, you still need an antenna matching the wavelength of the RFID detector's transceiver. Simple physics guarantees that the antenna will be plainly visible or else highly inefficient and narrow-banded. (not much use if you're trying to power a chip with it). Sure, these limitations may be slowly overcome by advances in nanotech and ultra-low-power design, but it'll also make the chips more fragile.