in other words, make your software so shitty and unreliable that people need to pay you so they can keep it functioning? And people bitch and moan about MSFT's subscription policies.... this is the same thing.
No, in other words, make your software as beautifully clean and high quality as possible, basing as much as you can on existing Open Source software and extending as needed. You would not believe how many people are paying out the wazoo to keep *proprietary* software functioning. I'm proposing to do a better job on both ends.
The last company I worked for, we produced a very high end, specialized application with a limited user base...... So when it comes time to release it, we should just give it away and expect and there will 'magically' be money..
I'm not proposing a solution to every situation. Nor am I talking about building specialized software from the ground up. In your case, however, it still doesn't mean that proprietary code is needed. One option for people (your customers) with specific needs is to form a sorta co-op group to develop the software they would need--in this case, movie effects software. Seeing as how you have a small user base, this is fully possible. It just requires planning and coordination. Why would your customers do this instead of buying proprietary software from whatever company you work for? Because it's cheaper for them if executed correctly. Nothing I'm advocating has anything to do with altruism or making programmers work for nothing. Yes, I fully agree that the Eazel people were a bunch of morons with no business model.
GCC will be going into the crapper as soon as somebody produces a good fast compiler for linux.
I agree that GCC needs work, but it's certainly not going away and I don't think it's quite as bad as you suggest. Qt takes nowhere near 3-1/2 hours to compile with gcc on my machine, and it's just a single-processor 1.4Ghz. Athlon. What matters ultimately, is the performance of the binaries and you nowhere mention this.
There's room (and NEED) for both commercial and free software in this world.
There is only need if people create the need--those people being customers who aren't aware of the possibility to get the software they need for less money by hiring either Open Source consultants or by organizing a sort of co-op. I'm not saying it'll happen tomorrow. But it very well could happen as more Open Source projects reach 'critical mass'
first of all, since you can get the source of all open source software for free, eventually companies won't need to hire you as a programmer.
Who says you need to be hired? Work as a consultant. Provide complete solutions. There's an enormous market for that which many programmers neglect. You write free software as your clients needs require them. If an Open Source package reaches "perfection" and nobody needs more code added (unlikely), then you move on. It makes things interesting, really.
second, if I wanted to do tech. support, I wouldn't be a programmer.
If I wanted to sit in meetings, I wouldn't be a freelance programmer. (No job is perfect)
Here, I shall edit your advice to remove the stupidity:
Be aware that a good free software engineer has more than just technical skills. You need to be able to work without pressure, to a soft deadline and in a team. Just being a great hacker is enough. Great hackers by definition have social skills. These skills will be demonstrated naturally in addition to your coding abilities. One of the advantages of an open source project is that many of them are run with a degree of close teamwork and tight deadlines that put commercial software development to shame.
That's right folks. Boycott jobs at proprietary software companies. You don't need them to earn a respectable living.
Income from Open Source means Consulting and Services.
When we look for new programmers, beyond language proficiency, we look for the ability to write a quality TSD.... We simply discard most resumes that are sent to us from strangers..... These types of experience are very difficult to get programming free software. Free software, by its nature, doesn't have much of the structure that is placed on proprietary software. Like it or not, people who produce proprietary software want people to have experience developing proprietary software.
Talk about missing the point! I bet you're an MBA aren't you? What part of "we don't need ANY proprietary software" did you not understand. That's right. No proprietary software. As in: Proprietary software is going the way of the dinosaur. Deal with it.
The point is, smart programmers don't NEED the corporate "we" that you refer to a dozen times in your argument. That is the beauty of Open Source. You don't have to do everything yourself. Structure falls into place naturally. All you have to do is take what exists and extend it as people needs dictate. For that, those people WILL pay you if you offer a better total solution than proprietary competitors.
Income from Open Source means Consulting and Services.
You remind me of a guy who I went to school with that was bound and determined to live outside of the capitalist system
I'm not at all suggesting living outside the capitalist system. Writing software as a service rather than charging licensing fees makes it a labor market. Labor markets are a far purer form of capitalism than government-enabled monopolies (copyright, etc).
You people need to lose the assumption that OSS must be written apart from ones "day job." It simply isn't true. If you can't get hired this way, strap on a set and be your own boss.
Money from Open Source means Consulting and Services.
Open source is nice, but it's something I do _after_ I put bread on the table.... I'll come home and find a few hours to mess with a bit of code. And you get that for free, but that isn't what feeds my kids.
It's your choice. You can just as well make your living off the free software development you enjoy. Right now, that may mean being your own boss. But trust me, the money's out there.
Money in Open Source means Consulting and Services.
You are limiting your viewpoint to assume that software is a product when in fact, it can also be a service. Open Source doesn't make money on licenses. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make money. If someone pays you to write Open Source software that they need (say you are a consultant, perhaps), then it doesn't matter if the software itself is free because it wouldn't exist without them paying you to create it. Additionally, you can provide them with support contracts, training, etc. Software itself is a small component of a total solution that clients need.
Seems to me that Nusphere is trying to greedily free-ride off the hard work of Open Source developers. Simply put: Nusphere doesn't get it. They are one of many who still mistakenly believe that proprietary software is the only way to make money. As such, I personally hope they get ripped to shreds in court and all their proprietary modifications get forcefully released to be freely assimilated into the GPL codebase as MySQL developers see fit.
from the getting-experience-before-getting-that-all-importa nt-1st-job dept.
Open Source as programming experience? Excuse me, but Open Source development is not just a playground to warm up on before moving on to a "real job" writing proprietary software. If you desire to program for a living you can and should make a career out of doing Open Source development. It is absolutely mind boggling how much Slashdot editors have taken a stance against this ever since VA went proprietary. Well don't listen to the fools. There are plenty of legitimate and highly stable ways to make money writing free software. The most convenient way is consulting. In one form or fashion, offer clients a complete 'turn-key' solution: customized software, support, training, etc. Find some buddies who are also into Open Source and form a consulting group. Start small if everyone lacks experience, but you should really try to find someone who knows the ropes to serve as a mentor.
Don't believe the FUD, my friends. There is absolutely NO need for ANY proprietary software in this world. Those who argue otherwise do so only because they have a vested interest in proprietary venues and are afraid that the snowballing Open Source revolution is going to obsolete their enterprise. Well guess what? It's going to anyways. Choose your sides.
Re:Great... Content Control Features For Creators?
on
Photoshop for OS X
·
· Score: 2
As someone whose livelihood depends on his writing, I can tell you that a secure way of distributing electronic media is vital to publishers and authors, both big and small, before they consider the internet anything more than a playground.
You sir, are a moron. The people who modded this comment up are also morons. That being said, look at the pure stupidity of your comment. If you're talking about protecting content within an organization, people don't need proprietary systems for doing so when there already exist free solutions such as GPG. The only thing this does is ensure that only other Adobe product users can open the files. This is the same concept as Microsoft keeping the Office formats secret so that only genuine MS Office products can properly load documents. So when Gimp gains perfect import of Photoshop documents, it still won't work if they're encrypted using Adobe's proprietary system.
So maybe you were talking about trying to protect content from casual copying by consumers. Well wake up, because it's not possible. Publishers and authors are going to have to realize that the Internet is a different market than they're used to. Ultimately, that means not relying on copyright as a means of ensuring income. The only other option is to take away our constitutional rights, ala DMCA. To suggest otherwise is downright asinine.
China and others want our junk for the raw materials, not because they're looking for 300 baud modems that still work.
First and foremost: Gold or silver connectors and contacts. What do you think all those shiny yellowish pins on the underside of a processor are made of? They're not copper; it would tarnish quickly and your system would stop working. In many cases, the older the hardware, the more gold that was used due to physically larger components. Steel used in cases and racks may also be valuable enough to salvage.
Why isn't this done in the US? It is, but it's not as profitable because labor costs are higher, not to mention overall costs of living. Basically, you're talking about hiring people to take old parts and chisel away the gold with a hammer all day. The rest is discarded, hence the waste strewn along rivers. Not a pleasant situation regardless.
So the question is whether we can do a better job of *truly* recycling old parts. I believe we can. It just requires some innovation. The biggest problem I see is solder removal. It's entirely impractical to do by hand. As any electronics hobbyist knows, old circuit boards are a goldmine of perfectly good parts. What if there was a way to quickly heat and vacuum off all the solder on a board? Then, violently shake the board to cause all the components to fall off into a bin, after which they'd be mechanically sorted, packaged, and sold as surplus. Waste solder is nearly pure lead which can be melted and recycled at little cost. The remaining plastic circuit boards can be scraped of copper traces, then melted down. This would work pretty well for really old boards. New ones with mostly surface mounted components would much much trickier. On the other hand, there's much less material to waste to begin with!
How is Sun supposed to make money from Star Office if they don't eventually charge for it?
Very easily: support, 'priority features' voted on by paying membership holders, training manuals/videos/seminars, etc. There are all sorts of ways to make money on truly free software. And keep in mind that Sun isn't the only one developing Star/Open Office. No my friend. The issue here is corporate politics. Apparently some people within Sun have a hang-up with Open Source philosophy and a pride issue over Solaris and java.
According to cnn.com "Both treaties [WTO and WTTP] were adopted in 1996." Was Bush in charge in 96?
Correct. Keep in mind that it was the Clinton administration who helped to bring us DMCA in the first place as a means of setting an example for international law. The Dem's get most of the hollywood soft-money, so go figure. The same administration also tried to parcel off pieces of the US land to the United Nations. Disagree with Bush and the republicans all you may, but at least they take a firm stance on state sovereignty.
How the hell could you say software doesn't deserve to be an industry? Software companies are "appropriate" because they provide written documentation, product testing, customer service and legacy support. And let's not forget... economic security for the programmers! Not everyone wants to take a "day job." Some people enjoy what they are doing, and want to have a career.... Companies that sell nothing, like VA software, are on their way out. Welcome to the new millenium.
I agree completely. The whole dotCom thing, even VA perhaps, was a scam at best. That doesn't mean software itself has to be sold. You said it right there: documentation, product testing, and customer support. The one you forgot was consulting, as referring to providing customers with complete solutions. Part of that consulting may require the extension of existing free software, which is then re-released to the community. But there's a big difference between consulting and just giving away hard work for no good reason. Software is being transformed into a service industry. As such, there is less (if any) room for big companies like MS, Adobe, and even RedHat perhaps. But who knows? Large Open Source consulting firms may be effective. The market will decide.
How is Apple's "commercial proprietary *nix" "dying out" when it has already catapulted far beyond Linux and all the BSDs combined on the desktop, in about 1/10 of the time it took for Linux to get where it's at now? How is it "dying out" when, that said, it's currently growing faster than any Unix ever has?
The concept of proprietary *nix is dying out because it doesn't make sense. People don't use MacOS X to get access to *nix on Apple hardware. Well.. some do, but they quickly realize that it just doesn't cut it, compared to Linux or OpenBSD.
Now to dismantle your clueless BS: #1.) MacOS X is NOT more popular than Linux and BSD, even just on the desktop. How so? Because Linux and BSD users aren't counted whereas people who pay for OS X are. There are many times more Linux boxes out there than OS X. Whats more, most people using OS X are clueless Mac users who would have upgraded whether it was *nix based or not.
#2.) Since OS X was derived from a version of BSD (and a rather old one IIRC), you can't say that Apple produced it in "1/10 of the time as Linux."
Yes, I do agree with this from a programmer's point of view, although programming can in some cases be different because it is based on functionality, not artistic merit. Because of this, it can be offered as a clearly defined service. Ex.) "I will pay you to write this software for my use." Much like: "I will pay to hear you perform this music in concert." No restrictive licensing. No middle man involved.
Let me summarize in one statement: Programming should be a pasttime, not a career!. So.. why do we need software companies and paid programmers, again?
We don't need 'software companies' as defined as companies who pay programmers to write software and then sell it under restrictive licenses. In some cases, small software companies that do contract based work are appropriate because it allows programmers to pool their knowledge more easily than is currently possible with open development over the Internet. But the software is still free.
Maybe I should rephrase the summary as two words: service industry.
The reason copyright exists is so that if you one day write a song which could become a million seller, you actually get paid for at least some portion of that million copies which was sold. That means you are able to continue to do whatever it is you do whether that means writing hit songs or working in a garage somewhere
If all I do is write a song, why should I be paid for 95 years in royalties and in the process limit the free distribution of my song? Music itself is not that valuable. It's an artistic expression of oneself. Should a person and/or their heirs be set for life just because they wrote one catchy tune over the course of a month or two? Copyright was intended to encourage the distribution of popular works in an era when distribution required significant effort and resources. It's been turned into this distortion now referred to as "intellectual property," as if you can own a manifest thought. Artists should be paid: if they perform.
But the point is: some people who write music, for some of them that's all they can do to make a living.
Depends on how much they've trashed their brains with illicit drugs..
You're assuming that anything the RIAA clowns have their hands on is bad music. This is obviously not the case, whether you are talking about pop/rock (Allman Brothers, CCR, Eric Clapton, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Indigo Girls, Billy Joel, Paul Simon, and the list goes on and on), jazz (Armstrong, Basie, Ellington, Rollins, Smith, etc., etc.), classical, or most other genres.
So unfortunately true. Most work by those you've listed would be part of the public domain by now if it wasn't for the RIAA and others massively corrupting the original idea of copyright that existed long before efficient distribution channels were even possible. With todays distibution technology, copyright length today should be quite short: perhaps 3-5 years at most. Not that even that is truly necessary.
#1 - BIG DEAL. Because I can play Hendrix in no way means I can be Hendrix.
My point is the concept of folk music: playing popular tunes spread through 'grassroots' culture, but with your own touch. Sure, people will pay to see their favorite artists perform their original works in concert. But that doesn't need to involve copyright or record labels. Crazy idea, but how about a 'amphitheater co-op' that supports independent artists, perhaps drawing in non-local bands by vote of co-op patrons. There are numerous viable business models for copyright-free music, just as with Open Source.
Whatever. Sadly the only 2 ways he have to really judge "good original music" are sales and critical acclaim
I am suggesting that critical acclaim is enough. Scrap sales and marketing altogether.
yeah, gotta agree 100% on that.
For the musicians that play just for fun, they should not expect to be paid much if anything. For musicians are popular enough that people want to pay to hear them perform in concert, they should expect to be paid for the act of performing alone. Stop performing = stop being paid.. Just like the 'rest of us' hobby musicians who work a day job. Royalties are downright bullcrap.
2) Are you crazy? I dare you to sit down and go write the next chart topper?
I never said anything about topping charts. I was talking about writing good, entertaining music. A group of my friends have a local band which plays mostly 60's/70's covers but they've more recently started writing a lot of their own stuff. And no, I'm not talking about tasteless 3-chord screaming punk-rock, wannabe non-conformist bullcrap. I'm talking quality jazz, funk, reggae, and classic rock. These are engineers and music is their creative outlet. They practice a couple times a week in their basement, occasionally spending a Saturday writing a new song, which is gradually tweaked with each performance. Music just for fun.. as a social and cultural expression. That is what it has been for the vast majority of human history and that is what it *should* be.
So what happens if all these un-heard of 'garage bands' start recording/writing down and distributing their work for free? For them? Not much. It's just a hobby anyways. But other people may take their work and improve on it and perform it elsewhere in the tradition of folk music. Songs that become popular will naturally spread quickly and become recognized the world over. (For protection, artists should use a "GPL" style license to keep record labels or others from claiming ownership / producing commercially)
What about high-quality recordings? When a song becomes popular enough, many people will record it and some will be better than others. Those with a passion for music will go out of their way to create top-notch recordings.
Sun is beginning to remind me a lot of Apple. Their hardware is way overpriced and they refuse to accept the fact that commercial proprietary *nixes are quickly dying out, being replaced by Linux and *BSD. Instead, they're sinking large amounts of capital into maintaining their own closed operating systems. It's a shame, really, because they both make well-built hardware, use non-Intel cpu's, and have a solid customer support record. They could be making more money and doing the OSS community a great service by helping out if they'd just wake up.
#1.) Most moderately talented and experienced 'hobby musicians' (like the guys who play at small local bars/clubs/restaurants), with some practice, can play any popular (cover) song live just as well as the original musician(s), occasionally better.
#2.) It is not hard to write good original music.
#3.) Professional quality home recording is a reality and is not cost prohibitive for the vast majority of the US population.
#4.) There is no shortage whatsoever of good to excellent musicians and singers.
#5.) The vast majority of musicians perform for little or no pay simply because they enjoy doing it.
Let me summarize in one statement: Music should be a pasttime, not a career!.
So.. why do we need record labels and celebrity performers, again?
I disagree with this assertion, and thus the rest of your argument. (Just so you know.)
Hmm.. care to elaborate on where your philosophy goes with this? (That being, how our lives can have meaning if there is no eternal significance to our existance..) And what stops us from having a violent free-for-all?
Slashdot Mirror
in other words, make your software so shitty and unreliable that people need to pay you so they can keep it functioning? And people bitch and moan about MSFT's subscription policies.... this is the same thing.
.... So when it comes time to release it, we should just give it away and expect and there will 'magically' be money..
No, in other words, make your software as beautifully clean and high quality as possible, basing as much as you can on existing Open Source software and extending as needed. You would not believe how many people are paying out the wazoo to keep *proprietary* software functioning. I'm proposing to do a better job on both ends.
The last company I worked for, we produced a very high end, specialized application with a limited user base..
I'm not proposing a solution to every situation. Nor am I talking about building specialized software from the ground up. In your case, however, it still doesn't mean that proprietary code is needed. One option for people (your customers) with specific needs is to form a sorta co-op group to develop the software they would need--in this case, movie effects software. Seeing as how you have a small user base, this is fully possible. It just requires planning and coordination. Why would your customers do this instead of buying proprietary software from whatever company you work for? Because it's cheaper for them if executed correctly. Nothing I'm advocating has anything to do with altruism or making programmers work for nothing. Yes, I fully agree that the Eazel people were a bunch of morons with no business model.
GCC will be going into the crapper as soon as somebody produces a good fast compiler for linux.
I agree that GCC needs work, but it's certainly not going away and I don't think it's quite as bad as you suggest. Qt takes nowhere near 3-1/2 hours to compile with gcc on my machine, and it's just a single-processor 1.4Ghz. Athlon. What matters ultimately, is the performance of the binaries and you nowhere mention this.
There's room (and NEED) for both commercial and free software in this world.
There is only need if people create the need--those people being customers who aren't aware of the possibility to get the software they need for less money by hiring either Open Source consultants or by organizing a sort of co-op. I'm not saying it'll happen tomorrow. But it very well could happen as more Open Source projects reach 'critical mass'
first of all, since you can get the source of all open source software for free, eventually companies won't need to hire you as a programmer.
Who says you need to be hired? Work as a consultant. Provide complete solutions. There's an enormous market for that which many programmers neglect. You write free software as your clients needs require them. If an Open Source package reaches "perfection" and nobody needs more code added (unlikely), then you move on. It makes things interesting, really.
second, if I wanted to do tech. support, I wouldn't be a programmer.
If I wanted to sit in meetings, I wouldn't be a freelance programmer. (No job is perfect)
Here, I shall edit your advice to remove the stupidity:
Be aware that a good free software engineer has more than just technical skills. You need to be able to work without pressure, to a soft deadline and in a team. Just being a great hacker is enough. Great hackers by definition have social skills. These skills will be demonstrated naturally in addition to your coding abilities. One of the advantages of an open source project is that many of them are run with a degree of close teamwork and tight deadlines that put commercial software development to shame.
That's right folks. Boycott jobs at proprietary software companies. You don't need them to earn a respectable living.
Income from Open Source means Consulting and Services.
When we look for new programmers, beyond language proficiency, we look for the ability to write a quality TSD .... We simply discard most resumes that are sent to us from strangers. .... These types of experience are very difficult to get programming free software. Free software, by its nature, doesn't have much of the structure that is placed on proprietary software. Like it or not, people who produce proprietary software want people to have experience developing proprietary software.
Talk about missing the point! I bet you're an MBA aren't you? What part of "we don't need ANY proprietary software" did you not understand. That's right. No proprietary software. As in: Proprietary software is going the way of the dinosaur. Deal with it.
The point is, smart programmers don't NEED the corporate "we" that you refer to a dozen times in your argument. That is the beauty of Open Source. You don't have to do everything yourself. Structure falls into place naturally. All you have to do is take what exists and extend it as people needs dictate. For that, those people WILL pay you if you offer a better total solution than proprietary competitors.
Income from Open Source means Consulting and Services.
You remind me of a guy who I went to school with that was bound and determined to live outside of the capitalist system
I'm not at all suggesting living outside the capitalist system. Writing software as a service rather than charging licensing fees makes it a labor market. Labor markets are a far purer form of capitalism than government-enabled monopolies (copyright, etc).
You people need to lose the assumption that OSS must be written apart from ones "day job." It simply isn't true. If you can't get hired this way, strap on a set and be your own boss.
Money from Open Source means Consulting and Services.
Open source is nice, but it's something I do _after_ I put bread on the table. ...
I'll come home and find a few hours to mess with a bit of code. And you get that for free, but that isn't what feeds my kids.
It's your choice. You can just as well make your living off the free software development you enjoy. Right now, that may mean being your own boss. But trust me, the money's out there.
Money in Open Source means Consulting and Services.
wow. I wish I lived in your world.
So do I. What say we not limit ourselves and create that world. 'course it won't work if nobody has the guts to try it.
Income from Open Source means Consulting and Services.
FUD alert, FUD alert!
Danger Jaded Old Programmer, danger!
(some of us can still think for ourselves)
you don't get it. Open source doesn't make money.
You are limiting your viewpoint to assume that software is a product when in fact, it can also be a service. Open Source doesn't make money on licenses. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make money. If someone pays you to write Open Source software that they need (say you are a consultant, perhaps), then it doesn't matter if the software itself is free because it wouldn't exist without them paying you to create it. Additionally, you can provide them with support contracts, training, etc. Software itself is a small component of a total solution that clients need.
Seems to me that Nusphere is trying to greedily free-ride off the hard work of Open Source developers. Simply put: Nusphere doesn't get it. They are one of many who still mistakenly believe that proprietary software is the only way to make money. As such, I personally hope they get ripped to shreds in court and all their proprietary modifications get forcefully released to be freely assimilated into the GPL codebase as MySQL developers see fit.
from the getting-experience-before-getting-that-all-importa nt-1st-job dept.
Open Source as programming experience? Excuse me, but Open Source development is not just a playground to warm up on before moving on to a "real job" writing proprietary software. If you desire to program for a living you can and should make a career out of doing Open Source development. It is absolutely mind boggling how much Slashdot editors have taken a stance against this ever since VA went proprietary. Well don't listen to the fools. There are plenty of legitimate and highly stable ways to make money writing free software. The most convenient way is consulting. In one form or fashion, offer clients a complete 'turn-key' solution: customized software, support, training, etc. Find some buddies who are also into Open Source and form a consulting group. Start small if everyone lacks experience, but you should really try to find someone who knows the ropes to serve as a mentor.
Don't believe the FUD, my friends. There is absolutely NO need for ANY proprietary software in this world. Those who argue otherwise do so only because they have a vested interest in proprietary venues and are afraid that the snowballing Open Source revolution is going to obsolete their enterprise. Well guess what? It's going to anyways. Choose your sides.
As someone whose livelihood depends on his writing, I can tell you that a secure way of distributing electronic media is vital to publishers and authors, both big and small, before they consider the internet anything more than a playground.
You sir, are a moron. The people who modded this comment up are also morons. That being said, look at the pure stupidity of your comment. If you're talking about protecting content within an organization, people don't need proprietary systems for doing so when there already exist free solutions such as GPG. The only thing this does is ensure that only other Adobe product users can open the files. This is the same concept as Microsoft keeping the Office formats secret so that only genuine MS Office products can properly load documents. So when Gimp gains perfect import of Photoshop documents, it still won't work if they're encrypted using Adobe's proprietary system.
So maybe you were talking about trying to protect content from casual copying by consumers. Well wake up, because it's not possible. Publishers and authors are going to have to realize that the Internet is a different market than they're used to. Ultimately, that means not relying on copyright as a means of ensuring income. The only other option is to take away our constitutional rights, ala DMCA. To suggest otherwise is downright asinine.
China and others want our junk for the raw materials, not because they're looking for 300 baud modems that still work.
First and foremost: Gold or silver connectors and contacts. What do you think all those shiny yellowish pins on the underside of a processor are made of? They're not copper; it would tarnish quickly and your system would stop working. In many cases, the older the hardware, the more gold that was used due to physically larger components. Steel used in cases and racks may also be valuable enough to salvage.
Why isn't this done in the US? It is, but it's not as profitable because labor costs are higher, not to mention overall costs of living. Basically, you're talking about hiring people to take old parts and chisel away the gold with a hammer all day. The rest is discarded, hence the waste strewn along rivers. Not a pleasant situation regardless.
So the question is whether we can do a better job of *truly* recycling old parts. I believe we can. It just requires some innovation. The biggest problem I see is solder removal. It's entirely impractical to do by hand. As any electronics hobbyist knows, old circuit boards are a goldmine of perfectly good parts. What if there was a way to quickly heat and vacuum off all the solder on a board? Then, violently shake the board to cause all the components to fall off into a bin, after which they'd be mechanically sorted, packaged, and sold as surplus. Waste solder is nearly pure lead which can be melted and recycled at little cost. The remaining plastic circuit boards can be scraped of copper traces, then melted down. This would work pretty well for really old boards. New ones with mostly surface mounted components would much much trickier. On the other hand, there's much less material to waste to begin with!
How is Sun supposed to make money from Star Office if they don't eventually charge for it?
Very easily: support, 'priority features' voted on by paying membership holders, training manuals/videos/seminars, etc. There are all sorts of ways to make money on truly free software. And keep in mind that Sun isn't the only one developing Star/Open Office. No my friend. The issue here is corporate politics. Apparently some people within Sun have a hang-up with Open Source philosophy and a pride issue over Solaris and java.
According to cnn.com "Both treaties [WTO and WTTP] were adopted in 1996." Was Bush in charge in 96?
Correct. Keep in mind that it was the Clinton administration who helped to bring us DMCA in the first place as a means of setting an example for international law. The Dem's get most of the hollywood soft-money, so go figure. The same administration also tried to parcel off pieces of the US land to the United Nations. Disagree with Bush and the republicans all you may, but at least they take a firm stance on state sovereignty.
How the hell could you say software doesn't deserve to be an industry? Software companies are "appropriate" because they provide written documentation, product testing, customer service and legacy support. And let's not forget... economic security for the programmers! Not everyone wants to take a "day job." Some people enjoy what they are doing, and want to have a career. ... Companies that sell nothing, like VA software, are on their way out. Welcome to the new millenium.
I agree completely. The whole dotCom thing, even VA perhaps, was a scam at best. That doesn't mean software itself has to be sold. You said it right there: documentation, product testing, and customer support. The one you forgot was consulting, as referring to providing customers with complete solutions. Part of that consulting may require the extension of existing free software, which is then re-released to the community. But there's a big difference between consulting and just giving away hard work for no good reason. Software is being transformed into a service industry. As such, there is less (if any) room for big companies like MS, Adobe, and even RedHat perhaps. But who knows? Large Open Source consulting firms may be effective. The market will decide.
How is Apple's "commercial proprietary *nix" "dying out" when it has already catapulted far beyond Linux and all the BSDs combined on the desktop, in about 1/10 of the time it took for Linux to get where it's at now? How is it "dying out" when, that said, it's currently growing faster than any Unix ever has?
The concept of proprietary *nix is dying out because it doesn't make sense. People don't use MacOS X to get access to *nix on Apple hardware. Well.. some do, but they quickly realize that it just doesn't cut it, compared to Linux or OpenBSD.
Now to dismantle your clueless BS:
#1.) MacOS X is NOT more popular than Linux and BSD, even just on the desktop. How so? Because Linux and BSD users aren't counted whereas people who pay for OS X are. There are many times more Linux boxes out there than OS X. Whats more, most people using OS X are clueless Mac users who would have upgraded whether it was *nix based or not.
#2.) Since OS X was derived from a version of BSD (and a rather old one IIRC), you can't say that Apple produced it in "1/10 of the time as Linux."
Yes, I do agree with this from a programmer's point of view, although programming can in some cases be different because it is based on functionality, not artistic merit. Because of this, it can be offered as a clearly defined service. Ex.) "I will pay you to write this software for my use." Much like: "I will pay to hear you perform this music in concert." No restrictive licensing. No middle man involved.
Let me summarize in one statement: Programming should be a pasttime, not a career!.
So.. why do we need software companies and paid programmers, again?
We don't need 'software companies' as defined as companies who pay programmers to write software and then sell it under restrictive licenses. In some cases, small software companies that do contract based work are appropriate because it allows programmers to pool their knowledge more easily than is currently possible with open development over the Internet. But the software is still free.
Maybe I should rephrase the summary as two words: service industry.
The reason copyright exists is so that if you one day write a song which could become a million seller, you actually get paid for at least some portion of that million copies which was sold. That means you are able to continue to do whatever it is you do whether that means writing hit songs or working in a garage somewhere
If all I do is write a song, why should I be paid for 95 years in royalties and in the process limit the free distribution of my song? Music itself is not that valuable. It's an artistic expression of oneself. Should a person and/or their heirs be set for life just because they wrote one catchy tune over the course of a month or two? Copyright was intended to encourage the distribution of popular works in an era when distribution required significant effort and resources. It's been turned into this distortion now referred to as "intellectual property," as if you can own a manifest thought. Artists should be paid: if they perform.
But the point is: some people who write music, for some of them that's all they can do to make a living.
Depends on how much they've trashed their brains with illicit drugs..
You're assuming that anything the RIAA clowns have their hands on is bad music. This is obviously not the case, whether you are talking about pop/rock (Allman Brothers, CCR, Eric Clapton, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Indigo Girls, Billy Joel, Paul Simon, and the list goes on and on), jazz (Armstrong, Basie, Ellington, Rollins, Smith, etc., etc.), classical, or most other genres.
So unfortunately true. Most work by those you've listed would be part of the public domain by now if it wasn't for the RIAA and others massively corrupting the original idea of copyright that existed long before efficient distribution channels were even possible. With todays distibution technology, copyright length today should be quite short: perhaps 3-5 years at most. Not that even that is truly necessary.
#1 - BIG DEAL. Because I can play Hendrix in no way means I can be Hendrix.
My point is the concept of folk music: playing popular tunes spread through 'grassroots' culture, but with your own touch. Sure, people will pay to see their favorite artists perform their original works in concert. But that doesn't need to involve copyright or record labels. Crazy idea, but how about a 'amphitheater co-op' that supports independent artists, perhaps drawing in non-local bands by vote of co-op patrons. There are numerous viable business models for copyright-free music, just as with Open Source.
Whatever. Sadly the only 2 ways he have to really judge "good original music" are sales and critical acclaim
I am suggesting that critical acclaim is enough. Scrap sales and marketing altogether.
yeah, gotta agree 100% on that.
For the musicians that play just for fun, they should not expect to be paid much if anything. For musicians are popular enough that people want to pay to hear them perform in concert, they should expect to be paid for the act of performing alone. Stop performing = stop being paid.. Just like the 'rest of us' hobby musicians who work a day job. Royalties are downright bullcrap.
2) Are you crazy? I dare you to sit down and go write the next chart topper?
I never said anything about topping charts. I was talking about writing good, entertaining music. A group of my friends have a local band which plays mostly 60's/70's covers but they've more recently started writing a lot of their own stuff. And no, I'm not talking about tasteless 3-chord screaming punk-rock, wannabe non-conformist bullcrap. I'm talking quality jazz, funk, reggae, and classic rock. These are engineers and music is their creative outlet. They practice a couple times a week in their basement, occasionally spending a Saturday writing a new song, which is gradually tweaked with each performance. Music just for fun.. as a social and cultural expression. That is what it has been for the vast majority of human history and that is what it *should* be.
So what happens if all these un-heard of 'garage bands' start recording/writing down and distributing their work for free? For them? Not much. It's just a hobby anyways. But other people may take their work and improve on it and perform it elsewhere in the tradition of folk music. Songs that become popular will naturally spread quickly and become recognized the world over. (For protection, artists should use a "GPL" style license to keep record labels or others from claiming ownership / producing commercially)
What about high-quality recordings? When a song becomes popular enough, many people will record it and some will be better than others. Those with a passion for music will go out of their way to create top-notch recordings.
Sun is beginning to remind me a lot of Apple. Their hardware is way overpriced and they refuse to accept the fact that commercial proprietary *nixes are quickly dying out, being replaced by Linux and *BSD. Instead, they're sinking large amounts of capital into maintaining their own closed operating systems. It's a shame, really, because they both make well-built hardware, use non-Intel cpu's, and have a solid customer support record. They could be making more money and doing the OSS community a great service by helping out if they'd just wake up.
Lets get a few things straight:
#1.) Most moderately talented and experienced 'hobby musicians' (like the guys who play at small local bars/clubs/restaurants), with some practice, can play any popular (cover) song live just as well as the original musician(s), occasionally better.
#2.) It is not hard to write good original music.
#3.) Professional quality home recording is a reality and is not cost prohibitive for the vast majority of the US population.
#4.) There is no shortage whatsoever of good to excellent musicians and singers.
#5.) The vast majority of musicians perform for little or no pay simply because they enjoy doing it.
Let me summarize in one statement: Music should be a pasttime, not a career!.
So.. why do we need record labels and celebrity performers, again?
I disagree with this assertion, and thus the rest of your argument. (Just so you know.)
Hmm.. care to elaborate on where your philosophy goes with this? (That being, how our lives can have meaning if there is no eternal significance to our existance..) And what stops us from having a violent free-for-all?