Imagine this in place in a system where the government uses/makes opensource software.
Which is why the government doesn't write software. They contract someone else to do it for them, using public funds. And in that case, the resulting code should be automatically forced into public domain under most circumstances.
Initially, Apple was a welcome antidote to the elitism and cluelessness of the tech elites who designed early computers.
Yeah man.. I mean.. sturdy, all-metal cases that help shield electromagnetic radiation are totally stupid and way uncool. What were those crazy elites thinking? And what's with the rectangular shaped boxes? You'd think they were trying to make efficient use of volume or something. Duh.. irregularly rounded cases made of flimsy rainbow colored plastic are totally the way to go.. Duuuuudde!! I need another hit when you're done with that..
So, when are we going to start seeing more wireless P2P neighborhood networks? Yeah, I know.. somebody's got to provide the fat pipe out to the world. But maybe not. With enough transmission range and enough stations connected to adjacent neighborhoods / municipalities, perhaps the internet could lose it's star-like topography and become truly web-like. So who's up for inventing a new routing protocol? (-:
Re:You /. people really like the word "monopoly"
on
Broadband Obstacles
·
· Score: 2
In a free market system, monopolies NATURALLY result from good business practices. Having a monopoly is NOT illegal. What is illegal is using unfair trade practices to keep others out of the market, thereby extending or maintaining a monopoly. The bell DSL providers are doing better because they provide the service at a lower cost to them, with higher quality service.
The capitalist system works best when there are as many competing firms as possible such that prices are driven down and firms must be innovative to differentiate a fairly common product or service from that offered by someone else. With phone and cable, you have a problem with sharing the same physical lines. This is perhaps why wireless broadband is so exciting, as long as the spectrum is intelligently managed.
A world without proprietary software would be nice. But it's not worth the price of telling other people what they can do with the software they wrote.
If it's software that they wrote entirely themselves, then fine, let them do what they please with it. But as someone who would like to see all proprietary software go away, GPL allows me to exclude them from using my code. Yes, it's aggressive. But it's a means of change. And it's a means of protection from big software companies who could use our own free code to derail the Open Source movement by always offering a slightly modified or slightly incompatible version with extra features and big name support. It hasn't come to that point, but it could.
If GNU is all about people NOT getting rich, then they should be honest about it and just say so.
Perhaps I would say that GNU is about people not getting rich from selling licenses. They are free to get rich in other ways that do not reduce the freedom of the software--which I believe is inherently bad for society. It also eliminates the possibility of software monopolies, instead encouraging smaller businesses that, since they can't make money on licenses, have to focus on services instead. Labor markets (providing the services), follow supply and demand, unlike the virtual markets created by legally enforced copyright. But that's a whole matter of personal philosophy...
I don't know what kind of consulting you do, but you had better get your act together before you get your ass sued off. Code that you write as a contractor for a client is the legal property of the client. It is not yours to release however you want. You can, of course, stipulate in the contract that the client will license the code back to you (under the GPL as an example), so for your legal health I hope you have.
Interesting point. I was not aware of this. Actually, I was using this as a hypothetical example, but I have considered doing OSS consulting, so I'll have to be careful here. My idea is basically to provide complete solutions (hardware / software / installation / tech support) at a lower total cost than what proprietary software contractors offer. This would then provide me the income to work full-time on existing Open Source projects such that they would meet the clients' needs as contracted. I guess the sticky point is what the contract officially entails. If they are paying me as providing a service, does is matter if I write code to help fulfill that service?
BSD license - unlike the GPL - implicitly preserves the right for the licensee to release propriatary modifications. but, again, BSD still protects the original work. whether or not to allow propriatary derivative works is something a software author must decide. there are valid arguments on either side.
If you are giving something away out of the goodness of your heart, why would you want to allow somebody else to profit off it? Especially if that person was one of your competitors.
I fully agree. Which is why I prefer the BSD license, because I don't think that eliminating all proprietary software is in any way practical.
Nothing is impossible for those who set their minds to it. The rest can take a back seat and watch. If you believe the world would be a better place without any proprietary software, why not try to make it happen? You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
it is even more immoral for me to tell some other person what they can or cannot do with their software
We're not talking about their software, we're talking about your software or software developed by the Open Source community.
Nobody can take your code. They just can't. It's physically and metaphysically
impossible.
I didn't mean 'take' in the sense of physically displace. I meant 'take' as in 'use as the basis for a derivative work.'
Using the BSD license supports proprietary software. It's as simple as that. You're helping somebody else get rich off of your altruistic efforts. Microsoft can use your code to help further their empire. Adobe can use your code in the next eBook software. Companies can use your code against you. With GPL, they cannot. GPL ensures that your pet project grows by the community and does not fork off into proprietary derivatives. BSD is a temptation for contributers not to give back; GPL mandates that they do (if the software is in any way made public.) If I'm doing Open Source consulting for the purpose of making a living while writing free software, I don't want some other consulting firm using my free code and turning it proprietary to be used in their own solution. That is free-riding. And that would be an economic incentive for me to never release my code, which would ruin my business model. With GPL, my competitor must either contribute to my code, helping us both out, or start over from scratch and re-invent the wheel. GPL ensures that the wheel never needs re-invented.
I'd like to see more corporations drop their closed source ways too, but right now that's not going to happen, and unless some of these companies start making things for Linux, Linux will be sitting in obscurity for quite some time. If open source alternatives are going to take over, then they must be better products - and unfortunatly right now Star/K office only get "close but no cigar". Right now open source is only making strides because of those products which truley are better, like Apache. Closed source isn't all that great, but right now Linux could probably use a small crutch like this.
This is the very mentality that is holding Open Source back from total domination. It is the view that free software can only be produced outside of business because there's no money in it. Therefore, as the thinking goes, proprietary software is ok because it produces solutions that people need right now, while free software must wait for volunteers to make slow, steady progress.
The reality is that customers will pay for whatever solution is cheapest and does the best job--whether they are paying for licenses or the labor of free software programmers. It is the fault of Open Source developers for not capitalizing on this to provide themselves an income and allow them to work on their pet projects full-time. There's no need for proprietary licenses whatsoever in this model. Consider this scenario:
Business customer needs software solution X, to be rolled out in 6 months.
Seller A will provide X by means of licenses for $2 million, plus extra for priority support services as needed. New versions of X with cost future licenses fees. Customizations will also cost extra.
Seller B will provide X by negotiating a contract for a complete solution: provision of all software, support services, and desired customizations, for $1.5 million. All new versions of X are free. Seller B ensures that customer's needs are met precisely and in time for the rollout date. Customer is treated as a peer in the development cycle, resulting in more personal service and higher quality software.
A is proprietary solution provider, B is Open Source. The choice is obvious, given that geeks will get off their respective arses and bring B into fruitful existance instead of moping around complaining that there's no money in free software blah blah blah.
If your goal is to give as many people as possible a taste and gentle introduction to OS/FS because you reason that "you catch more people with honey than with vinegar", then you should support this move.
My point is that OS/FS programmers should be able to offer a sweeter deal with completely free software instead of half-free/half-proprietary. It's not a matter of vinegar. It's a matter of realizing that non-free doesn't make sense simply because it's more expensive to obtain. If you're going to spend millions on software one way or the other, why would you buy licenses instead of paying somebody to polish existing Open Source software to meet your needs? The only reason why Hancom has a market is because they're the only ones providing ANY solution. If programmer geeks realized that they could contract themselves out to produce free software, proprietary software would die almost overnight.
Lets put it this way: The only people who bash the GPL are those who do not believe that all software can and should be free. It's as simple as that. GPL is anti-proprietary, BSD is not. GPL is only "less free" if you're looking to profit from selling licenses of modified versions. Frankly, if I put a lot of time and effort into a piece of software for the love of programming and with the goal of helping people, I don't want somebody else taking my code, improving it a little, and then selling it as non-free software. If I license the software as GPL, I am guaranteed that the latest and greatest rendition will REMAIN free and that any contributions that others make will also be free.
Why do some people not believe that all software can and should be free? Because although they may share the "idealistic" vision of a free-information society, they are afraid that somehow, the elimination of proprietary software will put them out of a job. Wrong. There are plenty ways to make money producing software without charging for licenses. Just because VA and others lacked direction and failed miserably doesn't mean the model is some broken dot-Com dream. The reason that there are so few jobs in the production of GPL software is that most programmer geeks are lazy and afraid to take risks. The employers that exist today are the 'previous generation' types, who are trapped in the proprietary-thinking box and refuse to leave because it's working for them. It is the software manufacturing mindset, "build widgets and sell them." Nobody thus far has even made an attempt at truly treating software production as a service instead of a product. Customers don't care about licenses, they care about solutions. Provide a better solution and you will make money. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
I never thought I'd see the day when Slashdot was one of the biggest FUD machines against free software.
From the press release:
January 9th, 2002 in Seoul, Korea - HancomLinux,... , has announced that they have concluded an agreement with the Central Procurement Office of the Korean Government to supply the 120,000 copies of desktop Linux office packages in this year.
[warning: lots of strong worded opinion ahead (-:]
Piss-poor Slashdot reporting at work again. Read the press release, people. The Korean government is purchasing 120,000 copies of the proprietary, closed source commercial office software, HancomOffice. Linux is free. They're not paying for free software. They're not paying for localization work done by the KDE/Qt people. They're not paying for the RedHat Linux distribution. No.. They're paying for proprietary software (with proprietary file formats) and related support services. This is NOT what Linux needs. The article does not mention the cost, but even at a very conservative estimate of $10 per copy x 120,000, that's $1,200,000 and I would guess that support services are extra. Does the Korean government realize that if they took that same amount of money and paid say.. 15 top Open Source programmers for one year to work full time and perfect KOffice or OpenOffice, that they (and the entire rest of the world) would never have to spend another dime on office software?! But instead, they've just locked themselves into an upgrade cycle, even if it does use Linux and is a much better/cheaper product than Microsoft's. Proprietary software is damned stupid and totally uncalled for. And it makes me sick to think of how much the US government spends of my own tax dollars on proprietary software as they make the same type of mistakes.
Open Source programmers need to wake up, quit their day jobs and realize that the world is in great need of their services. Yes, it will take innovation and initiative. Yes, it will take new business models that are purely service, support, and consulting oriented. But as this article shows, the money is out there.. loads of it. And you can help change the world for the better at the same time. Once software is set free, it's permanent. Obviously small companies (hence with small programming staff) such as Hancom and Gobe have been successful in producing high-quality office suites in a relatively short amount of time. Why? Because it's not that difficult! Here sits Microsoft's cash cow sleeping on a grassy knoll, just waiting to be tipped over. And yet the various Open Source productivity projects are moving at a snail's pace because nobody has taken a strong enough initiative to get the job done and over with once and for all.
As a sidenote, anybody else think Slashdot editors are going a little bit soft on proprietary Linux software these days? *cough*va*cough*
TA was/is a very cool game, but I believe it was pretty heavy on DirectX for graphics. I think it'd require a pretty large rewrite effort to port it to openGL so it could run on other OS'es. Anybody know if it had it's own 3d graphics engine or if it used DirectX routines exclusively?
Anyhow, Earth2150 is very similar and has much better graphics. Someone ought to use that as a model for an open source RTS game.
I suppose it's not very visible because right now the people doing this are either freelance or small consulting firms. The idea is that your business customers need a complete solution. They don't really care about hardware, software and licenses--they just want something that does the job reliably for as cheaply as possible. Right now, most consultants sell or resell proprietary solutions to their customers for big bucks. It gets the job done, but it's not too efficient. The consultant doesn't really make much money off selling third party proprietary solutions, so if they can extend or create OSS solutions for their customers, they can potentially make MORE money while at the same time supporting the development community. Instead of customers paying for licenses, they're paying for the labor of producing a quality solution. If enough consultants do things this way, each contributing to each others needs by fulfilling their own, then Open Source consultants can offer cheaper total solution packages and put their proprietary counterparts out of business (or force them to adapt). I think it's a really exciting possibility that will allow a lot more geeks to be their own boss. Time will tell.
"The days when there was a select group of artists, created by the studios, up on top are over, because today anyone can create anything," said Chuck D, an independent music maker on the panel. "The studios put all their money into Britney Spears, and they tank if she doesn't have a good year. Meanwhile there's a whole field of Britney Spearses out there."
The solution is simple: if we don't want the RIAA/MPAA's encrypted proprietary formats, make them obsolete. Put them out of business by offering something better: a new generation of independent media. Chuck is dead on when he says "today anyone can create anything." More and more musicians, even just hobby musicians, have everything they need to make exceptional quality recordings in their basements. If not, they probably have a friend that does. The same can be increasingly said for movie production. Prosumer DV cameras are getting cheaper and better. Off the shelf computer hardware can produce CG effects that surpass what Hollywood could muster 5 years ago. Free software for audio and video editing is slowly maturing. And regardless of the technology, TV shows like South Park have demonstrated that most people don't even care about visual quality if the desired content is there. (not that I particularly like SP..)
So in conclusion, the best way to fight the media giants is to provide an alternative, much as Open Source has provided an alternative to MS and proprietary software.
These people seem to be thinking inside the box that says "the only way to REALLY make money in software is to sell licenses." WRONG. Software is a service! Until people get that straight, nobody's going to make much money on free software. You can't make a half-hearted attempt and expect it to fly. It's free software or die. GPL everything. Control nothing but your services. And the beauty of the model is that it fits perfectly with the OSS development community. Contributed code allows everyone to provide customers with better service.
My question is who's gonna buy Lindows. OSS meets all of mine and my organization's needs. We don't need to run expensive MS Office apps or Lotus Notes. And for those who mistakenly think they need such pricey commercial software, why would they spend another $100 to use it in emulation?
It seems to me that the big names in consumer electronics are hedging their bets on broadband digital entertainment and integrated home entertainment systems as being the big sellers as the economy recovers. Problem is, it'll all be proprietary and have dozens of DRM layers throughout designed to allow content producers to suck every last cent out the consumer. Quite simply, open standards don't allow corporations to manipulate the market. Unless we want to lose all control of entertainment technology and popular media, we need to act now. There needs to be a fully open alternative to the digital media jaggernaut that hollywood and big manufacturers / software companies are preparing. And unfortunately, we are very far behind. We need a media infrastructure that is as good or better than what is currently being developed. And it must be freely available the world over. Unfortunately, there seems to be little interest in multimedia among the top Open Source developers. This needs to change. If MS and the like lose the war for web, they will move elsewhere in attempt to obsolete current Open Source solutions by redefining the market. Frankly, the average consumer hates current desktop computing and rightly so, as it does not truly meet their needs. We must be careful not to fall behind the trends as we polish our desktop solutions.
There's a certain aire among many immature or just plain uneducated entreprenaurs / management / executives that patents are some sort of holy grail of the American dream. Unfortunately, they've forgotten the hard work part. Instead they have delusions of grandeur that somehow they'll patent the "right thing" that everybody and their brother will want and suddenly they'll be rich. But alas, these people are not engineers, scientists or other tech workers. Their "big ideas" are the mere childs play of true intellectuals. And unfortunately, with so many idiots flooding the patent office these days, the bar has been significantly lowered to the point where such nonsense actually gets through.
Patents don't have to be this way. Sure, if an individual or company puts a significant amount of time and money into developing a sophisticated physical design, they ought to be compensated for a *short* amount of time. What we need is massive patent reform.
Why would you spend money on expensive equipment just to watch TV? It's not like there's much worth watching in the first place. C'mon now. You want MORE corporate produced culture and brain-numbing advertising? And it's not like your DVD movies will look any better on a HDTV. If you have some cash burning a hole in your pocket, make yourself a video projector using an overhead and a modified LCD panel.
It'd be nice, but we don't need "Free Hardware" as a prerequisite for open source drivers. It's more a problem of misunderstanding of braindead management who don't realize that the only thing of possible value to their competitors is in the silicon itself. Open Source or not, driver software is pretty easy to reverse engineer.
If these people are going to write closed source ATI drivers, I'm not interested. They want me to stick untrusted binaries into the kernel? Forget it! Sounds like another bunch of traitors who weren't innovative enough to devise an Open Source business model. Oh well, we can always reverse engineer their drivers can't we?
Re:What's wrong with Live!?
on
Testing the Audigy
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Another problem people seem to forget is that Live! resamples anything sent to the digital out port to 48Khz. What's wrong with that? The mathematics involved are roughly equivalent to scaling an image by non-integer values. You can either duplicate samples to fill in the "missing" ones (ie. nearest neighbor) or you can use interpolation and filtering (causing 'blurring' of the signal, but sounds a little better). Either method sucks and will audibly distort the original signal. Real digital sound cards do not resample or at least make it an option. I kinda doubt the Audigy is any different, but someone prove me wrong. Either way, there's still the problem of jitter and digital noise. Unless you have a very high-end DAC which buffers and re-clocks the incoming samples, you're going to have problems with most consumer soundcards.
Sorry.. can't help it..
on
Lunar Lasers
·
· Score: 2
the first accident involving an 18-wheeler will crush you like a fly. Seriously, I want a LOT OF STEEL around me when I'm whizzing down the highway at 75 mph. I don't see 18-wheelers getting smaller or going away.
I don't know where people get this braindead idea that larger mass is what will protect them in a crash. It doesn't matter if the vehicle survives unscathed. Your internal organs can only withstand a certain amount of acceleration. Would you rather be hit by an 18-wheeler strapped inside an indestructible steel box or a 3-foot thick ball of bubble-wrap. Case in point, the only thing that's going to truly protect you in a high energy collision is technology that absorbs the impact and slows the acceleration enough for you to survive. Mass can help a little, but it's by no means the most effective solution and does virtually nothing in a head-on collision with a fixed object or much larger vehicle.
Criswell's idea might seem loopy, but he insists that it would be achievable if the U.S. government would commit to spending the money -- estimated at roughly three times the $19 billion budget of the Apollo space program.
What the heck are these people smoking? Do they realize how many standard earth-bound solar cells and wind generators $57 billion could buy?
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine this in place in a system where the government uses/makes opensource software.
Which is why the government doesn't write software. They contract someone else to do it for them, using public funds. And in that case, the resulting code should be automatically forced into public domain under most circumstances.
Initially, Apple was a welcome antidote to the elitism and cluelessness of the tech elites who designed early computers.
Yeah man.. I mean.. sturdy, all-metal cases that help shield electromagnetic radiation are totally stupid and way uncool. What were those crazy elites thinking? And what's with the rectangular shaped boxes? You'd think they were trying to make efficient use of volume or something. Duh.. irregularly rounded cases made of flimsy rainbow colored plastic are totally the way to go.. Duuuuudde!! I need another hit when you're done with that..
So, when are we going to start seeing more wireless P2P neighborhood networks? Yeah, I know.. somebody's got to provide the fat pipe out to the world. But maybe not. With enough transmission range and enough stations connected to adjacent neighborhoods / municipalities, perhaps the internet could lose it's star-like topography and become truly web-like. So who's up for inventing a new routing protocol? (-:
In a free market system, monopolies NATURALLY result from good business practices. Having a monopoly is NOT illegal. What is illegal is using unfair trade practices to keep others out of the market, thereby extending or maintaining a monopoly. The bell DSL providers are doing better because they provide the service at a lower cost to them, with higher quality service.
The capitalist system works best when there are as many competing firms as possible such that prices are driven down and firms must be innovative to differentiate a fairly common product or service from that offered by someone else. With phone and cable, you have a problem with sharing the same physical lines. This is perhaps why wireless broadband is so exciting, as long as the spectrum is intelligently managed.
Sure, I'll try 2.5.2.. no big deal. After the 2.4 series, I'm strangely no longer afraid of the development tree. (-;
ps.) hint to developers: better VIA chipset support!
A world without proprietary software would be nice. But it's not worth the price of telling other people what they can do with the software they wrote.
If it's software that they wrote entirely themselves, then fine, let them do what they please with it. But as someone who would like to see all proprietary software go away, GPL allows me to exclude them from using my code. Yes, it's aggressive. But it's a means of change. And it's a means of protection from big software companies who could use our own free code to derail the Open Source movement by always offering a slightly modified or slightly incompatible version with extra features and big name support. It hasn't come to that point, but it could.
If GNU is all about people NOT getting rich, then they should be honest about it and just say so.
Perhaps I would say that GNU is about people not getting rich from selling licenses. They are free to get rich in other ways that do not reduce the freedom of the software--which I believe is inherently bad for society. It also eliminates the possibility of software monopolies, instead encouraging smaller businesses that, since they can't make money on licenses, have to focus on services instead. Labor markets (providing the services), follow supply and demand, unlike the virtual markets created by legally enforced copyright. But that's a whole matter of personal philosophy...
I don't know what kind of consulting you do, but you had better get your act together before you get your ass sued off. Code that you write as a contractor for a client is the legal property of the client. It is not yours to release however you want. You can, of course, stipulate in the contract that the client will license the code back to you (under the GPL as an example), so for your legal health I hope you have.
Interesting point. I was not aware of this. Actually, I was using this as a hypothetical example, but I have considered doing OSS consulting, so I'll have to be careful here. My idea is basically to provide complete solutions (hardware / software / installation / tech support) at a lower total cost than what proprietary software contractors offer. This would then provide me the income to work full-time on existing Open Source projects such that they would meet the clients' needs as contracted. I guess the sticky point is what the contract officially entails. If they are paying me as providing a service, does is matter if I write code to help fulfill that service?
BSD license - unlike the GPL - implicitly preserves the right for the licensee to release propriatary modifications. but, again, BSD still protects the original work. whether or not to allow propriatary derivative works is something a software author must decide. there are valid arguments on either side.
If you are giving something away out of the goodness of your heart, why would you want to allow somebody else to profit off it? Especially if that person was one of your competitors.
BSD is to GPL as anarchy is to ideal democracy.
I fully agree. Which is why I prefer the BSD license, because I don't think that eliminating all proprietary software is in any way practical.
Nothing is impossible for those who set their minds to it. The rest can take a back seat and watch. If you believe the world would be a better place without any proprietary software, why not try to make it happen? You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
it is even more immoral for me to tell some other person what they can or cannot do with their software
We're not talking about their software, we're talking about your software or software developed by the Open Source community.
Nobody can take your code. They just can't. It's physically and metaphysically
impossible.
I didn't mean 'take' in the sense of physically displace. I meant 'take' as in 'use as the basis for a derivative work.'
Using the BSD license supports proprietary software. It's as simple as that. You're helping somebody else get rich off of your altruistic efforts. Microsoft can use your code to help further their empire. Adobe can use your code in the next eBook software. Companies can use your code against you. With GPL, they cannot. GPL ensures that your pet project grows by the community and does not fork off into proprietary derivatives. BSD is a temptation for contributers not to give back; GPL mandates that they do (if the software is in any way made public.) If I'm doing Open Source consulting for the purpose of making a living while writing free software, I don't want some other consulting firm using my free code and turning it proprietary to be used in their own solution. That is free-riding. And that would be an economic incentive for me to never release my code, which would ruin my business model. With GPL, my competitor must either contribute to my code, helping us both out, or start over from scratch and re-invent the wheel. GPL ensures that the wheel never needs re-invented.
I'd like to see more corporations drop their closed source ways too, but right now that's not going to happen, and unless some of these companies start making things for Linux, Linux will be sitting in obscurity for quite some time. If open source alternatives are going to take over, then they must be better products - and unfortunatly right now Star/K office only get "close but no cigar". Right now open source is only making strides because of those products which truley are better, like Apache. Closed source isn't all that great, but right now Linux could probably use a small crutch like this.
This is the very mentality that is holding Open Source back from total domination. It is the view that free software can only be produced outside of business because there's no money in it. Therefore, as the thinking goes, proprietary software is ok because it produces solutions that people need right now, while free software must wait for volunteers to make slow, steady progress.
The reality is that customers will pay for whatever solution is cheapest and does the best job--whether they are paying for licenses or the labor of free software programmers. It is the fault of Open Source developers for not capitalizing on this to provide themselves an income and allow them to work on their pet projects full-time. There's no need for proprietary licenses whatsoever in this model. Consider this scenario:
Business customer needs software solution X, to be rolled out in 6 months.
Seller A will provide X by means of licenses for $2 million, plus extra for priority support services as needed. New versions of X with cost future licenses fees. Customizations will also cost extra.
Seller B will provide X by negotiating a contract for a complete solution: provision of all software, support services, and desired customizations, for $1.5 million. All new versions of X are free. Seller B ensures that customer's needs are met precisely and in time for the rollout date. Customer is treated as a peer in the development cycle, resulting in more personal service and higher quality software.
A is proprietary solution provider, B is Open Source. The choice is obvious, given that geeks will get off their respective arses and bring B into fruitful existance instead of moping around complaining that there's no money in free software blah blah blah.
If your goal is to give as many people as possible a taste and gentle introduction to OS/FS because you reason that "you catch more people with honey than with vinegar", then you should support this move.
My point is that OS/FS programmers should be able to offer a sweeter deal with completely free software instead of half-free/half-proprietary. It's not a matter of vinegar. It's a matter of realizing that non-free doesn't make sense simply because it's more expensive to obtain. If you're going to spend millions on software one way or the other, why would you buy licenses instead of paying somebody to polish existing Open Source software to meet your needs? The only reason why Hancom has a market is because they're the only ones providing ANY solution. If programmer geeks realized that they could contract themselves out to produce free software, proprietary software would die almost overnight.
Lets put it this way: The only people who bash the GPL are those who do not believe that all software can and should be free. It's as simple as that. GPL is anti-proprietary, BSD is not. GPL is only "less free" if you're looking to profit from selling licenses of modified versions. Frankly, if I put a lot of time and effort into a piece of software for the love of programming and with the goal of helping people, I don't want somebody else taking my code, improving it a little, and then selling it as non-free software. If I license the software as GPL, I am guaranteed that the latest and greatest rendition will REMAIN free and that any contributions that others make will also be free.
Why do some people not believe that all software can and should be free? Because although they may share the "idealistic" vision of a free-information society, they are afraid that somehow, the elimination of proprietary software will put them out of a job. Wrong. There are plenty ways to make money producing software without charging for licenses. Just because VA and others lacked direction and failed miserably doesn't mean the model is some broken dot-Com dream. The reason that there are so few jobs in the production of GPL software is that most programmer geeks are lazy and afraid to take risks. The employers that exist today are the 'previous generation' types, who are trapped in the proprietary-thinking box and refuse to leave because it's working for them. It is the software manufacturing mindset, "build widgets and sell them." Nobody thus far has even made an attempt at truly treating software production as a service instead of a product. Customers don't care about licenses, they care about solutions. Provide a better solution and you will make money. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
I never thought I'd see the day when Slashdot was one of the biggest FUD machines against free software.
From the press release: ... , has announced that they have concluded an agreement with the Central Procurement Office of the Korean Government to supply the 120,000 copies of desktop Linux office packages in this year.
January 9th, 2002 in Seoul, Korea - HancomLinux,
[warning: lots of strong worded opinion ahead (-:]
Piss-poor Slashdot reporting at work again. Read the press release, people. The Korean government is purchasing 120,000 copies of the proprietary, closed source commercial office software, HancomOffice. Linux is free. They're not paying for free software. They're not paying for localization work done by the KDE/Qt people. They're not paying for the RedHat Linux distribution. No.. They're paying for proprietary software (with proprietary file formats) and related support services. This is NOT what Linux needs. The article does not mention the cost, but even at a very conservative estimate of $10 per copy x 120,000, that's $1,200,000 and I would guess that support services are extra. Does the Korean government realize that if they took that same amount of money and paid say.. 15 top Open Source programmers for one year to work full time and perfect KOffice or OpenOffice, that they (and the entire rest of the world) would never have to spend another dime on office software?! But instead, they've just locked themselves into an upgrade cycle, even if it does use Linux and is a much better/cheaper product than Microsoft's. Proprietary software is damned stupid and totally uncalled for. And it makes me sick to think of how much the US government spends of my own tax dollars on proprietary software as they make the same type of mistakes.
Open Source programmers need to wake up, quit their day jobs and realize that the world is in great need of their services. Yes, it will take innovation and initiative. Yes, it will take new business models that are purely service, support, and consulting oriented. But as this article shows, the money is out there.. loads of it. And you can help change the world for the better at the same time. Once software is set free, it's permanent. Obviously small companies (hence with small programming staff) such as Hancom and Gobe have been successful in producing high-quality office suites in a relatively short amount of time. Why? Because it's not that difficult! Here sits Microsoft's cash cow sleeping on a grassy knoll, just waiting to be tipped over. And yet the various Open Source productivity projects are moving at a snail's pace because nobody has taken a strong enough initiative to get the job done and over with once and for all.
As a sidenote, anybody else think Slashdot editors are going a little bit soft on proprietary Linux software these days? *cough*va*cough*
TA was/is a very cool game, but I believe it was pretty heavy on DirectX for graphics. I think it'd require a pretty large rewrite effort to port it to openGL so it could run on other OS'es. Anybody know if it had it's own 3d graphics engine or if it used DirectX routines exclusively?
Anyhow, Earth2150 is very similar and has much better graphics. Someone ought to use that as a model for an open source RTS game.
I suppose it's not very visible because right now the people doing this are either freelance or small consulting firms. The idea is that your business customers need a complete solution. They don't really care about hardware, software and licenses--they just want something that does the job reliably for as cheaply as possible. Right now, most consultants sell or resell proprietary solutions to their customers for big bucks. It gets the job done, but it's not too efficient. The consultant doesn't really make much money off selling third party proprietary solutions, so if they can extend or create OSS solutions for their customers, they can potentially make MORE money while at the same time supporting the development community. Instead of customers paying for licenses, they're paying for the labor of producing a quality solution. If enough consultants do things this way, each contributing to each others needs by fulfilling their own, then Open Source consultants can offer cheaper total solution packages and put their proprietary counterparts out of business (or force them to adapt). I think it's a really exciting possibility that will allow a lot more geeks to be their own boss. Time will tell.
"The days when there was a select group of artists, created by the studios, up on top are over, because today anyone can create anything," said Chuck D, an independent music maker on the panel. "The studios put all their money into Britney Spears, and they tank if she doesn't have a good year. Meanwhile there's a whole field of Britney Spearses out there."
The solution is simple: if we don't want the RIAA/MPAA's encrypted proprietary formats, make them obsolete. Put them out of business by offering something better: a new generation of independent media. Chuck is dead on when he says "today anyone can create anything." More and more musicians, even just hobby musicians, have everything they need to make exceptional quality recordings in their basements. If not, they probably have a friend that does. The same can be increasingly said for movie production. Prosumer DV cameras are getting cheaper and better. Off the shelf computer hardware can produce CG effects that surpass what Hollywood could muster 5 years ago. Free software for audio and video editing is slowly maturing. And regardless of the technology, TV shows like South Park have demonstrated that most people don't even care about visual quality if the desired content is there. (not that I particularly like SP..)
So in conclusion, the best way to fight the media giants is to provide an alternative, much as Open Source has provided an alternative to MS and proprietary software.
These people seem to be thinking inside the box that says "the only way to REALLY make money in software is to sell licenses." WRONG. Software is a service! Until people get that straight, nobody's going to make much money on free software. You can't make a half-hearted attempt and expect it to fly. It's free software or die. GPL everything. Control nothing but your services. And the beauty of the model is that it fits perfectly with the OSS development community. Contributed code allows everyone to provide customers with better service.
My question is who's gonna buy Lindows. OSS meets all of mine and my organization's needs. We don't need to run expensive MS Office apps or Lotus Notes. And for those who mistakenly think they need such pricey commercial software, why would they spend another $100 to use it in emulation?
It seems to me that the big names in consumer electronics are hedging their bets on broadband digital entertainment and integrated home entertainment systems as being the big sellers as the economy recovers. Problem is, it'll all be proprietary and have dozens of DRM layers throughout designed to allow content producers to suck every last cent out the consumer. Quite simply, open standards don't allow corporations to manipulate the market. Unless we want to lose all control of entertainment technology and popular media, we need to act now. There needs to be a fully open alternative to the digital media jaggernaut that hollywood and big manufacturers / software companies are preparing. And unfortunately, we are very far behind. We need a media infrastructure that is as good or better than what is currently being developed. And it must be freely available the world over. Unfortunately, there seems to be little interest in multimedia among the top Open Source developers. This needs to change. If MS and the like lose the war for web, they will move elsewhere in attempt to obsolete current Open Source solutions by redefining the market. Frankly, the average consumer hates current desktop computing and rightly so, as it does not truly meet their needs. We must be careful not to fall behind the trends as we polish our desktop solutions.
Whoa! For a moment there I thought I'd tabbed to a Chatzilla window of Undernet / #linux.
....
Has anyone used the opensource IDE Eclipse?
Cliff: probably
There's a certain aire among many immature or just plain uneducated entreprenaurs / management / executives that patents are some sort of holy grail of the American dream. Unfortunately, they've forgotten the hard work part. Instead they have delusions of grandeur that somehow they'll patent the "right thing" that everybody and their brother will want and suddenly they'll be rich. But alas, these people are not engineers, scientists or other tech workers. Their "big ideas" are the mere childs play of true intellectuals. And unfortunately, with so many idiots flooding the patent office these days, the bar has been significantly lowered to the point where such nonsense actually gets through.
Patents don't have to be this way. Sure, if an individual or company puts a significant amount of time and money into developing a sophisticated physical design, they ought to be compensated for a *short* amount of time. What we need is massive patent reform.
Why would you spend money on expensive equipment just to watch TV? It's not like there's much worth watching in the first place. C'mon now. You want MORE corporate produced culture and brain-numbing advertising? And it's not like your DVD movies will look any better on a HDTV. If you have some cash burning a hole in your pocket, make yourself a video projector using an overhead and a modified LCD panel.
It'd be nice, but we don't need "Free Hardware" as a prerequisite for open source drivers. It's more a problem of misunderstanding of braindead management who don't realize that the only thing of possible value to their competitors is in the silicon itself. Open Source or not, driver software is pretty easy to reverse engineer.
If these people are going to write closed source ATI drivers, I'm not interested. They want me to stick untrusted binaries into the kernel? Forget it! Sounds like another bunch of traitors who weren't innovative enough to devise an Open Source business model. Oh well, we can always reverse engineer their drivers can't we?
Another problem people seem to forget is that Live! resamples anything sent to the digital out port to 48Khz. What's wrong with that? The mathematics involved are roughly equivalent to scaling an image by non-integer values. You can either duplicate samples to fill in the "missing" ones (ie. nearest neighbor) or you can use interpolation and filtering (causing 'blurring' of the signal, but sounds a little better). Either method sucks and will audibly distort the original signal. Real digital sound cards do not resample or at least make it an option. I kinda doubt the Audigy is any different, but someone prove me wrong. Either way, there's still the problem of jitter and digital noise. Unless you have a very high-end DAC which buffers and re-clocks the incoming samples, you're going to have problems with most consumer soundcards.
All your "moon base" are belong to us!!
the first accident involving an 18-wheeler will crush you like a fly. Seriously, I want a LOT OF STEEL around me when I'm whizzing down the highway at 75 mph. I don't see 18-wheelers getting smaller or going away.
I don't know where people get this braindead idea that larger mass is what will protect them in a crash. It doesn't matter if the vehicle survives unscathed. Your internal organs can only withstand a certain amount of acceleration. Would you rather be hit by an 18-wheeler strapped inside an indestructible steel box or a 3-foot thick ball of bubble-wrap. Case in point, the only thing that's going to truly protect you in a high energy collision is technology that absorbs the impact and slows the acceleration enough for you to survive. Mass can help a little, but it's by no means the most effective solution and does virtually nothing in a head-on collision with a fixed object or much larger vehicle.
Criswell's idea might seem loopy, but he insists that it would be achievable if the U.S. government would commit to spending the money -- estimated at roughly three times the $19 billion budget of the Apollo space program.
What the heck are these people smoking? Do they realize how many standard earth-bound solar cells and wind generators $57 billion could buy?