You are right, saying that currently there is little evidence supporting the hypothesis that the OSS model is truly disruptive. Right now, it could as well be labelled wishful thinking.
The discussion is also very confusing: What is the product and who is selling it? Christensen applies his theory to traditional (mostly physical) products and I don't think that we can apply this here. For example, you don't have to buy the software, since you can always download (and compile) it yourself, so it's initially not more expensive. For most OSS companies the product is the service they are selling. There is definitely nothing disruptive about that.
What I think can be disruptive for MS's business model is the full disclosure model of OSS development, which can lead to more stable and secure software. In case OSS prevails on these features alone, the development model disrupts MS's revenue stream in the software market. That does not mean that MS will fail in every business sector, they are anticipating some change in the market and therefore want to position themselves as an ASP with the.NET strategy.
I agree with you that the compilation of a "requirements definition" would be a big step for OSS that would be truly disruptive, but people on both sides of the equation (i.e. "customers and suppliers" or users and developers) have to understand the benefits of OSS development. Currently, too many people on either side define themselves as either customers ("Build this for me because I need it and I will pay you!") or hackers ("I am building it, because I need it and it's fun. If you want something, do it yourself."), which hinders a faster adoption of the OSS model. A partnership model where a traditional customer starts to work with the developer would be far more beneficial: (Business)User: "I see that you are working on this type of application, which I could use but lacks functionality in this and that area. What can I do to help you build it? I believe there could be a market for this, i.e. more people than just me need it. Let's do a little market research and define the requirements for V1.00." Developer: "That is a cool idea, I never thought of this, since I personally wouldn't need this kind of functionality. How about, you pay (employ) me for the time needed to implement the additional functionality? If you can't do this, no problem, I can do consulting around this project."
The reason why it rarely works like this is probably the adversarial approach that many managers and developers still live and breath.
These factors include:
* Compatibility and interoperability
* Stability of vendor
* Amount of ongoing development
* Feature set
* Marketshare and userbase
* Adherence to standards
* Ease of use
* Security
* Stability
Microsoft is credible in all these areas and ahead of open source contenders in most. In addition, Microsoft is getting better in all these areas.
You are right, but let me comment on this a bit:
OSS systems are usually deployed for the following reasons: compatibility and interoperability, amount of ongoing development, feature set, adherence to standards, security, stability and in my case ease of use. Microsoft's systems are not a contender in these areas, but cover a huge market share in the desktop arena.
The reason why many managers still keep buying MS is because they can understand it better. Imagine the average MBA who has to make a decision about a company's IT system. They will go with what they know and W2K looks a lot like W98; or XP Server looks a lot like XP Home (unsurprisingly, because it is the same). Then imagine the MS marketing people who tell them that Windows whatever is a lot more stable and secure (...than W98, but that's in the fineprint).
Now imagine some sales person from your average Linux (or BSD) company showing off an ssh session and the command console. The average manager will be extremely unimpressed and ask why you would ever need this.
It needs a helluvalot experience to make informed decisions in the IT world and many, many managers do not care enough. After all, it's not their money they're spending and few people got sacked for buying MS.
Disclaimer: I went to business school and know what I am talking about. Some of my fellow students were thinking about going the IT consulting route, but couldn't hook up their laptops to the university's network. *Shiver*
I guess with Microsoft, you can at least rely on the fact that you will have to pay constantly. In a way, that's how Microsoft argues when talking about TCO: You can predict it.
Economically speaking, you have less uncertainty going the proprietary road. Then again, all TCO concepts are seriously flawed and shouldn't be used to calculate anything, except maybe the marketing budget:-).
it's not about Linux as a technology or Windows as a technology. It's rather about the processes involved with creating OSS.
Think about that famous example with disk drives: 3.5 inch drives more or less use the same technology as 5.25 inch drives, but were a lot smaller and could therefore be produced a lot cheaper than their larger counterparts. This also impacts on the cost structure in the production process (well, long term), which will inevitably become cheaper as with the larger drives. The technology wasn't revolutionary new, but in the long term gave the customer more value through being cheaper, faster, and virtually bigger (memory).
Disruptive technologies therefore doesn't necessarily apply to the technology deployed in the product, but can also apply to the technology used to create that product.
In this case we are talking about the process which creates the product. In the words of ESR: The Bazaar Model (based on the GPL and the other OSS licenses.
Whether this model is as disruptive as many people expect it will be still remains to be seen. This might take some time, especially if the companies using the old, sustaining model have other means (read: money, power, legal influence) to dilute the process and/or play dirty tricks in the market.
"With respect to enterprise computing, analysts agree that for smaller projects that do not involve mission-critical elements, there is room for open source software, such as Linux."
Excellent, that's probably the reason why we don't see any Linux rendering farms in digital FX companies or Apache on webservers of e-commerce outfits.
Every month or so some creep winds up telling us that opensource or Linux is not ready for whatever. Who cares?
Regarding the lack of applications, only one thing can be said: Do it yourself or help others to do it for you, damn it!
There are opensource developers out there who actually listen to what you have to say. It's not "If you build it, they will come", but rather "If you tell them, they will build it right." Well, depending on how you do it. Most developers of opensource projects where thankful for useful comments and at least tried to implement the feature suggested. How often do you see Microsoft responding to your inquiries? Hell, they don't even give required security patches in a timely manner.
The problem IMHO isn't the acceptance of opensource software, but rather a complete misunderstanding of the opensource processes and the way they can be influenced by anyone with at east half a brain and some decent manners. That's still often enough a problem with managers (I am one myself, and I have seen enough of those already), especially at large corporations: "I WANT X, Y AND Z!!!! AND I WANT IT YESTERDAY!!!" rarely works in opensource. Hmmmm....., it doesn't work anywhere else either, but gets rarely noticed.
I love this quote as well: ""[Linux] just doesn't easily plug into the management framework," Goldman said. "The applications aren't standardized. When that level of standardization occurs in terms of applications and management tools, then I think Linux will get there.
"For now, it's great when you want to tinker," he noted.
Yes it is great if you want to tinker, because you can. With most closed source products you have to tinker as well to get it running the way you want, but alas, you can't. Instead you get any number of consultants in who will then tell you, that you have to reengineer your business processes (if you can't pay for the software customization) to fit the software. While this is sometimes a very good approach, this is often enough not the case. With opensource a company, even with a limited budget, can influence the developers of OSS projects and maybe donate hardware, money or whatever else is required. Yes, it might take a little longer and cost is hard to predict, but so it is with business process reengineering.
Re:Gotta represent (er, maintain)
on
More Marcelo Tosatti
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
However, I agree with your central point that Linux does still rely heavily on one man. What happens when he stops running the show is an interesting question...
In a way you could view the fact that first Alan and now Marcelo is maintaining the stable branch as a test to what could happen if Linus were to reitre entirely from Linux. So far it has been working quite well and I think that in the long run capable people will show up who could follow in his footprints.
I don't follow the kernel mailing list closely, but if Linus were to retire right now, I guess someone like Alan could step up to the plate and become the next meritocrat (as opposed to monarch). I believe that the meritocracy that has developed in the open source world is a damn Good Thing (TM). Democracy has failed societies over and over again (most prominently: Germany in the thirties, USA right now. Hell, almost all democratic systems are seriously flawed and have become increasingly unwilling to make decent decisions, because every major step in whatever direction might impact on the next ellection.). I still believe that a free democracy is the best political system that we can apparently think of, but in all succesful ventures (I can think of) there was one person who made the final decision and a system based on meritocracy can serve us best. As opposed to a system were the most unscrupulous or best funded person rises to the top.
Thay can't lower prices. To ensure their massive cash flow they need stock prices to keep rising and the only way it will do that is if they post revenue increases.
The Desktop market is already dead for them. Too many buisnesses don't see the point of upgrading beond W2K. Office has the same problem. THis all has nothing to do with Linux.
I think you are both right and wrong. Microsoft does not have to generate increasing revenue through its traditional channels. Their war chest is so loaded that they can buy revenue, at least for a while. So don't bet on them getting into serious trouble over their stock price anytime soon.
But, I think this has all to do with Linux (I know that you mean a different context though): This whole discussion only shows that the average user's computer needs (hardware, OS, applications) are more or less met. There is no real need for anyone with a decent machine (say AMD/PIII 700 or so) to upgrade their hardware (I am not talking about game freaks and video editors here) and/or software (OfficeXP does more or less the same things as Office97/2000).
This gives the Open Source projects some time to catch up in this segment (usability, features, integration, installation, configuration). If they have caught up and can demonstrate/market accordingly, Microsoft might face problems, in case they haven't shifted their revenue base completely (web services etc.) that is.
...MBAs are blamed for just sticking with their management theories and trying to apply them to the market.
The RIAA (and the MPAA) are doing anything but applying these theories and blame a technology (hello?!) and their customers (anybody home?!) for decreasing sales.
There are a number of management theories which prove that these people are so badly wrong, it's just amazing. For example:
1. Clayton Christensen's theory about Disruptive Technologies. Everybody here on/. (old enough that is) was witness to the decline of 5.25 inch disk drive sales when 3.5 came along. At first 3.5 drives were slower and had less capacity but eventually destroyed the market for 5.25 drives. The new technology disrupted the market for the old one. We are witnessing the same thing here as well. In the long run, with broadband connection available in your car, who will need CDs? Just create a playlist and stream the stuff legitimately from the publishers, the artists or (not so legitimately) some P2P network.
Failure to acknowledge this will lead to the organisation's death sooner (hope, hope) or later.
2. Marketing theory states (not in these words, but it's valid anyway), that you shouldn't piss off your customers. Give them a product that they want for a reasonable price that plays on the equipment they purchased to listen to the products they legitimately obtained. Hell, this is not even marketing theory, this is common sense.
3. Do not raise prices in an economic downturn (This is lame I know, but economics class was boring).
The way I see it, artists have to make the next step and leave those Mafia type organisations as soon as possible and embrace the freedom and chances new technologies provide them with. Live performances can pay pretty well if the artists focus on the music, scrapping ridiculous show effects (on stage explosions, overkill light effects, etc.) and charge a reasonable entrance fee. They might not become millionaires with there first recording, but a decent living should be possible. It is for many jazz musicians who are hackers in the original sense of the word. There record sales often barely pay for the recording studio, while most of their revenue is generated at the door of a club.
And I guess there will still be room and a market for Barbie and Ken type bands nevertheless.
It is furthermore about time to do something against the incredible power over legislation that the recording companies are exercising. As it stands now, we can't really rely on our governments to do that for us. So kick them where it hurts, in the wallet (I should probably work on my metaphors).
So, with this reasoning, if I published a book. For the sake of argument this book is supposed to have 10,000 copies printed. I catch a typo after shipping 1,000. Wow, the rest of the 9,000 people have to eat the typo because once something is released it shouldn't be changed.
Well, actually you are proving his point with this statement: Just because there is a typo in the first edition of a book doesn't mean that the whole edition gets recycled (we don't burn or throw them anymore). The typo will be fixed in the next edition, like is being done here.
You definitely don't want two different versions with the same name, especially not in software. This would really confuse users.
BTW, people installing a brand new (i.e. just released) version of any software on production systems should be sacked right away. Who, with any interest in Linux by now doesn't know about this feature missing in 2.4.18. Everybody, especially users with non-x86 systems, should read the ChangeLogs and/or release notes very carefully. If they don't, well yet another reason to sack them right away for irresponsible behaviour.
Alright, now one might argue that Linux will never succeed in the home user segment with kernel developers being that careless. How many home users are there with SPARC systems? No, the average Linux home user doesn't run these kind of machines, it's mostly geeks who do read the ChangeLog and/or follow/. and maybe even the kernel mailing list.
People desperately in need for the latest, greatest kernel features on SPARC systems will just have to download 2.4.19pre1 or 2.4.18pre4. So, what exactly is problem? Damn, you're just a troll and I fell for it. Stupid me....
Exactly. Why do we have a static nameserver setup? Would it be really difficult to configure the machines to query your standard nameserver, and then if the name can't be resolved it will query the next and so on and so forth?
Could I achieve something similar by setting up my own DNS, which gets its data the standard way plus all the additional information from the alternatives (OpenNIC, AlterNIC etc.)?
They should remove the 82.000 passenger cars and light trucks. Period.
On the other hand: They are creating yet another throw-away product. Did the study also measure the pollution and waste created through the unusable DVDs? I guess not.
What does this study prove? Basically that you can justify almost everything in a *scientific* study.
lies, damn lies, statistics
Not necessarily a bad thing...
on
ArsDigita Shut Down
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I met Philip Greenspun a couple of years ago when Arsdigita was a growing company. He was (and probably still is) a very ambitious guy and told me that it was about time to do something and get into the Internet gig. Luckily, I decided to get an education first and had the opportunity to watch the bubble burst without being involved.
When the VCs got in, the management became greedy and Philip got out (or kicked out, whatever). The company's death, focussing on web tools, was more or less inevitable considering the sharp economic downturn and executives realising that they won't be raking in the profits with mere Internet presence (no matter what the technology behind it).
RedHat getting a number of experienced staff makes perfect sense since the web application services might complement their business with existing clients. And, it's all Open Source, in fact we might see more rapid integration of ACS with PostgreSQL, maybe it even becomes the development platform and won't have to be ported anymore (see http://openacs.org).
So, maybe it is a good thing after all, at least for web developers using the ACS.
Simply stated, technology here has to deal with sociological problem: Most people more or less agree and comply with laws and thus do not cause any harm to society or organisations and people living within it. There are only a few who do step over the line (sometimes unwillingly) and break laws and cause trouble to some or all.
The netizens are part of what we "laughingly call the real world" (like my finance teacher used to say) as well and reflect its behavioural patterns.
If I for example would be part of a large corporation, with access to accounts and the like, knowing a great deal about internal as well as external procedures, I would be in a position to analyse the organisation's weaknesses. I could steal a lot of money, get away (if really good) and spend the rest of my life working on my handicap. Downside could be that the company goes bancrupt, a couple of thousand people lose their jobs, a chain reaction of financial desasters initiated, world economy goes into hibernation, etc. You get the picture.
This could be described as a DoS in the "real world." Now, why should the Internet be any different? Most netizens are (Internet) law abiding folk, but some can and do cause pain to the others. In the real world there are experts working to better the system and find flaws in it (researchers, auditors, journalists, etc.) and publish it. Others can use the data too for criminal purposes. We still do not (generally) question the availability of this material. Why do you and others question it in this case?
This is a sociological problem that the Internet has to cope with on a sociological level and not necessarily on a legal one. It is furthermore highly unlikely that we will find a technological solution to this problem as well, since the same forces that work against copy protection systems are at work here too.
The point is: We can fight all we want, pass all the laws that we can come up with, develop technology to deal with this problem, but in the long run, we will just have to live with it I guess.
I couldn't agree more. If we were to look at economics, the media industry really shouldn't survive. At least not this way. In theory a company should be able to compete successfully by innovation and/or adding value to an existing product.
This is obviously not the case for the media industry. We have been getting the same kind of product (CD with some music on it, usually a couple of "good" songs and a lot of rubbish, and an obsolete booklet) for two decades and most astonishingly: The price never dropped. This is how a monopoly behaves. True, it's not one single concern controlling the market, it's a cartel.
The only innovation right now is coming from the legal departments and the people developing copy prevention stuff, which is mostly obsolete as soon as it hits the market. The industry slept during the Napster boom and is now slowly emerging with ridiculously expensive and control-freak-style (I know it's not a word, but it should be) subscription models.
The media industry should quickly realize that they are fighting a battle they can't win. As long as their innovation focus is not on their core product (entertainment) but on customer control, they will lose. In my opinion companies can't win against a couple of teenagers with an attitude and enough time to break *any* copy prevention. It's been happening forever, remember the good ole times with the C64 and TurboCopy.
Exactly. Look at Netscape 4.x and 6.x (no, not Mozilla). That is not nice. Or try ICQ, which became completely bloated and IMHO unusable for the stuff it was designed for, if I could only remember what that was...aahh, yes, messenging. By changing the protocol over and over again they broke the Open Source clients (see LICQ for example). So, if they were really to acquire RH I fear that they would break that one too.
Does that mean we could see a working ICQ-client for Linux in the near future? Does that mean they will stop fscking with the protocol? If yes, how delightful...
Slashdot Mirror
You are right, saying that currently there is little evidence supporting the hypothesis that the OSS model is truly disruptive. Right now, it could as well be labelled wishful thinking.
.NET strategy.
The discussion is also very confusing: What is the product and who is selling it? Christensen applies his theory to traditional (mostly physical) products and I don't think that we can apply this here. For example, you don't have to buy the software, since you can always download (and compile) it yourself, so it's initially not more expensive. For most OSS companies the product is the service they are selling. There is definitely nothing disruptive about that.
What I think can be disruptive for MS's business model is the full disclosure model of OSS development, which can lead to more stable and secure software. In case OSS prevails on these features alone, the development model disrupts MS's revenue stream in the software market. That does not mean that MS will fail in every business sector, they are anticipating some change in the market and therefore want to position themselves as an ASP with the
I agree with you that the compilation of a "requirements definition" would be a big step for OSS that would be truly disruptive, but people on both sides of the equation (i.e. "customers and suppliers" or users and developers) have to understand the benefits of OSS development. Currently, too many people on either side define themselves as either customers ("Build this for me because I need it and I will pay you!") or hackers ("I am building it, because I need it and it's fun. If you want something, do it yourself."), which hinders a faster adoption of the OSS model. A partnership model where a traditional customer starts to work with the developer would be far more beneficial: (Business)User: "I see that you are working on this type of application, which I could use but lacks functionality in this and that area. What can I do to help you build it? I believe there could be a market for this, i.e. more people than just me need it. Let's do a little market research and define the requirements for V1.00." Developer: "That is a cool idea, I never thought of this, since I personally wouldn't need this kind of functionality. How about, you pay (employ) me for the time needed to implement the additional functionality? If you can't do this, no problem, I can do consulting around this project."
The reason why it rarely works like this is probably the adversarial approach that many managers and developers still live and breath.
These factors include: * Compatibility and interoperability * Stability of vendor * Amount of ongoing development * Feature set * Marketshare and userbase * Adherence to standards * Ease of use * Security * Stability Microsoft is credible in all these areas and ahead of open source contenders in most. In addition, Microsoft is getting better in all these areas.
You are right, but let me comment on this a bit:
OSS systems are usually deployed for the following reasons: compatibility and interoperability, amount of ongoing development, feature set, adherence to standards, security, stability and in my case ease of use. Microsoft's systems are not a contender in these areas, but cover a huge market share in the desktop arena.
The reason why many managers still keep buying MS is because they can understand it better. Imagine the average MBA who has to make a decision about a company's IT system. They will go with what they know and W2K looks a lot like W98; or XP Server looks a lot like XP Home (unsurprisingly, because it is the same). Then imagine the MS marketing people who tell them that Windows whatever is a lot more stable and secure (...than W98, but that's in the fineprint).
Now imagine some sales person from your average Linux (or BSD) company showing off an ssh session and the command console. The average manager will be extremely unimpressed and ask why you would ever need this.
It needs a helluvalot experience to make informed decisions in the IT world and many, many managers do not care enough. After all, it's not their money they're spending and few people got sacked for buying MS.
Disclaimer: I went to business school and know what I am talking about. Some of my fellow students were thinking about going the IT consulting route, but couldn't hook up their laptops to the university's network. *Shiver*
I guess with Microsoft, you can at least rely on the fact that you will have to pay constantly. In a way, that's how Microsoft argues when talking about TCO: You can predict it.
:-).
Economically speaking, you have less uncertainty going the proprietary road. Then again, all TCO concepts are seriously flawed and shouldn't be used to calculate anything, except maybe the marketing budget
it's not about Linux as a technology or Windows as a technology. It's rather about the processes involved with creating OSS.
Think about that famous example with disk drives: 3.5 inch drives more or less use the same technology as 5.25 inch drives, but were a lot smaller and could therefore be produced a lot cheaper than their larger counterparts. This also impacts on the cost structure in the production process (well, long term), which will inevitably become cheaper as with the larger drives. The technology wasn't revolutionary new, but in the long term gave the customer more value through being cheaper, faster, and virtually bigger (memory).
Disruptive technologies therefore doesn't necessarily apply to the technology deployed in the product, but can also apply to the technology used to create that product.
In this case we are talking about the process which creates the product. In the words of ESR: The Bazaar Model (based on the GPL and the other OSS licenses.
Whether this model is as disruptive as many people expect it will be still remains to be seen. This might take some time, especially if the companies using the old, sustaining model have other means (read: money, power, legal influence) to dilute the process and/or play dirty tricks in the market.
"With respect to enterprise computing, analysts agree that for smaller projects that do not involve mission-critical elements, there is room for open source software, such as Linux."
Excellent, that's probably the reason why we don't see any Linux rendering farms in digital FX companies or Apache on webservers of e-commerce outfits.
Every month or so some creep winds up telling us that opensource or Linux is not ready for whatever. Who cares?
Regarding the lack of applications, only one thing can be said: Do it yourself or help others to do it for you, damn it!
There are opensource developers out there who actually listen to what you have to say. It's not "If you build it, they will come", but rather "If you tell them, they will build it right." Well, depending on how you do it. Most developers of opensource projects where thankful for useful comments and at least tried to implement the feature suggested. How often do you see Microsoft responding to your inquiries? Hell, they don't even give required security patches in a timely manner.
The problem IMHO isn't the acceptance of opensource software, but rather a complete misunderstanding of the opensource processes and the way they can be influenced by anyone with at east half a brain and some decent manners. That's still often enough a problem with managers (I am one myself, and I have seen enough of those already), especially at large corporations: "I WANT X, Y AND Z!!!! AND I WANT IT YESTERDAY!!!" rarely works in opensource. Hmmmm....., it doesn't work anywhere else either, but gets rarely noticed.
I love this quote as well: ""[Linux] just doesn't easily plug into the management framework," Goldman said. "The applications aren't standardized. When that level of standardization occurs in terms of applications and management tools, then I think Linux will get there. "For now, it's great when you want to tinker," he noted.
Yes it is great if you want to tinker, because you can. With most closed source products you have to tinker as well to get it running the way you want, but alas, you can't. Instead you get any number of consultants in who will then tell you, that you have to reengineer your business processes (if you can't pay for the software customization) to fit the software. While this is sometimes a very good approach, this is often enough not the case. With opensource a company, even with a limited budget, can influence the developers of OSS projects and maybe donate hardware, money or whatever else is required. Yes, it might take a little longer and cost is hard to predict, but so it is with business process reengineering.
However, I agree with your central point that Linux does still rely heavily on one man. What happens when he stops running the show is an interesting question ...
In a way you could view the fact that first Alan and now Marcelo is maintaining the stable branch as a test to what could happen if Linus were to reitre entirely from Linux. So far it has been working quite well and I think that in the long run capable people will show up who could follow in his footprints.
I don't follow the kernel mailing list closely, but if Linus were to retire right now, I guess someone like Alan could step up to the plate and become the next meritocrat (as opposed to monarch). I believe that the meritocracy that has developed in the open source world is a damn Good Thing (TM). Democracy has failed societies over and over again (most prominently: Germany in the thirties, USA right now. Hell, almost all democratic systems are seriously flawed and have become increasingly unwilling to make decent decisions, because every major step in whatever direction might impact on the next ellection.). I still believe that a free democracy is the best political system that we can apparently think of, but in all succesful ventures (I can think of) there was one person who made the final decision and a system based on meritocracy can serve us best. As opposed to a system were the most unscrupulous or best funded person rises to the top.
Thay can't lower prices. To ensure their massive cash flow they need stock prices to keep rising and the only way it will do that is if they post revenue increases.
The Desktop market is already dead for them. Too many buisnesses don't see the point of upgrading beond W2K. Office has the same problem. THis all has nothing to do with Linux.
I think you are both right and wrong. Microsoft does not have to generate increasing revenue through its traditional channels. Their war chest is so loaded that they can buy revenue, at least for a while. So don't bet on them getting into serious trouble over their stock price anytime soon.
But, I think this has all to do with Linux (I know that you mean a different context though): This whole discussion only shows that the average user's computer needs (hardware, OS, applications) are more or less met. There is no real need for anyone with a decent machine (say AMD/PIII 700 or so) to upgrade their hardware (I am not talking about game freaks and video editors here) and/or software (OfficeXP does more or less the same things as Office97/2000).
This gives the Open Source projects some time to catch up in this segment (usability, features, integration, installation, configuration). If they have caught up and can demonstrate/market accordingly, Microsoft might face problems, in case they haven't shifted their revenue base completely (web services etc.) that is.
...MBAs are blamed for just sticking with their management theories and trying to apply them to the market.
/. (old enough that is) was witness to the decline of 5.25 inch disk drive sales when 3.5 came along. At first 3.5 drives were slower and had less capacity but eventually destroyed the market for 5.25 drives. The new technology disrupted the market for the old one. We are witnessing the same thing here as well. In the long run, with broadband connection available in your car, who will need CDs? Just create a playlist and stream the stuff legitimately from the publishers, the artists or (not so legitimately) some P2P network.
The RIAA (and the MPAA) are doing anything but applying these theories and blame a technology (hello?!) and their customers (anybody home?!) for decreasing sales.
There are a number of management theories which prove that these people are so badly wrong, it's just amazing. For example:
1. Clayton Christensen's theory about Disruptive Technologies. Everybody here on
Failure to acknowledge this will lead to the organisation's death sooner (hope, hope) or later.
2. Marketing theory states (not in these words, but it's valid anyway), that you shouldn't piss off your customers. Give them a product that they want for a reasonable price that plays on the equipment they purchased to listen to the products they legitimately obtained. Hell, this is not even marketing theory, this is common sense.
3. Do not raise prices in an economic downturn (This is lame I know, but economics class was boring).
The way I see it, artists have to make the next step and leave those Mafia type organisations as soon as possible and embrace the freedom and chances new technologies provide them with. Live performances can pay pretty well if the artists focus on the music, scrapping ridiculous show effects (on stage explosions, overkill light effects, etc.) and charge a reasonable entrance fee. They might not become millionaires with there first recording, but a decent living should be possible. It is for many jazz musicians who are hackers in the original sense of the word. There record sales often barely pay for the recording studio, while most of their revenue is generated at the door of a club.
And I guess there will still be room and a market for Barbie and Ken type bands nevertheless.
It is furthermore about time to do something against the incredible power over legislation that the recording companies are exercising. As it stands now, we can't really rely on our governments to do that for us. So kick them where it hurts, in the wallet (I should probably work on my metaphors).
Just my 2 Eurocents
So, with this reasoning, if I published a book. For the sake of argument this book is supposed to have 10,000 copies printed. I catch a typo after shipping 1,000. Wow, the rest of the 9,000 people have to eat the typo because once something is released it shouldn't be changed.
/. and maybe even the kernel mailing list.
Well, actually you are proving his point with this statement: Just because there is a typo in the first edition of a book doesn't mean that the whole edition gets recycled (we don't burn or throw them anymore). The typo will be fixed in the next edition, like is being done here.
You definitely don't want two different versions with the same name, especially not in software. This would really confuse users.
BTW, people installing a brand new (i.e. just released) version of any software on production systems should be sacked right away. Who, with any interest in Linux by now doesn't know about this feature missing in 2.4.18. Everybody, especially users with non-x86 systems, should read the ChangeLogs and/or release notes very carefully. If they don't, well yet another reason to sack them right away for irresponsible behaviour.
Alright, now one might argue that Linux will never succeed in the home user segment with kernel developers being that careless. How many home users are there with SPARC systems? No, the average Linux home user doesn't run these kind of machines, it's mostly geeks who do read the ChangeLog and/or follow
People desperately in need for the latest, greatest kernel features on SPARC systems will just have to download 2.4.19pre1 or 2.4.18pre4. So, what exactly is problem? Damn, you're just a troll and I fell for it. Stupid me....
Exactly. Why do we have a static nameserver setup? Would it be really difficult to configure the machines to query your standard nameserver, and then if the name can't be resolved it will query the next and so on and so forth?
Could I achieve something similar by setting up my own DNS, which gets its data the standard way plus all the additional information from the alternatives (OpenNIC, AlterNIC etc.)?
Cheers
Oh no, not another "MacOSX is not ready for the server" discussion. Mod this as Flamebait please.
:-)
Ooops, then maybe it really was Greylock playing with their books? What are the people of the former core team doing nowadays?
They should remove the 82.000 passenger cars and light trucks. Period.
On the other hand: They are creating yet another throw-away product. Did the study also measure the pollution and waste created through the unusable DVDs? I guess not.
What does this study prove? Basically that you can justify almost everything in a *scientific* study.
lies, damn lies, statistics
I met Philip Greenspun a couple of years ago when Arsdigita was a growing company. He was (and probably still is) a very ambitious guy and told me that it was about time to do something and get into the Internet gig. Luckily, I decided to get an education first and had the opportunity to watch the bubble burst without being involved.
When the VCs got in, the management became greedy and Philip got out (or kicked out, whatever). The company's death, focussing on web tools, was more or less inevitable considering the sharp economic downturn and executives realising that they won't be raking in the profits with mere Internet presence (no matter what the technology behind it).
RedHat getting a number of experienced staff makes perfect sense since the web application services might complement their business with existing clients. And, it's all Open Source, in fact we might see more rapid integration of ACS with PostgreSQL, maybe it even becomes the development platform and won't have to be ported anymore (see http://openacs.org).
So, maybe it is a good thing after all, at least for web developers using the ACS.
Just my 2 Eurocents
Simply stated, technology here has to deal with sociological problem: Most people more or less agree and comply with laws and thus do not cause any harm to society or organisations and people living within it. There are only a few who do step over the line (sometimes unwillingly) and break laws and cause trouble to some or all.
The netizens are part of what we "laughingly call the real world" (like my finance teacher used to say) as well and reflect its behavioural patterns.
If I for example would be part of a large corporation, with access to accounts and the like, knowing a great deal about internal as well as external procedures, I would be in a position to analyse the organisation's weaknesses. I could steal a lot of money, get away (if really good) and spend the rest of my life working on my handicap. Downside could be that the company goes bancrupt, a couple of thousand people lose their jobs, a chain reaction of financial desasters initiated, world economy goes into hibernation, etc. You get the picture.
This could be described as a DoS in the "real world." Now, why should the Internet be any different? Most netizens are (Internet) law abiding folk, but some can and do cause pain to the others. In the real world there are experts working to better the system and find flaws in it (researchers, auditors, journalists, etc.) and publish it. Others can use the data too for criminal purposes. We still do not (generally) question the availability of this material. Why do you and others question it in this case?
This is a sociological problem that the Internet has to cope with on a sociological level and not necessarily on a legal one. It is furthermore highly unlikely that we will find a technological solution to this problem as well, since the same forces that work against copy protection systems are at work here too.
The point is: We can fight all we want, pass all the laws that we can come up with, develop technology to deal with this problem, but in the long run, we will just have to live with it I guess.
Just my two Euro-Zents
I couldn't agree more. If we were to look at economics, the media industry really shouldn't survive. At least not this way. In theory a company should be able to compete successfully by innovation and/or adding value to an existing product.
This is obviously not the case for the media industry. We have been getting the same kind of product (CD with some music on it, usually a couple of "good" songs and a lot of rubbish, and an obsolete booklet) for two decades and most astonishingly: The price never dropped. This is how a monopoly behaves. True, it's not one single concern controlling the market, it's a cartel.
The only innovation right now is coming from the legal departments and the people developing copy prevention stuff, which is mostly obsolete as soon as it hits the market. The industry slept during the Napster boom and is now slowly emerging with ridiculously expensive and control-freak-style (I know it's not a word, but it should be) subscription models.
The media industry should quickly realize that they are fighting a battle they can't win. As long as their innovation focus is not on their core product (entertainment) but on customer control, they will lose. In my opinion companies can't win against a couple of teenagers with an attitude and enough time to break *any* copy prevention. It's been happening forever, remember the good ole times with the C64 and TurboCopy.
Die gracefully or offer a competitive product.
Just my 2 Eurocents
Exactly. Look at Netscape 4.x and 6.x (no, not Mozilla). That is not nice. Or try ICQ, which became completely bloated and IMHO unusable for the stuff it was designed for, if I could only remember what that was...aahh, yes, messenging. By changing the protocol over and over again they broke the Open Source clients (see LICQ for example). So, if they were really to acquire RH I fear that they would break that one too.
Does that mean we could see a working ICQ-client for Linux in the near future? Does that mean they will stop fscking with the protocol? If yes, how delightful...
Cheers