Perhaps copyrighting should have a simple boundary inserted in it - copying for private use is allowed, copying commercially without the author's permission is illegal?
It seems to me that there may be a problem here in the framing of the question: "Is This The End Of The Suits?". What's wrong is that this assumes that anyone involved with the development of a software product (OSS or CSS:) must be either a Suit or a Techie. I think that what we're actually seeing here is the rise of a third class of software type.
Your choice of name for this - Architect, Engineer, whatever - but there's actually a new skillset being spawned in the technology industry; it is that of someone who can schedule, design (sometimes), and manage a project according to a valid timeline, but who has created that timeline based on the requirements of the software rather than the preferences of the sales department. Someone who manages, but isn't "Management"(tm).
The Suits will stay; they will run the companies, and will do marketing and sales and such. They will remain, by and large, idiots from the point of view of the Techs. The Techs will stay; they will write the code and understand the infrastructure of the product rather than the business. They will remain, by and large, obstinate and incomprehensible to the Suits. And neither one will have to deal directly with the others - the Architects will provide the "interface layer" between these classical and mutually conflicting protocols.
And the corollary of this theorem is that in short order, there will be a desperate need for this kind of person, and there'll be some serious money to be made my being one.
That, my dear Nater, depends on just who or what is "contributing" how much to the judge in question's next "re-election campaign".
Not to mention the problems with judges who, as we on/. are all too fond of proclaiming, "just don't get it" - as in, don't understand the issues. Assuming the judge has a computer, well, maybe they're perfectly happy with their shrinkwraps. No software people have been harassing them, have they?
<rant> Smeg. Corrupt officials passing stupid heavy-handed laws about things they don't understand because their corporate buddies asked them to. Government agencies that want to either tax the Internet or just wiretap the whole thing - depending on where their money comes from. Greedy media conglomerates that are fighting tooth and nail to make sure everyone worldwide that has ever enjoyed a movie or piece of music gives them all of their "due" cash.
Land of the free, my ass. Excuse me while I never set foot in the good ol' U. S. of A. again. </rant>
Mattel probably has a hand (or tentacle) in making some of the Neat Stuff(tm) that the NGS distributes. See, that's the problem - we can't really know.
But I tell you what - I haven't exactly got a lot of love for this corp (which, if memory serves, makes both G.I. Joe toys and real M-16 assault rifles!), so if you can find a way to sting 'em (Legally! Not up to jail time, me!), let me know.
In principle, I agree, and I would usually back this sentiment wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, it's not that easy in this case. Mattel is HUGE, and has subsidiaries, who have subsidiaries, etc., etc., in dozens of industries.
We'd have to see a complete list of everybody Mattel owns in order to do this (most don't carry the Mattel mark), and I fear the list may be too long and comprehensive to pull it off.
...as in, I would also be very willing to donate/invest the tiny fraction of my income that'd be needed to a trust fund such as this. If their credentials are good. Perhaps an offshoot of the EFF would be of more use than trying to get the EFF proper to engage in this kind of thing?
(sorry for the double-post... had some trouble with the login... AC wasn't deliberate)
I note that 68 crashes / 65 hours = about 0.96 hours per reboot.
Anyone want to bet that the Blight of Redmond will use these findings to benchmark a claim that Linux (one crash, 4 hours) reboots four times more slowly than their esteemed product?
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps copyrighting should have a simple boundary inserted in it - copying for private use is allowed, copying commercially without the author's permission is illegal?
It seems to me that there may be a problem here in the framing of the question: "Is This The End Of The Suits?". What's wrong is that this assumes that anyone involved with the development of a software product (OSS or CSS :) must be either a Suit or a Techie. I think that what we're actually seeing here is the rise of a third class of software type.
Your choice of name for this - Architect, Engineer, whatever - but there's actually a new skillset being spawned in the technology industry; it is that of someone who can schedule, design (sometimes), and manage a project according to a valid timeline, but who has created that timeline based on the requirements of the software rather than the preferences of the sales department. Someone who manages, but isn't "Management"(tm).
The Suits will stay; they will run the companies, and will do marketing and sales and such. They will remain, by and large, idiots from the point of view of the Techs. The Techs will stay; they will write the code and understand the infrastructure of the product rather than the business. They will remain, by and large, obstinate and incomprehensible to the Suits. And neither one will have to deal directly with the others - the Architects will provide the "interface layer" between these classical and mutually conflicting protocols.
And the corollary of this theorem is that in short order, there will be a desperate need for this kind of person, and there'll be some serious money to be made my being one.
That, my dear Nater, depends on just who or what is "contributing" how much to the judge in question's next "re-election campaign".
Not to mention the problems with judges who, as we on /. are all too fond of proclaiming, "just don't get it" - as in, don't understand the issues. Assuming the judge has a computer, well, maybe they're perfectly happy with their shrinkwraps. No software people have been harassing them, have they?
<rant>
Smeg. Corrupt officials passing stupid heavy-handed laws about things they don't understand because their corporate buddies asked them to. Government agencies that want to either tax the Internet or just wiretap the whole thing - depending on where their money comes from. Greedy media conglomerates that are fighting tooth and nail to make sure everyone worldwide that has ever enjoyed a movie or piece of music gives them all of their "due" cash.
Land of the free, my ass. Excuse me while I never set foot in the good ol' U. S. of A. again.
</rant>
Mattel probably has a hand (or tentacle) in making some of the Neat Stuff(tm) that the NGS distributes. See, that's the problem - we can't really know.
But I tell you what - I haven't exactly got a lot of love for this corp (which, if memory serves, makes both G.I. Joe toys and real M-16 assault rifles!), so if you can find a way to sting 'em (Legally! Not up to jail time, me!), let me know.
In principle, I agree, and I would usually back this sentiment wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, it's not that easy in this case. Mattel is HUGE, and has subsidiaries, who have subsidiaries, etc., etc., in dozens of industries.
We'd have to see a complete list of everybody Mattel owns in order to do this (most don't carry the Mattel mark), and I fear the list may be too long and comprehensive to pull it off.
...as in, I would also be very willing to donate/invest the tiny fraction of my income that'd be needed to a trust fund such as this. If their credentials are good. Perhaps an offshoot of the EFF would be of more use than trying to get the EFF proper to engage in this kind of thing?
(sorry for the double-post... had some trouble with the login... AC wasn't deliberate)
I note that 68 crashes / 65 hours = about 0.96 hours per reboot.
Anyone want to bet that the Blight of Redmond will use these findings to benchmark a claim that Linux (one crash, 4 hours) reboots four times more slowly than their esteemed product?