great features, too late
on
Netscape 6.1
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If Microsoft had ever released IE for Linux, this would be even more of a dead issue.
A valuable lesson here - it doesn't matter how good the technology is if you take too long to produce it and don't market it well. (of course, that same principle could be applied to almost any product.)
> "What's an editor of Linux Today doing criticizing/.?"
So, what's Hemos doing here? Well, at least he signed his article.
That's the point. Because we know who's making the critique, we can take the biases into account in evaluating the criticism.
I accept that if I read the NY Times or Wall Street Journal editorial pages (or listen to Rush Limbaugh or Dan Rather), that these news sources have biases. I can take those biases into account. In the case of the comments we're talking about here, the writer was deliberately trying to mislead his audience about his biases.
It doesn't sound like the editor is acknowledging that he did anything wrong, just saying "I won't do it again because other people misunderstood."
There are good reasons to post anonymously under some circumstances, but I don't think he gives any here. How would the debate have been any less "lively" if he had acknowledged the source of his comments all along?
If you're going to try to write a "virus antibody," you had better be good. Otherwise you could accidentally create all kinds of problems. "Ooops! I just accidentally created a DoS attack." If you mess up and the legal authorities track you down, they may not be sympathetic to the "I was only trying to help" argument.
Limit everyone to one and only one domain. Period. The proposal doesn't target anyone in particular so it's non-discriminatory. Why should anyone be allowed to own a domain they don't use?
I'll say it again - the purpose of DNS should be to get people to the sites they are looking for. There are two problems with your proposal:
First, those additional domain names are used. How many hits do you think Slashdot gets a month that are redirected to slashdot.org from slashdot.com? I'm willing to wager its a significant number.
Second, lots of individuals and corporations have multiple domain names that they use for distinct product offerings - OSDN comes to mind. Your suggestion to make them use osdn.com/slashdot, osdn.com/sourceforge, etc. would just make the Internet harder to use.
Now, this is just my personal prejudice showing, but I think it would solve the problem you raise as well. I support it because I don't think Kraft foods should be allowed to have www.kraft.com; they should be forced to use www.phillipmorris.com/kraft, so everyone knows they're a tobacco company, not a food company. And I'm not picking on Kraft; Nabisco is also a tobacco company, as is Chateau Ste. Michelle and many other companies most people have no idea are in the tobacco business. And I'm not just picking on tobacco; lots of businesses are really fronts for other owners, owners they'd rather their customers didn't know about. What's wrong with shining a little light on the cockroaches, especially if it frees up some domain names?
It's usually a bad idea to make a general rule to deal with a specific case (e.g. your tobacco company example). I think the goal should be helping people to go where they want to go on the Internet, not to score political or idealogical points.
As usual, I should point out that if the root were run properly, allowing any TLD to be added, this squabbling over an artificially-limited resource would be eliminated.
This sounds like a recipe for mass confusion to me. Let me see, is that web site I want to go to called:
slashdot.com
slashdot.biz
slashdot.buisness
slashdot.cohost
slashdot.fred
slashdot.bob
slashdot.tom
slashdot.dick
slashdot.and
slashdot.harry
etc.
The result would be that anyone trying to maintain any kind of brand identity (or just prevent porn sites from snapping up similar names) would have to employ a full time person just to continually register names. Sounds like a jobs program combined with a revenue creation mechanizm for the name registrars. The lawyers would like it too - lots of new opportunities for copyright infringement lawsuits.
I remember reading somewhere a claim that the U.S. once released satellite photos of some geographic features (underground water channels?) as a way to let the Soviets know how good the U.S. surveillence really was. The message: "We know where your missiles are."
I wonder if there is some message here? Isn't this the kind of data that can be useful for programming cruise missiles and such?
Too often, when an announcement like this comes out, the slashdot community starts crying foul and looking for Microsoft conspiracies. Dell will start shipping Linux based laptops and desktops when they think they can make money doing so, or when business improves to the point that they can afford to take more chances.
"If artists are going to price things in a range that makes most people say "forget it", then the government has to rethink the way it encourages distribution."
If artists price things so that most people say "forget it," then they starve;-)
"Copyright was intended to meet a social objective: to encourage creative output for the benefit of all citizens."
But how to accomplish that end? One way is to give people a profit motive. I was trying to respond to the argument we hear way too often that "it's okay to steal because they are charging too much money for x." Prices have to be set somehow. In general, I think government is the wrong tool for setting prices. The free market is not always a perfect tool, but it is often the best option.
But why treat IP differently from other "work products"? Should the government get to set the price you can charge for building somebody a bookcase? or a car?
"If you think about it, it is acknowledged by all sides that the government already "sets the prices" for people's intellectual property work."
I disagree. The creator/owner of a piece of IP certainly benefits from the "rights of exclusion," but the government isn't setting the price.
You, as the consumer, set the price. If I write a bad novel, you set the price by not buying it. If I write a great novel, you set the price by buying it. The government is not setting the price - they are simply forcing you to negotiate with the creator for the right to use the product of their work.
Too often, people forget their real recourse - if somebody wants too much money for their work, don't buy it.
Of course, I'm not an absolutist about this. Monopolies on essentials can change the equation. If I own all the food, and you need food to live, I have too much power in the negotiation. But if I own all the Madonna CDs, and I want more money for them than you're willing to pay, I don't see that you have a moral right to force me (using the government) to sell them to you for less money.
There are some real issues here, especially about fair use and the creation of "holes in history." But an awful lot of folks who have never created any intellectual property themselves seem to be real eager to tell those of us who do that we have to give it away for free.
I can choose to give away my IP (using the GPL, for example) but you shouldn't be able to force me to give it away.
In following the various legal stories surrounding intellectual property these days (Napster, NY Times freelancers, etc), I've been concerned about the "hole in history" problem the article talks about.
The idea of "compulsory licensing" looks like an interesting solution, but I'm leery of letting the government set prices for anybody's work.
My experience with Hotmail was very different. I opened up an account so that I could use MS Instant Messenger, and opted out of all of the marketing checkboxes on the sign in. I have plenty of other addresses, so I have never used this address anywhere. I still get 10-15 spam messages a week, even with the junk mail filter turned on.
Having said that, this was a well written and interesting article.
"Conventional wisdom has it that merely opening a free e-mail account--especially a Hotmail account--generates spam. . . . Meanwhile, my opened-and-completely unused accounts with Hotmail, Yahoo, Netaddress, and Mail.com didn't get a single pitch in six weeks."
If NASA would sell these as toys (modified for earth gravity, with lots of LEDs), maybe their funding problems would disappear.
I've never been clear on exactly how NASA does or does not make a profit on technology developed for the space program, but this is the kind of project that I would expect to have all kinds of spinoff technologies that will crop up in consumer goods down the road.
NASA has a couple of pages (here and here) describing some of the spinoffs that we've seen so far.
I can't say whether or not this is the most cost effective way to create new technology, but of all the things that my tax dollars go to support, NASA is one of the ones I resent the least.
So let's get this straight: Verisign charges 5 times more than other registrars do, provides much worse service (for instance, my preferred domain registrar provides DNS service, email redirection, prompt web-based changes - all for $12/year), is now interfering with transfers by requiring additional "confirmations" via a system that doesn't accept those confirmations, holds onto domain names after they expire so that it can a) sell the names themselves for inflated prices and b) sell the service of watching for the names to expire, and they have the gall to complain that people are leaving them for other registrars!
This demonstrates the power of the brand. I've been using another registrar in Germany (joker.com) for some time, but an awful lot of folks automatically go to Network Solutions to register domains because that's the name brand.
Am I the only one who thinks it would be much smarter for a competitor to use their own technology.
Alternatively, you could look at this as the Open Source community's attempt to use Microsoft's own "embrace and extend" philosopy against them. Microsoft will be using its considerable resources to push this forward. Whether you like it or not,.NET will probably be a significant technology that we'll be dealing with for a long time to come. If an open-source "variation on the theme" can be created, I'm all for it.
BTW, I've had the opportunity to see Tony Goodhew speak. He's an impressive individual who really seems to know his stuff. While de Icaza and van den Beld seem to be dismissing his warning about licensing problems, I hope that they take the issue seriously.
Absolutely. It's been all downhill since the days of Choplifter and Olympic Decathalon. (Did anybody but me ever break their arrow keys doing the long jump in that game?)
The real tragedy of Napster is that we may never again have such easy access to the more obscure music that isn't currently "in print." In its heyday, Napster helped introduce me to some old jazz and blues recordings that I would never have been able to find in a record store.
Unfortunately, the court cases surrounding Napster have poisened the well to such an extent that I doubt that we'll ever see an "all music ever created" service again at any price.
"So in other words, don't drop it anywhere you wouldn't normally drop a regular hard drive."
With a device that is designed for mobility, I want a little bit better (although you can be sure that I'm pretty darn careful with my camera for the sake of the lenses if nothing else).
For me, I want it to be roughly as durable as my cell phone. Sure, I could break it if I tried hard enough, but it has held up fine to the usual assortment of mishaps that you can expect if you carry it with you at all times (falls to the pavement when I open the car door, dropped it on the kitchen floor when carrying too many groceries into the house in one trip, etc.)
I have a Casio digital camera and use a 340 Meg IBM Microdrive in it, and its great to have that kind of capacity. The problem has been reliability - I've already had to have it replaced under warranty once after only a few months of use under gentle conditions.
The article talks about carrying these new drives around "in a shirt pocket," but I'd like to see some data on reliability before spending too much money on one.
For us, what it comes down to is supporting the rights of all content creators to make their own choice. If you want to distribute your intellectual property openly and freely, that's great and we'll support you . . . And if you're an individual or organization that wants or needs to protect your digital content, we will develop solutions that work for you . . .
Just because Open Source makes sense for some projects doesn't make it the right approach for everything.
The key point: you can open source anything you want, but you shouldn't be able to force other people to open source their creations. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both Open Source software development and copyright protection.
just the sign of an immature industry
on
Death of a Rebel
·
· Score: 1
"Linux appliances don't seem to be the sure-sell that everyone thought they would be."
Remember how many different companies made automobiles in the dawn of the auto industry? How many of those are left? I still think that
"Internet appliances" (whether based on Linux or some other OS) will become a big industry, but don't be surprised to see the demise most companies that try to enter this market.
A few years ago, I went to work for a small company as a "jack of all trades" network admin. Closing the open relay on one of the mail servers was pretty low on my priority list - I had a lot of other things to look at (like the web servers) and wasn't even aware that we had an open relay.
Well, once we started getting blocked I had to track down the problem when some of our clients couldn't receive email from us. The end result was that I migrated us to a qmail based system (great mail server) and learned a bit about controlling SPAM. Admittedly, at the time it was a royal pain, but looking back I see the utility of their system. It took a couple of days to resolve, but the whole process had the desired effect - we closed our open relay.
I understand the reasons its going commercial, but I think that they will marginalize themselves as a result. All in all, I think that's a shame.
It looks to me like the court made a serious attempt to balance two competing but legitimate interests.
We should always keep in mind that what we generally call the "right of free speech" is really the right to be free from prior restraint, not the right to be free of the consequences of what we say. It should be possible, but not easy, to breach the "veil of anonymity" and hold people accountable under some circumstances.
Remember - words matter. They do have an effect. If they didn't, then we wouldn't need to worry about free speach.
Slashdot Mirror
If Microsoft had ever released IE for Linux, this would be even more of a dead issue.
A valuable lesson here - it doesn't matter how good the technology is if you take too long to produce it and don't market it well. (of course, that same principle could be applied to almost any product.)
I accept that if I read the NY Times or Wall Street Journal editorial pages (or listen to Rush Limbaugh or Dan Rather), that these news sources have biases. I can take those biases into account. In the case of the comments we're talking about here, the writer was deliberately trying to mislead his audience about his biases.
It doesn't sound like the editor is acknowledging that he did anything wrong, just saying "I won't do it again because other people misunderstood."
There are good reasons to post anonymously under some circumstances, but I don't think he gives any here. How would the debate have been any less "lively" if he had acknowledged the source of his comments all along?
If you're going to try to write a "virus antibody," you had better be good. Otherwise you could accidentally create all kinds of problems. "Ooops! I just accidentally created a DoS attack." If you mess up and the legal authorities track you down, they may not be sympathetic to the "I was only trying to help" argument.
Just something to think about.
I'll say it again - the purpose of DNS should be to get people to the sites they are looking for. There are two problems with your proposal:
It's usually a bad idea to make a general rule to deal with a specific case (e.g. your tobacco company example). I think the goal should be helping people to go where they want to go on the Internet, not to score political or idealogical points.
Good Cases make Bad Laws - legal truismThis sounds like a recipe for mass confusion to me. Let me see, is that web site I want to go to called:
The result would be that anyone trying to maintain any kind of brand identity (or just prevent porn sites from snapping up similar names) would have to employ a full time person just to continually register names. Sounds like a jobs program combined with a revenue creation mechanizm for the name registrars. The lawyers would like it too - lots of new opportunities for copyright infringement lawsuits.
I remember reading somewhere a claim that the U.S. once released satellite photos of some geographic features (underground water channels?) as a way to let the Soviets know how good the U.S. surveillence really was. The message: "We know where your missiles are."
:-}
I wonder if there is some message here? Isn't this the kind of data that can be useful for programming cruise missiles and such?
Not to sound too paranoid or anything
Times are tough. This is just an example of zero based budgeting. There is nothing here that claims that Dell says "Linux is a bad operating system." They just made a decision that with limited resources, they would get better return on their investment by supporting other products.
Too often, when an announcement like this comes out, the slashdot community starts crying foul and looking for Microsoft conspiracies. Dell will start shipping Linux based laptops and desktops when they think they can make money doing so, or when business improves to the point that they can afford to take more chances.
If artists price things so that most people say "forget it," then they starve ;-)
But how to accomplish that end? One way is to give people a profit motive. I was trying to respond to the argument we hear way too often that "it's okay to steal because they are charging too much money for x." Prices have to be set somehow. In general, I think government is the wrong tool for setting prices. The free market is not always a perfect tool, but it is often the best option.
But why treat IP differently from other "work products"? Should the government get to set the price you can charge for building somebody a bookcase? or a car?
"If you think about it, it is acknowledged by all sides that the government already "sets the prices" for people's intellectual property work."
I disagree. The creator/owner of a piece of IP certainly benefits from the "rights of exclusion," but the government isn't setting the price.
You, as the consumer, set the price. If I write a bad novel, you set the price by not buying it. If I write a great novel, you set the price by buying it. The government is not setting the price - they are simply forcing you to negotiate with the creator for the right to use the product of their work.
Too often, people forget their real recourse - if somebody wants too much money for their work, don't buy it.
Of course, I'm not an absolutist about this. Monopolies on essentials can change the equation. If I own all the food, and you need food to live, I have too much power in the negotiation. But if I own all the Madonna CDs, and I want more money for them than you're willing to pay, I don't see that you have a moral right to force me (using the government) to sell them to you for less money.
There are some real issues here, especially about fair use and the creation of "holes in history." But an awful lot of folks who have never created any intellectual property themselves seem to be real eager to tell those of us who do that we have to give it away for free.
I can choose to give away my IP (using the GPL, for example) but you shouldn't be able to force me to give it away.
In following the various legal stories surrounding intellectual property these days (Napster, NY Times freelancers, etc), I've been concerned about the "hole in history" problem the article talks about.
The idea of "compulsory licensing" looks like an interesting solution, but I'm leery of letting the government set prices for anybody's work.
My experience with Hotmail was very different. I opened up an account so that I could use MS Instant Messenger, and opted out of all of the marketing checkboxes on the sign in. I have plenty of other addresses, so I have never used this address anywhere. I still get 10-15 spam messages a week, even with the junk mail filter turned on.
Having said that, this was a well written and interesting article.
it's often cheaper to buy a book than it is to print one out or photocopy one.
I've never been clear on exactly how NASA does or does not make a profit on technology developed for the space program, but this is the kind of project that I would expect to have all kinds of spinoff technologies that will crop up in consumer goods down the road.
NASA has a couple of pages (here and here) describing some of the spinoffs that we've seen so far.
I can't say whether or not this is the most cost effective way to create new technology, but of all the things that my tax dollars go to support, NASA is one of the ones I resent the least.
Alternatively, you could look at this as the Open Source community's attempt to use Microsoft's own "embrace and extend" philosopy against them. Microsoft will be using its considerable resources to push this forward. Whether you like it or not, .NET will probably be a significant technology that we'll be dealing with for a long time to come. If an open-source "variation on the theme" can be created, I'm all for it.
BTW, I've had the opportunity to see Tony Goodhew speak. He's an impressive individual who really seems to know his stuff. While de Icaza and van den Beld seem to be dismissing his warning about licensing problems, I hope that they take the issue seriously.
The real tragedy of Napster is that we may never again have such easy access to the more obscure music that isn't currently "in print." In its heyday, Napster helped introduce me to some old jazz and blues recordings that I would never have been able to find in a record store.
Unfortunately, the court cases surrounding Napster have poisened the well to such an extent that I doubt that we'll ever see an "all music ever created" service again at any price.
"So in other words, don't drop it anywhere you wouldn't normally drop a regular hard drive."
With a device that is designed for mobility, I want a little bit better (although you can be sure that I'm pretty darn careful with my camera for the sake of the lenses if nothing else).
For me, I want it to be roughly as durable as my cell phone. Sure, I could break it if I tried hard enough, but it has held up fine to the usual assortment of mishaps that you can expect if you carry it with you at all times (falls to the pavement when I open the car door, dropped it on the kitchen floor when carrying too many groceries into the house in one trip, etc.)
I have a Casio digital camera and use a 340 Meg IBM Microdrive in it, and its great to have that kind of capacity. The problem has been reliability - I've already had to have it replaced under warranty once after only a few months of use under gentle conditions.
:-)
The article talks about carrying these new drives around "in a shirt pocket," but I'd like to see some data on reliability before spending too much money on one.
Having said that, I still want one
The key point: you can open source anything you want, but you shouldn't be able to force other people to open source their creations. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both Open Source software development and copyright protection.
"Linux appliances don't seem to be the sure-sell that everyone thought they would be."
Remember how many different companies made automobiles in the dawn of the auto industry? How many of those are left? I still think that "Internet appliances" (whether based on Linux or some other OS) will become a big industry, but don't be surprised to see the demise most companies that try to enter this market.
Not everybody gets to be Ford or GM.
A few years ago, I went to work for a small company as a "jack of all trades" network admin. Closing the open relay on one of the mail servers was pretty low on my priority list - I had a lot of other things to look at (like the web servers) and wasn't even aware that we had an open relay.
Well, once we started getting blocked I had to track down the problem when some of our clients couldn't receive email from us. The end result was that I migrated us to a qmail based system (great mail server) and learned a bit about controlling SPAM. Admittedly, at the time it was a royal pain, but looking back I see the utility of their system. It took a couple of days to resolve, but the whole process had the desired effect - we closed our open relay.
I understand the reasons its going commercial, but I think that they will marginalize themselves as a result. All in all, I think that's a shame.
It looks to me like the court made a serious attempt to balance two competing but legitimate interests.
We should always keep in mind that what we generally call the "right of free speech" is really the right to be free from prior restraint, not the right to be free of the consequences of what we say. It should be possible, but not easy, to breach the "veil of anonymity" and hold people accountable under some circumstances.
Remember - words matter. They do have an effect. If they didn't, then we wouldn't need to worry about free speach.