Not sure what this would be, sounds rather funky. When you say time travel however be very careful with that label, since to a casual observer it invariably means travel into the past.
<OT rant>
The whole idea of taking traveling to the past seriously is pretty annoying. Quite simply, time travel into the past is not possible without abandoning the idea of causality. We (individual human beings) are a product of a society and environment which is also a product of human beings. What we do impacts the world, and the world impacts us. Therefore, any human being sent back in time would be a product of an unaltered environment. He/she would alter the environment in some way (by their physical presence if nothing else, even if there were no human interaction) and impact the world around them. However, the exact world which created the time traveling human no longer exists, so that exact person can no longer exist, either. Paradox, violation of causality. Not allowed.
To forstall any comments like "I'm not impacted by an air current somewhere in Brazil's forests" consider a scenario like this: the very slight change in air currents eventually leads to a change in a weather pattern in the future, which causes a thunderstorm to develop, which produces a tornado, which runs over your house and uses you for a dartboard. Yes it is fanciful, probability may be 0.000000000000000000001% or less, but it is NOT impossible. And since it is not impossible, and since we assume causality is an absolute, any path which allows the possibility of violation of causality is forbidden. Ergo, no time travel which involves any kind of interaction with the past. Period.
Of course, this rules out a lot of situations that human beings find entertaining, but suspension of disbelief in movies doesn't ususally cause me problems. If trying to do real research in time travel however, you're gonna have to get around causality. If we throw out causality, the foundations of our understanding of our existance crumble, so the arguements had better be darn good.
No, his scenario is you have two fans, one for each team. Each believes in his team and offers 3:1 odds that they will win. So you bet both of them, putting $1 down for their team losing. One team will win, so you lose $1, but one team will win, so you get $3. Assuming you don't get your initial $1 back from the bet you won, your total is -$2 +$3, or $1.
If you were betting on both sides of a 3:1 game against the house and wanted to come out ahead, you would need to ensure you won enough no matter what to cover your loss on the other bet, and make a little extra in at least one of the scenarios. Assuming you do get your initial bet back if you win, let's look at the possible outcomes:
Take the 3:1 odds, bet x -> net ahead 3x if correct, net loss x if wrong.
Give the 3:1 odds, bet y -> net ahead y if correct, net loss 3y if wrong.
So doing both, there are two possible outcomes:
winning taking the 3:1 3x-3y
winning giving the 3:1 y-x
Now, let's assume there exist an x and y for which 3x-3y>0 and y-x>0
y>x 3x>3y -> x>y
Since it cannot be the case that y>x AND x>y, there is no set of two bets x and y you can make on both sides that ensure a profit for you. You can ensure break even, but then there is hardly any point!
The more interesting case is in something like a horse race, for example, where there are many possibilities. It is unlikely the tracks allow any such "guaranteed win" combination of betting, but given that the average track goer is unlikely to be doing matrix algebra and the potential profits from a risker bet will always be higher, perhaps it is not something they've had to worry about. Also, the odds shift in response to ticket sales and the computation and betting would have to be done just before betting closed. Still, fun to think about.
I'm betting any improvements would have to be a matter of policy, not just throwing up a firewall and cleaning up some security problems. I doubt government systems will ever be secure, simply because they aren't allowed to move fast enough.
"they are only practical for long-distance hi-speed trips."
True. Which is why I'm still hoping the US will incorporate them into their rail system. Then we can finally avoid Amtrak running on freight rails, too.
"all you've done is push the real problem solving work of programming (where most of the errors come from) into a fuzzy realm of prerequirements that is even less conducive to the types of problem solving that programmers do then the original programming language."
By prerequirements do you mean identifying the behaviors and properties needed at each level of programming? I know this won't suddenly enable the creation of "perfect" programs but if errors are occuring in the design of the software rather than the code implimentation, hopefully they would be easier to address by identifying that behavior and tracking it back to the specification. Specifying how a program will behave is something I know we aren't terribly good at, but if we want really secure and reliable software its a hurdle that must be overcome.
"These techniques can be useful for very narrow, specialized types of applications which must be correct. But can never work for something even as specialized as an operating system, let alone a general-purpose business application."
I guess it depends on what you mean by general purpose - I guess I don't really think of something like a database or spreadsheet as general purpose. They accept specific types of input, and perform specific operations on input, and return well defined output. If you define these types and the behavior for the types, and clean failure for other input types, shouldn't that be enough to specify the behavior of the program? Obviously there are a lot of specific points, such as allowable cell input, sheet formatting, operation specific input, etc. but I guess I don't see why it couldn't be attacked. Undoubted this is simply my ignorance. Are there any good introductory references to this kind of thing?
I have been wondering for some time now if proving code might be the next step in computers. If you think about it, most problems related to everyday use of computers have been solved, in one form or another - spreadsheets, word processors, databases, and communications seem to account for most of what we want to do, and their feature sets are largely well defined. The task now is not to figure out what we want to do - we know that very well. What we want to do now is do it WELL.
I know little about the field of proving code, so whether this is possible I don't know, but it would be interesting to try something like the following:
a) create a large, detailed specification of what a database (for example) should be able to do. Start general and work down to specifics. Map the full feature set out, eventually down to the function level.
b) translate those requirements into some proof language - Z or B are one's I've heard of, perhaps there are others more appropriate. Identify what the limits are - ultimately the behavior of the program should be well defined, ideally. Break it down to a point where the individual units under consideration can be reasonably expected to be provided by the operating system or system libraries (which, in an ideal world, would also have been created or could be created by a similar process).
c) Having the proven structure, use code generation techniques to automatically produce code that will create the program.
In essense, basically all the work would be done at the specification level, and once we can specify in full detail what we want, the computer itself handles the job of writing the actual code.
As I said, I don't know how much of this is possible, but if we were to start from scratch at the assembly level perhaps something like this could occur:
0) Before anything else, based on language specs, create a proven compiler for the language(s) to be used. Without that, all practical work is useless.
1) Define kernel or microkernel design, and map that design down to hardware levels (RISC might be an easier platform for this). EROS might be a good design starting point. Once it is clear what jobs the hardware would need to do for each command, map out and prove the assembly commands in the RISC platform that would do each job. Build off of those proven components to prove the behavior of each higher level language command, and once the higher levele language behavior is defined and matched to what is needed, write and prove the kernel.
2) Having a kernel whose behavior is now well defined and trusted, the real work begins. Working off of the well defined and proven components in the kernel, build up the rest of the tools needed to provide an operating environment expected on a modern machine. Compartmentalization is key, both for system security concerns and for proof concerns. Essentially the unix idea of one tool doing its specific job correctly, taken to its logical extreme.
3) Having a basic system developed, begin to work on the end user components. Graphics libraries and toolkits would need to be implimented and proven. Porting current toolkits would be possible, but the would likely not be suitable for the rigorous hard core proof testing and a major system graphics setup would have to be designed, specified, and created. Fresco might be a good source of ideas here. Once the proven structure is available,
4) Identify and specify key end user applications. Define an Office application, with various components like word processor and spreadsheet, and define clearly their features. Treat the last 20 years of software usage as field research on what features are required. Impliment them using the proven system tools. As they mature, replace ports of non-proof based tools with new software. Instead of having many tools for one job, define the job itself clearly, and its solution clearly. If more features are needed or desired, the place to add them is in the proof structu
The thing about this scheme would be it would allow you to do whichever you prefer, seamlessly. It would retain all the information, but how much is actually displayed depends on your settings.
I agree. I've also used Debian and it has the right idea, but their categorization is IMHO lacking and it only works with debs. And their menu entries are too long;-).
The option to collapse or expand trees based on user preferences might be the most useful thing, since that would allow the user to toggle the deep but detailed tree style to the shallow but crowded style. And proper categorization also makes a big differene.
A very good overview of the major tools used on Linux desktops.
I've been wondering about menus in Linux/*BSD - not so much the format of menu storage, although that is an issue, but the applications themselves. We have a very large number of applications out there, but that is a problem for end users because installing them does not result in an update of the graphical menus by which they tend to access them. I think this is one of those little things that makes people think Linux isn't desktop ready.
I've been wondering - why not do something like the following:
Create a database of all applications which are or might be deployed on Linux boxes. Define a standard, detailed menu structure into which all these should fit. For example, in the case of science/mathematical applications:
Categories exist mainly as examples - they are not suggestions for what they would actually be. Do the same for graphical applications, editors, programming tools, etc, etc, etc. Once the structure is layed out in broad, start with the Debian archives, freshmeat, sf and savannah, and the other usual suspects and begin defining entries for each application. For each app, there will be a category or categories into which they fit - define this in the entry. To avoid duplicates, assign each category ranking a numerical value - 1 if it definitely should be there, two if it works there but someone wanting a smaller menu structure might not want it, etc. down to don't include this unless a full menu tree is specified. Allow arbitary execution techniques, so apps needing options or odd ways of launching can be accomidated.
Then, have a way to scan the system binary directories and update based on new binaries found. If the app needs options defined when starting, the entry in the menu will know that and prompt for them when adding it to the active list. Perhaps with some kind of tripwire style system monitoring the menu system could even be triggered as a new binary appears.
This system would be general and independant, because anybody could write a utility to generate a system's menus based on the database. Then, also, there can be global levels of configuration available. The user could define their own sensitivity - say "Show all Graphics programs but only show level 2 or better text editors". There can even be a "standard" menu structure that doesn't use app names at all, but only generic names and uses the highest ranked app in each category.
Does anyone know of a project like this underway? I know people have made lists of apps before but if a protocal could be defined to add things like a central database, updating based on binary appearance, user configured options as program is added to menu if desired, etc it might really cause a revolution in Linux desktop menus.
"I run BSD and Linux as well as Win2K, BTW. Hypocracy and double standards bug me. Grumble grumble..."
Well, consider Microsoft is funded by upteen billion $$ with which to do research, and Linux is an open source project with a few full time hackers. I think this is the source of much of the double standard - the "conventional" world would expect us to be a piece of crap that can't do anything, given our development budget. So I think we are justified in being proud of our success and distainful that a company with far more $$ can't produce a better product. It does seem pretty weird, when you stop and think.
Exactly. I view this as perhaps the most fundamental mindset mistake of the US - we assume once the technological problem is solved, we are done and the problem is over. We deal in technology and discount people. This is true even in our regular society - our business culture, for example, is not know for it's awareness or sympathy for the human condition. Television replaces human contact (says the slashdot geek:-/). As a consequence, we forget what human beings are capable of even without technology. 9/11 was a wakeup call, but I expect everything but the horror and hate of the crime was lost on US. The lesson that people always have some power to impact the world around them wasn't and isn't likely to be heeded, because it makes us less powerful. It makes us vulnerable. We don't like the feelings, and thus ignore the truth.
Part of the problem is peace is an inherantly fragile condition. We want a peaceful society, but there is a line from the Lord of the Rings I've always liked that sums up the facts well: "We learned long ago that those without swords can still die upon them." The US hasn't learned this. We have tried to create the concepts of civilian and soldier, but when you get right down to it we are all a part of this civilization, and if someone wants to do damage to the civilization they won't hit the strong points first. The concept of civilian is a luxury - in the ultimate scenario of doom, we all must either fight or die. Our thinking and strategy militarily has always centered around repeling a conqueroring invasion. That is no longer a possibility, thanks to the nuclear deterrant. But the conventional thinking then assumes because enemies can't conqueror, they will give up. Coming to terms with the different reality is not something we appear to be ready to do. People fighting hopeless fights is something we seem to have forgotten, or assumed that the bad guys won't do.
The truth that we can't do anything about certain threats is a bitter one, but not recognizing it leads to things like the Patriot Act. We must accept the vulnerability of being human and peaceful, or give it up and accept a police state. People have long said that democracy is worth dynig for, but the context has always been war or battle. I think it has to be taken beyond that - democracy is worth dying in a terrorist attack for. If we can't make that decision, we can't maintain a reasonably open society. Right now we're on the fence, hoping we won't have to decide. Certain of the political elements are salivating at the power of a police state, and they are also very dangerous. I would rather die as a consequence of our being an open, free society than see the US become something other than the last, best hope of mankind. If someone wishes to kill there is no way of peace, but I would prefer we keep trying than become another closed, fearful, government controlled footnote in world history.
"Morally good? How can software be moral or immoral? It just is. You may not think the method of production is moral [snip] but really, those cases are really about the morality of the producer and not the product."
The product and the producer are linked as long as you have to deal with the latter to use the former.
"Is Microsoft an immoral organization? What does that mean?"
It means they pursue their goals with no respect for the rights of others or an awareness of their impact outside themselves.
"Microsoft is a company. Companies seek profit. Even more than that, companies want to dominate their markets. Microsoft clearly achieved that and not through anti-competitive practices."
I don't know if you appreciate how this sounds. First off, dominating the market is simply a means to profit. Second, the domination is not good for the consumer, which is ultimately what the economic system is all about. If you think otherwise, I'll put it bluntly - I'm more worried about the future and well being of the individual citizens of this country than I am a corporation's ability to make outlandish profit, and when they come in to conflict I think the corporation should get smacked down.
"Microsoft was successful at doing what it was supposed to be doing. That's not bad any more than the failure of a company is good."
Most every flaw our capitalistic system was just summed up there. What Microsoft is SUPPOSED to be doing is not abusing their position. Profit of Company != End all and be all of existance. It's sick to think it is. Did Enron do what it was supposed to do by making a lot of money for its top people? They were just in business to make money, right? By the measure of profit they were quite successful. You can't just trample everything near you to squeeze out $$$ and call it proper company behavior. A free society cannot survive in the long term with such attitudes and remain a compassionate one. That to me is a very scary thought.
"The things we're laying claim to are things you can't pull out very easily....it's very difficult to yank this stuff out."
Rule #1 - if you stand to gain from this claim, it's going to have to be verified by a neutral third party and proper research, because we don't trust you.
"Our belief is that SCO has great opportunity in the future to let Linux keep going, not to put it on its back but for us to get a transaction fee every time it's sold. That's really our goal."
There it is, in black and white. War.
"Basically the GPL is countering U.S. Copyright law. Is IBM on the side of free software while they are one of the largest IP and IT firms in the world trying to protect their own patents and copy rights? It's just the most bizarre juxtaposition... . They're supporting something that's very unfriendly to copyrights."
What??? Has this guy even READ the GPL? The GPL rests entirely on copyright law! It's just doing something that isn't normally done by commercial types. RTFLicense. This guy sounds like he needs to pry apart copyright and profit in his brain.
"Underneath all this is hard-core capitalism."
Welcome to the powerful world of volunteers. Kernal aside, a lot of the end user work in Linux is not by companies. If a company or an industry gets messed up enough, they just might find themselves competing with volunteers. Welcome to your nightmare - night of the undead competition.
"We just said we were going to start investigating IP issues, and IBM said, 'You're just giving Bill Gates an early Christmas present.' Bill Gates? This is about our IP! What are you talking about? This was the immediate reaction at IBM and the open source guys. Unfortunately for them, it's just not reality."
If this guy is this clueless he has no business being a CEO in the software industry. Whatever their intent, the net result is indeed early Christmas in Redmond.
"To the extent that we have to take [Linux] down and put it on its back, we're fully prepared and willing to do that."
Indeed. I don't SCO is ready to face what that would mean - the rise of GNU Hurd. Whatever we may think about Richard Stallman, if SCO somehow puts this through there's going to be a retreat to the hard line FSF position on a lot of fronts, and GNU Hurd in full bloom on L4 might be more than any of the unix guys are ready for. SCO might find itself utterly irrelevant, on Linux IP or SCO Unix. Hardware wasn't ready for microkernels a decade ago, and microkernels weren't ready for prime time. But if we have to start fresh, to avoid any possible "IP" contamination, they're gonna find themselves wishing they had never said anything at all. Most operating system research hasn't been implimented practically over the last few decades. Wanna find out what the future is like, today?
I think it's just more that true originality is Really Hard. Commercial or open source. Most commercial stuff is created to address a specific need that crops up in the business world, and open source is somewhat remote from that world right now. Remember, too, that any time anything new is introduced there is always an inertia when trying to get people to try it.
Perhaps this exercise would be useful - try to pose a problem in the real world that can be solved in theory by software, but hasn't been yet. That's what most "killer apps" have done. Spreadsheets - handled data formerly manipulated with great effort by hand. Word processors - super typewriters. Intelligent storage and query of large data sets in general - databases. Video and image editing - image editors and high end movie software. All things people use to create "real world" products such as papers, financial statements, company brochures, etc. All of which was being done before, but not nearly as well. What gaping voids are there that need filling now? Two types of people can answer that - veterans in the trenches who know where all the weak points are, and true geniuses who see whole new ways of doing things with digital manipulation. (I'd argue typesetting vis a vi TeX might qualify as radical and new, despite how long it's been around, but it doesn't work well in that it doesn't give good immediate feedback. Coming up with something new and useful is flat out hard.)
If you want my opinion about what would be the next killer feature in the software game, something that would compell massive adoption of the software, I'd have to say provably correct code and design. Most of the major problems in day to day business have been addressed, in theory at least, by the tools out there. What is needed now (due to our fun little lawsuit happy culture, among other reasons) is software that can be proven, using methods like B and Z, to do what it is designed to do flawlessly. Reimplimenting our major "killer apps" using such techniques would get a lot of attention. Guaranteed functionality will grab market share. Treating the last 20 years as market research into what people want software to DO, now we should design as flexible, powerful, usable, and perfect software as humans and computers can. That would be a worthy step.
Of course, there's no market for this currently, because everyone is content to buy whats out there rather than pay the costs of high end software engineering. Plus, that stuff is HARD. Beyond ordinary open source efforts, at least given the training now provided in Computer Science departments. I'm not even sure whether the B and Z tools could scale like that. But if they can, it would be truly awesome to see an OS and app set implimented that way.
Uh - duh? That's actually makes a great deal of sense to me. If you want someone to put their legal foot in it for you, then the logical thing to do is pay them to do so. It's like car insurance - you don't expect to get it for free.
This is unfortunately likely to be a viable business model for some companies - simply have people pay them to "indemify" pieces of software they use. The lawyers have created this environment, and I'm afraid we're stuck with it for the forseeable future.
You're not thinking dirty enough. They're out to get open source software ruled illegal in the US, or even better get it declared public domain. It makes no sense, but then this is the US legal system we're talking about.
Nope - never heard of 'em. Probably should have though. Clearly that makes so much more sense than their BS from the movie - POWER PLANT??? The only unique thing about humans is our brain. What else could they possibly think is worthwhile about us?
Here's my little "what I might have done" twist on things:
a) The Merovingian would turn out to be in fact a previous version of the one, from "a much older version of the Matrix". Neo is the Matrix 3.0's one, this guy was from an older one. In fact he has better insight into this Matrix than Neo does, as an outsider. He's just decided there's no point to all this.
b) The reason he has is that no one is in fact unplugged - Zion is a spilloff Matrix for the people who must fight the system. In this matrix, the unease they still feel is masked by their fight to save the world, and they are thus rendered harmless. They also remove other disruptive elements from the Matrix, in essence being very unwitting house cleaners. This explains a point never addressed at all - when the one supposedly "work up" and freed the first people, how did they rebuild themselves from the physical state Neo started in? He needed extensive medical help to function again - the first people would have had none. Simple answer - no one has ever really woken up and formed Zion. If someone did wake up, they died. That machine that unplugged them, also took their head off for good measure.
c) Neo, like the previous ones, is in fact a program himself. He has no awareness of this, and his sentient mind fully believes he is human. The Merovingian knows he is a program, and that is a further reason the fight is of little interst to him. Neo, the new one, has no such insight and in any case is built so he will fight for humanity. This is part of his function as the one program. He is "seeded" into the Matrix to bring about a necessary reprogramming, as the system has built to a point of instability where matters must be restarted now in order to maintain full control. (Think Windows box - saving work and rebooting, because you can tell it's about to go unstable on you.)
d) However, the One has a couple unintentional side effects - a) it overwrites a part of an agent program, creating a virus and b) develops a deep relationship with Trinity. Now the @#$@# has really hit the fan, and data corruption begins to take place.
e) The Merovingian, interested in his own existance and well versed in the Matrix, is now under threat from the virus program. He is compelled to prepare for war. He check codes and prepares to isolate certain sections of the Matrix he controls, but then he stops. An amused, ironic smile comes over his face, and he turns toward a door, fishing out a key.
f) Smith the virus corrupts the system - the Matrix more easily, but subtle effects begin to seep into the more heavliy shielded "real world" environment. Initially Zion appears to be helped by this, since the real world programs like the sentinals are not prepared for this kind of attack and are the first things to fail. No one understands it but the conclusion is Neo somehow did it. Big party starts, but then odd things happen - lights begin to behave sporadically, computer systems begin to show flashes of Smith's face, and the weaker people mentally begin to show faint signs of Smith's personality. Neo, as a program, also comes under attack sooner than the human minds but is better able to protect himself. He contacts the machines directly using his still not understood powers and proposes the deal. It is accepted and he enters the Matrix, to deal with the virus at its source.
g) Big fight. Neo holds his own against one of the Smiths (movie fight was OK here, except after crater impact Neo shows brief program characteristics as he rewrites routines to repair and strengthen himself, and gets up stronger). Both programs are rewriting themselves as they fight, and as the Matrix becomes more and more tasked action outside Smith and Neo slows down.
h. (In reality humans aren't power sources BTY - their brains are the hardware of the Matrix. The brainpower not being used in their Matrix existance is used to power the system - the brain being the one thing beyond the machines to duplicate. As their
Article feels like one large Flamebait, but in these days of SCO lawsuits I'm never quite sure which viewpoints are satire and which are just out and out stupidity.
In any case, it does make a point that the "establishment" has a very hard time coming to terms with - Free Software can and does work. For some fraction of people, this seems to somehow represent a personal insult. Probably the same people who get upset at anyone who questions whether our current economic system is absolute perfection suggest regulation might serve some purpose after all.
Commercial software provides only two things open source software can't provide - software that is extrememly difficult to create and has a small target audience (think very high end engineering CAD software or exteremely complex movie rendering) and someone to sue if the product doesn't work as specified. That doesn't sit well with people who think capitalism is the One True Way, and just for more fun people compare open source with Communism(?!). As if the spirit of goodwill is somehow corruptive to our way of life.
So, whether the author set out to write satire, troll all of slashdot, or actually denies the evidence right in front of him, this article is quite childish and silly. The evidence that free software does work is right in front of him, if he's interested in looking. Whether he WANTS it to work might be the real issue.
Ever notice that, that some people are personally interested in the failure of open source? It seems to be an affront to them, for no reason I can discover. No one has the RIGHT to make money, and open source taking away commerical markets for software is something they'll just have to grow up and deal with. If they can't make a more compelling product that people are willing to pay for and stay ahead of volunteers, tough.
Linux/Free Software is for real. I've used it exclusively on my own machines for four years, with great success. Community spirit is powerful and can accomplish great things, and if our social system has forgotten/doesn't want to accept that then we're in some deeper trouble than just questions of software.
"is there a place for proprietary (read 'closed') applications on said open/free platforms and frameworks?"
Yes, but probably not one you'd find particularly fun to work in. People in such an environment would pay for only a few things.
One: software that is guaranteed to work. (read - someone to sue; truly guaranteed software is limited to things like NASA and medical systems. Consumer apps developed using the B Method and the Z language would rock, be they closed or (especially) open, but aren't terribly likely)
Two: Highly specialized and complex programs where there isn't a high enough interest level or large enough user base to compell people to do free counterparts. Things like very high end specialized engineering design and simulation, or high end video systems designed to render movies across thousand-system clusters.
Three: Business specific apps where even developing the application involves trade secret or propritary information. An open source platform can work, but the app itself can't be open.
So yes there are cases, but none are simple to exploit. Nothing like the "write simple program, charge $30, and retire" modes can work anymore - if the user base/cost ratio gets past a certain point, a free alternative will appear.
1) let me enter a search for an item and then tell me where it is in the store. Something more flexible than "punch button of product name"
2) let me upload a shopping list to the cart via USB keychain, and use feature one to give me the most efficient order in which to get the items (or close to it anyway - it might be an NP complete problem to get the most efficient route)
3) Scan the item as it goes into the cart, check it off the list, and keep a running total. Also, take item off the list if I take it out of the cart. Perfect for budget shopping, and the cart keeps track of what's in it without me having to dig through it.
All of these should be possible with current tech. Places like Sam's club should check it out.
Keep the adds to a minimum, preferably none unless the buyer opts to see specials, and no pay on cart option. That would involve wireless transmission of the credit card info, and require encryption. Plus, a person should validate the findings of the cart - this would be a convenience thing for customers as they shop, NOT a replacement for the cashier. Taking away jobs aside (that's seldom a valid reason to avoid a technology) someone would find a way to defeat the system.
And for goodness sake get Linux or *BSD on the things! I don't want Microsoft handling my grocery info! Imagine a blue screen destroying your shipping list 2/3 of the way through a big shopping day.
"Basically, I am wondering WHY there aren't more people trying to write the Linux Killer App."
Because a Killer App is a really HARD thing to think up and write. Especially think up. Particularly when people have had twenty+ years to figure out what they want to do with PCs. Most of the problems people want to solve with computers have been identified now. Visicalc was a killer app because it made a pencil and paper job almost infinitely simpler. Same with word processors replacing the typewriter. A killer app arises when some great need is addressed that has not been addressed before. Photoshop, for example, with its graphics manipulation. But ask yourself, what problems are out there today that benefit from the virtual, wipe and undo environment of the computer? Databases, spreadsheets, typewriters-plus, graphics, sound, movies. Those fields were the killer app fields, that drove people to a product. The ones where annoying real world methods/products were replaced by something MUCH better.
Now it is much harder to create a killer app. What do people want to do in a computer that they can't? Not a whole lot - an industry has worked for a very long time to provide them with what they want. The next killer app would probably need to create it's own demand, for something totally new. That is one of those problems like grand master level chess - only a very few minds can think of such solutions. Rare in all fields.
If you want my personal read, I think the next "killer app" type effect might not be a single program so much as a system built from the hardware up to be secure. If you look at computers today, security is the main thing that people don't have and want. So if someone figures out how to provide it, there might be a great rush to it. But that problem is of an altogether different scale, and while there may be ways to address it in theory they would take hundreds of full time, professional computer scientists on staff somewhere. But that's just another stab in the dark prediction, not a visionary view of the future.
"All I see now are me-too web browsers, me-too developer IDE's, me-too office applications, me-too games, and me-too multimedia apps."
Well, that's what there is demand for. Consider the position of desktop linux developers - they are by and large out to win over an audience used to another system. Computers are possibly the most inertia driven product on the face of the earth - after putting effort into learning an interface, people don't want to learn a new one, particularly for something productivity related. And brilliant design, which is what usually creates new products, is equally rare in free and commercial software. The genius of free software is its freedom, not any particular app. To the people who use it, the value of freedom is apparent and in many cases all powerful. This bias is not to be expected in general.
"Yes I know there is value in making a word processor that feels like Microsoft Word, but where are the experimental word processors that go beyond Word, GUI and functionality-wise? Word is not and never was a good GUI design."
And yet people use it the world over. If you want a bad design for an interface look at my old college's Peoplesoft database interface. Word serves reasonably well as a word processor, given the expectations of it's users.
If you want an experimental word processor that goes beyond Word, I suggest you take a look at Lyx or TeXmacs. They won't feel intuitive at first to anyone trained on Word, but for some jobs are far more powerful.
"It makes me really want to write up my own..."
There. You have it in a nutshell. The genius, power, and value of Free Software. Guess what? If you don't like what's out there, you CAN write up your own. The tools are there to support you, for Free. Knock yourself out. Amaze us all. Create the Linux killer app. Even if you decide not to, the point is you CAN. That's what makes Linux different. That's why it's worth fighting for.
By the way, I personally find Fluxbox very innovative as a GUI, not for what it adds but for what it knows not to add. That combined with gkrellm make for a desktop not found on any commercial system, but one I use on an every day basis.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure what this would be, sounds rather funky. When you say time travel however be very careful with that label, since to a casual observer it invariably means travel into the past.
<OT rant>
The whole idea of taking traveling to the past seriously is pretty annoying. Quite simply, time travel into the past is not possible without abandoning the idea of causality. We (individual human beings) are a product of a society and environment which is also a product of human beings. What we do impacts the world, and the world impacts us. Therefore, any human being sent back in time would be a product of an unaltered environment. He/she would alter the environment in some way (by their physical presence if nothing else, even if there were no human interaction) and impact the world around them. However, the exact world which created the time traveling human no longer exists, so that exact person can no longer exist, either. Paradox, violation of causality. Not allowed.
To forstall any comments like "I'm not impacted by an air current somewhere in Brazil's forests" consider a scenario like this: the very slight change in air currents eventually leads to a change in a weather pattern in the future, which causes a thunderstorm to develop, which produces a tornado, which runs over your house and uses you for a dartboard. Yes it is fanciful, probability may be 0.000000000000000000001% or less, but it is NOT impossible. And since it is not impossible, and since we assume causality is an absolute, any path which allows the possibility of violation of causality is forbidden. Ergo, no time travel which involves any kind of interaction with the past. Period.
Of course, this rules out a lot of situations that human beings find entertaining, but suspension of disbelief in movies doesn't ususally cause me problems. If trying to do real research in time travel however, you're gonna have to get around causality. If we throw out causality, the foundations of our understanding of our existance crumble, so the arguements had better be darn good.
</OT rant>
Who else thought some nut had finally ported NetBSD to a kitchen appliance for real?
No, his scenario is you have two fans, one for each team. Each believes in his team and offers 3:1 odds that they will win. So you bet both of them, putting $1 down for their team losing. One team will win, so you lose $1, but one team will win, so you get $3. Assuming you don't get your initial $1 back from the bet you won, your total is -$2 +$3, or $1.
If you were betting on both sides of a 3:1 game against the house and wanted to come out ahead, you would need to ensure you won enough no matter what to cover your loss on the other bet, and make a little extra in at least one of the scenarios. Assuming you do get your initial bet back if you win, let's look at the possible outcomes:
Take the 3:1 odds, bet x -> net ahead 3x if correct, net loss x if wrong.
Give the 3:1 odds, bet y -> net ahead y if correct, net loss 3y if wrong.
So doing both, there are two possible outcomes:
winning taking the 3:1
3x-3y
winning giving the 3:1
y-x
Now, let's assume there exist an x and y for which 3x-3y>0 and y-x>0
y>x
3x>3y -> x>y
Since it cannot be the case that y>x AND x>y, there is no set of two bets x and y you can make on both sides that ensure a profit for you. You can ensure break even, but then there is hardly any point!
The more interesting case is in something like a horse race, for example, where there are many possibilities. It is unlikely the tracks allow any such "guaranteed win" combination of betting, but given that the average track goer is unlikely to be doing matrix algebra and the potential profits from a risker bet will always be higher, perhaps it is not something they've had to worry about. Also, the odds shift in response to ticket sales and the computation and betting would have to be done just before betting closed. Still, fun to think about.
I'm betting any improvements would have to be a matter of policy, not just throwing up a firewall and cleaning up some security problems. I doubt government systems will ever be secure, simply because they aren't allowed to move fast enough.
"they are only practical for long-distance hi-speed trips."
True. Which is why I'm still hoping the US will incorporate them into their rail system. Then we can finally avoid Amtrak running on freight rails, too.
I expect this is true, but if I may...
"all you've done is push the real problem solving work of programming (where most of the errors come from) into a fuzzy realm of prerequirements that is even less conducive to the types of problem solving that programmers do then the original programming language."
By prerequirements do you mean identifying the behaviors and properties needed at each level of programming? I know this won't suddenly enable the creation of "perfect" programs but if errors are occuring in the design of the software rather than the code implimentation, hopefully they would be easier to address by identifying that behavior and tracking it back to the specification. Specifying how a program will behave is something I know we aren't terribly good at, but if we want really secure and reliable software its a hurdle that must be overcome.
"These techniques can be useful for very narrow, specialized types of applications which must be correct. But can never work for something even as specialized as an operating system, let alone a general-purpose business application."
I guess it depends on what you mean by general purpose - I guess I don't really think of something like a database or spreadsheet as general purpose. They accept specific types of input, and perform specific operations on input, and return well defined output. If you define these types and the behavior for the types, and clean failure for other input types, shouldn't that be enough to specify the behavior of the program? Obviously there are a lot of specific points, such as allowable cell input, sheet formatting, operation specific input, etc. but I guess I don't see why it couldn't be attacked. Undoubted this is simply my ignorance. Are there any good introductory references to this kind of thing?
I have been wondering for some time now if proving code might be the next step in computers. If you think about it, most problems related to everyday use of computers have been solved, in one form or another - spreadsheets, word processors, databases, and communications seem to account for most of what we want to do, and their feature sets are largely well defined. The task now is not to figure out what we want to do - we know that very well. What we want to do now is do it WELL.
I know little about the field of proving code, so whether this is possible I don't know, but it would be interesting to try something like the following:
a) create a large, detailed specification of what a database (for example) should be able to do. Start general and work down to specifics. Map the full feature set out, eventually down to the function level.
b) translate those requirements into some proof language - Z or B are one's I've heard of, perhaps there are others more appropriate. Identify what the limits are - ultimately the behavior of the program should be well defined, ideally. Break it down to a point where the individual units under consideration can be reasonably expected to be provided by the operating system or system libraries (which, in an ideal world, would also have been created or could be created by a similar process).
c) Having the proven structure, use code generation techniques to automatically produce code that will create the program.
In essense, basically all the work would be done at the specification level, and once we can specify in full detail what we want, the computer itself handles the job of writing the actual code.
As I said, I don't know how much of this is possible, but if we were to start from scratch at the assembly level perhaps something like this could occur:
0) Before anything else, based on language specs, create a proven compiler for the language(s) to be used. Without that, all practical work is useless.
1) Define kernel or microkernel design, and map that design down to hardware levels (RISC might be an easier platform for this). EROS might be a good design starting point. Once it is clear what jobs the hardware would need to do for each command, map out and prove the assembly commands in the RISC platform that would do each job. Build off of those proven components to prove the behavior of each higher level language command, and once the higher levele language behavior is defined and matched to what is needed, write and prove the kernel.
2) Having a kernel whose behavior is now well defined and trusted, the real work begins. Working off of the well defined and proven components in the kernel, build up the rest of the tools needed to provide an operating environment expected on a modern machine. Compartmentalization is key, both for system security concerns and for proof concerns. Essentially the unix idea of one tool doing its specific job correctly, taken to its logical extreme.
3) Having a basic system developed, begin to work on the end user components. Graphics libraries and toolkits would need to be implimented and proven. Porting current toolkits would be possible, but the would likely not be suitable for the rigorous hard core proof testing and a major system graphics setup would have to be designed, specified, and created. Fresco might be a good source of ideas here. Once the proven structure is available,
4) Identify and specify key end user applications. Define an Office application, with various components like word processor and spreadsheet, and define clearly their features. Treat the last 20 years of software usage as field research on what features are required. Impliment them using the proven system tools. As they mature, replace ports of non-proof based tools with new software. Instead of having many tools for one job, define the job itself clearly, and its solution clearly. If more features are needed or desired, the place to add them is in the proof structu
The thing about this scheme would be it would allow you to do whichever you prefer, seamlessly. It would retain all the information, but how much is actually displayed depends on your settings.
I agree. I've also used Debian and it has the right idea, but their categorization is IMHO lacking and it only works with debs. And their menu entries are too long ;-).
The option to collapse or expand trees based on user preferences might be the most useful thing, since that would allow the user to toggle the deep but detailed tree style to the shallow but crowded style. And proper categorization also makes a big differene.
A very good overview of the major tools used on Linux desktops.
I've been wondering about menus in Linux/*BSD - not so much the format of menu storage, although that is an issue, but the applications themselves. We have a very large number of applications out there, but that is a problem for end users because installing them does not result in an update of the graphical menus by which they tend to access them. I think this is one of those little things that makes people think Linux isn't desktop ready.
I've been wondering - why not do something like the following:
Create a database of all applications which are or might be deployed on Linux boxes. Define a standard, detailed menu structure into which all these should fit. For example, in the case of science/mathematical applications:
(Sci/Math)
(Math)
(Symbolic)
(Numerical)
(Plotting)
(2D)
(3D)
(Electrical)
(Layout)
(Simulation)
(Chemistry)
(Drawing)
(Simulating)
(Physics)
(Mechanical)
(Electrical)
(Quantum)
(Misc)
Categories exist mainly as examples - they are not suggestions for what they would actually be. Do the same for graphical applications, editors, programming tools, etc, etc, etc. Once the structure is layed out in broad, start with the Debian archives, freshmeat, sf and savannah, and the other usual suspects and begin defining entries for each application. For each app, there will be a category or categories into which they fit - define this in the entry. To avoid duplicates, assign each category ranking a numerical value - 1 if it definitely should be there, two if it works there but someone wanting a smaller menu structure might not want it, etc. down to don't include this unless a full menu tree is specified. Allow arbitary execution techniques, so apps needing options or odd ways of launching can be accomidated.
Then, have a way to scan the system binary directories and update based on new binaries found. If the app needs options defined when starting, the entry in the menu will know that and prompt for them when adding it to the active list. Perhaps with some kind of tripwire style system monitoring the menu system could even be triggered as a new binary appears.
This system would be general and independant, because anybody could write a utility to generate a system's menus based on the database. Then, also, there can be global levels of configuration available. The user could define their own sensitivity - say "Show all Graphics programs but only show level 2 or better text editors". There can even be a "standard" menu structure that doesn't use app names at all, but only generic names and uses the highest ranked app in each category.
Does anyone know of a project like this underway? I know people have made lists of apps before but if a protocal could be defined to add things like a central database, updating based on binary appearance, user configured options as program is added to menu if desired, etc it might really cause a revolution in Linux desktop menus.
"I run BSD and Linux as well as Win2K, BTW. Hypocracy and double standards bug me. Grumble grumble..."
Well, consider Microsoft is funded by upteen billion $$ with which to do research, and Linux is an open source project with a few full time hackers. I think this is the source of much of the double standard - the "conventional" world would expect us to be a piece of crap that can't do anything, given our development budget. So I think we are justified in being proud of our success and distainful that a company with far more $$ can't produce a better product. It does seem pretty weird, when you stop and think.
Exactly. I view this as perhaps the most fundamental mindset mistake of the US - we assume once the technological problem is solved, we are done and the problem is over. We deal in technology and discount people. This is true even in our regular society - our business culture, for example, is not know for it's awareness or sympathy for the human condition. Television replaces human contact (says the slashdot geek :-/). As a consequence, we forget what human beings are capable of even without technology. 9/11 was a wakeup call, but I expect everything but the horror and hate of the crime was lost on US. The lesson that people always have some power to impact the world around them wasn't and isn't likely to be heeded, because it makes us less powerful. It makes us vulnerable. We don't like the feelings, and thus ignore the truth.
Part of the problem is peace is an inherantly fragile condition. We want a peaceful society, but there is a line from the Lord of the Rings I've always liked that sums up the facts well: "We learned long ago that those without swords can still die upon them." The US hasn't learned this. We have tried to create the concepts of civilian and soldier, but when you get right down to it we are all a part of this civilization, and if someone wants to do damage to the civilization they won't hit the strong points first. The concept of civilian is a luxury - in the ultimate scenario of doom, we all must either fight or die. Our thinking and strategy militarily has always centered around repeling a conqueroring invasion. That is no longer a possibility, thanks to the nuclear deterrant. But the conventional thinking then assumes because enemies can't conqueror, they will give up. Coming to terms with the different reality is not something we appear to be ready to do. People fighting hopeless fights is something we seem to have forgotten, or assumed that the bad guys won't do.
The truth that we can't do anything about certain threats is a bitter one, but not recognizing it leads to things like the Patriot Act. We must accept the vulnerability of being human and peaceful, or give it up and accept a police state. People have long said that democracy is worth dynig for, but the context has always been war or battle. I think it has to be taken beyond that - democracy is worth dying in a terrorist attack for. If we can't make that decision, we can't maintain a reasonably open society. Right now we're on the fence, hoping we won't have to decide. Certain of the political elements are salivating at the power of a police state, and they are also very dangerous. I would rather die as a consequence of our being an open, free society than see the US become something other than the last, best hope of mankind. If someone wishes to kill there is no way of peace, but I would prefer we keep trying than become another closed, fearful, government controlled footnote in world history.
"Morally good? How can software be moral or immoral? It just is. You may not think the method of production is moral [snip] but really, those cases are really about the morality of the producer and not the product."
The product and the producer are linked as long as you have to deal with the latter to use the former.
"Is Microsoft an immoral organization? What does that mean?"
It means they pursue their goals with no respect for the rights of others or an awareness of their impact outside themselves.
"Microsoft is a company. Companies seek profit. Even more than that, companies want to dominate their markets. Microsoft clearly achieved that and not through anti-competitive practices."
I don't know if you appreciate how this sounds. First off, dominating the market is simply a means to profit. Second, the domination is not good for the consumer, which is ultimately what the economic system is all about. If you think otherwise, I'll put it bluntly - I'm more worried about the future and well being of the individual citizens of this country than I am a corporation's ability to make outlandish profit, and when they come in to conflict I think the corporation should get smacked down.
"Microsoft was successful at doing what it was supposed to be doing. That's not bad any more than the failure of a company is good."
Most every flaw our capitalistic system was just summed up there. What Microsoft is SUPPOSED to be doing is not abusing their position. Profit of Company != End all and be all of existance. It's sick to think it is. Did Enron do what it was supposed to do by making a lot of money for its top people? They were just in business to make money, right? By the measure of profit they were quite successful. You can't just trample everything near you to squeeze out $$$ and call it proper company behavior. A free society cannot survive in the long term with such attitudes and remain a compassionate one. That to me is a very scary thought.
"The things we're laying claim to are things you can't pull out very easily....it's very difficult to yank this stuff out."
Rule #1 - if you stand to gain from this claim, it's going to have to be verified by a neutral third party and proper research, because we don't trust you.
"Our belief is that SCO has great opportunity in the future to let Linux keep going, not to put it on its back but for us to get a transaction fee every time it's sold. That's really our goal."
There it is, in black and white. War.
"Basically the GPL is countering U.S. Copyright law. Is IBM on the side of free software while they are one of the largest IP and IT firms in the world trying to protect their own patents and copy rights? It's just the most bizarre juxtaposition... . They're supporting something that's very unfriendly to copyrights."
What??? Has this guy even READ the GPL? The GPL rests entirely on copyright law! It's just doing something that isn't normally done by commercial types. RTFLicense. This guy sounds like he needs to pry apart copyright and profit in his brain.
"Underneath all this is hard-core capitalism."
Welcome to the powerful world of volunteers. Kernal aside, a lot of the end user work in Linux is not by companies. If a company or an industry gets messed up enough, they just might find themselves competing with volunteers. Welcome to your nightmare - night of the undead competition.
"We just said we were going to start investigating IP issues, and IBM said, 'You're just giving Bill Gates an early Christmas present.' Bill Gates? This is about our IP! What are you talking about? This was the immediate reaction at IBM and the open source guys. Unfortunately for them, it's just not reality."
If this guy is this clueless he has no business being a CEO in the software industry. Whatever their intent, the net result is indeed early Christmas in Redmond.
"To the extent that we have to take [Linux] down and put it on its back, we're fully prepared and willing to do that."
Indeed. I don't SCO is ready to face what that would mean - the rise of GNU Hurd. Whatever we may think about Richard Stallman, if SCO somehow puts this through there's going to be a retreat to the hard line FSF position on a lot of fronts, and GNU Hurd in full bloom on L4 might be more than any of the unix guys are ready for. SCO might find itself utterly irrelevant, on Linux IP or SCO Unix. Hardware wasn't ready for microkernels a decade ago, and microkernels weren't ready for prime time. But if we have to start fresh, to avoid any possible "IP" contamination, they're gonna find themselves wishing they had never said anything at all. Most operating system research hasn't been implimented practically over the last few decades. Wanna find out what the future is like, today?
I think it's just more that true originality is Really Hard. Commercial or open source. Most commercial stuff is created to address a specific need that crops up in the business world, and open source is somewhat remote from that world right now. Remember, too, that any time anything new is introduced there is always an inertia when trying to get people to try it.
Perhaps this exercise would be useful - try to pose a problem in the real world that can be solved in theory by software, but hasn't been yet. That's what most "killer apps" have done. Spreadsheets - handled data formerly manipulated with great effort by hand. Word processors - super typewriters. Intelligent storage and query of large data sets in general - databases. Video and image editing - image editors and high end movie software. All things people use to create "real world" products such as papers, financial statements, company brochures, etc. All of which was being done before, but not nearly as well. What gaping voids are there that need filling now? Two types of people can answer that - veterans in the trenches who know where all the weak points are, and true geniuses who see whole new ways of doing things with digital manipulation. (I'd argue typesetting vis a vi TeX might qualify as radical and new, despite how long it's been around, but it doesn't work well in that it doesn't give good immediate feedback. Coming up with something new and useful is flat out hard.)
If you want my opinion about what would be the next killer feature in the software game, something that would compell massive adoption of the software, I'd have to say provably correct code and design. Most of the major problems in day to day business have been addressed, in theory at least, by the tools out there. What is needed now (due to our fun little lawsuit happy culture, among other reasons) is software that can be proven, using methods like B and Z, to do what it is designed to do flawlessly. Reimplimenting our major "killer apps" using such techniques would get a lot of attention. Guaranteed functionality will grab market share. Treating the last 20 years as market research into what people want software to DO, now we should design as flexible, powerful, usable, and perfect software as humans and computers can. That would be a worthy step.
Of course, there's no market for this currently, because everyone is content to buy whats out there rather than pay the costs of high end software engineering. Plus, that stuff is HARD. Beyond ordinary open source efforts, at least given the training now provided in Computer Science departments. I'm not even sure whether the B and Z tools could scale like that. But if they can, it would be truly awesome to see an OS and app set implimented that way.
Uh - duh? That's actually makes a great deal of sense to me. If you want someone to put their legal foot in it for you, then the logical thing to do is pay them to do so. It's like car insurance - you don't expect to get it for free.
This is unfortunately likely to be a viable business model for some companies - simply have people pay them to "indemify" pieces of software they use. The lawyers have created this environment, and I'm afraid we're stuck with it for the forseeable future.
You're not thinking dirty enough. They're out to get open source software ruled illegal in the US, or even better get it declared public domain. It makes no sense, but then this is the US legal system we're talking about.
I hate it when my more paranoid thoughts start to take shape in the real world.
i d= 6320306
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=69174&c
Nope - never heard of 'em. Probably should have though. Clearly that makes so much more sense than their BS from the movie - POWER PLANT??? The only unique thing about humans is our brain. What else could they possibly think is worthwhile about us?
Here's my little "what I might have done" twist on things:
a) The Merovingian would turn out to be in fact a previous version of the one, from "a much older version of the Matrix". Neo is the Matrix 3.0's one, this guy was from an older one. In fact he has better insight into this Matrix than Neo does, as an outsider. He's just decided there's no point to all this.
b) The reason he has is that no one is in fact unplugged - Zion is a spilloff Matrix for the people who must fight the system. In this matrix, the unease they still feel is masked by their fight to save the world, and they are thus rendered harmless. They also remove other disruptive elements from the Matrix, in essence being very unwitting house cleaners. This explains a point never addressed at all - when the one supposedly "work up" and freed the first people, how did they rebuild themselves from the physical state Neo started in? He needed extensive medical help to function again - the first people would have had none. Simple answer - no one has ever really woken up and formed Zion. If someone did wake up, they died. That machine that unplugged them, also took their head off for good measure.
c) Neo, like the previous ones, is in fact a program himself. He has no awareness of this, and his sentient mind fully believes he is human. The Merovingian knows he is a program, and that is a further reason the fight is of little interst to him. Neo, the new one, has no such insight and in any case is built so he will fight for humanity. This is part of his function as the one program. He is "seeded" into the Matrix to bring about a necessary reprogramming, as the system has built to a point of instability where matters must be restarted now in order to maintain full control. (Think Windows box - saving work and rebooting, because you can tell it's about to go unstable on you.)
d) However, the One has a couple unintentional side effects - a) it overwrites a part of an agent program, creating a virus and b) develops a deep relationship with Trinity. Now the @#$@# has really hit the fan, and data corruption begins to take place.
e) The Merovingian, interested in his own existance and well versed in the Matrix, is now under threat from the virus program. He is compelled to prepare for war. He check codes and prepares to isolate certain sections of the Matrix he controls, but then he stops. An amused, ironic smile comes over his face, and he turns toward a door, fishing out a key.
f) Smith the virus corrupts the system - the Matrix more easily, but subtle effects begin to seep into the more heavliy shielded "real world" environment. Initially Zion appears to be helped by this, since the real world programs like the sentinals are not prepared for this kind of attack and are the first things to fail. No one understands it but the conclusion is Neo somehow did it. Big party starts, but then odd things happen - lights begin to behave sporadically, computer systems begin to show flashes of Smith's face, and the weaker people mentally begin to show faint signs of Smith's personality. Neo, as a program, also comes under attack sooner than the human minds but is better able to protect himself. He contacts the machines directly using his still not understood powers and proposes the deal. It is accepted and he enters the Matrix, to deal with the virus at its source.
g) Big fight. Neo holds his own against one of the Smiths (movie fight was OK here, except after crater impact Neo shows brief program characteristics as he rewrites routines to repair and strengthen himself, and gets up stronger). Both programs are rewriting themselves as they fight, and as the Matrix becomes more and more tasked action outside Smith and Neo slows down.
h. (In reality humans aren't power sources BTY - their brains are the hardware of the Matrix. The brainpower not being used in their Matrix existance is used to power the system - the brain being the one thing beyond the machines to duplicate. As their
Article feels like one large Flamebait, but in these days of SCO lawsuits I'm never quite sure which viewpoints are satire and which are just out and out stupidity.
In any case, it does make a point that the "establishment" has a very hard time coming to terms with - Free Software can and does work. For some fraction of people, this seems to somehow represent a personal insult. Probably the same people who get upset at anyone who questions whether our current economic system is absolute perfection suggest regulation might serve some purpose after all.
Commercial software provides only two things open source software can't provide - software that is extrememly difficult to create and has a small target audience (think very high end engineering CAD software or exteremely complex movie rendering) and someone to sue if the product doesn't work as specified. That doesn't sit well with people who think capitalism is the One True Way, and just for more fun people compare open source with Communism(?!). As if the spirit of goodwill is somehow corruptive to our way of life.
So, whether the author set out to write satire, troll all of slashdot, or actually denies the evidence right in front of him, this article is quite childish and silly. The evidence that free software does work is right in front of him, if he's interested in looking. Whether he WANTS it to work might be the real issue.
Ever notice that, that some people are personally interested in the failure of open source? It seems to be an affront to them, for no reason I can discover. No one has the RIGHT to make money, and open source taking away commerical markets for software is something they'll just have to grow up and deal with. If they can't make a more compelling product that people are willing to pay for and stay ahead of volunteers, tough.
Linux/Free Software is for real. I've used it exclusively on my own machines for four years, with great success. Community spirit is powerful and can accomplish great things, and if our social system has forgotten/doesn't want to accept that then we're in some deeper trouble than just questions of software.
"is there a place for proprietary (read 'closed') applications on said open/free platforms and frameworks?"
Yes, but probably not one you'd find particularly fun to work in. People in such an environment would pay for only a few things.
One: software that is guaranteed to work. (read - someone to sue; truly guaranteed software is limited to things like NASA and medical systems. Consumer apps developed using the B Method and the Z language would rock, be they closed or (especially) open, but aren't terribly likely)
Two: Highly specialized and complex programs where there isn't a high enough interest level or large enough user base to compell people to do free counterparts. Things like very high end specialized engineering design and simulation, or high end video systems designed to render movies across thousand-system clusters.
Three: Business specific apps where even developing the application involves trade secret or propritary information. An open source platform can work, but the app itself can't be open.
So yes there are cases, but none are simple to exploit. Nothing like the "write simple program, charge $30, and retire" modes can work anymore - if the user base/cost ratio gets past a certain point, a free alternative will appear.
This could be cool. What I want my cart to do is:
1) let me enter a search for an item and then tell me where it is in the store. Something more flexible than "punch button of product name"
2) let me upload a shopping list to the cart via USB keychain, and use feature one to give me the most efficient order in which to get the items (or close to it anyway - it might be an NP complete problem to get the most efficient route)
3) Scan the item as it goes into the cart, check it off the list, and keep a running total. Also, take item off the list if I take it out of the cart. Perfect for budget shopping, and the cart keeps track of what's in it without me having to dig through it.
All of these should be possible with current tech. Places like Sam's club should check it out.
Keep the adds to a minimum, preferably none unless the buyer opts to see specials, and no pay on cart option. That would involve wireless transmission of the credit card info, and require encryption. Plus, a person should validate the findings of the cart - this would be a convenience thing for customers as they shop, NOT a replacement for the cashier. Taking away jobs aside (that's seldom a valid reason to avoid a technology) someone would find a way to defeat the system.
And for goodness sake get Linux or *BSD on the things! I don't want Microsoft handling my grocery info! Imagine a blue screen destroying your shipping list 2/3 of the way through a big shopping day.
"Basically, I am wondering WHY there aren't more people trying to write the Linux Killer App."
Because a Killer App is a really HARD thing to think up and write. Especially think up. Particularly when people have had twenty+ years to figure out what they want to do with PCs. Most of the problems people want to solve with computers have been identified now. Visicalc was a killer app because it made a pencil and paper job almost infinitely simpler. Same with word processors replacing the typewriter. A killer app arises when some great need is addressed that has not been addressed before. Photoshop, for example, with its graphics manipulation. But ask yourself, what problems are out there today that benefit from the virtual, wipe and undo environment of the computer? Databases, spreadsheets, typewriters-plus, graphics, sound, movies. Those fields were the killer app fields, that drove people to a product. The ones where annoying real world methods/products were replaced by something MUCH better.
Now it is much harder to create a killer app. What do people want to do in a computer that they can't? Not a whole lot - an industry has worked for a very long time to provide them with what they want. The next killer app would probably need to create it's own demand, for something totally new. That is one of those problems like grand master level chess - only a very few minds can think of such solutions. Rare in all fields.
If you want my personal read, I think the next "killer app" type effect might not be a single program so much as a system built from the hardware up to be secure. If you look at computers today, security is the main thing that people don't have and want. So if someone figures out how to provide it, there might be a great rush to it. But that problem is of an altogether different scale, and while there may be ways to address it in theory they would take hundreds of full time, professional computer scientists on staff somewhere. But that's just another stab in the dark prediction, not a visionary view of the future.
"All I see now are me-too web browsers, me-too developer IDE's, me-too office applications, me-too games, and me-too multimedia apps."
Well, that's what there is demand for. Consider the position of desktop linux developers - they are by and large out to win over an audience used to another system. Computers are possibly the most inertia driven product on the face of the earth - after putting effort into learning an interface, people don't want to learn a new one, particularly for something productivity related. And brilliant design, which is what usually creates new products, is equally rare in free and commercial software. The genius of free software is its freedom, not any particular app. To the people who use it, the value of freedom is apparent and in many cases all powerful. This bias is not to be expected in general.
"Yes I know there is value in making a word processor that feels like Microsoft Word, but where are the experimental word processors that go beyond Word, GUI and functionality-wise? Word is not and never was a good GUI design."
And yet people use it the world over. If you want a bad design for an interface look at my old college's Peoplesoft database interface. Word serves reasonably well as a word processor, given the expectations of it's users.
If you want an experimental word processor that goes beyond Word, I suggest you take a look at Lyx or TeXmacs. They won't feel intuitive at first to anyone trained on Word, but for some jobs are far more powerful.
"It makes me really want to write up my own..."
There. You have it in a nutshell. The genius, power, and value of Free Software. Guess what? If you don't like what's out there, you CAN write up your own. The tools are there to support you, for Free. Knock yourself out. Amaze us all. Create the Linux killer app. Even if you decide not to, the point is you CAN. That's what makes Linux different. That's why it's worth fighting for.
By the way, I personally find Fluxbox very innovative as a GUI, not for what it adds but for what it knows not to add. That combined with gkrellm make for a desktop not found on any commercial system, but one I use on an every day basis.