This is a bad decision for the small business market that will make my life more difficult. I've run my e-commerce site on linux for 7 years because linux is reliable and very cost-effective; it helps my business run well for low cost. Still, I pay money to Red Hat because they provide several valuable services to me:
Professionals monitor the myriad code bases and assemble them into a coherent distribution; saves me tons of time
Constant monitoring of security issues
Ease of patching with RPM and up2date
My business does not need rapid upgrades of distros; I want to get the environment working, then leave it running with minimum maintenance as long as possible so I can focus on the other aspects of running my business. In the 7 years of operation I've changed versions 3 times, and 2 involved changing to new hardware. Each one required an install from scratch (for various reasons) and was a pain in the butt.
My business wants a maintenance lifetime of at least 3 years so I'm unlikely to be forced to upgrade just to maintain support. Advanced Server is too expensive for my small business to consider.
I've just gotten comfortable with the Red Hat network, and this decision makes me question my commitment to Red Hat for the future. The first really bad decision I've seen from them.
I own TiVo integrated with DirecTV, and the combination is better than standalone for several reasons:
Cost: I paid $99 for the DirecTV / TiVo integrated hardware. Why so cheap? No expensive MPEG encoder required for TiVo; TiVo simply records the digital signals decoded off the satellite by DirecTV.
Programming info: TiVo has immediate access to the programming info provided by the DirecTV service; no hassles there.
Convenience: DirecTV can tune 2 channels, TiVo can record 2 channels; the integrated system can switch to whatever channel(s) it needs to record without hassles or error. Very nice
The article might be right that the future is an integrated commoditized TiVo, but from my point of view it's win/win/win for me/DirecTV/TiVo; I get a convenient reliable feature-rich system; DirecTV gets a happy customer; and TiVo gets a solid distribution channel. Sounds like a good outcome.
TiVo is an example where word-of-mouth should be working. Whenever we have friends over they're curious about the TiVo, but they don't really understand why it's good. We let them test drive it, and invariably they go away impressed; sometimes it's pausing live TV when the phone rings, sometimes it's looking at "Now Showing" and seeing your favorite shows waiting for you to watch, sometimes it's looking through the Season Pass Manager or the search for programs features or the suggestions or the interactive program guide. Regardless, TiVo presents an impressive package and our friends go away impressed.
We have DirecTV with TiVo integrated; the integrated package really is nice and simple. My wife is anti-TV and anti-technology, but she loves TiVo because it makes the small amount of TV she does watch simpler and more flexible. We find the service easily worth $10/month (and the price recently went down).
People at TiVo must be scratching their heads since they have such a great product and people just don't get it; word-of-mouth and trying it out seem to be the only ways people get it.
There are so many things wrong with this argument it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Consider these two quotes that set up the issue:
The illegality of unauthorized uploading and downloading on public P2P networks is well-settled.
Lawsuits and prosecutions of the most egregious P2P pirates certainly will provide some deterrent, but can't be relied on alone. Most of the 150 million or more P2P software downloaders believe they will never be hauled into court, and they are right.
Notice what follows immediately from these statements:
The courts have already settled the relevant legal issues. No further laws are needed.
With no legal issues in dispute, this is entirely a law enforcement issue.
The Congressman fully admits law enforcement has utterly failed, yet does not address this failure in the slightest. A member of Congress should be far more concerned that the law of the land is not being enforced.
Consider this nearby argument: Government law enforcement has failed; the only remedy is to privatize law enforcement so the people most affected by the laws get to enforce them. This is not desirable.
If 150 million Americans are not deterred by breaking the law or by feeble prosecution thereof, why would they be deterred by limited "self help" by copyright holders? Copyright holders would have to strongly attack a significant fraction of 150 million Americans for this to have any effect. This is not desirable.
I ignore all the dross about "self-help" as nothing but sanctioned vigilante hacking.
Copyright holders have exactly one cogent argument: enforce existing law! For example the following ideas would be far more constructive:
Create a viable mechanism for copyright holders to gather incriminating information and report it for suitable prosecution.
If one reason why 150 millions Americans can't be prosecuted for copyright violation is prohibitive cost then offer copyright holders the option of footing the bill for expedited prosecutions under existing law. In a sense this is buying justice, but in another sense it's simply selectively improving law enforcement which is not a bad thing. At least this would divert lobbying money to a constructive use.
Why do people use a distribution at all? Because a distribution makes life easier. Red Hat provides a valuable service by simplifying the vastly complex open source landscape into an easily digestible form that other people can leverage; we benefit from their expertise. Interestingly, Microsoft does essentially the same thing -- the whole Windows experience is designed so non-experts can get complex things done. In a sense Red Hat and Microsoft do the same thing by reducing complexity for the customers.
So what's the difference? Why am I willing to pay Red Hat money and not Microsoft? It's actually a hard question to answer, and surprisingly it boils down to corporate ethics and philosophy. The real difference is that Red Hat wants to be a helpful citizen in a complex world, while Microsoft wants to own the world. I pay Red Hat only because it helps me, but it helps me in several ways both short term and long term. I believe we are all stronger and have more and better options because of open source, and I pay my money to companies with similar beliefs. I pay money to Red Hat for my small business because Red Hat is indisputably more cost effective, more flexible, and more likely to bring about a future that is even better.
So what if Red Hat decided to pull a Microsoft and "embrace and extend" open source? It's certainly possible to add proprietary elements to a linux distribution without violating the GPL, so Red Hat could gradually lock people into a proprietary mode of operation and turn the screws. RPM is a good example of something that could have been evil but isn't. However, proprietary lockdown would not succeed beyond the short term anyway; odious developments would simply drive people to other distributions. The beauty of linux and open source is that all distributions have access to the same raw material. If I needed to I could fail over to another substantially identical distribution without incurring much pain. Users have choice and the freedom and ability to exercise it. This is the way capitalism is supposed to work! Open source breaks any strong symmetry bewteen Red Hat and Microsoft
Why is Red Hat successful to the point where people ask if they are becoming like Microsoft? Because they do a good job and many people like me have found them useful. But are they becoming like Microsoft? No. Do I feel locked in? No. I would switch if I did. Red Hat knows it could easily alienate its customers, and therefore must be careful not to.
There will be noises about Red Hat losing touch with the market, but something as complex as a distribution requires myriad engineering decisions that won't please everyone, especially as the pool of customers grows. I find it perfectly reasonable that Red Hat is evolving enterprise, general, and desktop distributions since there are obvious engineering tradeoffs and optimizations. I also find it reasonable that there will be other companies making different engineering decisions (Mandrake). All this is for the good.
SUMMARY: Open source breaks symmetry between Red Hat and Microsoft. Red Hat is useful only so far as it reduces complexity of open source world.
I spent 15 minutes before the film started ignoring the advertising slideshow and remembering what it was like to be 10 years old; by the time the film started I felt wide-eyed and unburdened by adult cynicism.
The film was wondrous, and delivers big-time as a fantasy adventure. I was astounded at how completely the movie immerses you in a vivid fully realized fantasy universe. This film builds out the details of the Star Wars universe in a way I found mind-boggling. Creative and artistic people labored over every frame to breathe the realism of life into the story, and they succeeded brilliantly because you buy into most every scene without even thinking about it.
The practical limits of older movies are simply gone, and there are none of the gratuitous CG showoff scenes that marred Lord of the Rings. Remember the camera flying through the evil factory in LOTR? A cool shot, but totally incongruous. In Star Wars Episode II everything is subordinate and appropriate to the story; the story flows with an effortless and beautiful freedom that must have been incredibly difficult to achieve behind the scenes.
As an adult I have to admit there was one significant flaw -- the entire love storyline between Padme and Anakin felt forced and mechanical. There was some spark and chemistry between Padme and Anakin, and it certainly made sense that they would fall for each other. There were revealing scenes with insight into their emotional bonding showing why they would care for each other. However, the overall feel of the love storyline was amateurish; you never felt the passions of the characters, never empathized with their dilemmas, and never really believed these were real people with real feelings falling in love. Lucas is very clumsy with human emotions both as a writer and as a director. Lucas should simply admit this and have someone else write and direct the scenes for this critical plot line; the movie would be significantly better for it.
To a 10 year old the love storyline might be acceptable, but to an adult it seems artificial and half-baked. I felt the love storyline was far and away the least polished aspect of the movie; I wished the same degree of intense creative artistry had been applied to the love storyline as was applied to the visuals.
Fortunately, flaws in the love storyline were not fatal to enjoying the movie. Because the universe was so rich and fully realized and the story was so involving and revealed so much about the Star Wars universe, the whole thing just worked as a pulse-pounding fantasy adventure.
Go see it, enjoy the exciting rich fantasy world as a kid would, and don't overthink the whole thing. It was good fun!
I am not a guru, but I have experienced the same situation observed with the linking of static libraries. It's amazing to me this information isn't more widely known -- perhaps it's obvious to the gurus and therefore never written down, but that doesn't help the rest of us.
KEY PIECE OF 'SECRET' KNOWLEDGE: The GNU linker is designed to be used with 1 global object per object file.
You can produce object files with lots of global objects, but they won't be linked intelligently beyond the first one.
I define intelligent linking as including the object in the executable only if it is needed.
The GNU linker only applies intelligence to the first global object per object file, and any global objects beyond that just get thrown into the executable regardless of whether they are needed or not. The actual rule might be slightly different from my observation, but the idea that only the first global object is treated intelligently is definitely true. That is how you end up with the enormous Hello World program.
A global object is defined as something like a function or a global variable. This is why you see many professional libraries composed of many tiny source files -- 1 function per file.
What I don't know is how to extend this concept to C++ -- is the global object the member function or the class itself? Do you have to split up the member functions into separate files? And don't even try to ask me how to put specialization of a template function into a library.
In summary the poster does have a valid point: Visual C++ has no limitations about 1 global object per object file, and therefore is a much more flexible tool for someone who is creating a static library.
I'm not impressed that in all the noise generated not a single person had anything of substance to say about his comment.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a bad decision for the small business market that will make my life more difficult. I've run my e-commerce site on linux for 7 years because linux is reliable and very cost-effective; it helps my business run well for low cost. Still, I pay money to Red Hat because they provide several valuable services to me:
My business does not need rapid upgrades of distros; I want to get the environment working, then leave it running with minimum maintenance as long as possible so I can focus on the other aspects of running my business. In the 7 years of operation I've changed versions 3 times, and 2 involved changing to new hardware. Each one required an install from scratch (for various reasons) and was a pain in the butt.
My business wants a maintenance lifetime of at least 3 years so I'm unlikely to be forced to upgrade just to maintain support. Advanced Server is too expensive for my small business to consider.
I've just gotten comfortable with the Red Hat network, and this decision makes me question my commitment to Red Hat for the future. The first really bad decision I've seen from them.
I own TiVo integrated with DirecTV, and the combination is better than standalone for several reasons:
The article might be right that the future is an integrated commoditized TiVo, but from my point of view it's win/win/win for me/DirecTV/TiVo; I get a convenient reliable feature-rich system; DirecTV gets a happy customer; and TiVo gets a solid distribution channel. Sounds like a good outcome.
TiVo is an example where word-of-mouth should be working. Whenever we have friends over they're curious about the TiVo, but they don't really understand why it's good. We let them test drive it, and invariably they go away impressed; sometimes it's pausing live TV when the phone rings, sometimes it's looking at "Now Showing" and seeing your favorite shows waiting for you to watch, sometimes it's looking through the Season Pass Manager or the search for programs features or the suggestions or the interactive program guide. Regardless, TiVo presents an impressive package and our friends go away impressed.
We have DirecTV with TiVo integrated; the integrated package really is nice and simple. My wife is anti-TV and anti-technology, but she loves TiVo because it makes the small amount of TV she does watch simpler and more flexible. We find the service easily worth $10/month (and the price recently went down).
People at TiVo must be scratching their heads since they have such a great product and people just don't get it; word-of-mouth and trying it out seem to be the only ways people get it.
There are so many things wrong with this argument it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Consider these two quotes that set up the issue:
Notice what follows immediately from these statements:
I ignore all the dross about "self-help" as nothing but sanctioned vigilante hacking.
Copyright holders have exactly one cogent argument: enforce existing law! For example the following ideas would be far more constructive:
Any serious cheaper competitors (Thawte) will likely be bought by Verisign to protect the "value" of certificates and prop up the company stock price.
Why do people use a distribution at all? Because a distribution makes life easier. Red Hat provides a valuable service by simplifying the vastly complex open source landscape into an easily digestible form that other people can leverage; we benefit from their expertise. Interestingly, Microsoft does essentially the same thing -- the whole Windows experience is designed so non-experts can get complex things done. In a sense Red Hat and Microsoft do the same thing by reducing complexity for the customers.
So what's the difference? Why am I willing to pay Red Hat money and not Microsoft? It's actually a hard question to answer, and surprisingly it boils down to corporate ethics and philosophy. The real difference is that Red Hat wants to be a helpful citizen in a complex world, while Microsoft wants to own the world. I pay Red Hat only because it helps me, but it helps me in several ways both short term and long term. I believe we are all stronger and have more and better options because of open source, and I pay my money to companies with similar beliefs. I pay money to Red Hat for my small business because Red Hat is indisputably more cost effective, more flexible, and more likely to bring about a future that is even better.
So what if Red Hat decided to pull a Microsoft and "embrace and extend" open source? It's certainly possible to add proprietary elements to a linux distribution without violating the GPL, so Red Hat could gradually lock people into a proprietary mode of operation and turn the screws. RPM is a good example of something that could have been evil but isn't. However, proprietary lockdown would not succeed beyond the short term anyway; odious developments would simply drive people to other distributions. The beauty of linux and open source is that all distributions have access to the same raw material. If I needed to I could fail over to another substantially identical distribution without incurring much pain. Users have choice and the freedom and ability to exercise it. This is the way capitalism is supposed to work! Open source breaks any strong symmetry bewteen Red Hat and Microsoft
Why is Red Hat successful to the point where people ask if they are becoming like Microsoft? Because they do a good job and many people like me have found them useful. But are they becoming like Microsoft? No. Do I feel locked in? No. I would switch if I did. Red Hat knows it could easily alienate its customers, and therefore must be careful not to.
There will be noises about Red Hat losing touch with the market, but something as complex as a distribution requires myriad engineering decisions that won't please everyone, especially as the pool of customers grows. I find it perfectly reasonable that Red Hat is evolving enterprise, general, and desktop distributions since there are obvious engineering tradeoffs and optimizations. I also find it reasonable that there will be other companies making different engineering decisions (Mandrake). All this is for the good.
SUMMARY: Open source breaks symmetry between Red Hat and Microsoft. Red Hat is useful only so far as it reduces complexity of open source world.
Correction: There are TiVo models that record 2 channels simultaneously. Nice!
The film was wondrous, and delivers big-time as a fantasy adventure. I was astounded at how completely the movie immerses you in a vivid fully realized fantasy universe. This film builds out the details of the Star Wars universe in a way I found mind-boggling. Creative and artistic people labored over every frame to breathe the realism of life into the story, and they succeeded brilliantly because you buy into most every scene without even thinking about it.
The practical limits of older movies are simply gone, and there are none of the gratuitous CG showoff scenes that marred Lord of the Rings. Remember the camera flying through the evil factory in LOTR? A cool shot, but totally incongruous. In Star Wars Episode II everything is subordinate and appropriate to the story; the story flows with an effortless and beautiful freedom that must have been incredibly difficult to achieve behind the scenes.
As an adult I have to admit there was one significant flaw -- the entire love storyline between Padme and Anakin felt forced and mechanical. There was some spark and chemistry between Padme and Anakin, and it certainly made sense that they would fall for each other. There were revealing scenes with insight into their emotional bonding showing why they would care for each other. However, the overall feel of the love storyline was amateurish; you never felt the passions of the characters, never empathized with their dilemmas, and never really believed these were real people with real feelings falling in love. Lucas is very clumsy with human emotions both as a writer and as a director. Lucas should simply admit this and have someone else write and direct the scenes for this critical plot line; the movie would be significantly better for it.
To a 10 year old the love storyline might be acceptable, but to an adult it seems artificial and half-baked. I felt the love storyline was far and away the least polished aspect of the movie; I wished the same degree of intense creative artistry had been applied to the love storyline as was applied to the visuals.
Fortunately, flaws in the love storyline were not fatal to enjoying the movie. Because the universe was so rich and fully realized and the story was so involving and revealed so much about the Star Wars universe, the whole thing just worked as a pulse-pounding fantasy adventure.
Go see it, enjoy the exciting rich fantasy world as a kid would, and don't overthink the whole thing. It was good fun!
I am not a guru, but I have experienced the same situation observed with the linking of static libraries. It's amazing to me this information isn't more widely known -- perhaps it's obvious to the gurus and therefore never written down, but that doesn't help the rest of us.
KEY PIECE OF 'SECRET' KNOWLEDGE: The GNU linker is designed to be used with 1 global object per object file.
You can produce object files with lots of global objects, but they won't be linked intelligently beyond the first one.
I define intelligent linking as including the object in the executable only if it is needed.
The GNU linker only applies intelligence to the first global object per object file, and any global objects beyond that just get thrown into the executable regardless of whether they are needed or not. The actual rule might be slightly different from my observation, but the idea that only the first global object is treated intelligently is definitely true. That is how you end up with the enormous Hello World program.
A global object is defined as something like a function or a global variable. This is why you see many professional libraries composed of many tiny source files -- 1 function per file.
What I don't know is how to extend this concept to C++ -- is the global object the member function or the class itself? Do you have to split up the member functions into separate files? And don't even try to ask me how to put specialization of a template function into a library.
In summary the poster does have a valid point: Visual C++ has no limitations about 1 global object per object file, and therefore is a much more flexible tool for someone who is creating a static library.
I'm not impressed that in all the noise generated not a single person had anything of substance to say about his comment.