Imagine, a year from now you're contacted to put together an extensive ecommerce site. The company bigwigs, who have their secretaries print out all their email every day, are willing to commit buckets of money to this initiative. You, the humble consultant/coder/webmaster that you are, get on the phone with Sun. After discussing your needs, they recommend a system, hardware, software, and connectivity, that meets all of them. Not only that, but it ties into AOL's proprietary content delivery services as well. The system is purchased, configured,etc, in about a week. You wait another week (don't want to see it look too easy) before getting in touch with the client, way ahead of schedule. You look good, you delivered extra functionality, and all ahead of schedule. Not bad. Of course, such an easy turnkey solution could make the client bypass you entirely. Oops...
In any case, it should make it easier for less technologically-inclined businesses to get on the Web easily and quickly. However, such a system ups the ante to a dangerous level. As an Open Source, GNU, whatever advocate, you want to be able to offer the same features, but written elegantly in open source. Do you think AOL wants any sort of OS software running on the poprietary part of their service, especially when it stands to lose sales to it? Probably not. One the one hand, hope for a system that works well, simplifies what can now be a difficult process, and makes life somewhat easier. On the other, fear that such a project could be too successful, leading Sunscape into the realm of Microsoftian (previously Orwellian) market domination. If OS is truly going to take over the world, we as its advocates need to act. Too much OS software is technologicaly elegant but impossible to use without an extensive skill set. Perhaps this is because designers and interface specialists aren't as willing to work for free by contributing to OS software as programmers, who are notorious for designing great software whose interfaces could be called evil at best.
So, what to do? Well, what if Sunscape was OS? It would probably be under the NSPL or Sun's Public License, but this is better than a completely closed product. Simply, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Or at least meet them halfway. RMS would probably cringe, but this type of solution seems necessary if free software is truly to take over the world.
For now, corporatations with large investments in their source see themselves as having two options: 1. release the code with a restrictive license. 2. don't release the code.
The primary point of these corporations is to make money and truly free, unencumbered software hasn't been around long enough to conclude that it can be part of a viable, profit-maximising business model. Imagine if Microsoft GPL's Windows and a magazine started distributing it for free with every issue. I think it's safe to say that many shareholders would be very upset. I like the idea of free software. From the user's standpoint it's a great thing, period. Maybe not, though, to the developer who wants to increase revenue next quarter. Open source is the next best thing. It's much better than having the source code locked up and unavailable. Why would one want open source? To look at and evaluate the program, to check for bugs, and to customize the software. Open source software fulfills these needs which is great for the vast majority of users. I'd love to see Mathematica or Quake III(which will be eventually, so I hear) go GPL, but it's just not going to happen, for potentially good reasons. We (most of us) live in a capitalist society and companies are just not going to put their crown jewls in the public domain, in both perception and reality. Open Source is much better then no source at all.
"Ballmer also announced the formation of a 14-member team led by Gates and himself that will meet monthly to discuss the company's goals, replacing a smaller executive committee." SB: I'd like to cal this meeting to order. Let's begin. BG: Our number one goal at this point in time is world domination. Another Time cover, too. SB: Great, see you all next month.
Seriously, isn't this old news? I could swear I read a story about this a couple weeks ago, and, at that time, I felt that I had read a similar story a week or two earlier. At least this reorg will make it easier for the DOC to split 'em up!
Sony has no interest in keeping psx or psx2 development proprietary. To sell a ps game, one must have a license from sony. Sony makes money whenever ps games are sold. Thus, sony would want as many quality games on the market as possible no matter who develops them. First, these games are an instant revenue source and, second, they attract gamers to the platform (whether through an individual game or just the sheer quantity). It has often been tossed about that the reason for the PSX's popularity over the N64 has simply been the quantity of games. Think about it: N64 has better graphics, cooler controllers, amazing multiplayer games, and costs about the same. When someone walks into their local Electronics Boutique or Babbages, though, there are a couple hundred PSX games and maybe 40 N64 ones.
Being a brat, I went with both, but most people don't have that option or would consider it a waste (it is). Of the next-gen systems, whoever gets to market first with the most games will win the most market share. Why else would Nintendo be going to CD/DVD when they make so much money from cart manufacturing and licensing? CD/DVDs make development easier and allow ports of games popular on other systems (read: psx, psx2).
Yes! For now, RedHat puts out a fairly good software product and has done nothing, yet, to bring on so many conspiracy stories. Sure, the RedHat ditro's not FreeBSD (sorry), but it is one of the better general purpose, easier-to-use distros, which accounts for its popularity (which is to say that it fundamentally doesn't resemble MS windows, which is ugly, not fun to use, and, yet, market-dominating). As long as they have a reason to be the market leader, Red Hat shouldn't be blamed for, well, leading the market. It would be a very different story if their distro was inferior to that of their competitors.
Additionally, RedHat has several viable competitors who have significant market-share themselves. If RedHat drops the ball (on standards, drivers, ease-of-use, etc) SUSE and Caldera (and maybe debian but not really) are right behind them to pick it up and run with it. A stretched analogy to be sure, but, for now, RedHat is still Linux and switching to a distro that meets ones needs better isn't that difficult.
I was incredulous after reading the techie article (can't run dos under linux? dosemu...) and just angry after reading the English major one. Then, I stopped for a moment and thought to myself: "Slate articles have always been misleading or just wrong when it comes to technology. They may be owned by a 'hi-tek' company, but the fact that they even manage to publish their magazine on the web is a surprise given their tech knowledge. It is obvious that the tech people and the writers/editors are on different continents."
As an Enlish/CS kinda guy, Slate just sucks. They try, but the site just doesn't interest me. Much of their commentary just seems dated or irrelevant. Forget the Microsoft connection, I jsut don't like slate!
If you're looking for a good general-interest web-magazine that's also tech-savvy, try salon. If you're looking for more human-interest stories, try word. Charged is good for those of us who have short attention spans and like nice, flashy grafx. The point is, there are a good number of worthwhile general interest web magazines. Slate just isn't one of them.
The Internet has really reached a sad state of affairs when larg companies and their ilk (who were on the fringes of the e-community only a few years ago) are now pushing the buttons and pulling the strings. Image that/. had not been involved in this case; would the dispute have been resolved in this way? It's likely that, after considering the expense and hassle of battling Theos Software, Theo would have simply relented. Of course, I'm happy that he didn't (in the several days of the dispute), but worry that 'little people' have become involved in similar situations hundreds of times in the past few years and experience not-so-successful results. The villagers did, in this case, knock the enemy on its ass, but this may be the exception. We need an entity more thoughtful than NSI to quickly and effectively resolve these disputes. NSI wasn't bad when.com was still shiny and new, but we need soething new. Now!
why? Well, think about this development in terms of the US's usual military-industrial complex. Tabletop fusion? The pricetag would probably be a few million at least for an apparatus. The usual mindset has been to think bigger, more powerful, etc. It is only in the past few years, with the mars observer, etc, that our government (and its research partners) have been able to see the benefit of smaller, leaner programs. Why spend many billions now on a collider an ingenious solution such as tabletop fusion can be designed? Hopefully, as developments like this occur more and more, our government will be spendig our money on a barrage of smaller, more intelligent programs rather than just a few large, impracticle, monolithic ones. Besides, how many more torii (is that the plural of torus?) facilities do we really need at several billions dollars each?
Perhaps your numbers are correct, I dunno... BUT, the case has always been that, other than for wildly successful artists, most musicians make their money on the road. This is especially true for MTV one-hit-wonder bands who make a cool video and then spend a summer selling out arenas and the like before their CD starts showing up in second-hand shops. How do MP3s fit into this, then? Well, the artist may lose a little money (assuming your numbers are correct), but, potentially, earn it back through increased concert attendance, t-shirt sales, etc. The record company, though, stands to lose the most money. Thus, the RIAA's silliness. This is prolly why we've seen artists release songs in mp3 only to have their record companies pull them off the web recently (Chuck D, a few others that I don't remember...). It does make sense though that the RIAA is against electonic music distribution. Wouldn't you be if you had so much to lose?
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine, a year from now you're contacted to put together an extensive ecommerce site. The company bigwigs, who have their secretaries print out all their email every day, are willing to commit buckets of money to this initiative. You, the humble consultant/coder/webmaster that you are, get on the phone with Sun.
After discussing your needs, they recommend a system, hardware, software, and connectivity, that meets all of them. Not only that, but it ties into AOL's proprietary content delivery services as well. The system is purchased, configured,etc, in about a week. You wait another week (don't want to see it look too easy) before getting in touch with the client, way ahead of schedule.
You look good, you delivered extra functionality, and all ahead of schedule. Not bad.
Of course, such an easy turnkey solution could make the client bypass you entirely. Oops...
In any case, it should make it easier for less technologically-inclined businesses to get on the Web easily and quickly. However, such a system ups the ante to a dangerous level. As an Open Source, GNU, whatever advocate, you want to be able to offer the same features, but written elegantly in open source. Do you think AOL wants any sort of OS software running on the poprietary part of their service, especially when it stands to lose sales to it? Probably not.
One the one hand, hope for a system that works well, simplifies what can now be a difficult process, and makes life somewhat easier.
On the other, fear that such a project could be too successful, leading Sunscape into the realm of Microsoftian (previously Orwellian) market domination.
If OS is truly going to take over the world, we as its advocates need to act. Too much OS software is technologicaly elegant but impossible to use without an extensive skill set. Perhaps this is because designers and interface specialists aren't as willing to work for free by contributing to OS software as programmers, who are notorious for designing great software whose interfaces could be called evil at best.
So, what to do?
Well, what if Sunscape was OS? It would probably be under the NSPL or Sun's Public License, but this is better than a completely closed product. Simply, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Or at least meet them halfway. RMS would probably cringe, but this type of solution seems necessary if free software is truly to take over the world.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
umm, no. Not really. We should just accept that not all software is going to be licensed by something like the GPL. It would be nice, but unrealistic.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
For now, corporatations with large investments in their source see themselves as having two options:
1. release the code with a restrictive license.
2. don't release the code.
The primary point of these corporations is to make money and truly free, unencumbered software hasn't been around long enough to conclude that it can be part of a viable, profit-maximising business model. Imagine if Microsoft GPL's Windows and a magazine started distributing it for free with every issue. I think it's safe to say that many shareholders would be very upset.
I like the idea of free software. From the user's standpoint it's a great thing, period. Maybe not, though, to the developer who wants to increase revenue next quarter.
Open source is the next best thing. It's much better than having the source code locked up and unavailable. Why would one want open source? To look at and evaluate the program, to check for bugs, and to customize the software. Open source software fulfills these needs which is great for the vast majority of users.
I'd love to see Mathematica or Quake III(which will be eventually, so I hear) go GPL, but it's just not going to happen, for potentially good reasons. We (most of us) live in a capitalist society and companies are just not going to put their crown jewls in the public domain, in both perception and reality. Open Source is much better then no source at all.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
"Ballmer also announced the formation of a 14-member team led by Gates and himself that will meet monthly to discuss the company's goals, replacing a smaller executive committee."
SB: I'd like to cal this meeting to order. Let's begin.
BG: Our number one goal at this point in time is world domination. Another Time cover, too.
SB: Great, see you all next month.
Seriously, isn't this old news? I could swear I read a story about this a couple weeks ago, and, at that time, I felt that I had read a similar story a week or two earlier.
At least this reorg will make it easier for the DOC to split 'em up!
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
Sony has no interest in keeping psx or psx2 development proprietary. To sell a ps game, one must have a license from sony. Sony makes money whenever ps games are sold. Thus, sony would want as many quality games on the market as possible no matter who develops them. First, these games are an instant revenue source and, second, they attract gamers to the platform (whether through an individual game or just the sheer quantity). It has often been tossed about that the reason for the PSX's popularity over the N64 has simply been the quantity of games. Think about it: N64 has better graphics, cooler controllers, amazing multiplayer games, and costs about the same. When someone walks into their local Electronics Boutique or Babbages, though, there are a couple hundred PSX games and maybe 40 N64 ones.
Being a brat, I went with both, but most people don't have that option or would consider it a waste (it is). Of the next-gen systems, whoever gets to market first with the most games will win the most market share. Why else would Nintendo be going to CD/DVD when they make so much money from cart manufacturing and licensing? CD/DVDs make development easier and allow ports of games popular on other systems (read: psx, psx2).
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
Yes! For now, RedHat puts out a fairly good software product and has done nothing, yet, to bring on so many conspiracy stories. Sure, the RedHat ditro's not FreeBSD (sorry), but it is one of the better general purpose, easier-to-use distros, which accounts for its popularity (which is to say that it fundamentally doesn't resemble MS windows, which is ugly, not fun to use, and, yet, market-dominating). As long as they have a reason to be the market leader, Red Hat shouldn't be blamed for, well, leading the market. It would be a very different story if their distro was inferior to that of their competitors.
Additionally, RedHat has several viable competitors who have significant market-share themselves. If RedHat drops the ball (on standards, drivers, ease-of-use, etc) SUSE and Caldera (and maybe debian but not really) are right behind them to pick it up and run with it. A stretched analogy to be sure, but, for now, RedHat is still Linux and switching to a distro that meets ones needs better isn't that difficult.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
I was incredulous after reading the techie article (can't run dos under linux? dosemu...) and just angry after reading the English major one. Then, I stopped for a moment and thought to myself:
"Slate articles have always been misleading or just wrong when it comes to technology. They may be owned by a 'hi-tek' company, but the fact that they even manage to publish their magazine on the web is a surprise given their tech knowledge. It is obvious that the tech people and the writers/editors are on different continents."
As an Enlish/CS kinda guy, Slate just sucks. They try, but the site just doesn't interest me. Much of their commentary just seems dated or irrelevant. Forget the Microsoft connection, I jsut don't like slate!
If you're looking for a good general-interest web-magazine that's also tech-savvy, try salon. If you're looking for more human-interest stories, try word. Charged is good for those of us who have short attention spans and like nice, flashy grafx. The point is, there are a good number of worthwhile general interest web magazines. Slate just isn't one of them.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
The Internet has really reached a sad state of affairs when larg companies and their ilk (who were on the fringes of the e-community only a few years ago) are now pushing the buttons and pulling the strings. Image that /. had not been involved in this case; would the dispute have been resolved in this way? It's likely that, after considering the expense and hassle of battling Theos Software, Theo would have simply relented. Of course, I'm happy that he didn't (in the several days of the dispute), but worry that 'little people' have become involved in similar situations hundreds of times in the past few years and experience not-so-successful results. .com was still shiny and new, but we need soething new. Now!
The villagers did, in this case, knock the enemy on its ass, but this may be the exception. We need an entity more thoughtful than NSI to quickly and effectively resolve these disputes. NSI wasn't bad when
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
why?
Well, think about this development in terms of the US's usual military-industrial complex. Tabletop fusion? The pricetag would probably be a few million at least for an apparatus. The usual mindset has been to think bigger, more powerful, etc.
It is only in the past few years, with the mars observer, etc, that our government (and its research partners) have been able to see the benefit of smaller, leaner programs. Why spend many billions now on a collider an ingenious solution such as tabletop fusion can be designed? Hopefully, as developments like this occur more and more, our government will be spendig our money on a barrage of smaller, more intelligent programs rather than just a few large, impracticle, monolithic ones. Besides, how many more torii (is that the plural of torus?) facilities do we really need at several billions dollars each?
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
Perhaps your numbers are correct, I dunno...
BUT,
the case has always been that, other than for wildly successful artists, most musicians make their money on the road. This is especially true for MTV one-hit-wonder bands who make a cool video and then spend a summer selling out arenas and the like before their CD starts showing up in second-hand shops.
How do MP3s fit into this, then?
Well, the artist may lose a little money (assuming your numbers are correct), but, potentially, earn it back through increased concert attendance, t-shirt sales, etc. The record company, though, stands to lose the most money. Thus, the RIAA's silliness.
This is prolly why we've seen artists release songs in mp3 only to have their record companies pull them off the web recently (Chuck D, a few others that I don't remember...).
It does make sense though that the RIAA is against electonic music distribution. Wouldn't you be if you had so much to lose?
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu