You forgot my favorite statement from the article, which is a nice little bit of misinformation:
There is no doubt that OSS can be applied to a limited number of software products for a limited period of time. But what happens when the OSS method of production is applied to thousands of software applications with millions of users requiring product support and attention to their particular needs? How do consumers identify the products they need when software is constantly evolving and there are no standard products that enable users to share compatible information? The "free" nature of OSS quickly collapses into chaos.
They're equating applications with data. One of the nice things about OSS is that information is compatible between different applications (in standard file formats or markup languages), instead of proprietary, closed file formats.
And the lawsuit idea is a straw man, as most software licenses exclude liability as a term of use. So not only has MS not been sued, the license (provided it sticks) effectively protects them from litigation. In order to win a lawsuit, not only would somebody have to prove damages, they'd have to get the court to strike the ULA, something the courts have been unwilling to do.
It was better than Katz. I want to read it again and again and again.
Okay, aside from the old SNL reference, I do think his writing holds up much better than Katz's, and while I usually do attempt to slog through what Katz has to say I'll make Thieme a regular part of my reading.
And I thought this was fascinating. I'm skeptical about a lot of things, but those of you who completely discount remote viewing and the idea of alternate "reality" are doing yourselves a disfavor.
I bought a dish and receiver (RCA, first generation) back in 95, paying the early adopter price and everything. I bought my second set this year (Sony, third generation) and I'm still going strong. From DirecTV, for $29.95 you get essentially 70 cable channels, plus all the pay-per-view options. For ten or fifteen bucks more you can get all the STARZ! and Encore channels, but I haven't had them in a couple years and haven't missed them. You can also pay ten bucks a month and get every regional sports network, so if you're into, say, college lacrosse or minor league hockey that can be fun. DirecTV is also in the process of buying USSB, which should mean that soon all the HBO and Showtime channels should be available on the same bill, instead of two.
The problem is, you can't get your local channels, or now (due to the FCC) even the network feeds, unless you really do live out in the honest-to-goodness middle of nowhere. Oh, and you have to buy the dish, but that's about two hundred bucks now, and the quality is far superior to anything you can get on broadcast or cable.
Oh, and my mom popped for Digital Cable at home (she's got TCI) and I can safely say that DirecTV is still a far better product. Better reception, faster tuning to different channels, and better system controls.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no doubt that OSS can be applied to a limited number of software products for a limited period of time. But what happens when the OSS method of production is applied to thousands of software applications with millions of users requiring product support and attention to their particular needs? How do consumers identify the products they need when software is constantly evolving and there are no standard products that enable users to share compatible information? The "free" nature of OSS quickly collapses into chaos.
They're equating applications with data. One of the nice things about OSS is that information is compatible between different applications (in standard file formats or markup languages), instead of proprietary, closed file formats.
And the lawsuit idea is a straw man, as most software licenses exclude liability as a term of use. So not only has MS not been sued, the license (provided it sticks) effectively protects them from litigation. In order to win a lawsuit, not only would somebody have to prove damages, they'd have to get the court to strike the ULA, something the courts have been unwilling to do.
- e
It was better than Katz. I want to read it again and again and again.
Okay, aside from the old SNL reference, I do think his writing holds up much better than Katz's, and while I usually do attempt to slog through what Katz has to say I'll make Thieme a regular part of my reading.
And I thought this was fascinating. I'm skeptical about a lot of things, but those of you who completely discount remote viewing and the idea of alternate "reality" are doing yourselves a disfavor.
I bought a dish and receiver (RCA, first generation) back in 95, paying the early adopter price and everything. I bought my second set this year (Sony, third generation) and I'm still going strong. From DirecTV, for $29.95 you get essentially 70 cable channels, plus all the pay-per-view options. For ten or fifteen bucks more you can get all the STARZ! and Encore channels, but I haven't had them in a couple years and haven't missed them. You can also pay ten bucks a month and get every regional sports network, so if you're into, say, college lacrosse or minor league hockey that can be fun. DirecTV is also in the process of buying USSB, which should mean that soon all the HBO and Showtime channels should be available on the same bill, instead of two.
The problem is, you can't get your local channels, or now (due to the FCC) even the network feeds, unless you really do live out in the honest-to-goodness middle of nowhere. Oh, and you have to buy the dish, but that's about two hundred bucks now, and the quality is far superior to anything you can get on broadcast or cable.
Oh, and my mom popped for Digital Cable at home (she's got TCI) and I can safely say that DirecTV is still a far better product. Better reception, faster tuning to different channels, and better system controls.
- e