there is a free ISP over here in Australia called goconnect.com. While I personally don't use it, a friend of mine does and says its great. I asked about the advertising and he said he really liked it -- they were popup ads every couple of minutes which were more like TV ads then web ads.
So maybe this is another approach? I mean, TV/radio ads are all about being completely stupid and glitzy and unexpected, whereas your average banner ad is very much ho-hum. I notice some sites doing sort of little pop-up tv-like ads, and now that high bandwidth connections are becoming more ubiquitous, maybe advertising ability on the net will catch up with the advertising promise of the net.
It seems the consensus is that micropayments are the way to go. I know there was a lot of work being done on this way before e-commerce began, but nothing seems to have come out recently. Are there any such projects nearing completion and/or commercial deployment? I think micropayments are absolutely essential, and are perhaps the only way that napster-esque programs will ever be semi-legal. I certainly wouldn't mind paying 50c per song if it was transparent and took one click.
Well, let's just say I'm Australian and thus do not care about US precendents:).
A contract is a contract. While legal issues surrounding buying shrink-wrap software have obviously recently been in a bit of an uproar, CONTRACT based work (and, face it, most business-to-business commerce is very much done on a contract basis) would essentially be precendent-less in any court systems.
It is very difficult to get out of breach of contract if the contract is worded correctly. And most major software packages are done on a contract-basis, or at least in my experience with companies they have.
The fact of the matter is that it is an INTRINSIC property of open source that is must prove itself above and beyond that of commercial software simply because there is simply no legal recourse for companies who use it. I think it is perfectly understandable and reasonable for companies to accept commercial software above open source for this reason.
The "right" solution for a company is not necessarily "oh gee, look, this is really reliable, I know..." Honestly, there are TONS of good commercial solutions out there, just as there are GREAT open source solutions. It is a matter of looking at what each solution provides and what the company needs in terms of guarantees, etc. Commercial companies always have the advantage of being able to support their software in a way volunteers simply cannot.
Personally, I love open source but I don't think it will ever be dominant commercially. It does not provide anywhere near enough guarantees for modern companies, who can rely on the legalese of contracts to let those high-paying execs sleep at night.
I think this is a pretty risky practice. The fact of the matter is that while it may wholly depend on your place of employment, companies prefer to have some sort of legal guarantee of stability. Open source in commercial ventures has always seemed a little bit dodgy for me -- I don't see how management can possibly accept the word of the "community" as sacrosanct, given that at least in my experience people want *legal* assurance that they are getting into something stable. Sneaking open source past your boss is not a good idea. I don't think it is fair to whatever company you work for to involve themselves in some completely new architecture without giving them some guarantee of protection. Frankly, I think that the majority of the Slashdot audience is (no offense) a little bit deluded about open source. People seem to assume that open source implies correctness, elegance, reliability, perfection. I find that commercial solutions often provide just as good a solution and give your boss piece of mind. Open source is great...I just don't know how well it fits into a commercial setting.
Honestly, let's consider some facts (admittedly, a few well known):
1.) Linux is becoming a reasonable threat in the server market, but will ALWAYS be a negligible threat in the home market. Given the reasonable expertise of the average Linux user, as an OS it can never hope to compete with the (now reasonably) intuitive Windows installation and inteface.
2.) One of the places I work runs a lot of Web servers on NT. While it is absolutely ridiculous how unstable NT 4.0 was as a platform (every web server of 13 would crash at least 4 times a day), under 2000 it is amazing. This leads onto:
3.) Microsoft is now doing things right, IMHO. I don't think it is fair to bash a company for their aggressive tactics, which might be unfair. Nevertheless, some of Microsoft's newer products are fantastic (relatively speaking). Anyone who has developed web pages has to admit IE 5.0 is far better than Netscape 4.x. And Win 2000 is a fairly substantial improvement on previous versions, although more could be done.
4.) Open source will never be as big as in-house production. It is a simple matter of resource allocation. While I am continually stunned by what open-source projects manage to achieve, a company like Microsoft can very easily bring to bear enough excellent coders and a large budget.
5.) The reason Microsoft is #1 is because they have never been slow to react. Compare this to Apple, IBM, DEC, Digital...
The fact that Microsoft does little about Linux indicates its insignificance. Linux will always be a toy, just as Unix is a toy -- here toy as in for home users. I use Linux & Win 98 together, simply because Linux does not do a quarter of the stuff I need done, and I do not have the time to develop it. I admire those out there who do make the time.
Slashdot Mirror
I am an idiot.
:)
I would scarcely call an operating system that 95% of the world's PCs run "niche."
IE is a great browser, Mozilla is a great browser. Let people choose the browser they prefer.
there is a free ISP over here in Australia called goconnect.com. While I personally don't use it, a friend of mine does and says its great. I asked about the advertising and he said he really liked it -- they were popup ads every couple of minutes which were more like TV ads then web ads.
So maybe this is another approach? I mean, TV/radio ads are all about being completely stupid and glitzy and unexpected, whereas your average banner ad is very much ho-hum. I notice some sites doing sort of little pop-up tv-like ads, and now that high bandwidth connections are becoming more ubiquitous, maybe advertising ability on the net will catch up with the advertising promise of the net.
It seems the consensus is that micropayments are the way to go. I know there was a lot of work being done on this way before e-commerce began, but nothing seems to have come out recently. Are there any such projects nearing completion and/or commercial deployment? I think micropayments are absolutely essential, and are perhaps the only way that napster-esque programs will ever be semi-legal. I certainly wouldn't mind paying 50c per song if it was transparent and took one click.
A contract is a contract. While legal issues surrounding buying shrink-wrap software have obviously recently been in a bit of an uproar, CONTRACT based work (and, face it, most business-to-business commerce is very much done on a contract basis) would essentially be precendent-less in any court systems.
It is very difficult to get out of breach of contract if the contract is worded correctly. And most major software packages are done on a contract-basis, or at least in my experience with companies they have.
The "right" solution for a company is not necessarily "oh gee, look, this is really reliable, I know..." Honestly, there are TONS of good commercial solutions out there, just as there are GREAT open source solutions. It is a matter of looking at what each solution provides and what the company needs in terms of guarantees, etc. Commercial companies always have the advantage of being able to support their software in a way volunteers simply cannot.
Personally, I love open source but I don't think it will ever be dominant commercially. It does not provide anywhere near enough guarantees for modern companies, who can rely on the legalese of contracts to let those high-paying execs sleep at night.
I think this is a pretty risky practice. The fact of the matter is that while it may wholly depend on your place of employment, companies prefer to have some sort of legal guarantee of stability. Open source in commercial ventures has always seemed a little bit dodgy for me -- I don't see how management can possibly accept the word of the "community" as sacrosanct, given that at least in my experience people want *legal* assurance that they are getting into something stable. Sneaking open source past your boss is not a good idea. I don't think it is fair to whatever company you work for to involve themselves in some completely new architecture without giving them some guarantee of protection. Frankly, I think that the majority of the Slashdot audience is (no offense) a little bit deluded about open source. People seem to assume that open source implies correctness, elegance, reliability, perfection. I find that commercial solutions often provide just as good a solution and give your boss piece of mind. Open source is great...I just don't know how well it fits into a commercial setting.
Honestly, let's consider some facts (admittedly, a few well known):
1.) Linux is becoming a reasonable threat in the server market, but will ALWAYS be a negligible threat in the home market. Given the reasonable expertise of the average Linux user, as an OS it can never hope to compete with the (now reasonably) intuitive Windows installation and inteface.
2.) One of the places I work runs a lot of Web servers on NT. While it is absolutely ridiculous how unstable NT 4.0 was as a platform (every web server of 13 would crash at least 4 times a day), under 2000 it is amazing. This leads onto:
3.) Microsoft is now doing things right, IMHO. I don't think it is fair to bash a company for their aggressive tactics, which might be unfair. Nevertheless, some of Microsoft's newer products are fantastic (relatively speaking). Anyone who has developed web pages has to admit IE 5.0 is far better than Netscape 4.x. And Win 2000 is a fairly substantial improvement on previous versions, although more could be done.
4.) Open source will never be as big as in-house production. It is a simple matter of resource allocation. While I am continually stunned by what open-source projects manage to achieve, a company like Microsoft can very easily bring to bear enough excellent coders and a large budget.
5.) The reason Microsoft is #1 is because they have never been slow to react. Compare this to Apple, IBM, DEC, Digital...
The fact that Microsoft does little about Linux indicates its insignificance. Linux will always be a toy, just as Unix is a toy -- here toy as in for home users. I use Linux & Win 98 together, simply because Linux does not do a quarter of the stuff I need done, and I do not have the time to develop it. I admire those out there who do make the time.