Re:Good for linux(?), probably not good for Sun
on
Sun To Sell Linux PCs
·
· Score: 2
There was an article a while back that really showed that Sun is in a very bad position. I forget the details of it, but the gist of it was this. If you look at the technology they are working on, they seem to be at odds with themselves. They are developing cross platform software, and they are giving it away mostly for free, while they are trying to make money on selling a specific hardware platform.
Their software model, by most accounts makes it harder for them to differentiate their hardware. Their strategy is really the "get microsoft" approach, and they seem to be little concerned about the long term implications of their choices on their own business.
Criticizing sun for giving things away...
on
Sun To Sell Linux PCs
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
An editorial in the WorldTechTribute argues that Sun's education-market giveaway is exactly the sort of behavior that Microsoft has been attacked for in the past.
Yes, because THEY ARE A MONOPOLY.
If Microsoft wasn't a monopoly, the scrutiny placed upon their moves would be far less significant. If any move they make may be extending their monopoly or leveraging it, then they are game for criticism. If Sun wants to give StarOffice away, fine, they aren't a monopoly.
Here's an idea for a web service. Have a query system over at one of the major security clearinghouses that can be queried remotely by an application. Then have an application that runs on your system that periodically scans your system for files that are potentially at risk due to the latest security vulnerability.
Right now, the problem is that vendors will release information specific to their platform, but then if you download anything outside that platform, you are possibly putting yourself at risk unless you actively keep track of each piece of software. If you install enough software this becomes a tremendous pain.
This way, if there's a possible problem, you get alerted to it, can review the related security advisory, and then easily download the patches for it. That could really trim down on the severity of worm outbreaks I suspect.
I simply reject the notion that right and wrong exist outside of a context. That our personal beliefs, the beliefs of those close around us, and those of the society as a whole are what create the context that establishes whether something is right or wrong.
So are just arguing about semantics of the words "right" and "wrong" at this point? If so, I'll just agree with you, I think:)
Sure, I'd use it, but that's presuming that somebody would pay you enough for the ad banners to keep you in business. The other thing is that I could easily put some ad blocking software on my laptop to quickly bypass your ad banners. Of course advertisers knows this.
Your right, exactly! It's not a justification. You may feel you did the right thing, and you may end up spending time in jail for it. Law need not have anything to do with one's own sense of right and wrong (but it usually works better when they aren't completely at odds).
This isn't about justifying. If you steal and you feel that you are in your moral right to do so, then fine, do so, be happy. This isn't to suggest that when the cops come around you should be surprised or expect that your belief that it was right should effect their opinion of whether it is legal.
My original point was that it's silly to say that any particular act is just plain wrong. Legal or illegal, sure, that makes sense, but your own personal sense of ethics on the issue is just that, personal.
In a given situation each action you take is right or wrong depending on the context. That is, it is right and wrong within my own personal moral context, and it is also right and wrong within a societal context.
Is it wrong to copy one piece of software for a good friend? Is it wrong to copy it for a hundred friends? Is it wrong to copy for a thousand strangers? Is it wrong to copy for a profit? Each one of these questions can be answered differently even though they all fundamentally address the ethics of copying software.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not going to sit here and suggest that we can have no law in our society because none of us is of sufficient moral stature to judge anybody else. The fact of the matter is that in order for civilization to function, we have to come to common understandings that we can codify. It's a simple matter of majority rule (or perhaps these days, majority of the money rule but I digress). That's why we have a law that says if I copy more than so much software I can be punished for it. I may disagree with that law, but neither the law nor my personal belief has any bearing on some absolute definition of wrong. But that doesn't mean I'll be surprised if I egregiously violate copyright law and get thrown in prison.
No it's not a slippery slope. We as individuals decide what we believe to be right and wrong. Collectively we come together as a society and determine what things we, collectively believe to be right and wrong. Our society has come to collectively believe that it's wrong to murder and eat somebody, and hence it being codified in law.
That doesn't mean it's wrong in any absolute sense though.
Is it illegal to make copies of software? Well, that depends on how much you actually copy. Is is wrong to make copies of software? Well, that's up to your personal ethical code.
Just because you say it is wrong doesn't mean it is. Is it wrong to get an abortion? Is it wrong to smoke pot? A lot of people will give you different opinions on the ethics of those issues, regardless of their legal standing.
Yes there are people who don't do it, agreed, but your declaration that it's simply wrong is a bit self-righteous.
The fact of the matter is that technology isn't going to eliminate the value of professional photographers in certain situations, most particularly weddings. While you may get married more than once during your lifetime, the fact of the matter is that each unique wedding event, only happens once. The reason you hire a professional photographer is that the photographer provides an insurance that you'll have one good set of photos to look back at with the grandkids. Whether they are taking digital or analog photos, it's their ability to provide consistent quality that you pay for.
If it turns out that due to digital piracy, photographers find themselves unable to charge for prints, then they'll end up providing originals, and charging more up front instead of charging for printing. In the end they'll end up getting the same amount of money, they'll just get it all at once instead of getting it spaced out over time. People will pay it because the service provided is worthwhile.
It would be nice if the tilley thing turns out not to be a fraud, but thermodynamics seems to suggest it is. If this Tilley device works as it seems to claim, then I could hook up the crankshaft of the car to turn a generator. In essence I could create energy out of seemingly thin air. I'm looking forward to either their revelation as a fraud or a detailed explanation of how the physics of this thing actually works.
The problem that Loki faced was that people who are gamers have big beefy windows machines so that they can play the vast majority of games that Loki didn't port. There was no reason for a person to wait months just to get the Linux version when one could have the windows version immediately that would work on the system you already had.
Taking the example from the article, a product like dreamweaver is not prone to the whims of gamers. I, for example, develop exclusively on a linux system. To have to use any windows app is a pain in the butt because I either have to run the bloated VMWare, dual boot, or have another computer to work on. I tried to get Dreamweaver running under wine but that wasn't a success.
Go on-line to your favorite search engine and do a search for information about how to encrypt credit card transmissions using SSL. You will find a ton of useful information and hordes of people wanting to sell you certificates for your servers.
Now, go on-line and try to find information about STORING credit cards. There's very little in the way of useful information on how to do this securely. Most of the good security people simply advise not doing at all. In spite of that many on-line businesses are doing credit card storage and you quickly get the sense that few of them have any idea how to store this information in a secure way.
So, all we need to do is combine this plane with the tilley foundation's amazing electric engine and then people can fly forever. Oh wait, that's assuming the tilley foundation isn't a complete hoax:)
On the other hand, with this paradigm, there is the *risk* that the government starts displacing companies by releasing a free product.
That's only a risk if the product is better. In which case, who really cares if they get displaced? Furthermore, to say it's free is ignoring the fact that no company on earth likes using free and unsupported software. They want support contracts, etc. So, if it is good, there will be money there for people who want to suppor and provider custom add ons for that product. A good way for those displaced people to keep making money, non?
Furthermore, who is the Geman government displacing? Microsoft? IBM? Last time I checked those were US companies, and I don't think the Germans will be too upset if they manage to display US jobs with German jobs.
Interesting legal issue though is how this works in the realm of the WTO. Would the german government paying a company to develop groupware software be an illegal subsidy? If it is, then how could any government ever get any custom software written for their needs?
Well if you are working in Java, I've used Cactus before with success. It's based on junit, and allows you to do unit testing on servlets/jsp's in a nicely automated way. As long as you take the time to create good test cases, it can do quite a good job.
I've traveled by plane a few times and fortunately I'm not particularly attractive so the security guards haven't felt a need to select me for a random groping. So, though the baggage scanning is noticebly more thorough, no big difference there.
As for my personal life outside of airports, I haven't been effected at all to my knowledge. Of course, for all i know the FBI has been gathering evidence on me, and I'll be held as an illegal combatant.
Oh wait, that won't happen to me. I'm white...
I think most of the reason people are okay with the idiocy our government has unleashed post 9/11 is that they assume that none of it will effect them personally and so it doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is that most immigrant communities are more loyal to this country than those of us who were native born. Why? Because they appreciate the difference that little things like a constitution, due process and opportunities make because they didn't grow up with those guarantees.
There's really no good way to measure the actual number of net users for the various reasons you mention. What is likely to be the case is that the Internet users are determined by using a statistical sampling approach. They ask a question like, "Do you use the internet?" to some statistically significant portion of the population and then extrapolate to figure out the total.
We don't know how they came up with the statistics though so I guess we are left to ask if the the statistics make sense. Given that EU's population in 2000 was 379 million and the U.S./Canada combined population is only about 310 million and given that EU, in general has a number of well educated people, it makes sense that they'd have more Internet users. Now, given that europe has 186 million and US/Canada has 182 million that means that the US/Canada leads in per capita internet users. If these numbers are accurate, 49% of europeans use the Internet where as 59% of Americans/Canadians do.
So, the number makes sense when you think about it. But does it really matter?:)
Maybe I'm just not using a good P2P service, but my experiences have never been that straight forward. Do a search, hopefully find the song, then try to download it. Wait through several minutes of attempts to connect to a host, then eventually find one who is so swamped that they can only upload it to you at about 2K/sec. Then you get it downloaded and it turns out it's a crappy rip.
Granted I'm describing a worst case scenario, but I figure it nicley contrasts your best case scenario:)
I pay for cable to watch on my TV, which is where I watch television anyhow. On the other hand, with this service I'd be paying to listen to music on my computer which is not where I listen to it. I listen to music on my stereo system, or in my car, or on my portable when I go for a walk. I'm not about to pay money for a service that makes me listen to music in a way that is inconvenient to my life.
Is this worth $10/month over free Kazaa? Not in its current form. It's way worthwhile if I can actually download music in a non-proprietary protected format. Hell, it's worth $20/month. Why? Because with Kazaa and the like, I have to dig to find the music I want, it's not always in good quality, and it's never organized as an album. I will pay for that convenience, and I think a lot of people would. I also think most people would rather that the artists were getting money and would prefer to pay a little and insure that than just outright steal the stuff.
It's tangible enough if I always happen to want to listen to the music at a computer. This is, for most people, not the case. What I want to be able to do is download the music, so I can put it on my portable player, or, maybe even play it on one of my linux boxes (since this is a windows only program that would be out of the question).
Will I pay $10/month for an on-line music service, yes. In fact I already have done this, using emusic. And with that service I get mp3's that I can download, move around, and enjoy wherever I want. Hell, I'd probably pay up to $20/month if the quality of the music was good enough and diverse enough to make me want to keep coming back for more.
This will flop, just like all the other ones. The logic espoused by the record labels will be that they could make money on this sort of service if it wasn't for all those P2P pirates. In reality it is simply a matter of them not providing a quality service. I love that my privacy and freedom will get trampled because they can't make a quality service. My message to the RIAA: give us what we want, and we will pay for it. Don't give us what we want, and YOU will pay for it.
And lest we forget, copyright is what makes things like the GPL possible. If there was no copyright, Microsoft could hijack all of linux, close it up, and that source would never again see the light of day.
Of course the question that has to be asked is what will be modified in a closed Chinese version of Linux that would be worth having in the main distribution? How many of those useful improvements will be leaked to the outside world through other channels?
Slashdot Mirror
There was an article a while back that really showed that Sun is in a very bad position. I forget the details of it, but the gist of it was this.
If you look at the technology they are working on, they seem to be at odds with themselves. They are developing cross platform software, and they are giving it away mostly for free, while they are trying to make money on selling a specific hardware platform.
Their software model, by most accounts makes it harder for them to differentiate their hardware. Their strategy is really the "get microsoft" approach, and they seem to be little concerned about the long term implications of their choices on their own business.
An editorial in the WorldTechTribute argues that Sun's education-market giveaway is exactly the sort of behavior that Microsoft has been attacked for in the past.
Yes, because THEY ARE A MONOPOLY.
If Microsoft wasn't a monopoly, the scrutiny placed upon their moves would be far less significant. If any move they make may be extending their monopoly or leveraging it, then they are game for criticism. If Sun wants to give StarOffice away, fine, they aren't a monopoly.
Here's an idea for a web service. Have a query system over at one of the major security clearinghouses that can be queried remotely by an application. Then have an application that runs on your system that periodically scans your system for files that are potentially at risk due to the latest security vulnerability.
Right now, the problem is that vendors will release information specific to their platform, but then if you download anything outside that platform, you are possibly putting yourself at risk unless you actively keep track of each piece of software. If you install enough software this becomes a tremendous pain.
This way, if there's a possible problem, you get alerted to it, can review the related security advisory, and then easily download the patches for it. That could really trim down on the severity of worm outbreaks I suspect.
I simply reject the notion that right and wrong exist outside of a context. That our personal beliefs, the beliefs of those close around us, and those of the society as a whole are what create the context that establishes whether something is right or wrong.
:)
So are just arguing about semantics of the words "right" and "wrong" at this point? If so, I'll just agree with you, I think
Sure, I'd use it, but that's presuming that somebody would pay you enough for the ad banners to keep you in business. The other thing is that I could easily put some ad blocking software on my laptop to quickly bypass your ad banners. Of course advertisers knows this.
Your right, exactly! It's not a justification. You may feel you did the right thing, and you may end up spending time in jail for it. Law need not have anything to do with one's own sense of right and wrong (but it usually works better when they aren't completely at odds).
This isn't about justifying. If you steal and you feel that you are in your moral right to do so, then fine, do so, be happy. This isn't to suggest that when the cops come around you should be surprised or expect that your belief that it was right should effect their opinion of whether it is legal.
My original point was that it's silly to say that any particular act is just plain wrong. Legal or illegal, sure, that makes sense, but your own personal sense of ethics on the issue is just that, personal.
In a given situation each action you take is right or wrong depending on the context. That is, it is right and wrong within my own personal moral context, and it is also right and wrong within a societal context.
Is it wrong to copy one piece of software for a good friend? Is it wrong to copy it for a hundred friends? Is it wrong to copy for a thousand strangers? Is it wrong to copy for a profit? Each one of these questions can be answered differently even though they all fundamentally address the ethics of copying software.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not going to sit here and suggest that we can have no law in our society because none of us is of sufficient moral stature to judge anybody else. The fact of the matter is that in order for civilization to function, we have to come to common understandings that we can codify. It's a simple matter of majority rule (or perhaps these days, majority of the money rule but I digress). That's why we have a law that says if I copy more than so much software I can be punished for it. I may disagree with that law, but neither the law nor my personal belief has any bearing on some absolute definition of wrong. But that doesn't mean I'll be surprised if I egregiously violate copyright law and get thrown in prison.
No it's not a slippery slope. We as individuals decide what we believe to be right and wrong. Collectively we come together as a society and determine what things we, collectively believe to be right and wrong. Our society has come to collectively believe that it's wrong to murder and eat somebody, and hence it being codified in law.
That doesn't mean it's wrong in any absolute sense though.
Is it illegal to make copies of software? Well, that depends on how much you actually copy. Is is wrong to make copies of software? Well, that's up to your personal ethical code.
Just because you say it is wrong doesn't mean it is. Is it wrong to get an abortion? Is it wrong to smoke pot? A lot of people will give you different opinions on the ethics of those issues, regardless of their legal standing.
Yes there are people who don't do it, agreed, but your declaration that it's simply wrong is a bit self-righteous.
The fact of the matter is that technology isn't going to eliminate the value of professional photographers in certain situations, most particularly weddings. While you may get married more than once during your lifetime, the fact of the matter is that each unique wedding event, only happens once. The reason you hire a professional photographer is that the photographer provides an insurance that you'll have one good set of photos to look back at with the grandkids. Whether they are taking digital or analog photos, it's their ability to provide consistent quality that you pay for.
If it turns out that due to digital piracy, photographers find themselves unable to charge for prints, then they'll end up providing originals, and charging more up front instead of charging for printing. In the end they'll end up getting the same amount of money, they'll just get it all at once instead of getting it spaced out over time. People will pay it because the service provided is worthwhile.
It would be nice if the tilley thing turns out not to be a fraud, but thermodynamics seems to suggest it is. If this Tilley device works as it seems to claim, then I could hook up the crankshaft of the car to turn a generator. In essence I could create energy out of seemingly thin air. I'm looking forward to either their revelation as a fraud or a detailed explanation of how the physics of this thing actually works.
It's global. Some merchants require it, some don't.
The problem that Loki faced was that people who are gamers have big beefy windows machines so that they can play the vast majority of games that Loki didn't port. There was no reason for a person to wait months just to get the Linux version when one could have the windows version immediately that would work on the system you already had.
Taking the example from the article, a product like dreamweaver is not prone to the whims of gamers. I, for example, develop exclusively on a linux system. To have to use any windows app is a pain in the butt because I either have to run the bloated VMWare, dual boot, or have another computer to work on. I tried to get Dreamweaver running under wine but that wasn't a success.
Go on-line to your favorite search engine and do a search for information about how to encrypt credit card transmissions using SSL. You will find a ton of useful information and hordes of people wanting to sell you certificates for your servers.
Now, go on-line and try to find information about STORING credit cards. There's very little in the way of useful information on how to do this securely. Most of the good security people simply advise not doing at all. In spite of that many on-line businesses are doing credit card storage and you quickly get the sense that few of them have any idea how to store this information in a secure way.
So, all we need to do is combine this plane with the tilley foundation's amazing electric engine and then people can fly forever. Oh wait, that's assuming the tilley foundation isn't a complete hoax :)
On the other hand, with this paradigm, there is the *risk* that the government starts displacing companies by releasing a free product.
That's only a risk if the product is better. In which case, who really cares if they get displaced? Furthermore, to say it's free is ignoring the fact that no company on earth likes using free and unsupported software. They want support contracts, etc. So, if it is good, there will be money there for people who want to suppor and provider custom add ons for that product. A good way for those displaced people to keep making money, non?
Furthermore, who is the Geman government displacing? Microsoft? IBM? Last time I checked those were US companies, and I don't think the Germans will be too upset if they manage to display US jobs with German jobs.
Interesting legal issue though is how this works in the realm of the WTO. Would the german government paying a company to develop groupware software be an illegal subsidy? If it is, then how could any government ever get any custom software written for their needs?
Well if you are working in Java, I've used Cactus before with success. It's based on junit, and allows you to do unit testing on servlets/jsp's in a nicely automated way. As long as you take the time to create good test cases, it can do quite a good job.
I've traveled by plane a few times and fortunately I'm not particularly attractive so the security guards haven't felt a need to select me for a random groping. So, though the baggage scanning is noticebly more thorough, no big difference there.
As for my personal life outside of airports, I haven't been effected at all to my knowledge. Of course, for all i know the FBI has been gathering evidence on me, and I'll be held as an illegal combatant.
Oh wait, that won't happen to me. I'm white...
I think most of the reason people are okay with the idiocy our government has unleashed post 9/11 is that they assume that none of it will effect them personally and so it doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is that most immigrant communities are more loyal to this country than those of us who were native born. Why? Because they appreciate the difference that little things like a constitution, due process and opportunities make because they didn't grow up with those guarantees.
There's really no good way to measure the actual number of net users for the various reasons you mention. What is likely to be the case is that the Internet users are determined by using a statistical sampling approach. They ask a question like, "Do you use the internet?" to some statistically significant portion of the population and then extrapolate to figure out the total.
:)
We don't know how they came up with the statistics though so I guess we are left to ask if the the statistics make sense. Given that EU's population in 2000 was 379 million and the U.S./Canada combined population is only about 310 million and given that EU, in general has a number of well educated people, it makes sense that they'd have more Internet users. Now, given that europe has 186 million and US/Canada has 182 million that means that the US/Canada leads in per capita internet users. If these numbers are accurate, 49% of europeans use the Internet where as 59% of Americans/Canadians do.
So, the number makes sense when you think about it. But does it really matter?
Maybe I'm just not using a good P2P service, but my experiences have never been that straight forward. Do a search, hopefully find the song, then try to download it. Wait through several minutes of attempts to connect to a host, then eventually find one who is so swamped that they can only upload it to you at about 2K/sec. Then you get it downloaded and it turns out it's a crappy rip.
:)
Granted I'm describing a worst case scenario, but I figure it nicley contrasts your best case scenario
Neither XM nor Sirius carry the music I enjoy listening to. And also, I don't think they have a version I can just carry around with me on a walk :)
I pay for cable to watch on my TV, which is where I watch television anyhow. On the other hand, with this service I'd be paying to listen to music on my computer which is not where I listen to it. I listen to music on my stereo system, or in my car, or on my portable when I go for a walk. I'm not about to pay money for a service that makes me listen to music in a way that is inconvenient to my life.
Is this worth $10/month over free Kazaa? Not in its current form. It's way worthwhile if I can actually download music in a non-proprietary protected format. Hell, it's worth $20/month. Why? Because with Kazaa and the like, I have to dig to find the music I want, it's not always in good quality, and it's never organized as an album. I will pay for that convenience, and I think a lot of people would. I also think most people would rather that the artists were getting money and would prefer to pay a little and insure that than just outright steal the stuff.
It's tangible enough if I always happen to want to listen to the music at a computer. This is, for most people, not the case. What I want to be able to do is download the music, so I can put it on my portable player, or, maybe even play it on one of my linux boxes (since this is a windows only program that would be out of the question).
Will I pay $10/month for an on-line music service, yes. In fact I already have done this, using emusic. And with that service I get mp3's that I can download, move around, and enjoy wherever I want. Hell, I'd probably pay up to $20/month if the quality of the music was good enough and diverse enough to make me want to keep coming back for more.
This will flop, just like all the other ones. The logic espoused by the record labels will be that they could make money on this sort of service if it wasn't for all those P2P pirates. In reality it is simply a matter of them not providing a quality service. I love that my privacy and freedom will get trampled because they can't make a quality service. My message to the RIAA: give us what we want, and we will pay for it. Don't give us what we want, and YOU will pay for it.
And lest we forget, copyright is what makes things like the GPL possible. If there was no copyright, Microsoft could hijack all of linux, close it up, and that source would never again see the light of day.
Of course the question that has to be asked is what will be modified in a closed Chinese version of Linux that would be worth having in the main distribution? How many of those useful improvements will be leaked to the outside world through other channels?
Well, funny this should come up as I just got my new backup drive yesterday and was going to sit down to write a backup script. Thanks! :)