"Those with the true hacker mentality--explore, discover, invent--have long since moved on to a new title."
This may have been a self-proclaimed title at best. I have an old popular science magazine from the 1970s which has a whole explanation of the word "hacker" as a person that breaks into computers illegally.
I'm not sure the public ever used the word to mean "to invent, explore, or discover--mentally".
"The key to keeping me from hacking the companies assets was to keep me busy. Safe to say I bet the same goes for any others of my ilk."
Right. So if they don't keep you busy are you going to hack their assets?
Hacking (in the illegal sense) is completly different than working on a difficult project for a company. It would be like saying a bank robber won't rob banks if you give him a job as a teller.
Hacking is fun and exciting. If I had millions of dollars, I would probably do it for recreation, but the fact of the matter is, it's difficult to make money doing it.
"Both these cases violate not the letter of the GPLv2 licence, but the spirit of it. That spirit being the ability to run the program, modify the source, and run the changed program. This is happening on small scales today. It could soon be happening on a huge scale, and that would undermine the whole FOSS community. GPLv3 will be needed in the future."
That may be the case, but both these examples are why large companies like google continue to use open source software. When the GPLV3 is finalized and most people are using it, we will most likely see a sharp decrease in overall usage with businesses.
If the GNU is a license based on distribution, why should a person running a service (if they are not distributing it to their users) have to release the source? It is a more restrictive license.
It makes no sense and it tells me that RMS is only going to get crazier over the next couple of years and most likely alienate the Free software community from the rest of society.
Linus is the voice of reason. He sees where it's all heading and is going in the exact opposite direction. I don't blame him.
"I define "primetime" as: 1. The OS is relatively free of memory leaks, FS corruption, and other bugs that won't let you keep it on for 10 days or so without it acting all crazy on you."
I have been able to run windows machines (98, 95, and XP) for months at a time without any filesystem corruption. The major distros only recently had a stable journaling filesystem. I have lost many linux partitions just by cutting the power at the wrong time.
"2. There is some semblance of user security in the OS."
Linux, mac OSX, and windows all have their own security issues.
"3. Being able to be run on a network without very many problems."
Very vague, but 95 and 98 pass both these.
"4. Most users can figure out how to use the OS if it is preinstalled on the computer."
again, 98 and 95 pass this
"5. There are enough applications for the platform so that it can be used to do most of the tasks that people have the computer do (this does NOT mean that the apps have to be compatible with other apps or that a certain vendor's app runs on it- only that the functionality is there.) 6. There are enough drivers out there for the platform that one can have enough peripherals to do most of the tasks that a computer does- print, scan, play back audio, etc."
"See, this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about here! Your vicious, vindictive attitude, calling Microsoft the "enemy" like this was war or something is stupid! It TURNS PEOPLE OFF. This more than anything else is what makes people wary of open source ANYTHING"
Don't worry, linux has been around for almost 10 years and look at the Marketshare..very pitiful. After awhile, you would think that mistakes that have been made time and time again with OSS and the public would not be made again, but it never ceases to amaze me.
I still remember using Redhat version 1. The same bitchfests and flamewars were around then.
The problem is that even though the community and the spirit of the GNU are against corporate culture and without the support of corporate america, there will be little support for drivers and applications, which make or break an OS.
"The way I see it, Windows got two major problem. The insanely greedy company developing it, and the incredibly stupid user base. Spare the community and dont tell your customers about foss. Ok, that was only one of my many, and incompatible, points of view."
the stupid user base as you say would not only bring linux into the mainstream but there might even be more hardware support as well.
Linux needs someone who cares a little bit about money. Without this, they will never be able to start converting the business types.
"Not to say the concerns mentioned aren't valid, but most people who fix Windows machines get tired of simply removing spyware and viruses, and wish they were actually fixing something that broke, not designed in a way that is easy to break! (Except those who are happy to be called back routinely to make lots of short term profit.)"
I hate to break it to you, but that is how most computer techs get paid these days...removing spyware and viruses. In a sick sense, it's job security.
"A useful tie-in is to also refer to a LUG, so they can get support in a variety of ways, at a time when they are just learning"
Good luck with that one. Have you ever been to a LUG? Most people there do not like to help the computer illiterate.
"I try to get people to move to cross platform apps on Windows, even before they move, so that the switch to Linux is rather easy, and they've had prior good feelings about FOSS, so don't toss it at the first little problem."
Linux is fine for a few apps and it may have a nice interface (KDE,Gnome), but what about when your end user wants to install a game that little johnny just got for christmas? Or how about this cool new printing app that grandma just bought at best buy?
The problem is that there just aren't enough companies creating linux apps (mostly because it is not profitable) to make it a practical choice for the end user. I recently uninstalled it from my main machine because of this. It now runs in a Vmware session for development purposes only.
The reason linux is not mainstreamed (and most likely won't..if it continues on its current path) is because it scares most businesses away (the ones that want to use it as a platform for their product..not as an operating system for their employees).
All these lawsuits and the outspoken RMS do not help either.
More businesses = more commerical applications, driver support, and a higher marker share (maybe even beating microsoft). The community as a whole just doesn't seem to grasp this fact yet.
"The coolest thing is that I heard on the news the other day where people at the other megacorps are realizing that there is profit in copyright infringement. Madonna's people are OK for uploaded stuff on youtube because they realize its free advertising. Much like the bands that allow taping of their concerts (we are looking at you Bob Weir). Who knows, maybe we can soon buy music in unencumbered digital formats at real market value. Maybe"
allowing Taping of their concerts is one thing, allowing full downloads of nearly perfect quality songs is another.
I can't imagine anyone wanting to hiring you..anywhere.
I need really loud music to get my work done. Should I be able to listen to it..even though everyone around me is distracted and/or cannot get their work done?
"I agree that a badly behaved dog is a horror. I've got 3 dogs, and someone across the back has this tiny yippie thing that, when it barks, they keep shouting at it to shut up - like the dog is going to listen. This can go on for an hour. They don't get it - they're too lazy to get up off their fat arse and look the dog in the eye and tell it to be quiet.
Contrast that to 2 nights ago - a dog barking for almost half an hour at 2 in the morning in another neighbours back yard - and none of my dogs made a noise. "
now you know why pets aren't allowed in most work places.
"Pirating music" is only illegal because we humans say that it is illegal.
I can imagine a world where the state pays a recording artist for every download and provides music for its citizens for free. Something like state supported arts."
I think you mean art that is funded by the taxpayers of the people. I don't think sweden (which has very high taxes as it is due to public health care programs) or the U.S needs this now or ever.
"The point is that WE define what legal and illegal mean, and they don't have to continue meaning what they mean now. In fact, the meaning of "own" has changed already--we don't "own" software, despite the fact that we hold a shiny disc in our hands. We only own the "right to use" the software"
copyright and IP laws works in favor of the little guy as well as the big corporations. If you want to prevent anyone from making a living with their software, music, or art, that's fine. Just don't try to hide behind your own selfish needs.
"you're having troubles with your Internet connection slowing down a bunch while using Bittorrent, you probably need to cap its upload speed. As of a long time ago, you couldn't do this with the official client (maybe you can now; I haven't checked). Try getting Bittornado [bittornado.com] which will allow you to limit the speed at which it uploads and should allow you to use it without monopolizing your bandwidth."
This may be true, but most clients will kill your download speed when limiting your upload speed. I would rather have it kill my connection overnight than have to wait a couple of days for my downloads to finish.
"Well as long as you are at it, you might as well block email given that there are reports that upward of 82% [internetnews.com] of it is spam. 419 scams, get-rich-quick schemes, multi-level-marketing, fake viagra, medication without a prescription, blatant fraud, identity theft, phishing, Pump & Dump stock trades, you name a scam & e-mail has it"
yeah, well, most people communicate through email (including professors) and email is light for the most part, light bandwidth, so you don't even have a valid point.
Have you ever even used bittorrent? It automatically shares your connection with other people (which takes up a ton of bandwidth). If this was not the case, it would be no different than something like FTP, which is a non-issue.
I have used bittorrent to download many linux distros and I usually have to start a download before I go to sleep at night because of the thrashing my cable modem takes when downloading.
even a university Internet connection would be saturated with enough of these running.
"I have to agree about not being able to win in this situation, I also agree that allowing bit torrent to run without restriction will most likely lead to lawsuits. I wonder if the uni could get round this by making the students sign a declaration that they are the sole persons responsible for what they do on the net. (I don't really get how it works though, if a student was downloading child porn the uni wouldn't be in trouble, would it?)."
If a university does not have the capability to limit bandwidth on a per-computer/connection basis, they need to block most if not all p2p services (and bittorrent).
When I was going to college in 2000, my university had no blocks (and did not have the capability to throttle bandwidth). The Internet was not only unusable, but I would find kazaa and napster clients running on lab computers all the time with hundreds of connections (mostly people downloading porn). Now, all odd outgoing ports are blocked (besides the usuals: 80, 100, 25, 443,etc) and the Internet is faster then ever.
We are also required to login with a username/password to get on the Internet, and any unlawful activity can be traced directly back to our account.
It's one thing to appease your users, but another if it effects the QOS for 99% of the people on the Network.
"Compared to the extreme permissive licenses like the MIT or BSD licenses"
Interesting you would use these words to describe the BSD and MIT license. Wouldn't the software freedom fighters of the world want a more permissive license model?
"While there are plenty of good reasons why people might prefer thoes licenses, it strikes me that bitching about not having those rights, in the name of freedom, is a bit like a southern US plantation owner complaining about the loss of his freedom to own slaves..."
I think you have things a little mixed up here. If GPLd code was allowed to be closed up and re-sold (without re-releasing the source), the original code would still be there. It would not take away any freedoms (you could still get to the original source). It would only prevent the additions (which weren't the communities to begin with) from being released, thus restricting the freedom of the programmer.
"The so called "recording industry" is just not needed anymore. Just get your fortune and invest in another productive area, and get over it.
Go away. Please."
even if the current RIAA is gone, there will always be some type of recording industry around. It's just too lucrative.
also, most artists have no experience marketing, selling, or dealing with the right people that will get them the high-paying gigs they need to continue performing and feed their family and or make the rent.
"No. Those commercials are just telling you to use an OS compatible with your personality. If you're an inveterate square, it makes no sense for you to use a Mac."
The commercial is all wrong. The apple guy should be wearing a pink shirt and talking with a lisp (and listening to showtunes).
Microsoft should put this in their commercial, but I don't think they would have the balls to do it.
"You prefer selling copies of binaries @ $30 per punter giving $15,000 per hour wages - and prohibit copying, keeping the source code secret - and still try to sell copies."
yeah, I do. This business method works very well. So why change it? There are thousands of examples where this business model works, but not too many where it works with your methodology (larger companies such as redhat are excluded).
"think it's more likely your approach would be undercut by mine - far cheaper. Even folk in the western world would be happy with $500 for an hour's work. You don't need to invoke Asia to suggest people who'd work for a thirtieth of the $15,000 per hour you'd demand"
Yes, they would, but as I have been saying this entire time, you will most likely never average $15,000/Hour (and I will not average $30,000/hour).
It is clear you have never been involved in a software company, otherwise you would not be making these claims.
"I actually proposed selling bug fixes for $1 each, which seems to be far smaller than the $30 you suggest - and heaven knows how much revenue you'd eventually receive"
$1 per bug is not practical (unless I am the one paying you to fix the bugs in my program for $1/bug..then it's a great deal). This is because some bugs take hours to fix.
"One of those is a particularly extortionate and bad deal. Especially considering it's only a couple of hours work"
plumbers charge a lot of money per hour for only a little bit of work. Should they be considered a bad deal? How about doctors? Lawyers? (I can go on and one with professionals that charge lots of money for what seems like a small amount of work).
If there are only a few people that can fix problem X, your value is massivly increased. When anyone and there brother can fix the exact same problems you can fix..your value will continue to approach $0 over time.
"How on earth can you compare your preferred wages of >$15,000/hour to the cost of living in India or China?"
Your figures are a little naive and not even close to reality. Try selling and or supporting software for a couple of years and you will know what I mean.
I mentioned India and China because it proves my point. When anyone can do a certain job (IE: anyone can get the source code), there will always be places in the world where someone can and will undercut you (the same job for 75% less money. Businesses look at their bottom line).
This is exactly what is happening with software development.
If you want to succeed, you have to stop thinking like a coder.
The first person to use it can take it and re-release it for free. Copyright prevents this from happening..legally. I would rather sell it for $30 and have a bunch of people buy it. OSS also makes software a commodity, which means you won't be in business very long if you are charging $500 for bug fixes (hint: it costs much less to live in India or China than the US).
"Remember, copyright is a 300 year old (archaic) revenue mechanism that relies upon an unethical suspension of the rights of the public. It's an anachronism in the age of the Internet"
it's been around for 300 years for a reason...because it works..well. Just because there have been recent abuses of it does not mean it should be abolished.
"You can actually make money without it."
I never said you couldn't. It's just much more difficult and you will make much less (you might not even be able to make a living at it) than proprietary software.
"However difficult you perceive making money without copyright (or with the GPL's nullification of it), the fact remains: it is not the OBJECTIVE of the GPL to prevent people selling their software"
Whether it's the objective or a side-effect, the end result is still the same.
"As for making it easier to make money from selling software (without trying to sell copies of it), I am working on it..."
It can be done, but when your time directly translates to the amount of money you make (through custom work, support, etc) you will always be limited because there is only so much time in the day (unless you can afford to hire someone else to do it for you).
"No. MySpace is the most popular site on the internet among the band-listening, teenage generation. Mind you, most of these bands should already be on iTunes via CDBaby... but still. If they don't fumble this, MySpace could easily put a very large dent in iTunes and the major labels, which is a good thing"
It is also the most popular among people who will share those songs. The problem is that popularity is against them. The more popular a song, the more likely it will be shared and downloaded rather than bought. iTunes and other services have protected Music, which for the most part, prevents this from happening.
I see one of two things happening:
1) they will eventually use DRM or some other form of protection 2) they will stop selling mp3s altogether
or,
They realize the above issues and are selling these intentionally at a loss (or for no profit)..just to get these unsigned bands popular by giving their songs a perceived value.
Slashdot Mirror
"Those with the true hacker mentality--explore, discover, invent--have long since moved on to a new title."
This may have been a self-proclaimed title at best. I have an old popular science magazine from the 1970s which has a whole explanation of the word "hacker" as a person that breaks into computers illegally.
I'm not sure the public ever used the word to mean "to invent, explore, or discover--mentally".
"The key to keeping me from hacking the companies assets was to keep me busy. Safe to say I bet the same goes for any others of my ilk."
Right. So if they don't keep you busy are you going to hack their assets?
Hacking (in the illegal sense) is completly different than working on a difficult project for a company. It would be like saying a bank robber won't rob banks if you give him a job as a teller.
Hacking is fun and exciting. If I had millions of dollars, I would probably do it for recreation, but the fact of the matter is, it's difficult to make money doing it.
"Both these cases violate not the letter of the GPLv2 licence, but the spirit of it. That spirit being the ability to run the program, modify the source, and run the changed program. This is happening on small scales today. It could soon be happening on a huge scale, and that would undermine the whole FOSS community. GPLv3 will be needed in the future."
That may be the case, but both these examples are why large companies like google continue to use open source software. When the GPLV3 is finalized and most people are using it, we will most likely see a sharp decrease in overall usage with businesses.
If the GNU is a license based on distribution, why should a person running a service (if they are not distributing it to their users) have to release the source? It is a more restrictive license.
It makes no sense and it tells me that RMS is only going to get crazier over the next couple of years and most likely alienate the Free software community from the rest of society.
Linus is the voice of reason. He sees where it's all heading and is going in the exact opposite direction. I don't blame him.
"I define "primetime" as:
1. The OS is relatively free of memory leaks, FS corruption, and other bugs that won't let you keep it on for 10 days or so without it acting all crazy on you."
I have been able to run windows machines (98, 95, and XP) for months at a time without any filesystem corruption. The major distros only recently had a stable journaling filesystem. I have lost many linux partitions just by cutting the power at the wrong time.
"2. There is some semblance of user security in the OS."
Linux, mac OSX, and windows all have their own security issues.
"3. Being able to be run on a network without very many problems."
Very vague, but 95 and 98 pass both these.
"4. Most users can figure out how to use the OS if it is preinstalled on the computer."
again, 98 and 95 pass this
"5. There are enough applications for the platform so that it can be used to do most of the tasks that people have the computer do (this does NOT mean that the apps have to be compatible with other apps or that a certain vendor's app runs on it- only that the functionality is there.)
6. There are enough drivers out there for the platform that one can have enough peripherals to do most of the tasks that a computer does- print, scan, play back audio, etc."
Most linux distros fail 1-6 to some degree.
"Windows wasn't truly ready for the primetime until Windows 2000."
How do you define "primetime"? I would say the 90% or so marketshare microsoft had with 95 and 98 would prove otherwise.
"See, this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about here! Your vicious, vindictive attitude, calling Microsoft the "enemy" like this was war or something is stupid! It TURNS PEOPLE OFF. This more than anything else is what makes people wary of open source ANYTHING"
Don't worry, linux has been around for almost 10 years and look at the Marketshare..very pitiful. After awhile, you would think that mistakes that have been made time and time again with OSS and the public would not be made again, but it never ceases to amaze me.
I still remember using Redhat version 1. The same bitchfests and flamewars were around then.
The problem is that even though the community and the spirit of the GNU are against corporate culture and without the support of corporate america, there will be little support for drivers and applications, which make or break an OS.
"The way I see it, Windows got two major problem. The insanely greedy company developing it, and the incredibly stupid user base. Spare the community and dont tell your customers about foss. Ok, that was only one of my many, and incompatible, points of view."
the stupid user base as you say would not only bring linux into the mainstream but there might even be more hardware support as well.
Linux needs someone who cares a little bit about money. Without this, they will never be able to start converting the business types.
"Not to say the concerns mentioned aren't valid, but most people who fix Windows machines get tired of simply removing spyware and viruses, and wish they were actually fixing something that broke, not designed in a way that is easy to break! (Except those who are happy to be called back routinely to make lots of short term profit.)"
I hate to break it to you, but that is how most computer techs get paid these days...removing spyware and viruses. In a sick sense, it's job security.
"A useful tie-in is to also refer to a LUG, so they can get support in a variety of ways, at a time when they are just learning"
Good luck with that one. Have you ever been to a LUG? Most people there do not like to help the computer illiterate.
"I try to get people to move to cross platform apps on Windows, even before they move, so that the switch to Linux is rather easy, and they've had prior good feelings about FOSS, so don't toss it at the first little problem."
Linux is fine for a few apps and it may have a nice interface (KDE,Gnome), but what about when your end user wants to install a game that little johnny just got for christmas? Or how about this cool new printing app that grandma just bought at best buy?
The problem is that there just aren't enough companies creating linux apps (mostly because it is not profitable) to make it a practical choice for the end user. I recently uninstalled it from my main machine because of this. It now runs in a Vmware session for development purposes only.
The reason linux is not mainstreamed (and most likely won't..if it continues on its current path) is because it scares most businesses away (the ones that want to use it as a platform for their product..not as an operating system for their employees).
All these lawsuits and the outspoken RMS do not help either.
More businesses = more commerical applications, driver support, and a higher marker share (maybe even beating microsoft). The community as a whole just doesn't seem to grasp this fact yet.
"GPL is defending the right to copy, modify and distribute."
If you close a GPLd app, you can still copy, modify, and distribute it.
"The coolest thing is that I heard on the news the other day where people at the other megacorps are realizing that there is profit in copyright infringement. Madonna's people are OK for uploaded stuff on youtube because they realize its free advertising. Much like the bands that allow taping of their concerts (we are looking at you Bob Weir). Who knows, maybe we can soon buy music in unencumbered digital formats at real market value. Maybe"
allowing Taping of their concerts is one thing, allowing full downloads of nearly perfect quality songs is another.
"Cubes don't work. Period. "
I can't imagine anyone wanting to hiring you..anywhere.
I need really loud music to get my work done. Should I be able to listen to it..even though everyone around me is distracted and/or cannot get their work done?
"I agree that a badly behaved dog is a horror. I've got 3 dogs, and someone across the back has this tiny yippie thing that, when it barks, they keep shouting at it to shut up - like the dog is going to listen. This can go on for an hour. They don't get it - they're too lazy to get up off their fat arse and look the dog in the eye and tell it to be quiet.
Contrast that to 2 nights ago - a dog barking for almost half an hour at 2 in the morning in another neighbours back yard - and none of my dogs made a noise. "
now you know why pets aren't allowed in most work places.
"Pirating music" is only illegal because we humans say that it is illegal.
I can imagine a world where the state pays a recording artist for every download and provides music for its citizens for free. Something like state supported arts."
I think you mean art that is funded by the taxpayers of the people. I don't think sweden (which has very high taxes as it is due to public health care programs) or the U.S needs this now or ever.
"The point is that WE define what legal and illegal mean, and they don't have to continue meaning what they mean now. In fact, the meaning of "own" has changed already--we don't "own" software, despite the fact that we hold a shiny disc in our hands. We only own the "right to use" the software"
copyright and IP laws works in favor of the little guy as well as the big corporations. If you want to prevent anyone from making a living with their software, music, or art, that's fine. Just don't try to hide behind your own selfish needs.
"you're having troubles with your Internet connection slowing down a bunch while using Bittorrent, you probably need to cap its upload speed. As of a long time ago, you couldn't do this with the official client (maybe you can now; I haven't checked). Try getting Bittornado [bittornado.com] which will allow you to limit the speed at which it uploads and should allow you to use it without monopolizing your bandwidth."
This may be true, but most clients will kill your download speed when limiting your upload speed. I would rather have it kill my connection overnight than have to wait a couple of days for my downloads to finish.
Sorry, I meant port 110 :-D
"Well as long as you are at it, you might as well block email given that there are reports that upward of 82% [internetnews.com] of it is spam. 419 scams, get-rich-quick schemes, multi-level-marketing, fake viagra, medication without a prescription, blatant fraud, identity theft, phishing, Pump & Dump stock trades, you name a scam & e-mail has it"
yeah, well, most people communicate through email (including professors) and email is light for the most part, light bandwidth, so you don't even have a valid point.
Have you ever even used bittorrent? It automatically shares your connection with other people (which takes up a ton of bandwidth). If this was not the case, it would be no different than something like FTP, which is a non-issue.
I have used bittorrent to download many linux distros and I usually have to start a download before I go to sleep at night because of the thrashing my cable modem takes when downloading.
even a university Internet connection would be saturated with enough of these running.
"I have to agree about not being able to win in this situation, I also agree that allowing bit torrent to run without restriction will most likely lead to lawsuits. I wonder if the uni could get round this by making the students sign a declaration that they are the sole persons responsible for what they do on the net. (I don't really get how it works though, if a student was downloading child porn the uni wouldn't be in trouble, would it?)."
If a university does not have the capability to limit bandwidth on a per-computer/connection basis, they need to block most if not all p2p services (and bittorrent).
When I was going to college in 2000, my university had no blocks (and did not have the capability to throttle bandwidth). The Internet was not only unusable, but I would find kazaa and napster clients running on lab computers all the time with hundreds of connections (mostly people downloading porn). Now, all odd outgoing ports are blocked (besides the usuals: 80, 100, 25, 443,etc) and the Internet is faster then ever.
We are also required to login with a username/password to get on the Internet, and any unlawful activity can be traced directly back to our account.
It's one thing to appease your users, but another if it effects the QOS for 99% of the people on the Network.
"Compared to the extreme permissive licenses like the MIT or BSD licenses"
Interesting you would use these words to describe the BSD and MIT license. Wouldn't the software freedom fighters of the world want a more permissive license model?
"While there are plenty of good reasons why people might prefer thoes licenses, it strikes me that bitching about not having those rights, in the name of freedom, is a bit like a southern US plantation owner complaining about the loss of his freedom to own slaves..."
I think you have things a little mixed up here. If GPLd code was allowed to be closed up and re-sold (without re-releasing the source), the original code would still be there. It would not take away any freedoms (you could still get to the original source). It would only prevent the additions (which weren't the communities to begin with) from being released, thus restricting the freedom of the programmer.
"The so called "recording industry" is just not needed anymore. Just get your fortune and invest in another productive area, and get over it.
Go away. Please."
even if the current RIAA is gone, there will always be some type of recording industry around. It's just too lucrative.
also, most artists have no experience marketing, selling, or dealing with the right people that will get them the high-paying gigs they need to continue performing and feed their family and or make the rent.
"No. Those commercials are just telling you to use an OS compatible with your personality. If you're an inveterate square, it makes no sense for you to use a Mac."
The commercial is all wrong. The apple guy should be wearing a pink shirt and talking with a lisp (and listening to showtunes).
Microsoft should put this in their commercial, but I don't think they would have the balls to do it.
"first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women"
Is this quote changed to be PC or something?
"You prefer selling copies of binaries @ $30 per punter giving $15,000 per hour wages - and prohibit copying, keeping the source code secret - and still try to sell copies."
yeah, I do. This business method works very well. So why change it? There are thousands of examples where this business model works, but not too many where it works with your methodology (larger companies such as redhat are excluded).
"think it's more likely your approach would be undercut by mine - far cheaper. Even folk in the western world would be happy with $500 for an hour's work. You don't need to invoke Asia to suggest people who'd work for a thirtieth of the $15,000 per hour you'd demand"
Yes, they would, but as I have been saying this entire time, you will most likely never average $15,000/Hour (and I will not average $30,000/hour).
It is clear you have never been involved in a software company, otherwise you would not be making these claims.
"I actually proposed selling bug fixes for $1 each, which seems to be far smaller than the $30 you suggest - and heaven knows how much revenue you'd eventually receive"
$1 per bug is not practical (unless I am the one paying you to fix the bugs in my program for $1/bug..then it's a great deal). This is because some bugs take hours to fix.
"One of those is a particularly extortionate and bad deal. Especially considering it's only a couple of hours work"
plumbers charge a lot of money per hour for only a little bit of work. Should they be considered a bad deal? How about doctors? Lawyers? (I can go on and one with professionals that charge lots of money for what seems like a small amount of work).
If there are only a few people that can fix problem X, your value is massivly increased. When anyone and there brother can fix the exact same problems you can fix..your value will continue to approach $0 over time.
"How on earth can you compare your preferred wages of >$15,000/hour to the cost of living in India or China?"
Your figures are a little naive and not even close to reality. Try selling and or supporting software for a couple of years and you will know what I mean.
I mentioned India and China because it proves my point. When anyone can do a certain job (IE: anyone can get the source code), there will always be places in the world where someone can and will undercut you (the same job for 75% less money. Businesses look at their bottom line).
This is exactly what is happening with software development.
If you want to succeed, you have to stop thinking like a coder.
"Where does copyright need to come into it?"
The first person to use it can take it and re-release it for free. Copyright prevents this from happening..legally. I would rather sell it for $30 and have a bunch of people buy it. OSS also makes software a commodity, which means you won't be in business very long if you are charging $500 for bug fixes (hint: it costs much less to live in India or China than the US).
"Remember, copyright is a 300 year old (archaic) revenue mechanism that relies upon an unethical suspension of the rights of the public. It's an anachronism in the age of the Internet"
it's been around for 300 years for a reason...because it works..well. Just because there have been recent abuses of it does not mean it should be abolished.
"You can actually make money without it."
I never said you couldn't. It's just much more difficult and you will make much less (you might not even be able to make a living at it) than proprietary software.
"However difficult you perceive making money without copyright (or with the GPL's nullification of it), the fact remains: it is not the OBJECTIVE of the GPL to prevent people selling their software"
Whether it's the objective or a side-effect, the end result is still the same.
"As for making it easier to make money from selling software (without trying to sell copies of it), I am working on it..."
It can be done, but when your time directly translates to the amount of money you make (through custom work, support, etc) you will always be limited because there is only so much time in the day (unless you can afford to hire someone else to do it for you).
"No. MySpace is the most popular site on the internet among the band-listening, teenage generation. Mind you, most of these bands should already be on iTunes via CDBaby... but still. If they don't fumble this, MySpace could easily put a very large dent in iTunes and the major labels, which is a good thing"
It is also the most popular among people who will share those songs. The problem is that popularity is against them. The more popular a song, the more likely it will be shared and downloaded rather than bought. iTunes and other services have protected Music, which for the most part, prevents this from happening.
I see one of two things happening:
1) they will eventually use DRM or some other form of protection
2) they will stop selling mp3s altogether
or,
They realize the above issues and are selling these intentionally at a loss (or for no profit)..just to get these unsigned bands popular by giving their songs a perceived value.