My point was that if a "casual gamer" can't be enticed to buy $150 Gamecube then it is not likely that said "casual gamer" will drop $400 + $10/month for a Phantom. Especially considering that the Gamecube is basically guaranteed to have a whole pile of killer exclusive games, while the Phantom will be lucky to get PC retreads that you have actually heard of.
Yeah, casual gamers are going to plop down $400 on a console that requires a $10 a month service fee to play games that you have to purchase separately. Oh, and you have to pay separately for broadband. Anyone that thinks that this is likely might want to invest in my specially-reinforced upside-down umbrella I invented just in case it happens to start raining money.
Let's face it. The "kiddie" game market is currently being cornered by flash games at places like nickjr.com. No parent is going to pay Phantom prices for what is basically a disabled PC when they can buy a fully functional PC for less.
Never mind the fact that they need three quarters of a million users before they even break even. That's insane. What kind of overhead do these guys have? They don't manufacture the boxes, they don't make the games, and Windows XP takes care of most of the software.
They're not selling you a computer for you to use at your discretion.
This is why the Phantom will fail. The folks at Phantom are selling you PC hardware from which they have removed a great deal of the functionality. By the time the Phantom starts rolling out you will be able to buy a "real" PC for the $400 that the Phantom would cost. This real PC will do everything that the Phantom does (thanks to the new XBox-Live-style PC gaming service that Microsoft is working on), and it will do PC-type stuff as well.
Woah. Talk about concrete examples. As for your problems with the C API docs, I don't know what to tell you as I have done very little Python + C work, and the bit that I have done was mostly guided by Mark Lutz's book and the fine example of PyGreSQL. It's very likely that your criticisms of that part of the documentation are true. However, my guess is that extending Python via C is still easier than getting your mind around Perl-guts.
As for the rest, my version of python doesn't have a built in sub() function. The re module does have a sub() function, but that's fairly well documented. The '%' operator is covered very well in the tutorial, and it does more than you expect (or are likely to use). Print doesn't have much documentation because it is fairly straightforward. The tricky bit in your example is due to the '%' operator. This operator doesn't have to be combined with print statements either. I use it all the time to create SQL statements like so:
sql = "SELECT * FROM %s WHERE bar = '%s'" % (foo, bar)
If you haven't skimmed the tutorial all the way through I would highly suggest it. It starts out slow, but it gets better as it goes along.
I own the O'Reilly Python book, and it is good, but it isn't nearly as necessary as the Camel book (although the examples on extending Python with C would probably be worth your time:). The fact that you are hacking Python without buying the O'Reilly Python book actually speaks fairly well for Python's documentation. Try doing that with Perl.
For years Microsoft's server growth has, in large part, come from UNIX to Windows migrations. Microsoft used the high price/performance ratio from x86 chips to steal marketshare from UNIX. The fact that Linux is starting to capture these sales is a big deal for the folks at Microsoft. Microsoft currently has a price/earnings ratio of 30. That means that if they want to keep their stock price up where it currently is that they have to show a significant amount of revenue growth. Even if Linux doesn't cut into Windows' server marketshare it is still robbing Microsoft of growth potential.
As for the desktop, Microsoft already has nearly 100% of that market. Part of the reason that Microsoft changed their licensing scheme is that raising prices was the only way to get any growth out of the desktop market. Microsoft doesn't have anywhere to go on the desktop but down.
That's funny. I switched from Perl to Python several years ago and one of the things that I like best about Python is the documentation. Perl's Camel book made a pretty fair reference, but I didn't really like busting out a hard-copy book every time I wanted to look something up. The electronic Perl documentation was pretty nice, but it wasn't quite as comprehensive as the Camel book, and the POD format simply can't compete with Python's documentation. The PDF and HTML formats are nice, but I really like the fact that the Python documentation is available in info format for easy reading in Emacs (complete with a comprehensive index). The indexes in Python's electronic documentation really make a heck of a difference once you start using them. Perl's pile o' man pages simply can't touch Python in this regard (IMHO).
Perl's TIMTOWTDI style means that every time you edit someone else's Perl code you will encounter four or five new Perlisms that you have never seen and that require the Camel book for deciphering. When I was hacking Perl, that meant carring around the Camel book in my laptop bag "just in case." With Python that's no longer a problem.
My guess is that you have gotten use to the structure of Perl's documentation. You know where to find Perl information, and are simply frustrated by the fact that Python requires that you start from scratch with a new set of documentation.
On the other hand, it is possible that we simply have different documentation requirements. What precisely is the problem? "They suck," is not particularly descriptive.
The problem with that is that I want to be able to see the "metal plate" so that I can verify for myself that my metal plate says I voted the way I actually voted. The beauty of the current system of punch cards is that the voter can verify their ballot before they put it in the ballot box.
With an electronic system there is a disconnect between the voter and the people counting the votes. It is far more difficult to falsify a pile of ballots than to change a couple of bits in an Access database. I don't mind electronic systems, but they had better include some sort of a receipt that I can verify to be correct before putting it in a ballot box, and the count of these hard copy ballots had better be the final arbiter as to who wins the election.
The current forms of filesharing are all optimized for finding songs of well-known artists and songs. Currently most music listeners hear new songs via the radio or other mainstream media outlets that are heavily controlled by the RIAA. They aren't interested in using the Internet to find new music. However, if the RIAA music was vastly more expensive than the independent music distributed over the Internet, then many fans would take the time to sample this music. Remember, the best form of advertising available is still word of mouth, and with the Internet to allow music lovers to collectively sort through the independent music it should be fairly easy to find stuff you like. The only problem is that the independent music sources simply can't compete with the RIAA marketing muscle as long as RIAA content is free too.
Once RIAA music is vastly more expensive then independent music then the fact that the independent music sources have cut out the RIAA middleman will start to work in their favor. Eventually bands will move away from the model of using the Internet as a way to get famous enough to snag an RIAA contract, towards marketing their own wares. This will almost certainly not happen overnight, but it is never going to happen as long as RIAA music can be downloaded for free.
The Army needs 100% file compatibility with MS Office like I need an extra pair of holes in my head. They can effectively force all of their suppliers and everyone they do business with to use OpenOffice formats. After all, if the U.S. Army says they want the spreadsheet in OpenOffice format then you will get a copy of OpenOffice.
Now, I certainly agree that there are costs to changing software, and I even agree that it might be wise at this point to simply pay Microsoft for their software (especially considering the fact that it looks like they got a fairly good deal). However, I disagree completely with the idea that the U.S. Army has to worry about compatibility. They certainly would have to worry about the cost of migration their documents to OpenOffice formats, but they don't have to worry for a minute about being compatible with everyone else.
The problem with this theory is that file sharing, at least on a small scale, does not hurt the RIAA. If people listening to RIAA music for free was a bad thing, then the RIAA wouldn't pay millions of dollars each year to get their songs played on the radio.
People aren't going to stop listening to music just because the RIAA cracks down on file sharing. Nor are people likely to lose their interest in free music. Once it becomes dangerous to share RIAA files over the Internet services like FairForShare are going to become even more popular. If you really want to stick it to the RIAA, then that should be your goal. As long as you support RIAA artists in any manner you are helping the RIAA stay in power.
Now, I don't agree with U.S. copyright policy, but that doesn't mean that I believe that it is lawful or ethical for me to subvert the wishes of the folks that actually make the music. I believe that the musicians have a right to choose the terms under which their music is shared. I may not like the choice that many of them have made, but that doesn't give me the right to violate their wishes.
I also feel sorry for the people that are about to have their lives turned upside down. However, most of these people realized that what they were doing was illegal.
The RIAA doesn't care about incidental (or underground) copying. They know that they aren't going to be able to shut down 100% of file trading. However, they also know that if they can limit copyright infringement to "criminal elements" and casual song swapping among acquaintances that they basically win. People have been sharing music since before cassette tapes were popular, and the music industry has always looked the other way. The fact of the matter is that there is a big difference between a guy making bootleg copies of an album for his buddies and someone on a cable modem sharing gigabytes of MP3s to the entire world.
This new move will actually *help* the RIAA's competitors in the small labels and independent brands. In many ways file sharing reinforced the RIAA's grip on the music industry. After all, the music that got traded was mostly RIAA music. In many ways this is like the battle between GNU/Linux and commercial software in third world countries. One of GNU/Linux's most positive attributes are it's low price. However, if you can get a pirated copy of Windows for the same price as a legal GNU/Linux CD many people will simply go with what they know. As Microsoft clamps down more heavily on piracy, interest in GNU/Linux grows.
The same is true with music. There are plenty of independent bands and labels that are dying to use the Internet to distribute their music. However, currently most of the files traded are pirated RIAA material. After all, RIAA has all of the money to pay on marketing, and so that is what people are looking for. Once it becomes dangerous to trade RIAA content then interest in the bands that are giving away music will increase.
I suppose some people might be willing to incur these kinds of expenses just so that they can stick it to the RIAA. However, my neighbor, who happily uses Kazaa to share files, will certainly not be interested in hosting his files in Vanatu. Copyright infringement will, once again, become the purview of the criminal class.
Without people sharing files, the whole system dries up. This is a good thing. There are plenty of bands out there that are happy to share their music with the world. Once it becomes dangerous to share files belonging to RIAA members then it is very possible that file traders will become more interested in the wealth of music that is currently freely available.
While there is big money in spam, there is even more money in becoming the hub of a decentralized email system. My guess is that their Spam land grab will be along the same lines as their aborted attempt to become the centralized authentication source for the Internet with Passport. Only this time instead of offering to save form information and other goofy crap than no one was likely to want to pay money for Microsoft is going to create a huge opt-in authenticated mailing system. People using this sytem will only be able to get email from other people using the system (probably with some exceptions at first), and Microsoft will use Passport to authenticate all users. This would remove all of the spam with forged headers, problems with open relays, etc., and would probably greatly reduce spam.
If Microsoft can do this, they will have put themselves in a position to be gatekeeper for the previously decentralized email system. This would allow them to control the flow of email, and to charge money for the service.
Re:Like it or not, managers default to commercial
on
What is Open Source?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You're saying that you can buy a support contract from any number of organizations? Forgive me for sounding less than enthusiastic about that prospect. If I buy support for product X from company Y, yeah they're my only option, but they make product X and the guys who coded it are intimately familiar with it. They have specialized knowledge of it.
It's no different in the Free Software world. Free Software doesn't spring forth from the mind of Zeus fully grown, some hacker writes it. Most of these hackers have mortgages and such just like the rest of us.
Now let's say I want support for Apache. Who do I buy that from (honest question, I don't know who you can "pay" to support Apache, or any arbitrary open source program)? How am I supposed to expect them to have intimate knowledge of the product? It sounds to me like buying "open source support" from a company means you're paying these guys to be "jacks of all trades", which of course means that they are "masters of none". Doesn't sound like such a good deal to me.
Apache support is easy because you can get it from almost anywhere. For example, both IBM and RedHat have engineers that are part of the core Apache group, but just about any major organization has people that are well versed in Apache. Chances are good with Apache that you will have a configuration issue and not an actual bug.
A much better example, is PostgreSQL support. First of all, PostgreSQL is quite a bit more complex than a simple http server. Secondly, PostgreSQL is a project that I personally am more familiar with. You can get support from PostgreSQL Inc. or Command Prompt command, and RedHat will sell you support for their Red Hat Database which is nothing more than rebranded PostgreSQL. All of these organizations have staff members that are extremely familiar with PostgreSQL.
From my own personal experience these smaller Free Software support organizations are a world apart from the heavily scripted phone support available from most commercial software development firms. Heck, all of us have been on hold for an eternity only to have the tech ask us if we have rebooted the server. Just like anything else it generally boils down to how difficult your problem is, and how much you are willing to pay to make it go away. If you offer RedHat enough money they will put Tom Lane on your PostgreSQL problem around the clock and the problem will simply go away. Try doing that with Oracle or MS SQL Server.
Re:Like it or not, managers default to commercial
on
What is Open Source?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If you want to be able to put pressure on Free Software developers, then you have to have a business relationship with them. This is no different than what happens with commercial software vendors. For example, let's say you purchase a software package, and then decide that you are going to skip an expensive upgrade cycle. With commercial vendors the most likely response to "fix this problem, or else" is "it's fixed in the next version that will be $XXX to upgrade your licenses."
With Free Software you might get your problem solved for free. I personally have had very good luck bringing up issues with Free Software. However, if you are truly worried about support, the simple answer is to purchase a support contract from the vendor of your choice. Not only will your support contract likely cost you less than licensing commercial software, but if you feel your vendor isn't giving you adequate support you can purchase support from someone else.
In short, if you pay the Free Software developers money, then you can threaten to change your business arrangement in the future. If you don't, then practice up on your diplomacy because you are going to have to sweet talk developers into helping you.
Exactly. The record companies don't create music, they market and distribute it. As it becomes easier and easier to distribute music electronically, and as the web allows bands to reach audiences worldwide the folks at the record companies are going to become less and less important.
Heck, the record companies have already lost a great deal of their clout, and the media consolidation isn't helping them any either. Clear Channel has turned getting songs on the playlist into a serious cash flow generator, raising the cost of producing an album, and the P2P networks have almost certainly taken a bite out of sales lowering revenues substantially.
It's no wonder that the record companies have cut back dramatically on the bands that they are willing to spend money on. In their position the only sane response is to cut back on risks. Producing another Eminem or Brittany Spears album is a far smaller risk than investing in some totally new band. Unfortunately for the music companies there are a lot of music customers that are being left out of the picture.
On the other hand, when IBM pummels SCO into the dirt the effect will be very similiar to a SCO buyout, and this would more effectively deter future IP attacks on Linux.
The real question is how does IBM muzzle SCO in the short term? SCO management knows that they don't have a case, they are trying to stir up FUD and (it helps their UNIX business). If SCO had a case SCO's entire management team wouldn't be on the press circuit talking about it. Everything those guys say is evidence. That's why IBM isn't talking, and it is also why Caldera didn't make big announcements when they were suing Microsoft over DR DOS (and they actually had a case).
I ate Guinea Pig on several ocassions when I lived in Peru. They are quite tasty in a peanut sauce. If labs stop using Guinea Pigs in their experiments I have an alternate use for them:).
If IBM were going to cave they would simply have paid the extortion money or simply bought SCO out. IBM is pushing this towards litigation because they know that SCO's case is ridiculous.
SCO management is engaged in a "pump & dump" stock scheme. Nothing more, nothing less.
Lindows is marketed at someone who has $200 and wants a computer for basic computing tasks. You can't get a machine running Windows for that much money, and even if you could it would come with essentially no other software. One of the major advantages that Linux has is that it comes complete with an impressive array of software.
My inlaws, for example, needed a new computer, but the only thing that they use the computer for is a little bit of web browsing, a tiny bit of wordprocessing, and email. The Lindows box fit their needs very well. They love the thing. Fortunately their printer and digital camera were compatible with Linux (I checked beforehand).
The other people who might be interested in these machines are folks that want a fully assembled machine, with a warranty, but who don't want to pay for an operating system. I bought a machine from Wal-Mart that now runs Debian, but a buddy of mine bought one that he installed Windows XP on. He apparently had a license from another machine that he wasn't using.
As people start purchasing machines sans operating system they will start to realize that Windows does indeed carry a price tag. That's a good thing.
Lab rats are not people, to me that is a huge distinction. Experimental psychologists tend to experiment with volunteers, that also is a huge distinction. I personally don't have any problems with either of these scenarios.
However, if you have problems with labratory mice and psychological experiments on volunteers then keeping people in ignorance simply because they live in Bhutan (or the Amazon rain forest, or wherever) should really get you excited.
Clearly most television is crap and the messages contained in television are pernicious. I don't let my children watch it unattended, and I don't pay for cable television either (I would much rather purchase DVDs and VHS cassettes with programming that I approve of). If the violence, sex, drugs, profanity, etc. found in your average prime time show didn't effect the audience then why is it that advertisers pay huge money for a 30 second spot. Television clearly has a profound effect on people, and for the most part that effect is deleterious.
I am not arguing that television is a good thing, it isn't. I am simply arguing that it is a worse thing to take away someone else's freedom to choose.
Slashdot Mirror
My point was that if a "casual gamer" can't be enticed to buy $150 Gamecube then it is not likely that said "casual gamer" will drop $400 + $10/month for a Phantom. Especially considering that the Gamecube is basically guaranteed to have a whole pile of killer exclusive games, while the Phantom will be lucky to get PC retreads that you have actually heard of.
Yeah, casual gamers are going to plop down $400 on a console that requires a $10 a month service fee to play games that you have to purchase separately. Oh, and you have to pay separately for broadband. Anyone that thinks that this is likely might want to invest in my specially-reinforced upside-down umbrella I invented just in case it happens to start raining money.
Let's face it. The "kiddie" game market is currently being cornered by flash games at places like nickjr.com. No parent is going to pay Phantom prices for what is basically a disabled PC when they can buy a fully functional PC for less.
Never mind the fact that they need three quarters of a million users before they even break even. That's insane. What kind of overhead do these guys have? They don't manufacture the boxes, they don't make the games, and Windows XP takes care of most of the software.
This farce doesn't have a prayer.
This is why the Phantom will fail. The folks at Phantom are selling you PC hardware from which they have removed a great deal of the functionality. By the time the Phantom starts rolling out you will be able to buy a "real" PC for the $400 that the Phantom would cost. This real PC will do everything that the Phantom does (thanks to the new XBox-Live-style PC gaming service that Microsoft is working on), and it will do PC-type stuff as well.
Woah. Talk about concrete examples. As for your problems with the C API docs, I don't know what to tell you as I have done very little Python + C work, and the bit that I have done was mostly guided by Mark Lutz's book and the fine example of PyGreSQL. It's very likely that your criticisms of that part of the documentation are true. However, my guess is that extending Python via C is still easier than getting your mind around Perl-guts.
As for the rest, my version of python doesn't have a built in sub() function. The re module does have a sub() function, but that's fairly well documented. The '%' operator is covered very well in the tutorial, and it does more than you expect (or are likely to use). Print doesn't have much documentation because it is fairly straightforward. The tricky bit in your example is due to the '%' operator. This operator doesn't have to be combined with print statements either. I use it all the time to create SQL statements like so:
If you haven't skimmed the tutorial all the way through I would highly suggest it. It starts out slow, but it gets better as it goes along.
I own the O'Reilly Python book, and it is good, but it isn't nearly as necessary as the Camel book (although the examples on extending Python with C would probably be worth your time :). The fact that you are hacking Python without buying the O'Reilly Python book actually speaks fairly well for Python's documentation. Try doing that with Perl.
Thanks for a very excellent post.
For years Microsoft's server growth has, in large part, come from UNIX to Windows migrations. Microsoft used the high price/performance ratio from x86 chips to steal marketshare from UNIX. The fact that Linux is starting to capture these sales is a big deal for the folks at Microsoft. Microsoft currently has a price/earnings ratio of 30. That means that if they want to keep their stock price up where it currently is that they have to show a significant amount of revenue growth. Even if Linux doesn't cut into Windows' server marketshare it is still robbing Microsoft of growth potential.
As for the desktop, Microsoft already has nearly 100% of that market. Part of the reason that Microsoft changed their licensing scheme is that raising prices was the only way to get any growth out of the desktop market. Microsoft doesn't have anywhere to go on the desktop but down.
That's funny. I switched from Perl to Python several years ago and one of the things that I like best about Python is the documentation. Perl's Camel book made a pretty fair reference, but I didn't really like busting out a hard-copy book every time I wanted to look something up. The electronic Perl documentation was pretty nice, but it wasn't quite as comprehensive as the Camel book, and the POD format simply can't compete with Python's documentation. The PDF and HTML formats are nice, but I really like the fact that the Python documentation is available in info format for easy reading in Emacs (complete with a comprehensive index). The indexes in Python's electronic documentation really make a heck of a difference once you start using them. Perl's pile o' man pages simply can't touch Python in this regard (IMHO).
Perl's TIMTOWTDI style means that every time you edit someone else's Perl code you will encounter four or five new Perlisms that you have never seen and that require the Camel book for deciphering. When I was hacking Perl, that meant carring around the Camel book in my laptop bag "just in case." With Python that's no longer a problem.
My guess is that you have gotten use to the structure of Perl's documentation. You know where to find Perl information, and are simply frustrated by the fact that Python requires that you start from scratch with a new set of documentation.
On the other hand, it is possible that we simply have different documentation requirements. What precisely is the problem? "They suck," is not particularly descriptive.
The problem with that is that I want to be able to see the "metal plate" so that I can verify for myself that my metal plate says I voted the way I actually voted. The beauty of the current system of punch cards is that the voter can verify their ballot before they put it in the ballot box.
With an electronic system there is a disconnect between the voter and the people counting the votes. It is far more difficult to falsify a pile of ballots than to change a couple of bits in an Access database. I don't mind electronic systems, but they had better include some sort of a receipt that I can verify to be correct before putting it in a ballot box, and the count of these hard copy ballots had better be the final arbiter as to who wins the election.
The current forms of filesharing are all optimized for finding songs of well-known artists and songs. Currently most music listeners hear new songs via the radio or other mainstream media outlets that are heavily controlled by the RIAA. They aren't interested in using the Internet to find new music. However, if the RIAA music was vastly more expensive than the independent music distributed over the Internet, then many fans would take the time to sample this music. Remember, the best form of advertising available is still word of mouth, and with the Internet to allow music lovers to collectively sort through the independent music it should be fairly easy to find stuff you like. The only problem is that the independent music sources simply can't compete with the RIAA marketing muscle as long as RIAA content is free too. Once RIAA music is vastly more expensive then independent music then the fact that the independent music sources have cut out the RIAA middleman will start to work in their favor. Eventually bands will move away from the model of using the Internet as a way to get famous enough to snag an RIAA contract, towards marketing their own wares. This will almost certainly not happen overnight, but it is never going to happen as long as RIAA music can be downloaded for free.
The Army needs 100% file compatibility with MS Office like I need an extra pair of holes in my head. They can effectively force all of their suppliers and everyone they do business with to use OpenOffice formats. After all, if the U.S. Army says they want the spreadsheet in OpenOffice format then you will get a copy of OpenOffice.
Now, I certainly agree that there are costs to changing software, and I even agree that it might be wise at this point to simply pay Microsoft for their software (especially considering the fact that it looks like they got a fairly good deal). However, I disagree completely with the idea that the U.S. Army has to worry about compatibility. They certainly would have to worry about the cost of migration their documents to OpenOffice formats, but they don't have to worry for a minute about being compatible with everyone else.
The problem with this theory is that file sharing, at least on a small scale, does not hurt the RIAA. If people listening to RIAA music for free was a bad thing, then the RIAA wouldn't pay millions of dollars each year to get their songs played on the radio.
People aren't going to stop listening to music just because the RIAA cracks down on file sharing. Nor are people likely to lose their interest in free music. Once it becomes dangerous to share RIAA files over the Internet services like FairForShare are going to become even more popular. If you really want to stick it to the RIAA, then that should be your goal. As long as you support RIAA artists in any manner you are helping the RIAA stay in power.
Now, I don't agree with U.S. copyright policy, but that doesn't mean that I believe that it is lawful or ethical for me to subvert the wishes of the folks that actually make the music. I believe that the musicians have a right to choose the terms under which their music is shared. I may not like the choice that many of them have made, but that doesn't give me the right to violate their wishes.
I also feel sorry for the people that are about to have their lives turned upside down. However, most of these people realized that what they were doing was illegal.
The RIAA doesn't care about incidental (or underground) copying. They know that they aren't going to be able to shut down 100% of file trading. However, they also know that if they can limit copyright infringement to "criminal elements" and casual song swapping among acquaintances that they basically win. People have been sharing music since before cassette tapes were popular, and the music industry has always looked the other way. The fact of the matter is that there is a big difference between a guy making bootleg copies of an album for his buddies and someone on a cable modem sharing gigabytes of MP3s to the entire world.
This new move will actually *help* the RIAA's competitors in the small labels and independent brands. In many ways file sharing reinforced the RIAA's grip on the music industry. After all, the music that got traded was mostly RIAA music. In many ways this is like the battle between GNU/Linux and commercial software in third world countries. One of GNU/Linux's most positive attributes are it's low price. However, if you can get a pirated copy of Windows for the same price as a legal GNU/Linux CD many people will simply go with what they know. As Microsoft clamps down more heavily on piracy, interest in GNU/Linux grows.
The same is true with music. There are plenty of independent bands and labels that are dying to use the Internet to distribute their music. However, currently most of the files traded are pirated RIAA material. After all, RIAA has all of the money to pay on marketing, and so that is what people are looking for. Once it becomes dangerous to trade RIAA content then interest in the bands that are giving away music will increase.
I suppose some people might be willing to incur these kinds of expenses just so that they can stick it to the RIAA. However, my neighbor, who happily uses Kazaa to share files, will certainly not be interested in hosting his files in Vanatu. Copyright infringement will, once again, become the purview of the criminal class.
Without people sharing files, the whole system dries up. This is a good thing. There are plenty of bands out there that are happy to share their music with the world. Once it becomes dangerous to share files belonging to RIAA members then it is very possible that file traders will become more interested in the wealth of music that is currently freely available.
While there is big money in spam, there is even more money in becoming the hub of a decentralized email system. My guess is that their Spam land grab will be along the same lines as their aborted attempt to become the centralized authentication source for the Internet with Passport. Only this time instead of offering to save form information and other goofy crap than no one was likely to want to pay money for Microsoft is going to create a huge opt-in authenticated mailing system. People using this sytem will only be able to get email from other people using the system (probably with some exceptions at first), and Microsoft will use Passport to authenticate all users. This would remove all of the spam with forged headers, problems with open relays, etc., and would probably greatly reduce spam.
If Microsoft can do this, they will have put themselves in a position to be gatekeeper for the previously decentralized email system. This would allow them to control the flow of email, and to charge money for the service.
It's no different in the Free Software world. Free Software doesn't spring forth from the mind of Zeus fully grown, some hacker writes it. Most of these hackers have mortgages and such just like the rest of us.
Apache support is easy because you can get it from almost anywhere. For example, both IBM and RedHat have engineers that are part of the core Apache group, but just about any major organization has people that are well versed in Apache. Chances are good with Apache that you will have a configuration issue and not an actual bug.
A much better example, is PostgreSQL support. First of all, PostgreSQL is quite a bit more complex than a simple http server. Secondly, PostgreSQL is a project that I personally am more familiar with. You can get support from PostgreSQL Inc. or Command Prompt command, and RedHat will sell you support for their Red Hat Database which is nothing more than rebranded PostgreSQL. All of these organizations have staff members that are extremely familiar with PostgreSQL.
From my own personal experience these smaller Free Software support organizations are a world apart from the heavily scripted phone support available from most commercial software development firms. Heck, all of us have been on hold for an eternity only to have the tech ask us if we have rebooted the server. Just like anything else it generally boils down to how difficult your problem is, and how much you are willing to pay to make it go away. If you offer RedHat enough money they will put Tom Lane on your PostgreSQL problem around the clock and the problem will simply go away. Try doing that with Oracle or MS SQL Server.
If you want to be able to put pressure on Free Software developers, then you have to have a business relationship with them. This is no different than what happens with commercial software vendors. For example, let's say you purchase a software package, and then decide that you are going to skip an expensive upgrade cycle. With commercial vendors the most likely response to "fix this problem, or else" is "it's fixed in the next version that will be $XXX to upgrade your licenses."
With Free Software you might get your problem solved for free. I personally have had very good luck bringing up issues with Free Software. However, if you are truly worried about support, the simple answer is to purchase a support contract from the vendor of your choice. Not only will your support contract likely cost you less than licensing commercial software, but if you feel your vendor isn't giving you adequate support you can purchase support from someone else.
In short, if you pay the Free Software developers money, then you can threaten to change your business arrangement in the future. If you don't, then practice up on your diplomacy because you are going to have to sweet talk developers into helping you.
Exactly. The record companies don't create music, they market and distribute it. As it becomes easier and easier to distribute music electronically, and as the web allows bands to reach audiences worldwide the folks at the record companies are going to become less and less important.
Heck, the record companies have already lost a great deal of their clout, and the media consolidation isn't helping them any either. Clear Channel has turned getting songs on the playlist into a serious cash flow generator, raising the cost of producing an album, and the P2P networks have almost certainly taken a bite out of sales lowering revenues substantially.
It's no wonder that the record companies have cut back dramatically on the bands that they are willing to spend money on. In their position the only sane response is to cut back on risks. Producing another Eminem or Brittany Spears album is a far smaller risk than investing in some totally new band. Unfortunately for the music companies there are a lot of music customers that are being left out of the picture.
On the other hand, when IBM pummels SCO into the dirt the effect will be very similiar to a SCO buyout, and this would more effectively deter future IP attacks on Linux.
The real question is how does IBM muzzle SCO in the short term? SCO management knows that they don't have a case, they are trying to stir up FUD and (it helps their UNIX business). If SCO had a case SCO's entire management team wouldn't be on the press circuit talking about it. Everything those guys say is evidence. That's why IBM isn't talking, and it is also why Caldera didn't make big announcements when they were suing Microsoft over DR DOS (and they actually had a case).
I am pretty sure that would trigger my peril sensitive sunglasses.
Just get someone to embroider "fia" in front of the "SCO" logo. Then you don't have to throw away good shirts.
I ate Guinea Pig on several ocassions when I lived in Peru. They are quite tasty in a peanut sauce. If labs stop using Guinea Pigs in their experiments I have an alternate use for them :).
If IBM were going to cave they would simply have paid the extortion money or simply bought SCO out. IBM is pushing this towards litigation because they know that SCO's case is ridiculous.
SCO management is engaged in a "pump & dump" stock scheme. Nothing more, nothing less.
How about calling SCO tech support up, giving them your license number (or whatever), and asking them to help you replace Unixware with RedHat Linux?
That should get the point across.
Lindows is marketed at someone who has $200 and wants a computer for basic computing tasks. You can't get a machine running Windows for that much money, and even if you could it would come with essentially no other software. One of the major advantages that Linux has is that it comes complete with an impressive array of software.
My inlaws, for example, needed a new computer, but the only thing that they use the computer for is a little bit of web browsing, a tiny bit of wordprocessing, and email. The Lindows box fit their needs very well. They love the thing. Fortunately their printer and digital camera were compatible with Linux (I checked beforehand).
The other people who might be interested in these machines are folks that want a fully assembled machine, with a warranty, but who don't want to pay for an operating system. I bought a machine from Wal-Mart that now runs Debian, but a buddy of mine bought one that he installed Windows XP on. He apparently had a license from another machine that he wasn't using.
As people start purchasing machines sans operating system they will start to realize that Windows does indeed carry a price tag. That's a good thing.
Lab rats are not people, to me that is a huge distinction. Experimental psychologists tend to experiment with volunteers, that also is a huge distinction. I personally don't have any problems with either of these scenarios.
However, if you have problems with labratory mice and psychological experiments on volunteers then keeping people in ignorance simply because they live in Bhutan (or the Amazon rain forest, or wherever) should really get you excited.
Clearly most television is crap and the messages contained in television are pernicious. I don't let my children watch it unattended, and I don't pay for cable television either (I would much rather purchase DVDs and VHS cassettes with programming that I approve of). If the violence, sex, drugs, profanity, etc. found in your average prime time show didn't effect the audience then why is it that advertisers pay huge money for a 30 second spot. Television clearly has a profound effect on people, and for the most part that effect is deleterious.
I am not arguing that television is a good thing, it isn't. I am simply arguing that it is a worse thing to take away someone else's freedom to choose.
Thanks for helping to stress that point.