Ummmmm. "Runs Linux"? By default? Their FAQ states:
Q. Will the ZapStation enable software downloads like Napster?
A. The ZapStation uses Windows Media PlayerTM to access MP3 audio and video files and Internet radio stations, but will not enable other software downloads.
When did microsoft complete their port of Windows Media Player to Linux? I gotta check that out:-)
When I started my company, I thought flextime would be a great way to go. Unfortunately, in any company with more than one employee, they do have to meet. The bigger you get, the more people have to have meetings to get in sync and discuss things. Flex time was hampering that ability. People just weren't around when you needed them, and it was frustrating. We eliminated Flex Time, and I think it helped productivity, communication, and so forth.
Flex time wasn't helping morale, as people would be frustrated and resentful at someone who wasn't around when they needed them.
Possibly in a less interactive, modular, environment, where programmers can go off and code in a vacuum for a week, it would work. For anything which requires a lot of team interaction, and changes in direction to meet the market on a regular basis, it's dangerous, IMO...
God Love the site who makes the plight of the
spirited young nerd/geek (not derogatory terms, but a compliment in my eyes) headline news, rather that some secondary perverse human interest story, as I'm sure most other coverage would be...
One of the *only* sensible things ever to come out of Bill Gates' mouth, IMO, was the statement "be nice to nerds, you'll probably be working for one some day." (Hopefully most will be working for somewhat less egotistic and heartless nerds than Bill. I'm sure he had a highly paid scriptwriter create that statement for hiim anyway.) Being a nerd in charge of 60 wonderful and dedicated people, I'm hoping I'm living up to that in a more positive way:-)
To all the nerds in school, where things often look pretty bleak; hang on until University, and you find you're not alone, and that thirst for knowledge can be rewarded. And post-university, the sky's the limit!
Nerds and Geeks rule! (Or at least we will shortly:-)
Cigarettes are physically addictive. Software isn't. And the dependency upon a given vendor isn't there, if there is competition. There are typically free alternatives. And you can "roll your own" if need be. Many differences.
However, in the case of closed, proprietary standards, such as.DOC file formats, that people depend upon (due to MS monopoly dominance), there is a dependence upon a single vendor.
Those proprietary, closed, standards are Microsoft's "nicotine", so to speak, that keep you coming back for more. And just when someone else comes out with a cheaper or free equivalent of that "nicotine", Microsoft changes the formulation (Word '95 format, Word '98 format, Word 2000 format), and enough people get pushed on the latest, that the others have to follow. That's dependence. That's unhealthy for the economy.
But HTML editors don't sufer from the same, because the *standard* is open. I can buy my editor from Microsoft if I want, or I can use Netscape, or HomeSite, or Dreamweaver, or (my personal favorite) "vi".:-)
Microsoft does the same with their API's. They are documented (otherwise they'd be completely sunk), but all the cool stuff and latest features in the OS, often are not documented, so Microsoft has an edge with the apps (but hopefully not for much longer, if the government doesn't roll over). And they change those API's so rapidly that no one could possibly create something reaosonably compatable with that de facto standard.
Sun, on the other hand, fully documents their Java API's, controls and modularizes the expansion of the API. They give it away for commercial and non-commercial use, allow others to create competiting JVM's (including other free ones), and make some money on licensing their source code (also free for non-commercial use), and in selling hardware for one of the premiere Java platforms, Solaris. A far more respectible approach, and (gasp!) a commercial one...
I never consider myself *dependant* upon a piece of software. There are usually alternatives. I *do* consider myself dependant upon proprietary standards, like.DOC files, because if you can't read or create them, you're sunk in business today.
If someone lets my try out their kick-ass software, and it provides great value for its price, I'll use it. As long as the standards are open, there will always be other alternatives if I become dissatisfied with that piece of software, or they crank up the price, or whatever. That's not dependence, that's freedom!
And I don't think FSF's approach that "all software should be free" is constructive. The *choice* of what software to use should be free, and there might be cost-free alternatives among them, as long as the standards are open.
I think this is a key point. If the *standards* are kept open, the industry benefits; for example, look at HTML editors. It's a standard that is publicly documented, and there are probably hundreds of commercial editors for, and probably hundreds (if not thousands) of free ones.
Look at Word.DOC files. Completely closed, and partially reverse engineered by a few hearty souls; and the minute Microsoft releases Word 2000, suddenly StarOffice can't open attachments. Welcome to the world of closed standards. Microsoft knows this, and behaves accordinly on purpose; make the closed, proprietary document format a moving target, and you've thwarted competition.
Regarding free software: we live in an economy; despite Stallman's fantasies, software is a tool just like any other, and people who make their living creating those tools, and producing value in those tools, will often charge for those tools. Hammers are useful tools, too, but they take time, effort, and materials to create (just like software), and despite the fact that giving them away would be for the general good, it ain't gonna happen, as long as the hammer-makers want to eat. In a socialistic society where the core needs are taken care of (in theory), yes, free hammers for all! In a capitalistic society where you earn money to survive, expect to pay for hammers for awhile longer.
To continue the analogy further, any successful building contractor is going to expect to pay money for his hammers; but they're will worth his while, as using the "Large Rock 0.1a" alternative (from FSF:-) isn't quite as efficient for driving nails.
But the "free beer" (kind of an offensive, pre-judging term to me) software, is like giving free hammers to try out before you buy, and giving them free to the students and poor people who are using them for non-commercial purposes. I think it's extremely admirable.
For students and evaluation, being able to use or evaluate commercial grade software, is a boon to society. It would be cynically unproductive to assume it's a "get them hooked and then charge them" tack; I prefer to look at it as being proud enough of your product to show it off freely, and generous enough to let folks use it who aren't using it for commercial gain.
My company spends hundreds of thousands on software a year. Some companies won't let us try out the software until we purchase it. We tell those companies to go away. Often, we get an eval copy. Most commonly, we download the trial or free-for-non-commercial-use version, run it through it's paces, and if it's worthy, we buy it. It's *incredibly* useful...
Now that I'm in business, I'm proud to pay for software. When I was a student, or when I was first researching prototypes for an eventual business, I would have *loved* for more "free beer" software to get me rolling.
It's a wondeful trend, that will really help applications for Linux. Don't knock it.
Slashdot Mirror
Q. Will the ZapStation enable software downloads like Napster?
A. The ZapStation uses Windows Media PlayerTM to access MP3 audio and video files and Internet radio stations, but will not enable other software downloads.
When did microsoft complete their port of Windows Media Player to Linux? I gotta check that out :-)
Flex time wasn't helping morale, as people would be frustrated and resentful at someone who wasn't around when they needed them.
Possibly in a less interactive, modular, environment, where programmers can go off and code in a vacuum for a week, it would work. For anything which requires a lot of team interaction, and changes in direction to meet the market on a regular basis, it's dangerous, IMO...
-me
One of the *only* sensible things ever to come out of Bill Gates' mouth, IMO, was the statement "be nice to nerds, you'll probably be working for one some day." (Hopefully most will be working for somewhat less egotistic and heartless nerds than Bill. I'm sure he had a highly paid scriptwriter create that statement for hiim anyway.) Being a nerd in charge of 60 wonderful and dedicated people, I'm hoping I'm living up to that in a more positive way :-)
To all the nerds in school, where things often look pretty bleak; hang on until University, and you find you're not alone, and that thirst for knowledge can be rewarded. And post-university, the sky's the limit!
Nerds and Geeks rule! (Or at least we will shortly :-)
-me
Cigarettes are physically addictive. Software isn't. And the dependency upon a given vendor isn't there, if there is competition. There are typically free alternatives. And you can "roll your own" if need be. Many differences.
.DOC file formats, that people depend upon (due to MS monopoly dominance), there is a dependence upon a single vendor.
:-)
.DOC files, because if you can't read or create them, you're sunk in business today.
However, in the case of closed, proprietary standards, such as
Those proprietary, closed, standards are Microsoft's "nicotine", so to speak, that keep you coming back for more. And just when someone else comes out with a cheaper or free equivalent of that "nicotine", Microsoft changes the formulation (Word '95 format, Word '98 format, Word 2000 format), and enough people get pushed on the latest, that the others have to follow. That's dependence. That's unhealthy for the economy.
But HTML editors don't sufer from the same, because the *standard* is open. I can buy my editor from Microsoft if I want, or I can use Netscape, or HomeSite, or Dreamweaver, or (my personal favorite) "vi".
Microsoft does the same with their API's. They are documented (otherwise they'd be completely sunk), but all the cool stuff and latest features in the OS, often are not documented, so Microsoft has an edge with the apps (but hopefully not for much longer, if the government doesn't roll over). And they change those API's so rapidly that no one could possibly create something reaosonably compatable with that de facto standard.
Sun, on the other hand, fully documents their Java API's, controls and modularizes the expansion of the API. They give it away for commercial and non-commercial use, allow others to create competiting JVM's (including other free ones), and make some money on licensing their source code (also free for non-commercial use), and in selling hardware for one of the premiere Java platforms, Solaris. A far more respectible approach, and (gasp!) a commercial one...
I never consider myself *dependant* upon a piece of software. There are usually alternatives. I *do* consider myself dependant upon proprietary standards, like
If someone lets my try out their kick-ass software, and it provides great value for its price, I'll use it. As long as the standards are open, there will always be other alternatives if I become dissatisfied with that piece of software, or they crank up the price, or whatever. That's not dependence, that's freedom!
And I don't think FSF's approach that "all software should be free" is constructive. The *choice* of what software to use should be free, and there might be cost-free alternatives among them, as long as the standards are open.
I think this is a key point. If the *standards* are kept open, the industry benefits; for example, look at HTML editors. It's a standard that is publicly documented, and there are probably hundreds of commercial editors for, and probably hundreds (if not thousands) of free ones.
.DOC files. Completely closed, and partially reverse engineered by a few hearty souls; and the minute Microsoft releases Word 2000, suddenly StarOffice can't open attachments. Welcome to the world of closed standards. Microsoft knows this, and behaves accordinly on purpose; make the closed, proprietary document format a moving target, and you've thwarted competition.
:-) isn't quite as efficient for driving nails.
Look at Word
Regarding free software: we live in an economy; despite Stallman's fantasies, software is a tool just like any other, and people who make their living creating those tools, and producing value in those tools, will often charge for those tools.
Hammers are useful tools, too, but they take time, effort, and materials to create (just like software), and despite the fact that giving them away would be for the general good, it ain't gonna happen, as long as the hammer-makers want to eat. In a socialistic society where the core needs are taken care of (in theory), yes, free hammers for all! In a capitalistic society where you earn money to survive, expect to pay for hammers for awhile longer.
To continue the analogy further, any successful building contractor is going to expect to pay money for his hammers; but they're will worth his while, as using the "Large Rock 0.1a" alternative (from FSF
But the "free beer" (kind of an offensive, pre-judging term to me) software, is like giving free hammers to try out before you buy, and giving them free to the students and poor people who are using them for non-commercial purposes. I think it's extremely admirable.
For students and evaluation, being able to use or evaluate commercial grade software, is a boon to society. It would be cynically unproductive to assume it's a "get them hooked and then charge them" tack; I prefer to look at it as being proud enough of your product to show it off freely, and generous enough to let folks use it who aren't using it for commercial gain.
My company spends hundreds of thousands on software a year. Some companies won't let us try out the software until we purchase it. We tell those companies to go away. Often, we get an eval copy. Most commonly, we download the trial or free-for-non-commercial-use version, run it through it's paces, and if it's worthy, we buy it. It's *incredibly* useful...
Now that I'm in business, I'm proud to pay for software. When I was a student, or when I was first researching prototypes for an eventual business, I would have *loved* for more "free beer" software to get me rolling.
It's a wondeful trend, that will really help applications for Linux. Don't knock it.