I think this is a good reason why the term "Open Source" can be extremely misleading. Next thing you know, we will have an "open source" version of windows 2004
I think this is a good reason why the term "free software" can be extremely misleading. Next then you know, we will have a "free software" version of Internet Explorer.
p.s. The above is an example of sarcasm. If you are a regular Slashdot reader, the concept may be unfamiliar to you. I suggest a dictionary.
p.p.s. Speaking of dictionaries, look up "free" while you're at it.
p.p.p.s. Funny isn't it how download.com offers thousands of "free software" downloads of proprietary shareware?
p.s. i have been using the term 'free software' in the above post but am unsure of the exact license that khtml is under
Even if it's the APSL, it will still be Free Software, because it adheres to the four requirements of Free Software. Now before people start grabbing their feathers and hot tar, go read those four requirements, read the APSL, then tell me which one of them the APSL fails.
Wouldn't it be possible to add enough bricks to Gecko to get a (20 MB, whatever) webcore?
Anything's possible. Why, there's even a Vim component for KDE!
The question is whether it would be worth the effort. Windows could use a Gecko ActiveX component much more than OSX would need a Gecko Webcore, but no one's written one yet that I am aware of.
So... make a Gecko based webcore replacement. Apple has given us a slick framework to implement in order to drive Safari's backend.
It doesn't work that way.
KHTML is a component. At its heart it's merely a Qt widget. Drop it in, connect it up, and it works. I could write a minimal but usable browser with KHTML in a few days using the KDE component framework.
Gecko works differently, as I understand it. It isn't a component. You can't just drop it in and expect it to work. You either start with Mozilla and start chopping away, or start with Gecko and start adding bricks. It doesn't give you a widget that you merely reparent and listen for events.
The reason there are so many "tiny" Mozillas is not because it's easy to do, but because there is such a huge demand for them. Face it, Mozilla has a huge footprint. Not everyone runs a 3.2GHz system, so the need for a decent bittyzilla is acute.
but on my Linux specific site about 60% of the hits are from Mozilla, about 25-30% are from IE and about 5% are from Konq.
Since Konqueror identifies itself as "Mozilla/5.0" by default, are you really sure? Are you sure some of those Mozilla hits aren't really "Mozilla/5.0 (something else)"
The crude abstract of this article implies KHTML is not cross platform. History says otherwise.
I don't know why people keep saying KHTML isn't cross platform. It runs on 18 different platforms that I am aware of. Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, AIX, OS/2, etc., and i386, m68, Sparc, Alpha, etc. And don't forget the embedded palmtops! It's underlying Qt library is the world's premier crossplatform GUI library.
But frankly, Apple isn't in the business of supplying browsers for the Windows platform, so who cares?
says the user who was allowed to choose both KDE and Gnome, and then noticed X was configured for neither.
Why in the world should XFree86 be "configured" for a specific desktop? There is an option in the installer to choose a default desktop. Why didn't you choose one, instead of expecting FreeBSD to make the decision for you?
Contrary to most Linux distros, FreeBSD ships XFree86, KDE, GNOME, and every other package "as is" straight from their respective projects. The only changes made are platform specific. You don't get Bluecurve, because neither KDE or GNOME ship with Bluecurve.
There's a better way to describe a "daemon". You know that devil and that angel that sit on your shoulder and whisper in your ears, that you see so often in comics? Those are daemons, and that comic image comes straight from ancient Greece.
p.s. I am a Christian. I no of no other Christian that gets upset over Beastie. It isn't satanic, because the Bible (as well as Torah, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.) does not describe Satan or any demon as having red skin, horns, forked tail and wielding a pitchfork. The image of Beastie is about as representative of satanism as a green warted witch with a broomstick is representative of Wicca. I've heard *one* anecdote about someone getting upset over the image of Beastie. All that proves is that there's at least one idiot somewhere in Texas. But we knew that already, didn't we?
Here's a quicker way to upgrade from what other people are suggesting:
Run/stand/sysinstall as normal. In the options screen, change the release name as appropriate (like to 4.8-RELEASE, etc). Then do a ftp install for the base system, and configure->packages for other stuff. This only works for RELEASE, not -current or -stable.
chosen Red Hat because in my opinion it is a lot easier to install and get configured.
How often are you installing and configuration Redhat that this has become your overriding priority? With FreeBSD you install and configure once, then when a new release comes out you upgrade painlessly. If you are in charge of multiple machines you can upgrade them remotely.
There's a not-so-old saying that "Linux is for people who hate Windows, BSD is for people who love UNIX". It's not the truth, and I'm not claiming it is, but for certain tiny sectors of the Linux community, it fits like a glove.
I don't want to have any other MS product, thank you
WINE works under FreeBSD, making your transition out of Microsoftland that much easier.
RPMs are making me sick
I have nothing against RPMs, or any other binary package format. But I have serious worries about the sanity of the packaging teams at certain distros. RPMs can be made to work well, but it's rare to find someone who bothers to make a package right.
apt-get is really nice, but Debian packages are always outdated (no, I don't want to run Debian unstable..)
Then you'll love the ports/packages system. Ports to automatically build from sources, and packages for those that just want ready-to-go binaries. Use cvsup and portupgrade to keep all your software current and stable.
A bit of standartization would be nice (install dirs, etc.). If you install something not for your distrib, it will more likely fail
FreeBSD is a firm believer in standards. The file hiearchy is standard. System calls, userland, libc, etc., all follow the standards as much as possible. Work is ongoing to get full POSIX conformance.
Linux community is great
So is the FreeBSD community. Join the newbies mailing list. It's not for asking questions, its for chatting with other newbies. The questions list is very high volume, but that's where all technical questions need to go. Then check out www.freshports.org and www.freebsddiary.org. Great sites.
I want to get some latest packages (ie. KDE) instead of compiling them myself
Everyone raves about the build-from-source ports system of FreeBSD, but you are free to use precompiled packages instead. Packages are merely ports that have already been built and tarballed for you.
What I like to do is to install the packages of everything I need, then build them again from ports in the background while I work. That way I get the benefits of a quick install AND the benefits of an build optimized and customized for my system.
I'll wait until FreeBSD 5.0 Release will be out and I'll try it.
The old adage to "avoid x.0 releases" holds true here as well. The official word from FreeBSD is for those who don't like taking risks to stay with the 4.x branch until 5.1.
FreeBSD-4.7 works fine and is rock solid. 4.8 should be out soon. You can start with 4.7 and upgrade to later versions painlessly.
I've got you beat! I've done a full install of FreeBSD, including KDE, etc, in about twenty to thirty minutes.
But I usually take the full four hours on an *clean* install. Why? Because that how much time it takes to rebuild world, read the release notes, and verify my configuration. I don't know how long it takes to do an upgrade install, because I'm using the system with full productivity while I'm upgrading...
Careless installs are bad installs.
p.s. If you're top priority is how long an OS takes to install, switch to QNX. Five minutes!
Well no offence but I hope you don't recommend it to newbies.
It depends on the newbie. If they're a clueless luser, they won't like FreeBSD, Debian, Slackware, etc. But if they have some technical background, a willingness to actually read the documentation, and the desire to learn the system, then FreeBSD is an excellent recommendation.
The biggest mistake Mandrake is making is assuming that "once a newbie always a newbie." It's a fine system for newbies, but you won't be a newbie forever.
Yes but white males already get a free pass, so why shouldnt their competition get the same?
As a white male, I resent the implication that I've gotten a free pass. I resent the implication that my job is the result of my caucasion schlong and not because of my experience, education, skills and knowledge. I resent the implication that I am incompetent but am kept on because of my WM Membership Card.
If you put a quota on IT/SE/EE to hire 50% females, then you will be placing those same assumptions on females. Is that your goal?
You need to address the core of the problem, and not the symptoms. Affirmative action only addresses the symptoms while letting the core problem fester.
That's because of society, not biology. Biology will differentiate the aptitudes of the sexes to some extent, but it is society that says girls aren't good at computer science.
A consumer receives a $20 voucher. They already have Windows, and the voucher doesn't even begin to cover the upgrade. So they get a mouse. Even if it's a Microsoft mouse, it's from a division that makes a decent product and doesn't have a monopoly.
I've never heard of authors who submit patches having to GPL projects having to relinquish their copyright on those patches.
It's not common practice, but it is Good Practice(tm). Patches that are less than 10 lines of code (trivial) don't need explicit assignment, but everything else does. Otherwise you get into the WINE situation.
Keystone is "Visual Studio.NET". Also the ".NET Runtime".
And you say this is doing quite well? Hah!
Visual Studio.NET is agonizingly slow. Click on a sidebar, and maybe it will slide open five seconds later. The only thing that keeps it somewhat useful is that the compiler, debugger, etc., are still traditional C/C++ binary applications.
I've never used.NET Runtime, but talking with people who have, it's a nightmare in frustration. You have to clench your buttocks just right or you won't get a proper install. And then when you finally do, you have to make a saving throw on 3d6 to see if your previous applications still work.
If.NET is the future of Windows, Linux, BSD and Solaris have nothing to worry about.
If everyone was happy to use the GPL, there would be no business in dual licensing.
It's not just the GPL. Sleepycat Software uses a similar scheme for their DB, but with an additional copyleft clause added to a traditional BSD license.
You don't just "submit" code to a project and expect it to be included. If you contribute to a GNU project you need to sign a form transfering your rights to the FSF. If you don't want to assign your rights away, they're not going to use your code.
The same thing happens with GPL/Commercial projects. The company won't accept your submission unless you give them the right to dual license it.
If you're working on a project that has more than three developers, formal copyright assignments is Good Practice.
Yes, that's how it works. You should be happy that they're not making you perform unpaid QA duty.
The first alpha of Windows was called Windows 95. Then they released a beta called Windows 95 OSR2. First release candidate was Windows 98, followed by a second release candidate called Windows 98SE. Their final release was Windows ME, which sucked so bad that Microsoft is starting the process all over from the beginning with another alpha release called Windows XP.
Why? Because, presumably, there is an army of skilled hair dressers waiting on the wings who are only held back by the fact that they can't afford to get licensed? Sorry, I don't buy that.
Certification divides the pool of market candidates into two parts, using arbitrary and non-market criteria. There will be good and bad hairdressers on either side.
There doesn't have to be an "army" of good but uncertified hairdressers, there only needs to be a few. Certification has little to do with hairdressing competence, only with bureaucratic competence. It serves in the main to keep people out of the business.
However, the market is currently unregulated, and the story poster explicitly noted a sizable portion of crappy computer service in a freer market then hair dressers. Why hasn't the market resolved that issue? Its supposed to solve everything, isn't it?
The market hasn't resolved the issue because the market is unable to recognize good computer service from bad. This is because incompetent service can be hidden. When you get a crappy haircut you know it. But when you get crappy computer service you probably won't know it for several weeks if you don't know computers. People who don't know automobiles find the same situation with certified auto mechanics. They don't know that their brakes were properly serviced until they fail two months later.
p.s. No one claims that the market can solve everything. Are you claiming bureaucracy can?
Almost all of his customers become violently ill from his unregulated beef, from his unregulated restraunt.
Funny, same thing happened at a regulated, licensed and certified restaurant in the Bay Area a few months back, and few years earlier with a major fastfood chain.
I'm not arguing against regulation. Sometimes it works well. You know all those electrical devices that have the UL certification on them? Guess what? Underwriter's Laboratory is not a government agency!
The current system of government regulations does a good job of keeping people out of business, making politicians feel good, and keeping bureaucrats employed, but it might as well not be there for all the good it for the consumer. For every one sensible OSHA regulation there are one hundred that do nothing but drive up the cost of doing business.
Therefore, following your argument, licensing does not resolve the problem (since licensed individuals have proven capable of doing crappy jobs), but leaving it to the market does not resolve the issue either (since these licensed individuals exist within the market as well, and they still get work and manage to screw it up).
Close, but not cigar. If it weren't for the fact that unlicensed hairdressers were against the law, the market would work. But there is an artificial barrier to entry. You can be the greatest hairdresser in the world, but without the thousands of dollars it takes to get a certificate, no one will do business with you. Incompetence and a certificate will get you at least a tiny bit of business. Superb skills, experience, intelligence, and reputation, without a certificate, will get you nothin if you want to stay on the right side of the law.
Where I grew up, the word of mouth (ei. the marketplace) said that the best restaurant was Delgado's. This was an unlicensed restaurant being run out of Mrs. Delgado's kitchen. The food was fantastic, the place was clean, and the service impeccable. But the business was still illegal. Her house wasn't zoned for a business, she didn't have the funds to aquire a business location, and didn't have the bureaucratic patience to wade through the red tape required to get licensed.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is a good reason why the term "Open Source" can be extremely misleading. Next thing you know, we will have an "open source" version of windows 2004
I think this is a good reason why the term "free software" can be extremely misleading. Next then you know, we will have a "free software" version of Internet Explorer.
p.s. The above is an example of sarcasm. If you are a regular Slashdot reader, the concept may be unfamiliar to you. I suggest a dictionary.
p.p.s. Speaking of dictionaries, look up "free" while you're at it.
p.p.p.s. Funny isn't it how download.com offers thousands of "free software" downloads of proprietary shareware?
p.s. i have been using the term 'free software' in the above post but am unsure of the exact license that khtml is under
Even if it's the APSL, it will still be Free Software, because it adheres to the four requirements of Free Software. Now before people start grabbing their feathers and hot tar, go read those four requirements, read the APSL, then tell me which one of them the APSL fails.
Wouldn't it be possible to add enough bricks to Gecko to get a (20 MB, whatever) webcore?
Anything's possible. Why, there's even a Vim component for KDE!
The question is whether it would be worth the effort. Windows could use a Gecko ActiveX component much more than OSX would need a Gecko Webcore, but no one's written one yet that I am aware of.
So... make a Gecko based webcore replacement. Apple has given us a slick framework to implement in order to drive Safari's backend.
It doesn't work that way.
KHTML is a component. At its heart it's merely a Qt widget. Drop it in, connect it up, and it works. I could write a minimal but usable browser with KHTML in a few days using the KDE component framework.
Gecko works differently, as I understand it. It isn't a component. You can't just drop it in and expect it to work. You either start with Mozilla and start chopping away, or start with Gecko and start adding bricks. It doesn't give you a widget that you merely reparent and listen for events.
The reason there are so many "tiny" Mozillas is not because it's easy to do, but because there is such a huge demand for them. Face it, Mozilla has a huge footprint. Not everyone runs a 3.2GHz system, so the need for a decent bittyzilla is acute.
but on my Linux specific site about 60% of the hits are from Mozilla, about 25-30% are from IE and about 5% are from Konq.
Since Konqueror identifies itself as "Mozilla/5.0" by default, are you really sure? Are you sure some of those Mozilla hits aren't really "Mozilla/5.0 (something else)"
The crude abstract of this article implies KHTML is not cross platform. History says otherwise.
I don't know why people keep saying KHTML isn't cross platform. It runs on 18 different platforms that I am aware of. Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, AIX, OS/2, etc., and i386, m68, Sparc, Alpha, etc. And don't forget the embedded palmtops! It's underlying Qt library is the world's premier crossplatform GUI library.
But frankly, Apple isn't in the business of supplying browsers for the Windows platform, so who cares?
says the user who was allowed to choose both KDE and Gnome, and then noticed X was configured for neither.
Why in the world should XFree86 be "configured" for a specific desktop? There is an option in the installer to choose a default desktop. Why didn't you choose one, instead of expecting FreeBSD to make the decision for you?
Contrary to most Linux distros, FreeBSD ships XFree86, KDE, GNOME, and every other package "as is" straight from their respective projects. The only changes made are platform specific. You don't get Bluecurve, because neither KDE or GNOME ship with Bluecurve.
Give it another 2 years, and you'll realize that this is no laughing matter.
Give it another two years after that, and you'll realize you were shitting bricks for nothing.
There's a better way to describe a "daemon". You know that devil and that angel that sit on your shoulder and whisper in your ears, that you see so often in comics? Those are daemons, and that comic image comes straight from ancient Greece.
p.s. I am a Christian. I no of no other Christian that gets upset over Beastie. It isn't satanic, because the Bible (as well as Torah, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.) does not describe Satan or any demon as having red skin, horns, forked tail and wielding a pitchfork. The image of Beastie is about as representative of satanism as a green warted witch with a broomstick is representative of Wicca. I've heard *one* anecdote about someone getting upset over the image of Beastie. All that proves is that there's at least one idiot somewhere in Texas. But we knew that already, didn't we?
Here's a quicker way to upgrade from what other people are suggesting:
/stand/sysinstall as normal. In the options screen, change the release name as appropriate (like to 4.8-RELEASE, etc). Then do a ftp install for the base system, and configure->packages for other stuff. This only works for RELEASE, not -current or -stable.
Run
Simple.
chosen Red Hat because in my opinion it is a lot easier to install and get configured.
How often are you installing and configuration Redhat that this has become your overriding priority? With FreeBSD you install and configure once, then when a new release comes out you upgrade painlessly. If you are in charge of multiple machines you can upgrade them remotely.
Linux is a real nice OS
So is FreeBSD.
The *nix system is great
There's a not-so-old saying that "Linux is for people who hate Windows, BSD is for people who love UNIX". It's not the truth, and I'm not claiming it is, but for certain tiny sectors of the Linux community, it fits like a glove.
I don't want to have any other MS product, thank you
WINE works under FreeBSD, making your transition out of Microsoftland that much easier.
RPMs are making me sick
I have nothing against RPMs, or any other binary package format. But I have serious worries about the sanity of the packaging teams at certain distros. RPMs can be made to work well, but it's rare to find someone who bothers to make a package right.
apt-get is really nice, but Debian packages are always outdated (no, I don't want to run Debian unstable..)
Then you'll love the ports/packages system. Ports to automatically build from sources, and packages for those that just want ready-to-go binaries. Use cvsup and portupgrade to keep all your software current and stable.
A bit of standartization would be nice (install dirs, etc.). If you install something not for your distrib, it will more likely fail
FreeBSD is a firm believer in standards. The file hiearchy is standard. System calls, userland, libc, etc., all follow the standards as much as possible. Work is ongoing to get full POSIX conformance.
Linux community is great
So is the FreeBSD community. Join the newbies mailing list. It's not for asking questions, its for chatting with other newbies. The questions list is very high volume, but that's where all technical questions need to go. Then check out www.freshports.org and www.freebsddiary.org. Great sites.
I want to get some latest packages (ie. KDE) instead of compiling them myself
Everyone raves about the build-from-source ports system of FreeBSD, but you are free to use precompiled packages instead. Packages are merely ports that have already been built and tarballed for you.
What I like to do is to install the packages of everything I need, then build them again from ports in the background while I work. That way I get the benefits of a quick install AND the benefits of an build optimized and customized for my system.
I'll wait until FreeBSD 5.0 Release will be out and I'll try it.
The old adage to "avoid x.0 releases" holds true here as well. The official word from FreeBSD is for those who don't like taking risks to stay with the 4.x branch until 5.1.
FreeBSD-4.7 works fine and is rock solid. 4.8 should be out soon. You can start with 4.7 and upgrade to later versions painlessly.
I've got you beat! I've done a full install of FreeBSD, including KDE, etc, in about twenty to thirty minutes.
But I usually take the full four hours on an *clean* install. Why? Because that how much time it takes to rebuild world, read the release notes, and verify my configuration. I don't know how long it takes to do an upgrade install, because I'm using the system with full productivity while I'm upgrading...
Careless installs are bad installs.
p.s. If you're top priority is how long an OS takes to install, switch to QNX. Five minutes!
Well no offence but I hope you don't recommend it to newbies.
It depends on the newbie. If they're a clueless luser, they won't like FreeBSD, Debian, Slackware, etc. But if they have some technical background, a willingness to actually read the documentation, and the desire to learn the system, then FreeBSD is an excellent recommendation.
The biggest mistake Mandrake is making is assuming that "once a newbie always a newbie." It's a fine system for newbies, but you won't be a newbie forever.
Yes but white males already get a free pass, so why shouldnt their competition get the same?
As a white male, I resent the implication that I've gotten a free pass. I resent the implication that my job is the result of my caucasion schlong and not because of my experience, education, skills and knowledge. I resent the implication that I am incompetent but am kept on because of my WM Membership Card.
If you put a quota on IT/SE/EE to hire 50% females, then you will be placing those same assumptions on females. Is that your goal?
You need to address the core of the problem, and not the symptoms. Affirmative action only addresses the symptoms while letting the core problem fester.
That's because of society, not biology. Biology will differentiate the aptitudes of the sexes to some extent, but it is society that says girls aren't good at computer science.
It's nature versus nurture.
A) It's a loss in revenue. People who would normally buy software are now getting it for free.
B) These vouchers are small, so what Microsoft products will they cover? Mice and keyboards! Real hardware!
C) The vouchers aren't limited to Microsoft products.
A consumer receives a $20 voucher. They already have Windows, and the voucher doesn't even begin to cover the upgrade. So they get a mouse. Even if it's a Microsoft mouse, it's from a division that makes a decent product and doesn't have a monopoly.
I've never heard of authors who submit patches having to GPL projects having to relinquish their copyright on those patches.
It's not common practice, but it is Good Practice(tm). Patches that are less than 10 lines of code (trivial) don't need explicit assignment, but everything else does. Otherwise you get into the WINE situation.
Keystone is "Visual Studio .NET". Also the ".NET Runtime".
.NET is agonizingly slow. Click on a sidebar, and maybe it will slide open five seconds later. The only thing that keeps it somewhat useful is that the compiler, debugger, etc., are still traditional C/C++ binary applications.
.NET Runtime, but talking with people who have, it's a nightmare in frustration. You have to clench your buttocks just right or you won't get a proper install. And then when you finally do, you have to make a saving throw on 3d6 to see if your previous applications still work.
.NET is the future of Windows, Linux, BSD and Solaris have nothing to worry about.
And you say this is doing quite well? Hah!
Visual Studio
I've never used
If
If everyone was happy to use the GPL, there would be no business in dual licensing.
It's not just the GPL. Sleepycat Software uses a similar scheme for their DB, but with an additional copyleft clause added to a traditional BSD license.
You don't just "submit" code to a project and expect it to be included. If you contribute to a GNU project you need to sign a form transfering your rights to the FSF. If you don't want to assign your rights away, they're not going to use your code.
The same thing happens with GPL/Commercial projects. The company won't accept your submission unless you give them the right to dual license it.
If you're working on a project that has more than three developers, formal copyright assignments is Good Practice.
Yes, that's how it works. You should be happy that they're not making you perform unpaid QA duty.
The first alpha of Windows was called Windows 95. Then they released a beta called Windows 95 OSR2. First release candidate was Windows 98, followed by a second release candidate called Windows 98SE. Their final release was Windows ME, which sucked so bad that Microsoft is starting the process all over from the beginning with another alpha release called Windows XP.
Why? Because, presumably, there is an army of skilled hair dressers waiting on the wings who are only held back by the fact that they can't afford to get licensed? Sorry, I don't buy that.
Certification divides the pool of market candidates into two parts, using arbitrary and non-market criteria. There will be good and bad hairdressers on either side.
There doesn't have to be an "army" of good but uncertified hairdressers, there only needs to be a few. Certification has little to do with hairdressing competence, only with bureaucratic competence. It serves in the main to keep people out of the business.
However, the market is currently unregulated, and the story poster explicitly noted a sizable portion of crappy computer service in a freer market then hair dressers. Why hasn't the market resolved that issue? Its supposed to solve everything, isn't it?
The market hasn't resolved the issue because the market is unable to recognize good computer service from bad. This is because incompetent service can be hidden. When you get a crappy haircut you know it. But when you get crappy computer service you probably won't know it for several weeks if you don't know computers. People who don't know automobiles find the same situation with certified auto mechanics. They don't know that their brakes were properly serviced until they fail two months later.
p.s. No one claims that the market can solve everything. Are you claiming bureaucracy can?
Almost all of his customers become violently ill from his unregulated beef, from his unregulated restraunt.
Funny, same thing happened at a regulated, licensed and certified restaurant in the Bay Area a few months back, and few years earlier with a major fastfood chain.
I'm not arguing against regulation. Sometimes it works well. You know all those electrical devices that have the UL certification on them? Guess what? Underwriter's Laboratory is not a government agency!
The current system of government regulations does a good job of keeping people out of business, making politicians feel good, and keeping bureaucrats employed, but it might as well not be there for all the good it for the consumer. For every one sensible OSHA regulation there are one hundred that do nothing but drive up the cost of doing business.
Therefore, following your argument, licensing does not resolve the problem (since licensed individuals have proven capable of doing crappy jobs), but leaving it to the market does not resolve the issue either (since these licensed individuals exist within the market as well, and they still get work and manage to screw it up).
Close, but not cigar. If it weren't for the fact that unlicensed hairdressers were against the law, the market would work. But there is an artificial barrier to entry. You can be the greatest hairdresser in the world, but without the thousands of dollars it takes to get a certificate, no one will do business with you. Incompetence and a certificate will get you at least a tiny bit of business. Superb skills, experience, intelligence, and reputation, without a certificate, will get you nothin if you want to stay on the right side of the law.
Where I grew up, the word of mouth (ei. the marketplace) said that the best restaurant was Delgado's. This was an unlicensed restaurant being run out of Mrs. Delgado's kitchen. The food was fantastic, the place was clean, and the service impeccable. But the business was still illegal. Her house wasn't zoned for a business, she didn't have the funds to aquire a business location, and didn't have the bureaucratic patience to wade through the red tape required to get licensed.