For several centuries, the University has been the predominant model of advanced education -- an institution of higher learning, bringing together experts who impart knowledge through formalized classes, culminating in the granting of diplomas to verify success.
Now enters the concept of Open Knowledge, of which Open Source is a subset.
Assume, for a moment, that "Knowledge wants to be free". In a real sense, people do not invent Knowledge -- instead, we discover Knowledge. Protein folding and stellar dynamics, like all matters of science, follow rules independent of human understanding; in the most fundamental sense, people are observers of Knowledge, not its creators.
Universities came into existence as central locations for the sharing and imparting of Knowledge. People travelled to the University for education, because the University had no way to broadcast its information. That, of course, has changed, with the advent of mass communications. Via the Internet, many (but not all, or even most) types of knowledge can be transmitted almost anywhere, at any time, regardless of physical barriers.
For computer software engineering, the University is rapidly becoming obsolete. Technical Knowledge, by nature, is easily transmitable via the Internet. We don't learn Python or Apache by going to a University; we learn such topics in their native environment, online via computers.
For other areas of Knowledge, however, the University cannot be so easily replaced. I might be able to learn Python online, and I might be able to order robot parts from web stores, but, from my house, I can't use a 10-meter telescope or experiment with a particle accelerator.
Some areas of Knowledge can only be learned by experience with physical objects. While the Knowledge may be free, obtaining that Knowledge may incur costs or require physical presence. I can see a Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton on the web, but to do useful science, I need to touch the bones and perhaps dig them from the ground to gain a context for the skeleton.
What MIT is doing is good -- but the University provides facilities that will remain useful for the foreseeable future, in most fields of Knowledge. But for those areas of Knowledge that can be distributed, we need a new "University" model to recognize learning and skill -- a new "sheepskin", so to speak.
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
I suggest that you read the Berne Copyright Convention, among other applicable laws, to understand that, indeed, authors do have property rights to their works.
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
We have to have some practical way to allow X, even if this does trample some (people's) rights.
Replace X with many things -- the theft of land from indigenous peoples, or the killing of union workers, or the bombing of civilian populations, or whatever -- and you'll see what it means in reality.
In the view you espouse, you have no problem taking away someone else's rights, so long as you benefit in some way. You want to preserve old SF stories, so you are willing to "trample some of the authors (sic) rights?"
Ah, what a slippery slope you find yourself on -- for someday, someone is going to take away your rights, because doing so is good for them.
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
First, my personal take on the Supreme Court case:
I spent 12 years as a full-time writer, and I can't count the ways in which publishers ripped me off. Yes, I've had my work published on CD-ROM by publications who couldn't care less about the contracts they signed with me; no, it wasn't worth fighting about. Of course, the publishing industry has many problems, so I quit writing programming books and found other venues for my coding talents.
The U.S. legal system is managed by corporate-financed politicians for the benefit of (surprise, surprise!) the corporations. The problem isn't copyrights, or the DMCA, or any of these other laws and concepts that Slashdot readers focus on -- what's wrong with intellectual property is the way Corporations use it to rape the artists/writers and the public.
Hell, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Capitalist -- but that means I believe people should be compensated for what they do, not what they can steal. In today's environment, Corporations grow bigger (AOL-Time-Warner, anyone?), controlling more aspects of our lives, using their media to manipulate public opinion and their financial power to crush any opposition. An author like me can't afford to sue an international conglomerate over a violation of a contract or copyright -- and so the Corporation wins by default.
Copyright is not a "bad" thing; just like patents and other forms of intellectual property, the underlying principle is sound. The implementation of IP, however, has been seriously perverted. See, it isn't the writers, or the artists, or the musicians who are the problem with IP -- the evil lies in a culture of greedy megacorporations, who control content by stealing from both creators and consumers.
Publishing online would work fine and dandy if consumers actually *paid* for what they download -- but I know many an author who's traveled the "web publishing" road, only to end up broke at the end. Beyond the rare moral individual, most people will take what they can, while they can -- and then those same people moan and whine when corporations exhibit the same lack of ethics! Folks, what comes around goes around -- stealing an MP3 is no better than a Corporation stealing a writer's article. It's all part of the same stinky kettle of fish...
To end the corporate domination of media and knowledge, you need to support people who take an independent path. You get what you pay for, quite literally.
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
Actually, I did read the article and visit the IP.com web site, and you'll find a minor mea culpa below (which pretimes your message by 20 minutes), where I replied to an earlier correspondent on this matter.
Indeed, IP.com is creating a repository of information for the purposes of identifying prior art -- but they are doing so for a fee.
Not that making money is a problem -- I don't object to a fee per se, but rather to certain assumptions we must make if we are to consider IP.com a valuable resource. IP.com could be a "fishing expedition," attracting nifty new ideas for use by who knows whom. I don't see anything that limits what they can do with the "publications" that appear on their site.
Furthermore, IP.com's repository is based on the existence of IP.com. It will only contain "publications" from those willing to pay $109 for the privilege. I'm not certain this fits with the core beliefs of Open Source. Perhaps we would be better-served a grassroots repository managed by the community, as opposed to a private repository (IP.com) with unknown intent.
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
...although I must admit, the/. article is a bit misleading about the actualy intent of IP.com. Indeed, IP.com is providing a service to maintain a list of "publications" for use in "prior art" defenses against patents. However, the service is oriented at business, not Open Source per se, and it isn't free, either. The cost appears to be $109 per "publication", so the expense isn't high.
HOWEVER, using IP.com implies trust that they (and their database) will continue to exist, and that their intent will remain "noble." Perhaps a grassroots equivelent would be more in the spirit of Open Source.
The main points of my original article stand, however, even if they were somewhat misguided by reading the/. article before visiting IP.com.
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
In an ideal world, patents promote innovation by giving inventors an exclusive right to profit from their creations; in return for this financial benefit, the inventor must publish a detailed description of the invention, so others can build on it. It is a good system that has been perverted by modern corporate concepts.
Patenting Open source is -- well, patently stupid. By nature, Open Source is published, and it has no direct profit motive. A patent on Open Source does not promote innovation, because innovation exists in Open Source by default!
The Open Source movement would do just as well by having a central repository or library of "prior art" that can be used by the patent office to determine if a "new invention" is indeed a new invention. We need to make it easier to prevent patents on core knowledge; I don't see the point in making more patents when our goal is to prevent patents.
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
By charging for incremental update services, Red Hat is implicitly admitting that it's business model has some serious flaws. Linux is explicitly free; anyone with a modem or a CD-burner can have Linux for the cost of some time and effort. Why would people pay for something that is -- by intention -- free?
If anything, the nature of Linux requires free updates, simply because Linux is a conglomerate of various packages with their own update schedules and releases. I can install Debian 2.2r2, update the XFree 86 to 4.03, add the latest gcc 2.95.3, and tailor my system to my needs. Such a model simply doesn't fit with the Red Hat idea of "Linux releases." The only true Linux "release" is the kernel...
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
I just noticed this story over at CNN: NCR (yup, old National Cash Register) is suing Palm for patent violations. Seems that NCR claims patents on a "Portable personal terminal for use in a system for handling transactions," and on a "System for handling transactions including a portable personal terminal." Those sound like broad concepts to me; I wonder if WinCE handhelds have licensed these patents from NCR?
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
...how the wimps who caved in to Rambus feel now. Instaed of fighting a bogus patent, several companies just gave up and agreed to pay royalties, rather than fight the Rambus greed machine.
Heh, heh -- I hope those royalty agreements are binding, so the wimps have to pay for their wimpiness even if the Rambus patent is invalidated. It'll teach'em not to be so wussy...
...on the other hand (there always is one, isn't there?), if the royalty agreements are valid, it'll only encourage companies like Rambus to issue fake patents on the expectation of generating revenue from wimps.
Damm -- I wonder how much Rambus has collected already from their patent skullduggery?
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
I considered running a gaming-oriented content site, back in late 1999. I bought a domain (the name was cool), and started looking to put up banner ads. Before lining up a staff and opening office space, I discovered (as would any chimp with half a brain) that banner ads weren't going to pay for a site -- so I never went live. I wrote the time off as a "learning experience", and went on to bigger and better things...
My other site, Coyote Gulch Productions, operates on a totally different financial basis: I run it because I want to, not because it makes me a buck.
Oh, all right, I have made a few bucks from the site over the years... I've sold software code libraries, sold some of my books, and used it as an online resume and distribution point for applets and open source code. The "profit" has been pretty thin, though, considering the time that goes into creating those damned little ALife applets... and regardless of its money-making potential, I'll keep doing Coyote Gulch, teaching people about neato concepts and presenting my view of the universe.
I have considered going the micropayment route for some of my book projects. Can anyone explain to me if there's something wrong with PayPal or the Amazon "honor system?" Okay, so Amazon is "patent pig" scum -- and failing scum at that. But what about PayPal?
Here's the deal: I wrote (and my wife illustrated) a children's book, which I sold to a Big Name Publisher, who was then eaten by a bigger fish, who then killed the "kid's division" before the book saw print. Rather than hunt up another publisher, I've considered putting the book online, and having people "micropay" me if they like it. Hell, if I make $50, it $50 more than the book has made me before...
But back to the central point: Your average person sees the web as an interactive TV; they're already paying for the connect, just like they pay for their cable setup. So "average Joe" thinks he's already paid for access, and he expects his content for "free", just like TV. I don't see how content-based sites can expect to pay for themselves in that kind of environment...
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
Ah, fear -- it's a wonderful motivator. Microsoft is very afraid, and thus very motivated, and thus very dangerous.
I see some of you think Allchin's comments were funny, or even ludicrous. You are making a big mistake.
Microsoft sees a threat to its empire, a threat that cannot be bought out or attacked by conventional business means. So they are taking FUD one step further, by preying on the fears of average folk, presenting Open Source as a threat to "our way of life."
And they're right.
Open Source is not simply a tool for developing software -- it threatens the philosophical basis of a society entrenched in rampant capitalism. The "powers that be" thrive on the status quo, so they prey upon people's fears of change. For the most part, people don't like change; they want life to stay the same, to be comfortable, to be predictable. Even if change is to someone's benefit, they will often resist.
Microsoft is a company based on marketing, a company whose success lies in knowing how to manipulate people's thoughts. They will twist Open Source into a threat against "everything we love and hold dear." They will twist people's words, and they will enlist the aid of other fearful groups -- law enforcement and govenrnment -- to undermine Open Source and Linux.
Am I paranoid? You bet -- because such things have happened before in history, and they will happen again. During the "Red Scare", people were persecuted simply for attending a meeting -- persecuted for curiosity, my friends. "Thinking wrong" was a prosecutable offense; the red scare wasn't about communisim, it was about stopping people from thinking outside the proscribed box.
We must counter Microsoft's campaign now, and we must do so proactively. We need Open Source advocates to stand before Congress; our articles must be in business magazines and newspapers. While we get into silly wars over KDE-vs-Gnome and Debian-vs-Red Hat, we leaving abandon the battlefield to rampant capitalism and its FUD spewers.
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
"The end of books" is a topic raised every few months in one forum or another, and it's been coming up for twenty years. Asimov wrote a nice essay on the topic back in the 1980s. In the end, there is little or no danger of paper books going away.
Paper is cheap and easy to produce.
Explain how a public library would "lend" e-books without leaving itself open to copyright violators. In spite of copy machines, it is usually easier and cheaper to buy a book than steal it; e-books, however, are quite easy to steal.
Paper books can be read directly; I don't need an apparatus to read a paper book.
Paper books are still readable centuries after printing; try reading an 8" floppy, or one of those extinct data or file formats with today's software... heck, most people seem to have trouble getting a Word document (one of the most common current formats) onto a non-Windows box, because the format is controlled by MS. E-books will be controlled by big business that must recoup its "investment" in a proprietary technology.
I don't have to face down any nasty lawyers because I lend a book to a friend or sell it through a used book store.
E-books have their purposes; I publish both paper and electronic texts, depending on my audience and thier abilities. For example, if I'm writing about genetic algorithms, I can assume my readers have access to a computer and can read an e-text.
But I'll bet that most e-books and online docs get printed on paper...
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
Schools have become an ideological battlefield, with all sides of the political spectrum duking it out to see who can indoctrinate the kids the fastest. Children learn by example, an the example of school officials, parents, and society in general is quite poor.
Of course, pity the poor school official who can't win for losing. Ignore even the tinest threat -- perceived or actual -- and leave yourself open to a lawsuit. Ask kids to help you keep tabs on what's happening, and you're the Gestapo. Stop some kid from making violent statements, and have the ACLU on your back for violating the kid's rights to free speech. Give a kid a bad grade, and the parents sue for ruining their baby's self-esteem.
Yuck!
So schools have become paranoid, controlling, and generally ineffective. From grade inflation to enforced drug therapy, the schools have become a battleground, both psychologically and politically. It isn't just a matter of "evil" administrators -- what is wrong with the schools is a reflection of society as a whole.
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
...companies who don't think the "old guys" -- those of us with 20+ years of experience -- can cope with this new fangled web stuff. They want kids fresh out of college who lack families and will live at a desk for lousy pay.
In other words, "discrimintion" is largely determined by your perspective.
I started my first programming job at age 15, back in 1977. None of my bosses gave me any respect; it pissed me off, but I kept plugging, learning as much as I could as fast as possible. In the end, some quarter-century later, I'm doing quite well -- and now that I hire the young'uns, I try hard to respect them and listen to their views. If they *are* wet behind the ears, I don't crush their ego -- I hand'em a towel...;)
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
Or so it would seem, at least in the world of computing. And the scale of Apollo's computers suggests that going to the moon is predicated on will and desire, not technology.
Of course, there is something to be said for the vastness of modern computing; we don't need to spend enless hours on the minutia, giving us the luxury of focusing on "the bigger picture".
Still, I wonder what we could accomplish if we wrote put a historical level of effort into code optimization. Think of the bloat involved in Perl, Java, MFC, VB, scripting, and useless visual clutter. Sometime, bloat doesn't matter -- and sometime, the bloat is just a reflexion of laziness.
Don't get me wrong; as my father (one of the first EEs) always said: "Use the right tool for the job." While C/C++ may be my tool of choice, it isn't the best or most efficient mechanism for every problem. I think our problem is the old saw about "a man with a hammer sees every problem as a nail." We are too myopic in our view of software developemnt, and we are often too lazy to use the right tool for the job.
But I digress.
It is good for all programmers to be forced to get the most out of the least. I've been playing with my Lego Mindstorms kits, trying to build learning algorithms into limited program space, a few motors, and a couple of sensors. It's been a mind-stretching exercise, and I highly recommend such projects to programmers who want to hone their skills to a fine edge.
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
I'm a rather avid gamer, and I'm quite fond of Linux -- but I can't fathom a single, rational reason to run Direct3D games under Wine on Linux.
Now, irrational reasons may exist. For example, a virualent hatred of all things Microsoft might lead someone to run already-unstable games (every DirectX game has hardware and driver compatability problems) through emulators...
Is any serious gaming enthuiast going to give up their Wintel box to run an emulator under Linux? I doubt it.
So what is the point of this technological exercise -- other that to prove that you can run DirectX under Wine?
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
We have three senior developers; none of us has less than 15 years of experience. Quite frankly, we know what we're doing, so pair programming really doesn't "add" anything.
I do see pair programming as useful in situations where a senior person works with a less experienced developer, assuming the "lead" can teach without being condescending.
I look upon programming as an art, like writing. Good collaborations are rare in writing -- and I don't know of a single painting or statue that was done by two people working together. In my experience, the creative process doesn't lend itself well to multiple independent perspectives...
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
Ah! I forgot to mention: One part of XP that we vigorously ignore is "pair programming." Sorry, it just doesn't work. Good development requires concentration and focus, something you can't get with two people working at the same PC.
And we all know that typing proficiency is inversely proportional to the number of people watching you!;)
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
...in a small environment, with a tight team and a focused target. We're using many XP ideas at my company; our design has evolved quickly and effectively by having small development cycles and recursive feedback.
That said, XP is not for every programming environment. Layers of management will hinder the iterative process; programmers must be comfortable with "refactoring" their design. We have three developers for our vertical market toolkit, and we can work closely with QA and our customers.
XP assumes that your receive useful feedback from your users and QA. Perhaps our greatest struggle has been to get NEGATIVE feedback from our customers. We bring them down visit, spend a couple days showing them what we have, and what we get are lots of suggestions for additional features, but few comments regarding the overall design and organization of the components. I hope this means we got it right in the first place...:)
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
Boy, oh boy, I sometimes feel like a brontosaurus surrounded by cute little mammals -- I just know something's wrong...
(...please indulge an old man (39 years) in his reverie...)
...or at least my favorite hobby is. I began gaming in the late 70s; I was just beginning my programming career at that time, too. I loved Ogre/GEV, RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, and, of course, Star Fleet Battles. I played War in the Pacific, Drang Nach Asten, Squad Leader, and Ironclads... ah, the memories.
I met my wife while playing RuneQuest back in 1980. My character was an intelligent shaman duck with a geas to destroy reptiles. This cute girl comes into the room, and I'm introduced as "the guy playing a duck".
So I said "Quack."
We got married in '81. And I'm still quacking up the cute girl...
The problem is time. Once we started having kids in the late 1980s, I just didn't have time to run a role-playing game anymore. Job, kids, and other hobbies impinged. The last game I "gave up" was Star Fleet Battles. SFB just took too much time to play...
I will miss FASA, more because it represents my youth than because I played its games much.
And in spite of the changes, the state of gaming is good.
Today, my family games on the computer, even the 5yo. My eldest daughter is 11, and she's quite good at games like Pharoah and Age of Kings; my 10yo (b-day today!) daughter is into scenario design. We play AoK, Heroes of Might & Magic, and some others. No shooters, other than the Heretic-Hexen series. Having been shot at, I don't find much joy in pointing guns and fragging people -- but that's a matter of taste, and not some moral judgement.
As a family, we play strategy or RPG games over the home LAN. Right now, my wife and I are in Hell, trying to put Diablo down for good (or until the expansion kit;) ) I'm waiting on Arcanum, which sounds like it might be an interesting family RPG game.
Maybe we're not going extinct -- perhaps we're just evolving...
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
I'm the Senior Engineer who's managing this very situation. Or, more precisely, two situations, one where we've replaced existing code, and another where we've kept ugly code.
In the first case, my company has an existing product based on old technologies (Borland OWL, DLLs) that needs to be updated for new environments (Linux) and technologies (COM+, CORBA, etc.) We pulled the business logic out of the old code and re-wrapped it in more modern and portable form. In other words, we kept what worked, and only replaced the parts that had no place in our new products.
In the second case, we purchased a powerful library from Someone Else, including full source-code rights. This library is some ancient K&R C code that was poorly wrapped in C++; it stinks aesthetically. No comments; terrible formatting (and I'm not that picky!); strange code conventions that are common in C but dangerous in C++. Overall, a mess --
BUT THIS UGLY MESS WORKS
So, other than adding a few new features, and fixing a couple of bugs, we've left the morass alone.
You won't find any hard-and-fast rules about when to replace existing code. It's a matter of judgement, probably best left in the hands of experienced engineers who've been around the block a few times. Alas, management politics, schedules, and technical skills will influence the decision.
My basic rule: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I might wince at at a piece of code -- but my customers care about how well a program runs, not how pretty it is.
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
It's much too soon for making any judgements about Itanium and the IA-64 architecture. These are chips designed for the future, and I appreciate Intel's willingness to move beyond the profitable-but-aging IA-32 chips.
And I don't see the relevance of testing 32-bit apps on a 64-bit platform. The IA-32 architecture has been severely limited by support for legacy code; I hope Intel focuses the IA-64 chips on 64-but applications. If I need to run 32-bit apps, I'll run a 32-bit computer.
Perhaps my only quibble with Intel is in trying to shove more capability into a single-processor model, when multiprocessing is certainly a more productive alternative. I'd rather spend $4000 on four high-end Pentium 4s than the same money on one Itanium. Four processors working simultaneously seems better than having one processor trying to do four things at once... I hope someone (Intel, AMD, or whoever) considers building chips specifically for SMP, as opposed to implementing more "trciks" like multiple pipelines.
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
Slashdot Mirror
For several centuries, the University has been the predominant model of advanced education -- an institution of higher learning, bringing together experts who impart knowledge through formalized classes, culminating in the granting of diplomas to verify success.
Now enters the concept of Open Knowledge, of which Open Source is a subset.
Assume, for a moment, that "Knowledge wants to be free". In a real sense, people do not invent Knowledge -- instead, we discover Knowledge. Protein folding and stellar dynamics, like all matters of science, follow rules independent of human understanding; in the most fundamental sense, people are observers of Knowledge, not its creators.
Universities came into existence as central locations for the sharing and imparting of Knowledge. People travelled to the University for education, because the University had no way to broadcast its information. That, of course, has changed, with the advent of mass communications. Via the Internet, many (but not all, or even most) types of knowledge can be transmitted almost anywhere, at any time, regardless of physical barriers.
For computer software engineering, the University is rapidly becoming obsolete. Technical Knowledge, by nature, is easily transmitable via the Internet. We don't learn Python or Apache by going to a University; we learn such topics in their native environment, online via computers.
For other areas of Knowledge, however, the University cannot be so easily replaced. I might be able to learn Python online, and I might be able to order robot parts from web stores, but, from my house, I can't use a 10-meter telescope or experiment with a particle accelerator.
Some areas of Knowledge can only be learned by experience with physical objects. While the Knowledge may be free, obtaining that Knowledge may incur costs or require physical presence. I can see a Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton on the web, but to do useful science, I need to touch the bones and perhaps dig them from the ground to gain a context for the skeleton.
What MIT is doing is good -- but the University provides facilities that will remain useful for the foreseeable future, in most fields of Knowledge. But for those areas of Knowledge that can be distributed, we need a new "University" model to recognize learning and skill -- a new "sheepskin", so to speak.
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
I suggest that you read the Berne Copyright Convention, among other applicable laws, to understand that, indeed, authors do have property rights to their works.
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
How often in history have we heard:
We have to have some practical way to allow X, even if this does trample some (people's) rights.
Replace X with many things -- the theft of land from indigenous peoples, or the killing of union workers, or the bombing of civilian populations, or whatever -- and you'll see what it means in reality.
In the view you espouse, you have no problem taking away someone else's rights, so long as you benefit in some way. You want to preserve old SF stories, so you are willing to "trample some of the authors (sic) rights?"
Ah, what a slippery slope you find yourself on -- for someday, someone is going to take away your rights, because doing so is good for them.
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
First, my personal take on the Supreme Court case:
I spent 12 years as a full-time writer, and I can't count the ways in which publishers ripped me off. Yes, I've had my work published on CD-ROM by publications who couldn't care less about the contracts they signed with me; no, it wasn't worth fighting about. Of course, the publishing industry has many problems, so I quit writing programming books and found other venues for my coding talents.
The U.S. legal system is managed by corporate-financed politicians for the benefit of (surprise, surprise!) the corporations. The problem isn't copyrights, or the DMCA, or any of these other laws and concepts that Slashdot readers focus on -- what's wrong with intellectual property is the way Corporations use it to rape the artists/writers and the public.
Hell, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Capitalist -- but that means I believe people should be compensated for what they do, not what they can steal. In today's environment, Corporations grow bigger (AOL-Time-Warner, anyone?), controlling more aspects of our lives, using their media to manipulate public opinion and their financial power to crush any opposition. An author like me can't afford to sue an international conglomerate over a violation of a contract or copyright -- and so the Corporation wins by default.
Copyright is not a "bad" thing; just like patents and other forms of intellectual property, the underlying principle is sound. The implementation of IP, however, has been seriously perverted. See, it isn't the writers, or the artists, or the musicians who are the problem with IP -- the evil lies in a culture of greedy megacorporations, who control content by stealing from both creators and consumers.
Publishing online would work fine and dandy if consumers actually *paid* for what they download -- but I know many an author who's traveled the "web publishing" road, only to end up broke at the end. Beyond the rare moral individual, most people will take what they can, while they can -- and then those same people moan and whine when corporations exhibit the same lack of ethics! Folks, what comes around goes around -- stealing an MP3 is no better than a Corporation stealing a writer's article. It's all part of the same stinky kettle of fish...
To end the corporate domination of media and knowledge, you need to support people who take an independent path. You get what you pay for, quite literally.
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
Actually, I did read the article and visit the IP.com web site, and you'll find a minor mea culpa below (which pretimes your message by 20 minutes), where I replied to an earlier correspondent on this matter.
Indeed, IP.com is creating a repository of information for the purposes of identifying prior art -- but they are doing so for a fee.
Not that making money is a problem -- I don't object to a fee per se, but rather to certain assumptions we must make if we are to consider IP.com a valuable resource. IP.com could be a "fishing expedition," attracting nifty new ideas for use by who knows whom. I don't see anything that limits what they can do with the "publications" that appear on their site.
Furthermore, IP.com's repository is based on the existence of IP.com. It will only contain "publications" from those willing to pay $109 for the privilege. I'm not certain this fits with the core beliefs of Open Source. Perhaps we would be better-served a grassroots repository managed by the community, as opposed to a private repository (IP.com) with unknown intent.
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
HOWEVER, using IP.com implies trust that they (and their database) will continue to exist, and that their intent will remain "noble." Perhaps a grassroots equivelent would be more in the spirit of Open Source.
The main points of my original article stand, however, even if they were somewhat misguided by reading the /. article before visiting IP.com.
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
No.
In an ideal world, patents promote innovation by giving inventors an exclusive right to profit from their creations; in return for this financial benefit, the inventor must publish a detailed description of the invention, so others can build on it. It is a good system that has been perverted by modern corporate concepts.
Patenting Open source is -- well, patently stupid. By nature, Open Source is published, and it has no direct profit motive. A patent on Open Source does not promote innovation, because innovation exists in Open Source by default!
The Open Source movement would do just as well by having a central repository or library of "prior art" that can be used by the patent office to determine if a "new invention" is indeed a new invention. We need to make it easier to prevent patents on core knowledge; I don't see the point in making more patents when our goal is to prevent patents.
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
By charging for incremental update services, Red Hat is implicitly admitting that it's business model has some serious flaws. Linux is explicitly free; anyone with a modem or a CD-burner can have Linux for the cost of some time and effort. Why would people pay for something that is -- by intention -- free?
If anything, the nature of Linux requires free updates, simply because Linux is a conglomerate of various packages with their own update schedules and releases. I can install Debian 2.2r2, update the XFree 86 to 4.03, add the latest gcc 2.95.3, and tailor my system to my needs. Such a model simply doesn't fit with the Red Hat idea of "Linux releases." The only true Linux "release" is the kernel...
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
I just noticed this story over at CNN: NCR (yup, old National Cash Register) is suing Palm for patent violations. Seems that NCR claims patents on a "Portable personal terminal for use in a system for handling transactions," and on a "System for handling transactions including a portable personal terminal." Those sound like broad concepts to me; I wonder if WinCE handhelds have licensed these patents from NCR?
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
Heh, heh -- I hope those royalty agreements are binding, so the wimps have to pay for their wimpiness even if the Rambus patent is invalidated. It'll teach'em not to be so wussy...
Damm -- I wonder how much Rambus has collected already from their patent skullduggery?
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
I considered running a gaming-oriented content site, back in late 1999. I bought a domain (the name was cool), and started looking to put up banner ads. Before lining up a staff and opening office space, I discovered (as would any chimp with half a brain) that banner ads weren't going to pay for a site -- so I never went live. I wrote the time off as a "learning experience", and went on to bigger and better things...
My other site, Coyote Gulch Productions, operates on a totally different financial basis: I run it because I want to, not because it makes me a buck.
Oh, all right, I have made a few bucks from the site over the years... I've sold software code libraries, sold some of my books, and used it as an online resume and distribution point for applets and open source code. The "profit" has been pretty thin, though, considering the time that goes into creating those damned little ALife applets... and regardless of its money-making potential, I'll keep doing Coyote Gulch, teaching people about neato concepts and presenting my view of the universe.
I have considered going the micropayment route for some of my book projects. Can anyone explain to me if there's something wrong with PayPal or the Amazon "honor system?" Okay, so Amazon is "patent pig" scum -- and failing scum at that. But what about PayPal?
Here's the deal: I wrote (and my wife illustrated) a children's book, which I sold to a Big Name Publisher, who was then eaten by a bigger fish, who then killed the "kid's division" before the book saw print. Rather than hunt up another publisher, I've considered putting the book online, and having people "micropay" me if they like it. Hell, if I make $50, it $50 more than the book has made me before...
But back to the central point: Your average person sees the web as an interactive TV; they're already paying for the connect, just like they pay for their cable setup. So "average Joe" thinks he's already paid for access, and he expects his content for "free", just like TV. I don't see how content-based sites can expect to pay for themselves in that kind of environment...
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
I can't see how this is entertainment. I love a good, dark story; I see no point in grandiose bloodshed and gratuitous grossness.
I've seen people hacked open and tortured in the real world; how can any rational person consider such acts as entertainment?
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
Ah, fear -- it's a wonderful motivator. Microsoft is very afraid, and thus very motivated, and thus very dangerous.
I see some of you think Allchin's comments were funny, or even ludicrous. You are making a big mistake.
Microsoft sees a threat to its empire, a threat that cannot be bought out or attacked by conventional business means. So they are taking FUD one step further, by preying on the fears of average folk, presenting Open Source as a threat to "our way of life."
And they're right.
Open Source is not simply a tool for developing software -- it threatens the philosophical basis of a society entrenched in rampant capitalism. The "powers that be" thrive on the status quo, so they prey upon people's fears of change. For the most part, people don't like change; they want life to stay the same, to be comfortable, to be predictable. Even if change is to someone's benefit, they will often resist.
Microsoft is a company based on marketing, a company whose success lies in knowing how to manipulate people's thoughts. They will twist Open Source into a threat against "everything we love and hold dear." They will twist people's words, and they will enlist the aid of other fearful groups -- law enforcement and govenrnment -- to undermine Open Source and Linux.
Am I paranoid? You bet -- because such things have happened before in history, and they will happen again. During the "Red Scare", people were persecuted simply for attending a meeting -- persecuted for curiosity, my friends. "Thinking wrong" was a prosecutable offense; the red scare wasn't about communisim, it was about stopping people from thinking outside the proscribed box.
We must counter Microsoft's campaign now, and we must do so proactively. We need Open Source advocates to stand before Congress; our articles must be in business magazines and newspapers. While we get into silly wars over KDE-vs-Gnome and Debian-vs-Red Hat, we leaving abandon the battlefield to rampant capitalism and its FUD spewers.
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
"The end of books" is a topic raised every few months in one forum or another, and it's been coming up for twenty years. Asimov wrote a nice essay on the topic back in the 1980s. In the end, there is little or no danger of paper books going away.
E-books have their purposes; I publish both paper and electronic texts, depending on my audience and thier abilities. For example, if I'm writing about genetic algorithms, I can assume my readers have access to a computer and can read an e-text.
But I'll bet that most e-books and online docs get printed on paper...
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
My site uses CSS extensively, and it resizes fonts based on browser settings...
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
Schools have become an ideological battlefield, with all sides of the political spectrum duking it out to see who can indoctrinate the kids the fastest. Children learn by example, an the example of school officials, parents, and society in general is quite poor.
Of course, pity the poor school official who can't win for losing. Ignore even the tinest threat -- perceived or actual -- and leave yourself open to a lawsuit. Ask kids to help you keep tabs on what's happening, and you're the Gestapo. Stop some kid from making violent statements, and have the ACLU on your back for violating the kid's rights to free speech. Give a kid a bad grade, and the parents sue for ruining their baby's self-esteem.
Yuck!
So schools have become paranoid, controlling, and generally ineffective. From grade inflation to enforced drug therapy, the schools have become a battleground, both psychologically and politically. It isn't just a matter of "evil" administrators -- what is wrong with the schools is a reflection of society as a whole.
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
In other words, "discrimintion" is largely determined by your perspective.
I started my first programming job at age 15, back in 1977. None of my bosses gave me any respect; it pissed me off, but I kept plugging, learning as much as I could as fast as possible. In the end, some quarter-century later, I'm doing quite well -- and now that I hire the young'uns, I try hard to respect them and listen to their views. If they *are* wet behind the ears, I don't crush their ego -- I hand'em a towel... ;)
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
Or so it would seem, at least in the world of computing. And the scale of Apollo's computers suggests that going to the moon is predicated on will and desire, not technology.
Of course, there is something to be said for the vastness of modern computing; we don't need to spend enless hours on the minutia, giving us the luxury of focusing on "the bigger picture".
Still, I wonder what we could accomplish if we wrote put a historical level of effort into code optimization. Think of the bloat involved in Perl, Java, MFC, VB, scripting, and useless visual clutter. Sometime, bloat doesn't matter -- and sometime, the bloat is just a reflexion of laziness.
Don't get me wrong; as my father (one of the first EEs) always said: "Use the right tool for the job." While C/C++ may be my tool of choice, it isn't the best or most efficient mechanism for every problem. I think our problem is the old saw about "a man with a hammer sees every problem as a nail." We are too myopic in our view of software developemnt, and we are often too lazy to use the right tool for the job.
But I digress.
It is good for all programmers to be forced to get the most out of the least. I've been playing with my Lego Mindstorms kits, trying to build learning algorithms into limited program space, a few motors, and a couple of sensors. It's been a mind-stretching exercise, and I highly recommend such projects to programmers who want to hone their skills to a fine edge.
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
I'm a rather avid gamer, and I'm quite fond of Linux -- but I can't fathom a single, rational reason to run Direct3D games under Wine on Linux.
Now, irrational reasons may exist. For example, a virualent hatred of all things Microsoft might lead someone to run already-unstable games (every DirectX game has hardware and driver compatability problems) through emulators...
Is any serious gaming enthuiast going to give up their Wintel box to run an emulator under Linux? I doubt it.
So what is the point of this technological exercise -- other that to prove that you can run DirectX under Wine?
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
We have three senior developers; none of us has less than 15 years of experience. Quite frankly, we know what we're doing, so pair programming really doesn't "add" anything.
I do see pair programming as useful in situations where a senior person works with a less experienced developer, assuming the "lead" can teach without being condescending.
I look upon programming as an art, like writing. Good collaborations are rare in writing -- and I don't know of a single painting or statue that was done by two people working together. In my experience, the creative process doesn't lend itself well to multiple independent perspectives...
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
Ah! I forgot to mention: One part of XP that we vigorously ignore is "pair programming." Sorry, it just doesn't work. Good development requires concentration and focus, something you can't get with two people working at the same PC.
And we all know that typing proficiency is inversely proportional to the number of people watching you! ;)
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
That said, XP is not for every programming environment. Layers of management will hinder the iterative process; programmers must be comfortable with "refactoring" their design. We have three developers for our vertical market toolkit, and we can work closely with QA and our customers.
XP assumes that your receive useful feedback from your users and QA. Perhaps our greatest struggle has been to get NEGATIVE feedback from our customers. We bring them down visit, spend a couple days showing them what we have, and what we get are lots of suggestions for additional features, but few comments regarding the overall design and organization of the components. I hope this means we got it right in the first place... :)
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
Boy, oh boy, I sometimes feel like a brontosaurus surrounded by cute little mammals -- I just know something's wrong...
(...please indulge an old man (39 years) in his reverie...)
I met my wife while playing RuneQuest back in 1980. My character was an intelligent shaman duck with a geas to destroy reptiles. This cute girl comes into the room, and I'm introduced as "the guy playing a duck".
So I said "Quack."
We got married in '81. And I'm still quacking up the cute girl...
The problem is time. Once we started having kids in the late 1980s, I just didn't have time to run a role-playing game anymore. Job, kids, and other hobbies impinged. The last game I "gave up" was Star Fleet Battles. SFB just took too much time to play...
I will miss FASA, more because it represents my youth than because I played its games much.
And in spite of the changes, the state of gaming is good.
Today, my family games on the computer, even the 5yo. My eldest daughter is 11, and she's quite good at games like Pharoah and Age of Kings; my 10yo (b-day today!) daughter is into scenario design. We play AoK, Heroes of Might & Magic, and some others. No shooters, other than the Heretic-Hexen series. Having been shot at, I don't find much joy in pointing guns and fragging people -- but that's a matter of taste, and not some moral judgement.
As a family, we play strategy or RPG games over the home LAN. Right now, my wife and I are in Hell, trying to put Diablo down for good (or until the expansion kit ;) ) I'm waiting on Arcanum, which sounds like it might be an interesting family RPG game.
Maybe we're not going extinct -- perhaps we're just evolving...
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
I'm the Senior Engineer who's managing this very situation. Or, more precisely, two situations, one where we've replaced existing code, and another where we've kept ugly code.
In the first case, my company has an existing product based on old technologies (Borland OWL, DLLs) that needs to be updated for new environments (Linux) and technologies (COM+, CORBA, etc.) We pulled the business logic out of the old code and re-wrapped it in more modern and portable form. In other words, we kept what worked, and only replaced the parts that had no place in our new products.
In the second case, we purchased a powerful library from Someone Else, including full source-code rights. This library is some ancient K&R C code that was poorly wrapped in C++; it stinks aesthetically. No comments; terrible formatting (and I'm not that picky!); strange code conventions that are common in C but dangerous in C++. Overall, a mess --
BUT THIS UGLY MESS WORKS
So, other than adding a few new features, and fixing a couple of bugs, we've left the morass alone.
You won't find any hard-and-fast rules about when to replace existing code. It's a matter of judgement, probably best left in the hands of experienced engineers who've been around the block a few times. Alas, management politics, schedules, and technical skills will influence the decision.
My basic rule: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I might wince at at a piece of code -- but my customers care about how well a program runs, not how pretty it is.
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
It's much too soon for making any judgements about Itanium and the IA-64 architecture. These are chips designed for the future, and I appreciate Intel's willingness to move beyond the profitable-but-aging IA-32 chips.
And I don't see the relevance of testing 32-bit apps on a 64-bit platform. The IA-32 architecture has been severely limited by support for legacy code; I hope Intel focuses the IA-64 chips on 64-but applications. If I need to run 32-bit apps, I'll run a 32-bit computer.
Perhaps my only quibble with Intel is in trying to shove more capability into a single-processor model, when multiprocessing is certainly a more productive alternative. I'd rather spend $4000 on four high-end Pentium 4s than the same money on one Itanium. Four processors working simultaneously seems better than having one processor trying to do four things at once... I hope someone (Intel, AMD, or whoever) considers building chips specifically for SMP, as opposed to implementing more "trciks" like multiple pipelines.
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos