I was unaware that the investors were able to pry over 90% of the company away from the founder. Fanning is an excellent developer, but he must be a *lousy* businessman.
I'm not sure Fanning had all that much leverage (well, obviously, considering what he ended up with). But look at the Napster business model and the nature of its customer base: it's going to be hard enough making money off of it through ad revenue or product placement, and if they Napster bigwigs think anyone is going to pay for it they are sadly mistaken.
A team of very smart, experienced MBA's (oxymoronic as smart MBA might sound) will most likely not be able to lead this company to profitability or ultimate success. There's no reason to think that Fanning would have had any way to more effectively capitalize on his creation.
It boils down to, would you rather have 5% of a company worth $200 million, or 100% of a company worth $20?
yours, john
The other side of Echelon
on
Inside Echelon
·
· Score: 3
Sure, Echelon and its ilk scares the hell out of me, but think about it for a bit: if such a system did exist, what an incredible engineering feat it would be!
Can you imagine all the CPU power backing it up, the massive amounts of bandwidth, the sophisticed language parsers (something tells me it's a bit more complex than "does this message contain 'bomb'?") and the satellite and ground-based listening posts?
It's a shame that humanity's greatest concerted efforts of high-technology have usually been destructive in nature. (I don't claim exceptions are non-existant -- look at Apollo.) I wonder what that says about out nature.
How cool would it be if some of technology involved would trickle down sooner rather than later. Think about all the incredibly cool -- and useful -- things we could do!
Is it such a huge problem that clients generally aren't interoperable? Now, as much of a proponent of interoperability as I am (check my bio:)) I am not convinced that this is an area where it's a worthy goal to strive for.
AOL, essentially, owns the instant communication market. Instant Messenger has some 70 million users (or so they say) and I think we're seeing ICQ #'s in about the same range. I can't really blame them for being absent here. (Before you start blaming them for embracing and extending protocols, or closing out markets, please consider the evidence. Although AOL-Time-Warner is a frightening market giant, they have not done anything to illegally or unethically corner the instant messenging market.) Anyway, my point is, the odds are very, very good that anyone you might want to reach will use one of those two services. (And with ICQ's excellent cross-platform support, there's no excuse for them not to).
Additionally, AOL and ICQ (both owned, though not created, by the same company) use radically different, fundamentally dissimilar naming conventions. When you start introducing others into the fray, a unified protocol or client could easily become a hindrance or lead to complications.
AOL has more-or-less earned (or acquired) the instant messenging market. When something better comes out, I have no doubt that it will take the place of AIM or ICQ. Until then, though, incompatible standards shouldn't be foisted upon them.
These pictures look great (though someone oughta mirror them uncompressed). I have to admit, I'm currently the not-so-proud owner of a Windows CE device (or is it Windows Powered?). However, my complaints with it have nothing to do with the interface*, and if you could bring something similar to the Yopy then I would definitely be interested. Anyone know when we might expect to see them?
*If you are curious, my complaints are specifically with system resource usage and stability. While Windows CE isn't as bad as its cousins, its heritage is still apparent. If you could give me the same features and interface but with a little less bloat and cruft, I would be a very satisfied customer.
One of the things that I liked most about Mandrake 7.0 was the fact that you could easily customize your system based on your security needs upon installation. The processes, services and daemons that are installed depend on which of the three (or so) security configurations you select.
I'm not sure why Mandrake was left out; the author even praises their efforts toward a secure distribution. Hmm, they even include it in the final wrap-up, though with no supporting data. Too bad.
I'm sorry to see Mandrake missing from this line up. Maybe an interesting accompanying piece would be a comparison of the three default Mandrake installations side by side.
As far as I'm concerned, InterBase is a pretty good piece of software. In my experiences with it, it's always performed up to expectations and it does everything I've ever needed it to do. I'm not saying it's right for everyone, but definitely check it out if you haven't done so yet.
If, on the other hand, you're already a devoted or knowledgable user, make sure you visit the Interbase developer's handbook. It's a worthwhile project that could use your help.
I'm excited about this version of Interbase. (Insofar as one can conceivably be exciting about a database -- sign of a true geek, huh?)
Jon, had you heard of Bill Gates in 1981? I doubt too many people were familiar with the name back then (except for maybe some BASIC hackers who had, uh, corresponded with Mr. Gates). Yet in the two decades since, Bill Gates and his company have (indisputably) changed computing -- changed it to the extent that now the vast majority of Americans can correctly identify him. Perhaps when Dr. Hunkapiller has served another 20 years in this capacity (and become the richest man in the world doing so) then he will occupy the same place in the American consciousness.
However, I'm not entirely sure the analogy fits. Bill Gates set out with a mission to put a computer on every desktop, in every home. (In other words, World DominationTM.) That is, by nature, a very public mission. I'm not sure that Dr. Hunkapiller will seek to occupy the same niche.
In any case, I think it's far to early to draw any conclusions from the relative fame (or is it notoriety?) of Bill Gates.
As great as it is to see SGI's moves to utilize Linux, computers like these demonstrate that Irix still has a place in the larger picture. Irix is really a pretty neat operating system, and frankly, it can scale in ways that Linux just isn't ready to yet. As long as SGI is still making systems like these on the high end, I don't see Irix being displaced anytime soon.
Of course, Irix also has a lot of graphics production tools that you don't find on any OS, Linux included. That's something else that'll keep Irix around, at least until equivalents exist. Ideally, we'd see SGI continue to take steps toward open source/Free software, with Irix components.
Anyway, looks like a pretty cool new system from the people who brought us the original colored computer. Can't wait to get my hands on one of these.
Hey, as far as I'm concerned, anything that reminds us of our roots -- computing or otherwise -- is great. An "easy-to-use" OS is a fine solution to a real-world problem, but imagine the ideal: everyone is able to use a real OS because everyone has a grounding in computers and how they work. At the very least, entertaining and interesting histories such as this are a step in the right direction.
Here are a couple other histories of Unix; check 'em out. Learn something. Return to your roots.
A quick final note, but if there's one thing I love about Unix histories, it's the explanation factor. I mean, every time I run across something completely inexplicable (to me, anyway) it's always nice to eventually discovered exactly why its implementation was so inscrutable. At least there was a method to the madness. Usually.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I was unaware that the investors were able to pry over 90% of the company away from the founder. Fanning is an excellent developer, but he must be a *lousy* businessman.
I'm not sure Fanning had all that much leverage (well, obviously, considering what he ended up with). But look at the Napster business model and the nature of its customer base: it's going to be hard enough making money off of it through ad revenue or product placement, and if they Napster bigwigs think anyone is going to pay for it they are sadly mistaken.
A team of very smart, experienced MBA's (oxymoronic as smart MBA might sound) will most likely not be able to lead this company to profitability or ultimate success. There's no reason to think that Fanning would have had any way to more effectively capitalize on his creation.
It boils down to, would you rather have 5% of a company worth $200 million, or 100% of a company worth $20?
yours,
john
Sure, Echelon and its ilk scares the hell out of me, but think about it for a bit: if such a system did exist, what an incredible engineering feat it would be!
Can you imagine all the CPU power backing it up, the massive amounts of bandwidth, the sophisticed language parsers (something tells me it's a bit more complex than "does this message contain 'bomb'?") and the satellite and ground-based listening posts?
It's a shame that humanity's greatest concerted efforts of high-technology have usually been destructive in nature. (I don't claim exceptions are non-existant -- look at Apollo.) I wonder what that says about out nature.
How cool would it be if some of technology involved would trickle down sooner rather than later. Think about all the incredibly cool -- and useful -- things we could do!
yours,
john
Is it such a huge problem that clients generally aren't interoperable? Now, as much of a proponent of interoperability as I am (check my bio :)) I am not convinced that this is an area where it's a worthy goal to strive for.
AOL, essentially, owns the instant communication market. Instant Messenger has some 70 million users (or so they say) and I think we're seeing ICQ #'s in about the same range. I can't really blame them for being absent here. (Before you start blaming them for embracing and extending protocols, or closing out markets, please consider the evidence. Although AOL-Time-Warner is a frightening market giant, they have not done anything to illegally or unethically corner the instant messenging market.) Anyway, my point is, the odds are very, very good that anyone you might want to reach will use one of those two services. (And with ICQ's excellent cross-platform support, there's no excuse for them not to).
Additionally, AOL and ICQ (both owned, though not created, by the same company) use radically different, fundamentally dissimilar naming conventions. When you start introducing others into the fray, a unified protocol or client could easily become a hindrance or lead to complications.
AOL has more-or-less earned (or acquired) the instant messenging market. When something better comes out, I have no doubt that it will take the place of AIM or ICQ. Until then, though, incompatible standards shouldn't be foisted upon them.
yours,
john
These pictures look great (though someone oughta mirror them uncompressed). I have to admit, I'm currently the not-so-proud owner of a Windows CE device (or is it Windows Powered?). However, my complaints with it have nothing to do with the interface*, and if you could bring something similar to the Yopy then I would definitely be interested. Anyone know when we might expect to see them?
*If you are curious, my complaints are specifically with system resource usage and stability. While Windows CE isn't as bad as its cousins, its heritage is still apparent. If you could give me the same features and interface but with a little less bloat and cruft, I would be a very satisfied customer.
yours,
john
One of the things that I liked most about Mandrake 7.0 was the fact that you could easily customize your system based on your security needs upon installation. The processes, services and daemons that are installed depend on which of the three (or so) security configurations you select.
I'm not sure why Mandrake was left out; the author even praises their efforts toward a secure distribution. Hmm, they even include it in the final wrap-up, though with no supporting data. Too bad.
I'm sorry to see Mandrake missing from this line up. Maybe an interesting accompanying piece would be a comparison of the three default Mandrake installations side by side.
yours,
john
As far as I'm concerned, InterBase is a pretty good piece of software. In my experiences with it, it's always performed up to expectations and it does everything I've ever needed it to do. I'm not saying it's right for everyone, but definitely check it out if you haven't done so yet.
If, on the other hand, you're already a devoted or knowledgable user, make sure you visit the Interbase developer's handbook. It's a worthwhile project that could use your help.
I'm excited about this version of Interbase. (Insofar as one can conceivably be exciting about a database -- sign of a true geek, huh?)
yours,
john
Jon, had you heard of Bill Gates in 1981? I doubt too many people were familiar with the name back then (except for maybe some BASIC hackers who had, uh, corresponded with Mr. Gates). Yet in the two decades since, Bill Gates and his company have (indisputably) changed computing -- changed it to the extent that now the vast majority of Americans can correctly identify him. Perhaps when Dr. Hunkapiller has served another 20 years in this capacity (and become the richest man in the world doing so) then he will occupy the same place in the American consciousness.
However, I'm not entirely sure the analogy fits. Bill Gates set out with a mission to put a computer on every desktop, in every home. (In other words, World DominationTM.) That is, by nature, a very public mission. I'm not sure that Dr. Hunkapiller will seek to occupy the same niche.
In any case, I think it's far to early to draw any conclusions from the relative fame (or is it notoriety?) of Bill Gates.
yours,
john
As great as it is to see SGI's moves to utilize Linux, computers like these demonstrate that Irix still has a place in the larger picture. Irix is really a pretty neat operating system, and frankly, it can scale in ways that Linux just isn't ready to yet. As long as SGI is still making systems like these on the high end, I don't see Irix being displaced anytime soon.
Of course, Irix also has a lot of graphics production tools that you don't find on any OS, Linux included. That's something else that'll keep Irix around, at least until equivalents exist. Ideally, we'd see SGI continue to take steps toward open source/Free software, with Irix components.
Anyway, looks like a pretty cool new system from the people who brought us the original colored computer. Can't wait to get my hands on one of these.
yours,
john
Hey, as far as I'm concerned, anything that reminds us of our roots -- computing or otherwise -- is great. An "easy-to-use" OS is a fine solution to a real-world problem, but imagine the ideal: everyone is able to use a real OS because everyone has a grounding in computers and how they work. At the very least, entertaining and interesting histories such as this are a step in the right direction.
:)
Here are a couple other histories of Unix; check 'em out. Learn something. Return to your roots.
http://crackmonkey.org/unix.html
http://www.uwsg.iu.ed u/usail/external/recommended/unixhx.html
http://www.hsrl.rutgers.edu/ug/uni x_history.html
A quick final note, but if there's one thing I love about Unix histories, it's the explanation factor. I mean, every time I run across something completely inexplicable (to me, anyway) it's always nice to eventually discovered exactly why its implementation was so inscrutable. At least there was a method to the madness. Usually.
yours,
john