While this is not a rant aimed specifically at Eazel, how many companies are based on a nifty concept that wont even begin to earn revenue (not profits) for quite a while? Who's supposed to sponsor these companies' operations?
Unless you have extremely deep pockets, you had better be capable of being able to earn at least a significant part of your costs back ASAP, and demonstrate how that will scale to profits within a few years. Fundamental business.
I have no sympathy for anyone, and simply disgust for the VCs.
Um, that was Kondara, and they actually had some innovations of their own (complete system internationalization and language switching without reboot, and not just KDE) but not enough to justify their existence.
I find it curious and rather laughable that a number of Slashdot readers claim not to have heard of Caldera, or make comments to the effect that Caldera ought to further promote their distro and gain increased visibility. First, Caldera is oriented entirely towards the business user and server markets, thus its low "desktop user" name recognition.
Second, Caldera is that company that bought SCO-UNIX (remember them?) It has been committed to integrating features found in the commercial UnixWare product into mainstream Linux, and has been steadily developing Volution, a complete Linux network management infrastructure.
Caldera's target audience is the corporate space, which is not necessarily ideologically enamoured of Open Source, preferring to keep intellectual property rights and profit from them. Without a licensing scheme that gives these companies the confidence to venture into mainstream Linux acceptance, they never may. Caldera should be observed with keen interest, not scorn, for having the courage to say what many have been thinking for a while, and see what solutions thy come up with.
Okay, so Caldera (and every other Linux distribution) are capitalizing on GNU software made available under the GPL. However, they are also providing important services - package integration, documentation, sponsoring development, quality assurance - not covered by the GPL, nor truly software at all. They deserve to be compensated for these services, but the GPL reduces their potential profit due to the inability to corral customers (viewed as a Good Thing from a certain perspective, but not from a fiscal/business one). The GPL is definitely inappropriate for businesses - Caldera's primary target - and may slow or prevent the adoption of Linux as a viable platform by many companies.
As with so many other activists, you (and the Open Source/Free Software community at large) have failed to see that commerce is a necessity in the society we have built, and that it must be catered to until we either alter that societal structure, or replace it.
Indrema's problem wasn't the lack of funds per se, it was the lack of an intelligent approach to actualizing the dream. Hype and VCs were brought into the picture way too early, before the hardware was finalized or the prototype constructed. They should have built a cheap, working demo unit (wooden box, breadboards, copper wires - but functional) first and only then sought financing to bring the device to the mass market.
Furthermore, Sony isn't "supporting Linux"; it's responding to slow sales, lack of interest and the fact that much PS2 development is done using Linux. It's a pure utility thing - no ideological fantasies, people.
Indrema - less dream, more nightmare
on
Indrema No More
·
· Score: 2
I was very active on the Indrema mailing lists for a significant amount of time and was part of the "core" team of community developers, until I realized it didn't stand a chance and jumped ship. No, this is not a troll.
The first mistake for me was not even having a prototype so many months into "publicity". I wonder what the venture capitalists were thinking when they invested in this company; the least I would expect as a VC is a hacked-up job that demonstrates rudimentary capability to do a base set of the things promised - a wooden box with wires all over the place like the original Apple. Furthermore, instead of immediately concentrating all energies on that (because concerete results improve your credibility and help to keep both you and your supporters motivated) Indrema set up a website making bold proclamations, a community development site (GameXchange) and mailing lists which, due to the lack of definite info, were filled with speculation, OT posts and flame wars.
Next came the buzzwords, terms that were used to hype the development community but were lacking in real meaning. Add indefinite goals and grandiose plans (which could never be fully revealed - I thought this was supposed to be Open Source?) with a liberal dose of "confidentiality", such as not being able to list interested commercial developers and publishers (perhaps because there were none?)
Indrema was a good idea - not a great one - that was poorly thought through and badly executed. It had little to offer in terms of true industry innovation and new territory other than the premise of independent/hobbyist/freeware games on a console.
SDL just doesn't have the same support community size as OpenGL or DirectX
SDL isn't a graphics API (like OpenGL) or a game API (like DirectX). It's a cross-platform compatibility layer, meaning only the members of the other two communities who are interested in crossing barriers to other platforms will be interested in it. However, due to its streamlined complexity, it's becoming very popular as a way to write code for Linux, for example, that is simpler, and get portability as a side benefit.
SDL will eventually overcome the community sze problem, because it solves problems and is continually expanding in terms of features and support. I expect it to include DX API support soon just as it did OGL.
The biggest problem with Linux and with a company like Microsoft porting its apps to Linux is the amount of variations between systems. Apart from the differences in installed libraries and their interdependencies, there are also install location and config file issues.
Furthermore, an app like Office needs a fairly high level of integration with the desktop environment: URL launchers, drag and drop, embedded docs... X of itself lacks support for pretty much anything, so Office would have to be written to a) a specific desktop or b) multiple desktops in multiple versions.
It really tickles me that many Linux users see everything as a conspiracy to not use Linux, or to falsely accuse it of weakness rather than honestly evaluating their OS. I used Linux exclusively on my desktop machine for half a year and then went out and bought Windows 2000 Pro, Word and VC. Why? Productivity! Linux is stable, Linux is free - great, but how much work can you actually do with it? And how quickly? I got tired of having to read tons of docs to get every little feature working, debugging source code just to install some tiny app, configuring and tweaking to deuglify X fonts (why do I have to deuglify fonts in the first place?)
Linux lacks standards (which is also part of why the games aren't forthcoming). Linux lacks ease of use. Linux lacks simple, pure productivity, except for software development.
If Be or RedHat or whoever else really wants to beat MS, they have to play this same game. And those OEMs have to be willing to put these OS's on computers that are actually SEEN at stores such as BestBuy or CompUSA or Sears, or where ever Joe User goes to buy his computer
The unfortunate thing is that Best Buy or "CompUSA or Sears, etc will only place machines Joe User wants to buy on public display, as doing otherwise is a complete waste of space. Joe User doesn't want to buy a Linux box, or a Be box, or a FreeBSD box; he wants something that's simple and easy to use, works reasonably reliably and increases his productivity while also entertaining him: Windows.
Macs are too expensive for most users. Linux et al require too much learning and tweaking, and still can't do most desktop things... what alternative exists?
I've been on the Indrema mailing lists and been bitching and griping for eons about the lack of pub, the lack of code/info releases, etc. I've given up on Indrema and am pretty sure they're gonna fail (though I'd love to be proven wrong), but started thinking about what I'd like to see in an Open console.
First off, a Risc processor. The x86 architecture is okay, but littered with tons of instructions that are rarely - if ever - used in modern applications.
Secondly, a radically different approach. I've been experimenting with rules-based approaches to 3D animation and speech synthesis; I'd like to see a system built with a graphics accelerator, a logic processor and a sound/IO processor+DSP. Rather than providing an OS, build a BIOS-like firmware that exposes all the hardware's functionality and allow developers to create their own micro(micro!)kernels. Provide copious application and "OS" example code to instruct developers how to program for the device.
I realize that this involves more investment than using generic, off-the-shelf PC parts, but it also opens up many, many new possibilities including real time speech synthesis, facial animation and dynamic physics-based skeletal animation, to name a few.
I'm probably off-topic, but I just thought to let this out.
Let no unclean communication proceed from your lips.
I often consider the case of the "organized Church" against abortion - trying to prohibit it by legal means. I am a born again Christian, and I believe it to be wrong, as I believe the use of profanity to be wrong, but I realize that God has given each one of us a free will and the right to choose what we want to do. Do we, mere mortals and as believers in particular, therefore have a right to forbid people from doing certain things? Or to condemn them for doing so?
Love your neighbor as yourself
You also show a lack of discenrment of the issues. I like profane domain names no more than you do, but I understand that the issue here is the principle of freedom to register them. Domain name registrars are not to make moral judgements or restrict "permissible" domains, and just as someone said, what stops them from prohibiting the use of even part of a corporations name in your own domain?
Furthermore, the tone of your comment shows no respect for the society in whose forums you speak, naming us as "so called geeks". Your attitude is derogeratory, and that is wrong as well. Jesus said consider others better than yourselves. Lead by example.
In conclusion, rather than attempting to proscribe "foulmouthed domains", try to reach out and touch people so that they wouldn't feel the need to use profanity.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to be the cause of everyone's woes.
While this is not a rant aimed specifically at Eazel, how many companies are based on a nifty concept that wont even begin to earn revenue (not profits) for quite a while? Who's supposed to sponsor these companies' operations?
Unless you have extremely deep pockets, you had better be capable of being able to earn at least a significant part of your costs back ASAP, and demonstrate how that will scale to profits within a few years. Fundamental business.
I have no sympathy for anyone, and simply disgust for the VCs.
Um, that was Kondara, and they actually had some innovations of their own (complete system internationalization and language switching without reboot, and not just KDE) but not enough to justify their existence.
But for all the Caldera haters: Volution and OpenSLP have the potential to change corporate perception of Linux, and the way infrastructure is set up.
I find it curious and rather laughable that a number of Slashdot readers claim not to have heard of Caldera, or make comments to the effect that Caldera ought to further promote their distro and gain increased visibility. First, Caldera is oriented entirely towards the business user and server markets, thus its low "desktop user" name recognition.
Second, Caldera is that company that bought SCO-UNIX (remember them?) It has been committed to integrating features found in the commercial UnixWare product into mainstream Linux, and has been steadily developing Volution, a complete Linux network management infrastructure.
Caldera's target audience is the corporate space, which is not necessarily ideologically enamoured of Open Source, preferring to keep intellectual property rights and profit from them. Without a licensing scheme that gives these companies the confidence to venture into mainstream Linux acceptance, they never may. Caldera should be observed with keen interest, not scorn, for having the courage to say what many have been thinking for a while, and see what solutions thy come up with.
Okay, so Caldera (and every other Linux distribution) are capitalizing on GNU software made available under the GPL. However, they are also providing important services - package integration, documentation, sponsoring development, quality assurance - not covered by the GPL, nor truly software at all. They deserve to be compensated for these services, but the GPL reduces their potential profit due to the inability to corral customers (viewed as a Good Thing from a certain perspective, but not from a fiscal/business one). The GPL is definitely inappropriate for businesses - Caldera's primary target - and may slow or prevent the adoption of Linux as a viable platform by many companies.
As with so many other activists, you (and the Open Source/Free Software community at large) have failed to see that commerce is a necessity in the society we have built, and that it must be catered to until we either alter that societal structure, or replace it.
Indrema's problem wasn't the lack of funds per se, it was the lack of an intelligent approach to actualizing the dream. Hype and VCs were brought into the picture way too early, before the hardware was finalized or the prototype constructed. They should have built a cheap, working demo unit (wooden box, breadboards, copper wires - but functional) first and only then sought financing to bring the device to the mass market.
Furthermore, Sony isn't "supporting Linux"; it's responding to slow sales, lack of interest and the fact that much PS2 development is done using Linux. It's a pure utility thing - no ideological fantasies, people.
I was very active on the Indrema mailing lists for a significant amount of time and was part of the "core" team of community developers, until I realized it didn't stand a chance and jumped ship. No, this is not a troll.
The first mistake for me was not even having a prototype so many months into "publicity". I wonder what the venture capitalists were thinking when they invested in this company; the least I would expect as a VC is a hacked-up job that demonstrates rudimentary capability to do a base set of the things promised - a wooden box with wires all over the place like the original Apple. Furthermore, instead of immediately concentrating all energies on that (because concerete results improve your credibility and help to keep both you and your supporters motivated) Indrema set up a website making bold proclamations, a community development site (GameXchange) and mailing lists which, due to the lack of definite info, were filled with speculation, OT posts and flame wars.
Next came the buzzwords, terms that were used to hype the development community but were lacking in real meaning. Add indefinite goals and grandiose plans (which could never be fully revealed - I thought this was supposed to be Open Source?) with a liberal dose of "confidentiality", such as not being able to list interested commercial developers and publishers (perhaps because there were none?)
Indrema was a good idea - not a great one - that was poorly thought through and badly executed. It had little to offer in terms of true industry innovation and new territory other than the premise of independent/hobbyist/freeware games on a console.
SDL isn't a graphics API (like OpenGL) or a game API (like DirectX). It's a cross-platform compatibility layer, meaning only the members of the other two communities who are interested in crossing barriers to other platforms will be interested in it. However, due to its streamlined complexity, it's becoming very popular as a way to write code for Linux, for example, that is simpler, and get portability as a side benefit.
SDL will eventually overcome the community sze problem, because it solves problems and is continually expanding in terms of features and support. I expect it to include DX API support soon just as it did OGL.
The biggest problem with Linux and with a company like Microsoft porting its apps to Linux is the amount of variations between systems. Apart from the differences in installed libraries and their interdependencies, there are also install location and config file issues.
Furthermore, an app like Office needs a fairly high level of integration with the desktop environment: URL launchers, drag and drop, embedded docs... X of itself lacks support for pretty much anything, so Office would have to be written to a) a specific desktop or b) multiple desktops in multiple versions.
It really tickles me that many Linux users see everything as a conspiracy to not use Linux, or to falsely accuse it of weakness rather than honestly evaluating their OS. I used Linux exclusively on my desktop machine for half a year and then went out and bought Windows 2000 Pro, Word and VC. Why? Productivity! Linux is stable, Linux is free - great, but how much work can you actually do with it? And how quickly? I got tired of having to read tons of docs to get every little feature working, debugging source code just to install some tiny app, configuring and tweaking to deuglify X fonts (why do I have to deuglify fonts in the first place?)
Linux lacks standards (which is also part of why the games aren't forthcoming). Linux lacks ease of use. Linux lacks simple, pure productivity, except for software development.
Flame away!
If Be or RedHat or whoever else really wants to beat MS, they have to play this same game. And those OEMs have to be willing to put these OS's on computers that are actually SEEN at stores such as BestBuy or CompUSA or Sears, or where ever Joe User goes to buy his computer
The unfortunate thing is that Best Buy or "CompUSA or Sears, etc will only place machines Joe User wants to buy on public display, as doing otherwise is a complete waste of space. Joe User doesn't want to buy a Linux box, or a Be box, or a FreeBSD box; he wants something that's simple and easy to use, works reasonably reliably and increases his productivity while also entertaining him: Windows.
Macs are too expensive for most users. Linux et al require too much learning and tweaking, and still can't do most desktop things... what alternative exists?
I've been on the Indrema mailing lists and been bitching and griping for eons about the lack of pub, the lack of code/info releases, etc. I've given up on Indrema and am pretty sure they're gonna fail (though I'd love to be proven wrong), but started thinking about what I'd like to see in an Open console.
First off, a Risc processor. The x86 architecture is okay, but littered with tons of instructions that are rarely - if ever - used in modern applications.
Secondly, a radically different approach. I've been experimenting with rules-based approaches to 3D animation and speech synthesis; I'd like to see a system built with a graphics accelerator, a logic processor and a sound/IO processor+DSP. Rather than providing an OS, build a BIOS-like firmware that exposes all the hardware's functionality and allow developers to create their own micro(micro!)kernels. Provide copious application and "OS" example code to instruct developers how to program for the device.
I realize that this involves more investment than using generic, off-the-shelf PC parts, but it also opens up many, many new possibilities including real time speech synthesis, facial animation and dynamic physics-based skeletal animation, to name a few.
I'm probably off-topic, but I just thought to let this out.
I often consider the case of the "organized Church" against abortion - trying to prohibit it by legal means. I am a born again Christian, and I believe it to be wrong, as I believe the use of profanity to be wrong, but I realize that God has given each one of us a free will and the right to choose what we want to do. Do we, mere mortals and as believers in particular, therefore have a right to forbid people from doing certain things? Or to condemn them for doing so?
Love your neighbor as yourselfYou also show a lack of discenrment of the issues. I like profane domain names no more than you do, but I understand that the issue here is the principle of freedom to register them. Domain name registrars are not to make moral judgements or restrict "permissible" domains, and just as someone said, what stops them from prohibiting the use of even part of a corporations name in your own domain?
Furthermore, the tone of your comment shows no respect for the society in whose forums you speak, naming us as "so called geeks". Your attitude is derogeratory, and that is wrong as well. Jesus said consider others better than yourselves. Lead by example.
In conclusion, rather than attempting to proscribe "foulmouthed domains", try to reach out and touch people so that they wouldn't feel the need to use profanity.