EchoStar offered $30 billion to buy Hughes Electronics.
Murdoch also offered to buy Hughes Electronics.
This deal isn't about Hughes Electronics, rather he has now offered $6 billion to buy Hughes Electronics 20% interest in DirecTV.
"Now Murdoch gets Directv at a much better rate."
But he doesn't get Hughes Electronics. Hughes is the GM satellite services group... they launch all sorts of commercial broadcast satellites. DirecTV was part of that, but so is XM radio and Onstar system and a whole slew of other things.
"So, if you write code to improve Win CE, not only does it become Microsoft's code, but you don't get paid for your work either! Let the Microsoft bashing begin!"
How much do the Linux distributors pay you for your contributions?
$0
I don't see the point of this complaint. This program seems to cover every positive aspect attributed to open source. i.e. you have the source, you can contribute changes back to insure they are in the next release, so on and so forth.
"The embedded market uses Linux, which allows the tailoring of capabilities, a general understanding and lots of third party documentation ( like o'Rielly). "
These comments amaze me.
Linux really isn't all that popular in the embedded world. It has a relatively small marketshare compared to Wind River's vxworks. (think HP printers... cisco routers... so on and so forth)
"I would not use WinCE for a design, and I am a hardware engineer, with a real need to keep the costs way down. WinCE was 50 bucks, which is a lot of money in an embedded product."
Oh yeah, well I'm a rocket scientist!
"Others probably have similar experiences."
If not, I'm sure they'll make up a story to prove Linux is superior.
"However, when commercial software companies can post profit margins of over 80% it is clear that there is a great deal of inefficiency in the current system. "
I am unaware of any commercial software company posting an 80% profit margin. Perhaps you could clarify this claim?
"Giving away the source and charging for service and customization seems to be a fairly workable model (especially for smaller development shops). "
Except it promotes crappy software, like what we currently see with Open Source. Software that is difficult to install, difficult to administer, difficult to use... thus encouraging support calls and customization contracting. This isn't in the best interests of consumers.
All I'm asking for is software that doesn't suck, is that really too much to ask?
"If I have an innovative new use for Word, then I had better be working for Microsoft, or my idea is stillborn. "
Microsoft supports customization using Word through the Office Developer edition. Of those thousands of commercial companies I mentioned, many hundreds of them follow just this model.
"In short, Free Software puts the software user back in control. "
It puts geek users back in control, at the expense of software developers. That's the difference, and it's the point you can't seem to grasp.
All I'm asking for is software that doesn't suck, is that really too much to ask?
"The market has spoken, and Linux is definitely part of the software landscape going forward."
Cool, no argument there. The MAcintosh is part of the computer landscape as well. Doesn't mean I want laws passed mandating we buy into it.
"I don't have his exact quote handy, but basically he said that his goal was to take a business that was worth billions of dollars a year and turn it into a business worth hundreds of millions a year (with RedHat making a good chunk of that smaller pie)."
Yes Bob Young has definately done a fine job of taking billions of dollars of investment capital and turning it into something worth mere millions.
"As someone who is primarily a consumer of software, that sounds like a pretty good deal. I don't particularly want to help fund big software companies if I can get software that is "good enough" at a lower price."
All I'm asking for is the free market to be allowed to work. That means no government laws mandating open source, no government funding of open source, and news based on actual results not speculation.
In the end I just want software that doesn't suck. Is that really too much to ask for?
But I was in Germany a month ago, and I'd have to disagree with your assessment of selling well. I didn't see a single one in any of the T-Mobile and other stores I looked at.
Well I have a Lexmark E312L... bought it a little over 2 years ago... in that time it's printed about 3000 pages.
Not the heaviest print duty, but that printer has certainly served me well.
The one area that I've not been impressed with Lexmark has been the driver installs. Not the most straightforward, although the more recent ones have been ok.
Why can't I just buy a phone that makes phone calls?
A friend of mine has an Ericsson T68 which is just about ideal. It's small, and it offers bluetooth... so you can use a handsfree headset, or connect a PDA or laptop up to the internet.
Less is more. Fewer cables, smaller size, that's what people want. Not all-in-one devices that are useless at any one given task.
"HP and IBM have both tossed out the word "billion" when talking about Linux revenues. "
HP and IBM are hardware companies. Most people I know of do not wish to go back to the days of being beholden to proprietary hardware. If you do, why don't you just go buy a Macintosh and leave us alone.
"Besides which, for every Adobe or Symantec, there are hundreds of commercial software companies that have gone bankrupt."
But for every Adobe and Symantec there are thousands of commercial software companies that are profitable that you've never heard of.
"So pretending that commercial software is some sort of Yellow Brick Road to software fortune is more than a little misleading. "
I never claimed it was. *YOU* however are claiming the way to fortunes using Open Source is easy... well that is, as long as you give up on the idea of making money and beholden yourself as a slave to someone elses profit lines. (hardware or tax dollars as it were)
"The fact of the matter is that the only way to realistically compete with the entrenched commercial software vendors is to offer more than they do, at a lower price."
Ahh, capitalism... isn't it wonderful?
That's exactly how you compete, and the consumer benefits because they get a better product while spending less money!
"Free Software is one method that appears to be working."
Unfortunately Free Software offers less, for free. This is good enough for some people, but it's certainly not much of a driving force towards innovation. For the long term robustness and growth of our industry, Free Software is just a bad idea.
I'm just tired of the bullshit.
The proof is in the pudding, as it were... Enough with articles proclaiming the success of Linux is right around the corner. Bring me the meat. Show me that Open Source is an effective business model from which you can build a multi-billion dollar company and employ thousands of developers.
Post-PC was a phrase coined up back in 1999 or so and bandied about a lot by the pundits. Infoworld was particularly guilty of overusing this word.
It's about as meaningful as predicting we are in the Post-Automobile era due to the invention of passenger airplanes and scooters. The airplane didn't replace, it complemented and allowed for new travel that had not occured as readily before. The same is true of PDAs in comparison to PCs.
BTW, in 1999 when the Post-PC phrase was coined, desktop sales increased by 40%.
"You haven't read Eric S. Raymonds' essay "The Magic Cauldron", have you?"
Eric S. Raymond's way to profit is to be a loud mouth, get himself hooked up with a company about to do an IPO during the dot-com bubble, and get himself a bunch of free stock.
He's yet to actually do anything successful with his life that created value.
"I generally don't adress profitability myself in my advocacy -- I refer people to (what I consider to be) the definitive research on the topic."
Which there is, of course, no definitive research.
Simply put... I look at companies like Adobe, Symantec, Microsoft, Computer Associates, Compuware and so on and so forth and I see extremely successful companies following a particular model.
The Open Source advocates keep pointing to me to small mom & pop shops, or companies whose Return On Equity is less than 1%.
"That's simply not true. There are other ways to make money off of software; it's just that restricting dissemination and use of the software has been the laziest route to do so."
I see... Perhaps you could go into detail?
"The development team typically has a thorough understanding of the software, and can offer customization and training for a price."
Which now creates an incentive to write shitty software which requires customization and training.
This is not beneficial to the consumer.
"Open-source projects have also served as unofficial resumes for programmers, who have gotten jobs doing some other software development and continue to contribute their free time."
Not a sustainable model.
"The people out in the field who contribute bug fixes and improvements in the course of their sysadmin duties are usually getting paid to support/administer those systems; each one who does is one less developer the core team has to pay for."
This really isn't much different than closed source software. We troubleshoot and identify bugs all the time, if you want your issue solved you provide a good explanation of how to recreate it back to the development company.
"Hardware manufacturers contribute to porting open-source projects to their platforms; that development work is "paid for" by increasing the functionality of the hardware, making it more likely people will purchase the hardware."
Like I said... Let's pretend proprietary hardware doesn't exist.
"All of these points have been made over and over ad nauseum"
I know, which leads us to the next point...
"No, the problem is that you've made an arrogant assumption that restricting distribution is the only way to make money off of software, and won't listen to anyone who suggests otherwise."
No, the problem is that you've made an extremely arrogant assumption that what's best for you as a geek is best for the entire industry.
"Closed source was to a great extent an invention of Microsoft."
Microsoft has created many inventions, but closed source is not one of them, neither are ridiculous licensing practices and so on and so forth.
That being said, I'd like to understand how you're going to solve the problem of receiving payment for software? Pretend for a moment that we aren't living in the world of proprietary hardware like Sun, IBM, etc and you therefore don't receive revenues from such...
I think the idea of Open Source, being that the source code is available with the product has great value.
However people who create software still need to be paid for their work, and the only way to do that is to control dissemination of the software.
The problem with most open source advocatacy is that they don't address the second issue.
"These people have been strangely silent this winter, one of the coldest on record."
Interesting... I live in Minnesota and this winter was one of the warmest on record.
"It's not just the "brain-dead hicks", it's also the "highly-educated liberals"."
Huh? While I admit that there are far more stupid conservatives than intelligent ones, the liberal side also has it's own strain of morons. The people you heard from are not necessarily highly educated.
"Besides, science and technology cannot be relied upon to build a safe atomic power plant (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island are fine counterexamples). "
Chernobyl is hardly an example of the best atomic power plant science can design.
The reality is, whether building coal plants or nuclear plants, there is some risk. There are also after effects.
The question should be what has the greatest trade-off for our society.
People who are against nuclear power simply don't understand it. They fear something new, not understanding that maintaining the status quo is a far worse idea.
"(Never mind that Windows makes it harder than it should be to install one.) "
How so? I have a Lexmark Optra E312L. I plug it in, Windows XP recognizes it. Pretty nice $299 laser printer, even takes EDO SIMMs for memory upgrade.
If I want more advanced control I go out to Lexmark's website and download the latest drivers. The E312L handles Postscript, and if I install Print Services for Unix I can print to it from my Sparcstation.
Really not that difficult, I don't understand what your problem is.
What's a 1Ghz+ PC mean? Quality hardware, or cheap?
3dMark 2003 is almost entirely dependent upon video card speed. I have a 1.2Ghz PIII. When I had a Riva TNT2 in it, I got maybe 1500. A Radeon VE received around 2000. Now I have an GeForce4 and I see something like 4500.
As for Windows XP specifically. I have two tweaks which I have found make a great difference. One involves removing the CTF subsystem, and the other involves installing the recent patch which dealt with slow memory allocation under SP1.
Beyond that... lot's of RAM, fast harddrive, fast video card. My main desktop has 512Megs and dual WD 80 gig drives(the special edition with 8 Megs cache). Basically it screams, even though it's well over a year old.
"One day you'll be in a situation (like a technical quiz for an interview) where you won't have these tools available, so unless you're paying attention you won't know what to do. "
Interesting our lead developer who does our interviews generally asks a question like this, and one of the acceptable answers is "I don't know, but that's easy to find in MSDN."
Slashdot Mirror
"You could only call it a witch hunt if Clinton hadn't done the things for which he was being investigated."
Then we all agree.
It WAS a witchhunt.
EchoStar offered $30 billion to buy Hughes Electronics.
Murdoch also offered to buy Hughes Electronics.
This deal isn't about Hughes Electronics, rather he has now offered $6 billion to buy Hughes Electronics 20% interest in DirecTV.
"Now Murdoch gets Directv at a much better rate."
But he doesn't get Hughes Electronics. Hughes is the GM satellite services group... they launch all sorts of commercial broadcast satellites. DirecTV was part of that, but so is XM radio and Onstar system and a whole slew of other things.
"So, if you write code to improve Win CE, not only does it become Microsoft's code, but you don't get paid for your work either! Let the Microsoft bashing begin!"
How much do the Linux distributors pay you for your contributions?
$0
I don't see the point of this complaint. This program seems to cover every positive aspect attributed to open source. i.e. you have the source, you can contribute changes back to insure they are in the next release, so on and so forth.
From a corporate perspective this all looks good.
"Under the GPL, all parties are on equal footing, and have equal insentive to share their work."
That's sort of like claiming all slaves are equal, so you shouldn't mind being a slave.
"The embedded market uses Linux, which allows the tailoring of capabilities, a general understanding and lots of third party documentation ( like o'Rielly). "
These comments amaze me.
Linux really isn't all that popular in the embedded world. It has a relatively small marketshare compared to Wind River's vxworks. (think HP printers... cisco routers... so on and so forth)
"I would not use WinCE for a design, and I am a hardware engineer, with a real need to keep the costs way down. WinCE was 50 bucks, which is a lot of money in an embedded product."
Oh yeah, well I'm a rocket scientist!
"Others probably have similar experiences."
If not, I'm sure they'll make up a story to prove Linux is superior.
"However, when commercial software companies can post profit margins of over 80% it is clear that there is a great deal of inefficiency in the current system. "
I am unaware of any commercial software company posting an 80% profit margin. Perhaps you could clarify this claim?
"Giving away the source and charging for service and customization seems to be a fairly workable model (especially for smaller development shops). "
Except it promotes crappy software, like what we currently see with Open Source. Software that is difficult to install, difficult to administer, difficult to use... thus encouraging support calls and customization contracting. This isn't in the best interests of consumers.
All I'm asking for is software that doesn't suck, is that really too much to ask?
"If I have an innovative new use for Word, then I had better be working for Microsoft, or my idea is stillborn. "
Microsoft supports customization using Word through the Office Developer edition. Of those thousands of commercial companies I mentioned, many hundreds of them follow just this model.
"In short, Free Software puts the software user back in control. "
It puts geek users back in control, at the expense of software developers. That's the difference, and it's the point you can't seem to grasp.
All I'm asking for is software that doesn't suck, is that really too much to ask?
"The market has spoken, and Linux is definitely part of the software landscape going forward."
Cool, no argument there. The MAcintosh is part of the computer landscape as well. Doesn't mean I want laws passed mandating we buy into it.
"I don't have his exact quote handy, but basically he said that his goal was to take a business that was worth billions of dollars a year and turn it into a business worth hundreds of millions a year (with RedHat making a good chunk of that smaller pie)."
Yes Bob Young has definately done a fine job of taking billions of dollars of investment capital and turning it into something worth mere millions.
"As someone who is primarily a consumer of software, that sounds like a pretty good deal. I don't particularly want to help fund big software companies if I can get software that is "good enough" at a lower price."
All I'm asking for is the free market to be allowed to work. That means no government laws mandating open source, no government funding of open source, and news based on actual results not speculation.
In the end I just want software that doesn't suck. Is that really too much to ask for?
"Why is it that they won't support existing 64bit technologies (Itanium, Alpha's back in the day), but their gung ho for yet another x86 hack?"
Huh... Windows 2003 supports the Itanium already.
I'm in the US.
But I was in Germany a month ago, and I'd have to disagree with your assessment of selling well. I didn't see a single one in any of the T-Mobile and other stores I looked at.
Well I have a Lexmark E312L... bought it a little over 2 years ago... in that time it's printed about 3000 pages.
Not the heaviest print duty, but that printer has certainly served me well.
The one area that I've not been impressed with Lexmark has been the driver installs. Not the most straightforward, although the more recent ones have been ok.
Why can't I just buy a phone that makes phone calls?
A friend of mine has an Ericsson T68 which is just about ideal. It's small, and it offers bluetooth... so you can use a handsfree headset, or connect a PDA or laptop up to the internet.
Less is more. Fewer cables, smaller size, that's what people want. Not all-in-one devices that are useless at any one given task.
"HP and IBM have both tossed out the word "billion" when talking about Linux revenues. "
HP and IBM are hardware companies. Most people I know of do not wish to go back to the days of being beholden to proprietary hardware. If you do, why don't you just go buy a Macintosh and leave us alone.
"Besides which, for every Adobe or Symantec, there are hundreds of commercial software companies that have gone bankrupt."
But for every Adobe and Symantec there are thousands of commercial software companies that are profitable that you've never heard of.
"So pretending that commercial software is some sort of Yellow Brick Road to software fortune is more than a little misleading. "
I never claimed it was. *YOU* however are claiming the way to fortunes using Open Source is easy... well that is, as long as you give up on the idea of making money and beholden yourself as a slave to someone elses profit lines. (hardware or tax dollars as it were)
"The fact of the matter is that the only way to realistically compete with the entrenched commercial software vendors is to offer more than they do, at a lower price."
Ahh, capitalism... isn't it wonderful?
That's exactly how you compete, and the consumer benefits because they get a better product while spending less money!
"Free Software is one method that appears to be working."
Unfortunately Free Software offers less, for free. This is good enough for some people, but it's certainly not much of a driving force towards innovation. For the long term robustness and growth of our industry, Free Software is just a bad idea.
I'm just tired of the bullshit.
The proof is in the pudding, as it were... Enough with articles proclaiming the success of Linux is right around the corner. Bring me the meat. Show me that Open Source is an effective business model from which you can build a multi-billion dollar company and employ thousands of developers.
Well don't know what the hell a Telelogix is... couldn't find it with google.
2 003/02 /06/tds_unveils.html
:)
But I did try a search for 'Rugged Computing Device', and the top answer was:
http://www.sesltd.co.uk/ruggedpc.aspx
They claim it's certified to work with Linux, Windows XP, Windows98, Windows CE, VxWorks, DOS, etc.
The top answer for Rugged Handheld device was:
http://www.allnetdevices.com/wireless/news/
That claims to run windows CE.
So I don't know about your answers.
What's important about the GPL to most of the slashbots is not the license...
:)
But the fact that you can download and use the software for free.
Well guess what pirating Microsoft software means?
They're being entirely consistent in their arguments.
Post-PC was a phrase coined up back in 1999 or so and bandied about a lot by the pundits. Infoworld was particularly guilty of overusing this word.
It's about as meaningful as predicting we are in the Post-Automobile era due to the invention of passenger airplanes and scooters. The airplane didn't replace, it complemented and allowed for new travel that had not occured as readily before. The same is true of PDAs in comparison to PCs.
BTW, in 1999 when the Post-PC phrase was coined, desktop sales increased by 40%.
"I'd like to understand you you're going to solve the problem of carpenters receiveing payment for building houses?"
There doesn't seem to be a problem. Carpenters only work for people paying them, and very few people receive free houses.
"Or of Archetects receiving payment for designing them?"
Architects are very protective of their work. They will and have sued people for using their designs without payment.
"Or of doctors receiving payment for treating the sick?"
Again, not a problem.
"Hint: Software is really a service industry. Even Microsoft is beginning to catch on to this."
Microsoft has always realized that.
"You haven't read Eric S. Raymonds' essay "The Magic Cauldron", have you?"
Eric S. Raymond's way to profit is to be a loud mouth, get himself hooked up with a company about to do an IPO during the dot-com bubble, and get himself a bunch of free stock.
He's yet to actually do anything successful with his life that created value.
"I generally don't adress profitability myself in my advocacy -- I refer people to (what I consider to be) the definitive research on the topic."
Which there is, of course, no definitive research.
Simply put... I look at companies like Adobe, Symantec, Microsoft, Computer Associates, Compuware and so on and so forth and I see extremely successful companies following a particular model.
The Open Source advocates keep pointing to me to small mom & pop shops, or companies whose Return On Equity is less than 1%.
Wishful thinking isn't success.
"That's simply not true. There are other ways to make money off of software; it's just that restricting dissemination and use of the software has been the laziest route to do so."
I see... Perhaps you could go into detail?
"The development team typically has a thorough understanding of the software, and can offer customization and training for a price."
Which now creates an incentive to write shitty software which requires customization and training.
This is not beneficial to the consumer.
"Open-source projects have also served as unofficial resumes for programmers, who have gotten jobs doing some other software development and continue to contribute their free time."
Not a sustainable model.
"The people out in the field who contribute bug fixes and improvements in the course of their sysadmin duties are usually getting paid to support/administer those systems; each one who does is one less developer the core team has to pay for."
This really isn't much different than closed source software. We troubleshoot and identify bugs all the time, if you want your issue solved you provide a good explanation of how to recreate it back to the development company.
"Hardware manufacturers contribute to porting open-source projects to their platforms; that development work is "paid for" by increasing the functionality of the hardware, making it more likely people will purchase the hardware."
Like I said... Let's pretend proprietary hardware doesn't exist.
"All of these points have been made over and over ad nauseum"
I know, which leads us to the next point...
"No, the problem is that you've made an arrogant assumption that restricting distribution is the only way to make money off of software, and won't listen to anyone who suggests otherwise."
No, the problem is that you've made an extremely arrogant assumption that what's best for you as a geek is best for the entire industry.
And therein lies the problem.
"Closed source was to a great extent an invention of Microsoft."
Microsoft has created many inventions, but closed source is not one of them, neither are ridiculous licensing practices and so on and so forth.
That being said, I'd like to understand how you're going to solve the problem of receiving payment for software? Pretend for a moment that we aren't living in the world of proprietary hardware like Sun, IBM, etc and you therefore don't receive revenues from such...
I think the idea of Open Source, being that the source code is available with the product has great value.
However people who create software still need to be paid for their work, and the only way to do that is to control dissemination of the software.
The problem with most open source advocatacy is that they don't address the second issue.
1) That's what the HR dept is there to answer.
2) Only if they were aware of the activity and then choose to do nothing.
3) Why are you reading Jane's files?
4) I'm going to report you for reading Jane's files.
5) Don't dump your computer in the river.
6) Have a bakesale, and buy the software at the Charity discounted prices.A>
"if you remember the 70's, paul weirich, et al., the big concern was global cooling."
Paul Weyrich? What's that neocon nutcase got to do with the environment?
"do you really want the corrupt third world dictators telling the US how to run its economy?"
Well I suppose that might be worse than President Bush.
*shudder*
"These people have been strangely silent this winter, one of the coldest on record."
Interesting... I live in Minnesota and this winter was one of the warmest on record.
"It's not just the "brain-dead hicks", it's also the "highly-educated liberals"."
Huh? While I admit that there are far more stupid conservatives than intelligent ones, the liberal side also has it's own strain of morons. The people you heard from are not necessarily highly educated.
"Besides, science and technology cannot be relied upon to build a safe atomic power plant (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island are fine counterexamples). "
Chernobyl is hardly an example of the best atomic power plant science can design.
The reality is, whether building coal plants or nuclear plants, there is some risk. There are also after effects.
The question should be what has the greatest trade-off for our society.
People who are against nuclear power simply don't understand it. They fear something new, not understanding that maintaining the status quo is a far worse idea.
"(Never mind that Windows makes it harder than it should be to install one.) "
How so? I have a Lexmark Optra E312L. I plug it in, Windows XP recognizes it. Pretty nice $299 laser printer, even takes EDO SIMMs for memory upgrade.
If I want more advanced control I go out to Lexmark's website and download the latest drivers. The E312L handles Postscript, and if I install Print Services for Unix I can print to it from my Sparcstation.
Really not that difficult, I don't understand what your problem is.
What's a 1Ghz+ PC mean? Quality hardware, or cheap?
3dMark 2003 is almost entirely dependent upon video card speed. I have a 1.2Ghz PIII. When I had a Riva TNT2 in it, I got maybe 1500. A Radeon VE received around 2000. Now I have an GeForce4 and I see something like 4500.
As for Windows XP specifically. I have two tweaks which I have found make a great difference. One involves removing the CTF subsystem, and the other involves installing the recent patch which dealt with slow memory allocation under SP1.
Beyond that... lot's of RAM, fast harddrive, fast video card. My main desktop has 512Megs and dual WD 80 gig drives(the special edition with 8 Megs cache). Basically it screams, even though it's well over a year old.
"One day you'll be in a situation (like a technical quiz for an interview) where you won't have these tools available, so unless you're paying attention you won't know what to do. "
Interesting our lead developer who does our interviews generally asks a question like this, and one of the acceptable answers is "I don't know, but that's easy to find in MSDN."
We're much more pragmatic here in the heartland.