Commercial companies sold you (or more often allowed you to rent in the early days) large computer systems. It is no more correct to say that "software was something you gave away to sell your hardware" than it would be to say "hardware was something you gave away to sell your software". Software was not very portable in those days. Without software there was no point in obtaining the computer, and without hardware there was no place to run the software. Computers were just really expensive appliances for most customers.
You should also keep in mind that in the 1970's Unix was just another OS among many others. Even in the case of Unix, AT&T didn't really intend for it to become open. The fact that they lost their lawsuit doesn't change that. So even in the Unix case it was more of culture of "we got away with it" than it was a culture of "free code"
What did happen in the 1970's was the rise of companies who just sold software (and MS was hardly the first). This offered the advantage of not having to rely on the computer maker for all of your software. It also meant that you could run a version of the same software on different machines so you could leverage your knowledge of the application.
So for the most part software was neither "free as in beer" or "free as in "free"" until the 1990's.
"They aren't saying "DRM is bad" and still using it. They are saying "DRM is bad, but we are under forced contractual obligations to use it - please convince the record companies of this so that we can drop it as well."
The problem with that excuse is that Apple had no obligation to sign the agreements in the first place. No obligation to start iTunes if they needed DRM to get the music (in fact if Jobs' claims about iPod users not buying much music from iTunes were true, not having iTunes wouldn't be much of a problem). I understand the trade-off (it's the same type MS is making), but if Jobs were truly against DRM, he would have "just said no".
"From my reading of history, Microsoft, and Bill Gates in particular, distinguished themselves by focusing on proprietary code, rather than the culture of free code that was present at the time."
Your confusing history with myth. There was no "culture of free code" in the marketplace at the time MS started.
IBM was barely in the consumer market at all. Back in the days when IBM was doing real system design on the PC, they were much to expensive to qualify as consumer items. The only true consumer device IBM designed was the PCjr and it failed.
Some people like IDE's and some don't, but it's a bit absurd to suggest that vi and the gnu build tools are "ahead" of any IDE. vi was designed in the teletype and dumb terminal era, so it can't possibly play the role of an IDE (and it doesn't need to for those who prefer it).
Of course it's not necessary to prove that they are 100% effective in achieving their goal for them to be found in violation of the law. It doesn't make much sense to argue that "the Big 4 are making Apple do it" and then suggest that there's no intent to deprive people of competing music. If there's no intent to deprive, then there's zero motivation for them to retaliate against Apple for carying indie music without DRM.
In any case, the idea that the Big 4 would beat on Apple is pure speculation designed to give Apple an excuse. I don't believe it and I'm just explaining why the Big 4 would be foolish to try.
"The law does not condemn all agreements between companies, only those that threaten to raise prices to consumers or to deprive them of new and better products."
Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. I attempted to read all the links he gave and only the first one worked. What articles are you referring to?
"Plus I'm pretty certain any regular slashdotter worth their salt would have already known of at least one"
Even before I read the link, I gotta say: nice try at deflection.
I checked out your links, but only the 1st actually lead to a story. The story at the first link, as expected, mentioned "research" but provided zero details about it. Sounds like typical speculation not really backed-up by real, statistically valid data.
Your conclusions are valid provided that the survey did the comparison by including people who never used Windows 2000 (which would be a very odd choice). If they didn't, than the survey doesn't really say anything about the behavior of the majority of Windows XP users. (This assumes that the survey was statistically valid)
In any case, the 5 year estimate is misleading. Some XP machines will never be upgraded to Windows Vista, but I'd expect that upgrades will occur at an average rate of about 15%-20% per year before maxing out at about 90%. That's just a guess of course.
"Speaking of critical mass and Vista, industry is expecting a far longer time gap between users upgrading from XP and Vista, than 2000 and XP. It's already been suggested at more than 5 years until the majority of windows users are running on Vista."
I don't think that's a very meaningful comparison since most of the upgrading to XP was from Windows 9x, not Windows 2000.
"What he did is what every decent computer scientist should have done in his life at least once: Hack someone else's computer without causing real harm"
"There is a difference between impossible, and has not been done yet. Are you actually disputing that?"
I'm saying that having multiple teams trying very hard to do something and all failing is much better evidence of the task being impossible than possible. Do you dispute that?
"but unexploitable, non-trivial software systems do exist. A popular example is qmail."
I'm not sure that qmail could be described as large ( I never said "non-trivial"), but a little research indicates that exploits have been reported.
"You're taking the notion that all non-trivial software has flaws---something I would agree with---and generalizing it to say that all non-trivial software has remotely-exploitable security holes."
I guess you're assuming that while all non-trivial software has flaws, the security related parts of the program can be immune somehow. If one can't eliminate all the bugs from the those parts of the programs unrelated to security, what evidence is there that they can be totally eliminated from those that are?
While I know a great deal has changed in game development from my Atari 2600 days, I suspect that it still involves providing an illusion rather than really trying to simulate reality. You don't have to look any further than the sound of explosions in space to recognize that. I greatly doubt that game developers are performing a lot of database normalization, using a lot of calculus or applying operating system theory in their day-to-day work.
Programming games, I suspect, is still more a matter of creatively breaking the rules than it is in following them.
Well, most of the fundamental algorithms were created by people who couldn't legitimately call themselves computer scientists or software engineers simply because those terms didn't exist at the time, so I guess I don't see your point.
Individuals or teams come up with algorithms and the drive and ability to create them aren't automatically bestowed on those who have a CS degree on denied to those who don't.
Slashdot Mirror
Commercial companies sold you (or more often allowed you to rent in the early days) large computer systems. It is no more correct to say that "software was something you gave away to sell your hardware" than it would be to say "hardware was something you gave away to sell your software". Software was not very portable in those days. Without software there was no point in obtaining the computer, and without hardware there was no place to run the software. Computers were just really expensive appliances for most customers.
You should also keep in mind that in the 1970's Unix was just another OS among many others. Even in the case of Unix, AT&T didn't really intend for it to become open. The fact that they lost their lawsuit doesn't change that. So even in the Unix case it was more of culture of "we got away with it" than it was a culture of "free code"
What did happen in the 1970's was the rise of companies who just sold software (and MS was hardly the first). This offered the advantage of not having to rely on the computer maker for all of your software. It also meant that you could run a version of the same software on different machines so you could leverage your knowledge of the application.
So for the most part software was neither "free as in beer" or "free as in "free"" until the 1990's.
"They aren't saying "DRM is bad" and still using it. They are saying "DRM is bad, but we are under forced contractual obligations to use it - please convince the record companies of this so that we can drop it as well."
The problem with that excuse is that Apple had no obligation to sign the agreements in the first place. No obligation to start iTunes if they needed DRM to get the music (in fact if Jobs' claims about iPod users not buying much music from iTunes were true, not having iTunes wouldn't be much of a problem). I understand the trade-off (it's the same type MS is making), but if Jobs were truly against DRM, he would have "just said no".
"From my reading of history, Microsoft, and Bill Gates in particular, distinguished themselves by focusing on proprietary code, rather than the culture of free code that was present at the time."
Your confusing history with myth. There was no "culture of free code" in the marketplace at the time MS started.
"IBM is not big in the consumer market anymore"
IBM was barely in the consumer market at all. Back in the days when IBM was doing real system design on the PC, they were much to expensive to qualify as consumer items. The only true consumer device IBM designed was the PCjr and it failed.
Some people like IDE's and some don't, but it's a bit absurd to suggest that vi and the gnu build tools are "ahead" of any IDE. vi was designed in the teletype and dumb terminal era, so it can't possibly play the role of an IDE (and it doesn't need to for those who prefer it).
Eclipse is fine for java development, but for C++ development it's equivalent to an early 90's IDE.
Of course it's not necessary to prove that they are 100% effective in achieving their goal for them to be found in violation of the law. It doesn't make much sense to argue that "the Big 4 are making Apple do it" and then suggest that there's no intent to deprive people of competing music. If there's no intent to deprive, then there's zero motivation for them to retaliate against Apple for carying indie music without DRM.
In any case, the idea that the Big 4 would beat on Apple is pure speculation designed to give Apple an excuse. I don't believe it and I'm just explaining why the Big 4 would be foolish to try.
From the DOJ website on Antitrust law:
"The law does not condemn all agreements between companies, only those that threaten to raise prices to consumers or to deprive them of new and better products."
That's why you can't buy from indie labels at a record store because the Big Four won't allow it. Right?
Any attempt at trying that by the Big Four would represent an anti-trust violation that would be a slam-dunk to prosecute.
I take it you've never used crack before?
OK, so DRM's not a problem for you.
Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. I attempted to read all the links he gave and only the first one worked. What articles are you referring to?
"Plus I'm pretty certain any regular slashdotter worth their salt would have already known of at least one"
Even before I read the link, I gotta say: nice try at deflection.
I checked out your links, but only the 1st actually lead to a story. The story at the first link, as expected, mentioned "research" but provided zero details about it. Sounds like typical speculation not really backed-up by real, statistically valid data.
Given the fact that you've given no link to the survey, there's not much point in debating interpretations.
Your conclusions are valid provided that the survey did the comparison by including people who never used Windows 2000 (which would be a very odd choice). If they didn't, than the survey doesn't really say anything about the behavior of the majority of Windows XP users. (This assumes that the survey was statistically valid)
In any case, the 5 year estimate is misleading. Some XP machines will never be upgraded to Windows Vista, but I'd expect that upgrades will occur at an average rate of about 15%-20% per year before maxing out at about 90%. That's just a guess of course.
"Speaking of critical mass and Vista, industry is expecting a far longer time gap between users upgrading from XP and Vista, than 2000 and XP. It's already been suggested at more than 5 years until the majority of windows users are running on Vista."
I don't think that's a very meaningful comparison since most of the upgrading to XP was from Windows 9x, not Windows 2000.
It's not as if my time is worth something or blank CDs cost money.
In what way?
OK. I can't prove my claim that it's impossible. You claimed that qmail has no exploits. Prove it.
Don't mess with space aliens.
"What he did is what every decent computer scientist should have done in his life at least once: Hack someone else's computer without causing real harm"
Where in the world did you get that crazy idea?
"What exploits are those?"
Google it yourself and find out. In my view if qmail has ever had a hole, it hasn't met the criteria.
As far as your bullet points go, equal care could (and has) been done for other types of software that ended up with bugs anyway.
But don't forget the context of this discussion which is whether the criminal or the software writer is responsible for creating an exploit.
"There is a difference between impossible, and has not been done yet. Are you actually disputing that?"
I'm saying that having multiple teams trying very hard to do something and all failing is much better evidence of the task being impossible than possible. Do you dispute that?
"but unexploitable, non-trivial software systems do exist. A popular example is qmail."
I'm not sure that qmail could be described as large ( I never said "non-trivial"), but a little research indicates that exploits have been reported.
"You're taking the notion that all non-trivial software has flaws---something I would agree with---and generalizing it to say that all non-trivial software has remotely-exploitable security holes."
I guess you're assuming that while all non-trivial software has flaws, the security related parts of the program can be immune somehow. If one can't eliminate all the bugs from the those parts of the programs unrelated to security, what evidence is there that they can be totally eliminated from those that are?
While I know a great deal has changed in game development from my Atari 2600 days, I suspect that it still involves providing an illusion rather than really trying to simulate reality. You don't have to look any further than the sound of explosions in space to recognize that. I greatly doubt that game developers are performing a lot of database normalization, using a lot of calculus or applying operating system theory in their day-to-day work.
Programming games, I suspect, is still more a matter of creatively breaking the rules than it is in following them.
Well, most of the fundamental algorithms were created by people who couldn't legitimately call themselves computer scientists or software engineers simply because those terms didn't exist at the time, so I guess I don't see your point.
Individuals or teams come up with algorithms and the drive and ability to create them aren't automatically bestowed on those who have a CS degree on denied to those who don't.