One potential future has the rest of the world going to open source products and ditching proprietary code.
The good news about this, one would think, is that countries are less likely to screw around with compatibility in the name of market share.
The bad news is that the US love affair with Redmond starts to look like a highly protectionist trade policy. OOPs.
The FUD level of your troll becomes a pro-Perl6 statment. A fistful of href's do not a discernable argument make. All the more in the light of the extensive lengths the Perl illuminati have gone to for the purpose of ensuring a clean design. I for one can't wait to see what sort of breakthroughs Perl6 and Parrat will beget.
A UYK-7 boot had you pull a loader out of its 512 bytes of NDRO (read, BIOS), which you then used to load a program loader from tape, after which you initiated the program.
All via switches and direct register manipulation in octal.
Aye, MS-Denial Of Service (DOS) was heaven by comparison...
Both of those links were to bogus factoids. IP traffic doubling every tree months was part of MCI/WorldCom's Irrational ExEbbersance Program, by which we are all currently Bernied, don't you know?
Until 1999, the standard way of modelling the Internet was to use randomly generated graphs, in which routers were represented by points and the links between them by lines. But it turns out that such random graphs are a poor approximation because they miss two important features. The first is that links in the net are "preferentially attached": a router that has many links to it is likely to attract still more links; one that does not, will not. The second is that the Internet has more clusters of connected points than random graphs do. These two properties give the Internet a topology that is scale-free--in other words, small bits of it, when suitably magnified, resemble the whole.
You know that Net traffic doubles every three months, so you're confident that this will work, for all
Half the world's poulation still hasn't made a phone call?
Heard they had a good one in the early NATOPS (Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization) book for the E-2C: Fast Update Control Knob...
I've personally witnessed the "throw it out" mentality by people with grand visions of how superb their implementation will be, and invariably the projects are massive failures.
Or even on a smaller scale. The arrogance of refusing to use code someone else wrote because it's easier to re-write than read is tragic and commonplace.
And I greatly admire this sentiment because it represents a 100% swing away from being controlled by anyone and anything.
OK, at the government level.
Recall, though, that this development occurs in a context of crushing overpopulation. Too, the country is potentially using coercive means to control that overpopulation.
The good news is that technology knows no master, and that savvy Chinese will create a work-around if (when) some little autocrat determines that stability of the country (personal power) at the expense of individual freedom is a worthy goal.
Echo your respect for the work. One day I hope to achieve the skill to contribute.
It's also RMS's off-putting fanaticism. The community ends up saying: you're right, but would you go away?
1Cor13:1 is highly relevant here.
Flippant, yes, but serious. Regardless of who sits in the 800 lb. gorilla chair, the fact that they stabilize the market will be lost in the chorus of whining about the methods employed.
Your point about intellectual dishonesty is an interesting one. RMS is a self-described fanatic, and delivers regular jeremiads at anyone to the left of his position. The rest of the usual suspects seem ambivalent about the point, e.g. Perl, with the Artistic License or GPL deemed kosher, as you see fit.
Wired, IIRC, talked about business models that actually work, and held forth SleepyCat as a good example. You get the open source version for free and can pay them for a suitable license that meets particular requirements.
Much to our disappointment, companies like Lindows and the other "easy to use" distros are trying to convert those windows users (yes the ones that don't know how to run word if the interface suddenly looked a little funny, like gtk or qt, atleast that's the argument). In other words, having AOL for linux is a good thing for THEM, not necessarily for US..
An interesting point. His Majesty Satanic has demonstrated pattern genius at targeting the lowest common denominator in the market, in contrast to Linux targeting the lowest price point.
Now, if Lindows can bring the two of these together, particularly in those Wal-Mart boxen, there would be some serious weeping and gnashing of teeth in the Red Pits of Redmond, where Beelzebilly rules.
The problem of business world penetration, where file compatibility is crucial, is a different question than fixin' up granny to move.jpg's of the grandkids...
Complete and utter OSS generally doesn't make business sense.
Now, I don't have the source in front of me to argue exactly who used what, but aren't infrastructure things like TCP/IP stacks that are highly reliable across various OSs a conter-argument?
I'd argue that open standards and open source are great for market enlargement, at the possible expense of market control.
Let's discuss an approach to licensing that is as flexible as approaches to programming language selection. Otherwise, you risk looking as cartoonish as the film industry kvetching about VCRs, and other practices which have enlarged their markets in the face of arguments that said practice would kill it.
And let's admit that his Majesty Satanic has brought a lot of stability to the chaotic PC platform, for all his gestures may be Stalin-esque at times.
Well, we can rule out his Majesty Satanic actually buying HPaq. That would trigger an anti-trust scatalogical storm of world-wide proportions.
So, how can Redmond achieve control without all of the legal overhead of a purchase?
Exactly.
Let's consider an example where something was so obvious it led to fairly immediate change:
Go To Statement Considered Harmful
Whereas annoying hypespeak like
3G is out before it is ever in...
simply identifies the writer as impetuous, and effectively blunts the argument.
I liked Negroponte's article. His role in the grander scheme of things is to be visionary about where things will eventually go.
However, the sheep migrate slowly, and that just-slightly-short-of-ultimate7135 will definitely have its day in the sun.
So maybe there is a heavyweight library for some applications, and a lighter weight one for common use.
Probably you do the light one, and include it in the heavy when required.
Ah, the one-size-fits-all thought process...
I read the Wired article. IANAL, but at a high level, the idea might be phrased as "Like a patent, a copyright ought to have a half-life", so that once people have been "reasonably" rewarded for their creativity, the rest of us can be enriched thereby without fear of prosecution.
Programmed my dad's cell phone so that, if mom calls, it rings Beethoven's 5th. Now, if we still had to pay a vig to Ludwig's descendents (or the current copyright holder), the phone would either a) cost more or b) not be marketed that way in the first place, and our world might be somehow diminished as a result.
Is the answer simply: create your own stuff? If the Mickey Mouse law offends you, ought you simply to create your own two-dimensional, annoying rodent? How much is "enough" difference to avoid a copyright infringement suit?
Truth is that lawyers are about money, not truth, and a ridiculous suit may ruin you despite best efforts.
Back on topic, Lessig is totally the man. The article spoke of him coding elaborate Word Perfect macros while clerking for the Sumpremes. (Diana Ross must have been thrilled).:) At any rate, the possibility of a dude who GETS IT helping to shape public policy is welcome. He can run for President, and line his cabinet with the usual suspects. A personality for RMS! A shower and shave for ESR! A blue and green striped shirt for Linus! Go, Larry, Go!
OK, so science is politicized.
How can the/.erati improve the situation? Publicize blatant non-thought and pure pursuit of the almighty buck?
Leads to the next question: how can we stimulate thought in some depressingly thoughtless heads? Love my father, but the threat of a critical thought gives him hot flashes, triggering a reach for another beer.
Do what you can, I guess...
Note: This article is for information only. Neither the author nor MacOpz.com offer any warranty, implied, expressed, or otherwise, that the information here is 100% accurate, and, hereby disclaim any liability which may arise from your reading this article and attempting to construct what is shown here. The reader should possess the minimal skills technical skills necessary in dealing with computer parts prior to beginning any "do it yourself" project of this nature.
The fact that someone would try to sue over some potentially misguided information they found on the web and Tried This At Home is a little depressing.
The minute someone proves you can make real money by selling into the linux market, Microsoft will sell software there.
What scares me, AC, is that several world governments aren't so much interested in revenue input from software sales as they are in cost avoidance by going to open source.
Will the US turn into a software Japan, where we knowingly overpay for services to keep our Ponzi scheme going, while the rest of the world collectively innovates us into the dust?
Sure, that's a healthy dose of hyperbole. But I throw it out, not as a troll, but as a genuine question of whether or not we wear blinders.
Linux's overall effect in the market (I say, without having done a lick of research) has been to drive down the cost of operating system software. Office and game software might be next.
A commercial OS would have enforce such a standard on all its engineering teams, eliminating such problems, and therefore eliminating the need that the user should check out if there is a new version available or not!
Eugenia seemed to agree with you in the 'review'. Maybe the community could lean on some of the more creative folks and urge them to apply their creativity more to the product and less to the version numbering system.
Or the Linux Standard Base could weigh in. I know, we view standardazation as the Siamese twin of censorship, but it can have the effect of lowering the entropy in the system.
Slashdot Mirror
One potential future has the rest of the world going to open source products and ditching proprietary code.
The good news about this, one would think, is that countries are less likely to screw around with compatibility in the name of market share.
The bad news is that the US love affair with Redmond starts to look like a highly protectionist trade policy. OOPs.
The FUD level of your troll becomes a pro-Perl6 statment.
A fistful of href's do not a discernable argument make.
All the more in the light of the extensive lengths the Perl illuminati have gone to for the purpose of ensuring a clean design.
I for one can't wait to see what sort of breakthroughs Perl6 and Parrat will beget.
A UYK-7 boot had you pull a loader out of its 512 bytes of NDRO (read, BIOS), which you then used to load a program loader from tape, after which you initiated the program.
All via switches and direct register manipulation in octal.
Aye, MS-Denial Of Service (DOS) was heaven by comparison...
Both of those links were to bogus factoids. IP traffic doubling every tree months was part of MCI/WorldCom's Irrational ExEbbersance Program, by which we are all currently Bernied, don't you know?
-1 Jackass
You know that Net traffic doubles every three months, so you're confident that this will work, for all Half the world's poulation still hasn't made a phone call?
Kinda chaps your quiddick, don't it?
Heard they had a good one in the early NATOPS (Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization) book for the E-2C:
Fast Update Control Knob...
OK, at the government level.
Recall, though, that this development occurs in a context of crushing overpopulation. Too, the country is potentially using coercive means to control that overpopulation.
The good news is that technology knows no master, and that savvy Chinese will create a work-around if (when) some little autocrat determines that stability of the country (personal power) at the expense of individual freedom is a worthy goal.
Echo your respect for the work. One day I hope to achieve the skill to contribute.
It's also RMS's off-putting fanaticism. The community ends up saying: you're right, but would you go away?
1Cor13:1 is highly relevant here.
Flippant, yes, but serious. Regardless of who sits in the 800 lb. gorilla chair, the fact that they stabilize the market will be lost in the chorus of whining about the methods employed.
Your point about intellectual dishonesty is an interesting one. RMS is a self-described fanatic, and delivers regular jeremiads at anyone to the left of his position. The rest of the usual suspects seem ambivalent about the point, e.g. Perl, with the Artistic License or GPL deemed kosher, as you see fit.
Wired, IIRC, talked about business models that actually work, and held forth SleepyCat as a good example. You get the open source version for free and can pay them for a suitable license that meets particular requirements.
in contrast to Linux targeting the lowest price point.
Now, if Lindows can bring the two of these together, particularly in those Wal-Mart boxen, there would be some serious weeping and gnashing of teeth in the Red Pits of Redmond, where Beelzebilly rules.
The problem of business world penetration, where file compatibility is crucial, is a different question than fixin' up granny to move
but aren't infrastructure things like TCP/IP stacks that are highly reliable across various OSs a conter-argument?
I'd argue that open standards and open source are great for market enlargement, at the possible expense of market control.
Let's discuss an approach to licensing that is as flexible as approaches to programming language selection.
Otherwise, you risk looking as cartoonish as the film industry kvetching about VCRs, and other practices which have enlarged their markets in the face of arguments that said practice would kill it.
And let's admit that his Majesty Satanic has brought a lot of stability to the chaotic PC platform, for all his gestures may be Stalin-esque at times.
Yes, but the market shares differ dramatically in your examples.
Well, we can rule out his Majesty Satanic actually buying HPaq. That would trigger an anti-trust scatalogical storm of world-wide proportions.
So, how can Redmond achieve control without all of the legal overhead of a purchase?
Whereas annoying hypespeak like simply identifies the writer as impetuous, and effectively blunts the argument.
I liked Negroponte's article. His role in the grander scheme of things is to be visionary about where things will eventually go.
However, the sheep migrate slowly, and that just-slightly-short-of-ultimate7135 will definitely have its day in the sun.
So maybe there is a heavyweight library for some applications, and a lighter weight one for common use.
Probably you do the light one, and include it in the heavy when required.
Ah, the one-size-fits-all thought process...
I read the Wired article. IANAL, but at a high level, the idea might be phrased as "Like a patent, a copyright ought to have a half-life", so that once people have been "reasonably" rewarded for their creativity, the rest of us can be enriched thereby without fear of prosecution. :)
Programmed my dad's cell phone so that, if mom calls, it rings Beethoven's 5th. Now, if we still had to pay a vig to Ludwig's descendents (or the current copyright holder), the phone would either a) cost more or b) not be marketed that way in the first place, and our world might be somehow diminished as a result.
Is the answer simply: create your own stuff? If the Mickey Mouse law offends you, ought you simply to create your own two-dimensional, annoying rodent? How much is "enough" difference to avoid a copyright infringement suit?
Truth is that lawyers are about money, not truth, and a ridiculous suit may ruin you despite best efforts.
Back on topic, Lessig is totally the man. The article spoke of him coding elaborate Word Perfect macros while clerking for the Sumpremes. (Diana Ross must have been thrilled).
At any rate, the possibility of a dude who GETS IT helping to shape public policy is welcome. He can run for President, and line his cabinet with the usual suspects. A personality for RMS! A shower and shave for ESR! A blue and green striped shirt for Linus! Go, Larry, Go!
OK, so science is politicized. /.erati improve the situation?
How can the
Publicize blatant non-thought and pure pursuit of the almighty buck?
Leads to the next question: how can we stimulate thought in some depressingly thoughtless heads?
Love my father, but the threat of a critical thought gives him hot flashes, triggering a reach for another beer.
Do what you can, I guess...
Will the US turn into a software Japan, where we knowingly overpay for services to keep our Ponzi scheme going, while the rest of the world collectively innovates us into the dust?
Sure, that's a healthy dose of hyperbole. But I throw it out, not as a troll, but as a genuine question of whether or not we wear blinders.
Linux's overall effect in the market (I say, without having done a lick of research) has been to drive down the cost of operating system software. Office and game software might be next.
Maybe the community could lean on some of the more creative folks and urge them to apply their creativity more to the product and less to the version numbering system.
Or the Linux Standard Base could weigh in. I know, we view standardazation as the Siamese twin of censorship, but it can have the effect of lowering the entropy in the system.
Ah, the "field codes". They can do some interesting things, but rival JavaScript for bearishness...