Thanks for being man enough to apologize. I appreciate it and accept it. Sorry about your problems in your personal life and I hope that you get them straightened out soon.
2 full paragraphs of self-rightous whining which basically says "me too!".
You are a fool. There was no "whining" and I was not saying "me too" to any other post. I was poking holes in the "2 million songs" argument. You are either too stupid or too Ritalin-deprived to handle two whole paragraphs.
Oh and thanks for explaining how radio works.
I didn't explain how radio works and, frankly, my cat has a better chance of understanding radio theory than you do.
Those are organizations I've given and am still giving to.
You wrote:
But if you're going to come after me for my hard earned money, you better have something to give in exchange for it.
So what are those charities giving you in exchange for your money?
They're not relying on a flawed "business plan" (for no other term available for it.)
They ask for donations to perform a public service. Sounds like the same "business plan" being used by Wikimedia -- which is registered as a non-profit charitable organization.
Did I _ever_ say that the poor kids in inner cities and developping nations (who by the way have other priorities then a wikipedia in mind.) would get different data ?
No, you didn't say that they would get any data at all -- just that "the unwashed" could fight over the remaining resources. As to your "priorities" comment, you don't think that access to educational reference materials and textbooks should be a priority for the underprivileged? Wikimedia (the organization soliciting the donations), is also using them to provide Wiktionary (a free dictionary), Wikibooks (free textbooks) and Wikiquote (a free quote collection).
I said that those who shell out get access to a dedicated system that will have faster results or whatever, and that the non-paying users get to fight for whatever ressource is left.
And if there's not enough resources left, they get a 'too many users' error.
And who are you exactly to judge the hardness level of ones earning ? Did anyone name you earnings inspector or something ?
You're the one who brought up the subject of how hard it is for you to earn money. All I want to know is how hard your work is when compared to that done by the working poor in the U.S. and elsewhere (the "unwashed" as you call them).
Since XM has more than 2 million songs stored in its databases, I rather doubt that you could carry that much around, no matter how good your compression scheme.
Since I don't want to listen to any blues, country, dance, disco, funk, hip-hop, metal, rap, techno, industrial, ska, death metal, gospel, meditative, gothic, darkwave, eurodance, gangsta, top 40, christian rap, pop/funk, native american, cabaret, new wave, rave, showtunes, tribal, acid punk, acid jazz, polka, national folk, swing, fast fusion, bebop, latin, revival, celtic, bluegrass, avantgarde, big band, chorus, easy listening, acoustic, opera, booty bass, tango, samba, rhythmic soul, freestyle, drum solo, euro-house, or dance hall, how many songs do they have. Now weed out the artists and songs I don't like from the genres that I do and how many songs does XM have for me?
I'd rather pick out the music that I listen to. If I'm in the mood for The Who, I don't want to listen to some XM 60's station playing Marvin Gaye. If I want to hear Adam Ant, I'm not interested in listening to Michael Jackson, Flock of Seagulls, Lionel Richie, Tommy Tutone, and Phil Collins first. I'd much rather have a thousand songs that I really like than have to listen to a thousand songs to hear 230 songs I hate, 710 songs that I don't really like, 50 that are okay, and 10 that I really like. If I go into the store, when I come out, I want to finish listening to the CD that was playing when I went in. If I shut off the stereo to talk to a passenger or order at a drive-through, I don't want to miss the rest of the song. XM may be for some people, but it's not for me.
But if you're going to come after me for my hard earned money, you better have something to give in exchange for it.
You're a real gem of a human being, aren't you? It's really depressing to know that organizations fighting AIDS, river blindness, malnutrition, famine, pollution, and illiteracy in third world countries have to deal with self-centered assholes like you when they call for donations.
If the product is viable, they can offer consulting for commercial installation, or they could offer a "premium" service where subscriber get access to a dedicated server, while the unwashed get to share whatever's left of the ressource.
Yeah, fuck the poor kids in inner cities and developing nations who rely on resources like Wikipedia. If they can't pony up with a Visa Platinum card like you, then they can just suck wind.
You talk about your "hard earned money." Just how hard was it? Do you work as hard for a dollar as some guy below the poverty line who picks strawberries in the hot sun? Do you work as hard for each dollar as a guy who sews shoes for Nike in a third world country? Just how hard is it for you to earn a few bucks to send to a valuable educational resource like Wikipedia?
Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin...
on
Make More Mistakes
·
· Score: 1
Sheesh, you don't ask for much, do you? Sure you don't want to add any more special conditions to that list?:-)
I'm trying to be fair. My contention is that a company which just develops and sells open source software is doomed to fail. When someone is saying that Microsoft is an open-source business model, you've got to be specific.
And if you are a troll (possibly even if you're not), your next move may be to add an extra condition along the lines of "Companies that charge for commercial licensing of their product don't count,"
I was not attempting to troll (you can probably tell that from my karma bonus and comment moderations). It was my fault for not being specific about my interpretation of open source. I don't consider it open source to demand a fee from a user based on the intended use. That said, I'm not going to add it as a condition at this point.
Trolltech is probably the best example, and should be well known to Slashdotters.
Their licenses require that developers pay for commercial use. Other products, like QtWindows, are not available in an open source format at all. Trolltech has yearly support fees that run well over $1000/seat for most of their major products.
Sleepycat Software has been around for quite a while. Someone mentioned it above, but I notice you didn't mention it in your response.
I wasn't familiar with it. I did some research and I have to agree that they are truly open source at least for their Berkeley DB Data Store and Berkeley DB XML products. You don't even have to pay to use them in a commercial venture unless you redistribute a binary without source. I was unable to determine if their higher end products are also open-source (Berkeley DB Concurrent Data Store, Berkeley DB Transactional Data Store, Berkeley DB High Availability, and Berkeley DB XML for High Availability).
Sendmail - whether you bless it or curse it, it's still the biggest mailserver on the Net. The sheer complexity of the product is probably a big factor in Sendmail Inc.'s success in selling "commercial" versions (for which they also provide support). And yes, the original developer of Sendmail (Eric Allman?) owns/runs Sendmail Inc.
We both know that they are selling support services and hardware. From the web page:
Even more important, Sendmail open source is not a supported product.
Sendmail, Inc. can help. Sendmail offers a complete line of email routing, storage, and access servers. These bundled email solutions are fully integrated, rapidly implemented and affordable. Based on Sendmail open source and open standards, our products excel in demanding, high growth mail environments. Sendmail's seasoned consultants design and implement integrated systems to meet each customer's unique needs.
I appreciate the time and effort you put into your reply and hope that you can see by the effort that I put into mine that I am not trolling. I genuinely think that the traditional GPL open source business model is not going to succeed in the long term. The free-for-non-commercial use model used by some companies may succeed. It will be interesting to see.
Regards,
Fred Maxwell
Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin...
on
Make More Mistakes
·
· Score: 1
I checked out your celestron page
Thanks.
I know you feel angry but perhaps the company has a reason for its policy
They do. I believe that they want to force users to buy new telescopes rather than upgrade existing ones and they want customers to pay them to service the scopes rather than allowing the customers to do it themselves.
Perhaps they don't offer parts individually. Maybe they don't have it set up so that you can buy things individually. Isn't this like asking whether you can buy the right speaker of your television? The answer from Panasonic (my tv) would probably be 'no, you can't buy just the speaker'. Or how about trying to buy the handle for your vacuum? You probably can't. Perhaps your case is like that.
Actually, you can purchase parts like speakers for televisions, handles for vacuums, etc. Look at vacuum-depot.com for one source. Repair parts are normally available -- especially for expensive items. When I needed a replacement temperature control for my stove, no problem. When I needed a new motor for my diswasher, I got it right away. When I needed a new cast part for my Sears drill press, Sears was happy to provide it to me. When I wanted to upgrade my diswasher with an anti-spotting dispenser from a more expensive model, I was able to buy the part without a problem. Maytag didn't insist that I prove that I owned the more expensive dishasher or send it back to them for a part installation. VW is happy to sell me the armrest parts so that I can add an armrest to my car. They didn't tell me to go buy a new VW to get the armrest.
BTW, how much do these telescopes cost?
A Celestron NexStar 8 retails for about $1200 and a NexStar 5 retails for about $900. If these were $75 telescopes from Walmart, I could excuse the go-buy-another-one mentality, but we're talking about significant investments. At that kind of price, they should be treating customers better.
Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin...
on
Make More Mistakes
·
· Score: 1
People can get tap water for free. They can't get filtered water for free, mineral water for free, sparkling water for free, etc. So they pay for it.
As to music, many people are paying for convenience. If I want the latest Goo Goo Dolls album, it's far more convenient to buy it at Best Buy than to try to record it piecemeal off of the radio or download it from Kazaa. Time is worth something, too.
I agree that reasons for purchases don't have to be rational. Look at perfume. It's an item where you can increase the price and sell more. Go figure.
Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin...
on
Make More Mistakes
·
· Score: 1
Heh heh. I like you!
Really? I'm flattered.
Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin...
on
Make More Mistakes
·
· Score: 1
DynamicPros is a company that sells customized versions of MySQl, so they are out there. Making money, believe it or not.
I don't. From their web page:
"DynamicPros.com offers high quality, professional Web programming services."
They create e-commerce websites. They don't sell custom versions of MySQL:
"We specialize in customized MySQL and ecommerce solutions, but also offer a "system" of individual scripts that take advantage of the power and flexibility of MySQL to enhance the functionality of your Web site."
They specialize in customized "solutions", not customizing MySQL. I can offer "customized Microsoft Access and ecommerce solutions" without having the source to Access. I see nothing to indicate that they are modifying or recompiling MySQL. Did I miss something on their web site?
Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin...
on
Make More Mistakes
·
· Score: 1
Any Linux distro that earns money such as.. Redhat,Mandrake(Out of bankruptcy now and looking good),Apple,Microsoft(shared source),Oracle,Sun,SGI,SleepyCat Software,VA Linux systems,Penguin Computing,MySQL,RMS( sold customized versions of emacs),Zope,Open Fusion ( http://www.openfusion.com.au/labs/ ), of course Sco aka Caldera counts too, that is they did have a valid business model before they changed course and became a litigation company.
Redhat, Mandrake, and other Linux distros make money by selling open source software that they don't develop (as per my initial post "Linux venders are selling other people's labors, so they are an odd lot."). They didn't develop the product that they sold. They added some installers and widgets to an existing open source codebase.
Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle are all closed source business models (as anyone can tell you). If OSX is open source, where is the source to it? All of it. Not just part of it. Not just a kernel. I want source to the whole thing. Can't get it? Then they are selling closed source software. It may incorporate some open source elements (for which the developers get nothing), but they are selling closed source software.
Sun and SGI make money selling hardware -- as per my original post: "You can make money selling hardware that incorporates open source software/firmware. "
Mysql doesn't make money selling open source software. They make money selling support and consulting services -- as per my original post: "You can sometimes make money supporting open source software."
Let's make this clearer: Give me examples of companies which make money primarily by developing and selling open source software. Companies that derive most of their income by selling hardware don't count. Companies that derive most of their income selling support services for OSS don't count. Companies which sell open source software that others developed don't count. Show me companies that developed open source software and then made money selling the same software for which the source is freely available.
Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin...
on
Make More Mistakes
·
· Score: 1
Yes, that's right. Microsoft does utilize open source in their work. It doesn't matter how you use it, if at least a certain portion of your business runs or uses open source,if not entirely then you do have an open source business model.
No you don't. That's like saying that if any portion of your work force cleans toilets, that you have a janitorial business model.
The Junkyard model depends heavily on open source...It's a valid open source business model.
For the third time (at least), I said "You can make money selling hardware that incorporates open source software/firmware. You can sometimes make money supporting open source software. But it's damned near impossible to make money by developing an open source product and selling/supporting it." So how does your junkyard example contradict that?
Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin...
on
Make More Mistakes
·
· Score: 1
If you suppply, utilize, install, support, open source in any way shape or form, to any degree or variant in your product or service... then you have an open source business model.
So Microsoft has an open source business model? They utilize open source applications within their building. Their Windows protocol stack is based on BSD. The PC version of Halo includes Ogg Vorbis code and even the Xiph license for same.
I have read and reread my post and I cannot understand how you interpreted it in such a way as to think your junkyard example disproved anything that I wrote.
Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin...
on
Make More Mistakes
·
· Score: 1
No you didn't. You asked for nothing of the sort.
Yes, I did. See the following:
not one in a hundred thousand of them has successfully started a major corporation that develops and sells open source software. So if you want to claim that all of those venture capitalists, along with Eric Sink, the developer of Abiword and the founder of SourceGear, are wrong, please include your business credentials when you reply to this.
And I am asking for them now. Give me examples of successful companies that make money by developing and selling open source software.
Besides, it doesn't matter what I ask for, you just ignore it. As I asked in the previous post: "If they develop open source software, where is the source? I don't see it on their web page. I don't see it on mirrors. I don't see any links to it. Just where is the source to this supposed open source software that they develop?"
you do seem to really get off on calling people names. That's why I called you out as a troll
And I guess this means I can call you another name: Hypocrite.
Your arguments were purely emotional, as was your response to my post.
My arguments were flawlessy logical. Your response to them was so far off-base that it was hard to understand your point. I said "You can make money selling hardware that incorporates open source software/firmware. You can sometimes make money supporting open source software. But it's damned near impossible to make money by developing an open source product and selling/supporting it." And you replied by telling us all about a company that doesn't develop open source software.
How about addressing that debate point instead of telling me how I hurt your feelings by calling you names?
Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin...
on
Make More Mistakes
·
· Score: 1
Nice troll, however if your looking for Open Source business models look no further than Doc Searls December article in Linux Journal "Free Business".
You then go on to describe a business that does not develop any open source software and that has a web site that looks like it was put together by a retarded child in a remedial computer class.
Try reading what I wrote:
"You can make money selling hardware that incorporates open source software/firmware. You can sometimes make money supporting open source software. But it's damned near impossible to make money by developing an open source product and selling/supporting it."
I asked for examples of successful companies that make money by developing and selling open source software. So what do you do? You provide information about a company that is "a personal service business, delivering and installing the systems themselves, including the modem phone connection that lets the company dial into a machine, do diagnostics and fix problems."
If they develop open source software, where is the source? I don't see it on their web page. I don't see it on mirrors. I don't see any links to it. Just where is the source to this supposed open source software that they develop?
And you have the nerve to criticize my post and call it a troll. Amazing...
Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin...
on
Make More Mistakes
·
· Score: 1
This is not nearly the broad indictment of OSS business models you seem to have taken from it. It's simply stating that a word processor in specific doesn't fit the mold very well.
If something has low R&D costs, then it fails as an open source business model. Try forming a company based on developing and selling open source software which does things like convert lowercase to uppercase, send carriage returns to printers, and draw concentric colored circles on the screen. If it's extremely easy to do, it's already available for free or it couldn't command a high enough price to pay to deliver it.
Nobody has presented any evidence that it's any harder to start a successful or even major corporation based on an OSS product or service than on anything else.
You haven't presented any evidence that it's any harder to start a successful or even major corporation based on giving away Ferraris and asking for donations, so we have to accept that as a viable business model -- even after companies try it and fail. That's the OSS business mindset for you.
Want evidence? Okay here's some:
People won't pay for something that they can get for free. If they can download it at no cost or inconvenience, they aren't getting out the checkbook. I don't care about your.00003% exceptions to that rule. That won't fund a business.
If it's open source, anyone can sell it. If company A is trying to recoup the development costs and company B is just covering the costs of blank media, company A is f***ed.
Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin...
on
Make More Mistakes
·
· Score: 1
This is a logical fallacy known as a hasty generalization. You're arguing that because one open source project failed to sustain a business model, all open source projects will fail to do so.
I am arguing that open source is not a sustainable business model based on multiple venture capitalists and the article's author rejecting such a popular and typical open-source project. A word processor is an app which is moderate in complexity, size, etc. and it was not viable. While I would agree that the business failure of something unusual, like an open source fluid dynamics calculation program, is not an indictment of open source as a business model, I think that what I wrote was fair.
Let the conspiracy theories begin...
on
Make More Mistakes
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
From the article:
But although AbiWord was fun, it was never much of a business. Our funding search didn't go very well. The buzz of AbiWord got us in the door, but we always walked out with no money. Tim O'Reilly said no. Bob Young said no. Frank Batten said no. Bill Kaiser said no. Hindsight confirmed these gentlemen to be as smart as we all know them to be.
Hadar Pedhazur also said no, but he said more than that. Hadar is probably the most "clueful" venture capital guy I've ever known. He spent a lot of time talking with me, and eventually convinced me that it would be extremely difficult to make the AbiSource business model work. The research and development costs of a word processor are simply too high to give it away. After my discussions with Hadar, I made the decision to abandon AbiWord as a business. (At the time of this writing, the AbiWord project continues to move forward as a community project.)
That says a lot about the "open source" business model, doesn't it? Linux venders are selling other people's labors, so they are an odd lot. But look at what happens when a company makes a decision to develop an open source product. Even when the product is as good as AbiWord, open source is not a viable business model.
Yes, I know that the article was published on MSDN, so all of the open source zealots can start in with the conspiracy theories about Microsoft's involvement with publishing it. But the fact remains that an experienced proponent of open source no longer views it as a viable business model and has abandoned his efforts to make money developing, selling, and supporting open source software. You can make money selling hardware that incorporates open source software/firmware. You can sometimes make money supporting open source software. But it's damned near impossible to make money by developing an open source product and selling/supporting it.
Now the nuts can come out of the virtual woodwork and start screeching about the one true religion of open source, but he fact is that not one in a hundred thousand of them has successfully started a major corporation that develops and sells open source software. So if you want to claim that all of those venture capitalists, along with Eric Sink, the developer of Abiword and the founder of SourceGear, are wrong, please include your business credentials when you reply to this.
I'd have to opine that this is an extremely foolish thing to do, tear apart one's OnStar module simply to access its GPS unit. A PC-interfaceable GPS costs well under $100, and doing these modifications to your OnStar system may void your vehicle's warranty or reduce its resale value enormously.
Would you stop with these idiotic proclamations about how it could "void your vehicle's warranty? You can't void an entire vehicle's warranty by modifying the OnStar unit. You may void the warranty on the OnStar unit, but U.S. federal law requires that a modification be the cause of the failure before a warranty claim can be denied. That's why car dealers can't get our of repairing your failed transmission by claiming that your warranty is void because you installed an aftermarket stereo.
Read the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and learn something.
5. Get rid of the SMC wireless access point and get an 802.11b PCMCIA card for your laptop.
6. Leave the external drive bay and one of the 2.5" laptop drives at home. If you're so hosed that you've gone through two hard drives, then either get another drive overnighted or just get back on the plane and come home.
In a nutshell, you're carrying way too much stuff. Make your life a lot simpler and leave some of it at home. You don't need to be prepared for every possible emergency on the road. That's what couriers, rental places, and stores are for. Seriously, when Walmart carries CAT5 cables, you just don't need to pack your luggage with them.
I'm looking for a bag that can hold my PDA with cradle, an iPod and cradle, a cell phone with recharger, a tablet PC, a 12" sub-notebook, a 17" Toshiba notebook, a Dell Precision 650 workstation, a keyboard, a mouse, a 20" LCD monitor, a digital camera, a bigger digital camera, lenses for the bigger digital camera, an external USB CD writer, a network switch, a USB 2.0 hub, a UPS, an inkjet printer, and a laser printer. Are there any bags that would fit this?
Doctor Zhivago Apollo 13 The Sixth Sense The Shawshank Redemption Blade Runner Schindler's List Young Frankenstein A Beautiful Mind One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest Moulin Rouge! Lawrence of Arabia 2001: A Space Odyssey This is Spinal Tap Rain Man MASH Cabaret American Graffiti The Graduate
I suppose no one has realized that the US is the number one spam nation in the world. The country we should be blocking is the US.
Actually, that's not true. The majority of spam is sent through other countries. I've got plenty of logs to support that contention from my domain anti-spam.org. While the majority of spammers might live here in the U.S., they usually go offshore for their e-mail delivery and website hosting.
Slashdot Mirror
Clueless.
I appreciate you signing your post, but you forgot to include the body of the message.
Thanks for being man enough to apologize. I appreciate it and accept it. Sorry about your problems in your personal life and I hope that you get them straightened out soon.
2 full paragraphs of self-rightous whining which basically says "me too!".
You are a fool. There was no "whining" and I was not saying "me too" to any other post. I was poking holes in the "2 million songs" argument. You are either too stupid or too Ritalin-deprived to handle two whole paragraphs.
Oh and thanks for explaining how radio works.
I didn't explain how radio works and, frankly, my cat has a better chance of understanding radio theory than you do.
Grow up, get a user ID, and quit being a pussy.
You wrote:So what are those charities giving you in exchange for your money?
They're not relying on a flawed "business plan" (for no other term available for it.)
They ask for donations to perform a public service. Sounds like the same "business plan" being used by Wikimedia -- which is registered as a non-profit charitable organization.
Did I _ever_ say that the poor kids in inner cities and developping nations (who by the way have other priorities then a wikipedia in mind.) would get different data ?
No, you didn't say that they would get any data at all -- just that "the unwashed" could fight over the remaining resources. As to your "priorities" comment, you don't think that access to educational reference materials and textbooks should be a priority for the underprivileged? Wikimedia (the organization soliciting the donations), is also using them to provide Wiktionary (a free dictionary), Wikibooks (free textbooks) and Wikiquote (a free quote collection).
I said that those who shell out get access to a dedicated system that will have faster results or whatever, and that the non-paying users get to fight for whatever ressource is left.
And if there's not enough resources left, they get a 'too many users' error.
And who are you exactly to judge the hardness level of ones earning ? Did anyone name you earnings inspector or something ?
You're the one who brought up the subject of how hard it is for you to earn money. All I want to know is how hard your work is when compared to that done by the working poor in the U.S. and elsewhere (the "unwashed" as you call them).
Since XM has more than 2 million songs stored in its databases, I rather doubt that you could carry that much around, no matter how good your compression scheme.
Since I don't want to listen to any blues, country, dance, disco, funk, hip-hop, metal, rap, techno, industrial, ska, death metal, gospel, meditative, gothic, darkwave, eurodance, gangsta, top 40, christian rap, pop/funk, native american, cabaret, new wave, rave, showtunes, tribal, acid punk, acid jazz, polka, national folk, swing, fast fusion, bebop, latin, revival, celtic, bluegrass, avantgarde, big band, chorus, easy listening, acoustic, opera, booty bass, tango, samba, rhythmic soul, freestyle, drum solo, euro-house, or dance hall, how many songs do they have. Now weed out the artists and songs I don't like from the genres that I do and how many songs does XM have for me?
I'd rather pick out the music that I listen to. If I'm in the mood for The Who, I don't want to listen to some XM 60's station playing Marvin Gaye. If I want to hear Adam Ant, I'm not interested in listening to Michael Jackson, Flock of Seagulls, Lionel Richie, Tommy Tutone, and Phil Collins first. I'd much rather have a thousand songs that I really like than have to listen to a thousand songs to hear 230 songs I hate, 710 songs that I don't really like, 50 that are okay, and 10 that I really like. If I go into the store, when I come out, I want to finish listening to the CD that was playing when I went in. If I shut off the stereo to talk to a passenger or order at a drive-through, I don't want to miss the rest of the song. XM may be for some people, but it's not for me.
But if you're going to come after me for my hard earned money, you better have something to give in exchange for it.
You're a real gem of a human being, aren't you? It's really depressing to know that organizations fighting AIDS, river blindness, malnutrition, famine, pollution, and illiteracy in third world countries have to deal with self-centered assholes like you when they call for donations.
If the product is viable, they can offer consulting for commercial installation, or they could offer a "premium" service where subscriber get access to a dedicated server, while the unwashed get to share whatever's left of the ressource.
Yeah, fuck the poor kids in inner cities and developing nations who rely on resources like Wikipedia. If they can't pony up with a Visa Platinum card like you, then they can just suck wind.
You talk about your "hard earned money." Just how hard was it? Do you work as hard for a dollar as some guy below the poverty line who picks strawberries in the hot sun? Do you work as hard for each dollar as a guy who sews shoes for Nike in a third world country? Just how hard is it for you to earn a few bucks to send to a valuable educational resource like Wikipedia?
I'm trying to be fair. My contention is that a company which just develops and sells open source software is doomed to fail. When someone is saying that Microsoft is an open-source business model, you've got to be specific.
And if you are a troll (possibly even if you're not), your next move may be to add an extra condition along the lines of "Companies that charge for commercial licensing of their product don't count,"
I was not attempting to troll (you can probably tell that from my karma bonus and comment moderations). It was my fault for not being specific about my interpretation of open source. I don't consider it open source to demand a fee from a user based on the intended use. That said, I'm not going to add it as a condition at this point.
Trolltech is probably the best example, and should be well known to Slashdotters.
Their licenses require that developers pay for commercial use. Other products, like QtWindows, are not available in an open source format at all. Trolltech has yearly support fees that run well over $1000/seat for most of their major products.
Sleepycat Software has been around for quite a while. Someone mentioned it above, but I notice you didn't mention it in your response.
I wasn't familiar with it. I did some research and I have to agree that they are truly open source at least for their Berkeley DB Data Store and Berkeley DB XML products. You don't even have to pay to use them in a commercial venture unless you redistribute a binary without source. I was unable to determine if their higher end products are also open-source (Berkeley DB Concurrent Data Store, Berkeley DB Transactional Data Store, Berkeley DB High Availability, and Berkeley DB XML for High Availability).
Sendmail - whether you bless it or curse it, it's still the biggest mailserver on the Net. The sheer complexity of the product is probably a big factor in Sendmail Inc.'s success in selling "commercial" versions (for which they also provide support). And yes, the original developer of Sendmail (Eric Allman?) owns/runs Sendmail Inc.
We both know that they are selling support services and hardware. From the web page: I appreciate the time and effort you put into your reply and hope that you can see by the effort that I put into mine that I am not trolling. I genuinely think that the traditional GPL open source business model is not going to succeed in the long term. The free-for-non-commercial use model used by some companies may succeed. It will be interesting to see.
Regards,
Fred Maxwell
I checked out your celestron page
Thanks.
I know you feel angry but perhaps the company has a reason for its policy
They do. I believe that they want to force users to buy new telescopes rather than upgrade existing ones and they want customers to pay them to service the scopes rather than allowing the customers to do it themselves.
Perhaps they don't offer parts individually. Maybe they don't have it set up so that you can buy things individually. Isn't this like asking whether you can buy the right speaker of your television? The answer from Panasonic (my tv) would probably be 'no, you can't buy just the speaker'. Or how about trying to buy the handle for your vacuum? You probably can't. Perhaps your case is like that.
Actually, you can purchase parts like speakers for televisions, handles for vacuums, etc. Look at vacuum-depot.com for one source. Repair parts are normally available -- especially for expensive items. When I needed a replacement temperature control for my stove, no problem. When I needed a new motor for my diswasher, I got it right away. When I needed a new cast part for my Sears drill press, Sears was happy to provide it to me. When I wanted to upgrade my diswasher with an anti-spotting dispenser from a more expensive model, I was able to buy the part without a problem. Maytag didn't insist that I prove that I owned the more expensive dishasher or send it back to them for a part installation. VW is happy to sell me the armrest parts so that I can add an armrest to my car. They didn't tell me to go buy a new VW to get the armrest.
BTW, how much do these telescopes cost?
A Celestron NexStar 8 retails for about $1200 and a NexStar 5 retails for about $900. If these were $75 telescopes from Walmart, I could excuse the go-buy-another-one mentality, but we're talking about significant investments. At that kind of price, they should be treating customers better.
People can get tap water for free. They can't get filtered water for free, mineral water for free, sparkling water for free, etc. So they pay for it.
As to music, many people are paying for convenience. If I want the latest Goo Goo Dolls album, it's far more convenient to buy it at Best Buy than to try to record it piecemeal off of the radio or download it from Kazaa. Time is worth something, too.
I agree that reasons for purchases don't have to be rational. Look at perfume. It's an item where you can increase the price and sell more. Go figure.
Heh heh. I like you!
Really? I'm flattered.
DynamicPros is a company that sells customized versions of MySQl, so they are out there. Making money, believe it or not.
I don't. From their web page:
"DynamicPros.com offers high quality, professional Web programming services."
They create e-commerce websites. They don't sell custom versions of MySQL:
"We specialize in customized MySQL and ecommerce solutions, but also offer a "system" of individual scripts that take advantage of the power and flexibility of MySQL to enhance the functionality of your Web site."
They specialize in customized "solutions", not customizing MySQL. I can offer "customized Microsoft Access and ecommerce solutions" without having the source to Access. I see nothing to indicate that they are modifying or recompiling MySQL. Did I miss something on their web site?
Any Linux distro that earns money such as.. Redhat,Mandrake(Out of bankruptcy now and looking good),Apple,Microsoft(shared source),Oracle,Sun,SGI,SleepyCat Software,VA Linux systems,Penguin Computing,MySQL,RMS( sold customized versions of emacs),Zope,Open Fusion ( http://www.openfusion.com.au/labs/ ), of course Sco aka Caldera counts too, that is they did have a valid business model before they changed course and became a litigation company.
Redhat, Mandrake, and other Linux distros make money by selling open source software that they don't develop (as per my initial post "Linux venders are selling other people's labors, so they are an odd lot."). They didn't develop the product that they sold. They added some installers and widgets to an existing open source codebase.
Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle are all closed source business models (as anyone can tell you). If OSX is open source, where is the source to it? All of it. Not just part of it. Not just a kernel. I want source to the whole thing. Can't get it? Then they are selling closed source software. It may incorporate some open source elements (for which the developers get nothing), but they are selling closed source software.
Sun and SGI make money selling hardware -- as per my original post: "You can make money selling hardware that incorporates open source software/firmware. "
Mysql doesn't make money selling open source software. They make money selling support and consulting services -- as per my original post: "You can sometimes make money supporting open source software."
Let's make this clearer: Give me examples of companies which make money primarily by developing and selling open source software. Companies that derive most of their income by selling hardware don't count. Companies that derive most of their income selling support services for OSS don't count. Companies which sell open source software that others developed don't count. Show me companies that developed open source software and then made money selling the same software for which the source is freely available.
Yes, that's right. Microsoft does utilize open source in their work. It doesn't matter how you use it, if at least a certain portion of your business runs or uses open source,if not entirely then you do have an open source business model.
No you don't. That's like saying that if any portion of your work force cleans toilets, that you have a janitorial business model.
The Junkyard model depends heavily on open source...It's a valid open source business model.
For the third time (at least), I said "You can make money selling hardware that incorporates open source software/firmware. You can sometimes make money supporting open source software. But it's damned near impossible to make money by developing an open source product and selling/supporting it." So how does your junkyard example contradict that?
If you suppply, utilize, install, support, open source in any way shape or form, to any degree or variant in your product or service ... then you have an open source business model.
So Microsoft has an open source business model? They utilize open source applications within their building. Their Windows protocol stack is based on BSD. The PC version of Halo includes Ogg Vorbis code and even the Xiph license for same.
I have read and reread my post and I cannot understand how you interpreted it in such a way as to think your junkyard example disproved anything that I wrote.
No you didn't. You asked for nothing of the sort.
Yes, I did. See the following:
not one in a hundred thousand of them has successfully started a major corporation that develops and sells open source software. So if you want to claim that all of those venture capitalists, along with Eric Sink, the developer of Abiword and the founder of SourceGear, are wrong, please include your business credentials when you reply to this.
And I am asking for them now. Give me examples of successful companies that make money by developing and selling open source software.
Besides, it doesn't matter what I ask for, you just ignore it. As I asked in the previous post: "If they develop open source software, where is the source? I don't see it on their web page. I don't see it on mirrors. I don't see any links to it. Just where is the source to this supposed open source software that they develop?"
you do seem to really get off on calling people names. That's why I called you out as a troll
And I guess this means I can call you another name: Hypocrite.
Your arguments were purely emotional, as was your response to my post.
My arguments were flawlessy logical. Your response to them was so far off-base that it was hard to understand your point. I said "You can make money selling hardware that incorporates open source software/firmware. You can sometimes make money supporting open source software. But it's damned near impossible to make money by developing an open source product and selling/supporting it." And you replied by telling us all about a company that doesn't develop open source software.
How about addressing that debate point instead of telling me how I hurt your feelings by calling you names?
Nice troll, however if your looking for Open Source business models look no further than Doc Searls December article in Linux Journal "Free Business".
You then go on to describe a business that does not develop any open source software and that has a web site that looks like it was put together by a retarded child in a remedial computer class.
Try reading what I wrote:
"You can make money selling hardware that incorporates open source software/firmware. You can sometimes make money supporting open source software. But it's damned near impossible to make money by developing an open source product and selling/supporting it."
I asked for examples of successful companies that make money by developing and selling open source software. So what do you do? You provide information about a company that is "a personal service business, delivering and installing the systems themselves, including the modem phone connection that lets the company dial into a machine, do diagnostics and fix problems."
If they develop open source software, where is the source? I don't see it on their web page. I don't see it on mirrors. I don't see any links to it. Just where is the source to this supposed open source software that they develop?
And you have the nerve to criticize my post and call it a troll. Amazing...
This is not nearly the broad indictment of OSS business models you seem to have taken from it. It's simply stating that a word processor in specific doesn't fit the mold very well.
.00003% exceptions to that rule. That won't fund a business.
If something has low R&D costs, then it fails as an open source business model. Try forming a company based on developing and selling open source software which does things like convert lowercase to uppercase, send carriage returns to printers, and draw concentric colored circles on the screen. If it's extremely easy to do, it's already available for free or it couldn't command a high enough price to pay to deliver it.
Nobody has presented any evidence that it's any harder to start a successful or even major corporation based on an OSS product or service than on anything else.
You haven't presented any evidence that it's any harder to start a successful or even major corporation based on giving away Ferraris and asking for donations, so we have to accept that as a viable business model -- even after companies try it and fail. That's the OSS business mindset for you.
Want evidence? Okay here's some:
People won't pay for something that they can get for free. If they can download it at no cost or inconvenience, they aren't getting out the checkbook. I don't care about your
If it's open source, anyone can sell it. If company A is trying to recoup the development costs and company B is just covering the costs of blank media, company A is f***ed.
This is a logical fallacy known as a hasty generalization. You're arguing that because one open source project failed to sustain a business model, all open source projects will fail to do so.
I am arguing that open source is not a sustainable business model based on multiple venture capitalists and the article's author rejecting such a popular and typical open-source project. A word processor is an app which is moderate in complexity, size, etc. and it was not viable. While I would agree that the business failure of something unusual, like an open source fluid dynamics calculation program, is not an indictment of open source as a business model, I think that what I wrote was fair.
Yes, I know that the article was published on MSDN, so all of the open source zealots can start in with the conspiracy theories about Microsoft's involvement with publishing it. But the fact remains that an experienced proponent of open source no longer views it as a viable business model and has abandoned his efforts to make money developing, selling, and supporting open source software. You can make money selling hardware that incorporates open source software/firmware. You can sometimes make money supporting open source software. But it's damned near impossible to make money by developing an open source product and selling/supporting it.
Now the nuts can come out of the virtual woodwork and start screeching about the one true religion of open source, but he fact is that not one in a hundred thousand of them has successfully started a major corporation that develops and sells open source software. So if you want to claim that all of those venture capitalists, along with Eric Sink, the developer of Abiword and the founder of SourceGear, are wrong, please include your business credentials when you reply to this.
You are not a lawyer:
I'd have to opine that this is an extremely foolish thing to do, tear apart one's OnStar module simply to access its GPS unit. A PC-interfaceable GPS costs well under $100, and doing these modifications to your OnStar system may void your vehicle's warranty or reduce its resale value enormously.
Would you stop with these idiotic proclamations about how it could "void your vehicle's warranty? You can't void an entire vehicle's warranty by modifying the OnStar unit. You may void the warranty on the OnStar unit, but U.S. federal law requires that a modification be the cause of the failure before a warranty claim can be denied. That's why car dealers can't get our of repairing your failed transmission by claiming that your warranty is void because you installed an aftermarket stereo.
Read the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and learn something.
I feel a sense of relief knowing that, should a nuclear war take place, Kentucky Fried Chicken will have stored their secret recipe safely.
This is what I normally carry on business trips:
1. Pick a laptop. One or the other. Don't bring both. That gets rid of one laptop, power adapter, and one external drive.
2. Get a DVD-/+RW drive in the laptop. That gets rid of the other external drive.
3. Lose the Cat5 cables. The 10' will do fine. Who cares if it's too long? It's just temporary.
4. Lose the CAT5 crossover cable and get an RJ45 crossover adapter.
5. Get rid of the SMC wireless access point and get an 802.11b PCMCIA card for your laptop.
6. Leave the external drive bay and one of the 2.5" laptop drives at home. If you're so hosed that you've gone through two hard drives, then either get another drive overnighted or just get back on the plane and come home.
In a nutshell, you're carrying way too much stuff. Make your life a lot simpler and leave some of it at home. You don't need to be prepared for every possible emergency on the road. That's what couriers, rental places, and stores are for. Seriously, when Walmart carries CAT5 cables, you just don't need to pack your luggage with them.
I'm looking for a bag that can hold my PDA with cradle, an iPod and cradle, a cell phone with recharger, a tablet PC, a 12" sub-notebook, a 17" Toshiba notebook, a Dell Precision 650 workstation, a keyboard, a mouse, a 20" LCD monitor, a digital camera, a bigger digital camera, lenses for the bigger digital camera, an external USB CD writer, a network switch, a USB 2.0 hub, a UPS, an inkjet printer, and a laser printer. Are there any bags that would fit this?
Yea, and than you have the Hollywood model
1. EXPLOSION!
2. GUN FIGHT!
3. Advertisement
4. EXPLOSION!
5. GUN FIGHT!
Doctor Zhivago
Apollo 13
The Sixth Sense
The Shawshank Redemption
Blade Runner
Schindler's List
Young Frankenstein
A Beautiful Mind
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Moulin Rouge!
Lawrence of Arabia
2001: A Space Odyssey
This is Spinal Tap
Rain Man
MASH
Cabaret
American Graffiti
The Graduate
I suppose no one has realized that the US is the number one spam nation in the world. The country we should be blocking is the US.
Actually, that's not true. The majority of spam is sent through other countries. I've got plenty of logs to support that contention from my domain anti-spam.org. While the majority of spammers might live here in the U.S., they usually go offshore for their e-mail delivery and website hosting.