I've only seen three real reasons to abandon using an open source solution, and not one of them is a universal flaw in open source as a model, movement or distribution strategy:
* Lower support requirements / cost of ownership - Ultimately some proprietary software deliver lower costs and make processes more efficient by lowering costs and disruptions in operations. In a lot of cases, disruptions or maintenance costs are can be so much more costly than the cost of migrating that buying new software is dwarfed by the loss caused by the existing package. * Features - It's the Photoshop vs. Gimp thing. Package A does whet B doesn't. * Compatibility with other systems - Sometimes, integration is critical, and no open solution exists to connect to a proprietary software package.
This whole argument is kind of silly - the same issues listed above are the same for moving from one proprietary package to another. Really, open source (remember, open source != free software) is simply a check box (and an important one) in a feature matrix, and the decision really is one software package versus another.
In the last two generations of consoles, the big winners are the ones that offer a single feature:
Backwards Compatibility.
PS1->PS2 = WIN (against DC which was a superb system) GameCube -> Wii = Win (against VASTLY superior hardware)
In the case of the Wii, the hardware was actually substandard when compared to PS3 and XBox Live. The innovative control setup made a difference, but a lot of us parents eneded up buying Wiis because we could get away with buying 2-3 Wii games and the kids could still use all the old Gamecube games. I would venture a guess that close to 85-90% of Gamecube owners bought a Wii, just like PS1 owners upgraded to the PS2. The allure of $10 games (old PS1 games and old Gamecube games) is huge for families that are buying a game system.
However, I think that the real trouble in the US is that they don't have a consistent electoral system. They have 51 individual systems for each state (or is it more based upon county?).
Elections are ran by counties, but ballots vary by precinct. It's pretty amazing that the whole system works, and really, rigging an election at any level above a single county level would be very difficult, just because of the social engineering requirements.
Kevin - Let's at least be fair here. Getting a hold of the ballot box (the card from a voting machine is the same thing) has been the way votes have been (link goes to famous picture of Lyndon Johnson with Precinct 13 ballot box) rigged for years.
I don't care how you vote, what matters is that the process delivers a paper, human readable ballot in addition to the electronic count. This allows for a recount, and provides some assurance that the voter's vote was correct (at least on paper).
There are 16 Android powered handsets that remain to be launched in the next 60 days. This includes models from Motorola, LG, and Samsung. The author of the article simply had no freaking clue what he was talking about, and as a result, he's missed:
* the G1 has 3% market share. Ummmmm..... that's a lot of handsets. * The primary limit isn't the "crappy hardware" - it's the crappy network (yes, T-Mobile, your network is crappy until Indianapolis has 3G). Actually it's very good hardware, and the only rub against it is onboard storage and battery life. $25 8GB micro SDs fix the storage issue nicely and you can actually *replace* the battery, a novel idea in 1932 that Apple should have noticed by now. Oh, the primary limit might be the #3 network in the US being the only channel to get an Android in the US? *Oh, there's also the little fact that THE CUSTOMER FOR HANDSETS IS NOT THE USER OF THE HANDSET IN THE US. The customer is THE CARRIER WHO RESELLS THE HANDSET. Openness is *not* in their financial interest, so class 3 Android (open w/Google Apps) is not in their interest. Fortunately, they see T Mobile retaining customers with the G1, and want some of that.
Here's reality:
* Android to date has been a success. * The application base is built for future success. * 16 new devices are going to hit the market by the end of the year from some of the biggest names in mobile. * Android will be available on most carriers. The only question mark seems to be ATT, but they are rumored to have a Motorola handset out soon. * Android is going to turn the smartphone into the PC market of early 90s when Wintel at Apple's lunch. There are few people (and zero would be correct) that can argue that a PC clone was better than a Mac at the time, but Windows did allow hardware manufacturers to lower costs to offset Apple's considerable advantage in technology. Oh, and Android is *a lot* more formidable competitor than Windows 3.x was.
Actually, the reason preemptive multitasking and memory protection were not implemented on old 8 bit and early 16 bit and 32 bit hardware was more basic than speed. Early CPUs simply didn't have the parts required to make preemptive multitasking work. Protected memory was not possible with most early processors. 80286 and 60030 were the first in their series with this capability. To be fair, Motorola sold an external MMU chip that gave protected memory to the earlier 68K chips. Virtual Memory support didn't exist until 80286 and 68012 processors.
The outcome was that you could create an OS with preemptive multitasking, but without memory protection, a miscalculated pointer could affect code or data for another process (or the OS kernel). Without Virtual Memory, it was up to the programs and OS self-manage memory. I believe that the Amiga's OS was implemented this way: preemptive, but without true virtual memory and no protection which lead to some challenges for programmers. Early Xenix was that way, too.
I got to work on 3B2 and Xenix systems, and those systems were pretty fast back then. A single CPU could handle 16-32 users all doing the usual PC stuff (word processing, accounting, billing, spreadsheets). A 286 system running in protected mode was very FAST compared to running in Real Mode (8086 compatible).
Interestingly, until things went graphical, Microsoft's strategy was to sell Xenix as DOS's bigger more capable brother. It's too bad that licenses of Unix were $1,200 per machine as the world would look different if Unix was selling for $100 per CPU back in the mid 80s.
Problem: The other guy still believes it. Other Problem: They have money. Other Other Problem: They are a University. Final Problem: You can't prove it is not true. They cannot prove ID is true. Both positions assume facts not in evidence.
Actually, the best "Fluent UI" I've ever used is Corel's context sensitive toolbars and dockers which showed up in Draw and PerfectOffice back in the late 90s. In the case of Draw, they made it's dizzying number of options and tools more managable. If you clicked on the select tool, the toolbar changed to be relevant. If you clicked on a polygon tool, the toolbar changed to fit. A few years later, everyone had a variation of it, but few did as good of a job using the toolbar to avoid pop-up windows, floating toolboxes and get disabled options off of the screen. The system was very customizable, keyboard accessible and had the benefit of being designed when 800x600 was super high resolution, so the GUI made room for the document - which is the chief complaint I hear about the ribbon - wide screens have little vertical space and lots of horizontal space. I guess the ribbon may work better on an old style tall screen.
They found out the violation and promptly fixed it. In fixing this, they took the fist step in finding out that giving customers freedom is not the killer of business models.
Jellomizer, I don't think that Ubisoft's piracy complaint is directed at causal piracy for the DS. I have a very hard time believing that kids ages 6-14 are busy cranking out duplicates of DS cartridges. Also, we've not had a new console recently to drive sales and many game publishers simply thirve and starve based on when the next big thing comes out.
As such, a virus scanner running in the OS is perfectly capable of dealing with them. Antivirus works after code has been sent to the computer or while it's sent using a limited set of known methods. For many exploits, code runs before antivirus gets a crack at stopping it. That's why Symantec's David Hall said "If you are relying solely on antivirus... you are not getting the protection you need.". The issue is that antivirus gives a user a very false sense of security because it works good enough most of the time.
A virus scanner in the OS can stop that. It can scan the program coming in, before it has a chance to run, and block it. Not so much. Sure, if it's a file download that the virus scanner knows about (that's an issue right there). Not at all if it's a browser, OS or network stack exploit. And that is how many modern threats are moving - and increasingly so - and it's probably because antivirus works good enough to require a little more unconventional attack.
Regardless, I've got to agree that for non security experts, virus scanners are something you should have. For security experts, I'm not sure they provide all that much value.
From the article: Morgan Stanley points out that Robson's assessment of the media landscape doesn't have the statistical rigour of its regular reports.
This isn't about the PC market. It's about the emerging post-PC market. Google is creating a new application distribution market as well as expanding their mobile advertising business. The Chrome OS appears to be very similar to Android. If so, then comparisons to traditional PC operating systems and traditional marketing will really not apply. This is about enabling the cell phone contract model to netbooks.
Slashdot Mirror
I've only seen three real reasons to abandon using an open source solution, and not one of them is a universal flaw in open source as a model, movement or distribution strategy:
* Lower support requirements / cost of ownership - Ultimately some proprietary software deliver lower costs and make processes more efficient by lowering costs and disruptions in operations. In a lot of cases, disruptions or maintenance costs are can be so much more costly than the cost of migrating that buying new software is dwarfed by the loss caused by the existing package.
* Features - It's the Photoshop vs. Gimp thing. Package A does whet B doesn't.
* Compatibility with other systems - Sometimes, integration is critical, and no open solution exists to connect to a proprietary software package.
This whole argument is kind of silly - the same issues listed above are the same for moving from one proprietary package to another. Really, open source (remember, open source != free software) is simply a check box (and an important one) in a feature matrix, and the decision really is one software package versus another.
In the last two generations of consoles, the big winners are the ones that offer a single feature:
Backwards Compatibility.
PS1->PS2 = WIN (against DC which was a superb system)
GameCube -> Wii = Win (against VASTLY superior hardware)
In the case of the Wii, the hardware was actually substandard when compared to PS3 and XBox Live. The innovative control setup made a difference, but a lot of us parents eneded up buying Wiis because we could get away with buying 2-3 Wii games and the kids could still use all the old Gamecube games. I would venture a guess that close to 85-90% of Gamecube owners bought a Wii, just like PS1 owners upgraded to the PS2. The allure of $10 games (old PS1 games and old Gamecube games) is huge for families that are buying a game system.
Apple isn't after the average /.er.
Right. I'll look into that right after Amarok gets done updating my collection on my iPod.
-- Some /.er
However, I think that the real trouble in the US is that they don't have a consistent electoral system. They have 51 individual systems for each state (or is it more based upon county?).
Elections are ran by counties, but ballots vary by precinct. It's pretty amazing that the whole system works, and really, rigging an election at any level above a single county level would be very difficult, just because of the social engineering requirements.
Kevin - Let's at least be fair here. Getting a hold of the ballot box (the card from a voting machine is the same thing) has been the way votes have been (link goes to famous picture of Lyndon Johnson with Precinct 13 ballot box) rigged for years.
I don't care how you vote, what matters is that the process delivers a paper, human readable ballot in addition to the electronic count. This allows for a recount, and provides some assurance that the voter's vote was correct (at least on paper).
The issue here is not company structures and ownership, it's how e-voting works that is the issue.
That sentence was the biggest gaffe in American politics since one Dan Quayle's "potatoe" incident.
BTW: the sentence in question means "I took the initiative in creating the internet."
And it's still funny now. The sad thing is it was simply a mistake in selecting words.
Semantic Web is the Duke Nukem Forever of informatics.
I seem to recall Apple running really cute commercials with some guy acting like he's a Mac and a schmuck acting like he's a PC.
Seems Apple *does indeed* compete with Microsoft. PCs generally don't run without and operating system.
There are 16 Android powered handsets that remain to be launched in the next 60 days. This includes models from Motorola, LG, and Samsung. The author of the article simply had no freaking clue what he was talking about, and as a result, he's missed:
* the G1 has 3% market share. Ummmmm..... that's a lot of handsets.
* The primary limit isn't the "crappy hardware" - it's the crappy network (yes, T-Mobile, your network is crappy until Indianapolis has 3G). Actually it's very good hardware, and the only rub against it is onboard storage and battery life. $25 8GB micro SDs fix the storage issue nicely and you can actually *replace* the battery, a novel idea in 1932 that Apple should have noticed by now. Oh, the primary limit might be the #3 network in the US being the only channel to get an Android in the US?
*Oh, there's also the little fact that THE CUSTOMER FOR HANDSETS IS NOT THE USER OF THE HANDSET IN THE US. The customer is THE CARRIER WHO RESELLS THE HANDSET. Openness is *not* in their financial interest, so class 3 Android (open w/Google Apps) is not in their interest. Fortunately, they see T Mobile retaining customers with the G1, and want some of that.
Here's reality:
* Android to date has been a success.
* The application base is built for future success.
* 16 new devices are going to hit the market by the end of the year from some of the biggest names in mobile.
* Android will be available on most carriers. The only question mark seems to be ATT, but they are rumored to have a Motorola handset out soon.
* Android is going to turn the smartphone into the PC market of early 90s when Wintel at Apple's lunch. There are few people (and zero would be correct) that can argue that a PC clone was better than a Mac at the time, but Windows did allow hardware manufacturers to lower costs to offset Apple's considerable advantage in technology. Oh, and Android is *a lot* more formidable competitor than Windows 3.x was.
Actually, the reason preemptive multitasking and memory protection were not implemented on old 8 bit and early 16 bit and 32 bit hardware was more basic than speed. Early CPUs simply didn't have the parts required to make preemptive multitasking work. Protected memory was not possible with most early processors. 80286 and 60030 were the first in their series with this capability. To be fair, Motorola sold an external MMU chip that gave protected memory to the earlier 68K chips. Virtual Memory support didn't exist until 80286 and 68012 processors.
The outcome was that you could create an OS with preemptive multitasking, but without memory protection, a miscalculated pointer could affect code or data for another process (or the OS kernel). Without Virtual Memory, it was up to the programs and OS self-manage memory. I believe that the Amiga's OS was implemented this way: preemptive, but without true virtual memory and no protection which lead to some challenges for programmers. Early Xenix was that way, too.
I got to work on 3B2 and Xenix systems, and those systems were pretty fast back then. A single CPU could handle 16-32 users all doing the usual PC stuff (word processing, accounting, billing, spreadsheets). A 286 system running in protected mode was very FAST compared to running in Real Mode (8086 compatible).
Interestingly, until things went graphical, Microsoft's strategy was to sell Xenix as DOS's bigger more capable brother. It's too bad that licenses of Unix were $1,200 per machine as the world would look different if Unix was selling for $100 per CPU back in the mid 80s.
The class is engaging in astroturfing. Never confuse astroturf for trolling. One will skin your knee, the other will eat your pet goat.
it is still childish superstition.
Problem: The other guy still believes it.
Other Problem: They have money.
Other Other Problem: They are a University.
Final Problem: You can't prove it is not true. They cannot prove ID is true. Both positions assume facts not in evidence.
Solution: Don't feed the troll.
Actually, the best "Fluent UI" I've ever used is Corel's context sensitive toolbars and dockers which showed up in Draw and PerfectOffice back in the late 90s. In the case of Draw, they made it's dizzying number of options and tools more managable. If you clicked on the select tool, the toolbar changed to be relevant. If you clicked on a polygon tool, the toolbar changed to fit. A few years later, everyone had a variation of it, but few did as good of a job using the toolbar to avoid pop-up windows, floating toolboxes and get disabled options off of the screen. The system was very customizable, keyboard accessible and had the benefit of being designed when 800x600 was super high resolution, so the GUI made room for the document - which is the chief complaint I hear about the ribbon - wide screens have little vertical space and lots of horizontal space. I guess the ribbon may work better on an old style tall screen.
Is it April 1st already?
How many years late was Microsoft _____ (too titles to name) again?
Six months isn't what you want, but I never thought I'd live to see MS release GPL code.
They found out the violation and promptly fixed it.
In fixing this, they took the fist step in finding out that giving customers freedom is not the killer of business models.
Jellomizer, I don't think that Ubisoft's piracy complaint is directed at causal piracy for the DS. I have a very hard time believing that kids ages 6-14 are busy cranking out duplicates of DS cartridges. Also, we've not had a new console recently to drive sales and many game publishers simply thirve and starve based on when the next big thing comes out.
Sorry, what a load of crap.
Thank you for telling it like it is.
Yes. Some even require Flash, too. Why? There are large numbers of executives that are smarter than you at banks.
As such, a virus scanner running in the OS is perfectly capable of dealing with them. ... you are not getting the protection you need.". The issue is that antivirus gives a user a very false sense of security because it works good enough most of the time.
Antivirus works after code has been sent to the computer or while it's sent using a limited set of known methods. For many exploits, code runs before antivirus gets a crack at stopping it. That's why Symantec's David Hall said "If you are relying solely on antivirus
A virus scanner in the OS can stop that. It can scan the program coming in, before it has a chance to run, and block it.
Not so much. Sure, if it's a file download that the virus scanner knows about (that's an issue right there). Not at all if it's a browser, OS or network stack exploit. And that is how many modern threats are moving - and increasingly so - and it's probably because antivirus works good enough to require a little more unconventional attack.
Regardless, I've got to agree that for non security experts, virus scanners are something you should have. For security experts, I'm not sure they provide all that much value.
From the article: Morgan Stanley points out that Robson's assessment of the media landscape doesn't have the statistical rigour of its regular reports.
and wants his Mac tablet. He said to pick it up after the Forever release party, and just before Microsoft releases BobLive.
Google owns a drop in GUI called SKIA. It's what is used on both Android and the Chrome browser.
This isn't about the PC market. It's about the emerging post-PC market. Google is creating a new application distribution market as well as expanding their mobile advertising business. The Chrome OS appears to be very similar to Android. If so, then comparisons to traditional PC operating systems and traditional marketing will really not apply. This is about enabling the cell phone contract model to netbooks.