However, is this success likely to be duplicated? Would that many people line up to buy the special edition of his next album?
I think the answer to this is easily *yes*. There are (were) only 2500 copies of the $2500 special edition. Pretty much any popular band will have at least 2500 fans that are willing to drop $300 on a special edition set. I think this would be easily repeatable over and over again, not only with Nine Inch Nails, but any other successful band.
No, things HAVE changed. Developers have to make money somehow, and 30 years ago they made money from the sale of their software. Today, there is no end to the software you can get for free, with the developer making money on the support of that software.
All your idiotic paraphrasing did was make you sound like an advocate for software theft. If you don't like someone's software, you should go write your own, you shouldn't steal it. If you don't like how much Photoshop costs, you shouldn't steal it, you should use the GIMP. You make it sound like stealing a commercial software package and then using it to write open software is just fine.
You just come accross as another Gates-hater that hates big, bad Microsoft because it's cool to do.
At least he does mention that in his article (which I'm sure you read completely).
"Most importantly, you can actually try the software. In many cases, you don't even need to install the software to get a demo. The site www.opensourcecms.com has demo versions of over 70 open-source LAMP based CMS including Drupal, Mambo, and Joomla, as described here."
Well, the Army Regulation that started the whole naming convention doesn't apply to services outside the U.S. Army, so all U.S. Army UH-60s are officially named "Black Hawk". Any other name is an unofficial name. For example, I have never heard the UH-60Q called a "Dustoff Hawk", but I'm sure someone calls it that unofficially. I've always called them MEDEVACs, even though that is technically no longer correct, either. Officially, hoever, it's still just a Black Hawk.
That article is just another example of how you can spin anything to prove your point. I will not go into specifics unless asked, but in my opinion, based on several years of AH-64 maintenance experience, that slate.com article is crap.
I was an Apache mechanic for 6 years, and spent 183 days in Saudi Arabia and Iraq in 1990-1991. During that time, our Apaches were able to maintain a 96% fully mission capable rediness rate. The only problems that we had with sand were the same problems experienced by every other helicopter, regardless of model. That being erosion damage to the rotor blades and faster wear on the engines, but not so much so that any of them ever suffered any unexpected downtime.
I believe there are actually six flying prototypes that are close to being completely functional. The Comanche test beds have actually been flying for several years now. One of the biggest problem with the program is that new technology was coming out faster than it could be retrofitted to the airframe.
The primary mission of the RAH-66 Comanche was to be armed reconnaisaince. It was meant to replace the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior and act as a light scout either on its own or ion conjunction with the Apache Longbow.
Well, technically there are two U.S. Army helicopters that aren't named after Indian tribes. The Black Hawk is named after an Indian chief. Good trivia.;)
This is the second time I've seen this response to the 'BlackHawk Down' statement. The movie actually didn't show *enough* RPG's. It has been estimated that the Somali's fired between 150 and 200 RPG's at American troops in just that one battle.
And on the subject of movies as a reference, BlackHawk Down is actually rather accurate in many respects, especially with regards to the timeline and the helicopter incidents.
The SCUD hit the barracks and killed 28 people, not the Patriot. Also, the Patriot missile never slammed into the ground, it blew up in the air. The article is blaming the loss of life directly on the Patriot, when as previously noted, it is highly doubtful that the Patriot would have destroyed the SCUD even if it had perfect software.
It looks like a lot of you aren't even reading the article before replying to this thread. These embedded devices are not sitting on a network, waiting to be cracked by some kiddie. Also, I don't see how anyone can assert that this sets some kind of precedence where GPL'd software might be used "unethically." These devices are small, portable things that are going to be used to help keep track of maintenance records for vehicles. The Army already has things like this, and they run Windows. Aircraft mechanics in the Army have been using tablet-style computers for years that contain electronic versions of manuals.
Let's face it, the military is "going digital." Should they be using products developed and sold commercially? Or should they be using Open Source software where the code is freely distributable to anyone? There are clear arguments for both, but I would feel more comfortable if the military embraces Open Source instead of conintuing to use proprietary software.
The first paragraph of the CNN story didn't really seem to jive with my current perception of the Department of Defense, so I checked out the story at the DoD website. The story, at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2000/b12062000_ bt729-00.html, doesn't make any mention of the reason cited at CNN. I wonder who in the Department of Defense said that? At any rate, I think it would be rather naive to think that the DoD would spend all that money soley for the purpose of preventing "widespread anxiety." I do not doubt that was one of their reasons, but the reasons cited in the DoD news release seem much more valid to me. In my opinion, CNN got a big list of reasons, but tossed all of them out except the one which would probably get the most reaction from the masses. I mean, of course the military could use this kind of technology, but that's not newsworthy! But if CNN can report something interesting that will get them more public reaction, then they would certainly do that. Objective news just isn't interesting to most people anymore, or so it seems.
Having recently been on the receiving end of some bad press in a local newspaper, I feel like I can understand this issue a little better than I used to in the past.
Previously, articles like this had a tendency to really make me mad, primarily because I felt like the people doing the reporting didn't get their facts straight, made poor judgments, or just flat out lied in such a way that damaged the reputation of an my beloved Linux. Something very similar happened recently when the company I work for received some bad press in a local newspaper. The article contained misinformation and outright lies, and was apparently printed in order to put out some kind of sensational story to sell more newspapers. I was worried that this article could really damage us as a company. We have been receiving a rather large amount of mail from "concerned citizens" who are outraged and felt like sending us some hate mail would somehow make us change our evil ways.
What I now realize is that stories like this are written to draw attention and, ultimately, increase revenues for the organization that prints the articles. Sure, a lot of people will read this article, and some of those people may actually believe what they read without doing any more digging. But I can almost gaurantee that no individual or organization of any importance is going to base any of their decisions on this article. The only people who are really going to be swayed by an article like this are the same people that believe everything else that popular media tells them, without checking up on the facts for themselves. The people that will allow their minds to be made up about Linux by an article like this are the same people that read a single article about a company in a local newspaper and decide that that company is evil incarnate.
Ironically, I would wager that the majority of revenue generated by this article will be generated by Linux advocates themselves, as ABCnews uses the ol' Slashdot effect to their advantage and to increase profits. Sounds to me like those guys are pretty smart.
Although I hate to see what could be another case of a university backing down from a potential lawsuit, I can hardly say I blame them. The school is, to quote from one of the messages from Alan Gay, the "deep pocket" and would certainly suffer from any legal action taken against it. I don't think that the administration should be under any imperative to check up on allegations before they act. In fact, I think they've done the right thing by pulling the page immediately. That may not make most people happy, but it would certainly keep them out of legal hot water. Once the page is down, *then* they can go back and do more research and see what is really going on. (Not that this has happened in this case, but it sounds like a good idea.)
This particular incident also bring up a question: In regards to the computer resources of an institution such as this, what rights, if any, do students have? What data does a student "own" and what data does the university "own"?
This is a commercial solution, but it supports Apache on Linux or FreeBSD with MySQL or Oracle 8 databases. It also does Windows NT/MS SQL/IIS if that's your thing. It is also highly customizable, but all of this comes at a price. They have recently released their source code to us, since we are apparently a large customer of theirs. Overall, I think it's one of the best commercial solutions for what you are looking to do.
I wish there was a plugin for RealMedia files in XMMS, but if it exists, I haven't been able to find it.
I like XMMS just as much as the next guy, but in my opinion, the RealPlayer software is one of those "must have" apps for my Linux box. It may not be the best product in the world, and I know a lot of privacy zealots hate it, but let's face it, RealPlayer is still on top in the streaming media business. According to a recent blurb in Wired, RealPlayer has an estimated 90,000,000 users with over 33,000 downloads per week, well ahead of it's nearest competitor, Windows Media Player, with 40,000,000 users and just over 15,000 downloads per week.
This is another example of an application that may have been a stumbling block in moving from Windows to Linux for some people. Now don't get me wrong, I know that you can already get RealPlayer for Linux, but in my experience, it hasn't worked out too well. I am sure that it works great as-is for some people. My point is that RedHat could make a lot more inroads into the Windows empire by not only having a stable, efficient RealPlayer for Linux, but also by bundling it into the distribution so that the average user doesn't have to fight to get it working.
As far as I am concerned, this is nothing but more good news. Sure, there is going to be a negative side to it, but I think that overall this is the sort of news that the Linux community in general should be pretty happy to hear, and something that Real Networks should be advertising pretty blatantly.
I used to work for a huge telecommunications company as internal network support. It was my job to support the Netware network for about 1200 users that made up one of our call centers. While it is true that I spent lots of overtime setting everything up and getting all of the kinks worked out, once everything was running smoothly it was a cake job. My two biggest priorities in life were occasionally restoring files deleted by a user and changing passwords for people. I would say that my average work week, including the very rare emergencies that cropped up, was only about 15 to 20 hours, and that's being generous.
So maybe most of us (like I do now) work terribly long hours and find that we hardly have time to think. We find ourselves wishing that we had more time to read Slashdot from work instead of waiting till we get home. But don't forget that there are a lot of big companies out there with a lot of cushy jobs filled with people that do about 30 minutes of real work per day, and spend the rest of the day trying to keep from falling asleep. I know, I used to be one of them. And maybe, just maybe, it's *those* people that bring down the average to 32.9 hours per week.
In my opinion, flames that can be defined as "a communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy or indecent with intent to annoy, abuse, threat or harass" *should* be outlawed. Who says that you have to be obscene, etc., when flaming someone? I have never seen one instance in my entire internet experience where flaming someone in an obscene manner with intent to annoy has resulted in the flamee replying with "Oh, you're right, I'm sorry." It just spirals into a mud-slinging fest and the original topic gets tossed to the side. Although I seriously doubt this ruling will have any effect on what goes on in the newsgroups, perhaps it's a step in the right direction...
Slashdot Mirror
You and me both, man.
However, is this success likely to be duplicated? Would that many people line up to buy the special edition of his next album?
I think the answer to this is easily *yes*. There are (were) only 2500 copies of the $2500 special edition. Pretty much any popular band will have at least 2500 fans that are willing to drop $300 on a special edition set. I think this would be easily repeatable over and over again, not only with Nine Inch Nails, but any other successful band.
No, things HAVE changed. Developers have to make money somehow, and 30 years ago they made money from the sale of their software. Today, there is no end to the software you can get for free, with the developer making money on the support of that software.
All your idiotic paraphrasing did was make you sound like an advocate for software theft. If you don't like someone's software, you should go write your own, you shouldn't steal it. If you don't like how much Photoshop costs, you shouldn't steal it, you should use the GIMP. You make it sound like stealing a commercial software package and then using it to write open software is just fine.
You just come accross as another Gates-hater that hates big, bad Microsoft because it's cool to do.
Well, the Army Regulation that started the whole naming convention doesn't apply to services outside the U.S. Army, so all U.S. Army UH-60s are officially named "Black Hawk". Any other name is an unofficial name. For example, I have never heard the UH-60Q called a "Dustoff Hawk", but I'm sure someone calls it that unofficially. I've always called them MEDEVACs, even though that is technically no longer correct, either. Officially, hoever, it's still just a Black Hawk.
That article is just another example of how you can spin anything to prove your point. I will not go into specifics unless asked, but in my opinion, based on several years of AH-64 maintenance experience, that slate.com article is crap.
I was an Apache mechanic for 6 years, and spent 183 days in Saudi Arabia and Iraq in 1990-1991. During that time, our Apaches were able to maintain a 96% fully mission capable rediness rate. The only problems that we had with sand were the same problems experienced by every other helicopter, regardless of model. That being erosion damage to the rotor blades and faster wear on the engines, but not so much so that any of them ever suffered any unexpected downtime.
I believe there are actually six flying prototypes that are close to being completely functional. The Comanche test beds have actually been flying for several years now. One of the biggest problem with the program is that new technology was coming out faster than it could be retrofitted to the airframe.
The primary mission of the RAH-66 Comanche was to be armed reconnaisaince. It was meant to replace the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior and act as a light scout either on its own or ion conjunction with the Apache Longbow.
Well, technically there are two U.S. Army helicopters that aren't named after Indian tribes. The Black Hawk is named after an Indian chief. Good trivia. ;)
This is the second time I've seen this response to the 'BlackHawk Down' statement. The movie actually didn't show *enough* RPG's. It has been estimated that the Somali's fired between 150 and 200 RPG's at American troops in just that one battle.
And on the subject of movies as a reference, BlackHawk Down is actually rather accurate in many respects, especially with regards to the timeline and the helicopter incidents.
The SCUD hit the barracks and killed 28 people, not the Patriot. Also, the Patriot missile never slammed into the ground, it blew up in the air. The article is blaming the loss of life directly on the Patriot, when as previously noted, it is highly doubtful that the Patriot would have destroyed the SCUD even if it had perfect software.
Quicktime 5.54Mb
RealMedia 3.69Mb
It looks like a lot of you aren't even reading the article before replying to this thread. These embedded devices are not sitting on a network, waiting to be cracked by some kiddie. Also, I don't see how anyone can assert that this sets some kind of precedence where GPL'd software might be used "unethically." These devices are small, portable things that are going to be used to help keep track of maintenance records for vehicles. The Army already has things like this, and they run Windows. Aircraft mechanics in the Army have been using tablet-style computers for years that contain electronic versions of manuals. Let's face it, the military is "going digital." Should they be using products developed and sold commercially? Or should they be using Open Source software where the code is freely distributable to anyone? There are clear arguments for both, but I would feel more comfortable if the military embraces Open Source instead of conintuing to use proprietary software.
The first paragraph of the CNN story didn't really seem to jive with my current perception of the Department of Defense, so I checked out the story at the DoD website. The story, at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2000/b12062000_ bt729-00.html, doesn't make any mention of the reason cited at CNN. I wonder who in the Department of Defense said that? At any rate, I think it would be rather naive to think that the DoD would spend all that money soley for the purpose of preventing "widespread anxiety." I do not doubt that was one of their reasons, but the reasons cited in the DoD news release seem much more valid to me. In my opinion, CNN got a big list of reasons, but tossed all of them out except the one which would probably get the most reaction from the masses. I mean, of course the military could use this kind of technology, but that's not newsworthy! But if CNN can report something interesting that will get them more public reaction, then they would certainly do that. Objective news just isn't interesting to most people anymore, or so it seems.
Previously, articles like this had a tendency to really make me mad, primarily because I felt like the people doing the reporting didn't get their facts straight, made poor judgments, or just flat out lied in such a way that damaged the reputation of an my beloved Linux. Something very similar happened recently when the company I work for received some bad press in a local newspaper. The article contained misinformation and outright lies, and was apparently printed in order to put out some kind of sensational story to sell more newspapers. I was worried that this article could really damage us as a company. We have been receiving a rather large amount of mail from "concerned citizens" who are outraged and felt like sending us some hate mail would somehow make us change our evil ways.
What I now realize is that stories like this are written to draw attention and, ultimately, increase revenues for the organization that prints the articles. Sure, a lot of people will read this article, and some of those people may actually believe what they read without doing any more digging. But I can almost gaurantee that no individual or organization of any importance is going to base any of their decisions on this article. The only people who are really going to be swayed by an article like this are the same people that believe everything else that popular media tells them, without checking up on the facts for themselves. The people that will allow their minds to be made up about Linux by an article like this are the same people that read a single article about a company in a local newspaper and decide that that company is evil incarnate.
Ironically, I would wager that the majority of revenue generated by this article will be generated by Linux advocates themselves, as ABCnews uses the ol' Slashdot effect to their advantage and to increase profits. Sounds to me like those guys are pretty smart.
This particular incident also bring up a question: In regards to the computer resources of an institution such as this, what rights, if any, do students have? What data does a student "own" and what data does the university "own"?
This is a commercial solution, but it supports Apache on Linux or FreeBSD with MySQL or Oracle 8 databases. It also does Windows NT/MS SQL/IIS if that's your thing. It is also highly customizable, but all of this comes at a price. They have recently released their source code to us, since we are apparently a large customer of theirs. Overall, I think it's one of the best commercial solutions for what you are looking to do.
I wish there was a plugin for RealMedia files in XMMS, but if it exists, I haven't been able to find it.
I like XMMS just as much as the next guy, but in my opinion, the RealPlayer software is one of those "must have" apps for my Linux box. It may not be the best product in the world, and I know a lot of privacy zealots hate it, but let's face it, RealPlayer is still on top in the streaming media business. According to a recent blurb in Wired, RealPlayer has an estimated 90,000,000 users with over 33,000 downloads per week, well ahead of it's nearest competitor, Windows Media Player, with 40,000,000 users and just over 15,000 downloads per week.
This is another example of an application that may have been a stumbling block in moving from Windows to Linux for some people. Now don't get me wrong, I know that you can already get RealPlayer for Linux, but in my experience, it hasn't worked out too well. I am sure that it works great as-is for some people. My point is that RedHat could make a lot more inroads into the Windows empire by not only having a stable, efficient RealPlayer for Linux, but also by bundling it into the distribution so that the average user doesn't have to fight to get it working.
As far as I am concerned, this is nothing but more good news. Sure, there is going to be a negative side to it, but I think that overall this is the sort of news that the Linux community in general should be pretty happy to hear, and something that Real Networks should be advertising pretty blatantly.
Darrell Swoap
I used to work for a huge telecommunications company as internal network support. It was my job to support the Netware network for about 1200 users that made up one of our call centers. While it is true that I spent lots of overtime setting everything up and getting all of the kinks worked out, once everything was running smoothly it was a cake job. My two biggest priorities in life were occasionally restoring files deleted by a user and changing passwords for people. I would say that my average work week, including the very rare emergencies that cropped up, was only about 15 to 20 hours, and that's being generous.
So maybe most of us (like I do now) work terribly long hours and find that we hardly have time to think. We find ourselves wishing that we had more time to read Slashdot from work instead of waiting till we get home. But don't forget that there are a lot of big companies out there with a lot of cushy jobs filled with people that do about 30 minutes of real work per day, and spend the rest of the day trying to keep from falling asleep. I know, I used to be one of them. And maybe, just maybe, it's *those* people that bring down the average to 32.9 hours per week.
Just something to think about...
Darrell Swoap
In my opinion, flames that can be defined as "a communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy or indecent with intent to annoy, abuse, threat or harass" *should* be outlawed. Who says that you have to be obscene, etc., when flaming someone? I have never seen one instance in my entire internet experience where flaming someone in an obscene manner with intent to annoy has resulted in the flamee replying with "Oh, you're right, I'm sorry." It just spirals into a mud-slinging fest and the original topic gets tossed to the side. Although I seriously doubt this ruling will have any effect on what goes on in the newsgroups, perhaps it's a step in the right direction...
Just my $0.12
Darrell