"Nowhere should open source insist that companies be non-profit."
Unfortunately it in most cases do, and thats what really stopping linux from wide adoption.
The internet has the same problem, the lack of making money has made the current situation where the net is filled with almost 100% garbage.
The people developing ipv6 has seriously misunderstood whats needed. It's not more technology, it's easy and well-working ways of beeing able to charge. First when it's possible to charge we will see real good content, not any time sooner.
They days when idiots gave money to anything that was connected to computers in one way or the other are gone. Now you actually have to earn money and history shows clearly that doing apps for linux is just a disaster.
"significant changes to adjust to the market slump. "
This is no temporary market slump. Most tech-companies aren't worth anything since they don't make enough money to make their businesses work.
The value in tech related companies will not raise until most of them handle their business in a professional manner with good (and working) business-models.
If there will ever be a positive trend has little to do with the market situation in general, it has everything to do about how those companies are managed and their businessmodels.
What this mean is if you want to be able to have a long lasting business you must: 1) Charge for your work, this is ofcause mutual exclusive with giving your work away. May sound simple but the number of people not understanding such a simple reality is just amazing. 2) Make things that people want and beeing there for the cunsumer. Again, the number of people thinking that job is the same thing as playing around is just amazing in this industry.
If you don't charge for your products you will not be able to continue business in the long run, simple as that.
"Sounds like you're advocating security through obscurity,"
No, but I think it can help under some circumstances like in this one. I shouldn't be easy to do terrorist attacks.
"something which (1) doesn't work in the world of software"
This isn't software. Publishing information about how to hack DNS servers before fixing the problem turned out to be a bad idea.
"and (2) doesn't work in the world at large."
You think the world would even exist today if nuclear researches published detailed information and guides on the net about how to make nuclear bombs?
There are only one reason terrorists haven't detonated an atomic bomb and that is that they don't know how to do it.
"How about fixing the problems in our world that lead to such devastating consequences in the first place, instead of taking extreme measures after the fact?"
I'm all for fixing as many problems as possible but just waiting for large scale chemical attack while doing it is not a very good thing to do.
Some problems can't even be fixed. There are a number of terrorists out there that wants to destroy everyone that doesn't have the same religion for no particular reason at all. How do you fix that? You can't.
Yes, but thats ONE possible attack. It can only be stopped by making sure people can't take over the planes.
I for one, wouldn't like if terrorists easily could get detailed information about water pipes (for example) so they can spread bacteria as effective as possible.
"Yeah right, like it would be difficult to find out in what direction you have to fly from the airport to the WTC...... "
Thats right, you can't stop that with restricting maps. Tight airport security is the only way to solve that.
However, detailed maps over water supplies for example would be great for terrorists. They can, ofcause, find out anyway but it takes time. How much do ordinary people use information like that? Not very much I would suspect.
Do you lean towards RMS that socialism is the goal with open source or do you lean towards Linus that market economy is a good thing and Linux has nothing to do with politics?
Security through obscurity can be a good thing. If it takes much time and work to do the research before an attack the chance of spotting them increases.
But on the other hand, beeing targeted by terrorists are not very fun either. I don't think it's an excause by the government.
I think it's a matter of evaluation of who has the most use of this material. How many people except terrorists have use for those documents and how high is that value. Is it high enough to make it worth a possible use of it by terrorists?
"migrate away from the costly commercial alternatives to Linux. "
You guys still haven't got it, have you? The OS license cost is not an issue. What do you think a server os for a few thousand or so is for a enterprise setup when you spend $50000 on oracle and about as much on experts setting it up?
I simple don't understand why there so much nagging about license costs when those are just not an issue.
Will it ever be able to stop DDOS attacks? You can ofcause write software that checks for packages that have some common pattern but then this software is going to take resources and what happens on a distributed site like amazon with huge load?
They are only open sourced when the engines are out of date. ID should never release their sourcecode for a soon-to-be-released game. I would not agree that only the gamedata is valuable, the engines are quite valuable.
Do you have any example of anyone saying that? It took a while before windows games made it but thats because it had some technical issues in the beginning. Also, there was lots of games "in the pipeline" that was made for DOS and normally only during the planning phase is things like platform altered. However, everybody knew windows was going to take over, it was just a matter of time.
Linux is a different thing. Linux is dominated by people who refuses to pay for software. It even have quite a number of people who tells people it's unethical to charge for software.
It just makes no sense to support Linux under those circumstances.
I agree with you that OpenGL has a very nice API and I personally prefers it over DirectX. However, it don't keep up with DirectX when it comes to features.
I didn't say OpenGL has problems (for the record I love the OpenGL API design) I just said it evolves to slowly compared to DirectX. There are games that supports OpenGL but most uses DirectX instead.
I can agree there is a point in porting to Mac or PS/PS2 or other consoles but no way porting to Linux is a good idea. Even if you manages to compile it on Linux actually release a Linux-version makes no sense, you don't get paid.
Hehe, well, try to fins a open source programmer who can grasp even the simplest economic fact;)
The vast majority still shouts about service&support. I want to see someone managing to make $400 000 a month on service and support.:-)
RMS, the computer scenes own Mullah Omar.
on
Torvalds Tells All
·
· Score: 1
"Linus Torvalds: I don't mind what rms calls the system. I don't think his arguments for the naming are very valid, but hey, at the same time I really couldn't care less. "
I really don't understand what rms problem are, why do he just have to be so fanatic? Did something bad happen to him when he was a child?
Slashdot Mirror
"People would probably pay in advance to developers they trusted, but to escrow agents. "
:)
Yeah, right
"Nowhere should open source insist that companies be non-profit."
Unfortunately it in most cases do, and thats what really stopping linux from wide adoption.
The internet has the same problem, the lack of making money has made the current situation where the net is filled with almost 100% garbage.
The people developing ipv6 has seriously misunderstood whats needed. It's not more technology, it's easy and well-working ways of beeing able to charge. First when it's possible to charge we will see real good content, not any time sooner.
"How about a nice suite of apps for the home."
And how would that be financed?
They days when idiots gave money to anything that was connected to computers in one way or the other are gone. Now you actually have to earn money and history shows clearly that doing apps for linux is just a disaster.
"significant changes to adjust to the market slump. "
This is no temporary market slump. Most tech-companies aren't worth anything since they don't make enough money to make their businesses work.
The value in tech related companies will not raise until most of them handle their business in a professional manner with good (and working) business-models.
If there will ever be a positive trend has little to do with the market situation in general, it has everything to do about how those companies are managed and their businessmodels.
What this mean is if you want to be able to have a long lasting business you must: 1) Charge for your work, this is ofcause mutual exclusive with giving your work away. May sound simple but the number of people not understanding such a simple reality is just amazing. 2) Make things that people want and beeing there for the cunsumer. Again, the number of people thinking that job is the same thing as playing around is just amazing in this industry.
If you don't charge for your products you will not be able to continue business in the long run, simple as that.
"Sounds like you're advocating security through obscurity,"
No, but I think it can help under some circumstances like in this one. I shouldn't be easy to do terrorist attacks.
"something which (1) doesn't work in the world of software"
This isn't software. Publishing information about how to hack DNS servers before fixing the problem turned out to be a bad idea.
"and (2) doesn't work in the world at large."
You think the world would even exist today if nuclear researches published detailed information and guides on the net about how to make nuclear bombs?
There are only one reason terrorists haven't detonated an atomic bomb and that is that they don't know how to do it.
"How about fixing the problems in our world that lead to such devastating consequences in the first place, instead of taking extreme measures after the fact?"
I'm all for fixing as many problems as possible but just waiting for large scale chemical attack while doing it is not a very good thing to do.
Some problems can't even be fixed. There are a number of terrorists out there that wants to destroy everyone that doesn't have the same religion for no particular reason at all. How do you fix that? You can't.
The world is not black and white.
Yes, but thats ONE possible attack. It can only be stopped by making sure people can't take over the planes.
I for one, wouldn't like if terrorists easily could get detailed information about water pipes (for example) so they can spread bacteria as effective as possible.
"Yeah right, like it would be difficult to find out in what direction you have to fly from the airport to the WTC...... "
Thats right, you can't stop that with restricting maps. Tight airport security is the only way to solve that.
However, detailed maps over water supplies for example would be great for terrorists. They can, ofcause, find out anyway but it takes time. How much do ordinary people use information like that? Not very much I would suspect.
Do you lean towards RMS that socialism is the goal with open source or do you lean towards Linus that market economy is a good thing and Linux has nothing to do with politics?
"I'm going to mention 1984 here. How much closer do we have to get? "
:)
Do you _really_ think we are that close?
"If the damned terrorists want to know all about our nation's infrastructure, the information is readily available in A LOT OF PLACES"
Yes, but if it's going to take lots of time and resources to find out they can be discovered.
"Security through obscurity"
Security through obscurity can be a good thing. If it takes much time and work to do the research before an attack the chance of spotting them increases.
But on the other hand, beeing targeted by terrorists are not very fun either. I don't think it's an excause by the government.
I think it's a matter of evaluation of who has the most use of this material. How many people except terrorists have use for those documents and how high is that value. Is it high enough to make it worth a possible use of it by terrorists?
"migrate away from the costly commercial alternatives to Linux. "
You guys still haven't got it, have you? The OS license cost is not an issue. What do you think a server os for a few thousand or so is for a enterprise setup when you spend $50000 on oracle and about as much on experts setting it up?
I simple don't understand why there so much nagging about license costs when those are just not an issue.
Will it ever be able to stop DDOS attacks? You can ofcause write software that checks for packages that have some common pattern but then this software is going to take resources and what happens on a distributed site like amazon with huge load?
Hehe, funny.
But don't forget the dot com people, they are in the same boat as OSS developers these days.
They are only open sourced when the engines are out of date. ID should never release their sourcecode for a soon-to-be-released game. I would not agree that only the gamedata is valuable, the engines are quite valuable.
HeheHe, You seem to have misunderstood something.
It is a move away from linux and a move away from open source.
Open source as a businessmodel is failing.
"Why develop for Windows when everyone has DOS?".
Do you have any example of anyone saying that? It took a while before windows games made it but thats because it had some technical issues in the beginning. Also, there was lots of games "in the pipeline" that was made for DOS and normally only during the planning phase is things like platform altered. However, everybody knew windows was going to take over, it was just a matter of time.
Linux is a different thing. Linux is dominated by people who refuses to pay for software. It even have quite a number of people who tells people it's unethical to charge for software.
It just makes no sense to support Linux under those circumstances.
I agree with you that OpenGL has a very nice API and I personally prefers it over DirectX. However, it don't keep up with DirectX when it comes to features.
I didn't say OpenGL has problems (for the record I love the OpenGL API design) I just said it evolves to slowly compared to DirectX. There are games that supports OpenGL but most uses DirectX instead.
I can agree there is a point in porting to Mac or PS/PS2 or other consoles but no way porting to Linux is a good idea. Even if you manages to compile it on Linux actually release a Linux-version makes no sense, you don't get paid.
Don't know about the install base but the major difference is that mac users are more likely to buy software.
I'll tell you the reasons.
1: SDL and OpenGL doesn't keep up with DirectX. OpenGL is really nice (IMHO) but it's falling behind since it's evolution unfortunately is quite slow.
2: Is there really any point in porting? Noone buys software on Linux so it really doesn't make much sense at the moment to invest money in it.
But what exactly is the point in porting?
Will anyone buy it? The story so far is that it's madness to invest in Linux development altogether since people just refuses to pay.
After all, do all the will-not-pay-for-software open source geeks really support (like in paying for) the porting-costs anyway?
"yes, it prints, spellchecks and has online help"
.docs, crashes and instability.
Yes, but it doesn't work. Formatting errors, major failures showing/printing imported
Hehe, well, try to fins a open source programmer who can grasp even the simplest economic fact ;)
:-)
The vast majority still shouts about service&support. I want to see someone managing to make $400 000 a month on service and support.
"Linus Torvalds: I don't mind what rms calls the system. I don't think his arguments for the naming are very valid, but hey, at the same time I really couldn't care less. "
I really don't understand what rms problem are, why do he just have to be so fanatic? Did something bad happen to him when he was a child?