Using donated computers in the schools is a good-spirited idea, but it turns out it's not usually the most cost-effective way to get computing to the kids. My friends who have worked on the Yorktown High School LTSP project say that the cost of maintaining old PC's ends up being much greater than just getting thin clients for LTSP. (Those thin clients are really where LTSP saves money: Windoze requires overweight clients.) They say that by getting a set of homogenous thin clients they can maintain the hardware with a minimum of effort. The thin clients run longer because they have fewer parts, and they cost less to replace if they do break down. Finally, the expertise to maintain them is easier to obtain: once you know the quirks of one of the thin clients, you know them all.
I've had a problem with getting sleep during the day for years. It has nothing to with how interested in my projects I am or how much sleep I get: I would always get sleepy right at 10 am and about 2pm. Lately I've taken to walking to work each morning (about five miles) and it's made a huge difference. It took me a week to realize that most of my sleepiness problems had disappeared. Now, a month later, there's no mistaking the difference: if I walk to work I feel alert. If I don't, I get sleepy. I usually hate exercise but I enjoy the walk.
You remind me of when I first used a computer with a hard drive. Before hard drives saving even a small file to floppy took a noticeable amount of time, and without realizing it I had incorporated that delay into my routine. Whenever I would stop to think for a moment I had the habit of hitting ctrl-s to save the file while I thought. When I got a hard drive the instantaneous save really messed up my rhythm: it was disconcerting to me that my "think time" was suddenly gone. I felt hurried.
Now I do my thinking during the downtime that I'm on Slashdot.
Did anybody explain why it was so important? I mean, besides "'cause we'll fire your ass if you don't do what we say". Was it because Stan-Lee hated being called Stanlee?
One thing about the movie I'm already pleased about: they got the mask thing right. The problem with putting a mask on an actor is that masks usually impair vision and cause the actor to turn his/her head in funny ways to see what's going on. Ultra-man used to do this. The Spider-Man in the 1970's TV series did it. Batman does it sometimes. In every trailer I've seen for the movie Spider-Man holds his head like he can see just fine. These details do make a difference.
My guess is that most of the time that we see Spider-Man it's not really footage of an actor, it's just CGI. I guess it's easier to hold your head upright if you're just a piece of software.
Getting your billboard on TV and in the movies is known as being an "incidental beneficiary". It means that you benefit from something even though the [something] wasn't designed or intended to benefit you. Of course, entire business models are built being an incidental beneficiary (just count the restaraunts and gas stations near interstate exits), but it doesn't give you a right to the benefit (just ask the restaraunts in Christiansburg, VA where the interstate exits were redesigned). Incidental benefits are an old source of political and legal battle, so I wouldn't be surpised if there's a lot of political fallout from this, but I still think they'll lose the court case.
Since everyone has paid for it's funding there is no reason at all why there should be restrictions AGAIN ME WHO HAS PAID FOR IT!!!
First of all, everyone didn't pay for it. American taxpayers paid for it. Are you saying that only Americans should have use of the software? Doesn't sound like such a good idea.
Second, why shouldn't I, as one of those taxpayers, expect the government gets the maximum return on investment of my tax dollars? Consider, instead, physical property. Every year Unce Sam has tons of excess stuff: desks, uniforms, shovels, etc. Now by your logic, the gov should just give it away because whoever gets it "paid for it". Never mind that those of us who don't get the stuff also paid for it. However, if they sell it then all of us taxpayers get some return because the government has a little extra money. The people who buy it still usually get a great deal.
Now, this argument could lead to the idea that the gov should charge for the use of its software, but that ends up at the same point a private company ends up with for software: do you really want to get into the software licensing business? Usually the answer is no: it's very hard to make a profit in that business. OTOH, if you release it GPL you probably will get back better software than if you tried to hold on to it.
The point here is that the interests of all the taxpayers needs to be addressed, not just the very few taxpayers who actually can use the software.
Remember taxpayers are individuals AND corporations.
Well, taxpayers are individuals and corporations who pay out money and expect that money to be used efficiently. Giving the software away BSD-style means that the government is giving it away to a few people/corps without a guaruntee of getting anything back. The rest of us (who don't give a hoot about engineering software) don't get back anything of value. OTOH, by releasing it GPL the government improves the odds of getting back better software with which to continue doing whatever they were doing with it to begin with, and also getting a cost-saving by having the world do free software improvement.
Put simply, GPL provides value to the vast majority of taxpayers who don't want the software itself, while still giving a great deal to the minority who do want the software.
If a company wants to include the software in their own custom tool, then they have to release their custom tool under the GPL.
Wrong! A thousand times wrong! Where do people get this ridiculous idea? GPL simply means that if you make changes to the software itself you don't own those changes. It's simply an implementation of copyright of derivative works. You can't go out and publish a sequel to "Gone With the Wind" without permission because the copyright owners have the rights to derivative works. In the same way authors of, say, Linux, also own the rights to derivative works. The only difference is that they voluntarily license out those rights with the one reasonable caveat that if you can create derivative works, and can publish the derivatives, you just don't own them. In short, GPL operates under the same intellectual property laws as a a closed source system, but volunteers to exercise those rights in a more open manner. Saying that GPL "infects" your property would be like saying that if your bookstore sells "Gone With the Wind" then your bookstore is automatically owned by the people who own GWTW.
Here's a counter proposal: all operating systems should be distributed with the latest viruses. The viruses should be activated when the OS is started. If the OS and the other software on board can't fight off the viruses then they aren't good enough and the programmers get a bad mark in the eyes of the consumers.
I'm only half serious about this, of course, but the idea is better than Gordon's. Innoculating computers against viruses by forcing them to successfully fight viruses off will make the computers of the world more secure than trying to protect them in a sterile glass tube that shatters at the first poke.
GPL is an excellent choice for releasing taxpayer funded software. By releasing the software as GPL you ensure the maximum value for the taxpayer. The software will continue to improve and benefit everybody, including the people who paid for its original development. If it were released under some other license the taxpayer would be less likely to get back improved versions of the software. Don't get me wrong, I'm OK with the BSD license, but GPL is so much better.
I certainly didn't mean to take credit away from the hard work of the Irish people. Indeed, my point is that mutually beneficial investment is far better than charity.
So your point is that cultural imperialism is a good thing?
Well, my Irish ancestors and extended kin have definitely had a profound effect had on the USA, but I'm not sure you could call the Irish migration to the USA "imperialism". Native Americans might have a different viewpoint on that.
... oh, I'm sorry which direction were you talking about? It couldn't have been imperialistic going from the USA to Ireland, given that the net migration until the 90's was Ireland to USA. Ireland's economy sucked until then and American companies were invited over. Now the Irish have their own high tech companies and the best economy in Europe. Obviously you couldn't have been calling that imperialism.
But I challenge you to find an instance where that aid is given in a truly altruistic manner
So what if aid isn't given in an altruistic manner? Altruism only goes so far. Investment goes a lot further. Take a trip to Ireland sometime and find out why the former poorest country in Europe is now Europe's boomtown: American investment. Irish people worked for American companies (and still do) and reaped the benefits.
I can see the day when there's a Windows XP emulator. Future hackers will be fascinated at the way the module reaches into their bank accounts and drains out money.
Instead of being accusatory, how about being constructive? If you feel some important machines have been left out, join in and help. Accusations are great for revving up emotions, but if you really want an international perspective then accusations and slurs are hardly the way to go.
A married couple I know met when they were in the card stack line for the university mainframe. How do you suppose the the historical society could emulate that?
No offense to anyone, but is this the type of attitude we're supposed to have in the opensource community?
In short, yes. Contrary to popular misconception, OSS is not all about selfless give-aways. Yes, it is some of that, but it ultimately prospers because of self-interest. Many people, both for and against open source, seem to assume that open source can only survive if it is based on the closed-source model: a company produces software and makes money selling it. This assumption is used as evidence that OSS can't survive in the market place. The reality is more complex and more interesting: it is more efficient and profitable for software consumers, from single users to big corporations, to band together to produce software than it is to lock themselves into a single vendor.
I'm sorry about Mandrake's troubles, but that's how Capitalism works: if a company don't serve a need that the market is willing to pay for, then the company doesn't survive. In the long run this makes for a more prosperous society than any amount propping up can hope to achieve. No law of nature promised Mandrake that producing yet another distro (as good as it may be) was a solid business model.
If PC prices do rise, the timing may be fortuitous for open source. Although Linux still does not seem to be gaining ground on the corporate desktop, it is at least gaining mindshare: it's no longer a wild idea to suggest that a business should entirely migrate to Linux. If businesses do perceive that new hardware is more expensive, they may realize that Linux is like a low-cost hardware upgrade.
Slashdot Mirror
Using donated computers in the schools is a good-spirited idea, but it turns out it's not usually the most cost-effective way to get computing to the kids. My friends who have worked on the Yorktown High School LTSP project say that the cost of maintaining old PC's ends up being much greater than just getting thin clients for LTSP. (Those thin clients are really where LTSP saves money: Windoze requires overweight clients.) They say that by getting a set of homogenous thin clients they can maintain the hardware with a minimum of effort. The thin clients run longer because they have fewer parts, and they cost less to replace if they do break down. Finally, the expertise to maintain them is easier to obtain: once you know the quirks of one of the thin clients, you know them all.
I've had a problem with getting sleep during the day for years. It has nothing to with how interested in my projects I am or how much sleep I get: I would always get sleepy right at 10 am and about 2pm. Lately I've taken to walking to work each morning (about five miles) and it's made a huge difference. It took me a week to realize that most of my sleepiness problems had disappeared. Now, a month later, there's no mistaking the difference: if I walk to work I feel alert. If I don't, I get sleepy. I usually hate exercise but I enjoy the walk.
... City of Largo, FL obtains more Linux licenses than it needs!!!! Mistake costs them.... um, nothing.
Now I do my thinking during the downtime that I'm on Slashdot.
Did anybody explain why it was so important? I mean, besides "'cause we'll fire your ass if you don't do what we say". Was it because Stan-Lee hated being called Stanlee?
My guess is that most of the time that we see Spider-Man it's not really footage of an actor, it's just CGI. I guess it's easier to hold your head upright if you're just a piece of software.
Getting your billboard on TV and in the movies is known as being an "incidental beneficiary". It means that you benefit from something even though the [something] wasn't designed or intended to benefit you. Of course, entire business models are built being an incidental beneficiary (just count the restaraunts and gas stations near interstate exits), but it doesn't give you a right to the benefit (just ask the restaraunts in Christiansburg, VA where the interstate exits were redesigned). Incidental benefits are an old source of political and legal battle, so I wouldn't be surpised if there's a lot of political fallout from this, but I still think they'll lose the court case.
I just registered heroinware.com. Hmm, what should I do with it?
...you beat me to it. :-)
First of all, everyone didn't pay for it. American taxpayers paid for it. Are you saying that only Americans should have use of the software? Doesn't sound like such a good idea.
Second, why shouldn't I, as one of those taxpayers, expect the government gets the maximum return on investment of my tax dollars? Consider, instead, physical property. Every year Unce Sam has tons of excess stuff: desks, uniforms, shovels, etc. Now by your logic, the gov should just give it away because whoever gets it "paid for it". Never mind that those of us who don't get the stuff also paid for it. However, if they sell it then all of us taxpayers get some return because the government has a little extra money. The people who buy it still usually get a great deal.
Now, this argument could lead to the idea that the gov should charge for the use of its software, but that ends up at the same point a private company ends up with for software: do you really want to get into the software licensing business? Usually the answer is no: it's very hard to make a profit in that business. OTOH, if you release it GPL you probably will get back better software than if you tried to hold on to it.
The point here is that the interests of all the taxpayers needs to be addressed, not just the very few taxpayers who actually can use the software.
Well, taxpayers are individuals and corporations who pay out money and expect that money to be used efficiently. Giving the software away BSD-style means that the government is giving it away to a few people/corps without a guaruntee of getting anything back. The rest of us (who don't give a hoot about engineering software) don't get back anything of value. OTOH, by releasing it GPL the government improves the odds of getting back better software with which to continue doing whatever they were doing with it to begin with, and also getting a cost-saving by having the world do free software improvement.
Put simply, GPL provides value to the vast majority of taxpayers who don't want the software itself, while still giving a great deal to the minority who do want the software.
Wrong! A thousand times wrong! Where do people get this ridiculous idea? GPL simply means that if you make changes to the software itself you don't own those changes. It's simply an implementation of copyright of derivative works. You can't go out and publish a sequel to "Gone With the Wind" without permission because the copyright owners have the rights to derivative works. In the same way authors of, say, Linux, also own the rights to derivative works. The only difference is that they voluntarily license out those rights with the one reasonable caveat that if you can create derivative works, and can publish the derivatives, you just don't own them. In short, GPL operates under the same intellectual property laws as a a closed source system, but volunteers to exercise those rights in a more open manner. Saying that GPL "infects" your property would be like saying that if your bookstore sells "Gone With the Wind" then your bookstore is automatically owned by the people who own GWTW.
I'm only half serious about this, of course, but the idea is better than Gordon's. Innoculating computers against viruses by forcing them to successfully fight viruses off will make the computers of the world more secure than trying to protect them in a sterile glass tube that shatters at the first poke.
GPL is an excellent choice for releasing taxpayer funded software. By releasing the software as GPL you ensure the maximum value for the taxpayer. The software will continue to improve and benefit everybody, including the people who paid for its original development. If it were released under some other license the taxpayer would be less likely to get back improved versions of the software. Don't get me wrong, I'm OK with the BSD license, but GPL is so much better.
I certainly didn't mean to take credit away from the hard work of the Irish people. Indeed, my point is that mutually beneficial investment is far better than charity.
Well, my Irish ancestors and extended kin have definitely had a profound effect had on the USA, but I'm not sure you could call the Irish migration to the USA "imperialism". Native Americans might have a different viewpoint on that.
So what if aid isn't given in an altruistic manner? Altruism only goes so far. Investment goes a lot further. Take a trip to Ireland sometime and find out why the former poorest country in Europe is now Europe's boomtown: American investment. Irish people worked for American companies (and still do) and reaped the benefits.
I can see the day when there's a Windows XP emulator. Future hackers will be fascinated at the way the module reaches into their bank accounts and drains out money.
They might also want to mention the ENIAC-on-a-Chip project.
Instead of being accusatory, how about being constructive? If you feel some important machines have been left out, join in and help. Accusations are great for revving up emotions, but if you really want an international perspective then accusations and slurs are hardly the way to go.
A married couple I know met when they were in the card stack line for the university mainframe. How do you suppose the the historical society could emulate that?
You want an index of real element references to comic books? That might be hard to come by.
An incredibly heavy element that suddenly forms around web servers and weighs them down. Fortunately, it tends to evaporate after 48 hours.
In short, yes. Contrary to popular misconception, OSS is not all about selfless give-aways. Yes, it is some of that, but it ultimately prospers because of self-interest. Many people, both for and against open source, seem to assume that open source can only survive if it is based on the closed-source model: a company produces software and makes money selling it. This assumption is used as evidence that OSS can't survive in the market place. The reality is more complex and more interesting: it is more efficient and profitable for software consumers, from single users to big corporations, to band together to produce software than it is to lock themselves into a single vendor.
I'm sorry about Mandrake's troubles, but that's how Capitalism works: if a company don't serve a need that the market is willing to pay for, then the company doesn't survive. In the long run this makes for a more prosperous society than any amount propping up can hope to achieve. No law of nature promised Mandrake that producing yet another distro (as good as it may be) was a solid business model.
If PC prices do rise, the timing may be fortuitous for open source. Although Linux still does not seem to be gaining ground on the corporate desktop, it is at least gaining mindshare: it's no longer a wild idea to suggest that a business should entirely migrate to Linux. If businesses do perceive that new hardware is more expensive, they may realize that Linux is like a low-cost hardware upgrade.