The system in America works best when the local control authority has the most responsibility and power. I.e.: the parents needed to excercise restraint. If the parents of the two teens in question had been more involved perhaps less tragedy would have occurred. If the parents couldn't handle it perhaps they should have sought more help.
Limiting the freedom of everyone to view what they desire on TV/in the press/in books/on the net (they all are the same vehicle -- some better tuned for bandwidth than others) is a slippery slope. If you hope to limit the ability for everyone to see everything then you are describing a country without freedom.
Good taste should dictate in an open market that their are "limits" to what will be viewed (works for TV/Radio/Print because their is a cost in publishing works). Thus for the traditional media it can be argued that the public will set their own limits. Obviously the taste of John Q. Public varies with the times (when I was a youngster the Dukes of Hazards was hot... people claimed that it would lead to the moral downfall of the planet... but shortly after that shows moved more main-stream in dressing their characters/exposure - i.e.: the pendelum swung back).
The net is a bit bigger of an issue here (there are tasteless sights galore... and little or no cost to publish). Regardless the local authority (i.e.: parents of minors) have the RESPONSIBILITY to make sure their dependants are viewing appropriate material and thus should be held responsible.
If you consistently choose to allow your children to watch sex and violence then you should be held responsible as your child will be (they do not get an automatic excuse).
I'm sick of all the whiners claiming that we should shut down the media because it is corrupting their children. It's time to take responsibility and place it where it belongs. Codeswallop has a remote control and can restrict access to any media Codeswallop needs to for Codeswallops dependants. Codeswallop has no right to attempt to restrict the media for everyone else.
Actually can you say "business"? If you don't like it attempt to negotiate a better deal. If that doesn't work make the choice -- is the software worth the real price you have to pay for it?
Your choice. No one is twisting your arm to use the product. Don't like it? Write a competing product. That's the way business works. Welcome to the real world.
Whenever we deal with a program that is custom (i.e.: not general release like Office/Windows/etc.) a standard requirement -- whether the software is rented, leased or bought is that the vendor is required to keep a copy of the source with a escrow authority (a bank usually). In that event even if the vendor disappeared we can and will have the ability to pull the source.
Nope, not open source (we are not in that part of the software business, nor do we want or need to be) but escrowed source. What many open source zealots don't think of is the staff costs to keep knowledgable programmers who can write good code around is $$$$ high $$$$ -- I don't mean hacks I mean decent long term maintenance programmers -- it's not sexy but it's a neccessity. What we pay in license and maintenance fees is offset by that cross company experience that our vendor has and gains. We negotiate price with them and if they don't have the experience and the product they don't get the contract. In this sort of instance open source would give us more control but at a greater price -- a price we don't want or need to pay.
Our business is NOT developing that software but performing our prime function.
..much like open source is a "pure" system that on paper is The Way To Go (TWTG) but fails to take into account the actual dynamics and basic greed of people.
Any system based on the innate good of a human is doomed to disappointment.
My degree is in History/Poly Sci. What's yours?
Coddle the developer. They give more references, discount more software and aid to small medium and large developers than any other single software supplier.
They do understand at some level that in order to guarantee success they need the developers to have access to them and make it relatively easy.
Does it really matter if the communications protocol is open sourced? I don't think could defend that in court if a company allows the open source part to be open -- not their code to produce the open protocol, but the protocol itself -- and then does not document their proprietary extensions.
This is not a "what if"... this is a fact of life. You cannot prevent anyone from building on your foundation.
The analogy that comes to mind is we have open sourced concrete so all buildings built with concrete must have all roofing material open sourced as well. One does not affect the other.
MS/IBM/etc. will just put up roofs, different style walls, etc. and the open sourcing of concrete (SOAP) if it had occurred would not be an impediment.
Open source has a place but proprietary is here for many, many years to come. If truth be told propietary has a better life expectancy than open source (more interested parties having their interest continually fed over the long haul). Open source has an up hill battle over the long haul for all but the most public applications.
It's work to produce programs and hard work to maintain them.
Umm... so the Internet was so great that a single company could sway the access methods?
Are you saying that the standards groups don't work? That any company with enough marketing muscle and resources can usurp the standards?
You are implying that open products will (the Internet being the "original" open product) will work right up until a company usurps them. When a company decides to extend the standard with closed implementations (totally legal) then the open model falls apart. If so, open is doomed.
The business of business has always been to "extend" -- to add value and thereby have the world beat a path to your door. The better mouse trap idea is always based on the world beating a path to your door. It is the recognition model -- recognition at the bottom line is profit.
Been nice working with Open Source while it lasted.
Um... Win9x is dead -- see XP (built on w2k/built on NT which uses a "virtualized" windows/dos session... and allows you to spawn more than one of them if you so desire).
Anyone who states that their favorite OS is "crash-proof" deserves the rude awakening that is heading their way. No OS is crash proof. Sorry, they don't exist. The better OS's are hardened and have exception handling. Most any OS will die if the hardware dies (barring xlnt [$$$$] exception handling abilities in a big shop environment -- doesn't count here -- we are talking about PC based systems).
Which they still don't have. If you choose Intel compatible you have choosen Microsoft.
Get over it weenies -- Microsoft is still the king of the Intel platform and still owns 90% of the populace and probably 89% of the technical population and 98% of the non-technical. Linux ends up with a small percentage and the Mac wins the #2 spot with users at large.
Joe consumer still has NO options for OS's -- no options for an OS that will run that new game, that will interoperate with his PC in the office in the way he can deal with, no option that is easily supportable in any corner of the country. Joe is stuck with Microsoft. Not because Microsoft strong armed the industry but because Apple overpriced themselves (if you want a company to hate, they are easier than Microsoft). Because Linux is still usable only by techno-geeks who don't mind wasting hours to get app x to run on it (don't tell me you can compile any app you want -- my grandmother has no clue how to compile an app and she is the market we are talking about -- 98% of computer users). The instlal of Linux has come a long way. The application support is not clean enough by a long shot. The upgrade process (recompile my kernal?) is arcane.
The only solution is for Microsoft to live or die on the basis of the quality and cost benefit of their product.
I would also tend to argue that if MS were to go down on the law suits no US software company would be safe in the near future. Our law system is based on precedence. RedHat, Oracle, and dozens of others would quickly die a swift and painful death -- not only due to the threat of law suits but also due to the complete and total dry up of the money they need to live on.
Who wants to own a piece of a software company that can be sued and "killed" based on the end users allegation that the product was inferior?
The only group that will profit from this development is lawyers.
Sneakers was an incredible movie -- great cast and good execution. Accurate? On some technical details yes, on the whole conspiracy.... only if your a Scientologist
By the way, if you are, I have some excellant investment opportunities in atomic turf... expensive to get into but the payback is incredible.
... Which on my Windows2000 laptop hosts Mandrake.... On my colleagues he runs RedHat and Hosts NT.
VMWare -- the safest way to experience an alternative OS without disturbing the base machine.
I know you can buy pre-configured servers with Linux. Workstations are available but a little harder to get. The major desktop players are NOT pushing Linux on the desktop in the US market -- they may have announced product (in rare cases) but don't seem to be peddling it hard.
My issue with Penguin or VALinux or any of the other Linux shops is just this: If I'm going to pay first tier prices ala Compaq or HP I want a Compaq or HP where the chance that the vendor will be in business tommorrow is relatively good. VALinux has some great looking hardware but why wouldn't I buy Compaq at a similar price where I know the infrastructure is in my neighborhood to support it? VA does NOT compete with custom boxes (i.e.: build my own's) on price. It is aimed more at the corporate structure but the issue remains -- why buy from a second or third tier vendor at first tier vendor pricing?
Chang... perhaps the question is why can't you sell this? Sounds like a good value-added service that could be done cheaply. Even if RH didn't what prevents you from doing it?
With a working knowledge of the Microsoft licenese agreements behind most applications built using Microsoft tools and foundation classes do you view Windows emulation as a viable means of extending the reach of RedHat?
Or is it a lawsuit waiting for a big player to support it to make it happen?
I.E.: would supporting WINE be the death of RedHat?
Re:Free- and Non-Free Software getting along?
on
Ask Robert Young
·
· Score: 1
Or should we rephrase that to say: Should Free and Open source software be expected to "play nice" with software from industry leaders that your customers already have installed and implemented?
What -- Penguin is offering PC's pre-loaded from major manufactures? Funny, none of my local computer stores carry them. Walk into CompUSA and you see Windows everywhere (except for the solid little 200 sq feet of Mac in a 20,000 sq foot store).
Linux does have a presence in the software isles -- spend 50 to 100 US and you can walk out with the latest box of your favorite distribution as long as it's RedHat (ok, ok, they have a few other options on the shelf as well).
To be more accurate you should probably say that "Linux with Apache rules non-secure web sites with up to x hits". A quick perusal of the numbers indicates that Apache rules a large portion of non-secure (i.e.: not https) but Linux is only a portion of that. A good cut of the data to support your proposal that Linux rules the web space would be needed. Give some numbers pretzel boy.
Note also that you did not mention the other 90% of servers out there -- mail, file, print, application, etc. Got any good numbers for those applications? Application is probably still ruled by traditional Unix with MS Windows eating into it and Linux also on a growth path. File/print is still Novell with MS Windows eating into it and Linux making an incremental effort. Mail/etc. is somewhere in the Unix/MS (Exchange)/Notes mix (each product having different strengths).
Unless you have some numbers to show that Linux "rules" the server space be very careful. It is definately a player and growing by a large percentage and some day it may catch up to MS Windows (across all server's) but that doesn't mean it rules -- since MS Windows is not neccessarily the ruler today (big shop = Unix or MVS).
Also remember that growing by a huge percentage may mean less than we think -- i.e.: going to 1 million servers from 100,000 is a 1,000% (if my math is right) increase but going to 2 million is from 1 million is only 100%. The percentages tend to level off and fast.
But the public in America is unforgiving of companies who's business model is keep the customer happy in the long run.
Example: HMO's -- the original idea was to encourage preventitive care by making it free or cheap and thus reduce the bigger medical expenses down the road. The traditional insurance companies disliked HMO's. The public ended up with a very bad impression of HMO's -- because they attempted to modify the general public's behavior. After that and with the very bad example of HMO's that went "other ways" (denial of care, etc. -- not worse than most traditional insurance companies just much more well publicized) HMO's have a very bad name indeed in the public's eye.
Perhaps the point is to please the customer totally (full service, extremely low price, no questions asked). If anyone can do that in the healthcare or software industry long-term then it will indeed be a miracle -- or more precisely an industry shift. HMO's forced an industry shift in the health care industry. Traditional insurance didn't. HMO's got a black eye in the process.
Where am I going with this? Linux IS forcing an industry shift. How do we prevent it from gaining the HMO black eye?
History has said that if you build a killer app it will draw the customers even if the cost is higher
If the end users needs are met by that app and not on another platform/application then their is no competition and the vendor can charge a premium for their content. This may not mean they own the entire market but they do own their segement.
Example 1: Apple owns desktop publishing. LINUX is NOT a competitor in this field at ALL.
Example 2: Lotus 1-2-3 was released (at a premium) and drove people to buy expensive hardware. They did it cheerfully and accomplished their tasks
Example 3: Microsoft owns ~90% of the desktops today. No other OS has anything near the application base, usability and return on investment that Windows has. This is not an argument -- it is a fact of the current computing field.
Linux is a niche player especially on the desktop. It has a better server story. It is not a threat to example 1 or 3 today.
Slashdot Mirror
.. to it. A paperless office does not exist. Paper is still the lowest common denominator.
Why would I buy this instead of Crystals Web product which is "good enough" and easy to implement.
Limiting the freedom of everyone to view what they desire on TV/in the press/in books/on the net (they all are the same vehicle -- some better tuned for bandwidth than others) is a slippery slope. If you hope to limit the ability for everyone to see everything then you are describing a country without freedom.
Good taste should dictate in an open market that their are "limits" to what will be viewed (works for TV/Radio/Print because their is a cost in publishing works). Thus for the traditional media it can be argued that the public will set their own limits. Obviously the taste of John Q. Public varies with the times (when I was a youngster the Dukes of Hazards was hot... people claimed that it would lead to the moral downfall of the planet... but shortly after that shows moved more main-stream in dressing their characters/exposure - i.e.: the pendelum swung back).
The net is a bit bigger of an issue here (there are tasteless sights galore... and little or no cost to publish). Regardless the local authority (i.e.: parents of minors) have the RESPONSIBILITY to make sure their dependants are viewing appropriate material and thus should be held responsible.
If you consistently choose to allow your children to watch sex and violence then you should be held responsible as your child will be (they do not get an automatic excuse).
I'm sick of all the whiners claiming that we should shut down the media because it is corrupting their children. It's time to take responsibility and place it where it belongs. Codeswallop has a remote control and can restrict access to any media Codeswallop needs to for Codeswallops dependants. Codeswallop has no right to attempt to restrict the media for everyone else.
End of rant.
Your choice. No one is twisting your arm to use the product. Don't like it? Write a competing product. That's the way business works. Welcome to the real world.
Nope, not open source (we are not in that part of the software business, nor do we want or need to be) but escrowed source. What many open source zealots don't think of is the staff costs to keep knowledgable programmers who can write good code around is $$$$ high $$$$ -- I don't mean hacks I mean decent long term maintenance programmers -- it's not sexy but it's a neccessity. What we pay in license and maintenance fees is offset by that cross company experience that our vendor has and gains. We negotiate price with them and if they don't have the experience and the product they don't get the contract. In this sort of instance open source would give us more control but at a greater price -- a price we don't want or need to pay.
Our business is NOT developing that software but performing our prime function.
Any system based on the innate good of a human is doomed to disappointment. My degree is in History/Poly Sci. What's yours?
They do understand at some level that in order to guarantee success they need the developers to have access to them and make it relatively easy.
This is not a "what if"... this is a fact of life. You cannot prevent anyone from building on your foundation.
The analogy that comes to mind is we have open sourced concrete so all buildings built with concrete must have all roofing material open sourced as well. One does not affect the other.
MS/IBM/etc. will just put up roofs, different style walls, etc. and the open sourcing of concrete (SOAP) if it had occurred would not be an impediment.
Open source has a place but proprietary is here for many, many years to come. If truth be told propietary has a better life expectancy than open source (more interested parties having their interest continually fed over the long haul). Open source has an up hill battle over the long haul for all but the most public applications.
It's work to produce programs and hard work to maintain them.
Are you saying that the standards groups don't work? That any company with enough marketing muscle and resources can usurp the standards?
You are implying that open products will (the Internet being the "original" open product) will work right up until a company usurps them. When a company decides to extend the standard with closed implementations (totally legal) then the open model falls apart. If so, open is doomed.
The business of business has always been to "extend" -- to add value and thereby have the world beat a path to your door. The better mouse trap idea is always based on the world beating a path to your door. It is the recognition model -- recognition at the bottom line is profit.
Been nice working with Open Source while it lasted.
Except of course in that case the GNU people are the large ugly corporation stealing the single programmers IP...
Nice dream world.
Anyone who states that their favorite OS is "crash-proof" deserves the rude awakening that is heading their way. No OS is crash proof. Sorry, they don't exist. The better OS's are hardened and have exception handling. Most any OS will die if the hardware dies (barring xlnt [$$$$] exception handling abilities in a big shop environment -- doesn't count here -- we are talking about PC based systems).
Get over it weenies -- Microsoft is still the king of the Intel platform and still owns 90% of the populace and probably 89% of the technical population and 98% of the non-technical. Linux ends up with a small percentage and the Mac wins the #2 spot with users at large.
Joe consumer still has NO options for OS's -- no options for an OS that will run that new game, that will interoperate with his PC in the office in the way he can deal with, no option that is easily supportable in any corner of the country. Joe is stuck with Microsoft. Not because Microsoft strong armed the industry but because Apple overpriced themselves (if you want a company to hate, they are easier than Microsoft). Because Linux is still usable only by techno-geeks who don't mind wasting hours to get app x to run on it (don't tell me you can compile any app you want -- my grandmother has no clue how to compile an app and she is the market we are talking about -- 98% of computer users). The instlal of Linux has come a long way. The application support is not clean enough by a long shot. The upgrade process (recompile my kernal?) is arcane.
I would also tend to argue that if MS were to go down on the law suits no US software company would be safe in the near future. Our law system is based on precedence. RedHat, Oracle, and dozens of others would quickly die a swift and painful death -- not only due to the threat of law suits but also due to the complete and total dry up of the money they need to live on.
Who wants to own a piece of a software company that can be sued and "killed" based on the end users allegation that the product was inferior?
The only group that will profit from this development is lawyers.
By the way, if you are, I have some excellant investment opportunities in atomic turf... expensive to get into but the payback is incredible.
VMWare -- the safest way to experience an alternative OS without disturbing the base machine.
I know you can buy pre-configured servers with Linux. Workstations are available but a little harder to get. The major desktop players are NOT pushing Linux on the desktop in the US market -- they may have announced product (in rare cases) but don't seem to be peddling it hard.
My issue with Penguin or VALinux or any of the other Linux shops is just this: If I'm going to pay first tier prices ala Compaq or HP I want a Compaq or HP where the chance that the vendor will be in business tommorrow is relatively good. VALinux has some great looking hardware but why wouldn't I buy Compaq at a similar price where I know the infrastructure is in my neighborhood to support it? VA does NOT compete with custom boxes (i.e.: build my own's) on price. It is aimed more at the corporate structure but the issue remains -- why buy from a second or third tier vendor at first tier vendor pricing?
Chang... perhaps the question is why can't you sell this? Sounds like a good value-added service that could be done cheaply. Even if RH didn't what prevents you from doing it?
Or is it a lawsuit waiting for a big player to support it to make it happen?
I.E.: would supporting WINE be the death of RedHat?
Or should we rephrase that to say: Should Free and Open source software be expected to "play nice" with software from industry leaders that your customers already have installed and implemented?
Linux does have a presence in the software isles -- spend 50 to 100 US and you can walk out with the latest box of your favorite distribution as long as it's RedHat (ok, ok, they have a few other options on the shelf as well).
Note also that you did not mention the other 90% of servers out there -- mail, file, print, application, etc. Got any good numbers for those applications? Application is probably still ruled by traditional Unix with MS Windows eating into it and Linux also on a growth path. File/print is still Novell with MS Windows eating into it and Linux making an incremental effort. Mail/etc. is somewhere in the Unix/MS (Exchange)/Notes mix (each product having different strengths).
Unless you have some numbers to show that Linux "rules" the server space be very careful. It is definately a player and growing by a large percentage and some day it may catch up to MS Windows (across all server's) but that doesn't mean it rules -- since MS Windows is not neccessarily the ruler today (big shop = Unix or MVS).
Also remember that growing by a huge percentage may mean less than we think -- i.e.: going to 1 million servers from 100,000 is a 1,000% (if my math is right) increase but going to 2 million is from 1 million is only 100%. The percentages tend to level off and fast.
But the public in America is unforgiving of companies who's business model is keep the customer happy in the long run.
Example: HMO's -- the original idea was to encourage preventitive care by making it free or cheap and thus reduce the bigger medical expenses down the road. The traditional insurance companies disliked HMO's. The public ended up with a very bad impression of HMO's -- because they attempted to modify the general public's behavior. After that and with the very bad example of HMO's that went "other ways" (denial of care, etc. -- not worse than most traditional insurance companies just much more well publicized) HMO's have a very bad name indeed in the public's eye.
Perhaps the point is to please the customer totally (full service, extremely low price, no questions asked). If anyone can do that in the healthcare or software industry long-term then it will indeed be a miracle -- or more precisely an industry shift. HMO's forced an industry shift in the health care industry. Traditional insurance didn't. HMO's got a black eye in the process.
Where am I going with this? Linux IS forcing an industry shift. How do we prevent it from gaining the HMO black eye?
If the end users needs are met by that app and not on another platform/application then their is no competition and the vendor can charge a premium for their content. This may not mean they own the entire market but they do own their segement.
Example 1: Apple owns desktop publishing. LINUX is NOT a competitor in this field at ALL.
Example 2: Lotus 1-2-3 was released (at a premium) and drove people to buy expensive hardware. They did it cheerfully and accomplished their tasks
Example 3: Microsoft owns ~90% of the desktops today. No other OS has anything near the application base, usability and return on investment that Windows has. This is not an argument -- it is a fact of the current computing field.
Linux is a niche player especially on the desktop. It has a better server story. It is not a threat to example 1 or 3 today.
...that A. the master craftsman will starve himself and his family to death (see "self-cleaning gene pool").