Thinking about it, would the OSS model have even taken shape if Bill Gates (and his ilk) had just given away their product? Very likely not.
Actually, what you call OSS model, was already in place back then. It just that most software was distributed via tapes.
In 1980 I was programming PDP-11s for a bank. The computer came with the source for the operating system. In fact I had fixed a bug in the driver for the tape drive that became part of the O/S.
There is a big user organization, called DECUS then, (and one for IBM folks called SHARE) and large part of its job was to distribute tapes with free software that was developed by users.
All this was going on way before MS was even started...
...but the places I visit on the Net are nearly flame and idiot free. Most discussions are civil and constructive and I've been using the Net for about 15 years or so.
I've been a target of flamers once or twice in that time. But I thought it was just funny. It's so easy to ignore (one Usenet Kook even forged a posting from me - I was honored).
On the other hand, I suppose if you continue say stupid things, people will get fed up and flame...
The Y2K problem was really overhyped by the media. The reporters don't know much about computers, so they predicted the worst - this makes much better news story.
Meanwhile we all know that software systems fail all the time with all kinds of bugs, and the world doesn't end. Why should Y2K be any different?
The faulty assumption made by non-coders was that things work perfectly all the time.
Anyway, at my New Year's party I insisted that I, and other programmers, have saved the world again and we should be given homage! (it didn't work:-) )
It is actually contestable if the Wright Brothers were the first people to achieve flight, A New Zealander by the name of Richard Pierce is tipped to have beaten them to the punch.
There are others who claim to have flown before the Wrights. For example, we have Gustav Whitehead in the US.
However, the Wrights were the first ones to figure out how an airplane was to be controlled in the air, and they designed a control system to do it (it's not trivial).
When the Wrights first flew in Europe, all the aviation experts were astounded that the Wright airplane could turn.
When was the last time two guys who ran a bicycle repair shop achieved something that man had dreamed of doing since the beginning of time?
Don't forget that 100 years ago bicycles were the "hot" technology. Running a bicycle shop (they didn't just fix them, they made them) was roughly equivalent to today's Sillicon Valley startup.
The Wrights were incredible hardware hackers (especially Orville), you just have to examine some of the instruments they built.
For example, they discovered that the tables which described the lift generated by various wing sections as computed bu Lilienthal and others were just wrong. So they build a wind tunnel (the first one) and run experiments to calculate the lift of various wing cross-sections. And this is just one example.
If you liked this book, you should also read several books by Martin Garnder: "Fads, and Fallacies in the name of Science" and "Science, Good, Bad and Bogus".
The first one was published in 1952 (!!!). Things don't change that much.
Also you should visit the website for CSICOP, the organization that tries to spread sanity thoughout the world. Carl Sagan was a card carrying member of CSICOP.
Linux needs a windows help file type system, that is linked together with little question mark tools for specific objects etc such as many windows aps have.
Two points:
GNOME does this to some extent(I don't know about KDE). There is nice hypertext browser for help files. In fact you can easily make all man pages readable via a Web browser.
It's the content stupid! The MS help files, as pretty as they look, are completely useless. I was never able to solve a problem on a Windows machine by using the help files. Were you?
Wired got this one wrong! Corrigan was a pilot who wanted to fly across the Atlantic, but the Civil Aviation Authority (the previous FAA) would not issue a formal permit for takeoff.
So instead he said that he was flying to California, with CAA's permission, and then after take-off he just flew to Ireland.
Afterwards, to keep the CAA off his back he said "oops, I made a mistake"...
Apple got the GUI right the first time out, and nobody's really made any earth shattering improvements to it since. Why not just steal their work, as great artists are known to do?
Actually there is plenty wrong with the Apple interface. Take a look at this article by Gentner and Nielsen called The Anti-Mac Interface. We just seem to be stuck in the WIMP paradigm...
The real cool thing about Linux is that everyone can experiment with the UI and perhaps discover something much better.
I am sure that two people working seperatly would get done much faster than two people working together. Just think of the programmer that is simply looking over the actual coder's shoulder. How long will he be paying attention untill he has had enough?
Perhaps they could finish writing the code and getting it to compile sooner. But I would bet that a pair of programmers would have a debugged version much faster than two separate programmers.
In pair programming the programmers talks as the code is written. The talking makes a huge difference. Think of is as an instantenous code review.
I went to the Bazaar mainly to hear him speak. I thought he's talk was excellent (I never heard him before). He appears laid back, yet his arguments are very convincing. He clearly has thought all this stuff through.
He also has a sense of humor. I liked it when he refered to people wanting to keep source closed as "privateers" (as opposed to "pirates")...
You assume that two programmers working separately can produce more and of better quality in the same period. This is not necessarily true. Try some experiments....
I believe the Open Source community needs to create a patent pool to protect itself the same way, this is the reason sites like www.openpatents.org where created.
This is wrong! We must publish to establish prior art. Not patent. We are in a different game...
Consider this example: company A uses technology possibly patented by company B. Company B sues. The lawyers will work out a deal where company B is licensed technologies of equal value from company A's patent portfolio - it may go all the way to a full exchange of licenses for all marketable technologies from both companies. Intel and Digital did this relatively recently.
But company A could also point out prior art, if it exists, and invalidate the patent. And instead of filing patents company A could publish its ideas for everyone to use.
The really sad part is that the lawyers of both companies make money from the litigation, no matter which way it goes (are you the suer or sue-ee) and there is little incentive to change the system.
I know that I am going to get flamed for this but lets try to be fair and mature about it. Good ol Bill "the evil tycoon" Gates donated billions to charity this year. While I dont agree with some of M$'s business tactics, I respect Bill Gates for this.
I don't know. Some of Bill's donations have been "billions of dollars worth of MS software", not actual cash.
Calling for a boycott isn't going to affect Amazon's bottom line a bit.
Of course it won't affect their bottom line -- they have none. They don't make any money, and it doesn't really seem to matter how much money they lose.
Actually a boycott will save Amazon money, since they loose money on every sale. Fewer sales, smaller loss.;-)
I think this is too simplistic. Each persons genes are different, so a comparison at the lowest level must show a lot differences, even between two humans, unless they are twins.
At high level, of chromosomes, you can make obvious comparisons. But what levels are there in between? What am I missing?
How many parents will choose ugly kids when they can be assured attractive ones? Why have an idiosyncratic or rebellious offspring when you can choose a cheerful and pliant one?
JK and the popular press simply assume that such manipulation is possible. In fact the whole science of genetics is much more complex than that. How an organism develops is a rather complex interaction between the genes and the environment, that is and not at all predictable (except in very simplistic ways - i.e. human parents have human babies).
Just think, 50 years ago people were discussing the social consequences of nuclear powered cars, homes and airplanes and look what happened.
Of course, nothing stops people, goverments or corporations from abusing science for its own purposes. It's been done many times before. The interesting question is how to prevent it.
...richie
P.S. I wish JK would read more of Samuel Floorman's writing, rather than just referring to a single article (i.e. the tragic technology one).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, what you call OSS model, was already in place back then. It just that most software was distributed via tapes.
In 1980 I was programming PDP-11s for a bank. The computer came with the source for the operating system. In fact I had fixed a bug in the driver for the tape drive that became part of the O/S.
There is a big user organization, called DECUS then, (and one for IBM folks called SHARE) and large part of its job was to distribute tapes with free software that was developed by users.
All this was going on way before MS was even started...
I've been a target of flamers once or twice in that time. But I thought it was just funny. It's so easy to ignore (one Usenet Kook even forged a posting from me - I was honored).
On the other hand, I suppose if you continue say stupid things, people will get fed up and flame...
There is no need for an exam to certify that you are a Kernel hacker. To qualify you should have code with your name on it in the kernel. :-)
I don't just want to be consumer, I want to be a provider too. The really important thing about the net and the Web is that it gives everyone a voice.
What if AOL/Time Warner doesn't like what I have to say?
Meanwhile we all know that software systems fail all the time with all kinds of bugs, and the world doesn't end. Why should Y2K be any different?
The faulty assumption made by non-coders was that things work perfectly all the time.
Anyway, at my New Year's party I insisted that I, and other programmers, have saved the world again and we should be given homage! (it didn't work :-) )
There are others who claim to have flown before the Wrights. For example, we have Gustav Whitehead in the US.
However, the Wrights were the first ones to figure out how an airplane was to be controlled in the air, and they designed a control system to do it (it's not trivial).
When the Wrights first flew in Europe, all the aviation experts were astounded that the Wright airplane could turn.
Don't forget that 100 years ago bicycles were the "hot" technology. Running a bicycle shop (they didn't just fix them, they made them) was roughly equivalent to today's Sillicon Valley startup.
The Wrights were incredible hardware hackers (especially Orville), you just have to examine some of the instruments they built.
For example, they discovered that the tables which described the lift generated by various wing sections as computed bu Lilienthal and others were just wrong. So they build a wind tunnel (the first one) and run experiments to calculate the lift of various wing cross-sections. And this is just one example.
The first one was published in 1952 (!!!). Things don't change that much.
Also you should visit the website for CSICOP, the organization that tries to spread sanity thoughout the world. Carl Sagan was a card carrying member of CSICOP.
Two points:
So instead he said that he was flying to California, with CAA's permission, and then after take-off he just flew to Ireland.
Afterwards, to keep the CAA off his back he said "oops, I made a mistake"...
Have you tried emailing the author? His/her name is probably in the README file.
Actually there is plenty wrong with the Apple interface. Take a look at this article by Gentner and Nielsen called The Anti-Mac Interface. We just seem to be stuck in the WIMP paradigm...
The real cool thing about Linux is that everyone can experiment with the UI and perhaps discover something much better.
Perhaps they could finish writing the code and getting it to compile sooner. But I would bet that a pair of programmers would have a debugged version much faster than two separate programmers.
In pair programming the programmers talks as the code is written. The talking makes a huge difference. Think of is as an instantenous code review.
He also has a sense of humor. I liked it when he refered to people wanting to keep source closed as "privateers" (as opposed to "pirates")...
The only detailed specification that can be trusted is the source code for the system. Any other spec is out of date by the time its printed.
Don't assume that the client really knows what he wants. The system can be designed to be flexible so that adding "little changes" is not a problem.
XP advocates early releases so that the client can use the system and feed back what he learns back to the developers.
This is wrong! We must publish to establish prior art. Not patent. We are in a different game...
But company A could also point out prior art, if it exists, and invalidate the patent. And instead of filing patents company A could publish its ideas for everyone to use.
The really sad part is that the lawyers of both companies make money from the litigation, no matter which way it goes (are you the suer or sue-ee) and there is little incentive to change the system.
Pardon me if my cynicism is showing...
I don't know. Some of Bill's donations have been "billions of dollars worth of MS software", not actual cash.
Of course it won't affect their bottom line -- they have none. They don't make any money, and it doesn't really seem to matter how much money they lose.
Actually a boycott will save Amazon money, since they loose money on every sale. Fewer sales, smaller loss. ;-)
At high level, of chromosomes, you can make obvious comparisons. But what levels are there in between? What am I missing?
JK and the popular press simply assume that such manipulation is possible. In fact the whole science of genetics is much more complex than that. How an organism develops is a rather complex interaction between the genes and the environment, that is and not at all predictable (except in very simplistic ways - i.e. human parents have human babies).
Just think, 50 years ago people were discussing the social consequences of nuclear powered cars, homes and airplanes and look what happened.
Of course, nothing stops people, goverments or corporations from abusing science for its own purposes. It's been done many times before. The interesting question is how to prevent it.
P.S. I wish JK would read more of Samuel Floorman's writing, rather than just referring to a single article (i.e. the tragic technology one).
Excellent point!! Musicians and bands will have to actually make money by going out and playing music.