Re: the 16 vs. 11 year discrepency, Miguel is refering to the entire GNU project -- not just Linux. WRT: the Wine project, I remember that going all the way back to fall of '94. I think it started in '93ish...
Good thread, BTW.
posting as AC because I'm moderating this discussion...
Agreed. I regularly attend the BSO and performances at Jordan Hall. Excellent music and a good value. --M
Solution to lame commercial music:
on
Napster Not To Blame
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Expand your taste to include a wider range of musical forms through exploration.
Seek out new local acts by attending live performances at small clubs, bars, and concert halls.
Purchase CDs directly from those performers and bands whom you have enjoyed seeing live.
Not only does buying CDs directly from the artist provide them better compensation, but since you've already heard his/her music you know you'll enjoy much of what's on the CD. And to top it off the music cartels don't get a dime of your money. SCORE!
This is primarily how I buy music now. I haven't purchased a big label pop disc in well over a year -- because the music sucks. I don't "steal" music across the net; I don't tape or burn CDs to trade with friends; I don't tape off the radio. I go to shows and if I like the act I buy some music. Fuck the RIAA and all their noise about "piracy".
I never demanded anything for free from Loki, you have your facts wrong. I simply wanted the games which had been released to be shipped as ordered in a timely way. I paid for every Loki game I own. --M
There were many things Loki could have done to provide reasonable customer service given the situation. Or even a rational explanation. Digital River certainly caused the bulk of their problems WRT: shipping. But since getting product to customers in order to collect payment should be the first order of business, for any company, not dealing with the issue (from a policy standpoint) made little sense. I have had a few emails from other people who were in similar shoes as me with Loki orders and they got pretty pissed as well. Pissed off people bitch and soon the company loses customers A call from Loki to DR to clear up the mess should have been feasible. Or at least a better explanation other than, hey why not sign up for this expensive subscription service instead of us solving your problem?
I'll bitch publicly about any company that I feel provides rotten customer service, or sells an inferior/dangerous product. It has to piss me off -- then I write. But, of course, I had no idea what was really going on in the company. And I feel truly sorry for those employees who were harmed by the outcome.
"Hey fucktard, he compared loki with enron not transgaming."
I compared Loki with Enron in a reply to skydude_20.
Then Tet wrote back:
"Errm... Transgaming aren't exactly whiter than white in that regard, having refused to give back their Direct X code to the Wine community (for sound economic reasons, sure, but then so are most unethical business practices). I understand they're in a tricky situation, and are contributing back as much as they feel able, but they're not exactly model citizens..."
He -- by implication -- suggested that by not giving back source, Transgaming is engaging in an "unethical business practice"... suggestive of something similar to Enron's business practices given the thread of the discussion, though not explicitely stated. I disagree with that position, because not only are what they doing legal, but they are following the intended purpose of the Wine developers as expressed by the their chosen license. JMO.
'Nother thing... Hey -- it's a nit pick -- but just where did you learn your manners? --M
Errm... Transgaming aren't exactly whiter than white in that regard, having refused to give back their Direct X code to the Wine community (for sound economic reasons, sure, but then so are most unethical business practices).
I like their voting system, which allows customers to decide on which games they will try to support. That definitely connects them closer to their community than the average software company; most usually just offering a product, take it or leave it.
Also: I'm not opposed to a company making money off of BSD or LGPL licenced code. I don't see anything wrong in Transgaming's behavior, as long as they legally meet all licensing restrictions for any code they expropriate into their product. BSD code is licensed such for that very purpose; it is at least one valid expression of the word "freedom". Transgaming, or any other company, owes no code back to the community unless the license says so. To expect them to do otherwise, even when they only used code which was licensed specifically so they could choose not to do so, I think passes into the land of zealotry. Particularly when trying to compare such intended practices with the plain -- outright -- fraud that was Enron. No way.
I wish Transgaming they best. May they see many profitable years servicing their market, and may many happy Linux users keep gaming -- whoever may enter the market later on.
Previously you would have received numerous fanatical replies filled with personal insults and scatological references, not to mention a share of "flamebait" moderations. I can attest to this.
I've been known for saying some harsh things about poor Loki customer service, orders of multiple products left unshipped for six months or more due to one product being held up, etc. And, boy, did I take a personal shit storm from many in the Linux community who stood up for Loki (and it's staff). I'm sure they had good motivation: to help the success of the Linux desktop through gaming. Unfortunately for the community, the company was run by a scam artist. I mean, what else do you call a guy who doesn't pay his employees for months on end, gets another employee to pony up with his personal credit card for payroll expenses, and never pays the guy a dime back? Scumbag comes to mind.
Yet, even in the worst of circumstances the engineers at Loki produced much wonderful work. They deserve real community kudos for their porting success, especially in the face of Scott's and Kayt's shenanigans. I still enjoy a few of the twelve or so games I bought from them, and I'm glad I tried to honestly support Linux gaming. I bought games from Loki on impulse, happy to know that the money was going toward a community effort. Sadly, I should have just donated the money to the EFF, FSF, EPIC, Debian, or whatever. Transgaming looks like the place to be for now, and that bunch seems to publicly work with the community a whole lot closer than Loki ever did. When I get a better machine I'll subscribe to their service.
I still think there's a good future for playing commercial games on x86/Linux. I'm glad another company has stepped up into Loki's shoes (just like economists predict). But I hope the community learns a good lesson from Loki and recognizes that every company must both serve its market and behave with a good set of ethical guidelines, or it will (in the long run) go out of business with massive damage to its employees and customers.
Loki did neither, due to lapses in it's management. Sadly, this kind of ethical failure isn't limited to the Linux community (where so many thought it was too small to be affected by corporate malfeasance), as the likes of Global crossing, Enron, Tyco (and on and on and on) shows.
I should note that I never worked for Loki or knew any of the participants at the company. I'm simply a customer who some time back felt completely fucked over by their customer service, or lack thereof. So I got pissed and wrote about it. But the news reports which have come out since show how little Draeker thought of the community, and how willing he was to screw over his own staff and customers without regard to basic business ethics. It's an honest shame for the community, and one we should face up to -- lest it should happen again.
I desperately need a free for noncommercial use F90 compiler. Thanks! If the license turns out to be OK for University work I'll install it throughout our lab. This will make a number of scientists very happy!
If it were really true that they could make more money by pre-installing RH 7.3 and OpenOffice then you can rest assured that some enterprising company would be doing it and eating everyone elses lunch. The fact that this is not happening leads me to believe that your assessment of the "readiness" of Linux isn't quite where you think it is.
Granted, I live in Boston which is a city populated by universities and commercial scientific and medical computing centers. It makes sense that all the local chop shops offer Linux preinstalled to their customers (along with Windows solutions). I just state this to refute your position that no local chop shops offer Linux support. And I note that even back in 1996 I knew of a several chop shops in Cincinnati (lived there for a short time) that would preinstall Linux for a fee.
Based on this I must conclude that Linux support among local chop shop vendors is actually critical to their bottom line at this point, especially in cities and university towns. --M
I think it'd be fairer to say that Linux works well on the desktop wherever there's a Linux geek to set it up. It's not limited to large installations, and the geek doesn't have to be a Linux or IT professional. It works great in small organizations, on Mom and Dad's machine (whenever they have a penguin-loving son or daughter), or on Joe User's machine when he has a geek buddy (or can find a Linux Users' Group) to help him set it up.
Sure. And this isn't much different from Windows administration. But unlike Windows, which offers dimishing returns the larger the deployment, desktop Linux provides increasing returns as one scales up. It's a pain in the ass to maintain a single Linux box, and only a little better when deployed in a small workgroup. Windows really does a good job here, primarily because it's so well known, and the available administrative options so limited, that training someone to perform maintenance isn't terribly expensive. But Windows doesn't scale in a very large operation like 'nix does. A few competent admins can maintain several hundred to a thousand desktops quite easily with 'nix, primarily because it's so easy to tailor and then lock down (meaning that end users are prevented from making large changes to the installation), while with Windows the industry average is one admin and two to three servers per thirty or so desktops. With 'nix one still needs at least one admin and a couple of servers to support thirty desktops -- but not thirty three admins and sixty six some odd servers for a thousand desktop deployment like Windows. Part of this is the security model; part of it is the philosophy behind 'nix's design. But clearly, nix scales in large deployments far better than Windows, and because of that the larger one scales up the more cost effective it becomes.
I really don't see a home user market for Linux in the near term. But I'm already seeing a large market for competent people to administer huge deployments in corporate and university environments. I expect government to follow. Microsoft simply can't stop this until they fix the underlying issues behind why large scale Windows deployments are so expensive to administer. Microsoft has a serious problem on their hands here. Preloaded Windows in the home market won't go away primarily because users are reasonably happy with the third party software availability on that platform, and partly because they're used to it.
Microsoft's TCO marketing obfuscation aside, large corporate customers crunching a few numbers quickly come to the conclusion that desktop Linux saves them serious overhead costs. It's not about good software design beating crap, freedom to see and modify source code, or even about cutting licensing fees (though that's an added bonus). Linux has a serious TCO advantage over Windows, and the bigger the deployment the cheaper it gets. Until Microsoft resolves the underlying design problems in Windows from server to desktop, automated remote scripting, security and client lock down, they'll continue to lose their corporate and university customers to the likes of IBM pushing Linux.
Desktop Linux (and BSD, excepting MaxOS X) is really only appropriate at large installations where the environment is completely controlled and administered by professionals. While it's fine for a power user to install on their home computer, it really isn't appropriate for mom and pop. For that matter, neither is Windows. This means that desktop Linux is most likely to be found supporting scientific applications, Software development houses, Health care support, corporate desktops, data entry and call centers, and cash registers. It may become a viable home desktop system in the third world, should countries like China, Korea, Peru, etc decide to invest the money necessary to create localized infrastructure to support a wide scale Linux deployment for it's citizens similar to the old teletext systems used in Europe.
To proclaim that desktop linux is dead is foolish though. I've seen some very large scale desktop Linux deployments Boston area genomics companies, universities, and software houses. These are often commercial Unix to Linux migrations, so I'm not arguing that it's hitting the Windows desktop market hard. But if you know your stuff there's definitely work to be had in this market. As long as I'm paid well for this stuff, I'd hardly call it dead! --M
I'd really like to see one of the checkpoint patches includeded in the mainline kernel series. There are several to choose from: EPCKPT, CRAK, CP.... Which one doesn't matter (feature wise), they all basically allow for the kernel to stop a process, save it's state and pages to a file, and then load and restart that process by request.
Yes, I could distribute a patched kernel across all of my systems. But then I'm tied to that kernel until whichever project I'm following updates their patch (or I update it myself, and I don't consider myself competent as a kernel hacker). This would be a really useful mainline feature for those of us in the scientific computing community. Wasn't there some talk of one of these going in 2.6 proper? --M
I just think that the decision of whether to give something away, when, what and how should be at the musician's discretion.
I don't see how musicians are helped by a world where anybody can take as they please without regard for those who created it.
Agreed on all these counts. The issue is not whether IP owners have rights over the work they create (or own in this case) -- clearly the consitutional framers were right to include protections for inventors and publishers (which have morphed into our current copyright and patent systems). I don't suggest we should remove the traditional IP legal framework in place for the last hundred years or so kids can download free music.
However, the question is really: does the situation WRT personal copying warrant the kinds of changes suggested by Hollings, Disney, Sony et all in order to protect their market share? I'm all for prosecutions against commercial duplicators in violation of copyright laws, but the CDPTPA/SSSCA encryption schemes currently on the board will have (I think) a twofold outcome of both reducing music consumption (in much the same way taxation thresholds can reduce total government income either by increasing taxes beyond what is economically sustainable, or reducing taxes below what the economy can support) and decrease "innovation" by destroying incentives for artists to create. They will have created in law a mechanism to exclude competitors, thus having a government sanctioned monopoly on distribution. This can't be a good outcome for the music marketplace, or music consumers.
So, which is better for society all around? A few kids filesharing music (with the outcome of free marketing for individual artists), or a total corporate/government stranglehold on copying through autocratic and onerous new laws and technologies targeted against citizens? Why don't we just enforce the laws as they exist? And how different is this from what the Bush administration is saying about new regulation in the financial markets? If these businesses don't need the regulation, why is it necessary to regulate individual commerce?
I don't know "sirslud", but if you take at face value what he wrote in his comment your reply reads simply as flamebait. By painting him as a "20-to whatever moron..." instead of dealing with the content of his post you only damage the credibility of your argument.
He's a musician. I know many professional musicians eking out a meager living off of live performances who will say much the same thing the previous poster wrote, as well as what's in Janis Ian's essay. This music industry is destroying the incentives to "innovate" just as Microsoft -- through their anti-competitive tactics -- has destroyed the very market they feed from. Piss in the communal soup pot and you get the soup all to yourself; of course may taste like piss but it's all yours!
It may seem counterintuitive, but to an undiscovered musician giving out product for free makes the best marketing sense possible. It's a loss leader for the profitable live performance market. That few musicians -- even those signed on label contracts -- make money from CD sales is further proof of a disincentive for musicians to follow the RIAA's lead and break free. Ani DiFranco is a great example of how a talented musician is better off producing and distributing their own music because of onerous and exclusionary recording contracts, ridiculous accounting methods, and blatant payola on radio. It's more profitable for the individual artist to give away selected tracks. This is a real financial incentive from the bottom up, which may be bad for the monopoly positions of the major record labels, but is very much to the benefit of individual artists.
But then again, my take on the whole thing is that Slashdotters are largely worried about not being able to pirate music anymore.
I don't pirate music, video, or even books. I do use my public library. WTF do you think will happen to our public libraries once DRM is mandatory across the board? I suppose you would claim that's a "fair use" right which "never existed" (except in the minds of certain supreme court judges).
All DRM is going to do is prevent people from copying data and/or code in ways the author has deemed inappropriate.
Right. And who is the "author"? Microsoft, which has been convicted of anti-trust violations as a monopolist. Why should I trust them not to limit how I might use a computer which happens to be running a commercial OS? Or any other single signing authority? I consider one government or corporate bureaucracy controlling all digital rights management on my computer to be autocratic, authoritarian, and anti-consumer. It takes the "personal" out of personal computer and replaces it with "consumer playback computing device." As long as you keep paying, and paying, and paying. Fuck that!
Frankly, I can't see any difference between this and the previous Clinton administration Clipper Chip proposal from eight to ten years back. Except that now instead of the government having control over signing digital certificates we have a single private corporation. That's freedom for you! One further point: you state the system will only be used to control copying of content. Since the most fundamental operation of a computer is to copy, as in moving a byte from memory to a register for example, isn't by definition this also a mechanism to control how one may USE said content? Even if the content is something you created on your own?
I find it utterly amazing to read such large numbers of libertarian conservatives -- folks who presumably support individual liberty and non-authoritarian government -- so easily willing to cave into the demands of huge private corporations at their own detriment. Institutions so large they generate a revenue stream larger than most third world governments, and who clearly use the same monopolistic and exclusionary tactics so hated by the conservative right when the issue turns to government monopolies. And before anyone brings up the fact that government has guns while Microsoft (Disney et all) doesn't, might I point out just who they're buying off in order to obtain the legislation which will force us all to use their cripple-ware?
...then upon any external distribution, even a beta, they must release to anyone who asks all source derived from a publicly released GPL'd project. I agree that a first tier technical support rep shouldn't be expected to know or understand this. But a formal letter to their corporate offices should resolve this situation promptly, otherwise the author(s') of the derived code are within their rights to sue under copyright law for software piracy; as well they should.
It's only slightly more comforting to hear from an anonymous source that Dish Network plans to follow their legal duties and responsibilities with the licensing agreements of the code they are using. But I (and I think many others) would feel much better once they comply and make available their derived source. Until then I would suggest the authors of that source, and the free software community in general, are within their rights to complain vociferously. In fact, I would argue that/. is both correct and proper to post this front page to apply public pressure on Dish to follow through with their responsibilities. This is what/. does best, and I support them for it.
A hot water on demand system which heats with microwaves. The Union of Concerned Scientists recommends in The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choicesto heat water for tea and coffee in a microwave oven rather than on a stove for energy efficiency. I wonder if it's just as, if not more, efficient when scaled up for supplying hot water throughout the house in general use and heating.
Is this a crazy idea?
No floppy interface.
on
Tandys Never Die
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The model 100 had no floppy interface, though there were external 3 1/2 floppy units available at the time. It did have a built in 300 bps modem The standard modem interface was a DIN 9 adapter on the side of the unit in which RS sold a DIN 9 to RJ-11 cable, though RS did sell an acoustic coupler for use with pay phones. Next to the modem was a secondary cassette tape interface. The screen displayed 40 cols by 8 lines, LCD. It shipped with 8K RAM in its original configuration, though it could be upgraded to 48K. The main CPU was an 8085, not a Z-80. It was in no way binary compatible with the original TRS-80.
This is an important point, the TRS-80 Model I, III, and IV was a completely different computer system from the Model 100. They weren't compatible in any way whatsoever. Just like the Model 11 and 16 wasn't compatible with the model 1/III/IV. Totally different systems. At one point I ran a BBS off of a model I for four years from 1982 to 1986, which my family originally bought in 1977. It was a good computer for its time, though it generated way too much RFI, the buffered expansion interface cable often broke requiring replacement, and the B/W monitor which shipped with the model 1 was junk. The computer, however, was fast with a 1.77 MHz Z-80. Oh well, enough memory lane...
Through Creative Commons, Lessig (among others) will provide a set of licenses which allow a gradation of freedoms and restrictions for copyright holders and consumers alike. Yes, as stated in the article it's likely that some of the licenses would not meet OSI license requirements as "open source", never mind "Free" under rms's definition. However, they will provide a medium ground between a completely restrictive license as defined under DMCA provisions and a completely open license under OSI or gnu guidelines. Lessig has repeatedly stated that he is not inherently against copyright, but he does oppose the use (abuse) of copyright law to further limit use of copyrighted goods beyond duplication rights. While I can't speak for Lessig, I assume that he at his cohorts will attempt to craft licenses which balance the rights of copyright holders to limit commercial duplication against the rights of consumers for "fair use" personal duplication and reverse engineering.
One of the central points behind Tragedy of the Commons is that given a finite supply of grazing grounds and a competitive environment of farmers grazing on these grounds, an incentive to overgraze is built into the system. Thus the commons for all are destroyed as each farmer maximizes his "share" of the commons to everyone else's detriment. Hardin's essay leaves out the potential for ad-hoc agreement between competing farmers to limit over-use of the commons (without privatization). But most importantly it doesn't even consider the potential for a limitless commons -- that is, one in which the supply in commons is not finite.
This is where Tragedy of the Commons breaks down, Lessig says in The Future of Ideas, his latest work. As Lessig points out, it's a logical fallacy to use Tragedy of the Commons as an analogy to further certain intellectual property rights since there is no limit to the number of times some kinds of IP can be duplicated and distributed. Being a physical object, grass in a commons is in finite supply and subject to the potential for overgrazing. But without artificial barriers (such as copy protection technology) how can one ever over consume to scarcity the supply of digital data such as a software program?
Here is a space.com news article which details exactly that. The US military does believe that space is their future, and they want to control it. There's talk about creating a new space force division, though for now it looks like the air force will control space missions for the near future. Given this one may ask, why are they killing off manned flight? I think it's because they realize that automated systems, not manned flight, is where both terrestrial and space flight is going. Humans have far too many physical limitations which automated systems don't share. Everything from very limited acceleration to supporting basic biological needs go against the requirements for "controlling space". To further this policy NASA (along with whatever scientific projects are ongoing and/or planned will be eviscerated.
No different from how NVIDIA distributes their closed source GeForce drivers for Linux. There's nothing stopping AOL/TW (or any other company), with or without Redhat, from providing such modules to drive any kind of hardware level trusted computing system.I think Alan and O'Reilly may be jumping the gun WRT their criticisms of a potential AOL buyout of Redhat, but Alan is most certainly within his rights to resign should he decide not to work for a subsidiary of AOL.
Slashdot Mirror
Carnage,
Re: the 16 vs. 11 year discrepency, Miguel is refering to the entire GNU project -- not just Linux. WRT: the Wine project, I remember that going all the way back to fall of '94. I think it started in '93ish...
Good thread, BTW.
posting as AC because I'm moderating this discussion...
Cheers,
--Maynard
Agreed. I regularly attend the BSO and performances at Jordan Hall. Excellent music and a good value. --M
- Expand your taste to include a wider range of musical forms through exploration.
- Seek out new local acts by attending live performances at small clubs, bars, and concert halls.
- Purchase CDs directly from those performers and bands whom you have enjoyed seeing live.
Not only does buying CDs directly from the artist provide them better compensation, but since you've already heard his/her music you know you'll enjoy much of what's on the CD. And to top it off the music cartels don't get a dime of your money. SCORE!This is primarily how I buy music now. I haven't purchased a big label pop disc in well over a year -- because the music sucks. I don't "steal" music across the net; I don't tape or burn CDs to trade with friends; I don't tape off the radio. I go to shows and if I like the act I buy some music. Fuck the RIAA and all their noise about "piracy".
--Maynard
I never demanded anything for free from Loki, you have your facts wrong. I simply wanted the games which had been released to be shipped as ordered in a timely way. I paid for every Loki game I own. --M
There were many things Loki could have done to provide reasonable customer service given the situation. Or even a rational explanation. Digital River certainly caused the bulk of their problems WRT: shipping. But since getting product to customers in order to collect payment should be the first order of business, for any company, not dealing with the issue (from a policy standpoint) made little sense. I have had a few emails from other people who were in similar shoes as me with Loki orders and they got pretty pissed as well. Pissed off people bitch and soon the company loses customers A call from Loki to DR to clear up the mess should have been feasible. Or at least a better explanation other than, hey why not sign up for this expensive subscription service instead of us solving your problem?
I'll bitch publicly about any company that I feel provides rotten customer service, or sells an inferior/dangerous product. It has to piss me off -- then I write. But, of course, I had no idea what was really going on in the company. And I feel truly sorry for those employees who were harmed by the outcome.
--Maynard
Then Tet wrote back: He -- by implication -- suggested that by not giving back source, Transgaming is engaging in an "unethical business practice"... suggestive of something similar to Enron's business practices given the thread of the discussion, though not explicitely stated. I disagree with that position, because not only are what they doing legal, but they are following the intended purpose of the Wine developers as expressed by the their chosen license. JMO.
'Nother thing... Hey -- it's a nit pick -- but just where did you learn your manners? --M
ps - I know, IHBT
Also: I'm not opposed to a company making money off of BSD or LGPL licenced code. I don't see anything wrong in Transgaming's behavior, as long as they legally meet all licensing restrictions for any code they expropriate into their product. BSD code is licensed such for that very purpose; it is at least one valid expression of the word "freedom". Transgaming, or any other company, owes no code back to the community unless the license says so. To expect them to do otherwise, even when they only used code which was licensed specifically so they could choose not to do so, I think passes into the land of zealotry. Particularly when trying to compare such intended practices with the plain -- outright -- fraud that was Enron. No way.
I wish Transgaming they best. May they see many profitable years servicing their market, and may many happy Linux users keep gaming -- whoever may enter the market later on.
Cheers,
--Maynard
Previously you would have received numerous fanatical replies filled with personal insults and scatological references, not to mention a share of "flamebait" moderations. I can attest to this.
I've been known for saying some harsh things about poor Loki customer service, orders of multiple products left unshipped for six months or more due to one product being held up, etc. And, boy, did I take a personal shit storm from many in the Linux community who stood up for Loki (and it's staff). I'm sure they had good motivation: to help the success of the Linux desktop through gaming. Unfortunately for the community, the company was run by a scam artist. I mean, what else do you call a guy who doesn't pay his employees for months on end, gets another employee to pony up with his personal credit card for payroll expenses, and never pays the guy a dime back? Scumbag comes to mind.
Yet, even in the worst of circumstances the engineers at Loki produced much wonderful work. They deserve real community kudos for their porting success, especially in the face of Scott's and Kayt's shenanigans. I still enjoy a few of the twelve or so games I bought from them, and I'm glad I tried to honestly support Linux gaming. I bought games from Loki on impulse, happy to know that the money was going toward a community effort. Sadly, I should have just donated the money to the EFF, FSF, EPIC, Debian, or whatever. Transgaming looks like the place to be for now, and that bunch seems to publicly work with the community a whole lot closer than Loki ever did. When I get a better machine I'll subscribe to their service.
I still think there's a good future for playing commercial games on x86/Linux. I'm glad another company has stepped up into Loki's shoes (just like economists predict). But I hope the community learns a good lesson from Loki and recognizes that every company must both serve its market and behave with a good set of ethical guidelines, or it will (in the long run) go out of business with massive damage to its employees and customers.
Loki did neither, due to lapses in it's management. Sadly, this kind of ethical failure isn't limited to the Linux community (where so many thought it was too small to be affected by corporate malfeasance), as the likes of Global crossing, Enron, Tyco (and on and on and on) shows.
I should note that I never worked for Loki or knew any of the participants at the company. I'm simply a customer who some time back felt completely fucked over by their customer service, or lack thereof. So I got pissed and wrote about it. But the news reports which have come out since show how little Draeker thought of the community, and how willing he was to screw over his own staff and customers without regard to basic business ethics. It's an honest shame for the community, and one we should face up to -- lest it should happen again.
--Maynard
I desperately need a free for noncommercial use F90 compiler. Thanks! If the license turns out to be OK for University work I'll install it throughout our lab. This will make a number of scientists very happy!
:)
So, is Fortran dead? Hardly.
--Maynard
Based on this I must conclude that Linux support among local chop shop vendors is actually critical to their bottom line at this point, especially in cities and university towns. --M
I really don't see a home user market for Linux in the near term. But I'm already seeing a large market for competent people to administer huge deployments in corporate and university environments. I expect government to follow. Microsoft simply can't stop this until they fix the underlying issues behind why large scale Windows deployments are so expensive to administer. Microsoft has a serious problem on their hands here. Preloaded Windows in the home market won't go away primarily because users are reasonably happy with the third party software availability on that platform, and partly because they're used to it.
Microsoft's TCO marketing obfuscation aside, large corporate customers crunching a few numbers quickly come to the conclusion that desktop Linux saves them serious overhead costs. It's not about good software design beating crap, freedom to see and modify source code, or even about cutting licensing fees (though that's an added bonus). Linux has a serious TCO advantage over Windows, and the bigger the deployment the cheaper it gets. Until Microsoft resolves the underlying design problems in Windows from server to desktop, automated remote scripting, security and client lock down, they'll continue to lose their corporate and university customers to the likes of IBM pushing Linux.
Cheers,
--Maynard
Desktop Linux (and BSD, excepting MaxOS X) is really only appropriate at large installations where the environment is completely controlled and administered by professionals. While it's fine for a power user to install on their home computer, it really isn't appropriate for mom and pop. For that matter, neither is Windows. This means that desktop Linux is most likely to be found supporting scientific applications, Software development houses, Health care support, corporate desktops, data entry and call centers, and cash registers. It may become a viable home desktop system in the third world, should countries like China, Korea, Peru, etc decide to invest the money necessary to create localized infrastructure to support a wide scale Linux deployment for it's citizens similar to the old teletext systems used in Europe.
To proclaim that desktop linux is dead is foolish though. I've seen some very large scale desktop Linux deployments Boston area genomics companies, universities, and software houses. These are often commercial Unix to Linux migrations, so I'm not arguing that it's hitting the Windows desktop market hard. But if you know your stuff there's definitely work to be had in this market. As long as I'm paid well for this stuff, I'd hardly call it dead! --M
I'd really like to see one of the checkpoint patches includeded in the mainline kernel series. There are several to choose from: EPCKPT, CRAK, CP.... Which one doesn't matter (feature wise), they all basically allow for the kernel to stop a process, save it's state and pages to a file, and then load and restart that process by request.
Yes, I could distribute a patched kernel across all of my systems. But then I'm tied to that kernel until whichever project I'm following updates their patch (or I update it myself, and I don't consider myself competent as a kernel hacker). This would be a really useful mainline feature for those of us in the scientific computing community. Wasn't there some talk of one of these going in 2.6 proper? --M
Don't you mean the Boston Red Sox? When they win the World Series, you KNOW Hell hath frozen over! --M
- Musicians need their own Curt Flood
- I just think that the decision of whether to give something away, when, what and how should be at the musician's discretion.
- I don't see how musicians are helped by a world where anybody can take as they please without regard for those who created it.
Agreed on all these counts. The issue is not whether IP owners have rights over the work they create (or own in this case) -- clearly the consitutional framers were right to include protections for inventors and publishers (which have morphed into our current copyright and patent systems). I don't suggest we should remove the traditional IP legal framework in place for the last hundred years or so kids can download free music.However, the question is really: does the situation WRT personal copying warrant the kinds of changes suggested by Hollings, Disney, Sony et all in order to protect their market share? I'm all for prosecutions against commercial duplicators in violation of copyright laws, but the CDPTPA/SSSCA encryption schemes currently on the board will have (I think) a twofold outcome of both reducing music consumption (in much the same way taxation thresholds can reduce total government income either by increasing taxes beyond what is economically sustainable, or reducing taxes below what the economy can support) and decrease "innovation" by destroying incentives for artists to create. They will have created in law a mechanism to exclude competitors, thus having a government sanctioned monopoly on distribution. This can't be a good outcome for the music marketplace, or music consumers.
So, which is better for society all around? A few kids filesharing music (with the outcome of free marketing for individual artists), or a total corporate/government stranglehold on copying through autocratic and onerous new laws and technologies targeted against citizens? Why don't we just enforce the laws as they exist? And how different is this from what the Bush administration is saying about new regulation in the financial markets? If these businesses don't need the regulation, why is it necessary to regulate individual commerce?
Cheers,
--Maynard
I don't know "sirslud", but if you take at face value what he wrote in his comment your reply reads simply as flamebait. By painting him as a "20-to whatever moron..." instead of dealing with the content of his post you only damage the credibility of your argument.
He's a musician. I know many professional musicians eking out a meager living off of live performances who will say much the same thing the previous poster wrote, as well as what's in Janis Ian's essay. This music industry is destroying the incentives to "innovate" just as Microsoft -- through their anti-competitive tactics -- has destroyed the very market they feed from. Piss in the communal soup pot and you get the soup all to yourself; of course may taste like piss but it's all yours!
It may seem counterintuitive, but to an undiscovered musician giving out product for free makes the best marketing sense possible. It's a loss leader for the profitable live performance market. That few musicians -- even those signed on label contracts -- make money from CD sales is further proof of a disincentive for musicians to follow the RIAA's lead and break free. Ani DiFranco is a great example of how a talented musician is better off producing and distributing their own music because of onerous and exclusionary recording contracts, ridiculous accounting methods, and blatant payola on radio. It's more profitable for the individual artist to give away selected tracks. This is a real financial incentive from the bottom up, which may be bad for the monopoly positions of the major record labels, but is very much to the benefit of individual artists.
Cheers,
--Maynard
Frankly, I can't see any difference between this and the previous Clinton administration Clipper Chip proposal from eight to ten years back. Except that now instead of the government having control over signing digital certificates we have a single private corporation. That's freedom for you! One further point: you state the system will only be used to control copying of content. Since the most fundamental operation of a computer is to copy, as in moving a byte from memory to a register for example, isn't by definition this also a mechanism to control how one may USE said content? Even if the content is something you created on your own?
I find it utterly amazing to read such large numbers of libertarian conservatives -- folks who presumably support individual liberty and non-authoritarian government -- so easily willing to cave into the demands of huge private corporations at their own detriment. Institutions so large they generate a revenue stream larger than most third world governments, and who clearly use the same monopolistic and exclusionary tactics so hated by the conservative right when the issue turns to government monopolies. And before anyone brings up the fact that government has guns while Microsoft (Disney et all) doesn't, might I point out just who they're buying off in order to obtain the legislation which will force us all to use their cripple-ware?
--Maynard
In the States we pay for incoming wireless calls.... Welcome to the land of the free! --M
...then upon any external distribution, even a beta, they must release to anyone who asks all source derived from a publicly released GPL'd project. I agree that a first tier technical support rep shouldn't be expected to know or understand this. But a formal letter to their corporate offices should resolve this situation promptly, otherwise the author(s') of the derived code are within their rights to sue under copyright law for software piracy; as well they should.
/. is both correct and proper to post this front page to apply public pressure on Dish to follow through with their responsibilities. This is what /. does best, and I support them for it.
It's only slightly more comforting to hear from an anonymous source that Dish Network plans to follow their legal duties and responsibilities with the licensing agreements of the code they are using. But I (and I think many others) would feel much better once they comply and make available their derived source. Until then I would suggest the authors of that source, and the free software community in general, are within their rights to complain vociferously. In fact, I would argue that
Cheers,
--Maynard
A hot water on demand system which heats with microwaves. The Union of Concerned Scientists recommends in The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choicesto heat water for tea and coffee in a microwave oven rather than on a stove for energy efficiency. I wonder if it's just as, if not more, efficient when scaled up for supplying hot water throughout the house in general use and heating.
Is this a crazy idea?
The model 100 had no floppy interface, though there were external 3 1/2 floppy units available at the time. It did have a built in 300 bps modem The standard modem interface was a DIN 9 adapter on the side of the unit in which RS sold a DIN 9 to RJ-11 cable, though RS did sell an acoustic coupler for use with pay phones. Next to the modem was a secondary cassette tape interface. The screen displayed 40 cols by 8 lines, LCD. It shipped with 8K RAM in its original configuration, though it could be upgraded to 48K. The main CPU was an 8085, not a Z-80. It was in no way binary compatible with the original TRS-80.
This is an important point, the TRS-80 Model I, III, and IV was a completely different computer system from the Model 100. They weren't compatible in any way whatsoever. Just like the Model 11 and 16 wasn't compatible with the model 1/III/IV. Totally different systems. At one point I ran a BBS off of a model I for four years from 1982 to 1986, which my family originally bought in 1977. It was a good computer for its time, though it generated way too much RFI, the buffered expansion interface cable often broke requiring replacement, and the B/W monitor which shipped with the model 1 was junk. The computer, however, was fast with a 1.77 MHz Z-80. Oh well, enough memory lane...
Cheers,
--Maynard
Through Creative Commons, Lessig (among others) will provide a set of licenses which allow a gradation of freedoms and restrictions for copyright holders and consumers alike. Yes, as stated in the article it's likely that some of the licenses would not meet OSI license requirements as "open source", never mind "Free" under rms's definition. However, they will provide a medium ground between a completely restrictive license as defined under DMCA provisions and a completely open license under OSI or gnu guidelines. Lessig has repeatedly stated that he is not inherently against copyright, but he does oppose the use (abuse) of copyright law to further limit use of copyrighted goods beyond duplication rights. While I can't speak for Lessig, I assume that he at his cohorts will attempt to craft licenses which balance the rights of copyright holders to limit commercial duplication against the rights of consumers for "fair use" personal duplication and reverse engineering.
Cheers,
--Maynard
One of the central points behind Tragedy of the Commons is that given a finite supply of grazing grounds and a competitive environment of farmers grazing on these grounds, an incentive to overgraze is built into the system. Thus the commons for all are destroyed as each farmer maximizes his "share" of the commons to everyone else's detriment. Hardin's essay leaves out the potential for ad-hoc agreement between competing farmers to limit over-use of the commons (without privatization). But most importantly it doesn't even consider the potential for a limitless commons -- that is, one in which the supply in commons is not finite.
This is where Tragedy of the Commons breaks down, Lessig says in The Future of Ideas, his latest work. As Lessig points out, it's a logical fallacy to use Tragedy of the Commons as an analogy to further certain intellectual property rights since there is no limit to the number of times some kinds of IP can be duplicated and distributed. Being a physical object, grass in a commons is in finite supply and subject to the potential for overgrazing. But without artificial barriers (such as copy protection technology) how can one ever over consume to scarcity the supply of digital data such as a software program?
Interesting book.
Cheers,
--Maynard
Here is a space.com news article which details exactly that. The US military does believe that space is their future, and they want to control it. There's talk about creating a new space force division, though for now it looks like the air force will control space missions for the near future. Given this one may ask, why are they killing off manned flight? I think it's because they realize that automated systems, not manned flight, is where both terrestrial and space flight is going. Humans have far too many physical limitations which automated systems don't share. Everything from very limited acceleration to supporting basic biological needs go against the requirements for "controlling space". To further this policy NASA (along with whatever scientific projects are ongoing and/or planned will be eviscerated.
Cheers,
--Maynard
No different from how NVIDIA distributes their closed source GeForce drivers for Linux. There's nothing stopping AOL/TW (or any other company), with or without Redhat, from providing such modules to drive any kind of hardware level trusted computing system.I think Alan and O'Reilly may be jumping the gun WRT their criticisms of a potential AOL buyout of Redhat, but Alan is most certainly within his rights to resign should he decide not to work for a subsidiary of AOL.
Cheers,
--Maynard