Previous responces are great, but one aspect is left out. The industry is moving to both, just as people have already stated, CMP is far easier. IBM Power series uses both, Sun Niagra uses both, etc. Many processors that could benefit, are being designed with both in mind.
Only AMD isn't going SMT, and its easy to understand why. AMD is not known for innovation, but developing chips using proven methods. SMT is still relatively new, so most organizations don't have the skills required to implement it. AMD may eventually use SMT in a future design, but only after they the technology has been proven and they can hire SMT talent.
Are you sure? In "The Game Makers", the corporate story of Parker Brothers, they talk about George Parker patenting Monopoly and other games. In fact, before he could release Monopoly he had to buy the patent of a similar game - one which he had rejected but was kind enough to tell the author that she better patent it. I'm sure by now the patent is expired, since the game was invented during the Great Depression.
I doubled CS/CPE at my university, as well as overlapped my M.S. CPE there. I definately didn't sleep, was always stressed, and burned out regularly. We had a very good program, although I'm tempted to say our ECE department was better (they wouldn't accept as much bullshit). Our CS required everything you mentioned.
My opinion - CPE was harder. Maybe that's because I never found programming difficult but lab experiments were my bain. When getting very low-level, e.g. engineering electronics and VLSI, much harder than any CS courses I took.
Honestly though, if the CS professors didn't accept as much bullshit and treated us like the EEs did, they'd be equal. The ECEs wanted us to be engineers - if you aren't willing to bust your ass you were not wanted. The old school engineering pride, god I love it.
Well, to defend FreeBSD a bit, they don't advocate using the latest branch. Instead they usually say that a X branch should not be used in a production environment until Y release, and then each following release is mature enough to be used.
5.3R seems to be the first release encouraging venders to begin preparing for migration. Previous release announancements said that 5.X was considered new technology and that the 4.X branch should be used instead.
You seem to conventiently neglect what Microsoft has done and how they viewed the future. When they designed Windows, all three architectures, none had the Internet in mind. In fact Micrsoft was late to the game because they didn't see it coming.
Windows 95 was meant to become the next home PC operating system. It had basic networking support to allow home networks and connecting to private networks (e.g. AOL, BBSes). Security was not seen as a major issue - about the same as for DOS/Win3x.
WinNT was designed for workstations and servers - for intranets. NT has a strong security model and is appropriate for that domain - where you protect from internal threats and only minor external ones.
In both instances the intended OS didn't have the Internet in mind, so security didn't focus on those relevant issues. In addition, the huge undertaking to develop these OSes created many of these bugs, which lie ontop of core architecture.
Everything you mentioned with VMs Microsoft has done repeatedly with every generation of Windows. With Longhorn, they'll rip out many of the problematic areas of NT, revise the kernel, and use C# as the development platform. This undertaking will create the fourth generation of Windows - where it is designed for a networked environment.
The only way to make management fun for those types of people is to show how a good engineer is like a good manager. Both are jobs where creativity, design, and a deep understanding of the field are necessary. Of course there are horrible ones in both fields, most are in each for the money not by interest.
For example, you can view an organization's strategy the same way you view a product's design. Developers create UML to think through the design of their program and then to communicate it to others. Its not heavy on implementation details. Managers map their strategy using the Balanced Scorecard approach. Both have some details set. Where classes might have data elements defined, scorecards have measures. Above all, they were designed to somehow fulfill a vision.
If you leverage the creative side of an engineer, then business is fun. Its all about presentation.
It was HP that found they couldn't close their business tech-support in Australia. They tried to move it to India, but the poor quality made them keep extending the deadline for the Australian center.
However, outsourcing tech-support is possible if not done strictly for cost reduction. If it is, then management tries to reduce phone time, so customers are poorly treated. If personnel are compensated based on number of problems solved rather than reduce pay for excess phone time, then support can be anywhere. Cross the language and knowledge barrier, thn HP would never have had any problems.
Outsourcing is often done wrong because its focus is on improving the investor's value, not the customers. Fewer people would complain if they saw better values achieved, but the fact is, companies are rethinking how they outsource because its gets only worse. Many successful companies have realized that if they focus on the customers then the rest will fall in line.
It's not all about explaining why a U.S. worker is better than a foreigner. A lot of it is about killing the fallacy that businesses exist to create shareholder value. A lot of data is shown to support this in The Loyalty Effect (1996), and if business schools had focused on that view much of the economic fallout wouldn't have occurred.
Very cool. I added it to my growing list of books to read. So far I've only read what would be appropriate for undergrad/graduate OS courses. Any other recomendations like this, say for NT or on advanced concepts (e.g. kernal personalities)?
This is because Moore's law allows for increasing number of transistors. This means adding advanced functionality becomes cheap and process advancements reduce power, so what we consider fast will be on your watch in a few years. This leads to the notion of ubiquitous computing.
Its also interesting to note that the IC industry is easily matching our needs. This silicon strategies warns of the over capacity facing IC production.
This isn't free as in GNU, but cost. I assume he predicts that computers will become so powerful and accessable that the industry will follow a low-cost strategy like manufacturing. This would be instead of adding value through performance, since computers will be fast enough that its not extremely valuable.
And you are entirely right. Being that I know a few of the lead engineers involved, that's its main objective. Its being funded by the DOD more than the DOE and is a key piece to the Clinton stockpile stewardship program. It (was) all over the NIF website years ago and I'm sure there are a lot of references on the newest site as well.
If it wasn't for that, then Congress would have cancelled the program years back (and not put pressure to clean up LLNL). Purely scientific endeavors, like those nuclear programs in Europe we hear on slashdot routinely, never seem to materialize.
I know a number of people working on NIF and hear of its progress every few months. It's been plagued with problems largely due to budgeting, as scandals have hit the lab and much of the money was funneled out. The LLNL management was largely replaced due to these activities and for a while the entire laboratory was on the brink of being shutdown.
The four beams mentioned in the summary are really just a testbed. In the previous system, Nova, there was a smaller machine called Novet that had the same purpose. I always forget the newer machine's name, but this is standard practice versus a major delay. NIF is behind the original schedule, but that's due to problems (e.g. lens issues) and technical challenges always faced in such large R&D projects.
From what I hear, things will be going pretty well from now on. Since this is an international effort (led by the US), other countries are building their own versions. France has similar system that was brought up last year with help from LLNL personnel and has allowed the lab to avoid many of the same pitfalls the French have faced.
My main contribution to this thread is simply that NIF doesn't seem to be heading towards cancellation, like many government projects. The people behind it are extremely competent and far smarter than I am. The scandals are behind them and will be making steady progress. It's a really, really impressive effort.
He was talking about Bill Clinton, not Bush Jr, as the man we love to hate. He also was not comparing 2000 to 2001, but as he explicitly said, 1992 to 2000. He was showing that the average income rose and the percent taken from taxes reduced.
Do you find VA software a strategic partner in your outsourcing ("offshoring") efforts? Did you know that they were a "relatively early adopter" of providing services to aid in this task?
Do you find it amusing that they try to stir up emotions by posting offshoring stories on slashdot to increase ad revenue from those hit hardest from outsourcing? Many readers voice their hatred of the act and are infact boosting the revenue of a company whose survival rests on the increased move of jobs to foriegn countries.
Do you consider VA Software to be a respectable organization?
Re:Indeed a fast one up on AMD
on
Athlon 64 Debuts
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Not really. The P4 had a longer pipeline for the future, and when SSE2 was used, it had similar performance clock for clock. The K8 doesn't have such a design. Instead its an Athlon with a longer pipeline so they can ramp it, but with improved algorithms so the IPC is better (meaning it does roughly the same amount of work per clock as an athlon, but can ramp higher). With the 64bit mode, they have extra registers so there is a performance boost, and the memory controller is a nice add-on too.
The only "future in mind" would be through compilers making use of the 64bit mode more efficently. However, Intel has the same with the P4 and IA-64, as well as they actually build them unlike AMD. So, your statement is simply wrong.
AMD was supposed to release this chip months ago, but they screwed up trying to go.13 and SOI at the same time, causing major delays. They're just lucky Intel only caught up and they're still quite competitive.
Developers write in high-level languages and the compiler converts it into assembly. The dependent instructions (such as loads required to do an add), is where the problems with parallelism are. This is a significant aspect that compilers do deal with: trying to reorder instructions to reduce branches and bubbles.
Above instruction-level parallelism there's thread-level. Processors utilizing SMT or CMP can execute multiple threads. Here developers must seperate their code correctly so that their application can do multiple things simultaniously. A compiler can't do it, because as you suspected it won't know what's dependent both in data and in order of execution.
So, while you have a good idea, there are a lot of books out there covering the topic.
The more I watch friends play games, the more I wonder just how its programmed. Game programming isn't quite my interest, but it seems like a complex enough system that it warrents reading a book or two. Anyone have any good suggestions?
I've been thinking a book like Tanenbaum's OS: Dsgn & Impl would be great, but using an open sourced ID engine. A book that has the code in the back as reference and helps you digest it through covering the core concepts, and then how they were implemented/design choices.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that you are GPL fanatic or anything, just that the argument has been used in the past usually to bash the BSDL. I definately agree with you on entertainment, and that I think is the most comparable medium to software. I do believe that something similar to the RIAA/MPAA situation could occur with software, and the battles wont end soon. I see the concern, but this isn't something that the BSD or the GPL can really affect.
In music, a good band that goes against the record company simply isn't heard, where one that is horrible (think the K. Osborne) is all over. Its simply control. If this occured in software, the GPL would simply be shunned while the BSDL would be sold off. At the very least, the consumers get something because in this world, they only get what the company gives them. It really doesn't make a difference if you pay twice then, because in the end you're getting screwed no matter what. This is the extreme, and so I don't see the GPL adding any benefit. So you're right that its technically possible, but at this extreme it doesn't matter.
Now, with these postings I probably sound anti-GPL.. I'm not crazy about the license (nor linux, but mostly due to the rampent insanity of fanatics, such as at the famous SVLUG). I like the BSDL for governemnt projects, because I think it makes the most sense. Regardless, both licenses have their place and I'm not debating that one is better. I think we're both just trying to find a way to determine whether this classic argument has merit. And debating can be fun in itself, regardless of topic, just for the mental excersize.
I'm not quite sure how its impossible for that to be exploited in the GPL. You said that the BSD is easier to exploit in illegal practices (e.g. monopoly), but if one company has that much power then they can either steal (or re-write) GPL code, or force said code to be hard to obtain. Or, with so much power, the company could simply base off of the GPL and force you to pay for it regardless. The idea is that there is a super powerful monopoly - an illegal one - that is ripping you off. One doesn't exist, at least now, that is in a market similar to software. Also remember, the drug company is not similar enough - software has unique features.
The base of the argument is, 'if a (illegal) monopoly exists that has immense powers, the BSD is making me pay twice'. I don't believe the GPL would make the slightest difference in this hypothetical world.
The debates on the GPLvsBSDL usually fall into what we are discussing. In many ways, the GPL-side is illogical (in my opinion) and usually is used to bash a side. I remember when pro-GPL used to claim that no one should support FreeBSD, because the core group could decide to private and 'steal' all the code. It was nonsense, and the project had to continuously remind people that even if it did (though wasn't), the BSD code wouldn't disappear.
I think there are far better arguments for why one license is better (for a task), and that this old one is drudged up over and over. Software is inherintly different then any othre type of product, so comparing it to cars or drugs is wrong. Those analogies work slightly, but have major flaws. I'm still surprised people get confused...
I would agree, except that that in the software market such lock-ins are hard. In you're examples, these companies have a monopoly and profit immensly due to forcing out any competitors. They use lobbying and their size to stop competition.
In the software world this is harder to do. Since its so easy to improve and distribute (no need for a factory which is hard to get), a company just sitting on the product will be displaced. By sitting on it, they create an oppertunity for another company or a start-up, who can take the same free code and improve it. This causes competition, which means both have to continue to add value.
Also, since the free version is so easy to distribute, unlike cars, as consumers become aware (and they will, though slowly), they will make the switch. This will be because its simply free - you claim that little added value will be added. So it will have the same interface, same features. People will switch simple due to cost. To stay competitive in this market you must always improve and add value.
The added value won't be a cup holder, it will be significant enough that consumers want it. For a car, it could be a nicer interior, easier driving capabilities, navigation, quieter, nicer looking, etc. But some will use the free cars, simply because their poor college students who love to tinker. They'll improve them, rig them, make the base better. As they do, the companies must continue to improve their product. Look at Apple, BSDI, Sun, etc - they built of the foundation and offered significant improvements. This is why people buy from them.
The argument I responded to makes sense in a market of physical items - like cars. The design was free, but manufacturing was beyound the capabilities of the consumer. In software, it locking in a monopoly is far harder. It may happen eventually, but that fact won't have anything to do with BSD/GPL. It will be through lobbying and illegal practices.
My point is that in the software world, to stay competitive companies must continue to add value. If they make a minor improvement that *any* startup can quickly copy and improve, they've lost their competitive advantage. These startups may even allow they're copied improvement back into the free alternative, simply to make the bigger competitor absolutely worthless. Thus, the improvements must be significant (Apple: usability, Sun: distributed systems).
I view BSD as allowing companies to spend resources on adding features, support, discovering flaws, and marketting. The fact is, if the free alternative is never known about its of no good to the consumer. The company is adding some value through education - but this alone can only be short-term because those users will eventually learn of the free version.
Therefor, I beleive it is over-reacting to fear exploitation being more than short-term and that the BSDL gives companies a free ride and does not benefit consumers. The GPL has an exact opposite flaw - companies must re-invent the wheel so consumers see improvements slower, as R&D is wasted. Its a personal choice one makes when choosing a license, but at no time does the BSD software stop being free and easily available.
The code doesn't magically disappear and stop being free. It remains free, in the true sense of the word, not RMS's new definition. As a consumer, you get a free no-frills verstion that anyone can use (e.g. free/net/open bsd) as well as improved products from companies (Sun, BSDI). Since companies don't have to re-invent it, they can spend their resources on adding value through features and support. The fact is you benefit as a consumer because you aren't paying twice. Your argument is the same twisted logic that has been used against BSD for years: THE SOFTWARE IS ALWAYS FREE.
spelling != intellegence, it just means that you're to lazy to use a spell checker if you need one (like many posters). At 4am when I'm working on a project and reading slashdot to take a break, its was not a priority to fix, although I admit it would have been a good idea. Also note, I never talked about myself, but friends.
However, I was simply stating the facts because I found his statement insulting.
Slashdot Mirror
Previous responces are great, but one aspect is left out. The industry is moving to both, just as people have already stated, CMP is far easier. IBM Power series uses both, Sun Niagra uses both, etc. Many processors that could benefit, are being designed with both in mind.
Only AMD isn't going SMT, and its easy to understand why. AMD is not known for innovation, but developing chips using proven methods. SMT is still relatively new, so most organizations don't have the skills required to implement it. AMD may eventually use SMT in a future design, but only after they the technology has been proven and they can hire SMT talent.
Actually the letter said "the game itself has no IP protection". I believe that covers patents as well.
Are you sure? In "The Game Makers", the corporate story of Parker Brothers, they talk about George Parker patenting Monopoly and other games. In fact, before he could release Monopoly he had to buy the patent of a similar game - one which he had rejected but was kind enough to tell the author that she better patent it. I'm sure by now the patent is expired, since the game was invented during the Great Depression.
Oh, and great book - a very fun read.
I doubled CS/CPE at my university, as well as overlapped my M.S. CPE there. I definately didn't sleep, was always stressed, and burned out regularly. We had a very good program, although I'm tempted to say our ECE department was better (they wouldn't accept as much bullshit). Our CS required everything you mentioned.
My opinion - CPE was harder. Maybe that's because I never found programming difficult but lab experiments were my bain. When getting very low-level, e.g. engineering electronics and VLSI, much harder than any CS courses I took.
Honestly though, if the CS professors didn't accept as much bullshit and treated us like the EEs did, they'd be equal. The ECEs wanted us to be engineers - if you aren't willing to bust your ass you were not wanted. The old school engineering pride, god I love it.
Well, to defend FreeBSD a bit, they don't advocate using the latest branch. Instead they usually say that a X branch should not be used in a production environment until Y release, and then each following release is mature enough to be used.
5.3R seems to be the first release encouraging venders to begin preparing for migration. Previous release announancements said that 5.X was considered new technology and that the 4.X branch should be used instead.
You seem to conventiently neglect what Microsoft has done and how they viewed the future. When they designed Windows, all three architectures, none had the Internet in mind. In fact Micrsoft was late to the game because they didn't see it coming.
Windows 95 was meant to become the next home PC operating system. It had basic networking support to allow home networks and connecting to private networks (e.g. AOL, BBSes). Security was not seen as a major issue - about the same as for DOS/Win3x.
WinNT was designed for workstations and servers - for intranets. NT has a strong security model and is appropriate for that domain - where you protect from internal threats and only minor external ones.
In both instances the intended OS didn't have the Internet in mind, so security didn't focus on those relevant issues. In addition, the huge undertaking to develop these OSes created many of these bugs, which lie ontop of core architecture.
Everything you mentioned with VMs Microsoft has done repeatedly with every generation of Windows. With Longhorn, they'll rip out many of the problematic areas of NT, revise the kernel, and use C# as the development platform. This undertaking will create the fourth generation of Windows - where it is designed for a networked environment.
The only way to make management fun for those types of people is to show how a good engineer is like a good manager. Both are jobs where creativity, design, and a deep understanding of the field are necessary. Of course there are horrible ones in both fields, most are in each for the money not by interest.
For example, you can view an organization's strategy the same way you view a product's design. Developers create UML to think through the design of their program and then to communicate it to others. Its not heavy on implementation details. Managers map their strategy using the Balanced Scorecard approach. Both have some details set. Where classes might have data elements defined, scorecards have measures. Above all, they were designed to somehow fulfill a vision.
If you leverage the creative side of an engineer, then business is fun. Its all about presentation.
It was HP that found they couldn't close their business tech-support in Australia. They tried to move it to India, but the poor quality made them keep extending the deadline for the Australian center.
However, outsourcing tech-support is possible if not done strictly for cost reduction. If it is, then management tries to reduce phone time, so customers are poorly treated. If personnel are compensated based on number of problems solved rather than reduce pay for excess phone time, then support can be anywhere. Cross the language and knowledge barrier, thn HP would never have had any problems.
Outsourcing is often done wrong because its focus is on improving the investor's value, not the customers. Fewer people would complain if they saw better values achieved, but the fact is, companies are rethinking how they outsource because its gets only worse. Many successful companies have realized that if they focus on the customers then the rest will fall in line.
It's not all about explaining why a U.S. worker is better than a foreigner. A lot of it is about killing the fallacy that businesses exist to create shareholder value. A lot of data is shown to support this in The Loyalty Effect (1996), and if business schools had focused on that view much of the economic fallout wouldn't have occurred.
Does that mean Chritianity nullified the Seven Laws of Noah? In Judaism, if you're not jewish your bound only by those universal laws.
Very cool. I added it to my growing list of books to read. So far I've only read what would be appropriate for undergrad/graduate OS courses. Any other recomendations like this, say for NT or on advanced concepts (e.g. kernal personalities)?
This is because Moore's law allows for increasing number of transistors. This means adding advanced functionality becomes cheap and process advancements reduce power, so what we consider fast will be on your watch in a few years. This leads to the notion of ubiquitous computing.
Its also interesting to note that the IC industry is easily matching our needs. This silicon strategies warns of the over capacity facing IC production.
This isn't free as in GNU, but cost. I assume he predicts that computers will become so powerful and accessable that the industry will follow a low-cost strategy like manufacturing. This would be instead of adding value through performance, since computers will be fast enough that its not extremely valuable.
And you are entirely right. Being that I know a few of the lead engineers involved, that's its main objective. Its being funded by the DOD more than the DOE and is a key piece to the Clinton stockpile stewardship program. It (was) all over the NIF website years ago and I'm sure there are a lot of references on the newest site as well.
If it wasn't for that, then Congress would have cancelled the program years back (and not put pressure to clean up LLNL). Purely scientific endeavors, like those nuclear programs in Europe we hear on slashdot routinely, never seem to materialize.
I've heard that Omega is an enhanced version of the LLNL NOVA laser. Do you know if that's accurate?
I know a number of people working on NIF and hear of its progress every few months. It's been plagued with problems largely due to budgeting, as scandals have hit the lab and much of the money was funneled out. The LLNL management was largely replaced due to these activities and for a while the entire laboratory was on the brink of being shutdown.
The four beams mentioned in the summary are really just a testbed. In the previous system, Nova, there was a smaller machine called Novet that had the same purpose. I always forget the newer machine's name, but this is standard practice versus a major delay. NIF is behind the original schedule, but that's due to problems (e.g. lens issues) and technical challenges always faced in such large R&D projects.
From what I hear, things will be going pretty well from now on. Since this is an international effort (led by the US), other countries are building their own versions. France has similar system that was brought up last year with help from LLNL personnel and has allowed the lab to avoid many of the same pitfalls the French have faced.
My main contribution to this thread is simply that NIF doesn't seem to be heading towards cancellation, like many government projects. The people behind it are extremely competent and far smarter than I am. The scandals are behind them and will be making steady progress. It's a really, really impressive effort.
He was talking about Bill Clinton, not Bush Jr, as the man we love to hate. He also was not comparing 2000 to 2001, but as he explicitly said, 1992 to 2000. He was showing that the average income rose and the percent taken from taxes reduced.
I do think this aspect is out of context, though.
Do you find VA software a strategic partner in your outsourcing ("offshoring") efforts? Did you know that they were a "relatively early adopter" of providing services to aid in this task?
Do you find it amusing that they try to stir up emotions by posting offshoring stories on slashdot to increase ad revenue from those hit hardest from outsourcing? Many readers voice their hatred of the act and are infact boosting the revenue of a company whose survival rests on the increased move of jobs to foriegn countries.
Do you consider VA Software to be a respectable organization?
VA Software Provides Better Governance For Offshore Outsourcing
VA Software Uses Own 'Offshoring' Experience to Tune Flagship Product for Hot Growth Market
Not really. The P4 had a longer pipeline for the future, and when SSE2 was used, it had similar performance clock for clock. The K8 doesn't have such a design. Instead its an Athlon with a longer pipeline so they can ramp it, but with improved algorithms so the IPC is better (meaning it does roughly the same amount of work per clock as an athlon, but can ramp higher). With the 64bit mode, they have extra registers so there is a performance boost, and the memory controller is a nice add-on too.
.13 and SOI at the same time, causing major delays. They're just lucky Intel only caught up and they're still quite competitive.
The only "future in mind" would be through compilers making use of the 64bit mode more efficently. However, Intel has the same with the P4 and IA-64, as well as they actually build them unlike AMD. So, your statement is simply wrong.
AMD was supposed to release this chip months ago, but they screwed up trying to go
Developers write in high-level languages and the compiler converts it into assembly. The dependent instructions (such as loads required to do an add), is where the problems with parallelism are. This is a significant aspect that compilers do deal with: trying to reorder instructions to reduce branches and bubbles.
Above instruction-level parallelism there's thread-level. Processors utilizing SMT or CMP can execute multiple threads. Here developers must seperate their code correctly so that their application can do multiple things simultaniously. A compiler can't do it, because as you suspected it won't know what's dependent both in data and in order of execution.
So, while you have a good idea, there are a lot of books out there covering the topic.
Or you could have installed a free IE addon to do both tabs and pop-up blocking elegently...
The more I watch friends play games, the more I wonder just how its programmed. Game programming isn't quite my interest, but it seems like a complex enough system that it warrents reading a book or two. Anyone have any good suggestions?
I've been thinking a book like Tanenbaum's OS: Dsgn & Impl would be great, but using an open sourced ID engine. A book that has the code in the back as reference and helps you digest it through covering the core concepts, and then how they were implemented/design choices.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that you are GPL fanatic or anything, just that the argument has been used in the past usually to bash the BSDL. I definately agree with you on entertainment, and that I think is the most comparable medium to software. I do believe that something similar to the RIAA/MPAA situation could occur with software, and the battles wont end soon. I see the concern, but this isn't something that the BSD or the GPL can really affect.
In music, a good band that goes against the record company simply isn't heard, where one that is horrible (think the K. Osborne) is all over. Its simply control. If this occured in software, the GPL would simply be shunned while the BSDL would be sold off. At the very least, the consumers get something because in this world, they only get what the company gives them. It really doesn't make a difference if you pay twice then, because in the end you're getting screwed no matter what. This is the extreme, and so I don't see the GPL adding any benefit. So you're right that its technically possible, but at this extreme it doesn't matter.
Now, with these postings I probably sound anti-GPL.. I'm not crazy about the license (nor linux, but mostly due to the rampent insanity of fanatics, such as at the famous SVLUG). I like the BSDL for governemnt projects, because I think it makes the most sense. Regardless, both licenses have their place and I'm not debating that one is better. I think we're both just trying to find a way to determine whether this classic argument has merit. And debating can be fun in itself, regardless of topic, just for the mental excersize.
I'm not quite sure how its impossible for that to be exploited in the GPL. You said that the BSD is easier to exploit in illegal practices (e.g. monopoly), but if one company has that much power then they can either steal (or re-write) GPL code, or force said code to be hard to obtain. Or, with so much power, the company could simply base off of the GPL and force you to pay for it regardless. The idea is that there is a super powerful monopoly - an illegal one - that is ripping you off. One doesn't exist, at least now, that is in a market similar to software. Also remember, the drug company is not similar enough - software has unique features.
The base of the argument is, 'if a (illegal) monopoly exists that has immense powers, the BSD is making me pay twice'. I don't believe the GPL would make the slightest difference in this hypothetical world.
The debates on the GPLvsBSDL usually fall into what we are discussing. In many ways, the GPL-side is illogical (in my opinion) and usually is used to bash a side. I remember when pro-GPL used to claim that no one should support FreeBSD, because the core group could decide to private and 'steal' all the code. It was nonsense, and the project had to continuously remind people that even if it did (though wasn't), the BSD code wouldn't disappear.
I think there are far better arguments for why one license is better (for a task), and that this old one is drudged up over and over. Software is inherintly different then any othre type of product, so comparing it to cars or drugs is wrong. Those analogies work slightly, but have major flaws. I'm still surprised people get confused...
I would agree, except that that in the software market such lock-ins are hard. In you're examples, these companies have a monopoly and profit immensly due to forcing out any competitors. They use lobbying and their size to stop competition.
In the software world this is harder to do. Since its so easy to improve and distribute (no need for a factory which is hard to get), a company just sitting on the product will be displaced. By sitting on it, they create an oppertunity for another company or a start-up, who can take the same free code and improve it. This causes competition, which means both have to continue to add value.
Also, since the free version is so easy to distribute, unlike cars, as consumers become aware (and they will, though slowly), they will make the switch. This will be because its simply free - you claim that little added value will be added. So it will have the same interface, same features. People will switch simple due to cost. To stay competitive in this market you must always improve and add value.
The added value won't be a cup holder, it will be significant enough that consumers want it. For a car, it could be a nicer interior, easier driving capabilities, navigation, quieter, nicer looking, etc. But some will use the free cars, simply because their poor college students who love to tinker. They'll improve them, rig them, make the base better. As they do, the companies must continue to improve their product. Look at Apple, BSDI, Sun, etc - they built of the foundation and offered significant improvements. This is why people buy from them.
The argument I responded to makes sense in a market of physical items - like cars. The design was free, but manufacturing was beyound the capabilities of the consumer. In software, it locking in a monopoly is far harder. It may happen eventually, but that fact won't have anything to do with BSD/GPL. It will be through lobbying and illegal practices.
My point is that in the software world, to stay competitive companies must continue to add value. If they make a minor improvement that *any* startup can quickly copy and improve, they've lost their competitive advantage. These startups may even allow they're copied improvement back into the free alternative, simply to make the bigger competitor absolutely worthless. Thus, the improvements must be significant (Apple: usability, Sun: distributed systems).
I view BSD as allowing companies to spend resources on adding features, support, discovering flaws, and marketting. The fact is, if the free alternative is never known about its of no good to the consumer. The company is adding some value through education - but this alone can only be short-term because those users will eventually learn of the free version.
Therefor, I beleive it is over-reacting to fear exploitation being more than short-term and that the BSDL gives companies a free ride and does not benefit consumers. The GPL has an exact opposite flaw - companies must re-invent the wheel so consumers see improvements slower, as R&D is wasted. Its a personal choice one makes when choosing a license, but at no time does the BSD software stop being free and easily available.
The code doesn't magically disappear and stop being free. It remains free, in the true sense of the word, not RMS's new definition. As a consumer, you get a free no-frills verstion that anyone can use (e.g. free/net/open bsd) as well as improved products from companies (Sun, BSDI). Since companies don't have to re-invent it, they can spend their resources on adding value through features and support. The fact is you benefit as a consumer because you aren't paying twice. Your argument is the same twisted logic that has been used against BSD for years: THE SOFTWARE IS ALWAYS FREE.
spelling != intellegence, it just means that you're to lazy to use a spell checker if you need one (like many posters). At 4am when I'm working on a project and reading slashdot to take a break, its was not a priority to fix, although I admit it would have been a good idea. Also note, I never talked about myself, but friends.
However, I was simply stating the facts because I found his statement insulting.