The only problem with your scheme is that a company of 10 people probably wouldn't have the in-house skills needed to setup/configure/maintain a unix machine. And they probably wouldn't have to money to hire a competent one either. Enter the device any idiot can use (course we could just make web admin stuff for linux... oh, didn't they already do that with the cobalt machines?).
i mean, if they can't set up an NT box (even poorly) what chance do they have of setting up a linux box? very little, imho.
Just about every book/journal article/whatever has the restriction about reproduction "in whole or in part." They still get quoted like crazy by students and other writers and anybody who quotes (and, obviously, acknowledges the source) from the text. There's probably some restriction on length of the quote, but...
somebody said fair use earlier. yeah. what he said:)
This was discussed in some (flaming) detail previously. In the interest of not repeating the entire discussion y'all could read through it.
I imagine that the spec has changed somewhat, though, so perhaps some of the restrictions have changed (like vendors being able to provide binary only drivers)
1) Protocol translation, there needs to be a mechanism so that the transmitted document is translated to the appropriate language for the printer. For instance if you're sending a PostScript document to somebody with an Epson ink jet printer it should be able to figure out that running the document through GhostView will do the trick. I haven't acutally read the spec, but if i understand correctly, it won't necessarily be only printers that can be IPP servers. This would mean that your box with GhostView (and god only knows which other translators) installed on it would be able to provide an IPP server that would know how to translate many formats to something that you printer would understand. This could even mean that my old Cannon 200c printer could have an IPP URL... now that'd be cool
I think, however, that a printer that groks IPP would tell the client which file formats it can print, then it would be up to the client to translate the file into a stream that the printer can understand
another idea for the FAXing analogy could be that the IPP device would automatically translate text documents into the language that the recipient is most comfortable with (of course the translation software would have to be good, but...)
You know, the stuff you don't see or hear about? The stuff that works like it's supposed to. Now, granted, that kind of software dosen't usually occur on the PC, but...
Think embedded software. The software that controls the fuel injectors on cars. Network switches, robotics control, in-flight aviation software. It's all closed source (afaik), but works, for the most part, pretty flawlessly. Of course, the compaines that produce this software have lots of internal code review (I'm thinking of NORTEL, just 'cause i know lots of people who've worked there)
anyway, on to the point. ESR seems to be implying that all closed-source software is a Bad Thing(tm). I figure it's not all that bad, just that most companies don't put forth the (large amount of) effort required to produce good software.
I will agree with his point that purchasing closed-source software is a risk. the company could go under, or move in a direction that you don't want, leaving you in the lurch. But then, what in life isn't a risk?
Slashdot Mirror
The only problem with your scheme is that a company of 10 people probably wouldn't have the in-house skills needed to setup/configure/maintain a unix machine. And they probably wouldn't have to money to hire a competent one either. Enter the device any idiot can use (course we could just make web admin stuff for linux... oh, didn't they already do that with the cobalt machines?).
i mean, if they can't set up an NT box (even poorly) what chance do they have of setting up a linux box? very little, imho.
Just about every book/journal article/whatever has the restriction about reproduction "in whole or in part." They still get quoted like crazy by students and other writers and anybody who quotes (and, obviously, acknowledges the source) from the text. There's probably some restriction on length of the quote, but...
:)
somebody said fair use earlier. yeah. what he said
I imagine that the spec has changed somewhat, though, so perhaps some of the restrictions have changed (like vendors being able to provide binary only drivers)
enjoy.
I think, however, that a printer that groks IPP would tell the client which file formats it can print, then it would be up to the client to translate the file into a stream that the printer can understand
another idea for the FAXing analogy could be that the IPP device would automatically translate text documents into the language that the recipient is most comfortable with (of course the translation software would have to be good, but...)
You know, the stuff you don't see or hear about? The stuff that works like it's supposed to. Now, granted, that kind of software dosen't usually occur on the PC, but...
Think embedded software. The software that controls the fuel injectors on cars. Network switches, robotics control, in-flight aviation software. It's all closed source (afaik), but works, for the most part, pretty flawlessly. Of course, the compaines that produce this software have lots of internal code review (I'm thinking of NORTEL, just 'cause i know lots of people who've worked there)
anyway, on to the point. ESR seems to be implying that all closed-source software is a Bad Thing(tm). I figure it's not all that bad, just that most companies don't put forth the (large amount of) effort required to produce good software.
I will agree with his point that purchasing closed-source software is a risk. the company could go under, or move in a direction that you don't want, leaving you in the lurch. But then, what in life isn't a risk?