My Dad doesn't know the difference between Windows and Linux. He doesn't know how to install software. He doesn't even know the difference between MS-Word, MS-Internet Explorer, and MS-Windows.
He's like 90% of "real world" computer users.
He has all this MS software because it was installed that way out of the box. He'll never upgrade to Windows 2000 (why would he?). And he'll never upgrade to Linux, even if it was easier, cheaper, and seemless.
Linux advocates should think about the development and marketing of low-cost PCs that have pre-installed Linux and it's associated application tools. People buy computers these days regardless of the specs. A reliable Linux-based computer for 20% less than the competion will be (I speculate) quite successful.
I think the Linux community can learn some from (gasp!) Apple Computer. "Be different". An alternative OS in an alternative-looking box - and with amazing sales. I like that strategy for linux. Put the OS in a low-cost 4" x 6" x 10" black box, and sell it as "cheaper & faster & better & cooler".
And like Apple, if you start selling your hardware with MS-Windows on it, you loose your "different" status, and you lose the whole game.
So how can "we" get all this done? Well, the existing PC manufacturers (HP, compaq, apple, etc) won't be much help - the current Linux market isn't worth a zillion dollars. So perhaps only a smaller organization, along with technical advice and assistance from the Linux community, can get the ball rolling... followed by a strong support and informal marketing efforts by the Linux community.
If sales get big enough, retailers and the big boys (Dell, Compaq) will have to take notice and will need to start actively marketing Linux for the desktop. All in the name of profit, of course.
These GPL detractors - many of them self-titled "entrepreneurs" - are looking to make lots of money off of someone else's hard work without any form of agreed-upon compensation. Are these people simply advocating further software freedoms?
I don't think so. I think these people are advocating stealing someone's copyright... or should I say "intellectual property". Or should I say "Hard Work". Maybe that's standard practice in some circles of the "new" economy, but it shouldn't be.
I say that these GPL detractors are not entrepreneurs. And they're not morally savvy business people. They're leeches, wishing they could freely acquire someone else's efforts for a $0 investment. They should step up to the plate and invest time, effort, and money. Like real entrepreneurs do.
Pick the right employer, and they'll pay for grad school. Sounds like a pain in the butt, but you can (1) save big bucks, and (2) earn some cash and (3) gain some industry experience.
I once worked for United Technologies. I'm not going to advocate them as an employer, but they have a kick-ass deal for those who want to go to school: Work full time, they give you some time off for classes, they pay for 100% of all course fees and books up-front even if those classes (or your major) aren't job-related. And for each degree you earn (Bach., Master, or Doctor), they give you 200 shares of company stock (at $60+/share, that's $12000+.)
Of course, the tough part is part-time grad school... it'll take longer, and to be honest, I doubt that a part-time academic experience is as good as a full-time experience.
But hey, after the $12k, quit and go back to school full-time. You'll loose some time, but you'll gain some industry experience and $.
Hum, yes, Parody of trademarks has been upheld in the United States as "acceptable use". But a domain name in of itself is not parody.
Can someone grab the domain name "micro-soft.com" and use it to sell computer software? Hum, sounds pretty questionable to me, because selling software isn't much of a parody (hey, that rhymes!)
Can I grab the name "micro-soft.com" and make a paradoy site? Maybe I could get away with that. But then if I try to sell the domain name to Billy G. for $1000000, is it still that much of a paraody? Wouldn't the parody still work if it was "micropoop.com"?
Although I agree that one has to be very careful about giving corporatations the right to misuse the rights of others, trademark laws exist and should be applied fairly to both individuals and corporations large and small.
On another point, domain names were never suposed to be a commodity, and it's sad that some people have made and lost millions just by registering a stupid name.
The scary part is that INDIVIDUALS can't reasonably build their own crypto expertise. These days, some large corporations are significantly more wealthy and powerful than many countries combined - they can buy the brightest and best crypto experts, and they probably should, considering how much power they control and how many other big companies are trying to further their own power.
These big companies also have the power to shape the laws to satisfy their own needs. I'm talking companies in the order of magnitude of Exxon and Aetna and Citigroup (or whatever the heck they're called these days)
But it's the individuals who are fairly powerless in this game. Only a semi-counter-culture organization can protect their rights with the knowledge and information (and software!) they need to protect themselves, without corporate (aka government) intervention.
Perhaps that's where we come in. Just watch out for pretenders.
Slashdot Mirror
My Dad doesn't know the difference between Windows and Linux. He doesn't know how to install software. He doesn't even know the difference between MS-Word, MS-Internet Explorer, and MS-Windows.
... followed by a strong support and informal marketing efforts by the Linux community.
He's like 90% of "real world" computer users.
He has all this MS software because it was installed that way out of the box. He'll never upgrade to Windows 2000 (why would he?). And he'll never upgrade to Linux, even if it was easier, cheaper, and seemless.
Linux advocates should think about the development and marketing of low-cost PCs that have pre-installed Linux and it's associated application tools. People buy computers these days regardless of the specs. A reliable Linux-based computer for 20% less than the competion will be (I speculate) quite successful.
I think the Linux community can learn some from (gasp!) Apple Computer. "Be different". An alternative OS in an alternative-looking box - and with amazing sales. I like that strategy for linux. Put the OS in a low-cost 4" x 6" x 10" black box, and sell it as "cheaper & faster & better & cooler".
And like Apple, if you start selling your hardware with MS-Windows on it, you loose your "different" status, and you lose the whole game.
So how can "we" get all this done? Well, the existing PC manufacturers (HP, compaq, apple, etc) won't be much help - the current Linux market isn't worth a zillion dollars. So perhaps only a smaller organization, along with technical advice and assistance from the Linux community, can get the ball rolling
If sales get big enough, retailers and the big boys (Dell, Compaq) will have to take notice and will need to start actively marketing Linux for the desktop. All in the name of profit, of course.
These GPL detractors - many of them self-titled "entrepreneurs" - are looking to make lots of money off of someone else's hard work without any form of agreed-upon compensation. Are these people simply advocating further software freedoms?
I don't think so. I think these people are advocating stealing someone's copyright... or should I say "intellectual property". Or should I say "Hard Work". Maybe that's standard practice in some circles of the "new" economy, but it shouldn't be.
I say that these GPL detractors are not entrepreneurs. And they're not morally savvy business people. They're leeches, wishing they could freely acquire someone else's efforts for a $0 investment.
They should step up to the plate and invest time, effort, and money. Like real entrepreneurs do.
Pick the right employer, and they'll pay for grad school. Sounds like a pain in the butt, but you can (1) save big bucks, and (2) earn some cash and (3) gain some industry experience.
I once worked for United Technologies. I'm not going to advocate them as an employer, but they have a kick-ass deal for those who want to go to school: Work full time, they give you some time off for classes, they pay for 100% of all course fees and books up-front even if those classes (or your major) aren't job-related. And for each degree you earn (Bach., Master, or Doctor), they give you 200 shares of company stock (at $60+/share, that's $12000+.)
Of course, the tough part is part-time grad school... it'll take longer, and to be honest, I doubt that a part-time academic experience is as good as a full-time experience.
But hey, after the $12k, quit and go back to school full-time. You'll loose some time, but you'll gain some industry experience and $.
Sorry, didn't answer your question.
Heh, I'm surprised MSNBC didn't report it first. Or maybe MSNBC wanted CNN to report it first.
... I wonder how many former AOL employees now work for Microsoft? Betcha it's at least one more than zero...
To continue with the conspiricy theories
Hum, yes, Parody of trademarks has been upheld in the United States as "acceptable use". But a domain name in of itself is not parody.
Can someone grab the domain name "micro-soft.com" and use it to sell computer software? Hum, sounds pretty questionable to me, because selling software isn't much of a parody (hey, that rhymes!)
Can I grab the name "micro-soft.com" and make a paradoy site? Maybe I could get away with that. But then if I try to sell the domain name to Billy G. for $1000000, is it still that much of a paraody? Wouldn't the parody still work if it was "micropoop.com"?
Although I agree that one has to be very careful about giving corporatations the right to misuse the rights of others, trademark laws exist and should be applied fairly to both individuals and corporations large and small.
On another point, domain names were never suposed to be a commodity, and it's sad that some people have made and lost millions just by registering a stupid name.
The scary part is that INDIVIDUALS can't reasonably build their own crypto expertise. These days, some large corporations are significantly more wealthy and powerful than many countries combined - they can buy the brightest and best crypto experts, and they probably should, considering how much power they control and how many other big companies are trying to further their own power.
These big companies also have the power to shape the laws to satisfy their own needs. I'm talking companies in the order of magnitude of Exxon and Aetna and Citigroup (or whatever the heck they're called these days)
But it's the individuals who are fairly powerless in this game. Only a semi-counter-culture organization can protect their rights with the knowledge and information (and software!) they need to protect themselves, without corporate (aka government) intervention.
Perhaps that's where we come in. Just watch out for pretenders.