Would you rather Valve spend tens of millions on developing Half-Life 2 and 3, sell it without DRM and barely sell a maybe a quarter of what they sold now due to rampant piracy?
First - the rampant piracy seems to be happening anyway. Secondly - what figures do you have that show they would have only sold a quarter of their current sales without DRM?
Let's see, in order to publish a video game today you need DRM - shut up. I can hear you bitching already "But what about X, Y, and Z! They don't use DRM!" Shut the fuck up. We're not talking about Joe's Self-Published Title, we're talking about something being sold through a major distributor. DRM is a must - so what options are there?
Wait. Your argument for DRM is "shut the fuck up" - that's it? As compelling as that argument is, I find it lacking. Exactly WHY is DRM "a must"? You might note several decades of steady growth was managed without DRM.
Honestly, until Valve fucks it up seriously, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Being unable to even play offline... that's not a screwup? I understand that it's failing as intended. But then, that's the issue.
But hey - I'm sure that while I'm not able to play the game I paid for, I can be rest assured that if I COULD play it... it would be up to date. Even for those few of us that need to run an up-to-date copy from multiple machines. Wonderful. Of course, without DRM, I could still have the same thing. And I could be playing my game.
So what? If you can disable a service so it doesn't run, what is gained by removing it?
Simply disabling the service doesn't keep it from being re-enabled later on. Furthermore, not everything I'm talking about is a service. I'm also referring to libraries and other components that, if they serve no purpose, are vulnerabilities in waiting.
I'll admit that this isn't always obvious. Taking advantage of some of these things may require a chain of events. But then, automating this process is the basis of rootkits and worms.
One final confession - my desktop system isn't hardened like this. While I do on rare occasion clean things up, it is likely full of libraries and various odds and ends that should be uninstalled. But my boundary systems are.
On yet another hand, however, you have the problem of moron users running sendmail daemons that listen for connections from the Internet and other stupid things. Plus, Linux has security holes. If stupid people don't patch them just like they don't path winders, what good is the security?
Flipping the coin again, I don't have to run sendmail. Almost any aspect of a Linux system can be removed in a very modular manner. If something is not needed, there's no reason to keep it available to be exploited. And in cases such as sendmail, if you still need that functionality you can pick one of many other mail transport systems.
Windows does not give you this ability. Even if you try to manually rip out various bits, you're going to find yourself traversing a landmine of interdependancies amoung seemingly disparate subsystems. If you manage to do that, you'll have to reaccomplish your hardening steps again after each and every patch / upgrade / software installation.
It might be worth noting that Linux will give you all the rope you want to hang yourself. So you can certainly create an amazingly insecure Linux system. But it helps if the basic install makes someone have to take extra steps to do so. Recent distributions take steps to customize installs for the application (desktop, server, etc.). But there are exceptions - Lindows / Linspire comes to mind.
Companies will come back to -- better than x86 platforms -- sooner or later. Either that, or x86 may even become a legitimate platform one day.
From where I'm sitting, this isn't true. Over the past four years, I've seen more and more proprietary hardware being replaced by commodity hardware. This is happening for various 'nix strongholds - from servers to engineering workstations. And while many folks will view this as a Windows vs. Unix issue... it's not. It's all about the hardware. The commodity hardware is cheaper and for these applications, just as capable. Windows just comes along for the ride.
My wife got a copy of WoW and despite my being perfectly happy with Neverwinter Nights, I had to give it a shot. The next weekend, I had my own boxed copy and had re-up'd my Transgaming subscription. I've been running WoW on a Debian Unstable box with nVidia ti4200 and.5G RAM. I really should get a couple sticks and raise that to at least a full gig.
I tend to prefer OpenGL mode but can't deal with the Minimap issue (keeps biting me). So I tend to play using D3D, which works fine. I'm glad to see Transgaming is trying to hash out the Minimap crash and hope they'll figure out a fix sometime soon.
Having said all that - I play side by side with my wife and have no issues. Even when I drop in extra interface mods. And my CDs haven't touched a Windows OS yet.
For example: at my work we have a three hour meeting once a week in order that the boss can try to understand what we are doing (yes, he does not possess the technical competence required to already understand what we do and why). We work a 37 hour week, so 3 hours of question asking wastes 8% of our available time.
Are these 3 productive hours? Are you answering the same questions again and again? Are you being asked finite details to facilitate micromanagement? Or is there a problem coming up with a sufficiently high-level but informative presentation of what's going on in your group?
It shouldn't take long for a good manager to get a pretty good idea of what the team is doing. And even a manager who has a good technical understanding of the job will still have to get the same information.
It's the micromanager (technical or not) who will innundate you with questions. And those are not good managers.
I've had jobs where the management didn't understand the job that I was doing, and as a result they would do things like place impossible deadlines on projects and question every how/when/why that went on. This happened because they had no idea what the job really required.
Your management should have gotten feedback from their people. They should have been aware that the deadlines were impossible. And when they asked how/when/why, they should have been listening to the answers. And from those answers... they should have been able to understand what the job really required.
Hmmm. I suppose you're right. I always thought it was a variation of Occam's Razor in so far as ignorance or stupidity is a much more common (and simple) occurrence than machiavellian action. But hey. What says I can't fall under the same laws?
Let's set aside the arguments about why this is an implausible scenario and the obvious Microsoft bashing and ask, aside from the exceptions above, what would be the reaction to such an announcement?
Sure. Let's remove all historical context. Let's ignore past actions. Let's ignore published ideologies. Let's take a current event and an imagined event... and try to make judgments while ignoring all existing orientation. Close your eyes, spin around, and point to where you think the Wumpus would be.
What are you? A trade magazine pundit?
The question becomes more interesting when you don't ignore context. What if it was Microsoft doing this, even with all we know about Microsoft? We already know the answer to that. There's already historical precedent. It's called IBM.
Anyone with a sufficiently long enough memory (or ability to do basic online research) will have a healthy distrust for IBM. After all, Microsoft's infamy comes from simply honing the business practices of IBM. Yet there's a fair amount of optimism expressed in this environment for IBM. Why?
Open Source. IBM can't take back what they've already put in (which leads to another conversation on Open Source licensing - but I'll avoid that Jihad). Sure - there is an aspect of the IT industry that seems to view this as a problem and are seeking a solution. The SCO Group seems to be one. None the less, at this point, such "solutions" don't exist.
IBM lost a lot of it's clout with the commoditization of hardware. We're seeing the dawning of the commodity OS. One day, Microsoft committing to support a major Open Source project no strings attached may not seem so strange.
Now if Firefox had a version of the Google toolbar, which up to now it does not, I would switch in a hot minute.
I'm somewhat shocked that someone would say this. I have to admit, I can't help but wonder if I'm being trolled on this. But I'll apply Occam's Razor and assume ignorance over malicious intent.
Firefox has Googlebar and has had it for some time. Now, some have claimed Googlebar doesn't count since it lacks PageRank. Enter PRGooglebar.
With great OSS projects like Open Office, Gimp, and others, Linux desktop users have become accustomed a totally free desktop, and dislike free solutions that only provide binaries. This is not a very inviting environment for commercial companies to jump in, given the effort porting would take, and given Linux's penetration into the Desktop market (not meager, but not massive either).
Welcome to competition. Why would someone bother with Unreal Tournament 2004 when one can download Enemy Territory or America's Army for free? I've got all three on my home desktop. I've also got Neverwinter Nights. And while I've got a few favorite servers that I've been very happy with, I still went out and purchased World of Warcraft. But to get World of Warcraft working properly, I went and purchased a membership with Transgaming. You see, my home desktop is Linux.
In order for linux to become truly something to be wreckoned with, Joe user must become accustomed to it.
It depends. One could certainly make the argument that Joe User will affect desktop deployment. But then you're going to have to better define exactly who Joe User is. Is he a real Windows user, or does he simply use what came with his Dell? None the less, the desktop isn't all of IT.
Joe User probably uses Linux today. He more than likely does searches on Google. He could connect to his ISP through a Linksys router. And it's also possible he's found the joy of Tivo. He'll do all of this oblivious to the engineering decisions and marketing battle that's gone on to bring the product to him.
Re:It's not the business model...
on
Linux, Inc.
·
· Score: 1
If it were not from grown-ups (in suits) working for Red Hat and IBM driving the Market, Linux would still be a nifty project on University campuses, instead of the multi-billion-dollar industry that it is.
If it weren't for the hackers and techies hammering away at Linux and deploying it successfully, there would be no interest from the "grown-up" suits. Linux's success is dependant on all aspects of the Business world.
Having said that... capturing the interest in the Hacker group is important. Why else do you have Balmer running around screaming about developers. Maybe your professional environment is different than mine. However, where I work, a strong majority of what has been purchased and deployed was picked out by myself and my peers. We don't wear suits.
Re:It's not the business model...
on
Linux, Inc.
·
· Score: 1
p.s. Note that I'm using the word "Unix". In the real world (outside of Slashdot) Linux is merely another flavor of Unix. It may not be genuine Unix, but it looks, smells and tastes like it. And it doesn't require expensive hardware either.
Huh. Looking at your.sig, it appears that you're a *BSD fan. Usually it's the BSD brigade that's quick to point out the Unix pedigre and how Linux isn't really Unix.;)
Back to the rest of the post...
If Windows were a complete pile of shit, they would be flocking to Unix in droves. Actually a couple of decades ago they were, but I digress. But because Windows is mediocre, it's much harder for Unix to make headway.
In my experience, Unix was slowly losing out to Windows simply because Windows ran on commodity hardware. Windows was cheaper. And, at least on paper, did the same stuff. It took quite a few years to the pendulum to start swinging... but it eventually did.
The new shift is that you can still run "Unix" on commodity hardware. And once again, it has taken awhile for Management to catch on.
Why do our lives have to center around friggin' work? I would rather not work at all.
Another poster already noted the concept of becoming good at what you like to do and thus being paid well to do it. A second point you missed is that "work" does not mean "job". Work is a challenge. Go back over the speech. One of his points is that, in trying to figure out what to do, one should be looking for a challenge one enjoys. And, if fact, that activity is not a challenge... if one does not have to WORK at it... there may be something amis.
It might also be worth stressing the author's point of a "day job". From the article:
A day job is one you take to pay the bills so you can do what you really want, like play in a band, or invent relativity.
The concept of working at something has nothing to do with a day job. Sure - if we were all independantly wealthy, we probably wouldn't have a day job (and failing that, we manage to work ourselves in to careers where there is no need for a "day job"). It sounds like you've confused the two.
It appears we got different messages out of the article. What I saw was a question: is this marketing fluff or real support? And while there's the usual dross in responce, there's also some good information that shows some gen-u-ine support for Linux by Intel.
Why is this important? Because without at least SOME degree of support from Intel, getting this hardware to work properly with Linux is a tough job. With Intel's help, it is much more likely that my hardware investement will continue to support the platform I want.
Incidently, I find it interesting that you concider sharing information about a product is being "whiny ass consumers".
I see. If I don't like something, I shouldn't be expressing that disatisfaction. Especially if that might be interfering with someone's profit. Thanks for allowing me the choice of whether I do actually buy it or not. Wait... doesn't that interfere with that profit? I should probably just buy it just in case.
You're correct. I just wanted to keep things very simple. Putting it yet another way: SCO is at the end of a chain that begins with AT&T.
OK. Fair enough. But I would suggest that trying to simply the chain glosses over some very important details. And its those details that suggest that SCO doesn't have the rights they're claiming to have. Put another way, your simplification may imply a clear-cut case that isn't actually so clear-cut.
I remember an interview last year where Darl McBride was asked about Novell's claims. Darl ended up asserting that Caldera (SCO Group) had purchased what they thought they purchased - after all, they're not idiots. I'm sure Jack thought the same thing about his bag of magic beans. But the documentation presented by Novell seems to throw considerable question as to what exactly SCO's holdings are. As such, I'm not expecting SCO's portfolio to be leading to the fell of any giants and associated acquisition a fortune.
Well, to be a bit more accurate, the original contract was between AT&T and IBM, and SCO obtained rights under that contract from AT&T (precisely what rights are one of the numerous subjects of dispute in the lawsuit).
Didn't any rights transfered from AT&T go to Novell? Then Novell made arangements whith SCO concerning new business / customers (which is where the debate over exactly what rights were transfered to SCO). Caldera (who soon afterwards renamed themselves The SCO Group) purchased a majority of what was SCO, leaving what was left to become it's own entity under the Tarentella name.
Please correct me if I've made a mistake. But otherwise, it seems that there are quit a few steps between AT&T and the SCO involved in court.
Besides, noone in 1983 would have looked and said "oh wow it's the new model of the Macintosh computer that doesn't even exist". It just looks like another of the million boxes that were competing for the new home computing market at the time. Noone would know it from a TRS-80 or Coleco Adam.
Back in 1983, you could count the producers of consumer microcomputers on one hand. Then you could use the other hand to list available models. Each would be very distinct and easy to identify. Anybody in the industry with a keen enough eye would have noted that something unidentified and new was lurking in the background.
Having said that - I doubt anyone would have given it a second thought. And, as you noted, Apple would probably enjoy the attention.
If Apple wanted to compete with MSFT, they could simply release OSX for the PC, and all of a sudden XP would have real competition.
There's a reason this hasn't, and won't happen, and it isn't because Jobs is afraid of making too much money.
Yep. All Apple has to do is recompile for x86 and it'd be instant success and millions in additional revenue. It's a no-brainer. The roaring success of other commercial x86 offerings such as OS/2 Warp and BeOS pave the way.
Slashdot Mirror
First - the rampant piracy seems to be happening anyway. Secondly - what figures do you have that show they would have only sold a quarter of their current sales without DRM?
Wait. Your argument for DRM is "shut the fuck up" - that's it? As compelling as that argument is, I find it lacking. Exactly WHY is DRM "a must"? You might note several decades of steady growth was managed without DRM.
Being unable to even play offline... that's not a screwup? I understand that it's failing as intended. But then, that's the issue.
But hey - I'm sure that while I'm not able to play the game I paid for, I can be rest assured that if I COULD play it... it would be up to date. Even for those few of us that need to run an up-to-date copy from multiple machines. Wonderful. Of course, without DRM, I could still have the same thing. And I could be playing my game.
Simply disabling the service doesn't keep it from being re-enabled later on. Furthermore, not everything I'm talking about is a service. I'm also referring to libraries and other components that, if they serve no purpose, are vulnerabilities in waiting.
I'll admit that this isn't always obvious. Taking advantage of some of these things may require a chain of events. But then, automating this process is the basis of rootkits and worms.
One final confession - my desktop system isn't hardened like this. While I do on rare occasion clean things up, it is likely full of libraries and various odds and ends that should be uninstalled. But my boundary systems are.
You can disable it. But you can't remove it.
Flipping the coin again, I don't have to run sendmail. Almost any aspect of a Linux system can be removed in a very modular manner. If something is not needed, there's no reason to keep it available to be exploited. And in cases such as sendmail, if you still need that functionality you can pick one of many other mail transport systems.
Windows does not give you this ability. Even if you try to manually rip out various bits, you're going to find yourself traversing a landmine of interdependancies amoung seemingly disparate subsystems. If you manage to do that, you'll have to reaccomplish your hardening steps again after each and every patch / upgrade / software installation.
It might be worth noting that Linux will give you all the rope you want to hang yourself. So you can certainly create an amazingly insecure Linux system. But it helps if the basic install makes someone have to take extra steps to do so. Recent distributions take steps to customize installs for the application (desktop, server, etc.). But there are exceptions - Lindows / Linspire comes to mind.
From where I'm sitting, this isn't true. Over the past four years, I've seen more and more proprietary hardware being replaced by commodity hardware. This is happening for various 'nix strongholds - from servers to engineering workstations. And while many folks will view this as a Windows vs. Unix issue... it's not. It's all about the hardware. The commodity hardware is cheaper and for these applications, just as capable. Windows just comes along for the ride.
A quick "me to" for this.
.5G RAM. I really should get a couple sticks and raise that to at least a full gig.
My wife got a copy of WoW and despite my being perfectly happy with Neverwinter Nights, I had to give it a shot. The next weekend, I had my own boxed copy and had re-up'd my Transgaming subscription. I've been running WoW on a Debian Unstable box with nVidia ti4200 and
I tend to prefer OpenGL mode but can't deal with the Minimap issue (keeps biting me). So I tend to play using D3D, which works fine. I'm glad to see Transgaming is trying to hash out the Minimap crash and hope they'll figure out a fix sometime soon.
Having said all that - I play side by side with my wife and have no issues. Even when I drop in extra interface mods. And my CDs haven't touched a Windows OS yet.
Are these 3 productive hours? Are you answering the same questions again and again? Are you being asked finite details to facilitate micromanagement? Or is there a problem coming up with a sufficiently high-level but informative presentation of what's going on in your group?
It shouldn't take long for a good manager to get a pretty good idea of what the team is doing. And even a manager who has a good technical understanding of the job will still have to get the same information.
It's the micromanager (technical or not) who will innundate you with questions. And those are not good managers.
Your management should have gotten feedback from their people. They should have been aware that the deadlines were impossible. And when they asked how/when/why, they should have been listening to the answers. And from those answers... they should have been able to understand what the job really required.
Hmmm. I suppose you're right. I always thought it was a variation of Occam's Razor in so far as ignorance or stupidity is a much more common (and simple) occurrence than machiavellian action. But hey. What says I can't fall under the same laws?
;)
Thanks.
Sure. Let's remove all historical context. Let's ignore past actions. Let's ignore published ideologies. Let's take a current event and an imagined event... and try to make judgments while ignoring all existing orientation. Close your eyes, spin around, and point to where you think the Wumpus would be.
What are you? A trade magazine pundit?
The question becomes more interesting when you don't ignore context. What if it was Microsoft doing this, even with all we know about Microsoft? We already know the answer to that. There's already historical precedent. It's called IBM.
Anyone with a sufficiently long enough memory (or ability to do basic online research) will have a healthy distrust for IBM. After all, Microsoft's infamy comes from simply honing the business practices of IBM. Yet there's a fair amount of optimism expressed in this environment for IBM. Why?
Open Source. IBM can't take back what they've already put in (which leads to another conversation on Open Source licensing - but I'll avoid that Jihad). Sure - there is an aspect of the IT industry that seems to view this as a problem and are seeking a solution. The SCO Group seems to be one. None the less, at this point, such "solutions" don't exist.
IBM lost a lot of it's clout with the commoditization of hardware. We're seeing the dawning of the commodity OS. One day, Microsoft committing to support a major Open Source project no strings attached may not seem so strange.
I'm somewhat shocked that someone would say this. I have to admit, I can't help but wonder if I'm being trolled on this. But I'll apply Occam's Razor and assume ignorance over malicious intent.
Firefox has Googlebar and has had it for some time. Now, some have claimed Googlebar doesn't count since it lacks PageRank. Enter PRGooglebar.
Welcome to competition. Why would someone bother with Unreal Tournament 2004 when one can download Enemy Territory or America's Army for free? I've got all three on my home desktop. I've also got Neverwinter Nights. And while I've got a few favorite servers that I've been very happy with, I still went out and purchased World of Warcraft. But to get World of Warcraft working properly, I went and purchased a membership with Transgaming. You see, my home desktop is Linux.
It depends. One could certainly make the argument that Joe User will affect desktop deployment. But then you're going to have to better define exactly who Joe User is. Is he a real Windows user, or does he simply use what came with his Dell? None the less, the desktop isn't all of IT.
Joe User probably uses Linux today. He more than likely does searches on Google. He could connect to his ISP through a Linksys router. And it's also possible he's found the joy of Tivo. He'll do all of this oblivious to the engineering decisions and marketing battle that's gone on to bring the product to him.
If it weren't for the hackers and techies hammering away at Linux and deploying it successfully, there would be no interest from the "grown-up" suits. Linux's success is dependant on all aspects of the Business world.
Having said that... capturing the interest in the Hacker group is important. Why else do you have Balmer running around screaming about developers. Maybe your professional environment is different than mine. However, where I work, a strong majority of what has been purchased and deployed was picked out by myself and my peers. We don't wear suits.
Huh. Looking at your
Back to the rest of the post...
In my experience, Unix was slowly losing out to Windows simply because Windows ran on commodity hardware. Windows was cheaper. And, at least on paper, did the same stuff. It took quite a few years to the pendulum to start swinging... but it eventually did.
The new shift is that you can still run "Unix" on commodity hardware. And once again, it has taken awhile for Management to catch on.
Another poster already noted the concept of becoming good at what you like to do and thus being paid well to do it. A second point you missed is that "work" does not mean "job". Work is a challenge. Go back over the speech. One of his points is that, in trying to figure out what to do, one should be looking for a challenge one enjoys. And, if fact, that activity is not a challenge... if one does not have to WORK at it... there may be something amis.
It might also be worth stressing the author's point of a "day job". From the article:
The concept of working at something has nothing to do with a day job. Sure - if we were all independantly wealthy, we probably wouldn't have a day job (and failing that, we manage to work ourselves in to careers where there is no need for a "day job"). It sounds like you've confused the two.
Wow. You finally have a point. Congrats.
It appears we got different messages out of the article. What I saw was a question: is this marketing fluff or real support? And while there's the usual dross in responce, there's also some good information that shows some gen-u-ine support for Linux by Intel.
Why is this important? Because without at least SOME degree of support from Intel, getting this hardware to work properly with Linux is a tough job. With Intel's help, it is much more likely that my hardware investement will continue to support the platform I want.
Incidently, I find it interesting that you concider sharing information about a product is being "whiny ass consumers".
I see. If I don't like something, I shouldn't be expressing that disatisfaction. Especially if that might be interfering with someone's profit. Thanks for allowing me the choice of whether I do actually buy it or not. Wait... doesn't that interfere with that profit? I should probably just buy it just in case.
Devil's in them thar details. ;)
OK. Fair enough. But I would suggest that trying to simply the chain glosses over some very important details. And its those details that suggest that SCO doesn't have the rights they're claiming to have. Put another way, your simplification may imply a clear-cut case that isn't actually so clear-cut.
I remember an interview last year where Darl McBride was asked about Novell's claims. Darl ended up asserting that Caldera (SCO Group) had purchased what they thought they purchased - after all, they're not idiots. I'm sure Jack thought the same thing about his bag of magic beans. But the documentation presented by Novell seems to throw considerable question as to what exactly SCO's holdings are. As such, I'm not expecting SCO's portfolio to be leading to the fell of any giants and associated acquisition a fortune.
Didn't any rights transfered from AT&T go to Novell? Then Novell made arangements whith SCO concerning new business / customers (which is where the debate over exactly what rights were transfered to SCO). Caldera (who soon afterwards renamed themselves The SCO Group) purchased a majority of what was SCO, leaving what was left to become it's own entity under the Tarentella name.
Please correct me if I've made a mistake. But otherwise, it seems that there are quit a few steps between AT&T and the SCO involved in court.
Heaven forbid a for-profit corporation be expected to DO something to make that money.
Now - what was your point?
Back in 1983, you could count the producers of consumer microcomputers on one hand. Then you could use the other hand to list available models. Each would be very distinct and easy to identify. Anybody in the industry with a keen enough eye would have noted that something unidentified and new was lurking in the background.
Having said that - I doubt anyone would have given it a second thought. And, as you noted, Apple would probably enjoy the attention.
Yep. All Apple has to do is recompile for x86 and it'd be instant success and millions in additional revenue. It's a no-brainer. The roaring success of other commercial x86 offerings such as OS/2 Warp and BeOS pave the way.