The main reason viruses run so rampant on Windows is because of user stupidity. Learn what links and applets are safe, and you'll be much better off. When (if?) Linux goes mainstream to the average Joe's computer, we'll see the same thing. Users who know at least a bit about what they're doing will have few problems, while those who open those "Re:fwd:re:I Love You" emails will.
Again, I'm not pro-Windows, and I like and use Linux much more than Windows, I just live in the real world.
I also live in the real world. I monitor an installation that, amoung other things, includes over 15,000 Windows desktops. And I get to see viruses sweep through that network from time to time (most of the time I get to watch that kind of traffic pummel our outer boundries).
To be sure - there's not much you can do when a user is seemingly hell-bent on running malware. We have those kinds in our user base. But not every malware outbreak starts with an idiot user. And when the worm-of-the-day doing its rounds, it's not because everyone has suddenly gone stupid.
Linux is no silver bullet. But it's silly to chalk up all Window's woes to its users.
So why does your personal machine do so well? It's probably your environment or you, yourself. My primary home machine used to be a Win9x box. I rarely had problems with it; nary even a bluescreen. That doesn't mean Win9x is anything near stable.
I've read several stories about this stripped version of Windows, and what they all fail to mention is that it also lacks Product Activation.
I suspect that Product Activation and other recent anti-copy measures have little to do with protecting sales. It is actually an attempt to derail a dangerous perception.
First, consider that "piracy" does not harm Microsoft. In the past decade or so, Microsoft's products have been widely pirated. Yet Microsoft's sales have still been impressive. And even an illegal copy of a product will work within Microsoft's lock-in business strategy.
So why all the recent activity with licensing? Microsoft must show that their products cost something. They must avoid looking like their software is free. If they fail to do this, they simply reenforce a major threat to their business; commodity software. Or, more specifically, the commodity operating system.
This new product reflects this strategy. Microsoft hasn't been especially concerned with the wide-spread illegal distribution of their products in Asia in the past. However, when the Thai government starts looking at Linux, Microsoft suddenly takes special steps.
One such paradigm shift occurred with the introduction of the standardized architecture of the IBM personal computer in 1981. In a huge departure from previous industry practice, IBM chose to build its computer from off the shelf components, and to open up its design for cloning by other manufacturers. As a result, the IBM personal computer architecture became the standard, over time displacing not only other personal computer designs, but over the next two decades, minicomputers and mainframes.
Which makes IBM out as a benefactor to the Industry. But from what I remember and have read... IBM didn't seem to be the willing participant that Tim makes them out to be.
The story doesn't begin with IBM at all. It actually begins with Apple. Apple had made the first real consumer microcomputer. The Apple II came complete with keyboard and nice custom plastic case. But until the first killer app, the Apple II was just a neat hobbyist machine.
Microcomputers didn't catch the business world's attention until Visicalc. Visicalc was the first spreadsheet. And once people began to realize the power of the spreadsheet, everyone who crunched numbers for a living needed a microcomputer on their desktop.
IBM had dismissed microcomputers as being the realm of scientists and hobbyists. The sudden demand for microcomputers by businesses took them by surprise. But they rallied the troops, fired up the engineers, and set an almost insane schedule to produce a machine that would cash in on this sudden market.
We all know they made a deal with Microsoft. But since we're talking commoditization of the hardware market, we'll save that for another time.
What's important is that IBM's engineers went for off-the-shelf components to comply with the need to get an IBM microcomputer product out fast. The only thing that made the IBM PC hardware unique was a proprietary BIOS. Enter Compaq.
Compaq entered the market after a million dollar investment to reverse-engineer the IBM PC BIOS. They produced a superior machine for less than IBM's offering. And since it was compatible with the machine that dominated the business computing market on brand recognition alone... it was wildly successful. Compaq made back their investment and then some; $111 million in first-year sales.
More important than Compaq's success was the beginning of a new industry. The beginning of a process. The move from proprietary hardware to commodity hardware.
It didn't seem like this was IBM's intent at all. In fact, IBM made a failed attempt to regain control of the platform in 1997 with the PS/2 and its proprietary Micro Channel bus.
A relationship between open source software and corporations can exist. But to the business suit crowd, could you please leave the bullshit keywords at the door?
It's interesting how a phrase can lose its meaning; it's context. Tim credits the phrase "paradigm shift" to Thomas Kuhn in a 1962 book that describes changes in scientific reasoning. These days we associate it with meaningless over-use by Suits trying to sound intelligent.
When you have to post a 'response' to a new thing on an old thing that used to just work, you have by definition created confusion. People will go for the simpler option: piracy.
I've made a simular comment before.
If you want your data in a widely usefull format, you're going to have to know how to do some kind of hack. These hacks will become more and more complex. So the easier route would be to turn to your favorite source of illicit data and take advantage of someone else's work.
Not all illicit data sources are equal. Even before the various Media industry associations started hiring outfits to play shennanigans, getting a good quality RIP involved a fair degree of effort. Or money.
Now, once you've gone through all the effort to get your illicit data... what's the incentive of buying a legal copy? After all, you're already vested in the data you just aquired. It's not like going to buy a copy from the store is giving you a whole lot. And neither is buying and downloading a sanctioned copy.
The Music industry is making illicit data markets attractive.
On a side note - it's interesting to watch this work in a completely open market. Back in the early 90's, I spent some time in Saudi Arabia. There were no copyright laws. There were entire stores devoted to cheap knock-off cassettes of the latest pop music. However, there were also stores that sold both the cheap knock-offs and the better-quality official products. They were competatively priced with advertisements extolling the virtues (higher quality, lyrics, etc) of the official products. In the stores that sold both, I saw a lot of customers walking up to the register with official merchandise (as well as those who went for price over quality).
Look. When you have any involvement in McBride, you're dealing with massive amounts of crack. It's what he lives off of. McBride is simply a filter for crack. You're probably better off just cutting out the middle man and going to the crack directly.
Considering what a difficult time the people who *wrote* the GPL seem to have specifying exactly what some parts mean (are binary-only kernel modules illegal, for example?) I don't think its unfair to say that they require somewhat different skills from those required for closed licenses.
Fair enough. But keep in mind that a lot of this discussion is explaining a legal document to techies. And this discussion is done in a public forum while proprietary license analysis is more likely to be done in a more private setting.
Generally, PPU (closed) licenses have legal terms, while open-source licenses often have technical-legal mixed terms. A lawyer doesn't generally do to well at understanding the concept of linking, at least not without additional study, while most lawyers have no problem at all with typical closed license terms.
Actually... go through the GPL. Keep an eye out for technical terms. I didn't find any. It seems to be fairly straight forward, rather simple legal language. Where questions start coming up is exactly what "derivitive" means.
I'll agree that the GPL, for example, is a more complex license than some others. And it deals with concepts that are foreign to most proprietary licenses. But I have certainly ran in to proprietary licenses that have been a lot more complex.
Having said that... dealing with the GPL is certainly feasible. Even for embedded device makers. Take Tivo for example. They are able to comply with the GPL while still managing to maintain the proprietary nature of their product. It would be interesting to know what kind of legal analysis Tivo did with the involved licenses (GPL included).
They rarely have restrictions on how you have to release your code; i.e. if you have a PPU license that gives you access to the source code, 99% of the time that license says "Make whatever modifications you want to it and use it however you want in your product, as long as we get our 50k up front and 0.5c per unit" - they don't expect to ever see your mods or your code.
Right. So traditional PPU licenses tend to have different terms, and a different currency being traded, than say the GPL. However, they are all licenses with terms that must be met. If you're a development house looking at making use of someone's licensed software (as opposed to what you find the the Public Domain or code yourself), then whatever legal support structure you use to deturmine the scope of a PPU proprietary license can easily be applied to the GPL. Where companies seem to go wrong is when they incorrectly assume that the GPL'd code is public domain. But then... there are times when companies have also made the mistake of trying to use proprietary software without adhering to the licensing terms. A license is a license.
The difference is that the penalties for Open Source violations are very different than those traditional for a closed source license, and that the terms of the licenses are traditionally very different as well.
The terms are different. I agree. However, they are very clearly stated. I find it hard to believe that anyone faced with the myriad of proprietary licenses out there would not be able to read and understand any Open Source license. Problems seem to crop up when people don't read the licenses involved.
As for penalties... I assume you're referencing to legal actions taken when someone does not follow the license. Again - I don't see a difference. Let's use the GPL as an example again. If you do not conform to the terms of the GPL, then you have no right to modify or distribute GPL'd code. That code is protected by standard Copyright law. Likewise, if you fail to adhere to the terms of a proprietary license, you are up against the same Copyright law. In both cases, the usual remediation seems to be adherance to the license, removal of the illegaly used code, or remediation through the courts. Keep in mind that proprietary software that has been found by the court to have been used illegally tends to involve considerable damages well beyond the origional cost of the code's license. A court order to release a product based on GPL'd code may present considerable damage to an offending company - but considerable damage awards are not unknown.
You have to realize that most companies have been working with closed-source contracts for a long time, and know how to handle them, while Open Source is new to them, and requires new skills (which costs new money).
I agree that Open Source licenses present an almost cultural shift to organizations used common proprietary licenses. But when it comes down to it, we're still talking about licenses. The skills needed to deal with a proprietary license is the same skill set required to deal with an Open Source license.
The legal issues for Linux relate to when you use it in a product, as opposed to (e.g. Windows CE, QNX). The terms for Windows CE, QNX, etc, tend to be very clearly spelled out - X dollars per unit. With Linux, the risk is there of having FSF decide that you've linked too closely and that you must now release as GPL. If you've decided not to release, there's a lot of legal fees that you're going to be spending, either way.
Maybe I'm missing something subtle, but it seems that the GPL does not allow linking by proprietary software. However, the LGPL does. The only exception seems to be library projects that been licensed under the GPL with an exception that allows for linking (i.e. GNU Classpath). It doesn't seem that complex. However, if you're carefull enough to have a lawyer going over the GPL or LGPL, you should probably be just as carefull with any other license before you plan to build a product based on it.
I used the GPL as a generic term for "insert open source non-BSD copyleft license here"; there are OSNBCL specific legal issues that a traditional "pay per use" license simply doesn't face, and a BSD license basically doesn't face any legal restrictions at all (well, comparatively so).
The mistake that seems to be made is that Open Source means public domain. It doesn't. These licenses have restrictions just like any other license. And they don't hide what those restrictions are - read the license. Proprietary "pay per use" licenses also have restrictions and one should be fully aware of what they are too.
Review the license. Abide by its restrictions. I don't see the difference.
I don't think license management is at all as big a deal as you make it out to be, provided that you've been keeping up with it since the beginning; it's trying to prove you have a license when you tossed it in a drawer or bin somewhere that can be problematic.
Don't get me wrong - I don't think its that big of a deal either (remember that I prefaced my previous post by stressing that these are minor issues). Been there, done that. But it is an additional expense (and hassle) none the less. One that one does not have to deal with when using Open Source software.
First and foremost - these are minor issues when compared to the whole cost-savings-due-to-hardware issue. Having put this in proper context...
Well, I hate to come down on the side of MS, but in some cases the cost of license tracking for Windows is going to be less than the cost of legal advice on licensing for Linux.
(this only applies if there is any reason why you might come up against the GPL; simply using a desktop is unlikely to do this.)
What scenario do you imagine where one needs legal advice for using Linux that one wouldn't need similar legal advice for using Windows? When do you think you'll be facing the GPL when you don't think you'll be facing similar issues with any other license?
That said, license tracking for Windows isn't that hard; small businesses pretty much know if they have a legit license for a given machine, medium businesses don't have so many licenses that it becomes prohibitive to track them, and big businesses just buy site licenses anyway.
In any case, you must track the license. Whether it is one license or hundreds, you must be able to provide them if the BSA decides to audit your organization. That costs. It will cost even more if you misplace proof of any license you have.
Big business is more complex. Site licenses are attractive for this reason - but site licensing can be tricky depending on who you're dealing with. Microsoft has been playing with "site licenses" over the last few years. So the "site license" concept is not as much a given as one might think. That leads to software that must still be tracked.
There are also per-user licenses that must be adjusted as one's user base fluctuates. This incures additional cost as one must put resources towards tracking, predicting, and then acting on an increased per-user licensing requirement. Not to mention the cost of the additional users.
All this incures a cost. Albeit a relatively minor one if it's done well. But like disaster recovery, it's very easy to mess this up and suffer unexpected pain having discovered you've messed it up at the most inopportune time.
LINUX vs. UNIX! Not Linux vs. Microsoft. Most of the cost savings of Linux over Unix comes in hardware...
Which has me wondering if the cost savings for Windows over Unix isn't all hardware too. With the added cost of licensing, license tracking, platform migration, etc.
then all NASA needs to do is sit back and let private companies do the engineering which means that they can send the rest of the ash over to propulsion research.
Which would be really great if NASA's budget worked as a big sum of money they're free to spend any which way they choose. However, thanks to Congress and earmarked funding, that is nowhere near the current reality. From the CAIB Report (Volume 1, Chapter 5, Pg 8):
Pressure on NASAs budget has come not only from the White House, but also from the Congress. In recent years there has been an increasing tendency for the Congress to add "earmarks" congressional additions to the NASA budget request that reflect targeted Members interests. These earmarks come out of already-appropriated funds, reducing the amounts available for the original tasks. For example, as Congress considered NASAs Fiscal Year 2002 appropriation, the NASA Administrator told the House Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the NASA budget that the agency was "extremely concerned regarding the magnitude and number of congressional earmarks" in the House and Senate versions of the NASA appropriations bill. He noted "the total number of House and Senate earmarks... is approximately 140 separate items, an increase of nearly 50 percent over FY 2001." These earmarks reflected "an increasing fraction of items that circumvent the peer review process, or involve construction or other objectives that have no relation to NASA mission objectives." The potential Fiscal Year 2002 earmarks represented "a net total of $540 million in reductions to ongoing NASA programs to fund this extremely large number of earmarks."
The 60s/70s are definately the infancy of humanity in space. They hopefully are *not* the only golden age of humanity in space.
They may, however, be the golden age of NASA, when NASA could do no wrong.
It was also a time period when NASA was properly funded and (mostly) ran by the guys with sliderules in their pockets. Today's NASA has the potential. But it'll take funding and a major overhaul. I don't see how either will happen.
Most of the public will never see all of JSC's relics. The center is a small museum in itself. Tucked away in various display cases at different locations are relics and images from NASA's history. Rocket Park is the most publicly-accessable and visible example (with the historical Mission Control being a close second). However, there are also everything from space suits to models of early Shuttle designs used in anechoic chamber tests on display in buildings only accessable by NASA employees.
Granted - JSC is no Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. But there are a lot of small, neat things to see if you ever get the chance.
How cool would it be to sink a Saturn V rocket as an artificial reef!
You say this because... why? There's almost as many (somewhat) complete Saturn V rockets as ships? So many that it's hard to come up with contructive uses for them, maybe?
Head on over to microsoft.com and peruse the full line of enterprise software. Then tell me they gave you a license (non beta or developer copy) of Application Center or Host Integration Server or ISA or BizTalk or SQL Server or SharePoint for free. Then we'll chat.
Fine - if you want to label MS Office or Win2003 as non-enterprise software, who am I to argue? The point is that Microsoft does give away some fairly substantial software from time to time and folks completely devoted to the proprietary software world go giddy over it. The appeal of free stuff is universal.
I'm not an expert on the "ideals" (heck, I doubt anyone is - they're like standards in that there are so many to pick from), but I do think that by and large, people who use open source or free (or whatever) software are fundamentally cheap. Not all of them. But most.
And I think you'll find that people, in general, are cheap. It doesn't matter what pool of software license they're pulling from. The only difference is what people are legally required to pay.
Discounting any of the true Freedoms associated with Open Source as some kind of disguised miserly motivation seems, at the least, disingenuous.
At least Opera can offer an ad-supported version. Can you imagine what would be the reaction of the zealots if Gentoo showed you ads during the boot process? Yet it works for people who *think* they're getting something for free, even though it's not. Everybody wins (or thinks they do).
None the less... Opera still feels inclined to offer an adware version of their browser. Why? Selling browser software is, at best, a niche market.
You can argue all you want, but the fact remains that Microsoft has given away IE (and everything else they give away) for a long time, and yet people continue to buy their software (and everyone else's). This sudden revolution of people realizing that they don't want to pay for an OS or an office suite and going to open source is fundamentally stupid; as all the other theories of what would be Microsoft's downfall and when Linux would rule the desktop. It's 2004 and here's another theory about how people will find FOSS attractive. Wow. Color me impressed.
When you look at "revolutions" in IT, they're not really over-night en-masse revelations. There's actually a rather lenghty process of early adopters and increasing momentum. Even smart, paranoid tech companies keeping an eye on the market will miss this until it's too late.
Anybody who really, truely believes that Linux is just going to appear on the desktop or Microsoft's entire market for OS' and productivity tools are going to disolve are delusional. Nothing works that way. But once the momentum has picked up enough, it's going to almost appear like that happened to those sitting on the wrong side of an industry shift.
FOSS is picking up momentum. If you're trying to deny that momentum is there, you're deluding yourself. However... even as much as a Linux fanboy as I can be... I would be fooling myself if I claimed that I knew that momentum will continue enough to complete that shift in the industry. Especially one as fundimental as making the OS a commodity.
But as that momentum picks up, it will present a problem to Microsoft. I argue that there is enough momentum today for Microsoft to have taken notice and already begin reacting. But before this is taken the wrong way - I don't put the problem solely at Microsoft's feet. You're right - giving away IE didn't spawn this (potential) monster.
I don't know that I was "trying to sound clever". And yet the facts are the same: Open Source is not exactly the hottest business in the planet, and Microsoft is still selling software like crazy.
If I remember the details... they were showing commercials at the posted start time. I've noticed my local theatre has simply began the moving picture 20 mins early (preceeded by the usual still photo commercial medly).
The Fantana commercial alone makes me consider suing for emotional damage.
Look, just beacuse you losers can't make a dime from your software doesn't mean you should work hard to prevent others from taking your good ideas to market and profiting.
Next troll: Why Software Patents that Protect My Ideas are Good.
I suppose mocking is only OK as in "OK-to-mock-others-but-not-me". But yea - I suppose that one is nice. It's a break from the usual "slashbot" or "linux zealot".
let's ignore the Windows-based warez scene. Windows freeware, shareware, and spyware.
Yes, let's. Because they have nothing to do with this.
No. It has everything to do with this. People like free stuff. You'll find it in the proprietary software world too. Warez is a prime, abliet illegal, example.
Microsoft doesn't give away "enterprise software".
I have gratis copies of Win2003, MS Office, and some security tools from Microsoft employess handed over at various events. They tell me this is enterprise level software.
But now you're turning my assertion into a stupid generalization. I have no doubt that there are people who are in it for the cause; however the majority of your "users" are in it for the free ride. Otherwise - wait for it - more people would buy distros, even for a token cost, than simply download ISOs for free. Otherwise all those open source projects that ask for donations via Paypal would actually be getting them. It's as simple as that.
I'm not turning your assertion in to a stupid generalization; you're making that generalization all on your own. You discount interest in Open Source as a petty financial motive. I agree that it is very likely the motive for a large number of people. After all, take a look at the warez scene you're so quick to discount. Within that structure are a relatively large population of people who want free stuff.
What about the paypal tip jars? Ask the Shareware community how easy it is to make money from software. Business is tough. Even if you have something worthwhile. Some gain monetary reward - many don't.
So we've established that free stuff has a wide appeal. Please feel free to show how this appeal is incompatable with the ideals of Open Source software.
that sounds awfully like the arguments put forward by Darl McBride and Ken Brown.
Mad propz to you, sir. Evil Name Dropping never cost anyone any karma.
Way to gloss over the point. I'm not name dropping. I'm pointing out that the very statemen you're painting as critical to Microsoft could be equally critical to Open Source. It could even fall in line with some of Open Sources most loudest current critics.
Microsoft now has a "serious" problem solely because of companies getting behind open source. Profit. Your own high-falutin' ideals are being replaced by the quest for profit and competition, which is something Microsoft can understand. Before this little development open source had exactly zero chances of becoming mainstream. The perception of software becoming a commodity will depend on whether or not these companies want it that way, not because of what you and a few other slashbots think. And frankly, I don't think Novell or IBM want it that way, but we'll see.
Actually, I didn't miss this. But I didn't comment on it because it has nothing to do with the quote in question.
But since you brought it up... what's wrong with profit? Who says the quest for profit and competition is a bad thing? Who says that it has to exclude freedom? Heck - competition has a lot to do with freedom. I'm glad to see business embrace it.
Incidently - business didn't just come up with Open Source by itself. It adopted it after hundreds if not thousands of people like me and other "slashbots" (so much for that n
Trust a Winnut to twist this in to some kind of anti-MS / anti-OSS statement. But hey - let's start off by making completely unrelated attacks:
Heh. This, coming from the "teh softwarez must be free-as-in-um-actually-i'm-just-cheap" crowd (which unfortunately makes up the majority of the people who use open source) is absolutely hilarious.
Hey - let's ignore the Windows-based warez scene. Windows freeware, shareware, and spyware. Let's not bother ourselves with how gleefull Winnuts get when Microsoft slips them CDs of the latest Enterprise app or OS at a Cert class, tech talk, or conference. After all, liking free stuff is solely the domain of the OSS crowd.
And since this exists within the OSS crowd, obviously its all about money. Forget all those high-hat morals and ideals. Its all about being cheap. Nevermind professionals who deploy OSS even though they have access to budgets that enable them to pick from any option available.
Pot, kettle, black.
In any case, Microsoft has given software away for ages. Suddenly because they gave away IE, the world is on track to become evil purveyors of stolen... things.
You might want to go back over what you quoted. In the litany of "free" stuff, it includes:
Why pay for an operating system when I can get it for free? Why pay for software when I can get it for free?
One could easily take this statement and place blame on OSS for putting the world on track "to become evil purveyors of stolen... things." In fact, that sounds awfully like the arguments put forward by Darl McBride and Ken Brown. Suddenly that quote doesn't quite have the MS-bash tone to it anymore.
Of course, if you weren't so busy trying to mine the article for propoganda, you might have caught on to a good point. Whether Microsoft started the process or contributed to it... today they have a serious problem. They have to fight more than a product put forward by IBM or Novell or Redhat, et al. They have to battle a perception that the OS itself is as much a commodity as the hardware it runs on. If Microsoft is unable to stop this shift in perception, they will face the same kind of upset IBM faced when its market became a commodity.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, Microsoft simply buys more time (man hours) with the considerable fund they've already got.
I also live in the real world. I monitor an installation that, amoung other things, includes over 15,000 Windows desktops. And I get to see viruses sweep through that network from time to time (most of the time I get to watch that kind of traffic pummel our outer boundries).
To be sure - there's not much you can do when a user is seemingly hell-bent on running malware. We have those kinds in our user base. But not every malware outbreak starts with an idiot user. And when the worm-of-the-day doing its rounds, it's not because everyone has suddenly gone stupid.
Linux is no silver bullet. But it's silly to chalk up all Window's woes to its users.
So why does your personal machine do so well? It's probably your environment or you, yourself. My primary home machine used to be a Win9x box. I rarely had problems with it; nary even a bluescreen. That doesn't mean Win9x is anything near stable.
I suspect that Product Activation and other recent anti-copy measures have little to do with protecting sales. It is actually an attempt to derail a dangerous perception.
First, consider that "piracy" does not harm Microsoft. In the past decade or so, Microsoft's products have been widely pirated. Yet Microsoft's sales have still been impressive. And even an illegal copy of a product will work within Microsoft's lock-in business strategy.
So why all the recent activity with licensing? Microsoft must show that their products cost something. They must avoid looking like their software is free. If they fail to do this, they simply reenforce a major threat to their business; commodity software. Or, more specifically, the commodity operating system.
This new product reflects this strategy. Microsoft hasn't been especially concerned with the wide-spread illegal distribution of their products in Asia in the past. However, when the Thai government starts looking at Linux, Microsoft suddenly takes special steps.
And Microsoft is free to contradict itself. They can even take actions that directly contradict statements they have made in various courts of law.
You'll have to forgive us for not being polite enough to ignore this and, in fact, enjoy the rich irony.
Yep. You're correct. Typo on my part.
Which makes IBM out as a benefactor to the Industry. But from what I remember and have read... IBM didn't seem to be the willing participant that Tim makes them out to be.
The story doesn't begin with IBM at all. It actually begins with Apple. Apple had made the first real consumer microcomputer. The Apple II came complete with keyboard and nice custom plastic case. But until the first killer app, the Apple II was just a neat hobbyist machine.
Microcomputers didn't catch the business world's attention until Visicalc. Visicalc was the first spreadsheet. And once people began to realize the power of the spreadsheet, everyone who crunched numbers for a living needed a microcomputer on their desktop.
IBM had dismissed microcomputers as being the realm of scientists and hobbyists. The sudden demand for microcomputers by businesses took them by surprise. But they rallied the troops, fired up the engineers, and set an almost insane schedule to produce a machine that would cash in on this sudden market.
We all know they made a deal with Microsoft. But since we're talking commoditization of the hardware market, we'll save that for another time.
What's important is that IBM's engineers went for off-the-shelf components to comply with the need to get an IBM microcomputer product out fast. The only thing that made the IBM PC hardware unique was a proprietary BIOS. Enter Compaq.
Compaq entered the market after a million dollar investment to reverse-engineer the IBM PC BIOS. They produced a superior machine for less than IBM's offering. And since it was compatible with the machine that dominated the business computing market on brand recognition alone... it was wildly successful. Compaq made back their investment and then some; $111 million in first-year sales.
More important than Compaq's success was the beginning of a new industry. The beginning of a process. The move from proprietary hardware to commodity hardware.
It didn't seem like this was IBM's intent at all. In fact, IBM made a failed attempt to regain control of the platform in 1997 with the PS/2 and its proprietary Micro Channel bus.
It's interesting how a phrase can lose its meaning; it's context. Tim credits the phrase "paradigm shift" to Thomas Kuhn in a 1962 book that describes changes in scientific reasoning. These days we associate it with meaningless over-use by Suits trying to sound intelligent.
I've made a simular comment before.
If you want your data in a widely usefull format, you're going to have to know how to do some kind of hack. These hacks will become more and more complex. So the easier route would be to turn to your favorite source of illicit data and take advantage of someone else's work.
Not all illicit data sources are equal. Even before the various Media industry associations started hiring outfits to play shennanigans, getting a good quality RIP involved a fair degree of effort. Or money.
Now, once you've gone through all the effort to get your illicit data... what's the incentive of buying a legal copy? After all, you're already vested in the data you just aquired. It's not like going to buy a copy from the store is giving you a whole lot. And neither is buying and downloading a sanctioned copy.
The Music industry is making illicit data markets attractive.
On a side note - it's interesting to watch this work in a completely open market. Back in the early 90's, I spent some time in Saudi Arabia. There were no copyright laws. There were entire stores devoted to cheap knock-off cassettes of the latest pop music. However, there were also stores that sold both the cheap knock-offs and the better-quality official products. They were competatively priced with advertisements extolling the virtues (higher quality, lyrics, etc) of the official products. In the stores that sold both, I saw a lot of customers walking up to the register with official merchandise (as well as those who went for price over quality).
Look. When you have any involvement in McBride, you're dealing with massive amounts of crack. It's what he lives off of. McBride is simply a filter for crack. You're probably better off just cutting out the middle man and going to the crack directly.
Fair enough. But keep in mind that a lot of this discussion is explaining a legal document to techies. And this discussion is done in a public forum while proprietary license analysis is more likely to be done in a more private setting.
Actually... go through the GPL. Keep an eye out for technical terms. I didn't find any. It seems to be fairly straight forward, rather simple legal language. Where questions start coming up is exactly what "derivitive" means.
I'll agree that the GPL, for example, is a more complex license than some others. And it deals with concepts that are foreign to most proprietary licenses. But I have certainly ran in to proprietary licenses that have been a lot more complex.
Having said that... dealing with the GPL is certainly feasible. Even for embedded device makers. Take Tivo for example. They are able to comply with the GPL while still managing to maintain the proprietary nature of their product. It would be interesting to know what kind of legal analysis Tivo did with the involved licenses (GPL included).
Right. So traditional PPU licenses tend to have different terms, and a different currency being traded, than say the GPL. However, they are all licenses with terms that must be met. If you're a development house looking at making use of someone's licensed software (as opposed to what you find the the Public Domain or code yourself), then whatever legal support structure you use to deturmine the scope of a PPU proprietary license can easily be applied to the GPL. Where companies seem to go wrong is when they incorrectly assume that the GPL'd code is public domain. But then... there are times when companies have also made the mistake of trying to use proprietary software without adhering to the licensing terms. A license is a license.
The terms are different. I agree. However, they are very clearly stated. I find it hard to believe that anyone faced with the myriad of proprietary licenses out there would not be able to read and understand any Open Source license. Problems seem to crop up when people don't read the licenses involved.
As for penalties... I assume you're referencing to legal actions taken when someone does not follow the license. Again - I don't see a difference. Let's use the GPL as an example again. If you do not conform to the terms of the GPL, then you have no right to modify or distribute GPL'd code. That code is protected by standard Copyright law. Likewise, if you fail to adhere to the terms of a proprietary license, you are up against the same Copyright law. In both cases, the usual remediation seems to be adherance to the license, removal of the illegaly used code, or remediation through the courts. Keep in mind that proprietary software that has been found by the court to have been used illegally tends to involve considerable damages well beyond the origional cost of the code's license. A court order to release a product based on GPL'd code may present considerable damage to an offending company - but considerable damage awards are not unknown.
I agree that Open Source licenses present an almost cultural shift to organizations used common proprietary licenses. But when it comes down to it, we're still talking about licenses. The skills needed to deal with a proprietary license is the same skill set required to deal with an Open Source license.
Maybe I'm missing something subtle, but it seems that the GPL does not allow linking by proprietary software. However, the LGPL does. The only exception seems to be library projects that been licensed under the GPL with an exception that allows for linking (i.e. GNU Classpath). It doesn't seem that complex. However, if you're carefull enough to have a lawyer going over the GPL or LGPL, you should probably be just as carefull with any other license before you plan to build a product based on it.
The mistake that seems to be made is that Open Source means public domain. It doesn't. These licenses have restrictions just like any other license. And they don't hide what those restrictions are - read the license. Proprietary "pay per use" licenses also have restrictions and one should be fully aware of what they are too.
Review the license. Abide by its restrictions. I don't see the difference.
Don't get me wrong - I don't think its that big of a deal either (remember that I prefaced my previous post by stressing that these are minor issues). Been there, done that. But it is an additional expense (and hassle) none the less. One that one does not have to deal with when using Open Source software.
What scenario do you imagine where one needs legal advice for using Linux that one wouldn't need similar legal advice for using Windows? When do you think you'll be facing the GPL when you don't think you'll be facing similar issues with any other license?
In any case, you must track the license. Whether it is one license or hundreds, you must be able to provide them if the BSA decides to audit your organization. That costs. It will cost even more if you misplace proof of any license you have.
Big business is more complex. Site licenses are attractive for this reason - but site licensing can be tricky depending on who you're dealing with. Microsoft has been playing with "site licenses" over the last few years. So the "site license" concept is not as much a given as one might think. That leads to software that must still be tracked.
There are also per-user licenses that must be adjusted as one's user base fluctuates. This incures additional cost as one must put resources towards tracking, predicting, and then acting on an increased per-user licensing requirement. Not to mention the cost of the additional users.
All this incures a cost. Albeit a relatively minor one if it's done well. But like disaster recovery, it's very easy to mess this up and suffer unexpected pain having discovered you've messed it up at the most inopportune time.
Which has me wondering if the cost savings for Windows over Unix isn't all hardware too. With the added cost of licensing, license tracking, platform migration, etc.
Which would be really great if NASA's budget worked as a big sum of money they're free to spend any which way they choose. However, thanks to Congress and earmarked funding, that is nowhere near the current reality. From the CAIB Report (Volume 1, Chapter 5, Pg 8):
It was also a time period when NASA was properly funded and (mostly) ran by the guys with sliderules in their pockets. Today's NASA has the potential. But it'll take funding and a major overhaul. I don't see how either will happen.
Slag history. Nice troll.
Most of the public will never see all of JSC's relics. The center is a small museum in itself. Tucked away in various display cases at different locations are relics and images from NASA's history. Rocket Park is the most publicly-accessable and visible example (with the historical Mission Control being a close second). However, there are also everything from space suits to models of early Shuttle designs used in anechoic chamber tests on display in buildings only accessable by NASA employees.
Granted - JSC is no Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. But there are a lot of small, neat things to see if you ever get the chance.
You say this because... why? There's almost as many (somewhat) complete Saturn V rockets as ships? So many that it's hard to come up with contructive uses for them, maybe?
It only makes sense. Darl has pointed out that he's a cattleman. And if there's one thing a cattleman knows about, it is the byproducts of cattle.
Fine - if you want to label MS Office or Win2003 as non-enterprise software, who am I to argue? The point is that Microsoft does give away some fairly substantial software from time to time and folks completely devoted to the proprietary software world go giddy over it. The appeal of free stuff is universal.
And I think you'll find that people, in general, are cheap. It doesn't matter what pool of software license they're pulling from. The only difference is what people are legally required to pay.
Discounting any of the true Freedoms associated with Open Source as some kind of disguised miserly motivation seems, at the least, disingenuous.
None the less... Opera still feels inclined to offer an adware version of their browser. Why? Selling browser software is, at best, a niche market.
When you look at "revolutions" in IT, they're not really over-night en-masse revelations. There's actually a rather lenghty process of early adopters and increasing momentum. Even smart, paranoid tech companies keeping an eye on the market will miss this until it's too late.
Anybody who really, truely believes that Linux is just going to appear on the desktop or Microsoft's entire market for OS' and productivity tools are going to disolve are delusional. Nothing works that way. But once the momentum has picked up enough, it's going to almost appear like that happened to those sitting on the wrong side of an industry shift.
FOSS is picking up momentum. If you're trying to deny that momentum is there, you're deluding yourself. However... even as much as a Linux fanboy as I can be... I would be fooling myself if I claimed that I knew that momentum will continue enough to complete that shift in the industry. Especially one as fundimental as making the OS a commodity.
But as that momentum picks up, it will present a problem to Microsoft. I argue that there is enough momentum today for Microsoft to have taken notice and already begin reacting. But before this is taken the wrong way - I don't put the problem solely at Microsoft's feet. You're right - giving away IE didn't spawn this (potential) monster.
If I remember the details... they were showing commercials at the posted start time. I've noticed my local theatre has simply began the moving picture 20 mins early (preceeded by the usual still photo commercial medly).
The Fantana commercial alone makes me consider suing for emotional damage.
Next troll: Why Software Patents that Protect My Ideas are Good.
I suppose mocking is only OK as in "OK-to-mock-others-but-not-me". But yea - I suppose that one is nice. It's a break from the usual "slashbot" or "linux zealot".
No. It has everything to do with this. People like free stuff. You'll find it in the proprietary software world too. Warez is a prime, abliet illegal, example.
I have gratis copies of Win2003, MS Office, and some security tools from Microsoft employess handed over at various events. They tell me this is enterprise level software.
I'm not turning your assertion in to a stupid generalization; you're making that generalization all on your own. You discount interest in Open Source as a petty financial motive. I agree that it is very likely the motive for a large number of people. After all, take a look at the warez scene you're so quick to discount. Within that structure are a relatively large population of people who want free stuff.
What about the paypal tip jars? Ask the Shareware community how easy it is to make money from software. Business is tough. Even if you have something worthwhile. Some gain monetary reward - many don't.
So we've established that free stuff has a wide appeal. Please feel free to show how this appeal is incompatable with the ideals of Open Source software.
Way to gloss over the point. I'm not name dropping. I'm pointing out that the very statemen you're painting as critical to Microsoft could be equally critical to Open Source. It could even fall in line with some of Open Sources most loudest current critics.
Actually, I didn't miss this. But I didn't comment on it because it has nothing to do with the quote in question.
But since you brought it up... what's wrong with profit? Who says the quest for profit and competition is a bad thing? Who says that it has to exclude freedom? Heck - competition has a lot to do with freedom. I'm glad to see business embrace it.
Incidently - business didn't just come up with Open Source by itself. It adopted it after hundreds if not thousands of people like me and other "slashbots" (so much for that n
Hey - let's ignore the Windows-based warez scene. Windows freeware, shareware, and spyware. Let's not bother ourselves with how gleefull Winnuts get when Microsoft slips them CDs of the latest Enterprise app or OS at a Cert class, tech talk, or conference. After all, liking free stuff is solely the domain of the OSS crowd.
And since this exists within the OSS crowd, obviously its all about money. Forget all those high-hat morals and ideals. Its all about being cheap. Nevermind professionals who deploy OSS even though they have access to budgets that enable them to pick from any option available.
Pot, kettle, black.
You might want to go back over what you quoted. In the litany of "free" stuff, it includes:
One could easily take this statement and place blame on OSS for putting the world on track "to become evil purveyors of stolen... things." In fact, that sounds awfully like the arguments put forward by Darl McBride and Ken Brown. Suddenly that quote doesn't quite have the MS-bash tone to it anymore.
Of course, if you weren't so busy trying to mine the article for propoganda, you might have caught on to a good point. Whether Microsoft started the process or contributed to it... today they have a serious problem. They have to fight more than a product put forward by IBM or Novell or Redhat, et al. They have to battle a perception that the OS itself is as much a commodity as the hardware it runs on. If Microsoft is unable to stop this shift in perception, they will face the same kind of upset IBM faced when its market became a commodity.
Now THAT is ironic.
That's not a web site. That's an IE application.