This comparison that is made to drug companies is this article is rather troublesome to me. Though I see some correlation, it's somewhat of a stretch. If you stop and think about it, the idea of a for-profit drug company is pure absurdity. If they were truly successful in their own research, they would drive themselves out of business. When was the last time a drug company developed a vaccine or a cure for anything? I'm no historian, but all the cures and vaccines I know of were developed by independent scientists or non-profit research groups. (If I'm way off base, please let me know.) Drug companies benefit most from the least effective solution that people will pay for. Of course, what that solution is continues to increase in effectiveness over time (painkillers have become more advanced), but there is no money (in the long-term) in providing a true solution. You can only sell it once!
Now, how does this relate to software? Certainly software companies don't want to sell only one version of their software ever, because it's the same predicament as the drug companies. If Microsoft's subscription-based licensing idea comes to pass, software licenses will indeed become almost like prescriptions. However, beyond this point, the comparison breaks down. The big difference here is that the difference between the independently developed "cure", and the "pain-killing" prescription has little to do with whether of not the backing research is in the public domain. As far as John Q. User is concerned, it's not that the non-Microsoft software is open source, it's that it's free. You will not come across many free drugs these days, regardless of who developed them. They're a physical product, and even the generic asprin costs money to produce and distribute. The somewhat abstract nature of programs makes them significantly different. The number of people who use closed source implementations who would even have the know-how to compile a program from source is nil. If movements like open source are really interested in making any sort of inroads against the closed source giants, distribution of simple to install, free binaries are at least twice as important as providing source code.
Does the name "HailStorm" remind anyone else of the "Hacker Hellstorm" from the movie Canadian Bacon? You remember, the machine created by R. J. Hacker to secretly take control of the nation's nuclear defense systems? Sounds a little to close to be coincidence to me.
More specifically related to this thread, how many people are using their toasters for email these days? Not many, I'm guessing, so why have the urge to offload all your passwords to some far away source so that they can be accessed from anywhere. I see no reason to let anyone manage my infomation en masse except me. In the MacOS, there's a handy utility called KeyChain (did this make it into OSX? I haven't used it yet) that can be used to manage passwords, and though it's not perfect yet, the OS supports voice recognition login, a significant step towards biometric authentication. As we all begin to have more wired appliances in our home, I see no reason why a local server (probably one that would also act as the firewall) like the motorized tie rack couldn't serve as a local password repository. Maybe it's a little complex for the average end user, but this same server could be accessed from anywhere, and yet private individuals control their own fate. There is a lot less incentive to hack John Doe's Blender/Firewall than there is to get into a repository of thousands of passwords. I think we're still a long way from needing corporate intervention in this domain.
I remember hearing something a while back about an idea to introduce a new TLD called.sucks (or perhaps more with the spirit of 3-letter TLDs,.sux). The person who mentioned it to me attributed the idea to Ralph Nader, and thought I can believe he may support it, I rather doubt he conceived the idea. The concept was that xxx company could buy all the xxx.com/.org/.net etc. they wanted, but they would be explicity barred from purchasing xxx.sucks. I suppose this would require the cooperation of some group like ICANN (who probably wouldn't cooperate), but I think it sounds like a reasonably good idea.
To put things a little more in perspecitve, it really wouldn't have to be a "sucks" TLD, so much as any TLD that was put aside for criticism of it's corresponding.com. Now of course, besides prohibiting the.com owner, the direct competitors of the.com owner should probably be prohibited as well. Perhaps ownership of a.sux should be limited to non-profits, or consumer advocacy groups. (It could be a.con, ha ha.)
This probably sounds terribly idealistic, but I think the real issue right now is that *sucks.com is not a cogent movement, therefore it's hard to rule on unilaterally. What do other people think?
This sounds suspiciously like a comment from someone who has no idea what SETI@Home does, and is condemning a random program that happened to access the Internet.
Ah, but Mr. Chamber's understands all too well what SETI@Home does, for he himself is of extraterrestrial origin. It is a well known fact (among the informed, that is) that the TVA was subverted by expatriated venutians as early as 1983. Now that their power base is beginning to expand, they fear that the discovery of their bretheren will expose them once and for all. I think it is also common knowledge that the management of the TVA are galactic fugitives, but perhaps I've said too much.
So, don't think it's just the Dot.Com'ers that are getting the axe. Everyday working stiffs are getting cut as well.
I think this is a valid point. I worked at an evil banner-making dot com for about six months as an IT intern (I'm graduating in about a year). The problem with the place really wasn't the IT issues (though IT was far from perfect), but how things were managed in general. For a company whose sole purpose was to design banners and buy ad space (none of that tricky hosting stuff, leave it to DoubleClick), we sure had a lot of pointless departments. Nobody I ever talked to seemed to know what "Data Solutions" did.
Anyway, the issue was definitely one of trimming the fat. In the time I was there, there were about 3 rounds of layoffs, but they were largely ineffective, because they laid off the wrong people. When I started, there were around 16 developers, and 4 managers in IT. By the time I left, there were 5 developers and 3 managers. After all the layoffs, they just couldn't understand why we couldn't meet the demand for all the various pet projects. "They have three managers for god's sake! They should be producing much more". Of course, it wasn't just IT that got the axe; plenty of people who pushed paper were out on the street too. The real problem is that the company was started by people who's perception of their own internet savvy-ness was far greater than its actuality. Dot com entrepreneurs need to be saved from themselves.
I just hope nobody from my old company is savvy enough to be reading slashdot
Slashdot Mirror
This comparison that is made to drug companies is this article is rather troublesome to me. Though I see some correlation, it's somewhat of a stretch. If you stop and think about it, the idea of a for-profit drug company is pure absurdity. If they were truly successful in their own research, they would drive themselves out of business. When was the last time a drug company developed a vaccine or a cure for anything? I'm no historian, but all the cures and vaccines I know of were developed by independent scientists or non-profit research groups. (If I'm way off base, please let me know.) Drug companies benefit most from the least effective solution that people will pay for. Of course, what that solution is continues to increase in effectiveness over time (painkillers have become more advanced), but there is no money (in the long-term) in providing a true solution. You can only sell it once!
Now, how does this relate to software? Certainly software companies don't want to sell only one version of their software ever, because it's the same predicament as the drug companies. If Microsoft's subscription-based licensing idea comes to pass, software licenses will indeed become almost like prescriptions. However, beyond this point, the comparison breaks down. The big difference here is that the difference between the independently developed "cure", and the "pain-killing" prescription has little to do with whether of not the backing research is in the public domain. As far as John Q. User is concerned, it's not that the non-Microsoft software is open source, it's that it's free. You will not come across many free drugs these days, regardless of who developed them. They're a physical product, and even the generic asprin costs money to produce and distribute. The somewhat abstract nature of programs makes them significantly different. The number of people who use closed source implementations who would even have the know-how to compile a program from source is nil. If movements like open source are really interested in making any sort of inroads against the closed source giants, distribution of simple to install, free binaries are at least twice as important as providing source code.
Does the name "HailStorm" remind anyone else of the "Hacker Hellstorm" from the movie Canadian Bacon? You remember, the machine created by R. J. Hacker to secretly take control of the nation's nuclear defense systems? Sounds a little to close to be coincidence to me.
More specifically related to this thread, how many people are using their toasters for email these days? Not many, I'm guessing, so why have the urge to offload all your passwords to some far away source so that they can be accessed from anywhere. I see no reason to let anyone manage my infomation en masse except me. In the MacOS, there's a handy utility called KeyChain (did this make it into OSX? I haven't used it yet) that can be used to manage passwords, and though it's not perfect yet, the OS supports voice recognition login, a significant step towards biometric authentication. As we all begin to have more wired appliances in our home, I see no reason why a local server (probably one that would also act as the firewall) like the motorized tie rack couldn't serve as a local password repository. Maybe it's a little complex for the average end user, but this same server could be accessed from anywhere, and yet private individuals control their own fate. There is a lot less incentive to hack John Doe's Blender/Firewall than there is to get into a repository of thousands of passwords. I think we're still a long way from needing corporate intervention in this domain.
I remember hearing something a while back about an idea to introduce a new TLD called .sucks (or perhaps more with the spirit of 3-letter TLDs, .sux). The person who mentioned it to me attributed the idea to Ralph Nader, and thought I can believe he may support it, I rather doubt he conceived the idea. The concept was that xxx company could buy all the xxx.com/.org/.net etc. they wanted, but they would be explicity barred from purchasing xxx.sucks. I suppose this would require the cooperation of some group like ICANN (who probably wouldn't cooperate), but I think it sounds like a reasonably good idea.
To put things a little more in perspecitve, it really wouldn't have to be a "sucks" TLD, so much as any TLD that was put aside for criticism of it's corresponding .com. Now of course, besides prohibiting the .com owner, the direct competitors of the .com owner should probably be prohibited as well. Perhaps ownership of a .sux should be limited to non-profits, or consumer advocacy groups. (It could be a .con, ha ha.)
This probably sounds terribly idealistic, but I think the real issue right now is that *sucks.com is not a cogent movement, therefore it's hard to rule on unilaterally. What do other people think?
I'm personally going to dodge their heat rays long enough to throttle whoever put their name down as "All Your Base Are Belong To Us."
I doubt you'll be able to, seeing as you have no chance to survive, make your time.
This sounds suspiciously like a comment from someone who has no idea what SETI@Home does, and is condemning a random program that happened to access the Internet.
Ah, but Mr. Chamber's understands all too well what SETI@Home does, for he himself is of extraterrestrial origin. It is a well known fact (among the informed, that is) that the TVA was subverted by expatriated venutians as early as 1983. Now that their power base is beginning to expand, they fear that the discovery of their bretheren will expose them once and for all. I think it is also common knowledge that the management of the TVA are galactic fugitives, but perhaps I've said too much.
So, don't think it's just the Dot.Com'ers that are getting the axe. Everyday working stiffs are getting cut as well.
I think this is a valid point. I worked at an evil banner-making dot com for about six months as an IT intern (I'm graduating in about a year). The problem with the place really wasn't the IT issues (though IT was far from perfect), but how things were managed in general. For a company whose sole purpose was to design banners and buy ad space (none of that tricky hosting stuff, leave it to DoubleClick), we sure had a lot of pointless departments. Nobody I ever talked to seemed to know what "Data Solutions" did.
Anyway, the issue was definitely one of trimming the fat. In the time I was there, there were about 3 rounds of layoffs, but they were largely ineffective, because they laid off the wrong people. When I started, there were around 16 developers, and 4 managers in IT. By the time I left, there were 5 developers and 3 managers. After all the layoffs, they just couldn't understand why we couldn't meet the demand for all the various pet projects. "They have three managers for god's sake! They should be producing much more". Of course, it wasn't just IT that got the axe; plenty of people who pushed paper were out on the street too. The real problem is that the company was started by people who's perception of their own internet savvy-ness was far greater than its actuality. Dot com entrepreneurs need to be saved from themselves.
I just hope nobody from my old company is savvy enough to be reading slashdot