In a way, this is kind of sad. I mean Linux is 10 years old, put together by a bunch of people who aren't all that interested in being the next Bill Gates, and it's one of the most stable and reliable OSs out there.
It really makes you think - for years, many of us were taught in school that non-capatalist approaches result in poor quality at a very high price.
But at least in this one case, it seems that just the opposite is true: after 20+ years of development, MacOS and Windows and many others, funded by billions of dollars, are just starting to get the stability of Linux. And sadly, this stability is at the expense of flexibility. And with a much higher pricetag. Linux is cheaper, faster, and better. And it isn't even a "product".
This is a testament to the abilities and the desires of those who have worked on Linux over the past decade. The corporate world - you have let us down, and look what we have done. Hold your heads in shame.
Pascal was once popular too, but that doesn't mean that a boatload of people actually used it for real applications.
I agree that Java is a good (not excellent) teaching language - the most popular one at that. And it is certainly better than C++ for most junior programmer types. But when it comes to power and completeness for REAL applications, you just can't touch C++.... yet.
However, mind you that there is work going on at Sun in terms of Java 2.x - an update to the language. If Sun does the smart thing and opens up Java's language design and takes it up a couple notches, Java very well could be the solid all-around winner on paper AND in practice. But until then, it's C++ in the real world of system software AND application software.
This is a great move for Palm - with all the handhelds being powered by a more and more powerful OS, Palm needs a real jolt in this area.
Palm's OS will be easy to emulate in BeOS, and BeOS is well suited to small platforms. For $11 million, this is a bargain of an investment for a company that needs a new OS.
Apple did it a few years back with NeXT, with stellar results. I forsee this propelling Palm ahead... perhaps not way ahead, but ahead none the less.
Instead of focusing in on the available solutions, the article simply spits out the idea that MySQL and Postgres are weak pretenders.
The FACT is that these databases are excellent solutions to a large number for MOST database problems. Sure, like all DBMSs, they can always use more features. But I don't want my DBMS to turn into an uncontrolled monster like Oracle.
For 99% of the applications out there, Postgres and mySQL fits the bill. If you're doing large scale distributed payroll using SAP, then I suggest you go with a big name...
But if you're an average-sized business, Postgres is a full-featured solution today. It is an inexpensive, fully-capable solution.
If you're into writing Oracle PL/SQL, a proprietary procedural extention to SQL, go with Oracle. (Note: PL/SQL doesn't work with Sybase or DB2 or anything else.) If you're into TransactSQL, another proprietary SQL extension, go with Sybase. Once you get into TransactSQL, you'll NEVER migrate out without expense. In fact, my shop, an Oracle shop, doesn't PERMIT developers to use the PL/SQL ewxtensions. We learned our lesson after migrating from proprietary MS-SQL-Server extensions to Oracle!
And if you need a big company to support your 20,000 person payroll, go with IBM's DB2. Again, another fine DBMS.
But for the average shop? Save your money and go with PostgreSQL.
The real usefulness of such a craft, as the article briefly mentions, is to be a communications platform.
Ever call a friend in a far-away land? Or use the internet via one of the satellite providers? Communications to a geosync satellite, some 25000 miles away in geosync orbit, causes almost 2 seconds of delay. Plus, once a satellite is up there, it can't be brought back. (for those of you who don't know, no, the shuttle only goes some 150 miles up and costs a $zillion per flight).
Such a solar-powered, high-alititude plane can be flown high above the weather, stay aloft indefiniately, and can be used as a handy communications platform for a city. It's a lot cheaper than sending a satellite into geosync, AND it can be brought back down for upgrades of maintenence. Plus there is added protection from solar radition. Yahoo! Add a fuel cell for night time, and you've got a great, cheap alternative to a communications satellite.
So although it seems like a silly idea, or only Mars-centric, it is getting a lot of interest from communication providers like BT and AT&T.
Of course, the pundits will say that there is no profit in the Linux game market, and therefore the Chapter 11.
But wait! There is almost no profit in the PC game market PERIOD. It's is very difficult to make a profit in this business. Game development is an expensive proposition - especially when it comes to the advanced graphics and gameplay that we all expect today.
Even high-quality Windoze-centric shops have gone away - just look at Looking Glass studios for one. Gone! And they didn't do ANY linux. And they had great games, and excellent sales. And they were liquidated just last year.
The fact is that computer games like "Who wants to be a millionaire" sell bigger than all the rest, and they're cheap-as-dirt to create. Why spend $5 million for game development, when for $200,000 you can create a cheesey game that has 10x the number of sales???
Strangely, these days, the home console market is the only place where sophisticated computer games have a fair chance of being profitable. The sales volumes are significantly greater than those sales for Linux... and Windows.
Since I bought my Palm 5, I've blown a few pieces of hardware. I always thought that the failure was related to sticking the palm in the cradle, but I could never actually prove it.
Now I have a MB with a dead serial I/O, a toasted CD drive, and a toasted HD. It may just be coincidence, but the funny thing is that these devices failed at nearly the same time I put my palm in it's cradle.
It isn't as if I was syncing my Palm every day or anything... maybe once a week or so.
The publishing industry sees the Internet NOT as a means to sell more works, but instead as a means to sell the same works to the same customers at higher prices.
Publishers want to take everyone's money - the kid who goes to the library to read the book, and the student at the university, and the professor who is teaching the class, and the casual reader... and charge them all. Fair use be damned.
Instead, publishers should look at the Internet as an opportunity to capture more readers - not to merely resell to existing readers. But clearly it is easier to develop a business plan which strikes in the face of their customers (want to read? Read quick! You've got 10 hours!), instead of futhering the long-term relationship between themselves and their customers.
Show me a kid who'll pay $1 to read on-line. I'll show you 100 kids who'll go to the library and learn to love to read - and will become long term customers.
Where Mandrake can truly succeed is in the support of older hardware. The manufacturers and Microsoft are partners, in that they both want to sell new product to consumers. However, the open source philosophy is to use what you've got to it's fullest - new or old. Microsoft can't survive in this model, and many manufacturers of hardware don't understand the impact to their business models.
Microsoft controls the hardware market. No independent firm can develop new hardware without supporting and licensing Microsoft product. It's simply not financially possible, given the control by Microsoft of the marketplace.
Alas, trade secret laws sometimes makes Linux support counter-productive, as reverse engineering become tricky (if not impossible) business. As Ted McFarson said, "Trade Secret encourages Microsoft's Monolopy". How true.
Although some folks might (and just might) be able to collect on their options, for the rest of us this is bad news.
Why?
1. Loss of control
This business is currently run by a close-knit team. This is sure to change radically when the bottom line becomes short-term profitability, and when the long-term vision is dropped.
2. Technology Dilution
Technology moves quickly. But in order to keep shareholders happy, it will make sense not to compete head-to-head with the bigger guns such as RedHat.
In addition, partnerships will become more important. These days, partnerships are all about leveraging each other's monopolies. This is a naturally closed world.
So this isn't good stuff folks. SUre, it's great fun for the 17 people who'll be able to retire, but it isn't necessarily good for the industry or the users.
The problem is going to be corporate-sponsored litigation against freenets.
The argument has been made that these freenets should operate with the same purpose as the telephone infrastructure, and as such, such a freenet must abide by the quality of service regulations that are imposed on a local telco. Of course, such freenets aren't yet designed to take over the local telephone company, but they do take away from their profits.
The FCC, which is in bed with the local telcos, has a solution. Limit the capabilities of consumer-grade wireless networking equipment, and where not possible, ensure that the spectrum isn't adequate for true public use.
Just you wait, this is going to get a lot of Washington lobbys all fired up. It's already begun.
Microsoft is the champion of all things marketing. Of course, it won't hurt Microsoft to set up such a faux relationship to please it's customers that currently have a little Unix in their blood.
But believe me you, this is not a strategic direction for Microsoft. There has been no evidence that Microsoft will ever have high-quality support for a product that isn't based on it's Windows OS. This is just a marketing statement built to shoot down the argument that.NET will not work with Unix.
Microsoft is the organization that tells us that Unix sucks. You know what they'll say once their Unix product never gets delivered? "Oh, well, we couldn't, because it turns out that old Unix sucks for our super-advanced.NET technology."
What's interesting is that the article doesn't investigate the science or engineering or even the economics of the station, but concentrates on the very shallow word of "sucks".
Gee, no wonder why newspapers haven't been replaced by TV and the Web. It's likely because news on TV and the web, well, sucks.
This is exactly because the manned space program is much lower risk than ever before.
Once the guy down the street tries to launch himself in his own rocket, believe you me, people will pay attention. But today's shuttle launches, perhaps not all that safe, are certainly much more safe than the early pioneers.
A manned space program is an expensive endeavor. But it makes sense to spend money where it has the longest, biggest payoff. The short answer to minimize costs is to modernize both manned and unmanned launch vehicles. According to this (http://www.enn.com/enn-news-archive/2000/06/06172 000/plasma_13933.asp&e=42), the payoff of a small suite of new rockets will be significant in terms of costs and space-accessibility.
Although it's great to hear about the use of Linux in the race, the real exciting thing going on here is the wide-spread use of new photovoltaics made of integrated conjugated polymers.
I worked at an OEM company that licensed Microsoft products. Let me tell you that this isn't a news story - it's a legal & marketing strategy.
As a licensee, I'd do what's best for my bottom line, and that's almost exclusively dictated by pricing.
Although Microsoft states these are new licensing options, perhaps designed to address illegal monopolistic practices, Microsoft doesn't state that it will make these options a financial possibility for the OEMs. For most, they may as well not exist.
A few years ago, Dinson-Merrill developed a similar product in order to significantly improve their odor-eater-type shoe insert/foot desmellerizer product.
During pre-production product testing, they discovered that about 2% of the pilot program users had developed a serious allergic reaction to the bacteria. The last I heard, the product was put on the back burner - they couldn't adequately circumvent the health issue.
This seems like a nearly identical idea, and so the same health concerns would apply.
Ah, everyone always forgets about the IBM Mech1. This mechanical computer was programmable, certainly not in the modern sense. It was availble 15 years earlier.
It had 19 ten-digit decimal registers, and was fully programmable by inserting replacable camshafts. Although not programmable on the fly, it did have memory (the state of the machine), and it was in fact programmable, with screwdrivers and wrenches.
It required a bit of oil and greese, but was known for calculating Pi to 190 places in under 3 minutes... an incredible accomplishment for it's day.
I know the computational computing farm we're building where I work is moving to the P4. For now, it's the our right choice. But for the typical user that doesn't run such a farm with very purpose-built software, the Athalon seems like the right answer.
For most users, the P4 is currently like a big American V8 with crummy, watered-down gasoline - it just can't compete with the Athalon, which performs better with plain-old gasoline.
Until and unless the software manufacturers purposely support the P4, the Athalon will be a strong contender... and the only contender given price/performance.
As Jeremey Fulton once said at one of those Linux conferences, "Bastille is a wonderful thing".
In March, my company decided to get in on the Bastille bandwagon, as we thought it was good for us and for our customers. I must say that so far it has been a surprising success... my manager calculates that it'll save us about $25,000 per year - and we're a very small shop!
Of course there are always teething problems, but we have found that the minor and temporary pains are far outweighed by the cleaner, more robust environment.
There was a study done by Javeline Associates showing that SmartTag technology does in fact provide a significant benefit to casual web users. The success, shown with an experimental browser linking back to Google, showed that users were able to find information 5 to 15 minutes faster than they otherwise would have.
The real problem with Microsoft's implementation is the centralized, monopolistic control over the information provided back to the user... data which was designed to be collected and distributed to sales and marketing industries.
This behoovers Open Source developers to come up with a decentralized model and client software for SmartTag-type technology.
As a freelancer, I believe that the author hypes that freelancers will outprice lower-cost in-house writers for web publishing. Sounds good on the surface, but one has to ask why a publisher goes to freelancers in the first place. There are three primary reasons:
1. unique works by hard-to-find specialists
2. notable authors
3. fill gaps in their internal staff.
For the first two categories, you get what you pay for. If a publisher wants to produce specialty works in-house, then the publisher must significantly beef up their internal staff. This is nothing new. If you license something, you play by the rules, just like GNU.
For the gap-fillers, the standard contracts are virtually always to the benefit of the publisher... as these freelancers are performing "works for hire". Nothing new here either.
In conclusion, the author of this article is hyping the situation. The ruling only confirms freelancers rights and licensing rights, while not significantly changing works-for-hire or the honest web publishing business models.
Jim Rivers of PARC once said GPG could be the most important advent since the Web - if there was a defacto method of distributing keys. The fact remains that there are no universal mechanisms out there, and the ones that make the promises are coupled with incredibly profitable buisness plans that will never have significant backing by the public.
And given the topic (privacy), no corporate or government agency will bother to invest in and standardize on a palitable service.
Without both the people, the government, AND corporate backing, no such mechanism can be considered a true success.
Slashdot Mirror
In a way, this is kind of sad. I mean Linux is 10 years old, put together by a bunch of people who aren't all that interested in being the next Bill Gates, and it's one of the most stable and reliable OSs out there.
It really makes you think - for years, many of us were taught in school that non-capatalist approaches result in poor quality at a very high price.
But at least in this one case, it seems that just the opposite is true: after 20+ years of development, MacOS and Windows and many others, funded by billions of dollars, are just starting to get the stability of Linux. And sadly, this stability is at the expense of flexibility. And with a much higher pricetag. Linux is cheaper, faster, and better. And it isn't even a "product".
This is a testament to the abilities and the desires of those who have worked on Linux over the past decade. The corporate world - you have let us down, and look what we have done. Hold your heads in shame.
Pascal was once popular too, but that doesn't mean that a boatload of people actually used it for real applications.
I agree that Java is a good (not excellent) teaching language - the most popular one at that. And it is certainly better than C++ for most junior programmer types. But when it comes to power and completeness for REAL applications, you just can't touch C++.... yet.
However, mind you that there is work going on at Sun in terms of Java 2.x - an update to the language. If Sun does the smart thing and opens up Java's language design and takes it up a couple notches, Java very well could be the solid all-around winner on paper AND in practice. But until then, it's C++ in the real world of system software AND application software.
This is a great move for Palm - with all the handhelds being powered by a more and more powerful OS, Palm needs a real jolt in this area.
Palm's OS will be easy to emulate in BeOS, and BeOS is well suited to small platforms. For $11 million, this is a bargain of an investment for a company that needs a new OS.
Apple did it a few years back with NeXT, with stellar results. I forsee this propelling Palm ahead... perhaps not way ahead, but ahead none the less.
Instead of focusing in on the available solutions, the article simply spits out the idea that MySQL and Postgres are weak pretenders.
The FACT is that these databases are excellent solutions to a large number for MOST database problems. Sure, like all DBMSs, they can always use more features. But I don't want my DBMS to turn into an uncontrolled monster like Oracle.
For 99% of the applications out there, Postgres and mySQL fits the bill. If you're doing large scale distributed payroll using SAP, then I suggest you go with a big name...
But if you're an average-sized business, Postgres is a full-featured solution today. It is an inexpensive, fully-capable solution.
If you're into writing Oracle PL/SQL, a proprietary procedural extention to SQL, go with Oracle. (Note: PL/SQL doesn't work with Sybase or DB2 or anything else.) If you're into TransactSQL, another proprietary SQL extension, go with Sybase. Once you get into TransactSQL, you'll NEVER migrate out without expense. In fact, my shop, an Oracle shop, doesn't PERMIT developers to use the PL/SQL ewxtensions. We learned our lesson after migrating from proprietary MS-SQL-Server extensions to Oracle!
And if you need a big company to support your 20,000 person payroll, go with IBM's DB2. Again, another fine DBMS.
But for the average shop? Save your money and go with PostgreSQL.
The real usefulness of such a craft, as the article briefly mentions, is to be a communications platform.
Ever call a friend in a far-away land? Or use the internet via one of the satellite providers? Communications to a geosync satellite, some 25000 miles away in geosync orbit, causes almost 2 seconds of delay. Plus, once a satellite is up there, it can't be brought back. (for those of you who don't know, no, the shuttle only goes some 150 miles up and costs a $zillion per flight).
Such a solar-powered, high-alititude plane can be flown high above the weather, stay aloft indefiniately, and can be used as a handy communications platform for a city. It's a lot cheaper than sending a satellite into geosync, AND it can be brought back down for upgrades of maintenence. Plus there is added protection from solar radition. Yahoo! Add a fuel cell for night time, and you've got a great, cheap alternative to a communications satellite.
So although it seems like a silly idea, or only Mars-centric, it is getting a lot of interest from communication providers like BT and AT&T.
Say goodbye to geosync satellites? Perhaps!
Of course, the pundits will say that there is no profit in the Linux game market, and therefore the Chapter 11.
But wait! There is almost no profit in the PC game market PERIOD. It's is very difficult to make a profit in this business. Game development is an expensive proposition - especially when it comes to the advanced graphics and gameplay that we all expect today.
Even high-quality Windoze-centric shops have gone away - just look at Looking Glass studios for one. Gone! And they didn't do ANY linux. And they had great games, and excellent sales. And they were liquidated just last year.
The fact is that computer games like "Who wants to be a millionaire" sell bigger than all the rest, and they're cheap-as-dirt to create. Why spend $5 million for game development, when for $200,000 you can create a cheesey game that has 10x the number of sales???
Strangely, these days, the home console market is the only place where sophisticated computer games have a fair chance of being profitable. The sales volumes are significantly greater than those sales for Linux... and Windows.
Since I bought my Palm 5, I've blown a few pieces of hardware. I always thought that the failure was related to sticking the palm in the cradle, but I could never actually prove it.
Now I have a MB with a dead serial I/O, a toasted CD drive, and a toasted HD. It may just be coincidence, but the funny thing is that these devices failed at nearly the same time I put my palm in it's cradle.
It isn't as if I was syncing my Palm every day or anything... maybe once a week or so.
Perhaps it's a coincidence. Now I'm not so sure.
The publishing industry sees the Internet NOT as a means to sell more works, but instead as a means to sell the same works to the same customers at higher prices.
Publishers want to take everyone's money - the kid who goes to the library to read the book, and the student at the university, and the professor who is teaching the class, and the casual reader... and charge them all. Fair use be damned.
Instead, publishers should look at the Internet as an opportunity to capture more readers - not to merely resell to existing readers. But clearly it is easier to develop a business plan which strikes in the face of their customers (want to read? Read quick! You've got 10 hours!), instead of futhering the long-term relationship between themselves and their customers.
Show me a kid who'll pay $1 to read on-line. I'll show you 100 kids who'll go to the library and learn to love to read - and will become long term customers.
Where Mandrake can truly succeed is in the support of older hardware. The manufacturers and Microsoft are partners, in that they both want to sell new product to consumers. However, the open source philosophy is to use what you've got to it's fullest - new or old. Microsoft can't survive in this model, and many manufacturers of hardware don't understand the impact to their business models.
Microsoft controls the hardware market. No independent firm can develop new hardware without supporting and licensing Microsoft product. It's simply not financially possible, given the control by Microsoft of the marketplace.
Alas, trade secret laws sometimes makes Linux support counter-productive, as reverse engineering become tricky (if not impossible) business. As Ted McFarson said, "Trade Secret encourages Microsoft's Monolopy". How true.
Contact me. Perhaps you're talking to the wrong people at Sun, or perhaps whoever is operating as your agent is doing a bad job.
I had a similar need, and I had no problem in terms of dealing with Sun.
This is not great news.
Although some folks might (and just might) be able to collect on their options, for the rest of us this is bad news.
Why?
1. Loss of control
This business is currently run by a close-knit team. This is sure to change radically when the bottom line becomes short-term profitability, and when the long-term vision is dropped.
2. Technology Dilution
Technology moves quickly. But in order to keep shareholders happy, it will make sense not to compete head-to-head with the bigger guns such as RedHat.
In addition, partnerships will become more important. These days, partnerships are all about leveraging each other's monopolies. This is a naturally closed world.
So this isn't good stuff folks. SUre, it's great fun for the 17 people who'll be able to retire, but it isn't necessarily good for the industry or the users.
The problem is going to be corporate-sponsored litigation against freenets.
The argument has been made that these freenets should operate with the same purpose as the telephone infrastructure, and as such, such a freenet must abide by the quality of service regulations that are imposed on a local telco. Of course, such freenets aren't yet designed to take over the local telephone company, but they do take away from their profits.
The FCC, which is in bed with the local telcos, has a solution. Limit the capabilities of consumer-grade wireless networking equipment, and where not possible, ensure that the spectrum isn't adequate for true public use.
Just you wait, this is going to get a lot of Washington lobbys all fired up. It's already begun.
Microsoft is the champion of all things marketing. Of course, it won't hurt Microsoft to set up such a faux relationship to please it's customers that currently have a little Unix in their blood.
.NET will not work with Unix.
.NET technology."
But believe me you, this is not a strategic direction for Microsoft. There has been no evidence that Microsoft will ever have high-quality support for a product that isn't based on it's Windows OS. This is just a marketing statement built to shoot down the argument that
Microsoft is the organization that tells us that Unix sucks. You know what they'll say once their Unix product never gets delivered? "Oh, well, we couldn't, because it turns out that old Unix sucks for our super-advanced
What's interesting is that the article doesn't investigate the science or engineering or even the economics of the station, but concentrates on the very shallow word of "sucks".
Gee, no wonder why newspapers haven't been replaced by TV and the Web. It's likely because news on TV and the web, well, sucks.
Once the guy down the street tries to launch himself in his own rocket, believe you me, people will pay attention. But today's shuttle launches, perhaps not all that safe, are certainly much more safe than the early pioneers.
A manned space program is an expensive endeavor. But it makes sense to spend money where it has the longest, biggest payoff. The short answer to minimize costs is to modernize both manned and unmanned launch vehicles. According to this (http://www.enn.com/enn-news-archive/2000/06/06172 000/plasma_13933.asp&e=42), the payoff of a small suite of new rockets will be significant in terms of costs and space-accessibility.
See http://www.enn.com/enn-news-archive/2000/06/061720 00/plasma_13933.asp&e=42)
http://www.acs.org/nsa/intcong.htm
Sure, not all the teams are using them - but many are, and this is sure to change the dynamics (if not the outcome) of the race.
We're talking 150% greater efficiency here, and at lower cost.
The photovoltaics is the interesting story - after all, we all could guess that many participants are using Linux and GPS!
I worked at an OEM company that licensed Microsoft products. Let me tell you that this isn't a news story - it's a legal & marketing strategy.
As a licensee, I'd do what's best for my bottom line, and that's almost exclusively dictated by pricing.
Although Microsoft states these are new licensing options, perhaps designed to address illegal monopolistic practices, Microsoft doesn't state that it will make these options a financial possibility for the OEMs. For most, they may as well not exist.
A few years ago, Dinson-Merrill developed a similar product in order to significantly improve their odor-eater-type shoe insert/foot desmellerizer product.
During pre-production product testing, they discovered that about 2% of the pilot program users had developed a serious allergic reaction to the bacteria. The last I heard, the product was put on the back burner - they couldn't adequately circumvent the health issue.
This seems like a nearly identical idea, and so the same health concerns would apply.
Ah, everyone always forgets about the IBM Mech1. This mechanical computer was programmable, certainly not in the modern sense. It was availble 15 years earlier.
... an incredible accomplishment for it's day.
It had 19 ten-digit decimal registers, and was fully programmable by inserting replacable camshafts. Although not programmable on the fly, it did have memory (the state of the machine), and it was in fact programmable, with screwdrivers and wrenches.
It required a bit of oil and greese, but was known for calculating Pi to 190 places in under 3 minutes
United Technologies pays 100% for all courses at accredited institutions. Including books, etc.
If the courses are job related, you get some time off from work to take them.
For any degree (associated, Bachelors, masters, PhD) they give you 100 shares of stock. Free.
AND, no commitment or requirement to stay for 5 years. No lock-in.
Cool. I did it, and so should you.
I know the computational computing farm we're building where I work is moving to the P4. For now, it's the our right choice. But for the typical user that doesn't run such a farm with very purpose-built software, the Athalon seems like the right answer.
For most users, the P4 is currently like a big American V8 with crummy, watered-down gasoline - it just can't compete with the Athalon, which performs better with plain-old gasoline.
Until and unless the software manufacturers purposely support the P4, the Athalon will be a strong contender... and the only contender given price/performance.
As Jeremey Fulton once said at one of those Linux conferences, "Bastille is a wonderful thing".
In March, my company decided to get in on the Bastille bandwagon, as we thought it was good for us and for our customers. I must say that so far it has been a surprising success... my manager calculates that it'll save us about $25,000 per year - and we're a very small shop!
Of course there are always teething problems, but we have found that the minor and temporary pains are far outweighed by the cleaner, more robust environment.
Highly recommended.
There was a study done by Javeline Associates showing that SmartTag technology does in fact provide a significant benefit to casual web users. The success, shown with an experimental browser linking back to Google, showed that users were able to find information 5 to 15 minutes faster than they otherwise would have.
The real problem with Microsoft's implementation is the centralized, monopolistic control over the information provided back to the user... data which was designed to be collected and distributed to sales and marketing industries.
This behoovers Open Source developers to come up with a decentralized model and client software for SmartTag-type technology.
As a freelancer, I believe that the author hypes that freelancers will outprice lower-cost in-house writers for web publishing. Sounds good on the surface, but one has to ask why a publisher goes to freelancers in the first place. There are three primary reasons:
... as these freelancers are performing "works for hire". Nothing new here either.
1. unique works by hard-to-find specialists
2. notable authors
3. fill gaps in their internal staff.
For the first two categories, you get what you pay for. If a publisher wants to produce specialty works in-house, then the publisher must significantly beef up their internal staff. This is nothing new. If you license something, you play by the rules, just like GNU.
For the gap-fillers, the standard contracts are virtually always to the benefit of the publisher
In conclusion, the author of this article is hyping the situation. The ruling only confirms freelancers rights and licensing rights, while not significantly changing works-for-hire or the honest web publishing business models.
Jim Rivers of PARC once said GPG could be the most important advent since the Web - if there was a defacto method of distributing keys. The fact remains that there are no universal mechanisms out there, and the ones that make the promises are coupled with incredibly profitable buisness plans that will never have significant backing by the public.
And given the topic (privacy), no corporate or government agency will bother to invest in and standardize on a palitable service.
Without both the people, the government, AND corporate backing, no such mechanism can be considered a true success.