Ya dreamin'. So long as it is cheaper to hire expert programmers maintain the application than it would cost to rewrite it from scratch, COBOL will continue to be a required skill that fetches high pay.
It know I'd love to get paid for sales that result from people who see ads on my site.. unfortunately there is no way to do that other than to somehow drop a cookie into the viewer's brain which they deposit back with me when they buy the item. Why? Cause you might come to my site, see an ad and immediately forget about it (as most everyone does) then months or years later someone might ask "hey, do you know anywhere that sells X?" and you might reply "Well yeah, I vaguely remember seeing something somewhere that said they sold X at this web site." and I know how much I get for that kind of brand development? Nothing. This is why everywhere else in the advertising world you have to pay to get your ad shown. There is no measurement of how many people are looking at the ad. There is no measurement of how effective the ad is (through clickthroughs or whatever). You, the advertiser, have the responsibility to determine if it is worth your while to pay to put your ads on my site.
Somehow we've gotten into this back-asswards universe where Google and Yahoo and these other middle men get to set the price for advertising. Of course, I know why.. I am but a lowly peon in the world of advertising space. Slashdot probably sets their own price (surely).
The argument is easily made that they are violating your trademark because they are directing the domain name to advertisement that are similar to your product. If they're not doing that, you're not going to have much luck claiming trademark infringement, but they are not going to make as nearly as much money either. Of course, advice number 3 is still the best.
What he's doing is leeching off your trademark to make money advertising similar products (if the advertising is targetted at all, let's hope it is) which is pretty scummy alright.. but that's why we have trademark law.. and yes, unfortunately, talking to a lawyer costs money.
Yeah.. they're just as lame as existing space suits (if not more).. a magical nanotech suit would be completely transparent and so you feel like you're swimming in shallow water.
1. Trademark your company/product name 2. Ensure your domain name contains the trademark 3. Renew your domain name registration on time (for fuck sake) 4. If someone buys up your domain when you're not looking, sue them for trademark infringement. 5. Stop complaining on Slashdot.
If you can't read that document and get the fundamental message that: if we freeze interfaces we will have to support backwards compatability on those interfaces forever and the benefits of doing that just don't outweigh the advantages; then you're not trying.
Apple can do what they do because of two things: they control the hardware, and they don't support backwards compatibility for drivers. Linux, which not only doesn't support the hardware, but actively encourages the use of plenty of different architectures, can only do what it does because the development team is so much bigger than Apple's.
As for Windows? How is this even remotely relevant? They're a billion dollar company and they spend all their time and money maintaining backwards compatibility and developing bolt ons to their OS. If anything, Windows is a perfect example of what happens when you present a stable API to driver makers.. you end up with 20 different stable apis, all which you must maintain.
You'd know all this if you'd ever tried to write a driver for Windows.
Yep, and it's the best reason why RMS has totally failed to present an argument for Free Software that business finds acceptable. It took a new push to fix it. Go read some Bruce Parens sometime. There's a reason why "Open Source Software" is defined using the 4 freedoms of Free Software..
There's three ways to get an open source driver written:
1. Get the company to release docs so that independant programmers can write drivers. This is the approach Theo advocates. 2. Reverse engineer the hardware and write the driver independantly. This is the approach taken by a number of people, including the OpenBSD developers at times. 3. Get a company employee or contractor, under NDA, to write the driver. Often the result of this is not an open source driver.. it's a binary driver, and that's what Greg is trying to change by offering to do the work of an employee or contractor for free.
The reason why options 1 and 2 are such poor options is that the specs you get are woeful. Hardware engineers are only slightly better at documenting their work than software engineers, and every company is loath to hand out specs which reveal the inner workings of the hardware unless the receipiant is under NDA. That's the reality of the situation.
Shame about the HURD.. that's what happens when you try to do something experimental when you're playing catch up. They should have just focused on a monolithic kernel from day one.
The point of the NDA is so that the OEM can just hand over all their documentation without having to sit down and censor it all so they're not handing over anything that might give their competitors an advantage. They clear the developer to disclose as much information as needed to make a device driver that is well documented and works. They don't clear the developer to turn over the secret algorithms that might be used in the hardware or the production methods that may be of interest to the OEM's competitors.. but they might give that stuff to the developer because it was in the same filing cabinet.
If the driver isn't well written, commented and documented, it will not be accepted into the tree. The NDAs are being drafted by the Software Freedom Law Centre.. you don't think they're going to get the best possible deal?
Otherwise, what would you prefer? Would you prefer the OEM hired a developer to make a binary-only driver? Which they'll stop supporting as soon as it is economically justifiable? Would you prefer they just don't release any drivers for Linux? Don't say you would prefer if they just sat down and wrote perfect developer documentation cause there's no such thing.
Software developers don't need any circuit layouts in the first place, they just need the interface. Sometimes you do.. sometimes "the interface" just isn't defined and you need to sit there with an osciloscope to figure out what the hell this piece of hardware is doing.. and knowing what line is what kinda helps.
Oh, we're still trying to convince people.. unfortunately we have explain why "anyone" would be interested in working on Open Source to these people. They make the same arguments from 10+ years ago and when we say "go read X" they refuse. Or, alternatively, we say "well obviously they are, otherwise we wouldn't have all the Open Source software we have now" and they start denying that we have any software.. or just ignore us.
It's not really Carmack who is the one on the pipe, it's the people who are suggesting that you could make 100x100 module first stages to support 25x25 module second stages. But still, the reason why that is insanity (unobtainium would be needed to hold the modules together) is also a good reason why 5x5 or 8x8 configurations are a bit loopy.
But hey, I don't mind.. Armadillo is a fun effort to watch.
The purpose of the OEM getting the driver developer to sign an NDA is so they can just give the developer all their documentation, including stuff they would prefer their competitors never see. If they don't do this, they have to get someone to sit there and go through everything that is being released and censor it. You can't just expect a company to hand over their product secrets so you can write a driver without any assurance that you're not going to immediately sell their documentation to their competitors.
A[n] NDA would be acceptable if it allows you to release fully commented code, i.e. sufficient for anyone to rewrite the driver for any OS or in any language. And that's exactly what the Software Freedom Law Centre will be requiring from OEMs.. poorly commented code doesn't live long in the kernel tree.
I wasn't able to get a printer working under Windows XP 64 bit Edition for about 9 months. Only last week did I figure out how to force windows not to try to use the drivers from the print server (which is 32 bit XP) and to stop it from overwriting the 64 bit drivers with the 32 bit ones. I guarentee it is because the date-time stamps on the drivers were out of wack.. in 3 weeks time they'll probably magically stop working again.
Slashdot Mirror
Ya dreamin'. So long as it is cheaper to hire expert programmers maintain the application than it would cost to rewrite it from scratch, COBOL will continue to be a required skill that fetches high pay.
It know I'd love to get paid for sales that result from people who see ads on my site.. unfortunately there is no way to do that other than to somehow drop a cookie into the viewer's brain which they deposit back with me when they buy the item. Why? Cause you might come to my site, see an ad and immediately forget about it (as most everyone does) then months or years later someone might ask "hey, do you know anywhere that sells X?" and you might reply "Well yeah, I vaguely remember seeing something somewhere that said they sold X at this web site." and I know how much I get for that kind of brand development? Nothing. This is why everywhere else in the advertising world you have to pay to get your ad shown. There is no measurement of how many people are looking at the ad. There is no measurement of how effective the ad is (through clickthroughs or whatever). You, the advertiser, have the responsibility to determine if it is worth your while to pay to put your ads on my site.
Somehow we've gotten into this back-asswards universe where Google and Yahoo and these other middle men get to set the price for advertising. Of course, I know why.. I am but a lowly peon in the world of advertising space. Slashdot probably sets their own price (surely).
The argument is easily made that they are violating your trademark because they are directing the domain name to advertisement that are similar to your product. If they're not doing that, you're not going to have much luck claiming trademark infringement, but they are not going to make as nearly as much money either. Of course, advice number 3 is still the best.
What he's doing is leeching off your trademark to make money advertising similar products (if the advertising is targetted at all, let's hope it is) which is pretty scummy alright.. but that's why we have trademark law.. and yes, unfortunately, talking to a lawyer costs money.
Business is like that.
Yeah.. they're just as lame as existing space suits (if not more).. a magical nanotech suit would be completely transparent and so you feel like you're swimming in shallow water.
1. Trademark your company/product name
2. Ensure your domain name contains the trademark
3. Renew your domain name registration on time (for fuck sake)
4. If someone buys up your domain when you're not looking, sue them for trademark infringement.
5. Stop complaining on Slashdot.
oh, all right then..
6. ???
7. Profit!
Will that joke ever die? Thank you South Park.
It's like Monopoly.. the first person who lands on the square gets the option to buy.. if they decline, then there's an auction.
Let's hope there's some sort of explosion of stupidity and they both die.
If you can't read that document and get the fundamental message that: if we freeze interfaces we will have to support backwards compatability on those interfaces forever and the benefits of doing that just don't outweigh the advantages; then you're not trying.
Apple can do what they do because of two things: they control the hardware, and they don't support backwards compatibility for drivers. Linux, which not only doesn't support the hardware, but actively encourages the use of plenty of different architectures, can only do what it does because the development team is so much bigger than Apple's.
As for Windows? How is this even remotely relevant? They're a billion dollar company and they spend all their time and money maintaining backwards compatibility and developing bolt ons to their OS. If anything, Windows is a perfect example of what happens when you present a stable API to driver makers.. you end up with 20 different stable apis, all which you must maintain.
You'd know all this if you'd ever tried to write a driver for Windows.
Yep, and it's the best reason why RMS has totally failed to present an argument for Free Software that business finds acceptable. It took a new push to fix it. Go read some Bruce Parens sometime. There's a reason why "Open Source Software" is defined using the 4 freedoms of Free Software..
Free Software is different. Fundamentally different.
This is a good thing.
Stable == perfect. We'd all love the kernel to be perfect.. but unfortunately, I left my magic wand in my other pants.
He has great humility.
There's three ways to get an open source driver written:
1. Get the company to release docs so that independant programmers can write drivers. This is the approach Theo advocates.
2. Reverse engineer the hardware and write the driver independantly. This is the approach taken by a number of people, including the OpenBSD developers at times.
3. Get a company employee or contractor, under NDA, to write the driver. Often the result of this is not an open source driver.. it's a binary driver, and that's what Greg is trying to change by offering to do the work of an employee or contractor for free.
The reason why options 1 and 2 are such poor options is that the specs you get are woeful. Hardware engineers are only slightly better at documenting their work than software engineers, and every company is loath to hand out specs which reveal the inner workings of the hardware unless the receipiant is under NDA. That's the reality of the situation.
Thanks for being a typical Slashdot fucktard.
Why do people continually make the same argument for a binary interface?
It's been addressed again and again and again.
Here's the definitive response.
Give it up.
Shame about the HURD.. that's what happens when you try to do something experimental when you're playing catch up. They should have just focused on a monolithic kernel from day one.
Wonder if we'll ever have nanotech suits that make diving as safe as a submarine (or, hopefully, safer).
Then I guess you'll have divers who wish for the good old days when you had to have skill to dive.
A similar technology for space suits is probably a lot easier though. Only a single atmosphere of pressure, and a near vacuum environment.
Is your webcam in this list.. if not, maybe you could contact that guy.
If the driver isn't well written, commented and documented, it will not be accepted into the tree. The NDAs are being drafted by the Software Freedom Law Centre.. you don't think they're going to get the best possible deal?
Otherwise, what would you prefer? Would you prefer the OEM hired a developer to make a binary-only driver? Which they'll stop supporting as soon as it is economically justifiable? Would you prefer they just don't release any drivers for Linux? Don't say you would prefer if they just sat down and wrote perfect developer documentation cause there's no such thing. Software developers don't need any circuit layouts in the first place, they just need the interface. Sometimes you do.. sometimes "the interface" just isn't defined and you need to sit there with an osciloscope to figure out what the hell this piece of hardware is doing.. and knowing what line is what kinda helps.
Oh, we're still trying to convince people.. unfortunately we have explain why "anyone" would be interested in working on Open Source to these people. They make the same arguments from 10+ years ago and when we say "go read X" they refuse. Or, alternatively, we say "well obviously they are, otherwise we wouldn't have all the Open Source software we have now" and they start denying that we have any software.. or just ignore us.
You've never heard of a paid volunteer?
I think I did go easy on him :)
It's not really Carmack who is the one on the pipe, it's the people who are suggesting that you could make 100x100 module first stages to support 25x25 module second stages. But still, the reason why that is insanity (unobtainium would be needed to hold the modules together) is also a good reason why 5x5 or 8x8 configurations are a bit loopy.
But hey, I don't mind.. Armadillo is a fun effort to watch.
I wasn't able to get a printer working under Windows XP 64 bit Edition for about 9 months. Only last week did I figure out how to force windows not to try to use the drivers from the print server (which is 32 bit XP) and to stop it from overwriting the 64 bit drivers with the 32 bit ones. I guarentee it is because the date-time stamps on the drivers were out of wack.. in 3 weeks time they'll probably magically stop working again.