What RMS and others aren't acknowledging is that you are already part of the cloud. You can set up your own web server, running whatever open source server you want. If you don't trust Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc. with your email, you can set up your own mail server however you like, and you're running on the cloud. Sure, some (most) web apps aren't open source, but it doesn't have to stay that way - instead of compiling source to run natively, you can throw a web app on your server, and access it anywhere in the world using ChromeOS (or any other browser)!
Cloud computing doesn't have to rely on giving up your data - it's just moving to a thin client model. Maybe this is an opportunity to promote open source web-based applications that take advantage of the cloud based computing concept while leaving you in charge or protecting your own data, as RMS is advocating.
I assume there is some way to spoof the OS response in FireFox to return a Windows response regardless of the actual operating system. Has anyone tried this? I haven't used the NY Times video service, but maybe they use a different technology for the video page (i.e. not macromedia) than the front page. Although it sounds like a dumb idea, perhaps it has DRM, or uses a different technology that requires Windows Media Player.
In either case, it is simply be poor website design to use browers/OS detection to redirect to an "error" page. If there is an incompatibility, let it be shown as best it can instead of denying access. Or even better, use open standards to prevent the problem in the first place. Preventing paying customers from accessing their site reflects poorly on the NY Times technical and web development staff.
With all the effort that went into creating this technical marvel, what are they going to do with it when the experiment is over? I think there is a limited supply of helium (or something else will run out), so they will probably let it burn in the atmosphere. It would be great if it could be retrieved and put in a museum, but the costs almost certainly outweigh the benefits (from a purely monetary viewpoint).
Oh, well. Maybe this can be a retreval target for the next X Prize in a few years.
What some people don't understand about this business model is that you are paid for coding and not the code itself, which goes free. A foreign idea, sure, but that's progress:)
If a business wants a new program, they pay someone to write it. The company gets the program they want, the programmer gets paid, and any subsequent company that needs an identical program can use the code for free. If modifications to the program are needed by a subsequant code user, that company can hire another programmer (or even the same one). Again, the company has the code they want, and programmers get paid.
And, of course, people are needed to maintain and update, and support the code. The difference is that coders are hired by the company who needs the work done, not a huge company who makes one-size-fits-all "solutions."
The "traditional" model of selling packaged software is becoming old 'n busted for the following reasons:
Coders are not paid extra if the software turns out to be a big hit. You are paid for providing a program to do a job a company needs.
Software is getting large, and code reuse is becoming a neccesity. Programmers, by nature, like shiny new challenges. If it's been done before, why do it again?
The GPL is, in fact, 'viral'. This means that the communal code base will continue to grow, and never get smaller. More and more of what you need is GPL, so why pay for it? It's been done, and someone's already been paid to do it.
Programmers are no longer a scare resource. Welcome to 2004, you're getting oursourced.
The only people who don't benefit from this model are software companies which depend on boxed sales as thier only revenue - and there's a reason for that. As middlemen (between the coders and the users), they are no longer competitive at providing the services they once did. Software companies will still have a purpose, of course - distribution, organization, support, and maybe even some coding. Businesses don't want Microsoft's Internet Explorer, MS Paint, Outlook Express, Access & whatever else you get for $600 - they want to use their computers to make widgets more efficiently, and at a lower cost.
Releasing code after you've been paid to write it in no way devalues it. It just makes all code better.
Energy = h*f, where f is the frequency of light and h is Planck's constant. The percieved color of slowed light is the same as when it is at speed c, if it has the same energy.
Normally, we say that the color of light depends on the wavelength of the light, but technically it depends only on the frequency (not the same thing!). We know that:
frequency = speed of light / wavelength
But when light passes through any transperent material (with index of refraction n > 1), the speed of light changes, as well as the wavelength. Coincidentally, they also change by the same amount.
speed of the light = c/n
wavelength of light = L/n
where c and L are the speed and wavelength of the light in a vacuum and n is the index of refraction
Because they change by the same amount, the frequency remains unchanged. At least, this is how it works in normal transperent materials like water, air, and glass. This cutting edge stuff may be different, but the article lacks all the good technical bits for me to be able to tell.
Poeple not Lookout Express can still read his email, even if they are using Windows.
This is a poor comparison because word files can also be opened within Linux; it's just not convenient and doesn't work that well. Sure, Microsoft users can view the emails with another program, but it's a hassle to change your software. FortKnox is entierly correct.
Slashdot Mirror
What RMS and others aren't acknowledging is that you are already part of the cloud. You can set up your own web server, running whatever open source server you want. If you don't trust Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc. with your email, you can set up your own mail server however you like, and you're running on the cloud. Sure, some (most) web apps aren't open source, but it doesn't have to stay that way - instead of compiling source to run natively, you can throw a web app on your server, and access it anywhere in the world using ChromeOS (or any other browser)!
Cloud computing doesn't have to rely on giving up your data - it's just moving to a thin client model. Maybe this is an opportunity to promote open source web-based applications that take advantage of the cloud based computing concept while leaving you in charge or protecting your own data, as RMS is advocating.
I assume there is some way to spoof the OS response in FireFox to return a Windows response regardless of the actual operating system. Has anyone tried this? I haven't used the NY Times video service, but maybe they use a different technology for the video page (i.e. not macromedia) than the front page. Although it sounds like a dumb idea, perhaps it has DRM, or uses a different technology that requires Windows Media Player.
In either case, it is simply be poor website design to use browers/OS detection to redirect to an "error" page. If there is an incompatibility, let it be shown as best it can instead of denying access. Or even better, use open standards to prevent the problem in the first place. Preventing paying customers from accessing their site reflects poorly on the NY Times technical and web development staff.
With all the effort that went into creating this technical marvel, what are they going to do with it when the experiment is over? I think there is a limited supply of helium (or something else will run out), so they will probably let it burn in the atmosphere. It would be great if it could be retrieved and put in a museum, but the costs almost certainly outweigh the benefits (from a purely monetary viewpoint).
Oh, well. Maybe this can be a retreval target for the next X Prize in a few years.
If a business wants a new program, they pay someone to write it. The company gets the program they want, the programmer gets paid, and any subsequent company that needs an identical program can use the code for free. If modifications to the program are needed by a subsequant code user, that company can hire another programmer (or even the same one). Again, the company has the code they want, and programmers get paid.
And, of course, people are needed to maintain and update, and support the code. The difference is that coders are hired by the company who needs the work done, not a huge company who makes one-size-fits-all "solutions."
The "traditional" model of selling packaged software is becoming old 'n busted for the following reasons:
The only people who don't benefit from this model are software companies which depend on boxed sales as thier only revenue - and there's a reason for that. As middlemen (between the coders and the users), they are no longer competitive at providing the services they once did. Software companies will still have a purpose, of course - distribution, organization, support, and maybe even some coding. Businesses don't want Microsoft's Internet Explorer, MS Paint, Outlook Express, Access & whatever else you get for $600 - they want to use their computers to make widgets more efficiently, and at a lower cost.
Releasing code after you've been paid to write it in no way devalues it. It just makes all code better.
Energy = h*f, where f is the frequency of light and h is Planck's constant. The percieved color of slowed light is the same as when it is at speed c, if it has the same energy.
Normally, we say that the color of light depends on the wavelength of the light, but technically it depends only on the frequency (not the same thing!). We know that:
frequency = speed of light / wavelength
But when light passes through any transperent material (with index of refraction n > 1), the speed of light changes, as well as the wavelength. Coincidentally, they also change by the same amount.
speed of the light = c/n
wavelength of light = L/n
where c and L are the speed and wavelength of the light in a vacuum and n is the index of refraction
Because they change by the same amount, the frequency remains unchanged. At least, this is how it works in normal transperent materials like water, air, and glass. This cutting edge stuff may be different, but the article lacks all the good technical bits for me to be able to tell.
Red Hat has aggressively lobbied Congress to eliminate software patents and copyrights. (see http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html ).
Interestingly, the only mention of copyrights on that page is:
As has been pointed our again and again, free software depends on copyrights for its survival.
Poeple not Lookout Express can still read his email, even if they are using Windows.
This is a poor comparison because word files can also be opened within Linux; it's just not convenient and doesn't work that well. Sure, Microsoft users can view the emails with another program, but it's a hassle to change your software. FortKnox is entierly correct.