Windows is an OS, an Operating System. Flip through a computer science text book on operating systems some time, and see if it says anything about Media Players, Internet Browsers, Solitaire Games, etc.
Why? Because these are what we call Applications. They're not necessary to the functioning of the System. They can be added on later.
Microsoft is in a special position in the market. The sell an OS, and bundle it with a bunch of stuff which supports their apps better than other companies apps, because they don't release all the info.
Consistent look and feel? Hmm... that's a property of apps and the basic windowing system (which, OK, is part of the OS in Windows). Focus on the apps, are you saying that all apps must be produced by Microsoft so that users don't get to shocked when they use their apps? Come on. That's a pretty crumby world for this programmer to have to live in.
Microsoft can produce a stripped down OS. Not sure that it will do a lot of good if they don't open their APIs, but I really don't see your point.
What I took away from the article is that this theory is not really any better or worse in terms of grounding in reality than the big bang.
The scientific method does not exclude creativity... it requires it. One, in coming up with a theory or hypothesis, as these scientists are doing here. And two, in experiment design.
I think it's OK to look where we want to look at this point in our understanding. This theory just says to me that there's no reason not to suspect "one bang" over "bang, bang, bang..." just yet... the jury is still out, so there's plenty of room for new hyptheses.
When hard proof is in, however, we'll have to live with what we find, whether we like it or not.
WindRiver is the biggest embedded systems OS provider, selling VxWorks.
You pay a one time fee for Tornado seats. What does it buy you? Some packaged up free software compilers (gcc!) and limited tech support. Same as Red Hat.
Outside of the support contract, you can get someone on-site from WindRiver for $2500 a day. And believe me, at some point, you will pay it because you've got to get your product shipping... sometimes you're willing to pay almost anything.
What makes them different? Per-copy license fees for VxWorks when you actually ship your product. And they ain't cheap. So guess what? There's a definite advantage to Open Source. No license fees! And the code works just as good as the closed source stuff, AND you don't have to beg WindRiver support for source code when things don't work right (AND this DOES happen). That's the customer perspective.
From Open Source perspective, one can make plenty of money just on support, just like WindRiver does. Adopt some open embedded code, learn it inside and out and start charging $100 an hour to support it. You can't help but be profitable as long as there are enough contracts around.
You'd be surprised at how many devices have embedded firmware.
Lets see... microcontrollers used in LOTS of consumer devices (toys, microwaves, cd players, radios, etc.), adjunct devices (for example, the ethernet palm pilot cradle I worked on a while back), barcode scanners, all manner of microcontrollers/firmware on computer peripherals (PCI cards, printers, scanners, etc.), cordless phones (do you think you get the caller ID message without firmware?) etc. etc.
Is Bruce in the same industry I am? Has the certainties of mathematics addled his brain? We're just software cowboys winging it!
Although it's called computer science, it's still not a science yet... although we call it "software engineering" I find it hard to compare myself to the level of knowledge in the practice a good civil engineer.
We don't deal with predictable physical properties. We deal in delivering features in a timely fashion while managing complexity. The better developers do a better job at that, but no one can say we've advanced to a stage where we're ready to say "we only have bugs if we made a mistake"
As a comp sci major I learned some languages, data structures and about the process of software engineering, but I got no impression at any time that we've really figured this thing out. I have even run a QA department. We're hit and miss and anyone that tells you otherwise is selling you a bill of goods.
I have faith that we'll get there one day, when we design our systems with schematics and standard components rather than winging it. The discipline needs to grow up a bit more before we can say it's ready to cast into stone.
I agree, how OSS succeeds financially is the number one question. It's formost on my mind.
On the microdonations front, you look at projects like Transgaming where users pay a subscription fee and then get to vote on what apps to port. I don't like the implementation there... I think where you spend your money is the purest form of voting. So, rather, someone who wants a project done (in this case, an app made to work with wine) should be encouraged to vote with small amounts of money (paypal) for which programmers could compete as students and progressors compete for grants.
Dual licensing is another good way for oss projects to make money.
On the Public Radio model, pure donations, I think the "pledge drive" would be very different in a Web context... the drive would ideally be a very infrequent email which encourages users to vote for further progress on their favorite app or needed app with money. An email once every 6 months say from FSF, which leads to a web site and lets users vote with small amounts of money for specific projects. Fairly unobtusive.
Capitalism works, but it needs to be built into a system which programmers want. I hate the fact that every bit of software I've written is wholly closed and owned by businesses which throw it away eventually (outdated) or themselves go out of business and take all that effort with them.
Hmm... Senators may be beholden to the special interests, but they're not stupid.
I think Senators Leahy and other would notice such a significant rider. In any event, you know Microsoft and Intel's lobbyists will get good look at it before it ever got to the floor.
You'd be more likely to see a rider like this on a BIG bill like an appropriations bill, or something with the word "omnibus" in it.
GPLd source is the only software engine that can stand up to Microsoft, because it cannot be stopped by the occasional business failure or frivolous lawsuits.
If governments start to seriously fund that engine, it would put some serious power behind that already significant competitor.
And don't be confused... Gates isn't for BSD licenses for any good reason, just because it suits Microsoft.. they can steal all their ONLY COMPETITOR's hard work, and give nothing back. Screw that... if someone wants to close a branch of open source they just need to plunk down some cash and dual license it.
Microsoft's true stripes? Close source BSD networking, Mosaic browser (basically, leach-embrace-and-extend), and fucking us over on CIFS which they actually pushed some time back as the "Common Internet File System" but which is now basically a non-public spec. [I say this means, as the technical community we take OUR ball and go home... we were willing to play nice and interoperate with SMB, but I guess we'll just have to replace anything networking with SMB]
We'll figure out how to make money and not go back to the farm. It's already happening:
http://www.linuxfund.org
I think that's the way it will go, but on more of a microdonation system, ala public radio or public TV model. Pacifica being the purest example of course:-) And dual licensing works of course as well.
The patent office is not underfunded. Simply incompentent, in the way of unqualified, unethical, unprofessional, etc.
If they were competent, but simply understaffed, I would expect a backlog. Rather than a backlog, they are apparently just rubber stamping patents without merit. Has there been a GAO audit of the office? They need to be called to account.
I'd rather see the patents mired in years of red tape than to see those without merit rubber stamped.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... well let's get to basics here...
Windows is an OS, an Operating System. Flip through a computer science text book on operating systems some time, and see if it says anything about Media Players, Internet Browsers, Solitaire Games, etc.
Why? Because these are what we call Applications. They're not necessary to the functioning of the System. They can be added on later.
Microsoft is in a special position in the market. The sell an OS, and bundle it with a bunch of stuff which supports their apps better than other companies apps, because they don't release all the info.
Consistent look and feel? Hmm... that's a property of apps and the basic windowing system (which, OK, is part of the OS in Windows). Focus on the apps, are you saying that all apps must be produced by Microsoft so that users don't get to shocked when they use their apps? Come on. That's a pretty crumby world for this programmer to have to live in.
Microsoft can produce a stripped down OS. Not sure that it will do a lot of good if they don't open their APIs, but I really don't see your point.
What I took away from the article is that this theory is not really any better or worse in terms of grounding in reality than the big bang.
The scientific method does not exclude creativity... it requires it. One, in coming up with a theory or hypothesis, as these scientists are doing here. And two, in experiment design.
I think it's OK to look where we want to look at this point in our understanding. This theory just says to me that there's no reason not to suspect "one bang" over "bang, bang, bang..." just yet... the jury is still out, so there's plenty of room for new hyptheses.
When hard proof is in, however, we'll have to live with what we find, whether we like it or not.
WindRiver is the biggest embedded systems OS provider, selling VxWorks.
You pay a one time fee for Tornado seats. What does it buy you? Some packaged up free software compilers (gcc!) and limited tech support. Same as Red Hat.
Outside of the support contract, you can get someone on-site from WindRiver for $2500 a day. And believe me, at some point, you will pay it because you've got to get your product shipping... sometimes you're willing to pay almost anything.
What makes them different? Per-copy license fees for VxWorks when you actually ship your product. And they ain't cheap. So guess what? There's a definite advantage to Open Source. No license fees! And the code works just as good as the closed source stuff, AND you don't have to beg WindRiver support for source code when things don't work right (AND this DOES happen). That's the customer perspective.
From Open Source perspective, one can make plenty of money just on support, just like WindRiver does. Adopt some open embedded code, learn it inside and out and start charging $100 an hour to support it. You can't help but be profitable as long as there are enough contracts around.
Let's see...
You'd be surprised at how many devices have embedded firmware.
Lets see... microcontrollers used in LOTS of consumer devices (toys, microwaves, cd players, radios, etc.), adjunct devices (for example, the ethernet palm pilot cradle I worked on a while back), barcode scanners, all manner of microcontrollers/firmware on computer peripherals (PCI cards, printers, scanners, etc.), cordless phones (do you think you get the caller ID message without firmware?) etc. etc.
Is Bruce in the same industry I am? Has the certainties of mathematics addled his brain? We're just software cowboys winging it!
Although it's called computer science, it's still not a science yet... although we call it "software engineering" I find it hard to compare myself to the level of knowledge in the practice a good civil engineer.
We don't deal with predictable physical properties. We deal in delivering features in a timely fashion while managing complexity. The better developers do a better job at that, but no one can say we've advanced to a stage where we're ready to say "we only have bugs if we made a mistake"
As a comp sci major I learned some languages, data structures and about the process of software engineering, but I got no impression at any time that we've really figured this thing out. I have even run a QA department. We're hit and miss and anyone that tells you otherwise is selling you a bill of goods.
I have faith that we'll get there one day, when we design our systems with schematics and standard components rather than winging it. The discipline needs to grow up a bit more before we can say it's ready to cast into stone.
I agree, how OSS succeeds financially is the number one question. It's formost on my mind.
On the microdonations front, you look at projects like Transgaming where users pay a subscription fee and then get to vote on what apps to port. I don't like the implementation there... I think where you spend your money is the purest form of voting. So, rather, someone who wants a project done (in this case, an app made to work with wine) should be encouraged to vote with small amounts of money (paypal) for which programmers could compete as students and progressors compete for grants.
Dual licensing is another good way for oss projects to make money.
On the Public Radio model, pure donations, I think the "pledge drive" would be very different in a Web context... the drive would ideally be a very infrequent email which encourages users to vote for further progress on their favorite app or needed app with money. An email once every 6 months say from FSF, which leads to a web site and lets users vote with small amounts of money for specific projects. Fairly unobtusive.
Capitalism works, but it needs to be built into a system which programmers want. I hate the fact that every bit of software I've written is wholly closed and owned by businesses which throw it away eventually (outdated) or themselves go out of business and take all that effort with them.
Hmm... Senators may be beholden to the special interests, but they're not stupid.
I think Senators Leahy and other would notice such a significant rider. In any event, you know Microsoft and Intel's lobbyists will get good look at it before it ever got to the floor.
You'd be more likely to see a rider like this on a BIG bill like an appropriations bill, or something with the word "omnibus" in it.
And is scared shitless...
:-) And dual licensing works of course as well.
GPLd source is the only software engine that can stand up to Microsoft, because it cannot be stopped by the occasional business failure or frivolous lawsuits.
If governments start to seriously fund that engine, it would put some serious power behind that already significant competitor.
And don't be confused... Gates isn't for BSD licenses for any good reason, just because it suits Microsoft.. they can steal all their ONLY COMPETITOR's hard work, and give nothing back. Screw that... if someone wants to close a branch of open source they just need to plunk down some cash and dual license it.
Microsoft's true stripes? Close source BSD networking, Mosaic browser (basically, leach-embrace-and-extend), and fucking us over on CIFS which they actually pushed some time back as the "Common Internet File System" but which is now basically a non-public spec. [I say this means, as the technical community we take OUR ball and go home... we were willing to play nice and interoperate with SMB, but I guess we'll just have to replace anything networking with SMB]
We'll figure out how to make money and not go back to the farm. It's already happening:
http://www.linuxfund.org
I think that's the way it will go, but on more of a microdonation system, ala public radio or public TV model. Pacifica being the purest example of course
The patent office is not underfunded. Simply incompentent, in the way of unqualified, unethical, unprofessional, etc.
If they were competent, but simply understaffed, I would expect a backlog. Rather than a backlog, they are apparently just rubber stamping patents without merit. Has there been a GAO audit of the office? They need to be called to account.
I'd rather see the patents mired in years of red tape than to see those without merit rubber stamped.