I didn't take a poll of my friends. I read the New York Times article and the entire discussion here.
This is your appeal to the masses that I mentioned. Regardless of what they believe, you are, and so are they, in error.
The matter under discussion is not simply whether the public deems it acceptable, but also whether it actually is acceptable. Whether the public thinks it's acceptable or not, the latter is the appropriate discussion for determining whether it is acceptable in actuality. An opinion poll is not a source from which you can reliably derive facts, plain and simple.
If you want, we can split the discussion into two: one group can pat themselves on the back for finding a clever new way of stealing (in the unconsenting cases) electricity from businesses, and the other can rationally discuss whether this practice is fair or not. Join whichever you prefer, but I'm sticking with the latter.
The public opinion on the matter is quite predictable too: It boils down to whatever is convenient for them, and rhetorically justifiable enough to excuse themselves of responsibility for their actions.
As for your analogy, it is also flawed. For one, the amount of energy in use is irrelevant. That's a rhetorical trick. Stealing a penny-candy or stealing a yacht, you're still stealing. Secondarily, if you were deliberately using the hot air dryer for purposes other than it was intended for (drying off), and in doing so you used more than your share, you would be misusing the hot air dryer. A clearer analogy, to stick with them for now, is you ordering a coffee then drinking a glass-worth of cream too (and maybe pocketing a few sugar packets while you're at it). The cream was there so it could augment your coffee, not so you could help yourself to as much as you want. The electricity is there because it is needed to heat your coffee, not so you could help yourself to it for whatever you want (without asking, of course).
As for my analogy, it's irrelevant whether I'm a customer of my neighbour's or not. In ordering a coffee, if I didn't also request the use of some additional electricity, and the use of said electricity wasn't implied to be part of the transaction, then I'm using it without consent. Period. You can't simply waive consent wherever it benefits you, or you're a hypocrite.
The simple point I was trying to make is that asking permission to do something is a) courteous, b) correct, c) not that much effort, and d) often appreciated by the person you've asked. I've read several posts bitching about shop owners disapproving of the unconsented use of their electricity. These people would do well to consider that maybe the shop owner isn't the jackass, but rather, they are themselves.
Anyone who argues that asking is too much effort, and that they shouldn't have to ask, is lazy, ignorant, and has a false sense of entitlement to services they aren't entitled to, nor deserve.
Your arbitrary definition of "reasonable" based on a poll of your friends (hardly a majority justifying the title "most ordinary people") doesn't give you the permission to help yourself to somebody else's resources. And even if the majority of people could be convinced you were right, it still doesn't make it so (the public is convinced of quite a lot of falsities these days). The claim that the majority's opinion is always right (because it happens to be beneficial to you at this juncture) is what's called an "appeal to the masses" (also known as a "logical error").
It doesn't matter if it costs someone else $0.000,000,001 or $10,000,000.00, you're still using somebody else's resources without asking, and in doing so, you're still a thief.
I'll repeat an analogy I've seen elsewhere on this discussion: If you were to water your garden all summer with your neighbour's hose (without asking) then plug your Christmas tree lights into your other neighbour's outlet (again, without asking), how popular do you think you'd be with your neighbours?
Besides the fact that your entitlement attitute is immature and moronic, it's not that hard to go up and ask permission.
The "is this right or wrong" issue here isn't whether a business will let you, or whether it costs you extra, but whether you've obtained consent to use their power. If they provide it as part of their service (as some apparently do), then consent is implicit. If not, then if you haven't obtained their permission first, you are a thief. Plain and simple.
Any justification otherwise is simply an attempt to justify being a thief. It doesn't make it right, it just makes you more pathetic of a thief.
You could say that you would stick to places that do let you, but some places (especially independently owned shops) might not advertise this and so from those it is your duty to ask permission. If I was a shop owner and I saw you simply plugging in without asking, I'd make you stop. If I was asked first, I'd honestly consider it. I might charge you (because I can, and because it wasn't factored into my costs originally), but it wouldn't be much. A fair shop owner might post a notice "$0.25 surcharge per visit for use of outlets for laptops and other portable devices."
"Provide a much better access control on repository files."
This would be a very welcome addition for myself, and I'm sure for many others. Coupled with security being a higher priority, I'd be more comfortable running a publicly accessible CVS server which hosted both Open Source and commercial projects.
As it currently stands, I stopped offering any more than a duplicate of our tagged releases onto SourceForge since a few CVS security issues ago when not only was a major hack out in the wild, but the CVS web site was down for several days at the same time, leaving me unable to patch my installation. Not good.
If they were able to figure out a sufficient amount of what a person's brain activity meant (which is exactly what they seem to be trying to do), and if they could hook that up to some sort of wireless transmitter (should be a piece of cake), it could be used for basic telepathic capabilities. Imagine hooking it up to an FM transmitter, even with just a 6' range - you could come through the radio of the car next to you. Dirty.
Seriously though, an implant that could do this would make telepathy somewhat of a reality. How cool is that?
I especially like the quote at the end of the article, I'll have to remember that one.
Damian's insights on programming languages (the same with computers in general) as tools not in competition is spot on, as well as his comments regarding the (impossibility of) perfection of programming languages. He has a refreshingly simple way of putting it too -- he's a natural teacher.
His comments also provide a strong validation of why there's always room for one more (ie. Perl 6) that pretty much nullifies the nay-sayers.
The interesting thing (for me) is how his comments pertain to other non-mainstream languages (ie. Lisp, Haskell, etc.) and their place within the whole of computer programming. Even if Perl 6 is never widely accepted, it will still sufficiently *influence* the mainstream of programming to help shape better tools down the road (ie. Perl 6's regular expressions are downright sci-fi, but will be very useful once they're ready).
So the Lisp-ers who are worried their language has fallen by the wayside should take comfort instead of getting upset about the influences of Lisp on mainstream languages. That's what it was meant to do, ultimately.
Sure it is. The open source idea maps very clearly onto the token/. business model:
1. give your stuff away
2. ?????
3. profit!!!!!
The problem is, number 2 is either practically impossible, or impeded more than assisted by number 1, except in cases where the company is either a) big enough to invest in such a loss-leader type model, or b) makes money doing related but less-fun things (ie. support, which is also expected for free from most OS projects, or consulting, which is a tough sell as its deliverables are largely intangibles), or they manage to make money off of other software they do charge for. In this last case, the OS software can sometimes help increase awareness of the commercial software, but usually just attracts more people not willing to pay, who eat up support time, and also helps decrease the perceived value of the commercial offerings as well. All around: not a big win, too much risk to be worth it, and not a very appealing business model.
I don't care how long you spent on something; if it's great, it's great, but if it's crap, it's crap. The GPL makes it possible to write high-quality software with far less effort; so little effort in fact that many people are willing to donate their time.
OS software takes just as long to develop. In fact, in many areas OS software lags behind commercial software (ex: databases, CRM, content management, project management, audio software, video software, e-commerce apps, office suites -- open office was a commercial app that was bought out and opened up, so it doesn't count -- and the list goes on). If it was so much faster to develop, and code reuse was really an achievable goal of OS, why is this?
But stop complaining when somebody else writes the same software in a fraction of the man-hours it took you and gives it away for free. Oh, and how were they able to do it so fast? Because they took existing GPL code as a starting point and built on it to do something else.
To be fair, I believe a degree of intelligent code reuse can yield better software faster. However, this is true for, and practiced by, both OS and commercial developers alike. The claim that this is the benefit of OS that trumps all commercial software lacks proof.
And no, I'm not complaining -- FYI, disagreeing and providing an alternative opinion to yours is not in and of itself complaining -- this is just your way of trying to win the argument without proving your side of it. It's called rhetorical pursuasion. Phrases like "nobody's forcing you to" and "stop complaining" are not counter-arguments to mine. Please back up your claims, I'm not interested in playing word games.
The fact is, OS has yet to really prove its merit (ie. its goal is still in the future), and from my vantage point, and after much careful thought, discussion, and research about it, I have come to be of the opinion that OS software does more harm than good for smaller developers. It does this by creating more inequality than it does equality. It doesn't create an equality of opportunity, which is probably as close as a political system (which, make no mistake, the OS movement is a political system) can come to real equality.
Nice try. While "food != databits" may be correct, the reality is that "effort == effort" and while duplication of data is easy, it's the developers' efforts that he's referring to. I've written software that's taken months or even years of effort to complete, now I'm supposed to give it away for free? Why? Because some socialist do-gooder tells me it's the Right Thing To Do?
I'm afraid his analogy stands up quite well.
And Capitalism is all about abundance. It isn't perverted by it, it's simply perverted in and of itself. For example, which industries make the most money? Let's see... We've got the multi-billion-dollar Porn industry, the music, movie, media, cell-phone, and game industries, the fashion industry, and let's not forget the junk/fast food industry. Capitalism has nothing to do with availability, it has to do with desire. What people desire is what sells, what people actually need has very little margin for profit left on it these days (leaving precious little for Joe Farmer and his family).
The only thing free software is doing is creating one less market independent workers can hope to compete in.
I would like to discuss the "any price the market will pay" part of your post. However, I should preface my response with a small note first:
My post is not a complaint, simply an observation. I have benefited from and contributed to open source software in numerous ways over the years. I really believed it for quite a while. Also, anyone seeking to respond to me, please refrain from pulling more rhetorical tricks out of the "Cathedral and the Bazaar", the "Cluetrain Manifesto", or any other such source of "inspirational" material. I've read them, I know their side of the argument. If you're going to respond, make it with *your* own perspective. Please *add* to the discourse instead of borrowing from existing sources of it to further entrap ourselves in its colourful, albeit fatally idealistic mosaic.
(end preface)
Free "beer" is the first benefit people experience by using free software. This creates the perception in peoples' minds that the type of software they just used should be free (gratis). The perceived value of software thus declines rapidly towards zero, making it a very uphill battle for independent developers especially (since their applications are usually the easiest to write, so they're good candidates for free software replacements, and since independent developers simply don't have the means to develop at the level of large corporations).
The real practical effect of free and open source software is that large companies (Sun, Novell, IBM, HP, Red Hat, etc.) benefit by creating a landscape where the practical cost of entry is too high for most to attempt, while the indies are marginalized even further. This is comparable to another historically popular socialist movement: Communism. In both, the theory was that leveling the playing field would make everyone equal. However, in practice, both have the effect of creating a severely exaggerated inequality instead.
Further, the community behind most free software projects is fictional. It consists of the original developer providing answers to users on a forum or mailing list, and the users benefiting. Most users don't contribute in any more capacity than that, yet they still benefit, while the original developer is left with $5-10 in his paypal donations, $20-30 in hosting fees, and a rapidly fading warm and fuzzy feeling.
A proper system would reward those who contribute, not those who plunder. What the free/open source movement accomplishes is the opposite.
Now that the blog post is back up from being/.ed, I've had a chance to read it. My $.02: What a load of rhetorical crap. Not to be a troll or anything, but what the hell is "a highly tuned 'text pump' to occupy the fabric/bus space in a transaction-intensive enterprise data center"?! Now perhaps their software is the shiznit or whatever kids say these days, but based on that post, and based on the thin content on their site (I didn't bother with the white paper -- I hate loading PDFs unnecessarily), it sounds like a lot of buzz over mostly nothing.
If someone has to announce that what they've done is revolutionary, it's not.
Ah, I remember those. The best was when I got called down to the office (I think it was grade 11) and my mom was on the phone. She told me she broke the computer. I calmly asked her "what does it say?" and she replied "I don't know, I just turned it on and it's never done this before". So I said, "well, can you read to me what it says?" so she does, and it turned out to be the Windows notification that the computer had adjusted the clock for daylight savings time. So I ask her "how many buttons do you see on the little window" and she says "one". I say "what does it say?" She says "OK".
Ended up she waited for me to come home to "fix it". It was that day I learned that timid computer users suffer not from inability but from illiteracy. They refuse to read and comprehend the text on the screen. The first instinct when something pops up or tells them something on the screen is to turn _away_ from the screen and look for an explanation elsewhere. It's willful helplessness, which I think is why it's so infuriating to problem solver types like me.
Rest assured, I'll be flying home for Christmas, but I will NOT be fixing computer problems.
The machine comparison is a good one, as it clearly distinguishes between intelligence and memory. Intelligence does not mean how much you can remember or how much you know, but the judgement and use of that knowledge. So, to put it in machine terms, a machine isn't any "smarter" with a full hard drive than an empty one.
I guess you're right. IE loads the style completely wrong on their live site, but loads it fine on my download of the demo. Must be due to their current server load or something.
Looks like the IE7 script doesn't help much, unfortunately. The reality is, IE is still the hugely dominant browser, so any solution you present has to be compatible with it if it's going to be of any real commercial interest. So while a standards-compliant solution is nice and all, a standard is still meaningless when 90% of users out there can't see it.
Ah well, maybe this will get me off my butt to write my own, cross-browser presentation system...
I'd like to see if it's compatible with Dean Edwards' IE7 script. If so, it could almost be considered cross-browser compatible enough for general use.
That's a decent regurgitation of Jef's rhetoric, but it's not a very convincing defense. I don't mean to offend you, and I'm not trying to undervalue you or Jef's work. I didn't say I disagree that the interface could stand to be improved. No interface will ever be perfect, and so interfaces will always stand to be improved upon. Just as no programming language will every be perfect either. It's not possible.
However, quotes like "One only cares about getting something done" are simply untrue. Apple is a business, and even if this statement were true in the long run (which is still not the case), there would be no incentive for Apple to focus on it. The packaging is what makes sales today, and it will be the packaging and marketing that will determine whether they continue to make sales in the long run as well.
This is the gap between theoretical knowledge and the real world. Theoretically, everything could be perfected, and should be. In practice, it just doesn't work out that way. That's not to say researchers like Jef aren't important or valuable, they are! But they are important in the same way the LISP programming language is important to modern computing -- as in influence, not for their directly impact.
But don't talk to me about Thinking Differently, especially after I just read that completely discrediting Matrix analogy on Jef's web site.
Yes, style. Lifestyle. Status symbols. Same reason 12 year olds want cell phones now, or 16 year olds want Nike's (or whatever brand is "in" nowadays). This means both stylish hardware and stylish software. Apple IS better at both. Mac OS X on x86 would be a disaster -- a 50% complete solution.
When people purchase expensive cars, they may claim it's because they're better, but the primary motivation is actually the status symbol. They just happen to be better as a secondary benefit.
What I'm saying is that Jef seems to not understand this, but that (based solely on this interview, which I did read) he believes this stems from the simplicity/effectiveness of the user experience. If this were the case, why haven't Internet "appliance" PCs taken off? For all but the power user, they accomplish far more coherently (arguably, of course -- user experience is a somewhat subjective domain) what the other 90% of users want to do with a computer (web browsing, email, chat, pictures, movies, and songs -- business uses such as word processing and spreadsheets are separate).
Another only semi-related reason why Apple still beats the "appliance" PC is because users also want the choice (ie. freedom) to do more with it if they want. Apple lets you do this, while it's not in the nature of an appliance to do so. This is a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of "appliance" makers of their target audience (ie. democrats -- lovers of freedom).
One only cares about getting something done. Apple has forgotten this key concept. The beautiful packaging is ho-hum and insignificant in the long run.
Not to nitpick, but this shows a clear lack of understanding why 90% of Mac users choose to purchase Macs over PCs. Techie users may recognize the fact that it is more powerful and that it works better, but even for techie users the Mac is a clear status symbol.
Look at the "Digital Lifestyle" campaign for a hint as to why Macs are selling again. It has nothing to do with technical merit or superiority. That's simply a nice bonus, and is only the main factor in the purchasing decision for a very small margin of their sales.
The problem isn't with the quantity of standards, but the quality of specific ones. Standardization itself makes sense in a lot of cases, but sometimes standards are indeed made for the wrong reasons, or over-architected into oblivion (ie. SOAP + WSDL + UDDI + how many SOAP security standards) which makes the barrier to entry for compliance with those standards far too high to expect most people to bother.
Another problem is that a failure of some parties to properly adhere to the standards causes those standards to become less useful as well (read: MSIE vs. Mozilla, inconsistent HTML support, partial CSS support, JScript vs. JavaScript). This is sometimes even made possible by the standards themselves, by being too vague, which necessitates a level of "interpretation". It's also not always strategic for companies to follow standards -- they prevent lock-in, they make it easier to lose your customers to your competitors, and that can actually decrease the value of your products by giving your customers something to hold over your head during price negotiations. Standards need better incentives to get companies to actually buy into them, as opposed to just saying they are and then going and making their own "standards".
The other problem is that standardization, especially when the industry is in the middle of such a pro-standards push, often comes too early in the life of a given technology, resulting in a standard that doesn't account for the whole problem yet. For example, RSS was declared a standard before it was ever really adopted, and then some limitations were found in it that to fix would break backward compatibility. The result is a number of incompatible competing standards (RSS 1.0, RSS 2.0, RSS/RDF, Atom, etc.). SOAP and XML-RPC both did the same thing, and the result is that it's a pain in the ass for developers to support them, due to certain limitations in their designs (array support in SOAP, reflection as an afterthough in XML-RPC, etc.). SOAP and XML-RPC also resulted in a 3rd competitor as well, REST.
So my answer would be that there aren't too many standards, but that standards are just like anything else: not necessarily applicable to every situation. Use proper discretion. Neither extreme (all standards vs. no standards) is a good thing.
Wow, it is different. Still, it looks like it's probably just some Java-esque syntactic sugar on top of JavaScript. Actually, some of the new syntax is more akin to Perl or PHP ($ for variable names...). With their newer pro-Java focus, it makes sense to have ActionScript more compatible type-wise with Java than JavaScript was.
It is also nice to see features like the import statement, allowing better organization of ActionScript code. My biggest problem with dynamic Flash development was that it's not at all natural or intuitive to organize code in terms of frames, which is essentially a "goto" based application structure. It always felt like scripting was an afterthought to the original goal of bringing animated sequences to the web.
From what I remember (and my memory is definitely NOT perfect;)), ActionScript doesn't just feel like JavaScript, it actually is JavaScript (ie. an embedded JavaScript interpreter in the Flash player).
However, I should clarify that I believe I'm talking about ActionScript 1.0, not 2.0. I haven't used Flash in quite some time. I'm curious though as to what's changed, and if ActionScript 2.0 is in fact it's own language now.
In feeling more like Java than JavaScript, what is the difference? I would think that it must still be as dynamic in nature as JavaScript to be useful in a Flash environment (which Java is definitely not).
Actionscript is an embedded Javascript interpreter in the Flash player, with the addition of APIs for manipulating the Flash environment instead of the traditional HTML/XML document environment.
It's a great idea, because Javascript is such a fantastically dynamic language (but hell to use for anything complex within the browser itself...), perfect for embedded use in exactly that sort of thing (among others -- I think QT uses it for making QT-based apps scriptable).
Slashdot Mirror
This is your appeal to the masses that I mentioned. Regardless of what they believe, you are, and so are they, in error.
The matter under discussion is not simply whether the public deems it acceptable, but also whether it actually is acceptable. Whether the public thinks it's acceptable or not, the latter is the appropriate discussion for determining whether it is acceptable in actuality. An opinion poll is not a source from which you can reliably derive facts, plain and simple.
If you want, we can split the discussion into two: one group can pat themselves on the back for finding a clever new way of stealing (in the unconsenting cases) electricity from businesses, and the other can rationally discuss whether this practice is fair or not. Join whichever you prefer, but I'm sticking with the latter.
The public opinion on the matter is quite predictable too: It boils down to whatever is convenient for them, and rhetorically justifiable enough to excuse themselves of responsibility for their actions.
As for your analogy, it is also flawed. For one, the amount of energy in use is irrelevant. That's a rhetorical trick. Stealing a penny-candy or stealing a yacht, you're still stealing. Secondarily, if you were deliberately using the hot air dryer for purposes other than it was intended for (drying off), and in doing so you used more than your share, you would be misusing the hot air dryer. A clearer analogy, to stick with them for now, is you ordering a coffee then drinking a glass-worth of cream too (and maybe pocketing a few sugar packets while you're at it). The cream was there so it could augment your coffee, not so you could help yourself to as much as you want. The electricity is there because it is needed to heat your coffee, not so you could help yourself to it for whatever you want (without asking, of course).
As for my analogy, it's irrelevant whether I'm a customer of my neighbour's or not. In ordering a coffee, if I didn't also request the use of some additional electricity, and the use of said electricity wasn't implied to be part of the transaction, then I'm using it without consent. Period. You can't simply waive consent wherever it benefits you, or you're a hypocrite.
The simple point I was trying to make is that asking permission to do something is a) courteous, b) correct, c) not that much effort, and d) often appreciated by the person you've asked. I've read several posts bitching about shop owners disapproving of the unconsented use of their electricity. These people would do well to consider that maybe the shop owner isn't the jackass, but rather, they are themselves.
Anyone who argues that asking is too much effort, and that they shouldn't have to ask, is lazy, ignorant, and has a false sense of entitlement to services they aren't entitled to, nor deserve.
Here's one that avoids them, even shorter too:
http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/software/molester/
Your arbitrary definition of "reasonable" based on a poll of your friends (hardly a majority justifying the title "most ordinary people") doesn't give you the permission to help yourself to somebody else's resources. And even if the majority of people could be convinced you were right, it still doesn't make it so (the public is convinced of quite a lot of falsities these days). The claim that the majority's opinion is always right (because it happens to be beneficial to you at this juncture) is what's called an "appeal to the masses" (also known as a "logical error").
It doesn't matter if it costs someone else $0.000,000,001 or $10,000,000.00, you're still using somebody else's resources without asking, and in doing so, you're still a thief.
I'll repeat an analogy I've seen elsewhere on this discussion: If you were to water your garden all summer with your neighbour's hose (without asking) then plug your Christmas tree lights into your other neighbour's outlet (again, without asking), how popular do you think you'd be with your neighbours?
Besides the fact that your entitlement attitute is immature and moronic, it's not that hard to go up and ask permission.
The "is this right or wrong" issue here isn't whether a business will let you, or whether it costs you extra, but whether you've obtained consent to use their power. If they provide it as part of their service (as some apparently do), then consent is implicit. If not, then if you haven't obtained their permission first, you are a thief. Plain and simple.
Any justification otherwise is simply an attempt to justify being a thief. It doesn't make it right, it just makes you more pathetic of a thief.
You could say that you would stick to places that do let you, but some places (especially independently owned shops) might not advertise this and so from those it is your duty to ask permission. If I was a shop owner and I saw you simply plugging in without asking, I'd make you stop. If I was asked first, I'd honestly consider it. I might charge you (because I can, and because it wasn't factored into my costs originally), but it wouldn't be much. A fair shop owner might post a notice "$0.25 surcharge per visit for use of outlets for laptops and other portable devices."
I see the following on their project goals page:
"Provide a much better access control on repository files."
This would be a very welcome addition for myself, and I'm sure for many others. Coupled with security being a higher priority, I'd be more comfortable running a publicly accessible CVS server which hosted both Open Source and commercial projects.
As it currently stands, I stopped offering any more than a duplicate of our tagged releases onto SourceForge since a few CVS security issues ago when not only was a major hack out in the wild, but the CVS web site was down for several days at the same time, leaving me unable to patch my installation. Not good.
Do you have a reference to this theory? I'd really like to read it. Thanks in advance if you do.
Cheers,
Lux
If they were able to figure out a sufficient amount of what a person's brain activity meant (which is exactly what they seem to be trying to do), and if they could hook that up to some sort of wireless transmitter (should be a piece of cake), it could be used for basic telepathic capabilities. Imagine hooking it up to an FM transmitter, even with just a 6' range - you could come through the radio of the car next to you. Dirty.
Seriously though, an implant that could do this would make telepathy somewhat of a reality. How cool is that?
I especially like the quote at the end of the article, I'll have to remember that one.
Damian's insights on programming languages (the same with computers in general) as tools not in competition is spot on, as well as his comments regarding the (impossibility of) perfection of programming languages. He has a refreshingly simple way of putting it too -- he's a natural teacher.
His comments also provide a strong validation of why there's always room for one more (ie. Perl 6) that pretty much nullifies the nay-sayers.
The interesting thing (for me) is how his comments pertain to other non-mainstream languages (ie. Lisp, Haskell, etc.) and their place within the whole of computer programming. Even if Perl 6 is never widely accepted, it will still sufficiently *influence* the mainstream of programming to help shape better tools down the road (ie. Perl 6's regular expressions are downright sci-fi, but will be very useful once they're ready).
So the Lisp-ers who are worried their language has fallen by the wayside should take comfort instead of getting upset about the influences of Lisp on mainstream languages. That's what it was meant to do, ultimately.
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true at all.
Sure it is. The open source idea maps very clearly onto the token /. business model:
1. give your stuff away
2. ?????
3. profit!!!!!
The problem is, number 2 is either practically impossible, or impeded more than assisted by number 1, except in cases where the company is either a) big enough to invest in such a loss-leader type model, or b) makes money doing related but less-fun things (ie. support, which is also expected for free from most OS projects, or consulting, which is a tough sell as its deliverables are largely intangibles), or they manage to make money off of other software they do charge for. In this last case, the OS software can sometimes help increase awareness of the commercial software, but usually just attracts more people not willing to pay, who eat up support time, and also helps decrease the perceived value of the commercial offerings as well. All around: not a big win, too much risk to be worth it, and not a very appealing business model.
I don't care how long you spent on something; if it's great, it's great, but if it's crap, it's crap. The GPL makes it possible to write high-quality software with far less effort; so little effort in fact that many people are willing to donate their time.
OS software takes just as long to develop. In fact, in many areas OS software lags behind commercial software (ex: databases, CRM, content management, project management, audio software, video software, e-commerce apps, office suites -- open office was a commercial app that was bought out and opened up, so it doesn't count -- and the list goes on). If it was so much faster to develop, and code reuse was really an achievable goal of OS, why is this?
But stop complaining when somebody else writes the same software in a fraction of the man-hours it took you and gives it away for free. Oh, and how were they able to do it so fast? Because they took existing GPL code as a starting point and built on it to do something else.
To be fair, I believe a degree of intelligent code reuse can yield better software faster. However, this is true for, and practiced by, both OS and commercial developers alike. The claim that this is the benefit of OS that trumps all commercial software lacks proof.
And no, I'm not complaining -- FYI, disagreeing and providing an alternative opinion to yours is not in and of itself complaining -- this is just your way of trying to win the argument without proving your side of it. It's called rhetorical pursuasion. Phrases like "nobody's forcing you to" and "stop complaining" are not counter-arguments to mine. Please back up your claims, I'm not interested in playing word games.
The fact is, OS has yet to really prove its merit (ie. its goal is still in the future), and from my vantage point, and after much careful thought, discussion, and research about it, I have come to be of the opinion that OS software does more harm than good for smaller developers. It does this by creating more inequality than it does equality. It doesn't create an equality of opportunity, which is probably as close as a political system (which, make no mistake, the OS movement is a political system) can come to real equality.
Nice try. While "food != databits" may be correct, the reality is that "effort == effort" and while duplication of data is easy, it's the developers' efforts that he's referring to. I've written software that's taken months or even years of effort to complete, now I'm supposed to give it away for free? Why? Because some socialist do-gooder tells me it's the Right Thing To Do?
I'm afraid his analogy stands up quite well.
And Capitalism is all about abundance. It isn't perverted by it, it's simply perverted in and of itself. For example, which industries make the most money? Let's see... We've got the multi-billion-dollar Porn industry, the music, movie, media, cell-phone, and game industries, the fashion industry, and let's not forget the junk/fast food industry. Capitalism has nothing to do with availability, it has to do with desire. What people desire is what sells, what people actually need has very little margin for profit left on it these days (leaving precious little for Joe Farmer and his family).
The only thing free software is doing is creating one less market independent workers can hope to compete in.
I would like to discuss the "any price the market will pay" part of your post. However, I should preface my response with a small note first:
My post is not a complaint, simply an observation. I have benefited from and contributed to open source software in numerous ways over the years. I really believed it for quite a while. Also, anyone seeking to respond to me, please refrain from pulling more rhetorical tricks out of the "Cathedral and the Bazaar", the "Cluetrain Manifesto", or any other such source of "inspirational" material. I've read them, I know their side of the argument. If you're going to respond, make it with *your* own perspective. Please *add* to the discourse instead of borrowing from existing sources of it to further entrap ourselves in its colourful, albeit fatally idealistic mosaic.
(end preface)
Free "beer" is the first benefit people experience by using free software. This creates the perception in peoples' minds that the type of software they just used should be free (gratis). The perceived value of software thus declines rapidly towards zero, making it a very uphill battle for independent developers especially (since their applications are usually the easiest to write, so they're good candidates for free software replacements, and since independent developers simply don't have the means to develop at the level of large corporations).
The real practical effect of free and open source software is that large companies (Sun, Novell, IBM, HP, Red Hat, etc.) benefit by creating a landscape where the practical cost of entry is too high for most to attempt, while the indies are marginalized even further. This is comparable to another historically popular socialist movement: Communism. In both, the theory was that leveling the playing field would make everyone equal. However, in practice, both have the effect of creating a severely exaggerated inequality instead.
Further, the community behind most free software projects is fictional. It consists of the original developer providing answers to users on a forum or mailing list, and the users benefiting. Most users don't contribute in any more capacity than that, yet they still benefit, while the original developer is left with $5-10 in his paypal donations, $20-30 in hosting fees, and a rapidly fading warm and fuzzy feeling.
A proper system would reward those who contribute, not those who plunder. What the free/open source movement accomplishes is the opposite.
Now that the blog post is back up from being /.ed, I've had a chance to read it. My $.02: What a load of rhetorical crap. Not to be a troll or anything, but what the hell is "a highly tuned 'text pump' to occupy the fabric/bus space in a transaction-intensive enterprise data center"?! Now perhaps their software is the shiznit or whatever kids say these days, but based on that post, and based on the thin content on their site (I didn't bother with the white paper -- I hate loading PDFs unnecessarily), it sounds like a lot of buzz over mostly nothing.
If someone has to announce that what they've done is revolutionary, it's not.
Ah, I remember those. The best was when I got called down to the office (I think it was grade 11) and my mom was on the phone. She told me she broke the computer. I calmly asked her "what does it say?" and she replied "I don't know, I just turned it on and it's never done this before". So I said, "well, can you read to me what it says?" so she does, and it turned out to be the Windows notification that the computer had adjusted the clock for daylight savings time. So I ask her "how many buttons do you see on the little window" and she says "one". I say "what does it say?" She says "OK".
Ended up she waited for me to come home to "fix it". It was that day I learned that timid computer users suffer not from inability but from illiteracy. They refuse to read and comprehend the text on the screen. The first instinct when something pops up or tells them something on the screen is to turn _away_ from the screen and look for an explanation elsewhere. It's willful helplessness, which I think is why it's so infuriating to problem solver types like me.
Rest assured, I'll be flying home for Christmas, but I will NOT be fixing computer problems.
The machine comparison is a good one, as it clearly distinguishes between intelligence and memory. Intelligence does not mean how much you can remember or how much you know, but the judgement and use of that knowledge. So, to put it in machine terms, a machine isn't any "smarter" with a full hard drive than an empty one.
I guess you're right. IE loads the style completely wrong on their live site, but loads it fine on my download of the demo. Must be due to their current server load or something.
Looks like the IE7 script doesn't help much, unfortunately. The reality is, IE is still the hugely dominant browser, so any solution you present has to be compatible with it if it's going to be of any real commercial interest. So while a standards-compliant solution is nice and all, a standard is still meaningless when 90% of users out there can't see it.
Ah well, maybe this will get me off my butt to write my own, cross-browser presentation system...
I'd like to see if it's compatible with Dean Edwards' IE7 script. If so, it could almost be considered cross-browser compatible enough for general use.
Guess I'll have to look for a mirror...
That's a decent regurgitation of Jef's rhetoric, but it's not a very convincing defense. I don't mean to offend you, and I'm not trying to undervalue you or Jef's work. I didn't say I disagree that the interface could stand to be improved. No interface will ever be perfect, and so interfaces will always stand to be improved upon. Just as no programming language will every be perfect either. It's not possible.
However, quotes like "One only cares about getting something done" are simply untrue. Apple is a business, and even if this statement were true in the long run (which is still not the case), there would be no incentive for Apple to focus on it. The packaging is what makes sales today, and it will be the packaging and marketing that will determine whether they continue to make sales in the long run as well.
This is the gap between theoretical knowledge and the real world. Theoretically, everything could be perfected, and should be. In practice, it just doesn't work out that way. That's not to say researchers like Jef aren't important or valuable, they are! But they are important in the same way the LISP programming language is important to modern computing -- as in influence, not for their directly impact.
But don't talk to me about Thinking Differently, especially after I just read that completely discrediting Matrix analogy on Jef's web site.
Yes, style. Lifestyle. Status symbols. Same reason 12 year olds want cell phones now, or 16 year olds want Nike's (or whatever brand is "in" nowadays). This means both stylish hardware and stylish software. Apple IS better at both. Mac OS X on x86 would be a disaster -- a 50% complete solution.
When people purchase expensive cars, they may claim it's because they're better, but the primary motivation is actually the status symbol. They just happen to be better as a secondary benefit.
What I'm saying is that Jef seems to not understand this, but that (based solely on this interview, which I did read) he believes this stems from the simplicity/effectiveness of the user experience. If this were the case, why haven't Internet "appliance" PCs taken off? For all but the power user, they accomplish far more coherently (arguably, of course -- user experience is a somewhat subjective domain) what the other 90% of users want to do with a computer (web browsing, email, chat, pictures, movies, and songs -- business uses such as word processing and spreadsheets are separate).
Another only semi-related reason why Apple still beats the "appliance" PC is because users also want the choice (ie. freedom) to do more with it if they want. Apple lets you do this, while it's not in the nature of an appliance to do so. This is a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of "appliance" makers of their target audience (ie. democrats -- lovers of freedom).
Not to nitpick, but this shows a clear lack of understanding why 90% of Mac users choose to purchase Macs over PCs. Techie users may recognize the fact that it is more powerful and that it works better, but even for techie users the Mac is a clear status symbol.
Look at the "Digital Lifestyle" campaign for a hint as to why Macs are selling again. It has nothing to do with technical merit or superiority. That's simply a nice bonus, and is only the main factor in the purchasing decision for a very small margin of their sales.
The problem isn't with the quantity of standards, but the quality of specific ones. Standardization itself makes sense in a lot of cases, but sometimes standards are indeed made for the wrong reasons, or over-architected into oblivion (ie. SOAP + WSDL + UDDI + how many SOAP security standards) which makes the barrier to entry for compliance with those standards far too high to expect most people to bother.
Another problem is that a failure of some parties to properly adhere to the standards causes those standards to become less useful as well (read: MSIE vs. Mozilla, inconsistent HTML support, partial CSS support, JScript vs. JavaScript). This is sometimes even made possible by the standards themselves, by being too vague, which necessitates a level of "interpretation". It's also not always strategic for companies to follow standards -- they prevent lock-in, they make it easier to lose your customers to your competitors, and that can actually decrease the value of your products by giving your customers something to hold over your head during price negotiations. Standards need better incentives to get companies to actually buy into them, as opposed to just saying they are and then going and making their own "standards".
The other problem is that standardization, especially when the industry is in the middle of such a pro-standards push, often comes too early in the life of a given technology, resulting in a standard that doesn't account for the whole problem yet. For example, RSS was declared a standard before it was ever really adopted, and then some limitations were found in it that to fix would break backward compatibility. The result is a number of incompatible competing standards (RSS 1.0, RSS 2.0, RSS/RDF, Atom, etc.). SOAP and XML-RPC both did the same thing, and the result is that it's a pain in the ass for developers to support them, due to certain limitations in their designs (array support in SOAP, reflection as an afterthough in XML-RPC, etc.). SOAP and XML-RPC also resulted in a 3rd competitor as well, REST.
So my answer would be that there aren't too many standards, but that standards are just like anything else: not necessarily applicable to every situation. Use proper discretion. Neither extreme (all standards vs. no standards) is a good thing.
Wow, it is different. Still, it looks like it's probably just some Java-esque syntactic sugar on top of JavaScript. Actually, some of the new syntax is more akin to Perl or PHP ($ for variable names...). With their newer pro-Java focus, it makes sense to have ActionScript more compatible type-wise with Java than JavaScript was.
It is also nice to see features like the import statement, allowing better organization of ActionScript code. My biggest problem with dynamic Flash development was that it's not at all natural or intuitive to organize code in terms of frames, which is essentially a "goto" based application structure. It always felt like scripting was an afterthought to the original goal of bringing animated sequences to the web.
From what I remember (and my memory is definitely NOT perfect ;)), ActionScript doesn't just feel like JavaScript, it actually is JavaScript (ie. an embedded JavaScript interpreter in the Flash player).
However, I should clarify that I believe I'm talking about ActionScript 1.0, not 2.0. I haven't used Flash in quite some time. I'm curious though as to what's changed, and if ActionScript 2.0 is in fact it's own language now.
In feeling more like Java than JavaScript, what is the difference? I would think that it must still be as dynamic in nature as JavaScript to be useful in a Flash environment (which Java is definitely not).
Actionscript is an embedded Javascript interpreter in the Flash player, with the addition of APIs for manipulating the Flash environment instead of the traditional HTML/XML document environment.
It's a great idea, because Javascript is such a fantastically dynamic language (but hell to use for anything complex within the browser itself...), perfect for embedded use in exactly that sort of thing (among others -- I think QT uses it for making QT-based apps scriptable).
The SWF file format is published as an open specification, FWIW:
http://www.openswf.org/
However, that doesn't say anything about the player itself.