Even if SCO chooses not to sue it's own customers (what an ingenious idea - don't sue you're own customers), what sort support are they going to be able to supply while pursuing a lawsuit against IBM. And after IBM counter-sues how much money will they be able to get off them because SCO has failed to fulfil it's support contract.
I read this as OS 100 (being an apple zealot, OS "X" is after all OS "10"). I can't possibly see how apple can get 90 major releases out between now and 2013 and I expect by that stage I shouldn't need to wear a watch, it should get directly downloaded into my brain.
I can see it now. All you need do is submit the url of that pesky fly hovering over your lunch as a story (don't forget to mention beowulf, M$, preferably the latest cpu/graphics card, and maybe RMS) and, hey presto, no more fly. SLASHDOTTED.
(may take a few days though, and get posted/swatted a couple of times.)
I just bought my new gorgeous powerbook this week and have moved back into the apple fold. I'm a dink, so classic target for apple, a unix developer by trade, and a closet windows user (wife and games).
I enjoy programming (and get paid well for it) but I do it all day so the computer at home (win2K) gets mainly used for email/web and games. I dabble in Linux but I don't go the whole hog. I do love open source software - gimp, open office, mozilla, etc but it never works as well on MSwindows, I want to fix things but I'd rather not develop on MSwindows.
Now I'm motivated. The first thing I did was fire up a terminal on my powerbook and start playing with the file system. Open source has got a new developer - more than that it's got a new, big, well financed market. I believe there will be a lot more users out there, providing input as well, because so many of the Linux open source projects port so much more simply to osX and just seem to work better (than on M$ OS's) once there.
I don't think this is the example you are looking for. The reason the Tasmanian Tiger became extict is that the Tasmainian state government put a bounty on them because the state's farmers believed they were killing sheep (which thay may have been but certainly not in great numbers). So I can hardly see how reintroducing them on the island would damage "Earth's delicate balance", and they couldn't possibly do more damage than the introduced sheep currently do. Although the Tasmanian wilderness seems to have survived without the this particular animal, I'm sure the human race, and the earth as a whole, would be better off with anything that helps reduce the dramatic decline in bio-diversity.
BTW like most Australian native fauna, I wouldn't call the Tasmanian Tiger "cutesy-wootsy", nor a marsupial a "puddy-tat". You should come visit and have a look at some of our animals face-to-face.
We all need more perspective from a non-computer view point.
When you write computer software for a living it's easy think it's easy to write some useful software and put it into the net. In truth you are more likely write a small piece of some larger usefull software that is given/used by a finite number of people. Infintite supply is not what is required (even if it is possible with software) you only have to meet total demand for minimum cost and there are costs, even with free software, they just approach zero.
Generally resources are not as scarce as everybody likes to think. Resources are often kept scarce (think cartel) to maintain profit much like software in the commercial world. Most people can imagine a day when most of our energy comes from renewable resources. Recycling methods improve all the time etcetera.
You almost show the way with your own statement. I think the author is trying to suggest that as technology advances we are building machines/robots that are becoming more and more general in there functionality to the extent that we will use them in our homes or close by, like computers are today. You might by a car mechanic and come up with a great new idea, you could get a good design for a car from a GPL'd blueprint and add your own idea. You could then publish that new blueprint. Then Joe across the country could who wants a new car sees the that blueprint takes it down to the local wreckers, downloads it into their "Re-build-it" robot, and it spits out a new car for the cost of a wreck. There may not be infite wrecks out there, but the supply just has to be greater than the demand. this does not make the car free, it's just approaching zero. Use your imagination, who 30 years ago would have thought we'd have the computers we have today for our own personal use.
I don't know how you make that leap from approaching zero to zero but I doubt
that pc on your desk was free, so the cost of any "free" software you write is non-zero (in terms of physical resources). So I think it is possible to draw parallels between the open source/free software - commercial software economy and the general economy. Wether the author is foretelling "the" future or "a" future is another matter, but for me, I like to look on the bright side of life.
Slashdot Mirror
-Like tears in rain, time to die.
I read this as OS 100 (being an apple zealot, OS "X" is after all OS "10"). I can't possibly see how apple can get 90 major releases out between now and 2013 and I expect by that stage I shouldn't need to wear a watch, it should get directly downloaded into my brain.
(may take a few days though, and get posted/swatted a couple of times.)
I enjoy programming (and get paid well for it) but I do it all day so the computer at home (win2K) gets mainly used for email/web and games. I dabble in Linux but I don't go the whole hog. I do love open source software - gimp, open office, mozilla, etc but it never works as well on MSwindows, I want to fix things but I'd rather not develop on MSwindows.
Now I'm motivated. The first thing I did was fire up a terminal on my powerbook and start playing with the file system. Open source has got a new developer - more than that it's got a new, big, well financed market. I believe there will be a lot more users out there, providing input as well, because so many of the Linux open source projects port so much more simply to osX and just seem to work better (than on M$ OS's) once there.
Support the switchers
H.
I don't think this is the example you are looking for. The reason the Tasmanian Tiger became extict is that the Tasmainian state government put a bounty on them because the state's farmers believed they were killing sheep (which thay may have been but certainly not in great numbers). So I can hardly see how reintroducing them on the island would damage "Earth's delicate balance", and they couldn't possibly do more damage than the introduced sheep currently do. Although the Tasmanian wilderness seems to have survived without the this particular animal, I'm sure the human race, and the earth as a whole, would be better off with anything that helps reduce the dramatic decline in bio-diversity. BTW like most Australian native fauna, I wouldn't call the Tasmanian Tiger "cutesy-wootsy", nor a marsupial a "puddy-tat". You should come visit and have a look at some of our animals face-to-face.
When you write computer software for a living it's easy think it's easy to write some useful software and put it into the net. In truth you are more likely write a small piece of some larger usefull software that is given/used by a finite number of people. Infintite supply is not what is required (even if it is possible with software) you only have to meet total demand for minimum cost and there are costs, even with free software, they just approach zero.
Generally resources are not as scarce as everybody likes to think. Resources are often kept scarce (think cartel) to maintain profit much like software in the commercial world. Most people can imagine a day when most of our energy comes from renewable resources. Recycling methods improve all the time etcetera.
You almost show the way with your own statement. I think the author is trying to suggest that as technology advances we are building machines/robots that are becoming more and more general in there functionality to the extent that we will use them in our homes or close by, like computers are today. You might by a car mechanic and come up with a great new idea, you could get a good design for a car from a GPL'd blueprint and add your own idea. You could then publish that new blueprint. Then Joe across the country could who wants a new car sees the that blueprint takes it down to the local wreckers, downloads it into their "Re-build-it" robot, and it spits out a new car for the cost of a wreck. There may not be infite wrecks out there, but the supply just has to be greater than the demand. this does not make the car free, it's just approaching zero. Use your imagination, who 30 years ago would have thought we'd have the computers we have today for our own personal use.
I don't know how you make that leap from approaching zero to zero but I doubt that pc on your desk was free, so the cost of any "free" software you write is non-zero (in terms of physical resources). So I think it is possible to draw parallels between the open source/free software - commercial software economy and the general economy. Wether the author is foretelling "the" future or "a" future is another matter, but for me, I like to look on the bright side of life.