Think of the following business model: I create some website, say a customizable weather report, that you might find useful. Of course I have to pay for the web hosting, and this money has to come from somewhere. Let's imagine I create a license for my web page that states you may use my service for free, but you agree to watch some ads, basically as payment for my service.
Now, of course, such a license could not be enforced, and this is why nobody actually puts out a license like this. But why is it a bad thing in principle? Somebody has to pay for the web hosting, and if it's not the companies putting ads onto my web page, there's only one choice left: You, the consumer, have to pay. So instead of shouting "Ads are Evil!", think about the minor annoyance they cause as a form of payment for the services of the web sites you are browsing.
Personally, I think a business model such as Opera's makes a lot of sense. If you pay for the product, it's ad-free; if you don't choose to pay with money, you have to live with the ads.
Almost 97 percent of the programs used in Vietnam have been illegally copied, costing Microsoft an estimated $40 million to $50 million a year.
The usual fallacy: If no programs were illegally copied, Microsoft wouldn't get $40 million to $50 million more money a year. Vietnam would either use less computer software, or they would switch to open source products faster.
Still I guess some parts of the OS will remain in native mode (I'd be impressed if they did redo all Internet Explorer rendering code in.NET), such as device drivers.
But haven't device drivers been the cause of most stability problems in the past?
For the method of counter attack described here, you might as well say it's self-defense. An infected computer tries to exploit vulnerabilities to install itself on one of your systems. Of course the most important things is always to make sure your machine is secure. But why should it be considered unethical to make sure the offending computer can't infect other, less secure, systems?
If someone is randomly assaulting people in the street, should you just run away and lock yourself up at home, or should you knock that guy out to prevent him from harming other innocent people?
Of course you're taking the law into your own hands with this approach, and the legal situation is certainly difficult. Maybe one should have some sort of "internet police" that is entitled to launch counterattacks on infected systems, maybe as an automated system, in order to achieve good response times? Then you could forward any logs from attacks on your honeypot to the internet police, which does the rest. The question is then, of course, who controls the internet police?
As with so many other things, the problem bears the name "Dumb People". In this case, it's people with supercharged stereo systems in their car, or people simply not paying attention, since they are too involved discussing the latest gossip with their friends on their cell phones. The fire trucks and ambulances have to slow down to a crawl at every red light, and invariably there are one or two m5f5s zipping through the intersection right before the ambulance. (Never mind that anyone who has their car radio turned to a reasonable level can easily hear the fire trucks from two blocks away). Makes me think they should put a traffic cop into every fire truck and ambulance (or empower the drivers to write traffic tickets) and present each of those with a hefty fine.
Disclaimer: I live in Canada, not U.S., but I believe the situation is similar.
Branding is what you do when you haven't got a better product than the other guy, but you want people to think you do.
I disagree. While branding can be (ab)used to make a crappy product float, the lack of branding can also make a fine product sink. Joe User generally will not recognize the superiority of design and implementation of his browser, but go for the name he recognizes. Why should we allow Joe User to be drawn to an inferior product, just because it comes in a shinier package? There is no reason a good tool must be delivered in a dull package.
First, the Mozilla project has a lot going for it. It has a long heritage, reaching back to the early Netscape web browsers. The Mozilla name was an apt choice as a nod to the roots of the project.
I don't get it. Can somebody explain to me the connection between the Mozilla name and the Netscape roots?
Support: Our web site supports IE4+ and Netscape 6+
Customer: What, you don't support AOL?
Support: Yes we do, as long as you're using IE4+ or Netscape 6+.
Customer: But I'm using AOL...
but if you get the Mandrake CDs (or any other major Linux distro for that matter), you will have pretty much all the software you need and then some. Plus, if you don't install Windows you won't need a virus checker...
Reading this comment just brought a horrible picture into my head: Ford, Zaphod, Marvin, and the Vogon captain, dancing and singing together: "It's a small world after all..." before the backdrop of Magrathea...
Anyone who happens to create any sort of device that someone figures out a way to use it to circumvent anything can be sued under the DMCA.
Maybe they should pass a law that "anyone who happens to create any sort of law that someone figures out a way to use it to stifle innovation or restrict freedom of expression can be sued for damages."
Open source succeeds when and where it is better. The way for OSS to get better is for the people involved to concentrate on making it better.
That's, of course, assuming that Open Standards are enforced. If 90% of Government documents are distributed in a closed, proprietary data format, and only a single company has the capability to write software that displays these document without glitches, then a better, more cost-effective solution still doesn't stand a chance. Closed standards distort the market and allow the monopolies controlling the standard to keep a strangle-hold on the market. Open standards would alleviate the playing field.
In addition, Closed Standards also eliminate choice for Government customers, forcing them to buy certain products from certain companies. Another form of the "M$ tax".
So, I will agree with your comment as soon as Open Standards are enforced. But we aren't there yet.
Anyone commercially distributes software should be held responsible within reasonable limits. The hard part is, of course, to define what those reasonable limits are (and since we are dealing with an emerging technology, the danger of legal disasters is significant...)
I think the oft-seen comparison with the car industry can provide us with some leads:
If your brakes fail for no reason in a new car, clearly the car manufacturer should be held responsible. If they fail because you haven't brought your car in for a checkup in the last ten years, it's your own fault. If you drive into a hydrant at 20mph and the car explodes as a result, sue the manufacturer. If a truck hits you at 100mph, too bad.. it would be a joke to suggest the manufacturer neglected car safety.
To translate such analogies into the language of software and operating systems is of course a huge task. But that's what lawyers are for... let's hope they do a good job for once!
I guess private persons could always play it safe by including some blurb like "this code is written as a proof-of-concept, and is not meant to be used in critical environments or environments that can be accessed over public networks." The situation is tougher for distro makers of course; who would buy RedHat if they included some blurb like this with their CDs? But then, a company like RedHat should make sure their products are as safe as humanly possible.
From the article: Gary Melnick, a senior astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said Clark's faith in the possibility of faster-than-light (FTL) travel was "probably based more on his imagination than on physics."
Melnick's quote seems to be very accurate. It may or may not happen that humanity will someday find a way to cheat special relativity, and discover faster-than-light travel. But unless Clarke spent most his life studying the theories of Hawking et al. (and I think it's a safe bet he hasn't, except maybe for reading 'The Universe in a Nutshell), it's safe to assume that Clarke has not the slightest clue how to achieve this. But he nevertheless is convinced that it will happen. Hence his faith is based entirely on imagination...
However, imagination is not always wrong. Only most of the time. Who knows what the future has in store...
No, Capitalism is atrocious at GIVING AWAY the fruits of innovation. It doesn't reward people who don't partake in it. That is why it's so efficient. Add _YOUR_ efficiency to the overall efficiency and you will be paid for its value.
It's more than that: capitalism punishes the people that don't partake in innovation. Take the simple example of an agrarian society, where 90% of the people earn their living plowing the fields of the remaining 10%. Some day somebody invents a machine that can do the job. Suddenly 90% of the population is out of business. They have to go look for opportunities; some of them will be employed in the plowing machine factories; others may become plowing machine salesmen; but some, who cannot adapt, due to age, lack of IQ, or whatever reason, will be left behind to starve.
Should innovation be curbed to avoid these hardships? Of course not. Should the people that benefit from innovation (the guy that invented the plowing machine, the factory owners, and the landowners, who benefit from reduced cost) feel responsible for their fate? Absolutely. Their new wealth and the hardship of the workers share the same cause. To set a certain part of their wealth aside to alleviate the not-so-pretty consequences of innovation is the only decent thing to do.
This is the reason why every capitalist society needs well-functioning welfare and education systems. And this is why the richest people should carry the greatest burden in financing those.
They will say that it is "lost" revenue. Something cannot be lost if it never existed in the first place!
Nonsense. Internet sales are lost revenue indeed! If amazon.com wouldn't exist, I'd buy my books at the nearest bookstore, and would pay sales tax. Now that it exists I buy my books online and don't pay sales tax. How is that not lost revenue for the state?
Whether the states should levy sales taxes on internet transactions is a complicated question. But the argument about lost revenue is valid.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, of course, such a license could not be enforced, and this is why nobody actually puts out a license like this. But why is it a bad thing in principle? Somebody has to pay for the web hosting, and if it's not the companies putting ads onto my web page, there's only one choice left: You, the consumer, have to pay. So instead of shouting "Ads are Evil!", think about the minor annoyance they cause as a form of payment for the services of the web sites you are browsing.
Personally, I think a business model such as Opera's makes a lot of sense. If you pay for the product, it's ad-free; if you don't choose to pay with money, you have to live with the ads.
I know this is getting more and more offtopic, but also keep in mind that gun control != ban on guns.
I don't think we'll have to worry about this. Quantum Cryptography will probably be ready for practical use way before the quantum computer.
The usual fallacy: If no programs were illegally copied, Microsoft wouldn't get $40 million to $50 million more money a year. Vietnam would either use less computer software, or they would switch to open source products faster.
But haven't device drivers been the cause of most stability problems in the past?
If someone is randomly assaulting people in the street, should you just run away and lock yourself up at home, or should you knock that guy out to prevent him from harming other innocent people?
Of course you're taking the law into your own hands with this approach, and the legal situation is certainly difficult. Maybe one should have some sort of "internet police" that is entitled to launch counterattacks on infected systems, maybe as an automated system, in order to achieve good response times? Then you could forward any logs from attacks on your honeypot to the internet police, which does the rest. The question is then, of course, who controls the internet police?
Disclaimer: I live in Canada, not U.S., but I believe the situation is similar.
I disagree. While branding can be (ab)used to make a crappy product float, the lack of branding can also make a fine product sink. Joe User generally will not recognize the superiority of design and implementation of his browser, but go for the name he recognizes. Why should we allow Joe User to be drawn to an inferior product, just because it comes in a shinier package? There is no reason a good tool must be delivered in a dull package.
I don't get it. Can somebody explain to me the connection between the Mozilla name and the Netscape roots?
The official language in China (both PRC and ROC) is Mandarin. Cantonese is spoken only in Hong Kong (and surrounding areas).
Support: Our web site supports IE4+ and Netscape 6+
Customer: What, you don't support AOL?
Support: Yes we do, as long as you're using IE4+ or Netscape 6+.
Customer: But I'm using AOL...
Do you thin bin Laden ever directly killed anyone? Or has he rather just promoted hate and ordered people to do the killing?
Linux:
but if you get the Mandrake CDs (or any other major Linux distro for that matter), you will have pretty much all the software you need and then some. Plus, if you don't install Windows you won't need a virus checker...
NOOOooooooo....!!!
Where do you get these pens? I have been searching for a pen with those properties all my life, but to no avail!
Maybe they should pass a law that "anyone who happens to create any sort of law that someone figures out a way to use it to stifle innovation or restrict freedom of expression can be sued for damages."
Thank you, I definitely will keep dreaming.
That's, of course, assuming that Open Standards are enforced. If 90% of Government documents are distributed in a closed, proprietary data format, and only a single company has the capability to write software that displays these document without glitches, then a better, more cost-effective solution still doesn't stand a chance. Closed standards distort the market and allow the monopolies controlling the standard to keep a strangle-hold on the market. Open standards would alleviate the playing field.
In addition, Closed Standards also eliminate choice for Government customers, forcing them to buy certain products from certain companies. Another form of the "M$ tax".
So, I will agree with your comment as soon as Open Standards are enforced. But we aren't there yet.
I think the oft-seen comparison with the car industry can provide us with some leads:
If your brakes fail for no reason in a new car, clearly the car manufacturer should be held responsible. If they fail because you haven't brought your car in for a checkup in the last ten years, it's your own fault. If you drive into a hydrant at 20mph and the car explodes as a result, sue the manufacturer. If a truck hits you at 100mph, too bad.. it would be a joke to suggest the manufacturer neglected car safety.
To translate such analogies into the language of software and operating systems is of course a huge task. But that's what lawyers are for... let's hope they do a good job for once!
Cool! Then all dialup users would have to switch to Linux!
I guess private persons could always play it safe by including some blurb like "this code is written as a proof-of-concept, and is not meant to be used in critical environments or environments that can be accessed over public networks." The situation is tougher for distro makers of course; who would buy RedHat if they included some blurb like this with their CDs? But then, a company like RedHat should make sure their products are as safe as humanly possible.
Melnick's quote seems to be very accurate. It may or may not happen that humanity will someday find a way to cheat special relativity, and discover faster-than-light travel. But unless Clarke spent most his life studying the theories of Hawking et al. (and I think it's a safe bet he hasn't, except maybe for reading 'The Universe in a Nutshell), it's safe to assume that Clarke has not the slightest clue how to achieve this. But he nevertheless is convinced that it will happen. Hence his faith is based entirely on imagination...
However, imagination is not always wrong. Only most of the time. Who knows what the future has in store...
It's more than that: capitalism punishes the people that don't partake in innovation. Take the simple example of an agrarian society, where 90% of the people earn their living plowing the fields of the remaining 10%. Some day somebody invents a machine that can do the job. Suddenly 90% of the population is out of business. They have to go look for opportunities; some of them will be employed in the plowing machine factories; others may become plowing machine salesmen; but some, who cannot adapt, due to age, lack of IQ, or whatever reason, will be left behind to starve.
Should innovation be curbed to avoid these hardships? Of course not. Should the people that benefit from innovation (the guy that invented the plowing machine, the factory owners, and the landowners, who benefit from reduced cost) feel responsible for their fate? Absolutely. Their new wealth and the hardship of the workers share the same cause. To set a certain part of their wealth aside to alleviate the not-so-pretty consequences of innovation is the only decent thing to do.
This is the reason why every capitalist society needs well-functioning welfare and education systems. And this is why the richest people should carry the greatest burden in financing those.
I hope these views don't make me a commie... :-)
Nonsense. Internet sales are lost revenue indeed! If amazon.com wouldn't exist, I'd buy my books at the nearest bookstore, and would pay sales tax. Now that it exists I buy my books online and don't pay sales tax. How is that not lost revenue for the state?
Whether the states should levy sales taxes on internet transactions is a complicated question. But the argument about lost revenue is valid.
I love your math. If you move 10% of computers in each category to Linux, how many percent have you moved in total?