I think this is a perfect example of why progress is so slow. The question is -- whos responsibility is it to create a good user experiance? Is it up to the distro or app? You just said that it is up to the distro, the different apps just make things available and the distro needs to put it in a nice package. But if you talk to the distros they would say that it is up to the apps, there are so many apps, and so many trees and versions...the distro just needs to pick somthing stable, and if the app isn't good people should blame the app, not the distro. Thus the argument goes back and forth and little progress is made in the area of User Interface and User Experiance. The attitude seems to be "it's someone elses problem" on both sides of the table. I think this is a MAJOR hurdle for OSS. One big advantage of proprietary operating systems is that it is all the same company. Each facet of the OS may be by different development teams, but in the end there is someone that looks over it all with the user in mind and sends it back if it doesn't meet the cut. No real progress will be made untill this attitude in improved.
Sounds like you would be a perfect addition to the Simpleface team. It's a new OSS startup that is working to create standards for user interfaces. Go to the web page (it's a wiki) for more info, read through the email archives, and then get involved!
I just find it ironic that MS can so easily claim to owns someone elses code, when we have no way of looking at thier code to see if they are ripping off someone else. I have always thought that one of the reasons that they are so closed about source code is because they stole it from OSS projects and don't want people to find out about it, let alone have to pay GNU or FSF for 20 years of licence violation.
I just have to second this emotion. My bother in laws servers are all PPC and I have been amazed at what they can do and take. He has three boxes, one is a 7500/100, the other is 8000 series of some sort, and the third is (I'm not making this up) an SE/30. In fact the SE/30 is up to 15 domains, and doesn't show any signs of stopping. I am completely shocked at how well it serves up web pages. It takes the thing like an hour and a half to boot, but it has NEVER crashed, and he has never had to do any repairs at all. He refuses to let anything but apple hardware into his house. This makes me really anxious to try the apple hardware that is actually MEANT to be a server. Mmmmm.... XServe...
Somehow I don't think that the kind of "sharing" that goes on 90% of the time on p2p networks is the kind of "sharing" your mom taught you was good.
There is no way to deny that MOST of the files getting shared on KaZaA are being spread illegaly. The thing that most people seem to miss is that that fact doesn't make KaZaA itself illeagal! There is absolutly nothing illeagal, moraly wrong, or negitive about software that lets people share files with each other. That is all that KaZaA is (and all the other ones too). It is true that many many people are using it in an illeagal way, which is why I think that it is good for the companies to go for the real criminals: the people actualy distributing copyrighted material. Have you ever heard the record store annalogy? A teenager listens to a whole bunch of violent/sexual/gang-bang/etc music and goes out and commits a related crime. Who is to blame? Do you toss the teen in jail or do you sue the pants of the record company? It is not the record company's fault that the teen did somthing illeagal. Strangly enough, Sony music and the rest seem to like that anaglogy just fine until the tables are turned. You don't shut down an ISP because a user commits a crime, you don't outlaw guns because a someone gets shot, you don't outlaw beer because someone drives drunk and YOU DONT OUTLAW P2P BECAUSE SOMEONE SHARES MP3's!!!!
Ever notice how many different versions of Microsoft's DLLs you have on your Windows box? That's no coincidence - Windows developers are forced to incorporate the version of the DLL that works with their application.
<disclamer>Before I start talking I want to say that I don't know a whole lot about libraries so there might be things I don't understand. If so someone please enlighten me.</disclamer>
What you said above is exactly what I have been thinking was a strength of Windows! Almost every single time I try to install an X-based program it chokes because I'm missing some library or another. In fact more than once I have tried to run a program and it says that I am missing a library that I already have! This is especially a problem with any audio/video software, and it's all because of staticly linked libraries. This never happens to me on a windows box! I do have a whole slew of other problems, but installing and running software is the last thing I have to worry about, because 99 percent of the time it "just works". Don't get me wrong, I'm hate M$ as much as the next geek, but I don't understand why the typical OSS method of library linking would be considered a strength.
Your not alone by far. My computer (yes even my Linux box) is a family computer, and I refuse to use any software with names or content that is not appropriate for my children to see. Keep in mind that what is "appropriate" is totaly my opinion, and some people would argue with me, but my quesition is: why is this only ever an issue with open source software?
Haven't we all learned by now that free software is violation of intelectual proparty rights of proprietary companies? SF.net produces free software that will (if left un-checked) undermine the american economy, raise consumer prices for software and eliminate thousands of jobs. Not to mention helping the spread of terrorisim and threteing national security. They should be shut down and censored at all costs.
Call me crazy, but I have to beleive that there was somthing going on here that we don't know about. I'm not talking about anything sinister on the FBI's part, I just think that they had a more important reason to investigate that they arn't saying to the public, and this violation was a good excuse to infiltrate. Imagine if the Feds suspected one of those 23 people of a more serious crime like writing viruses, child porn, financial idenity fraud, etc. They have been watching them for some time, and still don't have enough evidence to get a warrent to search the house, but they say to themselfs "if we could take a peek at thier computer". They decide to check with the ISP and see who in the neiborhood was violating the law, and one thing leads to the other. Suddenly they have access to the computer they were looking for, and they didn't alert anyone else involved in the REAL crime that they were aware of what was going on. This sounds much more plausable to me.
So why is that a problem? It is exactly the same to me as my finger prints. You can't change your finger prints (without scaring them) do you ever worry about who gets ahold of your fingerprints? No one does except a criminal. Do you wear gloves in all public places so one one can come by later and print you? Do you ever worry even slightly that a national database containing an image of your fingerprint will be comprimised by a cracker and used agaist you? No? I didn't think so. To me the fact that that they can't be changed is exactly what makes me not worry about it! If that information is sold it wouldn't be any different then the rest of my information that is currently being sold, except that you can't fake an eyeball! People can make fake credit cards, fake ID's and forge signitures, but what are they going to do, grow a synthetic eye from my DNA and hold it up to an eye scanner? Implant them in thier own eyes? You've got to be kidding. People who are going to get away with identity theft or even hacking/cracking for that matter are going to go for the most easy and fast way. Biometrics will be so hard to fake and do anything with, they are just going to try and swipe your credit card number the old fasioned way. I wouldn't get too riled up about this if I were you.
Please don't mod me down as overrated, I am making a legitimate point here! </disclaimer>
I agree with your summary of MS, except for one thing. They are not actually changing stripes, because that would imply that they are letting go of the market they had before. They don't ever let go of anything, and that is what is makeing them a monopoly. They became king of OS, they ALSO became supreame ruler of business apps, and are now currently trying to ALSO be the unchanlenged overloard of the personal entertainment world.
Yes, I agree, but did you read the article? The council for Rambus explained thier side of the story and it sounds to me like they have a strong case. Thats not to say that I beleive them, I just don't know how many fines they will ever see. As long as the government doesn't get out of hand with antitrust lawsuits, I think it is a good thing. It seems like they are paying way more attention to technology, and hopefully we will never have to see a rise of another Microsoft.
There's been plenty of retailers shipping PCs with Linux
Really? I would love to hear who they are? Not just some but PLENTY? This is news to me. I would love for you to list three or four. Or did you mean that in past tense? I would agree with that, there USED to be plenty, but M$ put them out of business, or got them to stop. I do have to agree with you though on the point that there have been alot of stories about this lately. Maybe a walmart roundup would be in order?
I don't mean to troll, but advanced server is just now getting to 64 bit archatecture? Would someone please tell me how long *NIX has been doing this, and how far behind win-tel is?
I hope that is what this means. I seriously want more large companies to be convinced that it is worth thier time to release stuff for linux. If macromedia ported all of thier software over to linux, I could finaly get rid of my windows box!
I don't get it. Your first paragraph was making several comparisons from software to other industries, and I was about to reply and say that it's apples to oranges, but then in your next paragragh you contradict yourself by saying software is hard to compare to other products! To me that is the thing to keep in mind. You can't compare a sandwich to complex software. If you could then why is it that the open source community has yet to come up with a game that even comes close to competing with things like Diablo II or Jedi Knights II? Or why is it that GIMP is years behind the current Photoshop? I agree with the original statement that we should expect bad software when the money gap from market leader to second place is large. The big company has the money to pay a team of people to work on a project 24/7. The small company is only going to have one or two guys that are going to try to turn out somthing that looks simmilar, and the OSS people are going take thier lunch hour to reveiw some code, and not get anything real done. Writing good software, especially when you talk about graphic related, takes time, and time is money. Therefore the big company will have more time.
<disclamer> I don't feel that microsoft nessisarily applies here because of the constant poor quality, I'm mainly talking about companies like Macromedia, Adobie, and the major game developers </disclamer>
It wouldn't take much to hack a phone and be able to pick up the traffic being routed through it.
That is assuming that they are using a static route for the entire length of the phone conversation, which they most certinly will not be doing for the same reasons that they don't do it now. Think about it, if traffic is going through your phone, and you have your phone
set up to your nice little hacking station in your basement, and you pick up a guy traveling on the highway with his phone, he will soon be out of range, right? If his entire conversation had to go through your phone, he would be cut off before he was finished talking. Just like if your entire conversation had to go through the same cell tower. Doing that would take the "mobile" out of mobile phone. The fact of the matter is, that each packet is likely to go through a different phone. The end result? You would get bits and pieces of several conversations, that would about to total jibberish. In fact they could even require it to route every few packets to a different phone, and thus eliminate the need for encryption. I hope all of you who are worried about your conversations privacy, suggest this to your telco.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is a perfect example of why progress is so slow. The question is -- whos responsibility is it to create a good user experiance? Is it up to the distro or app? You just said that it is up to the distro, the different apps just make things available and the distro needs to put it in a nice package. But if you talk to the distros they would say that it is up to the apps, there are so many apps, and so many trees and versions...the distro just needs to pick somthing stable, and if the app isn't good people should blame the app, not the distro. Thus the argument goes back and forth and little progress is made in the area of User Interface and User Experiance. The attitude seems to be "it's someone elses problem" on both sides of the table. I think this is a MAJOR hurdle for OSS. One big advantage of proprietary operating systems is that it is all the same company. Each facet of the OS may be by different development teams, but in the end there is someone that looks over it all with the user in mind and sends it back if it doesn't meet the cut. No real progress will be made untill this attitude in improved.
Sounds like you would be a perfect addition to the Simpleface team. It's a new OSS startup that is working to create standards for user interfaces. Go to the web page (it's a wiki) for more info, read through the email archives, and then get involved!
I just find it ironic that MS can so easily claim to owns someone elses code, when we have no way of looking at thier code to see if they are ripping off someone else. I have always thought that one of the reasons that they are so closed about source code is because they stole it from OSS projects and don't want people to find out about it, let alone have to pay GNU or FSF for 20 years of licence violation.
I just have to second this emotion. My bother in laws servers are all PPC and I have been amazed at what they can do and take. He has three boxes, one is a 7500/100, the other is 8000 series of some sort, and the third is (I'm not making this up) an SE/30. In fact the SE/30 is up to 15 domains, and doesn't show any signs of stopping. I am completely shocked at how well it serves up web pages. It takes the thing like an hour and a half to boot, but it has NEVER crashed, and he has never had to do any repairs at all. He refuses to let anything but apple hardware into his house. This makes me really anxious to try the apple hardware that is actually MEANT to be a server. Mmmmm.... XServe...
Really? I din't think that anyone was allowed to research IMPROVING P2P networks! They are supposed to be illeagal right?
Somehow I don't think that the kind of "sharing" that goes on 90% of the time on p2p networks is the kind of "sharing" your mom taught you was good.
There is no way to deny that MOST of the files getting shared on KaZaA are being spread illegaly. The thing that most people seem to miss is that that fact doesn't make KaZaA itself illeagal! There is absolutly nothing illeagal, moraly wrong, or negitive about software that lets people share files with each other. That is all that KaZaA is (and all the other ones too). It is true that many many people are using it in an illeagal way, which is why I think that it is good for the companies to go for the real criminals: the people actualy distributing copyrighted material. Have you ever heard the record store annalogy? A teenager listens to a whole bunch of violent/sexual/gang-bang/etc music and goes out and commits a related crime. Who is to blame? Do you toss the teen in jail or do you sue the pants of the record company? It is not the record company's fault that the teen did somthing illeagal. Strangly enough, Sony music and the rest seem to like that anaglogy just fine until the tables are turned. You don't shut down an ISP because a user commits a crime, you don't outlaw guns because a someone gets shot, you don't outlaw beer because someone drives drunk and YOU DONT OUTLAW P2P BECAUSE SOMEONE SHARES MP3's!!!!
Ever notice how many different versions of Microsoft's DLLs you have on your Windows box? That's no coincidence - Windows developers are forced to incorporate the version of the DLL that works with their application.
<disclamer>Before I start talking I want to say that I don't know a whole lot about libraries so there might be things I don't understand. If so someone please enlighten me.</disclamer>
What you said above is exactly what I have been thinking was a strength of Windows! Almost every single time I try to install an X-based program it chokes because I'm missing some library or another. In fact more than once I have tried to run a program and it says that I am missing a library that I already have! This is especially a problem with any audio/video software, and it's all because of staticly linked libraries. This never happens to me on a windows box! I do have a whole slew of other problems, but installing and running software is the last thing I have to worry about, because 99 percent of the time it "just works". Don't get me wrong, I'm hate M$ as much as the next geek, but I don't understand why the typical OSS method of library linking would be considered a strength.
Yes, but in that case morals have nothing to do with it. I can't stand extreme minimalist languages.
Your not alone by far. My computer (yes even my Linux box) is a family computer, and I refuse to use any software with names or content that is not appropriate for my children to see. Keep in mind that what is "appropriate" is totaly my opinion, and some people would argue with me, but my quesition is: why is this only ever an issue with open source software?
The basic goal of the project is to find a simple and completely legal way to run Linux on the Microsoft Xbox.
Yes, and the basic goal of the MS XBox team will be to find any way possible to prevent it.
Spelling isn't everything - but it's not nothing, either. As an employer, I would not hire you
That's OK, I would never work for an Anonymous Coward anyway
Haven't we all learned by now that free software is violation of intelectual proparty rights of proprietary companies? SF.net produces free software that will (if left un-checked) undermine the american economy, raise consumer prices for software and eliminate thousands of jobs. Not to mention helping the spread of terrorisim and threteing national security. They should be shut down and censored at all costs.
I know this sucks and all but... is anyone actually surprized? I didn't think that MS would tolarate this for long.
Call me crazy, but I have to beleive that there was somthing going on here that we don't know about. I'm not talking about anything sinister on the FBI's part, I just think that they had a more important reason to investigate that they arn't saying to the public, and this violation was a good excuse to infiltrate. Imagine if the Feds suspected one of those 23 people of a more serious crime like writing viruses, child porn, financial idenity fraud, etc. They have been watching them for some time, and still don't have enough evidence to get a warrent to search the house, but they say to themselfs "if we could take a peek at thier computer". They decide to check with the ISP and see who in the neiborhood was violating the law, and one thing leads to the other. Suddenly they have access to the computer they were looking for, and they didn't alert anyone else involved in the REAL crime that they were aware of what was going on. This sounds much more plausable to me.
But what about what Ransom Love said in his recent /. interview?
Every Linux provider has spent far more on promoting Linux than they have ever received.
Millions of dollars have been spent in recruiting applications, advertising, and tradeshows to promote Linux
The actual development cost of producing a product is only about 20-30%; marketing, sales and support constitute the majority.
Surely a big important man like Love couldn't be WRONG about somthing like this? </sarcasim>
So why is that a problem? It is exactly the same to me as my finger prints. You can't change your finger prints (without scaring them) do you ever worry about who gets ahold of your fingerprints? No one does except a criminal. Do you wear gloves in all public places so one one can come by later and print you? Do you ever worry even slightly that a national database containing an image of your fingerprint will be comprimised by a cracker and used agaist you? No? I didn't think so. To me the fact that that they can't be changed is exactly what makes me not worry about it! If that information is sold it wouldn't be any different then the rest of my information that is currently being sold, except that you can't fake an eyeball! People can make fake credit cards, fake ID's and forge signitures, but what are they going to do, grow a synthetic eye from my DNA and hold it up to an eye scanner? Implant them in thier own eyes? You've got to be kidding. People who are going to get away with identity theft or even hacking/cracking for that matter are going to go for the most easy and fast way. Biometrics will be so hard to fake and do anything with, they are just going to try and swipe your credit card number the old fasioned way. I wouldn't get too riled up about this if I were you.
Please don't mod me down as overrated, I am making a legitimate point here! </disclaimer>
I agree with your summary of MS, except for one thing. They are not actually changing stripes, because that would imply that they are letting go of the market they had before. They don't ever let go of anything, and that is what is makeing them a monopoly. They became king of OS, they ALSO became supreame ruler of business apps, and are now currently trying to ALSO be the unchanlenged overloard of the personal entertainment world.
Yes, I agree, but did you read the article? The council for Rambus explained thier side of the story and it sounds to me like they have a strong case. Thats not to say that I beleive them, I just don't know how many fines they will ever see. As long as the government doesn't get out of hand with antitrust lawsuits, I think it is a good thing. It seems like they are paying way more attention to technology, and hopefully we will never have to see a rise of another Microsoft.
There's been plenty of retailers shipping PCs with Linux
Really? I would love to hear who they are? Not just some but PLENTY? This is news to me. I would love for you to list three or four. Or did you mean that in past tense? I would agree with that, there USED to be plenty, but M$ put them out of business, or got them to stop. I do have to agree with you though on the point that there have been alot of stories about this lately. Maybe a walmart roundup would be in order?
Yet we keep introducing bugs & assuming they will be found & corrected later.
So your doing it on purpose? Do you work for Microsoft?
Vibration or not, that is the last place I want microwaves!
I don't mean to troll, but advanced server is just now getting to 64 bit archatecture? Would someone please tell me how long *NIX has been doing this, and how far behind win-tel is?
I hope that is what this means. I seriously want more large companies to be convinced that it is worth thier time to release stuff for linux. If macromedia ported all of thier software over to linux, I could finaly get rid of my windows box!
<disclamer> I don't feel that microsoft nessisarily applies here because of the constant poor quality, I'm mainly talking about companies like Macromedia, Adobie, and the major game developers </disclamer>
It wouldn't take much to hack a phone and be able to pick up the traffic being routed through it.
That is assuming that they are using a static route for the entire length of the phone conversation, which they most certinly will not be doing for the same reasons that they don't do it now. Think about it, if traffic is going through your phone, and you have your phone set up to your nice little hacking station in your basement, and you pick up a guy traveling on the highway with his phone, he will soon be out of range, right? If his entire conversation had to go through your phone, he would be cut off before he was finished talking. Just like if your entire conversation had to go through the same cell tower. Doing that would take the "mobile" out of mobile phone. The fact of the matter is, that each packet is likely to go through a different phone. The end result? You would get bits and pieces of several conversations, that would about to total jibberish. In fact they could even require it to route every few packets to a different phone, and thus eliminate the need for encryption. I hope all of you who are worried about your conversations privacy, suggest this to your telco.