So... the answer is for F/OSS advocates to do a better job of presenting their case. To badly mangle Gandhi's famous statement to the British, there is no way that a handful of public relations people, no matter how skilled (Microsoft), can defeat millions (of F/OSS advocates)... if those millions do not so choose to be defeated.
It doesn't help when a politician or PHB asks why a certain feature isn't present in a free alternative, only to be told in surly tone, "you've got the source code, write it yourself! 'Free' doesn't mean 'free software design!'"
Perfect example, discussed here before: handicapped groups are some of the biggest advocates for sticking with current file formats, because the F/OSS community has yet to adequately address their needs.
(I say, "discussed here before," but as I recall, it wasn't much of a discussion. There was a stunned silence and a lot of "wells..." and "hmmms...," then everyone quickly and gladly moved on to other topics.)
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Personally I won't accept it that someone might take my hobby code, incorporates it in his product and someday I might indirectly pay for my own code.
Well said! I confess, it took me a while to really understand the concept behind the GPL, but it's analogous to the situation where a wealthy family donates a piece of land to the city for a hospital. They OWN that land. It's theirs to do with as they wish. They choose to donate it... and as part of the agreement, specify that it MUST be used for a hospital, and nothing else.
Years pass and the city decides to sell the property and take the money elsewhere. The family objects. At that point, it goes to court... and whether the family's wishes are honored will boil down to how well the original agreement was written.
Same with my source code. I have choices about how to license it (if at all). But if I release it under the GPL, I am essentially offering it to the public for use as the end user sees fit. I have made a conscious decision to permit others to copy it, distribute it and modify it freely. It would annoy me if someone figured out some slick way to get around my intentions, because it's MY CODE. It's copyrighted and I still own the rights to it; I have decided that, instead of receiving money every time it's used, my payment will be the satisfaction of knowing that my code can go anywhere and be anything when it grows up.
Whether you agree with Stallman or not (and I don't always agree with him; I'm not a free software fanatic who refuses to use anything proprietary on my own computer, for example), give credit where due: the FSF is trying to amend the GPL to cover possible loopholes, many of which couldn't even have been anticipated when v2 was written.
Tivo, LinkSys and the other companies that have used GPL'd software had a choice. They could have written it themselves; they could have used BSD-style code; or... they could use GPL'd code, accepting that the people who wrote it, and who OWN it, expect this in payment: that their code will be freely modifiable and distributable by everyone else.
I can usually tell when someone has used it, because Word loves to put extra commas, in sentences, where they don't belong. It also argues with me when I *know* I'm right.
Or... rather make that past tense. ArgueD. I don't use Word anymore, I use OpenOffice. I can live without Word's quote-unquote grammar checker.:)
I don't agree with his limit of "3K" for a Web page; I'm willing to wait a bit for a well-designed page. But I do agree that you can make them too large for dialup users.
Part of the problem is that Web page designers build their pages and view them on their own computer or on an intranet. They should drag a phone cord into their office, dial up, and then view their page the way that most users will. They might be surprised.
Neilsen is right that I'm not going to wait a minute for a page to load. I'll go elsewhere, meaning that the site's owners lose business.
Yes, in plain english, there have been times that I have chosen product B over product A primarily because I couldn't bear product A's slow, bloated Web site.
The most hilarious example I saw was a huge, bloated Web page that autorefreshed itself too quickly. On a slow dial up, the page would never finish loading!
The sound is a representation of the electromagnetic waves that were released during the Big Bang, not an actual *audio* event.
Sort of like tuning a radio to the static produced by cosmic rays.
There are other things preventing the wide-spread adoption of Linux, especially for home and small office use. The lack of a good tax preparation program, for one.
One of the biggest complaints that a Windows user will have when making the Big Switch is the lack of a unified, cross-referenced help system. (Speaking from experience.)
KDE is a FINE desktop. It's actually better than the XP desktop, IMNHO. But there are still times that I stare at it, wondering, "what the heck do I do NOW?" If I look for help, I get a Page Filled With Tons Of Text (if anything at all).
The Open Source community has done a marvelous job concentrating on security, robustness, and eye candy (yes, that's not a typo; that's my opinion). I can do things by default under Linux that I could only dream about under Windows.
But most users don't need remote administration or the ability to have a dozen different text terminals. It's the little things, like the lack of the ability to click F1 and search for help on "modem" or "printer," that create a *needlessly* steep learning curve for the uninitiated. Mandrake (again, IMNHO) has done an excellent job of addressing this, but there's still a long ways to go yet.
Some of us *require* real-time transmission (or as close to it as we can get) - in broadcasting, where I work, just to name one.
Ethernet is more efficient for an office network because it allows many machines to share resources. At times when the network gets really busy, people notice a delay; annoying, but not the end of the world.
The same principle applies here: if the circuits get really busy, there might be a delay (or even a brief dropout) before you hear Aunt Lona say "hello" at the other end of the line. Again: annoying, but not the end of the world.
But now imagine that the connection is being used to control a piece of equipment many miles away. Or, to transport a real-time signal, say, a ballgame from a distant city. Both are true in our case. We need real time, or as close as you can get.
When you can't get a satellite channel, the method of choice for a quickie audio remote is ISDN. The telcos hate these nowadays: technically, because you're tying up one "slice" of a T1 group. They'd much rather distribute packets on that T1 like a card dealer in Vegas; if the table is full of gamblers, it just takes a little longer, is all. More efficient.
You folks in Canada: don't be surprised if your internet service suffers as a result of this. You're gonna be sharing bandwidth with the call to Aunt Lona...:)
Let me disclaim to start with: I work in broadcasting (radio). I'm also not addressing the larger issues of reverse engineering, the DMCA (which frightens me), etc., etc., but your argument that TV ads somehow "cost" you.
By your logic, I should carry a stopwatch and keep track of every glance at an ad on a Website (including those here at Slashdot), in magazines, in the newspaper and... you get the idea. I should click the buttons every time my ears are exposed to an ad on the radio.
By your logic, my great falling stars! I am somehow being "charged" millions of dollars a month(!!) just to see and hear this stuff!
One big flaw in your argument is that you are not compelled to do any of these things. You can always drop that newspaper or turn the radio off. No one is paying you to do these things because no one forces you to do them.
I don't believe that people should be forced to watch or listen to ads, but be careful what you wish for. Everyone complains about advertising, but if TV stations start losing money, they WILL go out of business. It's just that simple.
And someone posted here that "all TV stations care about is ratings." That's silly; advertisers aren't stupid, and if they know that most viewers are not watching their ads, then, regardless of ratings, they will stop buying those ads. The only reason why there's no real effect at present is because the number of people who use machines that can edit out the advertising are a small fraction of the whole.
Again: you can refuse to watch ads if you want. That's your right. But don't be surprised, a few years from now, if all TV is pay-per-view, if all Web sites must charge a fee for access, and if the price of your newspaper goes up to twenty bucks an issue.
Yes, Microsoft *has* tried the, "IE is part of Windows!" thingie and yes, it *has* already been addressed in court.
But go back a bit further. Microsoft's original claim was that, by including IE (and dozens of other packages that used to be sold separately), they had made computing easier and cheaper.
By analogy, suppose I'm a cattle farmer. I raise lots of cattle. I have so many cattle that they're spilling into my neighbor's lands. I ignore their complaints, tie them up in court when they sue me, buy their properties at fire-sale prices, you name it.
In the supermarkets, I make questionable agreements: buy my beef, and my beef only, and I'll give you a discount. But sell my competitor, and I'll charge more.
I slowly drive my competitors out of business.
Someone else invents heat-and-eat prepared beef. This threatens my position, so I use my dominance to squash him; I introduce heat-and-eat beef myself, but sell it below cost to drive him out of business.
Years pass. Finally, the government gets involved; a massive multi-state lawsuit if filed. But by that time, I've cornered the beef market!
Think of the arguments I can make: I'm more efficient. Consumers like me. My beef is standardized; everyone's familiar with it. It's pre-packaged, heat-and-eat, no fuss, no mess.
Why, the marketplace would devolve into dozens of confusing choices for the consumer if I was stopped!
If I were to raise that defense, I would be laughed out of court.
The issue -- the ONLY issue -- is whether I had acted in an illegal manner in establishing my market dominance.
If the answer is "yes," then a remedy has to be proposed which punishes me for that behavior. I may be a popular hero, but if I kill someone, I'm guilty of murder. The fact that I'm popular and loveable has no bearing on the facts of the case.
When the ATT breakup occurred, lots of people complained. I remember Howard K. Smith on ABC doing an editorial about it being one of the "ten dumbest decisions" he'd ever heard.
But the *initial* confusion (and stock crash at ATT!) was eventually replaced by a much better marketplace with better choices for consumers. The end result was improvement in the long run.
To win this case, you would need to demonstrate that the contracts between Microsoft and OEM's violated antitrust laws.
I'm not looking at the actual court docs at the moment, but as I recall, in the Fed/State's case against MS, the court found that Microsoft HAD engaged in anti-competitive practices of this type.
In fact, the news at the time said that this decision WOULD open the door for others to sue Microsoft, since that fact had been established.
I'm a life-long MS prisoner who recently made the transition to Linux. I had tried it a couple of years ago; when it started asking all sorts of geek questions about refresh rates and things like that, I figured, "not worth the bother."
(Not that I couldn't have found the info -- I'm a tech-type/engineering dood, after all -- but I just didn't have the time. If it's not in the user manual for the hardware, I'm not going to search for it.)
In December, I purchased Mandrake 8.1 and was blown away. It's actually *easier* to install than Windows was. Yes, the desktop has its irritations -- for example, because of my eyes, I can't go higher than 800x600, and some of the windows in KDE are "fixed" at higher resolution, so part of the window runs off the screen -- but I am having a blast.
My point, of course, is that zillions of people like me are discovering Linux for the first time. We are enjoying it very much. Like one poster says here, rather than being upset that Linux is taking two steps f'wards and one step b'wards, be glad of the fact that it's making inroads. Plus, you DON'T want it to be released to the unwashed masses until it's completely ready.
(My own experience a couple of years ago almost soured me to Linux, but a fellow engineer encouraged me to try the latest distros. I'm glad I did.)
The only reason I keep Windows in a dual boot was so that I could run Turbo Tax and a few games. But everything else is done in Linux now. I also expect this problem to go away in the future. I'm committed.
Patience, folks. Linux is getting there. Rather than worrying about a minor setback today, be confident of where Linux will be in a year or two.
Slashdot Mirror
So ... the answer is for F/OSS advocates to do a better job of presenting their case. To badly mangle Gandhi's famous statement to the British, there is no way that a handful of public relations people, no matter how skilled (Microsoft), can defeat millions (of F/OSS advocates) ... if those millions do not so choose to be defeated.
It doesn't help when a politician or PHB asks why a certain feature isn't present in a free alternative, only to be told in surly tone, "you've got the source code, write it yourself! 'Free' doesn't mean 'free software design!'"
Perfect example, discussed here before: handicapped groups are some of the biggest advocates for sticking with current file formats, because the F/OSS community has yet to adequately address their needs.
(I say, "discussed here before," but as I recall, it wasn't much of a discussion. There was a stunned silence and a lot of "wells ..." and "hmmms ...," then everyone quickly and gladly moved on to other topics.)
Well said! I confess, it took me a while to really understand the concept behind the GPL, but it's analogous to the situation where a wealthy family donates a piece of land to the city for a hospital. They OWN that land. It's theirs to do with as they wish. They choose to donate it ... and as part of the agreement, specify that it MUST be used for a hospital, and nothing else.
Years pass and the city decides to sell the property and take the money elsewhere. The family objects. At that point, it goes to court ... and whether the family's wishes are honored will boil down to how well the original agreement was written.
Same with my source code. I have choices about how to license it (if at all). But if I release it under the GPL, I am essentially offering it to the public for use as the end user sees fit. I have made a conscious decision to permit others to copy it, distribute it and modify it freely. It would annoy me if someone figured out some slick way to get around my intentions, because it's MY CODE. It's copyrighted and I still own the rights to it; I have decided that, instead of receiving money every time it's used, my payment will be the satisfaction of knowing that my code can go anywhere and be anything when it grows up.
Whether you agree with Stallman or not (and I don't always agree with him; I'm not a free software fanatic who refuses to use anything proprietary on my own computer, for example), give credit where due: the FSF is trying to amend the GPL to cover possible loopholes, many of which couldn't even have been anticipated when v2 was written.
Tivo, LinkSys and the other companies that have used GPL'd software had a choice. They could have written it themselves; they could have used BSD-style code; or ... they could use GPL'd code, accepting that the people who wrote it, and who OWN it, expect this in payment: that their code will be freely modifiable and distributable by everyone else.
I can usually tell when someone has used it, because Word loves to put extra commas, in sentences, where they don't belong. It also argues with me when I *know* I'm right.
Or ... rather make that past tense. ArgueD. I don't use Word anymore, I use OpenOffice. I can live without Word's quote-unquote grammar checker. :)
Part of the problem is that Web page designers build their pages and view them on their own computer or on an intranet. They should drag a phone cord into their office, dial up, and then view their page the way that most users will. They might be surprised.
Neilsen is right that I'm not going to wait a minute for a page to load. I'll go elsewhere, meaning that the site's owners lose business.
Yes, in plain english, there have been times that I have chosen product B over product A primarily because I couldn't bear product A's slow, bloated Web site.
The most hilarious example I saw was a huge, bloated Web page that autorefreshed itself too quickly. On a slow dial up, the page would never finish loading!
The sound is a representation of the electromagnetic waves that were released during the Big Bang, not an actual *audio* event. Sort of like tuning a radio to the static produced by cosmic rays.
I've written about my own experiences in switching (http://www.jediknight.com/~smpoole/switchtolinux. html) and I'm basically happy, but I'm not everyone.
One of the biggest complaints that a Windows user will have when making the Big Switch is the lack of a unified, cross-referenced help system. (Speaking from experience.)
KDE is a FINE desktop. It's actually better than the XP desktop, IMNHO. But there are still times that I stare at it, wondering, "what the heck do I do NOW?" If I look for help, I get a Page Filled With Tons Of Text (if anything at all).
The Open Source community has done a marvelous job concentrating on security, robustness, and eye candy (yes, that's not a typo; that's my opinion). I can do things by default under Linux that I could only dream about under Windows.
But most users don't need remote administration or the ability to have a dozen different text terminals. It's the little things, like the lack of the ability to click F1 and search for help on "modem" or "printer," that create a *needlessly* steep learning curve for the uninitiated. Mandrake (again, IMNHO) has done an excellent job of addressing this, but there's still a long ways to go yet.
Just my opinion.
Some of us *require* real-time transmission (or as close to it as we can get) - in broadcasting, where I work, just to name one. Ethernet is more efficient for an office network because it allows many machines to share resources. At times when the network gets really busy, people notice a delay; annoying, but not the end of the world. The same principle applies here: if the circuits get really busy, there might be a delay (or even a brief dropout) before you hear Aunt Lona say "hello" at the other end of the line. Again: annoying, but not the end of the world. But now imagine that the connection is being used to control a piece of equipment many miles away. Or, to transport a real-time signal, say, a ballgame from a distant city. Both are true in our case. We need real time, or as close as you can get. When you can't get a satellite channel, the method of choice for a quickie audio remote is ISDN. The telcos hate these nowadays: technically, because you're tying up one "slice" of a T1 group. They'd much rather distribute packets on that T1 like a card dealer in Vegas; if the table is full of gamblers, it just takes a little longer, is all. More efficient. You folks in Canada: don't be surprised if your internet service suffers as a result of this. You're gonna be sharing bandwidth with the call to Aunt Lona ... :)
By your logic, I should carry a stopwatch and keep track of every glance at an ad on a Website (including those here at Slashdot), in magazines, in the newspaper and ... you get the idea. I should click the buttons every time my ears are exposed to an ad on the radio.
By your logic, my great falling stars! I am somehow being "charged" millions of dollars a month(!!) just to see and hear this stuff!
One big flaw in your argument is that you are not compelled to do any of these things. You can always drop that newspaper or turn the radio off. No one is paying you to do these things because no one forces you to do them.
I don't believe that people should be forced to watch or listen to ads, but be careful what you wish for. Everyone complains about advertising, but if TV stations start losing money, they WILL go out of business. It's just that simple.
And someone posted here that "all TV stations care about is ratings." That's silly; advertisers aren't stupid, and if they know that most viewers are not watching their ads, then, regardless of ratings, they will stop buying those ads. The only reason why there's no real effect at present is because the number of people who use machines that can edit out the advertising are a small fraction of the whole.
Again: you can refuse to watch ads if you want. That's your right. But don't be surprised, a few years from now, if all TV is pay-per-view, if all Web sites must charge a fee for access, and if the price of your newspaper goes up to twenty bucks an issue.
You can't get something for nothing.
But go back a bit further. Microsoft's original claim was that, by including IE (and dozens of other packages that used to be sold separately), they had made computing easier and cheaper.
By analogy, suppose I'm a cattle farmer. I raise lots of cattle. I have so many cattle that they're spilling into my neighbor's lands. I ignore their complaints, tie them up in court when they sue me, buy their properties at fire-sale prices, you name it.
In the supermarkets, I make questionable agreements: buy my beef, and my beef only, and I'll give you a discount. But sell my competitor, and I'll charge more.
I slowly drive my competitors out of business.
Someone else invents heat-and-eat prepared beef. This threatens my position, so I use my dominance to squash him; I introduce heat-and-eat beef myself, but sell it below cost to drive him out of business.
Years pass. Finally, the government gets involved; a massive multi-state lawsuit if filed. But by that time, I've cornered the beef market!
Think of the arguments I can make: I'm more efficient. Consumers like me. My beef is standardized; everyone's familiar with it. It's pre-packaged, heat-and-eat, no fuss, no mess.
Why, the marketplace would devolve into dozens of confusing choices for the consumer if I was stopped!
If I were to raise that defense, I would be laughed out of court.
The issue -- the ONLY issue -- is whether I had acted in an illegal manner in establishing my market dominance.
If the answer is "yes," then a remedy has to be proposed which punishes me for that behavior. I may be a popular hero, but if I kill someone, I'm guilty of murder. The fact that I'm popular and loveable has no bearing on the facts of the case.
When the ATT breakup occurred, lots of people complained. I remember Howard K. Smith on ABC doing an editorial about it being one of the "ten dumbest decisions" he'd ever heard.
But the *initial* confusion (and stock crash at ATT!) was eventually replaced by a much better marketplace with better choices for consumers. The end result was improvement in the long run.
To win this case, you would need to demonstrate that the contracts between Microsoft and OEM's violated antitrust laws.
I'm not looking at the actual court docs at the moment, but as I recall, in the Fed/State's case against MS, the court found that Microsoft HAD engaged in anti-competitive practices of this type.
In fact, the news at the time said that this decision WOULD open the door for others to sue Microsoft, since that fact had been established.
(Not that I couldn't have found the info -- I'm a tech-type/engineering dood, after all -- but I just didn't have the time. If it's not in the user manual for the hardware, I'm not going to search for it.)
In December, I purchased Mandrake 8.1 and was blown away. It's actually *easier* to install than Windows was. Yes, the desktop has its irritations -- for example, because of my eyes, I can't go higher than 800x600, and some of the windows in KDE are "fixed" at higher resolution, so part of the window runs off the screen -- but I am having a blast.
My point, of course, is that zillions of people like me are discovering Linux for the first time. We are enjoying it very much. Like one poster says here, rather than being upset that Linux is taking two steps f'wards and one step b'wards, be glad of the fact that it's making inroads. Plus, you DON'T want it to be released to the unwashed masses until it's completely ready.
(My own experience a couple of years ago almost soured me to Linux, but a fellow engineer encouraged me to try the latest distros. I'm glad I did.)
The only reason I keep Windows in a dual boot was so that I could run Turbo Tax and a few games. But everything else is done in Linux now. I also expect this problem to go away in the future. I'm committed.
Patience, folks. Linux is getting there. Rather than worrying about a minor setback today, be confident of where Linux will be in a year or two.
Even YOU might be surprised. :)