Actually, for an example, look no further than Cirrus Logic. A company that built a patent portfolio for defensive purposes, and now that they've fallen on hard times is trying to build the portfolio up further (through aquisitions mainly) and intends to make charging royalties for said patents their main revenue stream.
Don't take this wrong, but your post cracked me up. I lived in and around Sacramento for a long time, and Willie Brown was a well known figure, both politically and otherwise. When he decided to run for mayor of SF, I knew he'd win (nobody who was familiar with him could doubt it), but I also had to wonder if SF knew what it was getting itself into. He's a consummate politician, with all the good and bad that implies. He can get anything done, but will only do things that benefit him (and, to be fair, his friends; in that sense, I guess he does 'share the wealth').
I have read on several occasions, and as recently as the last few months, that the USPTO has laid the blame for all the bogus software patents they issue squarely on the fact that such a database doesn't exist. Since this one has been there for seven years, and the USPTO is a sponsoring organization (and therefore one would assume does know about it), what's their excuse going to be now?
Something like >50% of American homes have at least one PC in them. I doubt China can make the same claim.
Actually, the last statistic I heard said that only about 1% of the Chinese population had ever seen a computer, let alone had access to one. A good point to consider.
It's been some time now, but I read an article a while back written by a guy who was hired by Microsoft for the express purpose of analyzing how much of a threat John Carmack was to them. He worked for them in this capacity for about six months.
It seems they're very afraid of him for two reasons. One has been touched on several times here already; if he chooses to support some sort of gaming api that they didn't develop (graphics, sound, what have you), it makes it nearly impossible for them to gain a stranglehold on that aspect of the system.
Their real fear, though, is apparently that his gaming engines are damn near operating systems unto themselves, and should he decide to turn them into a 3d operating environment, he'd eat their lunch with it.
The report that the guy returned to them basically said it remained to be seen if Carmack was interested in such a thing, but that should he decide to do so he would pretty much own that arena. So I'd say that should he do something with the specific intention of making them pay attention, pay attention they would.
I agree with everything you've said here. I recently had a conversation with a law student about these issues; I've tried to talk to lawyers about them, but they're never willing ('you haven't been to law school, you wouldn't understand').
According to her, they teach the following at her school:
Laws must be written vaguely, otherwise they will have unintended consequences that cannot be addressed(!?)
The 'average' American must not be allowed to participate in the political system (ie, run for Congress) because they are incapable of understanding the issues involved with creating laws that run the country
The rights enumerated in the Constitution were never meant to apply to the general populace, but to an 'educated' superset (she got upset when I began calling it an 'elite class') that would then make all decisions on behalf of the people
Given that this is what these people are learning (and since it makes them part of the 'elite', I'm sure they're all more than willing to buy in), it's no wonder things are as screwed up as they are.
Hmmm, they live east of the Mississippi, and I've personally seen them here (Cali) west of it on several occasions, so unless you have an incredibly fortuitous travel schedule, you have indeed been on the same side of that great river as them at some point! (All in good fun, I know what you meant...)
Version 2.0.1 is here. I don't know what site you went to, but I've been using this for a couple of months. In any case, Zope.org appears to be the site to hit for all things Zope.
Because the way they'll make more is to leave their prices alone and wait for what used to be UPS' customers to show up at the door.
For an example of how this works that is maybe a little more relevant to the/. crowd, remember when Prodigy was the #1 online service? They were cheaper than AOL, and much more popular. But they weren't making any money; so they instituted a pricing structure more like AOL's. Did AOL say 'hey the competition raised prices, so can we?'. No. They lowered their prices. The rest, as they say, is history.
I remember reading an article by him wherein he described his early efforts at selling his stories. He wasn't really trying to write science fiction; it just turned out that his stories were so off the wall that science fiction editors were often the only ones that would buy them.
OTOH, he also tells a story about one that was turned down by an editor that bought most of his stories, because "it's not science fiction; it's a love story that just happens to take place on a space ship".
I've had the same feeling; kind of amazing that someone whose writing reaches me so completely turns out to be someone I disagree with so much.
One thing I try to keep in mind, though, is his age; he grew up in a very different time than I did. An interesting point: Bradbury always says exactly what's on his mind, and you can go hang if you don't like it. How many politicians in his age range think exactly the way he does, but don't say so 'cause they know they won't be reelected?
This is the first comment I've seen (including the main story) that is taking a realistic look at things.
It is Microsoft's market share that is currently being drained away in all areas but browser; when you're on top, there's nowhere to go but down. As for the browser, the numbers that show IE's total dominance in this area these days are well cooked; I would say that > 70% of the people I know who use Windows still use Netscape.
Considering that a huge chunk of the web browsing populace is still using what is basically a 2+ year old browser despite the fact that a newer one is bolted right into their operating system makes me worry far more for Microsoft's future than Linux or Mozilla's. Don't get me wrong, the ability to go down the drain into obscurity is well within Mozilla's grasp; I don't accept, however, that it's imminent.
As for Linux itself, it's gone over critical mass. It's not going anywhere, and I don't care what Microsoft has to say about it. I have the ability to look at the evidence myself, and what I see lets me rest easy indeed.
Well, you can't get rid of juries. It's provided for in the Constitution (Article VII of the Bill of Rights) that civil trials may be decided by a jury.
The problem is not so much with the concept, as with the execution. If jury members were required to have some knowledge of the issue at hand (all have to be EE's in Toshiba's case), and lawyers weren't allowed to be lawmakers (a conflict of interest like that would land you in jail in just about any other profession), a lot of these problems wouldn't exist.
I agree with you completely. It's interesting to note that where I live (California), non-competes are illegal, yet still seem to be common.
There was a case in the news a while back about an engineer who signed a non-compete (knowing it was unenforceable, he didn't worry about it) and when he left was sued by his former employer. He went to court and won, but he was forbidden from accepting employment in his field while the case went on (over a year), and went bankrupt in the process. Then at the end, noone would hire him because he had been off work for a year suing his former employer.
I think this points out the real purpose of non-competes. Employers aren't willing to keep their people happy by paying and treating them well, so they'll keep them under threat of ruining their lives. Wonderful world we live in.
So you first see it after you take the software home. So it is a contract only if you have a reasonable chance to take the software back and get your money back.
I was reading a court decision regarding this a while back (it was on the 'net, don't remember where) and according to the judge in that case it's only a viable contract if the terms were visible on the package at the time of sale. If the contract is inside the package (as with most EULA's), unless you open the package and read it before handing the clerk your money, the EULA isn't valid.
As with all things lawyerly though, I'm sure it only applies in that place at that time with the moon in that position...
Boy, that's hard to quantify, especially in a (reasonably short) post.
Let me try it this way. I come from an electronics background. I've been a hobbyist/technician since about the time the first IBM PC came out. When I first started playing with computers, it was the hardware I was most interested in, so I learned about that before really delving into the software aspect. The way I approach things is from the bottom up; if I learn how the hardware works, then I can always figure out at least what the software should be doing, and usually why it does or doesn't as well. It seems the most obvious way of doing things to me, but many people find it strange.
There were things about computers (I would have to really sit down and think for a while to come up with concrete examples, but the general concept is what's important) that just stymied people I knew, but made perfect sense to me; I just expected them to work that way. Someone will look at something and say "Why does it do that", and I find it unusual that they think it should do anything different. Most people have chalked it up to the fact that my "mind just works that way". As an aside, my family can tell you some hilarious stories about times I missed things totally obvious to everyone else for the same reason; it has been said that if you want to find the hardest way to do something, let me do it.
Whatever these differences in thinking actually are, it seems that perhaps they're the culprit here. If so, it's definitely something that will need to be kept in mind as Debian moves forward (maybe this is a good place for 'value add' for resellers, esp. if the Debian distribution proper doesn't address it).
Not to flame you, but when you hear people complaining about Debian's install and configuration listen to them. Their confusion should be telling you something; ie the simple things are unnecessarily obscure in Debian and thus appear complex and difficult.
I do listen; the problem is, that while people seem happy to say that it was hard, they seem relatively reticent when it comes to pointing out specifics. This is not necessarily their problem; if you flat out don't understand something, it can be difficult to explain to someone what it is you don't understand.
As far as the simple things being unnecessarily complex and obscure, this seems to be the general consensus. I personally don't find it true, though; thus my request for elaboration (and I think your comments are definitely helpful).
So far, I haven't had any problems recommending Debian to people, but most of the people I deal with are familiar with the innards of their computers, and many have previous Unix experience. I'm thinking this makes a bigger difference than I generally give it credit for. I'm also really beginning to believe that Debian is made by people with a certain personality type, and is optimized for that way of thinking. I think this would go a long way toward explaining why some people think Debian installs are cake, while others find it impossible (note that if this is the case, it should probably be changed as soon as is practical).
Generally, people who state that Debian is difficult to install have never installed Debian themselves. It is not more difficult than any other distrobution, it is just a bit in it's approach.
I've always kind of assumed this as well, but I hear this so much that I'm thinking that there must be some fire to go with all the smoke. I asked for elaboration in a thread above, and there are already a couple of good responses.
I'm starting to think there is more to the 'technical/non-technical personality' issue than I've generally accepted, and this explains the differences in perceptions of Debian's installation process.
First off, a disclaimer. This is not a flame, and I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm serious here.
I hear this again and again about Debian's lack of ease of installation and configuration, but I just don't see it. I don't mean as compared to Red Hat or Suse, etc. (they might very well be much easier), I mean just in absolute terms. Now admittedly, I like getting into the innards of things more than the average Joe (and this may be the entire explanation), but I've never found installing Debian hard. I've installed more Win95 machines than I can count, and I'll take a Debian installation over that any day of the week. I've also had someone that had terrible problems installing Red Hat (one of the 5.* versions) find happiness after I recommended he try Debian. This may have been because I was able to give more focused help after the switch, though.
Keeping in mind that my viewpoint is most probably warped (I like tinkering with things, and I know more about PC hardware than anyone I know) I would find it helpful if you could point out some problems with it. Not as compared to other distros, but along the lines of things that someone with no previous Linux experience (but with experience installing other OS's) would look at and go "huh?". If the person who posted the first reply to your comment could offer some points as well, that would be great.
Again, I have no illusions that what you say isn't true. But as I am obviously reasonably ignorant of or unaffected by the problems, and I fairly regularly get asked to recommend a distro by people trying Linux for the first time, I'm quite interested in hearing an elaboration of your viewpoint. Thanks.
Re:What Mozilla is (for those who don't know)
on
Mozilla M10 Released
·
· Score: 2
Keep in mind as well that many 'portal' sites and isps like to have their own customized browsers available. Mozilla has this functionality built into its very core, and it seems they have at least tried to make it easy to use. Couple this with the lack of licensing fees, and I think that this may be one of the biggest markets for Mozilla.
At the end of the day I think the only way companies that focus on intellectual property (private or community) can thrive is by being private...
Many of these companies could wind up providing services to publically traded lottery tickets
Interesting comments. Puts me in mind of two things. One is a company that I used to work for that pretty much dominates their field. Their primary business is licensing their intellectual property, and they are privately held. Although it appears to be changing somewhat, their business model depends on the fact that they have noone but themselves to answer to; right before I left, they cancelled a project that had cost millions because the result they got wasn't up to their standards. The point was made that in a publically held corp, they almost certainly would have had to release the product, because the shareholders would have demanded a return on that investment, despite the fact that it might have seriously damaged the reputation that was their main selling point.
It's your second comment, though, that I find most interesting. If you look back on the California gold rush (startling how it parallels the current rush to get in on internet stocks in some ways), you'll find that it did indeed make many people very rich. However, the vast majority of these were not prospectors (most of these finished with nothing); they were the people who provided goods and services to the prospectors. Perhaps a lesson for the (near) future there?
Don't know what program it was (have there been many? Wouldn't think so). Caught it while surfing. My memory may be faulty; if so, my bad. As I've obviously offended you, my apologies. Thanks for putting the record straight.
They are interpeters basically. And he was in the Air Force. He simply received his orders from the NSA.
The thing I saw about it didn't say what he did, just that he worked for NSA. They did say that he was 'posing' as an Air Force member; shows what happens when you trust the media to put accuracy above sensationalism.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, for an example, look no further than Cirrus Logic. A company that built a patent portfolio for defensive purposes, and now that they've fallen on hard times is trying to build the portfolio up further (through aquisitions mainly) and intends to make charging royalties for said patents their main revenue stream.
Don't take this wrong, but your post cracked me up. I lived in and around Sacramento for a long time, and Willie Brown was a well known figure, both politically and otherwise. When he decided to run for mayor of SF, I knew he'd win (nobody who was familiar with him could doubt it), but I also had to wonder if SF knew what it was getting itself into. He's a consummate politician, with all the good and bad that implies. He can get anything done, but will only do things that benefit him (and, to be fair, his friends; in that sense, I guess he does 'share the wealth').
I have read on several occasions, and as recently as the last few months, that the USPTO has laid the blame for all the bogus software patents they issue squarely on the fact that such a database doesn't exist. Since this one has been there for seven years, and the USPTO is a sponsoring organization (and therefore one would assume does know about it), what's their excuse going to be now?
Actually, the last statistic I heard said that only about 1% of the Chinese population had ever seen a computer, let alone had access to one. A good point to consider.
It seems they're very afraid of him for two reasons. One has been touched on several times here already; if he chooses to support some sort of gaming api that they didn't develop (graphics, sound, what have you), it makes it nearly impossible for them to gain a stranglehold on that aspect of the system.
Their real fear, though, is apparently that his gaming engines are damn near operating systems unto themselves, and should he decide to turn them into a 3d operating environment, he'd eat their lunch with it.
The report that the guy returned to them basically said it remained to be seen if Carmack was interested in such a thing, but that should he decide to do so he would pretty much own that arena. So I'd say that should he do something with the specific intention of making them pay attention, pay attention they would.
According to her, they teach the following at her school:
- Laws must be written vaguely, otherwise they will have unintended consequences that cannot be addressed(!?)
- The 'average' American must not be allowed to participate in the political system (ie, run for Congress) because they are incapable of understanding the issues involved with creating laws that run the country
- The rights enumerated in the Constitution were never meant to apply to the general populace, but to an 'educated' superset (she got upset when I began calling it an 'elite class') that would then make all decisions on behalf of the people
Given that this is what these people are learning (and since it makes them part of the 'elite', I'm sure they're all more than willing to buy in), it's no wonder things are as screwed up as they are.I'm not sure I'd want to try this, but I'm not surprised he is.
Hmmm, they live east of the Mississippi, and I've personally seen them here (Cali) west of it on several occasions, so unless you have an incredibly fortuitous travel schedule, you have indeed been on the same side of that great river as them at some point! (All in good fun, I know what you meant...)
Version 2.0.1 is here. I don't know what site you went to, but I've been using this for a couple of months. In any case, Zope.org appears to be the site to hit for all things Zope.
For an example of how this works that is maybe a little more relevant to the /. crowd, remember when Prodigy was the #1 online service? They were cheaper than AOL, and much more popular. But they weren't making any money; so they instituted a pricing structure more like AOL's. Did AOL say 'hey the competition raised prices, so can we?'. No. They lowered their prices. The rest, as they say, is history.
OTOH, he also tells a story about one that was turned down by an editor that bought most of his stories, because "it's not science fiction; it's a love story that just happens to take place on a space ship".
One thing I try to keep in mind, though, is his age; he grew up in a very different time than I did. An interesting point: Bradbury always says exactly what's on his mind, and you can go hang if you don't like it. How many politicians in his age range think exactly the way he does, but don't say so 'cause they know they won't be reelected?
It is Microsoft's market share that is currently being drained away in all areas but browser; when you're on top, there's nowhere to go but down. As for the browser, the numbers that show IE's total dominance in this area these days are well cooked; I would say that > 70% of the people I know who use Windows still use Netscape.
Considering that a huge chunk of the web browsing populace is still using what is basically a 2+ year old browser despite the fact that a newer one is bolted right into their operating system makes me worry far more for Microsoft's future than Linux or Mozilla's. Don't get me wrong, the ability to go down the drain into obscurity is well within Mozilla's grasp; I don't accept, however, that it's imminent.
As for Linux itself, it's gone over critical mass. It's not going anywhere, and I don't care what Microsoft has to say about it. I have the ability to look at the evidence myself, and what I see lets me rest easy indeed.
The problem is not so much with the concept, as with the execution. If jury members were required to have some knowledge of the issue at hand (all have to be EE's in Toshiba's case), and lawyers weren't allowed to be lawmakers (a conflict of interest like that would land you in jail in just about any other profession), a lot of these problems wouldn't exist.
There was a case in the news a while back about an engineer who signed a non-compete (knowing it was unenforceable, he didn't worry about it) and when he left was sued by his former employer. He went to court and won, but he was forbidden from accepting employment in his field while the case went on (over a year), and went bankrupt in the process. Then at the end, noone would hire him because he had been off work for a year suing his former employer.
I think this points out the real purpose of non-competes. Employers aren't willing to keep their people happy by paying and treating them well, so they'll keep them under threat of ruining their lives. Wonderful world we live in.
- Gates
- Jobs
- Ellison
- Metcalfe
etc., etc...I was reading a court decision regarding this a while back (it was on the 'net, don't remember where) and according to the judge in that case it's only a viable contract if the terms were visible on the package at the time of sale. If the contract is inside the package (as with most EULA's), unless you open the package and read it before handing the clerk your money, the EULA isn't valid.
As with all things lawyerly though, I'm sure it only applies in that place at that time with the moon in that position...
Let me try it this way. I come from an electronics background. I've been a hobbyist/technician since about the time the first IBM PC came out. When I first started playing with computers, it was the hardware I was most interested in, so I learned about that before really delving into the software aspect. The way I approach things is from the bottom up; if I learn how the hardware works, then I can always figure out at least what the software should be doing, and usually why it does or doesn't as well. It seems the most obvious way of doing things to me, but many people find it strange.
There were things about computers (I would have to really sit down and think for a while to come up with concrete examples, but the general concept is what's important) that just stymied people I knew, but made perfect sense to me; I just expected them to work that way. Someone will look at something and say "Why does it do that", and I find it unusual that they think it should do anything different. Most people have chalked it up to the fact that my "mind just works that way". As an aside, my family can tell you some hilarious stories about times I missed things totally obvious to everyone else for the same reason; it has been said that if you want to find the hardest way to do something, let me do it.
Whatever these differences in thinking actually are, it seems that perhaps they're the culprit here. If so, it's definitely something that will need to be kept in mind as Debian moves forward (maybe this is a good place for 'value add' for resellers, esp. if the Debian distribution proper doesn't address it).
I do listen; the problem is, that while people seem happy to say that it was hard, they seem relatively reticent when it comes to pointing out specifics. This is not necessarily their problem; if you flat out don't understand something, it can be difficult to explain to someone what it is you don't understand.
As far as the simple things being unnecessarily complex and obscure, this seems to be the general consensus. I personally don't find it true, though; thus my request for elaboration (and I think your comments are definitely helpful).
So far, I haven't had any problems recommending Debian to people, but most of the people I deal with are familiar with the innards of their computers, and many have previous Unix experience. I'm thinking this makes a bigger difference than I generally give it credit for. I'm also really beginning to believe that Debian is made by people with a certain personality type, and is optimized for that way of thinking. I think this would go a long way toward explaining why some people think Debian installs are cake, while others find it impossible (note that if this is the case, it should probably be changed as soon as is practical).
I've always kind of assumed this as well, but I hear this so much that I'm thinking that there must be some fire to go with all the smoke. I asked for elaboration in a thread above, and there are already a couple of good responses.
I'm starting to think there is more to the 'technical/non-technical personality' issue than I've generally accepted, and this explains the differences in perceptions of Debian's installation process.
I hear this again and again about Debian's lack of ease of installation and configuration, but I just don't see it. I don't mean as compared to Red Hat or Suse, etc. (they might very well be much easier), I mean just in absolute terms. Now admittedly, I like getting into the innards of things more than the average Joe (and this may be the entire explanation), but I've never found installing Debian hard. I've installed more Win95 machines than I can count, and I'll take a Debian installation over that any day of the week. I've also had someone that had terrible problems installing Red Hat (one of the 5.* versions) find happiness after I recommended he try Debian. This may have been because I was able to give more focused help after the switch, though.
Keeping in mind that my viewpoint is most probably warped (I like tinkering with things, and I know more about PC hardware than anyone I know) I would find it helpful if you could point out some problems with it. Not as compared to other distros, but along the lines of things that someone with no previous Linux experience (but with experience installing other OS's) would look at and go "huh?". If the person who posted the first reply to your comment could offer some points as well, that would be great.
Again, I have no illusions that what you say isn't true. But as I am obviously reasonably ignorant of or unaffected by the problems, and I fairly regularly get asked to recommend a distro by people trying Linux for the first time, I'm quite interested in hearing an elaboration of your viewpoint. Thanks.
Keep in mind as well that many 'portal' sites and isps like to have their own customized browsers available. Mozilla has this functionality built into its very core, and it seems they have at least tried to make it easy to use. Couple this with the lack of licensing fees, and I think that this may be one of the biggest markets for Mozilla.
Many of these companies could wind up providing services to publically traded lottery tickets
Interesting comments. Puts me in mind of two things. One is a company that I used to work for that pretty much dominates their field. Their primary business is licensing their intellectual property, and they are privately held. Although it appears to be changing somewhat, their business model depends on the fact that they have noone but themselves to answer to; right before I left, they cancelled a project that had cost millions because the result they got wasn't up to their standards. The point was made that in a publically held corp, they almost certainly would have had to release the product, because the shareholders would have demanded a return on that investment, despite the fact that it might have seriously damaged the reputation that was their main selling point.
It's your second comment, though, that I find most interesting. If you look back on the California gold rush (startling how it parallels the current rush to get in on internet stocks in some ways), you'll find that it did indeed make many people very rich. However, the vast majority of these were not prospectors (most of these finished with nothing); they were the people who provided goods and services to the prospectors. Perhaps a lesson for the (near) future there?
Don't know what program it was (have there been many? Wouldn't think so). Caught it while surfing. My memory may be faulty; if so, my bad. As I've obviously offended you, my apologies. Thanks for putting the record straight.
The thing I saw about it didn't say what he did, just that he worked for NSA. They did say that he was 'posing' as an Air Force member; shows what happens when you trust the media to put accuracy above sensationalism.