First, as regards those who are being mistreated in school as a result of this, the admininstrators are not your friends. Accept this. When you find this isn't true in the case of one individual or group of individuals (rare, but happens), treat them accordingly, but remember that they're there to make things run smoothly. If they can lower their workload by walking all over you, most will do it without hesitation. Expect it.
So what to do? You people are supposed to be smart. God or nature may not have given you beauty or strength, but one of the premises here is that you to have brains. Use them. The letters to Katz show several lawsuits waiting to happen. Be aware that you don't have to file them (I never did). Go to the library. Read the relevant areas of the Constitution. Find some court cases that set precedents that favor your position. When Joe Administrator tries to force you into counseling for speaking your mind, lay it on him calmly, coolly, and with confidence. He will turn tail and hide.
And if this doesn't work? Pick up a pen. "The pen is mightier than the sword" is an old cliche, but it's true. If you know how to use it. When my school implemented a draconian dress code (for no real reason that anyone could ascertain; the vice principal just decided to do it) I wrote a long editorial for the school newspaper. I pointed out the flaws in the reasons given for each specific rule. I did not call names. I did not use inflammatory language. I did use humor. I did cite legal angles. When the vice principal tried to kill the article, he was unsuccessful because he couldn't point to anything that was actually wrong with it other than it kind of made him look stupid. The dress code wasn't repealed as a result of this (it ain't a perfect world), but neither was it enforced. And if he had killed the article? First I would have offered to send it to the local paper along with an explanatory letter to the editor. This will usually work. If that hadn't worked, I would have gone ahead and sent them.
The point is, you need to do what the TCM didn't. Take responsibility for your life. If you can get help from your parents or a teacher do so, but if you can't (I usually didn't) don't just roll over. There is always a way to fight back. You'll have to work harder than you should have to to find it, and you'll lose some frustrating battles, but if you're smart (and you are, right?) and careful, you'll win most. It is worth it. And you'll find that you might not have to wait until you're out of high school to laugh at the people who are putting you down.
You've brought something to mind that I've been wondering about for a while now. I seem to recall, back when the first NT betas were being tested, that NT was being touted both as the replacement to Windows 3.1 and Microsoft's answer to OS/2 (32 bit, multitasking, etc).
I remember that at the time, OS/2 was catching a lot of flack for its heavy hardware requirements (needed 8 megs of RAM!); then reports that NT's were worse started appearing, and next thing you know NT is a 'next generation network operating system' being touted for its excellent security (and this was still quite some time before it was released). So am I right and NT was originally positioned (and written) as a heavier duty desktop operating system, or has someone slipped something into my coffee?
On a (semi) related note about Microsoft's sway over the press: when I saw the first book about using NT hit the shelves, I decided to time how long it was from that point to its actual release. It was just over 13 months.
Ok, I'm obviously on crack. I just saw a Microsoft banner ad at the top of the preview page. Just when you think it's safe to go back in the water...
Disagree with you about Apple, but I liked your post. Linux will never kill Microsoft (they might do it to themselves, though;), but I don't think it needs to. I think your post lays out nicely the reasons why Linux (and perhaps free software in general) is probably here to stay.
What happens when Moore's Law runs out is that people will actually have to think about what they're doing with computers and whether it's necessary.
As an example of what I mean, I worked at a company that spent an enormous amount of money (and about two weeks) upgrading to Office 97 from Office 95. It was a painful transition for various reasons. A lot of 486's that had been fine for their current uses had to be replaced, because they couldn't run '97 properly. We got bitten by some strange incompatibility between our version of '97 and our Japan office's version. Several systems that had been running fine started having all kinds of odd problems that seemed completely unrelated to the upgrade, but hadn't shown up until after the upgrade was done.
So I went to our IT department and asked why we had upgraded. I specifically asked what features we needed that the old software didn't have and the new version did. It turned out that there weren't any. They went through all this upgrade basically because it was available, and because company management didn't want to be seen as being behind the curve by sticking with older software. The fact that the old software worked fine had no bearing on the matter.
Hopefully, when Moore's law begins to fail, people will stop having their computer use driven by marketing and start making decisions based on what actual utility they get from them. So when Microsoft comes out with Office 2010 with new Active Kitchen Sink, people will actually check to see if they need this new feature that's going to slow their computer down by %30, instead of just buying it and a faster computer.
Ok, gotcha. I don't know if it's possible though. Thing is, gzip implements an already free format. When Phil Katz came up with it, he expressly put it in the public domain. Therefore, any program can use it.
The problem with audio 'compression' is that the means of doing it have been patented out the wazoo, which causes problems with other implementations. In as far as compatibility, if it were to happen, you would probably have to have programs that used the free algorithm and also contained an mp3 decoder.
As time goes on, I'm getting more and more intrigued by the idea of (someone) trying this. It would require a lot of disparate skills, and I don't believe the same filesize/quality ratio as in commercial implementations is possible, but perhaps there is a 'good enough'.
There would be a lot of obstacles, not the least of which is that it would probably be better to develop in hardware then move it over, but I'm starting to wonder if it isn't at least worth trying. Would be fun, anyway.;)
Problem with this is, 'audio compression' is not really compression per se. It's done by throwing out parts of the audio that the ear is less sensitive to. So what happens is that these companies do research into what they can throw out or what they can keep, then patent doing that. Now this reeks of patenting a discovery, which AFAIK isn't legal, but it's how things work.
The only way around this that I can see is taking advantage of the fact that the basic concept has been understood for decades. Using 'old knowledge' and implementing it with standard filtering techniques should keep clear of patents and get you file size reduction, but I'm not at all sure that the quality/size ratio would be good enough to make people want to use it.
The other thing to keep in mind (as other people have noted) is that this is not a trivial exercise at the research level. Coding it all up might not take long at all, but figuring out what to code could easily take years.
I think you're on target here. It's funny though, when I started getting into computing as a hobby (back in the DOS days) you couldn't turn around without running into these types of applications (or so it seemed to me at the time). I may have been more sensitive to them because I worked for a small business that did everything on an old Osborne running CP/M(!), but every time my boss wondered out loud what was available if he moved to DOS, I was able to come up with any number of packages (all shareware or free; he was cheap).
Are these things more complex now? Do they do more, or is the programming more complex because of GUI issues? Or is it just that we're talking about a much bigger market, and therefore much bigger systems?
I've always been bothered by the 'ease of use' arguments about Linux. Not that they're not true, but it often seems that even people who should know better say they will sacrifice the day to day stability of their systems for ease in things like program installs & configuration, which happen relatively infrequently.
Here, we have someone with the same complaints, but when it came time to put the money down, which way did it go? I think this is more along the lines of reality; people who are seriously considering Linux for it's benefits (performance and stability) aren't likely to be put off by the install process.
As for the video driver thing, you can blame that on Linux if you want to, but someone should have insured that they could deliver all the machines with a known (compatible) configuration ahead of time. Changing hardware midstream is asking for trouble. I realize it happens, but maybe I shouldn't be blaming my hammer when I run out of nails.
Obviously Babelfish isn't doing the job. For those who don't speak the language:
"I'm a rich white guy. My father is a rich white guy, and his father was a rich white guy. Back in the day, life was good. We told people what they needed, why they needed it, and where to get it, and nobody argued. We kept as many people as possible under our thumbs, 'cause it kept them from getting uppity and upsetting our power base.
Now, you have people speaking up and making their own decisions and all kind of foolishness going on. Some have even gone so far as to think that they can become rich white guys. Is that what this country is founded on? Don't answer that. If you think too hard you might hurt yourself. Just listen to ol' Uncle Moneybags, and everything will be okay.
Tell you what. Make me a hundred shoes a day, and not only will I pay you enough to buy a pair someday, but when you do and then can't afford to eat I'll have some of my friends drop by with some food on holidays. Won't that be nice? Just listen to Uncle M and it'll all be okay. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..."
What is the reasonable probability, from a technical standpoint, that some replacement format might come along anytime soon? Is it even feasible?
Better formats already exist. The problem isn't with the formats, but with the licensing of same. I can compress a whole cd to a 100k file with no loss, but if I charge too much for it or make the licensing too restrictive or otherwise onerous, noone will touch it.
Even if it's likely that there will be a new format, what is the reasonable probability that the new format will be public domain, or that the licensing terms for the format will be as favorable as MP3?
Just about zero. You have to keep in mind what 'audio compression' really is. It's not so much about compression as about perceptual coding. For example, frequencies below approx. 80 hz are non-directional to the human ear. Therefore, you can save some space by making those frequencies mono instead of stereo. Loud sounds mask quiet ones, so you can skip recording the quiet ones without losing sound quality. It's far more complicated than this in practice, but you get the idea.
The problem is that although the basic concepts have been well understood for several decades, the details that result in the high 'compression' that we see today come from extensive research done by the companies who license these technologies. So in order to ensure a good return on investment, they patent the hell out of everything they can. This might not be a huge problem, but the human ear only works one way. If all the ways to remove information the ear doesn't need/use are patented, then the ability to come up with a useful public domain compression algorithm is gone. And now that it has been shown that there is a large demand for this type of technology, loose licensing is probably a thing of the past as well.
You can't just start the install and walk away, because some scripts are interactive and ask you questions.
FYI, you can set it up to do unattended installs. There is(are?) option(s) to give the scripts default answers at install time. I've never used this option personally, so I can't give you specifics (sorry), but I've spoken to several people who use it regularly. Check the docs.
The company that makes Tylenol was held accountable for the deaths of 7 people when someone put cyanide in some acetominophen capsules and replaced them on store shelves.
They were held liable because it was found that they could have reasonably known that at some point someone could attempt to do such a thing, and had taken no steps to prevent it.
Point that logic at the Melissa virus. Microsoft made it possible, they know it's possible, and they've taken virtually no action to prevent it. If liability under the law is consistent, shouldn't they be held at least partially liable?
Many have pointed out the terms of the EULA as being Microsoft's ace in the whole, in that they disclaim any and all liability. I would just like to point out that AFAIK, EULA's have yet to be shown to be valid contracts, and additionally, many jurisdictions have laws specifically outlawing this type of disclaimer.
Just wanted to comment on some of your comments.;)
When Andreesen left to form (what became) Netscape, I believe he paid $100,000 for the code he took with him. So, who's more to blame, the school for selling the code, or him for buying it? I don't know. I suppose it depends on your personal viewpoint. Note that I"m not aware if he only licensed the code (leaving it still available for others to use) or bought it outright.
And while you are correct that about the Netscape only tags, there is another side to that story as well (one I have heard many times from my wife, who does web development). The tags they put in defined capabilities that at the time didn't exist. So a case could be made that Netscape didn't want to wait for the traditional standards process to define that functionality; they wanted to give it to their customers right away. Also, AFAIK, all of their tags were well documented and all other browser makers were free to implement them (as Microsoft did in IE). It wasn't quite 'embrace and extend' in the way that Microsoft practices it.
This isn't to say anything you said is wrong, but I do think that there is another side to the story and the reality of the situation was not quite as bleak as you made it out to be.
Feel free to correct any factual errors I may have made, though.;)
Hopefully though, if a person has something they really want to say they will say it. There will be plenty of other people to moderate the first posts, etc. Especially when you consider that they can only go down a maximum of two points (if posted while logged in).
One other effect I haven't seen mentioned, which I think is important. The way Rob is talking about setting this up will discourage people from moderating in threads where they're emotionally involved; they'll want to post instead. This can only have a positive effect on objectivity.
Interestingly enough, they had a horrible time getting a working player out the door, let alone a good one. The first sales trial of Divx was delayed a couple of times, ostensibly because the studios hadn't put out as many titles as Rick Sharp promised they would (which is true; they hadn't), but actually because they couldn't get the players working reliably. There was some speculation for a while that they wouldn't get them working at all.
'Course, when you have the country's largest electronics retailer team up with a Beverly Hills law firm to define a new technology, I guess getting something that works at all (let alone well) is a victory.
...Microsoft's doing. But they really helped get computers into the mainstream (something IBM could never do...
You're either very young or have a very poor memory. It was IBM that almost single handedly brought personal computers into the mainstream back in the early eighties. Microsoft rode IBM's coattails into prominence as a result.
IBM may have handled the PC business badly after it exploded (I think few would dispute this), but make no mistake: it was them behind the explosion.
I think a lot of the hubbub over different licenses is due to differing ideas over what people want to do with the code.
Some people want access to the code so the programs that they like and use will work better. Licenses like the APSL are no problem in this case.
Some people want access to the code so they can learn coding techniques from "the big boys". Again, the APSL is perfectly serviceable.
Some people want access so they can use the code in their own projects. Of those, some want it to avoid duplication of work. Some want it to avoid doing work. In these cases, the APSL can be a real problem. But then again, so can the GPL, depending on what your goals are. It's all a matter of perspective.
This is slightly complicated by the fact that someone has tried to put a strict definition on the words 'open source'. And that term now has some cachet. So you're going to see companies trying to cash in on that by giving as little as they possibly can. Noone should be surprised at this. It's the nature of business. Let's face facts, people. If you were one of Apple's major shareholders, you would be the first at Jobs' door with a pitchfork if he GPL'd OS X.
I think what is happening here is not a disaster in the making. It's the future in the making. Mistakes will be made along the way. Maybe trying to define 'Open Source' was a mistake. We'll see. But none of this is going to happen overnight. It has to grow in fits and starts, just like everything else. It's just that in this case, we all get to see it happening and in whatever way, participate. You may think it's a disaster waiting to happen, and it may be from your perspective. Personally, I'm kind of enjoying watching it evolve.
ESR's not going anywhere. Why do I say that? Because despite what some of you seem to believe, getting into the position he's in doesn't happen by accident. He's had to work for it. Hard. And it's because he wants to be there. Badly.
Now before you start flaming, realize something. That he wants to be there and works hard at being there is not a bad thing. In fact, it's inevitable. Someone will take that position if it's open. This time it happened to be someone who has been around 'the bandwagon' for a while. It easily could have been someone who just hopped on. I know none of you would ever admit it, but I'm fairly certain most of the people reading this first heard of ESR through his 'evangelizing', not his coding. If someone else had gotten in early and started making big noise with the corps, it really wouldn't have mattered who they were as long as they sounded good and provided a focal point.
Now, I'm really not sure how tongue-in-cheek this little essay is (more than a little, I'd wager), but it does make a couple of good points. That you have to want to be in that position. And once in that position you're a huge target. So when you screw up (and you will; we're all human) the napalm will flow. It really is part of the territory. There's no doubt in my mind that ESR knows that, and is willing to live with it. No doubt he's really feeling it right now, and wanted to vent a little. No prob.
Just keep in mind that whether you like him or not, or agree with him or not, he or someone like him is going to be in that position. It's How Things Work(TM). So those of you who don't like Eric Raymond, Open Source Frontman, keep the flames coming and maybe he'll change his behavior more to your liking, or maybe he'll leave and let someone else take over. But those of you who just don't like having a frontman, IMNSHO you're wasting your time. The question isn't whether there will be someone who professes to speak for the community; the question is only who it will be.
To take the "predatory pricing" phrise, for example, I can see no distinction that can be drawn between "fair" price competition and "predatory" competition.
Which means that no distinction exists, right? I would submit that the case law shows how the definitions are applied in specific instances. Now, I suppose you could interpret that as changing them to fit the current bad guy if you really wanted to; and as you said, you've let your biases show.
What about the tax code? It has been around for over fifty years, and there is not a lawyer alive who understands all of it. It is riddled with arbitrary, vague, and even contradictory rules. The fact that a law is old does not make it good.
Don't confuse complex with arbitrary and vague. And although I have to give you that tax law can seem arbitrary at times (it's usually a case of not knowing the motivation behind it, rather than there not being one, though) it's hardly vague.
As far as beating up corporations being a good way to score political points, that's only true sometimes, depending on the political climate. There have been times in American history when doing that was sure political suicide. Contrast that with a given official's ability to get elected with and without large corporate support. Then wonder why those same politicians that take millions in lobbying (and other) money still allow anti-trust law to exist. Do you really think if big business in America wanted to eliminate anti-trust it would still be in effect? Keep in mind that Microsoft benefitted enormously from IBM's anti-trust problems with the U.S. Gov't. It's only now that they're on the other side that they have a problem with it.
I disagree. I have no moral qualms about breaking laws that I believe to be unjust. The fact that some Congressman says I should do something does not obligate me to do it.
Which is easily your most illuminating statement. Someday, though, you'll grow up and move out into the real world; perhaps then you'll understand it better. Or perhaps everybody should adopt your attitude, and I can send somebody "with no moral qualms" and a bad attitude 'round to discuss how I feel about people who disagree with me.;)
Perhaps what you meant to say is that you don't need to? Just because a given capability doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that nobody wants or needs it.
I also have a feeling that were it possible to recompile the NT kernel with only the necessary hardware support and no GUI, people would be doing it every day. Now, people don't necessarily need to do this in Linux. But they can if they so choose. And that, my friend, makes all the difference.
As I posted above, antitrust law is arbitrary, vague, and over-reaching
Okay. You've said that twice. You've said nothing to actually back it up or show why it might be true. I can say the sky is green an infinite number of times; oh, look, it's still blue.
When laws are passed, whether vague or not, they will get challenged in court. Those challenges either get the law struck down or set precedents which focus the intent and coverage of the law. Anti-trust law is over one hundred years old. The chances that it is arbitrary and vague are just about zero. Whether or not it is over-reaching is a matter of opinion, but I doubt it would have lasted this long if many people (and let's be honest, large corporations) thought that. Also, let us not forget that just because you, Bill Gates, or anybody else doesn't like a law doesn't make it okay to break it.
As for IE, selling a product for less than it cost to manufacture in order to gain market share is called dumping, and it is illegal. Simple as that.
Yep, my Linux box can do that. Or, I can recompile the kernel and compile in support for only the hardware I need, and not have a significant portion of my kernel be sitting there in memory doing nothing. I can also do it from across town, or from across the world for that matter. Can NT do that?
Slashdot Mirror
First, as regards those who are being mistreated in school as a result of this, the admininstrators are not your friends. Accept this. When you find this isn't true in the case of one individual or group of individuals (rare, but happens), treat them accordingly, but remember that they're there to make things run smoothly. If they can lower their workload by walking all over you, most will do it without hesitation. Expect it.
So what to do? You people are supposed to be smart. God or nature may not have given you beauty or strength, but one of the premises here is that you to have brains. Use them. The letters to Katz show several lawsuits waiting to happen. Be aware that you don't have to file them (I never did). Go to the library. Read the relevant areas of the Constitution. Find some court cases that set precedents that favor your position. When Joe Administrator tries to force you into counseling for speaking your mind, lay it on him calmly, coolly, and with confidence. He will turn tail and hide.
And if this doesn't work? Pick up a pen. "The pen is mightier than the sword" is an old cliche, but it's true. If you know how to use it. When my school implemented a draconian dress code (for no real reason that anyone could ascertain; the vice principal just decided to do it) I wrote a long editorial for the school newspaper. I pointed out the flaws in the reasons given for each specific rule. I did not call names. I did not use inflammatory language. I did use humor. I did cite legal angles. When the vice principal tried to kill the article, he was unsuccessful because he couldn't point to anything that was actually wrong with it other than it kind of made him look stupid. The dress code wasn't repealed as a result of this (it ain't a perfect world), but neither was it enforced. And if he had killed the article? First I would have offered to send it to the local paper along with an explanatory letter to the editor. This will usually work. If that hadn't worked, I would have gone ahead and sent them.
The point is, you need to do what the TCM didn't. Take responsibility for your life. If you can get help from your parents or a teacher do so, but if you can't (I usually didn't) don't just roll over. There is always a way to fight back. You'll have to work harder than you should have to to find it, and you'll lose some frustrating battles, but if you're smart (and you are, right?) and careful, you'll win most. It is worth it. And you'll find that you might not have to wait until you're out of high school to laugh at the people who are putting you down.
Didn't they change the name back to DR-DOS? I seem to recall that they decided they wanted the brand recognition.
I remember that at the time, OS/2 was catching a lot of flack for its heavy hardware requirements (needed 8 megs of RAM!); then reports that NT's were worse started appearing, and next thing you know NT is a 'next generation network operating system' being touted for its excellent security (and this was still quite some time before it was released). So am I right and NT was originally positioned (and written) as a heavier duty desktop operating system, or has someone slipped something into my coffee?
On a (semi) related note about Microsoft's sway over the press: when I saw the first book about using NT hit the shelves, I decided to time how long it was from that point to its actual release. It was just over 13 months.
Ok, I'm obviously on crack. I just saw a Microsoft banner ad at the top of the preview page. Just when you think it's safe to go back in the water...
Disagree with you about Apple, but I liked your post. Linux will never kill Microsoft (they might do it to themselves, though ;), but I don't think it needs to. I think your post lays out nicely the reasons why Linux (and perhaps free software in general) is probably here to stay.
Even so, he's not going anywhere. Can you imagine what would happen to MS' stock price if he left?
As an example of what I mean, I worked at a company that spent an enormous amount of money (and about two weeks) upgrading to Office 97 from Office 95. It was a painful transition for various reasons. A lot of 486's that had been fine for their current uses had to be replaced, because they couldn't run '97 properly. We got bitten by some strange incompatibility between our version of '97 and our Japan office's version. Several systems that had been running fine started having all kinds of odd problems that seemed completely unrelated to the upgrade, but hadn't shown up until after the upgrade was done.
So I went to our IT department and asked why we had upgraded. I specifically asked what features we needed that the old software didn't have and the new version did. It turned out that there weren't any. They went through all this upgrade basically because it was available, and because company management didn't want to be seen as being behind the curve by sticking with older software. The fact that the old software worked fine had no bearing on the matter.
Hopefully, when Moore's law begins to fail, people will stop having their computer use driven by marketing and start making decisions based on what actual utility they get from them. So when Microsoft comes out with Office 2010 with new Active Kitchen Sink, people will actually check to see if they need this new feature that's going to slow their computer down by %30, instead of just buying it and a faster computer.
Ok, gotcha. I don't know if it's possible though. Thing is, gzip implements an already free format. When Phil Katz came up with it, he expressly put it in the public domain. Therefore, any program can use it.
The problem with audio 'compression' is that the means of doing it have been patented out the wazoo, which causes problems with other implementations. In as far as compatibility, if it were to happen, you would probably have to have programs that used the free algorithm and also contained an mp3 decoder.
As time goes on, I'm getting more and more intrigued by the idea of (someone) trying this. It would require a lot of disparate skills, and I don't believe the same filesize/quality ratio as in commercial implementations is possible, but perhaps there is a 'good enough'.
There would be a lot of obstacles, not the least of which is that it would probably be better to develop in hardware then move it over, but I'm starting to wonder if it isn't at least worth trying. Would be fun, anyway. ;)
Problem with this is, 'audio compression' is not really compression per se. It's done by throwing out parts of the audio that the ear is less sensitive to. So what happens is that these companies do research into what they can throw out or what they can keep, then patent doing that. Now this reeks of patenting a discovery, which AFAIK isn't legal, but it's how things work.
The only way around this that I can see is taking advantage of the fact that the basic concept has been understood for decades. Using 'old knowledge' and implementing it with standard filtering techniques should keep clear of patents and get you file size reduction, but I'm not at all sure that the quality/size ratio would be good enough to make people want to use it.
The other thing to keep in mind (as other people have noted) is that this is not a trivial exercise at the research level. Coding it all up might not take long at all, but figuring out what to code could easily take years.
Are these things more complex now? Do they do more, or is the programming more complex because of GUI issues? Or is it just that we're talking about a much bigger market, and therefore much bigger systems?
Here, we have someone with the same complaints, but when it came time to put the money down, which way did it go? I think this is more along the lines of reality; people who are seriously considering Linux for it's benefits (performance and stability) aren't likely to be put off by the install process.
As for the video driver thing, you can blame that on Linux if you want to, but someone should have insured that they could deliver all the machines with a known (compatible) configuration ahead of time. Changing hardware midstream is asking for trouble. I realize it happens, but maybe I shouldn't be blaming my hammer when I run out of nails.
"I'm a rich white guy. My father is a rich white guy, and his father was a rich white guy. Back in the day, life was good. We told people what they needed, why they needed it, and where to get it, and nobody argued. We kept as many people as possible under our thumbs, 'cause it kept them from getting uppity and upsetting our power base.
Now, you have people speaking up and making their own decisions and all kind of foolishness going on. Some have even gone so far as to think that they can become rich white guys. Is that what this country is founded on? Don't answer that. If you think too hard you might hurt yourself. Just listen to ol' Uncle Moneybags, and everything will be okay.
Tell you what. Make me a hundred shoes a day, and not only will I pay you enough to buy a pair someday, but when you do and then can't afford to eat I'll have some of my friends drop by with some food on holidays. Won't that be nice? Just listen to Uncle M and it'll all be okay. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..."
Better formats already exist. The problem isn't with the formats, but with the licensing of same. I can compress a whole cd to a 100k file with no loss, but if I charge too much for it or make the licensing too restrictive or otherwise onerous, noone will touch it.
Even if it's likely that there will be a new format, what is the reasonable probability that the new format will be public domain, or that the licensing terms for the format will be as favorable as MP3?
Just about zero. You have to keep in mind what 'audio compression' really is. It's not so much about compression as about perceptual coding. For example, frequencies below approx. 80 hz are non-directional to the human ear. Therefore, you can save some space by making those frequencies mono instead of stereo. Loud sounds mask quiet ones, so you can skip recording the quiet ones without losing sound quality. It's far more complicated than this in practice, but you get the idea.
The problem is that although the basic concepts have been well understood for several decades, the details that result in the high 'compression' that we see today come from extensive research done by the companies who license these technologies. So in order to ensure a good return on investment, they patent the hell out of everything they can. This might not be a huge problem, but the human ear only works one way. If all the ways to remove information the ear doesn't need/use are patented, then the ability to come up with a useful public domain compression algorithm is gone. And now that it has been shown that there is a large demand for this type of technology, loose licensing is probably a thing of the past as well.
Maybe just different animals for different kernels - penguin for Linux, gnu for Hurd, etc?
FYI, you can set it up to do unattended installs. There is(are?) option(s) to give the scripts default answers at install time. I've never used this option personally, so I can't give you specifics (sorry), but I've spoken to several people who use it regularly. Check the docs.
They were held liable because it was found that they could have reasonably known that at some point someone could attempt to do such a thing, and had taken no steps to prevent it.
Point that logic at the Melissa virus. Microsoft made it possible, they know it's possible, and they've taken virtually no action to prevent it. If liability under the law is consistent, shouldn't they be held at least partially liable?
Many have pointed out the terms of the EULA as being Microsoft's ace in the whole, in that they disclaim any and all liability. I would just like to point out that AFAIK, EULA's have yet to be shown to be valid contracts, and additionally, many jurisdictions have laws specifically outlawing this type of disclaimer.
When Andreesen left to form (what became) Netscape, I believe he paid $100,000 for the code he took with him. So, who's more to blame, the school for selling the code, or him for buying it? I don't know. I suppose it depends on your personal viewpoint. Note that I"m not aware if he only licensed the code (leaving it still available for others to use) or bought it outright.
And while you are correct that about the Netscape only tags, there is another side to that story as well (one I have heard many times from my wife, who does web development). The tags they put in defined capabilities that at the time didn't exist. So a case could be made that Netscape didn't want to wait for the traditional standards process to define that functionality; they wanted to give it to their customers right away. Also, AFAIK, all of their tags were well documented and all other browser makers were free to implement them (as Microsoft did in IE). It wasn't quite 'embrace and extend' in the way that Microsoft practices it.
This isn't to say anything you said is wrong, but I do think that there is another side to the story and the reality of the situation was not quite as bleak as you made it out to be.
Feel free to correct any factual errors I may have made, though. ;)
One other effect I haven't seen mentioned, which I think is important. The way Rob is talking about setting this up will discourage people from moderating in threads where they're emotionally involved; they'll want to post instead. This can only have a positive effect on objectivity.
'Course, when you have the country's largest electronics retailer team up with a Beverly Hills law firm to define a new technology, I guess getting something that works at all (let alone well) is a victory.
You're either very young or have a very poor memory. It was IBM that almost single handedly brought personal computers into the mainstream back in the early eighties. Microsoft rode IBM's coattails into prominence as a result.
IBM may have handled the PC business badly after it exploded (I think few would dispute this), but make no mistake: it was them behind the explosion.
Some people want access to the code so the programs that they like and use will work better. Licenses like the APSL are no problem in this case.
Some people want access to the code so they can learn coding techniques from "the big boys". Again, the APSL is perfectly serviceable.
Some people want access so they can use the code in their own projects. Of those, some want it to avoid duplication of work. Some want it to avoid doing work. In these cases, the APSL can be a real problem. But then again, so can the GPL, depending on what your goals are. It's all a matter of perspective.
This is slightly complicated by the fact that someone has tried to put a strict definition on the words 'open source'. And that term now has some cachet. So you're going to see companies trying to cash in on that by giving as little as they possibly can. Noone should be surprised at this. It's the nature of business. Let's face facts, people. If you were one of Apple's major shareholders, you would be the first at Jobs' door with a pitchfork if he GPL'd OS X.
I think what is happening here is not a disaster in the making. It's the future in the making. Mistakes will be made along the way. Maybe trying to define 'Open Source' was a mistake. We'll see. But none of this is going to happen overnight. It has to grow in fits and starts, just like everything else. It's just that in this case, we all get to see it happening and in whatever way, participate. You may think it's a disaster waiting to happen, and it may be from your perspective. Personally, I'm kind of enjoying watching it evolve.
Now before you start flaming, realize something. That he wants to be there and works hard at being there is not a bad thing. In fact, it's inevitable. Someone will take that position if it's open. This time it happened to be someone who has been around 'the bandwagon' for a while. It easily could have been someone who just hopped on. I know none of you would ever admit it, but I'm fairly certain most of the people reading this first heard of ESR through his 'evangelizing', not his coding. If someone else had gotten in early and started making big noise with the corps, it really wouldn't have mattered who they were as long as they sounded good and provided a focal point.
Now, I'm really not sure how tongue-in-cheek this little essay is (more than a little, I'd wager), but it does make a couple of good points. That you have to want to be in that position. And once in that position you're a huge target. So when you screw up (and you will; we're all human) the napalm will flow. It really is part of the territory. There's no doubt in my mind that ESR knows that, and is willing to live with it. No doubt he's really feeling it right now, and wanted to vent a little. No prob.
Just keep in mind that whether you like him or not, or agree with him or not, he or someone like him is going to be in that position. It's How Things Work(TM). So those of you who don't like Eric Raymond, Open Source Frontman, keep the flames coming and maybe he'll change his behavior more to your liking, or maybe he'll leave and let someone else take over. But those of you who just don't like having a frontman, IMNSHO you're wasting your time. The question isn't whether there will be someone who professes to speak for the community; the question is only who it will be.
Which means that no distinction exists, right? I would submit that the case law shows how the definitions are applied in specific instances. Now, I suppose you could interpret that as changing them to fit the current bad guy if you really wanted to; and as you said, you've let your biases show.
What about the tax code? It has been around for over fifty years, and there is not a lawyer alive who understands all of it. It is riddled with arbitrary, vague, and even contradictory rules. The fact that a law is old does not make it good.
Don't confuse complex with arbitrary and vague. And although I have to give you that tax law can seem arbitrary at times (it's usually a case of not knowing the motivation behind it, rather than there not being one, though) it's hardly vague.
As far as beating up corporations being a good way to score political points, that's only true sometimes, depending on the political climate. There have been times in American history when doing that was sure political suicide. Contrast that with a given official's ability to get elected with and without large corporate support. Then wonder why those same politicians that take millions in lobbying (and other) money still allow anti-trust law to exist. Do you really think if big business in America wanted to eliminate anti-trust it would still be in effect? Keep in mind that Microsoft benefitted enormously from IBM's anti-trust problems with the U.S. Gov't. It's only now that they're on the other side that they have a problem with it.
I disagree. I have no moral qualms about breaking laws that I believe to be unjust. The fact that some Congressman says I should do something does not obligate me to do it.
Which is easily your most illuminating statement. Someday, though, you'll grow up and move out into the real world; perhaps then you'll understand it better. Or perhaps everybody should adopt your attitude, and I can send somebody "with no moral qualms" and a bad attitude 'round to discuss how I feel about people who disagree with me. ;)
Perhaps what you meant to say is that you don't need to? Just because a given capability doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that nobody wants or needs it.
I also have a feeling that were it possible to recompile the NT kernel with only the necessary hardware support and no GUI, people would be doing it every day. Now, people don't necessarily need to do this in Linux. But they can if they so choose. And that, my friend, makes all the difference.
Okay. You've said that twice. You've said nothing to actually back it up or show why it might be true. I can say the sky is green an infinite number of times; oh, look, it's still blue.
When laws are passed, whether vague or not, they will get challenged in court. Those challenges either get the law struck down or set precedents which focus the intent and coverage of the law. Anti-trust law is over one hundred years old. The chances that it is arbitrary and vague are just about zero. Whether or not it is over-reaching is a matter of opinion, but I doubt it would have lasted this long if many people (and let's be honest, large corporations) thought that. Also, let us not forget that just because you, Bill Gates, or anybody else doesn't like a law doesn't make it okay to break it.
As for IE, selling a product for less than it cost to manufacture in order to gain market share is called dumping, and it is illegal. Simple as that.
Yep, my Linux box can do that. Or, I can recompile the kernel and compile in support for only the hardware I need, and not have a significant portion of my kernel be sitting there in memory doing nothing. I can also do it from across town, or from across the world for that matter. Can NT do that?