After reading the ABC news story, this sounds like the case that was announced several months ago is finally going to trial.
IIRC, in that case, Intel was being accused of licensing their technology to various other companies, then refusing to deliver the info unless those companies gave up trade secrets that were germain to areas Intel might want to enter, but were not part of the original license agreement. Kind of like what Microsoft has done with some of their licensing agreements;).
I know that this was the crux of the matter with Intergraph; I'm not sure how AMD & Cyrix fit in. In any event, the case wasn't about Intel being a monopoly; it was about them using their market muscle to avoid fulfilling their contractual agreements. I hope that's still all it's about.
I suppose I read this differently, but I assumed he was talking about Linux and the various BSD's, not fragmentation within Linux.
One major difference that I think is worth pointing out, however, is that (AFAIK) the commercial Unix variants were not binary compatible, while there is a fair amount of that already in the free Unix world (and even some in the commercial world). Also, by definition, it's much easier to get a piece of free software working on any given system; all it takes is one of many thousands of users to port it, and you're off and running. I think this makes a lot of the 'fragmentation' a lot less deadly.
I think the trick here is not to let marketing forces do to free unix what they did to commercial unix, which is define the terms. IOW, don't make things any more incompatible than is absolutely necessary, and don't refer to it as 'fragmentation'; call it 'competition'.
I normally stay out of the Katz discussions (he's not really my cup of tea), but insight from another perspective is exactly what you get from him.
Granted, it's from more of a "don't know much about it but like it so far" feelgood angle than you would normally find around here, but that makes it no less valid.
Really, I'm not sure why it bothers so many. As I said, he's not the type of writer I enjoy reading, so I usually just skip it (checked in today to see what people had to say about his book). You can do that too. It's okay.
And remember, getting another perspective is just like getting another opinion. You may get it, but you might not like it.
Letting people with different viewpoints participate is a far cry from letting people subvert your goals.
As to why, it would seem self evident. Free software improves and grows in an evolutionary process. By locking people into one mindset, you've just eliminated one of the major sources of change. I agree with you that Debian is the best distribution. I think it got there by expressly not doing this.
And again, I have a real problem with holding so tightly to the free software mantle then basically saying "yes, it's free as in speech, as long as you don't say it here."
Everyone who applies for maintainership gets a short interview, where we also ask the applier if he understands the Debian Free Software Guidelines. This filters out most people who don't support the FSF philosophy.
This, in combination with some discussion I've seen on the Debian lists about requiring maintainers to agree with DFSG (and/or FSF?) as well as abide by them makes me very nervous. Free software in general, and Linux and Debian in particular, have gotten where they are because everybody is able to contribute. Allowing input only from people who agree with you is fine if you are never wrong; in the real world, it is a sure path to disaster. This is completely apart from the irony of a "free as in speech" software distribution requiring that you think a certain way in order to participate.
Realize that I don't think this is a problem at present; but things are definitely showing signs of heading that way.
I really like Debian; I don't want to see it go away. That a distribution put together and maintained entirely by volunteers is so successful is an amazing accomplishment. A quick look at Debian's history will show that this is because of the enormous number of dissenting opinions that have been dealt with, not because there weren't any.
Debian has certain ways it wants things done. This is fine. The maintainers should be made aware of this and expected to comply. However, doing the equivalent of requiring membership in a specific political party as a price of admission, IMNSHO, is a huge mistake.
While I agree with most of your points, the last figures I saw (good to the end of 1997, IIRC) show that net bandwidth has been increasing by 4% - 5% greater than net use on a per year basis. So while it may not be being put to good use, available bandwidth appears to be one place the net is actually getting better.
It would be interesting to see if what (if anything) Texas state law has to say on this matter. It should seem obvious that it's allowed else we wouldn't be reading about it, but I gotta wonder.
I recall a case here in California about a man who left one employer for another in the same business in violation of a non-compete clause in the NDA he signed upon employment. Now, many people don't seem to know it (and many employers deny it), but non-compete contracts are illegal in California. There is a specific law disallowing them. So you would have thougt this guy was home free, right?
Nope. The company he left sued him. They also got an injunction forbidding him from working in the field until the case was settled. They then threatened to sue any employer who hired him if they were in a similar business. He won in the end, of course. After all, the non-compete clause was illegal. But he went bankrupt fighting it. And you can imagine what his career prospects were like after a protracted legal battle with his previous employer.
Just another way of ensuring that 'employee' translates to 'property'. I wonder if this guy has asked the ACLU to weigh in on this?
The law I was referring to regards someone removing items from your home or property. If youth in the first email removes the hubcaps from your car during the day, and you see him from your living room window, you can call the police, chase him off, what have you. After dark, as long as you believe he is trying to remove your property, you may kill him. There does not even have to be the perception of danger to your person.
There was a large uproar back in the eighties over this law (which was enacted last century) when a man killed someone who was trying to repossess his pickup. When he tried to turn himself in he found out that since it was dark when it happened, it wasn't illegal. He later committed suicide.
The Texas legislature reviewed the law after this incident and decided to leave it in force.
No. Nothing is always better. As for GIMP and Photoshop, I've got both here (wife uses Photoshop extensively, haven't convinced her to try GIMP) and I'm not sure they're as similar as people make them out to be.
There are things that Photoshop does without much effort, that GIMP doesn't do or makes you jump through hoops for. On the other hand, GIMP's most popular use (creating graphics for the web) kinda sucks under Photoshop; my wife often resorts to an older version of Paint Shop Pro for certain things when she's in a hurry. I'm also not aware of any extensive scripting abilities in Photoshop, a very nice feature of GIMP.
I think the question should be "does it do what I want/need?". Many people who use Photoshop will find that answer to be no for GIMP, but many will find it to be yes. The big plus for Free Software, I think, is that the possibility is always there to have any feature you need, and to make the quality as high as you want it. This is rarely true of proprietary software.
I've only been using Linux full time for about 18 months, but it's been my experience thus far that if there is a feature or program you want that doesn't exist yet, wait a minute. It's probably on it's way. In the meantime, use what you've got. I'll warn you though, if you're not already a steady Linux user, once you get used to it it's awfully hard to put up with Windows.
I can't say for sure because his page is down, but it sounds like he could easily call his domain a parody of the toysrus name. He might just want to send them a reply reminding them that parody is protected by the constitution and under fair use laws and see what they have to say.
The people who run that site have shown themselves to be rather antagonistic toward the linux community in general (and Slashdot in particular). The were behind the LSA, which if you don't remember/aren't aware of it, was basically a thinly veiled money/power grab attempt. Their reaction to the outcry over it was unfortunate, to say the least.
This sort of activity and the customer fallout it generates is exactly why the banking industry lobbies congress so hard to make it difficult to join credit unions. My wife and I have both been cu members for > 15 years & wouldn't give it up for any standard bank.
On another note, I've heard that in Britian it's illegal to keep personal information about someone in a database without that person's express written permission (can anyone confirm/deny, or know of other countries that do this?). Probably far past time for that type of legislation in the U.S.
In any case, the few minutes it takes to write your congress-critter & express your views can only help.
So, when one of the first ships came into the boston harbor carring the legale tea the people of Boston (not in mass, the majority were probably loyal to the crown at this time) planed, and one night snuck into all the ships and threw all the tea overboard.
I think you're leaving out a rather important point. They didn't just arbitrarily do this 'cause they were pissed. They refused the shipment first, because they hadn't asked for it and were unwilling to pay the tax. The governor of Boston (a British government official) refused to let the ship leave harbor until the import duties were paid. The dumping of the tea was kind of a symbolic flipping of the bird to the British government.
The (often overlooked) point being that they tried to do it the 'proper' way first, and only resorted to vandalism out of frustration as a way to call attention to the inequities of the situation.
Gotta admit it was pretty effective if people are still talking about it over 200 years later;-).
No. He's right. One hundred percent. If you want Linux to succeed, and to supplant Windows (the wrong thing to shoot for IMO) then this guy's needs have to be addressed. While your two statements regarding Linux are true, they don't address the issue. If his needs are very different than yours, then don't bother offering your opinion: it's irrelevent.
As for whining not accomplishing anything, you are absolutely right. Unfortunately you were the one who was whining.
If you want people to move from Windows to Linux, you have to offer them alternatives to the software they're using now. Asking them to just quit doing those activities won't hack it. It should go without saying, but calling them names really won't hack it.
I think this whole war against Microsoft attitude people have is a mistake, but that's just my opinion. I'm sure you have your own. Keep this in mind, though. If your only response to someone who points out your weaknesses and the opponents strengths is personal attacks, you've already lost.
Class actions can be useful, but it depends on what it is you want. If you want to get some cash, forget it. The lawyer(s) will get nearly half of whatever settlement is arrived at, and the rest will be split among the plaintiffs. It will amount to cents per person, if that.
If your intention is to stick it to Microsoft and set a precedent, then that might well be worth doing. A lawyer might well be willing to try if there appears to be a reasonable chance of winning, for the reason mentioned above. It could be like hitting the lottery if they won.
Unless trademark law has been changed recently (and it may have been; you no longer have to be in the same business to be infringing a trademark, for instance) trademarks offer no protection against someone who is using their own name. If you are foolish enough to trademark a common name, you will have to live with the possibility that someone with that name will also use it, or (quite possibly) that you will lose the mark altogether.
Of course, there is no doubt in my mind that Archie comics is hoping that these people cave without researching the issue.
I'm not sure what you think was acrimonious. The interviewer kept baiting RMS to bash Linus, and RMS gave Linus the credit he deserves and explained what his differences with Linus were.
RMS seemed remarkably unruffled considering the antagonistic nature of the questions, IMHO.
I think, however, that a lot of you are falling for Microsoft's ploy. They would like you to focus on the retail price of the software, because that looks good for them. However, the article talks about a 35% - 40% profit margin for Microsoft vs. a 6% average for the industry. This is where the meat of the argument lies.
It's interesting to note (to me, at least) that the fact that they can do this satisfies the definition of monopoly under anti-trust law.
The question that arises is how they manage to have profit margins that are six times higher than the rest of the industry. Microsoft would have you believe that it's because they sell superior software, but it doesn't take much inspection for that premise to fall apart. A close look will show you that if you remove Windows' dominant market share, the whole house of cards comes tumblin' down.
If Windows doesn't have the vast majority of the market, can they get away with raising licensing fees of OEM's who offer alternatives? No - the OEM's will stick to those alternatives and leave Windows in the cold.
If Windows doesn't have that market share they also can't get away with raising licensing fees for OEM's who don't also want to license Office; this makes the market for office suites much more competitive, as people aren't faced with the prospect of replacing software they already have. In Microsoft's defense, they couldn't get away with this if Office weren't adequate to the task at hand, but as the market atrophies that adequacy becomes less and less necessary.
Also, I think it deserves bearing in mind that Microsoft got where they are today in no small part through the government's restraint of IBM. The government protected them (and others) when Big Blue could have squashed them flat. Don't cry for them when they get a taste of their own medicine.
Yeah, I suppose that makes sense. Also a real PITA if you decide to go with a standard DVD player in the future; gotta keep the Divx player around forever (or for as long as they support the movies you've bought).
Y'know, the more I think about this the more I think Rick Sharp needs a good ass whippin'.
they're not encrypted or anything hokey, are they?
Um, actually, that's exactly what they are. Add to that things like the fact that you unlock a player's ability to play a disc, not the disc itself; so even if you pay for unlimited play, you can't play it on any other player. I'm not sure how upgrading your player is handled; I would think they wouldn't force you to throw out your whole movie collection, but this thing is such an obvious money grab I wouldn't put it past 'em.
If I may borrow a line from Nancy Reagan - Just Say No!
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC, in that case, Intel was being accused of licensing their technology to various other companies, then refusing to deliver the info unless those companies gave up trade secrets that were germain to areas Intel might want to enter, but were not part of the original license agreement. Kind of like what Microsoft has done with some of their licensing agreements ;).
I know that this was the crux of the matter with Intergraph; I'm not sure how AMD & Cyrix fit in. In any event, the case wasn't about Intel being a monopoly; it was about them using their market muscle to avoid fulfilling their contractual agreements. I hope that's still all it's about.
One major difference that I think is worth pointing out, however, is that (AFAIK) the commercial Unix variants were not binary compatible, while there is a fair amount of that already in the free Unix world (and even some in the commercial world). Also, by definition, it's much easier to get a piece of free software working on any given system; all it takes is one of many thousands of users to port it, and you're off and running. I think this makes a lot of the 'fragmentation' a lot less deadly.
I think the trick here is not to let marketing forces do to free unix what they did to commercial unix, which is define the terms. IOW, don't make things any more incompatible than is absolutely necessary, and don't refer to it as 'fragmentation'; call it 'competition'.
Granted, it's from more of a "don't know much about it but like it so far" feelgood angle than you would normally find around here, but that makes it no less valid.
Really, I'm not sure why it bothers so many. As I said, he's not the type of writer I enjoy reading, so I usually just skip it (checked in today to see what people had to say about his book). You can do that too. It's okay.
And remember, getting another perspective is just like getting another opinion. You may get it, but you might not like it.
As to why, it would seem self evident. Free software improves and grows in an evolutionary process. By locking people into one mindset, you've just eliminated one of the major sources of change. I agree with you that Debian is the best distribution. I think it got there by expressly not doing this.
And again, I have a real problem with holding so tightly to the free software mantle then basically saying "yes, it's free as in speech, as long as you don't say it here."
This, in combination with some discussion I've seen on the Debian lists about requiring maintainers to agree with DFSG (and/or FSF?) as well as abide by them makes me very nervous. Free software in general, and Linux and Debian in particular, have gotten where they are because everybody is able to contribute. Allowing input only from people who agree with you is fine if you are never wrong; in the real world, it is a sure path to disaster. This is completely apart from the irony of a "free as in speech" software distribution requiring that you think a certain way in order to participate.
Realize that I don't think this is a problem at present; but things are definitely showing signs of heading that way.
I really like Debian; I don't want to see it go away. That a distribution put together and maintained entirely by volunteers is so successful is an amazing accomplishment. A quick look at Debian's history will show that this is because of the enormous number of dissenting opinions that have been dealt with, not because there weren't any.
Debian has certain ways it wants things done. This is fine. The maintainers should be made aware of this and expected to comply. However, doing the equivalent of requiring membership in a specific political party as a price of admission, IMNSHO, is a huge mistake.
While I agree with most of your points, the last figures I saw (good to the end of 1997, IIRC) show that net bandwidth has been increasing by 4% - 5% greater than net use on a per year basis. So while it may not be being put to good use, available bandwidth appears to be one place the net is actually getting better.
I recall a case here in California about a man who left one employer for another in the same business in violation of a non-compete clause in the NDA he signed upon employment. Now, many people don't seem to know it (and many employers deny it), but non-compete contracts are illegal in California. There is a specific law disallowing them. So you would have thougt this guy was home free, right?
Nope. The company he left sued him. They also got an injunction forbidding him from working in the field until the case was settled. They then threatened to sue any employer who hired him if they were in a similar business. He won in the end, of course. After all, the non-compete clause was illegal. But he went bankrupt fighting it. And you can imagine what his career prospects were like after a protracted legal battle with his previous employer.
Just another way of ensuring that 'employee' translates to 'property'. I wonder if this guy has asked the ACLU to weigh in on this?
Whoops! Make that "youth in the above post".
There was a large uproar back in the eighties over this law (which was enacted last century) when a man killed someone who was trying to repossess his pickup. When he tried to turn himself in he found out that since it was dark when it happened, it wasn't illegal. He later committed suicide.
The Texas legislature reviewed the law after this incident and decided to leave it in force.
Yes, but IIRC it only applies at night. Strange state...
There are things that Photoshop does without much effort, that GIMP doesn't do or makes you jump through hoops for. On the other hand, GIMP's most popular use (creating graphics for the web) kinda sucks under Photoshop; my wife often resorts to an older version of Paint Shop Pro for certain things when she's in a hurry. I'm also not aware of any extensive scripting abilities in Photoshop, a very nice feature of GIMP.
I think the question should be "does it do what I want/need?". Many people who use Photoshop will find that answer to be no for GIMP, but many will find it to be yes. The big plus for Free Software, I think, is that the possibility is always there to have any feature you need, and to make the quality as high as you want it. This is rarely true of proprietary software.
I've only been using Linux full time for about 18 months, but it's been my experience thus far that if there is a feature or program you want that doesn't exist yet, wait a minute. It's probably on it's way. In the meantime, use what you've got. I'll warn you though, if you're not already a steady Linux user, once you get used to it it's awfully hard to put up with Windows.
I can't say for sure because his page is down, but it sounds like he could easily call his domain a parody of the toysrus name. He might just want to send them a reply reminding them that parody is protected by the constitution and under fair use laws and see what they have to say.
The people who run that site have shown themselves to be rather antagonistic toward the linux community in general (and Slashdot in particular). The were behind the LSA, which if you don't remember/aren't aware of it, was basically a thinly veiled money/power grab attempt. Their reaction to the outcry over it was unfortunate, to say the least.
On another note, I've heard that in Britian it's illegal to keep personal information about someone in a database without that person's express written permission (can anyone confirm/deny, or know of other countries that do this?). Probably far past time for that type of legislation in the U.S.
In any case, the few minutes it takes to write your congress-critter & express your views can only help.
I think you're leaving out a rather important point. They didn't just arbitrarily do this 'cause they were pissed. They refused the shipment first, because they hadn't asked for it and were unwilling to pay the tax. The governor of Boston (a British government official) refused to let the ship leave harbor until the import duties were paid. The dumping of the tea was kind of a symbolic flipping of the bird to the British government.
The (often overlooked) point being that they tried to do it the 'proper' way first, and only resorted to vandalism out of frustration as a way to call attention to the inequities of the situation.
Gotta admit it was pretty effective if people are still talking about it over 200 years later ;-).
As for whining not accomplishing anything, you are absolutely right. Unfortunately you were the one who was whining.
If you want people to move from Windows to Linux, you have to offer them alternatives to the software they're using now. Asking them to just quit doing those activities won't hack it. It should go without saying, but calling them names really won't hack it.
I think this whole war against Microsoft attitude people have is a mistake, but that's just my opinion. I'm sure you have your own. Keep this in mind, though. If your only response to someone who points out your weaknesses and the opponents strengths is personal attacks, you've already lost.
If your intention is to stick it to Microsoft and set a precedent, then that might well be worth doing. A lawyer might well be willing to try if there appears to be a reasonable chance of winning, for the reason mentioned above. It could be like hitting the lottery if they won.
Of course, there is no doubt in my mind that Archie comics is hoping that these people cave without researching the issue.
IIRC, Linux had a 17.4% market share, and all the commercial unices combined had 17.6%.
RMS seemed remarkably unruffled considering the antagonistic nature of the questions, IMHO.
I think, however, that a lot of you are falling for Microsoft's ploy. They would like you to focus on the retail price of the software, because that looks good for them. However, the article talks about a 35% - 40% profit margin for Microsoft vs. a 6% average for the industry. This is where the meat of the argument lies.
It's interesting to note (to me, at least) that the fact that they can do this satisfies the definition of monopoly under anti-trust law.
The question that arises is how they manage to have profit margins that are six times higher than the rest of the industry. Microsoft would have you believe that it's because they sell superior software, but it doesn't take much inspection for that premise to fall apart. A close look will show you that if you remove Windows' dominant market share, the whole house of cards comes tumblin' down.
If Windows doesn't have the vast majority of the market, can they get away with raising licensing fees of OEM's who offer alternatives? No - the OEM's will stick to those alternatives and leave Windows in the cold.
If Windows doesn't have that market share they also can't get away with raising licensing fees for OEM's who don't also want to license Office; this makes the market for office suites much more competitive, as people aren't faced with the prospect of replacing software they already have. In Microsoft's defense, they couldn't get away with this if Office weren't adequate to the task at hand, but as the market atrophies that adequacy becomes less and less necessary.
Also, I think it deserves bearing in mind that Microsoft got where they are today in no small part through the government's restraint of IBM. The government protected them (and others) when Big Blue could have squashed them flat. Don't cry for them when they get a taste of their own medicine.
Y'know, the more I think about this the more I think Rick Sharp needs a good ass whippin'.
Um, actually, that's exactly what they are. Add to that things like the fact that you unlock a player's ability to play a disc, not the disc itself; so even if you pay for unlimited play, you can't play it on any other player. I'm not sure how upgrading your player is handled; I would think they wouldn't force you to throw out your whole movie collection, but this thing is such an obvious money grab I wouldn't put it past 'em.
If I may borrow a line from Nancy Reagan - Just Say No!