Google (essentially) does a single thing over and over again. unix is great for that. If I was building a chess playing computer or a FFT solver, I'd use a unix clone too, and probably a free one at that.
But don't compare that to general purpose business computing.
the lie that many ossers tell themselves is that the problem is fundamentally one of lack of information. "if they only knew about it, they'd use it."
It's time for that myth to die.
Companies are in business to make money. Linux was and continues to be front page news--people know about it. So, while this article may get hundreds of yelling and screaming "point of fact" replies, it seems that many companies have tried OSS software (or at least costed it) and have come to the same conclusions--in the long run, it's at least as expensive as commercial equivalents.
And I'm coming at it from a number of standpoint standpoints:
One (the one that oss zealots will jump on), yes it can be more expensive because of switching costs. that's only a small part of it though.
Two, it can be measurably (in a taylorist sort of way) more expensive to use OSS desktop applications because they are not designed with anywhere nearly the usability in mind that commercial aps are (note: A GUI != usability). I mean, if it takes my employees 10 minutes more a day to do their tasks with StarOffice or whathave you, then the cost of Ms-Office is soon worth it.
Three, because of relatively poor usability of OSS development tools (whatever you may say, there are few OSS development environments that can come close to the better codewarrior or visual studio stuff), it is often more cost effective to develop in-house software on commercial platforms
remember the old saying:
"It's only free software if your time is not worth anything."
Modifying a TIVO in no way shape or form bothers my neighbors or is a nuisance to the general public.
False! If modifying the TIVO leads indirectly to buying less software or services or whatever follow-on they are trying to sell is, then your individual actions HAVE outside affects, even if the actions themselves are restricted to your basement.
Now, we can argue whether or not a business model is a public good (I would clarify--I don't believe "a business model" as in "tivo's business model" is a public good, but I do think reasonable restrictions on use of products in order to facilitate innovative business models in general is a good thing / a class of public goods.) That is, I think our society would be worse off if companies could NOT sell hardware as loss leaders, because the sale of hardware as loss leaders has positive externalities of getting people into technical items WHILE remaining a sustainable state in that companies can profit from it)).
Again, we can argue over whether i'm right as far as public good goes all night, but don't try to tell me that people modifying TIVO's at home, in aggregate, has no external effects.
How is it possible for a word to be used wrongly? Communication happens when one party talks and the other understands the message. The correct picture has gone from the party that sent the message to the party (readers) receiving it. I venture to say that more people will have understood the article if it said "hackers" instead of "crackers."
I think those who pray to a talmudic god of vocabulary need to understand that language is a living thing.
You cannot buy a 2003 ford mustang, remove the muffler, and drive around at 3am generating 100db of sound. Yes, it's your hardware, but rules exist to further a public good--a (relatively) pollution and noise free environment.
Similarly, laws exist that say that you cannot circumvent pretction mechanisms such as that on the tivo.
Why? because, again, there is a public good involved, but this one is subtler. It's the public good of a business climate where companies make products and services using a variety of business models and people buy them and use them in a manner consistent with widely-held notions of fairness.
the alternative is a world where prices are higher / options are fewer because companies would have to hedge against unauthorized uses.
of course, for some businesses, it turns out to be beneficial that there is a user commuity that likes to hack around. but it's up for the company to decide whether that is, indeed, the case as far as it is concerned.
individuals or companies that attempt any sort of security should be shown that all their base, does indeed, belong to us?
business models that involve selling a piece of hardware below cost to make money on additional software or services are the work of satan?
because hackers can do something means that they should do it. laws and conventions do not apply to them because it is unlikely that they will get caught.
if there's one thing the world needs, it's more TV.
information deserves to be free. other people's information, that is.
I lived in and worked in Malaysia for a year. I can tell you that 80%+ of the dvds/vcds/software out there in the field are illegal copies. no question about it.
Okay, but can you prove that companies like the MPAA/et al actually scale their prices for China? I'd be damn surprised if they did
The irony is that people also complain about DVD region-izing, which is supposed to, at least in theory, enable greater price discrimination. Maybe not to allow chinese farmers to watch "eight legged freaks", but at least in some less extreme situations.
You can't have it both ways, people.
Re:theory, schmory
on
One of Many
·
· Score: 5, Informative
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" - part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science - that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
A simple rule: if it says collectible or limited edition on it, it's guaranteed to be overpriced, and usually crap. ("collector's edition McDonald's Scooby Doo Frosted Mugs"). Have you ever seen a "limited edition" item on HSN that you could turn around and sell for a penny more to anybody who is not an even bigger fool?
Those who pay for slashdot premium should demand their money back on the basis that this was, very clearly, an advertisement.
How ironic that you mention the Constitution, when Freenet's de facto purpose is to subvert the following:
Article I, Section 8. Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have the power...
[paragraph 8]
To promote the progress of science and useful arts,
by securing for limited times
to authors and inventors
the exclusive right
to their respective writings and discoveries;
In theory it's about truth, justice, and the american way.
In practice it's an Eminem / Photoshop Plug-Ins / pr0n delivery mechanism.
Ebay's VERO program isnt draconian.
on
Ebay vs. Musician
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
For example, people have been selling the aircraft checklists that I distribute freely, despite my messages and disclaimers that for no way are they to be sold (the sellers just remove the messages). Ebay doesn't listen, but insists on an arm's length of faxes and paperwork to reddress the situation.
Would it be too much to ask the slashdot editor who posted this for a little insight?
Instead of essentially trolling slashdot by having the headlines seductively imply some quandry, why not just tell it like it is:
Some company using dubious patent claim to blackmail small companies into legal settlements.
There. The real roots of the problem (ease of getting bullshit patents, small companies' hobson's choice of settle or fight, etc) are identified without giving the company's claims the dinity of being directly named.
Panasonic has had something like this (minus the -writer part) for over a year now. It is sweet.
Additionally, you can get porable DVD/MP3/Photo CD/Yadda Yadda players on ebay for about $70. Multiregion, too. Yes, they're not as slick as the sony, but they (and the panasonic) do include a r e m o t e c o n t r o l.
"Curbing piracy" and "conrolling alternate means of distribution" mean the same thing when the alternate means are (like it or not) illegal.
If some new means of distributing content would hurt the bottom line of the RIAA and may not be legal, in our adversarial capitalist world it's the RIAA's job to try to squash the new means, the new mean's job to fight back, and for the courts to decide where the line should be drawn given the ultimate goal of the granted-not-natural right of copyright to encourage the creation of useful arts for generations to come.
If we were to use, for example, Microsoft Windows 2000 Pro, our server would need to be at least three times more powerful to be able to offer the same level of performance.
"three times?" Can somebody point me to some evidence for this sort of rather bald assertion?
There is a country (Japan) that spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year on train design research and has hands down by far the most effective rail network in the world from everything from technical efficiency of trains to timeliness.
Because of Japanese expertise in this area, other countries (other asian states, some european) either licence the technology outright or tap the experts to develop their own technology (recently China and Korea are doing this).
The problems the US faces are known quantities. Why re-invent the (fly-) wheel? The comparative advantage of nations is real. The US should shelve its hubris and buy a proven japanese design rather than investing in more white elephants.
I would believe you, if I haven't been hearing "believe me, your comments will be irrelevant in under a year" on exactly tihs topic annually now for at least five years.
I have nothing against linux. I think this issue is endemic to all software / operating systems in the modern world. It's a very hard problem to be BOTH compatible AND differentiable.
I believe the reason that operating systems are nowadays held up as the poster child for natural monopolies is because of network externalities--that is, it's easier to put the same OS on all of the PCs in my office. It's easier for my office to have the same OS as my customers'. it's easier for my customer's families to have the same OS as the ones they use at work, and so on.
This is not to say that a truly inferior OS would survive some better competition coming around the pike. but the fact of the matter is that any NEW operating system that wants to intrude on the dominant player's turf needs to be not just better as a standalone product, but also be so good or compatible to convince people to give up the network benefits. YOU (o slashdot reader) may think that WinXP is the biggest pile of steaming junk out there, but the majority of the public hasn't seen a compelling need to switch given this economic reality.
Now--why are OSs "poster children" for natural monopolies? Because interoperability is nearly impossible to legally enforce. If a given company somehow came up with a better nail, others could come up with a multitude of hammers to work on it. With operating systems, as we see with the multitude of even linux distributions ("hey this doesn't work on SuSE!" "is this redhat 4.2.1.4 compatible?" "i dont have package-glib-x-43 installed.."), this is very very hard.
Please, no technical jibberjabber about how linux is really compatible. In an objective sense, and I am no MS apologist, it doesn't hold a candle in this regard to MS.
Irrespective of the Microsoft / Corel issue, I want to comment on the idea that "competition creates better products."
While, don't get me wrong, this is true in the general case, it may not necessarily be true in the absolute case. Let's say that operating systems was a truly "competitive" market with 1000 really world class, interoperable operating systems out there. Each producer, lacking the ability to compete on features (because each would be good enough per users' needs), would compete on price. No producer could get large enough to invest significant amounts in R&D. Overall product quality declines.
So yes, it is nice to see somebody lighting a fire under MS's butt and that's exactly what Corel, with an objectively inferior product will do--it will force MS to innovate and perhaps complete a little more on price. But don't confuse that with the general notion that competition is always good, especially in software, which many people would say has tendencies towards natural (and in practice sometimes not so natural) monopolies.
Slashdot Mirror
But don't compare that to general purpose business computing.
It's time for that myth to die.
Companies are in business to make money. Linux was and continues to be front page news--people know about it. So, while this article may get hundreds of yelling and screaming "point of fact" replies, it seems that many companies have tried OSS software (or at least costed it) and have come to the same conclusions--in the long run, it's at least as expensive as commercial equivalents.
And I'm coming at it from a number of standpoint standpoints:
remember the old saying:
"It's only free software if your time is not worth anything."
If apple had the sense god gave a marshmallow, it would make the migration software free.
- Most powerful computer in canada
- World's tallest midget
- Esquilax (the legendary esquilax, a horse with
the head of a rabbit and the body of a rabbit)
- Garfunkel and Oates
- The world's third most famous belgian
- deluxe english breakfast
Museum of mediocrity!False! If modifying the TIVO leads indirectly to buying less software or services or whatever follow-on they are trying to sell is, then your individual actions HAVE outside affects, even if the actions themselves are restricted to your basement.
Now, we can argue whether or not a business model is a public good (I would clarify--I don't believe "a business model" as in "tivo's business model" is a public good, but I do think reasonable restrictions on use of products in order to facilitate innovative business models in general is a good thing / a class of public goods.) That is, I think our society would be worse off if companies could NOT sell hardware as loss leaders, because the sale of hardware as loss leaders has positive externalities of getting people into technical items WHILE remaining a sustainable state in that companies can profit from it)).
Again, we can argue over whether i'm right as far as public good goes all night, but don't try to tell me that people modifying TIVO's at home, in aggregate, has no external effects.
I think those who pray to a talmudic god of vocabulary need to understand that language is a living thing.
You cannot buy a 2003 ford mustang, remove the muffler, and drive around at 3am generating 100db of sound. Yes, it's your hardware, but rules exist to further a public good--a (relatively) pollution and noise free environment.
Similarly, laws exist that say that you cannot circumvent pretction mechanisms such as that on the tivo.
Why? because, again, there is a public good involved, but this one is subtler. It's the public good of a business climate where companies make products and services using a variety of business models and people buy them and use them in a manner consistent with widely-held notions of fairness.
the alternative is a world where prices are higher / options are fewer because companies would have to hedge against unauthorized uses.
of course, for some businesses, it turns out to be beneficial that there is a user commuity that likes to hack around. but it's up for the company to decide whether that is, indeed, the case as far as it is concerned.
I lived in and worked in Malaysia for a year. I can tell you that 80%+ of the dvds/vcds/software out there in the field are illegal copies. no question about it.
Okay, but can you prove that companies like the MPAA/et al actually scale their prices for China? I'd be damn surprised if they did
The irony is that people also complain about DVD region-izing, which is supposed to, at least in theory, enable greater price discrimination. Maybe not to allow chinese farmers to watch "eight legged freaks", but at least in some less extreme situations.
You can't have it both ways, people.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Are you kidding me? Talk about sell-out.
A simple rule: if it says collectible or limited edition on it, it's guaranteed to be overpriced, and usually crap. ("collector's edition McDonald's Scooby Doo Frosted Mugs"). Have you ever seen a "limited edition" item on HSN that you could turn around and sell for a penny more to anybody who is not an even bigger fool?
Those who pay for slashdot premium should demand their money back on the basis that this was, very clearly, an advertisement.
Article I, Section 8. Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have the power ...
[paragraph 8] To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
For example, people have been selling the aircraft checklists that I distribute freely, despite my messages and disclaimers that for no way are they to be sold (the sellers just remove the messages). Ebay doesn't listen, but insists on an arm's length of faxes and paperwork to reddress the situation.
Instead of essentially trolling slashdot by having the headlines seductively imply some quandry, why not just tell it like it is:
Some company using dubious patent claim to blackmail small companies into legal settlements.
There. The real roots of the problem (ease of getting bullshit patents, small companies' hobson's choice of settle or fight, etc) are identified without giving the company's claims the dinity of being directly named.
Panasonic has had something like this (minus the -writer part) for over a year now. It is sweet.
Additionally, you can get porable DVD/MP3/Photo CD/Yadda Yadda players on ebay for about $70. Multiregion, too. Yes, they're not as slick as the sony, but they (and the panasonic) do include a r e m o t e c o n t r o l.
If some new means of distributing content would hurt the bottom line of the RIAA and may not be legal, in our adversarial capitalist world it's the RIAA's job to try to squash the new means, the new mean's job to fight back, and for the courts to decide where the line should be drawn given the ultimate goal of the granted-not-natural right of copyright to encourage the creation of useful arts for generations to come.
If we were to use, for example, Microsoft Windows 2000 Pro, our server would need to be at least three times more powerful to be able to offer the same level of performance.
"three times?" Can somebody point me to some evidence for this sort of rather bald assertion?
Because of Japanese expertise in this area, other countries (other asian states, some european) either licence the technology outright or tap the experts to develop their own technology (recently China and Korea are doing this).
The problems the US faces are known quantities. Why re-invent the (fly-) wheel? The comparative advantage of nations is real. The US should shelve its hubris and buy a proven japanese design rather than investing in more white elephants.
I have nothing against linux. I think this issue is endemic to all software / operating systems in the modern world. It's a very hard problem to be BOTH compatible AND differentiable.
This is not to say that a truly inferior OS would survive some better competition coming around the pike. but the fact of the matter is that any NEW operating system that wants to intrude on the dominant player's turf needs to be not just better as a standalone product, but also be so good or compatible to convince people to give up the network benefits. YOU (o slashdot reader) may think that WinXP is the biggest pile of steaming junk out there, but the majority of the public hasn't seen a compelling need to switch given this economic reality.
Now--why are OSs "poster children" for natural monopolies? Because interoperability is nearly impossible to legally enforce. If a given company somehow came up with a better nail, others could come up with a multitude of hammers to work on it. With operating systems, as we see with the multitude of even linux distributions ("hey this doesn't work on SuSE!" "is this redhat 4.2.1.4 compatible?" "i dont have package-glib-x-43 installed.."), this is very very hard.
Please, no technical jibberjabber about how linux is really compatible. In an objective sense, and I am no MS apologist, it doesn't hold a candle in this regard to MS.
While, don't get me wrong, this is true in the general case, it may not necessarily be true in the absolute case. Let's say that operating systems was a truly "competitive" market with 1000 really world class, interoperable operating systems out there. Each producer, lacking the ability to compete on features (because each would be good enough per users' needs), would compete on price. No producer could get large enough to invest significant amounts in R&D. Overall product quality declines.
So yes, it is nice to see somebody lighting a fire under MS's butt and that's exactly what Corel, with an objectively inferior product will do--it will force MS to innovate and perhaps complete a little more on price. But don't confuse that with the general notion that competition is always good, especially in software, which many people would say has tendencies towards natural (and in practice sometimes not so natural) monopolies.
Hi ho, hi ho. Another 3% for paypal.
A lack of appreciation for Moore's Law is modded up as "insightful?"