Not having to rush unnecessarily is all fine and good, but having to completely start over at least twice? That seems to be pushing toward the realm of the ridiculous, if you ask me.
You hit on a great point, demon. What if technology is outpacing solid game design? What I mean is, what if games are released with known deficiencies because the developers know that if they don't hurry it out the door, the next big graphics card/directX/game engine will be released and send them back to the drawing board? It's almost like a chicken/egg scenario and it seems a plausible explanation to me about why the "ship it and patch it" development strategy exists.
I guess if this is indeed the case, DNF could remain vaporware inevitably...which is a shame because I think they have the right idea about how to make a game.
The company's president, George Broussard, gracefully received the award on behalf of 3D Realms.
"What can I say?" he wrote in an e-mail. "We're undeniably late and we know it. We've switched engines a couple of times, and we've started over a couple of times. We've made some mistakes, and we've learned from them. I'm just glad we're in a position to do those things, and to be able to make the game we want to make, instead of being rushed out the door to meet stock projections.
"In the end all that matters is the quality of the game," he continued. "So, lessons have been learned, and progress is being made, and we're working as quickly and quietly as we can. You're completely justified in calling us 'turtleware,' at the very least, but the release date is still 'when it's done.'"
It's nice to see a game company that cares more about the quality of their software than the masses of gamers screaming "Vaporware!" and internal beancounters. I for one won't bash 3D Realms for how long it's taking them. As much as I'm looking forward to Duke Nukem Forever, I'm willing to wait and respect a game company for caring enough to at least try to get it right the first time instead of adopting the common attitude of "Let's just push it out the door and patch it later".
I applaud the more sensible copyright laws of Europe, but the truth is that the RIAA/MPAA have been nervous for a long time now. I mean, at least as early as 1998 (DMCA).
I have had an epiphany....bring on DRM! Obviously, the clue-by-four doesn't work on obsolete luddites like Jack Valenti and Hilary Rosen. (Well, the repeated whacks have made them realize that software/data solutions aren't going to work so I'll give them 1/2 credit.)
Bring on the Fritz chip! I know how to use a logic probe and oscilloscope. I'm still fairly handy with a soldering iron. I've got a ham radio license and I'm not afraid to use it!:)
Even if they don't "get it" yet, I'm not too worried about the RIAA/MPAA. They're outclassed and their business model is lacking and I just called the Psychic Friends Network and got confirmation that old-school business models can't defeat technology even with legislation.
Of course, if the ownership of logic probes, oscilloscopes, and ham radio licenses is ever declared illegal in the US...lookout Thailand, here I come!:)
Yours is a clueful perspective, darthBear. It would be hazardous and irresponsible to modify weather patterns without a full understanding of how those patterns function. Modeling in supercomputers has helped us understand the atmospheric physics involved with systems of mesocyclones (tornadoes, hurricanes, thunderstorms) but I have yet to see evidence that we're able to model the formation of these systems on a global scale.
I was fortunate enough to experience the evolution of a weather station from standard FPS-77 rader to NexRAD (aka Doppler) while I was in the military. The difference was night and day. With Radar, we could observe phenomenon such as LEWPs (Line Echo Wave Patterns) and even (sometimes) hook echo signatures...but only after they had formed (which was usually too late). With Doppler, we could observe these phenomenon as they formed which gave us much more lead time to issue watches/warnings for our airfield.
If we were able to implement this technology worldwide and combine it with supercomputer modeling that is able to account for local climatology on a very granular level, perhaps we would be able to safely and accurately control the weather. Until we develop this technology, however, I believe that any endeavour of this nature is equivalent to playing with fire.
I dunno, Bruce. Is ESR the guilty party or is the person who leaked the information to him the guilty party? The question becomes, is ESR a journalist, in which case he is entitled to protect his source or is he not a journalist in which case the consequences would be....???? (dunno, to borrow a popular/. acronym IANAL)
To a jury of his "true" peers (people that read/.), I would categorize ESR as an "archival" journalist. But who knows what a jury of normal people (and boy am I gonna hear about comparing/. readers to "normal people" but you know what I mean) might conclude.
Agreed, but many times I think Microsoft is just the favorite/. representative of closed source development companies. So, in other words, some people will say "But if M$ uses my library, what's to keep them from embracing and 'extending' (i.e. lock me out of it's development) it?" instead of the more verbose "But if [insert closed source proprietary software developer here] uses my library....blah blah blah".
I'm sure there are people who literally do hate Microsoft and will probably never get over it...but most of the time (for me, at least) references to Microsoft are really just kind of a shorthand for all closed-source developers. YMMV
--K.
Re:Maybe if teachers worked with technology instea
on
Professors vs. WiFi
·
· Score: 1
Students can't properly judge whether a lecture is a waste of their time while it's going on, only when the course is over or maybe after their next assignment.
I disagree. If the lecturer is talking about something that a student already fully understands, then that student is perfectly capable of making the decision to tune said lecturer out. That point aside, if a student can't even understand every other word that they lecturer says...the whole thing becomes pretty academic anyway.
I totally agree that RH8 was a great step forward for GNU/Linux on the desktop of Joe_Average this year. I still prefer *BSD, but I'm a Joe_Geek.:)
For me, the biggest sign of Linux success in 2002 was that non-geeks recognized the word "Linux" when I mentioned it. They still don't quite understand what it means (and some of them think I have a stutter because I always say "GNU/Linux" which comes out sounding like "Guh-New-Linux") but the simple name-recognition was a huge sign of progress to me. I give Wal-Mart a huge ton of credit for this.
Another poster (quite rightly) mentioned that a weak economy is not necessarily good for F/OSS because of the risk-factor involved for companies to implement new software. I work for a very large telecommunications company, and it sure does help sell GNU/Linux to management when you can mention in a business case that Wal-Mart sells PCs that run the operating system. (Big-wigs like business precedents.)
All our lauded technological progress-our very civilization -is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal.
Yep, true. Luckily, with all things being equal (i.e. when good guys have access to the same tools/information as the bad guys), the proportion of good guys to bad guys usually tends to favor societal good. For every jerkoff ($j) in the world, there are $j^10 decent people working against them.
And before someone tries it...
Kien's Law: Invoke Goodwin's Law whenever someone tries to equate handguns to software; bullets != bits.
"I have noticed that until the Internet became popular in the mid-90s it was social death to admit to any interest in computers, and it was certainly not acceptable to talk about them at parties. That's changed now. It's still considered "geeky" but it's not the unforgivable social crime that it once was. You still have to pretend not to know much about computers, but these days it's so you don't waste the entire party solving someone's computer problems for them."
Exactly what we need to be doing, 9mm. In fact, I'm even [braver|dumber];) than you are! I use my grandmother. I knew she'd be the perfect subject for Linux distro tests when she asked me what a "browser" was.
The way I figure things, Linux will have truly arrived when she can pop the CD-ROM in the tray (after I've set up her BIOS boot-order for her of course), hit the defaults, and get a working desktop that she can at least play around in. RH8 has come the closest to that ideal at this point. (I only had to explain to her about the difference between root and regular user logins which explained the importance of creating a user account at login.) She's been as happy as your wife with it ever since.
I think that user education is also critical for any operating system. Although you don't expect users to become security experts, it is the responsibility of the distribution designers to make sure the security information reported by their system is concise, easily understood, and presented in an obvious but non-annoying way.
Dead-on, Doc. Herein lies the question: At what point does developer responsibility depart from user education? It's a dicey and subjective topic, but luckily we can learn from Microsoft's mistakes; they developed for the least common denominator user which is why they're having to fix so many security flaws.
So we're back to the question that so many hackers don't care to bother with: What do you do when you want Joe_Newbie to use your software (assuming of course that you even care whether Joe_Newbie uses your software...which is another debate for another day) but in order for that to happen, you have to dumb down your software to a level that might piss off/. posters?:)
Great post. I really wish the BSD folks made installation as painless as RH or Mandrake so I could convince my friends to try it.
And, lest we forget, the biggest dog on the block has already thought about commoditizing the protocols that currently make the Internet work.
The funny/frustrating thing about technology (to me at least) is how a foot in the door of one technology can cause patent-creep into other technologies. If the patent process were codified into a computer language, we'd have an enormous body of cruft.
It swings back and forth constantly. When we allow big business to dictate the market, they take full advantage. The last time the pendulum swung this way, we had sweat-shops and railroad tycoons. This time, we're seeing outsourcing and "automation" (a myth-in-progress). When the going gets tough, the CEOs cut headcount because that's where they realize the most benefit for the shareholders.
The last time the pendulum swung this way (in an industrial setting), the workers revolted and formed unions. Actors and craftsmen and have long believed in the power of guilds. Each of these organizations is as prone to corruption as the corporations they are supposed to oppose.
There is indeed a Programmers Guild but it hasn't gained much acceptance in the industry.
Perhaps it's time to realize that, collectively, we are the reason for the state of technology today and give the finger to the companies that want to screw us. Just one hitch (and here's the breakdown)....you first.:)
"You want me to pay for you to fix the flat tire I got during the test drive?"
Test drives are a mechanism for people that sell cars to convince people to buy them. I'm just telling you that I'm giving this away. If you want to try it, go for it. It's FREE.:)
Two notes I should have mentioned in my original post:
I didn't mean to imply that the Windows OS is even remotely comparable to the Ferrari Diablo car (although the licensing schemes seem to be blending the analogy....care to LEASE your OS?).
I'm willing to give you a car. It looks almost exactly like a Ferrari Diablo, only it gets 100MPG and it's about as crash-proof as a tank. Here, take all of the schematics and drawings too. Oh, and here's the code that runs the computer inside it. Enjoy!
Oh, you're back! Great, here's a sunroof installation kit that you can have.....what? You've got a flat tire? So...fix it, I gave you everything you need to know to do so. You don't want to fix it? Ok, no problem! I'll fix it, but it'll cost you $50. No? So let me get this straight...you want me to fix something that I gave you, even though I told you exactly how you could fix it yourself?
I have two questions for you: 1) Is AOL your ISP? and 2) Can I have the car back?
EQ is an addicting outlet for one's free time but the game itself is not the problem. The distinction is important. Remove the amount of free time necessary to play the game, and the addicts are quickly separated from normal players.
Normal game players realize that the game no longer fits into their chosen lifestyle and quit for that reason. Addicts arrange their lifestyle to accomodate the game. EQ is a great game as long as it fits into your lifestyle. It's fun, challenging, and the social environment is rewarding (usually:).
I made some great friends in EQ, but when the game demanded more time than I was able to fit into my life...I quit. I miss playing the game, but I still have my friends.
Uh, yeah, OK. Intellectual realm and emotional are entirely different things. I don't get it that straight, sorry.
Exactly. This is what makes you makes you a troll in this forum, and even more unfortunately it is what makes your line-of-thinking so self-destructive. Hopefully, one day, people like you (along with every other racist/religous zealot in the world) will learn how to talk with each other on an intellectual basis. Until you're willing and ready to remove emotion from a debate, you cannot win.
I doubt that most people would go out of their way to watch advertising, although infomercials and shopping channels do give some evidence that there are some people who will watch solid advertising if it's dressed up enough.:)
Exactly.:) If informercials and shopping channels give some evidence, I'd like to know how successful pure-commercial channels would be if commercials were removed from most other channels. Obviously, this would represent a huge paradigm shift and would force a major restructuring of business models in broadcasting, but the first person to capitalize on this opportunity (if indeed, a study proved it to be an opportunity) would be set for life.
Have you ever actually interacted with RMS? I have.
So have I.
His methods and tactics are often obtrusive, annoying, and at times can be downright offensive. He's arrogant and rude, until you let him make his point. He will not relent until he gets his way. I mean, I agree with the guy most of the time, and I still want him to shut up.
Our experiences differ. When I sent him a relatively broad question, I was amazed that he even answered. From that initial contact, we swapped quite a few emails and he never exhibited any of the behavior that you ascribe to him. His emails to me were terse and they asked direct questions which implied the need for direct answers, but I did not interpret that as rude.
If you want to see the government start using open-source software, then rms is the last person you want near those discussions.
You're right. RMS is about the ideal of free software, not the commercially viable equivalent of open-source software. As for his "shenanigans"...well, I guess that's a subjective point of view. I can type an email to my boss that says: "I believe that this software is incompatible with our business model due to the numerous inconsistencies we've encountered in the development process." Or I could take the hacker efficiency approach and just type: "Boss, this shit sucks. Ditch it."
I think RMS tends to take the latter approach, which would naturally offend the sensitivities of the politically-correct.
--K.
Re:How About Permitting _Real_ Competition?
on
DSL Amidst Phone Wars
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
That line of reasoning works until you hit the brick wall of history. One company (a federally supported monopoly) ran the copper wires into your home (if you live in the US). That one company, supported by the government, invested that capital. Then, in 1986, the government broke that monopoly apart. So all of a sudden, the copper wires connecting you to the network were owned by "Baby Bells" and your long distance service was controlled by the company that formerly owned those splinter companies.
Fast forward to 1996...the Internet's taking off and competition is nada in the telecom sector. In typical knee-jerk reaction mode (largely due to campaign contributions), we get the Telecom Bill which mandates that local providers will open their networks to competitors and long distance providers will open their networks to competitors.
The catfight begins. And while these companies fight and lobby, it is the consumer that suffers.
I agree with your sentiments, however I think it's important to point out that state universities aren't fully subsidized by tax dollars. If they were, there would be no need for tuitions. That being said, I agree that Joe_Taxpayer should have a voice in decisions like these (even though that voice would likely be in favor of cheaper MS software).
What's more interesting to me is that college students themselves aren't questioning the practice. Maybe they are. Maybe that's how that post came to be on LawMeme in the first place. I mean, if I'm paying my own way through college and the college can do ANYTHING to make my tuition cheaper, I'd be pestering them to do so and this kind of hidden agreement would certainly make me start to ask some questions.
NDA agreements aren't new and they aren't evil. Most likely, MS is just offering different discounts and terms to different universities and doesn't want the other universities to know about them so that they won't say "Hey you're giving OSU X% off, I want X+10% off because I'm bigger/better/whatever". But given MS's proven track record with OEMs, it's certainly understandable why people are asking questions.
Slashdot Mirror
You hit on a great point, demon. What if technology is outpacing solid game design? What I mean is, what if games are released with known deficiencies because the developers know that if they don't hurry it out the door, the next big graphics card/directX/game engine will be released and send them back to the drawing board? It's almost like a chicken/egg scenario and it seems a plausible explanation to me about why the "ship it and patch it" development strategy exists.
I guess if this is indeed the case, DNF could remain vaporware inevitably...which is a shame because I think they have the right idea about how to make a game.
--K.
It's nice to see a game company that cares more about the quality of their software than the masses of gamers screaming "Vaporware!" and internal beancounters. I for one won't bash 3D Realms for how long it's taking them. As much as I'm looking forward to Duke Nukem Forever, I'm willing to wait and respect a game company for caring enough to at least try to get it right the first time instead of adopting the common attitude of "Let's just push it out the door and patch it later".
--K.
I applaud the more sensible copyright laws of Europe, but the truth is that the RIAA/MPAA have been nervous for a long time now. I mean, at least as early as 1998 (DMCA).
:)
:)
I have had an epiphany....bring on DRM! Obviously, the clue-by-four doesn't work on obsolete luddites like Jack Valenti and Hilary Rosen. (Well, the repeated whacks have made them realize that software/data solutions aren't going to work so I'll give them 1/2 credit.)
Bring on the Fritz chip! I know how to use a logic probe and oscilloscope. I'm still fairly handy with a soldering iron. I've got a ham radio license and I'm not afraid to use it!
Even if they don't "get it" yet, I'm not too worried about the RIAA/MPAA. They're outclassed and their business model is lacking and I just called the Psychic Friends Network and got confirmation that old-school business models can't defeat technology even with legislation.
Of course, if the ownership of logic probes, oscilloscopes, and ham radio licenses is ever declared illegal in the US...lookout Thailand, here I come!
--K.
Yours is a clueful perspective, darthBear. It would be hazardous and irresponsible to modify weather patterns without a full understanding of how those patterns function. Modeling in supercomputers has helped us understand the atmospheric physics involved with systems of mesocyclones (tornadoes, hurricanes, thunderstorms) but I have yet to see evidence that we're able to model the formation of these systems on a global scale.
I was fortunate enough to experience the evolution of a weather station from standard FPS-77 rader to NexRAD (aka Doppler) while I was in the military. The difference was night and day. With Radar, we could observe phenomenon such as LEWPs (Line Echo Wave Patterns) and even (sometimes) hook echo signatures...but only after they had formed (which was usually too late). With Doppler, we could observe these phenomenon as they formed which gave us much more lead time to issue watches/warnings for our airfield.
If we were able to implement this technology worldwide and combine it with supercomputer modeling that is able to account for local climatology on a very granular level, perhaps we would be able to safely and accurately control the weather. Until we develop this technology, however, I believe that any endeavour of this nature is equivalent to playing with fire.
--K.
I dunno, Bruce. Is ESR the guilty party or is the person who leaked the information to him the guilty party? The question becomes, is ESR a journalist, in which case he is entitled to protect his source or is he not a journalist in which case the consequences would be....???? (dunno, to borrow a popular /. acronym IANAL)
/.), I would categorize ESR as an "archival" journalist. But who knows what a jury of normal people (and boy am I gonna hear about comparing /. readers to "normal people" but you know what I mean) might conclude.
To a jury of his "true" peers (people that read
--K.
Agreed, but many times I think Microsoft is just the favorite /. representative of closed source development companies. So, in other words, some people will say "But if M$ uses my library, what's to keep them from embracing and 'extending' (i.e. lock me out of it's development) it?" instead of the more verbose "But if [insert closed source proprietary software developer here] uses my library....blah blah blah".
I'm sure there are people who literally do hate Microsoft and will probably never get over it...but most of the time (for me, at least) references to Microsoft are really just kind of a shorthand for all closed-source developers. YMMV
--K.
I disagree. If the lecturer is talking about something that a student already fully understands, then that student is perfectly capable of making the decision to tune said lecturer out. That point aside, if a student can't even understand every other word that they lecturer says...the whole thing becomes pretty academic anyway.
--K.
I totally agree that RH8 was a great step forward for GNU/Linux on the desktop of Joe_Average this year. I still prefer *BSD, but I'm a Joe_Geek. :)
For me, the biggest sign of Linux success in 2002 was that non-geeks recognized the word "Linux" when I mentioned it. They still don't quite understand what it means (and some of them think I have a stutter because I always say "GNU/Linux" which comes out sounding like "Guh-New-Linux") but the simple name-recognition was a huge sign of progress to me. I give Wal-Mart a huge ton of credit for this.
Another poster (quite rightly) mentioned that a weak economy is not necessarily good for F/OSS because of the risk-factor involved for companies to implement new software. I work for a very large telecommunications company, and it sure does help sell GNU/Linux to management when you can mention in a business case that Wal-Mart sells PCs that run the operating system. (Big-wigs like business precedents.)
I can't wait to see what will happen in 2003!
--K.
Yep, true. Luckily, with all things being equal (i.e. when good guys have access to the same tools/information as the bad guys), the proportion of good guys to bad guys usually tends to favor societal good. For every jerkoff ($j) in the world, there are $j^10 decent people working against them.
And before someone tries it...
Kien's Law: Invoke Goodwin's Law whenever someone tries to equate handguns to software; bullets != bits.
--K.
Ye gods, how true!
--K.
Here's to free-thinkers...may they continue to retain the right to question things.
/. people, whether friend, foe, or freak; you make me think.
Here's to academics...may they continue their research.
Here's to the hacker ethic which played a large part in the creation of the Net.
And here's to all of you
Happy New Year!
--K.
Exactly what we need to be doing, 9mm. In fact, I'm even [braver|dumber] ;) than you are! I use my grandmother. I knew she'd be the perfect subject for Linux distro tests when she asked me what a "browser" was.
The way I figure things, Linux will have truly arrived when she can pop the CD-ROM in the tray (after I've set up her BIOS boot-order for her of course), hit the defaults, and get a working desktop that she can at least play around in. RH8 has come the closest to that ideal at this point. (I only had to explain to her about the difference between root and regular user logins which explained the importance of creating a user account at login.) She's been as happy as your wife with it ever since.
G'luck with that power supply!
--K.
Dead-on, Doc. Herein lies the question: At what point does developer responsibility depart from user education? It's a dicey and subjective topic, but luckily we can learn from Microsoft's mistakes; they developed for the least common denominator user which is why they're having to fix so many security flaws.
So we're back to the question that so many hackers don't care to bother with: What do you do when you want Joe_Newbie to use your software (assuming of course that you even care whether Joe_Newbie uses your software...which is another debate for another day) but in order for that to happen, you have to dumb down your software to a level that might piss off
Great post. I really wish the BSD folks made installation as painless as RH or Mandrake so I could convince my friends to try it.
--K.
And, lest we forget, the biggest dog on the block has already thought about commoditizing the protocols that currently make the Internet work.
The funny/frustrating thing about technology (to me at least) is how a foot in the door of one technology can cause patent-creep into other technologies. If the patent process were codified into a computer language, we'd have an enormous body of cruft.
--K.
It swings back and forth constantly. When we allow big business to dictate the market, they take full advantage. The last time the pendulum swung this way, we had sweat-shops and railroad tycoons. This time, we're seeing outsourcing and "automation" (a myth-in-progress). When the going gets tough, the CEOs cut headcount because that's where they realize the most benefit for the shareholders.
:)
The last time the pendulum swung this way (in an industrial setting), the workers revolted and formed unions. Actors and craftsmen and have long believed in the power of guilds. Each of these organizations is as prone to corruption as the corporations they are supposed to oppose.
There is indeed a Programmers Guild but it hasn't gained much acceptance in the industry.
Perhaps it's time to realize that, collectively, we are the reason for the state of technology today and give the finger to the companies that want to screw us. Just one hitch (and here's the breakdown)....you first.
--K.
Test drives are a mechanism for people that sell cars to convince people to buy them. I'm just telling you that I'm giving this away. If you want to try it, go for it. It's FREE.
Two notes I should have mentioned in my original post:
--K.
I'm willing to give you a car. It looks almost exactly like a Ferrari Diablo, only it gets 100MPG and it's about as crash-proof as a tank. Here, take all of the schematics and drawings too. Oh, and here's the code that runs the computer inside it. Enjoy!
Oh, you're back! Great, here's a sunroof installation kit that you can have.....what? You've got a flat tire? So...fix it, I gave you everything you need to know to do so. You don't want to fix it? Ok, no problem! I'll fix it, but it'll cost you $50. No? So let me get this straight...you want me to fix something that I gave you, even though I told you exactly how you could fix it yourself?
I have two questions for you: 1) Is AOL your ISP? and 2) Can I have the car back?
:)
--K.
EQ is an addicting outlet for one's free time but the game itself is not the problem. The distinction is important. Remove the amount of free time necessary to play the game, and the addicts are quickly separated from normal players.
:).
Normal game players realize that the game no longer fits into their chosen lifestyle and quit for that reason. Addicts arrange their lifestyle to accomodate the game. EQ is a great game as long as it fits into your lifestyle. It's fun, challenging, and the social environment is rewarding (usually
I made some great friends in EQ, but when the game demanded more time than I was able to fit into my life...I quit. I miss playing the game, but I still have my friends.
--K.
Exactly. This is what makes you makes you a troll in this forum, and even more unfortunately it is what makes your line-of-thinking so self-destructive. Hopefully, one day, people like you (along with every other racist/religous zealot in the world) will learn how to talk with each other on an intellectual basis. Until you're willing and ready to remove emotion from a debate, you cannot win.
--K.
Exactly.
Good points, RM101.
--K.
Well, "Not True" isn't much to work with but I'm willing to admit that I was pretty broad in my synopsis of the telco monopoly history.
Perhaps this will help.
--K.
So have I.
Our experiences differ. When I sent him a relatively broad question, I was amazed that he even answered. From that initial contact, we swapped quite a few emails and he never exhibited any of the behavior that you ascribe to him. His emails to me were terse and they asked direct questions which implied the need for direct answers, but I did not interpret that as rude.
You're right. RMS is about the ideal of free software, not the commercially viable equivalent of open-source software. As for his "shenanigans"...well, I guess that's a subjective point of view. I can type an email to my boss that says: "I believe that this software is incompatible with our business model due to the numerous inconsistencies we've encountered in the development process." Or I could take the hacker efficiency approach and just type: "Boss, this shit sucks. Ditch it."
I think RMS tends to take the latter approach, which would naturally offend the sensitivities of the politically-correct.
--K.
That line of reasoning works until you hit the brick wall of history. One company (a federally supported monopoly) ran the copper wires into your home (if you live in the US). That one company, supported by the government, invested that capital. Then, in 1986, the government broke that monopoly apart. So all of a sudden, the copper wires connecting you to the network were owned by "Baby Bells" and your long distance service was controlled by the company that formerly owned those splinter companies.
Fast forward to 1996...the Internet's taking off and competition is nada in the telecom sector. In typical knee-jerk reaction mode (largely due to campaign contributions), we get the Telecom Bill which mandates that local providers will open their networks to competitors and long distance providers will open their networks to competitors.
The catfight begins. And while these companies fight and lobby, it is the consumer that suffers.
--K.
I agree with your sentiments, however I think it's important to point out that state universities aren't fully subsidized by tax dollars. If they were, there would be no need for tuitions. That being said, I agree that Joe_Taxpayer should have a voice in decisions like these (even though that voice would likely be in favor of cheaper MS software).
What's more interesting to me is that college students themselves aren't questioning the practice. Maybe they are. Maybe that's how that post came to be on LawMeme in the first place. I mean, if I'm paying my own way through college and the college can do ANYTHING to make my tuition cheaper, I'd be pestering them to do so and this kind of hidden agreement would certainly make me start to ask some questions.
NDA agreements aren't new and they aren't evil. Most likely, MS is just offering different discounts and terms to different universities and doesn't want the other universities to know about them so that they won't say "Hey you're giving OSU X% off, I want X+10% off because I'm bigger/better/whatever". But given MS's proven track record with OEMs, it's certainly understandable why people are asking questions.
--K.
...should be given to the first person that gets Linux to run on their handgun! ;)
--K.