Why would I go for OpenSolaris? What benefits do I get as an end user? (Lets just run with this as a theory for a second)
I don't have the packages that are developed for Linux, there isn't any major "killer app" out there to make me want to switch. Really at the end of the day, what's the REALLY big bonus to running OpenSolaris now?
This is the question that I pose to you all here, this is the same question that a lot of IT Managers ask about Linux when comparing it to Microsoft Windows, but we have a few answers to that question.
Admittedly if you are a 100% Solaris shop (Solaris SysAdmin for example who wants to run Solaris on his 3Ghz P4 that sits under his desk) then you might consider it. There isn't a community around this to support it yet either.
One thing that could turn up would be application support from vendors that currently don't support Linux. If that turns up, then things could heat up.
I know it's early days, and choices are great, but Linux I think has filled that void. There are how many Linux distributions out there now? Do we really need 400 Solaris kerneled distributions out there?
I know this sounds like a FUD session, but I don't want it to be. Just trying to encourage some comments.
That only by your logic, the average person would buy a mp3-enabled-mobile and if it is good enough they would keep it. Why having to go out with 2 bricks if 1 can do everyting fine?.
For the same reason that I don't want to get an O2 XDA Exec. Great phone and all, they have been out for a while, and a number of the bugs have gone, but at the same time, I run into the problem that the thing (as far as I am concerned) is huge. If I want to go out with a phone and nothing else, I don't want to carry that thing. It's a brick, especially when all you want is just a phone when you are going out for the night. Especially going out clubbing or something with friends, do you really want something like that in your pocket? (Cue gags of "Is that a phone in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?")
I currently carry a Sony Ericsson K750, and I even find that's a bit too big.
Unfortunately you can only build so much into these things before they become cumbersome and people don't want to carry them around. An iPod or something like that, you can leave on your desk at work without any hassle, a phone you are stuck with.
I would suggest that I won't be joining my phone and MP3 player together for at least 2 or 3 years. I doubt flash storage is going to increase in density to compensate for the amount of music I carry.
I have multiple computers on multiple sites with multiple login accounts.
Simplest answer to security. I don't and can't do some of my work at one of the systems, simply because I locked myself out. There is some stuff which gets emailed to me that I do have to review and send back, but for a bulk of the time, anything like that we are discusinng is printed and not electronic. If it is electronic, I can only review it and work on it from a secured location using a differnt login account.
Having a system in the computer room for you to access when you have to do secure work won't be a problem for your bosses if it's that much of a risk. You really have to weigh it up, how much of your work do you do that truly is that concerning? I doubt it will be more than a small section of your day to day job. If it's bigger than that, then inform your bosses of the security risk and go from there.
I dug up the article about what mentioned Xen and patents. You are correct, that it requires a modified version of XP to run, but apparently patents are still an issue. So my guesswork still could be correct (Or completely wrong) in that VMWare may be involved so that the community doesn't tread on toes.
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer? Here is a garden path, care for a walk?
You never know, VMWare might like the idea of booting MS out of the market all together and keep Xen on the small end of the playing field and build tools to migrate Xen machines to VMWare machines. (I don't know if this exists already)
I remember that Xen although technically capable of emulating a base platform for Windows isn't allowed to now because of patents. With the new virtualization in the chip, I think the Xen developers are hoping to be able to run Windows over the top of Linux. It could be for this reason that VMWare is working with Andrew Morten and vice versa to make sure that Xen doesn't step on VMWare's toes.
At the same time, how long do you think the tools are going to come out to manage all of this?
I truly don't think it will be that long. The hardware vendors IBM / HP etc will be willing to support this as if the Xen community comes out with extensions for the Virtualization stuff in the new CPU cores (also coming out shortly), then it will help them to push more kit (sell more hardware).
I was more thinking along the lines of ESX server which contains a cut down OS for the base operating system, everything else (All other OSs) run over the top.
Not only do they get the ability to knock the shit out of Microsoft, by taking away the base platform from them, they also get to try to get some market share from VMWare.
Imagine if you would the ability to use Xen for unlimited operating systems, no licensing cost of the base OS, thinking about it, I would prefer to be in Microsoft's shoes as opposed to VMWare's. Only difference is that Xen when compared to VMWare is a very immature platform and no IT manager is going to take Xen over VMWare just yet (Unless cost is a BIG factor).
I would have to say that this is still very cool, with all the new Virtualization options come out in the new cores shortly and if they can get to market before Microsoft, this is a great way to pick up some customers. Kudos to RedHat and IBM and Intel and everyone else for making this happen.
As RedHat said once, 'People complain about the bugs in our software, they refer to our bug database, and our outstanding bugs' (This isn't a direct quote but you know what I mean) that's because the bug database is open. How many bugs do you think are outstanding in Microsoft's Office code base?
Tablet PCs just seem useless without OneNote, you might as well have a regular laptop. Having not used Linux on a tablet, does anyone know how it goes?
One of the other things that I like about tablet PCs is that you can lay them flat on the table in meetings, having a screen between you and the person who you are trying to talk to, just seems rude. Personally I can't stand it, and it seems (From a body language point of view) a barrier between you and the other person.
One, the argument of national security had better not be a good reason
No, it wasn't a good reason in this instance, well it's a good enough reason without context. If for example the cold war was still continuing. The US government had the ability to break code which the Russians were using, and this gave the US government the ability to monitor positions that they thought the Russians might attack from. From this information they developed plans to use their anti missile missile systems to neutralise those weapons (Not a pre-emptive attack) to protect their citizens. If for example they could find out what the flight paths were or to find Russian launch points and develop the best way to intercept those weapons, I could see a valid reason not to release the information of their ability to break that code to the US public which would therefore get picked up by the Russians and the Russians would therefore change their encryption system. I could also see a potential reason to deny the general public this information on HOW to break the encryption while they are still getting accurate data. It is for the benefit of the citizens that this occurs. When it goes beyond this point, when information is used to encroach upon the freedom of it's citizens then there is obviously a concern.
Two, all laws should pertain to citizens. They are what the government serves.
Roughly my point. Why is there a difference between the government and a corporation in the ability to access what would otherwise be a public technology?
If you start talking about corporations as somehow bigger than a citizen, you've already lost sight of the purpose of the government. It is to serve *the people*, not the corporations.
Corporations are made up of citizens, they also have a lot of bulk and can provide funding to give the general public a facility that may not necessarily be available to the public by an individual. There is a benefit to their existance. The government is certainly there to serve the people. Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg address said "And that government of the people, by the people, for the people" I think about sums up the requirements of the government to serve it's citizens. (Admittedly taken partially out of context, but not being a master in American history I couldn't remember a better quote off the top of my head)
To go one further I think the corporations should be serving the citizens / consumers too, but that isn't a common concensus amongst everyone unfortunately.
Three, most of the operations of the Federal government is in direct opposition to the Constitution. Why would this be any different? They ignore the majority of that document today, and this is just the latest example of the Federal doing whatever they please.
And this is a concern the world over as it affects other people, but not really the point of discussion at this point I don't believe. I am questioning by what right they have the ability to make this judgement, and therefore refusing access to this technology to everyone but the government themselves.
Understood and agreed, but thinking about this from an outsider's point of view (Which I am, I am an Australian located in London) Not to deny you your rights as a citizen, I certainly think that they should be defended, but I am just thinking about this logically and clinically as a person. If you use the services of a company, you are by definition a consumer.
Consumers have rights, and those rights should be protected. I am not trying to pull apart or confuse consumers or citizens. Being on the outside given that you disagree so strongly, I am curious to know why?
My view point, is that consumers as a group are made up of citizens. Your original quote of not our profession I think is the at the crux of this issue, and what I tried to follow up on. Why does the government have the right to something which a corporation, an individual or otherwise, made of up other citizens, does not? Why do one group of citizens (Who work for the government) have access to this technology, but not another? (Individuals, corporations etc)
I am not there, I don't understand. Hence my confusion and lack of comprehension on what you so strongly believe.
At the same time, if you wanted to build a COMPLETE new CPU and patent it, then you are going to be looking at a LOT more money than what you are going to spending on an FPGA setup to have a prototype.
What the grandparent was talking about was implementing a section of that setup.
Just to split hairs here once more, the citizens, individuals aren't really the target market. A CITIZEN of any one person isn't being denied access to this technology. If a person stops working for a corporation and starts working for a government organisation who already has an existing contract, then they could well be provided with a Blackberry.
If an individual wants it for access, then yes, they are being denied, but the users and citizens who make up the corporations are a lot more people. It's a question of corporations vs. government, why the difference?
My post was really an entity question, where whether it's a question of sovereignty (Which I doubt) or otherwise. By what right or what section of the Constitution allows a court which is made up of people from the government the right to deny access to a technology or procedure which they had access to previously.
I can sort of understand the arguement of "National Security" but this is quite quite different.
I just want to comment that I think this stop providing e-mail services to all American customers except government account holders is a bullshit biased judgement. Admittedly it was the original judgement, but I only just noticed it.
Why should corporate America have to suffer but the government not?
When MCI went down the tubes, I bought stock, simply because I knew that too much of the Govt infrastructure, corporate America and the internet was dependent on their network, and that MCI weren't going to get turned off.
I can understand doing something to keep the company alive, but this just seems wrong. Why the double standard?
I did some work with a company where everything that was possible to be paperless was. This wasn't to cut out the paper, it was to increase efficiency. The whole lot was a combination of web forms with notifications through email, and an approve function on a web site.
There was still a lot of paperwork that floated around the place, and a number of times, there was dual processes, one for paper and one for electronic.
All files of Travel and Expenditure were electronic, and then you printed out the result, and gave it to accounts with your receipts, the details for example went through the chain for approval. The receipts didn't have to go past everyone as enough information was in the electronic version for the managers to sign off.
Invoices for example couldn't only be sumbitted electronically, there were options so that a paper version came in, and it certainly helped your case if you lodged it online as well so that the approval could be done before the paper version came in. There were a number of times we were waiting on payment of invoices due to the fact that we had the invoice approved, but didn't have a paper version yet. This saved us the hassle of entering the details into the accountancy system.
Leave and other HR related functions were quite often completley electronic, as there was no requirement for paperwork in that instance. If you needed a doctor's certificate or otherwise, that was brought in, and it was given directly to HR.
What you really have to do is to look at what you are doing, and try to make those processes paper free, aim for efficiencies and not necessarily paperless. You will quite often find that both will go hand in hand.
There are a lot of excellent musicians online that will record tracks for you in their home studio and send it to you via email.
If you looked you might even find someone who is in your local area that will do it for you as well. One of my old music teachers has gone back to become a muso. One hell of an ugly guy, but he can play more instruments (And play them well) than anyone else I know. Extremely impressive seeing him play.
Anyway, back to the point at hand, he has played with a lot of local bands when they were producing music, if he liked their sound, quite often he was willing to give his help in getting the sound that they wanted out of him for getting his name printed on the CD artwork. He got cred for it, and if someone else liked his sound, he got other work out of it. A lot of the time he got paid, some of the time it didn't but that was his loss-leader work that he always got his payout for at a later date in some form or another, "Count it as karma" he used to say.
Bohemian Rhapsody was the ultimate example of one song that is absolutely fantastic, but at first NEVER got air play, simply because it was too long. A song that is considered today to be a classic, and really did display the breadth of Freddy Mercury's voice.
Queen put out that song, and for a ridiculously long time (Don't remember how long exactly) no radio wanted to play it as it was too much of a risk that if the listener didn't like it that they would change station and that the radio station would lose the listener. At that point, after a couple of minutes the listener would change back and they won't have changed song yet.
The second problem, was that it mixed so many genres, but that isn't the point of this post.
I was just wondering, I know we all make fun of the:
1) a 2) b 3)... 4) profit!
jokes, but I have to ask the question... Is this the future of music production / marketing?
1) Get band together 2) Do local acts, get ground base 3) Pay for own studio time, basic production for the creation of an album or group of songs 4) Put songs up on iTunes / online distribution, pay for some basic advertising. (There was an article a couple of months back about a search engine that displayed music that was similar to other stuff you liked, anyone got the link?) 5) Get money from online distribution (Not Profit! just yet) 6) Produce some more songs, get a better producer 7) Re-record some tracks, re-engineer others 8) Produce CD and sell online, or just sell CD through music retailers. 9) Profit!
Is this going to be the way that things will run?
At this point, as parent said, the music labels aren't really required. Admittedly they do have the marketing depts, recording studios, talent scouts, producers, distribution channels etc and you might go in and use these different groups directly.
At the end of the day, what's going to be the business model behind all of this, what are the numbers?
Has anyone looked at this before? Is there any articles on the net about this?
I would like to congratulate the parent on this post, I don't know if it's been mentioned before here or elsewhere, but I really hadn't seen the way it was going to happen. Now I am truly interested in the business model.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would I go for OpenSolaris? What benefits do I get as an end user? (Lets just run with this as a theory for a second)
I don't have the packages that are developed for Linux, there isn't any major "killer app" out there to make me want to switch. Really at the end of the day, what's the REALLY big bonus to running OpenSolaris now?
This is the question that I pose to you all here, this is the same question that a lot of IT Managers ask about Linux when comparing it to Microsoft Windows, but we have a few answers to that question.
Admittedly if you are a 100% Solaris shop (Solaris SysAdmin for example who wants to run Solaris on his 3Ghz P4 that sits under his desk) then you might consider it. There isn't a community around this to support it yet either.
One thing that could turn up would be application support from vendors that currently don't support Linux. If that turns up, then things could heat up.
I know it's early days, and choices are great, but Linux I think has filled that void. There are how many Linux distributions out there now? Do we really need 400 Solaris kerneled distributions out there?
I know this sounds like a FUD session, but I don't want it to be. Just trying to encourage some comments.
Anyway enough ranting, what do you guys think?
That only by your logic, the average person would buy a mp3-enabled-mobile and if it is good enough they would keep it. Why having to go out with 2 bricks if 1 can do everyting fine?.
For the same reason that I don't want to get an O2 XDA Exec. Great phone and all, they have been out for a while, and a number of the bugs have gone, but at the same time, I run into the problem that the thing (as far as I am concerned) is huge. If I want to go out with a phone and nothing else, I don't want to carry that thing. It's a brick, especially when all you want is just a phone when you are going out for the night. Especially going out clubbing or something with friends, do you really want something like that in your pocket? (Cue gags of "Is that a phone in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?")
I currently carry a Sony Ericsson K750, and I even find that's a bit too big.
Unfortunately you can only build so much into these things before they become cumbersome and people don't want to carry them around. An iPod or something like that, you can leave on your desk at work without any hassle, a phone you are stuck with.
I would suggest that I won't be joining my phone and MP3 player together for at least 2 or 3 years. I doubt flash storage is going to increase in density to compensate for the amount of music I carry.
I have multiple computers on multiple sites with multiple login accounts.
Simplest answer to security. I don't and can't do some of my work at one of the systems, simply because I locked myself out. There is some stuff which gets emailed to me that I do have to review and send back, but for a bulk of the time, anything like that we are discusinng is printed and not electronic. If it is electronic, I can only review it and work on it from a secured location using a differnt login account.
Having a system in the computer room for you to access when you have to do secure work won't be a problem for your bosses if it's that much of a risk. You really have to weigh it up, how much of your work do you do that truly is that concerning? I doubt it will be more than a small section of your day to day job. If it's bigger than that, then inform your bosses of the security risk and go from there.
I dug up the article about what mentioned Xen and patents. You are correct, that it requires a modified version of XP to run, but apparently patents are still an issue. So my guesswork still could be correct (Or completely wrong) in that VMWare may be involved so that the community doesn't tread on toes.
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer?
Here is a garden path, care for a walk?
You never know, VMWare might like the idea of booting MS out of the market all together and keep Xen on the small end of the playing field and build tools to migrate Xen machines to VMWare machines. (I don't know if this exists already)
I remember that Xen although technically capable of emulating a base platform for Windows isn't allowed to now because of patents. With the new virtualization in the chip, I think the Xen developers are hoping to be able to run Windows over the top of Linux. It could be for this reason that VMWare is working with Andrew Morten and vice versa to make sure that Xen doesn't step on VMWare's toes.
At the same time, how long do you think the tools are going to come out to manage all of this?
I truly don't think it will be that long. The hardware vendors IBM / HP etc will be willing to support this as if the Xen community comes out with extensions for the Virtualization stuff in the new CPU cores (also coming out shortly), then it will help them to push more kit (sell more hardware).
I was more thinking along the lines of ESX server which contains a cut down OS for the base operating system, everything else (All other OSs) run over the top.
Not only do they get the ability to knock the shit out of Microsoft, by taking away the base platform from them, they also get to try to get some market share from VMWare.
Imagine if you would the ability to use Xen for unlimited operating systems, no licensing cost of the base OS, thinking about it, I would prefer to be in Microsoft's shoes as opposed to VMWare's. Only difference is that Xen when compared to VMWare is a very immature platform and no IT manager is going to take Xen over VMWare just yet (Unless cost is a BIG factor).
I would have to say that this is still very cool, with all the new Virtualization options come out in the new cores shortly and if they can get to market before Microsoft, this is a great way to pick up some customers. Kudos to RedHat and IBM and Intel and everyone else for making this happen.
I dealt with a bug yesterday from Office 2000 that hasn't been dealt with yet.
It was apparently fixed in Office 2000 SR1 but it wasn't. Microsoft still have issues in XP with Kerberos key sizes (buffer size two small)
So we aren't the only ones stuck with this.
As RedHat said once, 'People complain about the bugs in our software, they refer to our bug database, and our outstanding bugs' (This isn't a direct quote but you know what I mean) that's because the bug database is open. How many bugs do you think are outstanding in Microsoft's Office code base?
Tablet PCs just seem useless without OneNote, you might as well have a regular laptop. Having not used Linux on a tablet, does anyone know how it goes?
One of the other things that I like about tablet PCs is that you can lay them flat on the table in meetings, having a screen between you and the person who you are trying to talk to, just seems rude. Personally I can't stand it, and it seems (From a body language point of view) a barrier between you and the other person.
Berny
It was all custom written. A lot of it was re-use of code, so it didn't take too long.
One, the argument of national security had better not be a good reason
No, it wasn't a good reason in this instance, well it's a good enough reason without context. If for example the cold war was still continuing. The US government had the ability to break code which the Russians were using, and this gave the US government the ability to monitor positions that they thought the Russians might attack from. From this information they developed plans to use their anti missile missile systems to neutralise those weapons (Not a pre-emptive attack) to protect their citizens. If for example they could find out what the flight paths were or to find Russian launch points and develop the best way to intercept those weapons, I could see a valid reason not to release the information of their ability to break that code to the US public which would therefore get picked up by the Russians and the Russians would therefore change their encryption system. I could also see a potential reason to deny the general public this information on HOW to break the encryption while they are still getting accurate data. It is for the benefit of the citizens that this occurs. When it goes beyond this point, when information is used to encroach upon the freedom of it's citizens then there is obviously a concern.
Two, all laws should pertain to citizens. They are what the government serves.
Roughly my point. Why is there a difference between the government and a corporation in the ability to access what would otherwise be a public technology?
If you start talking about corporations as somehow bigger than a citizen, you've already lost sight of the purpose of the government. It is to serve *the people*, not the corporations.
Corporations are made up of citizens, they also have a lot of bulk and can provide funding to give the general public a facility that may not necessarily be available to the public by an individual. There is a benefit to their existance. The government is certainly there to serve the people. Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg address said "And that government of the people, by the people, for the people" I think about sums up the requirements of the government to serve it's citizens. (Admittedly taken partially out of context, but not being a master in American history I couldn't remember a better quote off the top of my head)
To go one further I think the corporations should be serving the citizens / consumers too, but that isn't a common concensus amongst everyone unfortunately.
Three, most of the operations of the Federal government is in direct opposition to the Constitution. Why would this be any different? They ignore the majority of that document today, and this is just the latest example of the Federal doing whatever they please.
And this is a concern the world over as it affects other people, but not really the point of discussion at this point I don't believe. I am questioning by what right they have the ability to make this judgement, and therefore refusing access to this technology to everyone but the government themselves.
Understood and agreed, but thinking about this from an outsider's point of view (Which I am, I am an Australian located in London) Not to deny you your rights as a citizen, I certainly think that they should be defended, but I am just thinking about this logically and clinically as a person. If you use the services of a company, you are by definition a consumer.
Consumers have rights, and those rights should be protected. I am not trying to pull apart or confuse consumers or citizens. Being on the outside given that you disagree so strongly, I am curious to know why?
My view point, is that consumers as a group are made up of citizens. Your original quote of not our profession I think is the at the crux of this issue, and what I tried to follow up on. Why does the government have the right to something which a corporation, an individual or otherwise, made of up other citizens, does not? Why do one group of citizens (Who work for the government) have access to this technology, but not another? (Individuals, corporations etc)
I am not there, I don't understand. Hence my confusion and lack of comprehension on what you so strongly believe.
At the same time, if you wanted to build a COMPLETE new CPU and patent it, then you are going to be looking at a LOT more money than what you are going to spending on an FPGA setup to have a prototype.
What the grandparent was talking about was implementing a section of that setup.
Just one thing I forgot to point out regarding your post. The government in this instance is itself a consumer.
Just to split hairs here once more, the citizens, individuals aren't really the target market. A CITIZEN of any one person isn't being denied access to this technology. If a person stops working for a corporation and starts working for a government organisation who already has an existing contract, then they could well be provided with a Blackberry.
If an individual wants it for access, then yes, they are being denied, but the users and citizens who make up the corporations are a lot more people. It's a question of corporations vs. government, why the difference?
My post was really an entity question, where whether it's a question of sovereignty (Which I doubt) or otherwise. By what right or what section of the Constitution allows a court which is made up of people from the government the right to deny access to a technology or procedure which they had access to previously.
I can sort of understand the arguement of "National Security" but this is quite quite different.
I just want to comment that I think this stop providing e-mail services to all American customers except government account holders is a bullshit biased judgement. Admittedly it was the original judgement, but I only just noticed it.
Why should corporate America have to suffer but the government not?
When MCI went down the tubes, I bought stock, simply because I knew that too much of the Govt infrastructure, corporate America and the internet was dependent on their network, and that MCI weren't going to get turned off.
I can understand doing something to keep the company alive, but this just seems wrong. Why the double standard?
I did some work with a company where everything that was possible to be paperless was. This wasn't to cut out the paper, it was to increase efficiency. The whole lot was a combination of web forms with notifications through email, and an approve function on a web site.
There was still a lot of paperwork that floated around the place, and a number of times, there was dual processes, one for paper and one for electronic.
All files of Travel and Expenditure were electronic, and then you printed out the result, and gave it to accounts with your receipts, the details for example went through the chain for approval. The receipts didn't have to go past everyone as enough information was in the electronic version for the managers to sign off.
Invoices for example couldn't only be sumbitted electronically, there were options so that a paper version came in, and it certainly helped your case if you lodged it online as well so that the approval could be done before the paper version came in. There were a number of times we were waiting on payment of invoices due to the fact that we had the invoice approved, but didn't have a paper version yet. This saved us the hassle of entering the details into the accountancy system.
Leave and other HR related functions were quite often completley electronic, as there was no requirement for paperwork in that instance. If you needed a doctor's certificate or otherwise, that was brought in, and it was given directly to HR.
What you really have to do is to look at what you are doing, and try to make those processes paper free, aim for efficiencies and not necessarily paperless. You will quite often find that both will go hand in hand.
There are a lot of excellent musicians online that will record tracks for you in their home studio and send it to you via email.
If you looked you might even find someone who is in your local area that will do it for you as well. One of my old music teachers has gone back to become a muso. One hell of an ugly guy, but he can play more instruments (And play them well) than anyone else I know. Extremely impressive seeing him play.
Anyway, back to the point at hand, he has played with a lot of local bands when they were producing music, if he liked their sound, quite often he was willing to give his help in getting the sound that they wanted out of him for getting his name printed on the CD artwork. He got cred for it, and if someone else liked his sound, he got other work out of it. A lot of the time he got paid, some of the time it didn't but that was his loss-leader work that he always got his payout for at a later date in some form or another, "Count it as karma" he used to say.
Bohemian Rhapsody was the ultimate example of one song that is absolutely fantastic, but at first NEVER got air play, simply because it was too long. A song that is considered today to be a classic, and really did display the breadth of Freddy Mercury's voice.
Queen put out that song, and for a ridiculously long time (Don't remember how long exactly) no radio wanted to play it as it was too much of a risk that if the listener didn't like it that they would change station and that the radio station would lose the listener. At that point, after a couple of minutes the listener would change back and they won't have changed song yet.
The second problem, was that it mixed so many genres, but that isn't the point of this post.
I was just wondering, I know we all make fun of the:
...
1) a
2) b
3)
4) profit!
jokes, but I have to ask the question... Is this the future of music production / marketing?
1) Get band together
2) Do local acts, get ground base
3) Pay for own studio time, basic production for the creation of an album or group of songs
4) Put songs up on iTunes / online distribution, pay for some basic advertising. (There was an article a couple of months back about a search engine that displayed music that was similar to other stuff you liked, anyone got the link?)
5) Get money from online distribution (Not Profit! just yet)
6) Produce some more songs, get a better producer
7) Re-record some tracks, re-engineer others
8) Produce CD and sell online, or just sell CD through music retailers.
9) Profit!
Is this going to be the way that things will run?
At this point, as parent said, the music labels aren't really required. Admittedly they do have the marketing depts, recording studios, talent scouts, producers, distribution channels etc and you might go in and use these different groups directly.
At the end of the day, what's going to be the business model behind all of this, what are the numbers?
Has anyone looked at this before? Is there any articles on the net about this?
I would like to congratulate the parent on this post, I don't know if it's been mentioned before here or elsewhere, but I really hadn't seen the way it was going to happen. Now I am truly interested in the business model.
I'll get a whole heap of giant capacitors.... a few lightning rods.... Hang on... Does that mean the RIAA will sue God as an energy supplier?
Ooooh yeah, this outta be fun.
It has to be said..."A 1969 Buick Riviera, why?"
A friend of mine had one, huge car. A few lounge chairs on wheels.
It isn't the OSS version, it does have Flash, Java and the rest of the proprietry software in it.