We're seeing usage and adoption here because it's free. On the face of it adoptions like this look good but there are no long term plans to educate or update the software that is being used in many of these scenarios... the reality is that vast chunks of the developing world will be dumped in 2003 with little or no sustainable technology future.
Of course patients can be enforced in Europe, you just have to do it on an individual country basis until some form of harmonized legislation is in place at commission level.
I'm not debating the licence or the legalities of it.
My point is a simple one, manufacturers build devices to compete in a marketplace, they compete based upon trade and industry secrets that they have developed. Those secrets will frequently be embedded within the OS upon which they base their box.
If the anger of the community pushes for the enforcement of the GPL in these early stages they'll just pick up their toys and go find another playground to play in.
I'm pretty sure that is not what we're looking for.
Respecting the GPL is important BUT embedded devices is one area where Linux has managed to get some real traction, take any steps to kill it now and you can only harm the community and adoption.
It's free or it's not free, in the long term you can't have both.
It's obvious why he did this...
on
Project Plex-Box
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Clearly (based on the pics) he does not own a TV, leaving the xbox itself as the only form of physical entertainment.
The black box must have been as boring as hell.
Facinating story, but this sites tag line is not..
on
Video Card History
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
... "History for Nerds and Stuff that used to matter."
"means some enterprises may end up paying 10 to 40 percent more"
some... may... does not equal "issued a report that says businesses that choose to stay with Microsoft products may end up paying anywhere from 10%-40% more"
The research is a little flawed, it makes no comparison of features or the benefits that come with the MS server products (good or bad, the data needs to be there).
This is GREAT data for any enterprise that is using it's office suite for word processing... but there are not many of those, most are doing a little extra work with the software that they purchase.
... stories like this just want me to logoff from/. for good.
Once upon a time this site contained "News for nerds, and stuff that matters."
Now it's increasingly just becoming a bunch of anti-Microsoft bullshit.
... this was never really a very big issue for most people until Microsoft starting issuing security bulletins.
Now they issue a bulletin, somebody exploits its, somebody else does not bother to read it.
The law suit claims that the update process is too complex, yet these are the same people who complain that no software company has the right to make an update process automatic.
follow the link and read the story, the case is built "on the claim that its market-dominant software is vulnerable to viruses".
It does not say that the case "alleges the Redmond software giant produces software with little concern for security" as the/. article suggests.
I'm not aware of an OS that isn't vulnerable to viruses. Precedent is a dangerous thing.
... focused on Security, a great deal of public information on the subject, influence with a wide array of standards bodies and a published strategy covering the topic I'm guessing that this will be a tough case to win in a court.
... all I ever seem to see them ask for is equality in procurement, Government and it's agencies should be able to choose software on merit not on dictated policy.
I don't see any policy that says all trucks bought by a particular government should be Ford, all I see is Government issuing a tender looking for best value in Truck supply.
The same should apply to software, preference legislation is a bad thing, markets will change, product availability will change... if we let Governments write this into law then when Linux is a dead OS 10 years from now they'll still be buying it 5 years later. A scenario under which we all lose.
Let them make a choice based upon best value, best value to Government and therefore best value to the tax payer.
Wanting to see Linux preference policy in procurement is ridiculous, you should really be wanting to see Linux win in a level playing field.
This article is a stretch of the truth by anybodies imagination, it makes a point though, and a good point at that.
... will take the lead in this do you think? Hyundai, Samsung or LG?
S.Korea had a similar plan during the 70s when they subsidized the big three to each develop and market their own version of Unix in the hope that they would be able to undercut the Americans.
Although you can indeed send mail to my mail server you are not personally entitled to connect to it with your mail client, indeed I will challenge you for a password and reject your connection if you try.
Mail servers are not open for all to use, they generally exist for a business reason and are configured to meet that need.
interesting, but these messaging servers are NOT public, last time I looked they all belonged to commercial entities that have stood them up for a particular purpose.
so in an "open" network who provides the server services that Yahoo currently deliver? who provides directory services, and why would they do it?
The "open" community developed bind/DNS a long time ago to provide a distributed directory service for finding machines, is it time we started looking at some similar mechinism for finding people and setting about doing the work to make it pervasive?
"It's only fair that we get to use their protocol".
Surely the debate has little if anything to do with the protocol, it has everything to do with Yahoo's server base that sits behind their IM client and the business model that they have in place that sustains those servers.
Sure, we all have a right to use the protocol, it's only bits and bytes and does not cost anybody anything. Who gives us the right to use their servers though?
Slashdot Mirror
Your scenario is driven by demand, my local CompUSA is generally out of stock of them, not by choice but because demand is so high.
They're maintaining the price and pushing a huge advertising campaign, it's a good strategy, higher price & lower volume = bigger profit & lower manufacturing cost.
I was under the impression that he had sold out a long time ago, as far as I know a number of folks pen under his name these days.
It should come as no surprised when the unexpected is published under his banner.
We're seeing usage and adoption here because it's free. On the face of it adoptions like this look good but there are no long term plans to educate or update the software that is being used in many of these scenarios... the reality is that vast chunks of the developing world will be dumped in 2003 with little or no sustainable technology future.
Of course patients can be enforced in Europe, you just have to do it on an individual country basis until some form of harmonized legislation is in place at commission level.
I'm not debating the licence or the legalities of it.
My point is a simple one, manufacturers build devices to compete in a marketplace, they compete based upon trade and industry secrets that they have developed. Those secrets will frequently be embedded within the OS upon which they base their box.
If the anger of the community pushes for the enforcement of the GPL in these early stages they'll just pick up their toys and go find another playground to play in.
I'm pretty sure that is not what we're looking for.
Respecting the GPL is important BUT embedded devices is one area where Linux has managed to get some real traction, take any steps to kill it now and you can only harm the community and adoption.
It's free or it's not free, in the long term you can't have both.
Clearly (based on the pics) he does not own a TV, leaving the xbox itself as the only form of physical entertainment.
The black box must have been as boring as hell.
... "History for Nerds and Stuff that used to matter."
... moved out of Australia. Maybe I should email him my bank details.
... and no free support either.
"means some enterprises may end up paying 10 to 40 percent more" some... may... does not equal "issued a report that says businesses that choose to stay with Microsoft products may end up paying anywhere from 10%-40% more" The research is a little flawed, it makes no comparison of features or the benefits that come with the MS server products (good or bad, the data needs to be there). This is GREAT data for any enterprise that is using it's office suite for word processing... but there are not many of those, most are doing a little extra work with the software that they purchase.
... stories like this just want me to logoff from /. for good.
Once upon a time this site contained "News for nerds, and stuff that matters."
Now it's increasingly just becoming a bunch of anti-Microsoft bullshit.
... not everybody is laughing at SCO though, only half of the arguement seems to be.
... in the form that we have recently come to know it.
... this was never really a very big issue for most people until Microsoft starting issuing security bulletins.
Now they issue a bulletin, somebody exploits its, somebody else does not bother to read it.
The law suit claims that the update process is too complex, yet these are the same people who complain that no software company has the right to make an update process automatic.
follow the link and read the story, the case is built "on the claim that its market-dominant software is vulnerable to viruses". It does not say that the case "alleges the Redmond software giant produces software with little concern for security" as the /. article suggests.
I'm not aware of an OS that isn't vulnerable to viruses. Precedent is a dangerous thing.
... focused on Security, a great deal of public information on the subject, influence with a wide array of standards bodies and a published strategy covering the topic I'm guessing that this will be a tough case to win in a court.
... but I'm not going to bother, I'm guessing that this entire story is either a troll or a joke. At least, I'm hoping it is.
... all I ever seem to see them ask for is equality in procurement, Government and it's agencies should be able to choose software on merit not on dictated policy.
I don't see any policy that says all trucks bought by a particular government should be Ford, all I see is Government issuing a tender looking for best value in Truck supply.
The same should apply to software, preference legislation is a bad thing, markets will change, product availability will change... if we let Governments write this into law then when Linux is a dead OS 10 years from now they'll still be buying it 5 years later. A scenario under which we all lose.
Let them make a choice based upon best value, best value to Government and therefore best value to the tax payer.
Wanting to see Linux preference policy in procurement is ridiculous, you should really be wanting to see Linux win in a level playing field.
This article is a stretch of the truth by anybodies imagination, it makes a point though, and a good point at that.
... will take the lead in this do you think? Hyundai, Samsung or LG?
S.Korea had a similar plan during the 70s when they subsidized the big three to each develop and market their own version of Unix in the hope that they would be able to undercut the Americans.
Although you can indeed send mail to my mail server you are not personally entitled to connect to it with your mail client, indeed I will challenge you for a password and reject your connection if you try. Mail servers are not open for all to use, they generally exist for a business reason and are configured to meet that need.
... "if ever you want to find some information on the internet don't post a question, post a wrong answer."
interesting, but these messaging servers are NOT public, last time I looked they all belonged to commercial entities that have stood them up for a particular purpose.
so in an "open" network who provides the server services that Yahoo currently deliver? who provides directory services, and why would they do it?
The "open" community developed bind/DNS a long time ago to provide a distributed directory service for finding machines, is it time we started looking at some similar mechinism for finding people and setting about doing the work to make it pervasive?
"It's only fair that we get to use their protocol".
Surely the debate has little if anything to do with the protocol, it has everything to do with Yahoo's server base that sits behind their IM client and the business model that they have in place that sustains those servers.
Sure, we all have a right to use the protocol, it's only bits and bytes and does not cost anybody anything. Who gives us the right to use their servers though?