Aside from the amusing improper word choice in your Subject line (it is 'sighted' not 'sited' -- the reference is to vision, not location), your entire post lacks any sense or logic! Would it be fair to assume that you don't fit the profile?!
Perhaps a broader view of what constitutes a market would help you understand the statement. There is, without a doubt, an Open Source market, just as there is a Kids-and-parents-playing-in-the-park market. And a Senior-citizens-attending-church market. That no money changes hands does not necessarily imply that it is not a market. Additionally, presence in a market -- even in a self-proclaimed "leading position" in a market -- does not imply a stranglehold on said market or any given resource.
An example might help illustrate this. Let's go back to the market of children and parents playing in city parks, and let's assume that a company has managed to obtain 75% of billboards that are visible from all parks. They can rightfully claim to have a leading position in that market -- but it does not restrict the market in any way. Other billboards can be constructed. Entire new parks can be developed. The market might leave city parks and head to the beach instead. There is nothing inherently wrong with seeking that leading position in a given market, and it doesn't necessarily mean anything negative for the market.
Visualizations such as these are not only intriguing to techies, they can be very valuable educational tools for non-techies, to help overcome the "magic black box" syndrome that gives rise to so much stupid behavior. Even though a non-technical person may miss 99% of the meaning of any given visualization of the Internet, the mere viewing of it can give a non-techie that critical clue that there is something specific to the Internet. You don't just double-click the AOL icon on your desktop, type an e-mail, and it magically appears at the destination -- instead, specific "things" are happening. By bringing it out of the mystical realm, dealing with problems (like said e-mail bouncing back) naturally becomes an exercise in analysis, rather than frustration that the magic isn't working.
As much as I hate analogies between computers and cars, I'll use one. A non-mechanic does not throw his/her hands up in the air when their car suddenly dies in the middle of a traffic jam. S/He may not know much about the car, but you can bet (or at least hope) that one of the first things they'll check is their gas gauge. If they fail to find the real cause, they may still feel frustrated, but not so much as if they had absolutely no clue why the vehicle stopped. That tiny first bit of awareness is critically empowering; without it, they are a slave to their own ignorance.
Visualizations of the Internet won't lead the non-techie to run down to the local electronics shop to buy a breakout box for analyzing network failures, but they can break the shackles of misguided and unhelpful notions of "magic black boxes." So do your Mom, neighbor, child's teacher, etc. a favor and share these and similar visualizations with them!
I think the poor life of the construction/utility worker is a bit overblown in your description, but they definitely need a specific compensation they probably don't enjoy now: Free Internet (and not the banner-ad/NetZero kind). Consider it a preventive measure, by increasing their personal understanding of, and appreciation for, the data infrastructure.
(And yes, I've done a bit of construction work myself...)
The debate regarding purpose-specific devices versus multi-purpose devices is neither "news" nor limited to computer products. You'll find the same issues in office products (witness the multi-purpose fax/printer/scanner/copier machines), stereos, etc. As long as there is room for consumer choice on both sides of the debate -- that is, as long as both sides can still make sense to a significant portion of any given market -- it is pointless to claim that one side or the other will be dominant. Instead, they simply subdivide the market into logical consumer categories.
To use office equipment as an example, a combo fax/printer/scanner/copier/etc device makes sense for the small office/home office (SOHO) segment of the office equipment market. Single-function copiers will make sense to the "big business" segment of the office equipment market. For either combo units or function-specific units to dominate would mean that one segment or the other is not being properly served (i.e., the SOHO segment will be faced with spending a lot for unneeded functions, like collation options, various paper size trays, etc., or the big business segment will be faced with equipment that doesn't meet functional needs).
The same applies to computing products (hardware and software). What makes sense to one segment of the overall consumer population (say, for example, the all-night hacker type) will not serve another segment (e.g., the "how do I print my letter to Granny" type).
To put it much more succinctly, it's about using the right tool for the job -- and recognizing that the simply-described job (e.g., "copy a document") may mean radically different things in various market segments.
"You call your dear mother long distance..." ...and you know her number so you aren't using a potentially misguided search facility.
"...your online TV guide lists..." ...what it knows, as provided by an authoritative source, which does not begin to compare to guessing based on keywords etc.
"...you turn to leave only to find that the door doesn't have a handle on this side..." ...or, more accurately, that you are using an optional device that turns you back around. Disable the device and you're free to leave. (In the case of porno sites, disable scripting support and then the script to open a new browser window won't fire off.)
A bit of hype about those evil hackers will go a long way (i.e., from newspaper to newspaper, country to country...)
Sufficient doses of hype will induce TREMBLES (Traumatic Reflex Evoking Multiple Blank Line Entry Syndrome), as evidenced in your message.
Hope this helps...
(I will admit I was unable to distinguish in this case between TREMBLES and MUMBLES [Monkey Using Multiple Blank Lines for Emphasis Syndrome] so I gave you the benefit of the doubt.)
On a large scale? I don't see how it could possibly be practical. On a smaller, local, personal scale, sure -- just get together with some local hardware hacks and do it!
You might be use a Z80 (indirectly, but not very much so) when you eat at a restaurant, shop at the local mall, etc., and pay with your credit card. Pay attention to the credit card reader -- is it the (very common) TRANZ 330 from HP/Verifone? If so, a Z80 is handling your credit card data... (See here for more TRANZ 330 specs, including the blazing 300/1200bps modem...)
If you purchase the software, then you are right. But in most cases you are not purchasing the software. You are purchasing a license. The same holds true with GNU software -- you don't *own* the software, you accept the license. The fact that money does or does not change hands does not alter the fact that you are obtaining a license, and not possession of the software itself.
(I consider the excuse of lying to the computer versus lying to the software publisher silly at best, but that's another matter entirely.)
> Never mind that I... buy a piece of software the > same way that I'd buy a rutabaga or cabbage
This is an important point, but not in the way you intended. You *chose* to buy the license to the software, just as you chose to buy the cabbage. Others might make different choices (I would choose, for example, to buy Fritos and to acquire a license to free software). You made the choice, so why point the finger at others for your choice of what to consume?
> I'm not free to take it apart...
Of what use would it be to take apart a license? If you make an uninformed decision to buy broccoli instead of cabbage, do you complain that the grocer is not allowing you to make coleslaw? You think you are buying software, but that is not the fault of the software publisher, reseller, etc., it is your fault for not understanding what you are buying.
> A contract signed at the point of a gun...
Are you implying that your software license purchases are made at gunpoint? Do you also buy cabbage at gunpoint, since you said you buy your software license the same way you buy groceries?
> A 'shrink wrap' license where I've put out my > money and then suddenly I'm told 'no, you didn't > buy me, and you can't get your money back' is > not good faith.
I can't think of a shrink wrap license that was not available prior to opening the media, and which did not include a clause that you could return the product unopened if you disagreed. (If you have such a license, you're probably right, it probably wouldn't stand up in court.) But what I suspect is really the case is that you want the software enough to open the product -- and it goes back to what you are choosing to consume.
> I'm not free to sell it or give it to my > grandchildren when I get tired of it
Likewise, I can't think of a shrink-wrap license that hasn't included the option to transfer the license. But in this case, lack of such a clause probably would not render the license unenforceable. It would just make it a worse choice for something to purchase.
You have the freedom -- and responsibility -- to choose how you spend your money. I suggest you not complain about how others are at fault for the choices you make.
Slashdot Mirror
Aside from the amusing improper word choice in your Subject line (it is 'sighted' not 'sited' -- the reference is to vision, not location), your entire post lacks any sense or logic! Would it be fair to assume that you don't fit the profile?!
If you don't mind illogic, you probably think ads for Internet Keywords by RealNames are really cool and sensible!
An example might help illustrate this. Let's go back to the market of children and parents playing in city parks, and let's assume that a company has managed to obtain 75% of billboards that are visible from all parks. They can rightfully claim to have a leading position in that market -- but it does not restrict the market in any way. Other billboards can be constructed. Entire new parks can be developed. The market might leave city parks and head to the beach instead. There is nothing inherently wrong with seeking that leading position in a given market, and it doesn't necessarily mean anything negative for the market.
Fun debunking the RealNames mythology
As much as I hate analogies between computers and cars, I'll use one. A non-mechanic does not throw his/her hands up in the air when their car suddenly dies in the middle of a traffic jam. S/He may not know much about the car, but you can bet (or at least hope) that one of the first things they'll check is their gas gauge. If they fail to find the real cause, they may still feel frustrated, but not so much as if they had absolutely no clue why the vehicle stopped. That tiny first bit of awareness is critically empowering; without it, they are a slave to their own ignorance.
Visualizations of the Internet won't lead the non-techie to run down to the local electronics shop to buy a breakout box for analyzing network failures, but they can break the shackles of misguided and unhelpful notions of "magic black boxes." So do your Mom, neighbor, child's teacher, etc. a favor and share these and similar visualizations with them!
Journey to Yandol (science fiction short story)
(And yes, I've done a bit of construction work myself...)
To use office equipment as an example, a combo fax/printer/scanner/copier/etc device makes sense for the small office/home office (SOHO) segment of the office equipment market. Single-function copiers will make sense to the "big business" segment of the office equipment market. For either combo units or function-specific units to dominate would mean that one segment or the other is not being properly served (i.e., the SOHO segment will be faced with spending a lot for unneeded functions, like collation options, various paper size trays, etc., or the big business segment will be faced with equipment that doesn't meet functional needs).
The same applies to computing products (hardware and software). What makes sense to one segment of the overall consumer population (say, for example, the all-night hacker type) will not serve another segment (e.g., the "how do I print my letter to Granny" type).
To put it much more succinctly, it's about using the right tool for the job -- and recognizing that the simply-described job (e.g., "copy a document") may mean radically different things in various market segments.
Some tools to consider...
"You call your dear mother long distance..."
...and you know her number so you aren't using a potentially misguided search facility.
"...your online TV guide lists..."
...what it knows, as provided by an authoritative source, which does not begin to compare to guessing based on keywords etc.
"...you turn to leave only to find that the door doesn't have a handle on this side..."
...or, more accurately, that you are using an optional device that turns you back around. Disable the device and you're free to leave. (In the case of porno sites, disable scripting support and then the script to open a new browser window won't fire off.)
- A bit of hype about those evil hackers will go a long way (i.e., from newspaper to newspaper, country to country...)
- Sufficient doses of hype will induce TREMBLES (Traumatic Reflex Evoking Multiple Blank Line Entry Syndrome), as evidenced in your message.
Hope this helps...(I will admit I was unable to distinguish in this case between TREMBLES and MUMBLES [Monkey Using Multiple Blank Lines for Emphasis Syndrome] so I gave you the benefit of the doubt.)
On a large scale? I don't see how it could possibly be practical. On a smaller, local, personal scale, sure -- just get together with some local hardware hacks and do it!
You might be use a Z80 (indirectly, but not very much so) when you eat at a restaurant, shop at the local mall, etc., and pay with your credit card. Pay attention to the credit card reader -- is it the (very common) TRANZ 330 from HP/Verifone? If so, a Z80 is handling your credit card data... (See here for more TRANZ 330 specs, including the blazing 300/1200bps modem...)
If you purchase the software, then you are right. But in most cases you are not purchasing the software. You are purchasing a license. The same holds true with GNU software -- you don't *own* the software, you accept the license. The fact that money does or does not change hands does not alter the fact that you are obtaining a license, and not possession of the software itself.
(I consider the excuse of lying to the computer versus lying to the software publisher silly at best, but that's another matter entirely.)
> Never mind that I... buy a piece of software the
> same way that I'd buy a rutabaga or cabbage
This is an important point, but not in the way you intended. You *chose* to buy the license to the software, just as you chose to buy the cabbage. Others might make different choices (I would choose, for example, to buy Fritos and to acquire a license to free software). You made the choice, so why point the finger at others for your choice of what to consume?
> I'm not free to take it apart...
Of what use would it be to take apart a license? If you make an uninformed decision to buy broccoli instead of cabbage, do you complain that the grocer is not allowing you to make coleslaw? You think you are buying software, but that is not the fault of the software publisher, reseller, etc., it is your fault for not understanding what you are buying.
> A contract signed at the point of a gun...
Are you implying that your software license purchases are made at gunpoint? Do you also buy cabbage at gunpoint, since you said you buy your software license the same way you buy groceries?
> A 'shrink wrap' license where I've put out my
> money and then suddenly I'm told 'no, you didn't
> buy me, and you can't get your money back' is
> not good faith.
I can't think of a shrink wrap license that was not available prior to opening the media, and which did not include a clause that you could return the product unopened if you disagreed. (If you have such a license, you're probably right, it probably wouldn't stand up in court.) But what I suspect is really the case is that you want the software enough to open the product -- and it goes back to what you are choosing to consume.
> I'm not free to sell it or give it to my
> grandchildren when I get tired of it
Likewise, I can't think of a shrink-wrap license that hasn't included the option to transfer the license. But in this case, lack of such a clause probably would not render the license unenforceable. It would just make it a worse choice for something to purchase.
You have the freedom -- and responsibility -- to choose how you spend your money. I suggest you not complain about how others are at fault for the choices you make.