If you plug in to MySQL with a SQL Server only toolset, you're in for a shock learning curve, even if the databases themselves are on par with each other and MySQL less buggy.
This is why open standards and interfaces are so important. One of the greatest things about OSS is the fact that each group does such a small part and does it well. When the interfaces are open and well defined, you can have a system with a linux kernel, gnu utilities, sawfish window manager, gnome desktop manager, nautilus file manager, apache webserver, mod_perl cgi, and mozilla web browser that works like it was from the same company, if not better.
Switch any one of these components out with an alternative and everything still works perfectly. When my default window manager at work was one I hated, I downloaded, compiled, and now run an alternative window manager that helps me work more effectively without affecting any other part of the system.
Compare this with your example, where if you use one of the company's products, you have to use all of them. When you can easily pick and choose each portion of your system, you get a better overall product for your individual needs. This is why OSS products are higher quality.
Most of the 150 million or more P2P software downloaders believe they will never be hauled into court, and they are right.
Why not? Why should copyright owners be given a vigilante license when they haven't even tried the methods that are currently available to them? They wouldn't even need to haul all 150 million into court. A few hundred chosen at random would make their point. What about legislation to allow some sort of reverse class action suit? Instead of hacking p2p networks, collect the information you need and sue a big group of people at once.
I agree that sharing files with family and friends and making backup copies is fair use, but sharing copyrighted files with complete strangers does not fall under fair use. My rule of thumb is if there is a possibility that more than one copy will be used simultaneously, then it is not fair use. Therefore, sharing with millions of strangers is not fair use because there is more than one copy being used at once. Having your CD collection copied to ogg files to listen to at work is fair use because no one is at home listening to your CDs while you are at work.
I use the same philosophy with regard to software. I don't feel bad having a copy of a program installed on my laptop because I know when I am using my laptop, I am not using the copy on my desktop. Of course, now that I almost exclusively use Linux at home, that dilemma has solved itself.
I have a simple solution for the full vs limited disclosure dilemma. Charge the software company a recurring fee (monthly or weekly) to keep the disclosure limited. Have a reasonable grace period of a week or two with no fee. If they do not wish to pay, then fully disclose the vulnerability at that point.
This gives the software company a financial incentive to patch their code quickly, but also a method of keeping the disclosure limited if they need more time. Of course, there are a lot of particulars to work out, like fee amounts and what exactly to do with the money, but I think my method could work.
This could also solve the open source projects with volunteer coders can have a patch out in 2 hours, but Microsoft needs 2 months mystery.
When I was a kid I released my agression by chopping wood and mowing lawns. Nothing like violently chopping the heads off of 1 million blades of grass to relieve stress.
Re:Why I switched to Computer Science
on
Engineer in a Box?
·
· Score: 1
Believe it or not you can tell the difference between a person with a computer science degree and a person with a computer engineering degree at my job, even when they have the same job description.
With a few notable exceptions, the computer scientists tend to just write code according to what they've been told.
The computer engineers are more interested in solving the entire problem, and have been taught the skills to do so in their coursework. The engineers question the correctness of the requirements more, evaluate the effectiveness of the tools more, and seek to improve the overall process more. They also tend to understand the big picture and come up with more creative solutions to software problems. Also, having had more training in computer internals, they have an easier time tracking down difficult bugs.
Not suprisingly, they also tend to get paid more, and are given more challenging tasks and special assignments. You can't convince me that there is no value added in being an engineer.
Why would I give Microsoft the password for my doctor's or stock trading website when I won't give my own family members the root password to my computer?
While I may trust Liberty Alliance more than Microsoft, I still would prefer to manage my passwords myself. Single sign on just provides a single point of attack.
I think if they want to try and restrict some of their content, that's fine with me. As long as they restrict it equally. What's not fine with me is having to use Windows to access the content. It's like releasing a CD but allowing it to only play on one brand of CD player. Or broadcasting music over the radio but only allowing one brand of radio to receive the music. Why should a Windows user be allowed 4 plays when I am allowed no plays at all? Is this going to turn into another DeCSS?
This doesn't mean that if you rip a page out of a book you can no longer sell it. But I am quite certain that you cannot start a
business whose sole purpose is to rip pages out of books and resell them as "clean".
How many books can you rip out the pages from and sell before it becomes wrong? 100? 1000? How many? (Derivative work from "Star Trek: Insurrection")
Just because the mouse is a great innovation does not mean that it is the best tool for every job. Would you solve a multiplication problem using a mouse? Did you post your comments using only (or even primarily) your mouse? Would you create a research paper using only your mouse?
I think we've reached a happy medium in software development. We use the mouse when it is the most powerful tool, such as GUI construction and modeling. We use text-based methods when they are most powerful, such as algorithm implementation.
Slashdot Mirror
This is why open standards and interfaces are so important. One of the greatest things about OSS is the fact that each group does such a small part and does it well. When the interfaces are open and well defined, you can have a system with a linux kernel, gnu utilities, sawfish window manager, gnome desktop manager, nautilus file manager, apache webserver, mod_perl cgi, and mozilla web browser that works like it was from the same company, if not better.
Switch any one of these components out with an alternative and everything still works perfectly. When my default window manager at work was one I hated, I downloaded, compiled, and now run an alternative window manager that helps me work more effectively without affecting any other part of the system.
Compare this with your example, where if you use one of the company's products, you have to use all of them. When you can easily pick and choose each portion of your system, you get a better overall product for your individual needs. This is why OSS products are higher quality.
What if you are a thief for a living?
I agree that sharing files with family and friends and making backup copies is fair use, but sharing copyrighted files with complete strangers does not fall under fair use. My rule of thumb is if there is a possibility that more than one copy will be used simultaneously, then it is not fair use. Therefore, sharing with millions of strangers is not fair use because there is more than one copy being used at once. Having your CD collection copied to ogg files to listen to at work is fair use because no one is at home listening to your CDs while you are at work.
I use the same philosophy with regard to software. I don't feel bad having a copy of a program installed on my laptop because I know when I am using my laptop, I am not using the copy on my desktop. Of course, now that I almost exclusively use Linux at home, that dilemma has solved itself.
This gives the software company a financial incentive to patch their code quickly, but also a method of keeping the disclosure limited if they need more time. Of course, there are a lot of particulars to work out, like fee amounts and what exactly to do with the money, but I think my method could work.
This could also solve the open source projects with volunteer coders can have a patch out in 2 hours, but Microsoft needs 2 months mystery.
When I was a kid I released my agression by chopping wood and mowing lawns. Nothing like violently chopping the heads off of 1 million blades of grass to relieve stress.
Believe it or not you can tell the difference between a person with a computer science degree and a person with a computer engineering degree at my job, even when they have the same job description.
With a few notable exceptions, the computer scientists tend to just write code according to what they've been told.
The computer engineers are more interested in solving the entire problem, and have been taught the skills to do so in their coursework. The engineers question the correctness of the requirements more, evaluate the effectiveness of the tools more, and seek to improve the overall process more. They also tend to understand the big picture and come up with more creative solutions to software problems. Also, having had more training in computer internals, they have an easier time tracking down difficult bugs.
Not suprisingly, they also tend to get paid more, and are given more challenging tasks and special assignments. You can't convince me that there is no value added in being an engineer.
Why would I give Microsoft the password for my doctor's or stock trading website when I won't give my own family members the root password to my computer?
While I may trust Liberty Alliance more than Microsoft, I still would prefer to manage my passwords myself. Single sign on just provides a single point of attack.
I think if they want to try and restrict some of their content, that's fine with me. As long as they restrict it equally. What's not fine with me is having to use Windows to access the content. It's like releasing a CD but allowing it to only play on one brand of CD player. Or broadcasting music over the radio but only allowing one brand of radio to receive the music. Why should a Windows user be allowed 4 plays when I am allowed no plays at all? Is this going to turn into another DeCSS?
This doesn't mean that if you rip a page out of a book you can no longer sell it. But I am quite certain that you cannot start a business whose sole purpose is to rip pages out of books and resell them as "clean".
How many books can you rip out the pages from and sell before it becomes wrong? 100? 1000? How many? (Derivative work from "Star Trek: Insurrection")
Just because the mouse is a great innovation does not mean that it is the best tool for every job. Would you solve a multiplication problem using a mouse? Did you post your comments using only (or even primarily) your mouse? Would you create a research paper using only your mouse?
I think we've reached a happy medium in software development. We use the mouse when it is the most powerful tool, such as GUI construction and modeling. We use text-based methods when they are most powerful, such as algorithm implementation.