There are consequences. [Long litany of consequences]
True. But the here's the alternative future, "Harry Turtledove" style: Divert the resources in the demonstratably finite pool of OS developers to create a tool which met the need. Divert resources to adapt to the tool as it evolves. Lose effort and suffer inefficiencies as long as the evolving tool fails to support critical requirements.
Zero-sum. Machs nichs. TANSTAAFL. Pay now, pay later, pay continuously. The universal friction of software development is essentially time-constant. So the only real argument is political.
As far as that's concerned, I think you're right. However, I believe it's naive to try to leverage economic arguments when clearly they're a wash.
Re:So develop software that NEEDS support
on
No More BitKeeper Linux
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
So instead of developing easy to use software that doesn't need support, people should really develop useful but hard to use software that has support costs.
There's an instant "-1 Flamebait" target if ever I saw one.
Listen up. Software doesn't need support, ever. Users need support, to varying degrees. So your fundamental premise is a misleading straw man.
Free Software neither eliminates or increases the need for user support. Good software, regardless of how it's licensed, is easier for the user to use without hand-holding. Free Software increases the options available to the user, and eventually market Darwinism will tend to narrow the field to the packages which best meet the users' needs. Not the market monopolist's need, mind you: the true needs of the real users. Niche minority software packages will continue as long as someone is interested in it, even if it's just the solitary unwashed hippy developer.
In short, developers should develop what the damn hell they feel like, and the users should use whatever they feel comfortable with.
If you have a 99/100th of a friend laying around, please don't make friends with me....
Hmmm... 1% of the mass of a person is his or her cerebral cortex. In that sense, I know lots of people that are only 99% there. And that type of person is the perfect SCO customer.
Mindless off-topic Microsoft basher-bashing gets modded up by mindless anti-Microsoft-bashing slashbots. You insensitive clod.
I'm slowly formulating the/. corrolary to Godwin's Law:
As a/. thread discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Soviet Russians or Insensitive Clods approaches unity. Once such a comparison is made, the thread should be over, and whoever mentioned the Soviets or Clods has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.
Re:Marketing people love you!
on
Return of the Mac
·
· Score: 5, Funny
And how are you going to tell that those interviewers are telling you the truth?
Aah. Better a proven liar than a probable one.
At least with this guy he has learned his lesson.
Yes: hide the evidence better. For instance, don't use exactly the same system to download the software and share it, for the love of Cthulhu.
Yes, it's horribly cynical, and I'm actually much in favor of second chances, "Good judgement comes from bad experience, comes from bad judgement", etc...but that's an article of faith, because your rationalizations have no real basis. You can tell yourself these things, but at the end all you have is faith, because the exact opposite may be true.
So I am being "coerced" by the government not to commit murder because if I did, they would throw me in jail for the rest of my life. Right?
Right. If you were inclined to commit murder, and the only bar was the threat of state force (imprisonment), then yes, you are coerced into a course of action. One that most of us approve of, no doubt. We don't want you murdering any of us, after all.
That's the essense of coercion: overriding individual will with force or threat of force. On some level, that's what society needs. But no, there is no connotation or underlying meaning that "coerce" is something only bad people do.
No, a court would stop the employee from profiting from the theft because they are covered by an NDA. But anyone else who gets hold of the information in good faith is free to do what they want with it.
It sounds cavalier, and I'm not sure if I'd have the stones if I were in the situation, but I'd like to think I'd live by the motto "Millions for defense, not one penny for tribute."
Absolute-precision decimal math. No crufty repeating-binary rounding errors. Go ahead, try to store 1/10 as an absolute-precision binary number. Can't be done, because it's a repeating binary: 0001100110011100110011....
Fixed-point BCD stores it precisely. 0000000000010000
BCD is pretty popular where precision fixed-point decimal math is important...like finance. A few hundredths of a penny here, a few hundredths of a penny there....multiply times about a billion transactions a day....yeah, BCD makes more sense, except in the pure geek sense.
And even in these cases, the bully gets away by declaring bankrupcy (effectively nullifying any judgement against them), dissolving the offending "corporate entity", and re-forming a little while later under a different name (using assets they manage to illegally hide before vanishing).
It's a nasty weapon which can be most effectively wielded by the nastiest creatures. Normal productive law-abiding citizens can only get shafted.
Kinda makes vigilantism look appealing, sometimes.
when adhering to their free mytmn service (where you can send free sms with some restrictions), you're accepting the terms of that contract where it specifically says that they may send you any "selected" junk sms they want!
TANSTAAFL, baby. Heinlein had it right. Never forget: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. If you think it's free, that's just because they're hiding what it really costs.
beowulf clusters of anything (including mongolians)
You insensitive Eurocentric clod! The appropriate technical phrase for that type of server farm operating in Mongolia is "A Ghengis Horde", not "A Beowulf Cluster"!
Each claim should be evaluated regardless of messenger.
I'm sorry, and it's probably petty of me, but I have a hard time getting past a messenger who uses a garbage word like "securifying" with a straight face. Such behavior is an outstandingly reliable touchstone for excessive levels of marketing-think, demonstrating an absolute and fundamental lack of credibility. If such a one tells me the sky is blue, I'd reach for my umbrella. I won't bother to look up. And I'd have a damn fine chance of being right.
If such a person works in another company, I'll ignore him. If he works in my company, I'll avoid him. If, God forfend, I work for him, I'd slowly and undetectably undermine him so he's eventually terminated and never darkens my existence again.
So, here's a balanced and well-considered opinion: I can't hear his message because his asshat nature covers the ass he's clearly talking out of.
The audits and the blogging and all had an opportunity cost; doing it meant not doing something else.
Sure, it wasn't free. To the minds of some (perhaps even you), it was a waste of effort and attention and time.
But periodic re-auditing of your codebase is generally a good practice. Stop and look back. It's definitely an opportunity cost, in the same sense that good customer support is a cost center to a consumer business. It's expensive, but also essential. The overall effective cost of doing without outweighs the easily-formulated explicit cost of doing with.
So, re-examining the codebase and making sure you're clear of the current set of claims (no matter how implausible they seem to you--because your judgement will be secondary to a court's if it comes to it) can be vital. The blogging? The diversion of attention? The angst and laughter? That's just life. Blogging is going to happen. (Witness this place.) The legal eagles are the ones wasting most of their time, except for the unfortunates who have to do the aforementioned audits--and I've already explained that that's pretty close to zero-sum in cost terms. And the publicity and recruitment value! Just having IBM solidify its pro-Linux stance outweighs the distraction effect.
Yup, it cost. Everything costs. Overall, though, you can reasonably argue that it was worth the cost. Hell, the comic value may have balanced the expense of the entire dog's dinner.
Gave the community a good scare, shaking off some of the complancency and reminding us that if software is a business, and you're competing in it, it's a nasty business and a bruising game.
Made everyone re-examine the code itself, just to be sure we're clean. SCO's charges seem ridiculous, but it never hurts to audit just to be sure.
Exposed one of the more virulent and extreme anti-OS points of view to objective examination. This examination finds that set of opinions greivously deficient.
Firmed up the nebulous "open-versus-closed software" battlefield. Now it's harder to avoid taking a side, and those who do (Sun, for instance) have to engage in marketing and PR contortionism to do so, looking visibly quite silly in the process.
"I think that all good, right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not, and I'm sick and tired of being told that I am" Monty Python
but if IDF says that people who indulge in fantasy games, as a statistical group, have personality traits that make them a lower security risk, then I am inclined to believe them.
"They're really smart. They must know what they're talking about."
One possible characteristic not mentioned in TFA was: People who role-play might be more inclined to game the system - definitely not a desirable personality trait to have in personnel deployed in sensitive positions.
WTF? "Game the system"? If you play D&D you realize that "gaming the system" gets you in Shitsville with the game referee (the much maligned "Dungeon Master"). So if anything, D&D players are LESS inclined to "game the system".
I can't decide if you're an innocent clueless asshat or a troll. And I'm a fairly discerning reader. So hats off to you!
If you know why it rubs you the wrong way, what have you got to lose in improving the content?
The opportunity to flame without risk, is all. You hit "[edit]". and you're exposing your work and knowledge to the judgment of others. It's so much safer to just camp and snipe.
There are a lot of folks who think wiki is just one huge bedroom, and they're all eunuchs commenting on the participants' lack of sexual skill and style.
C'mon, folks, you think you know so much more than us? Prove it; put your brains where your mouth is!
Slashdot Mirror
True. But the here's the alternative future, "Harry Turtledove" style: Divert the resources in the demonstratably finite pool of OS developers to create a tool which met the need. Divert resources to adapt to the tool as it evolves. Lose effort and suffer inefficiencies as long as the evolving tool fails to support critical requirements.
Zero-sum. Machs nichs. TANSTAAFL. Pay now, pay later, pay continuously. The universal friction of software development is essentially time-constant. So the only real argument is political.
As far as that's concerned, I think you're right. However, I believe it's naive to try to leverage economic arguments when clearly they're a wash.
There's an instant "-1 Flamebait" target if ever I saw one.
Listen up. Software doesn't need support, ever. Users need support, to varying degrees. So your fundamental premise is a misleading straw man.
Free Software neither eliminates or increases the need for user support. Good software, regardless of how it's licensed, is easier for the user to use without hand-holding. Free Software increases the options available to the user, and eventually market Darwinism will tend to narrow the field to the packages which best meet the users' needs. Not the market monopolist's need, mind you: the true needs of the real users. Niche minority software packages will continue as long as someone is interested in it, even if it's just the solitary unwashed hippy developer.
In short, developers should develop what the damn hell they feel like, and the users should use whatever they feel comfortable with.
Hmmm... 1% of the mass of a person is his or her cerebral cortex. In that sense, I know lots of people that are only 99% there. And that type of person is the perfect SCO customer.
One. Sean Connery. The rest don't count. At all. Although Brosnan comes pretty close.
What, you eat the stalk and leaves? Most folks just eat the mature fruiting body of the maize plant, Zea mays ssp. mays.
I'm slowly formulating the /. corrolary to Godwin's Law:
"Marketing Principle" = "Logical Fallacy".
It makes a strange and liberating kind of sense.
It doesn't have to store much if it can open an outbound network connection to something with logging.
Aah. Better a proven liar than a probable one.
At least with this guy he has learned his lesson.
Yes: hide the evidence better. For instance, don't use exactly the same system to download the software and share it, for the love of Cthulhu.
Yes, it's horribly cynical, and I'm actually much in favor of second chances, "Good judgement comes from bad experience, comes from bad judgement", etc...but that's an article of faith, because your rationalizations have no real basis. You can tell yourself these things, but at the end all you have is faith, because the exact opposite may be true.
Right. If you were inclined to commit murder, and the only bar was the threat of state force (imprisonment), then yes, you are coerced into a course of action. One that most of us approve of, no doubt. We don't want you murdering any of us, after all.
That's the essense of coercion: overriding individual will with force or threat of force. On some level, that's what society needs. But no, there is no connotation or underlying meaning that "coerce" is something only bad people do.
How's that priciple working out with respect to the ongoing case between Apple and the websites that bust Apple's marketing trade secrets?
It sounds cavalier, and I'm not sure if I'd have the stones if I were in the situation, but I'd like to think I'd live by the motto "Millions for defense, not one penny for tribute."
Absolute-precision decimal math. No crufty repeating-binary rounding errors. Go ahead, try to store 1/10 as an absolute-precision binary number. Can't be done, because it's a repeating binary: 0001100110011100110011....
Fixed-point BCD stores it precisely. 0000000000010000
BCD is pretty popular where precision fixed-point decimal math is important...like finance. A few hundredths of a penny here, a few hundredths of a penny there....multiply times about a billion transactions a day....yeah, BCD makes more sense, except in the pure geek sense.
And even in these cases, the bully gets away by declaring bankrupcy (effectively nullifying any judgement against them), dissolving the offending "corporate entity", and re-forming a little while later under a different name (using assets they manage to illegally hide before vanishing).
It's a nasty weapon which can be most effectively wielded by the nastiest creatures. Normal productive law-abiding citizens can only get shafted.
Kinda makes vigilantism look appealing, sometimes.
TANSTAAFL, baby. Heinlein had it right. Never forget: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. If you think it's free, that's just because they're hiding what it really costs.
You insensitive Eurocentric clod! The appropriate technical phrase for that type of server farm operating in Mongolia is "A Ghengis Horde", not "A Beowulf Cluster"!
[leap][pounce] instant TPK! [knock paladin figure onto floor][leap down to follow]
s/were versatile/had versatile/
I did say "generally", yes? OK.
forfend
Charm is a poor substitute for being right, which is why I don't generally need it.
"charlatan"! Good! That's a wonderful word, even if you're using it out of context. You'll get it right eventually!
I'm sorry, and it's probably petty of me, but I have a hard time getting past a messenger who uses a garbage word like "securifying" with a straight face. Such behavior is an outstandingly reliable touchstone for excessive levels of marketing-think, demonstrating an absolute and fundamental lack of credibility. If such a one tells me the sky is blue, I'd reach for my umbrella. I won't bother to look up. And I'd have a damn fine chance of being right.
If such a person works in another company, I'll ignore him. If he works in my company, I'll avoid him. If, God forfend, I work for him, I'd slowly and undetectably undermine him so he's eventually terminated and never darkens my existence again.
So, here's a balanced and well-considered opinion: I can't hear his message because his asshat nature covers the ass he's clearly talking out of.
Sure, it wasn't free. To the minds of some (perhaps even you), it was a waste of effort and attention and time.
But periodic re-auditing of your codebase is generally a good practice. Stop and look back. It's definitely an opportunity cost, in the same sense that good customer support is a cost center to a consumer business. It's expensive, but also essential. The overall effective cost of doing without outweighs the easily-formulated explicit cost of doing with.
So, re-examining the codebase and making sure you're clear of the current set of claims (no matter how implausible they seem to you--because your judgement will be secondary to a court's if it comes to it) can be vital. The blogging? The diversion of attention? The angst and laughter? That's just life. Blogging is going to happen. (Witness this place.) The legal eagles are the ones wasting most of their time, except for the unfortunates who have to do the aforementioned audits--and I've already explained that that's pretty close to zero-sum in cost terms. And the publicity and recruitment value! Just having IBM solidify its pro-Linux stance outweighs the distraction effect.
Yup, it cost. Everything costs. Overall, though, you can reasonably argue that it was worth the cost. Hell, the comic value may have balanced the expense of the entire dog's dinner.
"I think that all good, right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not, and I'm sick and tired of being told that I am"
Monty Python
but if IDF says that people who indulge in fantasy games, as a statistical group, have personality traits that make them a lower security risk, then I am inclined to believe them.
"They're really smart. They must know what they're talking about."
One possible characteristic not mentioned in TFA was: People who role-play might be more inclined to game the system - definitely not a desirable personality trait to have in personnel deployed in sensitive positions.
WTF? "Game the system"? If you play D&D you realize that "gaming the system" gets you in Shitsville with the game referee (the much maligned "Dungeon Master"). So if anything, D&D players are LESS inclined to "game the system".
I can't decide if you're an innocent clueless asshat or a troll. And I'm a fairly discerning reader. So hats off to you!
The opportunity to flame without risk, is all. You hit "[edit]". and you're exposing your work and knowledge to the judgment of others. It's so much safer to just camp and snipe.
There are a lot of folks who think wiki is just one huge bedroom, and they're all eunuchs commenting on the participants' lack of sexual skill and style.
C'mon, folks, you think you know so much more than us? Prove it; put your brains where your mouth is!
Ooh, unpleasant visual, nevermind.