The majority of my experiences with pro-OSS license advocates borders on being socialist propaganda. Since I live and believe in the economic and political systems of the United States (while in some ways restricted by increasingly more complex laws that spawn exponentially growing bureaucracies, the corresponding freedoms in the system have afforded me the possibilities and rights to strive for and achieve many opportunities almost impossible in any other country in the world).
I am, on the whole, presenting an argument and a personal opinion. The argument is that OSS license software development could (potentially, we must all wait to see how it pans out in the future) cause the downfall of software development companies (as we know them). They could be, in fact, replaced by companies that specialize in customizing OSS software to more specifically cater to customer needs.
I am extremely concerned because I believe that in some cases, companies that conceive, fincance, research, and develop products have the right to CHOOSE whether they will allow other individuals or companies to directly profit from their products. Not that there is anything to stop other individuals, corporations, or entities from finding ways to profit (or just expand for the sake of doing it, not necessarily for profit, but for the greater good, or to give back to a community in any way they see fit).
The argument is that, while proprietary systems are largely chastized in this forum, they are financed by the investment of a corporation that has CHOSEN not make it easy for others to profit from their ideas. The could (and many corporations have) choose to make completely open, non-proprietary systems, and contribute for other reasons or motives. That is solely the choice of the investors (even if it is an individual or a collective entity of individuals donating their time, they ARE investing there time, and have the only rights to decide what licensing terms and / or monetary gains are sought with their end results).
What if, on a very disturbing note, the US government decides to intervene and passes laws that no monetary gain may be made from software? As more and more government agencies move toward OSS software, this is not an entirely inconceivable notion. This moves the software developer from being able to seek entrepreneurial opportunities in creating a software development company (and having most of the creative control over what products he produces) to being forced to create a software consulting firm and being forced to compete largely on price for projects updating / upgrading / customizing existing OSS systems.
I am afraid that in this possible outcome (we'll have to wait and see) an industry I love will be forever changed (and in my personal opinion, negatively).
Now for my opinion. As stated in many of my posts in this thread. I specifically stated that MY beliefs are that if I can create a business from doing something I would be (and I should have used the word I, though I thought it was implied, I now see I wasn't specific enough (amazing that you almost have to be an attorney in your statements on/. if your views are not widely shared by others)), in my opinion, anti-capitalist for not doing so. This does not mean that there is anything expressed or implied that is wrong with being anti-capitalist, but it goes against MY personal belief system (since I am pro-capitalist).
I just wanted to clarify my statement and do agree, this forum often has discussions that are seeping with opinions (and loud ones) that do not represent the majority and spirit of the groups they claim to represent. It's sad because I enjoy engaging in good-spirited debate with others. The fact that everyone has a unique and different opinion is wonderful in my experience. I always gain a new understanding of issues when I debate them. Though I may not have my opinion swayed (who knows, I might some day), I appreciate learning as much about issues as I can so I do not blindly adopt a pro or con stance on an issue.
That way, if / when I do decide which "side" I may take in arguments, it is what I wholeheartedly believe and can passionately debate. I have enjoyed our interchanges very much, cburley, and have learned much from them!
Microsoft sell the GNU C Compiler at a profit (as part of SFU). Would you like another run-up at that statement?
No need to. It is included with something they sell. If they create Microsoft GNU C Compiler the product and sell it (or a derivation of it... and let's be honest, MS has their own C Compilers, they don't really need to derive any of their products from the GNU C Compiler (at least for MS Windowsland)), then they would be selling it.
They most likely get around this the same way every Linux distro out there that packages and sells Linux does... they bundle other stuff and (EULA most likely says) charge you for the warranty and for the packaging, manuals, etc., as well as charging you (in a legal sense) only for other stuff. Nothing in the GNU licenses forbids you from bundling GNU software with commercial software (as long as you don't specifically charge for the GNU software, or use the GNU code within your commercial software). In other words, their doing nothing that Lindows, Mandrake, and Red Hat (among many others) aren't already doing!
Thank you for proving my point. If you read what you quoted from my post you could see that.
I said...
"I would be INSANE not to try to profit for it! It's downright anti-capitalist not to!"
Notice the use of the word "I". It is implied by the usage of that word, and the fact that I'm posting on a message board that it is MY opinion. I'm glad it is not yours because you have the freedom to think and believe what you want to (and if we all shared the same viewpoint, think of how boring this world would be and how pointless life would be to live)!
It does NOT offend me that people choose to give away their software, or even their time developing it, in the hopes of sharing knowledge or even just because you feel it's the right thing to do, or because you want to. That is your choice. It DOES offend me that those choosing to do so look down upon others trying to profit from their software and then time they spend developing it. I've heard all too much talk on this forum of how all companies are evil. That must make all of their employees evil too. Do you or have you ever worked for a company? Do you consider yourself evil?
Because companies don't handle suggestions of their customers in the way that you would prefer: "who have banged their heads against the wall too many times trying to coax proprietary software into doing the right thing when we knew we could fix it easily if only we had the source." doesn't mean that they are evil.... it should also be noted that proprietary is just not the case. It is closed-source, commercial software. That does NOT necessarily make it proprietary (though it certainly can be). Besides, making something open-source will not guarantee IT is not proprietary. It CAN help make changes to the software that can either make it MORE proprietary or less. That depends on the intentions of the developers.
I CHOOSE and WISH to believe that MY time (though yours is to do with as you please because that is your choice and right to choose) working (because I happen to work in what I love (software development)) IS WORTH COMPENSATION. You are entitled to believe that yours is not, but do NOT believe I am evil or offensive for wanting to do what I love and get paid for it rather than doing what I don't love to finance being able to do what I love (and not get paid for it).
All things being even. It would be a wonderful world where everyone could do what they love and not get paid for it and share it with everyone else. Unfortunately, the rest of the industries and businesses of the world (most of it anyhow) do not agree with this viewpoint and WISH to be paid for their work.
I mean, after all, is it your opinion that a burger flipper can should be paid, but a software developer should expect nothing in return? If you have financial means to be able to give away your work, more power to ya! But for those of us that don't, we DEPEND on being paid for software development for our livelihood.
As software developers, this leaves us at somewhat of a disadvantage if OSS (as noble as the intentions are and I don't disrespect the intentions) software drives commercial software completely out of business. What value will software development EVER have if developers themselves say (by their actions) that software development isn't worth money? Worth is determined by demand. Clearly, since software developers are currently being paid by companies to work for them, there IS demand! The future of the world is undoubtedly tied in computers, why not try to make a living from it?
Don't I have the right to pursue work in what I love to do and expect to be paid for it? What I love to DO is not to help customize a technology to the usage of my company that does not do software development. What I love to do is WORK for a company that DEVELOPS technologies and sells them to other companies that need them.
That is VERY capitalist. I'm sorry if you don't feel I'm enlightened enough to understand that! No personal offense to you, but I am more than a little frightened at the prospect of OSS license software forever erasing software development as a paid proffession. Being a software developer I wonder if I will be able to retire and take care of my family this way or if OSS will erase the need for my career and I will have to go and learn another career to ensure the future of my family. Can you see my concerns?
YES, the Market can. How does creating software that competes (and since it's free, I think THAT is unfair competition to a commercial product) with commercial software and the companies and employees that develop it helping anyone?
Giving away software is artificially devaluing software developing. Do you honestly believe that a person flipping burgers deserves to be paid, but one writing software does not? If Linux came out just after (just in time) Windows began to really become the monopoly it is on the desktop now, do you think Windows would be the monopoly it is? I don't think so. How could MS sell Windows when an equivalent technology is given away?
Microsoft created a "value" for OS software on X-86. That is not artificial because MS is a company developing the software and paying salaries to the developers and for the research and development. If Microsoft were forced to give away their software to compete with developers not being paid for their efforts, it would be an artificial value set for the work.
Besides, how exactly do you "unfair(ly)" compete with free software? You can try to sue a not for profit organization (won't get very far unless they are directly infringing on patents or using some of your trademarks to represent their products). You can try to get a law passed to forbid giving away software (you can't do that either, as long as it's your property (in the legal sense) to give away, there's nothing to stop you from doing it, nor will any court decide so). How exactly do you sue a non-profit organization for unfair competition in giving away something that your company has been selling for years along with other commercial competition of yours?
MS has made business deals (whether anyone agrees or not with them) with all the major PC manufacturers to get Windows onto those machines. They've paid even more for deals to keep those manufacturers from installing software of competitive companies. Guess what. MS proposed a deal, and Gateway, Dell, HP, Compaq, Toshiba, Sony, Acer, Alienware, etc., etc., etc. all signed their names on the deal.
If they didn't sign those deals, there was nothing on this green earth stopping PC manufacturing companies from buying Windows at the regular OEM rate and selling it with their PC's (if their customers wanted it) or installing Linux, FreeBSD, or whatever on them (if their customers wanted it). Of course, they saved a lot of money per copy by signing the deals with MS. Obviously either their consumers want Windows or the PC manufacturers believe they do. Either way, it's a business deal. Business deals are not made when the loss of flexibility is too great to work with.
Is making a business deal (where both parties have to agree, IE, all the PC Manufacturers benefit from it too) unfair compared to giving away software that competes with commercial products? If Linux distro companies made deals with PC manufacturers, they could have Linux on those PC's too... in fact, Lindows did. Is it unfair that because of the OSS license, the Linux distro companies can't technically sell the distro, but can sell the packaging / media / support only?
If those companies could sell the software, they may be able make enough money to cut the business deals and compete with MS and other commercial software FAIRLY. The OSS license is what's keeping it unfair to the Linux distro companies. They never had a chance to compete tit for tat with MS so the unfairness we're looking at could have something more to do with the OSS license than the companies fighting against it.
Of course, "cheaper" in the long run is getting an open source solution... but, that is only to the people using it.
You used the example of MySQL. Very interesting indeed. What if the same people that made it were a software development company? What did they gain by giving it away? Now they can charge for tech support to use it? Yup, but they also have to keep track of all the variations that are made to it because they will be seen as experts (the originators) of it. And also, the blame for failures in it, even if they are from modifications or additions made by others will fall squarely on them!
I think it's fantastic to make and participate in OSS, but understand the effect on companies (like software development houses) that make their money and business in developing software and selling their creations! I think, the benefit of OSS is only to end users and the moral benefit of being so helpful. What about the people that develop software and feel they should be paid for the caliber of their work? What if they don't want to scrounge a living selling add ons to other software? What if they want to innovate and get a return on their investment (R&D)? Is it a crime to want to have a business?
To answer your question... I think OSS is cheaper (of course it is, it's free) but in the long run, I don't think it's better for those who make a living creating and selling software. It's only better for those who use it.
Well, quite easily you get an outpouring of this... http://www.itmoonlighter.com/
Sounds great! Post a project for free, then 10,000 unemployed professional engineers bid for the project. They all underbid each other until they're better off flipping burgers (at least you get SOME job security there).
What about benefits? Job security? Ability to advance? When you get old and can't program at the speed that you did when you were a 20 something, isn't the idea to get a managerial job and let the youngbloods do the speed work? That way, your company and your coworkers (yes, even your subordinates) benefit from your experience, not just your speed and ability to work dirt cheap and insane hours!
No sweat. I'm just stating that my preference is not adding to existing programs. Feature Z can be written by the scores of people writing additions already, that IS what they enjoy doing, clearly:)
I prefer to write additions to my own technologies. I'm talking about innovating new stuff, that's what gets my gears turning. If other people find my technology useful enough they will imitated it (which is the greatest form of flattery), but that doesn't mean that I want random developers to go and recompile my code with their additions. If they want to make the extra features, ask me (or help me to do it), or just write your own.
That sounds a bit egotistical, but the thing is, I'm very proud of my work and don't like my name being associated with work others may have modified, or, in my opinion, later ruined.
Me too! Amen! The WinNT 5.x kernels are not too shabby at all. It's a bit of a different approach in some aspects than *nix, but not bad. MS, as you stated, creates the problem in calling EVERYTHING they bundle part of Windows.
Of course, in their market segment, there is demand for the extra bundled stuff. It took me a while to "un-hide" a lot of the basic Win2k admin tools from WinXP Pro (which sucked, but it's done now). I love some of the admin aspects of Win2k, yet love some of the compatibility WinXP offers with older Windows programs.
I'd buy XP-Lite if it was available... even if they just gave me the option during the Install of doing a "Custom" install where I CHOOSE all the bundled items I want or don't want. I'd be a happy camper!
Linux is easier not to blame for crappy bundled software because Linux is JUST considered the OS kernel. Anything crappy you install on it, or is bundled, is an easy defense because "it's not part of Linux". Of course, that's among those in the know. I suspect an ordinary consumer that runs Windows on their name-brand PC upon inspecting Linux would consider the GUI (if one was installed) Linux... such as KDE, Gnome, etc.
Notice that I never used the word MS but it naturally comes to mind as you were discussing software vendors.
Guess what. Microsoft is a software developer AND vendor. You as the end user don't care about anything but lower prices and what could be lower than free? Yep, but what about us software developers that work for companies (no, don't be a troll, I don't work for MS) that compete with "free" software?
As much as I'd love to say! Go you! Don't give a damn about us, the employees of companies that pay us for software developments I'll have to say, I DO WORK (developing software is both work and a joy for me) AND EXPECT TO BE COMPENSATED FOR MY WORK!
How would you feel if your boss comes to you tomorrow (I'm not sure what industry your in, but you DO get paid for WORK you do, whether you love it or not) and says, you're fired, your work is not valuable to us because we found a free alternative?
Yes, clients still need someone to install/configure/customise their systems! Guess what? I don't do that! I DEVELOP (brand new) software. I hate going through other people's crappy code to get it to work right for my client! If it was so good it would ALREADY work right!
Besides, there are plenty of people out there already doing that! I WANT to make money from what I love doing (creating, innovating, writing software)... don't I have the right to fight back if consumers like you who could care less if I'm unemployed just want their free software?
Yes, we're all good capitalists. I also believe that employees (and software developers) have the right to make money if we choose to from our work (software development). If companies and consumers make money or maximize their profits from not paying me... I'M GETTING SCREWED.
Stop defending big companies right to make more money off of me (without compensating me because you don't give a damn about me) by masking it behind your contempt for MS.
What happens when clients get used to not paying for software at all? Do you think they will still employ others to do customization for them? I'm sure they will find an open source alternative solution that does everything (or enough of what) they want and they don't have to pay for it at all!
Then they are supposed to come running to other companies to fund development of upgrades?
Unfortunately, the people that run companies (99.999999999999% are NOT softare developers nor do they contribute to open source, they see the economic gains of not having to PAY the developers of open source for their hard work and brilliant ideas) don't see the great social possibilities of it. They see something that can be thoroughly exploited to their company's economic, not moral, benefit.
Is it fair to you to develop something that is thoroughly helping a corporation save money, and maximize their profits (which they wouldn't dream of sharing with you... it will go into much needed upgrades to the CEO's golf cart, etc.... I mean, they actually see open source developers as FOOLS for giving away what they would and have up until now gladly paid for!!!)?
If you genuinely believe you are developing software and sharing it for the good of the world or your peers then you can not feel exploited by this (AND MORE POWER TO YOU!!!).... but, when development of software is aimed at undermining (and trying to destroy in some cases) extremely profitable and lucrative markets that companies thrive on to EXIST, what good you do for the world is at the cost of those that seem immoral to you for wanting to profit from their hard work and ingenuity! You are contributing to the unemployment of the people in those companies!
They are people like you and me that do what they love, and yet, because we (in the United States) live in a capitalist society, they depend on using their skills (software development) to earn money that pays for their livelihood... Kids, providing for their families, Mortgage, Car, etc., etc.!
But, Open Source does precisely that. It leaves out half of the equation! It is an INCREDIBLE benefit for the Consumer but no benefit to the supplier. Distributors (that package and sell open source software with a book and a fancy box and a cd-rom) make money... what about the developers of the software?
I get enjoyment out of creating software and don't mind giving it away. But if I come up with a great idea that could make a fortune or am trying to replace a multi-billion dollar industry, I would be INSANE not to try to profit for it! It's downright anti-capitalist not to!
Captialism is striving to find the balance between the supplier and the consumer. If one has all the advantages it doesn't work. Most of the time it seems the supplier has the advantage (in what they charge), but I don't think the consumer having the advantage (if they don't pay for anything they consume) is fair either to the supplier.
In an ideal capitalist world (not ideal to everyone, I know) both would come out reasonably well. The consumers would work for suppliers to make money to consume. The suppliers would employ consumers and make money from the consumers to keep the consumers employed.
And yet, imagine a world in which all software used is Open Source licensed and no one can compete with it by trying to make money off of their non-open source licensed technology (in other words, companies that develop software... surely, you don't consider them ALL evil? How about the one you work for? Would you like them driven out of business? What do you think is gonna happen? A great happening for the consumer... yet you're out of work, how do you pay the electric bill to power your computer to use exclusively free (as in the price you pay the developer) software? Do you think the electric company would provide you free electricity?)!
Great for the consumer, terrible for the supplier (developer). I would rather work as a developer for money than work another job to be able to afford a computer to be able to develop software for the satisfaction of it (and not sleep, I suppose... sigh, as if software developers sleep already! Imagine if you have to work 12 hour days flipping burgers to be able to come home to do what you love).
In other words, if I can make money doing what I love (software development), why would I hope free software rules the world (and exterminates software development for money) and I have to go out and work a job I hate to pay for my equipment to be able to do what I love?
Simple. If you want to make money off of your software (or allow others via licensing the technology from you to make money off of it) you can't use the Open Source license.
That is not necessarily a reason to use Microsoft's license described in the article, but a good reason to draw up your own licensing terms if you want financial gain to be possible from your technology.
I personally would rather make money from my software development. That is my choice.
Well, sure, but what about a clustered solution of X86 computers? X-86 servers are chock full of hot-swappable components and redundancy.
It seems the nature of clustering such computers makes them a stable solution as well. I suppose until Linux on X86 has MUCH more time under its belt it won't be considered as stable a solution as Sun.
Re:Given that live music is the best music...
on
Instant Concert CDs?
·
· Score: 1
Hmmm... also, don't forget that a CD holds what, a maximum of 80 minutes of music (assuming they record CD's and not MP3's onto CD-ROMS).
That would kind of suck for the longer live shows... what would they charge you 50 bucks for a 3 CD set?
I guess it might really be more of a way to cash in on people that bootleg... of course, most bands don't let you get a feed onto the soundboard anymore for bootlegging so they cash in on it this way.
Just another example of America commercializing and trying to make cash off of something that used to be free. At least clearchannel isn't going around trying to arrest everyone else at the concert trying to bootleg it (or are they?).
Of course, the RIAA believes that MP3's are perfect copies of music (when in fact, most at only 128 kbs are inferior to CD quality, which the RIAA says is inferior to DVD-Audio, Super Audio CD, and, of course, inferior to the original studio master tracks).
I guess it's funny considering they will rest at nothing to get their tracks on the radio all over the world but then don't want people to share inferior copies of the same songs... They're just mad because they ignored it when it was new (instead of figuring out a way to USE it to their advantage) and by the time MP3 sharing was widespread all they could think of saying was "wah... wah... it's not fair, we haven't figured out how to make money off it yet".
The RIAA is a victim of their own inability to keep up with technology. Like the rash of "patent" owners on extremely commonly used technologies scrambling to make money off them post fact, the RIAA is treating the common man as a criminal for sharing files the RIAA gladly broadcasts (for free via radio) to the same people all the time!
In fact, we should sue the RIAA for broadcasting copyrighted music without our consent over FM and other radio technologies. What if it turns out one day that we're getting brain tumors from copyrighted music broadcasting through the airwaves!
Understood and agreed. It's easy for you, me, and 99% of the/. community to think of doing it, suggest doing it, or know what to buy and how to do it. I was talking about the non-tech savvy people that would never even fathom the idea of doing it.
In correlation with the question I posed: "...wonder if there are any statistics on how many broadband internet customers are sharing internet connections within their homes. It doesn't seem like non-tech savvy people would be able to figure out how to do this (in most cases, anyhow)..."
If most broadband users are doing this, then it may be a blip on the radar screen of broadband providers. This would make them try to "tax" it by, as I said, finding new and exciting ways to make sure each computer has dedicated equipment (though not a dedicated internet connection) or proprietary software to prevent people from doing this.
I imagine 99% of the people sharing their internet connections are pretty tech-savvy. They know what it is and of course know or can easily find out how to do it. I wonder, how many people are sharing the connection in relation to how many broadband customers total.
I wonder if there are any statistics on how many broadband internet customers are sharing internet connections within their homes. It doesn't seem like non-tech savvy people would be able to figure out how to do this (in most cases, anyhow)...
If it turns out that most broadband users ARE doing this, the providers may want to force you to buy a modem for each machine, or even worse, buy proprietary equipment per machine (or proprietary software to connect that screws up sharing of the connection).
Well, Windows Update is right on the Start Menu... not too difficult to find. If they don't find that link (or ever decide to click on it), odds are they wouldn't find the cute little button that goes automatic update in Linux either.
Sadly Joe Sixpack doesn't ever think of updating their computer. I wish that Automatic Update were enabled by default in all the existing Windows installs (in XP, it is, if I recall correctly) and it came with SP3 of 2000, I'm almost positive. (If it were, every hacker and their mothers would be trying to hack into the Windows Update server and spread virulent code through there).
Regarding the updates requiring rebooting. Well, that's Windows for you. Perhaps someday hotfixes will be more common and not require the reboot. Of course on home PC systems, a reboot is really no big deal anyway, right? I'm not trying to break a record for uptime on my home desktop! I mean, is 2 minutes of your time THAT big a deal?
Regarding the maturity of Windows. I seriously disagree. Much of the problem has to do with having a customer base of 95% un-savvy computer users. I suspect the base for Linux of un-savvy users is much less than 1%. This has much to do with the level of default security in Linux. I think it's fantastic to have. It's not to say that such a level is unrealistic for Windows. It is NOT there in the default setup... that doesn't mean it's not there!
Find some of the savvy users and administrators of Windows machines, particularly NT 4, 5, or 5.1 and you will see that it's pretty doable to lock Windows down (with what's already there). Of course, the NT kernel is not what people consider Windows. They consider the whole package, all the unnecessary bundled services and extra MS Apps (IE, etc.) to be Windows (hell, even MS considers IE (at least legally) a part of Windows).
The problem is that ordinary people (non-savvy computer users) have an industry-fueled desire for more features (driven by Intel, MS, ATI, Nvdia, HP, Dell, etc., etc.). They are told more is better. I see people buying P4 3GHz machines to check email and surf the Internet only! They don't do anything else! A P1 or P2 is MORE than enough to do that! The CompUSA kid is telling them they NEED more. "but then your computer will be slow".
Define slow? To a gamer, a PII with an ATI Rage Pro is obscenely slow. To a person who just checks email, it is just fine. Now someone tells them it's slow and crap so they chug over to the store and buy the latest silicon that doubles or quadruples the rate that their web pages are rendered on the screen (though they still have a modem so the Internet is still "slow" for them).
So you see, these people buying machines that are, let's be honest, extremely overkill, want ALL their features to work. How do they feel if Windows pops up a prompt that says "are you want to allow your camera software to run as a Power user? how about as a user?"... they will freak out! Me, I think it should! They could easily make a security wizard to help people keep their systems intelligently installed. Of course, there's no demand from it from non-savvy users who don't value the need for security.
So, MS caters to the un-savvy by creating a very loose default security setup. Does that mean that I can't go and tighten it down very nicely? No it doesn't. Does it mean that grandma or Joe Sixpack will ever see the value and peace of mind of doing it? Unlikely.
With that, I wish that MS offered to give you a default, everything off, add features as they are needed and as you give permission, default restrictive directory security, default run services as lesser priveleged users, etc., etc. setup for Windows upon install. They are doing it for their forthcoming NT server release, incidentally (eventually being released, anyhow).
This is the eternal Windows vs. *nix debate. What can you do? MS caters to an market of un-savvy computer users and they do it better than any company selling OS's has ever done (the sales and numbers don't lie). I don't care if anyone thinks it's being crammed down everyone's throat. The companies that manufacture PC's you see on the shelves at the retail stores give people what they want. Until people (and I mean significant amounts of them) start asking for Linux pre-installed on their PC's the PC manufacturing companies will assume that they are OK with Windows. It's there, it's perfectly suitable to the users of something like 90% of the personal computers on the earth. If they didn't like it, no one is putting a gun to their head that says "use Microsoft or else". Most don't dislike it because if they did they would get frustrated and investigate alternatives. If there was such contempt for Windows, people would be coming out of the woodwork asking for help installing Linux (not exactly happening is it?).
If you don't like shopping at Barnes and Nobles because they are a large tyrannical bookstore, nothing on this green earth stops you from driving 2 extra miles to the mom & pop bookstore.
Not to mention, I don't think Linux will ever be developed with regular users in mind. Sure, it's possible, but it is not being developed by regular users. It is a labor of love. I think Linux is great (really). It is the epitome of my metaphorical mom & pop bookstore. With that in mind, if it were ever dumbed down to the point where the average joe sixpack could deal with it and use it on a daily basis (yes, of course he can, but he doesn't like to expend the extra two brain cells to try) it would be the same thing as Windows.
It would be so dumbed down, security becomes a secondary, tertiary, or lesser priority, to getting all the "stuff" to work with it instantaneously! The same crappy software vendors that write the crappy software that crashes Windows would write for Linux and believe me, they would figure out a way to make software crappy enough to screw it up too. Don't underestimate just how bad software can be!
Also, don't forget, if Linux ever became as "big" as Windows in the Desktop PC world, some company would have the dominant distro and probably be even more ruthless than MS. Imagine RedHat, if it were a multi-billion dollar monopoly like MS in the future dictating to the Open Source World what the standards of OSS should be! You'd get the same crap.
As always, be glad you have a choice to use whatever software you want. No one can ever force you to put Windows or any other software you dislike on your personal property. Remember, the economy and the decisions of companies (like MS) are solely Market driven. I wish yours and my concerns were on the forefront of Microsoft's wishlists / agendas. Unfortunately, we represent such a vast minority of the computer users of the world that it's not currently a reality!
I mean Uncle Steve Jobs of course:) I didn't know he was sacred to/. I must have missed that part of my EULA... I mean, after all, there are plenty of sites to go to Apple Worship. I imagine Steve Jobs is sacred there, but unless you see the Aqua theme (ala the Apple subsection of/.) around this message, I'm not living in Uncle Steve Jobs temple. Consequently, I don't live by HIS rules. In fact, I don't tend to worship any one or any beings so no person or entity is sacrosanct to me.
What I was doing was kingly jesting the new browser that is still relatively virgin to the plethora of updates and security patches that it's older browser relatives are used to (and oft critized for)... I'm sure Safari is simply peachy on the Mac. Unfortunately, since I don't own nor choose to purchase Apple equipment (because of price (though it's going down) / my existing software and hardware library) I will have to take other people's word for it. I've found though that Apple people find all Apple products perfect no matter what. You can see where some of my skepticism begins (my opinion)?
Besides, a little healthy teasing never did any web browser harm. The people that are devising new and more interesting ways to attack the security of browsers are doing more of the resoundingly un-healthy teasing. I suppose only time can tell what the World (wide web) will have instore for Safari! Until then, cheers!
Could you please point me to some documentation on the inbound connection limit because according to my firewall, I have much more than 10 open inbound. I wonder if that is a per IP address limitation?
Additionally, it'd be interesting to see how Apache on Win32 handles this compared to its *nix relatives. Perhaps it closes the connections as soon as the requests are received and opens outbound connections to service the request instead (I am not an Apache Developer, so I am just making a conjecture here). Those are some interesting points to investigate though!
It seems. With the barrage of security flaws in IE, Mozilla, Netcape, and Opera, it seems it doesn't matter if you pay or not!
Or it could be that others are coming up with increasingly more ingenious ways to get around existing security and everyone is making sure they don't get caught with their pants down.
Of course, you can always go with uncle steve on his safari and just believe the software is perfect as apple pie. I'd rather update and though it's a pain in the ass, at least know some holes are plugged from time to time (as new ways to subvert security are created) than lull myself into believing that security is ever Perfect from the get go.
Conversely, if you have several redundant systems doing mission critical work (as mission critical work always should), it would be easily possible to reboot one at a time while applying updates, regardless of your choice of software. Thus you have no real downtime on the system, only downtime of one of the redundant pieces of the system.
Well, "the poor desktop user just running whatever came on the box" can use Windows Update... or even easier, use Automatic Update, that notifies them when there are new updates (any time they connect to the Internet), and can also automatically download and / or install those updates. On any Win98, NT4, ME, 2000, or XP box box, simply go to: http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/
Windows Update and Automatic Update are GREAT for those guys! They keep Windows easily protected! How is that any different than people running Linux that automatically update themselves? Besides, I betcha my dad can set up Automatic Update in Windows, but I doubt he can set up a Linux box to do it!
At the rate we're going, this is the type of hardware we'll need to dissipate heat in 5 years!
You'd think that at the rate the latest and greatest silicon is being churned out and running hotter and hotter, one of the brilliant minds of today could figure out a way to make quiet "stealth" cooling fans. Yep, I know there's liquid cooling for PC's, but even though it's "safe", the idea of liquid and 500 Watts flowing side by side is not appealing to me! Not to mention, are you gonna liquid cool your Powersupply too?
It's incredible that at all the web sites you see "ultra quiet" CPU cooling fans for sale... their decibel ratings are starting at 30! Of course, lots of them drop down to 30 only when their speed limiting systems kick in with the system idling. There is nothing quiet about that!!! You'd think there'd be some scientific solution to move air with a fan and not make such a racket!!! (If so, someone PLEASE point me in the direction of the CPU and Case fans that do this!!!)
Well, I haven't had any noticeable problems with Windows security. I love Win2k, hate the "server" software MS makes for it like IIS (note IIS is NOT the operating system, it is additional software that is optional to use) is swiss cheese in my opinion, I just don't use it. Problem solved. I use Apache on Win2k and it runs like a champ!!!
IIS and SQL Server's shortcomings don't mean you can't tighten NT 5 down like a vise. It's doable, scoff if you want, but do some homework and you'll see it's not a bad OS. With that said, I think the default configuration of NT needs to be DRASTICALLY re-evaluated. They've done this with the new version of NT Server coming out (someday)... it starts out clamped down, then you ENABLE things as you use them. The current configuration, with everything enabled out of the gate, gives Windows a bad rap. IIS, well, that deserves the bad rap.
Slashdot Mirror
I will largely agree with you on your statements.
/. if your views are not widely shared by others)), in my opinion, anti-capitalist for not doing so. This does not mean that there is anything expressed or implied that is wrong with being anti-capitalist, but it goes against MY personal belief system (since I am pro-capitalist).
The majority of my experiences with pro-OSS license advocates borders on being socialist propaganda. Since I live and believe in the economic and political systems of the United States (while in some ways restricted by increasingly more complex laws that spawn exponentially growing bureaucracies, the corresponding freedoms in the system have afforded me the possibilities and rights to strive for and achieve many opportunities almost impossible in any other country in the world).
I am, on the whole, presenting an argument and a personal opinion. The argument is that OSS license software development could (potentially, we must all wait to see how it pans out in the future) cause the downfall of software development companies (as we know them). They could be, in fact, replaced by companies that specialize in customizing OSS software to more specifically cater to customer needs.
I am extremely concerned because I believe that in some cases, companies that conceive, fincance, research, and develop products have the right to CHOOSE whether they will allow other individuals or companies to directly profit from their products. Not that there is anything to stop other individuals, corporations, or entities from finding ways to profit (or just expand for the sake of doing it, not necessarily for profit, but for the greater good, or to give back to a community in any way they see fit).
The argument is that, while proprietary systems are largely chastized in this forum, they are financed by the investment of a corporation that has CHOSEN not make it easy for others to profit from their ideas. The could (and many corporations have) choose to make completely open, non-proprietary systems, and contribute for other reasons or motives. That is solely the choice of the investors (even if it is an individual or a collective entity of individuals donating their time, they ARE investing there time, and have the only rights to decide what licensing terms and / or monetary gains are sought with their end results).
What if, on a very disturbing note, the US government decides to intervene and passes laws that no monetary gain may be made from software? As more and more government agencies move toward OSS software, this is not an entirely inconceivable notion. This moves the software developer from being able to seek entrepreneurial opportunities in creating a software development company (and having most of the creative control over what products he produces) to being forced to create a software consulting firm and being forced to compete largely on price for projects updating / upgrading / customizing existing OSS systems.
I am afraid that in this possible outcome (we'll have to wait and see) an industry I love will be forever changed (and in my personal opinion, negatively).
Now for my opinion. As stated in many of my posts in this thread. I specifically stated that MY beliefs are that if I can create a business from doing something I would be (and I should have used the word I, though I thought it was implied, I now see I wasn't specific enough (amazing that you almost have to be an attorney in your statements on
I just wanted to clarify my statement and do agree, this forum often has discussions that are seeping with opinions (and loud ones) that do not represent the majority and spirit of the groups they claim to represent. It's sad because I enjoy engaging in good-spirited debate with others. The fact that everyone has a unique and different opinion is wonderful in my experience. I always gain a new understanding of issues when I debate them. Though I may not have my opinion swayed (who knows, I might some day), I appreciate learning as much about issues as I can so I do not blindly adopt a pro or con stance on an issue.
That way, if / when I do decide which "side" I may take in arguments, it is what I wholeheartedly believe and can passionately debate. I have enjoyed our interchanges very much, cburley, and have learned much from them!
Microsoft sell the GNU C Compiler at a profit (as part of SFU). Would you like another run-up at that statement?
No need to. It is included with something they sell. If they create Microsoft GNU C Compiler the product and sell it (or a derivation of it... and let's be honest, MS has their own C Compilers, they don't really need to derive any of their products from the GNU C Compiler (at least for MS Windowsland)), then they would be selling it.
They most likely get around this the same way every Linux distro out there that packages and sells Linux does... they bundle other stuff and (EULA most likely says) charge you for the warranty and for the packaging, manuals, etc., as well as charging you (in a legal sense) only for other stuff. Nothing in the GNU licenses forbids you from bundling GNU software with commercial software (as long as you don't specifically charge for the GNU software, or use the GNU code within your commercial software). In other words, their doing nothing that Lindows, Mandrake, and Red Hat (among many others) aren't already doing!
Thank you for proving my point. If you read what you quoted from my post you could see that.
... it should also be noted that proprietary is just not the case. It is closed-source, commercial software. That does NOT necessarily make it proprietary (though it certainly can be). Besides, making something open-source will not guarantee IT is not proprietary. It CAN help make changes to the software that can either make it MORE proprietary or less. That depends on the intentions of the developers.
I said...
"I would be INSANE not to try to profit for it! It's downright anti-capitalist not to!"
Notice the use of the word "I". It is implied by the usage of that word, and the fact that I'm posting on a message board that it is MY opinion. I'm glad it is not yours because you have the freedom to think and believe what you want to (and if we all shared the same viewpoint, think of how boring this world would be and how pointless life would be to live)!
It does NOT offend me that people choose to give away their software, or even their time developing it, in the hopes of sharing knowledge or even just because you feel it's the right thing to do, or because you want to. That is your choice. It DOES offend me that those choosing to do so look down upon others trying to profit from their software and then time they spend developing it. I've heard all too much talk on this forum of how all companies are evil. That must make all of their employees evil too. Do you or have you ever worked for a company? Do you consider yourself evil?
Because companies don't handle suggestions of their customers in the way that you would prefer:
"who have banged their heads against the wall too many times trying to coax proprietary software into doing the right thing when we knew we could fix it easily if only we had the source." doesn't mean that they are evil.
I CHOOSE and WISH to believe that MY time (though yours is to do with as you please because that is your choice and right to choose) working (because I happen to work in what I love (software development)) IS WORTH COMPENSATION. You are entitled to believe that yours is not, but do NOT believe I am evil or offensive for wanting to do what I love and get paid for it rather than doing what I don't love to finance being able to do what I love (and not get paid for it).
All things being even. It would be a wonderful world where everyone could do what they love and not get paid for it and share it with everyone else. Unfortunately, the rest of the industries and businesses of the world (most of it anyhow) do not agree with this viewpoint and WISH to be paid for their work.
I mean, after all, is it your opinion that a burger flipper can should be paid, but a software developer should expect nothing in return? If you have financial means to be able to give away your work, more power to ya! But for those of us that don't, we DEPEND on being paid for software development for our livelihood.
As software developers, this leaves us at somewhat of a disadvantage if OSS (as noble as the intentions are and I don't disrespect the intentions) software drives commercial software completely out of business. What value will software development EVER have if developers themselves say (by their actions) that software development isn't worth money? Worth is determined by demand. Clearly, since software developers are currently being paid by companies to work for them, there IS demand! The future of the world is undoubtedly tied in computers, why not try to make a living from it?
Don't I have the right to pursue work in what I love to do and expect to be paid for it? What I love to DO is not to help customize a technology to the usage of my company that does not do software development. What I love to do is WORK for a company that DEVELOPS technologies and sells them to other companies that need them.
That is VERY capitalist. I'm sorry if you don't feel I'm enlightened enough to understand that! No personal offense to you, but I am more than a little frightened at the prospect of OSS license software forever erasing software development as a paid proffession. Being a software developer I wonder if I will be able to retire and take care of my family this way or if OSS will erase the need for my career and I will have to go and learn another career to ensure the future of my family. Can you see my concerns?
YES, the Market can. How does creating software that competes (and since it's free, I think THAT is unfair competition to a commercial product) with commercial software and the companies and employees that develop it helping anyone?
Giving away software is artificially devaluing software developing. Do you honestly believe that a person flipping burgers deserves to be paid, but one writing software does not? If Linux came out just after (just in time) Windows began to really become the monopoly it is on the desktop now, do you think Windows would be the monopoly it is? I don't think so. How could MS sell Windows when an equivalent technology is given away?
Microsoft created a "value" for OS software on X-86. That is not artificial because MS is a company developing the software and paying salaries to the developers and for the research and development. If Microsoft were forced to give away their software to compete with developers not being paid for their efforts, it would be an artificial value set for the work.
Besides, how exactly do you "unfair(ly)" compete with free software? You can try to sue a not for profit organization (won't get very far unless they are directly infringing on patents or using some of your trademarks to represent their products). You can try to get a law passed to forbid giving away software (you can't do that either, as long as it's your property (in the legal sense) to give away, there's nothing to stop you from doing it, nor will any court decide so). How exactly do you sue a non-profit organization for unfair competition in giving away something that your company has been selling for years along with other commercial competition of yours?
MS has made business deals (whether anyone agrees or not with them) with all the major PC manufacturers to get Windows onto those machines. They've paid even more for deals to keep those manufacturers from installing software of competitive companies. Guess what. MS proposed a deal, and Gateway, Dell, HP, Compaq, Toshiba, Sony, Acer, Alienware, etc., etc., etc. all signed their names on the deal.
If they didn't sign those deals, there was nothing on this green earth stopping PC manufacturing companies from buying Windows at the regular OEM rate and selling it with their PC's (if their customers wanted it) or installing Linux, FreeBSD, or whatever on them (if their customers wanted it). Of course, they saved a lot of money per copy by signing the deals with MS. Obviously either their consumers want Windows or the PC manufacturers believe they do. Either way, it's a business deal. Business deals are not made when the loss of flexibility is too great to work with.
Is making a business deal (where both parties have to agree, IE, all the PC Manufacturers benefit from it too) unfair compared to giving away software that competes with commercial products? If Linux distro companies made deals with PC manufacturers, they could have Linux on those PC's too... in fact, Lindows did. Is it unfair that because of the OSS license, the Linux distro companies can't technically sell the distro, but can sell the packaging / media / support only?
If those companies could sell the software, they may be able make enough money to cut the business deals and compete with MS and other commercial software FAIRLY. The OSS license is what's keeping it unfair to the Linux distro companies. They never had a chance to compete tit for tat with MS so the unfairness we're looking at could have something more to do with the OSS license than the companies fighting against it.
Of course, "cheaper" in the long run is getting an open source solution... but, that is only to the people using it.
You used the example of MySQL. Very interesting indeed. What if the same people that made it were a software development company? What did they gain by giving it away? Now they can charge for tech support to use it? Yup, but they also have to keep track of all the variations that are made to it because they will be seen as experts (the originators) of it. And also, the blame for failures in it, even if they are from modifications or additions made by others will fall squarely on them!
I think it's fantastic to make and participate in OSS, but understand the effect on companies (like software development houses) that make their money and business in developing software and selling their creations! I think, the benefit of OSS is only to end users and the moral benefit of being so helpful. What about the people that develop software and feel they should be paid for the caliber of their work? What if they don't want to scrounge a living selling add ons to other software? What if they want to innovate and get a return on their investment (R&D)? Is it a crime to want to have a business?
To answer your question... I think OSS is cheaper (of course it is, it's free) but in the long run, I don't think it's better for those who make a living creating and selling software. It's only better for those who use it.
Well, quite easily you get an outpouring of this...
http://www.itmoonlighter.com/
Sounds great! Post a project for free, then 10,000 unemployed professional engineers bid for the project. They all underbid each other until they're better off flipping burgers (at least you get SOME job security there).
What about benefits? Job security? Ability to advance? When you get old and can't program at the speed that you did when you were a 20 something, isn't the idea to get a managerial job and let the youngbloods do the speed work? That way, your company and your coworkers (yes, even your subordinates) benefit from your experience, not just your speed and ability to work dirt cheap and insane hours!
No sweat. I'm just stating that my preference is not adding to existing programs. Feature Z can be written by the scores of people writing additions already, that IS what they enjoy doing, clearly :)
I prefer to write additions to my own technologies. I'm talking about innovating new stuff, that's what gets my gears turning. If other people find my technology useful enough they will imitated it (which is the greatest form of flattery), but that doesn't mean that I want random developers to go and recompile my code with their additions. If they want to make the extra features, ask me (or help me to do it), or just write your own.
That sounds a bit egotistical, but the thing is, I'm very proud of my work and don't like my name being associated with work others may have modified, or, in my opinion, later ruined.
Me too! Amen! The WinNT 5.x kernels are not too shabby at all. It's a bit of a different approach in some aspects than *nix, but not bad. MS, as you stated, creates the problem in calling EVERYTHING they bundle part of Windows.
Of course, in their market segment, there is demand for the extra bundled stuff. It took me a while to "un-hide" a lot of the basic Win2k admin tools from WinXP Pro (which sucked, but it's done now). I love some of the admin aspects of Win2k, yet love some of the compatibility WinXP offers with older Windows programs.
I'd buy XP-Lite if it was available... even if they just gave me the option during the Install of doing a "Custom" install where I CHOOSE all the bundled items I want or don't want. I'd be a happy camper!
Linux is easier not to blame for crappy bundled software because Linux is JUST considered the OS kernel. Anything crappy you install on it, or is bundled, is an easy defense because "it's not part of Linux". Of course, that's among those in the know. I suspect an ordinary consumer that runs Windows on their name-brand PC upon inspecting Linux would consider the GUI (if one was installed) Linux... such as KDE, Gnome, etc.
Notice that I never used the word MS but it naturally comes to mind as you were discussing software vendors.
Guess what. Microsoft is a software developer AND vendor. You as the end user don't care about anything but lower prices and what could be lower than free? Yep, but what about us software developers that work for companies (no, don't be a troll, I don't work for MS) that compete with "free" software?
As much as I'd love to say! Go you! Don't give a damn about us, the employees of companies that pay us for software developments I'll have to say, I DO WORK (developing software is both work and a joy for me) AND EXPECT TO BE COMPENSATED FOR MY WORK!
How would you feel if your boss comes to you tomorrow (I'm not sure what industry your in, but you DO get paid for WORK you do, whether you love it or not) and says, you're fired, your work is not valuable to us because we found a free alternative?
Yes, clients still need someone to install/configure/customise their systems! Guess what? I don't do that! I DEVELOP (brand new) software. I hate going through other people's crappy code to get it to work right for my client! If it was so good it would ALREADY work right!
Besides, there are plenty of people out there already doing that! I WANT to make money from what I love doing (creating, innovating, writing software)... don't I have the right to fight back if consumers like you who could care less if I'm unemployed just want their free software?
Yes, we're all good capitalists. I also believe that employees (and software developers) have the right to make money if we choose to from our work (software development). If companies and consumers make money or maximize their profits from not paying me... I'M GETTING SCREWED.
Stop defending big companies right to make more money off of me (without compensating me because you don't give a damn about me) by masking it behind your contempt for MS.
What happens when clients get used to not paying for software at all? Do you think they will still employ others to do customization for them? I'm sure they will find an open source alternative solution that does everything (or enough of what) they want and they don't have to pay for it at all!
... I mean, they actually see open source developers as FOOLS for giving away what they would and have up until now gladly paid for!!!)?
Then they are supposed to come running to other companies to fund development of upgrades?
Unfortunately, the people that run companies (99.999999999999% are NOT softare developers nor do they contribute to open source, they see the economic gains of not having to PAY the developers of open source for their hard work and brilliant ideas) don't see the great social possibilities of it. They see something that can be thoroughly exploited to their company's economic, not moral, benefit.
Is it fair to you to develop something that is thoroughly helping a corporation save money, and maximize their profits (which they wouldn't dream of sharing with you... it will go into much needed upgrades to the CEO's golf cart, etc.
If you genuinely believe you are developing software and sharing it for the good of the world or your peers then you can not feel exploited by this (AND MORE POWER TO YOU!!!).... but, when development of software is aimed at undermining (and trying to destroy in some cases) extremely profitable and lucrative markets that companies thrive on to EXIST, what good you do for the world is at the cost of those that seem immoral to you for wanting to profit from their hard work and ingenuity! You are contributing to the unemployment of the people in those companies!
They are people like you and me that do what they love, and yet, because we (in the United States) live in a capitalist society, they depend on using their skills (software development) to earn money that pays for their livelihood... Kids, providing for their families, Mortgage, Car, etc., etc.!
But, Open Source does precisely that. It leaves out half of the equation! It is an INCREDIBLE benefit for the Consumer but no benefit to the supplier. Distributors (that package and sell open source software with a book and a fancy box and a cd-rom) make money... what about the developers of the software?
I get enjoyment out of creating software and don't mind giving it away. But if I come up with a great idea that could make a fortune or am trying to replace a multi-billion dollar industry, I would be INSANE not to try to profit for it! It's downright anti-capitalist not to!
Captialism is striving to find the balance between the supplier and the consumer. If one has all the advantages it doesn't work. Most of the time it seems the supplier has the advantage (in what they charge), but I don't think the consumer having the advantage (if they don't pay for anything they consume) is fair either to the supplier.
In an ideal capitalist world (not ideal to everyone, I know) both would come out reasonably well. The consumers would work for suppliers to make money to consume. The suppliers would employ consumers and make money from the consumers to keep the consumers employed.
And yet, imagine a world in which all software used is Open Source licensed and no one can compete with it by trying to make money off of their non-open source licensed technology (in other words, companies that develop software... surely, you don't consider them ALL evil? How about the one you work for? Would you like them driven out of business? What do you think is gonna happen? A great happening for the consumer... yet you're out of work, how do you pay the electric bill to power your computer to use exclusively free (as in the price you pay the developer) software? Do you think the electric company would provide you free electricity?)!
Great for the consumer, terrible for the supplier (developer). I would rather work as a developer for money than work another job to be able to afford a computer to be able to develop software for the satisfaction of it (and not sleep, I suppose... sigh, as if software developers sleep already! Imagine if you have to work 12 hour days flipping burgers to be able to come home to do what you love).
In other words, if I can make money doing what I love (software development), why would I hope free software rules the world (and exterminates software development for money) and I have to go out and work a job I hate to pay for my equipment to be able to do what I love?
Simple. If you want to make money off of your software (or allow others via licensing the technology from you to make money off of it) you can't use the Open Source license.
That is not necessarily a reason to use Microsoft's license described in the article, but a good reason to draw up your own licensing terms if you want financial gain to be possible from your technology.
I personally would rather make money from my software development. That is my choice.
Interesting, but, don't forget Software is not a word in Spanish. Don't be THAT nitpicky!
Well, sure, but what about a clustered solution of X86 computers? X-86 servers are chock full of hot-swappable components and redundancy.
It seems the nature of clustering such computers makes them a stable solution as well. I suppose until Linux on X86 has MUCH more time under its belt it won't be considered as stable a solution as Sun.
Hmmm... also, don't forget that a CD holds what, a maximum of 80 minutes of music (assuming they record CD's and not MP3's onto CD-ROMS).
That would kind of suck for the longer live shows... what would they charge you 50 bucks for a 3 CD set?
I guess it might really be more of a way to cash in on people that bootleg... of course, most bands don't let you get a feed onto the soundboard anymore for bootlegging so they cash in on it this way.
Just another example of America commercializing and trying to make cash off of something that used to be free. At least clearchannel isn't going around trying to arrest everyone else at the concert trying to bootleg it (or are they?).
Of course, the RIAA believes that MP3's are perfect copies of music (when in fact, most at only 128 kbs are inferior to CD quality, which the RIAA says is inferior to DVD-Audio, Super Audio CD, and, of course, inferior to the original studio master tracks).
I guess it's funny considering they will rest at nothing to get their tracks on the radio all over the world but then don't want people to share inferior copies of the same songs... They're just mad because they ignored it when it was new (instead of figuring out a way to USE it to their advantage) and by the time MP3 sharing was widespread all they could think of saying was "wah... wah... it's not fair, we haven't figured out how to make money off it yet".
The RIAA is a victim of their own inability to keep up with technology. Like the rash of "patent" owners on extremely commonly used technologies scrambling to make money off them post fact, the RIAA is treating the common man as a criminal for sharing files the RIAA gladly broadcasts (for free via radio) to the same people all the time!
In fact, we should sue the RIAA for broadcasting copyrighted music without our consent over FM and other radio technologies. What if it turns out one day that we're getting brain tumors from copyrighted music broadcasting through the airwaves!
Understood and agreed. It's easy for you, me, and 99% of the /. community to think of doing it, suggest doing it, or know what to buy and how to do it. I was talking about the non-tech savvy people that would never even fathom the idea of doing it.
In correlation with the question I posed: "...wonder if there are any statistics on how many broadband internet customers are sharing internet connections within their homes. It doesn't seem like non-tech savvy people would be able to figure out how to do this (in most cases, anyhow)..."
If most broadband users are doing this, then it may be a blip on the radar screen of broadband providers. This would make them try to "tax" it by, as I said, finding new and exciting ways to make sure each computer has dedicated equipment (though not a dedicated internet connection) or proprietary software to prevent people from doing this.
I imagine 99% of the people sharing their internet connections are pretty tech-savvy. They know what it is and of course know or can easily find out how to do it. I wonder, how many people are sharing the connection in relation to how many broadband customers total.
Sorry for the rant... long day at work today :(
Interesting...
I wonder if there are any statistics on how many broadband internet customers are sharing internet connections within their homes. It doesn't seem like non-tech savvy people would be able to figure out how to do this (in most cases, anyhow)...
If it turns out that most broadband users ARE doing this, the providers may want to force you to buy a modem for each machine, or even worse, buy proprietary equipment per machine (or proprietary software to connect that screws up sharing of the connection).
Yikes!
Well, Windows Update is right on the Start Menu... not too difficult to find. If they don't find that link (or ever decide to click on it), odds are they wouldn't find the cute little button that goes automatic update in Linux either.
... they will freak out! Me, I think it should! They could easily make a security wizard to help people keep their systems intelligently installed. Of course, there's no demand from it from non-savvy users who don't value the need for security.
Sadly Joe Sixpack doesn't ever think of updating their computer. I wish that Automatic Update were enabled by default in all the existing Windows installs (in XP, it is, if I recall correctly) and it came with SP3 of 2000, I'm almost positive. (If it were, every hacker and their mothers would be trying to hack into the Windows Update server and spread virulent code through there).
Regarding the updates requiring rebooting. Well, that's Windows for you. Perhaps someday hotfixes will be more common and not require the reboot. Of course on home PC systems, a reboot is really no big deal anyway, right? I'm not trying to break a record for uptime on my home desktop! I mean, is 2 minutes of your time THAT big a deal?
Regarding the maturity of Windows. I seriously disagree. Much of the problem has to do with having a customer base of 95% un-savvy computer users. I suspect the base for Linux of un-savvy users is much less than 1%. This has much to do with the level of default security in Linux. I think it's fantastic to have. It's not to say that such a level is unrealistic for Windows. It is NOT there in the default setup... that doesn't mean it's not there!
Find some of the savvy users and administrators of Windows machines, particularly NT 4, 5, or 5.1 and you will see that it's pretty doable to lock Windows down (with what's already there). Of course, the NT kernel is not what people consider Windows. They consider the whole package, all the unnecessary bundled services and extra MS Apps (IE, etc.) to be Windows (hell, even MS considers IE (at least legally) a part of Windows).
The problem is that ordinary people (non-savvy computer users) have an industry-fueled desire for more features (driven by Intel, MS, ATI, Nvdia, HP, Dell, etc., etc.). They are told more is better. I see people buying P4 3GHz machines to check email and surf the Internet only! They don't do anything else! A P1 or P2 is MORE than enough to do that! The CompUSA kid is telling them they NEED more. "but then your computer will be slow".
Define slow? To a gamer, a PII with an ATI Rage Pro is obscenely slow. To a person who just checks email, it is just fine. Now someone tells them it's slow and crap so they chug over to the store and buy the latest silicon that doubles or quadruples the rate that their web pages are rendered on the screen (though they still have a modem so the Internet is still "slow" for them).
So you see, these people buying machines that are, let's be honest, extremely overkill, want ALL their features to work. How do they feel if Windows pops up a prompt that says "are you want to allow your camera software to run as a Power user? how about as a user?"
So, MS caters to the un-savvy by creating a very loose default security setup. Does that mean that I can't go and tighten it down very nicely? No it doesn't. Does it mean that grandma or Joe Sixpack will ever see the value and peace of mind of doing it? Unlikely.
With that, I wish that MS offered to give you a default, everything off, add features as they are needed and as you give permission, default restrictive directory security, default run services as lesser priveleged users, etc., etc. setup for Windows upon install. They are doing it for their forthcoming NT server release, incidentally (eventually being released, anyhow).
This is the eternal Windows vs. *nix debate. What can you do? MS caters to an market of un-savvy computer users and they do it better than any company selling OS's has ever done (the sales and numbers don't lie). I don't care if anyone thinks it's being crammed down everyone's throat. The companies that manufacture PC's you see on the shelves at the retail stores give people what they want. Until people (and I mean significant amounts of them) start asking for Linux pre-installed on their PC's the PC manufacturing companies will assume that they are OK with Windows. It's there, it's perfectly suitable to the users of something like 90% of the personal computers on the earth. If they didn't like it, no one is putting a gun to their head that says "use Microsoft or else". Most don't dislike it because if they did they would get frustrated and investigate alternatives. If there was such contempt for Windows, people would be coming out of the woodwork asking for help installing Linux (not exactly happening is it?).
If you don't like shopping at Barnes and Nobles because they are a large tyrannical bookstore, nothing on this green earth stops you from driving 2 extra miles to the mom & pop bookstore.
Not to mention, I don't think Linux will ever be developed with regular users in mind. Sure, it's possible, but it is not being developed by regular users. It is a labor of love. I think Linux is great (really). It is the epitome of my metaphorical mom & pop bookstore. With that in mind, if it were ever dumbed down to the point where the average joe sixpack could deal with it and use it on a daily basis (yes, of course he can, but he doesn't like to expend the extra two brain cells to try) it would be the same thing as Windows.
It would be so dumbed down, security becomes a secondary, tertiary, or lesser priority, to getting all the "stuff" to work with it instantaneously! The same crappy software vendors that write the crappy software that crashes Windows would write for Linux and believe me, they would figure out a way to make software crappy enough to screw it up too. Don't underestimate just how bad software can be!
Also, don't forget, if Linux ever became as "big" as Windows in the Desktop PC world, some company would have the dominant distro and probably be even more ruthless than MS. Imagine RedHat, if it were a multi-billion dollar monopoly like MS in the future dictating to the Open Source World what the standards of OSS should be! You'd get the same crap.
As always, be glad you have a choice to use whatever software you want. No one can ever force you to put Windows or any other software you dislike on your personal property. Remember, the economy and the decisions of companies (like MS) are solely Market driven. I wish yours and my concerns were on the forefront of Microsoft's wishlists / agendas. Unfortunately, we represent such a vast minority of the computer users of the world that it's not currently a reality!
Cheers!
I mean Uncle Steve Jobs of course :) I didn't know he was sacred to /. I must have missed that part of my EULA... I mean, after all, there are plenty of sites to go to Apple Worship. I imagine Steve Jobs is sacred there, but unless you see the Aqua theme (ala the Apple subsection of /.) around this message, I'm not living in Uncle Steve Jobs temple. Consequently, I don't live by HIS rules. In fact, I don't tend to worship any one or any beings so no person or entity is sacrosanct to me.
What I was doing was kingly jesting the new browser that is still relatively virgin to the plethora of updates and security patches that it's older browser relatives are used to (and oft critized for)... I'm sure Safari is simply peachy on the Mac. Unfortunately, since I don't own nor choose to purchase Apple equipment (because of price (though it's going down) / my existing software and hardware library) I will have to take other people's word for it. I've found though that Apple people find all Apple products perfect no matter what. You can see where some of my skepticism begins (my opinion)?
Besides, a little healthy teasing never did any web browser harm. The people that are devising new and more interesting ways to attack the security of browsers are doing more of the resoundingly un-healthy teasing. I suppose only time can tell what the World (wide web) will have instore for Safari! Until then, cheers!
Could you please point me to some documentation on the inbound connection limit because according to my firewall, I have much more than 10 open inbound. I wonder if that is a per IP address limitation?
Additionally, it'd be interesting to see how Apache on Win32 handles this compared to its *nix relatives. Perhaps it closes the connections as soon as the requests are received and opens outbound connections to service the request instead (I am not an Apache Developer, so I am just making a conjecture here). Those are some interesting points to investigate though!
It seems. With the barrage of security flaws in IE, Mozilla, Netcape, and Opera, it seems it doesn't matter if you pay or not!
Or it could be that others are coming up with increasingly more ingenious ways to get around existing security and everyone is making sure they don't get caught with their pants down.
Of course, you can always go with uncle steve on his safari and just believe the software is perfect as apple pie. I'd rather update and though it's a pain in the ass, at least know some holes are plugged from time to time (as new ways to subvert security are created) than lull myself into believing that security is ever Perfect from the get go.
Conclusion: Updates good... Ignorance bad
Conversely, if you have several redundant systems doing mission critical work (as mission critical work always should), it would be easily possible to reboot one at a time while applying updates, regardless of your choice of software. Thus you have no real downtime on the system, only downtime of one of the redundant pieces of the system.
Well, "the poor desktop user just running whatever came on the box" can use Windows Update... or even easier, use Automatic Update, that notifies them when there are new updates (any time they connect to the Internet), and can also automatically download and / or install those updates. On any Win98, NT4, ME, 2000, or XP box box, simply go to:
http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/
Windows Update and Automatic Update are GREAT for those guys! They keep Windows easily protected! How is that any different than people running Linux that automatically update themselves? Besides, I betcha my dad can set up Automatic Update in Windows, but I doubt he can set up a Linux box to do it!
At the rate we're going, this is the type of hardware we'll need to dissipate heat in 5 years!
You'd think that at the rate the latest and greatest silicon is being churned out and running hotter and hotter, one of the brilliant minds of today could figure out a way to make quiet "stealth" cooling fans. Yep, I know there's liquid cooling for PC's, but even though it's "safe", the idea of liquid and 500 Watts flowing side by side is not appealing to me! Not to mention, are you gonna liquid cool your Powersupply too?
It's incredible that at all the web sites you see "ultra quiet" CPU cooling fans for sale... their decibel ratings are starting at 30! Of course, lots of them drop down to 30 only when their speed limiting systems kick in with the system idling. There is nothing quiet about that!!! You'd think there'd be some scientific solution to move air with a fan and not make such a racket!!! (If so, someone PLEASE point me in the direction of the CPU and Case fans that do this!!!)
Well, I haven't had any noticeable problems with Windows security. I love Win2k, hate the "server" software MS makes for it like IIS (note IIS is NOT the operating system, it is additional software that is optional to use) is swiss cheese in my opinion, I just don't use it. Problem solved. I use Apache on Win2k and it runs like a champ!!!
IIS and SQL Server's shortcomings don't mean you can't tighten NT 5 down like a vise. It's doable, scoff if you want, but do some homework and you'll see it's not a bad OS. With that said, I think the default configuration of NT needs to be DRASTICALLY re-evaluated. They've done this with the new version of NT Server coming out (someday)... it starts out clamped down, then you ENABLE things as you use them. The current configuration, with everything enabled out of the gate, gives Windows a bad rap. IIS, well, that deserves the bad rap.