Umm - you're a developer who doesn't program? Or I'm a programmer who isn't a developer? Uh.. heh... not seeing the distinction, but please don't feel I need to be 'educated'.
Not quite sure where you read 'my complaint' - I expressed a personal opinion which was aimed to counter your argument - to sum it up and add a little more depth: I don't need nor want intimate knowlegde of a bunch of command line tools to install a system, and further, I don't think anyone needs to unless they want to.
Wouldn't have a clue about Windows there, so I can't comment on your last point there...
As someone who has watched Dr Who since he was a kid, I can say that 'magical plot wand' is greatly appreciated. If it hadn't been done, the series would have died before I even got a chance to watch it...
What I find surprising about the debate here is that noone has suggested that maybe, just maybe, in the last episode of the current series, the 'wand' has been used or the series ends with a real cliff hanger? Would have made a pretty surprising ending if it had, especially if the BBC hadn't reported this beforehand...
I agree with the article in that I too don't care if the drivers I run are closed or open as long as they're available. However, the NdisWrapper thing is something I would never touch - if the hardware manufacturers have an excuse not to develop open source drivers (or reveal specs), they're likely to use it...
The NdisWrapper project just provides them with the excuse and provides the user with nothing but a temporary hack. At the same time, I do admit it's a pretty impressive hack, but a hack nonetheless...
For the record, I use wlan cards that are well supported by open source drivers (prism and atmel chipsets). My newest laptop has a wlan built in, but until the manufacturer or the open source world produces drivers, I won't be using it...
My previous customer was a TV broadcaster and has a huge database of legacy video clips (100s of thousands of short clips).
In order to provide efficient access to the video clips within the LAN (100 or more users), he set up a distributed transcoding mechanism which reduced the bandwidth requirements for browsing the archive (ie: transcoding all clips to a low bandwidth version). These are also used for editing and the original is used for broadcasting.
I would imagine he would find this kind of functionality very appealing, esp. since he won't need to keep all the machines running for the daily top ups and software installation is presumably centralised...
unless there is a law against it, there will always be closed source applications and software. Most people simply don't give a shit. They just want a product that works (open or closed source).
Agreed and for the record, I never said that open source would replace closed source. I asked if the OP was concerned that it would.
You say it's an "un-fair competitive advantage".
No I didn't. I was referring to a case where MS have used undocumented APIs in their applications to achieve certain functionality which competitors weren't made aware of.
The fact that anyone can work on it is nice, but it seems like that just means that the application will be a never-ending beta..that takes 5 years to develop rather than 6 months.
That's down to two facts - 1) the majority of OSS is *not* being developed for money and 2) because there's no customer, there's often no specific functional requirement that has to be achieved. And let's face it, why exactly should an unpaid programmer actually worry about that? The code is there for anyone to continue and work on in their own direction - often, the developer is just happy if it achieves the particular task they wanted.
For the record, I keep even my paid for software in beta for a number of reasons - mainly this comes down to restrictions like not being able to test the software on a large number of platforms. Or that I consider certain functionality to be required before anyone but my customer would consider using the software.
Beta is just a label - it doesn't mean the software isn't used or isn't useful to somebody.
Look, I agree with your point, but that -is- the goal, is it not? Shouldn't our goal be to write software so intuitive that no one needs support for it?
The answer is, of course, yes.
Not trying to be funny here, but I would say that that isn't the answer - at least as far as the closed source, 'I only make money out of new releases' mentality goes... and um, of your own:
And the closer we get to coding that well, the further we would get from revenue. That's BAD. Real bad.
So what is it? Write once, run everywhere or write incrementally and sell every feature? I'm not sure what your argument is any more...
As I see it, neither computers nor the software that runs on them have matured to the point that the usefulness of a good developer is no longer required (whether working in the open or closed field).
Are you worried that Open Source will destroy Closed Source? Are you worried that there will be less developers required because Open Source wins or are you hoping that less will be required because closed source wins?
As I pointed out in another thread, open source paves the way for smaller companies and individuals to gain the ability to sell enhancements, features and support - ergo, it is good for the economy, the playing field is open and anyone can play... software development will continue as ever, only there'll potentially be more employers. Anyone can build products and sell them - anyone can modify those products in anyway they see fit... It's better from an educational point of view - the availibility of the source means that people entering the profession can do so with every resource at their finger tips - no secrets, no hidden api's that invite unfair competition, no monopolies, though still an unlimited potential to grow...
The closed source model hides the code, hence the education (in areas other than the public API's when applicable) is the sole responsibility of the company. Enhancements are the responsibility of the company and they're restricted by the number of developers they can affordd. The closed source model doesn't open up the market in the same way - the playing field has a toll booth and a minder who scares small children away;-).
As for people who want to work for free - I say good for them. That's how I started out working in Open Source - I got my name known by working on free software on things that I wanted (happened to be a video editor). Free advertising and working on something that's fun and educational... wow! And to top it off, you're not working alone, you're not working just for yourself and other people use it and like it (not everyone, but hey - win some, lose some).
If you look it at like 'free advertising' then you're on the right lines... very capitalist I think...
Umm - since the software I'm primarily developing is for TV broadcasting (editors and playout servers) I'd have to say 'no' in my particular case, but you could argue that one to and fro I guess...
Not really sure where you're going with this line of argument though - where would an affirmative acknowledgement get you in relation to the points I raised in the previous message?
The closed source model is a valid commercial model, but it's not the only way to make money in the field of software development. Open Source is gaining acceptance from the financiers, and this is increasing every year.
For the record, I've been making a living developing open source for about 3 years now (no, I ain't rich, but I'm not poor either - mostly the work is far more interesting than I ever did in the closed source world). I've actually reached the point where I'm having to turn work away, so I know for a fact that there is work out there and, more importantly, not everyone with the financial muscle agrees with your line of reasoning....
And you misunderstand entirely - I said 'I get paid to develop Open Source' not that 'I sell Open Source' - there's a big and subtle difference.
Software development is not just about developing shrink wrapped solutions to the world at large - organisations pay for development for inhouse use, some use it for embedding in their products, others use software for their business to business communications and yes, some produce shrink wrapped solutions.
But let's assume that I were developing shrink wrapped solutions and using open source components to do it. Let's assume there's a bug in that release. The user reports the bug to my company or throws the software away. Tell me, how does this in anyway differ from their being a bug in a closed source app? Do you believe that closed source is somehow better?
Now assume that the bug is found by a techie, or the person finding the bug knows a techie. Yay! Guess what, they *can* possibly, if they feel like it, fix the bug. Someone can pay somebody independently to do it too.
Think of it like calling in a plumber or an electrician - would you like it if the only option you had was to call in maintenance from the company who installed the pipes and wires? What happens if they went bust (or was blown up by terrorists, or was the victim of living in a part of the world that was struck by a natural disaster)? Do you really want to be forced to re-plumb and rewire just because of that?
I get paid to develop Open Source software and so do many others.
Doing so ensures that not only I do get the immediate returns, I get a longer term return in that I can reuse components freely for multiple customers (assuming that they have compatible licensing and goals). This is rarely an option with closed source; I've even worked in closed source companies that have multiple customers - sometimes they won't even let you share code between them.
As for writing software that doesn't need support - heh - well, good luck on that one:-). There's always something, be it additional functionality, changes in your projects dependencies, licensing consideration and of course, there are bugs and user usage/understanding issues. Unfortunately, it's not just about writing code....
The april fools stories are just getting worse and worse.
Actually, if you read the article, you might find this one quite funny... has some great quotes in it, like:
The key words "SHALT", "SHALT NOT", "SMITE", and "PILLAR OF SALT" in this document are to be interpreted as expected.
and:
If the Morality Considerations section is present, it MUST contain at
least the following subsections. The content of these subsections is
surely self-evident to any right-thinking person. Further guidance
can be obtained from your moral guardian, your household gods, or
from any member of the IMM (Internet Moral Majority).
I know that the parent troll is going to disappear into oblivion eventually, but I would just like to point out that forking have little to do with the fact that there are lots of implementations of a particular thing.
Ultimately, anyone wishing to contribute to the open source community can do it anyway they wish - they can join an established team, create a new project, fork an existing one or just start doing something from the ground up. Others pay for project development, others take the DIY approach.
But so what? How does this in anyway affect the usefulness of Open Source? The best will float into the public consciousness, many good ones will get overlooked and the worst will disappear into oblivion (similarly to the parent post I guess).
It's similar to saying to an amateur dramatic team that there's no point in making their own version of {insert name of play} when there are plenty of {films or tv productions} of the same work.
Or like saying to the professionals: Why remake Battlestar Galactica? Why make new episodes of Dr Who? Why remake the The Ladykillers?
The answer is always the same - the individuals involved believe they have something new to give. Don't like it? Ignore it and stick with what you like. Like it? Excellent.
So what if there are 1000 messengers or chat clients - no one is forcing you to use them.
I've always been of the opinion that the wealth of material that's fallen out of copyright or was made publicly available to begin with is the ideal use for file sharing networks.
I also feel the copyright period should be reduced - 10 to 15 years is more than sufficient to recoup on an investment, and even when it's in the public domain, it's not as if a publish can't continue to publish... people like 'convenience products' - box sets with collected works and additional content still continue to sell regardless of the licensing associated to material it contains.
Re:Are you sure he's not a GPL troll?
on
Tracking GPL Violators
·
· Score: 3, Informative
When in reality anyone can bypass that requirement simply by sticking the software in a library/DLL and late binding to it.
Not at all - you're mistaking it with the LGPL. GPL explicitly states that you *cannot* do this.
Mod me as a troll if you want, but a 'language' that doesn't support multiple implementations, doesn't provide a clear specification and doesn't allow cross platform possibilties is not a 'language'.
Let it die a horrible death; let its dependents squabble over the legacy it hasn't left... and just hope that people learn not to let it happen again.
I was just illustrating that having parallel platforms stagnates progress.
This is a completely false and ludicrous statement. In fact, the converse is true - having a single dominant platform stagnates progress. Did you see many improvements in Internet Explorer recently? Nope, not until some serious competion arrived was that even considered...
I don't buy this single platform philosophy - competition is good. Be it windows versus linux, office versus open office, internet explorer versus firefox, nero versus k3b, gtk versus qt, vi versus emacs, grub versus lilo, gaim versus kopete, mplayer versus xine.. the list is endless, and I haven't even mentioned the other contenders involved in these categories. The result is the same - they all compete against each other, they each get better, and ultimately, the distributors (AND end user) get to choose what suits their needs...
I never install those win32 codecs (horrible things:-)). The low quality version someone mentioned above played just fine with ffmpeg/ffplay and mplayer. xine played without audio (but I hadn't installed the faac/faad stuff til recently).
I'm using CVS versions of all of these (ffmpeg from today, mplayer/xine from a couple of months back).
Well, I can't speak for all of India, but I've been employed by a large Indian TV broadcaster to provide a complete suite of video editing and broadcast tools for Linux (and developed under the GPL too).
From this and other recent articles on/., I feel that India is not only paying attention to Linux, they're using it and some at least are embracing the spirit of the open source movement and contributing back.
Not sure I agree with the parents wording there, but I agree with the sentiment - broad experience doesn't help you lock down a job when employers these days are looking for a specific skillset.
While it's hard to say precisely why this should be the case, I guess there's a feeling of 'jack of all trades, master of none' or 'well, sure he has the skill I need, but his resume suggests that he has skills I don't... he's going to expect a pay package that reflects his capabilities, not my requirements' and so on.
As a result, an employer will be more comfortable employing someone with the minimal skillset. This is of course the wrong attitude - IT skills acquired in one technology tend to give you insight into others.
Someone once remarked that the difference between a European and an American is that a European thinks 100 miles is a long distance while an American thinks 100 years is a long time.
I totally agree with you on that one - the ADVC 100 is an excellent device and is very well supported under linux for both capture and export.
Being a developer on the kino project, I would unreservedly advise it.
Just in case anyone is interested, I am currently developing 'shotcut' - an Open Source video editor for an Indian TV broadcaster. This is a multitrack, realtime fx applying video editing environment based on the same library that we will use to build kino v2 (which will be a more fully featured, home user oriented product).
Other projects that under heavy development are of course cinelerra (the public fork being especially interesting), aluminium (pippin.gimp.org), pitivi (a new gstreamer based editor - early days, looks interesting), avidemux, LiVes and probably others I've forgotten.
I can also recommend the mainactor editor from Mainconcept (even the free version has particularly good unrestricted dv capture with a similar level of support as provided by kino and dvgrab).
Speaking as a who's wife works for the European Commission, I think that it's great that they're waking up to this...
I have more or less weaned my wife off all things Windows (and she's OK about it.. I certainly get less 'support requests' anyway), but an annoyance is the fact that she receives work related documents from this establishment in Word and Excel formats...
While OO.org does tend to handle them correctly most of the time, but I've never seen a reverse engineered solution as a good one. What happens when a future Office release doesn't allow reverse engineering, or legally, no one is allowed to do it?
To say the issue is about wholly about features or luring people from Office is missing the point - apps can have as many different features as they want, but an agreed and open format to pass data around in? Now that is worth having...
In case it's unclear, if Office implements these formats, then there's no issue with people using those apps at all - as long as they pay for or otherwise acquire them legally, and they don't clog up my wife's e-mail account with potentially unreadable formats:-).
The video world has quite a lot of other nice command line interfaces such as ffmpeg, dvgrab and I feel that the mlt inigo utility is pretty useful in this area (but then I'm biassed:-)).
Slashdot Mirror
Umm - you're a developer who doesn't program? Or I'm a programmer who isn't a developer? Uh.. heh... not seeing the distinction, but please don't feel I need to be 'educated'.
Not quite sure where you read 'my complaint' - I expressed a personal opinion which was aimed to counter your argument - to sum it up and add a little more depth: I don't need nor want intimate knowlegde of a bunch of command line tools to install a system, and further, I don't think anyone needs to unless they want to.
Wouldn't have a clue about Windows there, so I can't comment on your last point there...
Heh, I'm a programmer and I can't be bothered learning about how to use command line partitioning tools or setting up stuff from scratch.
I just want a distro that I can install quickly, has the development environment I need so I can start working immediately.
As a result, I lean toward distros which do have GUI installers.
As someone who has watched Dr Who since he was a kid, I can say that 'magical plot wand' is greatly appreciated. If it hadn't been done, the series would have died before I even got a chance to watch it...
What I find surprising about the debate here is that noone has suggested that maybe, just maybe, in the last episode of the current series, the 'wand' has been used or the series ends with a real cliff hanger? Would have made a pretty surprising ending if it had, especially if the BBC hadn't reported this beforehand...
I agree with the article in that I too don't care if the drivers I run are closed or open as long as they're available. However, the NdisWrapper thing is something I would never touch - if the hardware manufacturers have an excuse not to develop open source drivers (or reveal specs), they're likely to use it...
The NdisWrapper project just provides them with the excuse and provides the user with nothing but a temporary hack. At the same time, I do admit it's a pretty impressive hack, but a hack nonetheless...
For the record, I use wlan cards that are well supported by open source drivers (prism and atmel chipsets). My newest laptop has a wlan built in, but until the manufacturer or the open source world produces drivers, I won't be using it...
My previous customer was a TV broadcaster and has a huge database of legacy video clips (100s of thousands of short clips).
In order to provide efficient access to the video clips within the LAN (100 or more users), he set up a distributed transcoding mechanism which reduced the bandwidth requirements for browsing the archive (ie: transcoding all clips to a low bandwidth version). These are also used for editing and the original is used for broadcasting.
I would imagine he would find this kind of functionality very appealing, esp. since he won't need to keep all the machines running for the daily top ups and software installation is presumably centralised...
unless there is a law against it, there will always be closed source applications and software. Most people simply don't give a shit. They just want a product that works (open or closed source).
Agreed and for the record, I never said that open source would replace closed source. I asked if the OP was concerned that it would.
You say it's an "un-fair competitive advantage".
No I didn't. I was referring to a case where MS have used undocumented APIs in their applications to achieve certain functionality which competitors weren't made aware of.
The fact that anyone can work on it is nice, but it seems like that just means that the application will be a never-ending beta..that takes 5 years to develop rather than 6 months.
That's down to two facts - 1) the majority of OSS is *not* being developed for money and 2) because there's no customer, there's often no specific functional requirement that has to be achieved. And let's face it, why exactly should an unpaid programmer actually worry about that? The code is there for anyone to continue and work on in their own direction - often, the developer is just happy if it achieves the particular task they wanted.
For the record, I keep even my paid for software in beta for a number of reasons - mainly this comes down to restrictions like not being able to test the software on a large number of platforms. Or that I consider certain functionality to be required before anyone but my customer would consider using the software.
Beta is just a label - it doesn't mean the software isn't used or isn't useful to somebody.
Look, I agree with your point, but that -is- the goal, is it not? Shouldn't our goal be to write software so intuitive that no one needs support for it?
;-).
The answer is, of course, yes.
Not trying to be funny here, but I would say that that isn't the answer - at least as far as the closed source, 'I only make money out of new releases' mentality goes... and um, of your own:
And the closer we get to coding that well, the further we would get from revenue. That's BAD. Real bad.
So what is it? Write once, run everywhere or write incrementally and sell every feature? I'm not sure what your argument is any more...
As I see it, neither computers nor the software that runs on them have matured to the point that the usefulness of a good developer is no longer required (whether working in the open or closed field).
Are you worried that Open Source will destroy Closed Source? Are you worried that there will be less developers required because Open Source wins or are you hoping that less will be required because closed source wins?
As I pointed out in another thread, open source paves the way for smaller companies and individuals to gain the ability to sell enhancements, features and support - ergo, it is good for the economy, the playing field is open and anyone can play... software development will continue as ever, only there'll potentially be more employers. Anyone can build products and sell them - anyone can modify those products in anyway they see fit... It's better from an educational point of view - the availibility of the source means that people entering the profession can do so with every resource at their finger tips - no secrets, no hidden api's that invite unfair competition, no monopolies, though still an unlimited potential to grow...
The closed source model hides the code, hence the education (in areas other than the public API's when applicable) is the sole responsibility of the company. Enhancements are the responsibility of the company and they're restricted by the number of developers they can affordd. The closed source model doesn't open up the market in the same way - the playing field has a toll booth and a minder who scares small children away
As for people who want to work for free - I say good for them. That's how I started out working in Open Source - I got my name known by working on free software on things that I wanted (happened to be a video editor). Free advertising and working on something that's fun and educational... wow! And to top it off, you're not working alone, you're not working just for yourself and other people use it and like it (not everyone, but hey - win some, lose some).
If you look it at like 'free advertising' then you're on the right lines... very capitalist I think...
Umm - since the software I'm primarily developing is for TV broadcasting (editors and playout servers) I'd have to say 'no' in my particular case, but you could argue that one to and fro I guess...
Not really sure where you're going with this line of argument though - where would an affirmative acknowledgement get you in relation to the points I raised in the previous message?
The closed source model is a valid commercial model, but it's not the only way to make money in the field of software development. Open Source is gaining acceptance from the financiers, and this is increasing every year.
For the record, I've been making a living developing open source for about 3 years now (no, I ain't rich, but I'm not poor either - mostly the work is far more interesting than I ever did in the closed source world). I've actually reached the point where I'm having to turn work away, so I know for a fact that there is work out there and, more importantly, not everyone with the financial muscle agrees with your line of reasoning....
And you misunderstand entirely - I said 'I get paid to develop Open Source' not that 'I sell Open Source' - there's a big and subtle difference.
Software development is not just about developing shrink wrapped solutions to the world at large - organisations pay for development for inhouse use, some use it for embedding in their products, others use software for their business to business communications and yes, some produce shrink wrapped solutions.
But let's assume that I were developing shrink wrapped solutions and using open source components to do it. Let's assume there's a bug in that release. The user reports the bug to my company or throws the software away. Tell me, how does this in anyway differ from their being a bug in a closed source app? Do you believe that closed source is somehow better?
Now assume that the bug is found by a techie, or the person finding the bug knows a techie. Yay! Guess what, they *can* possibly, if they feel like it, fix the bug. Someone can pay somebody independently to do it too.
Think of it like calling in a plumber or an electrician - would you like it if the only option you had was to call in maintenance from the company who installed the pipes and wires? What happens if they went bust (or was blown up by terrorists, or was the victim of living in a part of the world that was struck by a natural disaster)? Do you really want to be forced to re-plumb and rewire just because of that?
I get paid to develop Open Source software and so do many others.
:-). There's always something, be it additional functionality, changes in your projects dependencies, licensing consideration and of course, there are bugs and user usage/understanding issues. Unfortunately, it's not just about writing code....
Doing so ensures that not only I do get the immediate returns, I get a longer term return in that I can reuse components freely for multiple customers (assuming that they have compatible licensing and goals). This is rarely an option with closed source; I've even worked in closed source companies that have multiple customers - sometimes they won't even let you share code between them.
As for writing software that doesn't need support - heh - well, good luck on that one
The april fools stories are just getting worse and worse.
Actually, if you read the article, you might find this one quite funny... has some great quotes in it, like:
The key words "SHALT", "SHALT NOT", "SMITE", and "PILLAR OF SALT" in this document are to be interpreted as expected.
and:
If the Morality Considerations section is present, it MUST contain at least the following subsections. The content of these subsections is surely self-evident to any right-thinking person. Further guidance can be obtained from your moral guardian, your household gods, or from any member of the IMM (Internet Moral Majority).
Oh well, mebbe I'm easily amused...
I know that the parent troll is going to disappear into oblivion eventually, but I would just like to point out that forking have little to do with the fact that there are lots of implementations of a particular thing.
Ultimately, anyone wishing to contribute to the open source community can do it anyway they wish - they can join an established team, create a new project, fork an existing one or just start doing something from the ground up. Others pay for project development, others take the DIY approach.
But so what? How does this in anyway affect the usefulness of Open Source? The best will float into the public consciousness, many good ones will get overlooked and the worst will disappear into oblivion (similarly to the parent post I guess).
It's similar to saying to an amateur dramatic team that there's no point in making their own version of {insert name of play} when there are plenty of {films or tv productions} of the same work.
Or like saying to the professionals: Why remake Battlestar Galactica? Why make new episodes of Dr Who? Why remake the The Ladykillers?
The answer is always the same - the individuals involved believe they have something new to give. Don't like it? Ignore it and stick with what you like. Like it? Excellent.
So what if there are 1000 messengers or chat clients - no one is forcing you to use them.
There are exceptions where you can link to a GPL lib and it is acceptable. An example would be the libc6 library
Let me stop you right there and point and out that libc is actually LGPL...
As for the MySQL client API, it is whatever the license of that package dictates (I'll leave that up to you to check...).
Well said.
I've always been of the opinion that the wealth of material that's fallen out of copyright or was made publicly available to begin with is the ideal use for file sharing networks.
I also feel the copyright period should be reduced - 10 to 15 years is more than sufficient to recoup on an investment, and even when it's in the public domain, it's not as if a publish can't continue to publish... people like 'convenience products' - box sets with collected works and additional content still continue to sell regardless of the licensing associated to material it contains.
When in reality anyone can bypass that requirement simply by sticking the software in a library/DLL and late binding to it.
Not at all - you're mistaking it with the LGPL. GPL explicitly states that you *cannot* do this.
No, it's just the kind of thing to toss aside...
Mod me as a troll if you want, but a 'language' that doesn't support multiple implementations, doesn't provide a clear specification and doesn't allow cross platform possibilties is not a 'language'.
Let it die a horrible death; let its dependents squabble over the legacy it hasn't left... and just hope that people learn not to let it happen again.
I was just illustrating that having parallel platforms stagnates progress.
This is a completely false and ludicrous statement. In fact, the converse is true - having a single dominant platform stagnates progress. Did you see many improvements in Internet Explorer recently? Nope, not until some serious competion arrived was that even considered...
I don't buy this single platform philosophy - competition is good. Be it windows versus linux, office versus open office, internet explorer versus firefox, nero versus k3b, gtk versus qt, vi versus emacs, grub versus lilo, gaim versus kopete, mplayer versus xine.. the list is endless, and I haven't even mentioned the other contenders involved in these categories. The result is the same - they all compete against each other, they each get better, and ultimately, the distributors (AND end user) get to choose what suits their needs...
I never install those win32 codecs (horrible things :-)). The low quality version someone mentioned above played just fine with ffmpeg/ffplay and mplayer. xine played without audio (but I hadn't installed the faac/faad stuff til recently).
I'm using CVS versions of all of these (ffmpeg from today, mplayer/xine from a couple of months back).
And here it is in English.
Well, I can't speak for all of India, but I've been employed by a large Indian TV broadcaster to provide a complete suite of video editing and broadcast tools for Linux (and developed under the GPL too).
/., I feel that India is not only paying attention to Linux, they're using it and some at least are embracing the spirit of the open source movement and contributing back.
From this and other recent articles on
Not sure I agree with the parents wording there, but I agree with the sentiment - broad experience doesn't help you lock down a job when employers these days are looking for a specific skillset.
While it's hard to say precisely why this should be the case, I guess there's a feeling of 'jack of all trades, master of none' or 'well, sure he has the skill I need, but his resume suggests that he has skills I don't... he's going to expect a pay package that reflects his capabilities, not my requirements' and so on.
As a result, an employer will be more comfortable employing someone with the minimal skillset. This is of course the wrong attitude - IT skills acquired in one technology tend to give you insight into others.
Someone once remarked that the difference between a European and an American is that a European thinks 100 miles is a long distance while an American thinks 100 years is a long time.
I totally agree with you on that one - the ADVC 100 is an excellent device and is very well supported under linux for both capture and export.
Being a developer on the kino project, I would unreservedly advise it.
Just in case anyone is interested, I am currently developing 'shotcut' - an Open Source video editor for an Indian TV broadcaster. This is a multitrack, realtime fx applying video editing environment based on the same library that we will use to build kino v2 (which will be a more fully featured, home user oriented product).
Other projects that under heavy development are of course cinelerra (the public fork being especially interesting), aluminium (pippin.gimp.org), pitivi (a new gstreamer based editor - early days, looks interesting), avidemux, LiVes and probably others I've forgotten.
I can also recommend the mainactor editor from Mainconcept (even the free version has particularly good unrestricted dv capture with a similar level of support as provided by kino and dvgrab).
Speaking as a who's wife works for the European Commission, I think that it's great that they're waking up to this...
:-).
I have more or less weaned my wife off all things Windows (and she's OK about it.. I certainly get less 'support requests' anyway), but an annoyance is the fact that she receives work related documents from this establishment in Word and Excel formats...
While OO.org does tend to handle them correctly most of the time, but I've never seen a reverse engineered solution as a good one. What happens when a future Office release doesn't allow reverse engineering, or legally, no one is allowed to do it?
To say the issue is about wholly about features or luring people from Office is missing the point - apps can have as many different features as they want, but an agreed and open format to pass data around in? Now that is worth having...
In case it's unclear, if Office implements these formats, then there's no issue with people using those apps at all - as long as they pay for or otherwise acquire them legally, and they don't clog up my wife's e-mail account with potentially unreadable formats
The video world has quite a lot of other nice command line interfaces such as ffmpeg, dvgrab and I feel that the mlt inigo utility is pretty useful in this area (but then I'm biassed :-)).