There is a world of difference between using a work and having access to the source code, which implies the ability to create derived works. The binary use allows a work to be copied, much as one might distribute music. The source use allows one to derive, create new works based on the original.
In the case of GPL'd work, both uses are a grant and a gift by the author to the community: a commercial work is far more restrictive since it limits the binary use and makes no source use possible at all except under specific cases.
So if a GPLd work is a 'honeypot', this is only by comparison to a work placed entirely under the public domain, or under a BSD-style license.
The GPL is, I maintain, a kind of immune system for software works, and it's one that I use for the majority of my software today (in the past I used more liberal licenses.) Using the GPL I can justify releasing the results of years of hard work for "free", knowing that it will benefit those in the community who are also willing to either spread my work, or extend it for free, while protecting me (as a commercial software author) from my competitors who might seek to repackage and resell my work without due benefit.
This is not a honeypot: there is no fraud, no intention to switch-and-bait, indeed the very basis of the GPL is to render this impossible.
Control over software lies with those able to create it, us programmers. Innovation comes from a fundamental need to build the best solutions to the problems we face, and to suggest that the GPL can 'inhibit innovation' is simply wrong. MS are attempting to counter the free software movement precisely because it is a fountain of inovation that threatens the very existence of the MS hegemony, the very survival of a machine that feeds on the desperation of people for decent software.
As the author of several GPL's applications, this is entirely false. A GPL'd application is software with an immune system. You can use it, copy it, share it, and you are guaranteed that no-one, not even the original author, will come back and restrict your rights. It's only when you decide to reuse the software code for your own purposes that the GPL aspects kick in. This is not a honeypot.
Wow, I'm impressed by your grasp of the subtleties of the English language and its use in this context.
But I believe you are actually wrong. An "open" standard which is usable only under terms of a patent license is not open. It can be as documented as you like, but if there are conditions attached to its simple use, it is not open.
An example: if I document the interface to my bondoogle so that any one can programme bondoogle extensions, that is a "documented" standard.
If I place the bondoogle extension specifications into the hands of an independent body, that is an "open" standard.
If I provide the community with the rights to the standard itself, it may become a "free" standard.
But if I document the standard and then say "and all use of this standard is restricted to those applications I agree with", that is neither open nor free, simply licensed.
Furthermore, this is quite an innovative restriction mechanism: previous mechanisms for making so-called "open" standards such as win32 non-open included deliberate underdocumentation. The use of patent law is new and should be raising red flags all over the place, especially as it's for something as vital as an XML schema.
Does this mean that XML schemas can be patented?
A truly frighting idea, given the importance of XML to the Internet ecosystem.
Most probably the intention is to make the XML formats 'incompatible' with the GPL. However if this is the case, there is at least one easy work around, namely to define a neutral XML format (say the OOo XML format) and use a non-GPL 'connector' (which carefully observes the Microsoft patent license conditions) to do the dirty work.
Any 'open' standard that imposes conditions on its use is not actually open at all. The owner can decide at any time to change the license, and this in itself should be enough reason to avoid this XML interface.
I believe these XML standards are what is technically called a "honeypot".
Of course, I may be paranoid, this may indeed be a munificent gesture by Microsoft who have realized that their XML schemas will serve the global community, add value to their products, and encourage a new generation of Office extension applications that will halt the trickle/rush/avalanche of Linux conversions.
Agreed that the whole concept of an "office suite" could take a fresh look. But given that this is one of the principle applications for most people, what is wrong with OpenOffice? Honestly, I use it every day, heavily, and I can't understand what people could complain about. It is a little slow but that's hardly a serious issue these days.
OpenOffice is stable, creates compact and portable documents, produces beautiful PDFs, does not have any bugs that I can find (admittedly I don't spend my time importing bizarro Excel spreadsheets), and is really the reason why our business was able to face a move to Linux desktops a year or two ago, a move that we've not regretted at all.
I suspect part of the kick of using the Cube is that the original machine is no longer for sale, so there is an element of exclusivity. If all you want is a tiny server, take a mini-ITX case and you can do much the same. Sun would possibly spawn a new market (tiny file servers) but they'd not profit from it. No marketing capability.
It's an amusing story, but clearly an invention. Specific in unprovable detail and vague with the meat. Here's a quote from Mr Titor about a computer he is reportedly seeking:
"The 5100 has the ability to easily translate between the old IBM code, APL, BASIC and (with a few tweaks in 1975) UNIX".
It reads well, but means nothing.
Civil wars are always possible, of course, but they tend to happen when there is a social revolution - and a consequent shift of power - that the political structures do not adapt to. This is not the situation in the US.
One of my projects right now is a multimedia CD for a group I work with. Indeed, an hour of studio-quality music is quite a challenge. But, we want to have videos, recordings of their concerts, etc.
The reason is to produce an item we can sell to fans who come to their concerts.
A CD gets filled really quickly this way. Right now we're splitting into 40 minute's uncompressed audio and 300 MB digital. But we'd like to provide at least 2 hours of audio, and an hour of video. Three CDs worth, so we're planning to move to DVD within a year or two if the concept sells. The DVD will be filled really quickly.
Yes, this is very true, and my bad for forgetting it. There are many DOS, VB, Delphi, Access, etc. applications out there used, as you say for accounting, stock control, etc.
But most such users are very conservative with their equipment and upgrades, and don't form an important market for (new) Windows sales, nor for migrations to Linux.
1. "Perfect" is not literal, this is IT after all. By this I mean "tolerable", or even "better the Devil you know."
2. In all cases I assume that some expert help is available for installation and configuration. This is how Linux gets 'perfect' for naive home users: quick installation from Knoppix, Xandros, Lindows, and no phone calls or 'domestic help desk'. I speak from experience.
3. The two markets where Linux lacks applications are games and enterprise desktops. But these account for perhaps 35% (my estimates, feel free to provide better ones) of the desktop market. As far as I can see, 65% is "perfectly" well served by the existing applications.
4. Yes, Windows is "perfect" for most of these markets. It would be quite stunning if this were not the case.
5. There are further markets one can define but they are not significant. For instance: professional media workers, photographers, graphical designers, DJs, etc. I suspect here that Mac is the best platform for them, neither Windows nor Linux get a high score.
It is difficult and wasteful to try to market products at too large a market. So, "Linux for the Desktop" is probably an unattainable and moving goal.
This is how I see the real market segments for desktop computers, their percentage value, and how well Linux fits. I apologise in advance for doing zero research and just basing this on my experience of the field, but... hey... this is Slashdot, exactly the place for uninformed opinion.
2. "Medium Office" use. As above, but add support for exotic hardware such as notebooks, scanners, DVD burners, whatever. Value: 10%. Linux: some work to do. Windows: perfect.
3. "Large Office" use. As above, but add integration with enterprise information systems, currently done mainly through Exchange and Office macros:-). Value: 20%. Linux: some work to do. Windows: perfect.
4. "Cybershop" use. Value 10%. Requirements: web, chat, email, office, VoIP, p2p, trivial (re)installation, efficiency on cheap, old systems. Linux: perfect. Windows: too expensive and complex.
5. "Game boy" use. Value 15%. Requirements: support for latest video, audio, and large software library. Linux: needs work. Windows: perfect.
6. "Serious home user". Value: 10%. Requirements: as for Small Office, but more solid, tighter on the budgets, slightly hackable, and with loads of free software. Linux: perfect. Windows: slightly too expensive, but otherwise perfect.
7. "Naive home user", Value: 15%. Requirements: as for cybershop, but with ability to plug in digital camera to download snaps of baby. Linux: perfect, with some limitations on range of exotic hardware. Windows: perfect, except for security.
Overall analysis: Linux can cover 60-70% of the market with nothing more than some good marketing.
Last night, thinking about how to explain the concept of "open source" to a judge (we're in a small legal case, my company), I had exactly this idea: open source software is like open source laws. It's a metaphor that is entirely clear and meaningful. Of course people don't have to read the source code in order to use the product, but when you need to know what's going on, it's the only way you can be sure of your facts.
The old wealthy men I speak of are almost by definition conservative. Change is something you embrace when you have nothing to lose and something to win. A media empire is the accumulation of decades of hard work, not revolution.
Most men who construct something during their lives reach a point where 'change' turns from being something good to being something bad. There is simply a moment when one has more to lose than to win.
This is why generally speaking (and this observation has been made many, many times) younger men are more pro-change and older men are more anti-change. Socialist and conservative, if you like.
It's easy to prove me wrong. Show me one old, wealthy revolutionary. Show me one young, poor conservatives. These combinations just don't exist. End of argument.
"We are fastest to attack others for the weaknesses we most fear in ourselves".
OK, I just made it up, but it's true anyhow.
Being excellent programmers is not enough
on
Microsoft in the Mirror
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
That Microsoft is staffed by excellent developers and generally run by excellent managers is evident from books like Code Complete, which has some fun stories about the development of Excel.
The fact is that this does not appear to be enough to make really good software.
Microsoft's software has certain specific issues. First, it is too monolithic: it consists of large vertical packages. There are horizontal layers - like Win32 and.Net - but they are not abstract enough to build sophisticated applications on without large amounts of reinvention. This was explained to me by a project manager at a large bank in Brussels who had seen 150m Euro spent trying to build a web application using MS technology (MSQ, MTS, COM+, etc.)
The second problem is that Microsoft make their software too complex. Complexity is fun for technicians and programmers and marketing people, but it's a serious handicap in real life: what succeeds is simplicity, but the kind of simplicity that comes from honest and determined removal of functionality. A good example: I plug a USB mouse into my Win2k system, and see 5 dialog boxes appear before it works. Indeed, I even get to confirm the download of a digitally signed driver. On another system (Linux), I plug it in, the mouse cursor appears, and it works.
Large, over complex pieces of software is a serious problem. Intelligence and hard work are effectively wasted, because they are spent managing the complexity that results, instead of creating real value (namely good abstracted horizontal layers and excellent designs).
The reason for these two issues comes, I believe, from the fact that the company is too large and wealthy, ironically. It can afford to throw unlimited numbers of the best developers at problems. It can afford to feel the pain of writing millions of lines of code when a hundred thousand would be possible.
The best software comes from small, starving teams, who have to scrape the last bit of ingenuity from their brains to turn that million-line problem into a 10k problem.
Software is my business, and this is my opinion based on 20 years of writing the damn stuff. Just my 2c.
Ps. "Code Complete" was the best book on programming ever written. It almost made me send my CV to Microsoft.
if that was it, how come no company has done it yet?
Good question, the answer is that at least three have done it:
- Lindows
- Xandros
- Lycoris
And I'm sure there are more. However, the market is so large that it will probably take a big name to make a product that consumers and business will accept. I suspect IBM will be the first with a serious business 'desktop', and for consumers, I don't know. Maybe someone like Sony or HP will jumpstart it.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a world of difference between
using a work and having access to the
source code, which implies the ability
to create derived works. The binary use
allows a work to be copied, much as one
might distribute music. The source use
allows one to derive, create new works
based on the original.
In the case of GPL'd work, both uses are
a grant and a gift by the author to the
community: a commercial work is far more
restrictive since it limits the binary use
and makes no source use possible at all
except under specific cases.
So if a GPLd work is a 'honeypot', this is
only by comparison to a work placed entirely
under the public domain, or under a BSD-style
license.
The GPL is, I maintain, a kind of immune system
for software works, and it's one that I use for
the majority of my software today (in the past
I used more liberal licenses.) Using the GPL I
can justify releasing the results of years of
hard work for "free", knowing that it will
benefit those in the community who are also
willing to either spread my work, or extend it
for free, while protecting me (as a commercial
software author) from my competitors who might
seek to repackage and resell my work without
due benefit.
This is not a honeypot: there is no fraud, no
intention to switch-and-bait, indeed the very
basis of the GPL is to render this impossible.
Control over software lies with those able to
create it, us programmers. Innovation comes from
a fundamental need to build the best solutions to
the problems we face, and to suggest that the GPL
can 'inhibit innovation' is simply wrong. MS are
attempting to counter the free software movement
precisely because it is a fountain of inovation
that threatens the very existence of the MS
hegemony, the very survival of a machine that feeds
on the desperation of people for decent software.
As the author of several GPL's applications, this is entirely false.
A GPL'd application is software with an immune system. You can use it,
copy it, share it, and you are guaranteed that no-one, not even the
original author, will come back and restrict your rights.
It's only when you decide to reuse the software code for your
own purposes that the GPL aspects kick in. This is not
a honeypot.
Wow, I'm impressed by your grasp of the subtleties of the English language and its use in this context.
But I believe you are actually wrong. An "open" standard which is usable only under terms of a patent license is not open. It can be as documented as you like, but if there are conditions attached to its simple use, it is not open.
An example: if I document the interface to my bondoogle so that any one can programme bondoogle extensions, that is a "documented" standard.
If I place the bondoogle extension specifications into the hands of an independent body, that is an "open" standard.
If I provide the community with the rights to the standard itself, it may become a "free" standard.
But if I document the standard and then say "and all use of this standard is restricted to those applications I agree with", that is neither open nor free, simply licensed.
Furthermore, this is quite an innovative restriction mechanism: previous mechanisms for making so-called "open" standards such as win32 non-open included deliberate underdocumentation. The use of patent law is new and should be raising red flags all over the place, especially as it's for something as vital as an XML schema.
Does this mean that XML schemas can be patented?
A truly frighting idea, given the importance of XML to the Internet ecosystem.
few people achieve such glamour and general recognition...
Few people outside communist dictatorships have invested so much money and time in such a powerful personality cult...
Most probably the intention is to make the XML formats 'incompatible' with the GPL. However if this is the case, there is at least one easy work around, namely to define a neutral XML format (say the OOo XML format) and use a non-GPL 'connector' (which carefully observes the Microsoft patent license conditions) to do the dirty work.
Any 'open' standard that imposes conditions on its use is not actually open at all. The owner can decide at any time to change the license, and this in itself should be enough reason to avoid this XML interface.
I believe these XML standards are what is technically called a "honeypot".
Of course, I may be paranoid, this may indeed be a munificent gesture by Microsoft who have realized that their XML schemas will serve the global community, add value to their products, and encourage a new generation of Office extension applications that will halt the trickle/rush/avalanche of Linux conversions.
Indeed.
Agreed that the whole concept of an "office suite" could take a fresh look. But given that this is one of the principle applications for most people, what is wrong with OpenOffice? Honestly, I use it every day, heavily, and I can't understand what people could complain about. It is a little slow but that's hardly a serious issue these days.
OpenOffice is stable, creates compact and portable documents, produces beautiful PDFs, does not have any bugs that I can find (admittedly I don't spend my time importing bizarro Excel spreadsheets), and is really the reason why our business was able to face a move to Linux desktops a year or two ago, a move that we've not regretted at all.
I suspect part of the kick of using the Cube is that the original machine is no longer for sale, so there is an element of exclusivity. If all you want is a tiny server, take a mini-ITX case and you can do much the same. Sun would possibly spawn a new market (tiny file servers) but they'd not profit from it. No marketing capability.
Now, Apple, on the other hand...
No, no, no, what he meant was the greeks shall inherit the earth. But it applies to all mediterrainian peoples in general.
It's an amusing story, but clearly an invention. Specific in unprovable detail and vague with the meat. Here's a quote from Mr Titor about a computer he is reportedly seeking:
"The 5100 has the ability to easily translate between the old IBM code, APL, BASIC and (with a few tweaks in 1975) UNIX".
It reads well, but means nothing.
Civil wars are always possible, of course, but they tend to happen when there is a social revolution - and a consequent shift of power - that the political structures do not adapt to. This is not the situation in the US.
One of my projects right now is a multimedia CD for a group I work with. Indeed, an hour of studio-quality music is quite a challenge. But, we want to have videos, recordings of their concerts, etc.
The reason is to produce an item we can sell to fans who come to their concerts.
A CD gets filled really quickly this way. Right now we're splitting into 40 minute's uncompressed audio and 300 MB digital. But we'd like to provide at least 2 hours of audio, and an hour of video. Three CDs worth, so we're planning to move to DVD within a year or two if the concept sells. The DVD will be filled really quickly.
Distribution of music via physical means is already dead, except for niche markets. The corpse is just really large and taking time to rot.
As digital media, the CD will simply be replaced by DVDs of various kinds, same size and shape but 10+ times the capacity.
Yes, this is very true, and my bad for forgetting it. There are many DOS, VB, Delphi, Access, etc. applications out there used, as you say for accounting, stock control, etc.
But most such users are very conservative with their equipment and upgrades, and don't form an important market for (new) Windows sales, nor for migrations to Linux.
1. "Perfect" is not literal, this is IT after all. By this I mean "tolerable", or even "better the Devil you know."
2. In all cases I assume that some expert help is available for installation and configuration. This is how Linux gets 'perfect' for naive home users: quick installation from Knoppix, Xandros, Lindows, and no phone calls or 'domestic help desk'. I speak from experience.
3. The two markets where Linux lacks applications are games and enterprise desktops. But these account for perhaps 35% (my estimates, feel free to provide better ones) of the desktop market. As far as I can see, 65% is "perfectly" well served by the existing applications.
4. Yes, Windows is "perfect" for most of these markets. It would be quite stunning if this were not the case.
5. There are further markets one can define but they are not significant. For instance: professional media workers, photographers, graphical designers, DJs, etc. I suspect here that Mac is the best platform for them, neither Windows nor Linux get a high score.
It is difficult and wasteful to try to market products at too large a market. So, "Linux for the Desktop" is probably an unattainable and moving goal.
:-). Value: 20%. Linux: some work to do. Windows: perfect.
This is how I see the real market segments for desktop computers, their percentage value, and how well Linux fits. I apologise in advance for doing zero research and just basing this on my experience of the field, but... hey... this is Slashdot, exactly the place for uninformed opinion.
Here goes.
1. "Small Office" use. Value: 20%. Requirements: edit/print documents, spreadsheets, graphics. Web. Email. Music. Linux: perfect. Windows: perfect.
2. "Medium Office" use. As above, but add support for exotic hardware such as notebooks, scanners, DVD burners, whatever. Value: 10%. Linux: some work to do. Windows: perfect.
3. "Large Office" use. As above, but add integration with enterprise information systems, currently done mainly through Exchange and Office macros
4. "Cybershop" use. Value 10%. Requirements: web, chat, email, office, VoIP, p2p, trivial (re)installation, efficiency on cheap, old systems. Linux: perfect. Windows: too expensive and complex.
5. "Game boy" use. Value 15%. Requirements: support for latest video, audio, and large software library. Linux: needs work. Windows: perfect.
6. "Serious home user". Value: 10%. Requirements: as for Small Office, but more solid, tighter on the budgets, slightly hackable, and with loads of free software. Linux: perfect. Windows: slightly too expensive, but otherwise perfect.
7. "Naive home user", Value: 15%. Requirements: as for cybershop, but with ability to plug in digital camera to download snaps of baby. Linux: perfect, with some limitations on range of exotic hardware. Windows: perfect, except for security.
Overall analysis: Linux can cover 60-70% of the market with nothing more than some good marketing.
Prime Law for all instant polls:
- no politics
- no sex (that's easy here)
- no religion
- no flamewars
Sadly. Otherwise the poll would be much more interesting...
Time to update my Smoked Company Instant Poll:
Who smoked the most crack in 2003?
(_) SCO
(_) Belkin
(_) Verisign
(_) *A (MPAA, RIAA, ARIA)
(_) GameSpy
(_) All of the above
Hehe!
This is a lovely coincidence.
Last night, thinking about how to explain the concept of "open source" to a judge (we're in a small legal case, my company), I had exactly this idea: open source software is like open source laws. It's a metaphor that is entirely clear and meaningful. Of course people don't have to read the source code in order to use the product, but when you need to know what's going on, it's the only way you can be sure of your facts.
Thanks for your comment, it is an excellent one.
There is a clear reasoning behind my reference.
The old wealthy men I speak of are almost by definition conservative. Change is something you embrace when you have nothing to lose and something to win. A media empire is the accumulation of decades of hard work, not revolution.
Most men who construct something during their lives reach a point where 'change' turns from being something good to being something bad. There is simply a moment when one has more to lose than to win.
This is why generally speaking (and this observation has been made many, many times) younger men are more pro-change and older men are more anti-change. Socialist and conservative, if you like.
It's easy to prove me wrong. Show me one old, wealthy revolutionary. Show me one young, poor conservatives. These combinations just don't exist. End of argument.
I actually understood every single word of that article.
/home tomorrow. It's brilliant. cvr -q add c:\home c:\home\*.*.
I'm going to check-in my
Well, I was, but the point was simply to give a counter example where over-design is not useful.
Perhaps I should have compared WinXP with Win2K as regards the USB driver businesses.
The point remains: Microsoft products tend to be exceedingly complex for the wrong reasons.
Hey, OCG just made my day! A new Foe. Anyhow I have to go and read the OCG journal, if it's anything like his comments I'm going to enjoy them.
:) :) :) ROTFL.
"Linux is made for stupid people."
Ancient Chinese Proverb:
"We are fastest to attack others for the weaknesses we most fear in ourselves".
OK, I just made it up, but it's true anyhow.
That Microsoft is staffed by excellent developers and generally run by excellent managers is evident from books like Code Complete, which has some fun stories about the development of Excel.
.Net - but they are not abstract enough to build sophisticated applications on without large amounts of reinvention. This was explained to me by a project manager at a large bank in Brussels who had seen 150m Euro spent trying to build a web application using MS technology (MSQ, MTS, COM+, etc.)
The fact is that this does not appear to be enough to make really good software.
Microsoft's software has certain specific issues. First, it is too monolithic: it consists of large vertical packages. There are horizontal layers - like Win32 and
The second problem is that Microsoft make their software too complex. Complexity is fun for technicians and programmers and marketing people, but it's a serious handicap in real life: what succeeds is simplicity, but the kind of simplicity that comes from honest and determined removal of functionality. A good example: I plug a USB mouse into my Win2k system, and see 5 dialog boxes appear before it works. Indeed, I even get to confirm the download of a digitally signed driver. On another system (Linux), I plug it in, the mouse cursor appears, and it works.
Large, over complex pieces of software is a serious problem. Intelligence and hard work are effectively wasted, because they are spent managing the complexity that results, instead of creating real value (namely good abstracted horizontal layers and excellent designs).
The reason for these two issues comes, I believe, from the fact that the company is too large and wealthy, ironically. It can afford to throw unlimited numbers of the best developers at problems. It can afford to feel the pain of writing millions of lines of code when a hundred thousand would be possible.
The best software comes from small, starving teams, who have to scrape the last bit of ingenuity from their brains to turn that million-line problem into a 10k problem.
Software is my business, and this is my opinion based on 20 years of writing the damn stuff. Just my 2c.
Ps. "Code Complete" was the best book on programming ever written. It almost made me send my CV to Microsoft.
if that was it, how come no company has done it yet?
Good question, the answer is that at least three have done it:
- Lindows
- Xandros
- Lycoris
And I'm sure there are more. However, the market is so large that it will probably take a big name to make a product that consumers and business will accept. I suspect IBM will be the first with a serious business 'desktop', and for consumers, I don't know. Maybe someone like Sony or HP will jumpstart it.
Rats. :( Do you think I'll get my $25 back?