I also remember staring longingly at $80-$90 for new NES games in Toys-R-Expensive. And systems didn't used to powerful enough to be export controlled items.
>>A third program would bounce laser beams off >>mirrors hung from space satellites or huge high->>altitude blimps, redirecting the lethal rays >>down to targets around the world. A fourth seeks >>to turn radio waves into weapons whose powers >>could range "from tap on the shoulder to toast," >>in the words of an Air Force plan.
>Sounds like those Air Force boys have been watching too much Real Genius.
Spies like us. Because everyone wants to blow up MTV.
There is no real need to switch. When the TV companies started to look into color TV, they came up with a whole bunch of different systems. The one that the FCC decided on allowed for backwards compatiblity with black and white sets. The same can (and is being) done for digital.
Maybe it won't be able to do Pixar quality work in RT, but the GS Cube did manage to pump out 1:10 resolution version of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, and the GS Cube is, at heart, just 16 PS2s.
Besides, most of Microsoft's saving grace on the XBox was NVidia's work, not M$'s. Nvidia lost market position to focus on the XBox, and M$ screwed them over. You think ATI will lose market place for M$'s sake when they're also supplying the competition (Nintendo has already commited to them for their next generation)?
I saw a documentary on the Concord a while back, and they said that the biggest problem they had wasn't technological, but getting overflight rights for a supersonic aircraft.
If countries wouldn't do it for British Airways, why does the Japanese government think they will for JAL?
There's cameras everywhere. There is no want for footage out there.
It's just a shortage of actual people, not mediaopoly, controlled outlets for that information.
I think video channels on the web, along the lines of web radio, are what's needed. A way to get alternative view points to the people. At least one not controlled by Viacom, Time Warner AOL, or News Corp..
The screens we view it on are 2d. The Virtual Boy had appealing graphics, and maybe thse Sharp and NEC laptops, but a TV is 2d. The movies we watch are filmed in a 3d worrld, but presented in 2d.
1. "If you're not willing to help fix it then you shouldn't complain about it"
I agree with Mr. Gunton here. Constructive criticism does help tremendously.
2. "Open Source software allows you to get under the hood and fix problems"
I disagree with him here. I certainly wouldn't buy a car if I couldn't open the hood. Not everybody does, but you should have the right to see what's going on inside you're hardware. After all, it was your money that paid for system, and software.
3. "All software should be free"
All software should be free. In Shakespeare's time, authors weren't paid for their work. The publishers made all the money. IP rights came along to help protect the authors, and to a limited extent the do. But they really just protect the profits of the publishers. Even in the computing world, the early work was just given away. The money was in hardware... physical, tangible hardware. IBM, Digital, and many, many programmers didn't think somebody would throw away money for something etherial. In many ways, open source is simply a return to the beginning. If my work benefits society as a whole, do I need compensation. Sure, you can't do it for a living, but what about in my own time? The long term societal benefits outweigh my short term personal ones.
As for paying for it, why not governments? They're taxing the people to provide benefits for the people. If something benefits everyone, then it is the government's buisness to provide it to the people. Hence, schools, sewage systems, and law enforcement. This was common with DARPA projects in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Another good example would be this internet thing you're using right now. It was government financed. And it benefits the people.
4. "Open Source software is always better than closed, proprietary software"
Windows is easier to use than Linux. Mac OSX is easier to use than Windows. Mac 6.0.5 was much easier to use than them all. But ease of use doesn't sell. Otherwise, we'd all be using Macs that never went away from their compact, memory efficient roots.
And while a small team can be more efficient, and focused, the arguement has nothing to do with open or closed source. If me and some friends get together and work on a free project, we can have the same focus as a team.
Design bloat, and incentives (cash or otherwise) to reward quick, shoddy work are far more common in the closed source world. I cna think of a certain Washington State based company that personifies those qualities in software.
5. "Scratching the personal itch"
I disagree with Mr. Gunton's conclusions here. Programmers and other developmental staff are end users too. So what is GIMP isn't as full featured as Photoshop today? At some point it will be. And it is MUCH easier to use. Cinelerra is great. And most of these FREE alternatives are alternatives to very expensive programs. Most of the closed source world doesn't care what the end user wants, they just want to sell him/her a new copy every year or two. So far the work is mostly aimed at the upper level of tasks, but that's not a bad thing. You've gotta have a good foundation to build on.
6. "More choice is always better"
It is. The problems Mr. Gunton lists with installation choices are simply problems with the installer. One of those "Typical, Minimal, Custom" interface menus to simplify things would solve most of these issues. That the problem exists isn't in dispute. He's right, they do. But it's not a big issue.
But having a choice is better than not. I don't care if everyone else eats Wonderbread. IF I go to the store, I want to see Wheat. And Pumpernickle. And Rye. Even if I end up leaving with Wonderbread, I still want to have the choice.
7. Conclusion: It's Not So Simple
No, It's not, but it's not so hard either. I admire him for getting his point out, and he had some very valid ones. But I believe, that in the end, the "myths" of open source benefits, are a lot less mythical than say the "myths" of closed source security.
Slashdot Mirror
I also remember staring longingly at $80-$90 for new NES games in Toys-R-Expensive. And systems didn't used to powerful enough to be export controlled items.
>>A third program would bounce laser beams off >>mirrors hung from space satellites or huge high->>altitude blimps, redirecting the lethal rays >>down to targets around the world. A fourth seeks >>to turn radio waves into weapons whose powers >>could range "from tap on the shoulder to toast," >>in the words of an Air Force plan.
>Sounds like those Air Force boys have been watching too much Real Genius.
Spies like us. Because everyone wants to blow up MTV.
Fradulent nodes posing in a network. This doesn't seem so new to me.
Phosphorus and Potassium would also be liquid at CPU operating temperatures.
There is no real need to switch. When the TV companies started to look into color TV, they came up with a whole bunch of different systems. The one that the FCC decided on allowed for backwards compatiblity with black and white sets. The same can (and is being) done for digital.
Maybe it won't be able to do Pixar quality work in RT, but the GS Cube did manage to pump out 1:10 resolution version of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, and the GS Cube is, at heart, just 16 PS2s.
Besides, most of Microsoft's saving grace on the XBox was NVidia's work, not M$'s. Nvidia lost market position to focus on the XBox, and M$ screwed them over. You think ATI will lose market place for M$'s sake when they're also supplying the competition (Nintendo has already commited to them for their next generation)?
Well, for the first XBox, MS aimed at 30-45 year olds. Sony trounced them but good.
At least they're doing right competing for the Teeniebopper money. They actually buy (well, their parents do) console games.
Fire.
With all the advances in data recovery, and the cheap cost of EIDE drives, it's the most effective solution.
I saw a documentary on the Concord a while back, and they said that the biggest problem they had wasn't technological, but getting overflight rights for a supersonic aircraft.
If countries wouldn't do it for British Airways, why does the Japanese government think they will for JAL?
There's cameras everywhere. There is no want for footage out there.
It's just a shortage of actual people, not mediaopoly, controlled outlets for that information.
I think video channels on the web, along the lines of web radio, are what's needed. A way to get alternative view points to the people. At least one not controlled by Viacom, Time Warner AOL, or News Corp..
Remember Dmitry Sklyarov? What he did was leagal in the Russian Federation. He was still arrested for it in the US.
Not True. I also hate Apple, Microsoft, Hp, the US Patent and Trademark Office, the FCC, and squeeky shoes.
It's simple why 3d isn't as visually appealing...
The screens we view it on are 2d. The Virtual Boy had appealing graphics, and maybe thse Sharp and NEC laptops, but a TV is 2d. The movies we watch are filmed in a 3d worrld, but presented in 2d.
1. "If you're not willing to help fix it then you shouldn't complain about it" I agree with Mr. Gunton here. Constructive criticism does help tremendously. 2. "Open Source software allows you to get under the hood and fix problems" I disagree with him here. I certainly wouldn't buy a car if I couldn't open the hood. Not everybody does, but you should have the right to see what's going on inside you're hardware. After all, it was your money that paid for system, and software. 3. "All software should be free" All software should be free. In Shakespeare's time, authors weren't paid for their work. The publishers made all the money. IP rights came along to help protect the authors, and to a limited extent the do. But they really just protect the profits of the publishers. Even in the computing world, the early work was just given away. The money was in hardware... physical, tangible hardware. IBM, Digital, and many, many programmers didn't think somebody would throw away money for something etherial. In many ways, open source is simply a return to the beginning. If my work benefits society as a whole, do I need compensation. Sure, you can't do it for a living, but what about in my own time? The long term societal benefits outweigh my short term personal ones. As for paying for it, why not governments? They're taxing the people to provide benefits for the people. If something benefits everyone, then it is the government's buisness to provide it to the people. Hence, schools, sewage systems, and law enforcement. This was common with DARPA projects in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Another good example would be this internet thing you're using right now. It was government financed. And it benefits the people. 4. "Open Source software is always better than closed, proprietary software" Windows is easier to use than Linux. Mac OSX is easier to use than Windows. Mac 6.0.5 was much easier to use than them all. But ease of use doesn't sell. Otherwise, we'd all be using Macs that never went away from their compact, memory efficient roots. And while a small team can be more efficient, and focused, the arguement has nothing to do with open or closed source. If me and some friends get together and work on a free project, we can have the same focus as a team. Design bloat, and incentives (cash or otherwise) to reward quick, shoddy work are far more common in the closed source world. I cna think of a certain Washington State based company that personifies those qualities in software. 5. "Scratching the personal itch" I disagree with Mr. Gunton's conclusions here. Programmers and other developmental staff are end users too. So what is GIMP isn't as full featured as Photoshop today? At some point it will be. And it is MUCH easier to use. Cinelerra is great. And most of these FREE alternatives are alternatives to very expensive programs. Most of the closed source world doesn't care what the end user wants, they just want to sell him/her a new copy every year or two. So far the work is mostly aimed at the upper level of tasks, but that's not a bad thing. You've gotta have a good foundation to build on. 6. "More choice is always better" It is. The problems Mr. Gunton lists with installation choices are simply problems with the installer. One of those "Typical, Minimal, Custom" interface menus to simplify things would solve most of these issues. That the problem exists isn't in dispute. He's right, they do. But it's not a big issue. But having a choice is better than not. I don't care if everyone else eats Wonderbread. IF I go to the store, I want to see Wheat. And Pumpernickle. And Rye. Even if I end up leaving with Wonderbread, I still want to have the choice. 7. Conclusion: It's Not So Simple No, It's not, but it's not so hard either. I admire him for getting his point out, and he had some very valid ones. But I believe, that in the end, the "myths" of open source benefits, are a lot less mythical than say the "myths" of closed source security.