Perhaps you didn't read the response thouroughly. When I buy a used car, Ford sees none of my money (assuming the dealer is not owned by Ford). Surely Ford made money on the original sale just as the publisher/author makes money on the original sale of a book. However, the *resale* makes the manufacturer no additional money. Whereas, if the used product was not available, I would have bought the it retail, which would make money for the manufacturer.
If I could buy a 2003 Mustang Convertible for a third of retail, the same day that Ford released them, I could probably guarantee that Ford is not going to see my cash.
As a matter of fact, it seems that simple economics dictates that in such a situation (cheaper used versions are available at the same quantity and cheaper price than the new version) the market will always choose the used version. Of course, since the existence of the used version depends upon the sale the new version, what you get is a downward spiral in sales.
This isn't a problem with cars because with an average shelf life of ~3 years, by the time my 2003 Mustang is widely available used, the new version will no longer be on sale. Books can be read in a day, making the potential volume for the used market almost identical to the new market. The only thing holding it back so far is logistics, and this is what Amazon is changing.
On the other hand, what is happening is clearly legal. Amazon has no responsibility what so ever to change it's practices. If the authors can't afford to keep producing with decreased sales, that's their problem. We'll just have more time to watch TV.
Fortunately, the GPL makes it very clear about when modification and extension to code must also be covered under the GPL. Basically, if the code is linked (statically or dynamically) to GPL code it must also be covered under the GPL.
Therefore, the entire *cake* must be GPL, although the glass of milk and ice cream on the side doesn't have to be. (You can release a Linux distrobution that includes non-GPL software, but your non-GPL software must not be linked to any GPL software.)
This is the so-called "viral" nature of the GPL and why it should be very easy for Lindows seperate out any non-GPL code and release the rest as they are legally obligated to do.
As a *huge* fan of Zope, I want to make sure everyone also knows about the Phabric project. www.phabric.org. This is an attempt to get Zope running without modification using Jython, which is a Java implementation of Jython.
The project is close to being runnable, and may even be usable with some work. So if you're interested, check it out!
I think you misunderstand the proposal. The W3C holds, and will hold, patends on *nothing*. They are proposing to including in their collection of approved standards patents held by other entities. This would allow those entities to charge anyone who wants to be compliant with the W3C to pay to adhere to the standards.
Standards that aren't free don't work, period.
This isn't at all a question about America vs. the world. If this proposal passes, a patent held by an off shore entity could just as well be made into a standard by the the W3C as a patend held by an American company.
The article says that OpenLinux Workstation contains "proprietary" material. From what I've seen, it's nothing that adds any true value to the system.
Therefore, now that Caldera has made anti-consumer policies their official stance, I would recommend just getting it from linuxiso.org or better yet, get Debian (with a support contract from Progeny if needed), instead.
One *huge* area that the article did not touch on is the lack of mathematical completeness in an OODBMS system.
When I join two tables in an RDBMS, a presice mathematical formula can be followed to join the tables with great effeciency (especially with the existence of keys).
Let's take an extremely simple example: I have a Company object that contains an array of People objects. The People object contains among it's attributes, a Last Name field.
I want to find all the Company's that employ 'Anderson's.
The join required in an RDBMS to do this is simple and effecient. How is this performed in an OODBMS? Is each company instantiated and it's People array walked, searching for 'Anderson'? Ick.
OODBMS has it's place, particularly in tree-based systems, where ad hoc queries are rare (cf. Zope's content management system), but RDBMS has a fundamental advantage when dealing with large data sets and/or joins.
I disagree. A multiplicity of choices is almost always a good thing. What is needed is a set of standards that are adopted by all of the different desktop environments.
When there is only one of anything, the pressure to innovate is reduced considerable. I believe that the rapid growth of features in both GNOME and KDE is largely because of a desire each group to outshine the other. That is a *wonderful* thing.
Consider word-processors. Having a plethora of incompatible word processors with different features and file formats creates confusion for the user. However, if there was a standard file format and a standard set of features, users could choose the one that *feels* right to them. Each word processor would then be motivated to add features and usability to gain mind-share. As long as the file-formats stay standard, people could still switch from one to the other seemlessly. And new features that are successful would be adopted by the other word processors to keep up.
I believe desktops are the same. If KDE and GNOME (and whatever comes next) have a standard (or at least interoperable) distributed object model, and a standard set of UI guidelines. People could choose the one that works best for them and use apps designed for either. Both groups would continue to innovate in an effort to outdo the other and everyone would benefit.
What exactly does "improving at open source speed" mean?
The Gimp (less than two years stable) vs. Photoshop (over a decade)
Linux (8 years old) vs. Unix (approaching 30)
Apache (4-5 years old) vs. Nothing
There's nothing to bet on, it's real and it's here now. Open Source works on large projects just as well as small.
If you need more proof look at the subjects under discussion. As recently as 18 months ago there would have been no discussion about the performance of MySQL vs. postgreSQL. PostgreSQL was an experimental toy for database theorists and everyone knew it and that would never change.
However, while postgreSQL has always been Free, MySQL was just non-free enough to discourage many new developers. Now postgeSQL is on a par with MySQL in performance while supporting a much greater feature set. Has any closed-source RDBMS even come close to that pace of change?
Now that postgreSQL and MySQL are both Free, the pace will only quicken.
<crystal ball>
In 5 years, the majority of new DBMS installations will be free software. This could be combination of postgreSQL and MySQL. This could be some new project. This could also be Oracle, after Larry wises up to the fact that his money comes from the support contracts and opens the code. Whichever, it will be free.
</crystal ball>
Take a close look at what you are writing people. Especially those who have said "MySQL is useless in the real world." I can't imagine any sane definition of "real world" that doesn't include Slashdot.org, countless e-commerce sites and other non-Web applications.
Of course MySQL has limitations! Of course it does not meet the definition of an RDBMS! It meets the needs of a significant set of *real world* problems with great efficiency.
PostgreSQL meets a different, but overlapping, set of problems with ever increasing speed and efficiency.
They are both open source.
They are both improving at open source speed.
They both rock.
As it has already been incorrectly stated a couple of times in this discussion, it probably needs clarifying, once again: Qt IS OPEN SOURCE. Qt IS FREE SOFTWARE. No one involved disagrees with this. Not RMS, not Debian, no one. The issue is entirely between the incompatability between Qt's Open Source license and the GPL.
Now, to stay on-topic: Personally I have no problem using the C API to GTK+, but much of the next generation of programmers will never know how to use it. I think a useful C++ wrapper to GTK+ is a good thing, and if Qt's is better then they should study it and use it's good points.
Perhaps the underlying question is what is the future of the old Telnet and FTP protocols in a modern network.
It seems that with modern options, Telnet provides a middle-ground, false sense of security that may do more harm than good. If you are communicating between machines within a truly secure network, then opening the machines with.rhosts or similar tools improves effeciency. Conversly, if the communication is not within a secure network, anything but SSH or the like is asking for trouble.
Obviously, it would take a very long time before these legacy protocols are truly left behind, but in an ideal world, are they needed?
As a couple of people have indirectly pointed out, this simply cannot work as expected. The geeks, loners, freaks, etc. are too intelligent not to subvert the system, sign up themselves and turn in either the most popular people, or the entire school.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you didn't read the response thouroughly. When I buy a used car, Ford sees none of my money (assuming the dealer is not owned by Ford). Surely Ford made money on the original sale just as the publisher/author makes money on the original sale of a book. However, the *resale* makes the manufacturer no additional money. Whereas, if the used product was not available, I would have bought the it retail, which would make money for the manufacturer.
I don't know...
If I could buy a 2003 Mustang Convertible for a third of retail, the same day that Ford released them, I could probably guarantee that Ford is not going to see my cash.
As a matter of fact, it seems that simple economics dictates that in such a situation (cheaper used versions are available at the same quantity and cheaper price than the new version) the market will always choose the used version. Of course, since the existence of the used version depends upon the sale the new version, what you get is a downward spiral in sales.
This isn't a problem with cars because with an average shelf life of ~3 years, by the time my 2003 Mustang is widely available used, the new version will no longer be on sale. Books can be read in a day, making the potential volume for the used market almost identical to the new market. The only thing holding it back so far is logistics, and this is what Amazon is changing.
On the other hand, what is happening is clearly legal. Amazon has no responsibility what so ever to change it's practices. If the authors can't afford to keep producing with decreased sales, that's their problem. We'll just have more time to watch TV.
Fortunately, the GPL makes it very clear about when modification and extension to code must also be covered under the GPL. Basically, if the code is linked (statically or dynamically) to GPL code it must also be covered under the GPL.
Therefore, the entire *cake* must be GPL, although the glass of milk and ice cream on the side doesn't have to be. (You can release a Linux distrobution that includes non-GPL software, but your non-GPL software must not be linked to any GPL software.)
This is the so-called "viral" nature of the GPL and why it should be very easy for Lindows seperate out any non-GPL code and release the rest as they are legally obligated to do.
The latest joint discovery by the Hubble Telescope...
Dude, if the joint is that small, it's time to cough up the cache and buy some more weed.
As a *huge* fan of Zope, I want to make sure everyone also knows about the Phabric project. www.phabric.org. This is an attempt to get Zope running without modification using Jython, which is a Java implementation of Jython.
The project is close to being runnable, and may even be usable with some work. So if you're interested, check it out!
I think you misunderstand the proposal. The W3C holds, and will hold, patends on *nothing*. They are proposing to including in their collection of approved standards patents held by other entities. This would allow those entities to charge anyone who wants to be compliant with the W3C to pay to adhere to the standards.
Standards that aren't free don't work, period.
This isn't at all a question about America vs. the world. If this proposal passes, a patent held by an off shore entity could just as well be made into a standard by the the W3C as a patend held by an American company.
It's the sound of 50,000 geeks waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Without a doubt the name AOL is confusingly similar to the name AreOLa, of which most of us have had two for much longer than AOLs existence.
The nippled of the world, should not stand for this blatant abuse of prior art!
Certainly not.
However, asking people to pay multiple times for things that do not cost you to reproduce most certainly is.
The article says that OpenLinux Workstation contains "proprietary" material. From what I've seen, it's nothing that adds any true value to the system.
Therefore, now that Caldera has made anti-consumer policies their official stance, I would recommend just getting it from linuxiso.org or better yet, get Debian (with a support contract from Progeny if needed), instead.
Alpha has always had such a clock-rate advantage over comparable CISC chips, but never were able to grab the market share.
With all the advanced in chip technology, has CISC finally won the battle over RISC?
Or are the terms CISC/RISC just plain outdated, given the number of RISC behaviors in newer Intel CISC chips?
Let's see:
Linux on the desktop is dead because the desktop applications, in development for 3 years or so, are incomplete and immature.
Linux on the server is alive because the server applications, in development for 6+ years or so, are complete and mature.
So, linux on the desktop is dead. As in, incapabable of life. As in, permanently deceased.
In a couple of years, these applications will still be incomplete and immature... um... why?
Personally, I think Linux on the desktop is in it's infancy, rather than it's deathbed.
International Business Machines Performs Act of Civil Disobedience to Promote Open Source Operating System....
In other news:
Ariel Sharon plans pilgrimage to Mecca
George Bush honored at Mensa ceremony
Tempratures in Hell drop sharply
One *huge* area that the article did not touch on is the lack of mathematical completeness in an OODBMS system.
When I join two tables in an RDBMS, a presice mathematical formula can be followed to join the tables with great effeciency (especially with the existence of keys).
Let's take an extremely simple example: I have a Company object that contains an array of People objects. The People object contains among it's attributes, a Last Name field.
I want to find all the Company's that employ 'Anderson's.
The join required in an RDBMS to do this is simple and effecient. How is this performed in an OODBMS? Is each company instantiated and it's People array walked, searching for 'Anderson'? Ick.
OODBMS has it's place, particularly in tree-based systems, where ad hoc queries are rare (cf. Zope's content management system), but RDBMS has a fundamental advantage when dealing with large data sets and/or joins.
Look at the numbers regarding the design of major websites,
I've been looking for references to something like this, do you have any? 'twould be greatly appreciated.
I disagree. A multiplicity of choices is almost always a good thing. What is needed is a set of standards that are adopted by all of the different desktop environments.
When there is only one of anything, the pressure to innovate is reduced considerable. I believe that the rapid growth of features in both GNOME and KDE is largely because of a desire each group to outshine the other. That is a *wonderful* thing.
Consider word-processors. Having a plethora of incompatible word processors with different features and file formats creates confusion for the user. However, if there was a standard file format and a standard set of features, users could choose the one that *feels* right to them. Each word processor would then be motivated to add features and usability to gain mind-share. As long as the file-formats stay standard, people could still switch from one to the other seemlessly. And new features that are successful would be adopted by the other word processors to keep up.
I believe desktops are the same. If KDE and GNOME (and whatever comes next) have a standard (or at least interoperable) distributed object model, and a standard set of UI guidelines. People could choose the one that works best for them and use apps designed for either. Both groups would continue to innovate in an effort to outdo the other and everyone would benefit.
What exactly does "improving at open source speed" mean?
The Gimp (less than two years stable) vs. Photoshop (over a decade)
Linux (8 years old) vs. Unix (approaching 30)
Apache (4-5 years old) vs. Nothing
There's nothing to bet on, it's real and it's here now. Open Source works on large projects just as well as small.
If you need more proof look at the subjects under discussion. As recently as 18 months ago there would have been no discussion about the performance of MySQL vs. postgreSQL. PostgreSQL was an experimental toy for database theorists and everyone knew it and that would never change.
However, while postgreSQL has always been Free, MySQL was just non-free enough to discourage many new developers. Now postgeSQL is on a par with MySQL in performance while supporting a much greater feature set. Has any closed-source RDBMS even come close to that pace of change?
Now that postgreSQL and MySQL are both Free, the pace will only quicken.
<crystal ball>
In 5 years, the majority of new DBMS installations will be free software. This could be combination of postgreSQL and MySQL. This could be some new project. This could also be Oracle, after Larry wises up to the fact that his money comes from the support contracts and opens the code. Whichever, it will be free.
</crystal ball>
Take a close look at what you are writing people. Especially those who have said "MySQL is useless in the real world." I can't imagine any sane definition of "real world" that doesn't include Slashdot.org, countless e-commerce sites and other non-Web applications.
Of course MySQL has limitations! Of course it does not meet the definition of an RDBMS! It meets the needs of a significant set of *real world* problems with great efficiency.
PostgreSQL meets a different, but overlapping, set of problems with ever increasing speed and efficiency.
They are both open source.
They are both improving at open source speed.
They both rock.
As it has already been incorrectly stated a couple of times in this discussion, it probably needs clarifying, once again: Qt IS OPEN SOURCE. Qt IS FREE SOFTWARE. No one involved disagrees with this. Not RMS, not Debian, no one. The issue is entirely between the incompatability between Qt's Open Source license and the GPL.
Now, to stay on-topic: Personally I have no problem using the C API to GTK+, but much of the next generation of programmers will never know how to use it. I think a useful C++ wrapper to GTK+ is a good thing, and if Qt's is better then they should study it and use it's good points.
Perhaps the underlying question is what is the future of the old Telnet and FTP protocols in a modern network.
.rhosts or similar tools improves effeciency. Conversly, if the communication is not within a secure network, anything but SSH or the like is asking for trouble.
It seems that with modern options, Telnet provides a middle-ground, false sense of security that may do more harm than good. If you are communicating between machines within a truly secure network, then opening the machines with
Obviously, it would take a very long time before these legacy protocols are truly left behind, but in an ideal world, are they needed?
As a couple of people have indirectly pointed out,
this simply cannot work as expected. The geeks,
loners, freaks, etc. are too intelligent not to
subvert the system, sign up themselves and turn in
either the most popular people, or the entire school.