I can't shake this mental image of the International Space Station with a giant Drink Coke logo scrawled across the side...
(Come to think of it, private funding for such projects isn't such a bad idea: "This launch brought to you by Levitra - if we can get a rocket up, imagine what we can do for you!")
At home and work, I use the MP3 format on computers.
At the gym, I use the MP3 format on my handheld player.
In the car, I use the MP3 player on my MP3 CD player.
All MP3 all the fime.
According to the RIAA, this makes me Public Enemy Number One. According to the RIAA, I should go out and purchase an overpriced CD (the RIAA has been successfully sues 5 times for price fixing) full of songs I just plain don't want.
So I go looking for a way to get my MP3s legally. Hmm. Lots of options for legal online music. crapPod, Crapster, buy.com, even Walmart sell online music. In special formats. Namely, not in MP3 format.
So what you're telling me is, when I download a music file at work from, say, Walmart, I get a WMA file, which can only be played on THAT machine.
Wait! Wait! Didn't I purchase it? Don't I own it? Why the bloody hell can't I take it home and listen to it? Why can't I listen to it at the gym or in the car? I own it, don't I? If I bought a CD, wouldn't I be able to take it out of my home CD player and put it in my car? Why not with digital music, then?
Solution? Give the RIAA the finger. Challenge copyright. Share MP3s! Tell the recording industry you want your MP3!
A bunch of guys in Boston dress up like Indians, trespass on a privately-owned ship, and proceed to dump its cargo into the harbor. We consider them heros for their act of defiance against a tyrant. Seeing a parallel yet?
The 5-11pm bracket immediately indicates to me that it's less young people and more adults. When I was a wee lad, we played video games after school, in the 2:30-5:00 bracket.
5-11pm more indicates the "working stiff" bracket, to me.
I recall an article many moons ago addressing this same pheonmenon from a slightly different angle. They were reporting an epidemic of people (presumably schoolchildren) who were looking things up on the Web and getting incorrect information.
Then again, an encyclopedia produced just last year would report the nation of Iraq as a Democracy, not the currently accurate "Military Dictatorship". But, many web sites are out of date, as well.
I guess it all comes down to a modified version of the "library skills" and "critical thinking" we were supposed to have learned in grade school. Can you locate credible infomation and differentiate it from discredible information?
I've come to find I really don't like working in software. But the problem is, I don't know what else I WOULD like to do.
It's not that I don't like software or don't like building things, but the real world of software engineering lacks the creativity and creationism I got into the field for in the first place. I do what my boss tells me to do. I follow a schedule. I spend the whole day gazing out my window, wishing I could spend the daylight hours outdoors. I feel like a factory worker.
Does their definition of "sold" include "comped"? It usually does.
Crapster has been trying to get me to download "5 trial songs" ever since they got back into business. If I downloaded these, would they count toward Crapster's running total? That's not a terribly fair assessment if you ask me...
My company is offering a similar product, only 2" smaller and 15 ounces lighter. It will feature a 3GHz processor and 4GB of RAM, with a 1280x1024 screen. It uses a new solar technology that doesn't even require light to work, giving it an infinite battery life. It's also fully compatible with the Phantom Gaming Service. Pricing and availability to be announced later.
[/sarcasm]
When you can tap on something, throw it across the room, or pee on it, that's when it exists. When there are a bunch of pictures and promises on a web site, it doesn't. It means it's in "prototype", which means the actual machine is larger than my current laptop, but with a 5.6" screen and they're HOPING to get it down to size.
A friend of mine did exactly this when he joined (actually, rejoined) his last company. He wanted to work on game stuff on the side, he had the standard "all your thoughts are belong to us" employee agreement, and simply asked for a variance for game-related stuff.
Hiring a lawyer is likely just a waste of money. Very little in an employment contract (including the "all your thoughts are belong to us" clause) is legally binding, anyway.
Let's face it, if your other business has a breakthrough that makes you millions, your employer is going to sue you whether or not you have a variance and whether or not your variance has a lawyer's signature on it. And when that is the case, you'll have the millions to hire a crack legal staff.
My God, I've only been out of school going on 6 years now and I'm already antiquated. I learned my assembly, I studied my architectures, I shifted bits.
These days, kids come out of school unable to manipulate simple pointers. Why? Because the sissy langauges they use don't even USE pointers, so they were never TAUGHT pointers. God forbid they have to figure out how a machine is going to execute their code!
What they do know how to do is read. They read what's going to happen in the future. They read about the NEXT version of Java and its speed and other associated wonders. They read about how feature xyz is supposed to work (I read the source code for feature xyz; it doesn't work that way). They read about the flying car they're going to be cruising around in in a few scant years.
As a fallen Java evangelist (not to pick on Java, but it deserves it), I've learned that there are a few constants in that particular language. It's slow as balls; it has been since I was using it in alpha 7 or 8 years ago, and every version promises that the next will be faster than C. Container-managed beans suck; for 5 years, they've been saying that the mythical container (read as: someone else) will magically optimize them, which we all know is bullox. The more fictional something is the more it's talked about; Java's been talking about Jini for something like 4 years now, with absolutely nothing to show for it.
If students spent more time learning assembly and less time fluffing around with "references" (which is short for "retarded pointers"), they'd be much more bitter and cynical... Like me.
Funny thing about humans is they tend to want to talk about things they don't know anything about. My classic example is the mini-keyboard vs. grafiti battle in PDAs. I've listened to dozens of people who have never actually used a mini-keyboard extol how wonderful they are. I've used both. The mini-keyboard was actually physically painful to use, so I returned the item and went back to my grafiti-based Palm.
The moral? Killer apps aren't devised, they're experienced. Something which may seem to be fantastic on paper really sucks in reality. Train schedules are probably a very good example. Sounds like a good idea to have them on WAP, but it turns out it isn't.
A noted problem with technology is that each advancement attempts to use metaphors from previous technology until it develops its own. Early cinema was a fixed camera recording a stage play and most notably, early web sites tried to emulate television. Thusly, WAP has often tried to emulate the web. However, there are some key problems, namely related to screen size and selection frequency. A train schedule, for example works great in a webby table; just scroll down to the train you're looking for and you're ready to roll. However, on a phone screen, a better interface is to select the source and destination station and display only the times. On a full-size website, that interface would suck, but on a wapsite, it kicks.
Digital Darwinism. The strongest features survive.
Ah, how long ago was it when I finally conceded to owning a cellular phone? "Just in case I'm stranded on the side of the road," I said. Oh, how wrong was I? I shortly learned how much easier it made my life to be mobile!
When I got back from working in London, I was looking for a new carrier that had some of the features I had seen in while I was over there, namely SMS and WAP.
How stupid and pointless is SMS? I mean, really, all I need is a phone to make calls with. I don't need silly doo-dads like text messages! It's a phone! I just need to use it to call people!
Yet, text messages have completely penetrated American culture (as they had in London). Conversations have overhead. "Hi, how are you, how's the weather, how are the kids [INSERT REASON FOR CALL HERE] Well I should be going, have a great day, yeah we really should go skiing some time, okay, I'll call you next week, have a great week, blah blah blah". Text messages, on the other hand, are concise. "I got tickets to the superbowl, yay me". And if the recipient is away from her phone? Fine, she'll get it whenever.
And, thus, almost everyone who bought their phone "just to have a phone to make calls on" and conceded to having text message capability has really enjoyed the text capability. A couple months ago, my father got his very first mobile phone and was sending me text messages within a week.
WAP hasn't taken off as strongly in the United States, probably because it costs an extra couple of bucks (and, thus, unlike text messages can be averted). However, those who did break down and pay the extra couple of bucks think it's the best thing since sliced bread. If, for some God-awful reason, I have to be away from televisions on Sunday, I can get the football scores immediately. Just 45 or so minutes ago, I checked the weekend weather and ski reports at lunch.
So why are we so averse to technology (or techno-creep)? I constantly hear even technophiles saying "I don't need my phone to do that". Get with it: YOU DO NEED YOUR PHONE TO DO THAT, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW IT YET!
Most of the "new mobile phone technology" has been alive and kicking in Europe, the UK, Asia, and Africa for years before coming to the antiquated United States. It has all been tested in those climates. It is all successful technology before it reaches the United States.
Which brings us to the latest debacle. Camera phones. Camera phones have seen wild success in the UK. As they caught on, the Brits found new uses for them and just continued until millions and millions of images were flying through the clouds over London.
Personally, I'm just waiting for my contract to expire so I can get the best and brightest camera phone out there. I already know I can use it to take pictures of the goofy things I see every day and send them to my friends. It also allows me to have a cheap digicam on my person at all times. Sure, it's only 640x480, but all I usually want is a "look, it's me on top of Mt. Everest! Hi mom!" for the ole' website. I'm not shooting weddings.
Whoever said necesity is the mother of invention is dead wrong. Invention is the mother of creativity.
Honestly, 90% of having a computer science degree is just to show that you completed a programme, stuck with it, and saw it to completion. I think a medical degree is quite proof that you've paid your dues.
These days, you can probably get the basics out of a few scant classes, if they're well-taught. Some subject matter you want to be familiar with:
Object-Oriented Design & Development
Some basic algorithms (hashtables, linked lists, etc.)
3 or more languages (C/C++ and Java should be on the list)
Anything above that is just icing. Granted, stuff like Formal Languages or Computer Architecture can really help you understand where you're coming from, but aren't really used every day.
In essence, computer science IS like medicine. You spend a lot of time learning a huge variety of stuff, then you spend 90% of your time doling out penecilin.
I'm growing a little tired of the old adage "sure, the software's free, but supporting it is not".
When I was in school, I worked PC support for a mostly-windoze (3.1) campus. I was paid to run around campus fixing peoples' problems, fix their problems over the phone, and fix any problems in the labs. Most of the time I was very, very busy.
Yes, using a free software product, especially for users, incurs non-free support costs. BUT SO DOES USING RETAIL SOFTWARE!
What company doesn't have an IT lurking about waiting for an exec to drop his laptop in the pool? Even in the theoretical case of end users directly accessing "free tech support", if someone spends 2 hours on the phone with Microsoft, that's 2 hours they're not doing their job (look, hidden costs).
Applying the "free like beer" logic, it's like saying free beer isn't free because it makes you pee. Beer, be it free, cheap, or expensive, makes you pee. Software, be it free, cheap, or expensive, has to be supported.
Just to clarify, Om is, in the Hindu faith, the sound of the Creation of the Universe (I'm not sure what sound the Universe is currently making; it's awful quiet to me). In the West, it's often associated with meditation, of which yoga is a subset. It's a much farther reaching thing than Yoga for Dummies.:)
Actually, when I first saw this article, I questioned if the work was influenced by Hindu mysticism.... It's always easier to find the answer you're looking for than it is to find the correct answer...
Am I the only one who doesn't understand SCO's arguments about the unconstitutionality, unenforcability, and overall evil nature of the GPL?
It seems to me that the the POINT of copyright is to protect the author. Since the model is based on books, let's think about how books are published. I, the author, write a book and start printing copies of it (for sake of simplicity, let's say I conveniently own a printing company as well).
You, the evil slashdot reader, purchase a copy of my book, copy it verbatim, claim it as your own work, and print it on YOUR printing press. That's one way to violate copyright, because you're taking something I wrote and claiming it to be your own.
How else could you violate the copyright law? You could buy my book, copy it verbatim, credit me, and print off copies on your printing press so you can sell them in your bookstore. That's illegal because I did not give you permission to print my book.
The words and abstract thoughts contained in my book still belong to me. When you purchase my book, you purchase the right to read my words, but you do not own the words or thoughts.
Of course, there are exceptions, many exceptions. The most obvious is publishing, in which I retain ownership of my words and thoughts, but I allow you to print, distribute, and sell them. In this case, you have my permission.
Other exceptions exist, such as quotations and educational purposes, but those aren't terribly applicable to software.
So how does this apply to software? The basics of copyright law are pretty obvious. When someone writes something, he or she owns it (in legal terms, holds the copyright). Further, he or she has the force of government enforcing the copyright.
As we've seen, the author can do whatever wheeling and dealing with the copyright he or she desires. It seems perfectly logical that an author may release the work into public domain. Just as an author may grant license to a publisher to reproduce the work (usually under a certain set of provisos: the author must OK the final edited work, the author must be credited, etc.). Similarly, a public domain work may be released under a similar set of provisos (when I was writing, I released my work on contingency that it was unchanged and I was credited). Similar to a publishing license, if the publisher (in this case, unknown distributor) does not agree with the license, then the rights granted under that license are unapplicable.
Applying this to software, most GPL and otherwise open source software is typically released under the same guidelines. The user may use the author's work if the guidelines are met. Just like a public domain literary piece, the author allows the user to use the software provided that it is not altered and that the original author is credited. That's not so crazy.
Most open source software takes this one step further and states that any changes released must also be released to the author, potentially perpetuating the quality of the software. Nothing really wrong with that. The author owns it. He's allowing you to use it. If you don't agree to the terms, you're not allowed to use it. Simple enough.
The sticking point is the GPL's derivative work clause. Anything derived from a piece of GPL'd software has to be released under the GPL. This creates a nasty sticking point with the GPL, which makes it particularly difficult for our friend Big Business to deal with. However, following the flow, the author(s) still own it (that's copyright law) and they are allowing you to use it IF you agree to the rules.
As established WAY at te top, the whole purpose of copyright is to protect the author. I don't really think it's the interest of the government to mitigate license disagreements. They're more involved in just protecting the owner, not trying to remove his copyright.
I think the problem is less the length of certain games and more the number of long games. When I was a wee lad, console games (Sega Master System and Nintendo were the first that popped into my head), the majority of games were short, arcade-style games.
On very rare occasion, epic games started to appear (Zelda and Phantasy Star come to mind), but the majority of games you'd just pick up a controller and go.
Since you only had one or two games of epic proportions, you were more prone to spending time working on them. But now that everything is of epic proportion, games go unfinished, sitting on the shelf. Spy Hunter for the PS2 is currently collecting dust in a DVD rack on my sunporch. Really no reason for that to be an epic thriller. The original (which I had on the Sega) wasn't. And to tell you the truth, I preferred the original...
It seems the open source licenses (namely the GPL, as it's the most restrictive to for-profit development) have been coming under a lot of fire recently. But why are these licenses considered any different than a license for any other piece of software?
If I, as a programmer, choose to use XYZ software in my own work, I need to abide by the software's license. In the case of for-profit libraries and operating systems, that usually includes paying cash money.
If I decide to use a library which wants $15 per unit, I have to pay $15 per unit or go about finding a suitable replacement. I can't just say, "I really don't want to pay that much" and use the library without paying. If I do, said company comes at me with a horde of lawyers demanding I live up to the license agreement.
Open source software is slightly different. Instead of demanding cash money, the terms of its license agreement demand the release of certain source code, etc.
Again, I have 2 choices. I can comply with the software license or I can find another product. If I use the software without complying with the license, someone should come after me and demand I comply. In the case of open source software, the Free Software Foundation fills that role.
In the specific case of Linksys, if Linksys had used a for-profit embedded OS without meeting its licensing requirements, there would be an uproar. Should linux be any different? If you don't agree to abide by the license, use something else. Or, at the very least, find out what you need to do in order to accomplish your goals (getting the bling-bling) without violating the GPL.
A local school near me had a similar deal with (if I recall correctly) IBM.
It was fantastic the first year. New computers, servers, modem banks, everything a high school loser could ever hope for! But then IBM cut funding, leaving this little rural community footing the bill.
I kid you not, the next year, the school was so strapped for cash, students were required to bring their own toilet paper to school with them!
Sure, it good for some publicity photographs and it gets Micro$oft on Slashdot for something POSITIVE for a change, but will M$ continue to pour cash into the school, or will the tide turn when the paint dries?
Linux/GNU is "protected" under GPL.
SCO has tossed aside GPL as unenforceable.
SCO is charging users for IP it claims was originally generated at SCO.
SCO, under the name Caldera, distributed Linux/GNU software
Does the door swing both ways? Can individuals within the open source community turn around and sue SCO/Caldera for distributing its intellectual property?
I mean, if SCO is claiming the GPL isn't valid and only the original copyright holder can claim copy right, didn't they illegally distribute TONS of illegally copied software?
The first time I was asked to give project estimates, I received some fantastic advice: "figure out how long it will take, double it, and add it to itself" (in other words, triple your estimate).
Engineers (and IT folk, too, I assume, are notorious for underestimating time requirements). Hell, how many times have I said, "I can have that done by the end of the day" to a project that rightfully should have taken a week to complete?
This also provides a buffer for "emergency tasks" and failures. Managers never seem to realize that when you estimate 2 weeks for something, you meant 2 weeks you are actually working on that project, not 3 days on the project and 7 days dealing with whatever crap they feel like throwing at you this week. It also allows some time for things to go wrong. Usually, when we estimate, we don't comprehend that our well-laid plan might be entirely wrong. I doubt I'm alone when I say I've worked for weeks going down the wrong path...
And if you manage to get through all this and STILL have some time left in your overestimation buffer, look at some porn or move on to the next task.
Remember, if you miss deadlines, you look like a slacker, but if you come in under your deadline, you're a hero.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't shake this mental image of the International Space Station with a giant Drink Coke logo scrawled across the side... (Come to think of it, private funding for such projects isn't such a bad idea: "This launch brought to you by Levitra - if we can get a rocket up, imagine what we can do for you!")
At home and work, I use the MP3 format on computers.
At the gym, I use the MP3 format on my handheld player.
In the car, I use the MP3 player on my MP3 CD player.
All MP3 all the fime.
According to the RIAA, this makes me Public Enemy Number One. According to the RIAA, I should go out and purchase an overpriced CD (the RIAA has been successfully sues 5 times for price fixing) full of songs I just plain don't want.
So I go looking for a way to get my MP3s legally. Hmm. Lots of options for legal online music. crapPod, Crapster, buy.com, even Walmart sell online music. In special formats. Namely, not in MP3 format.
So what you're telling me is, when I download a music file at work from, say, Walmart, I get a WMA file, which can only be played on THAT machine.
Wait! Wait! Didn't I purchase it? Don't I own it? Why the bloody hell can't I take it home and listen to it? Why can't I listen to it at the gym or in the car? I own it, don't I? If I bought a CD, wouldn't I be able to take it out of my home CD player and put it in my car? Why not with digital music, then?
Solution? Give the RIAA the finger. Challenge copyright. Share MP3s! Tell the recording industry you want your MP3!
A bunch of guys in Boston dress up like Indians, trespass on a privately-owned ship, and proceed to dump its cargo into the harbor. We consider them heros for their act of defiance against a tyrant. Seeing a parallel yet?
5-11pm more indicates the "working stiff" bracket, to me.
Then again, an encyclopedia produced just last year would report the nation of Iraq as a Democracy, not the currently accurate "Military Dictatorship". But, many web sites are out of date, as well.
I guess it all comes down to a modified version of the "library skills" and "critical thinking" we were supposed to have learned in grade school. Can you locate credible infomation and differentiate it from discredible information?
It's not that I don't like software or don't like building things, but the real world of software engineering lacks the creativity and creationism I got into the field for in the first place. I do what my boss tells me to do. I follow a schedule. I spend the whole day gazing out my window, wishing I could spend the daylight hours outdoors. I feel like a factory worker.
Crapster has been trying to get me to download "5 trial songs" ever since they got back into business. If I downloaded these, would they count toward Crapster's running total? That's not a terribly fair assessment if you ask me...
[/sarcasm]
When you can tap on something, throw it across the room, or pee on it, that's when it exists. When there are a bunch of pictures and promises on a web site, it doesn't. It means it's in "prototype", which means the actual machine is larger than my current laptop, but with a 5.6" screen and they're HOPING to get it down to size.
Hiring a lawyer is likely just a waste of money. Very little in an employment contract (including the "all your thoughts are belong to us" clause) is legally binding, anyway.
Let's face it, if your other business has a breakthrough that makes you millions, your employer is going to sue you whether or not you have a variance and whether or not your variance has a lawyer's signature on it. And when that is the case, you'll have the millions to hire a crack legal staff.
These days, kids come out of school unable to manipulate simple pointers. Why? Because the sissy langauges they use don't even USE pointers, so they were never TAUGHT pointers. God forbid they have to figure out how a machine is going to execute their code!
What they do know how to do is read. They read what's going to happen in the future. They read about the NEXT version of Java and its speed and other associated wonders. They read about how feature xyz is supposed to work (I read the source code for feature xyz; it doesn't work that way). They read about the flying car they're going to be cruising around in in a few scant years.
As a fallen Java evangelist (not to pick on Java, but it deserves it), I've learned that there are a few constants in that particular language. It's slow as balls; it has been since I was using it in alpha 7 or 8 years ago, and every version promises that the next will be faster than C. Container-managed beans suck; for 5 years, they've been saying that the mythical container (read as: someone else) will magically optimize them, which we all know is bullox. The more fictional something is the more it's talked about; Java's been talking about Jini for something like 4 years now, with absolutely nothing to show for it.
If students spent more time learning assembly and less time fluffing around with "references" (which is short for "retarded pointers"), they'd be much more bitter and cynical... Like me.
The moral? Killer apps aren't devised, they're experienced. Something which may seem to be fantastic on paper really sucks in reality. Train schedules are probably a very good example. Sounds like a good idea to have them on WAP, but it turns out it isn't.
A noted problem with technology is that each advancement attempts to use metaphors from previous technology until it develops its own. Early cinema was a fixed camera recording a stage play and most notably, early web sites tried to emulate television. Thusly, WAP has often tried to emulate the web. However, there are some key problems, namely related to screen size and selection frequency. A train schedule, for example works great in a webby table; just scroll down to the train you're looking for and you're ready to roll. However, on a phone screen, a better interface is to select the source and destination station and display only the times. On a full-size website, that interface would suck, but on a wapsite, it kicks.
Digital Darwinism. The strongest features survive.
When I got back from working in London, I was looking for a new carrier that had some of the features I had seen in while I was over there, namely SMS and WAP.
How stupid and pointless is SMS? I mean, really, all I need is a phone to make calls with. I don't need silly doo-dads like text messages! It's a phone! I just need to use it to call people!
Yet, text messages have completely penetrated American culture (as they had in London). Conversations have overhead. "Hi, how are you, how's the weather, how are the kids [INSERT REASON FOR CALL HERE] Well I should be going, have a great day, yeah we really should go skiing some time, okay, I'll call you next week, have a great week, blah blah blah". Text messages, on the other hand, are concise. "I got tickets to the superbowl, yay me". And if the recipient is away from her phone? Fine, she'll get it whenever.
And, thus, almost everyone who bought their phone "just to have a phone to make calls on" and conceded to having text message capability has really enjoyed the text capability. A couple months ago, my father got his very first mobile phone and was sending me text messages within a week.
WAP hasn't taken off as strongly in the United States, probably because it costs an extra couple of bucks (and, thus, unlike text messages can be averted). However, those who did break down and pay the extra couple of bucks think it's the best thing since sliced bread. If, for some God-awful reason, I have to be away from televisions on Sunday, I can get the football scores immediately. Just 45 or so minutes ago, I checked the weekend weather and ski reports at lunch.
So why are we so averse to technology (or techno-creep)? I constantly hear even technophiles saying "I don't need my phone to do that". Get with it: YOU DO NEED YOUR PHONE TO DO THAT, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW IT YET!
Most of the "new mobile phone technology" has been alive and kicking in Europe, the UK, Asia, and Africa for years before coming to the antiquated United States. It has all been tested in those climates. It is all successful technology before it reaches the United States.
Which brings us to the latest debacle. Camera phones. Camera phones have seen wild success in the UK. As they caught on, the Brits found new uses for them and just continued until millions and millions of images were flying through the clouds over London.
Personally, I'm just waiting for my contract to expire so I can get the best and brightest camera phone out there. I already know I can use it to take pictures of the goofy things I see every day and send them to my friends. It also allows me to have a cheap digicam on my person at all times. Sure, it's only 640x480, but all I usually want is a "look, it's me on top of Mt. Everest! Hi mom!" for the ole' website. I'm not shooting weddings.
Whoever said necesity is the mother of invention is dead wrong. Invention is the mother of creativity.
These days, you can probably get the basics out of a few scant classes, if they're well-taught. Some subject matter you want to be familiar with:
Object-Oriented Design & Development
Some basic algorithms (hashtables, linked lists, etc.)
3 or more languages (C/C++ and Java should be on the list)
Anything above that is just icing. Granted, stuff like Formal Languages or Computer Architecture can really help you understand where you're coming from, but aren't really used every day.
In essence, computer science IS like medicine. You spend a lot of time learning a huge variety of stuff, then you spend 90% of your time doling out penecilin.
At one point it had a wading pool, white picket fence, walls, roof, and garden gnomes...
If I remember, I'll dig up the pictures...
When I was in school, I worked PC support for a mostly-windoze (3.1) campus. I was paid to run around campus fixing peoples' problems, fix their problems over the phone, and fix any problems in the labs. Most of the time I was very, very busy.
Yes, using a free software product, especially for users, incurs non-free support costs. BUT SO DOES USING RETAIL SOFTWARE!
What company doesn't have an IT lurking about waiting for an exec to drop his laptop in the pool? Even in the theoretical case of end users directly accessing "free tech support", if someone spends 2 hours on the phone with Microsoft, that's 2 hours they're not doing their job (look, hidden costs).
Applying the "free like beer" logic, it's like saying free beer isn't free because it makes you pee. Beer, be it free, cheap, or expensive, makes you pee. Software, be it free, cheap, or expensive, has to be supported.
Actually, when I first saw this article, I questioned if the work was influenced by Hindu mysticism.... It's always easier to find the answer you're looking for than it is to find the correct answer...
"I stand here before you as representing the MPAA, one of the leading advocates of First Amendment rights..."
It seems to me that the the POINT of copyright is to protect the author. Since the model is based on books, let's think about how books are published. I, the author, write a book and start printing copies of it (for sake of simplicity, let's say I conveniently own a printing company as well).
You, the evil slashdot reader, purchase a copy of my book, copy it verbatim, claim it as your own work, and print it on YOUR printing press. That's one way to violate copyright, because you're taking something I wrote and claiming it to be your own.
How else could you violate the copyright law? You could buy my book, copy it verbatim, credit me, and print off copies on your printing press so you can sell them in your bookstore. That's illegal because I did not give you permission to print my book.
The words and abstract thoughts contained in my book still belong to me. When you purchase my book, you purchase the right to read my words, but you do not own the words or thoughts.
Of course, there are exceptions, many exceptions. The most obvious is publishing, in which I retain ownership of my words and thoughts, but I allow you to print, distribute, and sell them. In this case, you have my permission.
Other exceptions exist, such as quotations and educational purposes, but those aren't terribly applicable to software.
So how does this apply to software? The basics of copyright law are pretty obvious. When someone writes something, he or she owns it (in legal terms, holds the copyright). Further, he or she has the force of government enforcing the copyright.
As we've seen, the author can do whatever wheeling and dealing with the copyright he or she desires. It seems perfectly logical that an author may release the work into public domain. Just as an author may grant license to a publisher to reproduce the work (usually under a certain set of provisos: the author must OK the final edited work, the author must be credited, etc.). Similarly, a public domain work may be released under a similar set of provisos (when I was writing, I released my work on contingency that it was unchanged and I was credited). Similar to a publishing license, if the publisher (in this case, unknown distributor) does not agree with the license, then the rights granted under that license are unapplicable.
Applying this to software, most GPL and otherwise open source software is typically released under the same guidelines. The user may use the author's work if the guidelines are met. Just like a public domain literary piece, the author allows the user to use the software provided that it is not altered and that the original author is credited. That's not so crazy.
Most open source software takes this one step further and states that any changes released must also be released to the author, potentially perpetuating the quality of the software. Nothing really wrong with that. The author owns it. He's allowing you to use it. If you don't agree to the terms, you're not allowed to use it. Simple enough.
The sticking point is the GPL's derivative work clause. Anything derived from a piece of GPL'd software has to be released under the GPL. This creates a nasty sticking point with the GPL, which makes it particularly difficult for our friend Big Business to deal with. However, following the flow, the author(s) still own it (that's copyright law) and they are allowing you to use it IF you agree to the rules.
As established WAY at te top, the whole purpose of copyright is to protect the author. I don't really think it's the interest of the government to mitigate license disagreements. They're more involved in just protecting the owner, not trying to remove his copyright.
On very rare occasion, epic games started to appear (Zelda and Phantasy Star come to mind), but the majority of games you'd just pick up a controller and go.
Since you only had one or two games of epic proportions, you were more prone to spending time working on them. But now that everything is of epic proportion, games go unfinished, sitting on the shelf. Spy Hunter for the PS2 is currently collecting dust in a DVD rack on my sunporch. Really no reason for that to be an epic thriller. The original (which I had on the Sega) wasn't. And to tell you the truth, I preferred the original...
It seems the open source licenses (namely the GPL, as it's the most restrictive to for-profit development) have been coming under a lot of fire recently. But why are these licenses considered any different than a license for any other piece of software? If I, as a programmer, choose to use XYZ software in my own work, I need to abide by the software's license. In the case of for-profit libraries and operating systems, that usually includes paying cash money. If I decide to use a library which wants $15 per unit, I have to pay $15 per unit or go about finding a suitable replacement. I can't just say, "I really don't want to pay that much" and use the library without paying. If I do, said company comes at me with a horde of lawyers demanding I live up to the license agreement. Open source software is slightly different. Instead of demanding cash money, the terms of its license agreement demand the release of certain source code, etc. Again, I have 2 choices. I can comply with the software license or I can find another product. If I use the software without complying with the license, someone should come after me and demand I comply. In the case of open source software, the Free Software Foundation fills that role. In the specific case of Linksys, if Linksys had used a for-profit embedded OS without meeting its licensing requirements, there would be an uproar. Should linux be any different? If you don't agree to abide by the license, use something else. Or, at the very least, find out what you need to do in order to accomplish your goals (getting the bling-bling) without violating the GPL.
GREAT! Now my Linux browser's going to default to MSN.com!
It was fantastic the first year. New computers, servers, modem banks, everything a high school loser could ever hope for! But then IBM cut funding, leaving this little rural community footing the bill.
I kid you not, the next year, the school was so strapped for cash, students were required to bring their own toilet paper to school with them!
Sure, it good for some publicity photographs and it gets Micro$oft on Slashdot for something POSITIVE for a change, but will M$ continue to pour cash into the school, or will the tide turn when the paint dries?
Linux/GNU is "protected" under GPL.
SCO has tossed aside GPL as unenforceable.
SCO is charging users for IP it claims was originally generated at SCO.
SCO, under the name Caldera, distributed Linux/GNU software
Does the door swing both ways? Can individuals within the open source community turn around and sue SCO/Caldera for distributing its intellectual property?
I mean, if SCO is claiming the GPL isn't valid and only the original copyright holder can claim copy right, didn't they illegally distribute TONS of illegally copied software?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/318 7695.stm
The first time I was asked to give project estimates, I received some fantastic advice: "figure out how long it will take, double it, and add it to itself" (in other words, triple your estimate). Engineers (and IT folk, too, I assume, are notorious for underestimating time requirements). Hell, how many times have I said, "I can have that done by the end of the day" to a project that rightfully should have taken a week to complete? This also provides a buffer for "emergency tasks" and failures. Managers never seem to realize that when you estimate 2 weeks for something, you meant 2 weeks you are actually working on that project, not 3 days on the project and 7 days dealing with whatever crap they feel like throwing at you this week. It also allows some time for things to go wrong. Usually, when we estimate, we don't comprehend that our well-laid plan might be entirely wrong. I doubt I'm alone when I say I've worked for weeks going down the wrong path... And if you manage to get through all this and STILL have some time left in your overestimation buffer, look at some porn or move on to the next task. Remember, if you miss deadlines, you look like a slacker, but if you come in under your deadline, you're a hero.