...in Portugal we already have two triple-play service providers offering 100Mbits download using fiber-to-home, although still not available everywhere. The prices are quite reasonable (at least comparing to Cablevision's $99.99). 64.99 euros (around $85) for 100 channels, 100Mbps/10Mbps and phone.
After I read the entire article, I couldn't help thinking: "What a jerk!" Anyway, I'll give you my point of view, and it's really common sense. 1. With the rise of unemployment, people have more spare time to contribute (as stated) 2. When companies have no money, they tend to shift to cheaper solutions as in "open source" (been there, done that), thus increasing the number of contributors 3. Open source or "free" technology doesn't aim to replaced "paid", but simply to provide an alternative (they will co-exist)
Finally this paragraph is really intriguing: "So how will today's brutal economic climate change the Web 2.0 "free" economy? It will result in the rise of online media businesses that reward their contributors with cash"
So he mixes two completely different concepts, weird "Web 2.0" and "free" (or open source). Worst, he says in a scenario of crisis, businesses will have money to reward their contributors?!?
Even if Linux has as many bugs as Win2k, the real problem is that in Win2k you're paying for them. So why the hell should I pay for a supposed OS which is a 600MB bug farm? Linux has bugs too, but mainly because a big part of the applications are always in development.
Slashdot Mirror
...in Portugal we already have two triple-play service providers offering 100Mbits download using fiber-to-home, although still not available everywhere.
The prices are quite reasonable (at least comparing to Cablevision's $99.99).
64.99 euros (around $85) for 100 channels, 100Mbps/10Mbps and phone.
After I read the entire article, I couldn't help thinking: "What a jerk!"
Anyway, I'll give you my point of view, and it's really common sense.
1. With the rise of unemployment, people have more spare time to contribute (as stated)
2. When companies have no money, they tend to shift to cheaper solutions as in "open source" (been there, done that), thus increasing the number of contributors
3. Open source or "free" technology doesn't aim to replaced "paid", but simply to provide an alternative (they will co-exist)
Finally this paragraph is really intriguing:
"So how will today's brutal economic climate change the Web 2.0 "free" economy? It will result in the rise of online media businesses that reward their contributors with cash"
So he mixes two completely different concepts, weird "Web 2.0" and "free" (or open source).
Worst, he says in a scenario of crisis, businesses will have money to reward their contributors?!?
No comments...
Even if Linux has as many bugs as Win2k, the real
problem is that in Win2k you're paying for them.
So why the hell should I pay for a supposed OS which is a 600MB bug farm?
Linux has bugs too, but mainly because a big part of the applications are always in development.
./TheMask