Ya know, I actually WOULD be interested in doing something like this. I'm far to busy with other things to devote any substantial amount of time to a project. But I would like to help out, nonetheless. And if I can correct that small bug or grammatical error that annoys one user, then that's not wasted effort. Afterall, sometimes it is the little things that matter the most.
Knowing how novel algorithms work does give you the ability to improve your product. If you think the drivers are just "move this bit over there," you're insane. Both ATI and Nvidia have an enourmous amount of clever code to squeeze out that last FPS.
Giving away their shnazzy algorithm that's three times as fast as any other technique is just dumb, especially in an industry as competitive as the graphics market.
Nvidia playing by the rules here. They're trying to make a buck in the Linux community without resorting to lawsuits. Last I heard, the GPL wasn't supposed to prevent companies from making a profit.
This is a trend, I agree, but it isn't the whole picture. The dark cloud is rather ominous looking, but I see (a hint of) a silver lining. Often overlooked in these discussions is the open-source/free software philosophy.
The large multinational conglomerates are creating the very niche OS/FS needs to flourish. We see it in the software market. For every increasingly restricted option, there is one or more viable, active OS/FS projects.
And while *content* is almost invariably locked up behind ClearChannel, RIAA/MPAA, EA, Hollywood, et. all, I think it is only a matter of time before independent content producers begin to gain a foothold. I would cite the rise of the so-called "blogospher" as evidence of this. As a reaction to the percieved bias (in the general sense of the word) in popular media, weblogs are beginning to establish themselves as legitimate news alternatives.
I think that is the power of the Internet. The physical medium is not very important any more. Because you have a broadcast tower or printing press does not guarentee you a news monopoly anymore. The instant dissemination of the Internet is breaking down (or at least challenging) the old barriers of entry. The same is true for the rest of the content industry. We all have CD burners. What need is there for a stamping plant? That's what makes the FS/OS model a viable alternative to the corporate machine. By severly lowering distribution costs, the players are forced to compete on product.
I feel it is only a matter of time before the creativity is so far encumbered by the restrictions of the corporate world that it will flow to other, more open channels. You might have to give up the polish, as we reinvent the latest shading technologies or explosion sequences, but we will always have the creativity.
If nothing else, this angle desevers consideration.
What you ask is more difficult than one may originally think. As soon as a novel approach to counter-acting one of these annoyances becomes popular, it lands itself in the cross-hairs of those who would exploit "the system" in the first place. Witness the current arms race that is SPAM. Witness Microsoft security. Hell, witness Slashdot moderation.
There are a number of bright people on both sides of the aisle. When one side discovers a new technique, the other will work hard to neutralize said technique. This continues until either: it is too expensive for one side to continue, or too complicated for the consumer to bother with anymore.
I hate to admit it, but I do think that the RIAA will ultimately win this battle. Much as consumers accepted a higher price with the arrival of casette tapes, then CDs, some form of DRM will probably win out.
I've heard the argument that consumers will not accept paying for an intangible (that is, no physical object). But the iTunes model allows the consumer, in a limited way, control over the physical. From their purchase, they burn their physical dividend. One could argue that the consumer gains *more* through DRM/license-ware, as some plans allow the consumer to burn multiple CDs.
Most of the people I know (by that, I mean average, largely non-technical) still buy the occasional CD. They hate the RIAA in the abstract for Napster, but it does not stop them from buying. More and more have given up on P2P. Whether it's fear of a lawsuit or general hastle of finding Top-40, it just isn't worth their time anymore.
The RIAA doesn't need to destroy P2P, that would be impossible. All it needs to do is break it sufficiently to make their "alternative" more attractive. I personally believe thing will reach an equilibrium, eventually. P2P will always be around, in some form, for the dedicated. The RIAA will be sure to quash anything before it reaches critical mass. While on the other hand, DRM-ware will evolve into something more accomodating.
Slashdot Mirror
Ya know, I actually WOULD be interested in doing something like this. I'm far to busy with other things to devote any substantial amount of time to a project. But I would like to help out, nonetheless. And if I can correct that small bug or grammatical error that annoys one user, then that's not wasted effort. Afterall, sometimes it is the little things that matter the most.
Yes, full ahead, yes.
Knowing how novel algorithms work does give you the ability to improve your product. If you think the drivers are just "move this bit over there," you're insane. Both ATI and Nvidia have an enourmous amount of clever code to squeeze out that last FPS.
Giving away their shnazzy algorithm that's three times as fast as any other technique is just dumb, especially in an industry as competitive as the graphics market.
Nvidia playing by the rules here. They're trying to make a buck in the Linux community without resorting to lawsuits. Last I heard, the GPL wasn't supposed to prevent companies from making a profit.
This is a trend, I agree, but it isn't the whole picture. The dark cloud is rather ominous looking, but I see (a hint of) a silver lining. Often overlooked in these discussions is the open-source/free software philosophy.
The large multinational conglomerates are creating the very niche OS/FS needs to flourish. We see it in the software market. For every increasingly restricted option, there is one or more viable, active OS/FS projects.
And while *content* is almost invariably locked up behind ClearChannel, RIAA/MPAA, EA, Hollywood, et. all, I think it is only a matter of time before independent content producers begin to gain a foothold. I would cite the rise of the so-called "blogospher" as evidence of this. As a reaction to the percieved bias (in the general sense of the word) in popular media, weblogs are beginning to establish themselves as legitimate news alternatives.
I think that is the power of the Internet. The physical medium is not very important any more. Because you have a broadcast tower or printing press does not guarentee you a news monopoly anymore. The instant dissemination of the Internet is breaking down (or at least challenging) the old barriers of entry. The same is true for the rest of the content industry. We all have CD burners. What need is there for a stamping plant? That's what makes the FS/OS model a viable alternative to the corporate machine. By severly lowering distribution costs, the players are forced to compete on product.
I feel it is only a matter of time before the creativity is so far encumbered by the restrictions of the corporate world that it will flow to other, more open channels. You might have to give up the polish, as we reinvent the latest shading technologies or explosion sequences, but we will always have the creativity.
If nothing else, this angle desevers consideration.
What you ask is more difficult than one may originally think. As soon as a novel approach to counter-acting one of these annoyances becomes popular, it lands itself in the cross-hairs of those who would exploit "the system" in the first place. Witness the current arms race that is SPAM. Witness Microsoft security. Hell, witness Slashdot moderation.
There are a number of bright people on both sides of the aisle. When one side discovers a new technique, the other will work hard to neutralize said technique. This continues until either: it is too expensive for one side to continue, or too complicated for the consumer to bother with anymore.
I hate to admit it, but I do think that the RIAA will ultimately win this battle. Much as consumers accepted a higher price with the arrival of casette tapes, then CDs, some form of DRM will probably win out.
I've heard the argument that consumers will not accept paying for an intangible (that is, no physical object). But the iTunes model allows the consumer, in a limited way, control over the physical. From their purchase, they burn their physical dividend. One could argue that the consumer gains *more* through DRM/license-ware, as some plans allow the consumer to burn multiple CDs.
Most of the people I know (by that, I mean average, largely non-technical) still buy the occasional CD. They hate the RIAA in the abstract for Napster, but it does not stop them from buying. More and more have given up on P2P. Whether it's fear of a lawsuit or general hastle of finding Top-40, it just isn't worth their time anymore.
The RIAA doesn't need to destroy P2P, that would be impossible. All it needs to do is break it sufficiently to make their "alternative" more attractive. I personally believe thing will reach an equilibrium, eventually. P2P will always be around, in some form, for the dedicated. The RIAA will be sure to quash anything before it reaches critical mass. While on the other hand, DRM-ware will evolve into something more accomodating.