MS would have something to sell in a box, something they could advertise for... but more importantly, something -they- could sell 'support' and services for, that you could not begin to support at their level.
Interesting concept. OTOH, why couldn't Microsoft (or anyone for that matter) sell 'support' and services for any product. There are many companies out there right now that are selling additional software tools that work with Microsoft Excel and Word, like this one http://www.add-ins.com/ The only difference that I see between their products and the scenario that you are proposing is MS theoretically would make more sales of Excel and Word due to the add on products.
Also, many OSS developers would be incredibly thankful for someone to come in and take the support burden off their shoulders. Developers of successful OSS products can get overwhelmed by support requests. If a developer could refer all of these requests to someone else it might be more of a blessing than a curse.
I think it all comes down to the revenue model that is used, and what the developer's goal was when creating the software itself. With the GPL, as I understand and have seen it applied, the developer still holds the copyright for the software that has been released under GPL and can re-release it under any license he/she likes. Seems like in your scenario a developer could
Add some new feature that everyone would want, and break the add on products in the process, thus causing Microsoft (or any other big scary company) some real nightmares.
or
Add some new feature everyone wants and release it under a commercial license that everyone has to pay for. Microsoft has done all the marketing for you, now all you have to do is collect all the upgrade orders. If Microsoft did a good enough job selling it, you could probably sell the upgrades for some paltry sum and get very wealthy.
Personally, the more I think about your scenario, the more I think it would be a good thing for the initial developer, and not a bad one.
I understand your points, but I think you are dismissing the basic motivation of a free market. Sure, you (and the average casual user) might pay MS for their product because it supports BLOB. If you do, MySQL may pay someone to add it themselves since they are a commercial company interested in getting people to use their project.
You also, as a devloper, may add BLOB to MySQL. If enough developers out there retain that attitude, MySQL will have a great product for free and make lots of money supporting that. Eventually, developers won't be able to make money developing software and will find other jobs. With their new jobs they won't have enough time to keep their skills up to date, eventually coding won't be added to open source projects and the demand for developers will go up. In the end, with a free market, it all evens out. It may currently suck for developers and major software corporations, but is good for other job markets (end users, businesses that use the products, IT people).
there is little to nothing stopping, say, MS, from scooping up a project, putting an MS logo on it, boxing it, and selling it in stores...
Again, I don't think this would be a bad thing, I think market pressures would make it good. To comply with GPL MS would have to release the source. When they changed X in the product they would have to send it out to everyone. Most people in the industry would realize you can get it for free, so wouldn't buy MS product. MS would spend lots of money marketing it. Eventually there would be 20 startups selling the same CD for $20 less the MS. I wish MS would try something like that it would be interesting to see the repercussions. As far as the original developers getting paid... that's a risk you run with OSS. if you want to get paid for every copy of your software out there, leave it closed source and charge for licenses. If believe in OSS, release it that way and take the risk of someone else finding a way to make money off of it. You think Red Hat gives money to every developer that created something included in their distro? Absolutely not. Why would your scenario be any different.
So, safety considerations of the tank are less important than a thin metal tank full of a combustible material, such as gasoline.
Perhaps, but a thin metal tank of gasoline won't do anything without an outside force acting on it. A pressurized container can explode from fatigue or a flaw in the construction just sitting there. Commercial containers of pressurized materials (Oxygen, propane, whatever) have usage dates on them so this fatigue doesn't cause a rupture. This would probably be an issue with this kind of vehicle, the storage tank would have to be replaced every 2 or 3 years.
When does the "likeable" part come out? In everything I've seen of her she comes across as a spoiled rich brat with no concept of personal responsiblity. I've seen nothing likeable about her at all.
Perhaps not, but I don't think you are her target demographic. She want's to be a celebrity and liked by other celebrities and the public. She has accomplished that at least to a degree. Unfortunately, in the entertainment world today, you don't get "liked" by being smart and successful.
Regardless (or in spite) of her skills and motivation many people like her, or at least want to be around her. Whatever she's doing she's doing it right... mostly.
Think maybe you've got it backwards. If you have so many chasing you around, send me some numbers. I could use a two month vacation in Aruba at daddy's expense.
It's the pretty girls that are easy to find. There are zillions of them. Go to the grocery store, the gym, the mall, the bar, their everywhere. I regularly see women that, on looks alone, could outshine most of Hollywood, but I rarely see a single available poor little rich girl looking for someone to keep her company. That's a find.
Certainly there are plenty of actresses, etc. who are famously dumb blondes, but when you see them not acting, it is clear they are in fact quite inteligent and hard working, and are acting the dumb blonde part because it brings them success.
OTOH there are plenty of actors that appear of at least average intelligence on screen, but come across as very not smart in interview. Jennifer Garner and Brendan Fraser are two that immediately come to mind. Of course that's why these people are actors, so they can pretend to be something they aren't.
I don't think I've ever seen Paris act professionally, The simple life is kind of a reality show, but it's not unusual in our society for a woman to act dumber than she really is. I can imagine that being the heiress to one of the hugest fortunes in the world can intimidate people sometimes. It is possible that she has taken on this dumb likeable persona to be more accessible to people and enjoy life more.
I would agree if we are talking about going to your local State university. Going to a university like MIT ( or Harvard, Stanford, CalTech, Carnegie Mellon, etc...) better make you smarter and more educated. These schools have reputations to live up to and charge a LOT of money.
OTOH I think you can learn things in college. The ultimate goal may be just to have that piece of paper for your resume, but you do have to sit through classes and stuff. It's all what you make of it.
I would agree with you about McCain although this steroids nonsense is really pissing me off. Sure there are a few Congressmen that really want to make a difference, but there are MANY who are just in it as carreer politicians (Ted Kennedy) or are totally stupid but get re-elected anyway (Orrin Hatch).
I want somebody with experience in politics, diplomacy and who has actually seen something of the World and knows how it operates
I still disagree. We have professional diplomats. The president is surrounded by advisors and intelligent people to help him make decisions. I would just like to see someone that lives in the real world to be at the helm. Most of our recent presidents have either been in politics so long they have no idea how the other half lives (Clinton), or they have grown up in some ivory tower and never have known how normal people live (Bush). Why can't we elect a small businessman, college professor, local doctor or whatever. Bottom line is no one has experience being president until he is president. I don't know what could possibly prepare you for that job, and we never elect the most prepared people anyway.
saying the above means you really have no clue as to what ISP's do
Actually I run my own corporate email servers and web servers and you are correct. There probably are 20-30 spam messages thrown away for every one that gets through. I don't have current stats, but I probably get 500+ spam messages on my domains at work. 90% of this gets tossed and I have to deal with about 20 messages a day, not a big deal.
I currently don't have a gmail, hotmail or other account, I bought my own domain so I didn't have to deal with those, but how is anyone being "saved" by their ISP when getting mail through those accounts? They are all web based email. I don't know how my ISP has any control over that at all.
I won't disagree that SPAM hit's my pocketbook as well s my ISP's (although I would fall over shocked if comcast came out and said they'd cut the price of their service because congress magically made spam stop), but sometime that's a price of a free society. We have to take the long way around to make sure everyone's rights are protected. If the major ISPs did an adequate job of controlling the spam problem, spam would be minimized and no longer profitable. Maybe you should just work a little harder.
Is Jon Stewart any less qualified than George W. Bush was when he ran?
Or Ronald Reagan, or Jimmy Carter, or any number of other presidents we have. Why is there this common notion that we need someone "qualified" to be President. The Constitution requires that a candidate for the presidency must be a "natural-born" citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. That appears to be all of the "qualifications" needed.
Part of the problem with this country is we think we have to elect lifetime politicians to every office and somehow incumbents magically are better at governing. I wish I knew how to change the attitude of the American people on this. I would LOVE to see some average Joe off the street elected president. Someone intelligent for sure, but someone that hasn't made a career out of lying to everyone and could serve is four years and get out.
I probably don't agree with Jon Stewart's politics, but I have not problem with him running and might actually vote for him because he's not a career politician.
Show me one parent that isn't absolutely mortified by GTA and I will provide you with a list of hundreds that will take the other side.
Well gee, maybe those hundreds of parents should get off their collective fat asses and pay some attention to what their kids are doing. Don't like? Fine, then don't play it, don't let your kids play it. Don't waste time and money to keep other people and their kids from playing it.
No, the problem is that everyone is WAY too worried about a few pieces of junk email. Spam is (relatively) easy to minimize and does not have to incurr a large expense on any individual.
Spamassassin and clamav do a very good job of removing span and viruses at our corporate network level. At home I have an account that's not from AOL, Yahoo or whatever so I don't get much spam, plus my ISP offers spamassassin as well.
Spam may or may not be free speech, but it's very possible that the laws used to control it could be used to infringe on free speech. Keep the government(s) out of the process. They will never be able to track down all the spammers, it will just be another misuse of company funds. Let the market do it's work and solve the problem rather than creating new laws nobody can keep track of.
Bloat is tough to define, but easy to identify. In my mind, an application is bloated when extra features make it more difficult to use, or the application is so huge and slow it is cumbersome.
Is a program that does all that you need, and no more "bloated"?
Absolutely not, unless of course it's so slow you can't ever get anything done. Some applications are obviously bloated (Microsoft Word) and some are not (vi), but most things fall somewhere in the middle. We use them until something less bloated, more usable or cheaper comes along.
Unfortunately, governments (at least here in the US) tend to operate on a "How much is it going to cost right now?"
That isn't always true - it depends on which part of the government you are looking at, what kind of mood they are in, how much money they have and a few other factors. Look at the NSA Linux project. I'm sure it took more time and money to put together than buying Windows off the shelf.
I used to work for a company that did some engine controls for the military, navy ships mostly. Their specs and test procedures were incredible. The equipment wasn't the most current technology, but they wanted to make SURE the control we built for their ships worked, no matter the cost.
Actually, it seems like more often than not governments are willing to spend lots of money, especially on things like technology. Now, if it's a new road or school building they are going to be as cheap as possible. OTOH if it's new toys for them and their staff most government officals will spring for the best.
Don't you think this is simply the standard way of negotiating with Microsoft these days?
Maybe, but that negotiating tactic doesn't work if you aren't willing to back it up. If Microsoft didn't think you were willing to go with that alternative, at some level, they wouldn't beother giving discounts.
Yes, I thought of that connection while typing my original post. Guess my idea would be a form of DRM, but hopefully something that couldn't be trivially hacked like all the DRM solutions out on the market today.
it seems like a lot of people get caught with having illegal stuff on their hard drives. Are they just not encrypting their data?
Looks to me if I were really serious about protecting some data I could write an algorithim, keyed to a particular password(s) (dictionary attack?) that would delete the data rather than unencrypt it. Of course they could just make a backup copy of it.
Wonder if there would be an easy way to make data "uncopyable" - at least to the point that a backup data would be appear intact but actually be corrupted, and the solution wouldn't be easy to reverse engineer for a one-time solution. Maybe if smart-data was pulled from the drive and ran through a unique alogrithim that would trash the data if the source drive had been changed....
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting concept. OTOH, why couldn't Microsoft (or anyone for that matter) sell 'support' and services for any product. There are many companies out there right now that are selling additional software tools that work with Microsoft Excel and Word, like this one http://www.add-ins.com/ The only difference that I see between their products and the scenario that you are proposing is MS theoretically would make more sales of Excel and Word due to the add on products.
Also, many OSS developers would be incredibly thankful for someone to come in and take the support burden off their shoulders. Developers of successful OSS products can get overwhelmed by support requests. If a developer could refer all of these requests to someone else it might be more of a blessing than a curse.
I think it all comes down to the revenue model that is used, and what the developer's goal was when creating the software itself. With the GPL, as I understand and have seen it applied, the developer still holds the copyright for the software that has been released under GPL and can re-release it under any license he/she likes. Seems like in your scenario a developer could
- Add some new feature that everyone would want, and break the add on products in the process, thus causing Microsoft (or any other big scary company) some real nightmares.
- Add some new feature everyone wants and release it under a commercial license that everyone has to pay for. Microsoft has done all the marketing for you, now all you have to do is collect all the upgrade orders. If Microsoft did a good enough job selling it, you could probably sell the upgrades for some paltry sum and get very wealthy.
Personally, the more I think about your scenario, the more I think it would be a good thing for the initial developer, and not a bad one.or
I understand your points, but I think you are dismissing the basic motivation of a free market. Sure, you (and the average casual user) might pay MS for their product because it supports BLOB. If you do, MySQL may pay someone to add it themselves since they are a commercial company interested in getting people to use their project.
You also, as a devloper, may add BLOB to MySQL. If enough developers out there retain that attitude, MySQL will have a great product for free and make lots of money supporting that. Eventually, developers won't be able to make money developing software and will find other jobs. With their new jobs they won't have enough time to keep their skills up to date, eventually coding won't be added to open source projects and the demand for developers will go up. In the end, with a free market, it all evens out. It may currently suck for developers and major software corporations, but is good for other job markets (end users, businesses that use the products, IT people).
there is little to nothing stopping, say, MS, from scooping up a project, putting an MS logo on it, boxing it, and selling it in stores...
Again, I don't think this would be a bad thing, I think market pressures would make it good. To comply with GPL MS would have to release the source. When they changed X in the product they would have to send it out to everyone. Most people in the industry would realize you can get it for free, so wouldn't buy MS product. MS would spend lots of money marketing it. Eventually there would be 20 startups selling the same CD for $20 less the MS. I wish MS would try something like that it would be interesting to see the repercussions. As far as the original developers getting paid... that's a risk you run with OSS. if you want to get paid for every copy of your software out there, leave it closed source and charge for licenses. If believe in OSS, release it that way and take the risk of someone else finding a way to make money off of it. You think Red Hat gives money to every developer that created something included in their distro? Absolutely not. Why would your scenario be any different.
California auto stations are required to provide compressed air
I'm guessing it doesn't provide 400 atmospheres of pressure though...
So, safety considerations of the tank are less important than a thin metal tank full of a combustible material, such as gasoline.
Perhaps, but a thin metal tank of gasoline won't do anything without an outside force acting on it. A pressurized container can explode from fatigue or a flaw in the construction just sitting there. Commercial containers of pressurized materials (Oxygen, propane, whatever) have usage dates on them so this fatigue doesn't cause a rupture. This would probably be an issue with this kind of vehicle, the storage tank would have to be replaced every 2 or 3 years.
So will we end up with a leaked sex tape of her and Tux now?
No, RMS. Maybe he won't be against it then.
When does the "likeable" part come out? In everything I've seen of her she comes across as a spoiled rich brat with no concept of personal responsiblity. I've seen nothing likeable about her at all.
Perhaps not, but I don't think you are her target demographic. She want's to be a celebrity and liked by other celebrities and the public. She has accomplished that at least to a degree. Unfortunately, in the entertainment world today, you don't get "liked" by being smart and successful.
Regardless (or in spite) of her skills and motivation many people like her, or at least want to be around her. Whatever she's doing she's doing it right... mostly.
shortage of little rich girls with no morals
Think maybe you've got it backwards. If you have so many chasing you around, send me some numbers. I could use a two month vacation in Aruba at daddy's expense.
It's the pretty girls that are easy to find. There are zillions of them. Go to the grocery store, the gym, the mall, the bar, their everywhere. I regularly see women that, on looks alone, could outshine most of Hollywood, but I rarely see a single available poor little rich girl looking for someone to keep her company. That's a find.
Certainly there are plenty of actresses, etc. who are famously dumb blondes, but when you see them not acting, it is clear they are in fact quite inteligent and hard working, and are acting the dumb blonde part because it brings them success.
OTOH there are plenty of actors that appear of at least average intelligence on screen, but come across as very not smart in interview. Jennifer Garner and Brendan Fraser are two that immediately come to mind. Of course that's why these people are actors, so they can pretend to be something they aren't.
I don't think I've ever seen Paris act professionally, The simple life is kind of a reality show, but it's not unusual in our society for a woman to act dumber than she really is. I can imagine that being the heiress to one of the hugest fortunes in the world can intimidate people sometimes. It is possible that she has taken on this dumb likeable persona to be more accessible to people and enjoy life more.
and a ridiculously hard worker.
I'll say. I saw the video.
Just be glad I named your stupid school in my post.
"And I'd rather be a nobody that's a somebody than a somebody that's just a nobody. Or something. Point is -- you suck!"
So you would rather be you than Darius Rucker?
I would agree if we are talking about going to your local State university. Going to a university like MIT ( or Harvard, Stanford, CalTech, Carnegie Mellon, etc...) better make you smarter and more educated. These schools have reputations to live up to and charge a LOT of money.
OTOH I think you can learn things in college. The ultimate goal may be just to have that piece of paper for your resume, but you do have to sit through classes and stuff. It's all what you make of it.
I would agree with you about McCain although this steroids nonsense is really pissing me off. Sure there are a few Congressmen that really want to make a difference, but there are MANY who are just in it as carreer politicians (Ted Kennedy) or are totally stupid but get re-elected anyway (Orrin Hatch).
I want somebody with experience in politics, diplomacy and who has actually seen something of the World and knows how it operates
I still disagree. We have professional diplomats. The president is surrounded by advisors and intelligent people to help him make decisions. I would just like to see someone that lives in the real world to be at the helm. Most of our recent presidents have either been in politics so long they have no idea how the other half lives (Clinton), or they have grown up in some ivory tower and never have known how normal people live (Bush). Why can't we elect a small businessman, college professor, local doctor or whatever. Bottom line is no one has experience being president until he is president. I don't know what could possibly prepare you for that job, and we never elect the most prepared people anyway.
saying the above means you really have no clue as to what ISP's do
Actually I run my own corporate email servers and web servers and you are correct. There probably are 20-30 spam messages thrown away for every one that gets through. I don't have current stats, but I probably get 500+ spam messages on my domains at work. 90% of this gets tossed and I have to deal with about 20 messages a day, not a big deal.
I currently don't have a gmail, hotmail or other account, I bought my own domain so I didn't have to deal with those, but how is anyone being "saved" by their ISP when getting mail through those accounts? They are all web based email. I don't know how my ISP has any control over that at all.
I won't disagree that SPAM hit's my pocketbook as well s my ISP's (although I would fall over shocked if comcast came out and said they'd cut the price of their service because congress magically made spam stop), but sometime that's a price of a free society. We have to take the long way around to make sure everyone's rights are protected. If the major ISPs did an adequate job of controlling the spam problem, spam would be minimized and no longer profitable. Maybe you should just work a little harder.
UN want's to regulate something; Film at 11
Is Jon Stewart any less qualified than George W. Bush was when he ran?
Or Ronald Reagan, or Jimmy Carter, or any number of other presidents we have. Why is there this common notion that we need someone "qualified" to be President. The Constitution requires that a candidate for the presidency must be a "natural-born" citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. That appears to be all of the "qualifications" needed.
Part of the problem with this country is we think we have to elect lifetime politicians to every office and somehow incumbents magically are better at governing. I wish I knew how to change the attitude of the American people on this. I would LOVE to see some average Joe off the street elected president. Someone intelligent for sure, but someone that hasn't made a career out of lying to everyone and could serve is four years and get out.
I probably don't agree with Jon Stewart's politics, but I have not problem with him running and might actually vote for him because he's not a career politician.
Way to discriminate against non base 10 people.
Humans are all base 10... unless of course you got your hand caught in a meat grinder.
Show me one parent that isn't absolutely mortified by GTA and I will provide you with a list of hundreds that will take the other side.
Well gee, maybe those hundreds of parents should get off their collective fat asses and pay some attention to what their kids are doing. Don't like? Fine, then don't play it, don't let your kids play it. Don't waste time and money to keep other people and their kids from playing it.
No, the problem is that everyone is WAY too worried about a few pieces of junk email. Spam is (relatively) easy to minimize and does not have to incurr a large expense on any individual.
Spamassassin and clamav do a very good job of removing span and viruses at our corporate network level. At home I have an account that's not from AOL, Yahoo or whatever so I don't get much spam, plus my ISP offers spamassassin as well.
Spam may or may not be free speech, but it's very possible that the laws used to control it could be used to infringe on free speech. Keep the government(s) out of the process. They will never be able to track down all the spammers, it will just be another misuse of company funds. Let the market do it's work and solve the problem rather than creating new laws nobody can keep track of.
Bloat is tough to define, but easy to identify. In my mind, an application is bloated when extra features make it more difficult to use, or the application is so huge and slow it is cumbersome.
Is a program that does all that you need, and no more "bloated"?
Absolutely not, unless of course it's so slow you can't ever get anything done. Some applications are obviously bloated (Microsoft Word) and some are not (vi), but most things fall somewhere in the middle. We use them until something less bloated, more usable or cheaper comes along.
Unfortunately, governments (at least here in the US) tend to operate on a "How much is it going to cost right now?"
That isn't always true - it depends on which part of the government you are looking at, what kind of mood they are in, how much money they have and a few other factors. Look at the NSA Linux project. I'm sure it took more time and money to put together than buying Windows off the shelf.
I used to work for a company that did some engine controls for the military, navy ships mostly. Their specs and test procedures were incredible. The equipment wasn't the most current technology, but they wanted to make SURE the control we built for their ships worked, no matter the cost.
Actually, it seems like more often than not governments are willing to spend lots of money, especially on things like technology. Now, if it's a new road or school building they are going to be as cheap as possible. OTOH if it's new toys for them and their staff most government officals will spring for the best.
Don't you think this is simply the standard way of negotiating with Microsoft these days?
Maybe, but that negotiating tactic doesn't work if you aren't willing to back it up. If Microsoft didn't think you were willing to go with that alternative, at some level, they wouldn't beother giving discounts.
So which GUI library is OOo using? I always think it can be ridiculously slow - esp. under Linux.
I think the acronym you're looking for is "DRM."
Yes, I thought of that connection while typing my original post. Guess my idea would be a form of DRM, but hopefully something that couldn't be trivially hacked like all the DRM solutions out on the market today.
it seems like a lot of people get caught with having illegal stuff on their hard drives. Are they just not encrypting their data?
Looks to me if I were really serious about protecting some data I could write an algorithim, keyed to a particular password(s) (dictionary attack?) that would delete the data rather than unencrypt it. Of course they could just make a backup copy of it.
Wonder if there would be an easy way to make data "uncopyable" - at least to the point that a backup data would be appear intact but actually be corrupted, and the solution wouldn't be easy to reverse engineer for a one-time solution. Maybe if smart-data was pulled from the drive and ran through a unique alogrithim that would trash the data if the source drive had been changed....