America, on its own, rid the world of these pirates.
Piracy died when faster ships came of age at the beginning of the industrial revolution. The coal-powered steamship could move against the wind, and was more efficient that the wind-powered ships the pirates used.
The pirates could have used coal-powered vessels themselves, but that takes a social infrastructure to mine and distribute the coal. Basically, it was the lack of self-sufficiency of the emerging industrial world that caused piracy to collapse.
The pirates, out of work and on the dole, soon found lucrative employment as CEOs of major corporations.
The RIAA is going crazy over MP3 sharers instead of understanding that digital encoding and mp3s are the wave of the future, not to mention the internet is a highly more effective distribution center than anything else out there.
Why do you suppose they are fighting the internet as a distribution method? Because it is more efficient than current methods. They don't want better efficiency, because profit is made in the friction of distribution.
Think about the areas of greatest profitability in the market today, and tell me where they are made. Meanwhile, let me say where I think it lies: with distribution. The Wal*Marts, the Amazons, the Sam Goodies of the world make a lot of money through distribution.
Microsoft still refuses to believe in any uses towards Open-source programming . ..
The problem with Free/Open Source software is that it removes the friction of distribution. Microsoft has dominated the market by controlling the distribution chain from day one. At every point where another competitor has threatened to enter the distribution chain (say, DR-DOS), they have choked the distribution points (in the case of DR-DOS, by making per-processor licensing deals with each distributor).
The more friction you can create and maintain, the more money you can make. The advantage of a monopoly is that you are the only controller of the distribution chain.
For all information, the internet approaches frictionless distribution. This is what scares the MPAA, and Microsoft, and the broadcast television companies: in the future, they will be unable to extract Ceasar's share from the distribution chain. That is why they are fighting so hard to introduce friction in the form of legislation.
This is also why capitalism is butt-useless for information, as artificial friction must be introduced into the system (in the form of copyright and patent law). These laws worked when capitalism was based more on physical objects (books, records, films), but now that the information has become more important than the distribution method, capitalism in its current form fails miserably.
The technological push you mention as necessary for the American economy is much deeper than simply increasing innovation or R&D. We must embrace the social aspects of this technology as well, and not introduce unnecessary friction into the system resisting the technology.
I don't mean we must accept all new technology as good. But "Hurts Profits" != "Bad."
For an interesting take (and a surprising relevence) check out "The Third Wave," by Alvin Toffler. It's an older book, but his predictions have been frustratingly accurate.
School Shootings are hardly a new phenomena. The oddity was the spat of shootings we had in just a few years in rural or suburban middle-class schools. Most shootings before happened in urban schools.
Difference is, we never reported schools shootings over and over.
Could be we're finally seeing the pressures that drive kids to kill; but chances are, we report it so boldly and incessantly on TV that it gives other kids ideas.
But then again, I always look for the simple explainations.
Forgive me for suggesting this, but... users shouldn't have to pay for bug fixes. And producers of software shouldn't question whether or not they should fix bugs.
If I buy a car, and it has a bad fuel injection system which causes it to stall at high speeds, would (*ahem*) Ford require I pay to fix their problem? Hell, no! That's what recalls are all about, the manufacturer paying to fix their fuckups.
Microsoft does occassionally provide service packs, granted. But often these service packs are designed to push an agenda, be it DRM, or the breaking of compatiblity in competing products, or similar. They are rarely simply bug fixes.
User's should have to pay. The consumers should be in the driver's seat, not the corporation. That's what's fucked up about our current computer market: Microsoft is the one calling the shots, not the consumers.
Y'know, the funny thing about stereotypes is, sometimes they are essentially true.
I see a lot of posts here about, "Oh, this article is rubbish because I was a nerd *and* a jock, and popular, too." Also: "You nerds were picked on because you were antisocial goobers."
And to you I humbly suggest, "Bite me."
The central tenet of the article is simple. A lot of people are nerds not because they are smart, but because they do not want to play the popularity game. A lot of smart people (and I arrogantly claim I was one) believe they had better things to do than try to get people to like them. Not all nerds are smart, and not all smart people are nerds; but a lot of smart, nerdy people were picked on because they *gasp!* refused to play stupid popularity games.
I was fortunate: I grew up in a very small town. I graduated with 3 other people. Although I was not popular, it didn't matter.
However, I did spend a year in a school that had thirty people in my eighth-grade class. My God! That was hell. Sure, there were some smart, popular people; but they were more derisive than the stupid popular people. Later in life, while visiting that town, I ran into one of those smart, popular ones. She apologized to me for being a bitch, and told me it was the pressure of being popular that made her do it. (My summary, but very close to her exact words.)
There is more than just a kernel of reality in the article. There is enough evidence to support his core thesis, that our school system is a holding pen for kids, and that something should be done before it is too late.
Like the author, I'm not sure *what* needs done, except that it must involve engaging the kids in activities that matter. I predict eventually a specialisation in schools, like the "IBM Technology Secondary School," or the "Houghton/Miller School of English Arts," and the "Martha Stewart School of Home Slavery."
The appropriate antecedent for this seminal work is not "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas," but "Naked Lunch." The entire plotline you have outlined is stolen almost verbatim from the classic William S. Burroughs (grandson of the founder of Burroughs computers) novel.
Office Space was perfect in its portrayal of the Geek. The disaffection with office politics, the desire to create something better, the general dislike of the current state of their industry.
Office Space was perfect, though I doubt its ever going to attract anyone into the field. Face it, we have a boring job, that is only exciting if you love logic and puzzles.
Like *that* is ever going to be and exciting box office smash.
Windows software and with 90%+ of market penetration, I'd say that Windows is excellent (there's not many products and industries with marketshare like that).
So you are saying that Budweiser is an excellent beer? That Kangaroo Jack is an excellent movie? That Arnold Schwartzenager is an excellent actor? That the Ford Escort is an excellent Car?
Compared to what?
Market share has little to do with the quality of a product; it has more to do with marketting, and with distribution channel control. MS-Windows is no more a good product than Budwieser is a good beer. Both are watered-down, tasteless versions of something that should be robust and rewarding.
I liken the current state of the software market to the beer market of the early '80s. At the time, you could get several diffent versions of the same tasteless beer, with one beer leading the way, and innovating tasteless, watery brew.
Today, *BSD, Linux, and a few dozen other operating systems are like the microbrews of the early '80s: a small group of discerning people knew and loved them, but the masses still drank pisswater. However, it was difficult to find good beer at any but the most exclusive of pubs. Today, the masses still drink bad beer, but at least it isn't impossible to get good beer at your local package store.
Some AOS (alternate OS) users hope for world domination. I just hope for the day I can get a fucking laptop without paying Microsoft to build more shitty software.
Symantec does not have the moral obligation; the people within Symantec have the moral obligation.
Corporations are designed to be soulless money-making machines. The people within corporations (who fucking are the corporation) are under the same moral obligations as the rest of us: to behave as if we are in this life together.
Too many people (like you) are willing to allow corporations to do whatever the hell they want in the pursuit of making money. Fine. Let corporations do whatever they want. But hold the people within the corporation responsible. There are people within Enron who broke the law in pursuit of profit and control; make 'em pay! There are people within Microsoft who made the decisions that led to a corporate conviction of monopoly abuse: make 'em pay!
Corporations are not at fault. People are at fault. If a corporation does something that is wrong, it is because people within the corporation did something wrong. Make the people within the corporation pay.
The idea behind black box development is that you don't need to know what the rest of the system does...your component takes input and delivers output. That's a Good Thing (tm).
This is a Good Thing (tm) only when the black boxes are true black boxes. The problem with treating software as engineering problems with Black Boxes is that there is no such thing, in software. This is the reason object oriented programming has not been the panacea we were promised.
In construction engineering (architecture, for instance) the behavior of all the pieces are known beforehand. A steel I beam is a steel I beam (yeah, I know there are different strengths, but these are specified by the engineering firm). A steel I beam has only two APIs: welding, and riveting.
In programming, every black box has unique characteristics. Even if two ungif "black boxes" have the exact same API, the behavior of those routines are probably different. Even worse, in all non-trivial projects, connections among Black Boxes produce a complex system; the interrelations among those Black Boxes will change the behavior of the system, often in unexptected ways.
The case for understanding all your Black Boxes is represented in one of the most dramatic engineering failures ever: the Tacoma Narrows bridge disaster. The bridge was well-designed. However, strong winds blowing down the narrows set up harmonics in the swaying of the bridge. This was a case of an engineering firm who did not understand the whole system, with devastating results.
The problem with OO programming is it encourages the thinking that you only need to understand your component, and not the whole system. This is a Very Bad Thing (tm) in my book. There are too many Tacoma Narrows software projects out there already.
Competition hardly works. So far, Microsoft has been able to kill everything that would present true commercial competition. Linux had to completely re-write the rules (from Microsoft's perspective) by providing not only binaries, but source, for Free.
Linux is not "competing" with Microsoft. Most Linux folks I know hardly give a damn about Microsoft. In fact, the way this whole affair has gone with me (since 1993) is (from Microsoft's perspective):
First you [Microsoft] win Then they fight you Then they laugh at you Then they ignore you
I think we are in the "Then they laugh at you" phase, in which we realize the fight is over, and that really, there was no fight; it was just us, writing code and letting people know we have something worth looking into.
Archie Mcphee has some great stuff all geeks should love, from the original rubber chicken to Senior Mysterioso to test tubes and urine sample cups (great for jello shots!) to just the plain strange and weird.
It's geeky in a non-technical way, in a social-engineering sort of way. But, unless everyone at your wedding abhors pop culture entirely, it is certainly a lot of fun. My wife and I (I am a geek, she is a non-geek) had pink flamingos (her idea) and 2' penguins (guess who's idea?). For party favors, we had all kinds of bendies, nuns, and other fabulous things.
The apparent bias of an author changes neither the seriousness nor the importance of an article. Often, the most telling evidence is reported in the most biased journals.
This is the face of new journalism: everyone is a journalist. The most important effect of the internet is also one of the most subtle. You and I are communicating, in a rather disjointed way; moreover, we are communicating in public. This elevates our words beyond mere conversation.
Since 99% of everything is crap (used to be 90% before the internet), most of our public conversation will amount to nothing but an archive on/. . However, some of this conversation will impact someone, somewhere, probably without either of us ever knowing.
So, this "report" is still important (in a minor sort of way), even without the sterling stamp of unbiased reporting. Hell, it's nothing more than a blog entry. It serves at least on major purpose: it helps us realize we are not alone, that there are others who feel and think some of the things we feel and think. This alone is worth the time cost of reading it. The fact it is entertaining helps.
Anyway, I'd rather see blatant bias than the subtle bias most respected news sources employ -- the small censorships, the subjective language disguised as objective, the stern seriousness with which they present the most trivial garbage, the dumbing-down of gut-shot-serious current events.
Just my $.02, sure, and biased to boot. But intelligent bias is a hell of a lot better than idiotic objectivity.
Windows revolutionized the Desktop for the masses..
This is a common misconception. MS-Windows revolutionized the desktop in the same way that Budweiser revolutionized beer: cheap and easily-accessible, but not necessarily good or original.
So much came before MS-Windows that was better-executed (unlike MS-Windows, which is better off executed), such as Altos, AmigaOS, MacOS, Lisa, etc. Since then, Microsoft has not improved much on the interface, concentrating instead on making it prettier. Their few attempts at innovation (such as MS Bob) failed dramatically, and usually quite publicly.
The desktop revolution occurred in spite of MS-Windows, not because of it. The revolution was going to happen, with or without MS-Windows; Microsoft just happened to be in the right place at the right time to force the industry to move their way.
As interfaces such as NextSTEP have shown, the desktop should be a lot better than it is currently. But, Microsoft cannot afford to do anything radical with their desktop; they must move slowly and incrementally, or chance losing their customer base. That is why, though XP was touted as being a "revolutionary" interface, it is really hardly different from MS-Windows 2000.
Clever hackers would take advantage of this interface inertia. Instead of duplicating MS-Windows, we should spend a good part of our effort changing the way people think about information. I don't have all the answers, but I can say that the stupid MS-Windows interface should not be a design template for our own desktops. If we do, we are merely consigning ourselves to a life of constant catch-up to an inferior operating system and an inferior desktop.
NEBS certification (to which your favorite quote refers) is a hardware standard pretty much required for most telecom installations. I have no clue why a Linux distribution representative is talking about hardware, unless they plan on selling compact-PCI or VME-bus hardware with UnitedLinux pre-installed.
Anyway, the NEBS certification requires testing for the amount of time the hardware smokes after being set on fire, how well it withstands water damage, and such. This is the kind of hardware you buy when five nines just aren't enough.
Tivo charges for their guide because they are providing a service. They sell their PVR for almost no profit whatsoever; unlike RCA, they have no other source of income to keep their PVR afloat until the PVR market takes off.
I don't mind supporting Tivo with a monthly charge, as long as I get service for my money. The program guide itself is worth the cost, and the convenience of Tivo is well worth the initial $200 outlay.
All-in-all, I figure if I can spend $12/month to support my Earth And Beyond habit, I can shell out $10/month for Tivo.
Just my $.02. Different people place different values on different things, so YMMV (your money may vary).
Y'know, I appreciate all the innocent and simple definitions of success, but many of them gloss over a financial fly in the ointment: it's horribly difficult to have fun when you are flat broke, or (more commonly) completely in debt with no way to pay it off.
Some of us are lucky: we have jobs about which we are passionate, spouses we love unconditionally, houses tucked in at the base of mountains in locations where the quality of life is excellent (hunting, fishing, camping, in a city of 8500 people). But the truth is, my life would suck if I had to perform actual physical labor.
Yes, I could make more money working somewhere else, as a DBA or a programmer or a systems engineer or a middle manager of other geeks. I am not underpaid, though I haven't purchased a new motherboard in 3 years. But if geekdom didn't pay so well, I would not be nearly as happy as I am now.
So it isn't the money, entirely, and it isn't that I love my work, entirely. It's that I receive a decent paycheck for something I enjoy, and I've found the people I want to live among, and work with.
But if it weren't for the pay, I'd probably be doing something that paid more but I still love, like finish carpentry.
I think that's the key: a person can be "successful" at whatever they decide to pursue, as long as their goals are modest, their abilities competent, and their capacity for happiness unbounded.
But it's hard to be happy when you get payed $6/hr to peddle inferior products to disrespectful customers for a boss who sees you as a replacable commodity.
The issue isn't that the manuals cost money; hell, that was the method used to support both Pegasus Mail and the xv graphics program.
That isn't the issue. The issue is that you must enter into a non-disclosure agreement to get the privilege of paying for support. This is in complete opposition to the values that started Free software in the first place: the radical idea that we should be able to freely exchange information and ideas, and that any laws that interfere with that free exchange are not only artificial, but immoral as well.
Many companies are using Open Source the same way they used Java a few years ago: it's a method of using the most recent popular buzzword. Even Microsoft has used "open source" in reference to their own products, as in "We are opening up some of our source to specific entities using a non-disclosure agreement."
Also for this to be a truly Orwellian and "Big Brother" type system, we won't even know we're being watched.
Too true. Which is why I suspect we've not had any privacy for about 20 years, at least. The only difference is, now they have computers that sift through information to figure out with whom you sleep, what you read, how often you pick your nose (and with which digit), and whether you might post incitefully to forums such as Slashdot.
With new laws that allow the government to arrest and indefinitely detain people without formally charging them with anything more serious than "possible terrorism" (no evidence needed, thank you very much), the final tumbler is in place: profiling.
As far as the "if you've got nothing to hide..." remark: I disagree with my government's policies. Under the new regime, I might just have something to hide.
You misunderstand. Once Linux has "won" by becoming a truly viable option, one seriously considered when installing new systems, the other systems will also win. The idea of mainstream alternative operating systems will allow interest in other operating systems to push further development. Please note I did not call call them "viable;" I merely called them alternatives. But, should Linux prove successful, other operating systems will also prove successful. Chances are, Linux will have to share world domination with other libre operating systems.
As far as MS goes, its actions demonstrate that MS considers winning to be an all-or-nothing proposition. MS is not willing to share the pie. MS is NOT satisfied with mere profit; its actions have shown time and again that their goal is to control the entire computing environment. And as my father always told me, "You know a man by his actions, not by his words."
As far as the hardware goes: the only hardware Microsoft produces is the XBox, which is nothing more than a general-purpose PC. The only reason the XBox can compete with the PS2 is because it is sold below cost. Their other devices (mice, keyboards, etc) are generally designed and manufactured by other companies.
As far as MS software goes, it too is of questionable quality. But, even if MS made the best products on earth (which they do not), they have not indicated the desire to produce anything that does not push their monopolistic ideals.
MS has two profitable items: MS-Windows, and MS-Office. Their other products are not profitable at all, and some (such as MSN and the XBox) are loss-leaders of an unprecedented scale, and are designed to maintain or extend a monopoly. There is no other interpretation possible: Microsoft is not just interested in profit, but in absolute control.
In any case, Microsoft is as dead as the IBM of the '70s. Sure, IBM is still around and is still influential, but it no longer has an iron grip on the industry. In the days to come, we will be privileged to witness the death of the giant Microsoft we all know, and love to hate.
The definition of "winning" is different for both MS-Windows and Linux. Microsoft indicates (through actions) it will win only when there are no competitors. Linux will win when it is accepted as a viable alternative.
There are third alternatives: Mac OS X, AmigaOS, BSD, Hurd, Menuet, Plan 9, Inferno, etc. There are hundreds of operating systems out there, many of which are very good for general-purpose computing.
By Microsoft's definition (world domination), Linux will most likely never win. But, neither will MS-Windows. The djinn is free, Pandora's box has been cracked.
And everyone but Microsoft will win, because Microsoft has made it a "Microsoft versus everyone else" fight.
Slashdot Mirror
America, on its own, rid the world of these pirates.
Piracy died when faster ships came of age at the beginning of the industrial revolution. The coal-powered steamship could move against the wind, and was more efficient that the wind-powered ships the pirates used.
The pirates could have used coal-powered vessels themselves, but that takes a social infrastructure to mine and distribute the coal. Basically, it was the lack of self-sufficiency of the emerging industrial world that caused piracy to collapse.
The pirates, out of work and on the dole, soon found lucrative employment as CEOs of major corporations.
The RIAA is going crazy over MP3 sharers instead of understanding that digital encoding and mp3s are the wave of the future, not to mention the internet is a highly more effective distribution center than anything else out there.
.
Why do you suppose they are fighting the internet as a distribution method? Because it is more efficient than current methods. They don't want better efficiency, because profit is made in the friction of distribution.
Think about the areas of greatest profitability in the market today, and tell me where they are made. Meanwhile, let me say where I think it lies: with distribution. The Wal*Marts, the Amazons, the Sam Goodies of the world make a lot of money through distribution.
Microsoft still refuses to believe in any uses towards Open-source programming . .
The problem with Free/Open Source software is that it removes the friction of distribution. Microsoft has dominated the market by controlling the distribution chain from day one. At every point where another competitor has threatened to enter the distribution chain (say, DR-DOS), they have choked the distribution points (in the case of DR-DOS, by making per-processor licensing deals with each distributor).
The more friction you can create and maintain, the more money you can make. The advantage of a monopoly is that you are the only controller of the distribution chain.
For all information, the internet approaches frictionless distribution. This is what scares the MPAA, and Microsoft, and the broadcast television companies: in the future, they will be unable to extract Ceasar's share from the distribution chain. That is why they are fighting so hard to introduce friction in the form of legislation.
This is also why capitalism is butt-useless for information, as artificial friction must be introduced into the system (in the form of copyright and patent law). These laws worked when capitalism was based more on physical objects (books, records, films), but now that the information has become more important than the distribution method, capitalism in its current form fails miserably.
The technological push you mention as necessary for the American economy is much deeper than simply increasing innovation or R&D. We must embrace the social aspects of this technology as well, and not introduce unnecessary friction into the system resisting the technology.
I don't mean we must accept all new technology as good. But "Hurts Profits" != "Bad."
For an interesting take (and a surprising relevence) check out "The Third Wave," by Alvin Toffler. It's an older book, but his predictions have been frustratingly accurate.
School Shootings are hardly a new phenomena. The oddity was the spat of shootings we had in just a few years in rural or suburban middle-class schools. Most shootings before happened in urban schools.
Difference is, we never reported schools shootings over and over.
Could be we're finally seeing the pressures that drive kids to kill; but chances are, we report it so boldly and incessantly on TV that it gives other kids ideas.
But then again, I always look for the simple explainations.
All your bases are belong to us.
Forgive me for suggesting this, but... users shouldn't have to pay for bug fixes. And producers of software shouldn't question whether or not they should fix bugs.
If I buy a car, and it has a bad fuel injection system which causes it to stall at high speeds, would (*ahem*) Ford require I pay to fix their problem? Hell, no! That's what recalls are all about, the manufacturer paying to fix their fuckups.
Microsoft does occassionally provide service packs, granted. But often these service packs are designed to push an agenda, be it DRM, or the breaking of compatiblity in competing products, or similar. They are rarely simply bug fixes.
User's should have to pay. The consumers should be in the driver's seat, not the corporation. That's what's fucked up about our current computer market: Microsoft is the one calling the shots, not the consumers.
Y'know, the funny thing about stereotypes is, sometimes they are essentially true.
I see a lot of posts here about, "Oh, this article is rubbish because I was a nerd *and* a jock, and popular, too." Also: "You nerds were picked on because you were antisocial goobers."
And to you I humbly suggest, "Bite me."
The central tenet of the article is simple. A lot of people are nerds not because they are smart, but because they do not want to play the popularity game. A lot of smart people (and I arrogantly claim I was one) believe they had better things to do than try to get people to like them. Not all nerds are smart, and not all smart people are nerds; but a lot of smart, nerdy people were picked on because they *gasp!* refused to play stupid popularity games.
I was fortunate: I grew up in a very small town. I graduated with 3 other people. Although I was not popular, it didn't matter.
However, I did spend a year in a school that had thirty people in my eighth-grade class. My God! That was hell. Sure, there were some smart, popular people; but they were more derisive than the stupid popular people. Later in life, while visiting that town, I ran into one of those smart, popular ones. She apologized to me for being a bitch, and told me it was the pressure of being popular that made her do it. (My summary, but very close to her exact words.)
There is more than just a kernel of reality in the article. There is enough evidence to support his core thesis, that our school system is a holding pen for kids, and that something should be done before it is too late.
Like the author, I'm not sure *what* needs done, except that it must involve engaging the kids in activities that matter. I predict eventually a specialisation in schools, like the "IBM Technology Secondary School," or the "Houghton/Miller School of English Arts," and the "Martha Stewart School of Home Slavery."
But then again, I have been wrong before.
The appropriate antecedent for this seminal work is not "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas," but "Naked Lunch." The entire plotline you have outlined is stolen almost verbatim from the classic William S. Burroughs (grandson of the founder of Burroughs computers) novel.
Office Space was perfect in its portrayal of the Geek. The disaffection with office politics, the desire to create something better, the general dislike of the current state of their industry.
Office Space was perfect, though I doubt its ever going to attract anyone into the field. Face it, we have a boring job, that is only exciting if you love logic and puzzles.
Like *that* is ever going to be and exciting box office smash.
...is a dead Windows.
Windows software and with 90%+ of market penetration, I'd say that Windows is excellent (there's not many products and industries with marketshare like that).
So you are saying that Budweiser is an excellent beer? That Kangaroo Jack is an excellent movie? That Arnold Schwartzenager is an excellent actor? That the Ford Escort is an excellent Car?
Compared to what?
Market share has little to do with the quality of a product; it has more to do with marketting, and with distribution channel control. MS-Windows is no more a good product than Budwieser is a good beer. Both are watered-down, tasteless versions of something that should be robust and rewarding.
I liken the current state of the software market to the beer market of the early '80s. At the time, you could get several diffent versions of the same tasteless beer, with one beer leading the way, and innovating tasteless, watery brew.
Today, *BSD, Linux, and a few dozen other operating systems are like the microbrews of the early '80s: a small group of discerning people knew and loved them, but the masses still drank pisswater. However, it was difficult to find good beer at any but the most exclusive of pubs. Today, the masses still drink bad beer, but at least it isn't impossible to get good beer at your local package store.
Some AOS (alternate OS) users hope for world domination. I just hope for the day I can get a fucking laptop without paying Microsoft to build more shitty software.
Symantec does not have the moral obligation; the people within Symantec have the moral obligation.
Corporations are designed to be soulless money-making machines. The people within corporations (who fucking are the corporation) are under the same moral obligations as the rest of us: to behave as if we are in this life together.
Too many people (like you) are willing to allow corporations to do whatever the hell they want in the pursuit of making money. Fine. Let corporations do whatever they want. But hold the people within the corporation responsible. There are people within Enron who broke the law in pursuit of profit and control; make 'em pay! There are people within Microsoft who made the decisions that led to a corporate conviction of monopoly abuse: make 'em pay!
Corporations are not at fault. People are at fault. If a corporation does something that is wrong, it is because people within the corporation did something wrong. Make the people within the corporation pay.
The idea behind black box development is that you don't need to know what the rest of the system does...your component takes input and delivers output. That's a Good Thing (tm).
This is a Good Thing (tm) only when the black boxes are true black boxes. The problem with treating software as engineering problems with Black Boxes is that there is no such thing, in software. This is the reason object oriented programming has not been the panacea we were promised.
In construction engineering (architecture, for instance) the behavior of all the pieces are known beforehand. A steel I beam is a steel I beam (yeah, I know there are different strengths, but these are specified by the engineering firm). A steel I beam has only two APIs: welding, and riveting.
In programming, every black box has unique characteristics. Even if two ungif "black boxes" have the exact same API, the behavior of those routines are probably different. Even worse, in all non-trivial projects, connections among Black Boxes produce a complex system; the interrelations among those Black Boxes will change the behavior of the system, often in unexptected ways.
The case for understanding all your Black Boxes is represented in one of the most dramatic engineering failures ever: the Tacoma Narrows bridge disaster. The bridge was well-designed. However, strong winds blowing down the narrows set up harmonics in the swaying of the bridge. This was a case of an engineering firm who did not understand the whole system, with devastating results.
The problem with OO programming is it encourages the thinking that you only need to understand your component, and not the whole system. This is a Very Bad Thing (tm) in my book. There are too many Tacoma Narrows software projects out there already.
Anyway, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
...what do you know -- competition works!
Uhm....
Competition hardly works. So far, Microsoft has been able to kill everything that would present true commercial competition. Linux had to completely re-write the rules (from Microsoft's perspective) by providing not only binaries, but source, for Free.
Linux is not "competing" with Microsoft. Most Linux folks I know hardly give a damn about Microsoft. In fact, the way this whole affair has gone with me (since 1993) is (from Microsoft's perspective):
First you [Microsoft] win
Then they fight you
Then they laugh at you
Then they ignore you
I think we are in the "Then they laugh at you" phase, in which we realize the fight is over, and that really, there was no fight; it was just us, writing code and letting people know we have something worth looking into.
Archie Mcphee has some great stuff all geeks should love, from the original rubber chicken to Senior Mysterioso to test tubes and urine sample cups (great for jello shots!) to just the plain strange and weird.
It's geeky in a non-technical way, in a social-engineering sort of way. But, unless everyone at your wedding abhors pop culture entirely, it is certainly a lot of fun. My wife and I (I am a geek, she is a non-geek) had pink flamingos (her idea) and 2' penguins (guess who's idea?). For party favors, we had all kinds of bendies, nuns, and other fabulous things.
Anyway, it was a lot of fun.
The apparent bias of an author changes neither the seriousness nor the importance of an article. Often, the most telling evidence is reported in the most biased journals.
/. . However, some of this conversation will impact someone, somewhere, probably without either of us ever knowing.
This is the face of new journalism: everyone is a journalist. The most important effect of the internet is also one of the most subtle. You and I are communicating, in a rather disjointed way; moreover, we are communicating in public. This elevates our words beyond mere conversation.
Since 99% of everything is crap (used to be 90% before the internet), most of our public conversation will amount to nothing but an archive on
So, this "report" is still important (in a minor sort of way), even without the sterling stamp of unbiased reporting. Hell, it's nothing more than a blog entry. It serves at least on major purpose: it helps us realize we are not alone, that there are others who feel and think some of the things we feel and think. This alone is worth the time cost of reading it. The fact it is entertaining helps.
Anyway, I'd rather see blatant bias than the subtle bias most respected news sources employ -- the small censorships, the subjective language disguised as objective, the stern seriousness with which they present the most trivial garbage, the dumbing-down of gut-shot-serious current events.
Just my $.02, sure, and biased to boot. But intelligent bias is a hell of a lot better than idiotic objectivity.
Windows revolutionized the Desktop for the masses..
This is a common misconception. MS-Windows revolutionized the desktop in the same way that Budweiser revolutionized beer: cheap and easily-accessible, but not necessarily good or original.
So much came before MS-Windows that was better-executed (unlike MS-Windows, which is better off executed), such as Altos, AmigaOS, MacOS, Lisa, etc. Since then, Microsoft has not improved much on the interface, concentrating instead on making it prettier. Their few attempts at innovation (such as MS Bob) failed dramatically, and usually quite publicly.
The desktop revolution occurred in spite of MS-Windows, not because of it. The revolution was going to happen, with or without MS-Windows; Microsoft just happened to be in the right place at the right time to force the industry to move their way.
As interfaces such as NextSTEP have shown, the desktop should be a lot better than it is currently. But, Microsoft cannot afford to do anything radical with their desktop; they must move slowly and incrementally, or chance losing their customer base. That is why, though XP was touted as being a "revolutionary" interface, it is really hardly different from MS-Windows 2000.
Clever hackers would take advantage of this interface inertia. Instead of duplicating MS-Windows, we should spend a good part of our effort changing the way people think about information. I don't have all the answers, but I can say that the stupid MS-Windows interface should not be a design template for our own desktops. If we do, we are merely consigning ourselves to a life of constant catch-up to an inferior operating system and an inferior desktop.
At least, that's my opinion. I could be wrong.
I've always wondered which unscrupulous activity would win in a death-match. I guess this proves it.
Nepotism kicks monopolyism's monkey-ass every time.
NEBS certification (to which your favorite quote refers) is a hardware standard pretty much required for most telecom installations. I have no clue why a Linux distribution representative is talking about hardware, unless they plan on selling compact-PCI or VME-bus hardware with UnitedLinux pre-installed.
Anyway, the NEBS certification requires testing for the amount of time the hardware smokes after being set on fire, how well it withstands water damage, and such. This is the kind of hardware you buy when five nines just aren't enough.
Tivo charges for their guide because they are providing a service. They sell their PVR for almost no profit whatsoever; unlike RCA, they have no other source of income to keep their PVR afloat until the PVR market takes off.
I don't mind supporting Tivo with a monthly charge, as long as I get service for my money. The program guide itself is worth the cost, and the convenience of Tivo is well worth the initial $200 outlay.
All-in-all, I figure if I can spend $12/month to support my Earth And Beyond habit, I can shell out $10/month for Tivo.
Just my $.02. Different people place different values on different things, so YMMV (your money may vary).
Y'know, I appreciate all the innocent and simple definitions of success, but many of them gloss over a financial fly in the ointment: it's horribly difficult to have fun when you are flat broke, or (more commonly) completely in debt with no way to pay it off.
Some of us are lucky: we have jobs about which we are passionate, spouses we love unconditionally, houses tucked in at the base of mountains in locations where the quality of life is excellent (hunting, fishing, camping, in a city of 8500 people). But the truth is, my life would suck if I had to perform actual physical labor.
Yes, I could make more money working somewhere else, as a DBA or a programmer or a systems engineer or a middle manager of other geeks. I am not underpaid, though I haven't purchased a new motherboard in 3 years. But if geekdom didn't pay so well, I would not be nearly as happy as I am now.
So it isn't the money, entirely, and it isn't that I love my work, entirely. It's that I receive a decent paycheck for something I enjoy, and I've found the people I want to live among, and work with.
But if it weren't for the pay, I'd probably be doing something that paid more but I still love, like finish carpentry.
I think that's the key: a person can be "successful" at whatever they decide to pursue, as long as their goals are modest, their abilities competent, and their capacity for happiness unbounded.
But it's hard to be happy when you get payed $6/hr to peddle inferior products to disrespectful customers for a boss who sees you as a replacable commodity.
Those who do not understand EMACS are doomed to re-invent it, poorly.
The issue isn't that the manuals cost money; hell, that was the method used to support both Pegasus Mail and the xv graphics program.
That isn't the issue. The issue is that you must enter into a non-disclosure agreement to get the privilege of paying for support. This is in complete opposition to the values that started Free software in the first place: the radical idea that we should be able to freely exchange information and ideas, and that any laws that interfere with that free exchange are not only artificial, but immoral as well.
Many companies are using Open Source the same way they used Java a few years ago: it's a method of using the most recent popular buzzword. Even Microsoft has used "open source" in reference to their own products, as in "We are opening up some of our source to specific entities using a non-disclosure agreement."
Also for this to be a truly Orwellian and "Big Brother" type system, we won't even know we're being watched.
Too true. Which is why I suspect we've not had any privacy for about 20 years, at least. The only difference is, now they have computers that sift through information to figure out with whom you sleep, what you read, how often you pick your nose (and with which digit), and whether you might post incitefully to forums such as Slashdot.
With new laws that allow the government to arrest and indefinitely detain people without formally charging them with anything more serious than "possible terrorism" (no evidence needed, thank you very much), the final tumbler is in place: profiling.
As far as the "if you've got nothing to hide..." remark: I disagree with my government's policies. Under the new regime, I might just have something to hide.
This particular shower comes to us all the way from Uranus, travelling across almost the entire galaxy just to reach earth.
Dude, as an astronomer, you should know that Uranus is only almost across the entire solar system. The galaxy is a teensy bit bigger.
You misunderstand. Once Linux has "won" by becoming a truly viable option, one seriously considered when installing new systems, the other systems will also win. The idea of mainstream alternative operating systems will allow interest in other operating systems to push further development. Please note I did not call call them "viable;" I merely called them alternatives. But, should Linux prove successful, other operating systems will also prove successful. Chances are, Linux will have to share world domination with other libre operating systems.
As far as MS goes, its actions demonstrate that MS considers winning to be an all-or-nothing proposition. MS is not willing to share the pie. MS is NOT satisfied with mere profit; its actions have shown time and again that their goal is to control the entire computing environment. And as my father always told me, "You know a man by his actions, not by his words."
As far as the hardware goes: the only hardware Microsoft produces is the XBox, which is nothing more than a general-purpose PC. The only reason the XBox can compete with the PS2 is because it is sold below cost. Their other devices (mice, keyboards, etc) are generally designed and manufactured by other companies.
As far as MS software goes, it too is of questionable quality. But, even if MS made the best products on earth (which they do not), they have not indicated the desire to produce anything that does not push their monopolistic ideals.
MS has two profitable items: MS-Windows, and MS-Office. Their other products are not profitable at all, and some (such as MSN and the XBox) are loss-leaders of an unprecedented scale, and are designed to maintain or extend a monopoly. There is no other interpretation possible: Microsoft is not just interested in profit, but in absolute control.
In any case, Microsoft is as dead as the IBM of the '70s. Sure, IBM is still around and is still influential, but it no longer has an iron grip on the industry. In the days to come, we will be privileged to witness the death of the giant Microsoft we all know, and love to hate.
The definition of "winning" is different for both MS-Windows and Linux. Microsoft indicates (through actions) it will win only when there are no competitors. Linux will win when it is accepted as a viable alternative.
There are third alternatives: Mac OS X, AmigaOS, BSD, Hurd, Menuet, Plan 9, Inferno, etc. There are hundreds of operating systems out there, many of which are very good for general-purpose computing.
By Microsoft's definition (world domination), Linux will most likely never win. But, neither will MS-Windows. The djinn is free, Pandora's box has been cracked.
And everyone but Microsoft will win, because Microsoft has made it a "Microsoft versus everyone else" fight.