I live and work in Omaha, within easy (3 hours) driving distance of Kansas City.
Several friends and I had discussed making the trip down to the show on Saturday (it did not appear to be worth the vacation used or money spent to go during the week), but by Thursday we were already seeing e-mailed reports about the vendor pull-outs and lack of attendance.
A lack of attendance at this convention (especially a mid-week convention) does not mean that there is no interest in Linux in the area; it means that the interested people have better ways to spend their time (work or school, perhaps) and money (the daily fee was excessive for a first-time event).
I hope that the organizers do try again next year, with better advertising, more nationally-known speakers (maybe not just from Linux, but from other Unix or Open Source camps), vendors who won't close up BEFORE the show begins, and a fee which resembles the value of the show to attendees.
I believe this story has been linked to by Slashdot before, but here is an alternate view of Microsoft's accounting practices. While we don't have all the information needed to be sure, I don't think we should ignore the possibility that this man (Bill Parish) is right:
Is their revenue stream so weak that they need to go to the annual-license model for Windows.
I have to hope that even the average first-time computer buyer will be able to compare a new Windows machine (which requires activation like a cellular phone) with a new Mac (or Linux, or BeOS) machine, which actually includes rights to use the Operating System and determine that it might be a good idea to lock down the right to the operating system at the time of purpose. -- I'm probably an optomist!
At the link below (which goes to TELECOM Digest V19 #457) is information which directly contradicts this newer (and apparently much smaller) study.
I believe that the tower-switching issue is genuine, but I find it hard to believe that personal electronics actually have an effect on jets (mainly because I've been on plenty of flights surrounded by people ignoring those rules -- and I've yet to be involved in a crash).
I agree that impartial justice is a modern phenomenon, but unfortunately, it is also an obsolete one. We have moved beyond that to ignorant justice. This decision is just like many here in the US, where a juror is removed just because of the possibility that they may have knowledge.
For those who support this decision: I would like to know at what point knowledge (about anything, not just the crime being tried) became a sign of bias.
In the end, this is not an issue of free software. People using napster are engaging (for the most part) in piracy. Most open source advocates recognize that not all software projects are really suitable for open source solutions; why do so many people believe that all music should be free (as in beer, not speech).
The argument that the people who download the music will then go out and buy the CD is specious. I remember college and I know that if I had music from 600 CDs already recorded somewhere, not only would I not feel any need to buy the music, I would not be able to afford it.
For those who can/do buy all the CDs they listen to, there is a solution. Take the CD off your CD rack, put it in your computer, rip it yourself.
All the posts I've seen on this topic (so far) seem to believe that the privacy threats only apply to the United States. While I realize it's fashionable to criticize our government (a fashion I indulge in), don't forget about the proposed French laws on anonymity, the wonderful RIP in Britain, the rules that apply to internet users in China and the crackdown on certain websites in Australia. The real reason that a decrease in freedom in the US matters is that, despite the efforts of certain chief executives, the US is still the most free country around.
This argument would also exempt Microsoft, IBM and any other company that refuses to acknowledge defects in their code. How can we complain about the MAX_INT nmber of errors in Win2K and not complain about this.
If this behavior meets the current definition of Open Source, it is time to change the definition again!
Slashdot Mirror
I live and work in Omaha, within easy (3 hours) driving distance of Kansas City.
Several friends and I had discussed making the trip down to the show on Saturday (it did not appear to be worth the vacation used or money spent to go during the week), but by Thursday we were already seeing e-mailed reports about the vendor pull-outs and lack of attendance.
A lack of attendance at this convention (especially a mid-week convention) does not mean that there is no interest in Linux in the area; it means that the interested people have better ways to spend their time (work or school, perhaps) and money (the daily fee was excessive for a first-time event).
I hope that the organizers do try again next year, with better advertising, more nationally-known speakers (maybe not just from Linux, but from other Unix or Open Source camps), vendors who won't close up BEFORE the show begins, and a fee which resembles the value of the show to attendees.
I believe this story has been linked to by Slashdot before, but here is an alternate view of Microsoft's accounting practices. While we don't have all the information needed to be sure, I don't think we should ignore the possibility that this man (Bill Parish) is right:
http://www.billparish.com/msftfraudfacts.html
Is their revenue stream so weak that they need to go to the annual-license model for Windows.
I have to hope that even the average first-time computer buyer will be able to compare a new Windows machine (which requires activation like a cellular phone) with a new Mac (or Linux, or BeOS) machine, which actually includes rights to use the Operating System and determine that it might be a good idea to lock down the right to the operating system at the time of purpose. -- I'm probably an optomist!
At the link below (which goes to TELECOM Digest V19 #457) is information which directly contradicts this newer (and apparently much smaller) study.
s /archives/back.issues/1999.volume.19/V19_% 23457
I believe that the tower-switching issue is genuine, but I find it hard to believe that personal electronics actually have an effect on jets (mainly because I've been on plenty of flights surrounded by people ignoring those rules -- and I've yet to be involved in a crash).
http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archive
I agree that impartial justice is a modern phenomenon, but unfortunately, it is also an obsolete one. We have moved beyond that to ignorant justice. This decision is just like many here in the US, where a juror is removed just because of the possibility that they may have knowledge.
For those who support this decision: I would like to know at what point knowledge (about anything, not just the crime being tried) became a sign of bias.
In the end, this is not an issue of free software. People using napster are engaging (for the most part) in piracy. Most open source advocates recognize that not all software projects are really suitable for open source solutions; why do so many people believe that all music should be free (as in beer, not speech).
The argument that the people who download the music will then go out and buy the CD is specious. I remember college and I know that if I had music from 600 CDs already recorded somewhere, not only would I not feel any need to buy the music, I would not be able to afford it.
For those who can/do buy all the CDs they listen to, there is a solution. Take the CD off your CD rack, put it in your computer, rip it yourself.
All the posts I've seen on this topic (so far) seem to believe that the privacy threats only apply to the United States. While I realize it's fashionable to criticize our government (a fashion I indulge in), don't forget about the proposed French laws on anonymity, the wonderful RIP in Britain, the rules that apply to internet users in China and the crackdown on certain websites in Australia. The real reason that a decrease in freedom in the US matters is that, despite the efforts of certain chief executives, the US is still the most free country around.
This argument would also exempt Microsoft, IBM and any other company that refuses to acknowledge defects in their code. How can we complain about the MAX_INT nmber of errors in Win2K and not complain about this.
If this behavior meets the current definition of Open Source, it is time to change the definition again!