Jim Getty sounds like a great guy and great designer. I know a few people really respect his work. However, I wonder how much attention he pays to usability. That is one of the key problems with Open Source in general. Designs look great but are not always functional, especially to novice users. Some day, usability will be seen as being more important than raw functionality, right?
By the way, you might be interested in this set of slides. They are from Linux Expo '99 where Jim is doing a demo of Itsy. (Was that an early version of the iPaq?)
Edward Shorter is the history of medicine chairman at the University of Toronto that is quoted in the article. Here is a page that seems like a review of his work on RSI. Mildly useful.
So, the point of these links is this: This dude's whole career is based on bashing illness. He seems to think that almost any illness or disease is in the mind.
The pain in your wrist, elbow, arm, and back is fake. Do you hear me? Fake! Just ask Edward...
Comment: Repetitive stress injuries are real. Even if they are a matter of "hysteria", the pain is real. If a person thinks they are in pain, then they are actually in pain. Pain is subjective. Perception is reality...
"The conclusion I arrive at is that big ads on online content and news sites will not be a big success. While the online news and content industries are headed down this new path of more intrusive online ads, it well may prove to be the wrong way. Just as television advertising will need to adapt to the realities of TiVo users like me skipping over commercials, Web publishers must deal with the same issue."
That's a good question. The purpose of the links is to make it easy for people to find information about the topic at hand. The general topic is TiVo. Believe it or not, some people here might not know much about TiVo and I am simply trying to help them understand more about it. If nothing else, the links will be useful as a reference for folks.
Note: I don't really care if my postings get moderated up or down. I get enough karma through other postings and activity. What do I care? If you don't like the links, pass over them. Avert thine eyes!
"Ninety percent of high school is realizing that catching up with the global cool is something you don't have the resources for, and instead finding a local cool that works for you. You heard it here first."
That makes no sense if you plan on working in the world economy. If you don't expose yourself to the wideest vision of the economy (i.e., new world economy), then you are putting yourself at a competitive disadvantage.
Following cool, like it or not, gives you perspective on the media, products, and services of the world. McWorld, to be sure, but that is what we are creating every time we by a processed burger. Same with software and music and any other thing in the world. Your dollars are votes.
If you do not have perspective, you will be a second class person, at least in the eyes of employers. Now, I am not saying that you need to follow the world cool, but you need to understand the world cool. Look beyond your peer group for ideas and inspiration.
(Damn, I hope there is something interesting in this post. I rambled and rambled.)
From the FAQ, Question 2: Great! Then I can just jump right in and use it, right?
"Um, no. Ganymede itself is an extensible and customizable system that can do a tremendous amount for you, but right now it is not an 'out-of-the-box' admin package. In order to make Ganymede useful, you need a schema kit, which consists of a database definition for the network information you want to manage, a set of custom Java plug-in classes that will make the Ganymede server smart about how your information is supposed to be connected together, and a set of classes and scripts that will take information from Ganymede and propagate it into your network."
Can other people set up OpenBSD as easily as you? Can other people support OpenBSD as good as you? Does OpenBSD support tools such as Lotus Notes and SAP? Do you really think that OpenBSD would be viable in a corporate environment?
Did you notice that I didn't even talk about costs for seats, or the marketing power of Microsoft? OpenBSD, or almost any other operating system, won't work in a corporate environment, at least not at the desktop level.
Microsoft doesn't scare customers. They market to them. They make tools that are stupid and easy to use. A monkey can maintain their software. Administrators have to maintain more shit but it is easy as pie. Point and click, baby. It is all about usability. and marketing. And capitalism.
Who gives a shit if it is the best product? That is not even relevant.
(p.s. To you you administrative "monkeys" out there, I mean no offense. However, I do think that maintaining Microsoft products, when the problems happen, is generally easier than maintaining *nix systems. And yes, I feel bad that you have more work than *nix administrators...!)
I've been thinking about how to talk about Linux and Open Source in reference to profits and Microsoft. I've made some of those thoughts available here, but I'm not satisfied with the outcome. I'm going to try again. Join the conversation, flame me, or back me up. I don't care. I just want to try to parse things up appropriately.
First, I keep forgetting that Linux is only one slice of Open Source. Indeed, in many ways it is a small slice. Similarly, Linux isn't necessarily competing against Windows. Linux is an operating system and that is the way it should be treated. Linux isn't going against Microsoft.
Second, Open Source is not a business philosophy. Therefore, it also does not compete against Microsoft. I thought it did, but it can't. Open Source is a philosophy with business implications, but it is not strictly a business model. Therefore, if you hear that Open Source is fighting Microsoft, you are hearing lies.
Third, companies such as Red Hat are competing against Microsoft, at least in terms of operating systems. Note that Microsoft has not really attacked folks like Red Hat. They are considered insignificant competitors. Instead, Microsoft attacks the Open Source philosophy because that deflects attention on their attempts to dominate software and the internet.
Fourth, if you attack Microsoft, you are attacking capitalism. Not the roots, but some of the side effects; the leaves, if you will. The injustices of Microsoft can be handled in the marketplace (e.g., IBM versus Microsoft) via products, sales and services. Or, it can be fought in court. Open Source cannot fight Microsoft because it isn't about money. The Open Source philosophy can't win because the philosophy can't beat capitalism. Recognize this important idea: capitalism is both a philosophy and an economic description of reality. Capitalism is business.
Fifth, even if Open Source was a business philosophy, it does not have the resources to fight against Microsoft or other major corporations. If it truly a war, an economic war, and I think it is, then Open Source is feeble. You have people waving the banner of the Open Source philosophy -- "share, share, share" -- but that does nothing in terms of marshaling resources.
Sixth, in light of the pervious point, there is no centralized leadership. The fact that a whole community needed to respond to Mundie exactly fits my point. The fact is, even when people replied to Mundie's comments about Open Source, it made no difference. Since the Open Source community has little in the way of economic resources, it cannot effective battle against Microsoft. Remember, a philosophy cannot fight against a business. Even large groups of people (with limited economic power) cannot fight against Microsoft. Without centralized power, and centralized resource, and focused plans of attack and defense, Microsoft will continue to dominate. Simply put, perhaps there are some leaders, but there are no generals. Remember, at least for Microsoft, this is war.
Seventh, Microsoft is defending its pocketbook. It is fighting for itself and it is fighting for its stockholders. There are thousands of people, outside of Microsoft, that want Microsoft to do well. How many Open Source folks own Microsoft stock? Some percentage of people do, either directly or via mutual funds. You cast stones, but are you hoping they miss?
Finally, while I say "Microsoft" again and again, the fight, if there is one, is with all corporations and all monopolies. Microsoft just rubs us the wrong way. There are many reasons for that. But the point remains. Open Source, being a philosophy, cannot effectively compete against corporations. It doesn't stand a change.
You might shrug this all off. You ignore this posting. But I warn you that Open Source might not be what you think it is.
"Here's something else to consider: Microsoft has so rarely had worthy competition from other Big Boys that the total rounds down to zero. They had it from Novell when Craig was running strategy there (one Microsoft guy told me "he kicked our ass"), but that was back in the 80's. They had it for a few minutes from Netscape when that company creatively ubiquitized LDAP. But they never had it from Apple (which for the Jobs interregnum was more of a bad partner than a good competitor). For brief and shining quarters they had it from Borland, Lotus and WordPerfect; but all of those companies lacked the endless supply of adrenalin a company needs to stay in the game. I'm not saying those weren't valuable companies (some still are); just that they were never in the same league. Frankly, nobody is. And that isn't Microsoft's fault, any more than it was Michael Jordan's fault that nobody could take him one-on-one or Mozart's fault that he was surrounded by Salieris. As competitive companies, Microsoft is in a league of its own. If you're like the other 99% of PC users out there, the proof is right there in your pixels."
Why do people feel that they have lost their privacy? It has been gone for a long time. And, don't forget, giving up privacy can be (gasp!) a good thing.
Scenario: You are in an accident. Medic checks your medical history. Finds out that you will die if given some injection of some chemical. Medic gives you another injection instead. You give up your privacy. You live.
The idea is that we need to be willing to give up our privacy to right people at the right time. The government knows a ton about you. The government is run by people. Therefore, other people still know a lot about you, even if you hide shit from companies.
I have an interesting aside. I have a friend who talks openly about all the porn he views each day. He is married and has kids. This shocks me. However, he is now home free. No person can ever really blackmail him about the pornography his views every day. He tells the world what he does and the world can't kick his ass. He has not a drip of fear... This is an interesting philosophy. It is a kick ass pre-emptive strike. I think it sort of relates here.
What are we all hiding? Who gives a shit? Oh right, if people know you have a medical condition or that you are gay or that you have used drugs, then they can discriminate against you. What a tangled web we weave.
I like your 6-month comparison. I think it is fair and I think we agree on some of the basic points of the thread.
You say that business is business. I agree with that simple statement. It is powerful. But, as always, I have questions.
Is OSS in the business of business? Is it really a concern? I think it is, but I'm not entirely sure how. Perhaps that gets to the heart of several of my earlier postings. What is the connection of OSS to business? How are they connected exactly? Will solving that puzzle make you rich? Is that the wrong question; is it the question of a Capitalistic Pig?
"Indeed, look at the stock price. If you had been followign it for the past few weeks/months/whatever, you'd know that it hasn't been a dying stock."
That is misleading. I deliberately pointed to the one year picture of the stock in my original posting, whereas you point to a 3-month view. Perhaps I was too kind? If you take an even longer view of VA Linux, let's say the 2 year view, you will see that the trend is down and to the right. That's bad. The longer the view we take, the worse it gets for VA Linux.
Maybe they have stabilized, maybe not. Maybe OSS can't fight the fire. Maybe it is like oil and water? Maybe SourceForge will have to run like little child? Just kidding. Perhaps VA is in the clear and your 3-month view tells a story of stabilization and hope for the long term. However, in terms of investments and long term prospects, I wonder if there are (substantially) better deals. That's yet another economic question to answer regarding OSS and the Capitalistic Pigs.
I remember reading your article. You mainly talk about dual licences, and that sort of thing. That's not quite the same. I'd need to see more details. However, I think you are on the right track. I wonder how it would really play out. Does anyone have any reasonable examples of this?
I'll shut the fuck up when I am firmly convinced that Open Source is a viable business model. While it has been around forever (30+ years), it doesn't impress a lot of people. I like the idea of Open Source and Free Software, but damn, where is the money?
I'm not purely a capitalistic pig, nor am I the only person with these questions. But, even if I was, I hope my questions make sense. Why are you pissed off? I'm trying to be logical and rational. I'm trying not to fight.
If I am supposed to just "understand" the Open Source movement, then you have lost me. And, you have lost the people I can influence and pursuade. You'd be surprised what that means. Negative comments are like roaches; for every one you read, there are hundreds more hiding.
Don't tell me to shut the fuck up unless you want to lose thousands of people reading my postings. We want answers. We want the truth. What is the truth here? That is what I want to know. What does Open Source offer the Capitalistic Pigs of the world? If you hate this idea, then it is at your peril. If that is against your philosphy, then companies such as AOL, McDonalds and Microsoft will dominate your life. You turn control over to them.
Is this FUD? Anti-Open Source, Pro-Microsoft? Damn! Not all all. Convince me to shut the fuck up, and I will. That's fair.
Two meta comments about my comment. First, have you ever noticed that long postings tend to get moderated up? Generally, the longer the better? Sometimes, really long postings suck, but generally it seems to me that they really are better. What do you think? Second, I'm kind of pissed at myself about my posting. I'm basically talking about two topics: Losing SourceForge because of problems that VA Linux faces and problems I have with the openSource Movement. That makes things harder to understand. I should be more careful.
What Would We Do Without SourceForge? We should really talk about this. It is no joke. If SourceForge took a dive, many folks would be screwed in a major way. What are your backup plans? I'm not joking here. Take a look at VA Linux's stock price. It doesn't look good. Sourceforge is a cost for VA Linux, no matter what they say. While it does promote Linux in general, which is good for them, it eats cash.
Oh, still don't beleive me? VA Linux posts Q3 loss, revenues down 41%. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. What happens if VA Linux takes a dive? SourceForge dies. However, beforeVA dies, it will kill SourceForge to save money. That's no FUD, child.
Money makes the software world go around and around. Microsoft continues to dominate. Bill Gates and Microsoft have had an amazing decade and plenty of good fortune, and there is no sign their joy ride will stop. A viable financial model for Open Source must rise. Someone needs to figure out how OpenSource and capitalism can catalyze each other.
Forget about Micro$oft in all of this. What is the business model for the entire movement? Forget about Linux or BSD or Apache. What can the OpenSource movement do that will generate gobs and gobs of cash?
I keep bringing this topic up, and I still am left wanting more. No good answers come from my questions. OpenSource just feels too much like socialism and brotherly love and sharing. Forget about the group hug, people! Where is the cash? Where are the OpenSource Capitalist Pigs?
If you don't get this, don't worry. Here's the scoop. When I see "RMS" I think of root mean squared first, and Richard M. Stallman second. Naturally, I had to make a (very lame) attempt at humor. Mea culpa, mea culpa.
Oh please, of course Root Mean Squared thinks that free software is good. Without free software, we wouldn't be able to easily do our statistics! Imagine doing our statistics with Excel, or some other M$ product. Gasp!
Slashdot Mirror
Well spank me and call me Susan. I thought I was being funny. Instead, I was being a moron. Thanks for setting me straight.
Jim Getty sounds like a great guy and great designer. I know a few people really respect his work. However, I wonder how much attention he pays to usability. That is one of the key problems with Open Source in general. Designs look great but are not always functional, especially to novice users. Some day, usability will be seen as being more important than raw functionality, right?
By the way, you might be interested in this set of slides. They are from Linux Expo '99 where Jim is doing a demo of Itsy. (Was that an early version of the iPaq?)
Edward Shorter is the history of medicine chairman at the University of Toronto that is quoted in the article. Here is a page that seems like a review of his work on RSI. Mildly useful.
From Paralysis to Fatigue: A History of Psychosomatic Illness in the Modern Era
The Kennedy Family and the Story of Mental Retardation
Bedside Manners
So, the point of these links is this: This dude's whole career is based on bashing illness. He seems to think that almost any illness or disease is in the mind.
The pain in your wrist, elbow, arm, and back is fake. Do you hear me? Fake! Just ask Edward...
Comment: Repetitive stress injuries are real. Even if they are a matter of "hysteria", the pain is real. If a person thinks they are in pain, then they are actually in pain. Pain is subjective. Perception is reality...
Resource: The Facts About Repetitive Strain Injuries
From Steve Outing:
What TiVo Teaches Us About the Internet
"The conclusion I arrive at is that big ads on online content and news sites will not be a big success. While the online news and content industries are headed down this new path of more intrusive online ads, it well may prove to be the wrong way. Just as television advertising will need to adapt to the realities of TiVo users like me skipping over commercials, Web publishers must deal with the same issue."
You are right. Usually I include that link as well. I appreciate your effort.
That's a good question. The purpose of the links is to make it easy for people to find information about the topic at hand. The general topic is TiVo. Believe it or not, some people here might not know much about TiVo and I am simply trying to help them understand more about it. If nothing else, the links will be useful as a reference for folks.
Note: I don't really care if my postings get moderated up or down. I get enough karma through other postings and activity. What do I care? If you don't like the links, pass over them. Avert thine eyes!
"Ninety percent of high school is realizing that catching up with the global cool is something you don't have the resources for, and instead finding a local cool that works for you. You heard it here first."
That makes no sense if you plan on working in the world economy. If you don't expose yourself to the wideest vision of the economy (i.e., new world economy), then you are putting yourself at a competitive disadvantage.
Following cool, like it or not, gives you perspective on the media, products, and services of the world. McWorld, to be sure, but that is what we are creating every time we by a processed burger. Same with software and music and any other thing in the world. Your dollars are votes.
If you do not have perspective, you will be a second class person, at least in the eyes of employers. Now, I am not saying that you need to follow the world cool, but you need to understand the world cool. Look beyond your peer group for ideas and inspiration.
(Damn, I hope there is something interesting in this post. I rambled and rambled.)
Office XP Developer Center -- Smart Tags
Office XP Developer Center -- Smart Tags (Russian)
'Smart Tags uitdaging voor ontwikkelaars'
All About Smart Tags
XML Cover Pages -- Microsoft Announces Smart Tag Software Development Kit with XML Support
CNET -- Smart Tags and Clever Features
CNET -- Smart Tag SDK (for Office XP)
From the FAQ, Question 2: Great! Then I can just jump right in and use it, right?
"Um, no. Ganymede itself is an extensible and customizable system that can do a tremendous amount for you, but right now it is not an 'out-of-the-box' admin package. In order to make Ganymede useful, you need a schema kit, which consists of a database definition for the network information you want to manage, a set of custom Java plug-in classes that will make the Ganymede server smart about how your information is supposed to be connected together, and a set of classes and scripts that will take information from Ganymede and propagate it into your network."
Can other people set up OpenBSD as easily as you? Can other people support OpenBSD as good as you? Does OpenBSD support tools such as Lotus Notes and SAP? Do you really think that OpenBSD would be viable in a corporate environment?
Did you notice that I didn't even talk about costs for seats, or the marketing power of Microsoft? OpenBSD, or almost any other operating system, won't work in a corporate environment, at least not at the desktop level.
Microsoft doesn't scare customers. They market to them. They make tools that are stupid and easy to use. A monkey can maintain their software. Administrators have to maintain more shit but it is easy as pie. Point and click, baby. It is all about usability. and marketing. And capitalism.
Who gives a shit if it is the best product? That is not even relevant.
(p.s. To you you administrative "monkeys" out there, I mean no offense. However, I do think that maintaining Microsoft products, when the problems happen, is generally easier than maintaining *nix systems. And yes, I feel bad that you have more work than *nix administrators...!)
I've been thinking about how to talk about Linux and Open Source in reference to profits and Microsoft. I've made some of those thoughts available here, but I'm not satisfied with the outcome. I'm going to try again. Join the conversation, flame me, or back me up. I don't care. I just want to try to parse things up appropriately.
First, I keep forgetting that Linux is only one slice of Open Source. Indeed, in many ways it is a small slice. Similarly, Linux isn't necessarily competing against Windows. Linux is an operating system and that is the way it should be treated. Linux isn't going against Microsoft.
Second, Open Source is not a business philosophy. Therefore, it also does not compete against Microsoft. I thought it did, but it can't. Open Source is a philosophy with business implications, but it is not strictly a business model. Therefore, if you hear that Open Source is fighting Microsoft, you are hearing lies.
Third, companies such as Red Hat are competing against Microsoft, at least in terms of operating systems. Note that Microsoft has not really attacked folks like Red Hat. They are considered insignificant competitors. Instead, Microsoft attacks the Open Source philosophy because that deflects attention on their attempts to dominate software and the internet.
Fourth, if you attack Microsoft, you are attacking capitalism. Not the roots, but some of the side effects; the leaves, if you will. The injustices of Microsoft can be handled in the marketplace (e.g., IBM versus Microsoft) via products, sales and services. Or, it can be fought in court. Open Source cannot fight Microsoft because it isn't about money. The Open Source philosophy can't win because the philosophy can't beat capitalism. Recognize this important idea: capitalism is both a philosophy and an economic description of reality. Capitalism is business.
Fifth, even if Open Source was a business philosophy, it does not have the resources to fight against Microsoft or other major corporations. If it truly a war, an economic war, and I think it is, then Open Source is feeble. You have people waving the banner of the Open Source philosophy -- "share, share, share" -- but that does nothing in terms of marshaling resources.
Sixth, in light of the pervious point, there is no centralized leadership. The fact that a whole community needed to respond to Mundie exactly fits my point. The fact is, even when people replied to Mundie's comments about Open Source, it made no difference. Since the Open Source community has little in the way of economic resources, it cannot effective battle against Microsoft. Remember, a philosophy cannot fight against a business. Even large groups of people (with limited economic power) cannot fight against Microsoft. Without centralized power, and centralized resource, and focused plans of attack and defense, Microsoft will continue to dominate. Simply put, perhaps there are some leaders, but there are no generals. Remember, at least for Microsoft, this is war.
Seventh, Microsoft is defending its pocketbook. It is fighting for itself and it is fighting for its stockholders. There are thousands of people, outside of Microsoft, that want Microsoft to do well. How many Open Source folks own Microsoft stock? Some percentage of people do, either directly or via mutual funds. You cast stones, but are you hoping they miss?
Finally, while I say "Microsoft" again and again, the fight, if there is one, is with all corporations and all monopolies. Microsoft just rubs us the wrong way. There are many reasons for that. But the point remains. Open Source, being a philosophy, cannot effectively compete against corporations. It doesn't stand a change.
You might shrug this all off. You ignore this posting. But I warn you that Open Source might not be what you think it is.
Doc Searls writes:
"Here's something else to consider: Microsoft has so rarely had worthy competition from other Big Boys that the total rounds down to zero. They had it from Novell when Craig was running strategy there (one Microsoft guy told me "he kicked our ass"), but that was back in the 80's. They had it for a few minutes from Netscape when that company creatively ubiquitized LDAP. But they never had it from Apple (which for the Jobs interregnum was more of a bad partner than a good competitor). For brief and shining quarters they had it from Borland, Lotus and WordPerfect; but all of those companies lacked the endless supply of adrenalin a company needs to stay in the game. I'm not saying those weren't valuable companies (some still are); just that they were never in the same league. Frankly, nobody is. And that isn't Microsoft's fault, any more than it was Michael Jordan's fault that nobody could take him one-on-one or Mozart's fault that he was surrounded by Salieris. As competitive companies, Microsoft is in a league of its own. If you're like the other 99% of PC users out there, the proof is right there in your pixels."
It's kinda what The Emperor calls a Fully Operational Battle Station
...man, Doc has a way with words.
Fortune -- The Beast Is Back
Why do people feel that they have lost their privacy? It has been gone for a long time. And, don't forget, giving up privacy can be (gasp!) a good thing.
Scenario: You are in an accident. Medic checks your medical history. Finds out that you will die if given some injection of some chemical. Medic gives you another injection instead. You give up your privacy. You live.
The idea is that we need to be willing to give up our privacy to right people at the right time. The government knows a ton about you. The government is run by people. Therefore, other people still know a lot about you, even if you hide shit from companies.
I have an interesting aside. I have a friend who talks openly about all the porn he views each day. He is married and has kids. This shocks me. However, he is now home free. No person can ever really blackmail him about the pornography his views every day. He tells the world what he does and the world can't kick his ass. He has not a drip of fear... This is an interesting philosophy. It is a kick ass pre-emptive strike. I think it sort of relates here.
What are we all hiding? Who gives a shit? Oh right, if people know you have a medical condition or that you are gay or that you have used drugs, then they can discriminate against you. What a tangled web we weave.
I like your 6-month comparison. I think it is fair and I think we agree on some of the basic points of the thread.
You say that business is business. I agree with that simple statement. It is powerful. But, as always, I have questions.
Is OSS in the business of business? Is it really a concern? I think it is, but I'm not entirely sure how. Perhaps that gets to the heart of several of my earlier postings. What is the connection of OSS to business? How are they connected exactly? Will solving that puzzle make you rich? Is that the wrong question; is it the question of a Capitalistic Pig?
"Indeed, look at the stock price. If you had been followign it for the past few weeks/months/whatever, you'd know that it hasn't been a dying stock."
That is misleading. I deliberately pointed to the one year picture of the stock in my original posting, whereas you point to a 3-month view. Perhaps I was too kind? If you take an even longer view of VA Linux, let's say the 2 year view, you will see that the trend is down and to the right. That's bad. The longer the view we take, the worse it gets for VA Linux.
Maybe they have stabilized, maybe not. Maybe OSS can't fight the fire. Maybe it is like oil and water? Maybe SourceForge will have to run like little child? Just kidding. Perhaps VA is in the clear and your 3-month view tells a story of stabilization and hope for the long term. However, in terms of investments and long term prospects, I wonder if there are (substantially) better deals. That's yet another economic question to answer regarding OSS and the Capitalistic Pigs.
I remember reading your article. You mainly talk about dual licences, and that sort of thing. That's not quite the same. I'd need to see more details. However, I think you are on the right track. I wonder how it would really play out. Does anyone have any reasonable examples of this?
"You can't handle the truth!" (Note: .wav file)
I'll shut the fuck up when I am firmly convinced that Open Source is a viable business model. While it has been around forever (30+ years), it doesn't impress a lot of people. I like the idea of Open Source and Free Software, but damn, where is the money?
I'm not purely a capitalistic pig, nor am I the only person with these questions. But, even if I was, I hope my questions make sense. Why are you pissed off? I'm trying to be logical and rational. I'm trying not to fight.
If I am supposed to just "understand" the Open Source movement, then you have lost me. And, you have lost the people I can influence and pursuade. You'd be surprised what that means. Negative comments are like roaches; for every one you read, there are hundreds more hiding.
Don't tell me to shut the fuck up unless you want to lose thousands of people reading my postings. We want answers. We want the truth. What is the truth here? That is what I want to know. What does Open Source offer the Capitalistic Pigs of the world? If you hate this idea, then it is at your peril. If that is against your philosphy, then companies such as AOL, McDonalds and Microsoft will dominate your life. You turn control over to them.
Is this FUD? Anti-Open Source, Pro-Microsoft? Damn! Not all all. Convince me to shut the fuck up, and I will. That's fair.
I was doing fine until I cut myself. They should only be used for chopping onions and carrots.
Two meta comments about my comment. First, have you ever noticed that long postings tend to get moderated up? Generally, the longer the better? Sometimes, really long postings suck, but generally it seems to me that they really are better. What do you think? Second, I'm kind of pissed at myself about my posting. I'm basically talking about two topics: Losing SourceForge because of problems that VA Linux faces and problems I have with the openSource Movement. That makes things harder to understand. I should be more careful.
This is your second chance, boys and girls:
What Would We Do Without SourceForge? We should really talk about this. It is no joke. If SourceForge took a dive, many folks would be screwed in a major way. What are your backup plans? I'm not joking here. Take a look at VA Linux's stock price. It doesn't look good. Sourceforge is a cost for VA Linux, no matter what they say. While it does promote Linux in general, which is good for them, it eats cash.
Oh, still don't beleive me? VA Linux posts Q3 loss, revenues down 41%. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. What happens if VA Linux takes a dive? SourceForge dies. However, beforeVA dies, it will kill SourceForge to save money. That's no FUD, child.
Money makes the software world go around and around. Microsoft continues to dominate. Bill Gates and Microsoft have had an amazing decade and plenty of good fortune, and there is no sign their joy ride will stop. A viable financial model for Open Source must rise. Someone needs to figure out how OpenSource and capitalism can catalyze each other.
Forget about Micro$oft in all of this. What is the business model for the entire movement? Forget about Linux or BSD or Apache. What can the OpenSource movement do that will generate gobs and gobs of cash?
I keep bringing this topic up, and I still am left wanting more. No good answers come from my questions. OpenSource just feels too much like socialism and brotherly love and sharing. Forget about the group hug, people! Where is the cash? Where are the OpenSource Capitalist Pigs?
If you don't get this, don't worry. Here's the scoop. When I see "RMS" I think of root mean squared first, and Richard M. Stallman second. Naturally, I had to make a (very lame) attempt at humor. Mea culpa, mea culpa.
Oh please, of course Root Mean Squared thinks that free software is good. Without free software, we wouldn't be able to easily do our statistics! Imagine doing our statistics with Excel, or some other M$ product. Gasp!
Echelon Watch
Society > Issues > Human Rights and Liberties > Privacy
Definition of the word echelon