If I had mod points and I wasn't posting in this thread, I'd mod you up without question.
Actually, I think the confusion about what open source is lies firmly in the collective mind of the open source community itself. On one end of the spectrum, you have people who like open source because they simply like to hack on whatever feature they personally like, as you've mentioned. Fine. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those like me who hope that open source is a method for creating self-organizing software projects with the ultimate goal of those projects being better than they otherwise could be.
From a development perspective, there is no confusion. Open source is liberating, what you can do with your own hardware is up to you. I've had quite a bit of experience with the win32 api developing for commerical software companies. I actually know win32 far better than I know any other platform. Closed platforms truly scare me (what? my audio driver receive a particular stream because it isn't signed by some company? I thought this was my computer).
The point is, if I have the choice, I will choose to develop on a system where I have access to the source, for a number of reasons, only partially technical. There is no "collective mind". Developers are highly independent and like to work on what interests them. If you're interested in reaping the rewards from something, you sometimes need to earn them. Whether this is actually contributing code, funding development, etc.
Open source platforms were created by hackers, for hackers. And typically we don't give a damn about widespread acceptance or overthrowing microsoft's dominance of the desktop. We just want something that works well for what we need. Try to understand it from that perspective and you'll do better.
People want to have Linux be a hackers paradise, yet topple Microsoft's OS monopoly by supplanting the desktop. Think about it, are these two goals really compatible?
People want a lot of things, but the only people who really matter here are the people implementing this system. See, thats the great part, if you want it to be something it's not, make it that way. And personally, I do think they're possible. If it weren't for legacy applications, Linux would likely be on a lot more desktops than it is. I know any clueful sysadmin would much rather maintain a bunch of linux boxen than windows boxen. From a management perspective, Linux is lightyears beyond windows. Especially considering if something doesn't work right, instead of looking for a kludge or trying to get a vendor to include the needed functionality (usually a combonation of the two), you can locate the problem, isolate it, and correct it. I know of at least one place I've worked where this ability would have saved the company literally millions of dollars.
Exactly. So let's see the fanboys excited by this news go out and make Linux a viable desktop OS, or shut the hell up about it replacing Windows.
Theres nothing wrong with cheerleaders to keep the team motivated. As a matter of fact, if you really think about it, recognition is the sole form of payment quite a few oss developers receive. Its all about the right tool for the job. If you want to play the latest and greatest games, linux isn't a good desktop choice for you. For the people maintaining 5000 corporate PCs with custom apps, it becomes a very sensible desktop OS.
Personally, I run FreeBSD and a mix of NT/2000. Windows is still a requirement for me (a couple of addictive games, and some apps that my job requires). And the majority of the time I'm in windows, I have emacs/tcsh/python windows up (Exceed is a dream here). I personally would LOVE to get windows off my desktop, but it's the applications that keep me there, applications are key.
Typically I wouldn't even waste time answering such an obvious troll, but maybe you haven't realized what open source is all about, let me make it succinct.
This obviously mattered to the people who implemented it. If you'd rather see development move in a different direction, by all means, write some code that you feel is useful.
See, the people who implemented this probably don't give a damn what you feel is important, they care about what they feel is important.
Yes, and they are sweet! I have one on order right now. Due to minor temporal anomalies, all I had to do was deposit one cent and wait a few billion years for the interest to accrue, then simply quantum transfer the funds back (and people thought you could only pay for dinner like this!).
Unfortunately, it seems that this post triggered an abuse of this system which quickly brought upon the collapse of the galaxy's economic system. Guess I won't be getting one, damned paradoxes.
I think you (and many others) failed to realize just how much of an impact Napster and the like have had on music in general. I rarely listen to the radio, watch MTV, or otherwise faithfully consume the forumla music the recording industry tries to ram down my throat.
Granted, a large percentage of Napster users likely just search for the "big name" artists, hell, thats what I first did. But then, after awhile, I started browsing the music of people who had songs I was interested in, and as such, I've been exposed to a huge amount of music I'd otherwise never have heard of.
Sure, the recording industry is still necessary, but they're becoming less relevant everyday. For me, they're practically useless. I have no interest whatsoever in the Britney/N'Sync/etc crud. And it really pisses me off when I purchase a CD, knowing that they get the lion's share of the profits. But I still buy 'em, knowing that at least a bit of the money gets to the artist. About the only thing that I feel guilty about is the mp3's I really enjoy that I can't find CD's for.
... and I'll get to why in a moment. Fisrt, I have to say that it was absolutely mind-boggling to read this today. This has been one of my biggest politcal rants that I ramble about to almost everyone. Down to the term "Corporate Republic". It's rather disturbing to be this much in agreement with one of Katz' articles, but anyhow.
I see no point in voting because technology has this amazing ability to make the inefficient irrelevant. You see it everywhere in regards to the internet. Middlemen in every industry are feeling their belts tighten due to the 'net. Why do I need to pay some guy a commission to enter a stock trade, when I can interact directly? The internet has changed most of the old rules. Brand recognition is almost meaningless, since the cost to try a new brand is usually infinitesmal. Competition is a click or a few keystrokes away.
This is why we hear the RIAA scream and whine. When it comes right down to it, they're just middlemen. Glorified distributors that are quickly becoming very irrelevant. If you stop and think about it for a moment, all they really do is make deals to get artists' music to the stores where it's purchased by the consumer. Those fine retail establishments are actually just middlemen as well, and as such, tend to get along with other middlemen. But I digress.
This government was built apon the notion that the laws that govern us should be what the majority seems necessary. But due to the crude forms of communication available at the time (by today's standards), there was really no way to design the government to be truly democratic, and directly refelct the desires of the people. And so, in a vastly over-simplified description, a system of representation was devised. This worked like a big pyramid, with people who represented groups of people, and people who represented other representives, and so on, and so forth. Until you get an aggregate of the peoples will, and what should be a good approximation of their interests.
But now, we really don't have that communication barrier. Obviously it still exists, but it's deterioration is proceeding exponentially, and will eventually be gone. And when it's gone, we'll eventually see the inefficiency of "representitives", and they will become irrelevant. This will be a good time, when we can actually experience a more pure version of democracy. Imagine for a moment that companies didn't lobby politicians to forward their interests. Imagine that money being spent to educate the public on issues they find important, since the power is directly in the public's hands.
Imagine a government where each citizen could vote on every trivial obscure technicality they so chose. Imagine companies actually trying to create educated consumers, instead of mindless drones with credit. It's Utopian, its fuzzy tree-hugging crap, but there's no need to feel ashamed daydreaming about how great it would be. It's going to happen. There's no avoiding it. the government can't stop it. Simple.
Which is why I don't vote. It's just my way of chuckling and saying, "Hey, I really don't give a damn what you guys do, it won't mean squat in a decade or two, so enjoy it while it lasts."
Why is it that future predictions about transportation always follow the tune of "we know better how to transport you from one place to another"?
Every so often you hear about how some new is going to revolutionize everything and how cars are going the way of the dinosaurs. I understand that to the majority of people, a car is a simple means of transportation. It gets you from where you are to where you want to be with a minimum of fuss, very convienient. But to a signifigant portion of drivers, a car is also a form of recreation. I personally fit into this category.
I'm one of those people that insist on a manual gearbox. Keep your automatic transmissions, semi-automatic "clutchless" manual transmissions (duh, the clutch is the whole point), and definately keep your ride damping systems that inhibit me from feeling exactly what the car is doing.
I know some people don't share even a nanometer of my view on this, but I'm hoping the majority here are open-minded to see the importance. Theres a distinct parallel with this and an OS choice. exists primarily to empower the user. You have full control of the entire system, and can change anything to suit your needs, if you so desire. exists primarily to shield the user from the complexities of a complex, flexible device in order to . I want the power of the former, it extends my abilities instead of hindering them, it keeps me in control.
I want my clutch, I like being able to feel the road, feel the yaw of my automobile, and adjust the amount of power getting to the wheels to compensate for traction. I refuse to give up one iota of control in the name of progress, since thats not really progress. Make it better by all means, independant suspension, variable-valve timing, electronic engine controls, all make a vehicle perform better, and helps the driver. Trying to completely replace the driver defeats the purpose.
Unless of course, you're just interested in getting from A to point B, and don't care how you get there (in which case, what are you doing here?).
What's needed is a new distribution system. Face it, people want the type of system mp3/napster provide. The problem is, the record companies don't want this system. It signifigantly reduces their control over what we hear/buy.
If you've become hooked on the mp3/napster trend, then you understand. I personally am a die-hard hold-out, I have a collection of over 500 cds. But lately, every cd I buy seems to only be used once, to rip the tracks I like to mp3s. And every new cd I've bought has been from listening to mp3s first (case in point, some Vanessa Daou cds on their way to me after downloading a bunch of her songs).
If the record companies woke up, realized that people are demanding this type of system, they'd be able to profit off of it. I know for damn sure if I was able to go to www.bigrecordcompany.com and download a perfect mp3 of a song for under $1 (preferably $0.50), I'd likely spend very little time on napster. The expense in time and effort cannot be justified at that cost. I'm actually rather happy they haven't realized what's happening. Since if that were the case, they'd still retain almost complete control over what we hear/buy. I think by not embracing this type of system, they're building their own coffin.
Attempting to control the market by strongarming legislators is futile since they have no control over digital information and never will.
The people have spoken, call it the digital revolution, call it civil disobediance, call it whatever you want. The point is they need to listen and adapt to the changing market or they'll find themselves extinct. The music market isn't going anywhere, people love music and will always support it. Whether the bloated distribution systems in place are still required is what's up for debate.
That was part of my question, is the reason Sony isn't (can't?) hiding under the DMCA because there were no forms of protection on the PSX?
This adds a bit of scrutiny on the MPAA's case. Everyone here will agree the MPAA is ethically in the wrong, but are they legally in the wrong? Maybe the MPAA knows it doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, but since DVD is it's cash-cow, it's using legal intimidation to wear down people completely in the right (IE: DeCSS for compatibility purposes). Maybe Sony knew that that route was a losing battle and decided to not even pursue it.
Earlier this year, the court issued a ruling upholding Connectix's right to use a process known as reverse engineering to develop a product for playing PlayStation games on home computers.
Wonder why Sony isn't hiding under the umbrella of the DMCA like the MPAA with DeCSS. Perhaps there was no protection (to parallel with the weak encryption used by CSS) to be broken in order to reverse engineer?
This whole thing gets sillier all the time. "You can reverse engineer, except things we protect so that you dont."
TO stay somewhat on topic, I don't really see why it upset Sony so much. They sell the console at a loss (initially anyway) and make the majority of the revenue from the licensing of games. You would think that:
More people able to play PSX games = more games sold = more licensing revenue.
I could see Sony going apeshit about people developing (more importantly, selling) unlicensed games, but trying to stop an additional way to play licensed games seems counter-productive.
But then again, since when has corporate paranoia made sense?:)
As TheMeld mentioned, I meant in no way that they should fill the demand at a loss. That would be a totally unrealistic request. What I'm saying is that they'd rather sell at a loss with the possibility of higher future profit margins than sell immediately at a profit.
What Netpliance is doing is drooling over the much higher margins they project from a captive audience on their service (this device can't be used with anyone else's service), and don't want to even risk their surplus of devices in case they get a sudden burst of new customers.
The bottom line is they have the devices, they could sell them at a profit right now. They surely have a surplus of the devices, they still won't let them go. But they will immediately stop distribution (and sales) in order to quash what could've been a major business oppurtunity.
This is not a company that is for the consumer, they said it before, they sell a service. It's not internet service as we know it, it's propritery service, like AOL. They just want a piece of the control pie that AOL is enjoying alone. They want that captive audience.
To sum up a long article concisely, the point is this: Netpliance stumbled on a market that they don't want. Netpliance wants what AOL has, an easy way on to an "internet" of their design. And the simple fact of the matter is, the profit margins are drastically higher than selling these devices for more without the service to people who want them.
Their behavior with regards to how they handled this whole situation gives an obvious clue to the nature of the company. The author of this piece must not have much experience dealing with the teflon warriors, since the article read like some marketing drivel.
Sorry if this seems harsh, but it's true, this is a company that talks up open source, and open standards but controls the user's experience completely and goes with a proprietary OS for the device. Which is fine in my opinion, but coating the board with epoxy? That's ludicrous. Retroactively applying charges to consumers who didn't authorize them? Criminal.
The fact of the matter is they don't give a damn about any of us, they're driven by pure greed. And not "good" greed (where they'd ramp up and try to supply those of us who'd want a device without the strings), but bad greed... hoarding the devices to ensure they have excess to maintain maximum profitability.
In my opinion, they're just another AOL wannabe, and can't see past their next fiscal year. This is worse than anything else they've done. Just another company exploiting the net by trying to reduce choice and enhance their control.
Am I cynical? Sure, from experience. Maybe I'm wrong and they really have a great vision and want to empower the consumers with great technology and yadda yadda yadda. More likely they just want as much money as they can possibly get.
I haven't seen anyone else mention it yet, but what exactly is the point to the rambling nonsense on the timecube site? I've seen crud like this all over the net, but never expected to find it on slashdot.
About the only redeeming factor I see is that the webserver is running apache on FreeBSD (but I'd wager the guy who created the site doesn't even know what FreeBSD or apache are).
So really, did I miss something extraordinary by just skimming that page? If so, please enlighten me.
My point is they shouldn't be liable unless they are specifically catering to illegal auctions, which they aren't.
These companies obviously have noticed the people selling pirated versions of their wares, why aren't they stopping the people commiting the crime instead of shrugging off their own responsibility? After this story was posted, I found a few of the auctions in question, and they all seem to hide behind a part of the copyright law that allows backups of media. It's pretty clear they're simply using the law to their advantage, but I would think if Nintendo really wants to stop this theft, they should sue the people doing it. If it's proven in court that what they're doing is illegal, it will very quickly put an end to the rest of the people doing the same.
Really, Yahoo is doing nothing illegal here, they're just providing a service that is used primarily for legitimate purposes. This is what scares me, it sets a dangerous precedent.
For the simple fact that if they lose, it will severely impact the concept of content neutrality. Of course they know what's going on in these auctions, but as soon as they start stopping some, they open themselves up to having to stop ANY that might possibly be a problem. If they only control some types, then they're wide open to lawsuits with some type of backing.
Worse though, it how that would affect smaller companies that want to allow high levels of interactivity, but don't have the resources to police that activity. With a meatspace analogy, who would be Yahoo? Say if people liked to sell these game copies on street corners in a particular town, would Nintendo be suing the town?
As far as I'm concerned, this isn't Yahoo's responcibility. It would be different if they specifically catered to people selling illegal items.
Nintendo & others need to bite the bullet and attack the real culprits if they want something done about all the petty pirates. But that would drain their resources, so instead they try to drain Yahoo's resources.
It's actually rather sickening if you think about it.
Normally, I simply ignore these posts, in order to not encourage the trolls. But you aren't really trolling. Trolling at one point was almost an art-form. Trolls would post highly controversial messages in order to start a heated discussion.
This on the other hand is mindless drivel repeated over and over. The shock value is gone, and it sure isn't a troll. Hell, I wouldn't even call it flamebait, at this point it's redundant.
All you're doing is enforcing the moderation system, many people don't even read below 1 anymore due to this foolishness. You're simply wasting your time and energy, and in effect ruining it for the interesting trolls.
Get a grip, get a life, stop being so friggin moronic. In essense, its just stupid now.
PS - In case this reply pops up without the parent, no need to look for the reference, it was the "Heil Jon Katz" canned post with the swastikas, etc.
I specifically chose the word "many" instead of "all" (which is simply ridiculous), and more importantly instead of "most". It is my firm belief that the lack of actual parenting is the direct cause of many of society's current problems. I also believe it's an indirect/aggregate cause of many others. Whether or not you agree with me is actually irrelevant, I ensured that I specified it was my personal opinion. I do consider myself a reasonable person, and if you provided evidence to the contrary, I would happily evaluate it, and adjust my opinions as necessary. A far more likely outcome would be our agreement of many other problems (since there are many others, and I never said otherwise).
As far as the second part of my post, take offense if you want. You can read all you like, look at all the statistics you want, but unless you've actually been there, I honestly think you're clueless in this regard. The women I referred to are ones that I've known very intimately. Some romantically, some platonically, but I have been there. When you've helped raise a child who's mother was beaten ruthlessly by the child's father, and who's only means of child-support was a dividend of drugs from the father, then you tell me about why people do what they do.
If I sound somewhat angry, it's because I am to a certain degree, but it's not something I'd ever expect you to understand, or more importantly be able to relate to. The funny thing is I consider most of these people to be highly intelligent. Most got terrible grades in school, dropped out before finishing high school (for those that made it to high school), and anything beyond basic arithmetic was beyond them. But they knew how to survive.
If theres one thing I've taken from my life, its that there is a major difference between book smarts and street smarts. The true understanding of the difference and the parallels is something most people can't comprehend, and frankly, from your statments, I think you fall into the majority.
In my opinion, the cause of many of society's problems today is the lack of parenting. I've seen women grow up with the only real core value passed down from their parents is to have more children in order to get a bigger check. In defense, I've also known one or two that believed in actually raising their children, but they are a decreasing minority. It's a depressing thought, and a hard pill for today's parents to swallow, but it's medicine they need to take.
The cause is identified, the solution is harder, since this mentality may take generations to correct itself (and heres to hoping it will correct itself).
At least I can do my part and raise my children as best I can and not view them as little more than a financial liability. A few core values passed on, along with a basic sense of decency. Yes, decency, not censorship, something that should be natural and not governed. Difficult in a world where nice people supposedly finish last, but the validity of that statement depends on your viewpoint.
The device probably doesn't let you get into setup normally. Since he hooked up his own keyboard, he had the escape key, and probably tried common key combonations and found the "setup mode".
Although this isn't it, someone needs to mass produce a simple (cheap!) box with a nice flat panel screen, minimal cpu/mb, and most importantly, an ethernet port (100BT would be nice). If someone could design and mass produce something like this for under, say $200 US, they'd make a killing. I know I would personally buy a bunch of them. And no, Sun's sun ray doesn't fit the bill, afaik it requires a Sun server, which will make it rather costly.
I love PC's, and something like this would really be the perfect complement. Why settle for an information appliance hard coded to do one particular thing, when you can a bunch of sleek little x-terminals that can do anything a stand-alone appliance does?
I can think of plenty of uses for something like this around the house, in a business setting, the uses multiply.
So if anyone with the means is listening, build them! The market for appliances of this type will fail until they're cheap enough ($200 would be my price point, can I reiterate that enough?), and as long as they're tied to proprietary systems. Who else would buy a generic, sleek, flat paneled x-term for $200?
Why is everyone comparing linux from 2000 with wintel's from 1990? Liberal use of something like Ghost (for reinstalation of your OS) and something like ZENWorks (for application distribution (and repair), print driver distribution, console redirect (like pcanywhere) etc etc, you have a solution at least as good as traditional unix netbooting or nis and nfs'd/usr trees.
I'm referring to NT 4.0 SP5. I'm not speaking from inexperience, I've been developing for Windows for as many years as Windows has existed, and I know the system as well as any non-microsoft developer probably does. It simply wasn't designed for a corporate environment. It's come a long way, but it will likely never have the flexibility that a unix-like system will. Ghost is great, never having to re-image a PC's disk is better.
And if your running windows on the desktop machines, then your users have the ability to run all of the apps that they want that require windows.
In some corporate environments, this is precisely what you don't want. You don't want users installing anything they feel like. Usually, you don't want them installing anything at all. Personally, I believe this is counter-productive, due to the fact that employees should be using technology to it's fullest. The problem is, most of them don't use it productively, and end up costing time and money when they install something useless that makes the system unstable.
My post covered two somewhat related topics. From an IT standpoint, a unix-like system is much more desireable as long as it provides everything the end-users need. And the free variants are providing more every day.
You have a very cynical view of how technology is affecting people, and likely rightfully so. The difference is I see it as a problem, not a fact. Perhaps you're right, and consumers are the malleable herd of lemmings that marketers believe they are. I personally don't want to believe it. Just as I don't want to believe the PC has evolved to where it is just to give us email and word processing. I simply find it hard to believe that with all the other feats these beige boxes can accomplish, the pinncle of their existance are the "killer apps" of today.
Obviously, the vast majority will probably never have an interest in the esoteric features and applications we hold dear. But there are simply so many things that a modern PC can do right now, and I don't think we've even scratched the surface.
You say you know many people who have no interest in using their PC for anything more than the basics. Have you ever asked them? Do they even know what the machine is capable of?
And consider this, without the high availability of computers as consumer devices, the web wouldn't exist as a "killer app". What happens if all those industry pundits are right? The PC as a platform hits a plateau, and declines. Where is the next "killer app" discovered? What we have is the platform, a fertile platform, in which the seeds for the next information (r)evolution are planted.
I do believe that information appliances will be a major industry, but I also think that people need to understand their computers aren't appliances. And maybe the reason that all current computing enviornments don't work well is because they're either targetted specifically at technical people, or they've been designed to hide all the complexity of a purposely complex device.
You can point at just about any computing paradigm and say its wrong, and back it up with good reason. And you'd be right, our entire concept of humancomputer interfaces are flawed. We need something that will retain all the flexibility that geeks love, while making it natural to work with for those that aren't as technically proficient. Perhaps it's just a time/generation thing, and it will work itself out. Maybe we can help it along?
Home or corporate? Personally I think Linux/BSD is a very good choice for corporate desktops. Anyone who's ever had to deploy and maintain a farm of Windows machines in a corpororate enviornment knows how much of a headache it is. Even with NT Workstation carefully setup, there are too many things a user can do to damage the installation (and that's not even taking into account the things Windows does on its own).
I know of at least one place I manage that I'm considering moving away from NT Workstation to either Linux or FreeBSD on the desktops. Its a small shop (about 20 desktops) which relies on a DOS based real-estate management package. The primary reason I'm considering the move is the flexibility I have with the configurations, which brings me to my next point...
So many people are convinced that the solution is to "dumb down" the desktop environments to suit the users. Personally I think that idea is way off base, and I tend to agree more with the concept of hiding advanced functionality in order to not overwhelm new users. Although I believe that is also less than ideal. Computers are powerful devices, but everyone seems to think they need to be made as easy to use as an appliance. I'm sorry, but I think it's a tremendeous waste of such a powerful and flexible machine. What we need is a way to educate users. Show them that they can do more with these machines than browsing the web, writing documents, and sending email.
Its depressing when I see people buy brand new high-powered machines and really not use them for anything beyond the basics. Its understandable that these are the reasons that most people purchase computers (aside from the "me too" hype), but we need to show them some of the wonder that we experience.
I love technology (and I bet you do too), and I realize everyone isn't like us. But there is more than the web, more than word processing, and much more than email. The real question is, how do we gently push the masses into discovering it for themselves?
How do we educate them without scaring them away? Or are the wonderful flexible machines we all love not really suited for the general populace? Are we doomed to a world where there are distinct information appliances for the cornerstones, where the PC as we know it is a dinosaur? I hope not.
(I seem to have gotten semi-OT here, my apologies)
Yes, but thats only one side of it, the pull side. Eventually systems will evolve to the point where a push model exists along-side the pull model for robustness. Unfortunately data structures change, companies reorganize, and no type of pointer will really ever suffice. It will have to change at some point. The robustness of a push model will facilitate these scenarios. It's not a question of if, it will happen, eventually.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is, if I have the choice, I will choose to develop on a system where I have access to the source, for a number of reasons, only partially technical. There is no "collective mind". Developers are highly independent and like to work on what interests them. If you're interested in reaping the rewards from something, you sometimes need to earn them. Whether this is actually contributing code, funding development, etc.
Open source platforms were created by hackers, for hackers. And typically we don't give a damn about widespread acceptance or overthrowing microsoft's dominance of the desktop. We just want something that works well for what we need. Try to understand it from that perspective and you'll do better.
People want a lot of things, but the only people who really matter here are the people implementing this system. See, thats the great part, if you want it to be something it's not, make it that way. And personally, I do think they're possible. If it weren't for legacy applications, Linux would likely be on a lot more desktops than it is. I know any clueful sysadmin would much rather maintain a bunch of linux boxen than windows boxen. From a management perspective, Linux is lightyears beyond windows. Especially considering if something doesn't work right, instead of looking for a kludge or trying to get a vendor to include the needed functionality (usually a combonation of the two), you can locate the problem, isolate it, and correct it. I know of at least one place I've worked where this ability would have saved the company literally millions of dollars. Theres nothing wrong with cheerleaders to keep the team motivated. As a matter of fact, if you really think about it, recognition is the sole form of payment quite a few oss developers receive. Its all about the right tool for the job. If you want to play the latest and greatest games, linux isn't a good desktop choice for you. For the people maintaining 5000 corporate PCs with custom apps, it becomes a very sensible desktop OS.Personally, I run FreeBSD and a mix of NT/2000. Windows is still a requirement for me (a couple of addictive games, and some apps that my job requires). And the majority of the time I'm in windows, I have emacs/tcsh/python windows up (Exceed is a dream here). I personally would LOVE to get windows off my desktop, but it's the applications that keep me there, applications are key.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply :)
This obviously mattered to the people who implemented it. If you'd rather see development move in a different direction, by all means, write some code that you feel is useful.
See, the people who implemented this probably don't give a damn what you feel is important, they care about what they feel is important.
It's really very simple, put up or shut up.
Unfortunately, it seems that this post triggered an abuse of this system which quickly brought upon the collapse of the galaxy's economic system. Guess I won't be getting one, damned paradoxes.
Granted, a large percentage of Napster users likely just search for the "big name" artists, hell, thats what I first did. But then, after awhile, I started browsing the music of people who had songs I was interested in, and as such, I've been exposed to a huge amount of music I'd otherwise never have heard of.
Sure, the recording industry is still necessary, but they're becoming less relevant everyday. For me, they're practically useless. I have no interest whatsoever in the Britney/N'Sync/etc crud. And it really pisses me off when I purchase a CD, knowing that they get the lion's share of the profits. But I still buy 'em, knowing that at least a bit of the money gets to the artist. About the only thing that I feel guilty about is the mp3's I really enjoy that I can't find CD's for.
I see no point in voting because technology has this amazing ability to make the inefficient irrelevant. You see it everywhere in regards to the internet. Middlemen in every industry are feeling their belts tighten due to the 'net. Why do I need to pay some guy a commission to enter a stock trade, when I can interact directly? The internet has changed most of the old rules. Brand recognition is almost meaningless, since the cost to try a new brand is usually infinitesmal. Competition is a click or a few keystrokes away.
This is why we hear the RIAA scream and whine. When it comes right down to it, they're just middlemen. Glorified distributors that are quickly becoming very irrelevant. If you stop and think about it for a moment, all they really do is make deals to get artists' music to the stores where it's purchased by the consumer. Those fine retail establishments are actually just middlemen as well, and as such, tend to get along with other middlemen. But I digress.
This government was built apon the notion that the laws that govern us should be what the majority seems necessary. But due to the crude forms of communication available at the time (by today's standards), there was really no way to design the government to be truly democratic, and directly refelct the desires of the people. And so, in a vastly over-simplified description, a system of representation was devised. This worked like a big pyramid, with people who represented groups of people, and people who represented other representives, and so on, and so forth. Until you get an aggregate of the peoples will, and what should be a good approximation of their interests.
But now, we really don't have that communication barrier. Obviously it still exists, but it's deterioration is proceeding exponentially, and will eventually be gone. And when it's gone, we'll eventually see the inefficiency of "representitives", and they will become irrelevant. This will be a good time, when we can actually experience a more pure version of democracy. Imagine for a moment that companies didn't lobby politicians to forward their interests. Imagine that money being spent to educate the public on issues they find important, since the power is directly in the public's hands.
Imagine a government where each citizen could vote on every trivial obscure technicality they so chose. Imagine companies actually trying to create educated consumers, instead of mindless drones with credit. It's Utopian, its fuzzy tree-hugging crap, but there's no need to feel ashamed daydreaming about how great it would be. It's going to happen. There's no avoiding it. the government can't stop it. Simple.
Which is why I don't vote. It's just my way of chuckling and saying, "Hey, I really don't give a damn what you guys do, it won't mean squat in a decade or two, so enjoy it while it lasts."
Every so often you hear about how some new is going to revolutionize everything and how cars are going the way of the dinosaurs. I understand that to the majority of people, a car is a simple means of transportation. It gets you from where you are to where you want to be with a minimum of fuss, very convienient. But to a signifigant portion of drivers, a car is also a form of recreation. I personally fit into this category.
I'm one of those people that insist on a manual gearbox. Keep your automatic transmissions, semi-automatic "clutchless" manual transmissions (duh, the clutch is the whole point), and definately keep your ride damping systems that inhibit me from feeling exactly what the car is doing.
I know some people don't share even a nanometer of my view on this, but I'm hoping the majority here are open-minded to see the importance. Theres a distinct parallel with this and an OS choice. exists primarily to empower the user. You have full control of the entire system, and can change anything to suit your needs, if you so desire. exists primarily to shield the user from the complexities of a complex, flexible device in order to . I want the power of the former, it extends my abilities instead of hindering them, it keeps me in control.
I want my clutch, I like being able to feel the road, feel the yaw of my automobile, and adjust the amount of power getting to the wheels to compensate for traction. I refuse to give up one iota of control in the name of progress, since thats not really progress. Make it better by all means, independant suspension, variable-valve timing, electronic engine controls, all make a vehicle perform better, and helps the driver. Trying to completely replace the driver defeats the purpose.
Unless of course, you're just interested in getting from A to point B, and don't care how you get there (in which case, what are you doing here?).
head -c 45000000 /dev/urandom | lame - thissoundslikemetallica.mp3
Much better effect! :)
(the /dev/urandom might be a FreeBSD only thing btw)
If you've become hooked on the mp3/napster trend, then you understand. I personally am a die-hard hold-out, I have a collection of over 500 cds. But lately, every cd I buy seems to only be used once, to rip the tracks I like to mp3s. And every new cd I've bought has been from listening to mp3s first (case in point, some Vanessa Daou cds on their way to me after downloading a bunch of her songs).
If the record companies woke up, realized that people are demanding this type of system, they'd be able to profit off of it. I know for damn sure if I was able to go to www.bigrecordcompany.com and download a perfect mp3 of a song for under $1 (preferably $0.50), I'd likely spend very little time on napster. The expense in time and effort cannot be justified at that cost. I'm actually rather happy they haven't realized what's happening. Since if that were the case, they'd still retain almost complete control over what we hear/buy. I think by not embracing this type of system, they're building their own coffin.
Attempting to control the market by strongarming legislators is futile since they have no control over digital information and never will.
The people have spoken, call it the digital revolution, call it civil disobediance, call it whatever you want. The point is they need to listen and adapt to the changing market or they'll find themselves extinct. The music market isn't going anywhere, people love music and will always support it. Whether the bloated distribution systems in place are still required is what's up for debate.
This adds a bit of scrutiny on the MPAA's case. Everyone here will agree the MPAA is ethically in the wrong, but are they legally in the wrong? Maybe the MPAA knows it doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, but since DVD is it's cash-cow, it's using legal intimidation to wear down people completely in the right (IE: DeCSS for compatibility purposes). Maybe Sony knew that that route was a losing battle and decided to not even pursue it.
Just some thoughts ...
Earlier this year, the court issued a ruling upholding Connectix's right to use a process known as reverse engineering to develop a product for playing PlayStation games on home computers.
Wonder why Sony isn't hiding under the umbrella of the DMCA like the MPAA with DeCSS. Perhaps there was no protection (to parallel with the weak encryption used by CSS) to be broken in order to reverse engineer?
This whole thing gets sillier all the time. "You can reverse engineer, except things we protect so that you dont."
TO stay somewhat on topic, I don't really see why it upset Sony so much. They sell the console at a loss (initially anyway) and make the majority of the revenue from the licensing of games. You would think that:
More people able to play PSX games = more games sold = more licensing revenue.
I could see Sony going apeshit about people developing (more importantly, selling) unlicensed games, but trying to stop an additional way to play licensed games seems counter-productive.
But then again, since when has corporate paranoia made sense? :)
What Netpliance is doing is drooling over the much higher margins they project from a captive audience on their service (this device can't be used with anyone else's service), and don't want to even risk their surplus of devices in case they get a sudden burst of new customers.
The bottom line is they have the devices, they could sell them at a profit right now. They surely have a surplus of the devices, they still won't let them go. But they will immediately stop distribution (and sales) in order to quash what could've been a major business oppurtunity.
This is not a company that is for the consumer, they said it before, they sell a service. It's not internet service as we know it, it's propritery service, like AOL. They just want a piece of the control pie that AOL is enjoying alone. They want that captive audience.
Their behavior with regards to how they handled this whole situation gives an obvious clue to the nature of the company. The author of this piece must not have much experience dealing with the teflon warriors, since the article read like some marketing drivel.
Sorry if this seems harsh, but it's true, this is a company that talks up open source, and open standards but controls the user's experience completely and goes with a proprietary OS for the device. Which is fine in my opinion, but coating the board with epoxy? That's ludicrous. Retroactively applying charges to consumers who didn't authorize them? Criminal.
The fact of the matter is they don't give a damn about any of us, they're driven by pure greed. And not "good" greed (where they'd ramp up and try to supply those of us who'd want a device without the strings), but bad greed ... hoarding the devices to ensure they have excess to maintain maximum profitability.
In my opinion, they're just another AOL wannabe, and can't see past their next fiscal year. This is worse than anything else they've done. Just another company exploiting the net by trying to reduce choice and enhance their control.
Am I cynical? Sure, from experience. Maybe I'm wrong and they really have a great vision and want to empower the consumers with great technology and yadda yadda yadda. More likely they just want as much money as they can possibly get.
About the only redeeming factor I see is that the webserver is running apache on FreeBSD (but I'd wager the guy who created the site doesn't even know what FreeBSD or apache are).
So really, did I miss something extraordinary by just skimming that page? If so, please enlighten me.
I haven't tried it myself yet (mostly due to laziness, FreeBSD 4.0, new gcc, etc), but I've looked at the documentation and it looks very promising.
These companies obviously have noticed the people selling pirated versions of their wares, why aren't they stopping the people commiting the crime instead of shrugging off their own responsibility? After this story was posted, I found a few of the auctions in question, and they all seem to hide behind a part of the copyright law that allows backups of media. It's pretty clear they're simply using the law to their advantage, but I would think if Nintendo really wants to stop this theft, they should sue the people doing it. If it's proven in court that what they're doing is illegal, it will very quickly put an end to the rest of the people doing the same.
Really, Yahoo is doing nothing illegal here, they're just providing a service that is used primarily for legitimate purposes. This is what scares me, it sets a dangerous precedent.
Worse though, it how that would affect smaller companies that want to allow high levels of interactivity, but don't have the resources to police that activity. With a meatspace analogy, who would be Yahoo? Say if people liked to sell these game copies on street corners in a particular town, would Nintendo be suing the town?
As far as I'm concerned, this isn't Yahoo's responcibility. It would be different if they specifically catered to people selling illegal items.
Nintendo & others need to bite the bullet and attack the real culprits if they want something done about all the petty pirates. But that would drain their resources, so instead they try to drain Yahoo's resources.
It's actually rather sickening if you think about it.
This on the other hand is mindless drivel repeated over and over. The shock value is gone, and it sure isn't a troll. Hell, I wouldn't even call it flamebait, at this point it's redundant.
All you're doing is enforcing the moderation system, many people don't even read below 1 anymore due to this foolishness. You're simply wasting your time and energy, and in effect ruining it for the interesting trolls.
Get a grip, get a life, stop being so friggin moronic. In essense, its just stupid now.
PS - In case this reply pops up without the parent, no need to look for the reference, it was the "Heil Jon Katz" canned post with the swastikas, etc.
As far as the second part of my post, take offense if you want. You can read all you like, look at all the statistics you want, but unless you've actually been there, I honestly think you're clueless in this regard. The women I referred to are ones that I've known very intimately. Some romantically, some platonically, but I have been there. When you've helped raise a child who's mother was beaten ruthlessly by the child's father, and who's only means of child-support was a dividend of drugs from the father, then you tell me about why people do what they do.
If I sound somewhat angry, it's because I am to a certain degree, but it's not something I'd ever expect you to understand, or more importantly be able to relate to. The funny thing is I consider most of these people to be highly intelligent. Most got terrible grades in school, dropped out before finishing high school (for those that made it to high school), and anything beyond basic arithmetic was beyond them. But they knew how to survive.
If theres one thing I've taken from my life, its that there is a major difference between book smarts and street smarts. The true understanding of the difference and the parallels is something most people can't comprehend, and frankly, from your statments, I think you fall into the majority.
The cause is identified, the solution is harder, since this mentality may take generations to correct itself (and heres to hoping it will correct itself).
At least I can do my part and raise my children as best I can and not view them as little more than a financial liability. A few core values passed on, along with a basic sense of decency. Yes, decency, not censorship, something that should be natural and not governed. Difficult in a world where nice people supposedly finish last, but the validity of that statement depends on your viewpoint.
I could be wrong though .
I love PC's, and something like this would really be the perfect complement. Why settle for an information appliance hard coded to do one particular thing, when you can a bunch of sleek little x-terminals that can do anything a stand-alone appliance does?
I can think of plenty of uses for something like this around the house, in a business setting, the uses multiply.
So if anyone with the means is listening, build them! The market for appliances of this type will fail until they're cheap enough ($200 would be my price point, can I reiterate that enough?), and as long as they're tied to proprietary systems. Who else would buy a generic, sleek, flat paneled x-term for $200?
I'm referring to NT 4.0 SP5. I'm not speaking from inexperience, I've been developing for Windows for as many years as Windows has existed, and I know the system as well as any non-microsoft developer probably does. It simply wasn't designed for a corporate environment. It's come a long way, but it will likely never have the flexibility that a unix-like system will. Ghost is great, never having to re-image a PC's disk is better.
And if your running windows on the desktop machines, then your users have the ability to run all of the apps that they want that require windows.
In some corporate environments, this is precisely what you don't want. You don't want users installing anything they feel like. Usually, you don't want them installing anything at all. Personally, I believe this is counter-productive, due to the fact that employees should be using technology to it's fullest. The problem is, most of them don't use it productively, and end up costing time and money when they install something useless that makes the system unstable.
My post covered two somewhat related topics. From an IT standpoint, a unix-like system is much more desireable as long as it provides everything the end-users need. And the free variants are providing more every day.
Obviously, the vast majority will probably never have an interest in the esoteric features and applications we hold dear. But there are simply so many things that a modern PC can do right now, and I don't think we've even scratched the surface.
You say you know many people who have no interest in using their PC for anything more than the basics. Have you ever asked them? Do they even know what the machine is capable of?
And consider this, without the high availability of computers as consumer devices, the web wouldn't exist as a "killer app". What happens if all those industry pundits are right? The PC as a platform hits a plateau, and declines. Where is the next "killer app" discovered? What we have is the platform, a fertile platform, in which the seeds for the next information (r)evolution are planted.
I do believe that information appliances will be a major industry, but I also think that people need to understand their computers aren't appliances. And maybe the reason that all current computing enviornments don't work well is because they're either targetted specifically at technical people, or they've been designed to hide all the complexity of a purposely complex device.
You can point at just about any computing paradigm and say its wrong, and back it up with good reason. And you'd be right, our entire concept of humancomputer interfaces are flawed. We need something that will retain all the flexibility that geeks love, while making it natural to work with for those that aren't as technically proficient. Perhaps it's just a time/generation thing, and it will work itself out. Maybe we can help it along?
I know of at least one place I manage that I'm considering moving away from NT Workstation to either Linux or FreeBSD on the desktops. Its a small shop (about 20 desktops) which relies on a DOS based real-estate management package. The primary reason I'm considering the move is the flexibility I have with the configurations, which brings me to my next point ...
So many people are convinced that the solution is to "dumb down" the desktop environments to suit the users. Personally I think that idea is way off base, and I tend to agree more with the concept of hiding advanced functionality in order to not overwhelm new users. Although I believe that is also less than ideal. Computers are powerful devices, but everyone seems to think they need to be made as easy to use as an appliance. I'm sorry, but I think it's a tremendeous waste of such a powerful and flexible machine. What we need is a way to educate users. Show them that they can do more with these machines than browsing the web, writing documents, and sending email.
Its depressing when I see people buy brand new high-powered machines and really not use them for anything beyond the basics. Its understandable that these are the reasons that most people purchase computers (aside from the "me too" hype), but we need to show them some of the wonder that we experience.
I love technology (and I bet you do too), and I realize everyone isn't like us. But there is more than the web, more than word processing, and much more than email. The real question is, how do we gently push the masses into discovering it for themselves?
How do we educate them without scaring them away? Or are the wonderful flexible machines we all love not really suited for the general populace? Are we doomed to a world where there are distinct information appliances for the cornerstones, where the PC as we know it is a dinosaur? I hope not.
(I seem to have gotten semi-OT here, my apologies)
Yes, but thats only one side of it, the pull side. Eventually systems will evolve to the point where a push model exists along-side the pull model for robustness. Unfortunately data structures change, companies reorganize, and no type of pointer will really ever suffice. It will have to change at some point. The robustness of a push model will facilitate these scenarios. It's not a question of if, it will happen, eventually.