The reason they're OSS-specific is because commercial software developers can and do provide incentives and motivation (in the form of paychecks) to do the boring stuff. They (we) in turn can do that because they're being paid by their customers to do so.
I disagree with your implication that the problem is symmetrical. While it is true that anyone can pick out a few counterexamples, the truth is that in commercial software, products with poor UI/documentation/boring stuff begin to suffer as soon as a more usable alternative shows up (sometimes even when it has fewer/weaker features). There is no such built-in forced-evolution environment in OSS -- the software is usable enough for the people who have the power to do anything about it, and that's the end of the matter.
As an example, take what happened with Word and WordPerfect back in the early mid 90's. No, Word did not demolish WordPerfect solely on the basis of Microsoft's considerable marketing prowess, although that was certainly involved. Rather, WordPerfect had a dominant market position, almost a monopoly, but they dragged their feet developing a GUI (Windows 3.1) version of the product after Microsoft released Word 1.0. I don't recall how long it took WordPerfect to come out with a GUI version, but I remember a) thinking it took a long time, and b) Word garnering high marks in the press for its slick (at the time) interface even though it got dinged for having fewer features. Microsoft kept cranking, and released Office. Even back then they made a point of having some semblance of commonality in the menu structure and hotkeys across the applications in the suite. When WordPerfect eventually released their own GUI suite, the reviews in the press were distinctly critical of the differing menus and hotkeys across the apps.
These things matter. If OSS does not find a way to address them, OSS developers will continue to fight an uphill battle. It's still a fightable battle, of course: Eventually the cost of the extra training corporations must invest in order to use OSS will become smaller than the price they pay for commercial software. Microsoft Office is not cheap...
Well put. Another point, related to the definition of "derived work," is the definition of "damages." Presumably the actual damages in copyright infringement cases are the amounts of money or "value" that the work that incorporates the infringing material gained by incorporating it. A common-sense approach suggests that if I take a copyrighted paragraph from another book and incorporate it into my own, then the author of that book is entitled to only a fraction of the revenue from my book, not the whole thing.
So, suppose a company incorporates a chunk of GPL code. For the sake of example, let's say it's an XML parser that one of their minor maintenance tools uses to read its configuration file, and that the tool is a part of a piece of software that cost the company $100M to develop and resulted in $1B in revenue over the life of the product. The tool is only distributed with the rest of the product, so it can be considered to be a part of that product.
As explained by this article, according to the terms of the GPL, the company has a choice: Either the source for the "derived work" must be openly published, or the company must pay the damages, etc. The company must weigh the pros and cons, so:
Question 1: How much would the company owe the authors of the XML parser if they chose not to publish the source for the derived work?
Question 2: How much code would have to be released if the company chose not to pay the damages? IOW, what's the derived work?
If either answer is disproprtionately large (disproportionate to the "common sense" expection that the value obtained was very small relative to the overall product), then in fact the GPL is viral, because one or both choices is a false choice. In particular: the author of the article claims that the infringer cannot be compelled to release the entire product's source code, because the company can choose to pay damages instead. But if the damages would be catastrophic for a relatively minor infraction like the one outlined here, then companies would indeed be correct to go to extraordinary lengths to keep themselves free of GPL'd code. This may be the point of the GPL, of course (depending on who's talking), but it would contradict the article.
"Even better would be a way to make the copyright charge based on the "value" of the property. Like you'd pay more for a long copyright on Star Wars than you would for a long copyright on Battlestar Galactica. I have no idea how that would work, but it would obviously be a better system than a fixed rate since people who make less from their item don't pay as much to register it."
I disagree. This would be double taxation. The value of a work is determined by what you can sell it for; if they're selling it, they're already being taxed.
For example, 75 years from now, if the company can sell Star Wars merchandise for $10 and Battlestar Galactica for $1, the sales and earnings taxes associated with those transactions might be (for example) $1 and $0.10 respectively. The variability in the value of the works is already taken into account.
Otherwise, you have an interesting idea.
Re:Misleading title... it's NOT about HACKING
on
Hacker's Challenge 2
·
· Score: 1
Why? Really -- why? Even l33t h4x0rs don't call themselves cr4x0rs. Everyone I know recognizes that "hacking" originally referred to coding, and in my development shop it still does. But now it also means "doing naughty security-related computer things." The term has taken on an overloaded meaning, and the context is almost always sufficient to distinguish what the speaker means.
I think the authors got their fractions reversed. AFAICS the data indicates a significant increase in battery life, not just 20 minutes. From the article:
"One thing becomes immediately apparent: the Pentium-M system runs longer. In order to estimate approximately how much longer it runs compared to the Pentium 4-M notebook, however, the batter capacity must be considered as well. The capacity of the battery in the Pentium-M notebook is 48.8 Wh, while that of the Pentium 4-M battery is about 59 Wh.
If you then take the operating time of both platforms with respect to battery capacity, figuring in a factor of an imaginary battery with a capacity of 10 Wh for example, then the Pentium-M system gives you an operating time of about 20 minutes longer."
The chart immediately above this quote shows the Pentium-M lasting about 30% to 50% longer than the older Pentium-4-M, depending on the test. On a smaller battery. So the conclusion that it only gets you about 20 minutes is far too conservative.
On the other hand, I'm suspicious of any such dramatic increases in battery life. It would probably be fair to deduct points for the smaller screen size on the Pentium-M because it should draw less power than the 15-incher on the P-4-M.
From Microsoft's perspective, one problem with the possibility of hacked console systems is that the machines can no longer be considered "trusted" on the network. Microsoft intends to bring broadband to the masses via the Xbox, both for games and for more serious applications. The target demographic is not nearly as computer-savvy as most of the readers on this board, and any perceived lack of security or cheating will have a negative impact on the growth of that business.
For example, consider the problems Blizzard et al have had with cheaters in their online games. Those of us who understand the "rules of the game" might be annoyed at the fact that some punk can dupe powerful items in Diablo II, but we won't stop playing because of it. On the other hand, if MS releases an online environment (not necessarily a game) that can make Grandma's information vulnerable to the bad guys with modded systems, it's a very different story.
Yes, I understand about security, SSL, existing PC hacks, blah blah blah. My point is that the home electronics consumer is a very different beast from the typical PC gamer. Microsoft may be attempting the impossible here (security through obscurity), but I think I understand where they're coming from. They'll just have to lower their expectations.
Disclosure: I am a Tech alum twice over (BSCS '95, MSCS '97).
Disclaimer: The Honor Code was put in place after I graduated.
Background:
At Tech, the classes in question are required of almost all freshmen, not just CS majors. The classes contain several hundred people, just like calculus, chemistry, and the other required courses. The idea is that no science or engineering degree is complete without some exposure to the basics of computer science, a significant nod to the times we live in.
The class, unlike calculus and chemistry, is oriented around online activity -- writing code, compiling, electronic homework submissions, etc. Students fresh out of high school are taught the basics of interacting with this computing environment if they don't already know it.
Compared to the effort required to share work in traditional disciplines, it is utterly trivial to obtain and share completed labs and homework. Unscrupulous students do not even have to risk being seen copying each others' papers -- they can just copy files to/from an accessible sharepoint or web page.
Observations:
Suppose you had the opportunity to design an introductory CS class. But also suppose that you had to design it for several hundred students, most of whom are not there because they're interested in the subject but because it's required for their degree requirements (think about one of your own hated freshman classes). Would you take any special steps regarding cheating? I would.
Checking for cheating is extremely time-consuming and expensive, even with the much-discussed "cheat detection" programs in use at Tech. The Tech CS department simply would not spend the resources on it unless they had evidence that there was a problem. Believe me, they're tough as nails about what they spend their money on.
Many kids coming out of high school today see absolutely nothing wrong with downloading MP3s they haven't purchased. In fact, many of them see it as some kind of absurd "fight the power" underdog-rebellion thing. What's the difference between this and cheating on your homework?
The author of the article attempts to draw a parallel between cheating and parking illegally (or speeding, etc.), and asks which of us has never done these things. This is a ridiculous parallel. Here's a better real-world analogy: Adam and Bob work together on a project at work. Adam does substantially less work than Bob. In private discussions with the boss, Adam implicitly claims equal credit with Bob for the success of the project. Hey, it's all about perceptions, right?
As has been pointed out elsewhere, I'm interested in hearing the details of this case, from both sides. But I'm not holding my breath.
Seems like that much energy passing through the atmosphere would generate a fair amount of ozone from oxygen molecules absorbing some of the energy. I guess this might be fine at high altitudes where ozone is pretty depleted, but at low altitudes it's just another pollutant.
I might be completely out in left field. Anyone out there know whether this would be an issue?
The reason MS doesn't support skins is simple: Skins are a nightmare for corporate training and technical support. While they are acceptable for strictly consumer-focused products (see Windows Media Player), WinXP must also serve the corporate market.
IMO, the emphasis on customizability in the development effort around Gnome and KDE will impede their acceptance in corporate and other markets where end-user support is an issue. Customizability is precisely the kind of thing corporate IT departments do not want. While it is true that IT departments can choose to deploy versions that are not customizable, what they really want is to be able to leverage training and experiences that their users have gained elsewhere. For this reason, on a resume, "Win98 experience" means something relatively meaningful, but "Linux experience" or "Gnome experience" can have much broader (and potentially less valuable) meanings. ----
-- Bandannaman
Hmm. In your view there should be zero government access to individuals' private communications (presumably including wiretaps, hidden surveillance, etc. for consistency). So describe for me the mechanism(s) that will catch and deter the following crimes:
Murder-for-hire
Sabotage
Espionage
Harassment / Stalking
Discrimination
Price-fixing
Money laundering (and other tax evasions)
And my favorite: non-governmental invasion of privacy by business entities or other individuals
While you're at it, please put each of these crimes into one of your four categories above.
All of these are real crimes, currently prosecuted in part by using the perpetrators' own communications against them. If left unprosecuted, they would indeed lead to absolute disaster for our way of life. If not targeted surveillance, then what?
I've seen innumerable diatribes against government access to private communication, but it is extremely rare to see acknowledgement of the underlying problem (Bad Guys Doing Bad Things In Secret), much less suggestions for alternative solutions.
If law enforcement could not get access to the Bad Guys' goodies, it would be an absolute disaster for everyone -- our freedoms would be confiscated not by the government but by crimelords and other unaccountable groups like multinational corporations. Is this really what people want? On the other hand, of course, unrestricted government access would be an equally severe disaster.
The existing U.S. system of requiring a court warrant is a compromise that allows some public scrutiny (after the fact, which is usually good enough to ensure the health of the system if not of every case).
Unfortunately, things like Carnivore are a kind of end-run around that system, which is why they are so distressing. But it meets the real, legitimate need of detecting crime in the first place, much like we have policemen running a beat to observe and prevent crimes rather than dispatching them after the fact.
So what is the real compromise? How do we resolve these issues? Neither extreme is acceptable.
Slashdot Mirror
The Platform SDK has never included the compiler and linker. That is the problem being solved by this release of the tools.
The reason they're OSS-specific is because commercial software developers can and do provide incentives and motivation (in the form of paychecks) to do the boring stuff. They (we) in turn can do that because they're being paid by their customers to do so.
I disagree with your implication that the problem is symmetrical. While it is true that anyone can pick out a few counterexamples, the truth is that in commercial software, products with poor UI/documentation/boring stuff begin to suffer as soon as a more usable alternative shows up (sometimes even when it has fewer/weaker features). There is no such built-in forced-evolution environment in OSS -- the software is usable enough for the people who have the power to do anything about it, and that's the end of the matter.
As an example, take what happened with Word and WordPerfect back in the early mid 90's. No, Word did not demolish WordPerfect solely on the basis of Microsoft's considerable marketing prowess, although that was certainly involved. Rather, WordPerfect had a dominant market position, almost a monopoly, but they dragged their feet developing a GUI (Windows 3.1) version of the product after Microsoft released Word 1.0. I don't recall how long it took WordPerfect to come out with a GUI version, but I remember a) thinking it took a long time, and b) Word garnering high marks in the press for its slick (at the time) interface even though it got dinged for having fewer features. Microsoft kept cranking, and released Office. Even back then they made a point of having some semblance of commonality in the menu structure and hotkeys across the applications in the suite. When WordPerfect eventually released their own GUI suite, the reviews in the press were distinctly critical of the differing menus and hotkeys across the apps.
These things matter. If OSS does not find a way to address them, OSS developers will continue to fight an uphill battle. It's still a fightable battle, of course: Eventually the cost of the extra training corporations must invest in order to use OSS will become smaller than the price they pay for commercial software. Microsoft Office is not cheap...
Well put. Another point, related to the definition of "derived work," is the definition of "damages." Presumably the actual damages in copyright infringement cases are the amounts of money or "value" that the work that incorporates the infringing material gained by incorporating it. A common-sense approach suggests that if I take a copyrighted paragraph from another book and incorporate it into my own, then the author of that book is entitled to only a fraction of the revenue from my book, not the whole thing.
So, suppose a company incorporates a chunk of GPL code. For the sake of example, let's say it's an XML parser that one of their minor maintenance tools uses to read its configuration file, and that the tool is a part of a piece of software that cost the company $100M to develop and resulted in $1B in revenue over the life of the product. The tool is only distributed with the rest of the product, so it can be considered to be a part of that product.
As explained by this article, according to the terms of the GPL, the company has a choice: Either the source for the "derived work" must be openly published, or the company must pay the damages, etc. The company must weigh the pros and cons, so:
Question 1: How much would the company owe the authors of the XML parser if they chose not to publish the source for the derived work?
Question 2: How much code would have to be released if the company chose not to pay the damages? IOW, what's the derived work?
If either answer is disproprtionately large (disproportionate to the "common sense" expection that the value obtained was very small relative to the overall product), then in fact the GPL is viral, because one or both choices is a false choice. In particular: the author of the article claims that the infringer cannot be compelled to release the entire product's source code, because the company can choose to pay damages instead. But if the damages would be catastrophic for a relatively minor infraction like the one outlined here, then companies would indeed be correct to go to extraordinary lengths to keep themselves free of GPL'd code. This may be the point of the GPL, of course (depending on who's talking), but it would contradict the article.
IANAL. Can someone shed light?
When you want better sound for your dollar it is best to go elsewhere.
For example?
"Even better would be a way to make the copyright charge based on the "value" of the property. Like you'd pay more for a long copyright on Star Wars than you would for a long copyright on Battlestar Galactica. I have no idea how that would work, but it would obviously be a better system than a fixed rate since people who make less from their item don't pay as much to register it."
I disagree. This would be double taxation. The value of a work is determined by what you can sell it for; if they're selling it, they're already being taxed.
For example, 75 years from now, if the company can sell Star Wars merchandise for $10 and Battlestar Galactica for $1, the sales and earnings taxes associated with those transactions might be (for example) $1 and $0.10 respectively. The variability in the value of the works is already taken into account.
Otherwise, you have an interesting idea.
Why? Really -- why? Even l33t h4x0rs don't call themselves cr4x0rs. Everyone I know recognizes that "hacking" originally referred to coding, and in my development shop it still does. But now it also means "doing naughty security-related computer things." The term has taken on an overloaded meaning, and the context is almost always sufficient to distinguish what the speaker means.
The chart immediately above this quote shows the Pentium-M lasting about 30% to 50% longer than the older Pentium-4-M, depending on the test. On a smaller battery. So the conclusion that it only gets you about 20 minutes is far too conservative.
On the other hand, I'm suspicious of any such dramatic increases in battery life. It would probably be fair to deduct points for the smaller screen size on the Pentium-M because it should draw less power than the 15-incher on the P-4-M.
From Microsoft's perspective, one problem with the possibility of hacked console systems is that the machines can no longer be considered "trusted" on the network. Microsoft intends to bring broadband to the masses via the Xbox, both for games and for more serious applications. The target demographic is not nearly as computer-savvy as most of the readers on this board, and any perceived lack of security or cheating will have a negative impact on the growth of that business.
For example, consider the problems Blizzard et al have had with cheaters in their online games. Those of us who understand the "rules of the game" might be annoyed at the fact that some punk can dupe powerful items in Diablo II, but we won't stop playing because of it. On the other hand, if MS releases an online environment (not necessarily a game) that can make Grandma's information vulnerable to the bad guys with modded systems, it's a very different story.
Yes, I understand about security, SSL, existing PC hacks, blah blah blah. My point is that the home electronics consumer is a very different beast from the typical PC gamer. Microsoft may be attempting the impossible here (security through obscurity), but I think I understand where they're coming from. They'll just have to lower their expectations.
Disclosure: I am a Tech alum twice over (BSCS '95, MSCS '97).
Disclaimer: The Honor Code was put in place after I graduated.
Background:
- At Tech, the classes in question are required of almost all freshmen, not just CS majors. The classes contain several hundred people, just like calculus, chemistry, and the other required courses. The idea is that no science or engineering degree is complete without some exposure to the basics of computer science, a significant nod to the times we live in.
- The class, unlike calculus and chemistry, is oriented around online activity -- writing code, compiling, electronic homework submissions, etc. Students fresh out of high school are taught the basics of interacting with this computing environment if they don't already know it.
- Compared to the effort required to share work in traditional disciplines, it is utterly trivial to obtain and share completed labs and homework. Unscrupulous students do not even have to risk being seen copying each others' papers -- they can just copy files to/from an accessible sharepoint or web page.
Observations:- Suppose you had the opportunity to design an introductory CS class. But also suppose that you had to design it for several hundred students, most of whom are not there because they're interested in the subject but because it's required for their degree requirements (think about one of your own hated freshman classes). Would you take any special steps regarding cheating? I would.
- Checking for cheating is extremely time-consuming and expensive, even with the much-discussed "cheat detection" programs in use at Tech. The Tech CS department simply would not spend the resources on it unless they had evidence that there was a problem. Believe me, they're tough as nails about what they spend their money on.
- Many kids coming out of high school today see absolutely nothing wrong with downloading MP3s they haven't purchased. In fact, many of them see it as some kind of absurd "fight the power" underdog-rebellion thing. What's the difference between this and cheating on your homework?
- The author of the article attempts to draw a parallel between cheating and parking illegally (or speeding, etc.), and asks which of us has never done these things. This is a ridiculous parallel. Here's a better real-world analogy: Adam and Bob work together on a project at work. Adam does substantially less work than Bob. In private discussions with the boss, Adam implicitly claims equal credit with Bob for the success of the project. Hey, it's all about perceptions, right?
- As has been pointed out elsewhere, I'm interested in hearing the details of this case, from both sides. But I'm not holding my breath.
-- BandannaramaAlanis Morissette is Canadian.
Seems like that much energy passing through the atmosphere would generate a fair amount of ozone from oxygen molecules absorbing some of the energy. I guess this might be fine at high altitudes where ozone is pretty depleted, but at low altitudes it's just another pollutant.
I might be completely out in left field. Anyone out there know whether this would be an issue?
The reason MS doesn't support skins is simple: Skins are a nightmare for corporate training and technical support. While they are acceptable for strictly consumer-focused products (see Windows Media Player), WinXP must also serve the corporate market.
IMO, the emphasis on customizability in the development effort around Gnome and KDE will impede their acceptance in corporate and other markets where end-user support is an issue. Customizability is precisely the kind of thing corporate IT departments do not want. While it is true that IT departments can choose to deploy versions that are not customizable, what they really want is to be able to leverage training and experiences that their users have gained elsewhere. For this reason, on a resume, "Win98 experience" means something relatively meaningful, but "Linux experience" or "Gnome experience" can have much broader (and potentially less valuable) meanings.
----
-- Bandannaman
While you're at it, please put each of these crimes into one of your four categories above.
All of these are real crimes, currently prosecuted in part by using the perpetrators' own communications against them. If left unprosecuted, they would indeed lead to absolute disaster for our way of life. If not targeted surveillance, then what?
----
-- Bandannaman
If law enforcement could not get access to the Bad Guys' goodies, it would be an absolute disaster for everyone -- our freedoms would be confiscated not by the government but by crimelords and other unaccountable groups like multinational corporations. Is this really what people want? On the other hand, of course, unrestricted government access would be an equally severe disaster.
The existing U.S. system of requiring a court warrant is a compromise that allows some public scrutiny (after the fact, which is usually good enough to ensure the health of the system if not of every case).
Unfortunately, things like Carnivore are a kind of end-run around that system, which is why they are so distressing. But it meets the real, legitimate need of detecting crime in the first place, much like we have policemen running a beat to observe and prevent crimes rather than dispatching them after the fact.
So what is the real compromise? How do we resolve these issues? Neither extreme is acceptable.
----
-- Bandannaman
Damn, those guys are old!
----
-- Bandannaman