"if, say, port 80 traffic were completely unfettered in a bi-directional manner and incomming connections were allowed without a previously established outgoing connection, chances are quite high that would be abused by malware authors for command-and-control and botnet node intercommunication."
Still *my* problem, neither yours nor the ISP's.
"I don't think that's much of a stretch at all, and its not as if the typical end user is going to know or care to secure their node."
Why he should? What are the consecuences of his malpractices? If you fuck it up you pay for the mop seems a sensible policy. But even then, still my f* problem, neither yours nor the ISP's.
"What are they marketing if the musician doesn't exist?"
Everything. Because it's not music what they are selling; it's marketing itself.
"As advertising agency would not survive long if they demanded the lion's share of profits from any products for which they created ad campaigns."
Reality checking: they are doing it and they are doing it fine.
"The record label business model is self-destructive"
That certainly explains why it has been steadily growing with big margin profits since about 1910. Or maybe not? The only think that scares them is that they grew out of a scarcity (producing and delivering music) that due to technology it is no more. They should go the way of lift attendants, water carriers or coachmen. If they don't is because its bussiness is managing IP so they earn a lot of money with practically no effort which in turn gives them enough free time to use their big wallets to perpetuate the 'statu quo' by pressing the legal and political system. Not only non self-destructive but quite auto-sustainable.
"it's only sustainable because the resource of naive musicians replenishes faster than they can expend it, and the demand is insatiable."
Oh, sure! Mining gold is self-destructive... unless you happen to find a mine that's able to replenish faster than you dig it out.
"I believe that the record label companies' profits are miniscule compared to what they would be had the industry been managed to find, encourage and support artists, rather than to discover and exploit them."
Yes. You are like those economists that really believe on eternal geometric growing. Given the volume and size of the big brands that live *only* from expendible money (you don't buy a CD with the money for your food, do you?) without create *any* substantial value 'per se' across society (just entertaiment and, as such, easily substitutable for any other bussiness) I doubt they could suck any more money no matter what.
"At the end of the day if you have a problem being bullied, it is a social problem. No amount of martial arts (no matter which you choose) is going to solve that issue. Gain some confidence, do some sports, meet some friends, and learn to interact in social situations."
Since you are instructor and practising more than a decade you know that honestly practising a martial art (i.e.: not just six months in the hopes of starting kicking asses instead of being the one kicked), specially Aikido, is a very good recipy to gain self confidence, socialization, gain friends and social interaction. I a word: practising martial arts can indeed be the solution.
"Let's face it, some of that old stuff only goes so well because of a perverse form of marketing"
While that's probably true, the reverse is not. You are somehow implying that being everything the same kind of perverse marketing Bach and Beyonce are more or less the same.
"How many would go for that stuff if they didn't know the piece and you told them it's composed by some intern working for Disney?"
If your intern at Disney comes up with something the likes of the well-tempered clavier he will definetly have my bless.
"And each generation thinks the music of the next one is crap and only bought by brainwashed idiots."
To some extent. The difference being that as media corporations are better on their stuff that's becoming more and more true *this time*.
"I also have no need to delude myself that there's something objectively better about the crap _I_ listen to, compared to the crap kids these days listen to."
Beethoven vs Back Street Boys; yeah, sure, the same crap.
"Back in my highschool and university days, I pirated a lot. Reason was money."
Yes, but not in the sense you think. Reason was money in the sense that was money what made private copies illegal to start with.
You "pirated" because sharing copies is considered illegal in the USA. I probably didn't copy music for me and my friends any less than you but I didn't pirate *anything*. See? Same actions but you pirated a lot and I didn't. That was money (from the mass media companies) in action.
"I really do like doing the right thing."
You are a valuable lamb^H^Hcitizen. Thank you from SonyDisney Corp.
"Your pointy facts and reasonable tone aren't gonna play well in this town, kid.;)"
Funny but I'd say they are gonna play even worse in NetApp's town.
How can be the violating technology so subpar to the original and still be violating a patent? If NetApp are so superior (and I don't doubt that) why so much a hassle for a uncompeting product? Probably questions nobody at NetApp want their prospective customers to ask to themselves.
"However, any move in that direction would beat a system that does not even acknowledge the possibility of independent invention."
I see it the other way around. Since inventions have to be implementations (devices, with a detailed explanations of their functionalities, their blueprints and what not) posing novelty and non-obviousness it's obvious that the chances of simultaneous independent patentable inventions are slim.
The fact that the case of simultaneous independent patentable inventions is far from scarce points out that such patents are not so novel and not so non-obvious so they shouldn't have to be granted to start with.
"Much as I hate these patent cases, perhaps this one has merit."
It might have legal merit but it's obvious it can't hold water from an objective standpoint.
NetApp is FUD-waving some patents it holds. If those patents held any real merit, it should be impossible for Coraid to violate them, using as it's the case a totally different FS technology. NetApp can try this because: a) Their pockets are deeper than those of Coraid, so Coraid risks a financial debacle even it they absolutly know to be on the safe side. Blame the American justice system for that. b) The "patents" hold by NetApp are vague assertions about some high level functionalities that shouldn't be patentable 'per se' in any sane world: were it not for the MAD if they tried that against IBM, Oracle or HP they could go against every NAS builder everywhere since basically their position is "the NAS *concept* is patented by us". Blame the American pantent system for that.
"NetApp built it's bussiness being a vendor of NAS systems that had extensible file systems that spanned clever raid structures, and automatic snapshoting and they did this long before ZFS."
Exactly. And that is a *concept* and it is *not* patentable (it shouldn't be). A device that offers a NAS service, RAIDed, expandable and snapshotable by means of *this* specific RAID implementation, *this* specific expanding filesystem and *this* specific snapshotting technology is certainly patentable but then NetApp obviously couldn't wave their patent portfolio against a company that uses a *different* RAID implementation, *different* filesystem and *different* RAID software.
"And when you pair that with NAS, well that's a NetApp in a box."
Well, you know what happens when you take four wheels, and engine and a steering wheel? You have a car. And cars are full of patents, of course, but coming the car from older saner days that didn't mean the *concept* of a vehicle with four wheels, and engine and a steering wheel was patentable and thus you can buy cars from a lot of different builders, each of them certainly with their own pool of patented inventions, instead of being forced to buy all cars from Mercedes because they patented the concept.
NetApp already has a leading edge as you yourself demonstrate by "nominalizing" their brand: that's a "netapp" but it's still a concept. Of course NetApp would be glad if an insane legal system allows them to patent the concept so no one can compete against them no matter if they use their own technologies or not.
"However, when a customer is calling back (and is angry!), you don't have time on a live call to wait to see what's up with the account."
Exactly. That's the stupid part on tiered storage systems based on access frecuency. It is not access frecuency but access *urgency* what should stablish what goes on the faster systems. Yes, I know that usually there's a correlation between frecuency and urgency if only from the efficency standpoint but it's still the wrong way to look at it (after all, up the point that frecuency and urgency correlates, data accessed more frecuently will end up on the faster devices anyway).
"Or is dell about to make a press release about faulty storage in their servers resulting in about 90% data loss?"
Funny. A bit more on the serious side, they might be opening the field for the annoucement that they go into the tiered storage market for short/mid companies. It seems the idea is flourishing among people that never considered it before because of the SSD. That broght to them the idea that there's fast storage, but short and expensive and then there's large and (relatively) cheap storage, but slow. Couple that with bright coloured brochures "demonstrating" that you don't need most of your data to be there, first line, and hop! a new market is opened.
Of course, tiered storage is no news for the big folks, but Dell is not focused on them anyway.
"what I don't understand is why the technology sword does not cut both ways."
You nailed it.
That's because it is not art what is endangered by technology but an industry that made a profit out of a scarcity that technology has avoided.
This is the false debate much pushed by those in control of the old bussiness model (of course): they talk about art when they want to say "my industry as I knew it" much as an ice seller talking about how those new devices, the refrigerators, are going to make a disaster and then no one will be able to have freshed foods at home (because ice sellers are going to be out of bussiness).
"The real damage caused by piracy aren't the works which were created and then failed to produce return on investment"
Of course not. Ther real damage caused by piracy are the sunk vessels and the lost lifes. Everybody knows that.
"the real damage is done in works which are never created in the first place due to the perception that piracy would make them financially irrelevant"
Works that, as History evidences on too many cases to be numbered, are totally irrelevant. On one hand, this can be said about everything since it's unprovable. You know, the world lost an Einstein this morning because an abortion; you think Michellangelo is great but the world lost the very real genious because it was his cousin the one with the real talent but one evening it was Michellangelo the one that spent his time carving a rock while his cousin was said to go work elsewhere... on the other hand, real artistic talent "wants" to arise: Van Gogh *had* to paint even against the fact he was unable to sell a picture. Since talent rises no matter what is arguably (cynic mode on) an economic loss paying artists for what they would do even for free in their free time or even going to poverty in the try.
"Maybe your company works in such a loose manner that the brass can hire and fire at will, but a well run organization will actually plan for such changes."
I didn't say "at will", I said a Director "has the authority". Hummm... and probably even "at will" is true if only for a while: if it's its dept. and it's within his budget, then here it go. Of course, for a Director either results show his value or he'll go to be a Director not so much time.
"there is no exception to patent infringement for 'developing your own implementation."
Except, of course, that a patent is granted for "the implementation of a method". Any other different implementation is immediatly and by definition not covered by the patent.
"Which Microsoft have you been watching for the last few decades?"
The very Microsoft that didn't even have corporate/campus licenses till the NT 3.5 days, about 1995 if my memory doesn't fool me.
"MS always targets business leaders first."
That can be true for the very, very begining. And I mean by this the IBM bussiness leaders that signed the contract on DOS. But then, Ms DOS came "built it" on the PCs, no bussiness leader involved. Windows 3.1 (the first popular PC GUI from Microsoft) came pushed by the users (CIOs where on UNIX and mainframes and VT100 terminals) as did first Office versions (i.e. against Word Perfect).
Visual Basic and Access "databases" where a "bottom up" issue to the point of being not only not pushed by CIOs (or otherwise high rank bussiness people) but their very nightmare (they were seen as information discontrol and leakeage). Going from DOS to Windows to Windows for Workgroups to NT "classic" domains (3.5, 3.51 and 4.0) was not even an issue where high rank bussiness people were involved at all since its market adoption came basically from growing companies and internal departments, again, *against* top-down policies. As it were the case with "internet presence" on the Frontpage days.
The case is that almost always Microsoft is not a company with solutions to the "big guys" but pushed from the bottom up from the trenches to the point that only when Microsoft got a firm grasp on the desktop it started to offer "server" products.
"Developers and sysamins have been pushing for a move away from MS for over a decade"
You don't know so many sysadmins or developers, do you? One thing that Microsoft does admirabily is "dumbing down" tech people to the point that most of them are not sysadmins but system operators (they know which button to push without deep knowledge of its consecuences or why does it work the way it does) nor developers but mild code wizard executioners. Those are the people Microsoft talks about on their "bussiness cases" (Unix/Linux people are more scarce and expensive than their Windows counterparts -do you think they are talking about "top notch" technicians there?) and those are the people that would never allow non-Microsoft products in the environments they control for fear to the unkown and fear of not being good enough for those "other" products (i.e. look how many windows-only sysadmins can "talk", say, POP or SMTP on a telnet session to debug a network problem versus how many linux sysadmins can do it).
When sysadmins and developers are *really* pushing alternatives they manage to find their place just exactly in the same way Microsoft started: from the trenches, down up. Here a LAMP box, there a Samba fileserver or a workgroup mail relay, etc.
"CIO's make the decision that X company is going to be an MS house"
That's true *now*, my youngster, but that was not the origins. And such CIO/CTO point of view isn't even a dumb one. Other thing that Microsoft knows well is to develop (with the aid of internal "glue code" and niche apps -which in turn goes back to the problem about losing grip on developers) quite entrenched "solution blocks" where Access can only "grow up" with Ms SQL, Ms Outlook only shines when working against Ms Exchange, Ms Office's full potential only appears coupled to Ms Sharepoint, your glue code for all those apps and supporting processes is only effectively doable using Ms Visual Studio. Then couple this fact with the one that due to the abuse of "false" standards (Microsoft's implementation of Kerberos, anyone? or CIFS weapon race where almost each Ms patch "casually" breaks Samba compatibility) and closed formats the reverse is true too: only Microsoft products can "talk" effectively to Microsoft products and you will have that while starting to go Microsoft maybe is not quite a savvy decision, once Microsoft entrenches policying "Microsoft for everything" becomes quite a sensible decision, specially when seen from high altitude and specially thinking short/mid term (where m
"MS's MO is to indoctrinate people at the business level not the developer level"
Well, maybe. It's only a pity all their acts in the last two decades seem otherwise.
They started on the desktop. Then their developer tools (namely, visual basic) allowed for a lot of niche apps to flourish which meant a strong lock-in for the platform (a *lot* of SoHo and short size companies could go, say, to Linux tomorrow and overnight were it *not* for the myriad of niche applications that lock them to the Microsoft platform). Then from desktop plus niche apps they were to the network; local first, then the Internet and they had played the developers game from then on.
Microsoft really know it is the miriad of in-house and/or non-portable developments what really enforces their lock-in strategy: from IE6-only intranets (or even worse: ActiveX intranets) to Access apps to forms upon Exchange and now Sharepoint. This is what leads everything else: once you have the apps you'll need the sysadmins; the more the sysadmins put into Microsoft platforms the less they'll want to go anywhere else.
Microsoft certainly will take very seriously losing its grip on the developer's side.
"Most people use desktops as glorified typewriters and as web browsers. If there is a reason that desktops will continue to be the most efficient way for your average person to perform their everyday tasks, I fail to see it."
Glorified typewriters. That means big and robust enough keyboard and big enough screen. Web browsers. That means big enough screen.
Big and robust enough keyboard and big enough screen means desktops are not going anywhere any time soon (while maybe they'll metamorph to virtual desktops or bay-based devices ala iPod).
"Frankly, if you dont have $2K for an Enterprise MSDN licensing, you really have no business doing a start up, do you?"
Frankly, if you put your money out of the objective of achieving revenue -like spending even if only one single dollar on unneeded licenses, you really have no business doing a start up, do you?
"The difference is that in a commercial piece of software it is not the developer making the decisions."
Or is it? It depends, really (just think that some software companies started as a bunch of coders with an idea: they were the ones deciding where to go).
"If the boss says the users demand X, then the programmers will have to implement it in one form or another."
The important part being "the boss", not "the users". A "for hire" developer will do whatever the one who pays says. And that will be the case -again, no matter the distribution license. I for one work for a company that distributes its code base as open source and do you know what? coders still do whatever the boss says. It is not the distribution license: it is the project objectives.
"With non-commercial Free Software the developer is making the decisions"
So your point is that with "non-commercial whatever" "commercial" is of no interest? Well, in other news, when you mix hot water with cold water you get warm water. Astounding.
"The problem however is that Ubuntu just can't fix all of the Free Software out there, they don't even have enough man-power to just pack and support it."
Are you implying that somehow Adobe, or Microsoft, or Oracle can fix all of the Closed Software out there?
"So yeah, its not the license, its just a development model that is very common in the Free Software world."
So yeah, since writing software for fun is another option with regards to open source software. Of course when you are there for the money, well, you are there for the money. You can be there for the money and still distributing the results of your work under open sourced licenses. I know: I do it.
"The reason is simple, professional proprietary software is developed to solve a problems people have"
That's wishful thinking. Professional proprietary software is developed to make money, not to solve people's problems. As such, within proprietary software as soon as you can reach your goal (making money) more effectively by locking in customers or lobying with third parties instead of fulfilling users's need, there they'll go.
All of your rant -not to say there are not valid points, goes for some project management objectives that while probably easier to find within open sourced software packages are in fact independent of the distribution license.
There's a lack of market aceptance (on some markets) about paying for development instead of product licenses that explains what you see much better than the distribution license used.
Can you imagine something like "I was about to use a 'for' loop here but oh! since it's going to be GPL'ed I'll use a 'while' instead".
Slashdot Mirror
"The last line can be used by ISPs saying that you're "damaging the network""
And they previous one can be used by any lobbying party to get off with whatever they want.
""May not limit the right of a user to enter or use any class of instruments, devices or appliances on the network, provided they are legal"
So they just need to, say, declare illegal connecting more than one computer to a "single computer" connection and there you go.
"and that they do not damage or harm the network or service quality"
Oh, and by they way, trying to use 100% of bandwith as shown in the contract terms harms the service quality since we oversell it 100 to 1.
"if, say, port 80 traffic were completely unfettered in a bi-directional manner and incomming connections were allowed without a previously established outgoing connection, chances are quite high that would be abused by malware authors for command-and-control and botnet node intercommunication."
Still *my* problem, neither yours nor the ISP's.
"I don't think that's much of a stretch at all, and its not as if the typical end user is going to know or care to secure their node."
Why he should? What are the consecuences of his malpractices? If you fuck it up you pay for the mop seems a sensible policy. But even then, still my f* problem, neither yours nor the ISP's.
"What are they marketing if the musician doesn't exist?"
Everything. Because it's not music what they are selling; it's marketing itself.
"As advertising agency would not survive long if they demanded the lion's share of profits from any products for which they created ad campaigns."
Reality checking: they are doing it and they are doing it fine.
"The record label business model is self-destructive"
That certainly explains why it has been steadily growing with big margin profits since about 1910. Or maybe not? The only think that scares them is that they grew out of a scarcity (producing and delivering music) that due to technology it is no more. They should go the way of lift attendants, water carriers or coachmen. If they don't is because its bussiness is managing IP so they earn a lot of money with practically no effort which in turn gives them enough free time to use their big wallets to perpetuate the 'statu quo' by pressing the legal and political system. Not only non self-destructive but quite auto-sustainable.
"it's only sustainable because the resource of naive musicians replenishes faster than they can expend it, and the demand is insatiable."
Oh, sure! Mining gold is self-destructive... unless you happen to find a mine that's able to replenish faster than you dig it out.
"I believe that the record label companies' profits are miniscule compared to what they would be had the industry been managed to find, encourage and support artists, rather than to discover and exploit them."
Yes. You are like those economists that really believe on eternal geometric growing. Given the volume and size of the big brands that live *only* from expendible money (you don't buy a CD with the money for your food, do you?) without create *any* substantial value 'per se' across society (just entertaiment and, as such, easily substitutable for any other bussiness) I doubt they could suck any more money no matter what.
"He could not get a bank loan to lauch this because 19 out of 20 bands fail comericially."
So, by your own account, the record labels are doing nothing but recoup their costs if getting 19 parts out of 20 from the one that does success.
"At the end of the day if you have a problem being bullied, it is a social problem. No amount of martial arts (no matter which you choose) is going to solve that issue. Gain some confidence, do some sports, meet some friends, and learn to interact in social situations."
Since you are instructor and practising more than a decade you know that honestly practising a martial art (i.e.: not just six months in the hopes of starting kicking asses instead of being the one kicked), specially Aikido, is a very good recipy to gain self confidence, socialization, gain friends and social interaction. I a word: practising martial arts can indeed be the solution.
"Let's face it, some of that old stuff only goes so well because of a perverse form of marketing"
While that's probably true, the reverse is not. You are somehow implying that being everything the same kind of perverse marketing Bach and Beyonce are more or less the same.
"How many would go for that stuff if they didn't know the piece and you told them it's composed by some intern working for Disney?"
If your intern at Disney comes up with something the likes of the well-tempered clavier he will definetly have my bless.
"And each generation thinks the music of the next one is crap and only bought by brainwashed idiots."
To some extent. The difference being that as media corporations are better on their stuff that's becoming more and more true *this time*.
"I also have no need to delude myself that there's something objectively better about the crap _I_ listen to, compared to the crap kids these days listen to."
Beethoven vs Back Street Boys; yeah, sure, the same crap.
"Back in my highschool and university days, I pirated a lot. Reason was money."
Yes, but not in the sense you think. Reason was money in the sense that was money what made private copies illegal to start with.
You "pirated" because sharing copies is considered illegal in the USA. I probably didn't copy music for me and my friends any less than you but I didn't pirate *anything*. See? Same actions but you pirated a lot and I didn't. That was money (from the mass media companies) in action.
"I really do like doing the right thing."
You are a valuable lamb^H^Hcitizen. Thank you from SonyDisney Corp.
"Your pointy facts and reasonable tone aren't gonna play well in this town, kid. ;)"
Funny but I'd say they are gonna play even worse in NetApp's town.
How can be the violating technology so subpar to the original and still be violating a patent? If NetApp are so superior (and I don't doubt that) why so much a hassle for a uncompeting product? Probably questions nobody at NetApp want their prospective customers to ask to themselves.
"However, any move in that direction would beat a system that does not even acknowledge the possibility of independent invention."
I see it the other way around. Since inventions have to be implementations (devices, with a detailed explanations of their functionalities, their blueprints and what not) posing novelty and non-obviousness it's obvious that the chances of simultaneous independent patentable inventions are slim.
The fact that the case of simultaneous independent patentable inventions is far from scarce points out that such patents are not so novel and not so non-obvious so they shouldn't have to be granted to start with.
"Much as I hate these patent cases, perhaps this one has merit."
It might have legal merit but it's obvious it can't hold water from an objective standpoint.
NetApp is FUD-waving some patents it holds. If those patents held any real merit, it should be impossible for Coraid to violate them, using as it's the case a totally different FS technology. NetApp can try this because:
a) Their pockets are deeper than those of Coraid, so Coraid risks a financial debacle even it they absolutly know to be on the safe side. Blame the American justice system for that.
b) The "patents" hold by NetApp are vague assertions about some high level functionalities that shouldn't be patentable 'per se' in any sane world: were it not for the MAD if they tried that against IBM, Oracle or HP they could go against every NAS builder everywhere since basically their position is "the NAS *concept* is patented by us". Blame the American pantent system for that.
"NetApp built it's bussiness being a vendor of NAS systems that had extensible file systems that spanned clever raid structures, and automatic snapshoting and they did this long before ZFS."
Exactly. And that is a *concept* and it is *not* patentable (it shouldn't be). A device that offers a NAS service, RAIDed, expandable and snapshotable by means of *this* specific RAID implementation, *this* specific expanding filesystem and *this* specific snapshotting technology is certainly patentable but then NetApp obviously couldn't wave their patent portfolio against a company that uses a *different* RAID implementation, *different* filesystem and *different* RAID software.
"And when you pair that with NAS, well that's a NetApp in a box."
Well, you know what happens when you take four wheels, and engine and a steering wheel? You have a car. And cars are full of patents, of course, but coming the car from older saner days that didn't mean the *concept* of a vehicle with four wheels, and engine and a steering wheel was patentable and thus you can buy cars from a lot of different builders, each of them certainly with their own pool of patented inventions, instead of being forced to buy all cars from Mercedes because they patented the concept.
NetApp already has a leading edge as you yourself demonstrate by "nominalizing" their brand: that's a "netapp" but it's still a concept. Of course NetApp would be glad if an insane legal system allows them to patent the concept so no one can compete against them no matter if they use their own technologies or not.
"However, when a customer is calling back (and is angry!), you don't have time on a live call to wait to see what's up with the account."
Exactly. That's the stupid part on tiered storage systems based on access frecuency. It is not access frecuency but access *urgency* what should stablish what goes on the faster systems. Yes, I know that usually there's a correlation between frecuency and urgency if only from the efficency standpoint but it's still the wrong way to look at it (after all, up the point that frecuency and urgency correlates, data accessed more frecuently will end up on the faster devices anyway).
"Or is dell about to make a press release about faulty storage in their servers resulting in about 90% data loss?"
Funny. A bit more on the serious side, they might be opening the field for the annoucement that they go into the tiered storage market for short/mid companies. It seems the idea is flourishing among people that never considered it before because of the SSD. That broght to them the idea that there's fast storage, but short and expensive and then there's large and (relatively) cheap storage, but slow. Couple that with bright coloured brochures "demonstrating" that you don't need most of your data to be there, first line, and hop! a new market is opened.
Of course, tiered storage is no news for the big folks, but Dell is not focused on them anyway.
"what I don't understand is why the technology sword does not cut both ways."
You nailed it.
That's because it is not art what is endangered by technology but an industry that made a profit out of a scarcity that technology has avoided.
This is the false debate much pushed by those in control of the old bussiness model (of course): they talk about art when they want to say "my industry as I knew it" much as an ice seller talking about how those new devices, the refrigerators, are going to make a disaster and then no one will be able to have freshed foods at home (because ice sellers are going to be out of bussiness).
"The real damage caused by piracy aren't the works which were created and then failed to produce return on investment"
Of course not. Ther real damage caused by piracy are the sunk vessels and the lost lifes. Everybody knows that.
"the real damage is done in works which are never created in the first place due to the perception that piracy would make them financially irrelevant"
Works that, as History evidences on too many cases to be numbered, are totally irrelevant. On one hand, this can be said about everything since it's unprovable. You know, the world lost an Einstein this morning because an abortion; you think Michellangelo is great but the world lost the very real genious because it was his cousin the one with the real talent but one evening it was Michellangelo the one that spent his time carving a rock while his cousin was said to go work elsewhere... on the other hand, real artistic talent "wants" to arise: Van Gogh *had* to paint even against the fact he was unable to sell a picture. Since talent rises no matter what is arguably (cynic mode on) an economic loss paying artists for what they would do even for free in their free time or even going to poverty in the try.
"Maybe your company works in such a loose manner that the brass can hire and fire at will, but a well run organization will actually plan for such changes."
I didn't say "at will", I said a Director "has the authority". Hummm... and probably even "at will" is true if only for a while: if it's its dept. and it's within his budget, then here it go. Of course, for a Director either results show his value or he'll go to be a Director not so much time.
"And he may have no authority to hire anyone else"
An "anything" Director without the authority to hire? He either has the authority to hire or he is not a Director.
"Patents are open for viewing aren't they (with the exception of the NSA)?"
Oh, no! You are wrong!
NSA can review the patents too!
"there is no exception to patent infringement for 'developing your own implementation."
Except, of course, that a patent is granted for "the implementation of a method". Any other different implementation is immediatly and by definition not covered by the patent.
"Which Microsoft have you been watching for the last few decades?"
The very Microsoft that didn't even have corporate/campus licenses till the NT 3.5 days, about 1995 if my memory doesn't fool me.
"MS always targets business leaders first."
That can be true for the very, very begining. And I mean by this the IBM bussiness leaders that signed the contract on DOS. But then, Ms DOS came "built it" on the PCs, no bussiness leader involved. Windows 3.1 (the first popular PC GUI from Microsoft) came pushed by the users (CIOs where on UNIX and mainframes and VT100 terminals) as did first Office versions (i.e. against Word Perfect).
Visual Basic and Access "databases" where a "bottom up" issue to the point of being not only not pushed by CIOs (or otherwise high rank bussiness people) but their very nightmare (they were seen as information discontrol and leakeage). Going from DOS to Windows to Windows for Workgroups to NT "classic" domains (3.5, 3.51 and 4.0) was not even an issue where high rank bussiness people were involved at all since its market adoption came basically from growing companies and internal departments, again, *against* top-down policies. As it were the case with "internet presence" on the Frontpage days.
The case is that almost always Microsoft is not a company with solutions to the "big guys" but pushed from the bottom up from the trenches to the point that only when Microsoft got a firm grasp on the desktop it started to offer "server" products.
"Developers and sysamins have been pushing for a move away from MS for over a decade"
You don't know so many sysadmins or developers, do you? One thing that Microsoft does admirabily is "dumbing down" tech people to the point that most of them are not sysadmins but system operators (they know which button to push without deep knowledge of its consecuences or why does it work the way it does) nor developers but mild code wizard executioners. Those are the people Microsoft talks about on their "bussiness cases" (Unix/Linux people are more scarce and expensive than their Windows counterparts -do you think they are talking about "top notch" technicians there?) and those are the people that would never allow non-Microsoft products in the environments they control for fear to the unkown and fear of not being good enough for those "other" products (i.e. look how many windows-only sysadmins can "talk", say, POP or SMTP on a telnet session to debug a network problem versus how many linux sysadmins can do it).
When sysadmins and developers are *really* pushing alternatives they manage to find their place just exactly in the same way Microsoft started: from the trenches, down up. Here a LAMP box, there a Samba fileserver or a workgroup mail relay, etc.
"CIO's make the decision that X company is going to be an MS house"
That's true *now*, my youngster, but that was not the origins. And such CIO/CTO point of view isn't even a dumb one. Other thing that Microsoft knows well is to develop (with the aid of internal "glue code" and niche apps -which in turn goes back to the problem about losing grip on developers) quite entrenched "solution blocks" where Access can only "grow up" with Ms SQL, Ms Outlook only shines when working against Ms Exchange, Ms Office's full potential only appears coupled to Ms Sharepoint, your glue code for all those apps and supporting processes is only effectively doable using Ms Visual Studio. Then couple this fact with the one that due to the abuse of "false" standards (Microsoft's implementation of Kerberos, anyone? or CIFS weapon race where almost each Ms patch "casually" breaks Samba compatibility) and closed formats the reverse is true too: only Microsoft products can "talk" effectively to Microsoft products and you will have that while starting to go Microsoft maybe is not quite a savvy decision, once Microsoft entrenches policying "Microsoft for everything" becomes quite a sensible decision, specially when seen from high altitude and specially thinking short/mid term (where m
"MS's MO is to indoctrinate people at the business level not the developer level"
Well, maybe. It's only a pity all their acts in the last two decades seem otherwise.
They started on the desktop. Then their developer tools (namely, visual basic) allowed for a lot of niche apps to flourish which meant a strong lock-in for the platform (a *lot* of SoHo and short size companies could go, say, to Linux tomorrow and overnight were it *not* for the myriad of niche applications that lock them to the Microsoft platform). Then from desktop plus niche apps they were to the network; local first, then the Internet and they had played the developers game from then on.
Microsoft really know it is the miriad of in-house and/or non-portable developments what really enforces their lock-in strategy: from IE6-only intranets (or even worse: ActiveX intranets) to Access apps to forms upon Exchange and now Sharepoint. This is what leads everything else: once you have the apps you'll need the sysadmins; the more the sysadmins put into Microsoft platforms the less they'll want to go anywhere else.
Microsoft certainly will take very seriously losing its grip on the developer's side.
"Most people use desktops as glorified typewriters and as web browsers. If there is a reason that desktops will continue to be the most efficient way for your average person to perform their everyday tasks, I fail to see it."
Glorified typewriters. That means big and robust enough keyboard and big enough screen.
Web browsers. That means big enough screen.
Big and robust enough keyboard and big enough screen means desktops are not going anywhere any time soon (while maybe they'll metamorph to virtual desktops or bay-based devices ala iPod).
"Frankly, if you dont have $2K for an Enterprise MSDN licensing, you really have no business doing a start up, do you?"
Frankly, if you put your money out of the objective of achieving revenue -like spending even if only one single dollar on unneeded licenses, you really have no business doing a start up, do you?
"Or your bug will simply get market as "WONT FIX" and disappear into the bug tracker history"
Exactly as it can and do happen on software distributed under closed source licenses.
All these are examples of "the one in charge is the one that decides... and the other way around". Not exactly big news.
"The difference is that in a commercial piece of software it is not the developer making the decisions."
Or is it? It depends, really (just think that some software companies started as a bunch of coders with an idea: they were the ones deciding where to go).
"If the boss says the users demand X, then the programmers will have to implement it in one form or another."
The important part being "the boss", not "the users". A "for hire" developer will do whatever the one who pays says. And that will be the case -again, no matter the distribution license. I for one work for a company that distributes its code base as open source and do you know what? coders still do whatever the boss says. It is not the distribution license: it is the project objectives.
"With non-commercial Free Software the developer is making the decisions"
So your point is that with "non-commercial whatever" "commercial" is of no interest? Well, in other news, when you mix hot water with cold water you get warm water. Astounding.
"The problem however is that Ubuntu just can't fix all of the Free Software out there, they don't even have enough man-power to just pack and support it."
Are you implying that somehow Adobe, or Microsoft, or Oracle can fix all of the Closed Software out there?
"So yeah, its not the license, its just a development model that is very common in the Free Software world."
So yeah, since writing software for fun is another option with regards to open source software. Of course when you are there for the money, well, you are there for the money. You can be there for the money and still distributing the results of your work under open sourced licenses. I know: I do it.
"The reason is simple, professional proprietary software is developed to solve a problems people have"
That's wishful thinking. Professional proprietary software is developed to make money, not to solve people's problems. As such, within proprietary software as soon as you can reach your goal (making money) more effectively by locking in customers or lobying with third parties instead of fulfilling users's need, there they'll go.
All of your rant -not to say there are not valid points, goes for some project management objectives that while probably easier to find within open sourced software packages are in fact independent of the distribution license.
There's a lack of market aceptance (on some markets) about paying for development instead of product licenses that explains what you see much better than the distribution license used.
Can you imagine something like "I was about to use a 'for' loop here but oh! since it's going to be GPL'ed I'll use a 'while' instead".