If your business have a site license for MS Windows (or Red Hat or Novell or....), why should you have to pay again?
As for the build your own market, no thanks. It's fun the first dozen times but after a while you realize that your time is more important than saving a few bucks. Not all Linux users build their own machines and not all Linux users use Red Hat, Novell, Mandriva, Linspire, or any company sponsored Linux, so I definitely wouldn't want to be "taxed" for it.
As for inexperiences users, their "I know a guy who knows lots about computer" friend usually handles PC purchase and setup. If the inexperiences users have a copy of Windows and plan to junk their old machine or give it away to charity (which will wipe out the OS anyway to avoid legal issues), why shouldn't you be able to move their MS Windows license to the new machine.
Back in the early 80s, as part of the anti-trust settlement, IBM was forced to decouple the OS from it's hardware. It was a good thing.
> From a real "user's" perspective, however, source code is useless. > Unless they have the technical knowledge to change something, or the > resources to hire someone to change/configure something for them, it's > a total non-starter.
You're missing something important.
With closed source software, you have only one option: * Beg your vendor to help you.
*That's* what I call a total non-starter.
Think of it another way. Your house and your car are effectively "open source". You don't have to go to your house builder or car manufacturer every time you want to change a spark plug, hang a picture, or add a partition. You can do any of the following: * hire someone to do the job * learn how to do it yourself properly * get a friend to do it for you * go to a charity or organization that regularly does this sort of thing for free (or a modest fee)
The same can be said for doing your taxes, dealing with health issues, dealing with legal issues,.... That's the way life works. There's no free lunch unless you either live off charity or grow and prepare the food yourself.
But what open source software does is give you the same options you find in real life.
It'd call that valuable from the user's perspective.
Actually, if you look at the Massachusetts decision, they support OpenDocument *or* PDF. I'm guessing that Microsoft is going to propose that "Microsoft doesn't need to support OpenDocument. You can still work with MS Office12 but archive the PDF output so MSOffice can stay in Massachusetts".
The following organizations have proudly joined the fight for freedom:
MAtrOx, microsoST, ALexa, INTerpol, Avanti, LIBerAty alliNnce, HUeS aircraft, Sara lEe, INgsoc
> People like to have their purchases imprinted with some sign of authenticity and, strangely, high price.
If that were true, how does Walmart make a profit?
While it is true that some part of American culture is consumed with status and high price labels, the bulk of it would just as easily flock to a cheap knock offs if they were "good enough".
> > You do realize you can't prove a negative. > Prove it.
Actually, he can't because you *can* prove a negative.
Here's an example of what I mean, "Prove that the moon is not made of green cheese."
What's the method of proof? Go to the moon and find out what it's made of. If it is made of something other than green cheese, then you've proved the negative.
BTW, it's not always possible to prove a positive either. For instance, prove that the world outside actually exists and it's not just your dream or some shared VR simulation. I seriously doubt you can come up with a proof that what you *perceive* to be reality is real, especially since senses can be easily fooled.
The problem here isn't "prove a positive" or "prove a negative", it relates to a class of problems that can only be proven if you can step outside the system. Such problems exist, curtesy of Godel's Incompleteness theorem. Flatlanders on a 2-D plane would never be able to detect 3-D space. They may be able to theorize what 3-D could look like and how their universe might look like in 3-D, but they couldn't know that 3-D exists unless they can leave their 2-D universe.
> You don't see Linus doing that kind of organizational work, now do you?
Sure you have. Up until 2.6, Linus was in charge of the development branch and someone else was responsible for the stable branch of the Linux kernel. The life-time of the unstable branch was about as long as the stable branch. Every year or two, a new stable branch would be created and a new maintainer would take over.
Since 2.6, Linus is in charge of the stable branch and someone else maintains the unstable branch. The life of the unstable branch is relatively short now and it appears that in the forseable future the stable branch will remain.
That's a pretty big re-org of the process and responsibilities of those involved.
GNOME went through a few re-orgs too. Originally, Miguel was the benevolent dictator. Then there was the GNOME Steering Committee. Then the GNOME Board and GNOME Foundation.
Just ask Dmitry Sklyarov. He did something in Russia that was perfectly legal in Russia, but got arrested when he visited the U.S. because it was claimed he broke the U.S. DMCA.
If you do something that is illegal in another jurisdiction, then it's a really good idea to stay out of that other jurisdiction. If you're in a jurisdiction that has an extradition agreement the that other jurisdiction, you may be SOL.
There are two reasons why Ubuntu is unlikely to join:
* Debian isn't even part of the DCC *commercial Debian* Alliance. Debian like Ubuntu aren't commercial distributions, so the DCCA isn't for them. If Debian were to join (or more likely, the DCCA join Debian), this barrier would disappear since Ubuntu tries to stay close to Debian SID as is stable.
* Ubuntu is based off of SID. DCC Alliance code is based off Sarge plus some selected backports. The only way Ubuntu could be based off of DCC Alliance code is if SID were backported to Sarge -- that sort of defeats the purpose of SID/Testing and seriously short-circuit the Debian process.
My understanding is that the kernel developers have pointed out flaws in the benchmarks and he has accepted the criticisms but points out that they are just benchmarks and all benchmarks have flaws. This would not be a problem if he didn't keep referring to the benchmarks when trying to ram a change into the kernel. You can't have it both ways.
It's also my understanding that the key reason kernel developers don't want to accept his patches is that they don't like big megapatches that affect many systems or replicate functionality that is already in the kernel -- it's bad for maintenance. It's also my understanding that he doesn't want to break up the patches himself and he has refused help from others who are eager to do it for him. For him, it's an all or nothing deal -- take it or leave it. The kernel developers say "fine, we'll leave it", but he doesn't accept their decision and continues to complain. Again, you can't have it both ways.
Reiser may be a genius, but even geniuses have to (*gasp*) live in the real world and negotiate with real people. Even if Reiser is smarter than all the kernel developers (doubtful), it pays to treat your so-called "inferiors" with respect. Even janitors and garbage collectors can have wisdom that we don't have and things they can teach us.
Even better. The meaning of words can flip back and forth depending on the ever widening context.
* The clown threw a ball.
(Probably, a tennis or basket ball)
* The clown threw a ball,....for charity.
(Okay, sorry, a ball a party.)
* The clown threw a ball,....for charity...., and hit the target.
(Okay, sorry again, the tennis ball hit the dunking target and someone fell in the water. Got it. We're in a carnival.)
* The clown threw a ball,....for charity...., and hit the target....of 1 million dollars.
(Scratch that. It really is a charity party and we've collected 1 million in donations. There's no way the meaning can change again.)
* The clown threw a ball,....for charity...., and hit the target....of 1 million dollars....by striking out Babe Ruth.
(Oops again. The clown got 1 million dollars in pledges if he could strike out Babe Ruth, and he succeeded. We're talking about a base ball again. I give up.)
Agreed to some extent, but trademark is a two edged sword.
On the one hand we have names like Linux, Debian, Microsoft, and IBM which are made-up names that are distinct from every other name in every other language. Trademarking them doesn't restrict anyone, so trademarks here are a good thing and is okay with FOSS ideology.
On the other hand we have names like Windows and Word which are in common use. Trademarking them would restrict common use so that's a bad thing and against FOSS ideology. (NB: Before anyone says anything, MS Word/MS Windows or Microsoft Word/Microsoft Windows are okay to trademark because they don't restrict common usage.)
It's possible that your usage pattern lends itself to fewer problems.
The gradual slow down of a Windows system over time is a well known phenomenon and is apparently one of fixes available in Vista. There are other known issues, that I don't know if Vista can fix -- they're too engrained in Windows programming culture and fixing them would cause major incompatibility.
> A decade ago it was Windows 95 that was going to > be a big opportunity for Linux to make headway on > the desktop
Where did you hear that? Windows 95 was the OS I switched to moving *away* from Linux (see below). Also, back then Novell had a version of Windows 3.1 that ran on Linux and was going to create a Windows distribution based on Linux, not DOS. Win95 and Win32 pretty much killed those plans. Also, if you read Unix mags back in 95, you'd see that they were forcasting Unix's doom. Once WinNT had a VMS base and once NT 3.x got a Win95 interface, it would be the final nail in the coffin for Unix. (Of course, Microsoft seriously dropped the ball on that golden opportunity by not getting its server act together, but that is beside the point.)
And back in 1995, I was triple booting OS/2, Win3.1 and Linux. I came from an Amiga background so long file names and multitasking was a must. Win3.1 just wasn't up to sniff. I loved OS/2, but most programs ran for Win3.1 and it was lighter, so I booted Win3.1 more than OS/2. When Win95 came out, I gave OS/2 the boot. Win95 wasn't as good as OS/2, but it was "good enough" and I needed the extra hard disk space. Most of the apps I ran were Win32 based and most development tools were made from Borland. I spent less and less time in Linux. I got a Windows job in 1995, and I stayed almost completely on Win95 because it was "good enough" (thanks to Cygwin). I peaked back at Linux from time to time, but it was more for curiosity than anything else. I finally erased Linux in 1997. I also loved Windows 2000 when it came out.
As a double defector, I can say for a fact that Linux *has* been getting to be a better desktop with each release. Back in 2000, I started seeing more and more of the tools and apps that I liked on Linux. They weren't available on Windows so I began dual-boot between Win2000 and Linux. In 2002, I took the plunge and switched completely to RedHat (bye-bye Windows 2000). Thanks to VMware, I could even take a Windows job and not be disadvantaged. Fortunately, the rise of web programming meant that programs could be platform independent, so I could even work on Linux.
These days, Linux (Ubuntu) is more comfortable and problem free than Windows 2000 ever was (XP, IMO is a big step backwards in usability). I started Windows 2000 in VMware, exactly once (to use Audible.com and gave it the boot once I discoved how DRM-enabled it was). Linux is good enough for the educated user's desktop who is either a tech expert or has a friend who is. It's lower maintenance than Windows so the "guy who knows stuff about computers" doesn't have to put in a lot of effort to support the user.
But it's not yet ready for the average joe six pack. Those people need support from their local computer store or electronics store and need a few friends who know Linux. That informal and consumer support network doesn't quite exist yet. It takes a lot of time to form, but such networks tend to grow exponentially. You'll know when Linux is ready for prime time when you start seeing it regularly in "Prime Time TV", your barber starts talking about Linux, and "the foot" or "the gear" or the "fedora" start appearing in the menus of a a significant number of jobs you apply to.
Except they they must have a white list of known good machines, otherwise critical services such as the file server, ftp server, or the webhost running the university would regularly be cut off because they have too much traffic. Since this is directly on the machine, there is no white list. Hopefully, there is a way to turn it off.
Tell you what. I'll pay for any property or computer equipment they have and assume any debts. (I'll need an equity loan, but there would be no shortage of people ponying up the money.) If what you're implying is true, the owners of Novell and RedHat would gladly accept my offer to get out of their sink hole companies and move onto something that would make them more money. *snicker*
If you want to make money hand over fist, you more than likely need a monopoly. Competitive markets tend to give more reasonable profits. Novell and RedHat have competitive profit margins for such markets. If I were purchasing a product, I'd likely purchase one from a competitive market rather than a monopoly. Vendor lock-in is not a pretty thing to have to deal with.
As for VA Software, they failed because Linux got too popular (so it's being preinstalled by several vendors or consultants) and too easy to install (so sysadmins do it themselves). They didn't try to differentiate themselves from the cheaper alternatives, so they got burned. It has nothing to do with open source. It has everything to do with proper business planning.
Actually, according to your link, the quote said: > significant fraction of recent climate change is > due to human activities
There appears to be a consensus that a "significant fraction" of climate change is the result of human activities. How much is significant (10%?, 50%?, 90%?) isn't specified.
And what "climate change" means isn't specified. Does it mean global warming? Not necessarily. I think you can find consensus that turning a rich forest into a desert will have significant effect on the climate (particularly rain fall) in the immediate and surrounding areas. Turning forests into farm land also has a major effect as does turning farm land into cities, and it's not because of CO2 emissions.
But even if "climate change" means global warming 100% of the time and "significant" means 100%, is searching for "climate change" an adequate way to survey for consensus? Do detractors of global warming label their studies as "climate change" or "solar warming" or "local city warming" or "deforestation effects" or even "the coming global cooling"? The scientific methodology is hardly flawless.
And if global warming is solely the result of CO2 emissions, is it as big a deal as the other problems? Increased CO2 helps plans glow faster, and CO2 is still significantly less than it was in prehistoric times.
Meanwhile, our lakes and air are getting polluted with things that have immediate and significant impact on our lives now. We have a throw-away culture that insists on buying things they don't need (then throwing them away) or replacing good old reliable equipment, tech, containers, and clothes each year depending on the fashion and "coolness" and throwing out tonnes of garbage each year. Global warming just doesn't register when compared to these bigger issues.
Why are we distracting ourselves with trivialities as CO2?
It's no contradiction. It's sort of like saying, that you shouldn't believe anything I tell you. What I'm really saying is to *discover* the truth on your own and not just blindly believe what I say.
Similiarly, "Question Authority, That's an order son." means "Be aware of the consequences of of what you're doing when you follow orders and don't just blindly follow them."
> The "copyright infringement isn't theft" is my favorite,
Depends. What country do you live in and what are the laws? You're assuming that all countries agree on what copyright infringement means and what is an is not theft.
In Canada, you pay a blank medium tax so that you are allowed (by law) to make CD copies and give them to friends via sneakernet or download via P2P (but not upload). In the US, things are different.
Breaking the DMCA is also allowed for interoperability. I run Linux, so if I purchase an Audible book, it's okay for me to infringe on the copyright (which says no breaking of the encryption), if my only purpose is to listen on Linux. In the US, the situation is less clear.
In some countries, copyright is less than the "Sunny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act" specifies and/or it might not cover all the work that was extended (e.g. Mickey Mouse might be public domain).
> So where's the middle ground? One side wants too > much money, and the other side doesn't want to > pay anything.
* Information wants to be expensive because knowledge is power. The right information in the right place just changes your life or keep you in a comfortable living. In the case of privacy, protecting the right information from getting may allow you to even have a life worth living (e.g. Gattaca - the lead character used deception to avoid unjust DNA discrimination).
* Information wants to be free because information is hard to control (secrets get out even with draconian laws) and because it's so easy to combine it with other information to create something bigger than the sum of its parts.
There's a constant battle between these two ideas and each country makes its own choices on where to draw the information control line. If your society dispises draconian laws or values innovation, then the "free side" wins more. If your society values free enterprise at the expense of innovation and doesn't mind draconian laws, the "expensive side" wins more. If privacy is values, the "expensive side" wins more. If collaboration and self respect is the norm in the society so privacy isn't an issue, then the "free side" wins more.
Any IT director that's lived in the IT community longer than 10 years know how easy it is to be locked in and how painful it is to switch. A good IT director doesn't want a uni-vendor environment, even if it leads to inefficiencies. When the vendor holds you over a barrel or your vendor loses out to something better and winds down (one of the two always happens given enough time), you're ready to switch to one of your other vendors or you have a good bargaining position.
And relating to the price of the custom built software, you're forgetting one word, *custom*. People use spreadsheets to do things that spreadsheets were never meant to do. People use MS Access for things that it was never meant to do. And this shows up in the process as a hidden cost. General purpose apps generally don't serve people as well as customized apps. With the right custom apps you can more than make up the price of the custom apps.
Slashdot Mirror
Two words, site license.
....), why should you have to pay again?
If your business have a site license for MS Windows (or Red Hat or Novell or
As for the build your own market, no thanks. It's fun the first dozen times but after a while you realize that your time is more important than saving a few bucks. Not all Linux users build their own machines and not all Linux users use Red Hat, Novell, Mandriva, Linspire, or any company sponsored Linux, so I definitely wouldn't want to be "taxed" for it.
As for inexperiences users, their "I know a guy who knows lots about computer" friend usually handles PC purchase and setup. If the inexperiences users have a copy of Windows and plan to junk their old machine or give it away to charity (which will wipe out the OS anyway to avoid legal issues), why shouldn't you be able to move their MS Windows license to the new machine.
Back in the early 80s, as part of the anti-trust settlement, IBM was forced to decouple the OS from it's hardware. It was a good thing.
Let's not go down that road again.
> From a real "user's" perspective, however, source code is useless.
....
> Unless they have the technical knowledge to change something, or the
> resources to hire someone to change/configure something for them, it's
> a total non-starter.
You're missing something important.
With closed source software, you have only one option:
* Beg your vendor to help you.
*That's* what I call a total non-starter.
Think of it another way. Your house and your car are effectively "open source". You don't have to go to your house builder or car manufacturer every time you want to change a spark plug, hang a picture, or add a partition. You can do any of the following:
* hire someone to do the job
* learn how to do it yourself properly
* get a friend to do it for you
* go to a charity or organization that regularly does this sort of thing for free (or a modest fee)
The same can be said for doing your taxes, dealing with health issues, dealing with legal issues,
That's the way life works. There's no free lunch unless you either live off charity or grow and prepare the food yourself.
But what open source software does is give you the same options you find in real life.
It'd call that valuable from the user's perspective.
Actually, if you look at the Massachusetts decision, they support OpenDocument *or* PDF. I'm guessing that Microsoft is going to propose that "Microsoft doesn't need to support OpenDocument. You can still work with MS Office12 but archive the PDF output so MSOffice can stay in Massachusetts".
Dam straight.
And you're not alone.
The following organizations have proudly joined the fight for freedom:
MAtrOx, microsoST, ALexa, INTerpol, Avanti, LIBerAty alliNnce, HUeS aircraft, Sara lEe, INgsoc
Who else will join The Fight?
Here's a screenshot of both the enterprise and home editions in action:
t o_gfx/photo_008.jpg
http://www.speakeasy.org/~peterc/wto/windows1.jpg
http://d-shock.de/archive/d_shock/2000/images/pho
Taking a cue from Unbreakable Solaris, they decided to call it Unbreakable Windows.;-)
> People like to have their purchases imprinted with some sign of authenticity and, strangely, high price.
If that were true, how does Walmart make a profit?
While it is true that some part of American culture is consumed with status and high price labels, the bulk of it would just as easily flock to a cheap knock offs if they were "good enough".
> > You do realize you can't prove a negative.
> Prove it.
Actually, he can't because you *can* prove a negative.
Here's an example of what I mean, "Prove that the moon is not made of green cheese."
What's the method of proof? Go to the moon and find out what it's made of. If it is made of something other than green cheese, then you've proved the negative.
BTW, it's not always possible to prove a positive either. For instance, prove that the world outside actually exists and it's not just your dream or some shared VR simulation. I seriously doubt you can come up with a proof that what you *perceive* to be reality is real, especially since senses can be easily fooled.
The problem here isn't "prove a positive" or "prove a negative", it relates to a class of problems that can only be proven if you can step outside the system. Such problems exist, curtesy of Godel's Incompleteness theorem. Flatlanders on a 2-D plane would never be able to detect 3-D space. They may be able to theorize what 3-D could look like and how their universe might look like in 3-D, but they couldn't know that 3-D exists unless they can leave their 2-D universe.
> You don't see Linus doing that kind of organizational work, now do you?
Sure you have. Up until 2.6, Linus was in charge of the development branch and someone else was responsible for the stable branch of the Linux kernel. The life-time of the unstable branch was about as long as the stable branch. Every year or two, a new stable branch would be created and a new maintainer would take over.
Since 2.6, Linus is in charge of the stable branch and someone else maintains the unstable branch. The life of the unstable branch is relatively short now and it appears that in the forseable future the stable branch will remain.
That's a pretty big re-org of the process and responsibilities of those involved.
GNOME went through a few re-orgs too. Originally, Miguel was the benevolent dictator. Then there was the GNOME Steering Committee. Then the GNOME Board and GNOME Foundation.
Just ask Dmitry Sklyarov. He did something in Russia that was perfectly legal in Russia, but got arrested when he visited the U.S. because it was claimed he broke the U.S. DMCA.
If you do something that is illegal in another jurisdiction, then it's a really good idea to stay out of that other jurisdiction. If you're in a jurisdiction that has an extradition agreement the that other jurisdiction, you may be SOL.
There are two reasons why Ubuntu is unlikely to join:
* Debian isn't even part of the DCC *commercial Debian* Alliance. Debian like Ubuntu aren't commercial distributions, so the DCCA isn't for them. If Debian were to join (or more likely, the DCCA join Debian), this barrier would disappear since Ubuntu tries to stay close to Debian SID as is stable.
* Ubuntu is based off of SID. DCC Alliance code is based off Sarge plus some selected backports. The only way Ubuntu could be based off of DCC Alliance code is if SID were backported to Sarge -- that sort of defeats the purpose of SID/Testing and seriously short-circuit the Debian process.
My understanding is that the kernel developers have pointed out flaws in the benchmarks and he has accepted the criticisms but points out that they are just benchmarks and all benchmarks have flaws. This would not be a problem if he didn't keep referring to the benchmarks when trying to ram a change into the kernel. You can't have it both ways.
It's also my understanding that the key reason kernel developers don't want to accept his patches is that they don't like big megapatches that affect many systems or replicate functionality that is already in the kernel -- it's bad for maintenance. It's also my understanding that he doesn't want to break up the patches himself and he has refused help from others who are eager to do it for him. For him, it's an all or nothing deal -- take it or leave it. The kernel developers say "fine, we'll leave it", but he doesn't accept their decision and continues to complain. Again, you can't have it both ways.
Reiser may be a genius, but even geniuses have to (*gasp*) live in the real world and negotiate with real people. Even if Reiser is smarter than all the kernel developers (doubtful), it pays to treat your so-called "inferiors" with respect. Even janitors and garbage collectors can have wisdom that we don't have and things they can teach us.
> The British still drive on the left,
> the French still drive on the right,
Not *all* of them, at least not the ones that avoid winning the Darwin award.
A British person in France will drive on the right, and a French person in Britain will drive on the left. Especially on the highways;-)
On the whole, there *are* standards, they're just restricted to the country or district that you're in. Without them, the freeways would never exist.
Well there's a rocket leaving soon with all the smartest people in the world:X
;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treehouse_of_Horror_
If you hurry, you can meet up with Tom Arnold, Pauly Shore, Rosie O'Donnell and Dr. Laura.
Even better. The meaning of words can flip back and forth depending on the ever widening context.
* The clown threw a ball.
(Probably, a tennis or basket ball)
* The clown threw a ball,....for charity.
(Okay, sorry, a ball a party.)
* The clown threw a ball,....for charity...., and hit the target.
(Okay, sorry again, the tennis ball hit the dunking target and someone fell in the water. Got it. We're in a carnival.)
* The clown threw a ball,....for charity...., and hit the target....of 1 million dollars.
(Scratch that. It really is a charity party and we've collected 1 million in donations. There's no way the meaning can change again.)
* The clown threw a ball,....for charity...., and hit the target....of 1 million dollars....by striking out Babe Ruth.
(Oops again. The clown got 1 million dollars in pledges if he could strike out Babe Ruth, and he succeeded. We're talking about a base ball again. I give up.)
Agreed to some extent, but trademark is a two edged sword.
On the one hand we have names like Linux, Debian, Microsoft, and IBM which are made-up names that are distinct from every other name in every other language. Trademarking them doesn't restrict anyone, so trademarks here are a good thing and is okay with FOSS ideology.
On the other hand we have names like Windows and Word which are in common use. Trademarking them would restrict common use so that's a bad thing and against FOSS ideology. (NB: Before anyone says anything, MS Word/MS Windows or Microsoft Word/Microsoft Windows are okay to trademark because they don't restrict common usage.)
It's possible that your usage pattern lends itself to fewer problems.
The gradual slow down of a Windows system over time is a well known phenomenon and is apparently one of fixes available in Vista. There are other known issues, that I don't know if Vista can fix -- they're too engrained in Windows programming culture and fixing them would cause major incompatibility.
> A decade ago it was Windows 95 that was going to
> be a big opportunity for Linux to make headway on
> the desktop
Where did you hear that? Windows 95 was the OS I switched to moving *away* from Linux (see below). Also, back then Novell had a version of Windows 3.1 that ran on Linux and was going to create a Windows distribution based on Linux, not DOS. Win95 and Win32 pretty much killed those plans. Also, if you read Unix mags back in 95, you'd see that they were forcasting Unix's doom. Once WinNT had a VMS base and once NT 3.x got a Win95 interface, it would be the final nail in the coffin for Unix. (Of course, Microsoft seriously dropped the ball on that golden opportunity by not getting its server act together, but that is beside the point.)
And back in 1995, I was triple booting OS/2, Win3.1 and Linux. I came from an Amiga background so long file names and multitasking was a must. Win3.1 just wasn't up to sniff. I loved OS/2, but most programs ran for Win3.1 and it was lighter, so I booted Win3.1 more than OS/2. When Win95 came out, I gave OS/2 the boot. Win95 wasn't as good as OS/2, but it was "good enough" and I needed the extra hard disk space. Most of the apps I ran were Win32 based and most development tools were made from Borland. I spent less and less time in Linux. I got a Windows job in 1995, and I stayed almost completely on Win95 because it was "good enough" (thanks to Cygwin). I peaked back at Linux from time to time, but it was more for curiosity than anything else. I finally erased Linux in 1997. I also loved Windows 2000 when it came out.
As a double defector, I can say for a fact that Linux *has* been getting to be a better desktop with each release. Back in 2000, I started seeing more and more of the tools and apps that I liked on Linux. They weren't available on Windows so I began dual-boot between Win2000 and Linux. In 2002, I took the plunge and switched completely to RedHat (bye-bye Windows 2000). Thanks to VMware, I could even take a Windows job and not be disadvantaged. Fortunately, the rise of web programming meant that programs could be platform independent, so I could even work on Linux.
These days, Linux (Ubuntu) is more comfortable and problem free than Windows 2000 ever was (XP, IMO is a big step backwards in usability). I started Windows 2000 in VMware, exactly once (to use Audible.com and gave it the boot once I discoved how DRM-enabled it was). Linux is good enough for the educated user's desktop who is either a tech expert or has a friend who is. It's lower maintenance than Windows so the "guy who knows stuff about computers" doesn't have to put in a lot of effort to support the user.
But it's not yet ready for the average joe six pack. Those people need support from their local computer store or electronics store and need a few friends who know Linux. That informal and consumer support network doesn't quite exist yet. It takes a lot of time to form, but such networks tend to grow exponentially. You'll know when Linux is ready for prime time when you start seeing it regularly in "Prime Time TV", your barber starts talking about Linux, and "the foot" or "the gear" or the "fedora" start appearing in the menus of a a significant number of jobs you apply to.
Except they they must have a white list of known good machines, otherwise critical services such as the file server, ftp server, or the webhost running the university would regularly be cut off because they have too much traffic. Since this is directly on the machine, there is no white list. Hopefully, there is a way to turn it off.
Novell and Red Hat are bad businesses to own?
Tell you what. I'll pay for any property or computer equipment they have and assume any debts. (I'll need an equity loan, but there would be no shortage of people ponying up the money.) If what you're implying is true, the owners of Novell and RedHat would gladly accept my offer to get out of their sink hole companies and move onto something that would make them more money. *snicker*
If you want to make money hand over fist, you more than likely need a monopoly. Competitive markets tend to give more reasonable profits. Novell and RedHat have competitive profit margins for such markets. If I were purchasing a product, I'd likely purchase one from a competitive market rather than a monopoly. Vendor lock-in is not a pretty thing to have to deal with.
As for VA Software, they failed because Linux got too popular (so it's being preinstalled by several vendors or consultants) and too easy to install (so sysadmins do it themselves). They didn't try to differentiate themselves from the cheaper alternatives, so they got burned. It has nothing to do with open source. It has everything to do with proper business planning.
Actually, according to your link, the quote said:
> significant fraction of recent climate change is
> due to human activities
There appears to be a consensus that a "significant fraction" of climate change is the result of human activities. How much is significant (10%?, 50%?, 90%?) isn't specified.
And what "climate change" means isn't specified. Does it mean global warming? Not necessarily. I think you can find consensus that turning a rich forest into a desert will have significant effect on the climate (particularly rain fall) in the immediate and surrounding areas. Turning forests into farm land also has a major effect as does turning farm land into cities, and it's not because of CO2 emissions.
But even if "climate change" means global warming 100% of the time and "significant" means 100%, is searching for "climate change" an adequate way to survey for consensus? Do detractors of global warming label their studies as "climate change" or "solar warming" or "local city warming" or "deforestation effects" or even "the coming global cooling"? The scientific methodology is hardly flawless.
And if global warming is solely the result of CO2 emissions, is it as big a deal as the other problems? Increased CO2 helps plans glow faster, and CO2 is still significantly less than it was in prehistoric times.
Meanwhile, our lakes and air are getting polluted with things that have immediate and significant impact on our lives now. We have a throw-away culture that insists on buying things they don't need (then throwing them away) or replacing good old reliable equipment, tech, containers, and clothes each year depending on the fashion and "coolness" and throwing out tonnes of garbage each year. Global warming just doesn't register when compared to these bigger issues.
Why are we distracting ourselves with trivialities as CO2?
Reporter: What do you think of western civilization?
Mahatma Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.
Homer: Now to answer all the popups. Ooh a talking moose wants my credit card number, that's only fair.
> That's an order son.
It's no contradiction. It's sort of like saying, that you shouldn't believe anything I tell you. What I'm really saying is to *discover* the truth on your own and not just blindly believe what I say.
Similiarly, "Question Authority, That's an order son." means "Be aware of the consequences of of what you're doing when you follow orders and don't just blindly follow them."
> The "copyright infringement isn't theft" is my favorite,
F .html
Depends. What country do you live in and what are the laws? You're assuming that all countries agree on what copyright infringement means and what is an is not theft.
In Canada, you pay a blank medium tax so that you are allowed (by law) to make CD copies and give them to friends via sneakernet or download via P2P (but not upload). In the US, things are different.
Breaking the DMCA is also allowed for interoperability. I run Linux, so if I purchase an Audible book, it's okay for me to infringe on the copyright (which says no breaking of the encryption), if my only purpose is to listen on Linux. In the US, the situation is less clear.
In some countries, copyright is less than the "Sunny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act" specifies and/or it might not cover all the work that was extended (e.g. Mickey Mouse might be public domain).
> So where's the middle ground? One side wants too
> much money, and the other side doesn't want to
> pay anything.
You're missing the point. It's not about money, it's about control. (see
http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/IWtb
)
* Information wants to be expensive because knowledge is power. The right information in the right place just changes your life or keep you in a comfortable living. In the case of privacy, protecting the right information from getting may allow you to even have a life worth living (e.g. Gattaca - the lead character used deception to avoid unjust DNA discrimination).
* Information wants to be free because information is hard to control (secrets get out even with draconian laws) and because it's so easy to combine it with other information to create something bigger than the sum of its parts.
There's a constant battle between these two ideas and each country makes its own choices on where to draw the information control line. If your society dispises draconian laws or values innovation, then the "free side" wins more. If your society values free enterprise at the expense of innovation and doesn't mind draconian laws, the "expensive side" wins more. If privacy is values, the "expensive side" wins more. If collaboration and self respect is the norm in the society so privacy isn't an issue, then the "free side" wins more.
There's no clear cut easy answer for any culture.
The problem is vendor lock-in.
Any IT director that's lived in the IT community longer than 10 years know how easy it is to be locked in and how painful it is to switch. A good IT director doesn't want a uni-vendor environment, even if it leads to inefficiencies. When the vendor holds you over a barrel or your vendor loses out to something better and winds down (one of the two always happens given enough time), you're ready to switch to one of your other vendors or you have a good bargaining position.
And relating to the price of the custom built software, you're forgetting one word, *custom*. People use spreadsheets to do things that spreadsheets were never meant to do. People use MS Access for things that it was never meant to do. And this shows up in the process as a hidden cost. General purpose apps generally don't serve people as well as customized apps. With the right custom apps you can more than make up the price of the custom apps.