I have two issues with the current Microsoft settlement:
1. Section III.E limits the disclosure of Commications Protocols to the
entities described in Section III.I. This is insufficient. A provision
must be made such that these Commications Protocols are fully documented
and available to anyone. Specifically, the current wording excludes open
source software projects.
2. A new provision regarding disclosure of file and filesystem formats
should be added. By doing this, the barrier for entry for competing
applications is lowered. This measure would not inhibit Microsoft's
ability to innovate since the file format of an application is seperate
from the features of the application. Additionally, disclosure filesystem
formats would promote Operating System competition by reducing the cost of
switching from one Operating System to another. Finally, this disclosure
must also be available anyone. Specifically, open source software
projects must be included.
In the short view, I agree that in the grand scheme of the universe, 5000 people is a drop in the bucket. At the same time, every person who died was one too many. However, taking the long view, we were very lucky that the terrorists hadn't set their sites higher. This attack was at least *10* times worse than any terrorist attack so far. I am a great believer in individual freedom. I believe it is possible to create a world in which that they wouldn't have to be curtailed for any reason. However, this must be balanced with my love for life, for we don't yet live in that world. We live in a world where a single terrorist attack could kill *millions*. What scarifices are you willing to personally make to save a million lives? Is the answer none? The terrorists were able to launch 4 attacks at once. Instead of planes, what if those attacks had been nuclear or biological weapons released simultaneously in New York, Washington DC, Los Angeles and San Francisco? What about that death tole? What would you be personally willing to sacrafice to prevent that?
There are no easy answers. People who quote the Founding Fathers on this issue, as some other commenter pointed out, are using platitudes without thinking about the problems at hand. For the same reason there isn't a line in US Constitiution about the guarrentied right to privacy, there isn't anything about terrorists either.
Curtailing freedoms is truely a slippery slope. The world can be a pretty fucked up place. If freedoms were curtailed every time something terrible happened, we would very quickly have none left. A balance must be struck. I can totally relate to the fear you feel about losing freedoms. John Ashcroft, it might be worth reminiding people, is so converservative he lost an election to a dead man. However, I have another fear. I grew up in New York, and almost lost a lot of friends last week. At times of crisis, it is very easy to overreact. Not reacting out of fear is just as bad as overreacting out of fear.
The best we can do is let entertain all possibile ways of dealing with the problem, choose one, and hope that the world is a safer, better place afterwards.
Being a programmer, an entrepreneur, and having read the books, I can tell you they will no help in getting a startup off the ground. They may help you later (read 50-100 employees) if you have problems getting an engineering team goal-oriented. However, if you need to read a book on how to get organized as a team, then you need to either get another team, or find another line of work, cuz you've already lost.
In a startup, there is no time for anything execpt moving forwards. If you stop, you die. It's as simple as that.
I meant that it's not needed to raise money. You're right that it helps *you*, but VCs and such don't really care. Business plans do force you to think out all the details of your business, but they aren't needed to get funded.
his is very good advice. I'd also add that the CEO's *SOLE* responsibility in a startup is raising money. If they are spending time doing other things, you will see your bank accounts disappear very quickly.
And remember this chant when the shit hits the fan: "IPO... IPO... IPO... IPO... IPO..."
This is what you need: - a solid idea which can defend in the marketplace - a proven team (EXTREMELY important... especially to VCs) - a solid financial plan (have a CPA check your assumptions + spreadsheets) - LOTS and LOTS of connections - LOTS and LOTS of luck - good sales people - good marketing people
This is what you don't need: - a formal business plan (an executive summary will do) - good technology (nobody cares)
And finally the cold hard facts: 1. VERY few companies get funded. Don't know the exact number, but I'd say les\s than 5%. 2. Of these, 80% of startups fail.
As a programmer, I understand the difficulty, if not impossibility, of finding a techical solution to this problem.
However, I don't feel a techical solution is needed. I think making some servers "Cheat Servers" will solve the majority of the problem. As a programmer, I like the idea of making a "cyborg" client which is a combination bot + user. I think I could add a new aspect to the game. If you were to use these clients on a normal server, you would be cheating. If, instead, you have "Cheat Servers" where this kind of play is accepted, then there is no longer a problem.
Admittedly, there will people who cheat on the normal servers, but that's why you have "kick." Most people will play by the rules.
For those who have forgotten how to use the finger command: (randyp@gearboxsoftware.com is the address)
[gearboxsoftware.com] Login: randyp Name: Randy Pitchford Directory:/home/randyp Shell:/bin/bash Last login Thu Oct 7 11:29 (CDT) on ttyp0 from randy No mail. Project:
Half-Life: Opposing Force
Plan: ******** 10/17/99
This is something I don't like to do in a.plan update, but I couldn't just ignore this one...
In the November '99 issue of Family PC (Ziff/Davis) on page 121 there's a sidebar titled "Buyer Beware". This article once again makes a case against the sales of the type of games that our community is built around.
Here's the quote which really disturbs me:
>>> > Family PC (Ziff/Davis), Nov. '99, Page 121 >>> > CompUSA > > As soon as we arrived in the games section, Half Life: Opposing Forces > [sic] (Sierra Studios, www.sierrastudios.com) hit us square in the jaw. > This shoot-em-up war game received an M rating from the Entertainment > Software Rating Board (www.esrb.com), meaning that it's designed for > ages 17 and older. With cash in hand, Tricia walked up to the checkout > line and bought the software--no questions asked. In fact, the only glitch > in her purchase came when the cash register needed a new roll of receipt > tape. Later, at the Customer Service desk, we played the role of > incredulous parent and complained that nobody questioned Tricia's purchase. >>>
What I'd like to know is this: How did "Tricia" purchase a copy of our game (Half-Life: Opposing Force) when it isn't even on the shelves yet?
It's must be an invention of Family PC magazine - an invention designed to make a negative association with the games we love and to point the finger at the business of entertainment software design and sales.
The article goes on to jab at Xatrix Entertainment, Software Etc, Beyond.com and the South Park game after which it appeals to "Mr. President" for "another press conference." Presumably the objective of the writer is to influence public policy in ways potentially bad for our industry.
Does anyone know how the law protects a company like Gearbox Software from the press making such an injurious fabrication with malicious intent? I am very bothered that something like this can appear in a high-volume magazine like Family PC from a huge publisher like Ziff/Davis.
I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has some legal experience with this sort of thing. Could this be considered libelous?
I would also be interested in hearing from someone with CompUSA on how they might react to this since their sales methods are the primary target of this article's attack.
-DuvalMagic
+++ R. Pitchford Game Dev. Axioms Development:
- Don't automatically shun something just because it's easy. Purists in this business are only hurting themselves. If a cheap tool or hack trick gets the job done, the job is still done and end users will often be just as satisfied with the end result. +++
Slashdot Mirror
I have two issues with the current Microsoft settlement:
1. Section III.E limits the disclosure of Commications Protocols to the
entities described in Section III.I. This is insufficient. A provision
must be made such that these Commications Protocols are fully documented
and available to anyone. Specifically, the current wording excludes open
source software projects.
2. A new provision regarding disclosure of file and filesystem formats
should be added. By doing this, the barrier for entry for competing
applications is lowered. This measure would not inhibit Microsoft's
ability to innovate since the file format of an application is seperate
from the features of the application. Additionally, disclosure filesystem
formats would promote Operating System competition by reducing the cost of
switching from one Operating System to another. Finally, this disclosure
must also be available anyone. Specifically, open source software
projects must be included.
Thanks,
---------
In the short view, I agree that in the grand scheme of the universe, 5000 people is a drop in the bucket. At the same time, every person who died was one too many. However, taking the long view, we were very lucky that the terrorists hadn't set their sites higher. This attack was at least *10* times worse than any terrorist attack so far. I am a great believer in individual freedom. I believe it is possible to create a world in which that they wouldn't have to be curtailed for any reason. However, this must be balanced with my love for life, for we don't yet live in that world. We live in a world where a single terrorist attack could kill *millions*. What scarifices are you willing to personally make to save a million lives? Is the answer none? The terrorists were able to launch 4 attacks at once. Instead of planes, what if those attacks had been nuclear or biological weapons released simultaneously in New York, Washington DC, Los Angeles and San Francisco? What about that death tole? What would you be personally willing to sacrafice to prevent that?
There are no easy answers. People who quote the Founding Fathers on this issue, as some other commenter pointed out, are using platitudes without thinking about the problems at hand. For the same reason there isn't a line in US Constitiution about the guarrentied right to privacy, there isn't anything about terrorists either.
Curtailing freedoms is truely a slippery slope. The world can be a pretty fucked up place. If freedoms were curtailed every time something terrible happened, we would very quickly have none left. A balance must be struck. I can totally relate to the fear you feel about losing freedoms. John Ashcroft, it might be worth reminiding people, is so converservative he lost an election to a dead man. However, I have another fear. I grew up in New York, and almost lost a lot of friends last week. At times of crisis, it is very easy to overreact. Not reacting out of fear is just as bad as overreacting out of fear.
The best we can do is let entertain all possibile ways of dealing with the problem, choose one, and hope that the world is a safer, better place afterwards.
- Sam
Being a programmer, an entrepreneur, and having read the books, I can tell you they will no help in getting a startup off the ground. They may help you later (read 50-100 employees) if you have problems getting an engineering team goal-oriented. However, if you need to read a book on how to get organized as a team, then you need to either get another team, or find another line of work, cuz you've already lost.
In a startup, there is no time for anything execpt moving forwards. If you stop, you die. It's as simple as that.
I meant that it's not needed to raise money. You're right that it helps *you*, but VCs and such don't really care. Business plans do force you to think out all the details of your business, but they aren't needed to get funded.
his is very good advice. I'd also add that the CEO's *SOLE* responsibility in a startup is raising money. If they are spending time doing other things, you will see your bank accounts disappear very quickly.
And remember this chant when the shit hits the fan: "IPO... IPO... IPO... IPO... IPO..."
rofl... yeah... that'll get you funded. Tell the VCs that you've read books on software development. Don't worry, they'll laugh *after* you leave.
This is what you need:
- a solid idea which can defend in the marketplace
- a proven team (EXTREMELY important... especially to VCs)
- a solid financial plan (have a CPA check your assumptions + spreadsheets)
- LOTS and LOTS of connections
- LOTS and LOTS of luck
- good sales people
- good marketing people
This is what you don't need:
- a formal business plan (an executive summary will do)
- good technology (nobody cares)
And finally the cold hard facts:
1. VERY few companies get funded. Don't know the exact number, but I'd say les\s than 5%.
2. Of these, 80% of startups fail.
Enjoy!
Don't get your hopes up too high. Not only is the driver !source, what they did was to ship the Windows driver binaries and put a wrapper around them.
From asp30.o:
Software\Aureal\Vortex\AU8810\ControlPanel
Looks suspeciously like a Windows Registry entry, doesn't it? Not to mention the fact that the final binary is **148K** in size!
As a programmer, I understand the difficulty, if not impossibility, of finding a techical solution to this problem.
However, I don't feel a techical solution is needed. I think making some servers "Cheat Servers" will solve the majority of the problem. As a programmer, I like the idea of making a "cyborg" client which is a combination bot + user. I think I could add a new aspect to the game. If you were to use these clients on a normal server, you would be cheating. If, instead, you have "Cheat Servers" where this kind of play is accepted, then there is no longer a problem.
Admittedly, there will people who cheat on the normal servers, but that's why you have "kick." Most people will play by the rules.
Just my $0.02,
- Sam
For those who have forgotten how to use the finger command: (randyp@gearboxsoftware.com is the address)
/home/randyp Shell: /bin/bash
.plan update, but I couldn't
[gearboxsoftware.com]
Login: randyp Name: Randy Pitchford
Directory:
Last login Thu Oct 7 11:29 (CDT) on ttyp0 from randy
No mail.
Project:
Half-Life: Opposing Force
Plan:
********
10/17/99
This is something I don't like to do in a
just ignore this one...
In the November '99 issue of Family PC (Ziff/Davis) on page 121 there's
a sidebar titled "Buyer Beware". This article once again makes a case
against the sales of the type of games that our community is built around.
Here's the quote which really disturbs me:
>>>
> Family PC (Ziff/Davis), Nov. '99, Page 121
>>>
> CompUSA
>
> As soon as we arrived in the games section, Half Life: Opposing Forces
> [sic] (Sierra Studios, www.sierrastudios.com) hit us square in the jaw.
> This shoot-em-up war game received an M rating from the Entertainment
> Software Rating Board (www.esrb.com), meaning that it's designed for
> ages 17 and older. With cash in hand, Tricia walked up to the checkout
> line and bought the software--no questions asked. In fact, the only glitch
> in her purchase came when the cash register needed a new roll of receipt
> tape. Later, at the Customer Service desk, we played the role of
> incredulous parent and complained that nobody questioned Tricia's purchase.
>>>
What I'd like to know is this: How did "Tricia" purchase a copy of our
game (Half-Life: Opposing Force) when it isn't even on the shelves yet?
It's must be an invention of Family PC magazine - an invention designed
to make a negative association with the games we love and to point the
finger at the business of entertainment software design and sales.
The article goes on to jab at Xatrix Entertainment, Software Etc,
Beyond.com and the South Park game after which it appeals to "Mr. President"
for "another press conference." Presumably the objective of the writer
is to influence public policy in ways potentially bad for our industry.
Does anyone know how the law protects a company like Gearbox Software
from the press making such an injurious fabrication with malicious intent?
I am very bothered that something like this can appear in a high-volume
magazine like Family PC from a huge publisher like Ziff/Davis.
I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has some legal experience
with this sort of thing. Could this be considered libelous?
I would also be interested in hearing from someone with CompUSA on how
they might react to this since their sales methods are the primary
target of this article's attack.
-DuvalMagic
+++
R. Pitchford
Game Dev. Axioms
Development:
- Don't automatically shun something just because it's easy. Purists in
this business are only hurting themselves. If a cheap tool or hack trick
gets the job done, the job is still done and end users will often be
just as satisfied with the end result.
+++