it's a cycle: people begin to spend too much time playing and their careers and personal relationships begin to deteriorate. Then they begin to withdraw more into the game because it's an escape from their real world problems.
RW: So what's the solution?
My solution: let nature take its course. In a few generations there will be no gamers left.
There are always proxy sites [...] They will find a way no matter what
I agree completely. Schools are stupid if they think they can prevent access to Myspace and other sites in this way.
The way to do this would be the exact opposite - not a list of banned sites, but a list of allowed sites. If you want school PCs to be limited to school activities, that would be the way to go. Of course, this would seriously limit the kids' ability to do legitimate research online.
So really there is no good solution. Except for (1) supervision in computer rooms, and (2) accepting that kids will be kids and find a way to visit Myspace no matter what you do.
Never in a million years [...] would I consider an ad-supported OS. Linux is free, and ad-free. Why bother?
Ok, you wouldn't. But the vast majority of people use Windows, which in actuality already is an ad-supported OS. Many (most?) installations of Windows are (1) pirated, hence 'free', and (2) infected with adware, hence 'ad-supported'...
TFA even hints that the point would be to move the ad revenue from the adware companies to Microsoft:
This is no doubt why there was news about MSFT buying a adware company, probably so the operating system could essentially be infected with the most permanent adware possible, though at this point the term "adware" would not really be appropriate.
So, Windows would remain free and ad-supported, as it essentially is right now, but MS would get paid and not the adware companies. An interesting thought, but it's just speculation on TFA's part. MS will probably want both kinds of revenue, licenses (enforced by WGA), and integrated ads.
Try xgl/compiz! It's the most exciting software I've seen since a windowing environment!
Yes, exactly. Just to throw out a few other names besides XGL, how about GLScube or Xen. None of these (XGL included) is ready for prime time yet. But they show the exact opposite of what TFA claims - Linux, if anything, has plenty of 'exciting' software.
If there is something lacking, it is boring software for Linux. TFA basically admits this when it talks about a "lack of exciting software", then complains about not having Outlook on Linux. Is Outlook then his idea of 'exciting software'? I doubt it, Outlook is the most boring piece of software ever. Perhaps it is necessary for certain corporations. But it isn't exciting.
I read TFA, looking for examples of really 'exciting' software missing in Linux. Couldn't find any.
I misread it the same way, and I am in the process of actually founding an "Open Source Religion". A coherent organized worldview that is dynamic, module-based and upgradable. In contrast with the thousands of years old, monolithic, static and all-to-often fundamentalist doctrines that monopolize the religious market today. I say it's about time they get some competition.
I have heard there are these things called 'science' and 'philosophy', both of which have coherent organized worldviews which are modular and upgradable.
This is what Opensource should be using its power to do. Good work every one!
Yes. A few detailed points:
1. When you have tens of thousands of desktops, the money saved by not paying Microsoft is so great, that you can even afford to pay people to code a few specific things you need (regional customization, etc.). This is the beauty of the open source stack - you get 99% of the code FOR FREE; salaries for a few good programmers to code the last 1% is cheaper than 70,000 MS licenses. Now, I don't know if the region of Extremadura pay the salaries of the LinEx people; but my point is that even if they did, it would be a huge savings.
2. That last 1% of code may be GPL (in case it's integrated into the system and not completely standalone, or, even if it is standalone, a government or nonprofit might free the source code anyhow). So others will also be able to benefit from it.
Back to the article itself, this latest news is very good, and may be another sign of slowly-building momentum for the Open Source movement.
The latest LinEx (6/06) has an up-to-date Linux kernel, and likewise GNOME (2.6.16, 2.14.1 respectively), which is useful (Debian Sarge has much older versions).
Looks like some nice work on the part of the Spanish Linux people. Also, they deserve congratulations on their success detailed in the article.
We feel sorry for the people of your historically important island, but for the rest of us, this is great news. We'll just wait and see how this 'police-state' experiment of yours turns out, and learn the lessons from that.
Please, speed up the Orwellization of your fine country, so that we may arrive at our conclusions the sooner.
By making its kernel and software more closed, they're just locking out new developers and applications. If they keep this up, Windows may only be able to run Microsoft Software.
Whereas now, Windows can run all sorts of software. For example, you can run all sorts of office software - MS Office, and... umm, well, how about web browsers, there is IE, and some other thing with 10%... multimedia-wise, you can run WMP, or... well, there must be something I'm forgetting.
Seriously, though: this is how Microsoft works. They take over every area that seems important to them. Really, programming for Windows is near-suicidal; Wordperfect are gone, dittoe Netscape, and very soon, the security companies will be a thing of the past. In a few years I expect we will see a 90%+ market share for OneCare. Sometimes I wonder why software firms develop for Windows, given the risk.
It should be easy enough to determine if WindowsDefender/OneCare are using private hooks into the system. And if they did the resulting antitrust lawsuit should be an open and shut case. Microsoft isn't that stupid.
It can be more subtle than that. They can make public the APIs that their developers need, and ignore requests from other vendors ("because of security reasons").
They're not locking anybody out. It's silly to think that developers should have full access to every single internal structure or API call.
Fair enough. But, consider this: do you really believe that developers of Microsoft security products (firewall, antispyware, OneCare, etc.) will NOT have access to whatever API they ask for? That if they need access to one, a technical solution will not be devised?
Nothing to worry about, I'm sure they'll get all the kinks out by the time Vista is released - sometime in 2008 or so, it seems, based on this video.
This was really a dreadful presentation. There was no ambient noise (as the commentators say later, and despite what Microsoft says), and there was no echo as the demonstrator claims during the actual test. It seems to have been done under really good test conditions, but still it failed miserably.
"In other words, Linus likes the GPL [v1,v2] for the actual reasons that it is a good license" ('v1,v2' clarification mine)
And this is precisely the problem. Ignoring my personal view of the GPL v3, the simple fact is that we have the single most important person in the single most important GPL'ed project unapproving of the GPL v3 draft. This is exactly what we do NOT want to see happening.
I definitely see Linux Desktops become mainstream real soon now.
We can hope. However, the article's focus was on the server end of things, not the desktop - and really, it doesn't make that much sense. Two points:
1) Mass Virtualization. Say you run lots of virtual machines on your server (for compartmentation security, reliability, and so forth). If all those virtual machines are Windows, you are carrying around an extra 100MB (+-) PER VIRTUAL MACHINE, for the pretty GUI. Whereas if they are Linux server installs, you run lean&mean. For the increasingly virtualized server room (and for good reason), Windows makes less and less sense.
2. The article mentions an anecdote of keeping Windows, because the retraining/rehiring costs for migrating to Linux would offset the licensing cost to MS. But this is to ignore the fact that retraining costs are one-shot (well, maybe multiple-shot, but they do end eventually), whereas running Windows is a neverending money drain. So this argument seems to focus on the short-term only, and therefore quite weak.
He is not comparing it to the Nazis and the Holocaust. He is comparing it to Poland. 1939 to be exact.
I want to believe you are right, but he also says "And what 'restraint' are you talking about? That they haven't been putting Arabs in gas chambers, yet? At this pace, they soon will!" (emphasis mine)... which is a reference/comparison to the Holocaust itself (which occured after 1939).
what "restraint" are you talking about? That they haven't been putting Arabs in gas chambers, yet? At this pace, they soon will! [...] Seriously! This is Poland 1939 all over again!
THIS is +5 Informative?
Hizballah 'poked the bear' with an unprovoked attack on Israel, Israel responded with all-out-war. Many civilians are dying on both sides (far more on the Lebanese side), some hundreds so far. This is terrible for all of the civilians involved. And I grant that neither Israel nor Hizballah are 'in the right' (Hizballah for attacking, Israel for overreacting). But to compare this to the Nazis and the Holocaust, to the killing of millions? Again, how could this have been modded up +5 Informative?
it seems like one of the big reasons that IBM and Google invest in FOSS is because it is a good way to strike indirectly - and often directly - at Microsoft. If there was no "king of the hill," would we still see this level of investment?
Interesting idea. But do they do it as a way to 'strike' at Microsoft, or because they make money from it? Even if the computer market was split 50-50 with Apple and Microsoft, IBM (and whoever else) could still make money selling Linux consulting, support, and so forth, so helping out Linux (by investing in Open Source projects) would be in their best interest.
As for Google, I think your point is stronger. Google's main interest (or one of them) is to maintain an environment where Google services can be used. This leads them to try to prevent a monopoly of the web browser market. If that market was completely fragmented (with standards-compliant browsers, one would hope), then perhaps Google would not support Firefox as they do. And perhaps much of their support for Open Source in general stems from that basic issue, who knows. I'm not sure.
My post was indeed based on a misunderstanding, as is clear in the parent poster's response to me, and my response to that, above. I thought he meant 'web services' in the other sense (the sense in which e.g. Writely is a web service). An honest and admitted mistake.
There was really no need for you to write
"He's commenting on something he doesn't even understand."
Nothing in the GPL prevents me from writing an application that only works with IE.
You're right, and perhaps I shouldn't have used 'GPL' in my post (even though I did put it in scare-quotes, in the title at least). My point was that we need some sort of 'honorable pact' that web services should uphold.
Not necessarily. A company can make it so their web service is in fact free, but will only run using (say) Internet Explorer. Being a web service doesn't stop you from vendor-locking. So you give out a free web service, and make money from selling the only OS that it can be used with.
What we need are unified standards for content transfer and the movement of data cross-services.
I agree. But in addition to that we need to prevent vendor lock-in, as I said before. So, to summarize, a 'GPL' for web services might look something like this:
1. The ability to use web services with any (standards-observant) combination of operating system and web browser.
2. The ability to receive your content from a web-service in a standard format (that can be therefore used with another web service, or a standalone computer).
You're pointing at a problem that to Sun wasn't a problem. They *WEREN'T* aming for GPL compatibility.
I guess they weren't, since they didn't. And this is certainly a problem for the Open Source community. But this is also a problem for *Sun*, I would argue. What are the chances of OpenSolaris taking off, if the vast majority of the Open Source community can't use its code with the code they are used to? They can't improve OpenSolaris as they would like, and vice versa.
The whole CDDL issue seems to be an attempt to challenge Linux. Perhaps they envision a 'two-power' future for Open Source, where there is the GNU/Linux camp, under the GPL, and the Solaris camp, under the CDDL, and no code shall pass between them. This sounds a bit like the cold war to me (but maybe I'm just too old and/or senile, and mixing my metaphors).
To get back to the point, Sun open-sourced Solaris at a time when there was already a large and fruitful Open Source community. They chose not to play nice with that community, and seem to want to start a new base of power. If this is their 'solution', I'm not sure what the problem was. I find it hard to envision a promising future for OpenSolaris under current conditions.
Slashdot Mirror
TFA:
it's a cycle: people begin to spend too much time playing and their careers and personal relationships begin to deteriorate. Then they begin to withdraw more into the game because it's an escape from their real world problems.
RW: So what's the solution?
My solution: let nature take its course. In a few generations there will be no gamers left.
There are always proxy sites [...] They will find a way no matter what
I agree completely. Schools are stupid if they think they can prevent access to Myspace and other sites in this way.
The way to do this would be the exact opposite - not a list of banned sites, but a list of allowed sites. If you want school PCs to be limited to school activities, that would be the way to go. Of course, this would seriously limit the kids' ability to do legitimate research online.
So really there is no good solution. Except for (1) supervision in computer rooms, and (2) accepting that kids will be kids and find a way to visit Myspace no matter what you do.
A minor correction concerning the 20% figure (revenue of AP from online content) - BusinessWeek say it should be 14%.
Never in a million years [...] would I consider an ad-supported OS. Linux is free, and ad-free. Why bother?
Ok, you wouldn't. But the vast majority of people use Windows, which in actuality already is an ad-supported OS. Many (most?) installations of Windows are (1) pirated, hence 'free', and (2) infected with adware, hence 'ad-supported'...
TFA even hints that the point would be to move the ad revenue from the adware companies to Microsoft:
This is no doubt why there was news about MSFT buying a adware company, probably so the operating system could essentially be infected with the most permanent adware possible, though at this point the term "adware" would not really be appropriate.
So, Windows would remain free and ad-supported, as it essentially is right now, but MS would get paid and not the adware companies. An interesting thought, but it's just speculation on TFA's part. MS will probably want both kinds of revenue, licenses (enforced by WGA), and integrated ads.
Try xgl/compiz! It's the most exciting software I've seen since a windowing environment!
Yes, exactly. Just to throw out a few other names besides XGL, how about GLScube or Xen. None of these (XGL included) is ready for prime time yet. But they show the exact opposite of what TFA claims - Linux, if anything, has plenty of 'exciting' software.
If there is something lacking, it is boring software for Linux. TFA basically admits this when it talks about a "lack of exciting software", then complains about not having Outlook on Linux. Is Outlook then his idea of 'exciting software'? I doubt it, Outlook is the most boring piece of software ever. Perhaps it is necessary for certain corporations. But it isn't exciting.
I read TFA, looking for examples of really 'exciting' software missing in Linux. Couldn't find any.
I misread it the same way, and I am in the process of actually founding an "Open Source Religion". A coherent organized worldview that is dynamic, module-based and upgradable. In contrast with the thousands of years old, monolithic, static and all-to-often fundamentalist doctrines that monopolize the religious market today. I say it's about time they get some competition.
I have heard there are these things called 'science' and 'philosophy', both of which have coherent organized worldviews which are modular and upgradable.
This is what Opensource should be using its power to do. Good work every one!
Yes. A few detailed points:
1. When you have tens of thousands of desktops, the money saved by not paying Microsoft is so great, that you can even afford to pay people to code a few specific things you need (regional customization, etc.). This is the beauty of the open source stack - you get 99% of the code FOR FREE; salaries for a few good programmers to code the last 1% is cheaper than 70,000 MS licenses. Now, I don't know if the region of Extremadura pay the salaries of the LinEx people; but my point is that even if they did, it would be a huge savings.
2. That last 1% of code may be GPL (in case it's integrated into the system and not completely standalone, or, even if it is standalone, a government or nonprofit might free the source code anyhow). So others will also be able to benefit from it.
Back to the article itself, this latest news is very good, and may be another sign of slowly-building momentum for the Open Source movement.
The latest LinEx (6/06) has an up-to-date Linux kernel, and likewise GNOME (2.6.16, 2.14.1 respectively), which is useful (Debian Sarge has much older versions).
Looks like some nice work on the part of the Spanish Linux people. Also, they deserve congratulations on their success detailed in the article.
Dear UK,
We feel sorry for the people of your historically important island, but for the rest of us, this is great news. We'll just wait and see how this 'police-state' experiment of yours turns out, and learn the lessons from that.
Please, speed up the Orwellization of your fine country, so that we may arrive at our conclusions the sooner.
Much thanks in advance,
Rest of the World
More specifically: why now? Is it just because the WGA notice started popping up? I'm curious.
By making its kernel and software more closed, they're just locking out new developers and applications. If they keep this up, Windows may only be able to run Microsoft Software.
Whereas now, Windows can run all sorts of software. For example, you can run all sorts of office software - MS Office, and... umm, well, how about web browsers, there is IE, and some other thing with 10%... multimedia-wise, you can run WMP, or... well, there must be something I'm forgetting.
Seriously, though: this is how Microsoft works. They take over every area that seems important to them. Really, programming for Windows is near-suicidal; Wordperfect are gone, dittoe Netscape, and very soon, the security companies will be a thing of the past. In a few years I expect we will see a 90%+ market share for OneCare. Sometimes I wonder why software firms develop for Windows, given the risk.
It should be easy enough to determine if WindowsDefender/OneCare are using private hooks into the system. And if they did the resulting antitrust lawsuit should be an open and shut case. Microsoft isn't that stupid.
It can be more subtle than that. They can make public the APIs that their developers need, and ignore requests from other vendors ("because of security reasons").
They're not locking anybody out. It's silly to think that developers should have full access to every single internal structure or API call.
Fair enough. But, consider this: do you really believe that developers of Microsoft security products (firewall, antispyware, OneCare, etc.) will NOT have access to whatever API they ask for? That if they need access to one, a technical solution will not be devised?
Nothing to worry about, I'm sure they'll get all the kinks out by the time Vista is released - sometime in 2008 or so, it seems, based on this video.
This was really a dreadful presentation. There was no ambient noise (as the commentators say later, and despite what Microsoft says), and there was no echo as the demonstrator claims during the actual test. It seems to have been done under really good test conditions, but still it failed miserably.
"In other words, Linus likes the GPL [v1,v2] for the actual reasons that it is a good license" ('v1,v2' clarification mine)
And this is precisely the problem. Ignoring my personal view of the GPL v3, the simple fact is that we have the single most important person in the single most important GPL'ed project unapproving of the GPL v3 draft. This is exactly what we do NOT want to see happening.
I definitely see Linux Desktops become mainstream real soon now.
We can hope. However, the article's focus was on the server end of things, not the desktop - and really, it doesn't make that much sense. Two points:
1) Mass Virtualization. Say you run lots of virtual machines on your server (for compartmentation security, reliability, and so forth). If all those virtual machines are Windows, you are carrying around an extra 100MB (+-) PER VIRTUAL MACHINE, for the pretty GUI. Whereas if they are Linux server installs, you run lean&mean. For the increasingly virtualized server room (and for good reason), Windows makes less and less sense.
2. The article mentions an anecdote of keeping Windows, because the retraining/rehiring costs for migrating to Linux would offset the licensing cost to MS. But this is to ignore the fact that retraining costs are one-shot (well, maybe multiple-shot, but they do end eventually), whereas running Windows is a neverending money drain. So this argument seems to focus on the short-term only, and therefore quite weak.
He is not comparing it to the Nazis and the Holocaust. He is comparing it to Poland. 1939 to be exact.
I want to believe you are right, but he also says "And what 'restraint' are you talking about? That they haven't been putting Arabs in gas chambers, yet? At this pace, they soon will! " (emphasis mine)... which is a reference/comparison to the Holocaust itself (which occured after 1939).
what "restraint" are you talking about? That they haven't been putting Arabs in gas chambers, yet? At this pace, they soon will! [...] Seriously! This is Poland 1939 all over again!
THIS is +5 Informative?
Hizballah 'poked the bear' with an unprovoked attack on Israel, Israel responded with all-out-war. Many civilians are dying on both sides (far more on the Lebanese side), some hundreds so far. This is terrible for all of the civilians involved. And I grant that neither Israel nor Hizballah are 'in the right' (Hizballah for attacking, Israel for overreacting). But to compare this to the Nazis and the Holocaust, to the killing of millions? Again, how could this have been modded up +5 Informative?
it seems like one of the big reasons that IBM and Google invest in FOSS is because it is a good way to strike indirectly - and often directly - at Microsoft. If there was no "king of the hill," would we still see this level of investment?
Interesting idea. But do they do it as a way to 'strike' at Microsoft, or because they make money from it? Even if the computer market was split 50-50 with Apple and Microsoft, IBM (and whoever else) could still make money selling Linux consulting, support, and so forth, so helping out Linux (by investing in Open Source projects) would be in their best interest.
As for Google, I think your point is stronger. Google's main interest (or one of them) is to maintain an environment where Google services can be used. This leads them to try to prevent a monopoly of the web browser market. If that market was completely fragmented (with standards-compliant browsers, one would hope), then perhaps Google would not support Firefox as they do. And perhaps much of their support for Open Source in general stems from that basic issue, who knows. I'm not sure.
Again, interesting idea. Worth thinking about.
In other news, use of Bittorrent and eDonkey networks is up.
"We have won another battle in an ongoing war [...] We move forward with a spring in our step."
I have to hand it to these guys, they can sure convince themselves of what they want to believe in.
My post was indeed based on a misunderstanding, as is clear in the parent poster's response to me, and my response to that, above. I thought he meant 'web services' in the other sense (the sense in which e.g. Writely is a web service). An honest and admitted mistake.
There was really no need for you to write
"He's commenting on something he doesn't even understand."
, I don't think.
Nothing in the GPL prevents me from writing an application that only works with IE.
You're right, and perhaps I shouldn't have used 'GPL' in my post (even though I did put it in scare-quotes, in the title at least). My point was that we need some sort of 'honorable pact' that web services should uphold.
Ok, that explains our lack of agreement before, then. Thanks for explaining.
Web services, by their very nature, are open.
Not necessarily. A company can make it so their web service is in fact free, but will only run using (say) Internet Explorer. Being a web service doesn't stop you from vendor-locking. So you give out a free web service, and make money from selling the only OS that it can be used with.
What we need are unified standards for content transfer and the movement of data cross-services.
I agree. But in addition to that we need to prevent vendor lock-in, as I said before. So, to summarize, a 'GPL' for web services might look something like this:
1. The ability to use web services with any (standards-observant) combination of operating system and web browser.
2. The ability to receive your content from a web-service in a standard format (that can be therefore used with another web service, or a standalone computer).
You're pointing at a problem that to Sun wasn't a problem. They *WEREN'T* aming for GPL compatibility.
I guess they weren't, since they didn't. And this is certainly a problem for the Open Source community. But this is also a problem for *Sun*, I would argue. What are the chances of OpenSolaris taking off, if the vast majority of the Open Source community can't use its code with the code they are used to? They can't improve OpenSolaris as they would like, and vice versa.
The whole CDDL issue seems to be an attempt to challenge Linux. Perhaps they envision a 'two-power' future for Open Source, where there is the GNU/Linux camp, under the GPL, and the Solaris camp, under the CDDL, and no code shall pass between them. This sounds a bit like the cold war to me (but maybe I'm just too old and/or senile, and mixing my metaphors).
To get back to the point, Sun open-sourced Solaris at a time when there was already a large and fruitful Open Source community. They chose not to play nice with that community, and seem to want to start a new base of power. If this is their 'solution', I'm not sure what the problem was. I find it hard to envision a promising future for OpenSolaris under current conditions.