Heheh. It is around here when my wife is going through an 'ebay' period and wants to look at it from our rolltop desk in the living room; otherwise it is just my 'learning time' that I should be spending at an auction with her
Perhaps why this approach works for me is because I am an exicted engineering student w/ a lot of projects. (how many other people have their own linux based MAME in their basement and a music server in their car?)
This approach works for you because you don't have a wife and three kids who desire some of that time for them to get attention and affection. I bet many of us here that attempt some semblance of pet projects do this in lieu of home improvement-type work and have to balance their self-learning with their family. And it is a balance; you love them and should expect that they want to spend non-geek time with you.
That doesn't say much at all, I admit. But is cunning and opportunistic the same as evil? I honestly have to think about that one [and maybe have a chat with some philosophical and pious people I know].
OK - I hadn't planned on doing so (I don't write a lot of code people seem to hire me to test and repackage and that's OK I don't consider myself a skilled programmer at all). I just wanted to know.
the hard drives still suck. I had this same sort of failure problem with them 3-4 years ago when we had put in a bunch of new Compaq workstations. They were very nice about it even though they made us go back to Compaq, who then promptly sent us Western Digital drives and did not even bother to ask for the Fujitsu ones back.
Are you insane?!? Do you have even the slightest clue of how businesses operate? That's never going to happen!
This is very true but I should have said "sell", not share. If I have 40 facilities but only one facility buys; I am pirating/stealing most software if I give everyone a copy without buying the appropriate licenses. On the other hand; is one license or one copy given or sold to me good enough for an open source model inasmuch that I now can give or resell my own copies? I am certain that in this case it is entirely dependent on the license and EULA models. But if it is not "freely distributable" is it still open source? I guess that question should be left to the purists.
I like to believe that we still live in a society where the only reason people do not do things is because they believe they will get caught.
Amen to that; and I won't assume your view on anything unless you tell me. It's true that not all of us are apathetic or ignore EULA's - I've helped a few senior engineers word theirs more clearly. I believe that source code could stay in an open state but I'm not sure we have controls in place to allow open software to be adequately sold. I am almost tempted to say the same technology many posters here are vehemently opposed to - like DRM and copy protections - should be something researched as an effective tool to protect without eliminating the opportunity to view the source code.
Here's a question for y'all, and I hope someone has an adequate answer because I haven't read the GPL or GNU or any other open source license or derivative: if I distribute a PDF file, which is for all intents and purposes uneditable or even for that matter an e-book style version of my source code with my product; does that still make it open source even if the source itself is not immediately editable?
Gotcha there. Truthfully, I like the geek factor (as opposed to the cool factor) in some of my gear too; but I didn't want to troll. I think you guys should have modded me flamebait instead though. I recognized HUNDREDS of Linux benefits for businesses and we geeks that support them; but *right now* very little for the users that are stuck with what we provide them. Which is not to say that could change tomorrow.
There are no comparable Palm models..
You should really do a little bit of research before posting, or trolling (whichever applies ^_^).
Both, apparently. I saw the price, looked at the local gadget shop's prices for high-end Palm/WinCE and other models, and thought there was little difference. Seems I was wrong.
Excellent. Thank you for that answer! I know I burned through some people's mod points but that is *exactly* what I wanted to know. But riddle me this, then: why does the high-end Palm cost about the same if everyone whines about 'laptop tax' and the like? Maybe I'm not making a good comparison here but I guess I just don't see why Joe Palm User would move to another operating platform.
funny, but I find a lot of employers requiring UNIX **AND** NT administration - but they want someone with 10 or more years' experience because their systems are 10 or more years old. How many UNIX admins out there ever learned any NT; especially since it seems to be an ethical question for them?
what makes this $500-$600 device so special? I can buy a Palm OS device for $99; and I don't think comparable Palm models retail for more than $400...?
What "people" have realized "Free Software" - which is not the same as Open Source software because as it has been pointed out there are Open Source projects out there that are not free - is better than closed source (which again does not necessarily have to cost; or cost a lot)? Have you walked into Staples or Software, Etc. lately?
This gets away from what people who wish to make money from Linux perceive their market to be - at least as far as I have been able to tell: support. I thought RedHat sold Linux because they feel that training and supporting users and certifying corporate support staff is a viable way to make money.
If you face any expectation of no-cost it's most likely because MSN, ICQ, AIM and all the rest are free.
No, I face an expectation of 'no cost' because the Linux distro disk they have for their new file server says that the software itself is free and only reasonable costs for media (the CD) and distribution should be paid for; like the days when the guy stood in front of your work's cafeteria with boxes and boxes of $3 software because the program itself was either free or some form of shareware; and often tossed after the first few game levels in many cases.
I would like to see "time-locked" shareware Linux software releases; and I bet some of the office software will end up like that if [ooooooh, ahhhhh, rays of light and whatnot here] "Linux on the Desktop" ever becomes prevalent. I'd also looove to see a lot of games - particularly MP games so you guys can go to the local LAN party and show off your latest RedHat/Debian box and then frag some of your boys - get ported because it would probably be like porn was to videotape.
Do I see any of that happening in the near future? Not really, and partly because I think not one of us can take the risk.
I'm **waiting** for a way to make money selling Linux-based software to small businesses; especially those that have hardware they do not want to replace yet again and have decided to get out of service agreements with their hardware vendors because they can no longer afford to upgrade all their desktop OSes every three or four years.
How do you expect to sell the source code to a project and then maintain new releases for whom you sold it to? Outside of keeping your lawyer on the ball; what physical measures do you have in place to prevent them from releasing your source publicly; or selling it themselves?
I am all for open source - within reason. Infrastructure and server-oriented software - BASELINE, systems functionality frameworks - allow the entire support community to work for the security and 'uptime' we all desire. However, I really don't feel that applications software that you wish to sell or make a profit on should be released in this manner. For example, you have CAD software specific to a chemical manufacturing process. There are only a few thousand facilities in the world that use this software. What, really, is to keep one facility from buying it and then sharing with others? What? I really, really expect a reasonable answer. I know I'm going to get a "EULA" answer, and probably from someone who has previously harshly criticized EULAs.
Ah... but are we implying that everyone has ulterior motives when they do something charitable? I'm sure that would insult a few right-wingers in here... but wait a minute the very fact that I told people to look at the man, not the megacorporation, obviously insulted more than a few people in here.
Hmmm. He paid $50 for DOS I seem to recall; and ran with it. You can't tell me if you see something you can make an improvement on and profit from; you're going to go "Hey, I have an idea based on something you're willing to sell to me outright. Why don't you just sell *half* of it too me, or license it, instead of selling me the whole thing, eh?"
I quit envying people with six figure salaries a long time ago when I realized that if I worked hard enough I could get there. Granted, I didn't get the golden parachute they may have; but that will make the experience all the more important to me in the end. Most, if not a considerable majority, of your large corporate CEOs have stories that are like this.
and I reiterate an "ounce"; you don't need to fall all over your bottom lip over them. I spend a lot of time reading about small business people and large business people and taking do's and do not's from what I have read.
Since when did Bill Gates become a drug dealer? For the hundredth time - we bought into the whole thing. We didn't buy Novell; we didn't buy UNIX or VAX/VMS; we bought Microsoft. What they did after they got market share is not good. What is going to really be done about it by the courts still remains to be seen. I, personally, do not think that forcing them into an open source model is a viable solution and I have more than just greedy reasons for that. As a consultant and small businessman; I watch independent programmers get continuously asked for the source to their projects - which they will not provide until they are dead and the safe deposit box is opened; the Will read. There are too many possibilities for abuse by big name companies... oooh, did I say that? Of course there are too many possibilities.
If you're so set on changing the system; stop name-calling and start getting active in providing real solutions. And re-read my message: I don't condone criminal activity but I also don't continue to condemn someone for the same thing over and over again. Plus I don't blame an individual for the actions of an entire corporation - Enron was committed by the whole of management. On the other hand; I do blame an individual for their own actions - but give them a chance to prove me wrong.
Where has it been said he made it where he is in a dishonest manner? I do know that Microsoft's position has been *maintained* in an unethical manner. Again, a lot of people seem to think that the very fact that people have material wealth makes them crooks.
I'm not making any excuses. I'm looking at the entire picture. Disliking an entire culture for the actions of one person is thoughtless and insensitive; the same as disliking one individual for the actions of an entire group. You think you'd run a multibillion dollar international corporation all by yourself? Decisions are made by committee - which is not a condonement or a criticism of those decisions. My only praise here is his charitable activities.
Riddle me this: you may not have the cash to donate; but do you volunteer in your community? I provide technology help for the severeley MR classrooms; they never get new computers or a lot of assistance from the school system. For many years I made a special point to volunteer serving meals at Thanksgiving; not that easy to do with a large family of my own now but I'm going again this year because we're having dinner on Friday. Feel free to criticize a concerned donation if you take the time to be charitable yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Heheh. It is around here when my wife is going through an 'ebay' period and wants to look at it from our rolltop desk in the living room; otherwise it is just my 'learning time' that I should be spending at an auction with her
Perhaps why this approach works for me is because I am an exicted engineering student w/ a lot of projects. (how many other people have their own linux based MAME in their basement and a music server in their car?) This approach works for you because you don't have a wife and three kids who desire some of that time for them to get attention and affection. I bet many of us here that attempt some semblance of pet projects do this in lieu of home improvement-type work and have to balance their self-learning with their family. And it is a balance; you love them and should expect that they want to spend non-geek time with you.
That doesn't say much at all, I admit. But is cunning and opportunistic the same as evil? I honestly have to think about that one [and maybe have a chat with some philosophical and pious people I know].
OK - I hadn't planned on doing so (I don't write a lot of code people seem to hire me to test and repackage and that's OK I don't consider myself a skilled programmer at all). I just wanted to know.
the hard drives still suck. I had this same sort of failure problem with them 3-4 years ago when we had put in a bunch of new Compaq workstations. They were very nice about it even though they made us go back to Compaq, who then promptly sent us Western Digital drives and did not even bother to ask for the Fujitsu ones back.
Are you insane?!? Do you have even the slightest clue of how businesses operate? That's never going to happen!
This is very true but I should have said "sell", not share. If I have 40 facilities but only one facility buys; I am pirating/stealing most software if I give everyone a copy without buying the appropriate licenses. On the other hand; is one license or one copy given or sold to me good enough for an open source model inasmuch that I now can give or resell my own copies? I am certain that in this case it is entirely dependent on the license and EULA models. But if it is not "freely distributable" is it still open source? I guess that question should be left to the purists.
I like to believe that we still live in a society where the only reason people do not do things is because they believe they will get caught. Amen to that; and I won't assume your view on anything unless you tell me. It's true that not all of us are apathetic or ignore EULA's - I've helped a few senior engineers word theirs more clearly. I believe that source code could stay in an open state but I'm not sure we have controls in place to allow open software to be adequately sold. I am almost tempted to say the same technology many posters here are vehemently opposed to - like DRM and copy protections - should be something researched as an effective tool to protect without eliminating the opportunity to view the source code.
Here's a question for y'all, and I hope someone has an adequate answer because I haven't read the GPL or GNU or any other open source license or derivative: if I distribute a PDF file, which is for all intents and purposes uneditable or even for that matter an e-book style version of my source code with my product; does that still make it open source even if the source itself is not immediately editable?
Gotcha there. Truthfully, I like the geek factor (as opposed to the cool factor) in some of my gear too; but I didn't want to troll. I think you guys should have modded me flamebait instead though. I recognized HUNDREDS of Linux benefits for businesses and we geeks that support them; but *right now* very little for the users that are stuck with what we provide them. Which is not to say that could change tomorrow.
OK... but I don't remember what iPAQ runs on. Perhaps a good review of the two devices is in order.
No, it doesn't give them the right. But what keeps a single developer protected from a larger organization besides that copyright?
There are no comparable Palm models.. You should really do a little bit of research before posting, or trolling (whichever applies ^_^).
Both, apparently. I saw the price, looked at the local gadget shop's prices for high-end Palm/WinCE and other models, and thought there was little difference. Seems I was wrong.
Excellent. Thank you for that answer! I know I burned through some people's mod points but that is *exactly* what I wanted to know. But riddle me this, then: why does the high-end Palm cost about the same if everyone whines about 'laptop tax' and the like? Maybe I'm not making a good comparison here but I guess I just don't see why Joe Palm User would move to another operating platform.
no, it can't. can the $300-$500 Palm play it? I don't know.
funny, but I find a lot of employers requiring UNIX **AND** NT administration - but they want someone with 10 or more years' experience because their systems are 10 or more years old. How many UNIX admins out there ever learned any NT; especially since it seems to be an ethical question for them?
what makes this $500-$600 device so special? I can buy a Palm OS device for $99; and I don't think comparable Palm models retail for more than $400...?
What "people" have realized "Free Software" - which is not the same as Open Source software because as it has been pointed out there are Open Source projects out there that are not free - is better than closed source (which again does not necessarily have to cost; or cost a lot)? Have you walked into Staples or Software, Etc. lately?
This gets away from what people who wish to make money from Linux perceive their market to be - at least as far as I have been able to tell: support. I thought RedHat sold Linux because they feel that training and supporting users and certifying corporate support staff is a viable way to make money.
If you face any expectation of no-cost it's most likely because MSN, ICQ, AIM and all the rest are free. No, I face an expectation of 'no cost' because the Linux distro disk they have for their new file server says that the software itself is free and only reasonable costs for media (the CD) and distribution should be paid for; like the days when the guy stood in front of your work's cafeteria with boxes and boxes of $3 software because the program itself was either free or some form of shareware; and often tossed after the first few game levels in many cases.
I would like to see "time-locked" shareware Linux software releases; and I bet some of the office software will end up like that if [ooooooh, ahhhhh, rays of light and whatnot here] "Linux on the Desktop" ever becomes prevalent. I'd also looove to see a lot of games - particularly MP games so you guys can go to the local LAN party and show off your latest RedHat/Debian box and then frag some of your boys - get ported because it would probably be like porn was to videotape.
Do I see any of that happening in the near future? Not really, and partly because I think not one of us can take the risk.
I'm **waiting** for a way to make money selling Linux-based software to small businesses; especially those that have hardware they do not want to replace yet again and have decided to get out of service agreements with their hardware vendors because they can no longer afford to upgrade all their desktop OSes every three or four years.
How do you expect to sell the source code to a project and then maintain new releases for whom you sold it to? Outside of keeping your lawyer on the ball; what physical measures do you have in place to prevent them from releasing your source publicly; or selling it themselves?
I am all for open source - within reason. Infrastructure and server-oriented software - BASELINE, systems functionality frameworks - allow the entire support community to work for the security and 'uptime' we all desire. However, I really don't feel that applications software that you wish to sell or make a profit on should be released in this manner. For example, you have CAD software specific to a chemical manufacturing process. There are only a few thousand facilities in the world that use this software. What, really, is to keep one facility from buying it and then sharing with others? What? I really, really expect a reasonable answer. I know I'm going to get a "EULA" answer, and probably from someone who has previously harshly criticized EULAs.
Ah... but are we implying that everyone has ulterior motives when they do something charitable? I'm sure that would insult a few right-wingers in here... but wait a minute the very fact that I told people to look at the man, not the megacorporation, obviously insulted more than a few people in here.
Hmmm. He paid $50 for DOS I seem to recall; and ran with it. You can't tell me if you see something you can make an improvement on and profit from; you're going to go "Hey, I have an idea based on something you're willing to sell to me outright. Why don't you just sell *half* of it too me, or license it, instead of selling me the whole thing, eh?"
I quit envying people with six figure salaries a long time ago when I realized that if I worked hard enough I could get there. Granted, I didn't get the golden parachute they may have; but that will make the experience all the more important to me in the end. Most, if not a considerable majority, of your large corporate CEOs have stories that are like this.
and I reiterate an "ounce"; you don't need to fall all over your bottom lip over them. I spend a lot of time reading about small business people and large business people and taking do's and do not's from what I have read.
Since when did Bill Gates become a drug dealer? For the hundredth time - we bought into the whole thing. We didn't buy Novell; we didn't buy UNIX or VAX/VMS; we bought Microsoft. What they did after they got market share is not good. What is going to really be done about it by the courts still remains to be seen. I, personally, do not think that forcing them into an open source model is a viable solution and I have more than just greedy reasons for that. As a consultant and small businessman; I watch independent programmers get continuously asked for the source to their projects - which they will not provide until they are dead and the safe deposit box is opened; the Will read. There are too many possibilities for abuse by big name companies... oooh, did I say that? Of course there are too many possibilities.
If you're so set on changing the system; stop name-calling and start getting active in providing real solutions. And re-read my message: I don't condone criminal activity but I also don't continue to condemn someone for the same thing over and over again. Plus I don't blame an individual for the actions of an entire corporation - Enron was committed by the whole of management. On the other hand; I do blame an individual for their own actions - but give them a chance to prove me wrong.
What would you have done in the same situation?
Where has it been said he made it where he is in a dishonest manner? I do know that Microsoft's position has been *maintained* in an unethical manner. Again, a lot of people seem to think that the very fact that people have material wealth makes them crooks.
I'm not making any excuses. I'm looking at the entire picture. Disliking an entire culture for the actions of one person is thoughtless and insensitive; the same as disliking one individual for the actions of an entire group. You think you'd run a multibillion dollar international corporation all by yourself? Decisions are made by committee - which is not a condonement or a criticism of those decisions. My only praise here is his charitable activities.
Riddle me this: you may not have the cash to donate; but do you volunteer in your community? I provide technology help for the severeley MR classrooms; they never get new computers or a lot of assistance from the school system. For many years I made a special point to volunteer serving meals at Thanksgiving; not that easy to do with a large family of my own now but I'm going again this year because we're having dinner on Friday. Feel free to criticize a concerned donation if you take the time to be charitable yourself.