According to the article, the reason is the transient nature of modern games. Once you've finished it, it is not worth playing again. That is, IMHO, the main reason why the gaming industry is struggling; all they do is create ten million dollar movies for one-time entertainment. What we really need is more simulation games where the process is more important than the content. Take Civilization, for example; it is old, but still very playable. (I have upgraded to CTP these days though) This sort of game never gets old because it is new every time you play it. Now, if only CTP had a better AI...
> You're not going to "prove" any opinion. Opinions have no true/false status.
Only if you have no absolute standards. A statement "COBOL is a bad language" can be a fact if all its terms are explicitly defined. For example, if one were to define a bad language as "a language lacking support for modular design and interfaces", then "COBOL is a bad language" becomes a fact because it is logically derived from provably real premises. Logic is a method of ensuring your statements correspond to reality, and a logically proven statement is a fact because no matter how many people have different opinions, it is still true. Of course, the hard part is creating the real premise chain. You have to define what makes a language bad or good, explicitly explain why the traits that make it good are the only ways of making it good, and then finally prove that COBOL lacks those traits.
> I just get itchy when people think that because THEY think something, it must be a fact
And you are correct. An opinion does not become a fact just because you feel it is right. It becomes a fact only if you can logically prove it to be right, because then its veracity is independent of how you feel about it and of how other people may feel about it.
A value judgement is not just an opinion! These days it is a popular attitude to "keep your values to yourself" and to consider one man's values as good as any those of any other. It is easy to understand the motivation for this, since without objective standards it is impossible to criticise anyone or anything. You can read an interesting conversation on this subject in Neal Stephenson's "The Diamond Age", between John Hackworth and Lord Finkle McGraw. Because we have no allowable objective standards on judging languages (among other things), it is not possible to prove a language to be bad. All judgements become opinions and, as such, irrelevant. Naturally, with no way of distinguishing a good language from a bad one, except for that nebulous "gut feeling", the world gets exactly what it deserves: hundreds of bad languages with groups of fanatical adherents flaming each other on Slashdot about the (purely relative and irrelevant) merits of their languages. So it is with other things in this world. You can do nothing good unless you define what good is, but you can do nothing bad either, so I guess most people are satisfied. There is nothing I can do about it.
> He could solve any problem by the simple expedient > of not trying to do it all himself and being very > good at accepting ideas from other people.
I have met quite a few such people and I know that they are not great programmers. They are not even good programmers. They are simply very good at getting the rest of the team to do all the real work. Every team has them and they are a drag; they contribute nothing, but because everyone covers for them they still manage too look good if the team is able to solve the problem.
> In most circumstances programming is done within > a team and ego just gets in the way.
ego, n.: the self; the individual as aware of himself. That's Webster's definition. Are you saying that it is bad to be aware of yourself? If you do not have an ego, it is likely because you have done nothing to distinguish yourself as an individual. You could have managed that by having no original thoughs and just "accepting ideas from other people". As I already stated, nobody likes a free rider.
I don't know what you call "ego" then; to me it means having pride in your code and refusing to accept garbage from other team members. I have pride in my code because it is good; my progamming team benefits from it and I would most certainly reject some ideas if I do not think they are good enough for the code base.
> Who wants to work with somebody who rejects an > idea just because they didn't think of it!!.
Nobody, but what does that have to do with anything? Don't lump all cranky primadonnas with the concept of ego. There is a difference between having an ego and being self-centered. In fact it is likely those who never have an idea of their own, that are more likely to reject good ideas by others just because they can. Little people feel better by bringing others down to their level.
Her: Hey, that's a cool watch! Him: No babe; it's not just cool. It is a nuclear powered watch; the most powerful watch in the business! Her: Uhh... So you're a mutant?
> It is a wrong use of ntpdate as well. Its point is > to set the time to the correct one at startup
This is only true if you have a permanent network connection. Most of us dial out only a couple of times a day, with no connectivity the rest of the time, so running ntpd is utterly pointless. Broadband arrogance rides again!
> Who ever had the necklace in their possession was > allowed to access the tape drive.
Reminds me of an old Dilbert cartoon:
Dilbert: (holding a cable) we have a token ring network. Boss: So why is it not working? Dilbert: the token fell out. It must be somewhere in this room... Boss: (gets on his knees to search)
> I think it's mostly that people don't have to deal > with real-world consequences. You can say things > in text to people that would get your face beaten > in if you said them in person.
We can learn from this. If you could beat up rude people in real life, there would be a lot fewer of them. Sleazy newspaper reporters, lying used car salesmen, and dishonest politicians will disappear practically overnight if one were to abolish the first amendment for everybody. These days the first amendment is abolished only for honest people who are not allowed to talk about dangerous subjects at work or protest peacefully on the grass in New York
Could someone please enlighten my poor brain and suggest some practical use for the exact value of 10000!, and why I might require its computation in a fraction of a second? I'm afraid I don't think too good.
> The three ways you can authenticate a person are: > What they are, What they have, What they know
The trouble is that the government really wants to know "what you want", rather than any of those things. Using "what you are" to determine "what you want" works only by extrapolating from previous behaviour, and is necessarily restricted to past offenders. What we need is a passport that requires you to state your intentions every time you use it. It could go something like this:
"It looks like you are about to board a plane. Could you please reassure me that you do not wish to hijack it, blow it up, fly it into a government building, ignite your left shoe, have sex in the restroom, hassle the flight attendants, or behave in a threatening manner?" "I am just going on a trip to Afganistan to meet some Mr.Laden or something. I don't know nothin' about all rest of that." "Thank you for your cooperation."
> if you wear something like an Adidas shirt for > example, and Nike is a sponsor and Adidas is not, > they will confiscate it. Frankly, I would flat out refuse.
Don't! Just give them the rest of your clothes too. If you are not allowed to wear clothes made by Adidas, why should you be allowed to wear clothes you got at the Old Navy, or Target, or Salvation Army? Those companies probably did not contribute to the Olympics either. The only safe way is going in your birthday suit, which is the only thing truly your own (for now).
> Ok, lets do it the other way. Contract to write or > acquire an operating system. Similar to Unix. How > much? Where are the investors?
A good analogy here would be writing a novel: unless you are a famous author, you have to write the novel first. Nobody is going to pay you anything until you do. However, once it is written, nobody expects you to just give it away either. You let a publisher read it and if he thinks it is good, he'll print it and you get the cut of whatever he makes from selling it. Same with software; you can not expect to be paid to develop it, but you can sure expect being paid by the people who want to use it.
> Second. Contract to write a whole suite of > server utilities. Web server, security tools, > scripting tools, etc. How much? Where are the investors?
Let's deal with the second issue: competition. You won't know "how much" until you know "how much better" it is than what is already there. If your software is better, and at least some people are dissatisfied with what they have, chances are "how much" will become "a lot".
> Third. Contract to write a graphical environment, > create the market and environment where numerous > others are writing software for the environment. > How much? Where are the investors?
The third problem: lack of a market. You know why automobiles could be sold before there was an interstate highway system? Because they could be used on the same roads as the horse-and-buggy systems. If you want to write a new graphical environment, provide plug-in emulation of something that already exists, like an X-server. Once people see how great your new graphical environment works, they will start writing software using the native interface and after five or ten years you can remove the backward compatibility.
> Fourth. Start today, and in about 5-10 years > maybe have something someone may want to use. > Another few years and have something someone > wants to purchase. Maintain the whole suite up > to date, with current hardware and security > environment. How much?
Tell that to Thomas Edison. When you undertake a research project with questionable success and a long-term timeline, you need to think about how you will live until you have something to sell. You can take a day-job and to it in your spare time, which is what the unsuccessful OSS projects do. Or you can set some intermediate goals and figure out some way to get something profitable in between. Look at Zyvex, for example; their stated goal is to develop a molecular assembler, which is not likely to happen anytime soon. But in the meantime they are marketing the tools that they have made to facilitate the mainline research. The point is that if you have to work for 10 years before you have something useful, then you need to rethink your strategy and come up with a plan where you have something sellable every year. That's how every successful company works.
> No sane investor would look at the list above > and give the enormous sums that would be > necessary. So it wouldn't happen, and Redhat wouldn't exist.
Of course not. RedHat does not actually write any software (well, not anything important anyway:), it just supports the software other people have written. They are not making money from code, but from service contracts. In the proprietary world the usual order of business is for the support to come from the same company that writes the software. Nothing prevents you from starting a company doing customer support for Microsoft Office.
> No choice except proprietary unix', or Microsoft.
Don't make the mistake of equating "proprietary" with "bad". When the developers get paid, they have the luxury of actually working on the product instead of having to spend their days on an unrelated job. Linux is developed mostly by paid programmers and so are most other successful OSS projects like MySQL and Mozilla. The onl
> If you choose to use GPL'd work, then it is your > contractual obligation to release modifications under the GPL.
That is correct. But you are omitting the very important fact that the license does not require you to make any modifications as a condition for continued use. And also the fact that you are only required to release modifications under the GPL if you release the modifications at all.
> sure the project owner can bitch all he wants > about a company legally using his project but > not giving back extra. However generally in > those cases nobody sympathizes with the owner
Quite the contrary: such a company is likely to get labelled as a "leech" and lose business because of it. This is what I am complaining about, not about having to release source for modifications if I release the modifications.
> he is usually told "well you shouldn't of used the GPL" by the community.
I have yet to see anybody make that statement. Usually it is along the lines of: "well, those bastards are just scumbag leeches, let's go on Slashdot and bash them to hell. And then we'll DOS their server. That'll teach them!" The community is very much against the idea that GPL software can be used without any payment by those who are able to pay in money or in code, and this is a serious problem because it means that the license says one thing, but the community has decided that it means another.
Except through shame and ostracism. You really should read the rest of my posts.
> Your skills and contributions are less important to the OSS > community than is ("our" notion of) freedom.
And what exactly is the difference between "you" and "me" here? My sentiments are going to be the same for every programmer who wants to make a living from the work he loves; writing good, useful software with beautiful interfaces and algorithms. He wants to be recognized and paid for the result of the best efforts of his mind, of his imagination and daring, and of his design skills; not for some boring, repetetive, mechanical, and off-shoreable job like doing customer support, talking on the phone all day with irate, angry, and stupid people, or the mindless drudgery of database screen customization. That is the nature of "me" and my ilk. And what is the nature of "you"?
> "We" would prefer to do without "you"
Can you really afford to tell all the skilled programmers in the world that you will do just fine without them? Probably yes. Average people don't need computers for anything anyway.
> than to allow "our" software to be embraced and extended (and lost).
In other words, you don't want anyone to improve it unless they do it for free. How kind of you. Only slaves need apply.
> If you think you could do better, start writing your own operating system.
Writing an operating system is not hard. If you look around the net you'll find out that everybody and his dog has done it. There are dozens of operating systems, but there are no applications for any of them because nobody is using them. You see, although you are "free" to run any operating system you want, I am also "free" not to write any software for it, since with your attitude I will obviously not be able to profit from that activity. Look no further for reasons why nobody writes games for Linux, or why nobody can make money from business software on Linux (software, not support), and why Windows still runs on nearly every desktop and is quite likely to continue to do so.
> You dont need to pay for GPL software in any way. > The GPL insures this. Thats why its a good idea > for poor schools in africa etc. But if you use it, > and you can afford to pay for it, be it in the > form of donations, code, coders, etc than you should
Think about what you are saying here. You are saying that in GPL software, the license applies to you only if you are poor. If you are rich, then you have to pay. This is yet another brazen lie because this does not appear in the license. When a company sells its product for money, they do not care if you are rich or poor. If you can pay the price, you can buy it. With GPL, according to you, if you are rich (and who defines "rich"?) then you automatically incur an implied obligation to pay for what is stated to be free in the license. If that is not lying, you must have some strange definition of lying, because it certainly fits mine. If the license states that I do not have to pay, then I expect to not have anything to pay. To demand money or work outside of the license at the threat of ostracism is not only lying. It is also blackmail.
> Now if people find out about this, im usually > shamed into buying food like everyone else who can,
Indeed. Under capitalism, shame is usually associated with doing something illegal. By saying that it is shameful for the rich to use GPL software without paying for it, you are creating a "de facto law" against it. Not only are you violating the terms of the alleged license, but, if you extend this logic to other such situtations, you are creating a privileged class of the "underprivileged", who can do pretty much anything as long as they stay poor.
> otherwise the whole food producing industry collapses.
And this is the inevitable result of giving stuff away for free. If there is no profit in it, there will be no business in it. Software will stay, of course; it costs nothing to copy. It just costs to produce in the first place. Free software will not make all software disappear; it will just make all new software disappear, as the businesses switch to making money from support and image tweaking.
> we're not going to a violent force-led market. > redhat has contracts with its customers. they > agree on what redhat will provide and they agree > on what redhat will be paid. if the contract is > breeched by either party you can take it to court.
When I am talking about a force-led market, it is not RedHat that I have in mind. RedHat is a traditional business that makes money from traditional contracts. They do not have to force their customers to "contribute" anything. The customers either purchase what RedHat is selling, for an honestly stated price, or they do not. If they do choose to purchase a RedHat distribution, they are not incurring any additional obligations to RedHat. Once the price is paid and the customer has the software, the transaction is finished. The customer owns what he bought. Period.
> the relationship we were discussing is that between redhat > and the public. specifically the OSS-aware public.
Entirely correct. And it is "the public" that is becoming a violent force-led market, not RedHat. While RedHat is selling their product for money, the OSS community is "selling" their product for implied future obligation of "contributing back to the community." When you buy from RedHat, the purchase price fulfills your obligations. Afterward, if you want to tell RedHat to take a hike and go to hell, they'll just shrug and go back to business. They are not going to call you names, or make public statements on how bad a customer you are, or prevent you from buying any other RedHat products, should you choose to do so in the future. And if you open your own business and sell something good, RedHat will not refuse to buy it from you solely because you did not "contribute" anything aside from the purchase price. If you download OSS, your obligation is never fullfilled. Unless you keep contributing to the common pool, you will be called a "leech", you will be hated, you will be flamed, you will get bad publicity, and you certainly won't get any more business. All because you have taken the license literally and assumed that "free" means "you don't have to pay anything". Now tell me if you think this is an honest practice.
> do you think companies shouldn't have to think about what the public thinks?
No. They shouldn't give a damn about the public. They should only think about whether their product is good. If the product is good, people will buy it. That's how capitalism works.
> the public is the consumer and the public decides > what they want and what they are willing to pay for.
Indeed, but it is the producer who decides what he wants to produce and how much to charge for it. If you don't want to pay for it, don't expect anybody to make it.
> what do you want? companies to be able to do whatever > they want and have the public either not know or not care?
Yes and no. Companies should be able to do whatever they want, but the public should know what they are buying and be able to differentiate between what is good and what is a fraud. If I decide to sell a word processor for $650 and nobody buys it, it is both my decision and my loss. If the public does not want to pay anything for a word processor, then I am not going to be able to sell it, but it is the public's decision and their loss because I am certainly not going to just give away my hard work. They can keep their slow and bloated OpenOffice while I'll see if I can write something that will sell. If all software must be free, then I'll find another line of business and you won't see any code from me. I'll make money from something else I can produce and be happy there; and if the public believes they can do without my skills and my work, that is their decision and it is fine with me.
> are people angry when they find out that kfc's > chickens are being abused by the workers at the > meat factory (throwing them against the wall, > etc)? yes. does it affect kfc's business? yes.
So you are equating using OSS without paying for it with abusing chickens? This is exactly what I am talking about: lying. If you give something away for free, it means that you do not expect payment. But you, along with many others in the OSS world, are basically saying: "you don't have to pay for it, but if you don't, then you are a scumbag."
> we have rule of law for a reason. that's how > anarchy (not socialism) is prevented.
First of all, this is a really dumb statement. The definition of anarchy is absence of authority, which inevitably leads to absence of law. Whether that is a bad thing is an entirely different question, and is one I would answer in the negative. But that is another discussion.
Consider what "law" really is: a codified consequence against a defined transgression; defined by those who are backed with sufficient weaponry to enforce it. The difference between the prosecution of the shoplifter and the ostracism of the "leech" is that the latter is carried out by those who are powerless to enforce their complaints by the means of force. The difference between "law" in a capitalist society and "law" in a socialist society is in the sort of people who make it. Socialists are very big on cracking down on "leeches", which are defined as having something valuable (like programming skills) and refusing to give them away for free. You may call this "being a good member of the community"; I call it "slavery".
> the idea of a consumer economy and a free market > is that the public decides what they want to pay > for and what they are willing to pay for it.
Very true. But most people forget that there is the other side of the economy: the producer. If you are willing to pay no more than $0 for a product, do not be too surprized that eventually there will be nobody willing to manufacture it.
> in some markets you have to make sure you're not > abusing your employees or else people won't buy > your stuff. in this market you have to make sure > that you're not seen as a leech or people won't buy your stuff.
Again I would like to point out the analogy between "abusing your employees" and "being a leech". According to the terms of the free software license, when you are being a "leech", you are simply exercising your license-granted right to not pay for the software because the software is intended to be free. The free software community clearly has a different viewpoint - that of an implied, unstated contract that if you use the software, you are required to contribute other software to the common pool or face ostracism. This is exactly what I am complaining about - the straight-faced lie, the bait-and-switch or whatever you want to call it. No, it is not illegal to be a "leech"; the license language prevents any legal action against you for now. But the community goes to great lengths to emphasize that if you do choose to actually do what the license allows you to do, then you are committing an immoral act (see the above chickens and employee abuse statements) for which you will be punished by public damnation. The moral code which prohibits being a "leech" is the socialist's moral code. It is most certainly not mine.
> The parent wants traditional business contracts. > Times change. If you want to stay on top of the > game in a competative market you need to change too.
Naturally. If you can not make contracts and expect them to be fulfilled, the only other way to make other people do what you want them to do is by force. In a world ruled by looters you have to be a looter to "stay on top of the game"; it is, after all, a "competetive market". We are not there yet, but that is where you are trying to go. I invite anyone who prefers the slavedriver's whip to a business contract to first try it out on his own hide.
> what you are saying is that they say it's free but then expect something back. > It is free -- you are not required to give anything back.
That depends on what you mean by "required". If you go to a store, take something off the shelf, and walk out without paying, then the police will arrest you and put you in jail. If you "just take software and never try to give back", this will certainly not happen. What will happen is that you will get tons of negative publicity (provided you are a sufficiently big target) which will affect your business about as much as jail time and fines affect a shoplifter. The end result is pretty much the same, only the method of enforcement differs. The shoplifter is punished by law, whereas the "non-paying" open source user is punished by the community by being a "free rider". Very simply put, this is how socialism begins. The end goal is simply legalizing the latter practice and thus changing it from simple ostracism to enforcement by the force of guns. From then on it is "from each by ability" - the community decides just how able you are and how much it can take from you, and heaven help you if they decide you are "very well capable of contributing to open source"; "to each by need" - the community decides just how much you ought to need, and by golly, if it decides that all you need is a barrel to live in, then in the barrel you go.
> Profiting off of Open Source requires that a > business must sometimes give valuable IP back to > "the community" for no direct financial reward in > order for them to have the credit in the community > to get the development they need in the future.
In other words, you want to use Open Source, you must "pay" the price in development effort. Or else. I don't know about you, but I prefer traditional business contracts with the price clearly stated upfront instead of this nebulous "you must contribute" obligation where you can always be accused of "not pulling your load". Of course, most companies do not sell their source code, as I am sure at least one hundred replies to this post will indignantly point out, but that is not the issue here: my complaint is about honesty. If you want to call your software "free" (as in beer), you better damn stand by that and not arrogantly state that "Profiting off of Open Source requires that a business must sometimes give valuable IP back to the community". I have no problem with those who require payment for their work, be it money or development effort, but you better state that before "giving away" your software, and you better not be calling it "free" (that last one for you, GPL!). In the business world, such practices are called bait-and-switch, and are illegal. Of course, on Slashdot, any Open Source criticism is flamebait, so I guess I am just wasting karma points...
More and more software seems to be written solely for large companies. You hear about TCO, support services, customizations, and thousand dollar prices. Even all the open source money-making strategies focus solely on support and customization, something only big business wants. Whatever happened to making software for normal, individual users? The kind that don't need much support (I sure have never called any of those, even when the software broke down), can't afford custom software and don't need any (me? hire a programmer to customize stuff for me? Please!), and will never ever pay more than $49.95 for ANY single package? Am I the only one feeling a little left out? Will future programming be exclusively for big business, with no use for us little people at all? What will happen to all those revenue models if we have a recession and big businesses go out of business?
Slashdot Mirror
The Alien Anarchist's Cookbook
According to the article, the reason is the transient nature of modern games. Once you've finished it, it is not worth playing again. That is, IMHO, the main reason why the gaming industry is struggling; all they do is create ten million dollar movies for one-time entertainment. What we really need is more simulation games where the process is more important than the content. Take Civilization, for example; it is old, but still very playable. (I have upgraded to CTP these days though) This sort of game never gets old because it is new every time you play it. Now, if only CTP had a better AI...
> You're not going to "prove" any opinion. Opinions have no true/false status.
Only if you have no absolute standards. A statement "COBOL is a bad language" can be a fact if all its terms are explicitly defined. For example, if one were to define a bad language as "a language lacking support for modular design and interfaces", then "COBOL is a bad language" becomes a fact because it is logically derived from provably real premises. Logic is a method of ensuring your statements correspond to reality, and a logically proven statement is a fact because no matter how many people have different opinions, it is still true. Of course, the hard part is creating the real premise chain. You have to define what makes a language bad or good, explicitly explain why the traits that make it good are the only ways of making it good, and then finally prove that COBOL lacks those traits.
> I just get itchy when people think that because THEY think something, it must be a fact
And you are correct. An opinion does not become a fact just because you feel it is right. It becomes a fact only if you can logically prove it to be right, because then its veracity is independent of how you feel about it and of how other people may feel about it.
A value judgement is not just an opinion! These days it is a popular attitude to "keep your values to yourself" and to consider one man's values as good as any those of any other. It is easy to understand the motivation for this, since without objective standards it is impossible to criticise anyone or anything. You can read an interesting conversation on this subject in Neal Stephenson's "The Diamond Age", between John Hackworth and Lord Finkle McGraw. Because we have no allowable objective standards on judging languages (among other things), it is not possible to prove a language to be bad. All judgements become opinions and, as such, irrelevant. Naturally, with no way of distinguishing a good language from a bad one, except for that nebulous "gut feeling", the world gets exactly what it deserves: hundreds of bad languages with groups of fanatical adherents flaming each other on Slashdot about the (purely relative and irrelevant) merits of their languages. So it is with other things in this world. You can do nothing good unless you define what good is, but you can do nothing bad either, so I guess most people are satisfied. There is nothing I can do about it.
> He could solve any problem by the simple expedient
> of not trying to do it all himself and being very
> good at accepting ideas from other people.
I have met quite a few such people and I know that they are not great programmers. They are not even good programmers. They are simply very good at getting the rest of the team to do all the real work. Every team has them and they are a drag; they contribute nothing, but because everyone covers for them they still manage too look good if the team is able to solve the problem.
> In most circumstances programming is done within
> a team and ego just gets in the way.
ego, n.: the self; the individual as aware of himself. That's Webster's definition. Are you saying that it is bad to be aware of yourself? If you do not have an ego, it is likely because you have done nothing to distinguish yourself as an individual. You could have managed that by having no original thoughs and just "accepting ideas from other people". As I already stated, nobody likes a free rider.
I don't know what you call "ego" then; to me it means having pride in your code and refusing to accept garbage from other team members. I have pride in my code because it is good; my progamming team benefits from it and I would most certainly reject some ideas if I do not think they are good enough for the code base.
> Who wants to work with somebody who rejects an
> idea just because they didn't think of it!!.
Nobody, but what does that have to do with anything? Don't lump all cranky primadonnas with the concept of ego. There is a difference between having an ego and being self-centered. In fact it is likely those who never have an idea of their own, that are more likely to reject good ideas by others just because they can. Little people feel better by bringing others down to their level.
Her: Hey, that's a cool watch!
Him: No babe; it's not just cool. It is a nuclear powered watch; the most powerful watch in the business!
Her: Uhh... So you're a mutant?
> It is a wrong use of ntpdate as well. Its point is
> to set the time to the correct one at startup
This is only true if you have a permanent network connection. Most of us dial out only a couple of times a day, with no connectivity the rest of the time, so running ntpd is utterly pointless. Broadband arrogance rides again!
> Note it only keeps mission time so after 24 hours you have reset the time
Yeah. 24 hours ought to be enough for everybody.
> I should kick your ass for thinking that.
I much prefer dealing with people who want to kick my ass to dealing with ones who want to sue me. In the former case you can at least fight back...
> Who ever had the necklace in their possession was
> allowed to access the tape drive.
Reminds me of an old Dilbert cartoon:
Dilbert: (holding a cable) we have a token ring network.
Boss: So why is it not working?
Dilbert: the token fell out. It must be somewhere in this room...
Boss: (gets on his knees to search)
> I think it's mostly that people don't have to deal
> with real-world consequences. You can say things
> in text to people that would get your face beaten
> in if you said them in person.
We can learn from this. If you could beat up rude people in real life, there would be a lot fewer of them. Sleazy newspaper reporters, lying used car salesmen, and dishonest politicians will disappear practically overnight if one were to abolish the first amendment for everybody. These days the first amendment is abolished only for honest people who are not allowed to talk about dangerous subjects at work or protest peacefully on the grass in New York
> what incentive do people have for purchasing a drink stored in such a can?
Man, can you imagine how easy it will be to chrystallize stuff in this thing?
Could someone please enlighten my poor brain and suggest some practical use for the exact value of 10000!, and why I might require its computation in a fraction of a second? I'm afraid I don't think too good.
> The three ways you can authenticate a person are:
> What they are, What they have, What they know
The trouble is that the government really wants to know "what you want", rather than any of those things. Using "what you are" to determine "what you want" works only by extrapolating from previous behaviour, and is necessarily restricted to past offenders. What we need is a passport that requires you to state your intentions every time you use it. It could go something like this:
"It looks like you are about to board a plane. Could you please reassure me that you do not wish to hijack it, blow it up, fly it into a government building, ignite your left shoe, have sex in the restroom, hassle the flight attendants, or behave in a threatening manner?"
"I am just going on a trip to Afganistan to meet some Mr.Laden or something. I don't know nothin' about all rest of that."
"Thank you for your cooperation."
> if you wear something like an Adidas shirt for
> example, and Nike is a sponsor and Adidas is not,
> they will confiscate it. Frankly, I would flat out refuse.
Don't! Just give them the rest of your clothes too. If you are not allowed to wear clothes made by Adidas, why should you be allowed to wear clothes you got at the Old Navy, or Target, or Salvation Army? Those companies probably did not contribute to the Olympics either. The only safe way is going in your birthday suit, which is the only thing truly your own (for now).
> Ok, lets do it the other way. Contract to write or
:), it just supports the software other people have written. They are not making money from code, but from service contracts. In the proprietary world the usual order of business is for the support to come from the same company that writes the software. Nothing prevents you from starting a company doing customer support for Microsoft Office.
> acquire an operating system. Similar to Unix. How
> much? Where are the investors?
A good analogy here would be writing a novel: unless you are a famous author, you have to write the novel first. Nobody is going to pay you anything until you do. However, once it is written, nobody expects you to just give it away either. You let a publisher read it and if he thinks it is good, he'll print it and you get the cut of whatever he makes from selling it. Same with software; you can not expect to be paid to develop it, but you can sure expect being paid by the people who want to use it.
> Second. Contract to write a whole suite of
> server utilities. Web server, security tools,
> scripting tools, etc. How much? Where are the investors?
Let's deal with the second issue: competition. You won't know "how much" until you know "how much better" it is than what is already there. If your software is better, and at least some people are dissatisfied with what they have, chances are "how much" will become "a lot".
> Third. Contract to write a graphical environment,
> create the market and environment where numerous
> others are writing software for the environment.
> How much? Where are the investors?
The third problem: lack of a market. You know why automobiles could be sold before there was an interstate highway system? Because they could be used on the same roads as the horse-and-buggy systems. If you want to write a new graphical environment, provide plug-in emulation of something that already exists, like an X-server. Once people see how great your new graphical environment works, they will start writing software using the native interface and after five or ten years you can remove the backward compatibility.
> Fourth. Start today, and in about 5-10 years
> maybe have something someone may want to use.
> Another few years and have something someone
> wants to purchase. Maintain the whole suite up
> to date, with current hardware and security
> environment. How much?
Tell that to Thomas Edison. When you undertake a research project with questionable success and a long-term timeline, you need to think about how you will live until you have something to sell. You can take a day-job and to it in your spare time, which is what the unsuccessful OSS projects do. Or you can set some intermediate goals and figure out some way to get something profitable in between. Look at Zyvex, for example; their stated goal is to develop a molecular assembler, which is not likely to happen anytime soon. But in the meantime they are marketing the tools that they have made to facilitate the mainline research. The point is that if you have to work for 10 years before you have something useful, then you need to rethink your strategy and come up with a plan where you have something sellable every year. That's how every successful company works.
> No sane investor would look at the list above
> and give the enormous sums that would be
> necessary. So it wouldn't happen, and Redhat wouldn't exist.
Of course not. RedHat does not actually write any software (well, not anything important anyway
> No choice except proprietary unix', or Microsoft.
Don't make the mistake of equating "proprietary" with "bad". When the developers get paid, they have the luxury of actually working on the product instead of having to spend their days on an unrelated job. Linux is developed mostly by paid programmers and so are most other successful OSS projects like MySQL and Mozilla. The onl
> If you choose to use GPL'd work, then it is your
> contractual obligation to release modifications under the GPL.
That is correct. But you are omitting the very important fact that the license does not require you to make any modifications as a condition for continued use. And also the fact that you are only required to release modifications under the GPL if you release the modifications at all.
> sure the project owner can bitch all he wants
> about a company legally using his project but
> not giving back extra. However generally in
> those cases nobody sympathizes with the owner
Quite the contrary: such a company is likely to get labelled as a "leech" and lose business because of it. This is what I am complaining about, not about having to release source for modifications if I release the modifications.
> he is usually told "well you shouldn't of used the GPL" by the community.
I have yet to see anybody make that statement. Usually it is along the lines of: "well, those bastards are just scumbag leeches, let's go on Slashdot and bash them to hell. And then we'll DOS their server. That'll teach them!" The community is very much against the idea that GPL software can be used without any payment by those who are able to pay in money or in code, and this is a serious problem because it means that the license says one thing, but the community has decided that it means another.
> No one is forced to contribute to OOS.
Except through shame and ostracism. You really should read the rest of my posts.
> Your skills and contributions are less important to the OSS
> community than is ("our" notion of) freedom.
And what exactly is the difference between "you" and "me" here? My sentiments are going to be the same for every programmer who wants to make a living from the work he loves; writing good, useful software with beautiful interfaces and algorithms. He wants to be recognized and paid for the result of the best efforts of his mind, of his imagination and daring, and of his design skills; not for some boring, repetetive, mechanical, and off-shoreable job like doing customer support, talking on the phone all day with irate, angry, and stupid people, or the mindless drudgery of database screen customization. That is the nature of "me" and my ilk. And what is the nature of "you"?
> "We" would prefer to do without "you"
Can you really afford to tell all the skilled programmers in the world that you will do just fine without them? Probably yes. Average people don't need computers for anything anyway.
> than to allow "our" software to be embraced and extended (and lost).
In other words, you don't want anyone to improve it unless they do it for free. How kind of you. Only slaves need apply.
> If you think you could do better, start writing your own operating system.
Writing an operating system is not hard. If you look around the net you'll find out that everybody and his dog has done it. There are dozens of operating systems, but there are no applications for any of them because nobody is using them. You see, although you are "free" to run any operating system you want, I am also "free" not to write any software for it, since with your attitude I will obviously not be able to profit from that activity. Look no further for reasons why nobody writes games for Linux, or why nobody can make money from business software on Linux (software, not support), and why Windows still runs on nearly every desktop and is quite likely to continue to do so.
> You dont need to pay for GPL software in any way.
> The GPL insures this. Thats why its a good idea
> for poor schools in africa etc. But if you use it,
> and you can afford to pay for it, be it in the
> form of donations, code, coders, etc than you should
Think about what you are saying here. You are saying that in GPL software, the license applies to you only if you are poor. If you are rich, then you have to pay. This is yet another brazen lie because this does not appear in the license. When a company sells its product for money, they do not care if you are rich or poor. If you can pay the price, you can buy it. With GPL, according to you, if you are rich (and who defines "rich"?) then you automatically incur an implied obligation to pay for what is stated to be free in the license. If that is not lying, you must have some strange definition of lying, because it certainly fits mine. If the license states that I do not have to pay, then I expect to not have anything to pay. To demand money or work outside of the license at the threat of ostracism is not only lying. It is also blackmail.
> Now if people find out about this, im usually
> shamed into buying food like everyone else who can,
Indeed. Under capitalism, shame is usually associated with doing something illegal. By saying that it is shameful for the rich to use GPL software without paying for it, you are creating a "de facto law" against it. Not only are you violating the terms of the alleged license, but, if you extend this logic to other such situtations, you are creating a privileged class of the "underprivileged", who can do pretty much anything as long as they stay poor.
> otherwise the whole food producing industry collapses.
And this is the inevitable result of giving stuff away for free. If there is no profit in it, there will be no business in it. Software will stay, of course; it costs nothing to copy. It just costs to produce in the first place. Free software will not make all software disappear; it will just make all new software disappear, as the businesses switch to making money from support and image tweaking.
> we're not going to a violent force-led market.
> redhat has contracts with its customers. they
> agree on what redhat will provide and they agree
> on what redhat will be paid. if the contract is
> breeched by either party you can take it to court.
When I am talking about a force-led market, it is not RedHat that I have in mind. RedHat is a traditional business that makes money from traditional contracts. They do not have to force their customers to "contribute" anything. The customers either purchase what RedHat is selling, for an honestly stated price, or they do not. If they do choose to purchase a RedHat distribution, they are not incurring any additional obligations to RedHat. Once the price is paid and the customer has the software, the transaction is finished. The customer owns what he bought. Period.
> the relationship we were discussing is that between redhat
> and the public. specifically the OSS-aware public.
Entirely correct. And it is "the public" that is becoming a violent force-led market, not RedHat. While RedHat is selling their product for money, the OSS community is "selling" their product for implied future obligation of "contributing back to the community." When you buy from RedHat, the purchase price fulfills your obligations. Afterward, if you want to tell RedHat to take a hike and go to hell, they'll just shrug and go back to business. They are not going to call you names, or make public statements on how bad a customer you are, or prevent you from buying any other RedHat products, should you choose to do so in the future. And if you open your own business and sell something good, RedHat will not refuse to buy it from you solely because you did not "contribute" anything aside from the purchase price. If you download OSS, your obligation is never fullfilled. Unless you keep contributing to the common pool, you will be called a "leech", you will be hated, you will be flamed, you will get bad publicity, and you certainly won't get any more business. All because you have taken the license literally and assumed that "free" means "you don't have to pay anything". Now tell me if you think this is an honest practice.
> do you think companies shouldn't have to think about what the public thinks?
No. They shouldn't give a damn about the public. They should only think about whether their product is good. If the product is good, people will buy it. That's how capitalism works.
> the public is the consumer and the public decides
> what they want and what they are willing to pay for.
Indeed, but it is the producer who decides what he wants to produce and how much to charge for it. If you don't want to pay for it, don't expect anybody to make it.
> what do you want? companies to be able to do whatever
> they want and have the public either not know or not care?
Yes and no. Companies should be able to do whatever they want, but the public should know what they are buying and be able to differentiate between what is good and what is a fraud. If I decide to sell a word processor for $650 and nobody buys it, it is both my decision and my loss. If the public does not want to pay anything for a word processor, then I am not going to be able to sell it, but it is the public's decision and their loss because I am certainly not going to just give away my hard work. They can keep their slow and bloated OpenOffice while I'll see if I can write something that will sell. If all software must be free, then I'll find another line of business and you won't see any code from me. I'll make money from something else I can produce and be happy there; and if the public believes they can do without my skills and my work, that is their decision and it is fine with me.
> are people angry when they find out that kfc's
> chickens are being abused by the workers at the
> meat factory (throwing them against the wall,
> etc)? yes. does it affect kfc's business? yes.
So you are equating using OSS without paying for it with abusing chickens? This is exactly what I am talking about: lying. If you give something away for free, it means that you do not expect payment. But you, along with many others in the OSS world, are basically saying: "you don't have to pay for it, but if you don't, then you are a scumbag."
> we have rule of law for a reason. that's how
> anarchy (not socialism) is prevented.
First of all, this is a really dumb statement. The definition of anarchy is absence of authority, which inevitably leads to absence of law. Whether that is a bad thing is an entirely different question, and is one I would answer in the negative. But that is another discussion.
Consider what "law" really is: a codified consequence against a defined transgression; defined by those who are backed with sufficient weaponry to enforce it. The difference between the prosecution of the shoplifter and the ostracism of the "leech" is that the latter is carried out by those who are powerless to enforce their complaints by the means of force. The difference between "law" in a capitalist society and "law" in a socialist society is in the sort of people who make it. Socialists are very big on cracking down on "leeches", which are defined as having something valuable (like programming skills) and refusing to give them away for free. You may call this "being a good member of the community"; I call it "slavery".
> the idea of a consumer economy and a free market
> is that the public decides what they want to pay
> for and what they are willing to pay for it.
Very true. But most people forget that there is the other side of the economy: the producer. If you are willing to pay no more than $0 for a product, do not be too surprized that eventually there will be nobody willing to manufacture it.
> in some markets you have to make sure you're not
> abusing your employees or else people won't buy
> your stuff. in this market you have to make sure
> that you're not seen as a leech or people won't buy your stuff.
Again I would like to point out the analogy between "abusing your employees" and "being a leech". According to the terms of the free software license, when you are being a "leech", you are simply exercising your license-granted right to not pay for the software because the software is intended to be free. The free software community clearly has a different viewpoint - that of an implied, unstated contract that if you use the software, you are required to contribute other software to the common pool or face ostracism. This is exactly what I am complaining about - the straight-faced lie, the bait-and-switch or whatever you want to call it. No, it is not illegal to be a "leech"; the license language prevents any legal action against you for now. But the community goes to great lengths to emphasize that if you do choose to actually do what the license allows you to do, then you are committing an immoral act (see the above chickens and employee abuse statements) for which you will be punished by public damnation. The moral code which prohibits being a "leech" is the socialist's moral code. It is most certainly not mine.
> The parent wants traditional business contracts.
> Times change. If you want to stay on top of the
> game in a competative market you need to change too.
Naturally. If you can not make contracts and expect them to be fulfilled, the only other way to make other people do what you want them to do is by force. In a world ruled by looters you have to be a looter to "stay on top of the game"; it is, after all, a "competetive market". We are not there yet, but that is where you are trying to go. I invite anyone who prefers the slavedriver's whip to a business contract to first try it out on his own hide.
> what you are saying is that they say it's free but then expect something back.
> It is free -- you are not required to give anything back.
That depends on what you mean by "required". If you go to a store, take something off the shelf, and walk out without paying, then the police will arrest you and put you in jail. If you "just take software and never try to give back", this will certainly not happen. What will happen is that you will get tons of negative publicity (provided you are a sufficiently big target) which will affect your business about as much as jail time and fines affect a shoplifter. The end result is pretty much the same, only the method of enforcement differs. The shoplifter is punished by law, whereas the "non-paying" open source user is punished by the community by being a "free rider". Very simply put, this is how socialism begins. The end goal is simply legalizing the latter practice and thus changing it from simple ostracism to enforcement by the force of guns. From then on it is "from each by ability" - the community decides just how able you are and how much it can take from you, and heaven help you if they decide you are "very well capable of contributing to open source"; "to each by need" - the community decides just how much you ought to need, and by golly, if it decides that all you need is a barrel to live in, then in the barrel you go.
> Profiting off of Open Source requires that a
> business must sometimes give valuable IP back to
> "the community" for no direct financial reward in
> order for them to have the credit in the community
> to get the development they need in the future.
In other words, you want to use Open Source, you must "pay" the price in development effort. Or else. I don't know about you, but I prefer traditional business contracts with the price clearly stated upfront instead of this nebulous "you must contribute" obligation where you can always be accused of "not pulling your load". Of course, most companies do not sell their source code, as I am sure at least one hundred replies to this post will indignantly point out, but that is not the issue here: my complaint is about honesty. If you want to call your software "free" (as in beer), you better damn stand by that and not arrogantly state that "Profiting off of Open Source requires that a business must sometimes give valuable IP back to the community". I have no problem with those who require payment for their work, be it money or development effort, but you better state that before "giving away" your software, and you better not be calling it "free" (that last one for you, GPL!). In the business world, such practices are called bait-and-switch, and are illegal. Of course, on Slashdot, any Open Source criticism is flamebait, so I guess I am just wasting karma points...
More and more software seems to be written solely for large companies. You hear about TCO, support services, customizations, and thousand dollar prices. Even all the open source money-making strategies focus solely on support and customization, something only big business wants. Whatever happened to making software for normal, individual users? The kind that don't need much support (I sure have never called any of those, even when the software broke down), can't afford custom software and don't need any (me? hire a programmer to customize stuff for me? Please!), and will never ever pay more than $49.95 for ANY single package? Am I the only one feeling a little left out? Will future programming be exclusively for big business, with no use for us little people at all? What will happen to all those revenue models if we have a recession and big businesses go out of business?