Given all the qualms that various people have with the GPL...and given the fact that many people seem to have one open source license they like above all others...
Here's an interesting project for someone with a little bit of time: Make a website listing, detailing, and comparing all the current open source licenses that are being used. Set-up a nice clean web-site which is devoted to the different open source licenses that people have written up, perhaps with some sort of arguments for and against each one? Try to make it relatively impartial. Perhaps even try to get some of the OpenLaw people to contribute some time to analyze them in relation to various legal structures around the planet.
Heck, here's even a starter just off the top of my head and Yahoo:
There really is nothing new about this situation except for the fact that it is computer and electronic distribution related. Since the dawn of commerce hundreds and hundreds (if not thousands) of years ago, such things have been going on.
Business A signs a deal with Business B, and now Businesses C & D will no longer talk to Business A.
Nothing new...old business practices. In certain situations, such reactions are illegal, but rarely. This sort of stuff happens all the time in music labels, movie production studios, etc. etc. A perfect example: a while back all the late-night talk shows (Letterman, Leno, etc.) were in fierce competition over guests, and various claims were made by various related organizations that if guests were to go and appear on one show they wouldn't be allowed to appear on the other, and vice-versa. Illegal?..no...they're just competing in one of the few ways they can. Does it still seem slightly ugly to me...a little, yes.
First, in the article, those "fine print software agreements" were discussed...the legal validity of such have been under question for a while now. Due to various legal details, those "click Next to continue installing" agreements are considered by many to be too automatic and do not require enough action on the agreeing party to be legally binding...
Second, I was amused that GoHip.com considers what they do a Browser Enhancement.
Third, ActiveX ever since it's first incarnation has been horribly gigantic a gaping security hole. Anyone even remotely self-respecting computer security-savvy individual would never dream of having ActiveX enabled on their computer. Unfortunately, the average Joe might not know this...hopefully, they will be educated in time. Here's one (of many) place I definitely like Java a whole lot better...
Fourth, in the end, this really isn't that big of a deal, as it was relatively benign. Hopefully, however, it will educate people as to the dangers of ActiveX, in general. I think David Kroll said it best: "I think it's pretty tacky what they did". Although he and Finjin did get it wrong when they said: "this is the first time a company has used ActiveX to alter personal information on someone's computer." Just see the ActiveX Exploder link mentioned above! I think they'd be more accurate in saying this is the first time it's been done purposefully and on a large scale by a corporation.
Fifth, this reveals an interesting problem with "signing" such programs with things like Verisign. That signature doesn't really mean as much as most people think that is does, as Verisign said: "Verisign spokesman Gray Chapman confirmed that GoHip is certified by Verisign, but stressed that his company was not in the business of passing judgment on the business practice of its client."
Sixth, GoHip.com sounds horribly sketchy. No phone numbers, bouncing e-mail addresses...is anyone surprised?...But finally, I have to admit to being horribly amused at the final quote by one of the "infected" GoHip.com visitors: "I compliment GoHip for a fine marketing effort as I certainly know who they are. I hate them, but I know who they are". In the end, capitalism seems to be all that matters again...
South Park scaled well to the big screen?...well, personally there at least, I beg to differ! Obviously some out there disagree with me, but I thought most of the things that worked well for South Park as a half hour TV show just weren't there as part of a full 90(?) minute movie. Many of the effects of the show that make it funny are due to the fact that it is a TV show and it is only half an hour. And I think the same would apply to The Simpsons.
Also, someone mentioned that it would work due to all those 2 and 3 part episodes. Well, I disagree here too. First, those worked so well, again, because they were different episodes: cliffhangers were left, season finales worked into season premieres, etc. String them together and a lot of the excitement is lost. Additionally, a half-hour TV show minus commercials and opening equates down to approximately 24 minutes. At that rate, we're talking the equivalent of FOUR Simpsons episodes back to back, not just 2 or so.
So could it be done?...maybe if done carefully. Sould it be done?...I am not sure, because I am not sure those that do will do it carefully enough. If they can, do I hope it will be done?...definitely!
People seem very concerned with the power that the 1Ghz processor presents. However, IMHO, the real potential market changing spec. here is the "Windows-based OS".
Why?...think about this: currently, many, if not most, computer and video games developers create games for one platform with the intention of later porting it to other platforms. Naturally, the game developer wants their game available on the greatest number of different platforms to increase market audience reached over-all by their game. A good example of this "intended" development especially comes with the sports games. A beautiful example is the current Tomb Raider series: after Tomb Raider I, all the Tomb Raiders were planned with both the PC and console in mind.
Now how does this matter with the X-Box? Well, as previously mentioned, most developers develop first for one platform, release on that platform, wait for a period of saturation on that platform while they port to another, then release on their secondary platform. This porting costs money and time. Now what if, they only had to write the game once to reach both the console and PC markets? Would they choose to do that and save the money?...of course!
So here's where the X-Box's potential as a real market changer lies: if MS's "Windows-based OS" supports DirectX as an API to create games for the X-Box, a near port-less possibility to creating games for multiple platforms simulatenously now exists that game developers are going to leap at to use...
Now I'm not saying this is by any stretch a good thing...actually, I think it's a dangerous thing...but I can see why the X-Box might succeed...
One person said: You are missing the boat. All of your arguments work great against the N64 and the Playstation. But the Playstation 2 is a whole new beast, and that is the point of the article.
Yes, I understand that, but it still is irrelevant, as long as the box physically sits next to and connects to your TV. I mean seriously, have you used WebTV? You're telling me you want to give up your browser for WebTV, essentially?...not I.
and another said: A) both the new Sega and the PSX2 are SVGA (800x600) capable, so NTSC is NOT a limitation;
Ok, not a technological limitation, but a sociological one. How many people are actually going to plug it into a crisp 800x600 monitor? How many games are even going to produce graphics at that resolution? Few and none...
Even so, at 800x600, it's ancient video-wise...I run most my games at 1024x768 or 1280x1024.
"Real" on-line gaming has been a reality for some time now. The consoles are way behind the curve! Asheron's Call, Quake 3 Arena, and Starcraft...three EXCELLENT examples of on-line gaming at it's (current) best, and "real" enough to not be dismissed!...
>replace computers as primary gaming devices? absolutely.
I couldn't disagree more. The console gaming market and computer gaming market are largely different markets & genres. Last years IDSN report showed huge disparities between the two markets (console gaming is mostly 18 and under, while computer gaming is mostly 18 and older). Additionally, people play very different games on the two. Console games for the most part have traditionally been "twitch" games, be it sports, action, adventure, combat, etc. with the Final Fantasy series as the big exception. RPGs and quest-type adventures usually do much better on PCs, for example.
I mean, how many people play Tekken 3 on their PC?...not many. How many people play Quake on their console?...not many (as someone pointed out). How many people play Starcraft on their console?...none! The console system is just NOT suited to certain games (such as Sim and Strategy type games).
Someone raised this point: They can produce a game for a PC, and this has to be able to run on an almost infinite range of specifications. Different graphics cards, different sound cards, different control interfaces, different resolutions, different speeds. That's one reason why you get so many patches for games. They don't work with graphics card X, or sound card Y, or on machines with a processor speed more than N. Or, they can write the game on a Playstation 2. It's got the power, and the graphics potential, to carry the game off. And all machines have a fixed, standard architecture. They have the same graphics chip, the same sound chip, the same control interface. There is one single standard they can stick to.
The flaw with this argument is that while it is true for the most part, the fact is that game developers can't push the envelope of modern technology with consoles after a couple of months after the console release. Where as new graphics cards are always coming out allowing computer games developers to push the graphics limits, and similarly in memory, disc space, etc...
In any case, I don't think the console is going to be replacing the PC anytime soon at all. NTSC resolution is pathetic. The interfaces to most consoles is highly limited (mouse?...keyboard?). And the Internet multi-player games?...well, despite being MANY years behind the times, we'll see...maybe they'll at the least catch up...surpass?, I'd be surprised.
Please, every couple of months, for the past about 10 years or so, some CEO somewhere makes the exact same with a few minor tweaks (being exactly *why*) that the era of the PC is coming to an end.
First, it was the RISC computer... Then, it was the NC (network computer)... Now, it's small mobile devices and PDAs...sigh...
$10 says that PCs still exist in 5 years, and in 5 years another CEO will be announcing the end of the PC era. 10-20 years?...well, we'll see...
I'm confused about one point mentioned at the beginning of this discussion. It was stated that dvelopers were worried about their ideas beings stolen by other projects in the "cutthroat shell replacement arena"...
"cutthroat shell replacement arena"?...I wasn't aware such existed. Can someone elaborate on this, and what other Win32 shell replacements are currently being worked on, or direct me/us to a source to see a decent listing of attempts, and similar?
I know there's a Korn shell for Win32 floating around somewhere out there, but are there any others?...
I whole-heartedly agree. The LAST thing on this planet I want is wires running from my watch on my wrist to my headphones on my head. Total foolishness... Of course, if they hooked up with all the people out there like the MIT Media Lab doing research on running wires through fabric, then *maybe*, but still doubtful....only in winter...laugh...
Not that communism is necessarily theoretically bad, but this sounds like a very communistic move on Apple's part (all for the good of the people...er, company)... Personally, I think credits are one of the few things still good and decent in the software industry. What's next, no credits in movies, and you only recognize the two or three stars that "grace" the screen, and the 300+ others all on the crew just didn't do anything?...sigh.
I think this sounds pretty good actually. Given the current smallish nature of all the current Linux dist. companies, Linux could potentially benefit from there being a couple "bigger" companies around which have real capital with which to pursue R&D and advertising.
I mean, everyone keeps talking about Linux as a potential threat to some of the bigger more established OSs (the Win, Mac, other UN*X, whatever), but seriously, while most average Joes out there have most likely heard of Linux by now, could any of them probably name even one company doing a Linux distribution? I doubt it.
While I think it's undesirable to have one company which everyone thinks of as THE Linux company (yikes!), I think we are a long way from that yet. However, a Redhat/Cygnus company can now devote even more to R&D of a single product, and a promotion of their Linux based product in the home and work place unlike any other company trying to do the same.
So overall, I think this is a pretty good thing.
On a side, note, I really don't see why everyone keeps bringing up the buyout as a MS-like thing?...so all corporate acquisitions now forever in time are to be MS-like? Even if they are beneficial?
My guess is quite simply that: No...Hollywood is not going to do any clear reasonable movie heavily involving computers in which the computers do not issue sounds with every character displayed to the screen or terminals that when hacked into display incredible graphics. As was mention, quite simply, they are just not that interesting to visually watch. However, I would say that in the coming years, we'll probably see more and more documentaries well detailing good computer related innovations, events, and similar. That's what documentaries are always so much better at than movies!: a) telling the truth b) making seemingly boring topics seem very interesting (nature shows, woohoo!)
Numerous MS breakups are possible. But each has it's own merits and flaws. Examples: 1) Break up the company along "product" lines (ie., an MS OS company, a MS Games company, a MS "Office" company, and so on). The big problem here lies in the fact that all their stuff is becoming so intermingled that WHO decided just what goes to which new company? I mean literally, what it will come down to is someone sitting at a computer and seperating almost who gets what lines of code! Do we trust the DOJ to do that?...I dont -- the govt has notorious stupidity when it comes to technology in general.
2) Break the company up into a bunch of seperate but equal smaller companies, similar to the break up of Ma Bell a while back. For example, there is MS1 through MS7 (generally the # proposed). They all get 1/7th of the resources and all of the source code that MS has. Then they have to freely compete. For example, one company may choose to go a totally wacky Java based Windows route. Another may choose to dump almost everything but the Office suite, and just completely focus on that (thus trying to basically beat out all the other MS's on their versions of the Office suite, and basically establishing just one new version of Office)...and so on. The big problem here (and it applies to the above example as well) is what happens if one of the 7 MSs starts to get bigger than the others and starts eating up the others? And what if you just wind up 10 years down the road with one giant MS again? I mean, the break up of AT&T into all the baby Bells back in the 80s is basically rolling all backtogether now (BellAtlantic and NYNEX merge, MCI and Sprint might merge, Bell South ate up some other stuff and redeclared themselves as Southern Bell). What's to prevent the same?
I personally am very concerned about both these issues, esp., the possible inevitable reforming of MS in the second issue, but is this just a fact of capitalism?...that monopolies are inevitable in certain industries/circumstances? Someone with more microeconomics knowledge can probably address this better than I.
On a funny note, a famous lawyer a little while back (forgot who) said that in response to the problem associated with #2 above, we should use a "ticker-tape parade" method. This meant that everytime a company has clearly become some sort of monopoly in some industry, the government should through the CEO a ticker-tape parade all over NY, then should divide it up in to smaller companies (as proposed above in #2 and was done to the Bells), and make him start all over again. ie., yea!...he won the big prize!..ok, now back to competition...;)
Slashdot Mirror
Here's an interesting project for someone with a little bit of time:
Make a website listing, detailing, and comparing all the current open source licenses that are being used. Set-up a nice clean web-site which is devoted to the different open source licenses that people have written up, perhaps with some sort of arguments for and against each one? Try to make it relatively impartial. Perhaps even try to get some of the OpenLaw people to contribute some time to analyze them in relation to various legal structures around the planet.
Heck, here's even a starter just off the top of my head and Yahoo:
I looked around a bit, but can't seem to find any site that really does this already cleanly and clearly. Any takers?
Business A signs a deal with Business B, and now Businesses C & D will no longer talk to Business A.
Nothing new...old business practices. In certain situations, such reactions are illegal, but rarely. This sort of stuff happens all the time in music labels, movie production studios, etc. etc. A perfect example: a while back all the late-night talk shows (Letterman, Leno, etc.) were in fierce competition over guests, and various claims were made by various related organizations that if guests were to go and appear on one show they wouldn't be allowed to appear on the other, and vice-versa. Illegal?..no...they're just competing in one of the few ways they can. Does it still seem slightly ugly to me...a little, yes.
Nothing new under the sun, unfortunately...
First, in the article, those "fine print software agreements" were discussed...the legal validity of such have been under question for a while now. Due to various legal details, those "click Next to continue installing" agreements are considered by many to be too automatic and do not require enough action on the agreeing party to be legally binding...
Second, I was amused that GoHip.com considers what they do a Browser Enhancement.
Third, ActiveX ever since it's first incarnation has been horribly gigantic a gaping security hole. Anyone even remotely self-respecting computer security-savvy individual would never dream of having ActiveX enabled on their computer. Unfortunately, the average Joe might not know this...hopefully, they will be educated in time.
Here's one (of many) place I definitely like Java a whole lot better...
Fourth, in the end, this really isn't that big of a deal, as it was relatively benign. Hopefully, however, it will educate people as to the dangers of ActiveX, in general. I think David Kroll said it best: "I think it's pretty tacky what they did". Although he and Finjin did get it wrong when they said: "this is the first time a company has used ActiveX to alter personal information on someone's computer." Just see the ActiveX Exploder link mentioned above! I think they'd be more accurate in saying this is the first time it's been done purposefully and on a large scale by a corporation.
Fifth, this reveals an interesting problem with "signing" such programs with things like Verisign. That signature doesn't really mean as much as most people think that is does, as Verisign said: "Verisign spokesman Gray Chapman confirmed that GoHip is certified by Verisign, but stressed that his company was not in the business of passing judgment on the business practice of its client."
Sixth, GoHip.com sounds horribly sketchy. No phone numbers, bouncing e-mail addresses...is anyone surprised?...But finally, I have to admit to being horribly amused at the final quote by one of the "infected" GoHip.com visitors: "I compliment GoHip for a fine marketing effort as I certainly know who they are. I hate them, but I know who they are". In the end, capitalism seems to be all that matters again...
Also, someone mentioned that it would work due to all those 2 and 3 part episodes. Well, I disagree here too. First, those worked so well, again, because they were different episodes: cliffhangers were left, season finales worked into season premieres, etc. String them together and a lot of the excitement is lost. Additionally, a half-hour TV show minus commercials and opening equates down to approximately 24 minutes. At that rate, we're talking the equivalent of FOUR Simpsons episodes back to back, not just 2 or so.
So could it be done?...maybe if done carefully. Sould it be done?...I am not sure, because I am not sure those that do will do it carefully enough. If they can, do I hope it will be done?...definitely!
Why?...think about this: currently, many, if not most, computer and video games developers create games for one platform with the intention of later porting it to other platforms. Naturally, the game developer wants their game available on the greatest number of different platforms to increase market audience reached over-all by their game. A good example of this "intended" development especially comes with the sports games. A beautiful example is the current Tomb Raider series: after Tomb Raider I, all the Tomb Raiders were planned with both the PC and console in mind.
Now how does this matter with the X-Box? Well, as previously mentioned, most developers develop first for one platform, release on that platform, wait for a period of saturation on that platform while they port to another, then release on their secondary platform. This porting costs money and time. Now what if, they only had to write the game once to reach both the console and PC markets? Would they choose to do that and save the money?...of course!
So here's where the X-Box's potential as a real market changer lies: if MS's "Windows-based OS" supports DirectX as an API to create games for the X-Box, a near port-less possibility to creating games for multiple platforms simulatenously now exists that game developers are going to leap at to use...
Now I'm not saying this is by any stretch a good thing...actually, I think it's a dangerous thing...but I can see why the X-Box might succeed...
Yes, I understand that, but it still is irrelevant, as long as the box physically sits next to and connects to your TV. I mean seriously, have you used WebTV? You're telling me you want to give up your browser for WebTV, essentially?...not I.
and another said: A) both the new Sega and the PSX2 are SVGA (800x600) capable, so NTSC is NOT a limitation;
Ok, not a technological limitation, but a sociological one. How many people are actually going to plug it into a crisp 800x600 monitor? How many games are even going to produce graphics at that resolution? Few and none...
Even so, at 800x600, it's ancient video-wise...I run most my games at 1024x768 or 1280x1024.
May take us?...where've you been?? ;)
"Real" on-line gaming has been a reality for some time now. The consoles are way behind the curve! Asheron's Call, Quake 3 Arena, and Starcraft...three EXCELLENT examples of on-line gaming at it's (current) best, and "real" enough to not be dismissed!...
I couldn't disagree more. The console gaming market and computer gaming market are largely different markets & genres. Last years IDSN report showed huge disparities between the two markets (console gaming is mostly 18 and under, while computer gaming is mostly 18 and older). Additionally, people play very different games on the two. Console games for the most part have traditionally been "twitch" games, be it sports, action, adventure, combat, etc. with the Final Fantasy series as the big exception. RPGs and quest-type adventures usually do much better on PCs, for example.
I mean, how many people play Tekken 3 on their PC?...not many. How many people play Quake on their console?...not many (as someone pointed out). How many people play Starcraft on their console?...none! The console system is just NOT suited to certain games (such as Sim and Strategy type games).
Someone raised this point: They can produce a game for a PC, and this has to be able to run on an almost infinite range of specifications. Different graphics cards, different sound cards, different control interfaces, different resolutions, different speeds. That's one reason why you get so many patches for games. They don't work with graphics card X, or sound card Y, or on machines with a processor speed more than N. Or, they can write the game on a Playstation 2. It's got the power, and the graphics potential, to carry the game off. And all machines have a fixed, standard architecture. They have the same graphics chip, the same sound chip, the same control interface. There is one single standard they can stick to.
The flaw with this argument is that while it is true for the most part, the fact is that game developers can't push the envelope of modern technology with consoles after a couple of months after the console release. Where as new graphics cards are always coming out allowing computer games developers to push the graphics limits, and similarly in memory, disc space, etc...
In any case, I don't think the console is going to be replacing the PC anytime soon at all. NTSC resolution is pathetic. The interfaces to most consoles is highly limited (mouse?...keyboard?). And the Internet multi-player games?...well, despite being MANY years behind the times, we'll see...maybe they'll at the least catch up...surpass?, I'd be surprised.
Please, every couple of months, for the past about 10 years or so, some CEO somewhere makes the exact same with a few minor tweaks (being exactly *why*) that the era of the PC is coming to an end.
First, it was the RISC computer...
Then, it was the NC (network computer)...
Now, it's small mobile devices and PDAs...sigh...
$10 says that PCs still exist in 5 years, and in 5 years another CEO will be announcing the end of the PC era. 10-20 years?...well, we'll see...
"cutthroat shell replacement arena"?...I wasn't aware such existed. Can someone elaborate on this, and what other Win32 shell replacements are currently being worked on, or direct me/us to a source to see a decent listing of attempts, and similar?
I know there's a Korn shell for Win32 floating around somewhere out there, but are there any others?...
I whole-heartedly agree. The LAST thing on this planet I want is wires running from my watch on my wrist to my headphones on my head. Total foolishness... Of course, if they hooked up with all the people out there like the MIT Media Lab doing research on running wires through fabric, then *maybe*, but still doubtful....only in winter...laugh...
Not that communism is necessarily theoretically bad, but this sounds like a very communistic move on Apple's part (all for the good of the people...er, company)... Personally, I think credits are one of the few things still good and decent in the software industry. What's next, no credits in movies, and you only recognize the two or three stars that "grace" the screen, and the 300+ others all on the crew just didn't do anything?...sigh.
I think this sounds pretty good actually. Given the current smallish nature of all the current Linux dist. companies, Linux could potentially benefit from there being a couple "bigger" companies around which have real capital with which to pursue R&D and advertising.
I mean, everyone keeps talking about Linux as a potential threat to some of the bigger more established OSs (the Win, Mac, other UN*X, whatever), but seriously, while most average Joes out there have most likely heard of Linux by now, could any of them probably name even one company doing a Linux distribution? I doubt it.
While I think it's undesirable to have one company which everyone thinks of as THE Linux company (yikes!), I think we are a long way from that yet. However, a Redhat/Cygnus company can now devote even more to R&D of a single product, and a promotion of their Linux based product in the home and work place unlike any other company trying to do the same.
So overall, I think this is a pretty good thing.
On a side, note, I really don't see why everyone keeps bringing up the buyout as a MS-like thing?...so all corporate acquisitions now forever in time are to be MS-like? Even if they are beneficial?
My guess is quite simply that: No...Hollywood is not going to do any clear reasonable movie heavily involving computers in which the computers do not issue sounds with every character displayed to the screen or terminals that when hacked into display incredible graphics. As was mention, quite simply, they are just not that interesting to visually watch. However, I would say that in the coming years, we'll probably see more and more documentaries well detailing good computer related innovations, events, and similar. That's what documentaries are always so much better at than movies!: a) telling the truth b) making seemingly boring topics seem very interesting (nature shows, woohoo!)
Numerous MS breakups are possible. But each has it's own merits and flaws. Examples:
;)
1) Break up the company along "product" lines (ie., an MS OS company, a MS Games company, a MS "Office" company, and so on). The big problem here lies in the fact that all their stuff is becoming so intermingled that WHO decided just what goes to which new company? I mean literally, what it will come down to is someone sitting at a computer and seperating almost who gets what lines of code! Do we trust the DOJ to do that?...I dont -- the govt has notorious stupidity when it comes to technology in general.
2) Break the company up into a bunch of seperate but equal smaller companies, similar to the break up of Ma Bell a while back. For example, there is MS1 through MS7 (generally the # proposed). They all get 1/7th of the resources and all of the source code that MS has. Then they have to freely compete. For example, one company may choose to go a totally wacky Java based Windows route. Another may choose to dump almost everything but the Office suite, and just completely focus on that (thus trying to basically beat out all the other MS's on their versions of the Office suite, and basically establishing just one new version of Office)...and so on. The big problem here (and it applies to the above example as well) is what happens if one of the 7 MSs starts to get bigger than the others and starts eating up the others? And what if you just wind up 10 years down the road with one giant MS again? I mean, the break up of AT&T into all the baby Bells back in the 80s is basically rolling all backtogether now (BellAtlantic and NYNEX merge, MCI and Sprint might merge, Bell South ate up some other stuff and redeclared themselves as Southern Bell). What's to prevent the same?
I personally am very concerned about both these issues, esp., the possible inevitable reforming of MS in the second issue, but is this just a fact of capitalism?...that monopolies are inevitable in certain industries/circumstances? Someone with more microeconomics knowledge can probably address this better than I.
On a funny note, a famous lawyer a little while back (forgot who) said that in response to the problem associated with #2 above, we should use a "ticker-tape parade" method. This meant that everytime a company has clearly become some sort of monopoly in some industry, the government should through the CEO a ticker-tape parade all over NY, then should divide it up in to smaller companies (as proposed above in #2 and was done to the Bells), and make him start all over again. ie., yea!...he won the big prize!..ok, now back to competition...
Take care...
Christian (draco@mit.edu) Baekkelund