• Home
• Reviews
• News
• Downloads
• CNET TV

About me

My posting summary

1 to 10 of 30

My comments

• As the FOSS community matures (see the next sentence) and grows to include many contributors talented in areas other than software coding, we will see Apple's supposed usability advantage disappear.
  
  It's more difficult to develop open distributed development with supporting businesses, but, if it's pulled off, that is how you will achieve the superior results because of the greater number of collaborators.
  
  Let's face it. Most people that will contribute to FOSS in the future (potentially everyone), don't currently know what FOSS is, much less know today how to tap into it. It will take a while more for FOSS to hit its stride. We will see a lot more innovation at all levels (including with business ideas).
  
  Since closing off products alienates users by taking away power they otherwise could have, I suspect quasi-closed-source models will eventually face quite an uphill battle in the marketplace (though obviously not as great of a battle as will face the fully closed-source models). This will be even more true if software patents are struck down convincingly.
  
  Remember that Red Hat's success is despite the extreme biases (unfamiliarity, past investments, etc) that exist today in favor of various closed source models and platforms, so it's too early to write the story about Red Hat and about what the service model can achieve. In reply to: "We take these open-source truths to be self-evident"

  October 15, 2009

  0 replies

• >> Business goals = competitive advantage = proprietarism.
  
  No. You assume proprietarism has no disadvantages.
  
  When users are a major source of contributions, your statement is short-sighted and likely incorrect.
  
  And can a system where users are not a significant source of contributions beat one where they are? Most in the FOSS world vote for the latter being the most efficient model, and many proprietary vendors have turned to FOSS in order to try and capture those user contributions.
  
  Remember that there are many motivations to participate in FOSS. You get a ton of free code and leverage to your contributions. You can become an expert in some domain/app. Etc.
  
  It will likely take a while for Red Hat's wisdom to be more clear. In reply to: "We take these open-source truths to be self-evident"

  October 15, 2009

  0 replies

• GPL to prevent gross market imbalances
  
  Companies need to spend more time looking at **customer specific customizations** and mastering codebases than they do trying to build something they can close off in order to mint without competition.
  
  Lock-in, enabled with Apache licenses, favors monopolization by the strongest. Those that had achieved a temporary minting capability eventually lose that to the bigger fish because their wares won't interoperate at reasonable competitive costs. [Costs to reverse engineer on an ongoing basis, to strike pricey and limited interop deals, to lose control over related revenue streams and opportunities, to preserve quality, etc.]
  
  With this kind of monopolization black hole power in fewer and fewer hands, more suffer and quality goes down as winning becomes about building lock-in and not about quality. Some level of quality will follow, true, but not what we see in free markets. For example, Microsoft software quality went up in recent years to a significant part because of the GPL-led FOSS threat.
  
  Do we want to return to the days where few wanted to open their code because it meant the lock-in powerhouses would leverage their work to outdo them in the market place by leaps and bounds? Do we want to see fewer checks on monopolists?
  
  End users frequently like the GPL once they figure out what it enables and it loses its strangeness. At that point, it's the proprietary licenses the ones that seem ridiculously constrictive and scary. In reply to: "Apache and the future of open-source licensing"

  July 29, 2009

  0 replies

• Orlando, I would love it if you could be more specific about what you claimed was incorrect about what vikinzer stated.
  
  The GPL leads to more open source. Without it, those that optimize at not contributing but at creating businesses win out. This leads to those that do contribute finding they have no or little market for their work. Even services become undoable if their software does not have the lock-ins and closed features of those optimizing for that without contributing.
  
  The result is less open source and more reinventing of the wheel. The result is monopolization since the lock-in of integrated multi-monopolists are greater than those of any small outfit.
  
  Google might be unstoppable in some ways because they are closing their code perhaps. If they had to reveal more, we might continue to have more competition in that field.
  
  I favor more open source and greater competition. That is why I support the GPL, AGPL, etc. In reply to: "Apache and the future of open-source licensing"

  July 29, 2009

  0 replies

• Have you looked at Microsoft's range of EULA's and other licenses used in their products? Talk about restrictions. Of course a monopolist who knows how to optimize their take from society likes licenses like the BSD because it means access to code written on others' dime.
  
  The GPL is about getting more openness of code to help create level playing fields for contributors and conditions which benefit the users. The only real restrictions are to prevent abuse and predation.
  
  You might be surprised to learn about everything you can do with the Linux kernel (the rights you have as a user) vs. what you can do with Windows. In reply to: "Open-source extremism, and how the OSI can help"

  July 15, 2009

  0 replies

• pinkfloydforever,
  
  I think you would gain from a support group or "geek" to help you out (if you don't want to pay someone). There is no shame in that.
  
  Like yourself wrt Linux, many have found Windows (or Mac) to have problems here and there.
  
  Moving to Linux is an investment. Once you get used to it, the positives become more obvious (everyone that likes Linux has their reasons).
  
  If spending hundreds here and there (sometimes much more) is not a problem, you may be curious about Linux and/or like it but possibly would not dump Windows or Mac or whatever.
  
  Personally, I like Linux quite a bit. It's a good feeling to be able to create your own things and call your own shots. Linux needs more work so that more people (besides the more technically inclined) can take advantage of all of that creation potential. Lots of people like to create, but it has to be focused on their hobbies/interests.
  
  PS: By far, Linux has the most amount of open/free "plumbing" and utility apps that work well. It's also the easiest plaform with which to grab free/open applications on an ongoing basis. It's the easiest and most inexpensive platform with which to grab cutting edge free/open applications. That encourages the most innovation at the application level. Seriously. With most of the software industry coding for Windows, the Linux community can still hold their own. Where will Linux be in five years as it continues to attract developers and industry partners? Microsoft's and Apple's platforms will stall when these two stop being able to pull in the heavy profits. They have been making real cuts for a little while now. The pressure should keep growing for these two. How many cuts can they (in particular Microsoft) make? When will growing Linux overtake them for good? In reply to: "Red Hat's Fedora 11: So easy you'll forget it's Linux"

  June 17, 2009

  0 replies

• Software lock-in is powerful. FOSS is not just a developer phenomenon, it's a user phenomenon. While many companies look for ways to lock-in customer, customers don't want to be locked in. In the FOSS world, users are frequently developers to some extent so they can do something about it. The (A)GPL and similar license help even the playing field to prevent a very strong player from using lock-in to dominate. Many developers like that license because it gives the edge to those that contribute the most rather than to those that contribute the least. In reply to: "Tim O'Reilly: Open-source purists trying to answer the wrong question"

  June 16, 2009

  0 replies

• pentest, I agree with you for the most part, but I would not call Ubuntu the worst distro or close to it -- free choice means you can build a very bad distro if you want, and some people, in other's views, are probably "definitely working towards the goal of worst distro ever".
  
  Linux can get better than where it is today, but Linux is better every day just about and will continue to get better over the upcoming weeks, months, and beyond.
  
  I have a long list of things I want in a distro. I think Linux will get them way before Windows does. Never mind, that Windows' future is tied to the fate, greed, and missteps of a single company. Their monopolies and monopoly profits won't protect Microsoft/Windows forever, especially at the pace at which they are burning up their money and face. Their closed mentality is a heavy weight on the future of their products.
  
  People that think the Windows experience or even the Mac experience approaches ideal simply show that things are easy when you are accustomed to them and not easy when you are not.
  
  I find Linux easier to use (despite its flaws) because I use it much more than I use Windows (I almost have not used Windows XP in years).
  
  I can accept any opinion that says Linux lags, but I find it difficult to accept an opinion stating that Linux lags by a lot as being anything buy biased.
  
  Again, Linux can get better, but it is most certainly competitive today. In reply to: "Linux 'desktop' still too geeky for mainstream users?"

  May 28, 2009

  0 replies

• hcorey, you speak as if managing Windows is a hassle-free effort or inexpensive in terms of time, time+money, or money. In reply to: "Linux 'desktop' still too geeky for mainstream users?"

  May 28, 2009

  0 replies

• The three items you mentioned are addressed here http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10246722-16.html .
  
  Wow, have you really not given Linux a chance since 2002? Just because Vista was a step down from XP, doesn't mean Linux today is worse than Linux was in 2002. It's not worse, far from it, and Linux!=Windows. In reply to: "Linux 'desktop' still too geeky for mainstream users?"

  May 28, 2009

  0 replies