My favorite Linux distro is Clonezilla.
http://clonezilla.org/
It’s a live CD that lets you clone your hard drive like Norton Ghost. It also lets you build a restore DVD of your hard drive. Neat!
Ok jerkface, what would you recommend for a desktop distro?
Well I have said before that I think desktop Linux works best in a browsing kiosk or netbook, and in this case both KDE and Gnome are way too heavy so you want to go with a lighter desktop. You also want something that comes with browser plug-ins and codecs so you don’t have to bother with installing them. It should probably come with a pdf reader and something to open .doc files in case you want to open a word file that was sent via email. The default theme should be clean and basic so you don’t have to spend all afternoon tweaking it. My choice here is:
Crunchbang
http://crunchbanglinux.org/
But wait jerkface, that distro is based on Ubuntu which you complained about breaking working hardware with updates!
Yes I’m not an Ubuntu fan, but it has more to do with their fraudulent claim of being ready for human beings. I think Linux at this stage should only be installed by the technically adept. It isn’t ready for Grandma’s desktop when it has a consistent record of breaking wireless and video drivers with updates.
To be honest I don’t trust any Linux distro to update properly. This is because the Linux kernel team doesn’t really care about what they break with their changes. There’s no goal of providing long term hardware stability so do not put a distro on someone’s computer that auto-updates. Give them Crunchbang, show them how to connect to the internet and launch Firefox and make it clear that is all they are getting. It’s a browser and a word editor, there ya go, if you want more then go buy a new computer. I’ll update the system for you in a year or when I feel like it.
I’ve heard of people setting up remote shells so they can update the system but that to me is a support contract. You want to avoid support contracts and just set something up and keep it out of mind. Update their system when you see them for the holidays. Don’t let friends and relatives turn you into a free computer service. You have to set limits with these people or else they will be calling you at 12 AM.
The other thing I like about Crunchbang is that it isn’t trying to copy Windows or OSX. This is not only refreshing but also will cut down on those personal support costs. If you give people a Windows clone they will just try to do things they normally do in Windows and end up with problems. However if it is clearly something different they will have completely different expectations.
My #2 pick would Linux Mint Fluxbox edition.
My #3 pick would be FreeBSD from scratch. Yea I know it isn’t a Linux distro but I really don’t care.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Attention Ubisoft: This is how you implement server-side DRM
This is how you do it
GetEnemySubPositionFromServer()
NOT
GetSaveFromServer()
AND ESPECIALLY NOT
GetClearanceToPlayFromServer()
Though the last two can be used as additional methods of harassing the cracker, to effectively deter piracy through server side processing the game engine needs to be built around processing dynamic data from the server. Data from the server needs to be dependent on user action so it cannot be copied like static data.
But even controlling static data would have been a massive improvement over whatever Ubisoft tried. Silent Hunter 5 was cracked in 24 hours? Ubisoft has claimed that the game is incomplete but even if the game is mostly playable this is still a huge failure. What kind of programmers do they have on the security team? Why was this not tested properly?
Of course people all over the internet are jumping up and down and screaming that this is proof that DRM never works, especially on Slashdot where tech group think is almost expected. If DRM never works then where are the pirated PS3 games? There have been numerous consoles in fact that lived their product lifecycles without competition from pirated games. There are also plenty of MMOs that process enough data on the server to make piracy impossible unless someone at the company leaks server code. This protection could be taken even further by making server code non-x86 specific.
What the Silent Hunter incident shows is that Ubisoft has no business trying to implement this type of DRM until they have a completely different security team. They're clearly in over their heads given how fast this was cracked. Silent Hunter 5 probably would have gone uncracked longer on Steam, especially since it wouldn’t have been a giant target for crackers. I would also expect most Silent Hunter 5 players to be older gamers who are more likely to purchase software so there is also a question as to whether or not such an aggressive tactic should be used with this type of game.
Note that I have never said that what Ubisoft is doing is a wise business strategy. Requiring a constant connection for a single player game is massive risk from a p.r. and customer loyalty perspective and should only be considered if there is no doubt that the client side of the game cannot be hacked into even a mediocre experience.
Quake Live as a preview of what is to come for pc gaming?
Though Quake Live doesn’t fully run in the browser I think plug-in browser games is the direction that a lot of pc gaming will go. It not only cuts out piracy by being dependent on server data but it also eliminates the other long running problem that pc gaming developers face which is platform inconsistency. With the right browser plug-in developers could not only target Windows, OSX and Linux but also portables. Some companies are already working on this like Trinity who plans on bringing their 3D engine to the web. Silverlight already does some basic 3D as seen in this demo. There are of course downsides like browser overhead but I think the right framework would more than make up for it by eliminating the need to test and optimize for multiple systems. Users will view the game as a browser game and won't care as much about having to be connected to the web. It seems like a good compromise since although there is a loss of offline play there is a gain for users when it comes to ease of installation, platform compatibility and decreased system maintenance.
GetEnemySubPositionFromServer()
NOT
GetSaveFromServer()
AND ESPECIALLY NOT
GetClearanceToPlayFromServer()
Though the last two can be used as additional methods of harassing the cracker, to effectively deter piracy through server side processing the game engine needs to be built around processing dynamic data from the server. Data from the server needs to be dependent on user action so it cannot be copied like static data.
But even controlling static data would have been a massive improvement over whatever Ubisoft tried. Silent Hunter 5 was cracked in 24 hours? Ubisoft has claimed that the game is incomplete but even if the game is mostly playable this is still a huge failure. What kind of programmers do they have on the security team? Why was this not tested properly?
Of course people all over the internet are jumping up and down and screaming that this is proof that DRM never works, especially on Slashdot where tech group think is almost expected. If DRM never works then where are the pirated PS3 games? There have been numerous consoles in fact that lived their product lifecycles without competition from pirated games. There are also plenty of MMOs that process enough data on the server to make piracy impossible unless someone at the company leaks server code. This protection could be taken even further by making server code non-x86 specific.
What the Silent Hunter incident shows is that Ubisoft has no business trying to implement this type of DRM until they have a completely different security team. They're clearly in over their heads given how fast this was cracked. Silent Hunter 5 probably would have gone uncracked longer on Steam, especially since it wouldn’t have been a giant target for crackers. I would also expect most Silent Hunter 5 players to be older gamers who are more likely to purchase software so there is also a question as to whether or not such an aggressive tactic should be used with this type of game.
Note that I have never said that what Ubisoft is doing is a wise business strategy. Requiring a constant connection for a single player game is massive risk from a p.r. and customer loyalty perspective and should only be considered if there is no doubt that the client side of the game cannot be hacked into even a mediocre experience.
Quake Live as a preview of what is to come for pc gaming?
Though Quake Live doesn’t fully run in the browser I think plug-in browser games is the direction that a lot of pc gaming will go. It not only cuts out piracy by being dependent on server data but it also eliminates the other long running problem that pc gaming developers face which is platform inconsistency. With the right browser plug-in developers could not only target Windows, OSX and Linux but also portables. Some companies are already working on this like Trinity who plans on bringing their 3D engine to the web. Silverlight already does some basic 3D as seen in this demo. There are of course downsides like browser overhead but I think the right framework would more than make up for it by eliminating the need to test and optimize for multiple systems. Users will view the game as a browser game and won't care as much about having to be connected to the web. It seems like a good compromise since although there is a loss of offline play there is a gain for users when it comes to ease of installation, platform compatibility and decreased system maintenance.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Well I feel redeemed.
I was warning people years ago about SkyOS since the whole thing seemed rather shady. This guy Robert Szeleney was building his own OS, which isn’t too unusual but the rate at which he would add features was rather suspicious to say the least. The core of the OS was a posix compatible monokernel, which the main reason to choose in a modern OS would be to utilize existing BSD/Linux code and build on a solid history of Unix development.
The red flags started popping up when Robert would declare to have written new features like this usb stack from scratch, features that just happened to be refined in other Unix monokernel systems. There was too much work being done for one person, and more importantly it doesn’t make sense to write a network or usb stack from scratch for a Unix monokernel when you can just lift code from the BSDs. If you’re a one man crew you need to utilize as much code as possible from other systems and write original code for where it is needed. There was also the issue of it being closed-source, which isn’t normally a big deal for commercial software but in this case just added to the suspicion.
So Robert would come out with new features that were supposedly from scratch, his followers would praise him and skeptics like me were told that he is just a godly programmer. I don’t doubt for a second that he is a talented programmer. I also don’t doubt for a second that he lifted a ton of BSD code but wanted to take all the credit.
But the real flag came when he started charging for the beta. He claimed that if you paid $30 for the beta you would later get the final version for free. Look folks if you are running a beta and sending feedback for free you are already providing a valuable service to the developer. You shouldn’t have to pay to do that. It would be like paying for the ability to volunteer. That should make your BS detector go up a level.
However Robert was able to get people to go for his $30 beta despite the warnings from people like me who were already suspicious of the whole project. I predicted there would be no final version, as did many people on Slashdot but OSNews especially had some strong SkyOS followers that lambasted skeptics for their lack of faith in Robert. That USB stack link shows a couple of them in action.
So the latest news is that SkyOS is basically dead and Robert is now interested in iphone development. Oh and what do you know, Robert still hasn't open sourced the project.
But what is surprising is how people are still defending him even after taking money from people and not delivering a final product. Just look at how pissed some of his followers were when I pointed a lot of this out at OSNews. According to them I’m the bad guy for not giving him the benefit of the doubt. Guess what, I never gave him the benefit of the doubt. I’ve always thought he was full of shit and never apologized for my opinion. I didn't trust him and I told people to not send him their money.
I always thought SkyOS was vaporware and stunk to high heaven of code theft. Yes I know it is legal to take BSD code but I still consider it theft to credit yourself with the hard work of others, especially when you claim your work is completely original. I also wouldn't be surprised if there was some GPL code in SkyOS as well. But we'll probably never know and SkyOS will be buried in the dustbin of OS history.
The red flags started popping up when Robert would declare to have written new features like this usb stack from scratch, features that just happened to be refined in other Unix monokernel systems. There was too much work being done for one person, and more importantly it doesn’t make sense to write a network or usb stack from scratch for a Unix monokernel when you can just lift code from the BSDs. If you’re a one man crew you need to utilize as much code as possible from other systems and write original code for where it is needed. There was also the issue of it being closed-source, which isn’t normally a big deal for commercial software but in this case just added to the suspicion.
So Robert would come out with new features that were supposedly from scratch, his followers would praise him and skeptics like me were told that he is just a godly programmer. I don’t doubt for a second that he is a talented programmer. I also don’t doubt for a second that he lifted a ton of BSD code but wanted to take all the credit.
But the real flag came when he started charging for the beta. He claimed that if you paid $30 for the beta you would later get the final version for free. Look folks if you are running a beta and sending feedback for free you are already providing a valuable service to the developer. You shouldn’t have to pay to do that. It would be like paying for the ability to volunteer. That should make your BS detector go up a level.
However Robert was able to get people to go for his $30 beta despite the warnings from people like me who were already suspicious of the whole project. I predicted there would be no final version, as did many people on Slashdot but OSNews especially had some strong SkyOS followers that lambasted skeptics for their lack of faith in Robert. That USB stack link shows a couple of them in action.
So the latest news is that SkyOS is basically dead and Robert is now interested in iphone development. Oh and what do you know, Robert still hasn't open sourced the project.
But what is surprising is how people are still defending him even after taking money from people and not delivering a final product. Just look at how pissed some of his followers were when I pointed a lot of this out at OSNews. According to them I’m the bad guy for not giving him the benefit of the doubt. Guess what, I never gave him the benefit of the doubt. I’ve always thought he was full of shit and never apologized for my opinion. I didn't trust him and I told people to not send him their money.
I always thought SkyOS was vaporware and stunk to high heaven of code theft. Yes I know it is legal to take BSD code but I still consider it theft to credit yourself with the hard work of others, especially when you claim your work is completely original. I also wouldn't be surprised if there was some GPL code in SkyOS as well. But we'll probably never know and SkyOS will be buried in the dustbin of OS history.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Server side processing can eliminate pc gaming piracy
So there has been a massive geek maelstrom over the confirmed DRM in Assassin’s Creed 2.
I don’t take issue with the complaint that this will piss off customers. People with spotty internet connections will no doubt be annoyed by this. But at the same time I’m surprised that a company hasn’t tried this sooner.
To be honest I’m actually surprised they made a pc version in the first place. When pc sales of a multiplat are low and piracy rates are high it brings up the question of why even bother creating a pc version if you don't want to see it heavily pirated. When the Xbox is $200 why not just expect pc gamers to pony up for a console? I’ve spent $200+ on a video card numerous times and so have most pc gamers I know.
Anyways back to the subject I do take issue with a common statement on Slashdot that this type of DRM will absolutely not work. It is of course possible that it won’t work but if done properly server side processing can mitigate and even eliminate piracy.
The extreme example of this is Onlive, which is basically a gaming on demand service being developed where the game is processed entirely on servers and the user is sent a video stream. What can be pirated in this case? A video stream?
A single game that uses a balance of local and server processing could make piracy extremely difficult. Consider a game that only requires server processing for boss fights. The most practical move for pirates would be to cut out boss fights which would seriously degrade the experience for the user and would provide an incentive for people to pay for the game. Game companies could also make it more difficult for pirates by only providing levels or game data based on demand, for example you only get a local copy of the level you are on. A key strategy in dealing with pirates is to make it such a PITA that they will move to easier targets.
A lot of people seem to think that piracy is something what will always happen, and with the PS3 we’ve seen that this isn’t true. Even if PS3 games are someday pirated it has already been a success at keeping piracy at bay for the amount of time it has been on the market. Pirates are going to have a hard time with the PS3’s upgradeable firmware which will probably mean that hacked consoles won’t be able to connect to PSN. The engineers at Sony should definitely be congratulated.
PC gaming does have a piracy problem as can be seen with the world of goo and other games that show piracy rates of over 80%. Excuses like “they wouldn’t have paid for it anyways” are already laughable since they are stealing entertainment which is inexcusable but that excuse becomes an even bigger joke when it is clear that pirates are stealing games like Crysis and Modern Warfare 2 that require an investment in a gaming pc. It would be like someone sneaking into a concert and then claiming when caught that he didn’t have enough to buy the tickets, which as an excuse only becomes worse after the thief later admits to paying for a $250 plane ticket to get there.
So while DRM can be pointless and annoying it is sometimes effective and given the situation with pc gaming it’s understandable that companies like Ubisoft are trying new strategies. Hopefully Ubisoft implements a server-side processing strategy properly so it does not become a wasted burden for legitimate purchasers. My opinion is that they probably just should have skipped on the pc version to avoid all the bad press. But it was only a matter of time before a company tried requiring a constant connection with a single player game so it will be interesting to see what type of precedent this sets.
I don’t take issue with the complaint that this will piss off customers. People with spotty internet connections will no doubt be annoyed by this. But at the same time I’m surprised that a company hasn’t tried this sooner.
To be honest I’m actually surprised they made a pc version in the first place. When pc sales of a multiplat are low and piracy rates are high it brings up the question of why even bother creating a pc version if you don't want to see it heavily pirated. When the Xbox is $200 why not just expect pc gamers to pony up for a console? I’ve spent $200+ on a video card numerous times and so have most pc gamers I know.
Anyways back to the subject I do take issue with a common statement on Slashdot that this type of DRM will absolutely not work. It is of course possible that it won’t work but if done properly server side processing can mitigate and even eliminate piracy.
The extreme example of this is Onlive, which is basically a gaming on demand service being developed where the game is processed entirely on servers and the user is sent a video stream. What can be pirated in this case? A video stream?
A single game that uses a balance of local and server processing could make piracy extremely difficult. Consider a game that only requires server processing for boss fights. The most practical move for pirates would be to cut out boss fights which would seriously degrade the experience for the user and would provide an incentive for people to pay for the game. Game companies could also make it more difficult for pirates by only providing levels or game data based on demand, for example you only get a local copy of the level you are on. A key strategy in dealing with pirates is to make it such a PITA that they will move to easier targets.
A lot of people seem to think that piracy is something what will always happen, and with the PS3 we’ve seen that this isn’t true. Even if PS3 games are someday pirated it has already been a success at keeping piracy at bay for the amount of time it has been on the market. Pirates are going to have a hard time with the PS3’s upgradeable firmware which will probably mean that hacked consoles won’t be able to connect to PSN. The engineers at Sony should definitely be congratulated.
PC gaming does have a piracy problem as can be seen with the world of goo and other games that show piracy rates of over 80%. Excuses like “they wouldn’t have paid for it anyways” are already laughable since they are stealing entertainment which is inexcusable but that excuse becomes an even bigger joke when it is clear that pirates are stealing games like Crysis and Modern Warfare 2 that require an investment in a gaming pc. It would be like someone sneaking into a concert and then claiming when caught that he didn’t have enough to buy the tickets, which as an excuse only becomes worse after the thief later admits to paying for a $250 plane ticket to get there.
So while DRM can be pointless and annoying it is sometimes effective and given the situation with pc gaming it’s understandable that companies like Ubisoft are trying new strategies. Hopefully Ubisoft implements a server-side processing strategy properly so it does not become a wasted burden for legitimate purchasers. My opinion is that they probably just should have skipped on the pc version to avoid all the bad press. But it was only a matter of time before a company tried requiring a constant connection with a single player game so it will be interesting to see what type of precedent this sets.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Photoshop coming to Ubuntu? Probably not.
Well according to this guy proprietary software support may be coming to Ubuntu.
As you can see there are plans at Ubuntu to allow for paid software.
But does this necessarily mean proprietary software? It could just mean that they are planning on having a paid system for open source software. Of course this is somewhat pointless because once you open source your software it becomes much harder to sell since someone else can just recompile it and give it away for free. The FOSS loons at this point will mention Red Hat as a model for selling open source, but that involves selling support which only works for a minority of software. For most software people can use just it fine without needing to contact the company for support, and when they need help they can typically find it online for free.
Though it could be a plan to have users pay open source developers I think Shuttleworth plans on allowing proprietary software, especially since they have already started selling DVD codecs.
http://blog.canonical.com/?p=37
Ubuntu hasn’t gone anywhere and he probably doesn’t want to see it end up in the Linux desktop graveyard. Sure a proprietary app distribution system will piss off the FOSS nutters but what are they currently providing him? Free press? That hasn’t been enough to take Ubuntu out of the 1% barrier.
Here’s a debate by ubuntu users on the issue:
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/18538/
Stallmanology is obviously common among Ubuntu users. Have a look at this comment:
Is there a reason commercial soft exists? Yes. As far as I'm concerned, it's called "resistance to change". Can free and open source work for games? I don't know. But ten years ago they said it couldn't work for kernels or server software, and look.
Ummm no 10 years ago Linux was on servers and FOSS nutters then assumed that Linux would be on desktops by now. If you want a 3D engine like the one Crytek makes you have to get a large group of highly talented software developers together and pay them a high wage for 2 years to get it done. It won’t happen magically. If you think it might someday be performed by volunteer FOSS forces then go take a bong hit and play some tux racer while the adults discuss the economics of software.
Even if Ubuntu provides a proprietary-friendly app store it is highly unlikely that Photoshop will ever go to Linux. Photoshop elements perhaps but the percentage of Linux users willing to spend more than $500 on software is close to nil. Professional digital artists already have a copy of Photoshop for Windows or Mac. A lot of them probably also have some other software that prevents them from switching to Linux. I don’t doubt that a lot of Linux users would eventually use a Linux version of Photoshop but whether or not they would pay for it is another question.
I could see an app store working for Linux if done properly but it would have to be similar to Apple’s app store with most of the apps being small and costing less than 5 dollars. People that are willing to pay $500 for software have no problem paying $100 for an OS. There is probably a Linux market for a few mainstream apps like Photoshop Elements and Turbotax if the price is around $50 or less but forget about software like Photoshop and Dreamweaver. It’s just not going to happen. By the time Adobe even considers Photoshop for Linux the free alternatives will be comparable in features. Until then go play with Wine or use a supported system.
As you can see there are plans at Ubuntu to allow for paid software.
But does this necessarily mean proprietary software? It could just mean that they are planning on having a paid system for open source software. Of course this is somewhat pointless because once you open source your software it becomes much harder to sell since someone else can just recompile it and give it away for free. The FOSS loons at this point will mention Red Hat as a model for selling open source, but that involves selling support which only works for a minority of software. For most software people can use just it fine without needing to contact the company for support, and when they need help they can typically find it online for free.
Though it could be a plan to have users pay open source developers I think Shuttleworth plans on allowing proprietary software, especially since they have already started selling DVD codecs.
http://blog.canonical.com/?p=37
Ubuntu hasn’t gone anywhere and he probably doesn’t want to see it end up in the Linux desktop graveyard. Sure a proprietary app distribution system will piss off the FOSS nutters but what are they currently providing him? Free press? That hasn’t been enough to take Ubuntu out of the 1% barrier.
Here’s a debate by ubuntu users on the issue:
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/18538/
Stallmanology is obviously common among Ubuntu users. Have a look at this comment:
Is there a reason commercial soft exists? Yes. As far as I'm concerned, it's called "resistance to change". Can free and open source work for games? I don't know. But ten years ago they said it couldn't work for kernels or server software, and look.
Ummm no 10 years ago Linux was on servers and FOSS nutters then assumed that Linux would be on desktops by now. If you want a 3D engine like the one Crytek makes you have to get a large group of highly talented software developers together and pay them a high wage for 2 years to get it done. It won’t happen magically. If you think it might someday be performed by volunteer FOSS forces then go take a bong hit and play some tux racer while the adults discuss the economics of software.
Even if Ubuntu provides a proprietary-friendly app store it is highly unlikely that Photoshop will ever go to Linux. Photoshop elements perhaps but the percentage of Linux users willing to spend more than $500 on software is close to nil. Professional digital artists already have a copy of Photoshop for Windows or Mac. A lot of them probably also have some other software that prevents them from switching to Linux. I don’t doubt that a lot of Linux users would eventually use a Linux version of Photoshop but whether or not they would pay for it is another question.
I could see an app store working for Linux if done properly but it would have to be similar to Apple’s app store with most of the apps being small and costing less than 5 dollars. People that are willing to pay $500 for software have no problem paying $100 for an OS. There is probably a Linux market for a few mainstream apps like Photoshop Elements and Turbotax if the price is around $50 or less but forget about software like Photoshop and Dreamweaver. It’s just not going to happen. By the time Adobe even considers Photoshop for Linux the free alternatives will be comparable in features. Until then go play with Wine or use a supported system.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Adios El Douche
Well Jonathan Schwartz, the ponytailed douchebag CEO/FOSS advocate resigned yesterday. He did it on twitter, which shouldn’t be a surprise since he always seemed to care more about looking tech-hip than actually figuring out how to turn a profit.
Of course his resignation is just corpo-speak for Ellison called me and said get off my lawn you goddamn hippie. Ellison was never impressed with Jonathan’s underpants gnome strategy and has already axed a couple open source projects. But open source fans shouldn't worry since he'll probably keep OpenOffice around as a long play against Microsoft. Who knows maybe he will increase funding for it so it doesn't look like a Chinese knock-off of Office 97.
I was a little annoyed when I saw some FOSS advocates around the web celebrating Schwartz for open sourcing everything. Yea I am sure shareholders are equally delighted.
Speaking of shareholders I didn’t buy his lame excuse about the economy causing Sun’s downfall. How did Sun’s competitors do during the same time he was CEO? Let’s have a look at some competing stocks:
The funny thing is that if Schwartz had invested the billions he spent on open source into an ultra-low risk investment like a 1.5% CD the company would actually be doing a lot better.
Also remember that Schwartz tried the lame-o reverse split in November 2007, which amounts to taking a $5 bill and writing $20 on it to make yourself feel richer. Wall street wasn’t amused.
But enough about stocks, I want to share some of my favorite Schwartz quotes from the guy who thought that faith in open source would be enough to run a company.
Schwartz on open source and Microsoft:
Unlike Microsoft and others, we actually view the success of the free software as a good thing, we are enormously pro-GPL, enormously pro free software, enormously pro the Mozilla license, the BSD license. Our view, is that we want to be known as the world's largest contributor and commercial supporter of free and open source software precisely for what you said, because it enables the democratization of the network -- that creates more opportunity for us. That's probably a political philosophy for which Microsoft does not subscribe -- but that's okay because its an open and competitive market and may the best technology ultimately win.
http://mobile.engadget.com/2008/05/02/the-engadget-mobile-interview-jonathan-schwartz-ceo-of-sun/
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that he mentioned the GPL first. That’s really where he stands ideologically. Are we really supposed to believe that he is enormously pro Mozilla license? Is the Mozilla license really something to feel that strongly about? It sounds like a hollow attempt at sounding inclusive.
With the economic downturn, do you really expect customers in the near term to, say, swap out an Oracle database and replace it with MySQL?
Unquestionably. Now, that doesn't mean they are leaving Oracle -- Oracle is a fantastic company, and they've built a fantastic database. But there is no longer one-size-fits-all in the enterprise database marketplace.
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-02-2009/jw-02-schwartz-interview.html?page=2
Did he not hear the question? Swap out Oracle and replace it with MySQL? Consider MySQL as a cheap alternative perhaps, but swap out Oracle?
What is your advice for open-source CEOs?
I don't think Marten Mickos et al. need much advice. They're doing a fabulous job. The people who need the advice are the traditional proprietary software companies. They don't recognize the tidal wave that is encroaching on their shores. When you can go with Postgres and save $3 million to $4 million in building the next-generation consumer Internet service, there's clearly massive disruption in play. That disruption favors open source.
Jonathan is here to give advice to proprietary companies. Ironically he’s referencing Oracle in his statement about saving millions by going with Postgres. Hey Jonathan the companies and governments that spend millions on Oracle (big shocking revelation coming 5….4…3….2….1.) can afford to spend millions on software. Hell they pretty much expect to. A big corp or government will spend millions if it means getting the best. FOSS advocates don’t seem to grasp the idea that budgets scale. Spending millions on software is just another itemized addition to the budget for large entities. Big corps will drop 4 million on a new branch without blinking. You think they really care about spending 4 million to make sure they have the highest-rated database software for their global data?
But it is interesting that he mentioned Postgres back then. He would have been better off forking it and giving it a decent name instead of spending a billion on MySql.
Now get ready for the best Schwartz quote of all time:
What is the business model for this?
What's the business model? I don't know. But if you don't have adoption, it won't matter what business model you use. Companies that sell open source are prioritizing community and adoption over instant monetization. We will win.
I have no idea as to how I can make money by open sourcing everything. Faith in open source will provide the business model. The power of the source compels you!
Finally you have to watch my favorite Schwartz interview:
Of course his resignation is just corpo-speak for Ellison called me and said get off my lawn you goddamn hippie. Ellison was never impressed with Jonathan’s underpants gnome strategy and has already axed a couple open source projects. But open source fans shouldn't worry since he'll probably keep OpenOffice around as a long play against Microsoft. Who knows maybe he will increase funding for it so it doesn't look like a Chinese knock-off of Office 97.
I was a little annoyed when I saw some FOSS advocates around the web celebrating Schwartz for open sourcing everything. Yea I am sure shareholders are equally delighted.
Speaking of shareholders I didn’t buy his lame excuse about the economy causing Sun’s downfall. How did Sun’s competitors do during the same time he was CEO? Let’s have a look at some competing stocks:
The funny thing is that if Schwartz had invested the billions he spent on open source into an ultra-low risk investment like a 1.5% CD the company would actually be doing a lot better.
Also remember that Schwartz tried the lame-o reverse split in November 2007, which amounts to taking a $5 bill and writing $20 on it to make yourself feel richer. Wall street wasn’t amused.
But enough about stocks, I want to share some of my favorite Schwartz quotes from the guy who thought that faith in open source would be enough to run a company.
Schwartz on open source and Microsoft:
Unlike Microsoft and others, we actually view the success of the free software as a good thing, we are enormously pro-GPL, enormously pro free software, enormously pro the Mozilla license, the BSD license. Our view, is that we want to be known as the world's largest contributor and commercial supporter of free and open source software precisely for what you said, because it enables the democratization of the network -- that creates more opportunity for us. That's probably a political philosophy for which Microsoft does not subscribe -- but that's okay because its an open and competitive market and may the best technology ultimately win.
http://mobile.engadget.com/2008/05/02/the-engadget-mobile-interview-jonathan-schwartz-ceo-of-sun/
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that he mentioned the GPL first. That’s really where he stands ideologically. Are we really supposed to believe that he is enormously pro Mozilla license? Is the Mozilla license really something to feel that strongly about? It sounds like a hollow attempt at sounding inclusive.
With the economic downturn, do you really expect customers in the near term to, say, swap out an Oracle database and replace it with MySQL?
Unquestionably. Now, that doesn't mean they are leaving Oracle -- Oracle is a fantastic company, and they've built a fantastic database. But there is no longer one-size-fits-all in the enterprise database marketplace.
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-02-2009/jw-02-schwartz-interview.html?page=2
Did he not hear the question? Swap out Oracle and replace it with MySQL? Consider MySQL as a cheap alternative perhaps, but swap out Oracle?
What is your advice for open-source CEOs?
I don't think Marten Mickos et al. need much advice. They're doing a fabulous job. The people who need the advice are the traditional proprietary software companies. They don't recognize the tidal wave that is encroaching on their shores. When you can go with Postgres and save $3 million to $4 million in building the next-generation consumer Internet service, there's clearly massive disruption in play. That disruption favors open source.
Jonathan is here to give advice to proprietary companies. Ironically he’s referencing Oracle in his statement about saving millions by going with Postgres. Hey Jonathan the companies and governments that spend millions on Oracle (big shocking revelation coming 5….4…3….2….1.) can afford to spend millions on software. Hell they pretty much expect to. A big corp or government will spend millions if it means getting the best. FOSS advocates don’t seem to grasp the idea that budgets scale. Spending millions on software is just another itemized addition to the budget for large entities. Big corps will drop 4 million on a new branch without blinking. You think they really care about spending 4 million to make sure they have the highest-rated database software for their global data?
But it is interesting that he mentioned Postgres back then. He would have been better off forking it and giving it a decent name instead of spending a billion on MySql.
Now get ready for the best Schwartz quote of all time:
What is the business model for this?
What's the business model? I don't know. But if you don't have adoption, it won't matter what business model you use. Companies that sell open source are prioritizing community and adoption over instant monetization. We will win.
I have no idea as to how I can make money by open sourcing everything. Faith in open source will provide the business model. The power of the source compels you!
Finally you have to watch my favorite Schwartz interview:
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
DRM = Better Games and Movies Library
So the FOSS cult showed up to protest Apple’s ipad.
The protester holding the sign is paid FOSS advocate John Sullivan, and like most outspoken FOSS advocates doesn’t have a background in software development. His listed background on the FSF website is in the humanities and he holds a BA in philosophy yet thinks he knows what is best for software developers. If you take a close look you’ll find that FOSS advocates are disproportionately from fields that are outside multimedia content and software production.
But getting back to the subject I think it is ironic that FOSS advocates will claim to represent developers when most developers wouldn’t be excited about an ipad that the FSF would support.
The FSF would only support a tablet pc that was completely open which means that it would also be favored by pirates. Game developers especially would rather have a closed system than one where users can easily download and install pirated software. Movie companies also wouldn’t be excited about a portable device where movie files can be accessed by users. Let’s not forget that the FSF would also be against protected streaming so any streamed rental could easily be copied and shared with friends. When itunes movie rentals are $5 I have a hard time feeling sorry for FOSS advocates who claim that not being able copy a rental to their external 1TB drive is a violation of their 'rights' (sense of entitlement).
DRM is a trade-off. You are more limited in what you can do with your files but in return you get a system that is more appealing to content producers. DRM devices have been better at attracting developers than completely open devices. That’s because DRM helps content producers get paid.
At the very least a balance needs to be found between attracting content producers and users who want greater access to the system. The problem with FOSS advocates is that they have no interest in balance. They think that by simply providing free developer tools that software like games will simply show up. We’ve seen with Linux that this is not the case. Games in Linux mostly consist of amateurish 80/90’s software clones involving penguins or Quake 3 mods, and note that the Quake 3 engine was actually a gift to the open source world from proprietary game company iD software. Like much in the open source world it was funded with proprietary profits.
Linux can be useful on mobile devices for basic browsing functionality but its entertainment appeal will be limited as long as it stays unappealing to game developers and content producers. Sure the iphone could be duplicated using a Linux kernel, but could the app store? FOSS advocates deride the upcoming Windows Mobile 7 but forget that Microsoft has an advantage that Linux doesn’t: the Zune store. Again we have Linux advocates believing that being free will be enough for mass adoption. But who wouldn’t pay $15 more for a Winmobile smartphone that comes with movie rentals?
FOSS advocates need to get over their belief that everything needs to be open source. Of course this is a core belief but they need to accept that being free and open source is not enough to gain adoption. People buy portable devices with functionality in mind and it has been absolutely established that the open source world cannot provide equal functionality while maintaining their core beliefs. It’s an unrealistic position to believe that all systems and software should be completely open. Those that refuse to relent this position doom themselves to irrelevancy. The world will move on without them.
The protester holding the sign is paid FOSS advocate John Sullivan, and like most outspoken FOSS advocates doesn’t have a background in software development. His listed background on the FSF website is in the humanities and he holds a BA in philosophy yet thinks he knows what is best for software developers. If you take a close look you’ll find that FOSS advocates are disproportionately from fields that are outside multimedia content and software production.
But getting back to the subject I think it is ironic that FOSS advocates will claim to represent developers when most developers wouldn’t be excited about an ipad that the FSF would support.
The FSF would only support a tablet pc that was completely open which means that it would also be favored by pirates. Game developers especially would rather have a closed system than one where users can easily download and install pirated software. Movie companies also wouldn’t be excited about a portable device where movie files can be accessed by users. Let’s not forget that the FSF would also be against protected streaming so any streamed rental could easily be copied and shared with friends. When itunes movie rentals are $5 I have a hard time feeling sorry for FOSS advocates who claim that not being able copy a rental to their external 1TB drive is a violation of their 'rights' (sense of entitlement).
DRM is a trade-off. You are more limited in what you can do with your files but in return you get a system that is more appealing to content producers. DRM devices have been better at attracting developers than completely open devices. That’s because DRM helps content producers get paid.
At the very least a balance needs to be found between attracting content producers and users who want greater access to the system. The problem with FOSS advocates is that they have no interest in balance. They think that by simply providing free developer tools that software like games will simply show up. We’ve seen with Linux that this is not the case. Games in Linux mostly consist of amateurish 80/90’s software clones involving penguins or Quake 3 mods, and note that the Quake 3 engine was actually a gift to the open source world from proprietary game company iD software. Like much in the open source world it was funded with proprietary profits.
Linux can be useful on mobile devices for basic browsing functionality but its entertainment appeal will be limited as long as it stays unappealing to game developers and content producers. Sure the iphone could be duplicated using a Linux kernel, but could the app store? FOSS advocates deride the upcoming Windows Mobile 7 but forget that Microsoft has an advantage that Linux doesn’t: the Zune store. Again we have Linux advocates believing that being free will be enough for mass adoption. But who wouldn’t pay $15 more for a Winmobile smartphone that comes with movie rentals?
FOSS advocates need to get over their belief that everything needs to be open source. Of course this is a core belief but they need to accept that being free and open source is not enough to gain adoption. People buy portable devices with functionality in mind and it has been absolutely established that the open source world cannot provide equal functionality while maintaining their core beliefs. It’s an unrealistic position to believe that all systems and software should be completely open. Those that refuse to relent this position doom themselves to irrelevancy. The world will move on without them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
