If you are rich and famous like Steve Wozniak or living in UK, you may already own a device running ICS but the rest of us will have to wait a bit.
It’s still one month until Christmas so I can see the trickle growing into a stream by then. 2012 will be another good year for FLOSS. What was truly remarkable about 2011 and what will continue was that not only were OEMs and retailers pushing/promoting/selling FLOSS products, consumers had choice and chose FLOSS. Years of FLOSS being available and in the face of consumers cannot be undone by any marketing plan of M$. Price/performance is where M$’s empire is weakest. Monopoly does not optimize price/performance which is what consumers want and which OEMs and retailers are happy to give considering that there is no huge slice being given to M$ (software patent licences excepted). 2012 should give some blows to software patents to eliminate or reduce their weak influence on the market. Even if software patents survive 2012, they will not hold whole markets hostage as their owners wanted.
39 Comments
Leave a comment
“Oiaohm’s unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, there was nothing in the slightest unethical in the actions surrounding this event.”
The simple fact the author of qdos has the issue in his biography.
“SCP got a substantial sum of money for the time for giving up their rights to sell QDOS independently.”
In fact that is only in the second contract as well.
Tim Paterson official history of the event is what you really need to read Clarence Moon. The mistake is on the public record.
This is why you should not go into particular areas of history.
Clarence Moon wrote, “Their R&D budgets are in the tens of billions of dollars annually”.
I think that’s mostly the salaries of their bloat-generators/developers. They claim about $8 billion but it sounds better to call it R&D and it might earn tax deductions over and above salaries. Your tax dollars at work…
There was no real security in Windows until Win2K, I agree, but that is due to the way that Windows computers and even networks were looked at in those days. People relied on physical security to ensure that malicious access was prevented and networked installations relied on the server applications to handle access security. Any access limitations imposed by the OS itself were redundant.
What changed was the realization of the gaping holes in the system caused by remote execution via wideband internet networking. Unix systems suffered from the same malady although they were in a position to more rapidly react to threats since they were so much more expensive and warranted full time administration. Windows networks were largely limited to work groups and were mostly self administered by the users in a department.
You have to draw a difference between malware that comes from fooling a user who self-administers his computer into doing something dangerous, such as installing a rogue program and things that attack servers via design flaws such as buffer overflows or SQL injection. Most client situations come from the former cause since they do not have remotely accessible software installed or else it is disabled or efficiently sandboxed. Server situations are another matter entirely and are not very prevalent today now that the attack paths are known and designs are tested to prevent that sort of access.
I don’t accept the notion that Microsoft is particularly cheap. Their R&D budgets are in the tens of billions of dollars annually and, as clumsy as they seem to be frequently, they are working towards acceptable goals.
Malware was running around on floppy discs in the 1980s.
Up until Lose 2K, I am not aware of any security feature in the OS whatsoever. They shipped with 50K bugs and no security long after waves of malware attacked.
Any idiot could see back in the 1980s that one needed security on a computer systems. UNIX was a proper networked multi-user/multitasking OS in those days and M$ deliberately chose to ignore that and took the cheapest route to an OS after IBM virtually guaranteed them a living and a monopoly. They were cheap ignorant bastards. Even after they were all millionaires they did not do a rewrite until NT came out and they bastardized that.
I just do not see where you can justify saying “deliberately chose to ship substandard products” here. They originally got a contract, as has been mentioned, from IBM and presumably whatever they shipped to IBM at that time met IBM’s requirements. That was in the era of the Apple II and other home computers and the IBM (with PCDOS from Microsoft) was an instant hit with companies that used it effectively to start replacing word processors and calculators.
At the time, the PC was a “personal computer”, connected to nothing at all and not even envisioned as a network device by most everyone, myself included. Years later networking took hold, but by then DOS was stuck with its beginnings and had to accommodate backward compatibility which made security hard to implement.
It seems to me that anyone who cared about such things in that age could buy Unix software for the PC from IBM (AIX) or SCO. It was expensive, but it had all the security that Unix offered then.
A lot of Microsoft’s problems today do stem from those early decisions, but they are the result of trade-offs between engineering practicalities, compatibility with previous versions, and general affordability. Microsoft chose, I think, to simply cater to the whim of the majority of its customers who were not really aware of how they were building a house of cards.
I don’t know that Microsoft was any smarter either. They certainly have been laughed at for various failures to effectively execute changes, for example the miserable experiences they created with Vista in trying to bring the overall security of Windows up a notch.
They have gotten a lot more refined in their approach to things, with versions of Windows aimed at commercial users like Windows Server and Windows Professional or Enterprise as well as home users with the Starter and Home editions. I think that PC technology is a complex landscape that has a lot of local optimums that can conflict with one another.
Many people have been led astray, I agree, by Microsoft’s product offerings and failure to warn them of potential pitfalls, but I don’t see that as any deliberate act. Rather it comes with trying to be a low cost/price supplier of a technology that can in some cases substitute for a more robust product. People trying to get by inexpensively need to themselves consider what they might be missing and take on the responsibility to keep themselves out of trouble.
Clarence Moon wrote, “It is fair to argue that Microsoft’s products are, with hindsight, deficient in many ways compared to what might have been done about inherent security and other things that have been seen as design flaws in DOS and Windows. However, it is not a question of deliberate actions to do that and has nothing to do with ethics in my view.”
M$, ie. Bill Gates and friends, deliberately chose to ship substandard products from the beginning until the 21st century to run on millions of PCs around the world. That is a crime/ethical failing of epic proportions. Even DOS which had no security whatsoever compared to a UNIX OS which was available at the time was an ethical failing. M$ used it until when, 2000? After much malware and broken windows made the error abundantly clear to everyone.
It has been a principle of software design to modularize and abstract to prevent many such failings of that other OS since the 1970s when I seriously got into programming. M$’s intention to connect everything to everything to give the user a “better experience” flew in the face of best practices in programming and they kept it up far too long for it not to have been a deliberate choice. They cared about backwards compatibility more than security. In fact, they copied vulnerabilities into recent releases from Lose 3.1. It was a deliberate, calculated scheme to maximize profits and to Hell with everyone else in IT.
Mr. Pogson, you seem to equate business dilligence with being unethical, at least in regard to Microsoft. In the discussion at hand, Microsoft in essence simply outsourced some work needed to fulfill their contract with IBM for an OS to operate with the new IBM PC. At the time the deal was made, there was no certainty about the future and Microsoft basically bet their existence on the offer being a good business decision. SCP got a substantial sum of money for the time for giving up their rights to sell QDOS independently. Since they had no plans to do that, it was an easy decision on their part and incrementally sound. It was up to Microsoft to turn their retained ownership of the original code into a business by first hoping the the IBM PC would be a big winner and then developing changes to the original base to first exactly meet the IBM specifications and subsequently to stay ahead of competitors.
Oiaohm’s unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, there was nothing in the slightest unethical in the actions surrounding this event.
It is fair to argue that Microsoft’s products are, with hindsight, deficient in many ways compared to what might have been done about inherent security and other things that have been seen as design flaws in DOS and Windows. However, it is not a question of deliberate actions to do that and has nothing to do with ethics in my view. Rather, it is just the normal lack of foresight that most engineers have with things that start revolutions in technology. Everything gets better with time and Microsoft has managed to eventually fix things when a better solution becomes evident.
They stay in front due to the inertia of such a massive business, namely some 22 billion dollars worth annually and well over a billion existing installations. I don’t see how that could ever change. Overall, I think it has worked pretty well and the success of the smart phone and tablet are built on the widespread use of the internet that was fueled mostly by the PC with some help from the Mac. Without the internet, brought about by using PCs, there would be no market for anything “smart” on a phone or a tablet.
Basically we know 100 percent for sure that the world would have been different if the second contract had never existed.
IBM would have never used PC-Dos from Microsoft. The IBM clones might never have happened. Different firm might have won the personal computer market.
Its also a good lesson never let someone pressure you into signing a contract.
Clarence Moon the simple point is the court case does not read that way.
Rod Brock had signed a contract allowing MS to use 86-dos alter source code and sell and SCP retain ownership of it and all added code.
Tim Patterson signed the contract that gave MS ownership of it and SCP a free ride from having to pay for usage.
Note IBM would not buy PC-DOS from Microsoft unless they had full controlling rights. Yes the first time MS approached IBM to sell IBM PC-DOS they had to go back to SCP and get another contract because the first contract did not give MS enough rights to be able todo the sale with IBM.
Early interview about it Tim Patterson say he could not see the difference about the two contracts and that MS need the other contracted signed so their buyer would buy the program from them.
So to Rod Brock nothing looked out of place until he went to sell of his Companies assets and MS chimes up that he cannot put 86-dos and all its descendent up for sale.
The problem is what rights were transfer to Microsoft 1980. Legally Rod Brock contract is 100 percent valid. The other contract by Tim Patterson would have to be fort out in court if it was even valid most likely not. Rod Brock was wanting out of the game basically so did not fight for his legal rights here.
If SCP had the means to hold MS to the Rod Brock signed contract MS owed SCP 60 million for breach of contract for attempting to stop the true owner from selling the software.
It is unethical to sign with a non approved staff member a contract it is also unethical to enter into a secondary contract for the same thing with slightly different terms and not inform the party you first signed with just in case the person you are signing with is not approved to sign.
Yes by the Rob Brock contact SCP had the right to ship MS Dos because they still owned it.
Tim Patterson contract says they had a free unlimited OEM license to it. Major difference here.
This is the miss conduct found in the 1985-1986 trial.
Part of the law suit was over the fact what was the reserved right full ownership or free OEM usage. MS was insisting that it was the Tim Patterson contract. Since the Rob Brock contract would have seen MS have to bid and win to keep MS Dos lose and who ever got it had the right to all MS source code of Dos.
Yes this is the first time MS crossed the path of a Viral licensing agreement. Also explains MS extreme reaction to releasing anything GPL for a long time they almost got completely scorched earthed by a Viral agreement. They avoid being killed by a viral agreement once so was not ready for a long time to risk it again.
This is why this case is a turning point. In many ways with it lot of MS actions makes perfect sense.
Clarence Moon you have lost a key point of the case existence of two contracts.
http://www.patersontech.com/dos/micronews/paterson04_10_98.htm
“Both Microsoft and Paterson have fended off legal and professional challenges involving DOS-Microsoft settled a contract dispute brought by Seattle Computer for $1 million in 1986.”
Yes that is from Tim Paterson official history of the event. Clarence Moon we are talking about a screw of screw ups that Tim Paterson admits. The other thing is is $1 million because MS did pay Rod Brock legal fees on top of settlement value.
If it was solid contracts there would have been no professional or legal challenges to Patterson at all. When the case was settled Patterson also got let off the hook. Basically you are reading a abridged version of events. That is a far more positive light on the events.
There are sins in MS history. Every big company does a sin at some point. Very few have a huge sin like this that is right at the foundation of their existence.
Yes understand the truth of this event explains a lot of the different in reaction to open source MS has had compared to other companies.
Clarence Moon wrote, “There was nothing to suggest that this was due to anything unethical by Microsoft as you continually suggest.”
The default behaviour for M$ is to do the unethical thing unless it costs them money.
e.g. making OS that slows down with time, using NDAs for everything, making OS without regard to security, clinging to below-standard networking for many years before adopting BSD tcp stack, adding bloat endlessly when there was no technical imperative …
The number one motive of M$ for more than a decade has been to do whatever it takes to eliminate competition without having to compete. That started about the time IBM gave them a monopoly on the OS for the IBM-compatible PC.
It seems pointless to discuss anything with you, Mr. Oiaohm, if you are going to constantly re-invent facts and offer nothing to substantiate your position. I have invested too much time on this issue already, but I will summarize what seems to be the real story.
There are a number of anecdotes around on this subject, typically like the one at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Brock
Prices seem to vary a bit, but the essence of the tales are the same. Namely, Microsoft bought the rights to QDOS from SCP and used the code to satisfy a contract with IBM for the original PC-DOS OS product. They kept the right to market the OS to others and ceded the right to use the OS on hardware produced by SCP to SCP.
As the story goes, SCP sold a sort of PC including various versions of MS-DOS as it evolved and went out of the PC business in 1985 while still owning the right to use MS-DOS royalty free on their own hardware.
The very fact that SCP had a contractual right to ship MS-DOS shows that the original contract was between SCP and Microsoft and not the illegitimate arrangement that you suggest. Further, the issue surrounding the abortive lawsuit was SCP’s right to sell their reserved right to another OEM. That resulted in Microsoft buying the right from SCP for the approximate million dollars mentioned in various articles.
There was nothing to suggest that this was due to anything unethical by Microsoft as you continually suggest.
oiaohm wrote, “This is the history March 8, 1983 is the release date of the XT computer by IBM this one contained PC-DOS MS had not release MS Dos at this stage.”
That reminds me. My first IBM-compatible PC (1985) came with a manual, from IBM, with the source code of the BIOS included. I think I may still have that book but it’s packed in boxes in the garage. My storage project may reveal it shortly.
This shows how bloated and complex things have become.
Clarence Moon sorry no I am not a fanatic with this.
This is the history March 8, 1983 is the release date of the XT computer by IBM this one contained PC-DOS MS had not release MS Dos at this stage.
Ok when was SCP first releasing 86-DOS. SCP began shipping 86-DOS in September 1980 yes they are not using IBM Bios or clone of IBM Bios on this.
Ok just over 2 years prior to the but 3 was because I was working by the raw years ie 1980 and 1983.
Development started in 1981 is MS claim for MS Dos.
First production release MS also claims 1982. SCP best years was 1981 and 1982 before IBM entered the market and all the clones took over.
1985 when SCP is in count documents 86-DOS sale to Microsoft was found to be incorrectly signed. Remember Tim Patterson did not own 86-DOS because he had made it under-contract to SCP. Tim Patterson was not management of SCP. Tim Patterson signature and name is on the 86-DOS sales contract to MS.
Correct name that should be on that contract is Rod Brock.
This is why Rod Brock thought he was in the clear for a 60 million dollar payment because in his eyes he had never transferred ownership rights to Microsoft when Microsoft was saying he could not sell 86-Dos rights off. Microsoft believed they owned 86-Dos rights because they had a contract with Tim Patterson signature on it signing it over for a fixed figure.
Yes the documents don’t lie Clarence Moon. MS got 86-dos in a illegal sales contract. Of course Tim Patterson was disputing that he had approval from Rod Brock when he signed the contract. Even that he had no legal documents saying he had the right to sign any sales documents of company assets so no matter how you look at it the item was illegal contract. Professional Misconduct.
Really what am I meant to think of a guy who signs a contract he had no legal right to sign. Clarence Moon. If SCP had the power to fight there is really every chance the complete computer world would be different today. With SCP becoming in 1987 the full owner of DOS as the legally should have been. MS had been allowed to code on 86-Dos by Rod Brock eyes on the condition they give back the code alterations.
Basically Tim Patterson did a contract his boss did not approve of. Yes cases like that get messy and costly. Problem was that Tim Patterson at the time really did not know the law fully either. He thought as the coder he has the right to sell it.
SCP is a critical case in computer history Clarence Moon. How one illegal action can change the complete course of history.
I do study computer history Clarence Moon this is the problem. And do you not agree the time MS aquired 86-Dos is not a key point of history that anyone talking on computer history should know.
Mr. Oiaohm, I can only conclude that you are a fanatic with no sense of balance or any willingness to see facts in a reasonable light. No wonder your posts are so poorly received.
Clarence Moon the issue was in fact that Seattle Computer Products was Tim Patterson boss and owned all rights to qdos that they were shipping on there x86 computers before IBM made the first XT computer.
Qdos is what become MS-Dos and PC-Dos Clarence Moon this is why there was a 1 million dollar settlement out of court.
“They were paid some 900K after they had gone out of business for the rights to MS-DOS that were in contention at that time.” Wrong the rights to Qdos they were paid for.
That they had been pushed out of business by the under-table deal between Microsoft and Tim Patterson.
“SCP had a business selling IBMish compatibles”
Basically you have it backwards the reality IBM XT’s was a clone of Seattle Computer Products 8086 computer.
3 years leading up to the release of IBM XT computers Seattle Computer Products was releasing computers with qdos on it and the processor was a 8086 not a 8088 like IBM used. Yes IBM XT was a poor copy of the Seattle Computer Products computer.
Now if Seattle Computer Products had been a bigger company with more legal power the company at top of stack today would be Seattle Computer Products not Microsoft.
MS when they settled out over qdos in fact did release a statement admitting to professional miss conduct.
“Tim Patterson personally received millions of dollars through incentive stock options during his multiple tenures as a Microsoft employee and is a Bill Gates fan to this day.”
Exactly. Under handed bugger back stabbed his employer Seattle Computer Products who has been massive rewarded by Microsoft for doing that.
Mr. Oiaohm, you seem to only have read a part of the stories you relate and the part you did not read were apparently words in the middle of the sentences that gave some meaning to the story.
Microsoft did indeed convince some major OEMs to offer DOS on their machines and pay simply on the basis of a count of units shipper rather than individually licensing each unit. That gave Microsoft a thrill based on the prestiege of having 100% of a major product line and gave the OEM involved another few bucks in discount from the rate they were paying. Since they were mostly shipping MS-DOS anyway, getting a 25% discount by committing the last 5% of their production was a no-brainer.
They also signed up companies for multiple years in advance, a fact you seem to have missed. In any case, the offer was only for the big guys, at the time Dell, Compaq, and IBM, and the others had to pay by the piece and had much lower volume. The SEC and DOJ got after Microsoft for doing that and Microsoft agreed to stop the practice in 1994. The OEMs had to pay a lot more for DOS, but the advent of Win95 got them back on the low price train wherein the price of DOS essentially went to zero as the Win95 price was set at the Win 3.11 level.
You seem to have missed most of the details about the final settlement between Microsoft and Seattle Computer Products, too. SCP had a business selling IBMish compatibles and had partial rights to clone MS-DOS due to the original deal with Microsoft. They were paid some 900K after they had gone out of business for the rights to MS-DOS that were in contention at that time. It just cleared up the muddy water and gave the SCP owners a going away present.
Tim Patterson personally received millions of dollars through incentive stock options during his multiple tenures as a Microsoft employee and is a Bill Gates fan to this day. As I related previously to Mr. Pogson, Tim Patterson is hardly a poster child for any Microsoft mischief.
There is nothing criminal in anything Microsoft has done or is alleged to have done in the mythology that surrounds the failures of competitors. It is OK to be anti-MS if you are one of the competitors who have lost out to Microsoft initiatives, but if you are one of those unfortunates who cannot stand success in others, your dislike is unfounded.
oldman
“Irrelevant to my point. FOSS on the desktop as a moneymaker is fail. you have now admitted this.”
I did not say FOSS on the desktop has been a moneymaker fail. I said it has not been as compatible as other markets. This is not a failure just not as high yielding. Of course higher yielding markets always get picked off first.
Closed source does not say the coder who made the program gets anything more than a wage. There is no promise of commission. Company gets everything above this.
This is why developers making Open Source and Developers making closed source can be the same person and not give a rats either way. Why because they only get paid a wage no extras. Heck at least with open source they get into the credits as a developer working on the application that they can put on there resume to get another job. Yes shocking a closed source coder may not get there name in the credits as even working on the program. This is why lots of programs have Easter eggs added by developers to show credits without there bosses approval.
Fun one is like isomaster oldman. Binary is sold to windows users even that the software is FOSS. This is exploiting human laziness. Just because something is FOSS does not mean platform built binaries have to be free of charge and without install limits. This is where the creativity comes in with FOSS understanding what services people will pay for. Understanding what you are prepared to give away for free in exchange for quality feed back and code submits.
There have been particular desktop projects that have gone against the curve and have models that work. Blender is another one of those.
Clarence Moon MS DOS was not licensed per installed copy. Any company wanting to provide MS Dos has to agree to pay for every machine they produced no matter if it contained MS Dos or not. Funny enough was found to be anti competitive but now MS is doing the same thing with patents and its legal. Yes the insanity of the system.
Clarence Moon under deeper investigation of the PC DOS deal Gates and Paul Allen when threw the qdos source code ie the base to PC DOS and MS DOS and stripped out all mention of Tim Paterson and Seattle Computer.
Yes the 1986 1 million settlement was about professional miss conduct by Microsoft and Tim Paterson. Sorry Clarence Moon without Seattle Computers have the legal means to fight we might not even know that Tim Paterson was the true coder behind dos.
Yes the technical fact of the matter Tim Paterson did not have the legal right to sell Dos at all to Microsoft or IBM at all. The ownership rights owned to Seattle Computers.
This is the problem Tim Paterson the code legally should have never been paid for Dos other than what Seattle Computers paid. Seattle Computers had a contract for exclusive rights over qdos/86-dos. If Microsoft had never got Dos the computer world would be vastly different today.
MS existence is purely based on a criminal act.
It is a matter of timing, obviously. A license for DOS was not worth a $5 per unit royalty in perpetuity back then. Microsoft sold the rights to the software to IBM for about the same as they paid the guy that developed it in the first place. It was a hit because of the combined efforts of Microsoft and IBM. The fact that it was chosen at all is just serendipity. Paterson is a multi-millionaire becuse of Bill Gates’ efforts nd few months work. I personally would be more than satisfied at that sort of an outcome. Wouldn’t you?
Let’s see, a $5 royalty to which he was entitled, according to oldman, time a few hundred million installations, comes to what? $1000 million? I think he was short-changed.
http://www.patersontech.com/dos/micronews/paterson04_10_98.htm
According to this, the guy got $50K for two month’s worth of effort. I’d be happy with that myself. And that was back in the 80′s. If he had used the 50K to buy MS stock when it came out, what would that come to?
He is not much of a poster child for Microsoft abuse.
The openness has several advantages:
better performance because the developer has no interest in slowing anything down.
oldman wrote, “if one has a salable product, the proceeds of that product belong to the creator(s)”.
Is that like the guy who created DOS being paid $50K by M$ after M$ made a deal with IBM to supply an OS for the IBM PC? Wasn’t he cut out of the proceeds? How about the guys who developed Android/Linux being sued by Oracle so that Oracle can take the proceeds? How does that fit into your world-view, oldman?
“Closed Source development does not guarantee profit.”
There are no guarantees in anything Mr. Ham, but closed source DOES guarantee that if one has a salable product, the proceeds of that product belong to the creator(s)
“Of course but in other areas like web services who is really doing better.”
Irrelevant to my point. FOSS on the desktop as a moneymaker is fail. you have now admitted this. So we have an end of story.
I wonder who actually benefits from Android being “open”? The “free” part is easy to see, since the device manufacturers, like my (soon to be delivered next week) Kindle Fire, can focus on low hardware costs while having the same features. One of the reasons, I think, that iPads cost so much is that Apple has to do their own OS from scratch. That costs them a lot, I am sure, and they have to pay the whole price themselves.
Readionmg the fine print shows that Amazon has made their own version of Android, called “Gingerbread” to make it work like they want. Unless you have a phone or tablet factory, though, it doesn’t seem real useful to be able to rewrite the OS.
“So far success for a FLOSS company creators seems to be to get big enough to sell out to some bigger company, take the money and run.”
LOL oldman. The common model is far more evil. Sell out to bigger company fork keep on going and latter down the track sell out to a bigger company again and repeat the process until the bigger company is smart enough to employ the key developers full time.
Advantage of FLOSS nothing prevents you from forking the code base when you do sell out.
oldman
“And you know this How Mr. HAM are you making money from this model?”
In fact I do make money from sections of the other models that can be used.
oldman
“The reality is that these revenue streams haven’t been around long enough to prove that they can produce anything like the profit can be guaranteed from closed source development.
LOL one of the revenue streams is a veneration on insurance. What is a very old and proven model oldman. Really the developers are the best to provide current and future quality of service insurance another name support contract. Now please start doing your homework on models you will find that paying for the software is only one of many valid models that closed source makers use.
WOW for classic example the game it self is free but you have to pay a monthly fee to use the WOW servers.
Basically about time you pull you head out sand and look around at the different models closed source use and wake that particular ones of the closed source working models don’t require closed source at all to make the same profit.
Second life classic example of something in the WOW class that has a open source client.
Most of the FOSS model is not new and unproven. More than well tested.
Closed Source development does not guarantee profit.
oldman
“The proof of the pudding is in the eating Mr. HAM. All I know is that on the desktop side your model hasn’t produced the software that I need.”
Of course but in other areas like web services who is really doing better.
I have no issue admitting that Linux developers have lacked focus on desktop. Reason desktop has not been as compatible with FOSS service base profit models.
So FOSS has invested more in markets more suitable for there model. Ie embedded and supercomputers.
Argus P. wrote, “Android which is not FLOSS”.
see http://source.android.com/source/downloading.html
Android/Linux is FLOSS. The source is available and it is covered by a liberal licence.
FLOSS being available? Where? I don’t see FLOSS, I see Android which is not FLOSS as it is no longer open source.
“This is you tunnel vision problem oldman. You are failing to see the downsides of the closed source production.”
The proof of the pudding is in the eating Mr. HAM. All I know is that on the desktop side your model hasn’t produced the software that I need.
End of story.
“Basically FLOSS makes you consider a stack of profit streams you normally disregard as a closed source developer. Not that money is not there its that you would not normally do that.”
And you know this How Mr. HAM are you making money from this model? The reality is that these revenue streams haven’t been around long enough to prove that they can produce anything like the profit can be guaranteed from closed source development.
So far success for a FLOSS company creators seems to be to get big enough to sell out to some bigger company, take the money and run.
Not exactly a formula for long term success eh?
“There is a reason why I accept ideal in a lot of cases is a Mix of Floss and closed. Both development models have there advantage and disadvantage.”
So after all this verbiage you admit that the FLOSS model has disadvantages.
At which point I can now dismiss all of what you said as essentially nose.
Typical.
“Closed software produced for people like me Pog. FOSS doesn’t because FOSS limits the ability of a software creator to recoup his investment in time and effort to nothing more than maintenance income.”
Myth oldman. FLOSS make you consider when design a product to provide end users with services. Maintenance income is because your model is not a integrated model. Oldman do you produce final devices for customers are you making profit out of that. Can you provide on-line hosting and other services.
There is a reason why lot of web based on Linux has been dominate. on-line hosting can bring in more money from the software than what is aquired selling the software out right.
Even some of blenders developers exploit this being behind blender processing server farms.
Basically FLOSS makes you consider a stack of profit streams you normally disregard as a closed source developer. Not that money is not there its that you would not normally do that.
Most creative is blender movie projects what is basically paid for product dog fooding.
“The end result is “good enough” software lacking in advanced function and feature.”
Explain blender. Many advanced functions that don’t exist in other 3d tools. Alfresso also contains advanced features that many of it closed source competitors lack and not one of it closed source competitors have the full set.
The good enough line is different for different parties.
Keep on hiding behind myths oldman. Yes Floss applications take a fair ammount of time to get ahead of there completion as Linus puts it the issue is like hurding cats. No strong focus in any particular direction.
This lack of strong focus in a particular direction is a curse and a god send. Floss software is normally not the best at everything it also normally not the worst at everything.
Floss nature makes all rounders. Closed source makes specialists. That is the problem when a all rounder gets better than a specialist the specialist is so screwed.
Even with closed source if you strike a situation where you really do need a all rounder and all you have is specialist software that does not like getting along you are so screwed its not funny. This is you tunnel vision problem oldman. You are failing to see the downsides of the closed source production.
Basically oldman both Foss and closed source production is producing two different types of product. Foss products when the get ahead you see the closed source competition in that field vaporise. Specialist cannot compete against a all rounder that is better.
Long term closed source is doomed.
There is a reason why I accept ideal in a lot of cases is a Mix of Floss and closed. Both development models have there advantage and disadvantage.
@Pogson
[iOS device owners] Mayn’t run software except from the approved list
…and when you *do* make a conscious effort to hack your iThingie, Apphole will be certain to make sure that upon your next firmware “update” from them, your jailbreaking effort will be queered.
*Doesn’t support* is bad; **purposely damages** is another realm.
“the problem is that if you when good enough there is no good solution.”
The problem with FOSS is that if you are in a situation where good enough is not, then there is no good solution.
“Closed is definitely the wrong way to do a lot of things but it did work for monopolists. Now for stuff that works for people.”
Closed software produced for people like me Pog. FOSS doesn’t because FOSS limits the ability of a software creator to recoup his investment in time and effort to nothing more than maintenance income. The end result is “good enough” software lacking in advanced function and feature. the problem is that if you when good enough there is no good solution.
For that reason IMHO desktop FOSS is bushwah.
Thanks, that is helpful to some degree. What I take away from all that is that it comes down to the applications available. Everything that I think that I would want on the Fire is available for Android now, so the version does not really matter to me. I don’t want to change anything in the OS either, so it might as well be closed, as long as it is open to Amazon.
Let’s see. Mayn’t run the software on anything but Apple’s stuff? Check. That’s an outlier for closed. Even M$ allows its stuff to run on anything. Mayn’t run software except from the approved list? Ooooh, that’s cruel. Mayn’t run more than one copy? Check. That’s about the same as M$’s stuff, definitely closed. Comparatively, FLOSS is so open it’s in outer space.
Closed is definitely the wrong way to do a lot of things but it did work for monopolists. Now for stuff that works for people.
Good point. However, it is “more” open then Apples product and that is what I was referring too.
I don’t know if “more open” is correct terminology. It’s open, wide open, fully open… The source code is public. The licence is permissive of just about any use. How much more open could it be?
http://androidcompare.com/iphone.html
I choose Android, as it is a more open system.
The biggest thing is that Android 4 has a neat way of dealing with different sized screens so it works on smart phone, tablet or huge LCD monitor. That isn’t of any particular value for any device but it makes much less work for developers needing to push only one version out. This should increase the quality and quantity of software available.
The features a user would notice are listed here.
Can anyone say just what the new Android does that the older ones did not do? I am buying an Amazon Fire and I would hate to have it obsolete before it gets delivered! For that matter, what does Android do that Apple’s iPad and iPhone OS does not do? Or vice-versa?
I cannot see any difference just from the ads or demos.