A new era - digital cartels?
LoopyByteloose
Posts: 12,537
Several months ago, Microsoft asserted that manufacturers that wanted to use Windows 8 would have to forgo other OSes in similar platforms. They would no longer tolerate providing OSes to companies that made devices that were in direct competition. Now I have read in today's Taipei Times that Acer has been forced to drop plans to launch a Chinese originating cellular phone OS if they want to retain a production line of Google Android products.
I am a bit dismayed by the fact that OSes are now in a position to tell hardware manufacturers what they must limit their products to rather than allowing the traditional separation of OS and Hardware with standard BIOS to allow for healthy competition.
So far, it all seems to be a big win for USA based enterprises, but down the road it may mean Linux will be shut out as well. And that would seem to me to be a decline in what the internet was supposed to be, a means for global information and cultural exchange. Admittedly there has already been a serious decline as major search engines of today no longer provide sources of good information (excepting maybe Wikipedia), but seem to divert the query to purchase based replies. I actually find the internet less useful than 10 years ago and foresee the days ahead where I will just have to return to university libraries for informative reading. Even then, objective newspaper journalism has already been pretty much demolished by the digital age.
With such trends occurring, I begin to wonder if actual demand for digital devices will fall off as the credibility of their usefulness is in jeopardy. I can still use create documents and do calculations on older legacy machines. but browsing and forum participation may have peaked.
I am a bit dismayed by the fact that OSes are now in a position to tell hardware manufacturers what they must limit their products to rather than allowing the traditional separation of OS and Hardware with standard BIOS to allow for healthy competition.
So far, it all seems to be a big win for USA based enterprises, but down the road it may mean Linux will be shut out as well. And that would seem to me to be a decline in what the internet was supposed to be, a means for global information and cultural exchange. Admittedly there has already been a serious decline as major search engines of today no longer provide sources of good information (excepting maybe Wikipedia), but seem to divert the query to purchase based replies. I actually find the internet less useful than 10 years ago and foresee the days ahead where I will just have to return to university libraries for informative reading. Even then, objective newspaper journalism has already been pretty much demolished by the digital age.
With such trends occurring, I begin to wonder if actual demand for digital devices will fall off as the credibility of their usefulness is in jeopardy. I can still use create documents and do calculations on older legacy machines. but browsing and forum participation may have peaked.
Comments
Google, what ever happened to "don't be evil"?
-Tor
You have missed a couple of decades of history regarding this. Microsoft has been dictating to OEM's what they can put on their computers for a long time. That is why the world is all Windows.
See for example this article from 1995: http://www.webcitation.org/query?id=1298667420478086
This was the true monopoly abuse that MS should have been gutted for, not quibbling about bundling a free WEB browser (Which by the way was derived from Mosaic (by Spy Glass Inc) and which Microsoft never paid for).
These and many other antic's are the reason many of us oldies hate MS with a passion and will not go near their products. It does not make sense to have your computing infrastructure beholden to an out of control company in a foriegn country.
That's not to say I expect much better behavior from most other companies, but at least they are generally not monopolies and have competition to keep them in check.
The fact that Google starts down this road now is very sad.
Why would we expect Google to ever be slapped for this? In all of MicroSofts long monoply investigations such issues were never considered. I might go as far as to say that as long as a company is raking it in for the USA a blind eye is turned to such things.
Well if Alibaba were a new and different OS then that would be the MS story I was talking about above.
BUT Alibaba is actually Android, forked off by the Chineese, which it is in their right to do as this is the open source world we are in.
So it's like I right a program, give it to you. Then I support you in using the program. Then someone else copies my code, possibly makes changes and improvements adding new features and such. And then you still want support from me. I might be a bit miffed about that and say "If you like the other guys stuff so much then he can support you, if he can".
You have another theme hinted at in your post.
The fact that the internet is filling up with so much junk. As you say search engines like to point you toward stuff that pulls in advertising revenue. Marketing of all kinds is everywhere. Politicians are waking up to using "social media" for their own ends. Half the world population is able to put up whatever gibberish they like. Much of it can be misleading or downright wrong. "Objective jouranlism" (if ever existed) can no longer be distinquished from any other, how do you know whio to trust.
And while all that is going on, regimes around the world are actively trying to block and censor information and views that they don't find comfortable.
Let's face it the role of the internet as a nerdy playground with informative and educational use is demishing every day.
Some how, we have to work around all that. Luckily we stiil have the safe haven of the Parallax forums:)
Can you say Apple????? Seems to me they built their reputation on this.
Then M$ put their customers on a endless upgrade path even if the new product was beta level junk.
Sadly heater is right I remember making my first DOOM website back in 96 or 97... I miss those days when an altavista query didn't have seo Smile advertisements to that fool you for its first five results (bing is awful about this). As far as MS goes they've done a lot of bad things to get to the top, there turning out to be less relevant every day though. Instead of bringing any real innovation to the world they have just created a massive enterprise market that will keep them in buisness with support and upgrades long after the desktop pc is an after thought. IDK about you guys but one of my reasons for learning embedded stuff is because the computer on every desk notion is starting to slowly drift away while companies like google/apple get rich putting embedded devices in every bodys hands and pockets
Don't forget OS/2. Blew the socks off of M$' cr@p and they knew it. Unfortunately IBM PC marketing division was scuttling it at every turn so they could get the discount for m$/winxx. (Revealed only a few years ago, but suspected it even in 1994). The real PITA was how M$ kept screwing their customers almost as often as the OS/2 users. Every time OS/2 could run a windows app, Redmond would change the API, typically by screwing with the WIN32.DLL. It got so bad that anyone installing anything on a windows machine would have to wonder which of their already installed programs would break due to god only knew which WIN32.DLL would be installed by the new software. While I am shure there was some back compatibility, one good (bad) load, WIN32.DLL was back rev'd and half of your sht stopped working and then you had to find out why.
But their customers stayed with them in spite of the shenanigans and OS/2 finally mostly disapeared. I finally gave up and went to min windows for work musts, and slackware at the time. Much of my course graphics while at Siemens was done in Xfig. Loved it. Simple and reliable. No BSODs. Winblows a necessary evil, Linux FC-xx for the heavy lifting....
FF
From AMD: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2205758/amds-hondo-will-only-support-windows-8-at-launch
From Intel: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2205462/idf-intel-says-clover-trail-will-not-work-with-linux
Now I'm sure Linux and such will run fine on these devices. But why the big noise about Windows 8 from chip makers who should not care what OS runs on their devices? I smell some MS input here.
IBM was long a dominant and agressive player in the computing industry, but had come under increased legal pressure for anit-trust behavior in the USA -- but it was servicing the global interest of US corporations. Meanwhile, Bell Labs created the benevolent UNIX OS.
With the advent of the grass-roots movement in personal computing, could it be that IBM covertly passed on to MS its support as it could no longer continue to be as agressive as it once was. MS may have had the blessing of IBM and NASA and other shadowy interest to preserve a superior position in computers for the sake of US national interest.
Of course, along came the counter-point from Europe in the form of Linux. And so we have today, what we have.
Simply put, the fact that Google and MS both can get away with imposing manufacturing restrictions on the hardware makers in other nations, it all seems that some portion of the US government has managed a policy of tolerance.
Could the dark side and the light side of computing have both originated in opposing interests in the US.
Didn't Google say they would "do no evil?"
Therefore, this is all just a big misunderstanding.
I'm sure if you send them an email or text them they will straighten it out right away.
\
Besides Win8 is gonna sink the MS ship soon .
Admittedly Google has seem to have gotten greedy, but at least Android in UNIX/Linux based, though I can't say I really like much of what Google has been offering. I tried Chrome and removed it as being a bit confusing to me and paranoid security messages are a bit annoying.
On the plus side this could encourage hardware manufacturers to agree on and support an open source OS for these devices which would be a great benefit to all of us in the long run.
just Buy a NAS HDD. they seriously cost less then $40 more then a normal 3.5" HDD case .
I have a LaCie gigabit network drive that Runs on a ARM inside ( I have looked ) Liunx . a HW based Drive '
as easy as a router to set up and NO Heavy Power sapping PC .
Mine can do HTTP Samba/SMB FTP AFP and can take E SATA as a ext input along with USB2.0 Runs on a Brick that is rated at 12V/2.5A
most netgear routers have Ready share .. a HW based simple Samba/SMB USB drive port . I have Tried mine with a 500 GB drive . took Great .. granted I have the LaCie NAS Drive to play with so no point taxing a router CPU with samba too...
http://www.amazon.com/Network-Storage-SATA-External-Enclosure/dp/B005HSCQK2/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1347818925&sr=8-15&keywords=nas+drive+enclosure
http://www.amazon.com/Verbatim-MediaShare-Network-Storage-97329/dp/B0047T7PTO/ref=sr_1_32?ie=UTF8&qid=1347819236&sr=8-32&keywords=nas+drive+enclosure
the latter is not a Drive but a SERVER you add Drives to .. From a array of 4 TB drives to 4 GB USB stick .
NO consumer in a Home should need to mess with any Full OS to just make a file server
I don't understand: "Liunx for a SMB server...[is]huge permissions nightmare...just Buy a NAS HDD...a LaCie gigabit network drive that Runs on a ARM inside ( I have looked ) Liunx"
So you are saying that instead of using Linux as a file server we should use Linux:)
I'm fine with that.
However, a stand-alone NAS unit which is pre-configured from the start can be easier to deal with. We use these at work too, and they _are_ nicer. If you look inside then yes, they usually run Linux too.. but there's less to administer.
-Tor
"
What I was saying is that Consumers . Mom dad the normal person has no need to spend the cost on a REAL desktop X86 ATX case power munchying server when a """ appliance""" can do the same / for basic uses .. Often more stable too as you cant screw it up as easy as a full distro on a desktop .
most who would have used Windows Home Server would do dandy on a NAS HDD ... then I was eluding too is that mine by luck is not on some obscure OS but a ARM Linux flavor . how cute .
EDIT .
Tor Yea I have both .. a mac mini as a Webserver .
as a NAS cant run a full website like a real computer can .. but I have see far to many places shoe horn a real server in a place better suited for a NAS box .
One share One live user + admin just SMB .. and no IT staff .
Irony as right now Iam neck deep under my desk in my network Rack re wireing my entire LAN . I got me a New deadecaed VPN /Firewall .
Anyways its very intresting if youve never researched. Seems MS was in bed with ATT and they had the rights to unix on alot of micro processors, 6800, 8088, z80 etc all those oldies. Anyways from what I can tell MS was a huge Unix supporter for a long period they were licensing xinix to sco and anyone else who wanted to resell it, never directly selling it themselves. Well it seems after the screwed gary kindall(i love those old computer chronicles on the web archive) over and got IBM to go with ms-dos instead of cp/m they slowly started drifting from xinix till they sold it to sco in the 90s. Whats funny is that old MS employees say all the email servers were xinix based running open source sendmail until about 96 i think, when they switched to exchange. There used to be notes on the wall about how to use Vi and sendmail for email. Im not sure what this has to do with much but its intresting. its also funny to think they ran sendmail and wrote the halloween papers.
Google has said that the other OS invades their Android environment for the sake of exploitation and is not really a different OS as a more restrictive form of Android that substantially exploits Google's development efforts.
Frankly, the Chinese have a long history of preferring to copy rather than develop new products and to rely on distance, language barrier, and rhetoric to be allowed to do so. In other words, this looks like it is evolving into a fight between China and Google.
Google has said clearly that it has no intention of restricting manufacturers that want to develop products that use other OS systems, but this is not such a case. Google feels it is an Android derivative that wants to not comply with the Android Open Source requirements.
Asia and especially Taiwan and China are a very special case of software abuses. With Windows XP, it was estimated that 98% of the users were operating on illegal copies. Their is a very strong business culture here that you can always make a lot more money by not following rules and not getting caught. In other words, doing business in Asia is a 'catch me if you can' culture.
It's good to see the new generations starting to tackle the issues facing us re: closed source and controlled software.
Rebel code sounds interesting, but don't forget that the first rebel was Richard Stallman who kicked off the free software movement in 1983 and initiated things like the GCC compiler that we are now about to take into use for the Propeller. "Free Software" is not the same as "Open Source".
Im going to have to say RS rubs me the wrong way. While I support open source and the notion of stallmans free software, so much so when i have an idea for any project i hope to make even if its for commercial reasons, i will choose an open source liscence nine times out of 10, my goal is to lean and help others learn hopefully and one day make enough to survive doing that. What bugs me about RS is he is an extremest some time GPL just is not feasible. Lets say parallax GPLed the bs2 ip when it came out, every body in china would have made a pic board running PBASIC, those stamps funded your propeller! Parallax would not have the money they do if they allowed chinese clones to take there market in the beginning, although i do think its time to let that bootloader go open thats there decision. I also hate the some people will just not OS drivers like ati its just not going to happen so RS decides if those drives are in a distro of linux the FSF wont back it. The problem with that is it makes linux a harder landscape for the new commer if they dont get the drivers they need packed into there install.
I understand the FSF philosophy and I do agree with alot of it but sometimes I feel like he wants to take it to such an extreme it acually stifles creativity! I also belive if I invent something I have the right to license it how ever I want, which like I stated above I personally would go OS 9 out of 10, when leveraged properly theres still plenty of money in it. The truth is OS products are used quite a but take firefox for example and people dont even know it, I think OS as a viable model for development and even revenue has proven itself and will only keep growing but more in an orielly open source way than an RS copyleft way, we dont need this extreme guy jamming it down our throats its starting to dominate on its own.
To RS credit he is the great grandady and without him the OS model would not exist in the form it does today, and even though I think he may be a little over the top he is the exact yin to microsoft yang and keeps things in check, the truth of the matter is the best free software model is somewhere in the middle thats not as intemidating as GPLing everything. I personally like GPL but the liscense has some clauses that can cause problems like the clause about it turning non GPL code to GPL. For alot of developers this is probably not a huge issue but if I were running a huge operation it might be.
RS does appear to be extreme at times. However I heard him speak at a university here in Finland a few years back and someone asked if he thought embedded software should be "free software". His answer basically seemed to be that he was OK with closed source embedded software, treating it more like part of the hardware. Up until the point that the the thing had a serious user interface and/or a network connection and so on.
The problem with allowing closed source drivers and such into your open source code is that there is a possibility to develop a dependency on that closed source blob. Such a dependency goes totally against the idea of "free software". At least so far the Linux kernel, while allowing closed source drivers and firmware, has refused to guarantee binary interface (ABI) compatibility over different versions. Such a promise would constitute a dependence on a closed source software.
As for the GPL clauses that "can cause problems like the clause about it turning non GPL code to GPL. " I think this is a non-issue. If the code you are building sits on top of a GPL base then it is clearly a derived work, copyright terms and should be subject to whatever licence terms the author wants, same as using a closed source library. As an example think of the Parallax Propeller Tool which cannot be open sourced for the same reasons. It sits on a closed source editor widget and the author of that won't allow it.
On the other hand if your huge, closed source, commercial, product wants to use some small functionality that is available as GPL code then you probably have the resources to create your own version or purchase something similar from elsewhere.
If you were running a huge operation, or even as small one, you would use open source tools like Linux and all that comes with it to your own benefit with out any problems. In fact it's in your interest to contribute bug fixes and code to such tools and allow the work to be spread around. Everyone benefits.
For you core commercial product, just don't use GPL code. Same way you don't use commercially licensed closed source if you don't want to pay for it and agree to the terms. No one is forcing you to GPL your products.
Finally I'm curious about your assessment of FireFox. Pretty much everyone I know uses it no matter if they are on Windows or Linux, no matter if they are computer nerds or just users. I rarely see anyone using IE except in my bank perhaps.
The way I always heard the story was that Microsoft was never really interested in operating systems, they believed programming languages were their strong suit (and where the money was). They wanted to sell their version of BASIC to IBM. When IBM asked about an operating system Microsoft sent them to Gary Kildall who, as the legend says, "decided to go flying" the day IBM came to call. The actual facts concerning IBM's visit to Digital Research (Kildall's company) are somewhat shrouded in mystery, but basically IBM was unable to make a deal with them due to their unwillingness to sign a non-disclosure agreement. IBM was a little annoyed at this so they returned to Microsoft and offered them the contract to develop an operating system. Microsoft knew a guy named Tim Paterson, who worked at a local mom & pop computer store "Seattle Computer Products", and was aware that he had written a rudimentary (quick and dirty) operating system based on Kildall's C/PM. They immediately paid him a visit and offered to buy the rights to his "QDOS" for $50,000, which he accepted.
Microsoft didn't even bother with the first phase, but they certainly copied Edison's approach to new found technological wealth.
Frankly, I think the days of the boy genius are over. It is getting nigh on impossible to build anything in a garage of real significance. And there will likely be a bevy of lawyers to shout down and claims of originality.
Google still seems to at least be trying to 'do no evil'.
China is a tough adversary and top predator.
Perhaps. In days gone by the new United States of America also totally ignored any kind of IP laws from the old Europe. Copyrights Bah!
Ok so lets use Parallax as an example of just how open sourcing could help a company, and become a business model to make more revenue.
So Parallax has made there fortune on the basic stamp, which has been around since I learned Qbasic in 96! Its OLDDD!!! Anyways the capital they have made from the BS2 has enabled them to do GREAT THINGS, I LOVE THIS COMPANY!! These things include there educational kits, which my poor a** can download all the books for and use with free samples from TI and National! They made the propeller with there bs2 fortune, this micro is so powerful and cheap also has free edu material supporting it!! So it was a good idea for them to go fully commercial with the Bs2 as its created enough capitol to give them the momentum to keep going forward.
BUT the Bs2 is aging and really only useful as an educational tool, for smaller hobby projects, or as a support controller to offload some of the work the bigger controller is doing(this is my interest in it). I think this would be a perfect case where a company should take ID Software lead and just GPL there older stuff, In this case it would work even better for Parallax than it did for ID. So they key is Parallax makes alot of money selling there Boards, the Bs2 BoE, HWboard, Carrier boards all that stuff. Now if the PBASIC Interpreter went OS anyone could cheaply get a PIC and build there own dev board, like you can with the propeller. But in most cases even those capable of doing that like myself would usually rather buy a pre-made board, 40 compared to 10 + labor and time, when I have the money Ill spend the 40 dollars for a Bs2 and 30 for a propeller protoboard anyday if im just messing around prototyping an idea. So that means even with an OS PBASIC Parallax will most likely keep selling there Bs2 boards to the educational/hobby market as usuall, not losing money and they get to say OS like arduino that makes people smile! So now lets say I invent something I use a Propeller or Arm MCU but I also use a Bs2 as its quick and easy to implement a feature I dont wanna crowed the big mcu's pins or memmory with. I sell this product in volume, Im able to get my PICs for 50 cents and burn PBASIC on them for free in this OS dream. Well Parallax has not lost money on me becuase I am only using PBASIC because its easy and cheap, take one of those out its not a good fit. At the current rate of 40 bucks for a Bs2 module 16 for a pic with the PBASIC Interpreter loaded on it its just not worth it a Bs2 will never be in a commercial project. Ok so now this OS PBASIC is in my huge volume project (which parallax hasnt lost $$ on, these chips at closed source prices just arent viable for volume projects) and Im lovin life getting interviewed by eevblog, amphour, eeweb, all that stuff. During those interviews I talk about my decision to use Bs2 for this or that and then people realize hey the Bs2 is a platform they can use to develop things and sell them. So now these aspiring entrapaneurs come to Parallax and buy there Bs2 BOEs and stamps in the classroom kits etc etc, maybe these people also learn about the propeller and buy up that! So by open sourcing PBASIC Parallax has now sold even more premade hardware and books keeping the platform alive and strong as the easiest 8bit mcu to work with that you could acually create sellable products with. Thats is why I belive in the OS model there is always a way to leverage OS and still make cash if not more! This is only about the buisness side theres still the whole community update side which is a much better model than lets say MS once a month windows updates....
As far as CP/M goes maybe im wrong but I always heard Gary was late to the meeting so MS snatched up IBMs backing on dos which meant ms could sell ms-dos for way less and give it away with IBMs while CP/M sat on the shelf at 100 bucks, and thats how CP/M died. The worst part is im sure gates was kindalls friend before he stabed digital research in the back! As far as MS interest in the OS market they were licensing xenix since 81 so im sure theyd always had there eye on dominating the OS market not just the compiler market!