begin oe_protect.scr
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Thursday 29 June 2006 10:25 \__
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Thursday 29 June 2006 08:27 \__
>>>
>>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>> (A reverse-engineering project)
>>>>>
>>>>> Gnash, the free Flash player, makes progress
>>>>>
>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>>| The Gnash project has been developing a free software Flash player
>>>>>| since December. Filling one of the last major gaps on the GNU/Linux
>>>>>| desktop, it is one of the Free Software Foundation's high-priority
>>>>>| projects.
>>>>> `----
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> http://software.newsforge.com/software/06/06/20/1855200.shtml?tid=130
>>>>>
>>>>> Flash 9 will be coming to Linux as well.
>>>>
>>>> I like the idea of an open player - this could be reallly useful going
>>>> forward, particularly the integration potential with opengl and so on.
>>>> I'd still like to see some good, open-source, opengl drivers for nvidia,
>>>> but they're not here yet...
>>>
>>> What I'd love to see is a GPL manufacturer whose niche is Open Source
>>> O/Sen. Such a manufacturer could release a decent graphics cards that
>>> provide code rather than binary-form drivers. Whether it can compete in
>>> terms of performance is the big question. There is place for re-use.
>>> Think, for example, about Sun's Open Source (and GPL'd) CPU design.
>>> Design, however, unlike code, needs some machinery. It cannot be
>>> duplicated like software,
>>>
>>
>> It's the manufacturing costs which are the problem. Production runs of
>> millions are needed to get such costs down. Nvidia are probably
>> terrified that someone will choose to do this, as it would take the OSS
>> world by storm. Having said that, I guess they could just open their
>> driver.
>
> Maybe we can use the vaporware tactics of Microsoft, IBM, and SAP to have
> Nvidia deliver the source as a result. Somehow, I doubt it'll be that easy.
> (I am sarcastic here) When you come to think about it, almost any Open
> Source initiative is causing the proprietary world to follow suit. Examples:
>
> -Web search is free
> -Third-party E-mail offers gigabytes of storage space
> -Office adopts XML, as useless as that XML schema (no implementation) may be
> -Sun embraces Open Source (Java, GPL'd processor design, etc.)
> -Oracle, IBM, Unisys and others use GNU/Linux
> -Alternative Xara Extreme released as a GPL fork/derivative
> -Netscape throws code at the community
> -Companies convert to Open Source development models or deliver free code
> while relying on support-based income
> -...
The open-source route is removing the lock-in aspect of most deals,
causing the original vendor to *lose* one source of income, however,
what's being increasingly recognised is that the open-source route also
causes vendors to *lose* one source of costs, which is software
maintenance & development (at least to the degree that others take part
in their development work). Thus, costs can be shared across multiple
interested parties, thus margins can be maintained, but in different
ways.
Another way of looking at it is that open-source significantly reduces
the initial start-up costs and the longer-term maintenance costs to
vendors/writers, thus means that in the variable cost model, the design
cost is reduced significantly, and the manufacturing cost (in software,
this is only maintenance) is also reduced.
>
> You name it. There are plenty more, but I just don't wish to pause and
> wonder...
>
Start to think about this too long and we'll realise how far we've come
in the last 10-15 years...
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
"Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!"
-- Monty Python and the Holy Grail
|
|
