| |||||||||||||
generic vs closed platformsgeneric vs closed platformsPosted Jan 18, 2012 11:00 UTC (Wed) by fb (subscriber, #53265)Parent article: LCA: Addressing the failure of open source
Bruce talked about:
> a strong trend away from generic platforms, toward proprietary, locked-down platforms. In the end, we will be left with nowhere to run free systems, and only jail environments for applications.
For computers to start being part of every aspect of our lives, not only the price has to go down but also the complexity of using it.
I believe that the simplicity and assurance trade-off that comes with the 'walled garden' of iPhones and Kindles is a net positive for most users. I'm not saying that there aren't bad points to it, just saying it is a 'net positive'
The counter example is HTC that started providing means to unlock the bootloader of its most recent phones, and Samsung that hired Cyanogen from CyanogenMod to make sure it worked on all of their phones. So perhaps, the hacking niche may also turn out to be large enough to be worth supporting (to some extent).
(Log in to post comments)
generic vs closed platforms Posted Jan 18, 2012 12:19 UTC (Wed) by oever (subscriber, #987) [Link]
Let me first say that I am a strong proponent of FOSS, which is also why I subscribe to LWN. At the moment, I have an iPad at home because I am porting my software WebODF to it. The point of that is to make it easier with people that have chosen for a closed product to still use open document formats.
While I support FOSS, especially as a long term goal, I have found that it is hard to explain the advantages because most people simply lack the ability for abstract thinking required to comprehend it. An iPad has a ton of software that allows you to do many things that you cannot do with other systems, simply because the software is not available to these systems. In the short term, that makes the iPad more free for many of the things that people want to do! (freedom: the ability to do what you want to do and say what you want to say). I have browsed through the app store and testing out some of the free applications there. The content dwarfs even debian. However, testing the programs is fine, looking at how they work or improving them is not. You cannot even install software in an iPad without a developer license.
To compete with this enormous repertoire of free and cheap software at a (currently) small price in terms of money and freedom is hard. Apps are striking a chord and I think FOSS can compete if we adapt our ecossystem to make it easy to develop apps and use them anywhere. By apps, I mean small tools that do one thing right, run on mobile devices that people have and look nice and are easy to use. Android is a reasonable choice if the google market is replaced with a community driven alternative. Another option might come from Mozilla: apps for the browser and a mobile operating system based on it.
Sorry for the exclamation mark, I thought it was appropriate.
generic vs closed platforms Posted Jan 18, 2012 15:08 UTC (Wed) by pj (subscriber, #4506) [Link]
Agreed, app stores bring the rest of the world up to debian c.1998 (in terms of ease of installation), and it's a nice thing, don't get me wrong.
I tend to use the terms 'vendor lock-in' and 'walled garden' in connection with proprietary app stores, and then point out to people that "hey, yeah, there's an app for that... but VendorX won't let it be in their appstore". This gets them on the road to thinking about the things their phone _could_ do, but _isn't allowed to_ by their vendor.... and that way lies FOSS. :)
generic vs closed platforms Posted Jan 18, 2012 17:25 UTC (Wed) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
> While I support FOSS, especially as a long term goal, I have found that it is hard to explain the advantages because most people simply lack the ability for abstract thinking required to comprehend it.
Well, you just have to see that there are much fewer advantages for people who can't programme. Despite hand-waving about how people can group together and pay programmers to improve free software, in practice most small-scale users can't get enough cash together for that, so they are just switching their dependency from proprietary developers to free software ones. Bearing in mind here that the proprietary developers tend to have a certain dependency on the cash-flow coming from users, while free software developers are often doing the thing for the fun of it, and making users happy is a lower priority. Granted, if they have a problem any free software developer can help them with it, but my feeling is that there is a short supply of sufficiently altruistic ones.
Perhaps a way of improving this would be finding more ways in which non-developers can meaningfully contribute to free software, or at least lower the bar to entry. On the one hand that would make free software more fun for them - and I think that fun is a much understated reason why people use free software - and on the other it would make programmers keener to keep them happy.
generic vs closed platforms Posted Jan 18, 2012 18:32 UTC (Wed) by jrn (subscriber, #64214) [Link]
> Perhaps a way of improving this would be finding more ways in which non developers can meaningfully contribute to free software, or at least lower the bar to entry. On the one hand that would make free software more fun for them - and I think that fun is a much understated reason why people use free software - and on the other it would make programmers keener to keep them happy.
Bug reporting was traditionally one way. While bug reports in general don't seem to be in short supply these days, good ones still are.
generic vs closed platforms Posted Jan 19, 2012 5:10 UTC (Thu) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]
One problem with that: developers willing to accept good bug reports are also in short supply. The clever ones tend to become disinterested pretty fast.
generic vs closed platforms Posted Jan 19, 2012 9:36 UTC (Thu) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
> Bug reporting was traditionally one way. While bug reports in general don't seem to be in short supply these days, good ones still are.
Actually I have to admit that despite my own "hand-waving" talk above, I haven't quite given up on the idea of people getting together to offer software bounties, if the right conditions can be had. I'm actively considering trying to set up a portal for that, based on the idea that the task set should be based around a bug ticket on a project's bug tracker (so that project developers can review it and have their say/give their advice before people start putting in money, and can guide the person doing the work) and that the bounty is a bonus to the person doing the work, but almost certainly not their main motivation (perhaps they are also affected by a bug, or want to get to know a project's codebase better or to gain new experience...)
generic vs closed platforms Posted Jan 19, 2012 10:18 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]
> the proprietary developers tend to have a certain dependency on the
> cash-flow coming from users, while free software developers are often > doing the thing for the fun of it, and making users happy is a lower > priority.
An argument that I use in business environments: open source software might care less about happiness of its users, but it will be around much longer. Since my customers have all had the experience of important proprietary tools being abandoned within a company, or sold to some other company, or being closed down during some A&M, or being not further supported owing to some other management decision, this doesn't happen to open source products as often.
And this has been a selling point for many contracts.
It's not quite clear to me if and how that argument can be migrated to situation of private software use, but it might be a pointer towards a possible direction.
I think martinfick offered great metaphor... Posted Jan 19, 2012 10:29 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] It's not quite clear to me if and how that argument can be migrated to situation of private software use, but it might be a pointer towards a possible direction. I think martinfick offered great metaphor: when you use proprietary software you are living in a rented apartment, when you use FOSS you live in your own house. This covers pluses and minuses very well, indeed. Proprietary software is supported by it's owner till it thinks it's good business - just like most problems with your rented apartment are solved by landlord, not by you... if it makes business sense. Free software is yours - and if there are probems with plumbing you may deicde to contract someone (this will be distributors) to fix that, or if you don't know anyone who'll do it "just right" you can do it yourself. People know difference between rent and ownership very well, indeed. IMNSHO it's much, MUCH, MUCH better anologue then slavery accusations by free software proponents.
I think martinfick offered great metaphor... Posted Jan 19, 2012 10:58 UTC (Thu) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
> Free software is yours - and if there are probems with plumbing you may deicde to contract someone (this will be distributors) to fix that, or if you don't know anyone who'll do it "just right" you can do it yourself.
Except that coming back to my original point, chances that the home owner will be able to fix the plumbing themselves or find someone to do it at an affordable price are pretty good. Chances that a non-programmer will be able to fix a bug in their free software themselves or find someone to do it at an affordable price are much lower, so they are much more dependent on the good will of others for their software fixes than said home owner for their plumbing.
I think martinfick offered great metaphor... Posted Jan 19, 2012 18:06 UTC (Thu) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106) [Link]
>Chances that a non-programmer will be able to fix a bug in their free software themselves or find someone to do it at an affordable price are much lower, so they are much more dependent on the good will of others for their software fixes than said home owner for their plumbing.
This is, surely, merely due to the youth of the market. It should change as open source becomes more 'normal' for average people.
I think martinfick offered great metaphor... Posted Jan 19, 2012 20:17 UTC (Thu) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link]
> Except that coming back to my original point, chances that the home owner
> will be able to fix the plumbing themselves or find someone to do it at an > affordable price are pretty good. Chances that a non-programmer will be > able to fix a bug in their free software themselves or find someone to do > it at an affordable price are much lower, so they are much more dependent > on the good will of others for their software fixes than said home owner > for their plumbing.
You really think you can get a plumber to fix your pipes cheaper than you can get a freelance/contract programmer to fix some open source bug for you? Either you've got incredibly cheap plumbers locally, or incredibly overpriced programmers! Or, you're really talking about more than fixing a simple bug, and instead talking about major functional changes; in which case, you need to change your plumber scenario to the cost of ripping out and installing all new pipes throughout the house...
I think martinfick offered great metaphor... Posted Jan 20, 2012 8:20 UTC (Fri) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
> You really think you can get a plumber to fix your pipes cheaper than you can get a freelance/contract programmer to fix some open source bug for you? Either you've got incredibly cheap plumbers locally, or incredibly overpriced programmers!
I must admit that I live in rented accommodation, so perhaps I just don't appreciate the prices. But if I may call your bluff, can you point me to the web site of a reasonably priced programming shop that will fix bugs in free software for the average person?
I think martinfick offered great metaphor... Posted Jan 20, 2012 11:29 UTC (Fri) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link]
There are various web sites that hook people up with freelance programmers to work on various projects:
http://www.guru.com/
But, you could probably find someone willing and more capable of doing it right on the project's official mailing list or something! And, let's be truthful here: most of the time, you aren't even going to need to pay them a cent to fix the bug, because they'll WANT to fix it... However, if they won't, you do have plenty of options to get it fixed...
I think martinfick offered great metaphor... Posted Jan 20, 2012 13:34 UTC (Fri) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
> There are various web sites that hook people up with freelance programmers to work on various projects: [...]
I will have a look at those when I have time to try to work out what a typical bug-fix (if there is such a thing) would cost. I would expect it to be quite high, since unless you find programmers already familiar with the project you want a fix for you have all the overhead of the programmer understanding what you want, understanding the problem and getting to grips with the code before they can even begin fixing, and the overhead of communicating with the project owners to get the fix accepted afterwards (always harder than one would naively expect, unless one has been in the shoes of the project owners before).
> But, you could probably find someone willing and more capable of doing it right on the project's official mailing list or something! And, let's be truthful here: most of the time, you aren't even going to need to pay them a cent to fix the bug, because they'll WANT to fix it...
I certainly know that we (VirtualBox) have lots and lots of open bug tickets that no one has ever even found time to look at. And I thought that we were better than average, but perhaps I am wrong there.
I think martinfick offered great metaphor... Posted Jan 20, 2012 14:08 UTC (Fri) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link]
> and the overhead of communicating with the project owners to get the fix
> accepted afterwards (always harder than one would naively expect, unless > one has been in the shoes of the project owners before).
I had kind of assumed that in the case of needing to go to an outside party to get your fixes, that this step wouldn't even be done... Ie: upstream wasn't interested in this fix (or doesn't see it as a "fix" for anything), so you're effectively taking on your own fork...
> I certainly know that we (VirtualBox) have lots and lots of open bug
Sure... But, if someone posted that they considered one bug in particular to be VERY serious for them, and they were willing to pay you to fix it, don't you think that might spur you into tackling it?
I think martinfick offered great metaphor... Posted Jan 20, 2012 14:37 UTC (Fri) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
> Ie: upstream wasn't interested in this fix (or doesn't see it as a "fix" for anything), so you're effectively taking on your own fork...
That means that you are either foregoing all future fixes to the software or that you are willing to pay for future maintenance of your branch - how much do your local plumbers charge?
> Sure... But, if someone posted that they considered one bug in particular to be VERY serious for them, and they were willing to pay you to fix it, don't you think that might spur you into tackling it?
Almost everyone considers their particular bug to be very serious, some even telling us that it makes the product unusable (even if no one else has ever hit it and told us) and that it is not acceptable that we don't fix it immediately. A few do suggest paying us, but we would have a conflict of interest if we took their money for a fix done on work time (maybe even out of work time?) and I am usually not convinced enough that someone would put forward enough money to make it worth sacrificing precious free time for the job - my feeling is that they tend to be thinking of one or two hundred Euros, which by the time you have fixed the problem and done proper quality assurance on the fix (not to mention administrative overhead for freelance work, as I'm not currently working freelance on other things) is too little money.
I think martinfick offered great metaphor... Posted Jan 20, 2012 15:09 UTC (Fri) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link]
> That means that you are either foregoing all future fixes to the software
Lots of people are perfectly content (even happier) running out-of-date software... Look at RHEL/CentOS... As long as you've got the important fixes, especially those that actually matter to you, many are happy to live without whatever new features (and most likely new bugs) newer versions bring... Yes, there may be some fixes in there, as well; if they're important enough, they can be ported into the local version, and you can surely find someone to do it...
> how much do your local plumbers charge?
A lot... But, the point is: much like plumbing problems, hopefully the need to do future software fixes will be a fairly rare thing... Yes, if you're using a bleeding-edge version of actively developed software, it's obviously going to continue having new bugs to deal with... But, an old stable product? Hopefully, you won't run into many very often, just as your pipes hopefully won't spring new leaks every week...
> Almost everyone considers their particular bug to be very serious
Don't I know it... But, far fewer truly care enough about it to put up (much) money to fix it... You're probably right that most of them wouldn't pay enough to even make it tempting... But, that in no way implies that someone couldn't pay to get it fixed if they truly wanted to and were willing to spend the money on it... It may not be cheap, but then neither will that plumber's visit or that auto mechanic's bill... And, unlike those, there's a really good chance you might just possibly find someone willing to fix it for you absolutely free, simply for the joy of coding...
I think martinfick offered great metaphor... Posted Jan 20, 2012 15:43 UTC (Fri) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
> But, that in no way implies that someone couldn't pay to get it fixed if they truly wanted to and were willing to spend the money on it...
People really willing to spend the money are often well-served by support contracts. But due to the way that they let/make private users pool their money together (game theory anyone?) I think that proprietary projects have the edge on affordable fixes for those people - and an incentive to actively look for and make those fixes. See also [1] though for my other ideas on the subject.
I think martinfick offered great metaphor... Posted Jan 20, 2012 16:08 UTC (Fri) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link]
> I think that proprietary projects have the edge on affordable fixes for those people
Possibly, in some cases... But, there's also the possibility that the proprietary software company just doesn't want to fix your particular issue for whatever reason (they don't see it as a bug, or are worried fixing it might break compatability, or whatever)... In that case, you're completely out of luck, unless you can find someone good with a disassembler and hacking assembly code these days (and willing to break the law to do so, since that's probably illegal)... With open source, at least you have the option to go elsewhere for your fix, if you should deem it important enough to do so...
As for your other comment about the bug bounty, I think that's a great idea... It'd be cool to see a little "Donate towards getting this bug fixed!" button on every open bug tracking entry... I don't know how many would do it, but I suspect the popular ones would get quite a few people throwing a few bucks at it... Of course, it might also encourage less scrupulous programmers from adding in bugs deliberately only to claim the bounties on them later... But, hopefully that'd be seen through fairly quickly, especially in an open source project... More likely, I suspect it would encourage new contributors to join in trying to fix the popular bugs, which can only really be a good thing...
I think martinfick offered great metaphor... Posted Jan 20, 2012 16:47 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
as someone who has paid for custom fixed and patches to opensource code, I'll say that getting a major change done to opensource code is significantly cheaper than getting any change done to proprietary code (through professional services).
it's not as cheap as a plumber fixing a clogged drain, but the costs compared to getting changes and fixes in proprietary code are still much lower
I think martinfick offered great metaphor... Posted Jan 20, 2012 17:03 UTC (Fri) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link]
> it's not as cheap as a plumber fixing a clogged drain
People call plumbers for that? Other than Liquid Plumber, I mean? ;-)
I was thinking more along the lines of repairing/replacing a busted/leaking pipe in my comparison...
generic vs closed platforms Posted Jan 18, 2012 19:53 UTC (Wed) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
> While I support FOSS, especially as a long term goal, I have found that it is hard to explain the advantages because most people simply lack the ability for abstract thinking required to comprehend it.
It's not that hard, if you use proprietary software, you are simply renting or borrowing it. Just like renting an apartment, you likely shouldn't reroute the plumbing if you don't like it. And like borrowing a friend's car (even if for free), you shouldn't modify it to go 200MPH if you can...
So when you "buy" an Ipad, you really aren't buying it; you are renting it by paying a lump sum up front. In some cases your lease can be terminated at any moment without reimbursement of that lump sum. Sounds like a great deal huh? :)
I think the fact that most people don't really care if it is a good deal is very similar to the fact the most people don't care if they have massive consumer debt and are paying 20%APR on their credit cards... I wonder what the correlation between apple products and consumer debt is (after all, most people likely underwent a credit check to purchase an iphone)?
generic vs closed platforms Posted Jan 18, 2012 20:40 UTC (Wed) by fb (subscriber, #53265) [Link]
> So when you "buy" an Ipad, you really aren't buying it; you are renting it by paying a lump sum up front. In some cases your lease can be terminated at any moment without reimbursement of that lump sum. Sounds like a great deal huh? :)
Ok, so you tell that to your neighbor. He says: "my oh my, say Martin, I was planning to buy a tablet. You convinced me not to get the iPad. Which one should I buy? Which one won't leave me alone in the rain?
And then? What would you answer?
- I mean that Motorola Xoom was only a 'Google device' in the USA (UK also?). IIRC Everywhere else it had a locked bootloader.
Or just tell him not to buy any tablet, since (AFAIK) there really isn't one that fulfills FOSS liberties?
> I think the fact that most people don't really care if it is a good deal is very similar to the fact the most people don't care if they have massive consumer debt and are paying 20%APR on their credit cards...
Look I support FOSS as much as everyone else here.
Seriously, who do you think is making the most accurate risk assessment? You or the folks buying closed software?
How frequently does the nightmare stories that FOSS proponents like to bring forward actually happen w.r.t. proprietary software?
What is the actual likelihood that Amazon will delete books from my Kindles (I own 2)? I mean divide some estimate of all digital books Amazon has sold ('licensed' if you wish) by the number of Orwell novels that were deleted, and multiply that by some "guess-timate" of the likelihood that they will do this again.
generic vs closed platforms Posted Jan 18, 2012 21:29 UTC (Wed) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
> Ok, so you tell that to your neighbor. He says: "my oh my, say Martin, I was planning to buy a tablet. You convinced me not to get the iPad. Which one should I buy? Which one won't leave me alone in the rain?
Hey I wasn't trying to convince anyone not to buy an iPad, I was just trying to give you a more accurate way of describing the action of buying an iPad versus the action of buying an open source tablet. In one case you are renting, in the other you are buying. It's up to them if they appreciate the benefits of one over the other.
I suspect that if more people thought about using proprietary software as renting that fewer people would do it, but that doesn't mean that I am implying that those who still would rent are wrong. I own a house, I don't rent, renting makes sense for plenty of people.
You believe that buying an open source tablet is currently hard, it may be, but there are options, you just need to research them if you care. Sometimes it is hard to buy things and sometimes you are better off renting. I suspect that most people think that renting expensive tools is a good idea instead of buying them. But I also suspect that few people rent tools for any extended period of time outside of computers/software, perhaps because they don't really yet see that they are renting it?
> How frequently does the nightmare stories that FOSS proponents like to bring forward actually happen w.r.t. proprietary software?
I don't know about nightmare stories, but I know that I certainly encounter real problems which are specific to the fact that the software is not open source almost anytime I have to rely on proprietary software: I cannot easily fix a pet peeve, I cannot easily install it somewhere else, it becomes obsolete with no upgrade path, it annoys me with license agreements, it plasters marketing material all over itself, it cares more about the needs of the software maker then mine, it gathers more data about me, it costs more money (over and over and over again), it rarely is nicely integrated with other software on my computer/device. Of course, since I rarely rely on proprietary software, it would be hard for it to cause a nightmare story for me, that is the point no? I also didn't ever have any nightmare stories renting apartments in the past, but there were enough small problems that I currently prefer to own, but this doesn't mean that I usually begrudge those who rent (unless they are intolerant of my desire to own, or have habits which make it harder for me to do so).
I think this is much better analogue :-) Posted Jan 18, 2012 22:05 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] I suspect that if more people thought about using proprietary software as renting that fewer people would do it, but that doesn't mean that I am implying that those who still would rent are wrong. I own a house, I don't rent, renting makes sense for plenty of people. I like this analogue much better then slavery word thrown around. When you buy iPad or proprietary software then you don't own the device - you only own the right to use it... till the real owner (Apple, Microsoft, whatever) will decide that you no longer deserve such right. But it's really your choice: you can continue to pay the rent, buy new versions, constantly upgrade hardware for no good reason - or you can choose the software which you own and which you can continue to keep in working order even if original developers abandoned it. Now, sometimes it's perfectly fine to rent things. You don't own them, you know the real owner have the right to ask them back - but they work and you can live with that. And in many cases rent price is low enough - but you can always keep in mind that landlord can dicide to raise it and just throw you out. Thus sometimes it's obviously wrong choice. In particular I'm much less picky with creator's software (I can buy and use proprietary filer for videoeditor, for example), but I ubsolutely detest situation when I need to rent player, too. That's why I've stopped using MS Office long ago: I can not own it and consequently I can not be sure I own my own documents till I test them all in LibreOffice. And if I test them in LibreOffice then it's simpler to just use LibreOffice from the start. But other proprietary tools (like VTune) are perfectly Ok: if they'll become unavailable (because I decide to buy AMD-based system, for example) then I'll lose valuable tool, but all the things I've gotten till now from using it will be available to me.
I think this is much better analogue :-) Posted Jan 19, 2012 9:27 UTC (Thu) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
> I like this analogue much better then slavery word thrown around.
Very strongly seconded. Even some of the ways the word "freedom" is used in free software circles make me feel very uneasy.
generic vs closed platforms Posted Jan 19, 2012 5:46 UTC (Thu) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link]
> What is the actual likelihood that Amazon will delete books from my Kindles (I own 2)?
The odds they will suddenly delete your content? Probably low. But consider this: Every Plays for Sure track sold by Walmart, Yahoo! and Microsoft is now dead. Every Divx disc sold by Circuit City is deader than Circuit City.
The AZW format currently used by the Kindle will eventually be abandoned for ePub and someday Amazon will abandon support for the 'legacy' format in a future product line. Assuming they even continue making hardware long term in the first place. And when Amazon abandons AZW, just remember that it is illegal for anyone else to crack one open. Thee and me would know where to go to fix that, most folks won't.
And that is why investing in closed systems is usually a losing game. Unless you only care to use the content RIGHT NOW and couldn't care less that it has no future you should avoid DRM and other closed systems. So Netflix is ok, closed books aren't. I didn't buy a DVD until Mplayer gained support. No I didn't have a PC hooked to the TV at the time, but why buy into a sealed ecosystem?
Small correction Posted Jan 19, 2012 8:18 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Every Divx disc sold by Circuit City is deader than Circuit City. This is not true. Back then "content providers" still felt they have some obligations thus all Divx players were unlocked before Circuit City went out of business. Later entrants often have not bothered to offer anything similar: in the cases where they thought about the problem at all it was your resposibility to save your collection, not theirs. P.S. I've started buying DVDs after DVD Decrypter was released - think it happened before MPlayer added DVD support. I'm not picky: I dont' mind DRM as long as I have a way to circumvent it.
generic vs closed platforms Posted Jan 19, 2012 9:29 UTC (Thu) by fb (subscriber, #53265) [Link]
> And that is why investing in closed systems is usually a losing game. Unless you only care to use the content RIGHT NOW and couldn't care less that it has no future you should avoid DRM and other closed systems.
> Unless you only care to use the content RIGHT NOW and couldn't care less that it has no future you should avoid DRM and other closed systems.
You know whats the problem with your assessment? The only value proposition, risk and cost you are willing to factor in is the DRM.
On the example of books w/ DRM:
Right now the only way to get most books digitally is WITH DRM. So therein lies a risk, and the portability issue (between e-readers). But that is yet another factor in the equation of the value proposition between digital-books with DRM and paper books.
For one, the storage of paper books have costs. Paper books have no DRM-risk but are subject to other risks (mold, water, fire, one's kid ripping it off). Carrying books have costs (when moving to a new house, or when going on vacation).
Why don't you factor the risk of a paper book getting molded, lost or stolen when you assess the DRM risk?
Why don't you factor in the cost of storing books? The odds that I will have to give up my books because I simply can't store them anymore?
We are back to "rent v own" question... Posted Jan 19, 2012 10:19 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Why don't you factor the risk of a paper book getting molded, lost or stolen when you assess the DRM risk? I think rent/own analogue covers all these cases succinctly. If you own the book (be it physical or electronic one without DRM) then you and you alone are resposible for their future (if you can not afford to keep them or lose them dues to negligence then it's your problem - but on the flip side they can never be recalled or destroyed without your consent), if you rent it (and you can not buy DRMed book, you can only rent it) then you are limited in what you can do with it, but the losses are also covered by the real owner (you can usually readownload DRMed book on different device easily). The more I think the more I like the explanation of FOSS as when you use proprietary software you are living in a rented apartment, when you use FOSS you live in your own house: this simple analogue covers almost all the differences in one short sentence. Proprietary software is not slavery (because you can always decide to not use it, after all), but it sure does not feel like an ownership.
generic vs closed platforms Posted Jan 19, 2012 23:27 UTC (Thu) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
> Right now the only way to get most books digitally is WITH DRM
There are companies like 1DollarScan and Bookscan that will scan your physical books and give you digital copies. Or you can do it yourself, of course. Either way, it's legal and you won't have to deal with DRM.
generic vs closed platforms Posted Jan 20, 2012 0:21 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
there are also publishers (like Baen) that sell e-books without DRM.
however the 'big 6' publishers are all making the same mistakes with e-books that the big music publishers did several years ago. they haven't yet gotten to the point of suing their customers, but if they keep making the same stupid mistakes they should start doing so in a couple of years.
generic vs closed platforms Posted Jan 20, 2012 8:15 UTC (Fri) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
This isn't true.
The only way to *legally* get *certain* books, is with DRM. There is no lack of legal books sold without DRM, and there is no lack of illegal books without DRM.
generic vs closed platforms Posted Jan 20, 2012 12:24 UTC (Fri) by fb (subscriber, #53265) [Link] To my knowledge, most books are only available with DRM. Note that I am aware of Baen, and O'Reilly.There is a real lack of DRM-free books. There may be no lack of such for sci-fi or computing titles, but -to the best of my knowledge- most fiction (still under copyright) is only available with DRM. Trust me, for languages other than English the situation is even worse. How many books from the last 30 Nobel prize of literature winners are available DRM-free? (Heck, how many of the books written by the winners of any Nobel prize in the last 30 years are available DRM-free?) If you are US-minded, from the last 30 Pulitzer prize winners, how many books are available DRM-free?
generic vs closed platforms Posted Jan 18, 2012 19:12 UTC (Wed) by dbruce (subscriber, #57948) [Link]
>Bruce talked about:
>> a strong trend away from generic platforms, toward proprietary, locked-down platforms. In the end, we will be left with nowhere to run free systems, and only jail environments for applications.
This worries me, too. I'm old enough to have first learned that a computer was a machine used by programmers to write and run programs. When desktop computers became everyday office and consumer appliances, there was no longer the expectation that the user would be a programmer, and most of these machines no longer even had the tools and libraries required to write software. Still, these were general-purpose computers that most certainly could be used for programming with some additional software.
Fast-forwarding to the present, the public is increasingly preferring to use a smartphone, tablet, or game console instead of a "computer". We all know these are all computers, but the public doesn't see it that way and doesn't expect these devices to be arbitrarily configurable or programmable.
So I think we are coming full circle - specialized devices are being used for specific applications, and the general-purpose computer is once again going to be just for programmers. I don't see it can really disappear, as there has to be a way to write code for all the specialized gadgets. Maybe OSS will come to dominate the desktop once the desktop is nothing more than a small niche for developers, kind of like how Linux already runs nearly all the world's fastest supercomputers.
|
|||||||||||||