Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system
Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system
Posted Jan 22, 2024 12:24 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433)In reply to: Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system by khim
Parent article: Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system
> > They should be obliged to pay and care for their employees. (For all(!) of them!)
I'm planning to write into my code for Scarlet, a royalty-free licence for Ladybridge software to use any and all of my Scarlet code. Doing exactly what you say I shouldn't - giving a company a free pass!
The reason is dead simple. They donated the original code base that became Scarlet. Why *shouldn't* I donate back, IN GRATITUDE, if I want to!
(There's another reason too - I'm learning the hard way why companies don't like Open Source software). If Scarlet does collapse - and I have no intention of letting it do so - all the users will have the CHOICE of moving to the commercial version if they want to. I'M PROTECTING MY USERS.
Cheers,
Wol
Posted Jan 23, 2024 16:04 UTC (Tue)
by spacefrogg (subscriber, #119608)
[Link] (21 responses)
Let me repeat, it is bad for society if companies are allowed to give stuff away for free, because this creates a situation where people easily get dependent on the free stuff. At some point it is (wonders of the capitalism) not free anymore, but people still depend on it. We have already discovered this to be a worse situation than enforcing proper sales rules right from the beginning.
I don't understand how programmers really think they are inventing something radically new, here. No, "free stuff" has long been discovered before the first computer program was ever written. And there are rules for how to deal with that as a society, for a reason. All this is really not that hard to comprehend, once you replace MY_FAVORITE_SW with a physical product.
Creating a dependence on a company-owned product by giving it away for free is not okay.
Posted Jan 23, 2024 16:41 UTC (Tue)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (18 responses)
> Companies are not people!
Who says? I know the guy pretty well (well, as well as you can know someone over the internet).
> Let me repeat, it is bad for society if companies are allowed to give stuff away for free,
Okay. Let's ban free stuff. Let's ban all Open Source software, let's ban all Free Software, let's ban Barn Raising, let's ban what we call American Suppers, let's make caring for your neighbour a criminal offence!
Scarlet is Free Software. And if I choose to express my gratitude to the PERSON who released it under the GPL, that's down to ME, not you.
And if I choose to protect my users by giving them the CHOICE to go back to him, if they so want, as their upstream then that's down to ME, not you. Are you REALLY saying it's for the best to expose my users to a bus factor of one, so if anything happens they're up shit creek without a paddle?
Free Software is all about CHOICE, and this is MY choice, not yours!
Cheers,
Posted Jan 23, 2024 16:57 UTC (Tue)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (17 responses)
I think they were arguing against large companies releasing free (as in beer) software as loss-leaders, to destroy value in markets and hurt any competition, and try gain (or hold) some monopoly position for themselves. Typically, where a company can succeed in this - i.e. the company with the deepest pockets, and the most ability to subsidise the loss-leader from revenue from other markets - it will later use that to gouge consumers in some way, be it by prices on the product directly or using control over the free product to force consumers into other paid products. Once monopoly has been created, investment tends to decrease, people working on it tend to become complacent - quality of the product also tends to suffer and/or innovation declines.
As an example, remember Microsoft and Netscape? MS bought a browser, bundled it for free into Windows - all paid for by their Windows and Office licensing revenue - and thus destroyed Netscape's ability to earn revenue.
MS eventually faced anti-trust actions, and lost.
Posted Jan 23, 2024 18:05 UTC (Tue)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (4 responses)
... did they really lose?
After all, the legal penalties they were eventually saddled with were even less than a slap on the wrist compared to the direct and indirect profits they made.
Posted Jan 23, 2024 18:41 UTC (Tue)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
They were important to make Chrome viable, although I'm not sure whether this should be considered success or not.
Posted Jan 24, 2024 10:33 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (2 responses)
If not for that, Internet history could be quite different.
Posted Jan 24, 2024 14:30 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (1 responses)
They lost _on paper_ but by that point they long since accomplished what they set out to do, and are _still_ reaping the benefits. The fines they faced were a pittance, and the "default browser ballot" BS was per formative nonsense, because by that point IE was intimately tied into the entire MS business software ecosystem and _completely_ owned the corporate desktop + backend.
(What eventually broke that wasn't the browser ballot, but the rise of the modern smartphone)
> They had to unbundle IE too and give other browser equal opportunity to be the default browser.
Um, IE _never_ ceased to be bundled with MS Windows. It is a core component of Windows. [1] At best, the only thing "removed" was the icon that launched the "browser wrapper" around that built-in component. (Sure, it's now called "Edge" and is built on the Chrome engine instead of Triton, but it's still just as proprietary and intrinsicly bundled as ever!)
[1] An embedded browser engine is a core component of every OS, commercial or otherwise. released since Windows 98, and it's _not_ replacable.
Posted Jan 24, 2024 15:02 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
Posted Jan 23, 2024 22:47 UTC (Tue)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (4 responses)
The problem is "where do you draw the line?" I know I was being hyperbolic, intentionally, but seriously, do we want to ban giving things away?
And if giving stuff away is anti-competitive, then we should make anti-competitive behaviour illegal, not make giving stuff away illegal.
In this particular case, there are (or rather were) a couple of big contenders. There's Pick Systems (aka Raining Data, aka Tiger Logic, aka maybe a few other names too). Then there's INFORMATION, UniVerse, and Unidata, who merged into Ardent, aka Informix, aka IBM.
Then there were the minnows, jBase, QM, Reality, and Cache/MV. Ladybridge, aka a guy called Martin Phillips, was persuaded to release QM as the GPL OpenQM. (Incidentally, I didn't know that the "Open" has nothing to do with Open Source and everything to do with Open Systems aka commercial Unix! An earlier product, PI/Open, used the term Open in the same way, hence the inspiration for "QM on Linux" to be called OpenQM.)
Unfortunately, a company called Rocket has bought out pretty much all the commercial players, and the only real competitors left are Scarlet, Reality, and another minnow called OpenInsight. For example, I think the price of OpenQM has quadrupled since it was absorbed into Rocket a few years ago. UniData / UniVerse were always on the expensive side, but Rocket has raised the price of everything else to the same level.
I think that's why some of us want Scarlet as a viable competitor, but there's no way I want to leave potential Scarlet users up a gum tree if anything goes wrong, and given my experience trying to get Scarlet into my employer, I actually see the existence of a commercial version as a plus. I hope they come to see the existence of the Open Source version as a plus, too.
Cheers,
Posted Jan 24, 2024 10:38 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (3 responses)
Anti-competitive behaviour can be 1 large monopoly player abusing that position. It can also be all the corporate players in a market behaving in a certain way, which then undermines the competitiveness and interests of the programmers supplying the labour - which was spacefrogg's point.
Posted Jan 24, 2024 12:54 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (2 responses)
But that's called a Cartel, which is just as illegal as anti-competitive dumping. You don't make giving things away illegal. If giving things away is part of wider misbehaviour, you tackle the misbehaviour, not the giving away.
And while I'm not going to say the company I'm talking about was a one-man-band (I really don't know), it was pretty much a one-pony show, even if there was a supporting cast.
Cheers,
Posted Jan 24, 2024 13:40 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (1 responses)
AFAICT, spacefrogg was arguing against anti-competitive behaviours by corporates, including where the labour market is the victim of the anti-competitive behaviour. You are obviously aware of competition law. Not sure why you're arguing against positions no one here seems to have taken.
Posted Jan 24, 2024 15:36 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
To quote spacefrog himself ...
> Companies are not people! Companies cannot be gracious or nice or happy or caring. Like, you really think that? Companies should not allowed to give anything substantial away for free
If that's not spacefrog arguing for banning giving things away, I don't understand English !!!
Okay, and I admitted it, I've gone a bit over the top and taken his argument to an extreme. But it was his argument first. And as soon as you start getting into "where do you draw the line" you're going to end up in a war between the anarchists and the dictators. I'm firmly on the side of "(VOLUNTARILY!) giving things away is a good thing". If it's done with malicious intent, then you target the malice, not the gift.
Cheers,
Posted Jan 24, 2024 7:10 UTC (Wed)
by rqosa (subscriber, #24136)
[Link] (6 responses)
> MS bought a browser, bundled it for free into Windows Bundling an application into an OS is not exactly the same thing as giving that application away for free, especially at a time when… > MS eventually faced anti-trust actions, and lost. …the OS in question held a de-facto monopoly position in the market for desktop-PC operating systems. (MS having that de-facto monopoly was the main reason why they were hit with an antitrust lawsuit, after all.)
Posted Jan 24, 2024 13:44 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (5 responses)
Are other cases, inc. ones that spacefrogg may be worried out, different in their details? Sure. Still potential anti-competitive behaviour if some large corporate uses free products undermine the market for other actors (inc. those supplying labour).
Posted Jan 24, 2024 15:01 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (3 responses)
One of the reasons for the suit being that Netscape had had deals with PC makers to ship PCs with Netscape installed, which then became awkward / suboptimal when MS bundled IE and made it hard to set other browsers as default (fully). The ruling provided some relief on that. I don't know if many vendors went for that unbundled OEM version though - 1 did I thought, but that's my vague recollection. Part of how they got away with so little punishment was the Clinton admin got replaced by Bush.
Did it address all the issues, did it right all wrongs MS did with anti-competitive behaviours? No. But it did damage their reputation, it did put some kind of check on them, and it was the catalyst for further competition law investigations and restrictions put on them. E.g., the EU required them to open up protocol specs, and stop stymying projects such as Samba. They also got a massive fine and had to unbundle WMP cause of EU actions.
Things would certainly be much much worse now if MS had been left completely unchecked.
Posted Jan 25, 2024 1:58 UTC (Thu)
by rqosa (subscriber, #24136)
[Link] (2 responses)
> Things would certainly be much much worse now if MS had been left completely unchecked. Case in point: this
(see also this Q/A on superuser.com for some more technical details that might be relevant here)
Posted Jan 25, 2024 13:34 UTC (Thu)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (1 responses)
As it turned out, Win8 was so bad that most folks downgraded it to Win 7 (via an officially-sanctioned-by-Microsoft mechanism), and the status quo didn't really change until Win 10.
This had nothing to do with any antitrust action, and everything to do with actual market forces.
Posted Jan 25, 2024 14:12 UTC (Thu)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Mess-up or not, I'm pretty certain it was rather more than market forces. The EU is keeping a close eye on Microsoft, and I'm pretty certain it got pushed through as "If MS is allowed to do that, then it's a pretty safe bet that consumer hardware will ONLY be able to run Windows". Hence the requirement that buyers MUST be able to disable Secure Boot, if they so wish.
Cheers,
Posted Jan 25, 2024 0:17 UTC (Thu)
by rqosa (subscriber, #24136)
[Link]
> The issue that led to the antitrust case in the USA was the web browser, […] The real reason I posted that comment was to dispute spacefrogg's statement that "it is bad for society if companies are allowed to give stuff away for free, because this creates a situation where people easily get dependent on the free stuff", on the basis that a monopolistic company (e.g. Microsoft circa 2001) should not be considered equal to a smaller & less-powerful company (e.g. Netscape circa 2001), let alone to a non-wealthy individual person (e.g. some random hobbyist programmer who has some Git repos hosted on Codeberg today). Antitrust law (both in the US and in the EU) certainly doesn't treat monopolists the same as non-monopolists, by design. And for good reason, IMO. > […] and MS leveraging their Windows monopoly to bundle IE for free into Windows Exactly my point: MS's Windows monopoly was a necessary condition which needed to be met in order for the government to sue MS (for violating antitrust law).
Posted Jan 23, 2024 17:22 UTC (Tue)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link]
The usual regulations apply to selling products below the marginal cost of production - if mining 1 gram of unobtanium and shipping it to me costs you $1,500, then you cannot sell unobtainium to me for less than $1,500 per gram; if the mining is $500 of machine time, and shipping is $1,000, that sets your lower bound. However, the cost of finding unobtanium deposits, and of designing and building the mining machine, are ignored for this analysis; it may cost you billions of dollars in analysis to find each gram of unobtanium, or trillions of dollars to design and build a mining machine that works long enough to mine 10 grams before needing replacement, but that's ignored by the rules.
So, for example, you can't sell DRAM chips at less than the cost of making a DRAM chip; you can sell them cheaply, but it must be possible for someone who owns a semiconductor fabrication plant to make DRAM chips at or above the price you sell them for. Note, though, that semiconductor fabs are expensive, but that cost is not taken into account here; it's assumed that you already own one for the purposes of determining if you're selling DRAM chips at a loss, and so what's accounted for is the cost of silicon wafers, dopants, chemicals and electricity (over and above that consumed if the plant is idling waiting for an order) to run the plant for the duration of a batch of DRAM chips, etc.
Software escapes from this because virtually all the cost of software is in the analysis and design phases, which are outside the rules; the marginal cost of one more copy of a piece of software that already exists is tiny (what's the total cost of transferring 1 GiB from my server to yours, given that the cost of the server and the Internet connection are already paid, and it's only the additional electricity over and above idle that counts?), and the rules say that it's only those marginal costs that matter.
Also, importantly, this has only become a significant issue now that electronic distribution is cheap; in the days when software came on physical media (tapes, disks, CDs, DVDs etc), your bound on the price was set by the cost of the medium you were using; if getting a DVD pressed costs you $500 per thousand disks, your lower bound on price is $0.50. With Internet distribution of software (or music or video for that matter), your lower bound is some tiny fraction of a cent, and accounting rules let you write it off because it's so small; for example, if you use (chosen at random) Backblaze to store software for distribution, then your marginal cost is at most $0.01/GB plus $0.0000004 per copy. For a piece of software that's 10 MB in size, that's close enough to zero to be a permissible write-off.
Posted Jan 23, 2024 22:31 UTC (Tue)
by kleptog (subscriber, #1183)
[Link]
I don't think that argument works here. Google is not delivering a product, they're delivering source under an open-source license. Publishing it doesn't make people dependant and if Google goes away you still have everything had before, so there's no downside. You can do anything with this source that you like, including selling it. If Google decided to start charging, you could just fork it and start a competing community without any loss of functionality.
The CLA isn't giving Google any special powers, since anything you grant to Google is also granted to everyone they distribute the source to which is basically everyone. It's mostly just making explicit which would otherwise be implied (ie. if you make a contribution, then Google may presume you have the rights to do so. In the normal course of business this is the default position, but having it spelt out explicitly is not a bad thing when dealing with international contributors.)
Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system
Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system
Wol
Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system
Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system
Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system
Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system
Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system
Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system
Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system
Wol
Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system
Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system
Wol
Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system
Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system
Wol
Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system
Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system
Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system
Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system
> Every new PC sold with Windows 8 will be locked up tight with Microsoft's UEFI ... secure boot on
I don't remember the exact details, but for some reason I'd been under the impression that the final settlement with the DOJ in that 2001 antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. had the effect of imposing that requirement that PC owners must be allowed to disable Secure Boot. (Or if not specifically that one, then maybe the 2004-2007 antitrust action in Europe is the one that forced MS to not prohibit end-users from disabling Secure Boot instead?)
Not that I don't agree that there's a potentially dangerous precedent here, but this is omitting a key detail. For x86 computers, MS's certification requires that users can disable secure boot. (emphasis mine) Of course, this is not true for ARM computers, hence the dangerous precedent.Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system
Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system
Wol
Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system
Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system
Usually, there are regulations against selling products under value. It is just that, for some reason unbeknownst to me, these laws never seem to be applied to software.
Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system