Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Microsoft talking smack business as usual (Score 2, Interesting) 421

by orin (#33929360) Attached to: Why Microsoft Is So Scared of OpenOffice
Windows administrators are cheaper because Microsoft pursued a strategy of ensuring that there was a training infrastructure for their products. There is a whole ecosystem of books, online material and courses created by Microsoft to facilitate people learning their product. No such infrastructure exists for open source products. It may not even be possible to create such an infrastructure.

Comment: This will kill organizational adoption of (Score 1) 589

by orin (#33922862) Attached to: Oracle Asks OpenOffice Community Members To Leave

A lot of people commenting on this thread have pointed out that the future of is looking quite murky and the future is Libre Office.

This may not be a great thing. Organizations like certainty - and if quickly goes down for the count it doesn't mean that big organizations are likely to adopt the replacement suite.

Think of the following situation. You've recently convinced your organization to switch from MS Office to Now you've got to tell them that you actually have to switch to a new product called Libre Office which sorta kinda did and kinda didn't exist a couple of months ago. The question will come up: "What's wrong with that Open Office program you wanted us all to switch to?"

Good luck coming up with an answer that is going to make sense to a suit who is not well versed in the byzantine going ons in the FOSS community.

Comment: Re:All you haters ... (Score 1) 409

by orin (#33732426) Attached to: Star Wars Films In 3D Due In 2012
Why, so instead of coming up with something original, we are subjected to endless new Star Wars films? If someone would be creative enough to come up with an awesome retelling of Star Wars, they are creative enough to come up with their own awesome and unique story. Shorten copyright terms and studios will engage in more "going back to the same well" behavior with popular stuff because, hey, it made money before so lets do it again.

Comment: Cyber shield sounds like a bit of a wank (Score 4, Insightful) 101

by orin (#33719924) Attached to: Aussie Gov't Won't Help Fight Cyber Attacks
Cyber Shield? Is this like SDI for the internets? Zapping the rogue packets in the boost phase before they approach the systems that they target? How about instead of creating Cyber Shields, people are just reminded to read security bulletins and keep their software up to date?

Comment: Re:Sickening (Score 1) 427

by orin (#30533484) Attached to: Alternative 2009 Copyright Expirations
Endlessly extending copyright causes a net decrease in the amount of books/music/etc. available, here's why: Except that in 2009 there are more new book titles published in a single day than there were in a whole month in 1969. 800 new titles EVERY DAY in the USA (citation: There are more new songs released every week in 2009 than there were in six months in 1969. I dunno how you get your decrease figure when the number of titles published each day is already insanely high. Whatever one wants to say about it, the current copyright rules don't seem to actually stop people creating new works and it could be successfully argued, if you look at the figure, that the current system seems to have provided us with more works of culture on a daily basis than most people could consume in a decade. Even if 99% of it is crap, that's still 8 books published each day that aren't crap. How long does it take you to read 8 books? Longer than a day I suspect.

Comment: Re:Peanuts Compared to Textbook Rip-Offs (Score 1) 590

by orin (#30113698) Attached to: Public School Teachers Selling Lesson Plans Online
Textbooks don't sell anything like what a best selling hard cover book sells like. Most textbooks will be lucky to sell a couple of thousand copies. Few college level textbook authors will see anything beyond a couple of thousand dollars in an advance. That's a couple of thousand dollars for upwards of two years work putting together the textbook. Unlike hardback fiction, textbooks need to be fact checked. Do you really think that the editorial costs of a JK Rowling book are anything approaching the costs for running the appropriate eyes over a college level textbook? Do you think these people work for free?

Comment: Re:Entitlement (Score 1) 675

by orin (#30012200) Attached to: Cable Exec Suggests Changing Consumer Behavior, Not Business Model
I was limiting my generalization to Art rather than "information". I think that information, because of its time dependent utility, can be professionalized. Much information is "use it or lose it" - so a provider can extract value from it for a short duration. The longer that information is published, the more likely it is to be replicated in a way that precludes it being monetized. Dating sites are a bit different from Art. Although free sites exist, the main benefit of the dating sites is that the paywall acts as a bozo filter. Again this sort of information can be professionalized - but I don't think it counts as Art. Art is a bit different in that a digital copy of it "retains" its "value" for substantially longer. By value I'm talking about something that comes out of the answer to the question "why would you regularly watch movies made 5 years ago or read books written 5 years ago but not read newspapers written 5 years ago" rather than monetary value. Salon can monetize what it has because by the time people replicate it digitally the content's value has degraded. People have to go to Salon to get the value. Art that can be digitally replicated retains some sort of value, which means you can wait for it to become ripped or whatever and still get something out of it.

Breadth-first search is the bulldozer of science. -- Randy Goebel