off topic: new car advice for senior

[rbowman]

Got me. I haven't been back in that area for close to 15 years.

[rbowman]

I didn't drive on Storrow much. I worked at at 840 Memorial Dr between Western and Cambridge streets but I lived in NH. I had a room in Alston and would drive down Sunday night, park the car, and hoof it for the week. I later did some contract work for Orion after they'd moved to the old Schraft plant in Somerville, but it was the same deal. I did a lot of walking in Boston. Sometimes I'd take the train but it was usually faster to walk.

[gfretwell]

If you need a traffic light to control the circle, why have the circle at all. The whole idea is it was supposed to make the traffic flow better. If everyone has to stop at a light before they can enter the circle it is just an unnecessary turn in the road.

The thing that might make some sense is in residential places where they call the circles a traffic calming device but moving traffic efficiently is the opposite of what they want to do. They are trying to discourage through traffic and slow it down.

[rbowman]

Too bad IBM didn't go with CP/M-86. Another sad story.

[Don Y]

We lived in Medford, Arlington, Cambridge, etc. Work for me was Cambridge or ~Dedham. Wife worked in Beantown near the Fens. The School, Work, Home loop (~40-50mi) wasn't possible without a daily drive.

So, having a vehicle meant we'd frequent places further off (e.g., friends in Melrose, on the Lynnway, etc.

[Robert Green]

And was cracked a long, long time ago by a 16 year old kid. Also, I don't run my business from DVDs so there's a bit of a structural difference between the two.

The fact that Excel (unprotected) buried 123 tells us something about people's tolerance for copy-protected software that could fail them at the worst time possible - after a network crash. We bought licenses for every seat but even so, we could NOT afford to spend the inordinate amount of time we did trying to restore 123 from a tape backup of the HD.

They also punched physical holes in the disks to accomplish much the same thing, IIRC.

Well, it's not really *that* bad using freeware. People also realized that the marginal cost to the manufacturer of SW box # 2 is very much not the same as tangible property.

It's like when they closed Napster and the CD industry collapsed. They were so paranoid about copying they ignored what Napster did for them. I used it all the time to find music to listen to - and then to buy - because I couldn't stand the chatter of commercial radio stations.

I didn't start buying music again until Napster had basically forced the industry into a la carte sales of songs. Eventually even the RIAA had to give up on its campaign of suing grandmothers for thousands of dollars because their grandkids set up Napster on the computer.

Just the other day I had to help a person convert a Region 2 DVD into one she could play. She had no idea that the world has been carved up into DVD regions that don't support one another.

I also have some issues with supporting companies like Disney who managed to change the copyright laws to their liking at the expense of the very concept of copyrighting. Mickey's copyright *should* have ended long ago but Disney

*bought* Senator Hollings (aka Senator Disney) and he spearheaded changing the copyright laws to favor Disney and not the general public.

When Lexmark tried to use the DMCA to prevent people from refilling printer cartridges any sympathy I might have had for the big guys evaporated.

If the chances of freeware working were only 50% I'd agree with that analogy, but it's not. It's more difficult to use, but not by that large a factor.

Probably as much as I might spend finding out how to do what I need to do with a paid software program. I got one of the new 50 dollar Kindle Fire tablets and the documentation is atrocious - and I own it fair and square. Paying for something is no guarantee of good (or any) support.

That's MS, Apple and any company that has to publish updates. They've all failed at one time or another.

The rule of computing for a very long time has been; "The Upgrade Giveth and the Upgrade Taketh Away." It's usually a crapshoot as to what comes and what goes.

Again, that's Windows, Apple and even Unix when a new version or a bugfix is required. Why did MS change "Find" to "Search?" Perhaps we'll never know but changing 'happy' to 'glad' just for the sake of changing something has been going on for a long time - way before the PC revolution.

Software is perceived differently than all of the above (right or wrong) because it's IP, not tangible property and not work confined to one client or customer.

Stealing a piece of software is not the same as stealing a tangible good like a truck fill of vegetables. Steal from the farmer and he's out real time and money that it will take to regrow that crop. Steal from a SW and the physical damages are the incremental cost involved with making another copy.

With Free/Shareware it's the cost of disk storage space and perhaps not even that with CNET and other places that will take on the distribution cost. I am not trying to justify the theft, only to answer your question as to why people think it's OK to rip off software. People just don't see IP the same way as tangible property.

[Don Y]

No, Excel buried Lotus because MS marketed/bundled it far more aggressively. Why did MSWord bury WordPerfect? Was it because WP had some onerous licensing terms/technology? Why did MS C bury Borland's offerings? etc.

Should software vendor set price of each copy to recover his total costs for developing said product? Offer a deep discount to buyer #2 and let first adopters pay for all the development??

I interviewed with a company that sold "distilled water" prepackaged for their instrument -- at prices that rivaled what you'd pay for a vintage wine! How is a little bottle of water justified at an outrageous price (to help defray development costs for the "toilet paper dispenser") but software that tries to control *its* users is considered "outrageous"?

Maybe for "plain jane" applications (office/productivity suites). But, have you compared the features and quality of those "modern" FOSS offerings with *paid* offerings from 20 years past? Let alone trying to factor in the effects that hardware advances have GIFTED to the current FOSS offerings (try running some of these programs on 20 year old hardware for a REAL eye opener!)

Because the market your fishing in has been driven by bottom feeders. No one *wants* to pay for support -- so what vendor would devote resources *to* support? If you *charge* for support, then users grumble. So, you set up a web portal and HOPE users can get enough support from their peers that they will continue to use your product; even if that means they only use a small fraction of what is possible!

I was building 3D CAD models some 20+ years ago (AutoCAD v11 w/ AME). I can recall having a problem with the package (some $3K as an *upgrade*) and having a fix in my hands within days.

We'll ignore the fact that there were no FOSS 3D CAD offerings "back then".

If I had a similar problem with a FOSS product *today*, it would probably be weeks for someone to "take an interest" in my particular problem, devote some time researching it and then days or weeks for someone to decide it was worth *fixing*!

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on *my* project. What do I tell *my* client? "The FREE software that I'm using doesn't work correctly. I'm hoping someone will step up and offer me a solution sometime soon. I realize *you* have market constraints that are pressuring you for a product offering but there's nothing *I* can do to speed things up..."

[And, hope I don't get slapped with a suit charging me for failing to meet my contractual obligations -- and wanting me to pay the costs for them to hire someone else to provide those results!]

And the same is true of FOSS software. Download a newer version of and you discover that a whole slew of dependencies get dragged into that effort. Not that they *need* to be but no one has spent the time to make the upgrade as painless as possible: "just grab it all" (and worry about the changes/bugs that you've now inheritted, later!)

Of course! And the FOSS community is no better than the COTS vendors. "Update often" is a *mantra* of the FOSS community. A reflection that there is very little formal testing going on -- no one's "business" (reputation) is at stake.

But the FOSS world is just as guilty. No one takes ownership of a (FOSS) "product" and thinks about it from the consumer's point of view. Instead, its wide-eyed "look at this neat feature I added!" ("Mommy, I made a poops!")

No, that's not true. Let *everyone* steal from that developer and it doesn't matter how many incremental copies he makes -- no one is BUYING those copies! What's to stop EVERYONE from "taking a freebie" instead of paying for it? Look at how few "shareware" (voluntary payments) companies/developers are "successful". Are any of them publicly traded? Any have net positive cash flows? :>

So, they shouldn't see their own *labors* as having value, right? After all, the time you spend digging a ditch or balancing someone's books or diagnosing someone's medical problems aren't TANGIBLE things. So, why would you expect folks to PAY for those things? Make me a bowl out of a sheet of copper and I'll pay you for the bowl. Balance my corporate books and what do I have to show (tangibly) for the effort?

[rbowman]

Back in the day I used Borland's OWL IDE. At the time it was arguable better than MFC. Gates had deeper pockets however. Borland did piss me off when they bought the BRIEF programming editor and effectively buried it.

[Roger Blake]

My recollection is that it was because the initial releases of Word Perfect for Windows were worse than atrocious.

FOSS does everything that I need, have not used commercial software for many years.

[Don Y]

+42

I sorely miss Brief. Unfortunately, modern machines appear to be far too fast for it to run effectively. I can recall trying to run it on a 25MHz (!) 386 and the mere act of *touching* an arrow key would instantly scroll past the end/edge of the document!

Paradox was another "class above" compared to "Abcess". In the technology world, quality rarely wins.

[Don Y]

How often do you draw schematics, design FPGA's, layout circuit boards, design mechanical enclosures/injection molds, draw architectural floorplans, publish "camera ready" documents, done any symbolic math processing, etc.? (these being some of the things I've done in the last

12 mos).

I use FOSS tools to write software and build software systems (gdb, gcc, eclipse, etc.). And, for some "commodity utilities" (mail, news, www, etc.) But, beyond that, everything is COTS software. I'd rather spend the money and have a tool that does what I *need* and *want* than have to struggle with a tool that *aspires* to do so "when it grows up" -- and having to "settle" for its current state of completion.

A neighbor gave me a bicycle. I can get around town with it. It would cost me NOTHING in terms of gas, licensing, insurance, etc. Yet, I prefer to spend money driving a *car* -- so I can get where I want to go without making *that* a separate chore unto itself!

[Don't get me wrong, I am a huge proponent of FOSS! Every line of code that I'm writing, every schematic diagram, PCB layout, mold assembly, etc. are all destined to be released unencumbered -- not even with the obligations like the GPL imposes! I just don't think FOSS is ready for prime time, on the whole. There's no sense of ownership/pride in it as a "product" (PostgreSQL seems to be a notable exception)]

[Roger Blake]

Not relevant to my use of FOSS. Remember, I said that FOSS software does everything that *I* need, it was not a blanket statement saying FOSS was suitable for anyone else. My own usage, aside from general desktop, would be primarily servers of various types, network management and diagnostic utilities, rescuing data from dead PCs or corrupt filesystems, etc. (Basically for me FOSS is a Swiss army knife of capabilities for EDP work.)

Anyone else's mileage may vary.

[Don Y]

Exactly. Returning to my bicycle analogy, that bicycle MAY be a good solution for someone else -- someone who doesn't need to travel as far or who doesn't care how much time is spent on "the journey", etc.

On my NetBSD/FreeBSD machines, I don't even run a "desktop" -- just a lightweight window manager (twm, uwm, etc.) over a bare root window. No need for file managers, office suites, etc. (all of that sort of stuff happens in the Windows world).

I rely on core services (NTP, FTP, HTTPd, POP/IMAP, NNTP, DNS, etc.) provided by the (FOSS) OS -- I wouldn't even *try* to set up IS under Windows.

The things on which I rely on FOSS are primarily things that I am prepared/committed to maintain on my own -- without having to risk being *dragged* into some newer release of a COTS product *just* to get some particular bug fixed (I can find and fix the bugs myself; something that COTS software won't let me do!).

[Roger Blake]

My primary use for a GUI is to run multiple xterms. :) I've been working mainly with Linux in recent years but may go back to BSD ("real Unix") since I don't care much for the idea of the new systemd init system taking over as much as it does.

[Don Y]

Exactly. I have simple .twmrc's that let me call up an Xterm, xcursor, etc. with mouse buttons on the root window (along with windowops). Cut and paste text from one window to another, etc. (of course, "other window" may be a client running on an entirely different host from first window)

I have several X terminal appliances (diskless) that I can use to access clients running on the NetBSD/FreeBSD/Solaris/etc. hosts. Even my Windows machines have X servers so I don't have to physically move to a different workstation to access those clients.

From a "text console" (i.e., X not running), I use hotkeys to switch between virtual TTY's so I have several "screens" that I can be working in (helpful when troubleshooting a system). I arrange for each to have a different color scheme so I can just remember where I was based on the color of the text/display (instead of having to remember which VTY to select).

I had this capability in the mid 80's with an OpusV system: could even switch to a DOS session from within UN*X alongside UN*X consoles. On my Solaris hosts, a Chimera lets me run DOS/Windows in a Solaris window -- e.g., Doom under Solaris/SPARC!

Linux typifies what's wrong with FOSS (IMO) -- too much tinkering just for the sake of tinkering. With the MIPS available on today's

*cheap* hardware, all that effort should be spent making things more *reliable* and robust -- instead of RE-bugging systems with features that "sound cool".

It's no different than MS's "arbitrary" changes to Windows -- each of which adds back in some of the same old bugs/vulnerabilities that they tried to remove from previous versions.

[Robert Green]

Lotus had a well-established lead over MS and they blew it. I remember those times quite well. The two largest PC user groups took up the cause against copy protection. Then companies like mine scraped it off their servers as soon as it became obvious how much more complicated "protected" software made the restoration process. Our user group came to blows over whether to call for a boycott of Lotus. As you can imagine, the user groups had plenty of SW authors who believed in copy protection as well as plenty of end users that didn't.

Word Perfect was slow coming up with a Windows 9X version when the market was moving like wildfire. In the world of keep or die WP chose death. Same with WordStar.

I don't know how to counter the attitudes concerning IP. But I know that's how people think, despite all the admonitions on every DVD we watch not to engage in piracy.

Outrageous is selling printer cartridges that could *easily* be opened and refilled and using the non-reverse engineering clauses of the DCMA to "brick" the cartridge once it's run out of ink.

But the same can be said of commercial software. SW writers would be foolish not to incorporate the latest hardware advances in their design.

Amazon's actually pretty good at supporting their products. Apparently they've got other issues, among them writing good documentation. Another is not really knowing their market, i.e. their cell phone offering that dropped like a stone.

I've gotten a lot better support from FOSS authors than I have from commercial SW vendors. If you're talking to the original coder you're going to get the inside track. If you call some big SW house you're getting a foreign national who's reading from a script.

For every example like that I can find a dozen where end users were left hanging with a promise that "we'll look into it in the NEXT version." Hell, MS NEVER fixed a bug in Word that disables the cut and paste keys in the file picker dialog. It's been in every version of Word since it came out.

It's a niche market and a very complicated one to serve. I wouldn't expect FOSS developers to jump on that sort of SW until well after the big boys had even defined the market.

That's not my experience. I got to know a lot of home automation software AND hardware designers quite well and some of them would have a fix for a problem I found within a day or so, particularly if it was something that might effect a lot of users. Getting to talk an actual coder at MS is far less likely. Infinitesimally less likely.

If you picked the wrong tools for the job, that's on you. But a developer that can cut costs by using FOSS *successfully* has serious advantage over someone who pays 10 or 100 times as much for commercial software. Irfanview has served my photo needs for quite some time. Hexedit, Winamp, DVD-Shrink, VLC and lots of other FOSS programs have served me quite well over the years. But when it came time to publish a newsletter professionally, I turned to a very expensive (but industry standard) DTP package.

So if things are the same for FOSS and COTS how does that prove anything?

Agreed. So why bring it up as a liability for using FOSS when COTS suffers the same problems? It proves nothing other than software has bugs that need fixing.

Updating means they are responding to bugs that people find. That's a good thing. How many times have security analysts had to go public with an exploit they found in COTS SW because the vendor appeared unwilling to patch it?

But it's SO MUCH CHEAPER! If I can produce a program to do X with fewer costs than my competitor, I can make more money. That's a good thing. For me, anyway.

Disagree, quite strongly. How does a COTS "team" take any better ownership than a guy like Irfan whose name IS his products?

Yeow, you really have a thing for FOSS writers that's pretty hostile. Some of the best software I have ever seen came from 17 year old FOSS developers.

[Don Y]

No, I'm disappointed in the efforts of my peers.

Talk to a "professional" software writer about the quality of the code that he produces (number of bugs, lack of documentation, stilted user interfaces, etc.) and he'll quickly blame it on his boss/work environment:

- boss never gives us TIME to test things properly

- the bozos in Marketing that come up with these requirements are idiots

- the Sales folks who designed the interfaces listened to too many users and didn't impose any consistency on their suggestions

- the documentation folks are all English-lit majors and completely clueless as to technology etc.

I.e., the *implication* is that, left to his/her own devices, you'd get a MUCH better product! It's all the OTHER bozos on the bus that are compromising HIS/HER product!

Then, when they are in an environment (FOSS) where there *are* no other bozos *imposing* their will on their efforts, they produce the same crappy, untested, undocumented, poorly defined code! And, when you call them to task about it, they shrug and say, "No one was PAYING me for it, so why should I do those things (that I don't WANT to do)?"

It's like looking at a house that a "professional" painter recently finished painting and commenting on how sloppily he cut in the trim around the windows, the fact that there is paint on the glass, paint on the ground, the mismatch of colors on two adjacent walls, etc. And, when questioning him, he replies "homeowner wanted it done 'on the cheap' so I didn't bother with all the prep work, cleanup, color matching, etc."

OK. But, then, when you visit him at his folks' house (or his own) you notice the same slip-shod workmanship! But, now his "excuse" is "I did the job for free; why should I bother with those annoying details that take so much time to do properly?"

I.e., you've got an opportunity to *shine*; to create something with no "arbitrary" constraints beyond what your own abilities impose. And, instead of rising to that occasion, you *sink* to your typical level of performance.

[Muggles]

I like the idea of producing quality work/products. It makes more sense to do it better the first time, I think.

[Don Y]

Consumers ahve "trained" the industry to provide them with untested, low quality products -- because they don't demand/expect better.

If your customers aren't demanding better, what incentive do you have to *do* better?

[Tony Hwang]

To be the best. Personal challenge. Good coder always makes it shortest and fastest. If program can cause hardware problem by pushing it to limit or programmer did not know hardware is behaving. Once users using one application start complaining randomly their number crunch result gives error. Different users reporting without any pattern. After spending time I could focus where the error was coming. I could narrow down the codes (machine instructions) from which I could generate a short script loop. Now I could see the failing errors ~1 error/25,000 loops. When I was chasing related logic gates on the main frame, found it was a timing issue. One gate's leading edge rise time was like 2 nanosecond slow. Hardware fix was devised and field change order(FCO) was issued Because this kinda things software guys, hardware guys never cease to work. BTW, I was Mutician working in the field with people at CISL at MIT.