Ohhh goody, PDA software price wars!

Agree with Ian - even more broadly there are combinations
on all three of the major dimensions of software models
- Intellectual Property (GPL versus alternatives that
don't require turning over your IP), development (social
network versus command heirarchy), and commercial model
(free, license, paid support, etc.). None is good or
bad per se but I believe different combinations are
more or less effective in different 'market' situations.
Even the boys in Redmond are looking at some dimensions
of this for their own internal use - just don't expect
them to embrace the GPL.

With respect to facts about the motivations of Open
Source and Linux developers specifically the research
focuses on who they are, how the spend their time,
what their day jobs are and why they do what they do.
The earlier comment here (and supported broadly) is
correct that many of these developers are early in
their careers and trying earn recognition for their
talents as programmers -- either for the intrinsic
value of it, or because they think it will help them
advance professionally. For others much of the code
they write supports their day jobs in large IT organizations.
There is no evidence that they are particularly interested
in earning recognition for their skills in operating
a customer support call centers - in fact most of them
have day jobs that preclude this. Consequently, you
normally see great response to fixing bugs and plugging
security holes (something that the community model
is distinctively good at), but if you want someone
to hold your hand for half a day (starting right now)
as you struggle through some configuration or deployment
issue, I'd argue you're better off paying the likes
of Red Hat.

With respect to soaring software - the 'teams' that
do this are generally small enough that the customer
experience with respect to product functionality, quality
and support comes down to individual personalities.
I would observe that to-date the commercial products
seem to be making more rapid progress on functionality.
I suspect this is because they dedicate their daytime
hours to development and, conversely, that the non-commercial
alternatives find it challenging to build a development
community out of the arguably narrow intersection of
software developers, glider pilots and individuals
with adequate discretionary time. Not that it couldn't
happen or that a single, motivated individual or two
can't get a lot done.

Hope that sounds less pompous. Now back to flying...

At 17:36 23 February 2004, Henryk Birecki wrote:
Sure, both of these are normal and reasonable scenarios
for software
project development and commercial product development.
It does not
however have impact on either the quality of freeware,
nor support,
nor the length of time a 'product' remains on the market.
There is
plenty of poor quality freeware out there, and there
is plenty of poor
quality shareware, and 'commercial' products. The same
can be said by
substituting good for poor.

Interestingly the only 'support problem reports' I
ever hear about on
r.a.s. have to do with commercial products that people
pay for.

Henryk Birecki

'tango4' wrote:

Even Linux is moving to a licenced platform for its
latest
incarnations. I have seen a lot of software move this
way lately. An
originally open source or free project matures to such
an extent that
it demands more of the core programmers than can be
done on a free
basis. The real contributors still have access to the
source but the
'hangers on' get a real product at a reasonable cost
and businesses
grow out of the supply and support of the products.

It's just an alternative business model. A programmer
believes he can
do it better and to drive the development he offers
his product for
free. The early adopters allow him to develop to a
solid application
and then he can start charging.

Ian


'Henryk Birecki' wrote in message
. ..
Andy Blackburn wrote:

Actually, my (mis)infomation on non-commercial software
comes from extensive research in Open Source community
motivations and behaviors, including survey research
of several thousand Open Source developers. I think
facts normally trump opinions/anecdotes.


Well, that is actually rather pompous. What facts?

Henryk Birecki

Bill Daniels wrote:
...
Limited vocabulary voice commands would work too.
...

Only for english speaking pilots with the proper (i.e. probably american) accent.
Definetely not for me. Anyway I hate to have to speak to a machine.

Let me add my comment on the free soaring applications:

I use soaringpilot and saw Mark Hawkins to support lot of newcomers
(like I was a year ago) without hesitation. In my job I use several
expensive test tools ( 100k US$) and none of them has the same support
like this...
Regards,

/Janos

"Robert Ehrlich" wrote in message
...
Bill Daniels wrote:
...
Limited vocabulary voice commands would work too.
...

Only for english speaking pilots with the proper (i.e. probably american)
accent.
Definetely not for me. Anyway I hate to have to speak to a machine.

Spot on! Now add differing wind noise, audio vario tones and the fact that
your radio might break squelch at just the wrong moment and voice controlled
instruments are a long way off technologically.

Ian

"tango4" wrote in message
...

"Robert Ehrlich" wrote in message
...
Bill Daniels wrote:
...
Limited vocabulary voice commands would work too.
...

Only for english speaking pilots with the proper (i.e. probably
american)
accent.
Definetely not for me. Anyway I hate to have to speak to a machine.

Spot on! Now add differing wind noise, audio vario tones and the fact that
your radio might break squelch at just the wrong moment and voice
controlled
instruments are a long way off technologically.

Ian


Come on, guys, it's the 21st century already - this stuff works. Robert,
computers aren't American or any other nationality, they can speak French
too - really. (Actually, they speak Japanese best. Ever thought about the
problem of putting 6000+ Kanji characters on a keyboard?)

Using voice input with my cell phone to control a remote computer works even
when driving a car with the radio on and the windows open. Voice input has
come a long way in the last three years. Wind noise, accent, vario audio
even radio background can be dealt with very successfully.

If you are really worried that it won't work in a critical situation, just
have a backup input method like a button or switch that does the same thing
the voice command does.

Anyway, Ian, why is your cockpit so noisy? Mine is so quiet that I have to
set the vario and radio volumes no higher than 2 -5% or they blow me out of
the cockpit.

Bill Daniels

"Bill Daniels" wrote in message
...


Anyway, Ian, why is your cockpit so noisy? Mine is so quiet that I have
to
set the vario and radio volumes no higher than 2 -5% or they blow me out
of
the cockpit.

Bill Daniels


Usually because I've got the damned turbo running to keep me out of some
field.

:-)

My cellphones ' voice control can't keep up with the changes in my voice and
in the car it gets confused regularly.

Ian

Robert Ehrlich wrote:

Bill Daniels wrote:
...
Limited vocabulary voice commands would work too.
...

Only for english speaking pilots with the proper (i.e. probably american)
accent. Definetely not for me. Anyway I hate to have to speak to a
machine.

Just out of curiosity, have any other Brits here tried to use the American
Airlines automatic system to confirm a flight reservation?

Last time I did it heard "Miami to Chicago" as "New York to San Francisco".
Weird.
--
Soar the big sky
The real name on the left is richard

"Kilo Charlie" wrote in message
news:id4_b.24001$o52.18383@fed1read02...
In my ideal world I'd like to see a single large flat panel screen smack
in
the middle of my panel with the various companies vying for who can write
the best program to use for displaying the various things you guys have
brought up. It holds all sorts of possibilites and with multiple windows
open would even mean that you could run programs from different
manufacturers on that same screen.

This nonsense of having to buy a latest and greatest hardware gizmo to go
with the software is crazy. One big screen would be much easier to
read....maybe I'm just getting too old to see the damn little things!
Maybe
they could even agree on a single box (hard drive?) to drive the thing as
well bringing it down to just the software competition.

Anyone know if the technology is currently good enough to make this work
i.e. flat screens wrt current drain, ease of use in high sun environments,
etc? I have no expertise in this whatsoever. Just dreamin'.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix


KC, I just put together the following spec for a $1,626 12V computer. Is
this what you were imagining?

Espresso Mini Book PC (150mm x 106mm x 32mm 6" x 4" x 1.25")
VIA 1GHz Processor
PC100 SDRAM 256MB
Solid-State Flash Drive 512MB Compact Flash Disk
Espresso Docking Station with CD-ROM / Floppy Drive
DOS Format / No Operating System (Linux Ready)
One Year Part and Labor Warranty


10.4" TFT LCD Display with VGA input and Touchscreen

System Includes:
1 Carrying Case, 1 Microphine-in / Line-out / S-Video Out / VGA Port, 1 PS/2
Keyboard Port / Mouse Port / 124-pin Expansion Port, 1 Y Cable ( S-Video and
Composite), 2 USB Ports, AC/DC Power Supply, Built-in 16-Bit Stereo, Full
Duplex 3D Sound, Installation Instruction and User Manual, Intel 810
Built-In Full Motion 4MB Video, Touch Pad with Left/Right and Scroll Button

Bill Daniels

Sounds good to me Bill although I suppose the problems with visibility in a
high sun environment would still be an issue. Also in my ideal world I
would like to have a remote just like that used on the SN-10 in order to
avoid having to stretch a bouncing finger up to the panel to make
adjustments. I'm not sure why other companies haven't used this type of
remote since it makes it easy to scroll through the pages and make changes
with barely any movement on the part of my hand/wrist. The old B-100 remote
was even better because it was possible to depress the scroll buttons to
confirm a change (like the left and right mouse buttons).

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

Bill Daniels wrote:

"tango4" wrote in message
...
Come on, guys, it's the 21st century already - this stuff works. Robert,
computers aren't American or any other nationality, they can speak French
too - really.

Yes, I know that from a long time ago. I was working from 1968 to 1985 in
the University of Orsay, were we had a pioneer team working on speech synthesis and
recognition. What I doubt is that commercially available systems would be
speaking French, as the market of French is a very small one. This is not
a technical problem but an economical one.