Slashdot Mirror
RealNetworks releases Linux content tool
Agnomen writes "RealNetworks has released a beta version of RealProducer Plus G2 content creation tool for Linux. According to their press release "The final release
of RealProducer Plus G2 for Compaq Tru64 UNIX operating system is immediately
available as is the beta release of RealProducer G2 for the Linux platform." Ok, so it's not oss, but it is good to see. "
GPL keeps software Free and Open. A good thing. Simple, really.
The fight isn't Commercial VS Free--if it was we'd have to put RedHat and MS in the same category.
The fight is Closed VS Open.
There are no "radicals within the party". The movement started out with people who wanted Open. The people who wanted Good/Stable joined and diluted the effort.
If you want to blame someone, blame yourself.
And how long do you expect them to be in business if they start giving out software they spent money on development?
Oh, yeah, I forgot. GPL will give them the provision to sell support, right? And what's from stopping a company like RedHat from undercutting their prices, since RedHat doesn't have to recuperate the development cost?
GPL is the best way to stop all commercial software development. RMS is a genious.
Je ne parle pas francais.
Ok, I hearby return my slashdot bookmark...this site is for fanatics and armchair RMS's. You 'give me free or fuck off' people are going to do more damage to the reputation and viability of Linux than anything I've seen.
We all want Linux to succeed, but when company A releases their software for linux in any way that isn't totally free, you fanatics jump out of the bushes, foaming at the mouth about how this is somehow 'bad' for Linux and concoct fantasy stories about how commercial software will take control of Linux. Christ..I remember a Slashdot that was once full of informed and balanced people..whatever happened to all of them? They are all gone, replaced by you nutcase RMS wannabe's.
Here's a newsflash: you idiots DON'T REPRESENT THE OPINIONS OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF US LINUX USERS. Believe it or not there are many of us that use Linux in a professional sense and would very much like to see more commercial apps ported to Linux. What's more, there are those of us who would actually like to SELL some of our hard work, as opposed to giving it away on the unproven promise of somehow paying the bills through support and documentation alone.
You want to make free software? Go ahead! Have fun! Don't stop the rest of us from trying to make a living. Just because it's commercial doesn't mean we are trying to 'sieze control' Linux. Don't ruin it for the rest of us who want some commercial apps on Linux.
You see that quit a lot of the comments are posetive don't you, at least 50% when I counted.
/. we don't have to agree on everything.
That is the good thing about a site like
ICECAST. A streaming mp3 sounds as good as a .ra file at 50% greater kbps..
.. and it's free so I can stream
Mercury Bath, my friend's band, at no cost but bandwidth.. I'm running 128kbps/44.1stereo right now but IIRC I can push pretty much any valid mp3 combo, it's just a matter of me setting up a few more channels and resampling the trax..
btw: mpg123 and x11amp both take URLs for streaming MP3 on the command line..
Check out that ICECAST link above for a current broadcast list..
You guys don't friggin get it, do you? Let me ask, what do you guys do for a living?
I never said that the Joe Blow Version of Quicken wouldn't be better than the real Quicken, but that most people out there want the real version. Hell, I would use the free one just fine.
Also, I would rather have people using Linux with Real Player and other commercial apps than doing the same under WINBLOWS!
JUST BECAUSE DISTRO 'A' BUNDLES PROP SOFTWARE WITH IT, IT DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN NOT CHOOSE DISTRO 'B','C','D'......'n' OR YOU CAN DO IT YOURSELF. IF YOU WANT WINDOWS 95/NT/WHATEVER, YOU NEED TO GO TO MS AND GET IT FROM THEM.....AS YOU SAID, ANY TOOLS WILL ALWAYS BE GPL'ED....THERE CAN NEVER BE A PROP ELEMENT IN THE KERNEL ITSELF! THE GPL WILL NOT ALLOW THAT. SO
Is it just me, or is "Tru64" a really lame OS name?
So when is the bare bones version of real producer coming out? They already have it for for Window$ and the Mac. I have a theory that if Progressive Networks releases the free version, like they have for Window$ and Mac, that Linux will be one step closer to a complete OS for all users.
Give me Real Producer Basic!
well, once the source code is freely available, why would anyone pay for it? it is different for a huge package like Linux, where buying a CD is much easier, but for single apps, like Real Player...is it possible to give the source code away, but say you can not resell it or give it away?
My company pays me money to write software.
When the software has wider appeal (i.e., doesn't deal with some quirk of our network/data) I am perfectly free to release the source code.
We are all aware of the connotation of "free" in an OSS context. No need to repeat the "speech and beer" speech every time you use the word "free"
This fanatical 'give me free or go to hell' attitude is going to DESTROY the viability of Linux in the real world more than your fantasy of commercial software 'windows-izing' linux ever will. I'm getting SO sick of you armchair RMS's dismissing and decrying anything that isn't "free".
Listen, there is nothing wrong with profiting from your programs. NOTHING. Try getting out into the real world for a while and see how far you get shouting 'free' from the streetcorner. Commercial programs are very welcome in the Linux world...in fact, I welcome MORE.
It's a different version than the free one. He is selling a version called "Sendmail Pro"....cause it's hard to make money off of something that's free.....
www.sendmail.com
And, if you don't like software that is not GPL'd, don't use it. But if you're serious about free speech, you won't try to deny others the right to use it.
The more software (Closed or Free) for Linux, the more people who'll use it.
The more people who'll use it, the more demand for software (in general).
The more demand for software, the more demand for Linux coders - who just so happen (by virtue of being Linux coders) to be GPL-aware.
The more GPL-aware coders on the "inside", the more exposure the PHBs get to the ideals of the FSF.
The more exposure to the ideals of the FSF, the more understanding and education of PHBs.
The more educated PHBs, the more support for production of GPLed software.
We win!
For those that think ANY closed-source programs on Linux are intrinsicly bad - think long-term, not short term.
Welcome, RealNetworks!
DG
Yeah right, that's why the GNUMoney projet or whatever its called has developed with such blazing speed.
then you're a sucker because you could get it for free
Butt sucking slime holes like you..
I don't think these are the words of someone who should be telling me to "grow up".
Yet again: Free speech, not free beer.
Furthermore, Linux is ALREADY MAINSTREAM. We have more marketshare than Apple. There is no need to pander to the proprietary.
Only if they used a BSD license. If they GPLd it, they'd be safe.
For G2 for Linux, or at least a fix for the kernel 2.2 bugs w/RealPlayer 5.
Someone should start a project to write a free realstream player. It could actually be fast for a change!
great it can do server stuff and it looks like it costs money.. but can it play stuff thru netscape for Linux?
Only 'flamers' flame!
or are they paying for just the software, or for the a team of IBMers coming and setting up, tweaking and customizing for their systems, something a smaller company couldn't do, or in the case RealPlayer, there is no need to?
Protecting against what? If you share, do you limit who you share with?
:), when a license goes against the purpose of libraries: reuse of code. Maybe, it is because I am a programmer at heart rather than a lawyer.
:)
I prefer the BSD license over the GPL when it comes to sharing. If I don't want something to be embraced (limited to a select group), I will use a stronger license. I have not written anything under anything stronger than the BSD license. This is not counting patches to GPL'd software.
The point I was trying to stress was how I hear so much about how the GPL is "free speech", but it always comes with self-imposed restrictions on this "free speech". Either make it free speech or don't, but do not claim the GPL represents "free speech" when really it does not. The BSD license is MUCH more representative of "free speech".
I can see that the GPL is very good at keeping the source from proprietary use (code wise), but it can also run into walls when combined with other open source licenses.
If the object of the program is to write software for everyone to use (code or execution), then I recommend a BSD license. If the object is to prevent proprietary use (code), then I recommend a NPL-like license. A GPL license is suitable here as well. Use the right tool for the right job.
When it comes to libraries, I must say I really dislike the LGPL--I won't even go into a GPL'd library. The whole object of a library is for someone to link against it. Why should it matter if it is dynamically or statically linked? Why can't the LGPL just ask people to point others to where they can get the source for the library? If it is dynamically linked, there are no requirements for even telling them what libraries were linked to it. If it is statically linked, the source or the object files must be provided for relinking. It just gets my goat, which I do not need
Those damn lawyers again. We could always build a protective ocean wall against tidal waves with them. Yes, I am into recycling.
Sean Farley
Assumption: Linux (and it's adoptation) is A Good Thing
Question: Does the introduction of "Real Producer" into the Linux environment further benefit the Linux operating system, or hurt it in some fashion?
Split the question up into parts
How does Linux benefit?
How is Linux hurt?
Any other comments? I'd like to hear more pro's and con's. I personally think Linux has more to gain than to lose.
BTW, holding to an idealistic viewpoint gives you a pure idea (and perhaps a good one), but also gives the impression that you are unwilling to compromise. Ego's will get bruised, people will get offended and it will end up taking longer for other people to accept what we already know.
They consider us to be worth making a production environment but not the player for the same? I would have thought if they had "got it" that we'd be seeing the player first. But hey, what do I know?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I have nothing against Progressive Networks, but if their so ``progressive'', why don't they actually DO something progressive, like help fight the cause of freedom for software?
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
What the hell is the use of a creation tool, when they forgot to release a client that will actually VIEW it?!?!?!?!?!!?!?
I am not much on game theory, but I believe I see some flaws. The flaws are not with the math but with two assumptions and the comparison of license users.
:( I believe that sharing without strings attached will be the most successful method for encouraging others to share. Sharing with strings attached is the best way to have others distrust you. Why do you think people distrust lawyers so much? Answer: they love to attach strings.
I'll talk about the comparison first. I am using the following definition of share: to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others. If I share with someone else, do I really care how many points I may or may not get? I think most people writing GPL'd software want to share with a select group, therefore, the points matter. BSD license software developers, in general, want acknoledgement that they shared, but they care not with whom they shared. Basically, numbers vs. generosity.
The first assumption I am thinking about is: "Initially, T's and G's will grow rapidly fed by predation on O's." I could equally assume that since O's can co-exist so well with other O's they can gather the largest number of developers. While T's and G's have the disadvantage of competitors within their groups (GPL and NPL for example), the O's do not face the same problem.
The second assumption is G's will beat out T's after the O's are gone. I see more and more T's using the O's software, and I am not refering to the code. IBM's use of Apache is an example that comes to mind. When it comes to code, more sharing between the T's and the O's is coming out, therefore, G's will slowly disappear. SGI's donation to XFree86 is an example here.
Although I believe my points on the assumptions to true, I also see where there can be disagreement on them. As for the comparison, I see a difference BSD and GPL people that shows that BSD developers do not fit in the analogy you presented. They are playing the game by different rules, and they shall always exist.
Let's change the discussion to psychology. Did you ever wonder why "moonies" give out flowers? The reason is that a human will be more likely to "share" in return. Now "moonies" have strings attached to the flower, but most people only learn that from experience.
Sean
1) Think free speech, not free beer.
;) . GPL/LGPL should not be restricting software due to their own phrase "think free speech, not free beer". I say practice what you preach. If you want free speech, use an BSD'ish license. Where do you think free speech came from? :)
.7x days (there was such a point, wasn't there?). I started using Linux consistently since the .99.14 days.
Free speech represents being able to say anything you want within reason. I say reason since it is against the law to yell "Fire" in a theater. Trying to prohibit proprietary software (a form of speech) goes against the true definition of free speech.
Another problem I have with all the abuse of the term "free speech" is related to the GPL. The part in the GPL which limits the license on subsequent projects based on a GPL'd program is hypocritical IMO. Limiting speech definitely is NOT considered free speech.
Remember proprietary software can put a restriction on their software since they have no morals
3) Who is the vast majority of Linux users? Since the product originally started as a GPL'd project, I'm guessing it's the softwhores like yourself who are in the minority.
Ooh, name calling. I am not the original poster you are responding to, but I still think it is immature.
I used Linux briefly around the
I promote it quite a lot, but I am still not a fan of the GPL license. I much prefer a BSD'ish license without the advertising clause. Volunteered sharing is better than forced sharing.
If it matters, I have provided patches to software using many different licenses. A recent one was pgp4pine (GPL).
Sean Farley
We need more software for Linux and I applaud everyone who releases software for Linux wether it's commercial or free. Right now Linux is like the Reform Party in Canada. Nice idea but too many radicals.
1) Think free speech, not free beer.
2) Linux is ALRREADY viable in the real world and has been for many years. This was without the support of a softwhore like yourself.
If you don't like an OS that requires GPL'd software, don't use it--and I mean the OS.
Check out:
http://www.real.com/products/tools/producerplus
I guess the number of slashdot posters who just posts with wrong info either indicates that there are a lot of people out there who can't read, or don't bother to think, or that Microsoft is paying for an astroturf campaign to make Linux users look bad.
Right now I'm leaning against that second choice.
Yes, since a lot of MP3-related software is a lot
more open, it is a more viable option for those
who want to do something in a different way (or
something).
Too bad there is no mp3 encoder for Linux that
could encode at MPEG2.0 16/16 on a P133. Also being able
to get the input from stdin or from the sound
driver directly (ie ALSA) would be good (especially for those
who do not have all the extra equipment (computers, soundcards, etc)
Forget Realaudio entirely.
MP3 over SHOUTcast is far superior and that's where all the effort should be going. http://www.shoutcast.com for more info and for an MP3 streamer, check FreshMeat.
Because the people I'm preaching to are already using Linux. I'm just advocating going all the way.
Damn I hate this crap. "Good to see proprietary apps
available on GNU/Linux." "I wish that proprietary game that
is just so kEwl was available on GNU/Linux." Like hell this
is good. It's about freedom too. Just say no to proprietary
apps.
There's no good way to get video/audio out of .ram files once you make them - they're not convertable.
(Okay, I know about the audio driver trick to make a wave file)
A major difference between mpeg and real is that it's possible to get your files OUT of the realwhatever format.
If you look at all the commercial tools - they're all designed to get other files INTO real, but no way to get back out.
Even M$ netshow is better in this regard... sigh.
Free software is great, and I heartily thank all of the developers of high quality free software out there. As both a home AND workplace user of Linux, I can see that big name commercial software is needed as much as any to defeat the Evil Empire in the corporate world. When I try to convince other tech people to give it a try, the first words out of their mouth is what familiar software (i.e. commercial software) is available for it. They don't want high quality free knockoffs of commercial software, they want the real stuff. Alot of home users I talk to ask about Quicken and MS Office. I usually let them know about Corel and Star Office (and Applix) as an MSOff alternative, but what about Quicken and the rest? These people don't want Joe Blow GNU version of Quicken. I'm sure the more radical will say, "The Hell with them...". To those I say get a frekin life. The rest of the world couldn't give a shit about some crusade to push a free OS. They want software to run on it. I myself didn't fully adopt it until better WM's came out and there was more high quality software. Big Business wants Enterprise Level stuff (Thanks to Oracle, Sybase, Informix, etc). This whole new noteriety for Linux would have never come about without the weigh in of the "For Profit" crowd. That's just the way it is.
So, in closing, if you like free software, GREAT - who doesn't? Don't knock somebody for wanting to make a profit on good software and stop calling them Software Whores. It only makes you look like a Goddamn Lowlife.
http://icecast.linuxpower.org/
And it has the magic combination of three specific letters in its license...
do you make money selling gpl software? How many gpl'ed projects besides linux is making money? Not everyone can work for redhat
>>A hell of a shorter period of time that if they sold shoddy software to the unsuspecting masses.
And that is a good thing? (and are you saying that proprietary software is automatically "shoddy" by definition?)
Why should a company do R&D when they know, under the GPL, they would have to turn over that research over to the competition? Why would any company do it? So that they can sell support? Another company that didn't spend money on R&D could easily undercut them in price.
Do GPL fanatics believe money grows on trees? Yeah, I know. Free speech, not free beer, but it comes down to the same thing. Why buy the software when you can legally d/l for *free* on the internet, and under the GPL you will be able to for *free* (as in free beer).
And your analogy don't hold water. It would be more like this. A writer write the next great classic. Other people comes in (after he/she has spent years doing research, thinking, spending money on equipment), rewrites the novel, sell t-shirts, publish it... the original author doesn't see one dime. In the GPL world, this is the great new order. Bye, bye, intellectual property.
Je ne parle pas francais.
I think his points were essentially valid.
If you force all Linux applications to be open-sourced, the only applications that will ever be developed under Linux in the future will be those created by die-hard OSS developers. The major corporations who make millions and billions developing software for other operating systems will not give Linux a second glance.
These companies make their money from selling their software products. You can't expect them to all suddenly drop what they're doing, release the source code to their flagship products, and convert to a profit-from-support type of business model. It's not going to happen.
The fact that corporations and major commercial software developers are porting their applications (for free or for sale) under Linux is an excellent achievement for the OS. It means that growth will proceed, new minds will be brought into the Linux arena and the operating system will find its way into more and more environments.
Having closed-source, proprietary software applications will not hurt Linux by any means.
If users have an irrational fear of open alternatives to proprietary software, don't help them overcome that fear--play up to it by installing WordPerfect, RealAudio and Internet Explorer.
I normally object on principle to closed proprietary software on my PC, but I will accept it if the proprietary version works considerably better than the alternative (say, Netscape vs I-can't-compile-it-Mozilla).
But when using the software ALSO contributes to the propagation of a proprietary "standard" like RealAudio/Video when their are ACTUAL standards (like MP3) available--no way.
what if you don't sell to suckers hmm? People don't need "support" for a game or real G2
Real Player is the most popular media stream client available on the net. It just give some additional people a reason to utilize Linux rather than Windows.
As for those people concerned over the propriatary nature of the product, I'd say don't worry about it. Something like Shoutcast (in all it's free-ness) or some other free program will eventually take it's place. At that paint, Real Networks will be forced to either release their source, or die in obscurity.
This is all part of the process. World Domination doesn't happen overnight.
TheOrb40
Oh and I suppose you 'warez' anything you find that isn't free, right? Up yours, moron. Get a fucking clue or maybe a JOB.
...free replacement for RealNetworks suite. Yes, it's better to have an Open and Free solution for Internet audio/video broadcasting, but it's not here yet. I personally started a company Linux Media Labs for manufacturing a hardware foundation for that - video capture/playback card with JPEG compression. I have the interfaces open and drivers under GPL. But I'm very glad that RealNetworks released the encoder, and I've bought it already. Since that allows to build the whole live video webcasting solution based on pure Linux, NOW!!!. Believe me, if comparable soltion would be implemented as free software users and providers would just jump on it - the complete suite from RealNetworks costs more then $5000, you don't need a lot of explanations why Free solution would be accepted, both from the freedom and $$$ viewpoint.
Vassili Leonov
I've been hounding RealNetworks for quite some time. So I paid for and downloaded this product which looks good... Now to just upgrade my kernel and get a BT848 board... (no biggie).
;)
Some have been saying that Linux will become
Microsoftized but as long as the OS API and
standards are open source that won't happen.
It's the manipulation and restrictions to the
API and specifications that leveraged Microsoft.
I'm happy to pay for worthy software. The idea at my office is to NOT run unworthy operating systems (i.e. Win95/NT4.0) as much as possible. Anything that helps avoid the use of unstable operating systems is a plus here!
So I send my ($$$) thanks to RealNetworks!
HOWEVER, there are many people out there that are running IIS or some other aweful product, just because they want the ability to broadcast to Real Player. Fortunately, now they have the option of running it under Linux.
I think the general attitude that Commercial software is bad is not as beneficial to our movement as having the attitude that commercial software is not as good but it's better than nothing.
I applaud the "hard-core" OSS people out there. They provide us with an ideal view of software development. BUT, There has to be someone to coax the rest of the software community to come over to OSS, and in order to do this effectively, it's going to make some sacrifice in the short term.
Just how I see it.
TheOrb40
If this is true, and you are a poster on Slashdot, then this would mean you too are a moron. This said though, I agree with your stance on non OSS software. Heck, I say bring on companies willing to sink cash into developing software for Linux. We don't have to use their products, we can develop our own if we choose. To shun companies like that will only keep Linux and OSS under the "hobbyist" label.
did he whine?
my take was that he just wanted to make clear that free != open
why should anyone own an idea - or the implementation to exploit an idea?
we are all one people - aren't we all working towards the same common goal?
obviously some people can't see beyond their pockets...
we have a place for them though, they can sell what they like.. if you want to package and market boxes of dung - feel free to do so.. just show us whats in the box before we buy it.
but i suppose that isn't a good analogy - it is more like selling air, which we can get our selves for free.. but giving it a different name and not saying what it really is... if they want to make $$$ they can just sell us rebreathers or breathing lessons...
charge someone based on your time and resources - which you give openly to someone. if you buy a rock, you know you bought a rock - you can disect it and determine that it is made from x,y,z minerals. if you pay for someones time you can watch what they do and see your money being spent on time. dont sell your idea unless you are willing to include the essence of the idea too (ie. the code)...
confused yet? me too... i will stop now...
Marques Johansson
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Great....I'll stick with MP3 as well for now.
"Ok, so it's not oss, but it is good to see."
This is debatable. More software for Linux is great, provided that it is free (free speech, not free beer). More and more closed and proprietary software will only "Windows-ize" it.
RealNetworks can take their closed-source garbageware somewhere else as far as I'm concerned.
Commercial I dont care.
Proprietary I do.
As for the melodrama and the overstarting, it seems necessary to be heard above the crowd of lemmings running fast to the sea.
"people don't need support for Real G2?" It is to laugh. After running a very popular streaming media site for three years, I can tell you *categorically* that the vast majority of users are confused and scared by RealPlayer. Especially the part about downloading and installing it. But even the part about just *using* it throws them.
And people--even I--definitely need support for the encoders and production tools.
Check out FreeExpression, by the way, the new OSS streaming media initiative:
FreeExpression
It's not being used on freespeech.org yet--because it doesn't really work yet--but it will, and it will be.
Joey
www.freespeech.org
Current releases of Real Player 5.0 depend on a bug in the sound
/dev/dsp).
sub-system which is no longer there. (in linux kernel v 2.2.x) Consequently, they don't work.
Alternately, download rpopen from
http://onramp.i2k.com/~jeffd/rpopen/ and pre-load it before you run
rvplayer (it's a shared object which blocks rvplayer from doing the
NONBLOCKing open of
I've been pretty surprised to see RealPlayer G2 for Linux taking so long to show up.. Hopefully, the release of this content creation software means that the client side will be showing up soon (although I'm not making any bets)
Regardless, I would have liked to see a RealPlayer 5.0 with some bugfixes show up.. Right now, I'm getting "audio write error" messages all the time, requiring me to re-connect to the streams I'm watching.. It gets to be a real pain sometimes, since some sites seem to produce more of these errors somehow.. They're bugs that are in the Linux (and presumably UNIX) version, and they should have been fixed long ago...
I will give the Free Software hyper-advocates a few points here -- if RealPlayer was open-source, these bugs wouldn't be here (at least I believe that to be true). I wish there were better alternatives that were open-source, but I haven't seen many (MP3 is getting close - but the creators of the technology still want to make money off of everyone who creates MP3s.. There is no alternative to RealVideo on Linux, AFAIK).
If there are people that are knowlegeable about audio and video technology, I'd encourage them to make an open-source alternative. However, I don't know if there is a large enough group of those people to actually make anything.. Hard to say, I guess..
Can anyone from Real atleast tell when (if ever) G2 Player for linux will be available?
Linux is like beer, when the beer's free!
FUCK OFF wanker
Sure, I use Netscape, because it's the only graphical
browser there is, and of course because I'm just waiting for Mozzila.
(BTW, wich will Mozzila's license be?GPL, or will Netscape have supremacy
over the hackers?!)
But whenever there are GPL replacements, I tend to use them
instead of proprietary ones. Even if these seem to give more
features, or ease the work, or other marketing mumbo-jumbo
we shouldn't use them.Why?
Because GPL software needs people to use them to be sucessfull.
I have been very nice to her. I also reminded her that I am a Real Subscription holder. Yeah, that's right, I actually PAID for the stuff, and as a paying customer I demand a G2 for LINUX!
Do you think Linux would get where it is if it was comercial software?
Or even just Open souced? No.
Linux is free software, that means, the ability to
view,change,modify and distribute it freely.
If we want Linux to make a change, instead of merely dethrone Microsoft
(which is a great think!) we must demand and use non-proprieatry software.
Only then can we avoid monopolies such as Microsoft to ever exist.
Eduardo
Anyway, if you want to talk about newbies: for hopefully obvious reasons, you can't plonk anyone on Slashdot. Unless Rob has implemented some new features that only you know about.
Lets see. Open Source/Free Software is supposed to be better than propriatory software, right?
Show me a GPL'd wordprocessor that even start to compare to their commercial brethren, and I'll switch.
Can't, eh?
And if free software is so important, where the hell is the free (GPL) browser? Didn't bother writing one as long as Netscape provided one for free (beerwise)? And no, Netscape doesn't count because it didn't *start* out as GPL product.
The key is open standards (open fileformat etc, open protocols etc). GPL is not a viable to alternative to companies. You, as a user, may choose to only use it, but you won't get the latest greatest.
Je ne parle pas francais.
I've installed proprietary software and I'm not sorry at all. It's very nice to have a good word processor (WP, Applix or SO). I don't see why I should be sorry adding functionality to my system. I don't know how I would have gotten along without Netscape, either.
The pro version is more...
Even proprietary applications are good for Linux.
Proprietary applications make it possible for people to do things with Linux RIGHT NOW which formerly they could only do on a proprietary OS. That means that it's easier to get people to switch from Windows to Linux, because they're giving up less and less functionality. Then, if somebody later comes up with a free alternative, there are a much larger number of people who might consider switching to it. That's _good_ for free software.
The free-software-only zealots believe one of two fallacies:
1) Someday everyone will, all at once, see that free software is the Way, and immediately discontinue the use of all proprietary software. Sorry, ain't gonna happen. If the Linux community pushes commercial software developers away in order to achieve "free software purity", they'll keep developing for Windows, and people will continue to have reasons to stick with a proprietary infrastructure.
2) That Linux is better off staying as a niche player for the use of the Free Software Priests. I _strongly_ disagree. I think that most of you would agree that a future computing environment based on free and/or open-source software _infrastructures_ is a lot more attractive than a future computing environment based on source which is locked up (and, in some cases, actually _lost_) in Redmond.
So I welcome the availability software from Real, Corel, IBM, Sybase, and whoever. I'll make my own choices as to what I actually _install_ on my system (which, of course, you can't do with Windows, e.g. MSIE), and I might decide to use free software over commercial software where good free software is available (I have both RealPlayer and x11amp on my system, and I end up listening to ShoutCast much more often than Real these days). But having more software options of _any_ kind on Linux is a good thing, because in the end they will lead to more people using Linux.
Commercial interests will never truly "take over" Linux, because of two things: 1) the GPL ensures that Linux code will always be available, and 2) you people who love free software exist.
Adam
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
It's a shame that the "fire in a theater" line is so often quoted, because it has certainly lost its context, and judging from this article, it has largely lost its meaning. Because we are so largly removed from its context, many people seem to believe that only "reasonable" or civil speech is protected speech.
... 600 people were killed in this famous fire, many of them crushed to death in the ensuing panic.
... huge, horrible disasters, claiming hundreds of lives in a matter of minutes.
The actual quote is:
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
-- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
If you were to go into your local movie theatre today and yell "fire" in the middle of the show, people would give you an annoyed look, probably tell you to shut up, and maybe call the usher.
If you kept it up, you'd probably be thrown out.
This is because theatres are basically safe, fireproof structures. For the most part, you have little or nothing to fear when you step into a modern theatre.
Not so in 1919. In 1919, most theatres were built of wood, and stage sets and curtains were not fireproof. Theatre lighting was accomplished with open flames -- limelight and carbon arcs.
Do a web search on the Iroquois Theatre fire of 1903 for a good example
Theatre fires were the "airline crashes" of the day
People were very aware of theatre fires, and if someone yelled "fire", it was very likely that a panic would result, causing death, whether or not there actually was a fire. This is the context from which the quotation should be understood.
Holmes restriction on freedom of speech is more in line with the notion that you can't sneak up on someone who is peering into an open elevator shaft, scream in their ear, then claim "freedom of speech" when they involuntarily jump to their death out of fright.
My point is that the "yelling fire" exception only applies when the speech is likely to cause immediate physical harm or death by way of causing involuntary panic, and is false and malicious. NONE of this applies in any way whatsoever to the OSS arguments here, and I'd like to suggest that people stop trying to use this quote to support such arguments, because it simply does not apply.
- John
I have been bitching to REAL to release the G2 player for Linux for quite some time. All I ever hear is, "We are working on it...", and meanwhile, most streaming links require the G2 codecs and do not work with the 5.0 player. Can anyone get on Real's ass to move it?
Here is teh teext of their last reply a few days ago:
"Hi,
The File compression message that you are receiving refers to content which
was created for our G2 Player. Because the UNIX Player is uses the 5.0
Player codecs, your Player can not access that content. We are aware of
this problem and are working diligently to release a UNIX RealPlayer G2.
Please continue to check our website for new version.
I am sorry for any inconvenience this may cause you."
Thanks,
Rebecka LeBrun
RealNetworks
rlebrun@real.com
Where are you Ivan, when we really need you? Where is the explainer, the flamer, the commnad-line freak we all need to tell them to go away?
You do not realize, do you people, how bad it is already and how worst it gonna get. The destruction of all Free Software ideals is at hand. Just wait.
So you flame Perens because he can't stay where he is. But listen to the message if you can't stand the messanger. This sad Open Source bullshit has done damage enough to a still young and fragile body of code.
Soon enough there will be no more coders maintaining the base. Even RMS will not live forever. Linus will eventually retire. And the past ideals will be forever burried under a a mountain of proprietary code no one will ever touch.
What kind of crap attitude is that? The beat of the new generation? This easier way is the surest path to dammation. Never ever be for one moment fooled.
So Real Networks want you to use their software. When will the correct the bugs? Will they adapt to new formats? Will they enhance the code to deal with bandwidth advances? Will they sit in a standards body? The answer to all this questions is a big "Maybe, sometime in the future".
Microsoft will die soon with all sound and fury it is used to make. Linux will die a slower death, killed by the lazyness of its "defenders". One day we will wake up and see our desktop all covered by the proprietary crap corporation like to sell, all running on a silent, small, very efficient free kernel. Winnix, anyone?
I've read it, it is still flawed. No one is going to buy free (speach, not beer), software. They are going to copy the hell out of it. I want to program for a living not sell support or write documentation.
I would rather have a proprietary application running on linux (and yes I would pay for it to) than have to run some crapy OS like windblows for some application I need that don't have a good open source alternative.
Things I would like that yet don't have a (working) open source (GPL please) application is a 3D modeller and Office suite. (yes I know things like MindsEye and Koffice is being worked on right
now)
I would also pay for a proprietary application if it had a features I need, and lack in an open source application.
It is obvious that open source will increase the quality of proprietary applications, and that most of the proprietary applications used today on proprietary platforms will have open soured alternatives on linux, that may in many cases be as go or better than the proprietary applications.
For anyone worried about the fact that more proprietary applications find their way to linux and that people may use them in lack of a good OSS alternative: get coding!