While developing the software, developers at least consumed food. Hence they needed to ensure funding for the food. Despite that I have, in effect, implied organization as necessary, I intended to say that nothing is unpaid for.
I release stuff as free software. I label it as such (not as open source). At the same time, I don't expect to make a living off of that software.
I don't have software-unrelated skills. I don't want to do unskilled labor. What can I do? I can write software for living.
I want to make people happy. What kind of software I can write? End-user software. How do I make money off of that? By selling it. How do I tell people that I'd appreciate their money? Well, by asking for it. How does libre software fit into all this? It doesn't really -- it's a hobby of mine.
People working on Unix were employed at Bell Labs. Which turned it into a big commercial thing. Linus Torvalds was a student when he began writing the kernel. Linux and GNU contributors were primarily hobbyists with obviously other source of income, paying for development instead of users. Alternatively, they were employees of enthusiastic companies (or those that needed to satisfy a market) and *gasp* they were making money off of it! Apache started off as a fork of NCSA httpd, did it not?
Do you think Linux would kick off if it weren't zero-cost to redistribute, aside from being libre? Do you think Apache would, when NCSA's httpd was zero-cost?
I apologize for not making a distinction between self-hosted web-based blogging service and a blogging tool for interaction with remote services, but with integration of the local desktop environment.
I'm always looking for ways to be supportive of FSF's stances, but they are a puritan organization. As such, they present views that they know won't gain mainstream acceptance but that's ok, since something more reasonable will gain it. And that's where I stand: I don't consider words of FSF to be holy, but I will support a more "secular" view.
Same here. It's unreasonable to consider an offering "libre" to be truly possible without being fully "unpaid". Not because they are linguistically indistinct concepts, but because they are not to be expected. Licensing schemes, as they exist today for end users, typically allow software that costs thousands to develop (if not monetary, then in food) to be available for lower prices. "Splitting the cost."
Software needs funding before it exists. It's unreasonable to offer people a "donation jar" to fund software that doesn't exist yet and is unproven. Rare examples of success are not always truly success. Most software is funded a-priori in good faith that somehow one can pay it back. How? By selling a-posteriori. Selling software that must be freely copyable by the recipient is possible, and explicitly supported by FSF, this is rarely feasible nowadays if developing software is your primary work in life. This is because you will rarely have the success of Blender in order to sell other merchandise. A lot of work done under free software platforms is done by volunteers, but a lot of highest quality work is done by companies that have other means of earning money. It's really hard to get quality software written fast when it's not your primary thing in life and with free software, it's hard to make it a primary thing. And if you can't think of writing free software as of a profession because you don't have the financial backing to write free software, FSF bluntly says you shouldn't think of it as your profession. I can't dig it out right now, but it's either somewhere on FSF's site, on GNU site, or on Stallman.org.
It's easy to pretend "libre" isn't followed by "unpaid". It's also easy to see that it's just a pretense. Let's hope that FSF's list of high priority projects does prove me wrong, that you indeed can stick out a donation jar and expect the money to flow a-priori. Because then I will indeed dedicate myself to working on tons of free software projects that I've either started already, or just wanted to work on. I want to work on a good blogging tool for GNU/Linux and Mac. Can I get a-priori funding for that? Or is it easier to dismiss pride and ideals and just sell on the Mac App Store, not opening the source since something like this might happen?
GitHub replaced it for those who use Git. I don't, and many other people don't. I use Mercurial and SVN and hence mostly use BitBucket and Google Code. However I contribute(d) to some mature projects on SF.net, so it's pretty much still around in my 'verse. GitHub mostly isn't because it requires use of Git.
Oh dear, not that excuse again. Apple solved it without owning a local representative in Croatia. Why can't Google, with a significantly greater local and localized presence? Even worse thing with Microsoft and their XBLA and Phone 7; they actually own a local company Microsoft Hrvatska, yet they not only don't want to sell in Croatia, they also can't process Croatian sales.
Oh, and despite Checkout being here, Android Market paid apps are unavailable in Croatia.
I have multitasking on my jailbroken iOS 3.1.3. Let me tell you, that device has barely enough memory to run one app. Most work just fine, but Twitter for iPhone is a major resource hog, and trying to multitask it with, let's say, Opera and Stanza? No-no.
It's easy to go "why the hell is that an innovation", especially considering Windows Mobile had it 10 years ago. On the other hand, it really wasn't working out well on WM, and on iOS, it would've made the experience horrible.
In retrospect, I'm happy with how the situation was handled with iOS, but maybe, just maybe, Microsoft should have not repeated the same mistakes and put them into spotlight once Apple has resolved their issues.
Mr a-yz, giving an examples that I know of instead of the examples you would prefer does not make my personal dislike any less intense, and neither does it make other people's personal dislikes any less intense. I do like some solutions in.Net, but overall I don't like it.
Do you say the same thing to the people who say "I don't like broccoli"?
I've worked with.Net and Team Foundation and never catched the workflow. I do not claim.Net to be bad, as I have seen too much good engineering done with it, and I have seen quite a few nice tricks in both C# and the framework. I do reserve the right to dislike the general principles behind many pieces of the design and to do so passionately, while respecting the work of good people who designed C# and.Net and who use it. Dislike has very little to do with it coming from Microsoft.
Not really backdoors, if you RTFA. They can broadcast network signal, give people satellite phones or other satellite transcievers. There's more stuff that the officer didn't want to discuss, because deployment of those is decided at the level of "commander-in-chief".
I don't see anything wrong with the UI. I haven't experienced a problem with security. On Windows, I like that it provides Apple's font rendering; much neater for me. Here's an anti-list for you.
Chrome installs GoogleSoftwareUpdateAgent on Mac, which cannot be configured in any way, and can barely be uninstalled. Through Terminal which, while adequate for me, isn't adequate for the average computer user. I don't have broadband and I don't want Google deciding when they can fetch and unload 30mb packages on my machine (doing so when I'm on 125mb-capped cellphone connection is not a good time).
Firefox wasn't fast until 4.0. Plus I ran into a bug on Firefox 3.5 that blocks one key feature of a project of mine with its buggy sessionStorage implementation.
Opera is wonderful, but its Dragonfly is a remotely-hosted joke which I cannot use while offline or on slow connection. Plus, as of early 2011, I cannot continuously sync bookmarks with any other browser.
IE9 is IE.
I also like Safari's Speed Dial implementation (I like it better than Chrome's and Opera's). Nonetheless, I have all of the above on my Mac, except Chrome, due to its background malware being required for it to run. Malware because it actively hurts my wallet.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no idea, since English is not my primary language. What do you think it means?
Libya is engagement in conflict, not a prevention of conflict. Prove me otherwise.
While developing the software, developers at least consumed food. Hence they needed to ensure funding for the food. Despite that I have, in effect, implied organization as necessary, I intended to say that nothing is unpaid for.
I release stuff as free software. I label it as such (not as open source). At the same time, I don't expect to make a living off of that software.
I don't have software-unrelated skills. I don't want to do unskilled labor. What can I do? I can write software for living.
I want to make people happy. What kind of software I can write? End-user software. How do I make money off of that? By selling it. How do I tell people that I'd appreciate their money? Well, by asking for it. How does libre software fit into all this? It doesn't really -- it's a hobby of mine.
People working on Unix were employed at Bell Labs. Which turned it into a big commercial thing. Linus Torvalds was a student when he began writing the kernel. Linux and GNU contributors were primarily hobbyists with obviously other source of income, paying for development instead of users. Alternatively, they were employees of enthusiastic companies (or those that needed to satisfy a market) and *gasp* they were making money off of it! Apache started off as a fork of NCSA httpd, did it not?
Do you think Linux would kick off if it weren't zero-cost to redistribute, aside from being libre? Do you think Apache would, when NCSA's httpd was zero-cost?
I apologize for not making a distinction between self-hosted web-based blogging service and a blogging tool for interaction with remote services, but with integration of the local desktop environment.
Sometimes it's hard to make a distinction.
I'm always looking for ways to be supportive of FSF's stances, but they are a puritan organization. As such, they present views that they know won't gain mainstream acceptance but that's ok, since something more reasonable will gain it. And that's where I stand: I don't consider words of FSF to be holy, but I will support a more "secular" view.
Same here. It's unreasonable to consider an offering "libre" to be truly possible without being fully "unpaid". Not because they are linguistically indistinct concepts, but because they are not to be expected. Licensing schemes, as they exist today for end users, typically allow software that costs thousands to develop (if not monetary, then in food) to be available for lower prices. "Splitting the cost."
Software needs funding before it exists. It's unreasonable to offer people a "donation jar" to fund software that doesn't exist yet and is unproven. Rare examples of success are not always truly success. Most software is funded a-priori in good faith that somehow one can pay it back. How? By selling a-posteriori. Selling software that must be freely copyable by the recipient is possible, and explicitly supported by FSF, this is rarely feasible nowadays if developing software is your primary work in life. This is because you will rarely have the success of Blender in order to sell other merchandise. A lot of work done under free software platforms is done by volunteers, but a lot of highest quality work is done by companies that have other means of earning money. It's really hard to get quality software written fast when it's not your primary thing in life and with free software, it's hard to make it a primary thing. And if you can't think of writing free software as of a profession because you don't have the financial backing to write free software, FSF bluntly says you shouldn't think of it as your profession. I can't dig it out right now, but it's either somewhere on FSF's site, on GNU site, or on Stallman.org.
It's easy to pretend "libre" isn't followed by "unpaid". It's also easy to see that it's just a pretense. Let's hope that FSF's list of high priority projects does prove me wrong, that you indeed can stick out a donation jar and expect the money to flow a-priori. Because then I will indeed dedicate myself to working on tons of free software projects that I've either started already, or just wanted to work on. I want to work on a good blogging tool for GNU/Linux and Mac. Can I get a-priori funding for that? Or is it easier to dismiss pride and ideals and just sell on the Mac App Store, not opening the source since something like this might happen?
GitHub replaced it for those who use Git. I don't, and many other people don't. I use Mercurial and SVN and hence mostly use BitBucket and Google Code. However I contribute(d) to some mature projects on SF.net, so it's pretty much still around in my 'verse. GitHub mostly isn't because it requires use of Git.
It used to be. Then they closed it. Then last FLOSS version was forked as GForge and others. I guess they're opening it again.
A lot of crime happens on the streets. What conclusion does that draw?
Well, if some franchises could kill off 70+ years of history of an entire universe, I guess we could pretend characters of Firefly didn't die.
Gmail's "Mute" ftw.
Oh dear, not that excuse again. Apple solved it without owning a local representative in Croatia. Why can't Google, with a significantly greater local and localized presence? Even worse thing with Microsoft and their XBLA and Phone 7; they actually own a local company Microsoft Hrvatska, yet they not only don't want to sell in Croatia, they also can't process Croatian sales.
Oh, and despite Checkout being here, Android Market paid apps are unavailable in Croatia.
I have multitasking on my jailbroken iOS 3.1.3. Let me tell you, that device has barely enough memory to run one app. Most work just fine, but Twitter for iPhone is a major resource hog, and trying to multitask it with, let's say, Opera and Stanza? No-no.
It's easy to go "why the hell is that an innovation", especially considering Windows Mobile had it 10 years ago. On the other hand, it really wasn't working out well on WM, and on iOS, it would've made the experience horrible.
In retrospect, I'm happy with how the situation was handled with iOS, but maybe, just maybe, Microsoft should have not repeated the same mistakes and put them into spotlight once Apple has resolved their issues.
Not only Android, mind you.
Perhaps a portion of voice traffic spends some time as VOIP traffic nowadays? I don't claim that it does, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Funny, I just read an old computer games magazine with a review of a Pinky/The Brain game...
Mr a-yz, giving an examples that I know of instead of the examples you would prefer does not make my personal dislike any less intense, and neither does it make other people's personal dislikes any less intense. I do like some solutions in .Net, but overall I don't like it.
Do you say the same thing to the people who say "I don't like broccoli"?
.Net and Team Foundation and never catched the workflow. I do not claim .Net to be bad, as I have seen too much good engineering done with it, and I have seen quite a few nice tricks in both C# and the framework. I do reserve the right to dislike the general principles behind many pieces of the design and to do so passionately, while respecting the work of good people who designed C# and .Net and who use it. Dislike has very little to do with it coming from Microsoft.
I've worked with
It also doesn't apply to places where people passionately dislike .Net.
Ultimately evil, this will at least provide a list of patents that threaten VP8.
Not really backdoors, if you RTFA. They can broadcast network signal, give people satellite phones or other satellite transcievers. There's more stuff that the officer didn't want to discuss, because deployment of those is decided at the level of "commander-in-chief".
Amen, brother!
Rendering engine. On pages requesting Chrome Frame, they switch the entire rendering engine. Not just the Javascript engine.
Grandpa
Oh, they couldn't have made it work out of the box, could they? >: (
I don't see anything wrong with the UI. I haven't experienced a problem with security. On Windows, I like that it provides Apple's font rendering; much neater for me. Here's an anti-list for you.
Chrome installs GoogleSoftwareUpdateAgent on Mac, which cannot be configured in any way, and can barely be uninstalled. Through Terminal which, while adequate for me, isn't adequate for the average computer user. I don't have broadband and I don't want Google deciding when they can fetch and unload 30mb packages on my machine (doing so when I'm on 125mb-capped cellphone connection is not a good time).
Firefox wasn't fast until 4.0. Plus I ran into a bug on Firefox 3.5 that blocks one key feature of a project of mine with its buggy sessionStorage implementation.
Opera is wonderful, but its Dragonfly is a remotely-hosted joke which I cannot use while offline or on slow connection. Plus, as of early 2011, I cannot continuously sync bookmarks with any other browser.
IE9 is IE.
I also like Safari's Speed Dial implementation (I like it better than Chrome's and Opera's). Nonetheless, I have all of the above on my Mac, except Chrome, due to its background malware being required for it to run. Malware because it actively hurts my wallet.