Actually they were good for nothing, unless you were surrounded by an environment struck constantly by conflict and horror. Something you would have picked up if you had read TFA instead of wasting 14232 hours of your life playing Tetris.
The Phobos-Grunt mission will also deploy a Chinese sub-satellite "Firefly-1" which will attempt to figure out how water on Mars disappeared while unfortunately The United States is not taking part in Phobos-Grunt.
Didn't we already conclude that the water was vaporized after Mars lost its atmosphere caused by intense solar winds?
To answer your question: no. It could be seen as very similair to Dell's, but not Ubuntus. The difference is that the contributions you submit for Ubuntu Brainstorm are yours and others to keep. Thus there's always a personal gain, and no providing you with a new product to purchase does not count.
I should punch you in the face for this, but I know you're just flamebaiting. You know perfectly well of the differences between contributing to an open project (which means you didn't lose the rights to use them) and giving away ideas for no personal gain. This isn't about right contra wrong, but rather stupid contra smart.
To me it's always a question of licensing. If you care to keep a share of your idea and the product made of it be sure to submit it to someone who won't steal it from you. Of course this is easy with FOSS licenses but not impossible with proprietary licenses, given that your idea or product is valuable enough.
Well while you have a point, you see hinders and not solutions. Sure U-Storage is probably very boring to maintain, but not all OSS's are hobby-based. Take ZFS for example, you think people jump out of joy while coding it? No but it has to be done for Sun to be able to catch up with the market with Solaris. And what goes for your business, your problem is that you're telling me that you cannot breathe under water. Well this is not strange at all, but change the environment, change how softare is developed and looked at today and it won't be difficult at all. Basicly what I mean is that you're assuming that the current foundations of software are to be kept while moving towards OSS, this is completely incorrect. For OSS to be at it's best, no closed source may exist, this is given. Thus while you live in a world with a vast majority of closed source it's not strange that your projects must be kept close, but this isn't relevant to my argument for in my argument we've already gone past the "hard part", which is the migration. OSS will be replacing closed source unless something very abrupt happens, some law that makes it difficult to distribute or something, however let's never underestimate the power of money. So what I'm saying is that even though everything is not fun and joy all the time, people do it anyway, and not that it matters to my argument but I'm sure that even some people find maintaining U-Storage or ZFS fun.
Buy charging for every copy you can spread out the cost of development.
By releasing the source you can spread out everything of the development. Sure, it's not profitable for corporates that would in the other hand hold monopoly, but I don't give a simple fuck about the corporates. There will always be some way of gaining profit anyway, perhaps not in the same ridiculous way that we have today. Company dominates market -> has dependency -> forces software through -> creates additional dependency -> sells software that everyone depends on -> repeat.
You Macibans are by far the most delusional creatures on this planet. You honestly think Apple won't piss you in the face as soon as they can? They can't because at this stage it wouldn't be profitable to complicate things for them. Fucking iPod with bundled iTunes that only has proper support in iMac which you can only charge with your iCharger. One day you will come to realise that your iToothbrush isn't really worth that extra $40 and when you finally choose to change brands you go: "wow, I never realised I was entangling myself in such a fucking mess of limited interoperability, I'm such a fucking douche". There you have it, next reality update will cost you though, a modest sum of one punch in your face by yourself.
I'm sorry, you must have misunderstood me. I'm not talking about anything abstract. I'm talking about the pros and cons of showing the source code of any software, it's a very concrete concept even if it holds a wide perspective. The inferiority of OSS depends on quantity of users/developers, which today is a minority in comparison to proprietary software, thus one must understand that quality will increase in proportion to growth. While your arguments might hold water today, they are relative to this day and age, and not OSS in general (still not talking about anything abstract, mind you). The truth is this: we will never know how OSS will evolve unless we promote it. As long as we take the shortcut, the quick fix, the easy way out, call it whatever you want, we will still be in the grasp of a supplier holding monopoly. So while your arguments hold water today, tomorrow things might look very different, and I'm willing to take that risk, for I as a user will never be struck by the "downsides" of OSS.
This argument doesn't apply for the vast majority, the common users. Simply for those in favor of monopoly (corporates) and/or confidentiality (corporates). For I will never as a user get struck by the "downsides" of OSS, and I doubt you can disagree. Infact the only "downside" that I see is cooperation between corporates locking eachother in a web of dependency leaving low or no support for any outsiders. However this is not a product of OSS, it's a product of those who turn their backs on OSS, thus in all fairness it's not OSS's fault that corporates choose not to support it.
Slashdot will NEVER be considered a legitimate source of "journalism"
Hahahahahaha you're killing me, legitimate source of journalism. What's next? Bigfoot gets raped by Godzilla and gives birth to the toothfairy? Come on, we all know there's no such thing as "legitimate source of journalism", but legitimate source of income does though, not to be confused.
I'm sceptical about installing anything that is pronounced "oh no". Same goes with "oh shit", "oh fuck" and "oh my god, what the fuck did I just do!?".;-)
It's not a mess at all, it's infact very organized and you have a lot of foundations and organizations ensuring this. What is however a mess is blindfolding. How can you force proprietary applications upon people, MSN Messenger is a good example, and then expect that Linux should flawlessly reverse engineer it. Before MSN Messenger we had ICQ (also proprietary but relevant to the argument) which was very popular. It could, by the time that MSN Messenger bloomed, do almost (if not completely) the same thing. The difference? MSN Messenger comes with your OS, thus you don't need to even know about a 3rd party supplier. MSN Messenger works, it's so simple that you would be a total dickhead to fuck it up, but for a long time IE had big troubles (and frankly I left that scene long ago so I don't know about the current status) and thus Firefox got it's space to roam, not because it was a killerapp, but because the included application was worthless, thus people became forced to learn about the 3rd party. Similair to the MSN/ICQ scenario. The difference is that IM applications where back in the days still not widely used, as in by the common users. And this is the only reason why Firefox lives today, simply because MS lost their credibility when it comes to their browser, and people are still sceptical about IE, because they remember what a piece of shit application it once was.
So don't give me that crap about breaks/fix. It breaks because some dickhead chooses to put his money where he can almost certainly gain profit, no matter the product in hand, leaving no space for improvement/competition.
How can you blame anyone for coming to this conclusion? When you "face the facts" and clearly come to the conclusion that the pros do infact weigh heavier than the cons you have to ask yourself, "And why aren't we all using OSS yet?". Thus beating Microsoft is not relevant, but beating proprietary code is, and thus indirectly also Microsoft, Apple etc.
It's a feature in Windows as well, they make a complete solution, call it Ultimate. Then step by step strip it down until it becomes almost static. And when you need that one simple function, they go "Well you can always upgrade to Ultimate".
So to the parent of this thread, don't give me that bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
My mom was flarqed by a neeble whorp, you insensitive clod!
And paper, morse code, whistles, Microsoft Sam...
Have you tried playing Tetris at the same time? From what I've heard it helps!
Clicking without looking is like watching the movie in The Ring. After a while someone will murder you.
Actually they were good for nothing, unless you were surrounded by an environment struck constantly by conflict and horror. Something you would have picked up if you had read TFA instead of wasting 14232 hours of your life playing Tetris.
The Phobos-Grunt mission will also deploy a Chinese sub-satellite "Firefly-1" which will attempt to figure out how water on Mars disappeared while unfortunately The United States is not taking part in Phobos-Grunt.
Didn't we already conclude that the water was vaporized after Mars lost its atmosphere caused by intense solar winds?
Haha not exactly. However if I did have super powers that's precisely the kind of superhero I'd be.
So what - it is their idea, not yours.
I'm not claiming anything. I'm merely pointing out that it's stupid to give away something for no gain, rather than for some gain.
To answer your question: no. It could be seen as very similair to Dell's, but not Ubuntus. The difference is that the contributions you submit for Ubuntu Brainstorm are yours and others to keep. Thus there's always a personal gain, and no providing you with a new product to purchase does not count.
I should punch you in the face for this, but I know you're just flamebaiting. You know perfectly well of the differences between contributing to an open project (which means you didn't lose the rights to use them) and giving away ideas for no personal gain. This isn't about right contra wrong, but rather stupid contra smart.
To me it's always a question of licensing. If you care to keep a share of your idea and the product made of it be sure to submit it to someone who won't steal it from you. Of course this is easy with FOSS licenses but not impossible with proprietary licenses, given that your idea or product is valuable enough.
Well while you have a point, you see hinders and not solutions. Sure U-Storage is probably very boring to maintain, but not all OSS's are hobby-based. Take ZFS for example, you think people jump out of joy while coding it? No but it has to be done for Sun to be able to catch up with the market with Solaris. And what goes for your business, your problem is that you're telling me that you cannot breathe under water. Well this is not strange at all, but change the environment, change how softare is developed and looked at today and it won't be difficult at all. Basicly what I mean is that you're assuming that the current foundations of software are to be kept while moving towards OSS, this is completely incorrect. For OSS to be at it's best, no closed source may exist, this is given. Thus while you live in a world with a vast majority of closed source it's not strange that your projects must be kept close, but this isn't relevant to my argument for in my argument we've already gone past the "hard part", which is the migration. OSS will be replacing closed source unless something very abrupt happens, some law that makes it difficult to distribute or something, however let's never underestimate the power of money. So what I'm saying is that even though everything is not fun and joy all the time, people do it anyway, and not that it matters to my argument but I'm sure that even some people find maintaining U-Storage or ZFS fun.
Did anyone else notice that his name consist of the last names of John Dorian and Perry Cox from Scrubs? Perhaps I'm watching too much TV.
Buy charging for every copy you can spread out the cost of development.
By releasing the source you can spread out everything of the development. Sure, it's not profitable for corporates that would in the other hand hold monopoly, but I don't give a simple fuck about the corporates. There will always be some way of gaining profit anyway, perhaps not in the same ridiculous way that we have today. Company dominates market -> has dependency -> forces software through -> creates additional dependency -> sells software that everyone depends on -> repeat.
You Macibans are by far the most delusional creatures on this planet. You honestly think Apple won't piss you in the face as soon as they can? They can't because at this stage it wouldn't be profitable to complicate things for them. Fucking iPod with bundled iTunes that only has proper support in iMac which you can only charge with your iCharger. One day you will come to realise that your iToothbrush isn't really worth that extra $40 and when you finally choose to change brands you go: "wow, I never realised I was entangling myself in such a fucking mess of limited interoperability, I'm such a fucking douche". There you have it, next reality update will cost you though, a modest sum of one punch in your face by yourself.
I'm sorry, you must have misunderstood me. I'm not talking about anything abstract. I'm talking about the pros and cons of showing the source code of any software, it's a very concrete concept even if it holds a wide perspective. The inferiority of OSS depends on quantity of users/developers, which today is a minority in comparison to proprietary software, thus one must understand that quality will increase in proportion to growth. While your arguments might hold water today, they are relative to this day and age, and not OSS in general (still not talking about anything abstract, mind you). The truth is this: we will never know how OSS will evolve unless we promote it. As long as we take the shortcut, the quick fix, the easy way out, call it whatever you want, we will still be in the grasp of a supplier holding monopoly. So while your arguments hold water today, tomorrow things might look very different, and I'm willing to take that risk, for I as a user will never be struck by the "downsides" of OSS.
This argument doesn't apply for the vast majority, the common users. Simply for those in favor of monopoly (corporates) and/or confidentiality (corporates). For I will never as a user get struck by the "downsides" of OSS, and I doubt you can disagree. Infact the only "downside" that I see is cooperation between corporates locking eachother in a web of dependency leaving low or no support for any outsiders. However this is not a product of OSS, it's a product of those who turn their backs on OSS, thus in all fairness it's not OSS's fault that corporates choose not to support it.
Slashdot will NEVER be considered a legitimate source of "journalism"
Hahahahahaha you're killing me, legitimate source of journalism. What's next? Bigfoot gets raped by Godzilla and gives birth to the toothfairy? Come on, we all know there's no such thing as "legitimate source of journalism", but legitimate source of income does though, not to be confused.
I'm sceptical about installing anything that is pronounced "oh no". Same goes with "oh shit", "oh fuck" and "oh my god, what the fuck did I just do!?". ;-)
... what the fuck!?
I can just see the consequences that follow...
It's not a mess at all, it's infact very organized and you have a lot of foundations and organizations ensuring this. What is however a mess is blindfolding. How can you force proprietary applications upon people, MSN Messenger is a good example, and then expect that Linux should flawlessly reverse engineer it. Before MSN Messenger we had ICQ (also proprietary but relevant to the argument) which was very popular. It could, by the time that MSN Messenger bloomed, do almost (if not completely) the same thing. The difference? MSN Messenger comes with your OS, thus you don't need to even know about a 3rd party supplier. MSN Messenger works, it's so simple that you would be a total dickhead to fuck it up, but for a long time IE had big troubles (and frankly I left that scene long ago so I don't know about the current status) and thus Firefox got it's space to roam, not because it was a killerapp, but because the included application was worthless, thus people became forced to learn about the 3rd party. Similair to the MSN/ICQ scenario. The difference is that IM applications where back in the days still not widely used, as in by the common users. And this is the only reason why Firefox lives today, simply because MS lost their credibility when it comes to their browser, and people are still sceptical about IE, because they remember what a piece of shit application it once was.
So don't give me that crap about breaks/fix. It breaks because some dickhead chooses to put his money where he can almost certainly gain profit, no matter the product in hand, leaving no space for improvement/competition.
How can you blame anyone for coming to this conclusion? When you "face the facts" and clearly come to the conclusion that the pros do infact weigh heavier than the cons you have to ask yourself, "And why aren't we all using OSS yet?". Thus beating Microsoft is not relevant, but beating proprietary code is, and thus indirectly also Microsoft, Apple etc.
It's a feature in Windows as well, they make a complete solution, call it Ultimate. Then step by step strip it down until it becomes almost static. And when you need that one simple function, they go "Well you can always upgrade to Ultimate".
So to the parent of this thread, don't give me that bullshit.
Cutting your leg off with a chainsaw is the biggest pain. Compiling the hal source and reboot your machine is just annoying.