then what the hell is the point of the subject line in the first place? Seems to me the problem isn't the parent, it is a flaw in the comment system. Really, what function does the subject serve?
Point me to the bittorrent client that I can embed into any webpage, click "play", and with little to no wait, watch a video. Make sure it can work with 95% of all browsers on the market without installing a plugin*.
If you think bittorrent competes with Youtube, you dont understand what Youtube does.
* flash is a plugin, but since you already have it installed, it doesn't count.
Video was never meant for your computer. It was meant to be viewed with your fat ass parked on a couch holding a beer and a remote. Anything else is for the birds.
I'd only pay for content if I could stream it to my SageTV (i.e. mythtv, only with a high WAF). I can stream Youtube content to it now so I would hope they allow me to watch paid content the same way. Doubt it though.
Neither of us has ever had flu shot and we never plan to. You gotta give your immune system something to do or it will slack off and not function when you actually need it.
Pay to view? Sorry. There isn't much quality content on youtube worth paying for.
Pay to post? That might work. People who pay could have more control over their content. They could keep it from being compressed to hell, do things like swap the youtube logo with their own, have embedded links in their content, etc... I bet there is money in that market. But I'll tell you one thing... there ain't a damn thing on youtube I'd pay for. Cover bands doing cheesy remixes, teenagers getting their 15-minutes, and videos of cute pandas eating bamboo aren't worth paying for.
Nor was my ladyfriend, who works with the public every day. Last week both of us were achy, runny nose, and had a sore throat. Mostly gone now. Wonder if we got this dreaded swine flu? Wonder how many people had it or are having it right now, but just don't have any symptoms that merit anything more than a hot shower, ibuprofen, and tea?
Life becomes interesting when you meet some somebody a party who thinks he is serious and worse, agree with him! I mean, after all, clearly it is true that all textbooks are nothing but a way for socialists to push their liberal agenda. You laugh, this guy says "right on!" wants to give me a hi-five! Good times!
I sure hope you are still in high school because if you are any older than 19, seek help. That or you are a brilliant troll, in which case kudos to you.
Because I believe they are becoming a hindrance to moving onto something better. The future will have layers, yes, but it might not look like the ones in the OSI model.
Nobody will adopt IPv6 because it is just a larger tree. It doesn't scale the way we are now using it. The way we are starting to use our network is peer-2-peer--dare I even say "cloud-like"?
We dont care where the information comes from, only that it is the real deal. It could come from some data center, some server pool, a microwave, the cell phone, the car stereo, or your neighbors TV... doesn't matter. As long as I know the data is authentic, the source doesn't matter. That is exactly what bit-torrent is about. Only bit-torrent needs a tracker because of the deficenies of TCP/IP. If the network was all about data and how to get to it, rather than maintaining connections between two devices, we wouldn't need trackers or bit-torrent. And when you think about it, this is how it needs to be. Otherwise all the traffic has to aggrigate through larger and larger "central" links--down the tree and back up the tree to the other side. That is what we have now--it is the mindset of IP... you start and the edge node and work in than out to another edge... This doesn't scale and it gives a lot of power to the guys with the big pipes (i.e. your cable company or mega-ISP). Bit-torrent is really a mesh of interconnected goo. That is how it should be--only as a fundamental feature of the network. Focus on the data, not on end to end connections.
IPv6 is more of the same. The fact that it is hierarchical is a bug, not a feature.
I'd argue there is never going to be a killer app for IPv6 because it is nothing more than window dressing on the same old, boring protocols. The true killer app will be on a protocol that is nothing like TCP/IP... say a working mesh protocol where there is no notion ports, IP addresses or any of that nonsense. Where you don't care where the data you get comes from as long as it is authentic. That is the future. Bit torrent is the closest we have to that future and bit-torrent is nothing but a hack of TCP/IP. If the protocol stack was built from the ground up to not care about the source of data, only that it is authentic, *then* you'd have a killer app.
IPv6 is boring and it isn't even mainstream. How about we cook up something new. Remember when TCP/IP was the new kid on the block and most games had dual or tri-network stacks (TCP/IP, IPX/SPX, Netbeui)? It only took like a few years before all that nonsense went away and we all settled on TCP/IP. Basically, overnight. The same thing *will* happen again. Only it will *not* be IPv6. Mark my words. We've outgrown what IP gives us... The mesh is the future.
But to this day, getting a keyboard working in USB mode is still a hit and miss thing. What makes me think "they" can pull off a bluetooth keyboard that works the second I boot? Not bloody likely, I say.
Something tells me PS2 will be around for a hell of a lot longer. Until they invent wireless PS2. Maybe.
Us lefties are pretty much left in the dust with these new-fangled ergonomic mice deals. The last time I had the ability to use either hand for a mouse was about 5 years ago. These days, everybody has those thumb-buttons that are your back/forward button. Dunno how they'd make that work for both hands.
I do miss the ability to swap the left/right mouse buttons when I went into left-hand mode. Anybody that tried using my computer would get very confused until they realized I was a lefty.
These little puppies, i.e. recursive queries, look pretty cool too. Sounds like a good tool for threaded comment systems or finding related items in a table:
Recursive queries are typically used to deal with hierarchical or tree-structured data. A useful example is this query to find all the direct and indirect sub-parts of a product, given only a table that shows immediate inclusions:
WITH RECURSIVE included_parts(sub_part, part, quantity) AS (
SELECT sub_part, part, quantity FROM parts WHERE part = 'our_product'
UNION ALL
SELECT p.sub_part, p.part, p.quantity
FROM included_parts pr, parts p
WHERE p.part = pr.sub_part
) SELECT sub_part, SUM(quantity) as total_quantity FROM included_parts GROUP BY sub_part
... It will take a while to wrap my brain around this new concept though. That doesn't look like a normal query I'm used to reading!
They'll get replication some day soon. But there is a lot of cool, very useful stuff with every new release. I usually feel like kid in a candy store wondering what's new that I can exploit.
How do you ease their concerns about the FSF dudes going after companies like Tivo or Cisco? I mean, if I was a hardware guy right now, I'd be *very* concerned about touching GPL stuff. Almost like they dont want me at the club.
Damn you guys use weasel words. That or you really dont understand the product you are selling.
You can distribute your code under the GPL and then switch to another license at any time for future versions.
This is true. But only is true if your code never touched my code. The second your GPL code touches my codebase, if I want to redistribute the codebase, I *must* do so under the GPL. Unless I remove your code from my project, I have no choice in the matter.
Now, if we agree that is the case, fair enough. But the fact that if I want to use your code, I have to license my entire codebase as GPL makes your code pretty worthless to me. And if you are okay with that, cool. I won't use your product and we both win. But don't be surprised when others dont like getting in bed with GPL code either... like say video card makers or game companies. Remember you are fighting a war of ideas, and not everybody agrees with your ideas.
So, I propose to give my developers a covenant that the company will keep development in Open Source for two years after their contribution, or remove their contribution.
That is probably a good idea, if you can convince companies to add such a clause into the licensing and could be done in a way that remains GPL compatible. But it seems that companies wouldn't go for that anyway because their aim isn't some love fest, but a cold business calculation--get free work from others and at the same time be able to project the image of being pro-open source. People buy into this because they are so excited to see big-names backing the GPL they ignore all the potential issues with how these big-names are using the GPL.
I just worry that if dual-licensing gets abused, which is easy to do, it will tarnish the GPL brand. I dont think you want that, nor do I think the FSF wants that.
I mean, what do you think about how many of these guys require copyright assignment too? It just sets things up for so many things that could go wrong. They could so easily do a bait and switch on you. Really, I worry about this kind of stuff and if I was in your shoes or in the FSF's shoes, I'd be worried too. I certainly wouldn't make role models of companies who use it. Once you get an image like "the GPL is for scummy companies only", it is hard to shake.
You'd much rather have assholes like me bashing it than getting it branded as a licenses used by scummy companies out to exploit people. If that happens, we all lose--even us pro-bsd folk. Besides, if the GPL had that kind of image, what would I do on slashdot:-)
I don't see how you can defend such dual-licensing schemes Bruce, they do far more harm to the GPL brand then good. Dual licensing is a way for companies to leech the goodwill of a community and profit from it. The community gives code (and ownership of the code) to the company and in return those changes get incorporated into a proprietary licence and resold. It is like the worst of the GPL coupled the worst of the BSD--people are taking your code and selling it without giving back to you!
So I really don't understand how somebody like yourself, who is so passionate about open source and the philosophy of the GPL can defend such companies and even hold them as examples. I mean, dual license is a working business model, but it seems a violation of the spirit of the GPL and worse, it just feels very wrong.
If you ask me, defending such usage is a dangerous path that risks forever tarnishing the GPL by giving an image of a license used only by those wishing to profit off the goodwill of others.
Boy some sure like to cling to that semantic point though. As if they can just sweep under the implications of what happens the minute they want to distribute the code by saying "there is no obligation to distribute your code". Software was designed to be distributed it. Hell, sometimes people even want to try selling apps that used to be used internally. When they were internal, they were "safe" from the GPL but the second they want to go outside the walls of their office, they have to distribute the application under the GPL. In otherwords, it is no longer a viable option besides gutting the GPL code.
That is the point... sure if you only use GPL stuff internally it is technically true nobody can force your code out of you. The second you want to try your hand selling said internal application, you got screwed. Thus people are leery of using GPL code because it takes away those kinds of options.
the GPL has no such mystical powers as being able to force your code to "become a derivative work" or "become GPL'ed".
This is a tired old argument and is fundamentally a diversion from the real issue. Everybody knows that the GPL applies only when you distribute your code. That point is well known! If you keep it internal, you are safe. But the second you want to distribute it, anything that the GPL considers a derivative work becomes GPL. And *that* is why some people, like myself, prefer to avoid GPL.
Using the GPL takes away the *option* of ever being able to distribute our work without making it GPL. I, like some, like to keep my options open. Sure I might always keep the work internal, but who knows in the future... If I start using the GPL in my code, my option to distribute my codebase under a license of my choosing goes out the window.
See, you are rational. Your "team", like any, has plenty of zealots on it that are more than happy to mod "my team" down, or call me a leech, or whatever. I think part of the reason you guys get more traction is cause you have more lout-mouth activists. BSD folk are pretty chill, so we dont get much visibility.
Of course you have RMS. We've just got that OpenBSD guy Theo. I'll take Theo cause at least nobody outside of a small group has heard of him:-)
The problem with the BSD license is that the only way to get money out of it is charity
True. Well, maybe. Firefox? I guess charity.
But you are pretty correct. But honestly, the kinds of contributors needed to make a "real" application are from people who wouldn't get paid using either license. I'm talking UI people, QA staff, marketing departments, etc...
Actually, I dont know what I'm talking about. You raise an interesting point. That still doesn't mean I can't feel a bit queasy about dual-license stuff. If I was the head honchos at the GPL factory, I'd be a bit queasy seeing the GPL brand become "MySQL, Java, and other companies who only use the GPL to squeeze money out of people". It isn't a very healthy brand for your product. I think it would be wise to distance myself from companies who use the GPL in this way. But what do I know!
95% of the projects on sourceforge are rubbish that either has no release or hasn't been updated since 1992 so what does that 77% tell me? Nothing. Here is something more intereting:
Firefox - Used everywhere, Not GPL Apache - Used everywhere, Not GPL OpenSSH - Used everywhere, Not GPL Perl - Used everwhere, Not GPL PHP - Used everywhere, Not GPL Ruby - Used everywhere, Not GPL Rails - Used everywhere, Not GPL PostgreSQL - used everywhere, Not GPL
My point? Dunno, but I woudn't be using sourceforce for gathering statistics.
Not in need of your pity right now
No pity. I dont really care, honestly. Software is a tool, dammit. Not a religion. I left linux because of the politics. I just want something that works.
Slashdot Mirror
then what the hell is the point of the subject line in the first place? Seems to me the problem isn't the parent, it is a flaw in the comment system. Really, what function does the subject serve?
Point me to the bittorrent client that I can embed into any webpage, click "play", and with little to no wait, watch a video. Make sure it can work with 95% of all browsers on the market without installing a plugin*.
If you think bittorrent competes with Youtube, you dont understand what Youtube does.
* flash is a plugin, but since you already have it installed, it doesn't count.
This is the problem:
Video was never meant for your computer. It was meant to be viewed with your fat ass parked on a couch holding a beer and a remote. Anything else is for the birds.
I'd only pay for content if I could stream it to my SageTV (i.e. mythtv, only with a high WAF). I can stream Youtube content to it now so I would hope they allow me to watch paid content the same way. Doubt it though.
Neither of us has ever had flu shot and we never plan to. You gotta give your immune system something to do or it will slack off and not function when you actually need it.
I'll bet it is way more prevalent than we think.
Pay to view? Sorry. There isn't much quality content on youtube worth paying for.
Pay to post? That might work. People who pay could have more control over their content. They could keep it from being compressed to hell, do things like swap the youtube logo with their own, have embedded links in their content, etc... I bet there is money in that market. But I'll tell you one thing... there ain't a damn thing on youtube I'd pay for. Cover bands doing cheesy remixes, teenagers getting their 15-minutes, and videos of cute pandas eating bamboo aren't worth paying for.
Nor was my ladyfriend, who works with the public every day. Last week both of us were achy, runny nose, and had a sore throat. Mostly gone now. Wonder if we got this dreaded swine flu? Wonder how many people had it or are having it right now, but just don't have any symptoms that merit anything more than a hot shower, ibuprofen, and tea?
Life becomes interesting when you meet some somebody a party who thinks he is serious and worse, agree with him! I mean, after all, clearly it is true that all textbooks are nothing but a way for socialists to push their liberal agenda. You laugh, this guy says "right on!" wants to give me a hi-five! Good times!
I sure hope you are still in high school because if you are any older than 19, seek help. That or you are a brilliant troll, in which case kudos to you.
Because I believe they are becoming a hindrance to moving onto something better. The future will have layers, yes, but it might not look like the ones in the OSI model.
Nobody will adopt IPv6 because it is just a larger tree. It doesn't scale the way we are now using it. The way we are starting to use our network is peer-2-peer--dare I even say "cloud-like"?
We dont care where the information comes from, only that it is the real deal. It could come from some data center, some server pool, a microwave, the cell phone, the car stereo, or your neighbors TV... doesn't matter. As long as I know the data is authentic, the source doesn't matter. That is exactly what bit-torrent is about. Only bit-torrent needs a tracker because of the deficenies of TCP/IP. If the network was all about data and how to get to it, rather than maintaining connections between two devices, we wouldn't need trackers or bit-torrent. And when you think about it, this is how it needs to be. Otherwise all the traffic has to aggrigate through larger and larger "central" links--down the tree and back up the tree to the other side. That is what we have now--it is the mindset of IP... you start and the edge node and work in than out to another edge... This doesn't scale and it gives a lot of power to the guys with the big pipes (i.e. your cable company or mega-ISP). Bit-torrent is really a mesh of interconnected goo. That is how it should be--only as a fundamental feature of the network. Focus on the data, not on end to end connections.
IPv6 is more of the same. The fact that it is hierarchical is a bug, not a feature.
I'd argue there is never going to be a killer app for IPv6 because it is nothing more than window dressing on the same old, boring protocols. The true killer app will be on a protocol that is nothing like TCP/IP... say a working mesh protocol where there is no notion ports, IP addresses or any of that nonsense. Where you don't care where the data you get comes from as long as it is authentic. That is the future. Bit torrent is the closest we have to that future and bit-torrent is nothing but a hack of TCP/IP. If the protocol stack was built from the ground up to not care about the source of data, only that it is authentic, *then* you'd have a killer app.
IPv6 is boring and it isn't even mainstream. How about we cook up something new. Remember when TCP/IP was the new kid on the block and most games had dual or tri-network stacks (TCP/IP, IPX/SPX, Netbeui)? It only took like a few years before all that nonsense went away and we all settled on TCP/IP. Basically, overnight. The same thing *will* happen again. Only it will *not* be IPv6. Mark my words. We've outgrown what IP gives us... The mesh is the future.
But to this day, getting a keyboard working in USB mode is still a hit and miss thing. What makes me think "they" can pull off a bluetooth keyboard that works the second I boot? Not bloody likely, I say.
Something tells me PS2 will be around for a hell of a lot longer. Until they invent wireless PS2. Maybe.
Us lefties are pretty much left in the dust with these new-fangled ergonomic mice deals. The last time I had the ability to use either hand for a mouse was about 5 years ago. These days, everybody has those thumb-buttons that are your back/forward button. Dunno how they'd make that work for both hands.
I do miss the ability to swap the left/right mouse buttons when I went into left-hand mode. Anybody that tried using my computer would get very confused until they realized I was a lefty.
These little puppies, i.e. recursive queries, look pretty cool too. Sounds like a good tool for threaded comment systems or finding related items in a table:
Recursive queries are typically used to deal with hierarchical or tree-structured data. A useful example is this query to find all the direct and indirect sub-parts of a product, given only a table that shows immediate inclusions:
WITH RECURSIVE included_parts(sub_part, part, quantity) AS (
SELECT sub_part, part, quantity FROM parts WHERE part = 'our_product'
UNION ALL
SELECT p.sub_part, p.part, p.quantity
FROM included_parts pr, parts p
WHERE p.part = pr.sub_part
)
SELECT sub_part, SUM(quantity) as total_quantity
FROM included_parts
GROUP BY sub_part
They'll get replication some day soon. But there is a lot of cool, very useful stuff with every new release. I usually feel like kid in a candy store wondering what's new that I can exploit.
How do you ease their concerns about the FSF dudes going after companies like Tivo or Cisco? I mean, if I was a hardware guy right now, I'd be *very* concerned about touching GPL stuff. Almost like they dont want me at the club.
Damn you guys use weasel words. That or you really dont understand the product you are selling.
This is true. But only is true if your code never touched my code. The second your GPL code touches my codebase, if I want to redistribute the codebase, I *must* do so under the GPL. Unless I remove your code from my project, I have no choice in the matter.
Now, if we agree that is the case, fair enough. But the fact that if I want to use your code, I have to license my entire codebase as GPL makes your code pretty worthless to me. And if you are okay with that, cool. I won't use your product and we both win. But don't be surprised when others dont like getting in bed with GPL code either... like say video card makers or game companies. Remember you are fighting a war of ideas, and not everybody agrees with your ideas.
That is probably a good idea, if you can convince companies to add such a clause into the licensing and could be done in a way that remains GPL compatible. But it seems that companies wouldn't go for that anyway because their aim isn't some love fest, but a cold business calculation--get free work from others and at the same time be able to project the image of being pro-open source. People buy into this because they are so excited to see big-names backing the GPL they ignore all the potential issues with how these big-names are using the GPL.
I just worry that if dual-licensing gets abused, which is easy to do, it will tarnish the GPL brand. I dont think you want that, nor do I think the FSF wants that.
I mean, what do you think about how many of these guys require copyright assignment too? It just sets things up for so many things that could go wrong. They could so easily do a bait and switch on you. Really, I worry about this kind of stuff and if I was in your shoes or in the FSF's shoes, I'd be worried too. I certainly wouldn't make role models of companies who use it. Once you get an image like "the GPL is for scummy companies only", it is hard to shake.
You'd much rather have assholes like me bashing it than getting it branded as a licenses used by scummy companies out to exploit people. If that happens, we all lose--even us pro-bsd folk. Besides, if the GPL had that kind of image, what would I do on slashdot :-)
I don't see how you can defend such dual-licensing schemes Bruce, they do far more harm to the GPL brand then good. Dual licensing is a way for companies to leech the goodwill of a community and profit from it. The community gives code (and ownership of the code) to the company and in return those changes get incorporated into a proprietary licence and resold. It is like the worst of the GPL coupled the worst of the BSD--people are taking your code and selling it without giving back to you!
So I really don't understand how somebody like yourself, who is so passionate about open source and the philosophy of the GPL can defend such companies and even hold them as examples. I mean, dual license is a working business model, but it seems a violation of the spirit of the GPL and worse, it just feels very wrong.
If you ask me, defending such usage is a dangerous path that risks forever tarnishing the GPL by giving an image of a license used only by those wishing to profit off the goodwill of others.
Boy some sure like to cling to that semantic point though. As if they can just sweep under the implications of what happens the minute they want to distribute the code by saying "there is no obligation to distribute your code". Software was designed to be distributed it. Hell, sometimes people even want to try selling apps that used to be used internally. When they were internal, they were "safe" from the GPL but the second they want to go outside the walls of their office, they have to distribute the application under the GPL. In otherwords, it is no longer a viable option besides gutting the GPL code.
That is the point... sure if you only use GPL stuff internally it is technically true nobody can force your code out of you. The second you want to try your hand selling said internal application, you got screwed. Thus people are leery of using GPL code because it takes away those kinds of options.
The core of Firefox, Mozilla, is actually tri-licensed. Mozilla Public License, GPL or LGPL.... take your pick.
This is a tired old argument and is fundamentally a diversion from the real issue. Everybody knows that the GPL applies only when you distribute your code. That point is well known! If you keep it internal, you are safe. But the second you want to distribute it, anything that the GPL considers a derivative work becomes GPL. And *that* is why some people, like myself, prefer to avoid GPL.
Using the GPL takes away the *option* of ever being able to distribute our work without making it GPL. I, like some, like to keep my options open. Sure I might always keep the work internal, but who knows in the future... If I start using the GPL in my code, my option to distribute my codebase under a license of my choosing goes out the window.
See, you are rational. Your "team", like any, has plenty of zealots on it that are more than happy to mod "my team" down, or call me a leech, or whatever. I think part of the reason you guys get more traction is cause you have more lout-mouth activists. BSD folk are pretty chill, so we dont get much visibility.
Of course you have RMS. We've just got that OpenBSD guy Theo. I'll take Theo cause at least nobody outside of a small group has heard of him :-)
I agree. And I for one can't wait to see if you are right or I'm right. It is a battle of ideas, really.
True. Well, maybe. Firefox? I guess charity.
But you are pretty correct. But honestly, the kinds of contributors needed to make a "real" application are from people who wouldn't get paid using either license. I'm talking UI people, QA staff, marketing departments, etc...
Actually, I dont know what I'm talking about. You raise an interesting point. That still doesn't mean I can't feel a bit queasy about dual-license stuff. If I was the head honchos at the GPL factory, I'd be a bit queasy seeing the GPL brand become "MySQL, Java, and other companies who only use the GPL to squeeze money out of people". It isn't a very healthy brand for your product. I think it would be wise to distance myself from companies who use the GPL in this way. But what do I know!
95% of the projects on sourceforge are rubbish that either has no release or hasn't been updated since 1992 so what does that 77% tell me? Nothing. Here is something more intereting:
Firefox - Used everywhere, Not GPL
Apache - Used everywhere, Not GPL
OpenSSH - Used everywhere, Not GPL
Perl - Used everwhere, Not GPL
PHP - Used everywhere, Not GPL
Ruby - Used everywhere, Not GPL
Rails - Used everywhere, Not GPL
PostgreSQL - used everywhere, Not GPL
My point? Dunno, but I woudn't be using sourceforce for gathering statistics.
No pity. I dont really care, honestly. Software is a tool, dammit. Not a religion. I left linux because of the politics. I just want something that works.