Re:Then help with the testing process.
on
The CVS Cop-Out
·
· Score: 1
> #2. Pay one of their developers to backport the patch to the last "production" version.
Often it is far less than obvious who/where you would pay and what you could expect for the effort. If someone could come up with a project to make that obvious the economy of open source would become more efficient. Of course that project would first be applied to itself, (dis-)proving its own viabilty.
A few years ago when I did a little bit of CAD related stuff I kept wondering what it would be like to have a left hand mouse in addition to the right hand one. Just imagine the possibilities of virtually grab things with two hands instead of one.
> So no, ever person who d/ls and uses a cracked copy of > Photoshop is not costing Adobe $500, but they are > costing the smaller companies and free software instead.
You're too kind to Adobe here. Every time a kid learns to use PhotoShop from a cracked copy, Adobe has received tens of dollars worth of free marketing of its PhotoShop product, at the expense of PaintShop, Gimp and the other competitors. Conider 5 or 10 years later. What would happen if the kid had been forced to use the Gimp instead of PhotoShop in his/her early years?
Slashdot Mirror
> #2. Pay one of their developers to backport the patch to the last "production" version.
Often it is far less than obvious who/where you would pay and what you could expect for the effort. If someone could come up with a project to make that obvious the economy of open source would become more efficient. Of course that project would first be applied to itself, (dis-)proving its own viabilty.
A few years ago when I did a little bit of CAD related stuff I kept wondering what it would be like to have a left hand mouse in addition to the right hand one. Just imagine the possibilities of virtually grab things with two hands instead of one.
> So no, ever person who d/ls and uses a cracked copy of
> Photoshop is not costing Adobe $500, but they are
> costing the smaller companies and free software instead.
You're too kind to Adobe here. Every time a kid learns to use PhotoShop from a cracked copy, Adobe has received tens of dollars worth of free marketing of its PhotoShop product, at the expense of PaintShop, Gimp and the other competitors. Conider 5 or 10 years later. What would happen if the kid had been forced to use the Gimp instead of PhotoShop in his/her early years?