So, basically, the viking landers discovered either life or an oxidizing agent on mars. And now, days after the president has been briefed about extraterrestrial life, NASA presents that they found an oxidizing agent. Yes, you're right, it's very convenient!
Closed source doesn't work very well within an open/free environment such as a GNU/Linux distribution since they are distributed as binaries, these binaries are linked with libraries.
Anyone who has tried running closed source Linux applications know that there are always problems with mismatched library versions and stupid things like absolute paths etc. If we take debian or ubuntu as an example they compile everything against their own set of libraries and distribute the resulting binaries in their package system. So the binary executables always match the compiled libraries. This may also include patching of the applications source so that it works with stuff that is unique for that distribution. This binary will work well on the system it was compiled for, but it probably won't work at all under some other distribution, like RHEL.
The creator of a closed source binary has to compile it so that it works on every distribution. This is usually done by statically linking all libraries, which consumes a lot of unnecessary RAM and uses up disk space. If they fail, which they often do, the different distributions can do nothing (except ugly hacks) to get the application working in their environment.
Then of course there's the even more annoying problem with platforms. Debian supports the following platforms: x86-32, x86-64, PowerPC, SPARC, DEC Alpha, ARM, MIPS, HPPA, S390, IA-64 Almost all of the packages in the distribution are compiled for all these platforms. Do you think a closed source company will make a binary for all these platforms? No. In 9 cases out of 10 they'll compile it for x86-32 and nothing more.
Just ask yourself, what programs do you have the most problems with in the distribution you're using? Closed source or open source?
Some examples of closed source applications and their flaws: Adobe Flash - no amd64-support (!) = nspluginwrapper. Almost every time firefox crashes it's because of Flash. ATI's and nVidia's binary blob drivers: crashes, taints my kernel. Skype: A lot of crashes
Closed source applications in GNU/Linux leads to a lot of problems, problems that the community can't fix. GNU and Linux are designed for open/free applications and it simply mixes very badly with closed source stuff.
No copy protection system, however elaborate, is impossible to crack. Once a system has been cracked, all the fuzz with smartcards and whatnot you're speaking of will remain for the legitimate customers. The movie pirates on the other hand will simply download a non-drm-encumbered version of the movie from their favorite source, and then copy and play it as they like. Only one "guy/girl on the internet" has to go through with all the cracking, ripping, encoding etc. of the movies. Once that first drm-free copy has been created, it can be distributed freely. As long as you can watch movies, the movie companies can only make it harder to copy their media, but never impossible. The more elaborate the copy protection systems get, the more the legitimate customers suffer, while the pirates stay largely unaffected.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean 0 and baseclass pointer.
Do subatomic particles dream of elementary sheep?
So, basically, the viking landers discovered either life or an oxidizing agent on mars. And now, days after the president has been briefed about extraterrestrial life, NASA presents that they found an oxidizing agent. Yes, you're right, it's very convenient!
I should hope so. Fucking children is illegal in most, if not all parts of the world.
Closed source doesn't work very well within an open/free environment such as a GNU/Linux distribution since they are distributed as binaries, these binaries are linked with libraries.
Anyone who has tried running closed source Linux applications know that there are always problems with mismatched library versions and stupid things like absolute paths etc.
If we take debian or ubuntu as an example they compile everything against their own set of libraries and distribute the resulting binaries in their package system. So the binary executables always match the compiled libraries. This may also include patching of the applications source so that it works with stuff that is unique for that distribution. This binary will work well on the system it was compiled for, but it probably won't work at all under some other distribution, like RHEL.
The creator of a closed source binary has to compile it so that it works on every distribution. This is usually done by statically linking all libraries, which consumes a lot of unnecessary RAM and uses up disk space. If they fail, which they often do, the different distributions can do
nothing (except ugly hacks) to get the application working in their environment.
Then of course there's the even more annoying problem with platforms. Debian supports the following platforms: x86-32, x86-64, PowerPC, SPARC, DEC Alpha, ARM, MIPS, HPPA, S390, IA-64
Almost all of the packages in the distribution are compiled for all these platforms. Do you think a closed source company will make a binary for all these platforms? No. In 9 cases out of 10 they'll compile it for x86-32 and nothing more.
Just ask yourself, what programs do you have the most problems with in the distribution you're using? Closed source or open source?
Some examples of closed source applications and their flaws:
Adobe Flash - no amd64-support (!) = nspluginwrapper. Almost every time firefox crashes it's because of Flash.
ATI's and nVidia's binary blob drivers: crashes, taints my kernel.
Skype: A lot of crashes
Closed source applications in GNU/Linux leads to a lot of problems, problems that the community can't fix. GNU and Linux are designed for open/free applications and it simply mixes very badly with closed source stuff.
Lossy compression?
I am the king of scotland -> I AM KING OF SCOTLAND
Actually, I've never died.
O rly?
http://pouet.net/prod.php?which=9461
http://pouet.net/prod.php?which=2228
http://pouet.net/prod.php?which=688 (DOS)
http://pouet.net/prod.php?which=5
http://pouet.net/prod.php?which=3845
Some more info
http://tog.acm.org/resources/RTNews/demos/overview.htm
Too bad the trend died off, but I think we'll see some more demos in the realtime ray tracing area in the next couple of years.
No copy protection system, however elaborate, is impossible to crack. Once a system has been cracked, all the fuzz with smartcards and whatnot you're speaking of will remain for the legitimate customers. The movie pirates on the other hand will simply download a non-drm-encumbered version of the movie from their favorite source, and then copy and play it as they like. Only one "guy/girl on the internet" has to go through with all the cracking, ripping, encoding etc. of the movies. Once that first drm-free copy has been created, it can be distributed freely.
As long as you can watch movies, the movie companies can only make it harder to copy their media, but never impossible. The more elaborate the copy protection systems get, the more the legitimate customers suffer, while the pirates stay largely unaffected.