Each of us can produce our own copies. We can understand what those costs are. Some of us even have seen what it costs to do real fabrication. Either we work in industries that press DVDs or we have been sent spam from fab operators.
So the media production side of this has been completely devalued.
What you are left with costs that quite often are muddled with Hollywood accounting. Anyone that's aware of what production costs and is likely to be sympathetic to arists also know what thieves the publishers are.
It's a double whammy. Either people are ignorant of the "engineering" costs or skeptical that the talent is even being paid.
> That's why I can find indie artists just as easily as the "multi-millionaire celebs" on bittorrent sites, eh?
Oh really? You can find some pretty obscure stuff on BitTorrent because it is like the rest of the Internet a global phenomenon where pretty much interest is likely to be represented.
Apparently, most of what Jamie Thomas was supposed to be trading was not anything that an American jury would have been at all familiar with. That's why they only charged her with a small number of infringement counts.
Had they listed everything they would have given some obscure foreign bands far more exposure than the RIAA has ever given them.
> here's quotes from their talmud:...which is like attributing to an author of some article the views expressed here in slashdot from members of the peanut gallery.
The Talmud is commentary on the source material, not the source material.
Perhaps you were sleeping in the 90s when that whole Linux and Oracle thing started happening. You've been able to "sell out" with Linux for a very long time now.
Valve already seems committed to cross platform development. This is not a new thing for them but clearly seems to be their strategic direction. Their port of Steam to MacOS demonstrates this and also helps pave the way for the Linux version.
> Do you have any effing idea of id's history of supporting Linux on their titles?
Yup. Might have one of their tins around here somewhere. The game was never sold as a Linux game. It was just a Windows package bundled with the Linux binaries. This bundling was done by a 3rd party Linux speciality reseller. It amounted to a CD of what ID expected you to download. Manual futzing was involved.
The reseller was in Australia but I bought it there instead of locally to keep my purchase from being counted as a Windows sale.
ID was toying with Linux at the same time that other companies were trying to do it right. While the likes of Loki were creating fully supported games with an actual native installer, ID was kind of phoning it in. While producing a compatible binary is a nice gesture, it's simply not on the same level as somthing that I can treat the same way as a Windows game.
The people that keep on making the Indie Humble bundles as successful for Linux as they are MacOS.
If you want to paint Linux users as cheap or as theives then you are barking up the wrong tree. Clearly it's Windows users that are the biggest pirates and trying to claim any different is insane or retarded.
A Linux game is going to be nothing but some program with some library depenencies.
A some version X of library foo is the same regardless of what Linux you are running just like it's irrelevant what random combinations of system and 3rd party libraries you've got installed on your Windows box.
At least Linux/Unix gives me a nice too to sort out what's missing.
It doesn't matter. It's been too long since Carmack tried. So anything he has to say on the matter is terribly dated. It's like anyone else that tries to use Loki as an example.
So you failed 10 years ago? Big deal. It's been a long time since then. Things change.
They used to say the same thing about MacOS gaming too.
"Businesses" that want this kind of secure boot architecture to suit their narcicissm and paranoia are already the kinds of companies that have such a horrible desktop PC experience that people want to bring their own outside devices with.
This is the kind of crap that drives people to try and abandon desktop PCs. It's certainly not what the actual users want. It does nothing to make their computing experience more pleasant or more effective.
You want to avoid shops like that as an employee anyways.
It's almost as if some of us right here in this very forum have stated for years that each PC is it's own unique snowflake being a random collection of spare parts.
Clued in enough and motivated enough to want to set a machine to a static IP yet too stupid and too lazy to figure out how to do this in whatever OS they happen to have?
That's a nice paradox.
Most people just get intimitdated with the idea of creating a network share using the explorer gui in XP or Win7. Never mind anything really interesting.
> I don't recall a single 32-bit desktop in the 80s.
All of the MC68000 based machines were 32 bit.
Intel lagged behind other vendors in this respect and their parts were cheaper as a result. That's why the 8088 was in the first PC. DOS was designed that original IBM PC and the OS inherited some of the limitations of the hardware.
That hampered MS-DOS and Windows despite Intel gear catching up to the Motorola stuff.
The resulting hacks and manual memory management still had to be used on MS-DOS into the mid 90s when Win95 took over.
We just had a new vendor selection at my employer and IOS was chosen because the comfort level with security and malware on the Android platform is lower.
Actually, what I can almost guarantee happened is that some executive with no technical background whatsoever said "I love my iPhone, it's so shiny!", and the bit about security and malware was made up to justify that.
I can't help thinking that American Olympics coverage is pretty pointless. I don't really care for the "only root for the home team" mentality that American coverage has. The Olympics are much bigger than that and my local distribution monopoly is missing the point.
The sour grapes from our actual coaches don't help either.
It was a game changer. It's just that Apple was the one that turned it into a viable consumer product. This is highly ironic now that they are trying to claim that they own this space. They are just as guilty of "stealing" as anyone else.
Not that that's inherently bad. Sharing is not bad. Apple is like your proverbial anti-GPL troll that whines that they can't take someone else's work and treat it as their own exclusive property.
I just think that you are a blithering Apple fanboy and you have zero ability to relate to the population at large that really doesn't share your mindless brand fixation.
We've already been down that road before. When you try doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results they have a word for that: crazy.
"Skimping" on parts the customer might not view as critical is a pretty easy way to ofter a cheaper alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
This is where things really hit the fan.
Each of us can produce our own copies. We can understand what those costs are. Some of us even have seen what it costs to do real fabrication. Either we work in industries that press DVDs or we have been sent spam from fab operators.
So the media production side of this has been completely devalued.
What you are left with costs that quite often are muddled with Hollywood accounting. Anyone that's aware of what production costs and is likely to be sympathetic to arists also know what thieves the publishers are.
It's a double whammy. Either people are ignorant of the "engineering" costs or skeptical that the talent is even being paid.
> That's why I can find indie artists just as easily as the "multi-millionaire celebs" on bittorrent sites, eh?
Oh really? You can find some pretty obscure stuff on BitTorrent because it is like the rest of the Internet a global phenomenon where pretty much interest is likely to be represented.
Apparently, most of what Jamie Thomas was supposed to be trading was not anything that an American jury would have been at all familiar with. That's why they only charged her with a small number of infringement counts.
Had they listed everything they would have given some obscure foreign bands far more exposure than the RIAA has ever given them.
> here's quotes from their talmud: ...which is like attributing to an author of some article the views expressed here in slashdot from members of the peanut gallery.
The Talmud is commentary on the source material, not the source material.
Perhaps you were sleeping in the 90s when that whole Linux and Oracle thing started happening. You've been able to "sell out" with Linux for a very long time now.
It's just trickling into the desktop now...
Valve already seems committed to cross platform development. This is not a new thing for them but clearly seems to be their strategic direction. Their port of Steam to MacOS demonstrates this and also helps pave the way for the Linux version.
> Do you have any effing idea of id's history of supporting Linux on their titles?
Yup. Might have one of their tins around here somewhere. The game was never sold as a Linux game. It was just a Windows package bundled with the Linux binaries. This bundling was done by a 3rd party Linux speciality reseller. It amounted to a CD of what ID expected you to download. Manual futzing was involved.
The reseller was in Australia but I bought it there instead of locally to keep my purchase from being counted as a Windows sale.
That kind of support? Yeah, I have some idea.
When's the last time he really tried? 2001? 2004?
The internet creates this strange collective memory that also seems strangely out of touch with the time frames involved.
Some of us actually experienced this stuff first hand and don't just Google it.
UT 2004? You mean something produced in 2004?
It's 2012 in case you hadn't noticed.
It's time to stop pointing to examples from ancient history.
Yes. This.
ID was toying with Linux at the same time that other companies were trying to do it right. While the likes of Loki were creating fully supported games with an actual native installer, ID was kind of phoning it in. While producing a compatible binary is a nice gesture, it's simply not on the same level as somthing that I can treat the same way as a Windows game.
Also if that's true, then how come the highest average payment per player are linux users, for the humble bundle [humblebundle.com] as of now?
Because the people who bought the bundle on Linux are overpaying to send a message?
In other words there are a significant number of highly motivated Linux users ready to spend money.
Thanks for clearing that up.
[false strawman deleted]
> Who's left to sell to?
The people that keep on making the Indie Humble bundles as successful for Linux as they are MacOS.
If you want to paint Linux users as cheap or as theives then you are barking up the wrong tree. Clearly it's Windows users that are the biggest pirates and trying to claim any different is insane or retarded.
A Linux game is going to be nothing but some program with some library depenencies.
A some version X of library foo is the same regardless of what Linux you are running just like it's irrelevant what random combinations of system and 3rd party libraries you've got installed on your Windows box.
At least Linux/Unix gives me a nice too to sort out what's missing.
It doesn't matter. It's been too long since Carmack tried. So anything he has to say on the matter is terribly dated. It's like anyone else that tries to use Loki as an example.
So you failed 10 years ago? Big deal. It's been a long time since then. Things change.
They used to say the same thing about MacOS gaming too.
"Businesses" that want this kind of secure boot architecture to suit their narcicissm and paranoia are already the kinds of companies that have such a horrible desktop PC experience that people want to bring their own outside devices with.
This is the kind of crap that drives people to try and abandon desktop PCs. It's certainly not what the actual users want. It does nothing to make their computing experience more pleasant or more effective.
You want to avoid shops like that as an employee anyways.
It's almost as if some of us right here in this very forum have stated for years that each PC is it's own unique snowflake being a random collection of spare parts.
> Ever install Vista or Win7?
Yes I have. Tracking down drivers is a royal pain in the ass.
There is also no mechanism to re-install my apps either.
You have picked the wrong forum to try and bullshit people.
Clued in enough and motivated enough to want to set a machine to a static IP yet too stupid and too lazy to figure out how to do this in whatever OS they happen to have?
That's a nice paradox.
Most people just get intimitdated with the idea of creating a network share using the explorer gui in XP or Win7. Never mind anything really interesting.
> weren't they the ones that locked everyone's OSes out of their hardware
Nope. Linux has been able to run on every 32-bit microprocessor architecture Apple has ever had. I have one x86Mac still running Ubuntu myself.
> I don't recall a single 32-bit desktop in the 80s.
All of the MC68000 based machines were 32 bit.
Intel lagged behind other vendors in this respect and their parts were cheaper as a result. That's why the 8088 was in the first PC. DOS was designed that original IBM PC and the OS inherited some of the limitations of the hardware.
That hampered MS-DOS and Windows despite Intel gear catching up to the Motorola stuff.
The resulting hacks and manual memory management still had to be used on MS-DOS into the mid 90s when Win95 took over.
We just had a new vendor selection at my employer and IOS was chosen because the comfort level with security and malware on the Android platform is lower.
Actually, what I can almost guarantee happened is that some executive with no technical background whatsoever said "I love my iPhone, it's so shiny!", and the bit about security and malware was made up to justify that.
Who voted this informative?
Just about any IT professional.
The sounds a lot like having your own package repositories and excluding the vendor ones.
I can't help thinking that American Olympics coverage is pretty pointless. I don't really care for the "only root for the home team" mentality that American coverage has. The Olympics are much bigger than that and my local distribution monopoly is missing the point.
The sour grapes from our actual coaches don't help either.
It was a game changer. It's just that Apple was the one that turned it into a viable consumer product. This is highly ironic now that they are trying to claim that they own this space. They are just as guilty of "stealing" as anyone else.
Not that that's inherently bad. Sharing is not bad. Apple is like your proverbial anti-GPL troll that whines that they can't take someone else's work and treat it as their own exclusive property.
> Is the nexus7 a shell of glass and aluminium? No
Does the rest of the world outside of Apple's guerilla marketing cabal care? Probably not.
I just think that you are a blithering Apple fanboy and you have zero ability to relate to the population at large that really doesn't share your mindless brand fixation.
We've already been down that road before. When you try doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results they have a word for that: crazy.
"Skimping" on parts the customer might not view as critical is a pretty easy way to ofter a cheaper alternative.