But don't expect us to pay for it, though. Do expect us to bitch about it not being free, eh, I mean, liberated. And even if you open up the source code, expect us to bitch about it not being GPL. How else are we going to include the code in our programs, or make money selling support for it? Remember, if you don't release the code, you are just a bunch of parasites, anyways, living off other people's code (even if you did spend money hiring people to write that code).
Oh, and if you trademarked the name, we will bitch about the US patent office. OK, so you don't know what the trademark has to do with the patent office. We couldn't explain it to you either, but we will bitch about it.
Finally, we will point out to all your users that there are *real* Open Source Software doing almost the same thing and they should, instead of buying your software, and supporting your evil, immoral ways, give the money to the OSS people. Nevermind that it is years behind your program.
So, please port. We welcome you with a fist.
* NB! Anyone who disagree with any or all of the above points are braindead M$ stoogies.
Just because I critize it, doesn't mean that I don't like it. In fact, I would say I am critical because I like it so much.
Emacs is an excellent editor. It does what I need it to do really well. It's just that all the other stuff it is expected to do, doesn't make sense for an editor to do.
vi is nice for fast and dirty editing, but not for long editing jobs (mostly because I'm more familiar with Emacs command, so I'm more productive with it).
If OSS/GPL is such a good business model, then I don't see why the need for funding?
Besides, if the point of open source is that if someone stops maintaining the code, for one reason or another, someone else will pick up the slacks, just wait around for awhile and someone else will pick up the code writing.
I'll *buy* a finished product. I'll give to charity. But I fail to see why I should buy an unfinished product.
I actually agree with on this one. The best thing would be if you could get the source *with* the game/application when you bought it, BUT...
What is the economic insentive for the companies to spend maybe millions to develop an app or a game, and then *give* away the product?
Some products don't lend itself well to the open-source model of making money (selling support).
And where would I get the money to make those games, if I didn't charge for it? Doubt McDonalds pays enough for me to buy that 3D card which would give my game the edge I need...
Economics...
wonder what will be the format
on
Civ3 For Linux
·
· Score: 1
Heck, they only need one format and still get in trouble. Has anyone been able to upgrade a library in Linux without having to recompile a bunch of programs because the damn library is not backward compatible?
Slashdot Mirror
Last time I checked, those companies' livelihood aren't software development, right?
But don't expect us to pay for it, though. Do expect us to bitch about it not being free, eh, I mean, liberated. And even if you open up the source code, expect us to bitch about it not being GPL. How else are we going to include the code in our programs, or make money selling support for it? Remember, if you don't release the code, you are just a bunch of parasites, anyways, living off other people's code (even if you did spend money hiring people to write that code).
Oh, and if you trademarked the name, we will bitch about the US patent office. OK, so you don't know what the trademark has to do with the patent office. We couldn't explain it to you either, but we will bitch about it.
Finally, we will point out to all your users that there are *real* Open Source Software doing almost the same thing and they should, instead of buying your software, and supporting your evil, immoral ways, give the money to the OSS people. Nevermind that it is years behind your program.
So, please port. We welcome you with a fist.
* NB! Anyone who disagree with any or all of the above points are braindead M$ stoogies.
I prefer Emacs.
Just because I critize it, doesn't mean that I don't like it. In fact, I would say I am critical because I like it so much.
Emacs is an excellent editor. It does what I need it to do really well. It's just that all the other stuff it is expected to do, doesn't make sense for an editor to do.
vi is nice for fast and dirty editing, but not for long editing jobs (mostly because I'm more familiar with Emacs command, so I'm more productive with it).
If OSS/GPL is such a good business model, then I don't see why the need for funding?
Besides, if the point of open source is that if someone stops maintaining the code, for one reason or another, someone else will pick up the slacks, just wait around for awhile and someone else will pick up the code writing.
I'll *buy* a finished product. I'll give to charity. But I fail to see why I should buy an unfinished product.
You forgot about TCO. A Unix administrator usually cost more than a NT admin.
I actually agree with on this one. The best thing would be if you could get the source *with* the game/application when you bought it, BUT...
What is the economic insentive for the companies to spend maybe millions to develop an app or a game, and then *give* away the product?
Some products don't lend itself well to the open-source model of making money (selling support).
And where would I get the money to make those games, if I didn't charge for it? Doubt McDonalds pays enough for me to buy that 3D card which would give my game the edge I need...
Economics...
Heck, they only need one format and still get in trouble. Has anyone been able to upgrade a library in Linux without having to recompile a bunch of programs because the damn library is not backward compatible?
Right. And how are you going to make your living? Welfare? Government subsidies?