Does this mean he is unable to change preference with the times? Wozniak liking the iphone has has just as much relevance as him liking windows phone. Pretty much none, as i stated for Windows phone above.
Wozniak is a nerd's nerd. He isn't the general public, and what woz thinks is awesome is not likely to be what Joe average wants to use. That is not meant to be an insult by the way, the man is a genius. But he's a technical genius and not a genius with regards to what people want (that was Jobs).
I'd say that getting a glowing review by wozniak is just as likely to be the kiss of death as it is to be the harbinger of iphone doom...
1995 called and wants its meme back. Windows, if administered properly, on reliable hardware, is extremely stable these days. The number of non-failed-hardware BSODs i have dealt with in the past 3-4 years on Windows machines can be counted on one hand. And that is on a fleet of 550 machines.
It's not. The aim of BSD is to propagate and be used elsewhere, even in commercial products. Where do you think Linux's original TCP/IP stack came from? Or Windows's for that matter. Or Netapp's operating system?
This. Exactly this. The average user doesn't care about having 100 choices for any particular app (or desktop environment, etc). They just want to install something that works, and move on.
Apple's success is a huge demonstration of this fact - it goes for hardware as well. Pick form factor, pick "good, better, best" spec (depending on budget) and you're done. The decision making process is extremely straightforward.
Linux (open source in general) is also off-putting also because the name of the application often has NOTHING to do with what it does. I mean, GIMP? vs "Photoshop", "Paint Shop Pro" or "PIxelmator" (even that is a stretch). Totem? Dolphin? Transmission? Wtf, is this greek?
The average user does not want to spend 6 months evaluating a variety of amateur, half-assed efforts before finding a package that does what they want and is stable/finished. They want to buy a PC, get home, and start watching their movies, balancing their budget, or downloading their porn or whatever. They also don't want to re-learn what they need to do to get something done every new OS release.
Someone sees sense. Use whatever codecs are available on the host platform. h.264 is ubiquitous a the moment, but there is no point tying us into a standard current in 2012, when hardware inevitably moves forward.
This is a big thing. Previously to publish for linux you either needed to set up your own store or ship physical boxes (and end up with inventory issues).
This will enable publishers to get their feet wet in a relatively low risk manner. Porting to linux, if they already port to mac shouldn't be hard. it is the supply logistics that are risky, and this will help with that.
I already changed OS at home to OS X. I haven't looked back.
Have run Dos/Windows/Linux/FreeBSD over the years, for my home laptop OS X does what I need, and isn't a pain in the ass. I still use the other OSes as appropriate but for general home PC use, OS X wins.
You still have the open BSD code. The GPLv3 means i need to re-invent a media library with potential compatibility issues, buffer overflows, etc (less well tested code). How do end users benefit from that? How does the world benefit from me re-inventing the wheel, rather than spending my time on NEW features, or solving other software problems? BSD specifically allows this to happen so that we end up with more well tested, mature code for everybody. If someone chooses to license their changes in their commercial product as closed, then fair enough. It's THEIR code, the open source is still out there.
If I build software license costs into the profit margin of my product, then it becomes non-viable to allow home-brew software. This is the way the world works. If you want to buy your next console for $2000, then sure, loss-leading on devices like that will go away. Unfortunately in the real world, no one will buy a $2000 console. SNK tried back in the 80s (adjusted for inflation).
Without software costs subsidizing hardware, we would not have consoles for the price we have them today. Again, how does the customer win from this situation? If you want a device for home-brew software, build it yourself?
Sure, the BSD license allows it. However to re-license previously more open code under the GPL is a big "fuck you" to the original authors from a moral standpoint.
If you're telling the end user that they'll be raped by the DMCA if they try to tweak your proprietary product which was based on my open source project, don't you think I'd be kinda pissed?
Can you please provide an example of this happening? Even a theoretical one? If you're modifying the open source code you are in the clear. If you are disassembling and modifying a proprietary app (BSD licensed code + proprietary code) then this is NOT the same thing. You're still freely entitled to the code that was BSD licensed.
You have the existing BSD licensed code. A closed-source branch does not take the open sourced code away. Fact of life: not all code is exciting to work on, and some will never be developed for free. BSD license allows those who want to pay money for the un-sexy work to be done to get it done, and monetize the result.
I'd consider GPL developers taking BSD licensed code, modifying and re-licensing as GPL so upstream can not make use of the code (rather than simple dual license it) as a punch in the nose. Were they legally entitled to do so? Sure. However ethically its a big fuck you to those upstream, for no gain at all (if it was going into a closed source project fair enough there is incentive there - monetary gain; but to do so when you're incorporating into GPL is just nasty).
Actually, yes it can and does. There have been cases of GPL developers taking BSD code, modifying and re-licensing it under GPL, and not contributing back to BSD. For those who seem to CLAIM to be about open source code for everyone, that's a pretty big fuck you to BSD licensed projects.
No, the GPL restricts your ability to take derivative works and commercialize them. BSD does not. Whether you have a personal agenda against that or not is beside the point. It is a FACT that the GPL is more restrictive, and claiming otherwise just makes you look like a nut-job.
In other news, the content of a poster-child for "GPL pure Distribution of Linux" is mostly GPL. If I disregard Linux apps and only look at FreeBSD core, those numbers are completely inaccurate.
... 10 data points is not conclusive proof that LibreOffice is "better than word". I can cherry pick features Word has that LibreOffice does not (far more than 10 of them), does that mean that Word is superior?
As with many things, it depends on what you consider important. The ability to use word or other office applications in scripts, automatically update via WSUS, integrate with sharepoint, be 100% compatible with other MS office users, etc may be more important to some.
Slashdot Mirror
Does this mean he is unable to change preference with the times? Wozniak liking the iphone has has just as much relevance as him liking windows phone. Pretty much none, as i stated for Windows phone above.
get a lockable rack?
The bottom is for your UPS (with heavy lead batteries) and SAN (also with heavy lead batteries and heaps of heavy hard drives).
Wozniak is a nerd's nerd. He isn't the general public, and what woz thinks is awesome is not likely to be what Joe average wants to use. That is not meant to be an insult by the way, the man is a genius. But he's a technical genius and not a genius with regards to what people want (that was Jobs).
I'd say that getting a glowing review by wozniak is just as likely to be the kiss of death as it is to be the harbinger of iphone doom...
1995 called and wants its meme back. Windows, if administered properly, on reliable hardware, is extremely stable these days. The number of non-failed-hardware BSODs i have dealt with in the past 3-4 years on Windows machines can be counted on one hand. And that is on a fleet of 550 machines.
It's not. The aim of BSD is to propagate and be used elsewhere, even in commercial products. Where do you think Linux's original TCP/IP stack came from? Or Windows's for that matter. Or Netapp's operating system?
This. Exactly this. The average user doesn't care about having 100 choices for any particular app (or desktop environment, etc). They just want to install something that works, and move on.
Apple's success is a huge demonstration of this fact - it goes for hardware as well. Pick form factor, pick "good, better, best" spec (depending on budget) and you're done. The decision making process is extremely straightforward.
Linux (open source in general) is also off-putting also because the name of the application often has NOTHING to do with what it does. I mean, GIMP? vs "Photoshop", "Paint Shop Pro" or "PIxelmator" (even that is a stretch). Totem? Dolphin? Transmission? Wtf, is this greek?
The average user does not want to spend 6 months evaluating a variety of amateur, half-assed efforts before finding a package that does what they want and is stable/finished. They want to buy a PC, get home, and start watching their movies, balancing their budget, or downloading their porn or whatever. They also don't want to re-learn what they need to do to get something done every new OS release.
add stick input vector to HUD
Someone sees sense. Use whatever codecs are available on the host platform. h.264 is ubiquitous a the moment, but there is no point tying us into a standard current in 2012, when hardware inevitably moves forward.
16gb of ram is about 100 bucks...
This is a big thing. Previously to publish for linux you either needed to set up your own store or ship physical boxes (and end up with inventory issues).
This will enable publishers to get their feet wet in a relatively low risk manner. Porting to linux, if they already port to mac shouldn't be hard. it is the supply logistics that are risky, and this will help with that.
I already changed OS at home to OS X. I haven't looked back.
Have run Dos/Windows/Linux/FreeBSD over the years, for my home laptop OS X does what I need, and isn't a pain in the ass. I still use the other OSes as appropriate but for general home PC use, OS X wins.
No, with the GPL you are making the most of other people's work, whether they like it or not. No one can take YOUR work away from you.
The open version is not closed, and remains in the wild? You can continue to use YOUR contributions?
You still have the open BSD code. The GPLv3 means i need to re-invent a media library with potential compatibility issues, buffer overflows, etc (less well tested code). How do end users benefit from that? How does the world benefit from me re-inventing the wheel, rather than spending my time on NEW features, or solving other software problems? BSD specifically allows this to happen so that we end up with more well tested, mature code for everybody. If someone chooses to license their changes in their commercial product as closed, then fair enough. It's THEIR code, the open source is still out there.
If I build software license costs into the profit margin of my product, then it becomes non-viable to allow home-brew software. This is the way the world works. If you want to buy your next console for $2000, then sure, loss-leading on devices like that will go away. Unfortunately in the real world, no one will buy a $2000 console. SNK tried back in the 80s (adjusted for inflation).
Without software costs subsidizing hardware, we would not have consoles for the price we have them today. Again, how does the customer win from this situation? If you want a device for home-brew software, build it yourself?
Sure, the BSD license allows it. However to re-license previously more open code under the GPL is a big "fuck you" to the original authors from a moral standpoint.
Continue using the open pre-fork version?
Can you please provide an example of this happening? Even a theoretical one? If you're modifying the open source code you are in the clear. If you are disassembling and modifying a proprietary app (BSD licensed code + proprietary code) then this is NOT the same thing. You're still freely entitled to the code that was BSD licensed.
You have the existing BSD licensed code. A closed-source branch does not take the open sourced code away. Fact of life: not all code is exciting to work on, and some will never be developed for free. BSD license allows those who want to pay money for the un-sexy work to be done to get it done, and monetize the result.
I'd consider GPL developers taking BSD licensed code, modifying and re-licensing as GPL so upstream can not make use of the code (rather than simple dual license it) as a punch in the nose. Were they legally entitled to do so? Sure. However ethically its a big fuck you to those upstream, for no gain at all (if it was going into a closed source project fair enough there is incentive there - monetary gain; but to do so when you're incorporating into GPL is just nasty).
Actually, yes it can and does. There have been cases of GPL developers taking BSD code, modifying and re-licensing it under GPL, and not contributing back to BSD. For those who seem to CLAIM to be about open source code for everyone, that's a pretty big fuck you to BSD licensed projects.
No, the GPL restricts your ability to take derivative works and commercialize them. BSD does not. Whether you have a personal agenda against that or not is beside the point. It is a FACT that the GPL is more restrictive, and claiming otherwise just makes you look like a nut-job.
In other news, the content of a poster-child for "GPL pure Distribution of Linux" is mostly GPL. If I disregard Linux apps and only look at FreeBSD core, those numbers are completely inaccurate.
What's your point?
If you're IN the MS software universe, like the vast majority of businesses, then MS-centric things are important.
As with many things, it depends on what you consider important. The ability to use word or other office applications in scripts, automatically update via WSUS, integrate with sharepoint, be 100% compatible with other MS office users, etc may be more important to some.