If Linux binaries runs just as well as "native" binaries, there isn't any advantage of getting native binaries any more. In fact, it would be best to stop thinking as the Linux ABI support as emulation, instead it becomes just another supported ABI.
From another perspective: Is it a bad thing to have a JVM for BSD? It means people can release JVM binaries, instead of developing native BSD binaries.
> if people are still paying, they're going to
> realize that they might as well pay for the
> closed source game, which, at least at the
> moment, has far outpaced the open source efforts
Yes, to the gamers it will just be a matter of price. To the people running the servers, using a free engine and initial maps may be more cost effective than developing their own, and may thus lead to lower prices for the gamers.
This of course requires that the volunteers can create a quality engine for free.
> Game like UO and EverCrack have THOUSANDS
> online at any one time, spread over several
> servers. How can a free game compete with this?
Eh, the _source code_ is free. This does not mean the connecting to the server need to be free. People will idealy be able to pay a subscribtion fee for a big server, try it free on some small hobbyist server, or even try to create a competing commercial server if the existing servers are too expensive or poorly managed.
> Somewhere down the line I wonder if it had been
> a mom and pop ISP if the scenario would have
> been the same.
It probably wouldn't have gone to court, there is a lot more money in suing big corporations than small ones. And, yes, big corporations can afford more expensive lawyers. However, they also tend to take a unemotional cost/benefit approach to lawsuits, and it is often cheaper to settle than to win, even ignoring the risk of losing (judges are hard to predict) and the publicity cost. A small company is more likely to take the lawsuit personally, and fight it to the end.
> its sad however to see that judges play the
> robotic role of following "the book" but use
> little to no ethical, or humanlike qualities
> when dealing with any type of criminal case.
AARRRRGGGHHH! That is the entire *point* of the justice system! A good judge should judge according to the law, and to the greatest extent possible avoid letting his personal values influence the outcome. If a law is wrong, it should be changed, not reinterpretated to suit the idosyncracies of an individual judge.
Probably not. I wouldn't smell like the rest of the peasants, my haircut, clothing, and speech patterns would be "all wrong", and I'd be burned as a witch/warlock within a few hours.
More likely, a foreigner. Whether you would be killed depend on who you meet, and how the view on foreigners was where you arrived. You might get lucky, and be treated like a honered guest.
You'd probably be considered good looking (tall, healthy) to, which might help.
... it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." --Newton to Hooke, 5 Feb. 1676
*Real* research is about incremental improvements to the existing base of knowledge.
Only count programs that require the desktop libs?
on
KDE 2.1 Is Out
·
· Score: 2
I think this is unfair, application programmers should strive for _supporting_ desktop specific features and libraries, without _requiring_ them. A really good application would have the UI separated from the functionality, and be buildable for Qt (with/without KDE), Gtk (w/w Gnome), Motif (w/w CDE), and perhaps Xaw and tty from the same source.
That some of the Gtk/Gnome applications are closer to this ideal should not count against it.
I suspect it is a tiny minority of Linux users who will refuse to pay for software on principle.
Most Linux users are much more pragmatic than that, which I suspect is the real reason Linux games do poorly. The vast majority og Linux users also have a MS Windows partition, and they will buy the game for the platform where they first see it, and where there are least trouble installing it.
When RIAA claims that Napster is the cause of decreasing singles sales, they commit the same error. It is incorrect, but fun, to take their own logic error, and applying it towards themselves.
> 2) Larger hard drives make a 10% savings even
> MORE worthwhile. Consider: If I saved 10% of a
> 4 GB drive, that's 40 MB--room for maybe 10
> additional songs or about one CD. But if I
> saved 10% of a 400 GB drive, that's an extra 4
> GB--enough for 100 CD's.
At some point, the saving stop mattering, because the harddisk is simply "large enough". For example, any harddisk you can buy today is "large enough" to hold all the text documents I have written, ever, including school reports, emails, Usenet postings, and auxilary files. I could gzip them to make them take say 50Mb instead of 100Mb, but it hardly matters.
The 400 GB harddisk is "large enough" to hold all the music non-collecters care about in mp3 format, so an additional 10% saving isn't that important. What is important is the size of their movie collection, 400 GB might hold 100 mpeg2 (DVD) movies, going to mpeg4 (Div-X:-) would be important.
Now let is talk 400 TB harddisk, and we can start talking either cinema quality video, or new forms for entertainment (imagine a 3d engine, which instead of artificial models and texture used film taken from real locations, with all as many detail as you can afford).
Yep, sticking to facts has never bothered the fanatical anti-RMS club. They invent them as they go. You give some examples below:
> when he started trying to deprecate LGPL.
The LGPL is exactly as "deprecated" as it always have been. From the start, it was intended for libraries that competed directly with proprietary solutions.
> For Stallman, any other form of licence is just a tactical compromise
*All* licenses for *all* intelligent people are tectical compromises for reaching specific goals. For RMS, the ultimate goal is to make alle software free, and GPL, LGPL, and the zlib licenses are merely instruments toward that goal. Only morons thinks trhe licenses are goals in themselves.
> He wants to try to promote Ogg to become the de acto standard,
> and then start including features in it with GPL code,
That would be impressive, given that it isn't a FSF project.
> Of course when Microsoft do this, it's called "embrace and extend",
> but Open Source's favourite sweaty hippie would never do anything so bad, would he?
Unlike Microsoft, RMS never has changed a license for a piece of software he has released to something more restrictive. However, that is a mere fact, not something as important as your speculation and name calling.
> Ogg Vorbis has the very real potential to destroy pop music as we know it.
One can always hope...
It can't destroy pop music, there has always been and will always be popular music, but the "as we know it" part with mega stars, huge ad campaigns, and bands invented by the marketing departments of record companies, might ultimately be in danger.
In response to the change of license, Richard Stallman of the Free Software
Foundation says, "I agree. It is wise to make some of the Ogg Vorbis code
available for use in proprietary software, so that commercial companies doing
proprietary software will use it, and help Vorbis succeed in competition with
other formats that would be restricted against our use."
This is actually not surprising, he had a similar reasoning for making the gzip compression code available on a BSD-like license.
It will probably be too much to hope for, that some of the "RMS will only accept GPL" people will take note.
> I'm not interested in court proceedings, and
> probably will not watch, but it would be
> interesting to see the courts used yet again as
> a tool to appease jealousy.
It is strange to see how people who have too little interest in the case to actually read the judgement (even though it is easily available and written in plain English), somehow feel able to firmly state that the judges decission is in error.
The Microsoft spin doctors must have done an incredibly good job.
> I have never heard any coder so frquently
> invoke the mythological heroes of the American
> nation.
Gee, what do you expect from a man being accused of commiting un-American activities? _Of course_ he is trying to show the similarities with his positions, and the historical people who defined America.
Webster lists a number of alternative definitions, describing different usage patters. A given use of the word typically conform to *one* of the difintions, not *all* of the definitions.
To make it clear which of the multitude of defintions the FSF use when they talk about free software, they have a page describing the exact meaning when they use the phrase. Not many people who use the word "free" do this, they prefer the ambiguity inherent in the word.
Software is not necessarilly different, it just happens to be the area of interest for the FSF. RMS occationally come with similar spirited comments on other kinds of IP.
If you can't build on others work, it usually means you have to duplicate it before you can start real improving (innovating).
> If Microsoft came in and worked on the software
> and packaged it and sold it, they would be
> ripping you off by not giving you the new
> additions for free?
Yep. It would piss me off to have to pay for the priviledge of using a product that was mostly my own work, if I gave my part away for free.
Here, I would prefer something like the Alladin license. Feel free to use it as you want, feel free to distribute it with free applications, but if you try to distribute it as part of a proprietary product, I want a fair share of the profit.
> You with the GPL are forcing them to be ripped
> off by taking their work for free if they want
> yours.
Yes, I'm putting a gun to their head and saying YOU MUST USE MY SOFTWARE. That's the kind of guy I am.
Slashdot Mirror
In case you didn't notice, Mexico has a new "regime" now. Give them a chance.
Large organizations usually have some kind of site license that includes updates and a subscription fee.
If Linux binaries runs just as well as "native" binaries, there isn't any advantage of getting native binaries any more. In fact, it would be best to stop thinking as the Linux ABI support as emulation, instead it becomes just another supported ABI.
From another perspective: Is it a bad thing to have a JVM for BSD? It means people can release JVM binaries, instead of developing native BSD binaries.
Actually, there was a BSD syscall emulation for Linux at one point, but it has bit-rotted from lack of interest.
> if people are still paying, they're going to
> realize that they might as well pay for the
> closed source game, which, at least at the
> moment, has far outpaced the open source efforts
Yes, to the gamers it will just be a matter of price. To the people running the servers, using a free engine and initial maps may be more cost effective than developing their own, and may thus lead to lower prices for the gamers.
This of course requires that the volunteers can create a quality engine for free.
> Game like UO and EverCrack have THOUSANDS
> online at any one time, spread over several
> servers. How can a free game compete with this?
Eh, the _source code_ is free. This does not mean the connecting to the server need to be free. People will idealy be able to pay a subscribtion fee for a big server, try it free on some small hobbyist server, or even try to create a competing commercial server if the existing servers are too expensive or poorly managed.
> Somewhere down the line I wonder if it had been
> a mom and pop ISP if the scenario would have
> been the same.
It probably wouldn't have gone to court, there is a lot more money in suing big corporations than small ones. And, yes, big corporations can afford more expensive lawyers. However, they also tend to take a unemotional cost/benefit approach to lawsuits, and it is often cheaper to settle than to win, even ignoring the risk of losing (judges are hard to predict) and the publicity cost. A small company is more likely to take the lawsuit personally, and fight it to the end.
> its sad however to see that judges play the
> robotic role of following "the book" but use
> little to no ethical, or humanlike qualities
> when dealing with any type of criminal case.
AARRRRGGGHHH! That is the entire *point* of the justice system! A good judge should judge according to the law, and to the greatest extent possible avoid letting his personal values influence the outcome. If a law is wrong, it should be changed, not reinterpretated to suit the idosyncracies of an individual judge.
> a young-at-heart Missourian of my acquaintance
> "plans" to father the children of Natalie Portman,
Good plan.
> but he'd be the first to admit it's a long and
> complicated process
Well, it is not *that* complicated, really. And it doesn't need to take *that* long, just ask Al Bundy.
> with no guarantee of success.
Then you try again. Getting there is (at least) half the fun, just don't ask Al Bundy.
> For a start, he has no money,
Well *that* is likely to be a big problem.
You'd probably be considered good looking (tall, healthy) to, which might help.
... it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." --Newton to Hooke, 5 Feb. 1676
*Real* research is about incremental improvements to the existing base of knowledge.
I think this is unfair, application programmers should strive for _supporting_ desktop specific features and libraries, without _requiring_ them. A really good application would have the UI separated from the functionality, and be buildable for Qt (with/without KDE), Gtk (w/w Gnome), Motif (w/w CDE), and perhaps Xaw and tty from the same source.
That some of the Gtk/Gnome applications are closer to this ideal should not count against it.
I suspect it is a tiny minority of Linux users who will refuse to pay for software on principle.
Most Linux users are much more pragmatic than that, which I suspect is the real reason Linux games do poorly. The vast majority og Linux users also have a MS Windows partition, and they will buy the game for the platform where they first see it, and where there are least trouble installing it.
When RIAA claims that Napster is the cause of decreasing singles sales, they commit the same error. It is incorrect, but fun, to take their own logic error, and applying it towards themselves.
> 2) Larger hard drives make a 10% savings even
:-) would be important.
> MORE worthwhile. Consider: If I saved 10% of a
> 4 GB drive, that's 40 MB--room for maybe 10
> additional songs or about one CD. But if I
> saved 10% of a 400 GB drive, that's an extra 4
> GB--enough for 100 CD's.
At some point, the saving stop mattering, because the harddisk is simply "large enough". For example, any harddisk you can buy today is "large enough" to hold all the text documents I have written, ever, including school reports, emails, Usenet postings, and auxilary files. I could gzip them to make them take say 50Mb instead of 100Mb, but it hardly matters.
The 400 GB harddisk is "large enough" to hold all the music non-collecters care about in mp3 format, so an additional 10% saving isn't that important. What is important is the size of their movie collection, 400 GB might hold 100 mpeg2 (DVD) movies, going to mpeg4 (Div-X
Now let is talk 400 TB harddisk, and we can start talking either cinema quality video, or new forms for entertainment (imagine a 3d engine, which instead of artificial models and texture used film taken from real locations, with all as many detail as you can afford).
> Indeed it will,
Yep, sticking to facts has never bothered the fanatical anti-RMS club. They invent them as they go. You give some examples below:
> when he started trying to deprecate LGPL.
The LGPL is exactly as "deprecated" as it always have been. From the start, it was intended for libraries that competed directly with proprietary solutions.
> For Stallman, any other form of licence is just a tactical compromise
*All* licenses for *all* intelligent people are tectical compromises for reaching specific goals. For RMS, the ultimate goal is to make alle software free, and GPL, LGPL, and the zlib licenses are merely instruments toward that goal. Only morons thinks trhe licenses are goals in themselves.
> He wants to try to promote Ogg to become the de acto standard,
> and then start including features in it with GPL code,
That would be impressive, given that it isn't a FSF project.
> Of course when Microsoft do this, it's called "embrace and extend",
> but Open Source's favourite sweaty hippie would never do anything so bad, would he?
Unlike Microsoft, RMS never has changed a license for a piece of software he has released to something more restrictive. However, that is a mere fact, not something as important as your speculation and name calling.
> Ogg Vorbis has the very real potential to destroy pop music as we know it.
One can always hope...
It can't destroy pop music, there has always been and will always be popular music, but the "as we know it" part with mega stars, huge ad campaigns, and bands invented by the marketing departments of record companies, might ultimately be in danger.
This is actually not surprising, he had a similar reasoning for making the gzip compression code available on a BSD-like license.
It will probably be too much to hope for, that some of the "RMS will only accept GPL" people will take note.
> I'm not interested in court proceedings, and
> probably will not watch, but it would be
> interesting to see the courts used yet again as
> a tool to appease jealousy.
It is strange to see how people who have too little interest in the case to actually read the judgement (even though it is easily available and written in plain English), somehow feel able to firmly state that the judges decission is in error.
The Microsoft spin doctors must have done an incredibly good job.
(n/t)
> I have never heard any coder so frquently
> invoke the mythological heroes of the American
> nation.
Gee, what do you expect from a man being accused of commiting un-American activities? _Of course_ he is trying to show the similarities with his positions, and the historical people who defined America.
Webster lists a number of alternative definitions, describing different usage patters. A given use of the word typically conform to *one* of the difintions, not *all* of the definitions.
To make it clear which of the multitude of defintions the FSF use when they talk about free software, they have a page describing the exact meaning when they use the phrase. Not many people who use the word "free" do this, they prefer the ambiguity inherent in the word.
Software is not necessarilly different, it just happens to be the area of interest for the FSF. RMS occationally come with similar spirited comments on other kinds of IP.
If you can't build on others work, it usually means you have to duplicate it before you can start real improving (innovating).
It describes flaws in v1.0 of license. The only flaw remaining in 1.2 appears to be the disregard for privacy.
Implied warrenty.
It also isn't clear to the limits of how much you can copy it, "if you want" is not very precise.
> If Microsoft came in and worked on the software
> and packaged it and sold it, they would be
> ripping you off by not giving you the new
> additions for free?
Yep. It would piss me off to have to pay for the priviledge of using a product that was mostly my own work, if I gave my part away for free.
Here, I would prefer something like the Alladin license. Feel free to use it as you want, feel free to distribute it with free applications, but if you try to distribute it as part of a proprietary product, I want a fair share of the profit.
> You with the GPL are forcing them to be ripped
> off by taking their work for free if they want
> yours.
Yes, I'm putting a gun to their head and saying YOU MUST USE MY SOFTWARE. That's the kind of guy I am.