"Game Company trusted self-selected pool" would be the correct reason a potential failure.
In any case, even though there are fewer Linux users than MS Windows users, there are also fewer providers of commercial games. This gives a smaller marked divided into fewer pieces. In numbers, the potential Linux marked is close to the size of the Mac marked, with fewer suppliers. That ought to be a good investment.
In that case, all you can conclude is that the self selection bias of your Internet active listeners aren't very different from the self selection bias of your listeners in general.
Maybe it is time to create a fund for defending free software projects from silly lawsuits. I'd contribute to such a fund. Most free software developers doesn't have the money or inclination to defend themselves against a lawsuit, even if it is obviously groundless. So just the existence of the fund would be a big improvement.
Somewhere to send the threats, and get an answer back "this is obviously groundless, we'll take care of the defence".
PS: I don't know enough about the actual case, to say whether this would be something appropriate for the free software legal defence fund.
It wasn't "representive" before, even ignoring the "self-selection" part of it. The people who visit Sierra's home page are most likely to be people using Sierra's current products. People using platforms not supported by Sierra are obviously underrepresented in that group.
The only way the poll will get any value whatsoever, is if the _absolute_ numbers becomes sufficiently impressing. So, game-loving/.'ers, go to the poll and vote.
The polls are useless in any case (all self-selected polls are useless).
I agree nonetheless that refering to pools where/.'ers are likely to lie (i.e. "would you buy for Linux?"), but in this case the question is of a kind that most/.'ers are likely to answer truthfully.
I'd look at an ad with a motif I find sexy, and maybe even notice the name of the product. If, at a later point, I'd need to buy a product in that category, there is a slightly better chance that I'd remember the name of the product. Most likely, you would to. That is enough for the ad to work.
In fact, a parody like this works exactly the same. We will look at it and remember the name because of the humor instead of the sex.
The point is: Advetising agencies don't assume we (the consumers) act purely on a rational basis, because we don't, and they do.
The Qt library is a part of the KDE programs in the sense used in section 2b. It is, however, likely that Qt falls under the special exception in the GPL for "system libraries", and therefore no longer is affected by 2b.
I don't think he's kidding, the bounty-model seems to encourage a "hit-and-run" approach to programming, where solving the immediate problem is more important than long-term maintenance.
This is quite/unlike/ companies like Cygnus, who make a living on the continued support and maintenance. However, they have a problem financing new development.
I don't think he's kidding, the bounty-model seems to encourage a "hit-and-run" approach to programming, where solving the immediate problem is more important than long-term maintenance.
This is quite/unlike/ companies like Cygnus, who make a living on the continued support and maintenance.
Sun gave us XView and SUNRPC long before the expression Open Source was invented, and they financed the maintenance of TCL. They invested a lot of money in XEmacs.
HP gave us the reference implementation of STL, and SGI has been maintaining it since. This is the version used in gcc.
And if we look further than the big guys, the biggest contributers to Ghostscript, gcc, GNAT, and gdb are all commercial, and XEmacs also originated from a commercial setting.
Commercial support for free software is nothing new, and for those of us who like both free software and earning money, it is definitely not something bad.
Basically, you are talking about the CUA compliance. MS Windows has a single dominant look and feel for GUI applications. Linux has the same for command line application (created by AT&T, extended by GNU), but several competing standards for GUI applications, and many rogue GUI applications that follows no standards but their own.
This is part of the problem KDE and Gnome are supposed to solve (like OPEN LOOK and Motif before them). That we have both KDE and Gnome, with GNUStep trying to get into the stage, and OPEN LOOK and Motif not quite dead yet, are contributing to the problem.
I got this unsolisticated mail, advertising for the Linux week on silicon.com. Was it just me, or have they had a regular SPAM campaign?
PS: I don't know any "Vanessa Carlisle". PPS: that is the second piece of Linux spam I have gotten. The first was from Linux Mall.
From vanessa.carlisle@surprise.dircon.co.uk Wed May 19 23:58:21 1999 Return-Path: Received: from th-gt141-094.pool.dircon.co.uk (th-gt141-094.pool.dircon.co.uk [194.112.58.94]) by sheridan.dina.kvl.dk (8.9.0.Beta5/8.9.0.Beta5) with SMTP id XAA07454 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 23:58:19 +0200 From: vanessa.carlisle@surprise.dircon.co.uk Message-Id: Date: 19/05/99 22:25:48 Pacific Daylight Time Reply-To: vanessa.carlisle@surprise.dircon.co.uk To: abraham@dina.kvl.dk Subject: Per, Something that might be of interest?
Dear Per,
Have you seen this story on an exclusive Silicon.com poll? It says that Linux is ready for corporate use - you can see the full thing at
http://www.silicon.com/linuxspecial
The survey, which marks the start of Silicon's week-long Linux Special, found that 71 per cent of viewers believe Linux is ready for business, while only 25 per cent disagreed.
There's a whole Linux Special running this week on the site (http://www.silicon.com/linuxspecial) - exclusive interviews with people like Eric Raymond, Miguel de Icaza and so on.... probably worth a look.
Nope, they could have a GPL'ed version and a prorietary version if they wish so. However, they would need permission to include _others_ improments to the free version in the proprietary version.
Actually, they need such a permission in any case. But in practice it will be easier to get if they use a license that also allows others to make their own proprietary versions. It will then tend to become the "default" license for all modifications.
> SGI still is deciding how to structure the open > source license, the company said, though it is > sure to meet the requirements of the Open > Source Definition, a spokesman said.
They need more than OSD compliance. If they want it to go into the Linux kernel, they need to use a GPL-compliant license. The main question is whether they want (or will accept) that the other proprietary Unixen can use it. If not, then the obvious choice is to GPL it. It will cause problems for the BSDs, but why should SGI care? They don't have the hype (momentum) of Linux.
If they do want their file system to become a standard, they could LGPL it, or even use an X-like license. That would also make it easier to backport changes to Irix. Using the LGPL would fmake it more problematic for competitors to keep their changes proprietary.
According to the press release, they are moving technology from UNICOS to Irix, so I guess Irix is not _quite_ dead yet, but it might be reserved for high-end systems.
...as the software it is going to be used together with, unless you have a really good reason not to. It gives the least problems.
I.e., if you are writting a Perl program, use the Artistic License. If you are writting a Gnome program, use the GPL. If you are writting a Mozilla plug-in, use the MPL. Und so weiter.
The good guys vs. the bad guys
on
Mosix now GPLed
·
· Score: 3
Some/.'ers seems to think about people or companies in terms of "good" or "bad". Other./'ers don't think of people or companies that way, instead they think of _behaviours_ as good or bad.
When people or companies like Linus or Microsoft are consistently behaving good or bad, this distinction doesn't cause any problems.
However, as Cowards Anonymous demonstrated, when someone _change_ behaviour, this cause some confusion. For CA, the new "good" behaviour proves that the Mosix people where "good" all along, and therefore think an apology from the people who complained about the previous "bad" behaviour is appropriate. However, no such apology is to be expected, because the new "good" behaviour doesn't affect the status of the old "bad" behaviour.
This is the same problem some people got when Troll Tech changed to an Open Source(TM) complaint license.
To be honest, I think the tendency to divide people (and companies) into good or bad are a sign of immaturity. A world-view created by Hollywood. Companies in a market economy just tries to make money, and people tend to do what they believe are right. Judge behaviours instead.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong, it is time to vote again if you can honestly answer the question being asked:
In what direction do you think Sierra Studios
should expand their gaming expertise?
Answering the stated question honestly is _all_ you can reasonably be requested to do in a poll.
...if you voted before the numbers were reset.
"Game Company trusted self-selected pool" would be the correct reason a potential failure.
In any case, even though there are fewer Linux users than MS Windows users, there are also fewer providers of commercial games. This gives a smaller marked divided into fewer pieces. In numbers, the potential Linux marked is close to the size of the Mac marked, with fewer suppliers. That ought to be a good investment.
Are the other polls self-selected as well?
In that case, all you can conclude is that the self selection bias of your Internet active listeners aren't very different from the self selection bias of your listeners in general.
It was already biased towards users of systems supported by Sierra games, and thus _against_ Linux.
/.'ers won't answer it perfectly truthfully.
Also, read the question, and ask youself if you _really_ believe the
Maybe it is time to create a fund for defending free software projects from silly lawsuits. I'd contribute to such a fund. Most free software developers doesn't have the money or inclination to defend themselves against a lawsuit, even if it is obviously groundless. So just the existence of the fund would be a big improvement.
Somewhere to send the threats, and get an answer back "this is obviously groundless, we'll take care of the defence".
PS: I don't know enough about the actual case, to say whether this would be something appropriate for the free software legal defence fund.
It wasn't "representive" before, even ignoring the "self-selection" part of it. The people who visit Sierra's home page are most likely to be people using Sierra's current products. People using platforms not supported by Sierra are obviously underrepresented in that group.
/.'ers, go to the poll and vote.
The only way the poll will get any value whatsoever, is if the _absolute_ numbers becomes sufficiently impressing. So, game-loving
Self-selected polls are _never_ representative, on the Internet or elsewhere.
The polls are useless in any case (all self-selected polls are useless).
/.'ers are likely to lie (i.e. "would you buy for Linux?"), but in this case the question is of a kind that most /.'ers are likely to answer truthfully.
I agree nonetheless that refering to pools where
Ignoring that this was a parody...
I'd look at an ad with a motif I find sexy, and maybe even notice the name of the product. If, at a later point, I'd need to buy a product in that category, there is a slightly better chance that I'd remember the name of the product. Most likely, you would to. That is enough for the ad to work.
In fact, a parody like this works exactly the same. We will look at it and remember the name because of the humor instead of the sex.
The point is: Advetising agencies don't assume we (the consumers) act purely on a rational basis, because we don't, and they do.
The Qt library is a part of the KDE programs in the sense used in section 2b. It is, however, likely that Qt falls under the special exception in the GPL for "system libraries", and therefore no longer is affected by 2b.
Section 2b.
Hope this helps.
I don't think he's kidding, the bounty-model seems to encourage a "hit-and-run" approach to programming, where solving the immediate problem is more important than long-term maintenance.
/unlike/ companies like Cygnus, who make a living on the continued support and maintenance. However, they have a problem financing new development.
This is quite
I guess what we need is to combine the two.
I don't think he's kidding, the bounty-model seems to encourage a "hit-and-run" approach to programming, where solving the immediate problem is more important than long-term maintenance.
/unlike/ companies like Cygnus, who make a living on the continued support and maintenance.
This is quite
I guess what we need is to combine the two.
Sun gave us XView and SUNRPC long before the expression Open Source was invented, and they financed the maintenance of TCL. They invested a lot of money in XEmacs.
HP gave us the reference implementation of STL, and SGI has been maintaining it since. This is the version used in gcc.
And if we look further than the big guys, the biggest contributers to Ghostscript, gcc, GNAT, and gdb are all commercial, and XEmacs also originated from a commercial setting.
Commercial support for free software is nothing new, and for those of us who like both free software and earning money, it is definitely not something bad.
Basically, you are talking about the CUA compliance. MS Windows has a single dominant look and feel for GUI applications. Linux has the same for command line application (created by AT&T, extended by GNU), but several competing standards for GUI applications, and many rogue GUI applications that follows no standards but their own.
This is part of the problem KDE and Gnome are supposed to solve (like OPEN LOOK and Motif before them). That we have both KDE and Gnome, with GNUStep trying to get into the stage, and OPEN LOOK and Motif not quite dead yet, are contributing to the problem.
Competition is not always good.
Eh, what *is* the paradigm of MS Windows?
I certainly haven't gotten to the point where it gets much easier yet.
I got this unsolisticated mail, advertising for the Linux week on silicon.com. Was it just me, or have they had a regular SPAM campaign?
PS: I don't know any "Vanessa Carlisle".
PPS: that is the second piece of Linux spam I have gotten. The first was from Linux Mall.
From vanessa.carlisle@surprise.dircon.co.uk Wed May 19 23:58:21 1999
Return-Path:
Received: from th-gt141-094.pool.dircon.co.uk (th-gt141-094.pool.dircon.co.uk [194.112.58.94])
by sheridan.dina.kvl.dk (8.9.0.Beta5/8.9.0.Beta5) with SMTP id XAA07454
for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 23:58:19 +0200
From: vanessa.carlisle@surprise.dircon.co.uk
Message-Id:
Date: 19/05/99 22:25:48 Pacific Daylight Time
Reply-To: vanessa.carlisle@surprise.dircon.co.uk
To: abraham@dina.kvl.dk
Subject: Per, Something that might be of interest?
Dear Per,
Have you seen this story on an exclusive Silicon.com poll? It says that Linux is ready for corporate use - you can see the full thing at
http://www.silicon.com/linuxspecial
The survey, which marks the start of Silicon's week-long Linux Special, found that 71 per cent of viewers believe Linux is ready for business, while only 25 per cent disagreed.
There's a whole Linux Special running this week on the site (http://www.silicon.com/linuxspecial) - exclusive interviews with people like Eric Raymond, Miguel de Icaza and so on.... probably worth a look.
Vanessa
You are allowed to recreate patented processes (without a license) for the purpose of understanding them.
Nope, they could have a GPL'ed version and a prorietary version if they wish so. However, they would need permission to include _others_ improments to the free version in the proprietary version.
Actually, they need such a permission in any case. But in practice it will be easier to get if they use a license that also allows others to make their own proprietary versions. It will then tend to become the "default" license for all modifications.
I suspect they need to have a _product_ before they start making any money.
> SGI still is deciding how to structure the open
> source license, the company said, though it is
> sure to meet the requirements of the Open
> Source Definition, a spokesman said.
They need more than OSD compliance. If they want it to go into the Linux kernel, they need to use a GPL-compliant license. The main question is whether they want (or will accept) that the other proprietary Unixen can use it. If not, then the obvious choice is to GPL it. It will cause problems for the BSDs, but why should SGI care? They don't have the hype (momentum) of Linux.
If they do want their file system to become a standard, they could LGPL it, or even use an X-like license. That would also make it easier to backport changes to Irix. Using the LGPL would fmake it more problematic for competitors to keep their changes proprietary.
According to the press release, they are moving technology from UNICOS to Irix, so I guess Irix is not _quite_ dead yet, but it might be reserved for high-end systems.
...as the software it is going to be used together with, unless you have a really good reason not to. It gives the least problems.
I.e., if you are writting a Perl program, use the Artistic License. If you are writting a Gnome program, use the GPL. If you are writting a Mozilla plug-in, use the MPL. Und so weiter.
Some /.'ers seems to think about people or companies in terms of "good" or "bad". Other ./'ers don't think of people or companies that way, instead they think of _behaviours_ as good or bad.
When people or companies like Linus or Microsoft are consistently behaving good or bad, this distinction doesn't cause any problems.
However, as Cowards Anonymous demonstrated, when someone _change_ behaviour, this cause some confusion. For CA, the new "good" behaviour proves that the Mosix people where "good" all along, and therefore think an apology from the people who complained about the previous "bad" behaviour is appropriate. However, no such apology is to be expected, because the new "good" behaviour doesn't affect the status of the old "bad" behaviour.
This is the same problem some people got when Troll Tech changed to an Open Source(TM) complaint license.
To be honest, I think the tendency to divide people (and companies) into good or bad are a sign of immaturity. A world-view created by Hollywood. Companies in a market economy just tries to make money, and people tend to do what they believe are right. Judge behaviours instead.