The Case for Open Source/Closed Standards??? Are you nuts? Having closed, proprietary standards ensures that one company/entity is in charge of the format used, regardless of the availability of the source. The company would be able to cash in on free bug fixes/new features from the community, but would continue to be able to sell access to the files produced by the program. It's basically the exact opposite of what's good. Even if a program is closed, if it uses open standards, it's practically as good. It leaves an opportunity for another program to be created which reads those files; with closed standards/open source, that's not possible.
Actually open source ideals are much more in line with free-market, small-scale capitalism, rather than any form of communism. In fact, it's all much closer to Smith than to Marx. Perhaps you should read them and not spit McCarthyisms at people who might actually know something.
Speaking of Hypercard, the game DragonTrials was awesome. I couldn't find it after I had to get rid of my classic Mac lab (SE/30's), so I rewrote it as a.Net app. It's still ridiculously fun.
I don't agree. Haven't you ever wanted to look back through your logs of old IM conversations for an exchange you had with someone, or an idea you were talking about once? I make it a point to always turn on logging in Gaim or Adium or whatever client I'm using, but when you change machines or operating systems, your data doesn't follow you. It's another thing you have to back up, and it's really easy to forget to bring that data with you. I can't tell you how much data I've lost just because of that. If Google were to release an IM client that parsed your IMs just like your emails, saved all your conversations on their servers, and opened them to searching from any system or computer, that would certainly fall within their area of expertise and their business plan. I'm sure they could find a way to display tasteful Googleads on the side/top of your IM client which are relevant to your conversation, much like Gmail.
If both projects are under the GPL, there's no reason you shouldn't take his code and use it in your own. He has to realize that both projects are based on the same code and are aiming to do close to the same thing... and also that he forked the code and is releasing it under the GPL himself (under the rules of the GPL). If he doesn't want you taking his GPL code when he took yours, then he's just being unreasonable and should rewrite everything and keep it closed. Additionally, aren't you guys supposed to be on the same side? Why would he want to hinder your progress on the way to completing a project?
In short, you're on the same side and are making two GPL programs based on the same source. You are free to use his code and he's free to use yours. If anything, it's good.
Yes, that may be, but what you're missing is that you still count towards Microsoft's share of the market. "Why?" You may ask... well, it's because Microsoft still gets a sale of Windows for every system you buy. So the count is still "accurate" even though it isn't counting the number of systems in use. It's counting the number of sales. Microsoft still gets your money.
That doesn't count as part of the $9.1 billion dollar Linux server market. Because a computer company didn't sell you a Linux server. That's what they're counting.
It probably has a lot to do with the fact that a lot of people use webmail. So for them, Firefox is their email client as well. Indeed, why use Thunderbird when you could be using Gmail? Gmail is better (I was shocked, to be completely honest) and rather more convenient.
why aren't there more artists contributing stuff to the commons?
Because anyone that's any good at it gets hired by game companies. With code, there are many people that are good at it that are probably working somewhere else and don't want/need to be hired by a game company.
Also, there are a lot fewer good artists than good coders, so there's a much greater chance of a good artist getting hired.
Would you rather buy a game from a company who guarantees that their programmers never work more than eight hours per day and are given a full hour lunch break and aren't expected to come in for overtime... or a game from a company who says it has teams of programmers and artists working virtually round the clock, constantly working to create a product that is as good as possible and get it to the shelves as soon as possible.
Even if people knew, it wouldn't necessarily stop this kind of behavior. It might even promote it.
For some reason they haven't moved the Slashdot fix from the trunk to Firefox yet, but that should be coming over soon. I guess they waited on it because they froze for the 1.0 release.
I've been using Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox since 0.4 or 0.5, and I've had very few stability problems. I leave my browser running all the time, rarely with fewer than 10 tabs, and it just about never crashes. When it does, as you say, it's a shock. Which isn't surprising in either case, because they're almost the same program.
I say the interface is cleaner mostly because in Linux, Mozilla has severe problems. Resizing doesn't work properly... when you drag the lower right corner, the window resizes much slower than your mouse moves, no matter how quickly you move. Firefox hasn't ever had this problem. And I know you can skin both, but the default skin for Firefox is so much nicer than Mozilla's. "Modern" is so old.
Not to troll, this is just out of curiosity... Why do you say it's better? I stopped using Mozilla at around 1.4 or so when I started using Fire(bird|fox) exclusively, and I always found the latter to be at least as good. Faster startup times, cleaner interface, more responsive. What does the full suite currently offer over that?
Yeah, it'll be their choice to risk their lives, but if they die it'll inevitably be the choice of their families to sue the pants off the people who built the rockets. So if any of the companies involve with this make any slip ups, the fledgling industry could very well be destroyed by lawsuits... that seems to have become the social climate in America over the past several years. Quite unfortunate.
Um, they wouldn't be asking anyone to pony up money for software. iTunes and Quicktime are free (unless you want to get the Pro version of QT, which is unnecessary). They'd be opening their market for the iTMS to Linux users, allowing many people who claim to be willing to pay for music to do so, and also allowing those same people who may be buying music from Apple on their Windows or Mac machines to play it on their Linux machines as well, and let them sync their iPods with Linux. It's about good will, and it also increases the size of their market. And, while Linux users might not all be chomping at the bit to pay for software, they definitely pay for hardware. And that's what Apple is selling here... hardware, not software.
Mechanics would also need to be more technical. Odds are the small one-man mechanic business would suffer because of the cost of the diagnostic & repair equipment.
Or they'd have to hire programmers to service these cars... which would of course help to solve some of the employment problems in the industry. You can't exactly outsource car mechanics.
Why would a company buy a product that lacks so much of the functionality they want that it would cost $50000 to add it?
I mean, that'd be great, and sounds like an excellent business model, but I think it might work a little better if it were free in the first place... it gets the "trojan" base of the program out to more people who want to add functionality. Still, I think that sounds really risky and unreliable.
So then why wouldn't it encourage Apple to fix the problem? As in, people obviously want to run iTunes in Linux and use their iPods in Linux, so why not release a Linux version of iTunes? It would solve the semi-functional problem, and open up the iPod market to gadget-loving geeks just a little more.
Actually, I've been using Mozilla since 1998 and Firefox since it was Phoenix. I don't know if you've ever heard of "Open Source Software," but the point is that you can use the software before it's ready if you want. By the way, Gecko (and thus Mozilla and Firefox) has kicked ass for several years. And has been free the entire time. I think it's you who has wasted his money.
Would you play a huge game on a PC that was comparable to the iMac? No? That's funny, because the low end iMac is cheaper than the high end Dells, and have better specs in every category except raw CPU speed (which is meaningless, unless you're an idiot). And the iMac is the bottom, on the scale of Macs. Don't make the generalization that all Macs are underpowered just because their lowend is lower than your highend. Look at the Power Macs. And notice that they really aren't that expensive considering everything you get. Spec a comparable Dell (if you can), and notice the price tags.
It's also when it won't matter anymore, because they'll have all your private data. It probably won't be much longer before Google has more on everyone in the country than the US Government. Oh well, I like them.
Slashdot Mirror
Chicago. An inland location is much safer, from natural disasters and attacks.
... OUTER SPACE! Maybe cooler people would run for office if they knew their desk would be in orbit.
Or
The Case for Open Source/Closed Standards??? Are you nuts? Having closed, proprietary standards ensures that one company/entity is in charge of the format used, regardless of the availability of the source. The company would be able to cash in on free bug fixes/new features from the community, but would continue to be able to sell access to the files produced by the program. It's basically the exact opposite of what's good. Even if a program is closed, if it uses open standards, it's practically as good. It leaves an opportunity for another program to be created which reads those files; with closed standards/open source, that's not possible.
Actually open source ideals are much more in line with free-market, small-scale capitalism, rather than any form of communism. In fact, it's all much closer to Smith than to Marx. Perhaps you should read them and not spit McCarthyisms at people who might actually know something.
Speaking of Hypercard, the game DragonTrials was awesome. I couldn't find it after I had to get rid of my classic Mac lab (SE/30's), so I rewrote it as a .Net app. It's still ridiculously fun.
I don't agree. Haven't you ever wanted to look back through your logs of old IM conversations for an exchange you had with someone, or an idea you were talking about once? I make it a point to always turn on logging in Gaim or Adium or whatever client I'm using, but when you change machines or operating systems, your data doesn't follow you. It's another thing you have to back up, and it's really easy to forget to bring that data with you. I can't tell you how much data I've lost just because of that. If Google were to release an IM client that parsed your IMs just like your emails, saved all your conversations on their servers, and opened them to searching from any system or computer, that would certainly fall within their area of expertise and their business plan. I'm sure they could find a way to display tasteful Googleads on the side/top of your IM client which are relevant to your conversation, much like Gmail.
If both projects are under the GPL, there's no reason you shouldn't take his code and use it in your own. He has to realize that both projects are based on the same code and are aiming to do close to the same thing ... and also that he forked the code and is releasing it under the GPL himself (under the rules of the GPL). If he doesn't want you taking his GPL code when he took yours, then he's just being unreasonable and should rewrite everything and keep it closed. Additionally, aren't you guys supposed to be on the same side? Why would he want to hinder your progress on the way to completing a project?
In short, you're on the same side and are making two GPL programs based on the same source. You are free to use his code and he's free to use yours. If anything, it's good.
undersand!
And do your damn homework!
Yes, that may be, but what you're missing is that you still count towards Microsoft's share of the market. "Why?" You may ask ... well, it's because Microsoft still gets a sale of Windows for every system you buy. So the count is still "accurate" even though it isn't counting the number of systems in use. It's counting the number of sales. Microsoft still gets your money.
That doesn't count as part of the $9.1 billion dollar Linux server market. Because a computer company didn't sell you a Linux server. That's what they're counting.
It probably has a lot to do with the fact that a lot of people use webmail. So for them, Firefox is their email client as well. Indeed, why use Thunderbird when you could be using Gmail? Gmail is better (I was shocked, to be completely honest) and rather more convenient.
why aren't there more artists contributing stuff to the commons?
Because anyone that's any good at it gets hired by game companies. With code, there are many people that are good at it that are probably working somewhere else and don't want/need to be hired by a game company.
Also, there are a lot fewer good artists than good coders, so there's a much greater chance of a good artist getting hired.
Would you rather buy a game from a company who guarantees that their programmers never work more than eight hours per day and are given a full hour lunch break and aren't expected to come in for overtime ... or a game from a company who says it has teams of programmers and artists working virtually round the clock, constantly working to create a product that is as good as possible and get it to the shelves as soon as possible.
Even if people knew, it wouldn't necessarily stop this kind of behavior. It might even promote it.
For some reason they haven't moved the Slashdot fix from the trunk to Firefox yet, but that should be coming over soon. I guess they waited on it because they froze for the 1.0 release.
... when you drag the lower right corner, the window resizes much slower than your mouse moves, no matter how quickly you move. Firefox hasn't ever had this problem. And I know you can skin both, but the default skin for Firefox is so much nicer than Mozilla's. "Modern" is so old.
I've been using Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox since 0.4 or 0.5, and I've had very few stability problems. I leave my browser running all the time, rarely with fewer than 10 tabs, and it just about never crashes. When it does, as you say, it's a shock. Which isn't surprising in either case, because they're almost the same program.
I say the interface is cleaner mostly because in Linux, Mozilla has severe problems. Resizing doesn't work properly
Of course, I have nothing against the suite.
Not to troll, this is just out of curiosity ... Why do you say it's better? I stopped using Mozilla at around 1.4 or so when I started using Fire(bird|fox) exclusively, and I always found the latter to be at least as good. Faster startup times, cleaner interface, more responsive. What does the full suite currently offer over that?
Yeah, it'll be their choice to risk their lives, but if they die it'll inevitably be the choice of their families to sue the pants off the people who built the rockets. So if any of the companies involve with this make any slip ups, the fledgling industry could very well be destroyed by lawsuits ... that seems to have become the social climate in America over the past several years. Quite unfortunate.
Um, they wouldn't be asking anyone to pony up money for software. iTunes and Quicktime are free (unless you want to get the Pro version of QT, which is unnecessary). They'd be opening their market for the iTMS to Linux users, allowing many people who claim to be willing to pay for music to do so, and also allowing those same people who may be buying music from Apple on their Windows or Mac machines to play it on their Linux machines as well, and let them sync their iPods with Linux. It's about good will, and it also increases the size of their market. And, while Linux users might not all be chomping at the bit to pay for software, they definitely pay for hardware. And that's what Apple is selling here ... hardware, not software.
the driver could not correct to save his life - literally.
He died? You're a harsh teacher...
Mechanics would also need to be more technical. Odds are the small one-man mechanic business would suffer because of the cost of the diagnostic & repair equipment.
Or they'd have to hire programmers to service these cars... which would of course help to solve some of the employment problems in the industry. You can't exactly outsource car mechanics.
forgo (v): To abstain from; relinquish.
Why would a company buy a product that lacks so much of the functionality they want that it would cost $50000 to add it?
... it gets the "trojan" base of the program out to more people who want to add functionality. Still, I think that sounds really risky and unreliable.
I mean, that'd be great, and sounds like an excellent business model, but I think it might work a little better if it were free in the first place
So then why wouldn't it encourage Apple to fix the problem? As in, people obviously want to run iTunes in Linux and use their iPods in Linux, so why not release a Linux version of iTunes? It would solve the semi-functional problem, and open up the iPod market to gadget-loving geeks just a little more.
Butch and Cassidy are the same person: Butch Cassidy. I think you meant to call him "Sundance."
Actually, I've been using Mozilla since 1998 and Firefox since it was Phoenix. I don't know if you've ever heard of "Open Source Software," but the point is that you can use the software before it's ready if you want. By the way, Gecko (and thus Mozilla and Firefox) has kicked ass for several years. And has been free the entire time. I think it's you who has wasted his money.
Would you play a huge game on a PC that was comparable to the iMac? No? That's funny, because the low end iMac is cheaper than the high end Dells, and have better specs in every category except raw CPU speed (which is meaningless, unless you're an idiot). And the iMac is the bottom, on the scale of Macs. Don't make the generalization that all Macs are underpowered just because their lowend is lower than your highend. Look at the Power Macs. And notice that they really aren't that expensive considering everything you get. Spec a comparable Dell (if you can), and notice the price tags.
It's also when it won't matter anymore, because they'll have all your private data. It probably won't be much longer before Google has more on everyone in the country than the US Government. Oh well, I like them.