No, the problem is not hotmail, it's that the "one browser window" idea that tabs were supposed to make possible is not possible with respect to javascript-created windows
I can still think of a couple ways to achieve what SeanTobin wants:
- If Javascript attempts to change the current document to a different URL, and the control key is currently held down, instead launch a new tab/window and open the specified URL into that.
- When a click on a link spawns a Javascript, have Mozilla remember whether or not said link was clicked with the create-new-tab modifier (control or third mouse button or whatever) If a Javascript attempts to change the current document URL, the javascript interpreter checks to see whether that particular block of javascript was launched by the new-tab modifier. If so, instead of opening into the current tab/window, it opens into a new one.
Either of these should work with whatever wierd system Hotmail is using.
How will they track this, and how will they be able to determine if people are cheating?
OK, so they decide to regulate and tax Voice routed over IP. What about Voice routed over IP routed over some other sort of IP protocol disguised to not look like voice? What about Voice over IP routed through relays in Canada? What if two people are doing VoIP but then claiming "what, this isn't a phone conversation, we're just streaming each others talk radio streaming mp3 stations to each other."
This could become fascinating. We would wind up with this sort of caste structure being created among internet protocols, where this stream of bytes is okay and anonymous but THIS stream of bytes, the government needs to know about it and it needs to be taxed.. just because the latter set of bytes happens to contain audio data of a certain sort. So far the internet has avoided anything of that sort; certain classes of *content* have been differentiated from one another in a regulatory fashion, but never before a class of *data*.
Soon we may wind up with something where the proverbial "Joe Sixpack" pays relatively high fees on his Skype phone he bought at Wal-mart and plugged into the wall, while all the "techies" pay nothing to use their "alternative" VoIP setups. Meanwhile a bizarre cat and mouse game goes on, as the authorities complain about "speech piracy" and attempt to find ways to sniff out VoIP data or prevent "pirate" VoIP programs from connecting to the larger VoIP network, and the tech community comes up with increasingly elaborate ways to keep the authorities to notice what sort of data exactly it is that they're sending.
In the meanwhile, the ongoing effort by router companies to make "smart" routers capable of identifying things like streaming media packets and handling them in a slightly more intelligent manner is scuttled-- because 80% of all streaming audio data no longer looks like streaming audio data.
Because sometimes change is good and sometimes change is bad. It depends on what the change is! In this case, the change being made is a bad one. This means everyone is objecting to this specific change. That doesn't mean they're against change in general.
If you announce you're going to cut off someone's arm and give them a pretty flower, they are going to object. If you then accuse them of objecting because they are afraid of change, and ask why they are totally ignoring the pretty flower that they get out of the bargain, you will not be taken seriously. If you do the same thing in a metaphorical manner as regards computers, you get away with it, because computers are a bit more confusing and issues are easier to obfuscate...
Apple is exactly where Microsoft wants them: They are contained. They are in a niche market with clearly defined bounds (the "higher end" end user) and they show no indication that they have any path whatsoever from there to touching Microsoft's core target market (the person who just wants 'a cheap PC', the business market). Microsoft is not concerned with contained threats. This is why MS has been pretty much ignoring Mac OS X, but they're jockeying violently against the iTunes Music Store.
Google is very very much an unknown, uncontained threat. They have a lot of leverage, they have energy, mindshare, and are actively expanding, and worst of all, Microsoft has no way to control them in any way. If Google decides they want to put up a link on their front page that says "hey, if you click here, it will install Quicktime and play the Return of the King trailer", there will be a whole lot of people installing Quicktime that day.
Worse, google is actively moving in ways that indicate direct potential threats to things Microsoft cares about. It's only a tiny step from the Google Toolbar to the Google Webbrowser. It's not much of a step at all for Google News to expand into something that could dwarf MSN.
Remember how much effort and money MS put into knocking tiny little Netscape out of the market, even though they got nothing in return? Microsoft cares deeply about potential threats. And potentially, Google can be very scary to Microsoft.
It makes sense to report on this; it shows where SCO's PR efforts are heading.
But why do people seem to be seriously considering the possibility that SCO might sue google?
Pay attention to what's been happening since January, and you'll notice a pattern. Over, and over, and over, SCO says they're going to sue someone. They threaten lawsuits, say they have plans for lawsuits, announce a new lawsuit target every week. But they never sue anyone. They still haven't sued anyone except IBM, and the IBM suit concerns NOTHING but a contractual dispute between SCO and IBM.
If SCO says they're going to sue someone, that does not in the tinest way indicate they are going to sue that person. It's all just making noise to keep the press spotlight on them.
Without specific code that target's ATMs, this is merely a generic nuisance that happened to hit what some consider a sensitive device.... Scary when you think what could happen, and frustrating when you think of the loss of trust in the security admins. But let's keep this in perspective. Nothing serious happened and it's a big step to get to where something serious will happen
How do you know something serious didn't happen?
So the Nachi worm hit these machines, and its big and obvious, and it breaks the machines. But the Nachi worm moves by brute force; it hit these ATMs by accident. How do we know that during the time before the ATMs were hit, someone with actual, targetted, malicious intent didn't at some point hit a few of the ATMs using the same exploit Nachi did?
If someone doing it on purpose had hit the ATMs, they could have done something much more subtle. Something that wouldn't have been noticed the way the Nachi worm was, something that (given how unconcerned everyone seems about this) probably wouldn't be noticed at all, even after the Nachi incident. Something like a small patch to the ATM UI that quietly records the ATM card number, personal information, and PIN# of everyone who uses that ATM, then quietly dumps that somewhere on the internet later. It wouldn't be that difficult, and the Nachi thing simply proves its possible.
It's not a big step at all to get to the point where something serious could happen. It's barely even a step at all, as it's just a step of exactly the distance between a worm hitting an ATM at random and someone with a little bit of intent, knowledge, and time sitting down and deciding they're going to hack an ATM.
That to prevent confusion with the popular web-standard technology CSS, the CSS BIOS technology will before release be renamed to "Firebird", a name chosen after an exhaustive search based on the fact that it kind of describes "Phoenix" and hey, it's like the car.
To match this, and as part of the promotional effort for Firebird, they will be rebranding most of their products with animal-inspired names, for example renaming their remote-BIOS-diagnostics-and-administration technology to "Longhorn", a name to evoke images of stability. The entire promotional push will be branded to stockholders as the System Consolidation of Operations project, or SCO for short, overall an effort to draw together their product line for more clarity to consumers.
Look at the things that you've listed, then look at the things people usually complain about when they complain about OSS software copying from people.
I think you'll notice a pattern, and it is this: *everything* that you have listed is innovations in server and programming applications.
Look at end-user and GUI applications, however, and you'll find that the open-source world hasn't guided innovation for a very long time. And you'll find that if you look at the mission statements for GUI end-user apps in the open source world, you are going to see a lot of phrases like "a window manager inspired by NeXTstep" "create a replacement for Microsoft Excel" "create a drop-in replacement for Microsoft Outlook" "provide the functionality of Office" "it's like BeOS, only free" etc.
But, of course, in terms of server apps, the "command line", and tools for programmers, it pretty much is the open source community leading the way and the commercial world either following or just using open source software wholesale. (Two counterexamples to this I can think of being Java and IBM's server OSes.)
I don't think this is a bad thing, I just think it says something about the focus of open source vs commercial software. The people who write open source software are programmers, so they make environments that programmers would be comfortable in.
Does anyone know what a good sort of p2p "kit" is, say if you want to include p2p networking (like, the ability to create and work with a self-managing p2p network) in an application but don't want to write your own p2p protocol/network code?
I know there must be a couple. What are some good ones?
I heard Sun has one? What's it called? "JXTA"? Has anyone worked with that, is it any good? Can it work with nodes that are behind NAT?
Bit of a difference between someone wardriving out of curiousity, or using a nearby open WAP because it was there, and someone *looking around for open WAPs specifically so that they can perform illegal acts without traceability, then jacking off to child pornography in a car using said WAP WHILE DRIVING*.
Maybe there's a slippery slope thing going on here but somehow I'm not going to really care about *what* happens to this person or this case.
And I hear that after the IBM case fails, the transitional CEO that they hire to replace Darl until such time as SCO can find a buyer will be named "Karen O'MessyDivorce".
Well, at least they started by attacking the large targets, the ones who have the ability to defend themselves and enough at stake they probably won't just pay the wargeld-- i mean settlement-- to buy AT&T off. You know, as opposed to picking off defneseless small businesses, as is the normal tactic.
I have this mental image of Alan Cox a man on the run, moving from country to country, each time leaving just minutes before a law goes into effect making the distribution of software that facilitates the breaking of copy protection illegal, always staying just one step ahead of the DMCA as one by one, each country implements the DMCA or something like it..
Until finally there is no where left, and finally, Alan Cox winds up in the most fitting place possible to spend the rest of his life working on the Linux kernel in hermitage: with the Penguins. In Antartica. Outside the dominion of any country. HA!
Hmm, there's a thought. If in order to escape draconian DMCA-like laws, you get on a big boat and go out in international waters to perform copyright-dangerous actions, then does that make it Piracy on the High Seas?
My three year old Mac (brand new 2001) won't even let me install OSX let alone *run* it..
What kind of Mac do you have??? Unless I am horribly mistaken, the newest Mac OS X (10.3, released last week) will run on any Mac with built-in USB. In other words, any G3 or better except for the G3s with the beige cases. So it will run on *all* macintoshes manufactured in 1999 or later, plus any iMac manufactured in 1998. If you are willing to run the previous revision of Mac OS X, 10.2-- generally considered to be the point at which OS X could first be considered "mature"-- it will work on any g3 or better, meaning any mac released in November 1998 or later.
I got my mac in mid-2001. It's been running primarily OS X since the moment it was first switched on. I have yet to have a "Gee, I wish my computer were newer" moment.
I don't know, most of the people I've been hearing complaining, it's been closer to:
2000 - "Bush stole the election with punchcards. The people need pieces of paper and pens where you circle the option you want!" 2004 - "Bush stole the election with e-voting. The people need pieces of paper and pens where you circle the option you want!"
Punchcard machines have an unacceptably high margin of error. E-voting machines have an unacceptably low level of trust. These two statements are not contradictory, especially when you consider there are options that involve neither punchcards nor electronic vote storage.
punchcards are easier to hack. Any al Qaeda can walk into a DMV in California and ask for a voter's registration card, and voila!
What does voting registration process have to do with voting process? If california doesn't properly check to see if the person attempting to register to vote is permitted to, that's going to be exactly the same problem whether they use electronic voting machines or punchcard voting machines or, well, anything else.
This looks pretty cool. It will retail for $20, be released for all three consoles, apparently feature 3/4 player support on xbox/gamecube, will support a global high scores list on xbox via Xbox Live, and contains: "Spy Hunter, Defender, Defender II, Gauntlet, Joust, Joust II, Paperboy, Rampage, Marble Madness, Robotron 2084, Smash TV, Bubbles, RoadBlasters, Blaster, Rampart, Sinistar, Super Sprint, 720, Toobin', Klax, Splat!, Satan's Hollow, and Vindicators" (!!)
Another thing to look out for if you've got a Gamecube: Once Dec 6 comes, you will be able to buy "Pac Man Vs.", a really cool-looking 4-player Pac Man game (Player One uses a GBA and plays Pac-Man; Players 2-4 play on the gamecube, and play ghosts. The ghosts cannot see the entire board.), for $20 bundled with Pac Man World 2. You can also get this game free if right now you order I-Ninja or "R: Racing Evolution".
That's too bad. I was going to pick up a BBA to use with Warp Pipe and Kirby's Air Ride when I had some money, but I'm not really interested anymore. At least half the fun of this for me was going to be the opportunity to poke at and help tweak (if there was any way i could) Warp Pipe itself..
Was the Warp Pipe source code EVER, at any point, made available with a GPL license on it? If so, doesn't that mean that if anyone still has that code, that GPL license cannot be revoked, and someone *cough* could put it up on sourceforge and fork it?
This now means we have two competing closed source projects. This annoys me just a little bit, because I suspect that had not Warp Pipe initially announced it was open source, someone would have begun a competing open source project that did the same thing. Instead, Warp Pipe announced as open source, then did this bait-and-switch thing *less than a week before the release of Super Mario Kart*, ensuring no open source project will have even a chance to get *started*.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the problem is not hotmail, it's that the "one browser window" idea that tabs were supposed to make possible is not possible with respect to javascript-created windows
I can still think of a couple ways to achieve what SeanTobin wants:
- If Javascript attempts to change the current document to a different URL, and the control key is currently held down, instead launch a new tab/window and open the specified URL into that.
- When a click on a link spawns a Javascript, have Mozilla remember whether or not said link was clicked with the create-new-tab modifier (control or third mouse button or whatever) If a Javascript attempts to change the current document URL, the javascript interpreter checks to see whether that particular block of javascript was launched by the new-tab modifier. If so, instead of opening into the current tab/window, it opens into a new one.
Either of these should work with whatever wierd system Hotmail is using.
The number of papers publicly published proclaiming the "real soon now" end of Moore's law will double every 18 months.
How will they track this, and how will they be able to determine if people are cheating?
OK, so they decide to regulate and tax Voice routed over IP. What about Voice routed over IP routed over some other sort of IP protocol disguised to not look like voice? What about Voice over IP routed through relays in Canada? What if two people are doing VoIP but then claiming "what, this isn't a phone conversation, we're just streaming each others talk radio streaming mp3 stations to each other."
This could become fascinating. We would wind up with this sort of caste structure being created among internet protocols, where this stream of bytes is okay and anonymous but THIS stream of bytes, the government needs to know about it and it needs to be taxed.. just because the latter set of bytes happens to contain audio data of a certain sort. So far the internet has avoided anything of that sort; certain classes of *content* have been differentiated from one another in a regulatory fashion, but never before a class of *data*.
Soon we may wind up with something where the proverbial "Joe Sixpack" pays relatively high fees on his Skype phone he bought at Wal-mart and plugged into the wall, while all the "techies" pay nothing to use their "alternative" VoIP setups. Meanwhile a bizarre cat and mouse game goes on, as the authorities complain about "speech piracy" and attempt to find ways to sniff out VoIP data or prevent "pirate" VoIP programs from connecting to the larger VoIP network, and the tech community comes up with increasingly elaborate ways to keep the authorities to notice what sort of data exactly it is that they're sending.
In the meanwhile, the ongoing effort by router companies to make "smart" routers capable of identifying things like streaming media packets and handling them in a slightly more intelligent manner is scuttled-- because 80% of all streaming audio data no longer looks like streaming audio data.
Anyone have a link to the RAT_PENIS.TXT story?
Because sometimes change is good and sometimes change is bad. It depends on what the change is! In this case, the change being made is a bad one. This means everyone is objecting to this specific change. That doesn't mean they're against change in general.
If you announce you're going to cut off someone's arm and give them a pretty flower, they are going to object. If you then accuse them of objecting because they are afraid of change, and ask why they are totally ignoring the pretty flower that they get out of the bargain, you will not be taken seriously. If you do the same thing in a metaphorical manner as regards computers, you get away with it, because computers are a bit more confusing and issues are easier to obfuscate...
So THAT'S how the clock in the Weasley family's house worked.
Always wondered about that.
In that respect it differs from almost every other game.
Except for Fluxx, Zendo, certain MUSHes and Calvinball.
I certainly hope that RedHat has time to enter this letter as evidence in their lawsuit against SCO for Lanham Act violations.
Apple is exactly where Microsoft wants them: They are contained. They are in a niche market with clearly defined bounds (the "higher end" end user) and they show no indication that they have any path whatsoever from there to touching Microsoft's core target market (the person who just wants 'a cheap PC', the business market). Microsoft is not concerned with contained threats. This is why MS has been pretty much ignoring Mac OS X, but they're jockeying violently against the iTunes Music Store.
Google is very very much an unknown, uncontained threat. They have a lot of leverage, they have energy, mindshare, and are actively expanding, and worst of all, Microsoft has no way to control them in any way. If Google decides they want to put up a link on their front page that says "hey, if you click here, it will install Quicktime and play the Return of the King trailer", there will be a whole lot of people installing Quicktime that day.
Worse, google is actively moving in ways that indicate direct potential threats to things Microsoft cares about. It's only a tiny step from the Google Toolbar to the Google Webbrowser. It's not much of a step at all for Google News to expand into something that could dwarf MSN.
Remember how much effort and money MS put into knocking tiny little Netscape out of the market, even though they got nothing in return? Microsoft cares deeply about potential threats. And potentially, Google can be very scary to Microsoft.
It makes sense to report on this; it shows where SCO's PR efforts are heading.
But why do people seem to be seriously considering the possibility that SCO might sue google?
Pay attention to what's been happening since January, and you'll notice a pattern. Over, and over, and over, SCO says they're going to sue someone. They threaten lawsuits, say they have plans for lawsuits, announce a new lawsuit target every week. But they never sue anyone. They still haven't sued anyone except IBM, and the IBM suit concerns NOTHING but a contractual dispute between SCO and IBM.
If SCO says they're going to sue someone, that does not in the tinest way indicate they are going to sue that person. It's all just making noise to keep the press spotlight on them.
Without specific code that target's ATMs, this is merely a generic nuisance that happened to hit what some consider a sensitive device. ...
Scary when you think what could happen, and frustrating when you think of the loss of trust in the security admins. But let's keep this in perspective. Nothing serious happened and it's a big step to get to where something serious will happen
How do you know something serious didn't happen?
So the Nachi worm hit these machines, and its big and obvious, and it breaks the machines. But the Nachi worm moves by brute force; it hit these ATMs by accident. How do we know that during the time before the ATMs were hit, someone with actual, targetted, malicious intent didn't at some point hit a few of the ATMs using the same exploit Nachi did?
If someone doing it on purpose had hit the ATMs, they could have done something much more subtle. Something that wouldn't have been noticed the way the Nachi worm was, something that (given how unconcerned everyone seems about this) probably wouldn't be noticed at all, even after the Nachi incident. Something like a small patch to the ATM UI that quietly records the ATM card number, personal information, and PIN# of everyone who uses that ATM, then quietly dumps that somewhere on the internet later. It wouldn't be that difficult, and the Nachi thing simply proves its possible.
It's not a big step at all to get to the point where something serious could happen. It's barely even a step at all, as it's just a step of exactly the distance between a worm hitting an ATM at random and someone with a little bit of intent, knowledge, and time sitting down and deciding they're going to hack an ATM.
That to prevent confusion with the popular web-standard technology CSS, the CSS BIOS technology will before release be renamed to "Firebird", a name chosen after an exhaustive search based on the fact that it kind of describes "Phoenix" and hey, it's like the car.
To match this, and as part of the promotional effort for Firebird, they will be rebranding most of their products with animal-inspired names, for example renaming their remote-BIOS-diagnostics-and-administration technology to "Longhorn", a name to evoke images of stability. The entire promotional push will be branded to stockholders as the System Consolidation of Operations project, or SCO for short, overall an effort to draw together their product line for more clarity to consumers.
Look at the things that you've listed, then look at the things people usually complain about when they complain about OSS software copying from people.
I think you'll notice a pattern, and it is this: *everything* that you have listed is innovations in server and programming applications.
Look at end-user and GUI applications, however, and you'll find that the open-source world hasn't guided innovation for a very long time. And you'll find that if you look at the mission statements for GUI end-user apps in the open source world, you are going to see a lot of phrases like "a window manager inspired by NeXTstep" "create a replacement for Microsoft Excel" "create a drop-in replacement for Microsoft Outlook" "provide the functionality of Office" "it's like BeOS, only free" etc.
But, of course, in terms of server apps, the "command line", and tools for programmers, it pretty much is the open source community leading the way and the commercial world either following or just using open source software wholesale. (Two counterexamples to this I can think of being Java and IBM's server OSes.)
I don't think this is a bad thing, I just think it says something about the focus of open source vs commercial software. The people who write open source software are programmers, so they make environments that programmers would be comfortable in.
Does anyone know what a good sort of p2p "kit" is, say if you want to include p2p networking (like, the ability to create and work with a self-managing p2p network) in an application but don't want to write your own p2p protocol/network code?
I know there must be a couple. What are some good ones?
I heard Sun has one? What's it called? "JXTA"? Has anyone worked with that, is it any good? Can it work with nodes that are behind NAT?
Bit of a difference between someone wardriving out of curiousity, or using a nearby open WAP because it was there, and someone *looking around for open WAPs specifically so that they can perform illegal acts without traceability, then jacking off to child pornography in a car using said WAP WHILE DRIVING*.
Maybe there's a slippery slope thing going on here but somehow I'm not going to really care about *what* happens to this person or this case.
Why don't we just make the bed itself a robot?
Oh wait that's already been tried.
And I hear that after the IBM case fails, the transitional CEO that they hire to replace Darl until such time as SCO can find a buyer will be named "Karen O'MessyDivorce".
Well, at least they started by attacking the large targets, the ones who have the ability to defend themselves and enough at stake they probably won't just pay the wargeld-- i mean settlement-- to buy AT&T off. You know, as opposed to picking off defneseless small businesses, as is the normal tactic.
Yes, but the Unix systems were running the now-widely-discredited "AH AH AH YOU DIDN'T SAY THE MAGIC WORD" security system product.
It was a third-party-application issue, not an OS issue. Unix itself is not to blame.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I never owned a Nintendo 64. I know I can't be the only one.
Why, exactly, would "it's too much like Mario Kart 64" be a problem to me?
I basically view the Gamecube and its games as the N64 if the N64 had been done right, anyway.
I do think it's too bad you cannot jump, though, furiously hopping around was my favorite part of Super Mario Kart.
So does Alan Cox move to Iceland now, or what?
I have this mental image of Alan Cox a man on the run, moving from country to country, each time leaving just minutes before a law goes into effect making the distribution of software that facilitates the breaking of copy protection illegal, always staying just one step ahead of the DMCA as one by one, each country implements the DMCA or something like it..
Until finally there is no where left, and finally, Alan Cox winds up in the most fitting place possible to spend the rest of his life working on the Linux kernel in hermitage: with the Penguins. In Antartica. Outside the dominion of any country. HA!
Hmm, there's a thought. If in order to escape draconian DMCA-like laws, you get on a big boat and go out in international waters to perform copyright-dangerous actions, then does that make it Piracy on the High Seas?
Okay I think I've been awake a bit too long.
My three year old Mac (brand new 2001) won't even let me install OSX let alone *run* it..
What kind of Mac do you have??? Unless I am horribly mistaken, the newest Mac OS X (10.3, released last week) will run on any Mac with built-in USB. In other words, any G3 or better except for the G3s with the beige cases. So it will run on *all* macintoshes manufactured in 1999 or later, plus any iMac manufactured in 1998. If you are willing to run the previous revision of Mac OS X, 10.2-- generally considered to be the point at which OS X could first be considered "mature"-- it will work on any g3 or better, meaning any mac released in November 1998 or later.
I got my mac in mid-2001. It's been running primarily OS X since the moment it was first switched on. I have yet to have a "Gee, I wish my computer were newer" moment.
I don't know, most of the people I've been hearing complaining, it's been closer to:
2000 - "Bush stole the election with punchcards. The people need pieces of paper and pens where you circle the option you want!"
2004 - "Bush stole the election with e-voting. The people need pieces of paper and pens where you circle the option you want!"
Punchcard machines have an unacceptably high margin of error. E-voting machines have an unacceptably low level of trust. These two statements are not contradictory, especially when you consider there are options that involve neither punchcards nor electronic vote storage.
punchcards are easier to hack. Any al Qaeda can walk into a DMV in California and ask for a voter's registration card, and voila!
What does voting registration process have to do with voting process? If california doesn't properly check to see if the person attempting to register to vote is permitted to, that's going to be exactly the same problem whether they use electronic voting machines or punchcard voting machines or, well, anything else.
This looks pretty cool. It will retail for $20, be released for all three consoles, apparently feature 3/4 player support on xbox/gamecube, will support a global high scores list on xbox via Xbox Live, and contains: "Spy Hunter, Defender, Defender II, Gauntlet, Joust, Joust II, Paperboy, Rampage, Marble Madness, Robotron 2084, Smash TV, Bubbles,
RoadBlasters, Blaster, Rampart, Sinistar, Super Sprint, 720, Toobin', Klax, Splat!, Satan's Hollow, and Vindicators" (!!)
Another thing to look out for if you've got a Gamecube: Once Dec 6 comes, you will be able to buy "Pac Man Vs.", a really cool-looking 4-player Pac Man game (Player One uses a GBA and plays Pac-Man; Players 2-4 play on the gamecube, and play ghosts. The ghosts cannot see the entire board.), for $20 bundled with Pac Man World 2. You can also get this game free if right now you order I-Ninja or "R: Racing Evolution".
Also if you have a Gamecube: bestbuy.com is still selling Ikaruga for $20 with free shipping!! Trust me. YOU WANT THIS GAME. It is considered by many to be the greatest space shooter game of all time.
Although I respect your point of view, we announced that we were closing our project over a month ago.
:)
Aha. In that case, I am rather out of it.
Thank you for your response, the motivations at least make much more sense now.
That's too bad. I was going to pick up a BBA to use with Warp Pipe and Kirby's Air Ride when I had some money, but I'm not really interested anymore. At least half the fun of this for me was going to be the opportunity to poke at and help tweak (if there was any way i could) Warp Pipe itself..
Was the Warp Pipe source code EVER, at any point, made available with a GPL license on it? If so, doesn't that mean that if anyone still has that code, that GPL license cannot be revoked, and someone *cough* could put it up on sourceforge and fork it?
This now means we have two competing closed source projects. This annoys me just a little bit, because I suspect that had not Warp Pipe initially announced it was open source, someone would have begun a competing open source project that did the same thing. Instead, Warp Pipe announced as open source, then did this bait-and-switch thing *less than a week before the release of Super Mario Kart*, ensuring no open source project will have even a chance to get *started*.