Why would software under commercial licenses be more immune?
As with the above response to my comment, I'm confused by this one too. You quote a sentence from me, and then ask a question unrelated to my post. What do "commercial licenses" have to do with anything? When were those even brought up? I don't see how this is in response to the sentence you quoted from me at all.
Please, back up that accertion with some type of argument
What assertion? I'm very confused. Did you mean to quote a different sentence? The one you quoted is one where I was questioning a claim that Brown made and not making any assertion.
My God, reading this thing... Ken Brown assumed his conclusion from the start. He has a rabid religious fervor to his response
As opposed to everyone in this discussion of course, who read Brown's essay with a completely open mind. Right? Becuase frankly some of what he says is interesting and makes a lot of sense. Some of it also doesn't (why would software under "true open source" licenses like BSD be more immune to the legal problems of including stolen proprietary code than GPL'd code would? Just because proprietary code can use BSD-style code doesn't mean the reverse is true), but no one here seems interested in actually addressing and of his points, just snickering and assuming he must be wrong. The discussion here seems to have a lot more "rabid religious fervor" than the Brown article.
Hmmm, it does seem to have disappeared. Sometimes the link doesn't work when that guy has exceded his bandwidth limit, but this looks genuine. I'll try to find a mirror at some point.
Simple logic and all the details will tell you the studies are lies
I don't see how "simple logic" can tell anyone that the cost of deploying one operating system is less than another. There are a huge number of factors involved and a huge number of costs on both sides.
I don't agree that the labeling of ads is insufficient in this case. Any person visiting the site would understand that the flash ad for microsoft is a paid advertisment and is not official editorial content from the site.
There's no need for the history lesson, I understand what RedHat does, etc. You seem to be so quick to try to disagree that you didn't read my post carefully. I didn't say that "open source is a product". I brought up the redhat example exactly to address that. If I just said that microsoft makes competing products, I knew someone would be pedantic and point out what you do. So I clarified that micorosft is competing with companies like redhat, who does in fact sell a competing product. And a competing service, which is why I already mentioned that this would be a "contract with redhat" as opposed to buying boxes of cds.
To clarify: Microsoft is competing with redhat and other similar companies. They have run an ad explaining the advanges of their product/ service over their competitors. This seems very reasonable and inoffensive. There is no "fud' involved here. They aren't attacking your philosophy or way of life. They aren't making personal or political statements. They are just marketing one product against another. This is why I think that the people who are making "what if" comparisons of this ad to highly offensive hypothetical ads are out of line. Yes, maybe those ads shouldn't be run, but this one is not really similar to those.
This might be reasonable if the ads said that linux users eat babies and the gpl undermines the constitution. But I've seen these ads. They are in fact "selling a product or service that is unpopular". In doing so, they use support cost as one of their agruments. That seems reasonable to me. They aren't making ideological attacks or using scare tactics or other "fud". They are just saying that their product may be cheaper than linux. This is a commercial product being advertised against another product (realistically, another commercial product since the target audience of this ad would probably be considering a contract with someone like redhat as an alternate to a contract with microsoft). Proudcts competing with each other in the marketplce is not at all like the planned parenthood or cancer victim example in my mind.
In a way, this mixes the message the website is trying to convey.
I don't think that the ads on a website should be considered to be part of "the message the website is trying to convey". If we consider them to be part of the website's message, this means that we believe advertisers are effectively paying to have their messages endorsed and echoed by the website, which corrupts the website's integrity. Ads should be viewed as paid messages from the advertisers, not editorial content from the site (or newspaper, etc.).
But what about those who are just venturing into the Linux world and are just getting thier feet wet
What about them? They need to be protected from hearing about anything other than linux? We must make sure the only information they get is sanctioned pro-linux hype?
I've always thought of/. as a very pro-linux community
The slashdot community is pro-linux. But this isn't about the community, this is about ads. The ads reflect the advertiser running them. They aren't necessarily endorsed and loved by the editors of the site. Dave Whitinger seems to believe that the fact that an ad is run means that the site supports or endorses it. This is ridiculous. If this were the case, it would mean that every advertisement would be paying for the editors of the site to endorse the product advertised. That's not what we want. Ads should not be a reflection of the views of the site; encouraging us to view them as such threatens the site's integrity by tying its content to the identity of its sponsors. It's better to create a clear separation between the sites editorial views and the money given by advertisers, so that we believe the views we are getting are unbiased. Telling us to treat the sites ads as paid endorsements works against that goal.
Why is this 4, Interesting? None of this is true or makes much sense. What "privledged access" is he talking about? If you run as root, your web browser and email program can do whatever it wants. If you run as a user, it has the rights of those user. This works the same on every other modern oprating system.
if eventually all movies were computer generated they'd lose me as a fan.
What is this in response to? No one has said that all movies will "eventually" be computer-generated, or that they should be. No one believes that. You've constructed a ridiculuous strawman argument that no one would support.
Wanting to "see people in my movies" could just as easily be an argument against traditional animation, but no one thinks that that is bad because it threatens to replace human actors. The point is variety. More kinds of movies and ways to make movies is good. It's good to give moviemakers a wider range of options so that they can express in whatever way they see fit. That's art.
What about Sun Microsystems? They're losing money, does that mean their rights are being violated?
No, it means they aren't fully exercising their rights. Just because everyone has a right to make a profit off their work doesn't mean that they are guaranteed a profit.
I'm familair with napster, fastrack and gnutella, and freenet. However, I'm not really familiar with how edonkey works. Can someone explain how it provides more obfuscation than fastrack? I had always assumed it was effectively the same as fastrack (just a different network using a different protocol, etc.), but the parent seems to indicate that that's not the case.
No vaues?! The name was obviously not as valuable as the Matrix, but the fact that it was a new Prince of Persia games was certainly one of the things that got my attention and made me interested in the game (and glad it did; that game was awesome). I'm sure that's true of at least some other people as well.
but the matrix movies are about on par with star wars. Entertaining, mindless, pseudo-serious fluff.
This is an argument against him being disappointed in the games. You really think it was unreasonable to expect that something "entertaining" and "mindless" would translate well into a game??! I suppose you are sitting around waiting for an xbox version of the great gatsby?
Slashdot Mirror
As with the above response to my comment, I'm confused by this one too. You quote a sentence from me, and then ask a question unrelated to my post. What do "commercial licenses" have to do with anything? When were those even brought up? I don't see how this is in response to the sentence you quoted from me at all.
What assertion? I'm very confused. Did you mean to quote a different sentence? The one you quoted is one where I was questioning a claim that Brown made and not making any assertion.
As opposed to everyone in this discussion of course, who read Brown's essay with a completely open mind. Right? Becuase frankly some of what he says is interesting and makes a lot of sense. Some of it also doesn't (why would software under "true open source" licenses like BSD be more immune to the legal problems of including stolen proprietary code than GPL'd code would? Just because proprietary code can use BSD-style code doesn't mean the reverse is true), but no one here seems interested in actually addressing and of his points, just snickering and assuming he must be wrong. The discussion here seems to have a lot more "rabid religious fervor" than the Brown article.
Hmmm, it does seem to have disappeared. Sometimes the link doesn't work when that guy has exceded his bandwidth limit, but this looks genuine. I'll try to find a mirror at some point.
I don't see how "simple logic" can tell anyone that the cost of deploying one operating system is less than another. There are a huge number of factors involved and a huge number of costs on both sides.
I don't agree that the labeling of ads is insufficient in this case. Any person visiting the site would understand that the flash ad for microsoft is a paid advertisment and is not official editorial content from the site.
There's no need for the history lesson, I understand what RedHat does, etc. You seem to be so quick to try to disagree that you didn't read my post carefully. I didn't say that "open source is a product". I brought up the redhat example exactly to address that. If I just said that microsoft makes competing products, I knew someone would be pedantic and point out what you do. So I clarified that micorosft is competing with companies like redhat, who does in fact sell a competing product. And a competing service, which is why I already mentioned that this would be a "contract with redhat" as opposed to buying boxes of cds.
To clarify: Microsoft is competing with redhat and other similar companies. They have run an ad explaining the advanges of their product/ service over their competitors. This seems very reasonable and inoffensive. There is no "fud' involved here. They aren't attacking your philosophy or way of life. They aren't making personal or political statements. They are just marketing one product against another. This is why I think that the people who are making "what if" comparisons of this ad to highly offensive hypothetical ads are out of line. Yes, maybe those ads shouldn't be run, but this one is not really similar to those.
I agree with you completely. I posted something similar in response to a similar comment, but you said it better.
This might be reasonable if the ads said that linux users eat babies and the gpl undermines the constitution. But I've seen these ads. They are in fact "selling a product or service that is unpopular". In doing so, they use support cost as one of their agruments. That seems reasonable to me. They aren't making ideological attacks or using scare tactics or other "fud". They are just saying that their product may be cheaper than linux. This is a commercial product being advertised against another product (realistically, another commercial product since the target audience of this ad would probably be considering a contract with someone like redhat as an alternate to a contract with microsoft). Proudcts competing with each other in the marketplce is not at all like the planned parenthood or cancer victim example in my mind.
I don't think that the ads on a website should be considered to be part of "the message the website is trying to convey". If we consider them to be part of the website's message, this means that we believe advertisers are effectively paying to have their messages endorsed and echoed by the website, which corrupts the website's integrity. Ads should be viewed as paid messages from the advertisers, not editorial content from the site (or newspaper, etc.).
What about them? They need to be protected from hearing about anything other than linux? We must make sure the only information they get is sanctioned pro-linux hype?
The slashdot community is pro-linux. But this isn't about the community, this is about ads. The ads reflect the advertiser running them. They aren't necessarily endorsed and loved by the editors of the site. Dave Whitinger seems to believe that the fact that an ad is run means that the site supports or endorses it. This is ridiculous. If this were the case, it would mean that every advertisement would be paying for the editors of the site to endorse the product advertised. That's not what we want. Ads should not be a reflection of the views of the site; encouraging us to view them as such threatens the site's integrity by tying its content to the identity of its sponsors. It's better to create a clear separation between the sites editorial views and the money given by advertisers, so that we believe the views we are getting are unbiased. Telling us to treat the sites ads as paid endorsements works against that goal.
Except of course that the update for this came out almost two months ago.
Why is this 4, Interesting? None of this is true or makes much sense. What "privledged access" is he talking about? If you run as root, your web browser and email program can do whatever it wants. If you run as a user, it has the rights of those user. This works the same on every other modern oprating system.
Would you care to explain then how you would go about breaking this, given an "unreasonable" amount of time?
I suspect that if he paid 35% of his income in taxes (not saying that he does or doesn't now), he would still be fairly wealthy.
What is this in response to? No one has said that all movies will "eventually" be computer-generated, or that they should be. No one believes that. You've constructed a ridiculuous strawman argument that no one would support.
Wanting to "see people in my movies" could just as easily be an argument against traditional animation, but no one thinks that that is bad because it threatens to replace human actors. The point is variety. More kinds of movies and ways to make movies is good. It's good to give moviemakers a wider range of options so that they can express in whatever way they see fit. That's art.
No, it means they aren't fully exercising their rights. Just because everyone has a right to make a profit off their work doesn't mean that they are guaranteed a profit.
Congratulations on your Necromancer.
No, you fool, that's a badger, not a horse.
And the law has done its job by protecting all the retirees who undoubtedly would have gotten sucked into this perl contest.
I think what you're looking for is .NET
I'm familair with napster, fastrack and gnutella, and freenet. However, I'm not really familiar with how edonkey works. Can someone explain how it provides more obfuscation than fastrack? I had always assumed it was effectively the same as fastrack (just a different network using a different protocol, etc.), but the parent seems to indicate that that's not the case.
No vaues?! The name was obviously not as valuable as the Matrix, but the fact that it was a new Prince of Persia games was certainly one of the things that got my attention and made me interested in the game (and glad it did; that game was awesome). I'm sure that's true of at least some other people as well.
This is an argument against him being disappointed in the games. You really think it was unreasonable to expect that something "entertaining" and "mindless" would translate well into a game??! I suppose you are sitting around waiting for an xbox version of the great gatsby?