There won't need to be benefits to MS's next OS. If it comes bundled with Joe's new computer, that's what he'll use. Because Joe now uses it, if Jane wants to read Joe's documents, SHE'll now have to use the next MS OS. It's an endless upgrade cycle.
It's not just Free software though.
I feel that if I use an application, and I want that software to improve, I'll donate a bit to them. If I were anything more than a hobbyist programmer, I would donate code; but I'm not, so I donate other resources.
Stealing (copyright infringing on) a game that you enjoy playing is stupid, because you'll be less likely to see quality games from those developers in the future.
I encourage everyone I know to at least follow the licences for software they use, because it shows them just how restrictive or non-restrictive that license is, and just why Free (not open-source) software is a good thing in most cases.
The major problem I'd have in windows was that if there was a misbehaving app (even IE would do it), it could render the system inoperable and force a reboot. It was too easy to do.
At least in the case where the apps fuckup in linux, I have the option of ssh'ing in and killing them.
Also, it's a case of 'you get what you pay for'.
I don't (need to) pay anything for Linux and it has all the functionality I need.
I have to pay for windows, and it's a substandard system (for my needs).
As long as you know what you're getting into when you use Windows, that's great that you make an informed decision.
I'll support anyone's decision as long as it's based on good evidence.
--
Re:I want to have SEX in zero G!
on
Space Tourism
·
· Score: 1
I have no idea.
I just remembered that part because it was one of the more 'interesting' research topics they had on the project.
I was refering to freedoms in general, not just software liscencing freedoms.
Many people would gladly give up their basic freedoms as long as they can still watch their primetime TV shows and buy their crap music.
Well, for games (especially multiplayer), there is a reason for it's closed nature. The game's users musn't be able to edit their clients to assure that they can be trusted.
I prefer gaming in Linux because performance in Windows (98) dramatically decreases after prolonged uptime, and games (or any userspace programs) can take down the whole OS.
"Linux gaming on the retail scale" is halfassed by most developers too. If they'd take the effort to use quality-control with their Linux ports, and release the Linux version at the same time as their obligatory Windows version, the situation would improve dramaticaly.
I didn't say it had to be Debian, other distros are using apt, even RPM-based ones.
Also, you're running on the unstable/testing package tree. You have to accept and expect the fact that things will break.
It's not called unstable or testing because they like to use big words!
People would probably be more likely to pay for a produt if it didn't have crazy/stupid restrictions in the liscence or dumb/non-working copy 'protection' features.
Networkable games are one of the few places where I think it's reasonable to have a closed-product.
But the game should include the ability to do modifications to the game itself (not the renderer or network code). The beauty of this is that if users want to get into the code and change how the works, how the attacks, etc. they can, and are encouraged to (ala Mods).
About your third point:
I think that if the game developers treat their consumers with respect, then the people will be more likely to pay for their products.
I would be MUCH more likely to pay for a product that had no restrictions on use than one that had a liscence so restrictive that I felt that they assumed I was evil and would do everything in my power to destroy their business.
--
Re:We shouldn't be punching more holes in ozone la
on
Space Tourism
·
· Score: 1
There's only one major spacecraft I can think of that uses solid propellant anymore, the SRB's of the Space Shuttle, and they're trying to get rid of them too.
They're going to be replaced by Liquid Flyback Boosters. I don't have a link, but you could do a search at spaceflight.nasa.gov.
--
Re:I want to have SEX in zero G!
on
Space Tourism
·
· Score: 1
That'd actually be fairly difficult, and you'd probably wear yourself out before you finished anyway.
The USAF (I think) did a lot of research on life in space for their Project Orion (A giant spacecraft propelled by nuculear bombs). One of the areas was that for inter-stellar travel, the mission would last more the a generation, so there obviously had to be sex to continue the mission.
What they came up with was that the two 'participants' would be in a nautilus-shaped room where as they progressed in the room, the walls would get closer together, and well... you know.
Well, the service personel would have to be trained differently, but the functions of passengers on a bus/plane is about the same as their luggage.
They board the bus/plane, sit there until it's over, and then egress. I don't see how a passenger of a space-flight would be any different.
All of the regulations for planes mainly refer to the maintanance of the hardware, the pilots and the service personel.
No, because once society (magically) decides that our future is in space, we'll (again, magically) have all the data and experience we need to start building huge stations and inter-planetary craft.
It's not that GPL code used in a closed program will cause all other instances of that code to vanish. It's that the origional developer of that code wanted it to STAY public for viewing and criticism. The closed program maker wants to use the resources of the GPL-licensing developer while not contributing their modifications (good or bad) back to the developer.
Slashdot Mirror
There won't need to be benefits to MS's next OS. If it comes bundled with Joe's new computer, that's what he'll use. Because Joe now uses it, if Jane wants to read Joe's documents, SHE'll now have to use the next MS OS. It's an endless upgrade cycle.
--
It's not just Free software though.
I feel that if I use an application, and I want that software to improve, I'll donate a bit to them. If I were anything more than a hobbyist programmer, I would donate code; but I'm not, so I donate other resources.
Stealing (copyright infringing on) a game that you enjoy playing is stupid, because you'll be less likely to see quality games from those developers in the future.
I encourage everyone I know to at least follow the licences for software they use, because it shows them just how restrictive or non-restrictive that license is, and just why Free (not open-source) software is a good thing in most cases.
--
The major problem I'd have in windows was that if there was a misbehaving app (even IE would do it), it could render the system inoperable and force a reboot. It was too easy to do.
At least in the case where the apps fuckup in linux, I have the option of ssh'ing in and killing them.
Also, it's a case of 'you get what you pay for'.
I don't (need to) pay anything for Linux and it has all the functionality I need.
I have to pay for windows, and it's a substandard system (for my needs).
--
As long as you know what you're getting into when you use Windows, that's great that you make an informed decision.
I'll support anyone's decision as long as it's based on good evidence.
--
I have no idea.
I just remembered that part because it was one of the more 'interesting' research topics they had on the project.
--
What are you trying to say..?
--
I was refering to freedoms in general, not just software liscencing freedoms.
Many people would gladly give up their basic freedoms as long as they can still watch their primetime TV shows and buy their crap music.
--
Well, for games (especially multiplayer), there is a reason for it's closed nature. The game's users musn't be able to edit their clients to assure that they can be trusted.
--
I prefer gaming in Linux because performance in Windows (98) dramatically decreases after prolonged uptime, and games (or any userspace programs) can take down the whole OS.
--
"Linux gaming on the retail scale" is halfassed by most developers too. If they'd take the effort to use quality-control with their Linux ports, and release the Linux version at the same time as their obligatory Windows version, the situation would improve dramaticaly.
--
It's amazing how many people don't care about their freedoms, or will gladly give up freedom X for the ease of Y.
--
I didn't say it had to be Debian, other distros are using apt, even RPM-based ones.
Also, you're running on the unstable/testing package tree. You have to accept and expect the fact that things will break.
It's not called unstable or testing because they like to use big words!
--
The q3 engine might be nice, but from what I've seen, the game itself is fairly shitty.
--
People would probably be more likely to pay for a produt if it didn't have crazy/stupid restrictions in the liscence or dumb/non-working copy 'protection' features.
--
Networkable games are one of the few places where I think it's reasonable to have a closed-product.
But the game should include the ability to do modifications to the game itself (not the renderer or network code). The beauty of this is that if users want to get into the code and change how the works, how the attacks, etc. they can, and are encouraged to (ala Mods).
--
Or just use a distro with a package manager that handles dependencies decently (apt).
--
About your third point:
I think that if the game developers treat their consumers with respect, then the people will be more likely to pay for their products.
I would be MUCH more likely to pay for a product that had no restrictions on use than one that had a liscence so restrictive that I felt that they assumed I was evil and would do everything in my power to destroy their business.
--
There's only one major spacecraft I can think of that uses solid propellant anymore, the SRB's of the Space Shuttle, and they're trying to get rid of them too.
They're going to be replaced by Liquid Flyback Boosters. I don't have a link, but you could do a search at spaceflight.nasa.gov.
--
That'd actually be fairly difficult, and you'd probably wear yourself out before you finished anyway.
The USAF (I think) did a lot of research on life in space for their Project Orion (A giant spacecraft propelled by nuculear bombs). One of the areas was that for inter-stellar travel, the mission would last more the a generation, so there obviously had to be sex to continue the mission.
What they came up with was that the two 'participants' would be in a nautilus-shaped room where as they progressed in the room, the walls would get closer together, and well... you know.
--
Well, the service personel would have to be trained differently, but the functions of passengers on a bus/plane is about the same as their luggage.
They board the bus/plane, sit there until it's over, and then egress. I don't see how a passenger of a space-flight would be any different.
All of the regulations for planes mainly refer to the maintanance of the hardware, the pilots and the service personel.
--
Don't feel bad.
You wouldn't be able to use SDRAM in your SIMM slots anyway...
--
No, because once society (magically) decides that our future is in space, we'll (again, magically) have all the data and experience we need to start building huge stations and inter-planetary craft.
Oh, you mean that's NOT how it works?!
</sarcasm>
--
I was actually replying to his sig, "Long live Microsoft!", and not his statement.
--
It's not that GPL code used in a closed program will cause all other instances of that code to vanish. It's that the origional developer of that code wanted it to STAY public for viewing and criticism. The closed program maker wants to use the resources of the GPL-licensing developer while not contributing their modifications (good or bad) back to the developer.
--
If you check the /scripts/MAKEDEV.ide script, it makes nodes for 20 ide drives (hda to hdt).
--