I have a tip for Microsoft: Decouple the system from the desktop. Then I could finally install KDE on my Windows 7.
Well, but I'm using Windows only to lunch only my games anyway. But sometimes I don't come around and have to at least test my applications on Windows.
No it has not. The GPL makes no restrictions on the use of the code, on the contrary, it grands your rights that you normally do not have.
The GPL makes only restrictions if you give the code or application to other users. And the restrictions are only that you grand your users the same rights you previously enjoyed.
How is so, that if you are enjoying the rights you normally would not have it is fine, but if other want to enjoy the same rights, you come and tell: the GPL is restrictive?
it's the same as the slave trade back in the days. You enjoy your right of freedom but if others wants to enjoy the same right, you don't want. (only reference slave trade because I watched the movie Amistad recently)
Wait. So the developer of VLC, that application that you so much use, have chosen to license the app and libraries under an open source license and have chosen to make VLC for free available to you.
Now that Apple have chosen to make their app-store not GPL friendly, and Mircosoft have chosen to do the same, you say he, the developer, is an "asshole"?
wow, just wow. I think if you look at the mirror you can see the real "asshole" here. Where is your contribution to VLC, where is your media library?
Java. There are thousands open source libraries available on Maven Central Repository: http://mvnrepository.com/ Containing the compiled library, the source code and the documentation.
KDE on Linux did: You can move the window to the left/right side and it will resized to use 50% of horizontal and 100% of vertical space. That way it's very easy to have two windows open that divide the monitor in 1/2 parts.
That is really interesting point of view. My question is, what they get out of that?
They certainly will not sell more DVDs or make more money at the movies. Take me for example. When I got out of college they just started to do that "War on Piracy". My reaction was: I never bought any DVD, any music or any game except if it's DRM free. Like mp3 from Amazon, games from www.gog.com
If they wouldn't have started this "War on Piracy" I would happily pirate movies, games and music like before. But I would also buy movies, games and music. Right now I buy almost nothing. If I would pirate then I would buy stuff again.
I don't think you understand me at all. How can you make a dtor "fail-proof" if you are using dtors for resource management? Resources are: files, sockets, locks, printers, scanners, cameras, and memory. But only memory management can you make "fail-proof", because the delete statement in C++ is guaranteed to success. The term "resource" applies to any kind of resource, including "memory". But only memory can be managed in a dtor, because delete() do not throw.
I'm developing all kinds of applications in Java, including threading, sockets and files. And I'm really do not miss dtors or RIIA. Also I'm glad for Java's style of exceptions. I have used other languages before without checked exceptions and I'm glad we have them in Java. It's really a paid to search the documentation from top to bottom to get what kind of exceptions a method can throw.
Checked exceptions are like static typing: you want your compiler to help you catch errors fast. Checked exceptions are exceptions that I can catch and react to. They are "recoverable errors". For example I can recover that a file was not found, or I/O error: I can ask the user to specify the correct file or I can use defaults. Not recoverable errors are (in Java) runtime-Errors/Exceptions: NullPointerException, etc.
Did you even read the GPL text? I think you are referring to the to the section 3) of the GPL license?
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
There it states that You may copy and distribute the Program... if you follow the terms a), b) and c). That means if you are not copy and not distribute the Program you are in no obligation to offer anyone the source code (under the terms a), b) or c)).
I think a lot of people misunderstand the GPL. The GPL is a license that is protecting the user and grands the user rights (to study the code, to modify the code and to re-distribute the code). If you are using the application and you are not distributing it to others then the GPL gives you rights that you normally would not have.
Only if you are distributing the GPL'd application you have to grand your users the same rights that you have previously enjoined. That means you have to give them the source code with any modifications you have made.
So, to answer your question: if you are not buying the application you are not a user, the developer is not distributing the application to you and the developer is under no obligation to give you the source code.
void write_important_data() {
file = open_file "File"
file.write "Some important data" // the dtor calls close() which will flush the data so it's written to the medium // before the method finish, the user unplugs the USB stick // now the close() method in the dtor will normally throw a I/O exception // and thus the application can warn the user that the data is not written to the USB stick // because he/she unplugged it // but since dtors can't throw anything, the exception is "swallowed"
}
The user assumes that the data is written, because no error was shown. The data was an important presentation for the next management meeting. The user opens the sticks and to his surprise the USB stick is empty. RIIA for the win.
Of course in a real application the programmer would use the close() method and catch the I/O exception to show an error dialog to the user. But since every C++ developer is so fond about RIIA and dtors in C++ I just show how it could be.
I personally find dtors pretty useless. They are only useful if you manage memory allocation. For example, you create in the ctor an array on the heap and now you need to de-allocate the array again. But that is not "resource management" it's "memory management". So if you could rename it to MIIA I would find it just fine.
But since I long ego realized that memory management is best done by the GC I find dtor are just useless.
Throwable (in Java) is a well defined type with useful methods. Like get the stack trace. Funny how other languages can optimize all the like but don't need workarounds like "comment out the catch statements and get the stack trace".
That is funny because AC put C++ exceptions as the best thing ever and gets +5 insightful.
C++ calls the terminate function. That function does just what its name suggests: it terminates execution of your program. Furthermore, it terminates it immediately; not even local objects are destroyed.
The standard says you get undefined behavior if a T destructor throws anywhere in this code, which means that any code that allocates or deallocates an array of objects whose destructors could throw can result in undefined behavior. This may raise some eyebrows, so let's see why this is so:
The best workaround is to issue an explicit close if you want to catch those sorts of errors. You can even make a wrapper for it
And thus makes RAII pretty useless with resources. Any external resource (not inside the application like an object), can throw an exception/error while closing it.
You have got to be kidding me. C++ have the worst exception implementation by far.
First, you can throw anything. String, int, object, etc. That means that you can't use a catch-all and do anything useful. Second, you are losing the stack trace, which means debugging is pain. Third, you can't throw an exception in the dtor, which means you can't use RAII. What if an exception is occurring while you close a resource? For example, disk is full; the socket is gone; memory full; disk is broken; the user removed the USB stick, etc.
No wonder you are posting it as AC, I would be ashamed myself to work with such incompetent people.
I mean, WTF is so complicated with git add, git commit, git branch, git checkout, git merge, git push, git pop and git mergetool? Yes that is only 8 commands that you need to use git for production. If you are using an IDE like Eclipse, the IDE can manage git add, git commit, git branch, git checkout just fine.
That is slashdot: a troll gets +5 insightful. If you even bother to elaborate what on git is "complicated" and how that compares to bzr.
I started with Subversion and that was a pain. Then I switched to git and I didn't know anything about it but could use it in 5 minutes. After some 3 years of productive usage, and my own repositories* I still only know the high-level commands and have never any trouble.
You could also flip the question around and ask what Linux stuff is keeping you from using Windows?
That would be many many items on my list. First of all would be KDE.
Then all the stuff where Windows sucks ass. For example with my Globe G3 stick: in Linux I plug the stick in and in 3 seconds I can connect using the network manager in KDE. In Windows I have first to wait until this stupid Globe Application have started, which takes about 20 seconds. Then it needs to discover the stick which takes another 20 seconds. Now I can connect.
SSH in Linux is just plain simple: just enter ssh-add anywhere in a terminal and it works. In Windows you need this stupid GUI for that.
Konsole and Yakuage as terminals. I am a Java developer and I use Git and Maven. In Linux console interface is just plain simple: F12 and I have a terminal in Yakuage. F4 and I have a terminal in the current directory in Dolphin. In Windows I travel back to 1990 to good old DOS times.
Speed: In Linux I have nothing that holds me back. The system is 99,999% idle and all resources are used to my applications. In Windows the hard disk rattles all the time. For what? I don't know (no I don't have virus).
In Linux I can use my encrypted RAID10 (3 hard disks, 1.5TB) that I can connect to USB and watch my movies or do my backup. Windows does not known anything about dm-raid, LUKS, LVM or ext4.
Windows is for me just a toy system. Good enough to run my games. But nothing more.
> (As a photographer who likes taking pictures [flickr.com] of weird bits of crumbling infrastructure, I've had plenty of run-ins with security guards and the like. Oddly, I've never been arrested.)
Why are you expecting being arrested for taking pictures of public places? I thought you are from the USA and not Iran, Irak, or any other oppressive regime country? Is your populace already that brainwashed by the DHS?
Greetings from Europe, where I hope we finally stop listening to crazy people over the big pond.
With your argument everything is an API and the GPL would become irrelevant.
What is "using an API" really mean? It is linking against code. Sure, you as the developer see only the API but your code is linked through the API with the other code. Thus it will become a derivative work and as such must be licensed under the same terms as the GPL.
If RTM a) is using anything more then the kernel syscalls and b) they distribute the Linux kernel with their code, then they must licensing their code under the same terms as the GPL.
In addition, I like to highlight the reply from AC: Regarding the Oracle vs. Google case: "I don't see how you can maintain that this case is relevant. Did RTS re-implement the Linux kernel, perchance?"
Because that is what the Orcale vs. Google case was: Google had re-implemented the Java API and Orcale claimed the copyright to the Structure, Organization and Sequence of the API.
Do you want it to become as difficult to create a new software company as it currently is to create a new company in any other industry?
Short answer: Yes. Google, Amazon, Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Cisco, etc. are holding on on patents for only this reason: to make sure they hold a big chunk of the market and rise the bar to entry as high as possible.
Why does anybody listen to "Company XXX's Chief Patent Counsel"? He or she will only say in public what benefits his or her company. The government should not listen to any company to implement politics.
A 32 LAN router does not costs much. A few work-stations or Bring Your Own Computer (BYOC) and locality is more then enough possibilities. Anyway that was only a few ideas with 5 minutes of though time. I'm sure a businessman like you can think of more ways to monetize your fan base.
Do you think any of the major musicians like Rolling Stones, Beatles, Madonna, etc. became popular if they would just sell CDs? No, there was radio (which was free), there were copies from friends (also free) and concerts. Why should it be any different with computer games?
That's exactly what the warez scene has always done.
What does that have to do with anything? The warez scene does not care for your copyright or DRM. They don't care if your game is under the heaviest of EULA protected by SecureROM DRM or open source.
The same argument goes for pirating. Does copyright prevent anyone from pirating your game? Does DRM prevent anyone from pirating your game? You see it really does not matter whether your game is open source or not.
It also really doesn't matter if you are demanding any money for your game or not. In the Humble Indie Bundle you don't have to give any money at all. How does it makes for you any economical sense? The first raised $1,270,000 totally, $166,000 in average for each developer. The last one raised $1.4M. Without DRM, so anyone is free to torrent the games without issues.
Would it have mattered at all if the games were open source? Oh, the source code of some of the games were actually released! "Puppy Games has also released the source code for Revenge of the Titans[23] under a BSD-like license while reserving all rights to almost all game assets."
With games it is really a simple issue: release the code under the GPL and release the art works under a CC Attribution (and non-commercial if you like). That way if someone like to sell your game he or she must create their own art work.
Fact is that people pay money for good products. In "normal" economical sense the HIB would not make any money at all because people are selfish assholes that do not spend money if they are not forced to. So what went wrong? The products are good, they are not encumbered with DRM (which makes the games worse) and the delivery method is good: just download it with your browser.
The HIB is not the only example. www.gog.com offers also DRM free games. They make good money as well and expand their catalogue to up-to-date and brand new releases.
What sort of "support"
Blizzard is making an truckload of money out of supporting games. Starcraft 2, WoW, Diablo 3. The same goes for every MMG (mass multiplayer game). Or just multi-player games. Offer new addons, improvements, new missions, new art works for your game. Sell T-shirts and tee-cups. Offer LAN-parties.
It does costs you nothing to sell a copy of your game, so why do you expect people to pay good money for a copy? I don't know why any "copyright holder" (be it musician, artist, author, developer) is believing that just because they created something once in their lifetime they are now entitled to receive other people money for doing nothing. Your ass is really huge for all the gold dust blown into it by the current copyright and DRM laws.
It's just that I don't see a way to convince a single entity to pay a large enough fee to cover all expenses before that entity starts distributing it to everyone else for no fee.
Please give me one example. I never saw that happen before for any software. Why should somebody buy a product and then distribute it to others for free? It does not make any sense. For example, you are developing for me an accounting software. I pay for it, so why should I distribute it to other competitors for free?
For "economic reasons" it cannot be free software (open source you mean?) What a BS. The same goes for a dictatorship: for "economic reasons" we cannot allow you basic human rights.
You live in a democracy with human and civil rights I assume? Why do you make apologies to restrict my freedom? I assume it's your "economic reasons" that you deny me my rights, meaning your wallet.
There are no "economic reasons" to not make a software open source. I assume you know the difference between free (as in beer) and open source software and that you are free to charge whatever price you want, even for GPL software? See Redhat, they make enough money out of completely free software. Last time I checked their profits increased and they broke one record after another.
That is not RMS policy at all. When did he says that you should bundle hardware and software, and give the software away (for free I assume you are implying)?
RMS says that a user should have the three freedoms: 1. to have access to the code, 2. to modify the code and 3. to re-distribute the modified code. Never did he stated that you should give away your code for free.
I would think it would not matter at all if you license your CAD software under the GPL. No of your users can modify and re-distribute your CAD software anyway so what does it matter. There will be no competition, because nobody have the know-how of your code.
That is all good and well, except it does not explain why a blank installation of Windows Vista/7 is using so much space. All software is coming from one software developer: Microsoft. It should be a matter of good policy that the DLLs in use are fixed company-wide (for save space, compatibility issues, security, etc).
To think of it, this is where a curated marketplace with strict acceptance guidelines might actually help.
No, just an software repository with open source libraries and applications. In Linux this is a none-issue and Linux do not have any guidelines or any other restrictions. Everyone is using the libraries of the system because it's a) easier then to maintain your own copy of the library and b) you get more users if your software is in the repository.
I do not understand why Microsoft is not levering the big software repository of, for example, Debian. It would be a big win/win, if you have a repository with Apache, MySQL, SSH, the tools, editors, IDEs, etc. as easy in Windows as you have with f.e. Debian.
In comparison my full blown Fedora Linux 64 bit installation is using 7.8GB. That is the system + a bunch of applications like Office, Firefox, Gimp, development tools, Wine, tools, some games.
I LOLed quite hard when I saw how much hard disk a blank (i.e. only the system) Windows Vista installation was using. Something like 8GB only for an empty system. I run a check and saw that most of the space is used by DLLs in 10 times duplicates.
My guess is Microsoft is extra blowing the system up so a) they can say more is better and b) to slow down illegal downloads of Windows.
The only reason the GPL exists in the first place was for the draconian copyright and patent protection of software in the first place. It would be a very different story if copyright was in the sane 14 years + 14 years optional extension (+mandatory registration).
In fact I firmly believe that the only way to a) ensure that artists are compensated in the digital age and b) that people are go back to respect copyrights is to make the copyright protection back to the original law (see above). It would even be better if the copyright terms are decreased according to new technology.
First, the optional extension must be back in place, to give artists a leverage against the publishers. After the first copyright term is over they can so negotiate new conditions depending on how good the work was sold.
Secondly, the copyright terms are amoral long. It's now 120 years or something like that. This is drying out the public domain and the small artists. Art is always created from previous art. If you are forbidden to remix and copy previous art, new art will be dried out. The only reason we have such long copyright terms are because of Mickey Mouse and the Beatles Album, i.e. one time hits that are going to be milked forever by the studios.
Third, copyright must be a privilege. How come that any idiot can write a article, or make a picture and this "work" is now protected for 120 years? Even a patent, that takes more brain and have way more impact on society is granted only for 20 years. Plus, a patent you need to register and can be challenged. But here we are, for any "art" even if it has no creativity and no impact is given a monopoly right for 120 years. We need to go back to make copyright only applicable to registered works. Thus also eliminating the orphan-works problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a tip for Microsoft: Decouple the system from the desktop. Then I could finally install KDE on my Windows 7.
Well, but I'm using Windows only to lunch only my games anyway. But sometimes I don't come around and have to at least test my applications on Windows.
No it has not. The GPL makes no restrictions on the use of the code, on the contrary, it grands your rights that you normally do not have.
The GPL makes only restrictions if you give the code or application to other users. And the restrictions are only that you grand your users the same rights you previously enjoyed.
How is so, that if you are enjoying the rights you normally would not have it is fine, but if other want to enjoy the same rights, you come and tell: the GPL is restrictive?
it's the same as the slave trade back in the days. You enjoy your right of freedom but if others wants to enjoy the same right, you don't want. (only reference slave trade because I watched the movie Amistad recently)
Wait. So the developer of VLC, that application that you so much use, have chosen to license the app and libraries under an open source license and have chosen to make VLC for free available to you.
Now that Apple have chosen to make their app-store not GPL friendly, and Mircosoft have chosen to do the same, you say he, the developer, is an "asshole"?
wow, just wow. I think if you look at the mirror you can see the real "asshole" here.
Where is your contribution to VLC, where is your media library?
Java. There are thousands open source libraries available on Maven Central Repository: http://mvnrepository.com/
Containing the compiled library, the source code and the documentation.
don't think that Dell is in any danger of going Chapter 7.
The same you could have said about Nokia. That was before the "we are standing on a burning platform" memo.
KDE on Linux did: You can move the window to the left/right side and it will resized to use 50% of horizontal and 100% of vertical space. That way it's very easy to have two windows open that divide the monitor in 1/2 parts.
That is really interesting point of view.
My question is, what they get out of that?
They certainly will not sell more DVDs or make more money at the movies. Take me for example. When I got out of college they just started to do that "War on Piracy". My reaction was: I never bought any DVD, any music or any game except if it's DRM free. Like mp3 from Amazon, games from www.gog.com
If they wouldn't have started this "War on Piracy" I would happily pirate movies, games and music like before. But I would also buy movies, games and music. Right now I buy almost nothing. If I would pirate then I would buy stuff again.
I don't think you understand me at all.
How can you make a dtor "fail-proof" if you are using dtors for resource management? Resources are: files, sockets, locks, printers, scanners, cameras, and memory. But only memory management can you make "fail-proof", because the delete statement in C++ is guaranteed to success. The term "resource" applies to any kind of resource, including "memory". But only memory can be managed in a dtor, because delete() do not throw.
I'm developing all kinds of applications in Java, including threading, sockets and files. And I'm really do not miss dtors or RIIA. Also I'm glad for Java's style of exceptions. I have used other languages before without checked exceptions and I'm glad we have them in Java. It's really a paid to search the documentation from top to bottom to get what kind of exceptions a method can throw.
Checked exceptions are like static typing: you want your compiler to help you catch errors fast. Checked exceptions are exceptions that I can catch and react to. They are "recoverable errors". For example I can recover that a file was not found, or I/O error: I can ask the user to specify the correct file or I can use defaults. Not recoverable errors are (in Java) runtime-Errors/Exceptions: NullPointerException, etc.
Did you even read the GPL text?
I think you are referring to the to the section 3) of the GPL license?
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
There it states that You may copy and distribute the Program ... if you follow the terms a), b) and c). That means if you are not copy and not distribute the Program you are in no obligation to offer anyone the source code (under the terms a), b) or c)).
I think a lot of people misunderstand the GPL. The GPL is a license that is protecting the user and grands the user rights (to study the code, to modify the code and to re-distribute the code). If you are using the application and you are not distributing it to others then the GPL gives you rights that you normally would not have.
Only if you are distributing the GPL'd application you have to grand your users the same rights that you have previously enjoined. That means you have to give them the source code with any modifications you have made.
So, to answer your question: if you are not buying the application you are not a user, the developer is not distributing the application to you and the developer is under no obligation to give you the source code.
Yes "it works just fine". How about this example:
void write_important_data() {
// the dtor calls close() which will flush the data so it's written to the medium
// before the method finish, the user unplugs the USB stick
// now the close() method in the dtor will normally throw a I/O exception
// and thus the application can warn the user that the data is not written to the USB stick
// because he/she unplugged it
// but since dtors can't throw anything, the exception is "swallowed"
file = open_file "File"
file.write "Some important data"
}
The user assumes that the data is written, because no error was shown. The data was an important presentation for the next management meeting. The user opens the sticks and to his surprise the USB stick is empty. RIIA for the win.
Of course in a real application the programmer would use the close() method and catch the I/O exception to show an error dialog to the user. But since every C++ developer is so fond about RIIA and dtors in C++ I just show how it could be.
I personally find dtors pretty useless. They are only useful if you manage memory allocation. For example, you create in the ctor an array on the heap and now you need to de-allocate the array again. But that is not "resource management" it's "memory management". So if you could rename it to MIIA I would find it just fine.
But since I long ego realized that memory management is best done by the GC I find dtor are just useless.
Throwable (in Java) is a well defined type with useful methods. Like get the stack trace.
Funny how other languages can optimize all the like but don't need workarounds like "comment out the catch statements and get the stack trace".
That is funny because AC put C++ exceptions as the best thing ever and gets +5 insightful.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/130117/throwing-exceptions-out-of-a-destructor
Throwing an exception out of a destructor is dangerous.
If another exception is already propagating the application will terminate.
http://home.ustc.edu.cn/~zixin/More%20Effective%20C++/MEC/MI11_FR.HTM
C++ calls the terminate function. That function does just what its name suggests: it terminates execution of your program. Furthermore, it terminates it immediately; not even local objects are destroyed.
http://home.ustc.edu.cn/~zixin/More%20Effective%20C++/MAGAZINE/SU_DIR.HTM#dingp134
The standard says you get undefined behavior if a T destructor throws anywhere in this code, which means that any code that allocates or deallocates an array of objects whose destructors could throw can result in undefined behavior. This may raise some eyebrows, so let's see why this is so:
The best workaround is to issue an explicit close if you want to catch those sorts of errors. You can even make a wrapper for it
And thus makes RAII pretty useless with resources. Any external resource (not inside the application like an object), can throw an exception/error while closing it.
You have got to be kidding me. C++ have the worst exception implementation by far.
First, you can throw anything. String, int, object, etc. That means that you can't use a catch-all and do anything useful.
Second, you are losing the stack trace, which means debugging is pain.
Third, you can't throw an exception in the dtor, which means you can't use RAII. What if an exception is occurring while you close a resource? For example, disk is full; the socket is gone; memory full; disk is broken; the user removed the USB stick, etc.
No wonder you are posting it as AC, I would be ashamed myself to work with such incompetent people.
I mean, WTF is so complicated with git add, git commit, git branch, git checkout, git merge, git push, git pop and git mergetool? Yes that is only 8 commands that you need to use git for production.
If you are using an IDE like Eclipse, the IDE can manage git add, git commit, git branch, git checkout just fine.
That is slashdot: a troll gets +5 insightful.
If you even bother to elaborate what on git is "complicated" and how that compares to bzr.
I started with Subversion and that was a pain. Then I switched to git and I didn't know anything about it but could use it in 5 minutes. After some 3 years of productive usage, and my own repositories* I still only know the high-level commands and have never any trouble.
* https://www.anr-institute.com/gitpublic/
You could also flip the question around and ask what Linux stuff is keeping you from using Windows?
That would be many many items on my list.
First of all would be KDE.
Then all the stuff where Windows sucks ass. For example with my Globe G3 stick: in Linux I plug the stick in and in 3 seconds I can connect using the network manager in KDE. In Windows I have first to wait until this stupid Globe Application have started, which takes about 20 seconds. Then it needs to discover the stick which takes another 20 seconds. Now I can connect.
SSH in Linux is just plain simple: just enter ssh-add anywhere in a terminal and it works. In Windows you need this stupid GUI for that.
Konsole and Yakuage as terminals. I am a Java developer and I use Git and Maven. In Linux console interface is just plain simple: F12 and I have a terminal in Yakuage. F4 and I have a terminal in the current directory in Dolphin. In Windows I travel back to 1990 to good old DOS times.
Speed: In Linux I have nothing that holds me back. The system is 99,999% idle and all resources are used to my applications. In Windows the hard disk rattles all the time. For what? I don't know (no I don't have virus).
In Linux I can use my encrypted RAID10 (3 hard disks, 1.5TB) that I can connect to USB and watch my movies or do my backup. Windows does not known anything about dm-raid, LUKS, LVM or ext4.
Windows is for me just a toy system. Good enough to run my games. But nothing more.
I play currently: Torchlight 2 and Tropico IV.
> (As a photographer who likes taking pictures [flickr.com] of weird bits of crumbling infrastructure, I've had plenty of run-ins with security guards and the like. Oddly, I've never been arrested.)
Why are you expecting being arrested for taking pictures of public places?
I thought you are from the USA and not Iran, Irak, or any other oppressive regime country?
Is your populace already that brainwashed by the DHS?
Greetings from Europe, where I hope we finally stop listening to crazy people over the big pond.
With your argument everything is an API and the GPL would become irrelevant.
What is "using an API" really mean? It is linking against code. Sure, you as the developer see only the API but your code is linked through the API with the other code. Thus it will become a derivative work and as such must be licensed under the same terms as the GPL.
If RTM a) is using anything more then the kernel syscalls and b) they distribute the Linux kernel with their code, then they must licensing their code under the same terms as the GPL.
In addition, I like to highlight the reply from AC: Regarding the Oracle vs. Google case: "I don't see how you can maintain that this case is relevant. Did RTS re-implement the Linux kernel, perchance?"
Because that is what the Orcale vs. Google case was: Google had re-implemented the Java API and Orcale claimed the copyright to the Structure, Organization and Sequence of the API.
Do you want it to become as difficult to create a new software company as it currently is to create a new company in any other industry?
Short answer: Yes. Google, Amazon, Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Cisco, etc. are holding on on patents for only this reason: to make sure they hold a big chunk of the market and rise the bar to entry as high as possible.
Why does anybody listen to "Company XXX's Chief Patent Counsel"? He or she will only say in public what benefits his or her company. The government should not listen to any company to implement politics.
A 32 LAN router does not costs much. A few work-stations or Bring Your Own Computer (BYOC) and locality is more then enough possibilities. Anyway that was only a few ideas with 5 minutes of though time. I'm sure a businessman like you can think of more ways to monetize your fan base.
Do you think any of the major musicians like Rolling Stones, Beatles, Madonna, etc. became popular if they would just sell CDs? No, there was radio (which was free), there were copies from friends (also free) and concerts. Why should it be any different with computer games?
That's exactly what the warez scene has always done.
What does that have to do with anything? The warez scene does not care for your copyright or DRM. They don't care if your game is under the heaviest of EULA protected by SecureROM DRM or open source.
The same argument goes for pirating. Does copyright prevent anyone from pirating your game? Does DRM prevent anyone from pirating your game? You see it really does not matter whether your game is open source or not.
It also really doesn't matter if you are demanding any money for your game or not.
In the Humble Indie Bundle you don't have to give any money at all. How does it makes for you any economical sense? The first raised $1,270,000 totally, $166,000 in average for each developer. The last one raised $1.4M. Without DRM, so anyone is free to torrent the games without issues.
Would it have mattered at all if the games were open source? Oh, the source code of some of the games were actually released! "Puppy Games has also released the source code for Revenge of the Titans[23] under a BSD-like license while reserving all rights to almost all game assets."
With games it is really a simple issue: release the code under the GPL and release the art works under a CC Attribution (and non-commercial if you like). That way if someone like to sell your game he or she must create their own art work.
Fact is that people pay money for good products. In "normal" economical sense the HIB would not make any money at all because people are selfish assholes that do not spend money if they are not forced to. So what went wrong? The products are good, they are not encumbered with DRM (which makes the games worse) and the delivery method is good: just download it with your browser.
The HIB is not the only example. www.gog.com offers also DRM free games. They make good money as well and expand their catalogue to up-to-date and brand new releases.
What sort of "support"
Blizzard is making an truckload of money out of supporting games. Starcraft 2, WoW, Diablo 3.
The same goes for every MMG (mass multiplayer game). Or just multi-player games.
Offer new addons, improvements, new missions, new art works for your game.
Sell T-shirts and tee-cups. Offer LAN-parties.
It does costs you nothing to sell a copy of your game, so why do you expect people to pay good money for a copy?
I don't know why any "copyright holder" (be it musician, artist, author, developer) is believing that just because they created something once in their lifetime they are now entitled to receive other people money for doing nothing. Your ass is really huge for all the gold dust blown into it by the current copyright and DRM laws.
It's just that I don't see a way to convince a single entity to pay a large enough fee to cover all expenses before that entity starts distributing it to everyone else for no fee.
Please give me one example. I never saw that happen before for any software.
Why should somebody buy a product and then distribute it to others for free? It does not make any sense.
For example, you are developing for me an accounting software. I pay for it, so why should I distribute it to other competitors for free?
For "economic reasons" it cannot be free software (open source you mean?) What a BS.
The same goes for a dictatorship: for "economic reasons" we cannot allow you basic human rights.
You live in a democracy with human and civil rights I assume? Why do you make apologies to restrict my freedom? I assume it's your "economic reasons" that you deny me my rights, meaning your wallet.
There are no "economic reasons" to not make a software open source. I assume you know the difference between free (as in beer) and open source software and that you are free to charge whatever price you want, even for GPL software?
See Redhat, they make enough money out of completely free software. Last time I checked their profits increased and they broke one record after another.
That is not RMS policy at all. When did he says that you should bundle hardware and software, and give the software away (for free I assume you are implying)?
RMS says that a user should have the three freedoms: 1. to have access to the code, 2. to modify the code and 3. to re-distribute the modified code. Never did he stated that you should give away your code for free.
I would think it would not matter at all if you license your CAD software under the GPL. No of your users can modify and re-distribute your CAD software anyway so what does it matter. There will be no competition, because nobody have the know-how of your code.
That is all good and well, except it does not explain why a blank installation of Windows Vista/7 is using so much space. All software is coming from one software developer: Microsoft. It should be a matter of good policy that the DLLs in use are fixed company-wide (for save space, compatibility issues, security, etc).
To think of it, this is where a curated marketplace with strict acceptance guidelines might actually help.
No, just an software repository with open source libraries and applications. In Linux this is a none-issue and Linux do not have any guidelines or any other restrictions. Everyone is using the libraries of the system because it's a) easier then to maintain your own copy of the library and b) you get more users if your software is in the repository.
I do not understand why Microsoft is not levering the big software repository of, for example, Debian. It would be a big win/win, if you have a repository with Apache, MySQL, SSH, the tools, editors, IDEs, etc. as easy in Windows as you have with f.e. Debian.
In comparison my full blown Fedora Linux 64 bit installation is using 7.8GB. That is the system + a bunch of applications like Office, Firefox, Gimp, development tools, Wine, tools, some games.
I LOLed quite hard when I saw how much hard disk a blank (i.e. only the system) Windows Vista installation was using. Something like 8GB only for an empty system. I run a check and saw that most of the space is used by DLLs in 10 times duplicates.
My guess is Microsoft is extra blowing the system up so a) they can say more is better and b) to slow down illegal downloads of Windows.
The only reason the GPL exists in the first place was for the draconian copyright and patent protection of software in the first place. It would be a very different story if copyright was in the sane 14 years + 14 years optional extension (+mandatory registration).
In fact I firmly believe that the only way to a) ensure that artists are compensated in the digital age and b) that people are go back to respect copyrights is to make the copyright protection back to the original law (see above). It would even be better if the copyright terms are decreased according to new technology.
First, the optional extension must be back in place, to give artists a leverage against the publishers. After the first copyright term is over they can so negotiate new conditions depending on how good the work was sold.
Secondly, the copyright terms are amoral long. It's now 120 years or something like that. This is drying out the public domain and the small artists. Art is always created from previous art. If you are forbidden to remix and copy previous art, new art will be dried out. The only reason we have such long copyright terms are because of Mickey Mouse and the Beatles Album, i.e. one time hits that are going to be milked forever by the studios.
Third, copyright must be a privilege. How come that any idiot can write a article, or make a picture and this "work" is now protected for 120 years? Even a patent, that takes more brain and have way more impact on society is granted only for 20 years. Plus, a patent you need to register and can be challenged. But here we are, for any "art" even if it has no creativity and no impact is given a monopoly right for 120 years. We need to go back to make copyright only applicable to registered works. Thus also eliminating the orphan-works problem.