Are you sure living in the heart of a city saves you money? A car is definitely a large expense, but so is the rent I've seen in any city that had quality downtown living. Every such city also has a higher cost of living than a sprawled city like my own of St. Louis. Bread and milk cost more, and it all adds up.
Expecting the average geek to give consideration to non-Web 2.0 mediums is asking an awful lot. When slashdot-reading geeks see a post such as yours, this is what we hear:
Blah blah web-designers blah blah blah wikipedia blah blah blah-blah DVD blah wikipedia blah blah MS (work of the devil) Student blah blah blah.
Slashdot gives you full control over the subjects you see on the homepage. If you have Linux selected, then yes, you'll repeatedly hear when Linux is deployed in favor of Windows. Since it seems you do include Linux on your Slashdot homepage, were you hoping to read about kernel scheduling latency, NUMA architecture, futexes, and devfs? I'm happy hearing about India choosing Linux.
It's not patent hogging. Companies today have to apply for patents, even when they don't plan to enforce them, for purely defensive reasons. If you don't apply for the patent first, someone else will come knocking at your door who did.
The thing about this article that I don't understand is that the part about it being "a significant shift in how Microsoft is dealing with open standards." (emphasis mine) AFAIK, Microsoft has never sued anyone for patent infringement, and has an unwritten policy against it. The only difference here is that they are writing it down. Even the post states it "is similar to the covenant not to assert patents that it issued last year with respect to its Office 2003 XML Reference Schema". So again, how is this a significant shift?
I am willing to believe that they really do care about something other than the money.
It's much easier to care about something other than money when you are already rolling in it. If they really didn't care about money, and only the album's integrity, they would release it for free, zipped up in one file. Who wouldn't take the whole album if it was free?
But who ever said you have to design in the open to be open source? I mean, thousands of smaller projects are generally designed by one guy in his den, without any public discussion. Are they not open?
I've read a number of open source licenses, and I don't remember any of them saying a thing about designing in the open. They all have different requirements, but they usually require that the source code be open (to different degrees). OpenSolaris is that. OpenSolaris is open source, and they are okay in my book calling themselves OpenSolaris.
In my opinion, I'm far happier with OpenSolaris being open source than I am about AIX and OS/2. I credit Sun for doing what they've done. The code was their property, and they were welcome to do what they wanted, how they wanted, and to what extent. I'm greatful they have made the source open, considering they didn't have to, and I think rediculous for IBM to criticize it.
But seriously, Gentoo doesn't seem to have nearly the problems I hear of other distros having with licensing.
Don't be confused. What Gentoo and most desktop-centric distributions are doing is being legal by putting it on the users to break the law to get the features they want. That's fine, and that's the best we can expect from a non-profit distribution. But don't confuse it with being all around legal. It simply works because no patent holder is going to attempt to extract royalties from the anonymous hordes of people that have downloaded and installed Gentoo or Ubuntu. That doesn't mean it's legal.
Conversely, Linspire acquires licenses for encumbered software, then distributes the software licensed. I believe they are still tainting the kernel they distribute and losing GPL compliance, though.
Nice logic, good point....NOT. For every minor vendor that commited to preloading Linux and never became major, there are thousands of vendors that are commited exclusively to Windows and never became major. For reference, see pricewatch.com or Computer Shopper. Good try though.
It's a f***ing window manager. If you think a window manager is exciting then you're a bit of a loser - even by Slashdot geek standards. Do you really think that 99.9% of people think that a window manager is exciting new software?
I've been showing a good friend of mine Linux for a couple of years now. It's been met by "That's nice" reactions every time. About a month ago, I showed him XGL. He doesn't know, and doesn't care, what a window manager is. But he did think it was cool. So cool, he went home and installed Linux that night on his laptop. Then he took it to work the next day and showed it to coworkers. Some of them went home that night and installed Linux.
XGL is exciting, whether you want to believe it or not.
In reality, I think many of us feel exactly as you said. But many people who are geeky enough to compare Ubuntu to Debian usually would never admit that they couldn't or didn't want to do it all, and sometimes even critical of those that do. We often want to "beat Microsoft" but also champion the idea that you must install Linux From Scratch once in your life to be worthy. Kudos to you for admitting you don't have the expertise, and that you'd rather not have to get them. And you didn't even check the AC box.;)
I hear what you are saying, but I just don't see it. I know several people who own Macs, and not a single one of them knows how to use Boot Camp, what dual-booting means, nor do they care. And that's exactly why they bought a Mac in the first place. I think the percentage of Mac users that use Boot Camp is going to be extremely small, and the percentage that regularly boot Windows even smaller.
Re:Cedega is a step in the right direction
on
Cedega and Linux Games
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Incorrect. If Linux users can now run games written for Windows, then there is ZERO incentive to make Linux ports at all.
Nice blanket statement, ignoring many dynamics at play here. Cedega is about support existing Windows games in Linux. By Cedega making it possible for Linux users to play existing games in Linux, there are more full-time Linux users. Myself and GP both are examples of this. If there are more full-time Linux users, there is more incentive to make Linux games. Do you think somehow the alternative (dual-booters) helps drive the Linux game market? It doesn't at all.
The existing Windows games out there are unlikely to ever be ported, and so there is Cedega. If Cedega drives more and more people to uninstall Windows from their desktop, the market for future games to be made native in Linux will be more attractive, which is what Linux gaming needs. This isn't a perfect world we live in, but there are some benefits to Cedega.
For more information see Windows vs OS/2.
Please stop bringing up this rediculous point that has been made several times in this thread (maybe by you). OS/2 failed for dozens of reasons, most importantly because IBM is the worst company at marketing its products, EVAR (sic). Trivializing the failure of a multi-million dollar product in a multi-billion dollar market down to "Windows compatibility hurt it" is an exercise in revisionist history.
-1 Troll? That's a bit harsh for what appears to be a very informative post. He's on topic, and has a legitimate criticism of the statement that GP made. In fact, the post has more relevant information than GP, which makes simple blanket statements with nothing to back them up. That moderation is just weird.
Are you implying a business must make enough to survive a greedy president to be an actual company? There are millions of businesses around the world, and the overwhelming majority of them have to run an extremely tight ship to stay in business. The "presidents" work rediculously long hours just so they can live a middle-class life. Just because we are used to seeing CEOs that get paid millions for running a company poorly doesn't mean this is the definition of a company.
The open source landscape is riddled with very good projects led by very eccentric people with poor social graces. Certainly not the majority, but there is definitely all types of people contributing to the F/OSS landscape. Spend some time talking to some of them in IRC, and you'll quickly have to develop a thick skin or run away from your computer screaming.
As a non-project-admin user of SF, my biggest problem with SF was the period of time when their search failed to work 95% of the time due to overload. I'm willing to bet Google Code never has that problem. I could be wrong.
On a different topic, for all the times that people complain that Slashdot is posting topics that are in their best interest, topics like this show me this isn't the case. Since OSTG owns both Sourceforge and Slashdot, this posting goes against their financial best interest. They have exposed their huge audience to a competitor.
I just think it's pretty arrogant to assume that you can use it without permission just because it's unsecured.
More than arrogant, I would say just plain wrong. If I leave my bike unsecured, would you feel you are in the right to jump on and ride away? I think not. If you did, I would definitely feel that I had the right to turn you upside down.
Thanks for the lessen in Trusted Computing. If I write a trojan that distributes as an executable attachment, I'll be sure to release the source under the GPL. Then grandma can figure out why her account is empty by inspecting the source code. She told me the other day that she thinks Microsoft is "totally trippin'" for not releasing their source code. She also said she thinks the GPL is "the bomb".
Not sure how your advice would help her though. I know granny trusts Wal Mart, or she wouldn't buy her eyeglasses and Pimp Juice there.
Not to be overly paranoid, but this is Microsoft we're discussing
I would emphasize that this is not Microsoft we are talking about. We are talking about Windows. If you read Microsoft's document you'll note it is titled "Windows Principles".
I've read the document carefully, and I see no indication that this philosophy extends to other products. Take for instance the Mappoint web services. A company can use the service to geocode data for use in the Mappoint desktop application. However, the license strictly prohibits the geocoded data from being used in competitive applications such as MapInfo, ESRI, or Google Earth.
On the surface, this appears to be a major philosophy shift for Microsoft. But digging in, it appears to be more-of-the-same except where required by law (ala past Windows antitrust rulings, and avoiding additional future action). I'll be impressed if/when they extend these principals to product lines that they aren't required to.
Who said anything about de facto standards? De facto standards are completely contrary to what everyone else is talking about when they say "standards". They are generally referring to open standards. Microsoft Word's doc format may be de facto, but it is in no way open. If two vendors implement Open Document Format, they can compete equally, and the one who makes the best document processor will likely win out. Conversely, using the de facto standard.doc, Open Office can never implement a word processor as well as Microsoft. The playing field isn't equal.
The internet was designed from the ground up to be an equal playing field, and we have open standards for a reason. De facto standards are never an acceptable alternative to open standards.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure living in the heart of a city saves you money? A car is definitely a large expense, but so is the rent I've seen in any city that had quality downtown living. Every such city also has a higher cost of living than a sprawled city like my own of St. Louis. Bread and milk cost more, and it all adds up.
When thinking of mixing your distribution's package management with CNR, does that sentence frighten you like it frightens me?
Expecting the average geek to give consideration to non-Web 2.0 mediums is asking an awful lot. When slashdot-reading geeks see a post such as yours, this is what we hear:
Blah blah web-designers blah blah blah wikipedia blah blah blah-blah DVD blah wikipedia blah blah MS (work of the devil) Student blah blah blah.
Slashdot gives you full control over the subjects you see on the homepage. If you have Linux selected, then yes, you'll repeatedly hear when Linux is deployed in favor of Windows. Since it seems you do include Linux on your Slashdot homepage, were you hoping to read about kernel scheduling latency, NUMA architecture, futexes, and devfs? I'm happy hearing about India choosing Linux.
Odd. When I drink, I wii all the time.
It's not patent hogging. Companies today have to apply for patents, even when they don't plan to enforce them, for purely defensive reasons. If you don't apply for the patent first, someone else will come knocking at your door who did.
The thing about this article that I don't understand is that the part about it being "a significant shift in how Microsoft is dealing with open standards." (emphasis mine) AFAIK, Microsoft has never sued anyone for patent infringement, and has an unwritten policy against it. The only difference here is that they are writing it down. Even the post states it "is similar to the covenant not to assert patents that it issued last year with respect to its Office 2003 XML Reference Schema". So again, how is this a significant shift?
But who ever said you have to design in the open to be open source? I mean, thousands of smaller projects are generally designed by one guy in his den, without any public discussion. Are they not open?
I've read a number of open source licenses, and I don't remember any of them saying a thing about designing in the open. They all have different requirements, but they usually require that the source code be open (to different degrees). OpenSolaris is that. OpenSolaris is open source, and they are okay in my book calling themselves OpenSolaris.
In my opinion, I'm far happier with OpenSolaris being open source than I am about AIX and OS/2. I credit Sun for doing what they've done. The code was their property, and they were welcome to do what they wanted, how they wanted, and to what extent. I'm greatful they have made the source open, considering they didn't have to, and I think rediculous for IBM to criticize it.
Conversely, Linspire acquires licenses for encumbered software, then distributes the software licensed. I believe they are still tainting the kernel they distribute and losing GPL compliance, though.
A text-to-speech playback of this Ask Slashdot on a loudspeaker would drive neighbors young and old to another Zip code.
Nice logic, good point....NOT. For every minor vendor that commited to preloading Linux and never became major, there are thousands of vendors that are commited exclusively to Windows and never became major. For reference, see pricewatch.com or Computer Shopper. Good try though.
XGL is exciting, whether you want to believe it or not.
In reality, I think many of us feel exactly as you said. But many people who are geeky enough to compare Ubuntu to Debian usually would never admit that they couldn't or didn't want to do it all, and sometimes even critical of those that do. We often want to "beat Microsoft" but also champion the idea that you must install Linux From Scratch once in your life to be worthy. Kudos to you for admitting you don't have the expertise, and that you'd rather not have to get them. And you didn't even check the AC box. ;)
I hear what you are saying, but I just don't see it. I know several people who own Macs, and not a single one of them knows how to use Boot Camp, what dual-booting means, nor do they care. And that's exactly why they bought a Mac in the first place. I think the percentage of Mac users that use Boot Camp is going to be extremely small, and the percentage that regularly boot Windows even smaller.
The existing Windows games out there are unlikely to ever be ported, and so there is Cedega. If Cedega drives more and more people to uninstall Windows from their desktop, the market for future games to be made native in Linux will be more attractive, which is what Linux gaming needs. This isn't a perfect world we live in, but there are some benefits to Cedega.
Please stop bringing up this rediculous point that has been made several times in this thread (maybe by you). OS/2 failed for dozens of reasons, most importantly because IBM is the worst company at marketing its products, EVAR (sic). Trivializing the failure of a multi-million dollar product in a multi-billion dollar market down to "Windows compatibility hurt it" is an exercise in revisionist history.
-1 Troll? That's a bit harsh for what appears to be a very informative post. He's on topic, and has a legitimate criticism of the statement that GP made. In fact, the post has more relevant information than GP, which makes simple blanket statements with nothing to back them up. That moderation is just weird.
Are you implying a business must make enough to survive a greedy president to be an actual company? There are millions of businesses around the world, and the overwhelming majority of them have to run an extremely tight ship to stay in business. The "presidents" work rediculously long hours just so they can live a middle-class life. Just because we are used to seeing CEOs that get paid millions for running a company poorly doesn't mean this is the definition of a company.
The open source landscape is riddled with very good projects led by very eccentric people with poor social graces. Certainly not the majority, but there is definitely all types of people contributing to the F/OSS landscape. Spend some time talking to some of them in IRC, and you'll quickly have to develop a thick skin or run away from your computer screaming.
As a Brit, (a nation with arguably some of the best sarcasm/irony in comedy)
I, too, find it extremely ironic that you Brits find your sarcasm comedic.
As a non-project-admin user of SF, my biggest problem with SF was the period of time when their search failed to work 95% of the time due to overload. I'm willing to bet Google Code never has that problem. I could be wrong.
On a different topic, for all the times that people complain that Slashdot is posting topics that are in their best interest, topics like this show me this isn't the case. Since OSTG owns both Sourceforge and Slashdot, this posting goes against their financial best interest. They have exposed their huge audience to a competitor.
I just think it's pretty arrogant to assume that you can use it without permission just because it's unsecured.
More than arrogant, I would say just plain wrong. If I leave my bike unsecured, would you feel you are in the right to jump on and ride away? I think not. If you did, I would definitely feel that I had the right to turn you upside down.
Thanks for the lessen in Trusted Computing. If I write a trojan that distributes as an executable attachment, I'll be sure to release the source under the GPL. Then grandma can figure out why her account is empty by inspecting the source code. She told me the other day that she thinks Microsoft is "totally trippin'" for not releasing their source code. She also said she thinks the GPL is "the bomb".
Not sure how your advice would help her though. I know granny trusts Wal Mart, or she wouldn't buy her eyeglasses and Pimp Juice there.
We only have ourselves to blame. All this time we've been complaining about DRM, we haven't been very specific. Next up, The Munsters soundtrack.
Not to be overly paranoid, but this is Microsoft we're discussing
I would emphasize that this is not Microsoft we are talking about. We are talking about Windows. If you read Microsoft's document you'll note it is titled "Windows Principles".
I've read the document carefully, and I see no indication that this philosophy extends to other products. Take for instance the Mappoint web services. A company can use the service to geocode data for use in the Mappoint desktop application. However, the license strictly prohibits the geocoded data from being used in competitive applications such as MapInfo, ESRI, or Google Earth.
On the surface, this appears to be a major philosophy shift for Microsoft. But digging in, it appears to be more-of-the-same except where required by law (ala past Windows antitrust rulings, and avoiding additional future action). I'll be impressed if/when they extend these principals to product lines that they aren't required to.
Who said anything about de facto standards? De facto standards are completely contrary to what everyone else is talking about when they say "standards". They are generally referring to open standards. Microsoft Word's doc format may be de facto, but it is in no way open. If two vendors implement Open Document Format, they can compete equally, and the one who makes the best document processor will likely win out. Conversely, using the de facto standard .doc, Open Office can never implement a word processor as well as Microsoft. The playing field isn't equal.
The internet was designed from the ground up to be an equal playing field, and we have open standards for a reason. De facto standards are never an acceptable alternative to open standards.