Yes there is the code of their paying customers but they would get no where as a startup without access to the great wealth of open source code, and while they are closed source themselves they have somewhat paid back by reporting the bugs they found to each project.
Yes we don't observer, we celebrate. As I wrote there is even a special cake http://www.ritorno.se/wp-conte... that you eat to celebrate the death of Gustavus Adolphus. Other deaths are observed or commemorated depending upon the person or situation but Gustavus Adolphus in particular is celebrated.
It's a culture difference that probably is very hard for foreigners to understand but we Swedes tend to "celebrate" military losses and deaths of kings. Mostly celevrated is the deaths of Gustaf II Adolf (which is his Swedish name) and King Charles XII both in November (the 6th and the 30th). Our biggest military failure, which is the Wasa Ship which sank at it's christening, is something that we are wery proud of and display in a museum:)
We hade one "incident" on a prior workplace where we had a French CEO visiting on the 6th of November and when he noticed that every one where eating a special cake (as one does in the memory of Gustaf II Adolf) or own CEO then said "we celebrate that the Germans killed our king", the french guy looked like he was on candid camera or something:-D
If you don't think that Open Source software have bugs fixed by people all over the world right now "to a significant extent" you must be living in denial. Granted it does not happen to 100% of all projects but if a product is running FLOSS you can be sure to a big percentage that there is some one else hacking it.
He wasn't to fat for his horse, he simply got lost in the massive fog at Lützen. Well known fact in Sweden since we celebrate his death every year om the 6th of November.
According to rumor Hoovers dirt files where seen as so dangerous that when he died people rushed to get to those files not to use them themselves but to make sure that they where burned.
Exactly. What gets people like him upset is the sudden uprising of shootings in Gothenburg. However if one looks at the numbers; there where a total of 50 reported shootings in 2014 with a total of 4 deaths and 24 injured, his position seams even more ludicrous.
Version bumps only happen if you insist on putting several project into the same repository. And even then you can get per project version in "svn info" and "svn log" (and probably via other means as well).
As to your second statement, what? Please explain because that is nothing that I have ever seen after using SVN for decades.
When I say I hate CVS with a passion, I have to also say that if there any SVN users (Subversion users) in the audience, you might want to leave. Because my hatred of CVS has meant that I see Subversion as being the most pointless project ever started, because the whole slogan for the Subversion for a while was 'CVS done right' or something like that. And if you start with that kind of slogan, there is nowhere you can go. It's like, there is no way to do CVS right.
Which is what I have said consistently in each post. Then he talks about branching and merging which is a huge pain in CVS, a fact that no one argues. In fact it's one of the main reasons that SVN was created in the first place. So no that does not apply to SVN as well. And finally he talks about using SCM in a distributed model which is completely uninteresting for what we argue (since the project in TFS is not distributed and that no one here have argued that SVN would be a preferred choice in a distributed project).
So no I actually think that it's you who don't really understand what you saw and heard, you don't like SVN and that bias made you interpret his talk in a different way than what he actually said. Nothing strange about that, it's just the way the human mind works.
Because of the "CVS done right" yes, not because he actually have used or even tried SVN. When you see or read what Linus says you have to first understand that he is very satirical most of the time. I know that this is a foreign concept to many people (mostly Americans) but this is very common among the Nordic countries (from which Linus orginates).
I saw that Tech Talk went it first aired and there is nothing in it that has anything to do with SVN. Linus does not like CVS and he then jokes that the people behind SVN is insane since they believe that they can perform "CVS done right". He has no opinion what so ever about SVN, he hasn't used SVN and if you don't get that he is joking in that video then I'm sorry for you.
If you want to claim that a piece of software that works for millions of people "doesn't work" then you have to come up with some proof of that and not just post a satirical video of Linus. I have personally used SVN for years in multiple projects and workplaces and it did indeed work just fine.
SVN works just fine for tons of projects, developers and companies. It would probably not work great for a project such as the Linux kernel but top poster does not seam to have that requirement.
Could there have been a slight chance that she really meant if the scenes where authentic but didn't phrase the question correctly? Just hoping that people are not that stupid...
I think that you are absolutely right. Take for example all those who refuse to wear seatbelts because they are afraid to be stuck in a car since they know that cars always explode after a crash. Since movies and tv series display things that most people have no direct experience of (like how it's like to be a president or a police officer) then what you see on the screen probably registers as experience in their brains.
This is also why trends in movies change what people see as authentic. For example in the 70:ties there where a change from authentic looking blood to the massively red colored movie blood that is still used today. That change was done in order to avoid MPAA ratings since the blood looked obviously fake, but now decades later if you shoot a movie with real authentic blood, people will complain in droves that it doesn't look authentic:-)
Yes all source code is fully available on our public ftp server. Now using GPL is much easier for me than it's for you since what we sell isn't the applications as such. What we do is sell financial data (stock market, forex, etc data) so our income is for the data provided and not for the applications as such which of course is vastly different from a pure application developer like you.
However, all our competitors are only selling their data with closed binary applications and API:s, and one of our main benefits over those competitors are in fact some of our software (especially our datafeed to sql application), a leverage that they could remove in anytime by simply changing our software to also accepting their data streams and thus making it easy for our customers to just switch supplier. Another drawback for us to release our sources is that it exposes our highly compressed datafeed protocol something that in our industry otherwise is seem as highly protected IP (since we are in the business to (among other things) deliver as much data using as little resources [bandwidth having to be one of them] as possible)
However I do feel that releasing all our software under the GPL has benefits that trump the potential downsides; for example we had one customer who uses Solaris and since they could simply download the source and compile our stuff themselves they could become paying and happy customers (otherwise I would simply have to tell them that "sorry we do not support Solaris"). And we have received some patches from end users that fixed things in configurations which we would probably never be in position of.
Regarding your point #4, integration is not a problem (and we have our stuff integrated into some systems already) since those parts (our API) are released under LGPL. Selling the company is not something that we have an interest in ever, there is no exit plan.
GPL does not imply that you sell your software and have to give it away if anyone wants it for free. It only means that you have to give the source code to any of your paying customers if they ask for it. So you don't have to give it to any one else, of course one of your paying customers could then compile a binary and put up on their website or a torrent site. However this they can do today even without the source since they can simply put your closed binary on any torrent site. The difference is of course that with GPL they would be legally in the clear but that does not seam to prevent any one from pirating software today.
That it does not fully fit your market model is something that I do understand and I'm in no way trying to convince you to switch to GPL or whatever, I simply pointed out that it's possible to sell GPL software (since I do it myself I know that it's possible). And do I think that GPL FLIF will see wide adoptance? Hell no.
Why must it be "desktop applications"? Software is more diverse than that. Red Hat for one is quite profitable. I myself work for a company where all our client side software is released as GPL3, now our business is not selling software since we sell a service but who cares exactly where the money comes in?
Or the developer behind it hopes to sell a proprietary license to those who want's it. It appears that it's a single developer so he can relicense the whole codebase whenever he chooses.
There is nothing prohibiting you from selling GPL3 software. You have to give all your customers access to your source code if they ask for it, but you can still charge money for it.
Well you are entitled to your opinion but I think that you must be in the minority to enjoy reduced contrast. And Ambilight have nothing to do with reducing contrast, it's a way to extend the extend the colours of the image beyond the television screen to improve "immersion". Myself I prefer to not use either reduced contrast or Ambilight.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes there is the code of their paying customers but they would get no where as a startup without access to the great wealth of open source code, and while they are closed source themselves they have somewhat paid back by reporting the bugs they found to each project.
Yes we don't observer, we celebrate. As I wrote there is even a special cake http://www.ritorno.se/wp-conte... that you eat to celebrate the death of Gustavus Adolphus. Other deaths are observed or commemorated depending upon the person or situation but Gustavus Adolphus in particular is celebrated.
And how many of these 98% are forked into new maintained projects? If it's completely abandoned then it probably also does not have any users?
Where do you think companies such as Coverty finds source code to improve their scanners, it's probably not in closed software.
It's a culture difference that probably is very hard for foreigners to understand but we Swedes tend to "celebrate" military losses and deaths of kings. Mostly celevrated is the deaths of Gustaf II Adolf (which is his Swedish name) and King Charles XII both in November (the 6th and the 30th). Our biggest military failure, which is the Wasa Ship which sank at it's christening, is something that we are wery proud of and display in a museum :)
We hade one "incident" on a prior workplace where we had a French CEO visiting on the 6th of November and when he noticed that every one where eating a special cake (as one does in the memory of Gustaf II Adolf) or own CEO then said "we celebrate that the Germans killed our king", the french guy looked like he was on candid camera or something :-D
If you don't think that Open Source software have bugs fixed by people all over the world right now "to a significant extent" you must be living in denial. Granted it does not happen to 100% of all projects but if a product is running FLOSS you can be sure to a big percentage that there is some one else hacking it.
He wasn't to fat for his horse, he simply got lost in the massive fog at Lützen. Well known fact in Sweden since we celebrate his death every year om the 6th of November.
According to rumor Hoovers dirt files where seen as so dangerous that when he died people rushed to get to those files not to use them themselves but to make sure that they where burned.
Exactly. What gets people like him upset is the sudden uprising of shootings in Gothenburg. However if one looks at the numbers; there where a total of 50 reported shootings in 2014 with a total of 4 deaths and 24 injured, his position seams even more ludicrous.
Version bumps only happen if you insist on putting several project into the same repository. And even then you can get per project version in "svn info" and "svn log" (and probably via other means as well).
As to your second statement, what? Please explain because that is nothing that I have ever seen after using SVN for decades.
When I say I hate CVS with a passion, I have to also say that if there any SVN users (Subversion users) in the audience, you might want to leave. Because my hatred of CVS has meant that I see Subversion as being the most pointless project ever started, because the whole slogan for the Subversion for a while was 'CVS done right' or something like that. And if you start with that kind of slogan, there is nowhere you can go. It's like, there is no way to do CVS right.
Which is what I have said consistently in each post. Then he talks about branching and merging which is a huge pain in CVS, a fact that no one argues. In fact it's one of the main reasons that SVN was created in the first place. So no that does not apply to SVN as well. And finally he talks about using SCM in a distributed model which is completely uninteresting for what we argue (since the project in TFS is not distributed and that no one here have argued that SVN would be a preferred choice in a distributed project).
So no I actually think that it's you who don't really understand what you saw and heard, you don't like SVN and that bias made you interpret his talk in a different way than what he actually said. Nothing strange about that, it's just the way the human mind works.
Because of the "CVS done right" yes, not because he actually have used or even tried SVN. When you see or read what Linus says you have to first understand that he is very satirical most of the time. I know that this is a foreign concept to many people (mostly Americans) but this is very common among the Nordic countries (from which Linus orginates).
I saw that Tech Talk went it first aired and there is nothing in it that has anything to do with SVN. Linus does not like CVS and he then jokes that the people behind SVN is insane since they believe that they can perform "CVS done right". He has no opinion what so ever about SVN, he hasn't used SVN and if you don't get that he is joking in that video then I'm sorry for you.
If you want to claim that a piece of software that works for millions of people "doesn't work" then you have to come up with some proof of that and not just post a satirical video of Linus. I have personally used SVN for years in multiple projects and workplaces and it did indeed work just fine.
SVN works just fine for tons of projects, developers and companies. It would probably not work great for a project such as the Linux kernel but top poster does not seam to have that requirement.
Could there have been a slight chance that she really meant if the scenes where authentic but didn't phrase the question correctly? Just hoping that people are not that stupid...
I think that you are absolutely right. Take for example all those who refuse to wear seatbelts because they are afraid to be stuck in a car since they know that cars always explode after a crash. Since movies and tv series display things that most people have no direct experience of (like how it's like to be a president or a police officer) then what you see on the screen probably registers as experience in their brains.
This is also why trends in movies change what people see as authentic. For example in the 70:ties there where a change from authentic looking blood to the massively red colored movie blood that is still used today. That change was done in order to avoid MPAA ratings since the blood looked obviously fake, but now decades later if you shoot a movie with real authentic blood, people will complain in droves that it doesn't look authentic :-)
Yes all source code is fully available on our public ftp server. Now using GPL is much easier for me than it's for you since what we sell isn't the applications as such. What we do is sell financial data (stock market, forex, etc data) so our income is for the data provided and not for the applications as such which of course is vastly different from a pure application developer like you.
However, all our competitors are only selling their data with closed binary applications and API:s, and one of our main benefits over those competitors are in fact some of our software (especially our datafeed to sql application), a leverage that they could remove in anytime by simply changing our software to also accepting their data streams and thus making it easy for our customers to just switch supplier. Another drawback for us to release our sources is that it exposes our highly compressed datafeed protocol something that in our industry otherwise is seem as highly protected IP (since we are in the business to (among other things) deliver as much data using as little resources [bandwidth having to be one of them] as possible)
However I do feel that releasing all our software under the GPL has benefits that trump the potential downsides; for example we had one customer who uses Solaris and since they could simply download the source and compile our stuff themselves they could become paying and happy customers (otherwise I would simply have to tell them that "sorry we do not support Solaris"). And we have received some patches from end users that fixed things in configurations which we would probably never be in position of.
Regarding your point #4, integration is not a problem (and we have our stuff integrated into some systems already) since those parts (our API) are released under LGPL. Selling the company is not something that we have an interest in ever, there is no exit plan.
Link to our website since you asked about which company I work for: https://millistream.com/ and complete sources can be found at our ftp server: ftp://ftp.millistream.com/
GPL does not imply that you sell your software and have to give it away if anyone wants it for free. It only means that you have to give the source code to any of your paying customers if they ask for it. So you don't have to give it to any one else, of course one of your paying customers could then compile a binary and put up on their website or a torrent site. However this they can do today even without the source since they can simply put your closed binary on any torrent site. The difference is of course that with GPL they would be legally in the clear but that does not seam to prevent any one from pirating software today.
That it does not fully fit your market model is something that I do understand and I'm in no way trying to convince you to switch to GPL or whatever, I simply pointed out that it's possible to sell GPL software (since I do it myself I know that it's possible). And do I think that GPL FLIF will see wide adoptance? Hell no.
Why must it be "desktop applications"? Software is more diverse than that. Red Hat for one is quite profitable. I myself work for a company where all our client side software is released as GPL3, now our business is not selling software since we sell a service but who cares exactly where the money comes in?
This is already the case regardless of your license since all software can be found for free on torrent sites, and before that on the BBS:es.
Ah, know I get it. Tough test to do though since a screenshot could be of anything really.
Or the developer behind it hopes to sell a proprietary license to those who want's it. It appears that it's a single developer so he can relicense the whole codebase whenever he chooses.
There is nothing prohibiting you from selling GPL3 software. You have to give all your customers access to your source code if they ask for it, but you can still charge money for it.
It's lossless so just like PNG there is no difference to the resulting image before or after compression.
Well you are entitled to your opinion but I think that you must be in the minority to enjoy reduced contrast. And Ambilight have nothing to do with reducing contrast, it's a way to extend the extend the colours of the image beyond the television screen to improve "immersion". Myself I prefer to not use either reduced contrast or Ambilight.