The funny thing is, just a couple weeks ago, I was thinking about this. If OSS really takes off, will we see companies releasing K-rad applications with advertisements plastered all over the source code, under some GPL-styled free-software license restricted only in that the ad space may not be removed?
I mean, just think-- source code-- already you've got a very technically literate demographic there. It's the ultimate focused-marketing scheme!
(P.S.: No, I don't actually think this has any chance of working in the real world }:-)
This can't possibly be a gag by Illiad. What will he say? April Fools! No company was ever suing me! Funny, eh?
This would not be funny. Illiad has expressed in very sincere terms his uneasiness and gratitude for the support of the community since the first e-mail was received. And let us not forget what sentiments this flagrant persecution of the underdog has already brought about.
I had never felt so appalled at the actions of Microsoft as when I first saw that the "Site Shut Down" page. (Yes, it is not yet known for certain that it is M$, but is there any other company that would have the gall to do this?) And yet at the same time, I felt a bit thrilled. Why?
Because Microsoft is going to regret this.
This is the sort of thing that can turn public opinion. Can you imagine how the media will see this? How many human-interest articles and sound bytes will relate how the multi-billion-dollar corporation shut down a lowly cartoonist's Web site because he made fun of them? How many interviews with Illiad will show that the only danger he poses to Microsoft is as a widely-read and loved member of the non-M$-friendly crowd? How many people will begin to SEE to what depths this supposed innovator of innovators will stoop to in its quest to control the computing technology milieu as we know it?
In the past, Microsoft has destroyed corporations. This was bad, but the victims were always faceless, branded entities. NOT SO HERE.
This is so cool! ReBoot actually had a third season! I thought Mainframe switched to making that Beast Wars crap after the second. (Why did ABC never @%^*@%(@&$ show the third season?? ReBoot was one of the best series they had ever!)
Now if Cartoon Network would pick up the old SatAM Sonic the Hedgehog series, life would be perfect....
I actually had a chance to see this in person. Nothing really impressive. Most of the entries were massive albeit formless blobs of Jell-O that didn't resemble any piece of computer equipment (nor an iMac for that matter *grin*). The only one that came close was frozen, or at least it had some major anti-jiggle countermeasures. Oh, and it had a real keyboard and mouse too:-P
I didn't hang around to see the winner. By the way, what the article and the header forgot to mention was that the grand prize to all this craziness was a brand-new iMac. Not that MIT students make things out of Jell-O just for the heck of it, ya know }:-)
It would be a boon to OSS. Right now, we're headed to a "license for every app" scheme that will lead to nothing but annoyance and legal difficulties on the part of users and developers alike.
A fact that does need to be addressed, however, is that not everyone wants their software under the same set of terms. The GPL isn't for everyone, no more than the BSD license is, or the MPL, etc.
A good approach, I think, would be a single yet variable license. Say, the XPL. Then one talk in terms of various flavors of this one license, e.g.:
XPL Level 1 - free for noncommercial use XPL Level 2 - modifications must be distributed as patches XPL Level 3 - source to modifications must be published XPL Level 4 - code can be made proprietary
Something along those lines. We would hear, "Xapp will be released under Level 4 XPL," "Apple will announce today it is changing the OSX license from Level 1 to Level 3," etc.
If all the big players in OSS put their heads together-- everyone from the FSF to the OSI, with a good team of lawyers to back them up-- this could happen.
I'm not sure I see the point of this license. So an author may charge for a program, with source. But as non-profit distribution is not restricted, anyone who has bought this program could then redistribute it at no charge, depriving the original author of income (for the software itself, that is).
It seems to me an unintended, although necessary side effect of "free speech" software licenses is that they are free in the beer sense as well. I may have misread a clause or two, but this is an interesting attempt to draw a distinction between the two. Also, all the positive emphasis on the GNU GPL can only be a good thing. Heck, this practically is the GPL, only delayed for two years.
Should be interesting to see how KOffice does. If it lives up to all the good words I've heard about it, that will become the QT app to be reckoned with.
(Will it need kwm to run, btw? I'd be one happy user if it'll work under plain X)
I assume you're talking about the WIMP paradigm (Windows, Icons, Menus, Pointers) and how GNOME doesn't really get out of that groove. I've wondered about this myself-- I mean, compare the super-well-thought-out UI and object-oriented-everythingness of GNUstep, and the far-out ideas that have been kicking around (e.g. AntiMac . . . now if only I had that URL!)
However, there doesn't seem to be any reason why GNOME 2.0 couldn't begin to move out of the WIMP mindset for a better one, whatever that will be. As long as you keep the old libraries around, and a well-behaved compatibility layer, all the DE-type integration should continue to work at a useful level (along with the legacy WIMPUI, naturally).
Disclaimer: I know nothing about GNOME's design, only GTK+. So, for anyone in the know, I'd like to ask this: Has the GNOME foundation been engineered to easily accomodate future evolutions (!=WIMP) of GUI design? Or would this be a case where we should want to build up a new codebase, when the time comes?
That's a very nifty idea, assuming it could work with a non-DE-specific XDM (no preference!) Just like a Solaris box, where you can choose right from the login screen: OpenLook or CDE.
(although why anyone would choose OpenLook is beyond me };-)
And the lovely thing is, it already exists for Unix. Once the support side is taken care of (more customers, anyone?:-) all they have to do is let gcc take a whack at it.
Still, however, remember that the word processor is only one part of your complete balanced office suite;-)
Aye, I have that problem too. Very annoying. The closest thing I've found to a cure is reading the material standing up, but that has its own problems:-[
The point is, when you need an anthropomorphic paperclip to make a program usable, there is something very, very wrong with the program.
It has been said often that the true killer-WP app will implement the ~20% of M$Office-type functionality that is used 99% of the time. (leaving the other 80% to LyX and friends, if not properly buried "Advanced" dialogs)
Slashdot Mirror
The funny thing is, just a couple weeks ago, I was thinking about this. If OSS really takes off, will we see companies releasing K-rad applications with advertisements plastered all over the source code, under some GPL-styled free-software license restricted only in that the ad space may not be removed?
I mean, just think-- source code-- already you've got a very technically literate demographic there. It's the ultimate focused-marketing scheme!
(P.S.: No, I don't actually think this has any chance of working in the real world }:-)
This can't possibly be a gag by Illiad. What will he say? April Fools! No company was ever suing me! Funny, eh?
This would not be funny. Illiad has expressed in very sincere terms his uneasiness and gratitude for the support of the community since the first e-mail was received. And let us not forget what sentiments this flagrant persecution of the underdog has already brought about.
I had never felt so appalled at the actions of Microsoft as when I first saw that the "Site Shut Down" page. (Yes, it is not yet known for certain that it is M$, but is there any other company that would have the gall to do this?) And yet at the same time, I felt a bit thrilled. Why?
Because Microsoft is going to regret this.
This is the sort of thing that can turn public opinion. Can you imagine how the media will see this? How many human-interest articles and sound bytes will relate how the multi-billion-dollar corporation shut down a lowly cartoonist's Web site because he made fun of them? How many interviews with Illiad will show that the only danger he poses to Microsoft is as a widely-read and loved member of the non-M$-friendly crowd? How many people will begin to SEE to what depths this supposed innovator of innovators will stoop to in its quest to control the computing technology milieu as we know it?
In the past, Microsoft has destroyed corporations. This was bad, but the victims were always faceless, branded entities. NOT SO HERE.
Long live freedom. Of speech and of software.
GOOD ONE!!! ;-D
Oh well, minor slip }:-)
I'll have to ask Mr. Stephenson one day how he manages to break the "quality vs. quantity" tradeoff. My god, can he write!
No end of fun here };-)
This is so cool! ReBoot actually had a third season! I thought Mainframe switched to making that Beast Wars crap after the second. (Why did ABC never @%^*@%(@&$ show the third season?? ReBoot was one of the best series they had ever!)
Now if Cartoon Network would pick up the old SatAM Sonic the Hedgehog series, life would be perfect....
I actually had a chance to see this in person. Nothing really impressive. Most of the entries were massive albeit formless blobs of Jell-O that didn't resemble any piece of computer equipment (nor an iMac for that matter *grin*). The only one that came close was frozen, or at least it had some major anti-jiggle countermeasures. Oh, and it had a real keyboard and mouse too :-P
I didn't hang around to see the winner. By the way, what the article and the header forgot to mention was that the grand prize to all this craziness was a brand-new iMac. Not that MIT students make things out of Jell-O just for the heck of it, ya know }:-)
Was anyone else struck a bit oddly by the article calling Cygnus "a start-up company" that was "founded in 1989?"
Doesn't that designation have some sort of expiration date?
Rob has posted! Let this day be remembered :-)
(Slashdot sysadmin, and only four posts in the last so many weeks? Guess the blurb on Wired was a bit off *grin*)
As I recall, the tools they used were on that platform. Probably SoftImage and friends.
Looks like someone forgot to pay their web-hosting fees. Oh well.
Ummm, why is the Crime Cities link pointing to an ISP?
Don't forget Opera, and KDE's (kfm) Konqueror! Someone here even mentioned once the latter would obsolete Mozilla.
(unlikely, IMHO, but the more, the merrier!)
It would be a boon to OSS. Right now, we're headed to a "license for every app" scheme that will lead to nothing but annoyance and legal difficulties on the part of users and developers alike.
A fact that does need to be addressed, however, is that not everyone wants their software under the same set of terms. The GPL isn't for everyone, no more than the BSD license is, or the MPL, etc.
A good approach, I think, would be a single yet variable license. Say, the XPL. Then one talk in terms of various flavors of this one license, e.g.:
XPL Level 1 - free for noncommercial use
XPL Level 2 - modifications must be distributed as patches
XPL Level 3 - source to modifications must be published
XPL Level 4 - code can be made proprietary
Something along those lines. We would hear, "Xapp will be released under Level 4 XPL," "Apple will announce today it is changing the OSX license from Level 1 to Level 3," etc.
If all the big players in OSS put their heads together-- everyone from the FSF to the OSI, with a good team of lawyers to back them up-- this could happen.
I'm not sure I see the point of this license. So an author may charge for a program, with source. But as non-profit distribution is not restricted, anyone who has bought this program could then redistribute it at no charge, depriving the original author of income (for the software itself, that is).
It seems to me an unintended, although necessary side effect of "free speech" software licenses is that they are free in the beer sense as well. I may have misread a clause or two, but this is an interesting attempt to draw a distinction between the two. Also, all the positive emphasis on the GNU GPL can only be a good thing. Heck, this practically is the GPL, only delayed for two years.
whoops . . . make that X+Qt :-]
Should be interesting to see how KOffice does. If it lives up to all the good words I've heard about it, that will become the QT app to be reckoned with.
(Will it need kwm to run, btw? I'd be one happy user if it'll work under plain X)
I assume you're talking about the WIMP paradigm (Windows, Icons, Menus, Pointers) and how GNOME doesn't really get out of that groove. I've wondered about this myself-- I mean, compare the super-well-thought-out UI and object-oriented-everythingness of GNUstep, and the far-out ideas that have been kicking around (e.g. AntiMac . . . now if only I had that URL!)
However, there doesn't seem to be any reason why GNOME 2.0 couldn't begin to move out of the WIMP mindset for a better one, whatever that will be. As long as you keep the old libraries around, and a well-behaved compatibility layer, all the DE-type integration should continue to work at a useful level (along with the legacy WIMPUI, naturally).
Disclaimer: I know nothing about GNOME's design, only GTK+. So, for anyone in the know, I'd like to ask this: Has the GNOME foundation been engineered to easily accomodate future evolutions (!=WIMP) of GUI design? Or would this be a case where we should want to build up a new codebase, when the time comes?
That's a very nifty idea, assuming it could work with a non-DE-specific XDM (no preference!) Just like a Solaris box, where you can choose right from the login screen: OpenLook or CDE.
(although why anyone would choose OpenLook is beyond me };-)
And the lovely thing is, it already exists for Unix. Once the support side is taken care of (more customers, anyone? :-) all they have to do is let gcc take a whack at it.
;-)
Still, however, remember that the word processor is only one part of your complete balanced office suite
Aye, I have that problem too. Very annoying. The closest thing I've found to a cure is reading the material standing up, but that has its own problems :-[
The point is, when you need an anthropomorphic paperclip to make a program usable, there is something very, very wrong with the program.
It has been said often that the true killer-WP app will implement the ~20% of M$Office-type functionality that is used 99% of the time. (leaving the other 80% to LyX and friends, if not properly buried "Advanced" dialogs)
Now THAT is as true as it gets!!!
};-D
> will pay to keep an employee who's job consists of updating a non-corporate website.
This isn't Rob you're talking about, is it?
I might be a bit out of the loop here, but who is Nate?