People use it for lower-grade hardware that they are still manufacturing today. Go buy a $39 "unlocked" phone at your local Fry's (search for a brand like Blu). What will it be running? Android 2.3. Which is wonderful.
That is one end of the scale, yes it is good that you can get a cheap device running an old OS but you have to remember this is unsupported and quite insecure. If you're ok with that then that's fine but again, that's only one end of the scale.
They are calling this "fragmentation," but it's really people who could never spend the money for a $400 dollar phone finally getting access to one to what was a $400 phone 5 years ago.
Point is it is unsupported, if there were some kind of "Android LTS" release that could be a supported version that at least receives security updates it would accomplish that goal and resolve the biggest problem associated with the current situation.
It can't run the latest O/S, but that's fine.
Is it? Well really that depends on what you're doing with it, don't expect it to safeguard your information particularly well.
Dear Lucian (article author): Not everyone in the world is rich. That does not mean there is a "critical problem" that Google needs to address.
Well there is the other end of the spectrum too, where users do spend $400 on a phone and never get updates (or the device becomes unsupported very quickly) and that is the real problem.
If you want to make this happen it won't come from Google.
Why not? They control the Open Handset Alliance and enforce a number of restrictions upon its members, length of support most definitely should and could be one of them.
No differentiation, i just misplaced the "(software-as-a-service)"... and i missed a (fucking!) coma after the "applications", and better change "become" to "became" (i am struggling with my English - see my sig!)
Ok.
I am not in the field (as you are from what i understand), so i can not name products: a (custom) ERP (SAP based i think) that is used from small-medium businesses in Greece, some internal public sector's (health/tax) services that went "on the cloud", etc.
If it's a custom ERP then why did the customer have the vendor move it to the cloud if they didn't want to? The whole point of custom software is that it is customized for the customer and does exactly what they want it to do.
I am not making much sense because i don't really know the subject (!)... at all (especially about the "cloud" issue)! But generally, as a former (non software) business owner, that was very dependent on IT, i can say that changing -some major or even minor parts of- your enterprise infrastructure is really problematic.
You shouldn't have to change your IT infrastructure in any significant way just to run a different (alternative) program.
Some (specialized) enterprise (software-as-a-service) applications that become "cloud ONLY" for no reason at all.
The concept of software-as-a-service is that it is cloud-based, I'm not sure what the differentiation is that you are making between SaaS and "cloud only". Perhaps if you specified the actual product(s) this would be clearer.
Either because such (open or closed) alternatives don't exist (which is rare i admit), or more usually because changing -some major or even minor parts of- your enterprise infrastructure is not cost effective.
What would you need to change in your enterprise infrastructure to accommodate a non-cloud alternative to a non-cloud product over a migration to a cloud only product that would be cost ineffective? You are obviously referring to something specific so perhaps specifying exactly what you mean is better than talking in generalities it isn't making much sense.
Well, "the cloud" is good, "the cloud ONLY" (especially when becomes that way after you commit to an application) is baaad
I'm not really aware of any specific cases of this actually happening, what product(s) are you referring to?
I was not referring specifically to (cloud) "office suites", but generally to "cloud services" (i did not made it clear, my fault!) that may (as i mentioned) become "cloud ONLY"
Yeah that's fine but you said "it may (as it is often the case now) mean "cloud ONLY"", that threw me. I'm not sure what products have added cloud integration and then become cloud only.
Again... i was not referring specifically to (cloud) "office suites", but generally to "cloud services" (i did not made it clear, my fault... again!).
Ok, maybe I'm on a different page on this to you but what are the usual reasons that prevent a move from cloud services to an open alternative?
What i meant was that i fear the "cloud ONLY integration" (yes, i know, i did not made it clear, my fault... again!!!)
So you mean not an addition of a cloud services feature but a removal of an existing feature then replaced with a cloud services only feature? I'm not sure I've seen such a thing happen but I suppose there's no reason it couldn't, though there's no reason a company couldn't just replace their program with a cloud-based one either, not really much you can do if they decide to do that.
Yes, this "cloud integration" thing is getting on my nerves; i understand that the "cloud" may be useful in some cases (personally i don't have any "cloud" use case), but the "integration" part is the dangerous thing because it may (as it is often the case now) mean "cloud ONLY"
Where does it mean "cloud ONLY"? I've been using google docs for ages and the documents can always be made available offline and viewable in the app on my phone as well as on the desktop and downloaded and opened in libreoffice. The cloud part is for storage, collaboration and easier sharing, but you can do all of that in the offline (or non-cloud) way if you prefer.
not only because of the usual reasons that always existed
You mean format incompatibilities? I haven't seen any document that has any significant problems importing between MS Office, LibreOffice or Google Docs, maybe years and years ago but not anymore. Have you actually got any examples (or instructions on how to create one)?
but also because the "Open alternatives" start to have... "more cloud integration"!
What's wrong with "cloud integration"? If you don't like that feature then don't use that feature. Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to use it.
Furthermore, engines come at a huge efficiency cost. Instead of knowing your own products, you've got to master someone elses.
Seriously that is the same stupid argument industry newbies and old fogies make for not using the C++ STL, the boost libraries, etc... and is the primary driver of NIH syndrome. Can you actually provide some statistics or real examples of cases where it is more cost-efficient to write your own comparable engine rather than licensing an existing one? I'm sure there are some for niche cases that mainstream engines don't serve (say you want to do primarily sparse voxel octree rendering) but for the most part you can extend an existing engine if there are bits and pieces you need that it doesn't provide.
$120 a year and it's a needless cost for anyone trying to get into gamedev.
It's pretty cheap and if you really don't want to spend it then use something else. But the $99 entry cost to iOS development doesn't exactly deter people, even hobbyists that make free programs for that platform.
Do you pay $6 for your toothpaste at 7-11, or $4 for the same brand and size at Walmart?
Well in that case you aren't actually negotiating with anybody, I think it's more that the potential reward of the sale to the vendor (if they even have the authority to set prices) and/or the savings value to customer is not worth the effort of negotiating. You don't go to 7-11 and try to convince them to sell you that $6 toothpaste for $4.
But you're absolutely right on higher priced items, it's worth the vendor cutting into their profit a little if it's the difference between making the sale and not, and there's obviously much more incentive for the customer if you're talking hundreds or thousands of dollars rather than tens of cents.
All monetary transactions are like that. Yet we don't negotiate for toothpaste, gas, etc.
Because it isn't worth it, either they would rather not have your business or you would rather just pay the set price than bother negotiating for it, not to mention most people selling toothpaste or gas aren't in the authoritative position to be able to change the price. However if you are talking about a house or a car these generally are worth negotiating for, so we do.
If you use software based on a BSD/Apache2 license, and someone extends it and makes the result non-open source, and the software you use begins to require these extensions, you don't have a secure upgrade path anymore. GPL solves this problem and guarantees that you will always have an upgrade path, because derivatives need to be open source.
But it doesn't. In the AGPL case it can easily call out to another proprietary web service or a different process just like the way GPL software can communicate with a proprietary process which creates a non-free workflow.
Switching architectures is fine in principle but in the past it has been about switching from a lower performance CPU to a higher performance one, emulating x86 on ARM is going the other way.
But, it has been nearly seven years since the iPad 2 came out; in "tech world", that's quite a long time
The iPad 2 was released in mid-March 2011, it is now end of March 2015. How are you calculating that to be nearly seven years? It's only just hit 4 years.
They are removing from users the choice of installing an operating system other than Windows on their hardware of choice.
If by "they" you mean the OEMs (not Microsoft) and you have an example of an OEM who has actually done that then yes perhaps you may have a point. But if your hardware "of choice" doesn't have the ability to choose what operating system you put on it then obviously you chose wrong.
Knowing this, Pixar should have released it free as in free
Nobody except FSF devotees considers something offered "free" to mean anything other than free of charge. If you interpret something offered "free" to mean free of restriction with an onus on the provider to also provide you the instructions and material associated to re-create a modified version of it then you're an idiot.
As if there weren't a bunch of free tools already?
There are some but few of industry quality so the defacto in the industry for the most part is Renderman.
I think anyone serious about making money is going to be either invested in a proper professional package, or has devoted to Blender et al.
Blender? How is Blender in any way an alternative or competitor to Renderman?
If Pixar wants some space here, it's simply because they want young talent to use their stuff.
Of course it is, that's why it's for non-commercial use. It's so you can learn a professional tool without having to pay for it when you aren't going to use it to make any money.
I guess the end result is, if you are young and want to maybe work for Pixar someday, learn this software, that way they won't have to train you and you're in.
Yeah because nobody in the CG industry except Pixar uses Renderman right?
Blender being open source and free to use for most anything, even commercial, vs the Pixar product that is "free", but only if you don't try to make any money with any creations YOU make from it.
Why are you comparing Blender and Renderman? It's apples and oranges, they aren't even the same kind of tool!
Renderman is now free of charge for non-commercial use, i.e. for evaluating it, creating your showreel or learning it so that when you move into the commercial space you are familiar with the industry tools. If these terms and limitations confuse you or upset you then just ignore this announcement and continue using something like POVRay or BMRT.
If your are carrying your unlocked phone, and you get mugged and hand over your phone, then the mugger now doesn't have to enter a passcode until he/she puts it down.
No one considers using fucking Android to be "running Linux" in the common sense.
Well what is "running Linux in the common sense"? If what you're saying is that GNU/Linux has a lot more GNU in it than non-GNU/Linux then that's obviously pretty redundant and makes no point at all.
Similarly, I don't "run Linux" when I use the seat-back terminal on a Virgin America flight or when i turn on a router.
Well that's not a personal computing sense, it isn't your computer but on a smartphone or a tablet it absolutely is. So which of the following is "running Linux in the common sense" and why: Ubuntu, Ubuntu Phone, Maemo, ChromeOS, Android?
RMS did not invent free software. But he was the first to espouse the philosophy of free software, and argue that it was an ethical and moral issue.
That's really the part that hasn't taken off though. Even Linux - Free Software's biggest claim to fame - is about open source and code sharing rather than the ethics and morals of the FSF.
This is something they knew, GCC could have easily had a license term (just like the GPL has with library linkage) that the input to it must be GPL-compatible and as such could only be used for Free Software but they didn't because people are more interested in getting things done than aligning with the FSF's philosophical point of view. This gives developers who use GCC the ability to not give the Free Software freedoms to other people and that is exactly the thing the FSF's restrictive licenses exist to prevent.
If you run Linux, you are likely using a lot more code written by RMS than by Linus.
Not really, this is where the distinction is important. If you run GNU/Linux then maybe, but if you run another Linux - like Android for example - you may find there is very little GNU in there.
That makes no sense. His idea was to have a 100% free unix. They started working on the hurd. Then Linux came along and it was under an acceptable license, so RMS declared that the problem was solved
However Linux isn't about Free Software and it doesn't assign copyrights to the FSF (so it will forever be GPLv2) so even though RMS is all upset about Tivoization it will continue to exist for Linux because Linus disagrees with RMS and sees Tivoization as a good thing because the philosophy of Linux is about sharing of code, not "freedom".
The world changed, we got more embedded systems and highspeed broadband which allowed for SaaS, the FSF copyright assignment meant these could be addressed with updated licenses to cater for changes to the technology sector but Linux not being about Free Software meant not handing the keys to the FSF and thus the quickest path compromise of using Linux has meant there is no real Free Software kernel.
Without copyright on software, the GPL does not need to exist.
No, that assertion demonstrates that you don't understand the difference between Freeware and Free Software. Without the GPL and Copyright I could take open source code, create a modification to it and distribute just the binary without the source code. Sure the lack of copyright would mean that people could redistribute that binary free of charge and restriction but there would be nothing to force me to release the source code modifications along with it. And that is one of the key elements of the GPL, in fact it is what differentiates it as a restrictive license from permissive licenses like BSD, MIT or Apache.
Slashdot Mirror
People use it for lower-grade hardware that they are still manufacturing today. Go buy a $39 "unlocked" phone at your local Fry's (search for a brand like Blu). What will it be running? Android 2.3. Which is wonderful.
That is one end of the scale, yes it is good that you can get a cheap device running an old OS but you have to remember this is unsupported and quite insecure. If you're ok with that then that's fine but again, that's only one end of the scale.
They are calling this "fragmentation," but it's really people who could never spend the money for a $400 dollar phone finally getting access to one to what was a $400 phone 5 years ago.
Point is it is unsupported, if there were some kind of "Android LTS" release that could be a supported version that at least receives security updates it would accomplish that goal and resolve the biggest problem associated with the current situation.
It can't run the latest O/S, but that's fine.
Is it? Well really that depends on what you're doing with it, don't expect it to safeguard your information particularly well.
Dear Lucian (article author): Not everyone in the world is rich. That does not mean there is a "critical problem" that Google needs to address.
Well there is the other end of the spectrum too, where users do spend $400 on a phone and never get updates (or the device becomes unsupported very quickly) and that is the real problem.
If you want to make this happen it won't come from Google.
Why not? They control the Open Handset Alliance and enforce a number of restrictions upon its members, length of support most definitely should and could be one of them.
No differentiation, i just misplaced the "(software-as-a-service)"... and i missed a (fucking!) coma after the "applications", and better change "become" to "became" (i am struggling with my English - see my sig!)
Ok.
I am not in the field (as you are from what i understand), so i can not name products: a (custom) ERP (SAP based i think) that is used from small-medium businesses in Greece, some internal public sector's (health/tax) services that went "on the cloud", etc.
If it's a custom ERP then why did the customer have the vendor move it to the cloud if they didn't want to? The whole point of custom software is that it is customized for the customer and does exactly what they want it to do.
I am not making much sense because i don't really know the subject (!)... at all (especially about the "cloud" issue)! But generally, as a former (non software) business owner, that was very dependent on IT, i can say that changing -some major or even minor parts of- your enterprise infrastructure is really problematic.
You shouldn't have to change your IT infrastructure in any significant way just to run a different (alternative) program.
Some (specialized) enterprise (software-as-a-service) applications that become "cloud ONLY" for no reason at all.
The concept of software-as-a-service is that it is cloud-based, I'm not sure what the differentiation is that you are making between SaaS and "cloud only". Perhaps if you specified the actual product(s) this would be clearer.
Either because such (open or closed) alternatives don't exist (which is rare i admit), or more usually because changing -some major or even minor parts of- your enterprise infrastructure is not cost effective.
What would you need to change in your enterprise infrastructure to accommodate a non-cloud alternative to a non-cloud product over a migration to a cloud only product that would be cost ineffective? You are obviously referring to something specific so perhaps specifying exactly what you mean is better than talking in generalities it isn't making much sense.
Well, "the cloud" is good, "the cloud ONLY" (especially when becomes that way after you commit to an application) is baaad
I'm not really aware of any specific cases of this actually happening, what product(s) are you referring to?
I was not referring specifically to (cloud) "office suites", but generally to "cloud services" (i did not made it clear, my fault!) that may (as i mentioned) become "cloud ONLY"
Yeah that's fine but you said "it may (as it is often the case now) mean "cloud ONLY"", that threw me. I'm not sure what products have added cloud integration and then become cloud only.
Again... i was not referring specifically to (cloud) "office suites", but generally to "cloud services" (i did not made it clear, my fault... again!).
Ok, maybe I'm on a different page on this to you but what are the usual reasons that prevent a move from cloud services to an open alternative?
What i meant was that i fear the "cloud ONLY integration" (yes, i know, i did not made it clear, my fault... again!!!)
So you mean not an addition of a cloud services feature but a removal of an existing feature then replaced with a cloud services only feature? I'm not sure I've seen such a thing happen but I suppose there's no reason it couldn't, though there's no reason a company couldn't just replace their program with a cloud-based one either, not really much you can do if they decide to do that.
Yes, this "cloud integration" thing is getting on my nerves; i understand that the "cloud" may be useful in some cases (personally i don't have any "cloud" use case), but the "integration" part is the dangerous thing because it may (as it is often the case now) mean "cloud ONLY"
Where does it mean "cloud ONLY"? I've been using google docs for ages and the documents can always be made available offline and viewable in the app on my phone as well as on the desktop and downloaded and opened in libreoffice. The cloud part is for storage, collaboration and easier sharing, but you can do all of that in the offline (or non-cloud) way if you prefer.
not only because of the usual reasons that always existed
You mean format incompatibilities? I haven't seen any document that has any significant problems importing between MS Office, LibreOffice or Google Docs, maybe years and years ago but not anymore. Have you actually got any examples (or instructions on how to create one)?
but also because the "Open alternatives" start to have... "more cloud integration"!
What's wrong with "cloud integration"? If you don't like that feature then don't use that feature. Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to use it.
Furthermore, engines come at a huge efficiency cost. Instead of knowing your own products, you've got to master someone elses.
Seriously that is the same stupid argument industry newbies and old fogies make for not using the C++ STL, the boost libraries, etc... and is the primary driver of NIH syndrome. Can you actually provide some statistics or real examples of cases where it is more cost-efficient to write your own comparable engine rather than licensing an existing one? I'm sure there are some for niche cases that mainstream engines don't serve (say you want to do primarily sparse voxel octree rendering) but for the most part you can extend an existing engine if there are bits and pieces you need that it doesn't provide.
$120 a year and it's a needless cost for anyone trying to get into gamedev.
It's pretty cheap and if you really don't want to spend it then use something else. But the $99 entry cost to iOS development doesn't exactly deter people, even hobbyists that make free programs for that platform.
What if the person making the game is a 10 year old kid to whom $120 is a few years of allowance?
Then use Unity since Crytek obviously isn't targeting such people.
Do you pay $6 for your toothpaste at 7-11, or $4 for the same brand and size at Walmart?
Well in that case you aren't actually negotiating with anybody, I think it's more that the potential reward of the sale to the vendor (if they even have the authority to set prices) and/or the savings value to customer is not worth the effort of negotiating. You don't go to 7-11 and try to convince them to sell you that $6 toothpaste for $4.
But you're absolutely right on higher priced items, it's worth the vendor cutting into their profit a little if it's the difference between making the sale and not, and there's obviously much more incentive for the customer if you're talking hundreds or thousands of dollars rather than tens of cents.
All monetary transactions are like that. Yet we don't negotiate for toothpaste, gas, etc.
Because it isn't worth it, either they would rather not have your business or you would rather just pay the set price than bother negotiating for it, not to mention most people selling toothpaste or gas aren't in the authoritative position to be able to change the price. However if you are talking about a house or a car these generally are worth negotiating for, so we do.
Clang/LLVM receives finance and contribution (and therefore an element of control) from Apple.
And GCC receives finance and contribution (and therefore an element of control) from Samsung, Red Hat, Oracle, etc...
If you use software based on a BSD/Apache2 license, and someone extends it and makes the result non-open source, and the software you use begins to require these extensions, you don't have a secure upgrade path anymore. GPL solves this problem and guarantees that you will always have an upgrade path, because derivatives need to be open source.
But it doesn't. In the AGPL case it can easily call out to another proprietary web service or a different process just like the way GPL software can communicate with a proprietary process which creates a non-free workflow.
That was what spurred this discussion:
If Apple were to install OSX on the iPad family of devices, that would indeed change the game again.
Hence my response.
Switching architectures is fine in principle but in the past it has been about switching from a lower performance CPU to a higher performance one, emulating x86 on ARM is going the other way.
But, it has been nearly seven years since the iPad 2 came out; in "tech world", that's quite a long time
The iPad 2 was released in mid-March 2011, it is now end of March 2015. How are you calculating that to be nearly seven years? It's only just hit 4 years.
They are removing from users the choice of installing an operating system other than Windows on their hardware of choice.
If by "they" you mean the OEMs (not Microsoft) and you have an example of an OEM who has actually done that then yes perhaps you may have a point. But if your hardware "of choice" doesn't have the ability to choose what operating system you put on it then obviously you chose wrong.
Knowing this, Pixar should have released it free as in free
Nobody except FSF devotees considers something offered "free" to mean anything other than free of charge. If you interpret something offered "free" to mean free of restriction with an onus on the provider to also provide you the instructions and material associated to re-create a modified version of it then you're an idiot.
As if there weren't a bunch of free tools already?
There are some but few of industry quality so the defacto in the industry for the most part is Renderman.
I think anyone serious about making money is going to be either invested in a proper professional package, or has devoted to Blender et al.
Blender? How is Blender in any way an alternative or competitor to Renderman?
If Pixar wants some space here, it's simply because they want young talent to use their stuff.
Of course it is, that's why it's for non-commercial use. It's so you can learn a professional tool without having to pay for it when you aren't going to use it to make any money.
I guess the end result is, if you are young and want to maybe work for Pixar someday, learn this software, that way they won't have to train you and you're in.
Yeah because nobody in the CG industry except Pixar uses Renderman right?
Blender being open source and free to use for most anything, even commercial, vs the Pixar product that is "free", but only if you don't try to make any money with any creations YOU make from it.
Why are you comparing Blender and Renderman? It's apples and oranges, they aren't even the same kind of tool!
Renderman is now free of charge for non-commercial use, i.e. for evaluating it, creating your showreel or learning it so that when you move into the commercial space you are familiar with the industry tools. If these terms and limitations confuse you or upset you then just ignore this announcement and continue using something like POVRay or BMRT.
To retain some small semblance of our privacy
If you want privacy then don't put your information on the public web.
If your are carrying your unlocked phone, and you get mugged and hand over your phone, then the mugger now doesn't have to enter a passcode until he/she puts it down.
So just drop it.
No one considers using fucking Android to be "running Linux" in the common sense.
Well what is "running Linux in the common sense"? If what you're saying is that GNU/Linux has a lot more GNU in it than non-GNU/Linux then that's obviously pretty redundant and makes no point at all.
Similarly, I don't "run Linux" when I use the seat-back terminal on a Virgin America flight or when i turn on a router.
Well that's not a personal computing sense, it isn't your computer but on a smartphone or a tablet it absolutely is. So which of the following is "running Linux in the common sense" and why: Ubuntu, Ubuntu Phone, Maemo, ChromeOS, Android?
RMS did not invent free software. But he was the first to espouse the philosophy of free software, and argue that it was an ethical and moral issue.
That's really the part that hasn't taken off though. Even Linux - Free Software's biggest claim to fame - is about open source and code sharing rather than the ethics and morals of the FSF.
This is something they knew, GCC could have easily had a license term (just like the GPL has with library linkage) that the input to it must be GPL-compatible and as such could only be used for Free Software but they didn't because people are more interested in getting things done than aligning with the FSF's philosophical point of view. This gives developers who use GCC the ability to not give the Free Software freedoms to other people and that is exactly the thing the FSF's restrictive licenses exist to prevent.
If you run Linux, you are likely using a lot more code written by RMS than by Linus.
Not really, this is where the distinction is important. If you run GNU/Linux then maybe, but if you run another Linux - like Android for example - you may find there is very little GNU in there.
That makes no sense. His idea was to have a 100% free unix. They started working on the hurd. Then Linux came along and it was under an acceptable license, so RMS declared that the problem was solved
However Linux isn't about Free Software and it doesn't assign copyrights to the FSF (so it will forever be GPLv2) so even though RMS is all upset about Tivoization it will continue to exist for Linux because Linus disagrees with RMS and sees Tivoization as a good thing because the philosophy of Linux is about sharing of code, not "freedom".
The world changed, we got more embedded systems and highspeed broadband which allowed for SaaS, the FSF copyright assignment meant these could be addressed with updated licenses to cater for changes to the technology sector but Linux not being about Free Software meant not handing the keys to the FSF and thus the quickest path compromise of using Linux has meant there is no real Free Software kernel.
Without copyright on software, the GPL does not need to exist.
No, that assertion demonstrates that you don't understand the difference between Freeware and Free Software. Without the GPL and Copyright I could take open source code, create a modification to it and distribute just the binary without the source code. Sure the lack of copyright would mean that people could redistribute that binary free of charge and restriction but there would be nothing to force me to release the source code modifications along with it. And that is one of the key elements of the GPL, in fact it is what differentiates it as a restrictive license from permissive licenses like BSD, MIT or Apache.