Irrelevant to the issue at hand, though people like the EFF have been pretty consistent in their stances over the years, and I support the EFF.
Hum...your 2nd response actually makes your 1st one a lot more understandable. I think maybe both of us were maybe on edge because of the nature of this beast.
So peace to you sir. I've a feeling we have more in common than not.
Fair enough. I almost did not post anything here because I could see that I was not knowledgeable enough about that MMOs pay model to really say anything of value. But I've got karma to burn so screw it heh.
On a side note, where was your sig for 8 years when we went from a federal surplus to a deficit?
I stand corrected. I still have to wonder thou, once Apple made the transition to x86 hardware, if trying to keep their own lingo about hardware is viable. But that is another subject.
All that being said I still was a bit hard on the OP and while I feel a little bad I still don't know if he even understands that there is a CPU there that could have failed, and or a cap, and or whatever that kinda does not make him very worthy to in my eyes. Sorry.
What exactly are the details behind this? I understand that Apple's walled garden really does not have to have any reason for what they allow or disallow. But I don't follow what Rémi is alluding too. (Disclaimer: I've not owned any Apple products since my//e and while I have worked on them they are not something I do much with.)
This really echoes a lot of what we've seen throughout the entertainment industry in general. It's really about letting players make their choices about how they play.
When I read this my BS alarm nearly knocked me off my chair. I get that when you are extracting money from people for data base entries, a very glib way of looking at it I know but bare with me here, you have to come up with some line of bs to mask that fact.
And I'm not trying to say that the guy has to be totally forthright. Further I know that people are indeed getting value for their dollar in terms of entertainment. But could he have said something that sounds a little less full of crap?
Sometimes when the/. editors post a story they editorialize it. This would have been a good time. Modern big media may be garbage but can we at least call a spade a spade here on/.?
"Idiots at Computerworld troll desperately for web page hits by trying to say that the keyboard will be replaced by touch screens."
Well I'm glad to see that we are on the same page. And while the numbers are only rumors BioWare has reportedly spent 300mil on the game. How that kind of money will stack up to Blizzards initial investment in both dollars spent and value per dollar is yet to be seen. However as far as it goes BioWare, even for their faults, are normally pretty good about not only spending the money that needs to be spent in order to turn out a product that can compete with the current norm. But getting good value for their dollars.
Back to content to wrap this up. And a bit about my history. I played AD&D way back in the day and then a lot of CRPGs after that. Of note I actually wrote and ran NWN PW (Persistent World, poor mans MMO at the time heh.) that was fairly popular. My method was rather than implement a lot of quests, my PW had a whopping total of 4, I made a lot of zones, custom items, and kept the code very clean and thus the game ran crisp and fast. In short it was a well done hack and slash.
My point? Content is not just about quests but about the zones, items, classes, professions, etc. So while you have talked a lot about the quests that WoW has, and yes it does indeed have a TON of them at this point; many of them quite polished (The new one in the Badlands about the 3 guys who 'fight' Deathwing is so much win.), that is only part of the content BioWare is going to need to bring to SW:TOR if they want to match up to what WoW has.
I'd love to see it myself. Blizzard has done a decent job with WoW but if there was an actual rival I think we would all win.
More clear but I do want to touch on a few points of what has made WoW what it is.
Bioware has a huge universe to draw from when making their game. But if they launch with the quests being mainly "Hey there, young Padawan, I've got a pest control problem, why don't you go beat up some womp rats for an hour" they will have failed to bring that universe to life in their game.
The thing that WoW had was ready made lore to builds a MMORPG on. While I do agree that there needs to be some immersion in the game, especially at the start, there has to be the standard Go Kill X boars (space boars in SW's case) for the game to function. Because otherwise...
I want Bioware to succeed, but they're going to have to create a *living* world that the players can dive into - they can't just have bunches of Star Wars themed things wrapped around mundane, been-there, done-that stuff.
And I could be wrong but what I see a lot of times from some people is the desire for a much more linear style of play. Like the Mass Effect series. Sure it's not 100% linear but it has a storyline, you follow it, you even can effect some of the outcomes but overall if you want to play the game you have to drive the plot eventually.
Not so in WoW. You can log in and decide today is the day you are going to level up a profession. Spend a whole afternoon picking flowers and then milling them into something. Or log in and do nothing but PvP, or run instances, or quest, or explore, or you get the idea. Sure if you want to drive the story along there are linear questlines you do and whatnot. But still you can 'play' the game with all of it's lore as the backdrop in a lot of different ways.
And to me that is what gives WoW it's power. It offers a lot and people can take as much of or as little of away from it as they need. If any other MMO is to get beyond a minor player stage it needs to have the depth that WoW does as well as what you talk about the backdrop, the world, to give it real feeling.
I think also that if any company can pull it off BioWare can. We will see if they do. The world is there with everything that is Star Wars. Now we will see if they can make a good MMO of it.
If people want to compete with WoW in this space they need to create a world.
Look, I agree with a lot of what you said but at the end there you totally stop making sense. The Star Wars world is not big enough to qualify?! 6 feature films, TV shows, books and comic books, and who even knows how much fan fiction is out there.
So look while I have my own opinions on Star Wars, BioWare, and MMOs. The idea that the Star Wars 'world' is not enough is simply ludicrous.
Don't act as if there is a disconnect between science and religion. Only the most ignorant theologians and scientists will tell you that there is. Some of the greatest scientific minds in history have belonged to one religion or another.
I'm sorry but I don't even know where to begin. Are you saying that religion, some of which state that the world is only thousands of years old, has no disconnect? And that is only one of many many examples.
I get that some people like yourself can have some sort of doublethink going on where you don't view the conflict but trying to justify it to those of who do not have such a world view is a little silly.
I'm not saying you can't have your 'faith' and the doublethink that then goes along with with trying to then rationalize it. But the implied insult about ignorance shows exactly why you sir are the one who has the issues. Not those of us who choose not to believe in mythology.
It is called a motherboard. On the mobo, as we geeks like to call it, there are a number of chips, caps (you'll have to look that one up), and other components that can fail. Oh yeah, and the freaking CPU.
Do you even know if the mobo failed or was it just the CPU? Oh...right your not really a geek your just some Apple nerd who does not even know what the parts of a computer are called.
If you had three brain cells to rub together, you'd have understood that I was using the third person in my quote. *I* don't believe that Net Neutrality is a takeover of the government. People like Glen Beck, Matt Drudge and Rush (the "right") do. I'm explaining their stance, not endorsing that.
Let us look back at what you said:
The "right" is against NN because they are paranoid of increased government powers. The power to regulate is the power to destroy, and all that.
All that we have to go on is a pair of quotes that put the right in the 3rd person. But in addition you then go on to add that 2nd line which does little to clarify the issue. At this point there is very little in the way of knowing exactly where you stand. However you do kinda make an attempt to clear things up at the end:
Personally, I disagree with both 'the left' and 'the right' on all three of these issues, so I don't know what kind of comforting label I can choose for myself, but don't show your ignorance by misrepresenting the stances of others.
Not really much in the way of clarification. If anything I've seen that line from a lot of the current libertarians and "tea baggers". Neither of which are all that far away from the right on points that matter and have their own set of kookie issues as well.
But lets put that all aside for the moment and get to the substance of the issue, since you avoided that part of my post. What exactly is your stance on "the right's" idea that the FCC is doing some sort of power grab when talking about NN when they were egging the Bush administration during it's 8 years of power grabs? Should we repeat that lie, as you did, or expose it?
The "right" is against NN because they are paranoid of increased government powers.
Wow you have been brainwashed.
Ok, if that were even close to the case where was 'the right' during the 8 years of HUGE power grabs during W's years? Oh they were busy telling anyone that if they disagreed with such measures that they were un-American and whatnot.
But seriously, if you have even the slightest bit of integrity you will apologize to everyone who had to read that and offer up something better.
You clearly miss the point. If this was MS they would be in full spin mode to a) deny that they did anything, it had to be someone else's fault, b) that what happened was not bad anyway, and c) some 3rd totally irrelevant, yet made out to be A REALLY BIG DEAL, point designed to distract people away from the real issue.
However I seriously doubt, given what I can tell from your post here, that you will ever really 'get it'.
That rag still exists? Wow, I thought they might have gone the way of the dodo by now.
Seriously, I remember picking one up when I was in some waiting room a few years ago and it was like the ad flyers I get in my mailbox but they spent the extra dime to include a few staples.
I really don't mind the future that David has outlined. But what has to happen is the social and governmental changes that come with the loss of personal privacy.
I guess I'm over hating Microsoft just to hate on them because dammit I want facts if I am gonna hate.
- The US market for cell phones is so fubared with contracts that the idea that an new OS is gonna change the market in a quarter is silly. - It is the holiday season and while there I'm sure are people that would give someone a new phone as a gift the econ is not exactly strong right now and there are plenty of other things that people are using as gifts as well. - Even thou a lot of sites/people that I trust have said that the Win7Mo OS is decent it's nothing groundbreaking like the iPhone OS was. As such to go back to my 1st point to expect that such a thing will change the market in a quarter is silly.
I know it's nothing new but I guess after enough exposure to it after the mass media has picked up the idea of making outrage up if there is none to be had I'd like/. to at least try harder.
The industry is about making money and because of that they are making games that will net the the most cash in the short term vs games that are good.
Now clearly that is not the case across the board but it is true to such a degree that it does color what we older gamers, who have seen a lot of games, will deal with. I personally have a hard time dealing with any RTS that does not have the depth of RON at this point but that RTS's depth was pretty crazy deep and coupled with its failed sales there is the idea that nobody wants to buy something like that. (Nevermind the fact that one of the bigger reasons it failed with a lot of the RTS community was it's awful MP support when dealing with NATs at a time when everyone starting using a NAT.)
I don't want to sound like Yahtzee too much but there comes a point when it's like this game is good but it's so much like God of War but not really even as good that why should I bother even trying something new? I can just keep giving my $15 a month to Acti-Blizzard for my WoW sub and deal with the imperfections there that I know and have come to love vs something new that will just annoy me.
Here, it's mostly teenage boys donning them. They're ignorant of history and what the Nazi swastika represents, and the crap that spews out of their mouths if they have a microphone only confirms their ignorance. It really does become offensive.
The problem is that this is not always true. If anything what we know about racism is that is learned. And the young are especially impressionable and I'm sorry but there are plenty of older racist parents around these days even if there has been some sort of collective North American acknowledgment that racism is bad. But saying something is bad just does not make it go away. If anything it causes those who believe in it to dig in and fight harder.
What tends to happen is something like this. The parents, and often times the community, has racist leanings. The scale may very but there is at the very least an undercurrent of racism that blames all that is wrong on 'those people'. So the kids start to look around to see what this ideology is about. And it's not too long before they find what happened during WW II and thus it begins.
Racism is nasty, insidious, and pervasive. As I said even the community can spread it even if the parent's are not actively making sure to counter what might be happening in their community. And sadly there are still plenty of places here in the US that have plenty of circles that racist.
Racism is not anywhere near dead. If anything it's pissed and looking to fight back. I don't agree with censorship at all, but because the long slog in trying to move culture away from it is far from a science I'm willing to accept some bits of censorship for now.
I apologize. I felt the tone of your last sentence was somewhat accusative, but my reply was definitively uncalled for.
Thank you.
That's not an ad-hominem, I was targeting your argument, not you. And frankly, while harsh that was what you were doing. If you feel that having a marketplace and selling GPL licensed software is wrong, fine, your opinion is as valid as anyone else's. But that was never the FSF position and I find it disrespectful of you to try to put words in their mouths.
It is a standard tactic in a debate to try and rephrase your argument such that you can get your point across. I fully understand that in this day and age that...some people have taken that to a new level but that was neither my intention or what I'd hope to do. If anything I tried to further my argument about why the idea of paying for FSF/GNU software is wrong.
And I am not trying to put words into anyone's mouth. I'm actually arguing from a GNU founder's POV, Richard Stallman, and as radical and sometimes silly as he is he's still gotten a lot of things right.
Personally, while I prefer free stuff (for obvious reasons), I think that encouraging people to pay a buck or two for apps would help FLOSS. And if they charge too much, someone will do like the CentOS people did and distribute it for free anyway:)
Your former point clearly I agree with. But your latter point is where I think is where we have a philosophical divide. FOSS should never imo be about any end user being asked to pay a single cent for use. Rather it is the machine that drives our infastructure that should be asked to pay for the development. As they are the ones who actually stand to gain from it.
Further and finally if someone chooses to write something in their spare time for the good of everyone, and then they choose to publish it under the GNU then it becomes part of the public works. Much like how we can perform Shakespeare, Mozart, or Bach today.
Hey hey hey, we are both on the same side here I think. Lets keep this civil. This:
Please, you can't even spell license.
Is not called for. I actually saw that slip though my spell-check as I clicked submit. But anyway, that is not the point. Please, lets keep the ad-hominem attacks down.
Just because you keep repeating it, doesn't make it true. RMS and the FSF have never changed their minds about it. It is and always OK to sell FLOSS software.
Again, easy with the ad-hominem killer. I'm on your side I think. I am just trying to make sure that the FSF/GNU model is not corrupted by the monetization of the FOSS software. You clearly argue that selling software FOSS is fine. I agree. But I am saying that saying that by virtue of what it is and what it stands for it should always be free matters more.
You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey...
The idea of setting up a 'marketplace' rather than a repository is I think in direct opposition to what the FSF/GNU philosophy is. I know of no 'marketplace' where I can go and get goods for free.
I do however know of many FSF/GNU repositories that I can update my FSF/GNU machines from for no cost. Will I be able to apt-get updates from such a 'marketplace' without having to go though a screen that says, "No thanks, I really don't want to give you some money at this point."
I really have no problem with people making money from FSF/GNU software. And I have no problem with the idea that people, if they so choose, can pay for something that is free. But I do not like at all the idea that they are going to setup a 'marketplace' because while you highlighted the former pat of the FSF's charter, I think the latter is much more important to keeping to the name.
And there is a proven lisence for people like you. It's called the BSD lisence and well you might have heard about a little company called Apple that has used it well.
Slashdot Mirror
Paranoia.
Irrelevant to the issue at hand, though people like the EFF have been pretty consistent in their stances over the years, and I support the EFF.
Hum...your 2nd response actually makes your 1st one a lot more understandable. I think maybe both of us were maybe on edge because of the nature of this beast.
So peace to you sir. I've a feeling we have more in common than not.
A lot of other people gave much more detailed explanations but thanks for trying thou!
Overall I have to admire the devs at VLC for taking the rep hit. They are standing up for what they believe and that has always been a rare thing.
Fair enough. I almost did not post anything here because I could see that I was not knowledgeable enough about that MMOs pay model to really say anything of value. But I've got karma to burn so screw it heh.
On a side note, where was your sig for 8 years when we went from a federal surplus to a deficit?
I stand corrected. I still have to wonder thou, once Apple made the transition to x86 hardware, if trying to keep their own lingo about hardware is viable. But that is another subject.
All that being said I still was a bit hard on the OP and while I feel a little bad I still don't know if he even understands that there is a CPU there that could have failed, and or a cap, and or whatever that kinda does not make him very worthy to in my eyes. Sorry.
What exactly are the details behind this? I understand that Apple's walled garden really does not have to have any reason for what they allow or disallow. But I don't follow what Rémi is alluding too. (Disclaimer: I've not owned any Apple products since my //e and while I have worked on them they are not something I do much with.)
This really echoes a lot of what we've seen throughout the entertainment industry in general. It's really about letting players make their choices about how they play.
When I read this my BS alarm nearly knocked me off my chair. I get that when you are extracting money from people for data base entries, a very glib way of looking at it I know but bare with me here, you have to come up with some line of bs to mask that fact.
And I'm not trying to say that the guy has to be totally forthright. Further I know that people are indeed getting value for their dollar in terms of entertainment. But could he have said something that sounds a little less full of crap?
Sometimes when the /. editors post a story they editorialize it. This would have been a good time. Modern big media may be garbage but can we at least call a spade a spade here on /.?
"Idiots at Computerworld troll desperately for web page hits by trying to say that the keyboard will be replaced by touch screens."
Little wordy but hey, I'm not an editor.
Well I'm glad to see that we are on the same page. And while the numbers are only rumors BioWare has reportedly spent 300mil on the game. How that kind of money will stack up to Blizzards initial investment in both dollars spent and value per dollar is yet to be seen. However as far as it goes BioWare, even for their faults, are normally pretty good about not only spending the money that needs to be spent in order to turn out a product that can compete with the current norm. But getting good value for their dollars.
Back to content to wrap this up. And a bit about my history. I played AD&D way back in the day and then a lot of CRPGs after that. Of note I actually wrote and ran NWN PW (Persistent World, poor mans MMO at the time heh.) that was fairly popular. My method was rather than implement a lot of quests, my PW had a whopping total of 4, I made a lot of zones, custom items, and kept the code very clean and thus the game ran crisp and fast. In short it was a well done hack and slash.
My point? Content is not just about quests but about the zones, items, classes, professions, etc. So while you have talked a lot about the quests that WoW has, and yes it does indeed have a TON of them at this point; many of them quite polished (The new one in the Badlands about the 3 guys who 'fight' Deathwing is so much win.), that is only part of the content BioWare is going to need to bring to SW:TOR if they want to match up to what WoW has.
I'd love to see it myself. Blizzard has done a decent job with WoW but if there was an actual rival I think we would all win.
More clear but I do want to touch on a few points of what has made WoW what it is.
Bioware has a huge universe to draw from when making their game. But if they launch with the quests being mainly "Hey there, young Padawan, I've got a pest control problem, why don't you go beat up some womp rats for an hour" they will have failed to bring that universe to life in their game.
The thing that WoW had was ready made lore to builds a MMORPG on. While I do agree that there needs to be some immersion in the game, especially at the start, there has to be the standard Go Kill X boars (space boars in SW's case) for the game to function. Because otherwise...
I want Bioware to succeed, but they're going to have to create a *living* world that the players can dive into - they can't just have bunches of Star Wars themed things wrapped around mundane, been-there, done-that stuff.
And I could be wrong but what I see a lot of times from some people is the desire for a much more linear style of play. Like the Mass Effect series. Sure it's not 100% linear but it has a storyline, you follow it, you even can effect some of the outcomes but overall if you want to play the game you have to drive the plot eventually.
Not so in WoW. You can log in and decide today is the day you are going to level up a profession. Spend a whole afternoon picking flowers and then milling them into something. Or log in and do nothing but PvP, or run instances, or quest, or explore, or you get the idea. Sure if you want to drive the story along there are linear questlines you do and whatnot. But still you can 'play' the game with all of it's lore as the backdrop in a lot of different ways.
And to me that is what gives WoW it's power. It offers a lot and people can take as much of or as little of away from it as they need. If any other MMO is to get beyond a minor player stage it needs to have the depth that WoW does as well as what you talk about the backdrop, the world, to give it real feeling.
I think also that if any company can pull it off BioWare can. We will see if they do. The world is there with everything that is Star Wars. Now we will see if they can make a good MMO of it.
If people want to compete with WoW in this space they need to create a world.
Look, I agree with a lot of what you said but at the end there you totally stop making sense. The Star Wars world is not big enough to qualify?! 6 feature films, TV shows, books and comic books, and who even knows how much fan fiction is out there.
So look while I have my own opinions on Star Wars, BioWare, and MMOs. The idea that the Star Wars 'world' is not enough is simply ludicrous.
Don't act as if there is a disconnect between science and religion. Only the most ignorant theologians and scientists will tell you that there is. Some of the greatest scientific minds in history have belonged to one religion or another.
I'm sorry but I don't even know where to begin. Are you saying that religion, some of which state that the world is only thousands of years old, has no disconnect? And that is only one of many many examples.
I get that some people like yourself can have some sort of doublethink going on where you don't view the conflict but trying to justify it to those of who do not have such a world view is a little silly.
I'm not saying you can't have your 'faith' and the doublethink that then goes along with with trying to then rationalize it. But the implied insult about ignorance shows exactly why you sir are the one who has the issues. Not those of us who choose not to believe in mythology.
They replaced the logic board...
It is called a motherboard. On the mobo, as we geeks like to call it, there are a number of chips, caps (you'll have to look that one up), and other components that can fail. Oh yeah, and the freaking CPU.
Do you even know if the mobo failed or was it just the CPU? Oh...right your not really a geek your just some Apple nerd who does not even know what the parts of a computer are called.
If you had three brain cells to rub together, you'd have understood that I was using the third person in my quote. *I* don't believe that Net Neutrality is a takeover of the government. People like Glen Beck, Matt Drudge and Rush (the "right") do. I'm explaining their stance, not endorsing that.
Let us look back at what you said:
The "right" is against NN because they are paranoid of increased government powers. The power to regulate is the power to destroy, and all that.
All that we have to go on is a pair of quotes that put the right in the 3rd person. But in addition you then go on to add that 2nd line which does little to clarify the issue. At this point there is very little in the way of knowing exactly where you stand. However you do kinda make an attempt to clear things up at the end:
Personally, I disagree with both 'the left' and 'the right' on all three of these issues, so I don't know what kind of comforting label I can choose for myself, but don't show your ignorance by misrepresenting the stances of others.
Not really much in the way of clarification. If anything I've seen that line from a lot of the current libertarians and "tea baggers". Neither of which are all that far away from the right on points that matter and have their own set of kookie issues as well.
But lets put that all aside for the moment and get to the substance of the issue, since you avoided that part of my post. What exactly is your stance on "the right's" idea that the FCC is doing some sort of power grab when talking about NN when they were egging the Bush administration during it's 8 years of power grabs? Should we repeat that lie, as you did, or expose it?
The "right" is against NN because they are paranoid of increased government powers.
Wow you have been brainwashed.
Ok, if that were even close to the case where was 'the right' during the 8 years of HUGE power grabs during W's years? Oh they were busy telling anyone that if they disagreed with such measures that they were un-American and whatnot.
But seriously, if you have even the slightest bit of integrity you will apologize to everyone who had to read that and offer up something better.
If this was MS that posted user data...
You clearly miss the point. If this was MS they would be in full spin mode to a) deny that they did anything, it had to be someone else's fault, b) that what happened was not bad anyway, and c) some 3rd totally irrelevant, yet made out to be A REALLY BIG DEAL, point designed to distract people away from the real issue.
However I seriously doubt, given what I can tell from your post here, that you will ever really 'get it'.
That rag still exists? Wow, I thought they might have gone the way of the dodo by now.
Seriously, I remember picking one up when I was in some waiting room a few years ago and it was like the ad flyers I get in my mailbox but they spent the extra dime to include a few staples.
I really don't mind the future that David has outlined. But what has to happen is the social and governmental changes that come with the loss of personal privacy.
I guess I'm over hating Microsoft just to hate on them because dammit I want facts if I am gonna hate.
- The US market for cell phones is so fubared with contracts that the idea that an new OS is gonna change the market in a quarter is silly.
- It is the holiday season and while there I'm sure are people that would give someone a new phone as a gift the econ is not exactly strong right now and there are plenty of other things that people are using as gifts as well.
- Even thou a lot of sites/people that I trust have said that the Win7Mo OS is decent it's nothing groundbreaking like the iPhone OS was. As such to go back to my 1st point to expect that such a thing will change the market in a quarter is silly.
I know it's nothing new but I guess after enough exposure to it after the mass media has picked up the idea of making outrage up if there is none to be had I'd like /. to at least try harder.
The industry is about making money and because of that they are making games that will net the the most cash in the short term vs games that are good.
Now clearly that is not the case across the board but it is true to such a degree that it does color what we older gamers, who have seen a lot of games, will deal with. I personally have a hard time dealing with any RTS that does not have the depth of RON at this point but that RTS's depth was pretty crazy deep and coupled with its failed sales there is the idea that nobody wants to buy something like that. (Nevermind the fact that one of the bigger reasons it failed with a lot of the RTS community was it's awful MP support when dealing with NATs at a time when everyone starting using a NAT.)
I don't want to sound like Yahtzee too much but there comes a point when it's like this game is good but it's so much like God of War but not really even as good that why should I bother even trying something new? I can just keep giving my $15 a month to Acti-Blizzard for my WoW sub and deal with the imperfections there that I know and have come to love vs something new that will just annoy me.
Here, it's mostly teenage boys donning them. They're ignorant of history and what the Nazi swastika represents, and the crap that spews out of their mouths if they have a microphone only confirms their ignorance. It really does become offensive.
The problem is that this is not always true. If anything what we know about racism is that is learned. And the young are especially impressionable and I'm sorry but there are plenty of older racist parents around these days even if there has been some sort of collective North American acknowledgment that racism is bad. But saying something is bad just does not make it go away. If anything it causes those who believe in it to dig in and fight harder.
What tends to happen is something like this. The parents, and often times the community, has racist leanings. The scale may very but there is at the very least an undercurrent of racism that blames all that is wrong on 'those people'. So the kids start to look around to see what this ideology is about. And it's not too long before they find what happened during WW II and thus it begins.
Racism is nasty, insidious, and pervasive. As I said even the community can spread it even if the parent's are not actively making sure to counter what might be happening in their community. And sadly there are still plenty of places here in the US that have plenty of circles that racist.
Racism is not anywhere near dead. If anything it's pissed and looking to fight back. I don't agree with censorship at all, but because the long slog in trying to move culture away from it is far from a science I'm willing to accept some bits of censorship for now.
I apologize. I felt the tone of your last sentence was somewhat accusative, but my reply was definitively uncalled for.
Thank you.
That's not an ad-hominem, I was targeting your argument, not you. And frankly, while harsh that was what you were doing.
If you feel that having a marketplace and selling GPL licensed software is wrong, fine, your opinion is as valid as anyone else's. But that was never the FSF position and I find it disrespectful of you to try to put words in their mouths.
It is a standard tactic in a debate to try and rephrase your argument such that you can get your point across. I fully understand that in this day and age that...some people have taken that to a new level but that was neither my intention or what I'd hope to do. If anything I tried to further my argument about why the idea of paying for FSF/GNU software is wrong.
And I am not trying to put words into anyone's mouth. I'm actually arguing from a GNU founder's POV, Richard Stallman, and as radical and sometimes silly as he is he's still gotten a lot of things right.
Personally, while I prefer free stuff (for obvious reasons), I think that encouraging people to pay a buck or two for apps would help FLOSS. And if they charge too much, someone will do like the CentOS people did and distribute it for free anyway :)
Your former point clearly I agree with. But your latter point is where I think is where we have a philosophical divide. FOSS should never imo be about any end user being asked to pay a single cent for use. Rather it is the machine that drives our infastructure that should be asked to pay for the development. As they are the ones who actually stand to gain from it.
Further and finally if someone chooses to write something in their spare time for the good of everyone, and then they choose to publish it under the GNU then it becomes part of the public works. Much like how we can perform Shakespeare, Mozart, or Bach today.
I don't want speed from ZFS, I will do that via hardware.
I what the tech from ZFS to give me everything that it does.
Why judge a Nascar on it's performance when it runs on a Rally car track? (I am a bit of a car geek so I think that is a pretty good /. car analogy! ;)
Hey hey hey, we are both on the same side here I think. Lets keep this civil. This:
Please, you can't even spell license.
Is not called for. I actually saw that slip though my spell-check as I clicked submit. But anyway, that is not the point. Please, lets keep the ad-hominem attacks down.
Just because you keep repeating it, doesn't make it true. RMS and the FSF have never changed their minds about it. It is and always OK to sell FLOSS software.
Again, easy with the ad-hominem killer. I'm on your side I think. I am just trying to make sure that the FSF/GNU model is not corrupted by the monetization of the FOSS software. You clearly argue that selling software FOSS is fine. I agree. But I am saying that saying that by virtue of what it is and what it stands for it should always be free matters more.
You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey...
The idea of setting up a 'marketplace' rather than a repository is I think in direct opposition to what the FSF/GNU philosophy is. I know of no 'marketplace' where I can go and get goods for free.
I do however know of many FSF/GNU repositories that I can update my FSF/GNU machines from for no cost. Will I be able to apt-get updates from such a 'marketplace' without having to go though a screen that says, "No thanks, I really don't want to give you some money at this point."
I really have no problem with people making money from FSF/GNU software. And I have no problem with the idea that people, if they so choose, can pay for something that is free. But I do not like at all the idea that they are going to setup a 'marketplace' because while you highlighted the former pat of the FSF's charter, I think the latter is much more important to keeping to the name.
And there is a proven lisence for people like you. It's called the BSD lisence and well you might have heard about a little company called Apple that has used it well.
The right to interstate travel without government interference has been upheld by the courts: flying is a right, not a privilege.
Do you really think our current supreme court would not reverse that precedent after Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission?