No Britney. Whine all you want about how great their independent and/or progressive artists are; if you can't get whatever you want to hear, it's not as good as Morpheus.
morpheus will soon be no longer. Kazaa, which runs the cache servers for morpheus and grokster, is being sued in dutch courts. They will either have to shutdown or pay $40,000 a day in copyright infringement fees.
Re:You don't need to guess:
on
Hacker U.
·
· Score: 0
Internet lawyer Eric Barbry disagrees. "It's like saying that if you leave your front door open, I can just walk into your house and wander around. Hacking is illegal.
hacking is actually closer to having a weak door, as people are smashing areas all around your house with baseball bats, until something caves in.
The fact that the US has a death penalty makes most Europeans want to puke. (You can be executed in the US for a crime you commited when you were under 18 FFS!)
Under the European Human Rights act, the right to life means that a suspect cannot be extradited to a terratory where they risk execution for thair crimes.
I guess when a 16 year old massacres his fellow students with an AK47, we should chalk it up as "just being a silly kid"
Under the European Human Rights act, the right to life means that a suspect cannot be extradited to a terratory where they risk execution for thair crimes.
sounds good to me. Serial killers and murderers should be given a light sentence, and set free into our society. Kinda like canada, where a guy that raped over 20 women, and videotaped it all, got only 3 years in prison.
That's exactly why serial killers hide in European countries(and Canada). NO DEATH PENALTY.
Given that XP costs exactly the same as linux or 98, most users go with 98.
Most computers come prepirated with a ghost image of 98se, office xp, acdsee and the other various useful apps.
this guy is somewhat correct.
In china, microsoft and linux are the exact same price ($0). Only the better of the two is going to win. Really (no matter what the zealout moderators would like to believe), the only leg linux has to stand on, is the fact that it is free (as in beer).
I can see why linux isn't popular in china. Why get an operating system that has no central location for patches and updates? or most importantly has sub-standard support for the chinese language? especially when you can get something that is supported by all vendors, and has 110% of the features you need for the SAME PRICE.
In many countries in the past, it has been easier and faster to obtain and use a pirated copy of Microsoft software than bother with another OS, such as Linux. This still appears to be the case. However, ever tightening anti-piracy methods by Microsoft may decrease the former ease of pirating MS software and lead to a [somewhat;)] higher chance of people utilizing Linux
so really, it has NOTHING to do with the fact that it is "free" as in speech or even a better operating system. The fact that china is even considering linux, is only because they don't have to pay a dime for it.
GNOME is not an independent software project; it is a part of the GNU system. This means GNOME does not exist just for its own success. It has a purpose: to provide the GNU system with a desktop. So while we should try to make GNOME successful (all else being equal), that's not the highest goal of the work on GNOME.
It seems the only reason stallman is even becoming a part of the GNOME project, is so he can serve his own political agenda. I think with stallman on board, the GNOME project will eventually fail.
Competition is also good (and im not talking about competition between open source and open source). If that wasn't the case, then why are monopolies so bad?
so, according to the figures, 95% of the artists would do fine if they puplished everything on mp3, and made money by touring.
plus they could still make money by airplay.
Would you by any chance be getting these Mp3's for FREE??
If recording studios were gone, and artists had to rely solely on the internet as their main income, you would be paying per mp3.
No, they don't. These companies have revenue measured in the trillions of dollars. They are owned by international conglomerates that are looking for 15% growth every year. 1/2 a mil is no big deal to these companies, as long as they find artists who engage in the "same thing, only new" method of creative development.
1/2 a million dollars isn't worth any less because "they have a trillion dollars". If a record company continued to lose 1/2 a million dollars on anyone they signed, they would surely go out of business. Think about it, if an artist DIDN'T want to make MONEY, they would just release their music to their friends, and hope it would get around to many more.
Free software doesn't mean cheap - the FSF sells collection CDs for something like 5 grand, and people pay it.
but..in essence it does. a person who releases their software under the GNU license
1) only gets money for the 1st copy sold IE. people can copy it all they want, and release it anywhere
2) is not allowed to re-release their code under a more "restrictive" license.
it has been said time and time again, why pay for something, when I can just DOWNLOAD it. I mean look at napster, as an example. (or 99.9% of the current linux distributions)
assertion that programs are generally useful technical information.
example: Microsoft Windows is useful technical information........for all their competitors.
Similarly, GNU grants you every freedom except one - you can't take freedom away from other people by relicensing the software with restrictive conditions that don't give the people the same freedom you had.
The GNU is equivalent to hiring a person in your company, but they would have the same rights to you (the boss).
One of the underlying assumptions that GNU has, (which I happen to agree with) is that programs are generally useful technical information, just like mathematical formulas or cooking recipies
You could make that bullshit claim about anything. Why not books? or television shows? or movies? how about music?
how does copying binaries of programs have anything to do with "free speech"? It doesn't. It's just a way to get out of paying for something, and a great excuse for the "freedom of the internet".
Open Source project was moved to a closed source license. They can do that, but all the old code remains freely available and was used to start (or continue) an open version.
From a commercial standpoint, this does pose a problem. Anyone and their brother can just GIVE your software away for free, and you can do NOTHING about it. (my rights as a programmer are given to the people using my software)
What other reason is there to go closed source, than to make money?
This is why it is a bad idea to ever release your code under the GPL, if you plan on closing the source.
using the GPL sacrifices the rights of the programmer, for the rights of the user.
I can't see how any school system, in their right mind, would want redhat linux on any of their systems. With the lack of educational software and or tech. support (if teachers are having a tough time learning windows, imagine the troubles they would encounter with linux).
Bottom line? In OSS there are no leaders, there are only people more knowledgeable and experienced than others. If you try to lead and you fail then you suppress ideas, and that causes forking, and then your project is doomed
with no leaders of a project, that project will be doomed anyway. Leaders are good for keeping people on track. (the people working on a specific project).
If people leave because it's no longer free, then you really didn't have much of a product to begin with.
not true. The only mistake made, was making it free in the first place. By doing so, you make the customer think it should be free ALL the time. If you are going to charge for a service, your best bet on getting customers, is to charge from the beginning. (Or offer a program, that grandfathers in customers that signed up in the beginning).
Slashdot Mirror
No Britney. Whine all you want about how great their independent and/or progressive artists are; if you can't get whatever you want to hear, it's not as good as Morpheus.
morpheus will soon be no longer. Kazaa, which runs the cache servers for morpheus and grokster, is being sued in dutch courts. They will either have to shutdown or pay $40,000 a day in copyright infringement fees.
Internet lawyer Eric Barbry disagrees. "It's like saying that if you leave your front door open, I can just walk into your house and wander around. Hacking is illegal.
hacking is actually closer to having a weak door, as people are smashing areas all around your house with baseball bats, until something caves in.
The fact that the US has a death penalty makes most Europeans want to puke. (You can be executed in the US for a crime you commited when you were under 18 FFS!)
Under the European Human Rights act, the right to life means that a suspect cannot be extradited to a terratory where they risk execution for thair crimes.
I guess when a 16 year old massacres his fellow students with an AK47, we should chalk it up as "just being a silly kid"
Under the European Human Rights act, the right to life means that a suspect cannot be extradited to a terratory where they risk execution for thair crimes.
sounds good to me. Serial killers and murderers should be given a light sentence, and set free into our society. Kinda like canada, where a guy that raped over 20 women, and videotaped it all, got only 3 years in prison.
That's exactly why serial killers hide in European countries(and Canada). NO DEATH PENALTY.
It seems to me that the only way to get freedom in this day and age is to use open source software. It enables something that M$ can't do.
the only problem is that what Microsoft is doing is also a freedom. You getting my sourcecode is not a right, its a privilege.
Given that XP costs exactly the same as linux or 98, most users go with 98.
Most computers come prepirated with a ghost image of 98se, office xp, acdsee and the other various useful apps.
this guy is somewhat correct.
In china, microsoft and linux are the exact same price ($0). Only the better of the two is going to win. Really (no matter what the zealout moderators would like to believe), the only leg linux has to stand on, is the fact that it is free (as in beer).
I can see why linux isn't popular in china. Why get an operating system that has no central location for patches and updates? or most importantly has sub-standard support for the chinese language? especially when you can get something that is supported by all vendors, and has 110% of the features you need for the SAME PRICE.
In many countries in the past, it has been easier and faster to obtain and use a pirated copy of Microsoft software than bother with another OS, such as Linux. This still appears to be the case. However, ever tightening anti-piracy methods by Microsoft may decrease the former ease of pirating MS software and lead to a [somewhat ;)] higher chance of people utilizing Linux
so really, it has NOTHING to do with the fact that it is "free" as in speech or even a better operating system. The fact that china is even considering linux, is only because they don't have to pay a dime for it.
GNOME is not an independent software project; it is a part of the GNU system. This means GNOME does not exist just for its own success. It has a purpose: to provide the GNU system with a desktop. So while we should try to make GNOME successful (all else being equal), that's not the highest goal of the work on GNOME.
It seems the only reason stallman is even becoming a part of the GNOME project, is so he can serve his own political agenda. I think with stallman on board, the GNOME project will eventually fail.
Competition is also good (and im not talking about competition between open source and open source). If that wasn't the case, then why are monopolies so bad?
'nuff said
the moderators are obviously OSS zealouts. I was just trying to make a fucking point.
I think it depends what you think is more important: great software or great profits
if you have great CLOSED sourced software you can get great PROFIT.
Even if you have great OPEN source software, you will never have a great PROFIT.
great software is great software, regardless of the amount of money you spend on it, and the license it is released under.
it's kinda interesting...
Back in the 80's MC Hammer was selling his own Cd's at clubs. The Record companies had to make a deal with him.
so, according to the figures, 95% of the artists would do fine if they puplished everything on mp3, and made money by touring.
plus they could still make money by airplay.
Would you by any chance be getting these Mp3's for FREE??
If recording studios were gone, and artists had to rely solely on the internet as their main income, you would be paying per mp3.
No, they don't. These companies have revenue measured in the trillions of dollars. They are owned by international conglomerates that are looking for 15% growth every year. 1/2 a mil is no big deal to these companies, as long as they find artists who engage in the "same thing, only new" method of creative development.
1/2 a million dollars isn't worth any less because "they have a trillion dollars". If a record company continued to lose 1/2 a million dollars on anyone they signed, they would surely go out of business. Think about it, if an artist DIDN'T want to make MONEY, they would just release their music to their friends, and hope it would get around to many more.
Free software doesn't mean cheap - the FSF sells collection CDs for something like 5 grand, and people pay it.
but..in essence it does. a person who releases their software under the GNU license
1) only gets money for the 1st copy sold IE. people can copy it all they want, and release it anywhere
2) is not allowed to re-release their code under a more "restrictive" license.
it has been said time and time again, why pay for something, when I can just DOWNLOAD it. I mean look at napster, as an example. (or 99.9% of the current linux distributions)
assertion that programs are generally useful technical information.
example: Microsoft Windows is useful technical information........for all their competitors.
Similarly, GNU grants you every freedom except one - you can't take freedom away from other people by relicensing the software with restrictive conditions that don't give the people the same freedom you had.
The GNU is equivalent to hiring a person in your company, but they would have the same rights to you (the boss).
One of the underlying assumptions that GNU has, (which I happen to agree with) is that programs are generally useful technical information, just like mathematical formulas or cooking recipies
You could make that bullshit claim about anything. Why not books? or television shows? or movies? how about music?
how does copying binaries of programs have anything to do with "free speech"? It doesn't. It's just a way to get out of paying for something, and a great excuse for the "freedom of the internet".
Open Source project was moved to a closed source license. They can do that, but all the old code remains freely available and was used to start (or continue) an open version.
From a commercial standpoint, this does pose a problem. Anyone and their brother can just GIVE your software away for free, and you can do NOTHING about it. (my rights as a programmer are given to the people using my software)
What other reason is there to go closed source, than to make money?
This is why it is a bad idea to ever release your code under the GPL, if you plan on closing the source.
using the GPL sacrifices the rights of the programmer, for the rights of the user.
So the user's freedom (power) is more important that the freedom (power) of the person who works on the program?
that's what stallman would like you to believe. The minute you create a program, like information, it needs to be "free".
I can't see how any school system, in their right mind, would want redhat linux on any of their systems. With the lack of educational software and or tech. support (if teachers are having a tough time learning windows, imagine the troubles they would encounter with linux).
how is not being able to go to a non-work related site, while getting paid.....opression?
from the photos on the gnu website, I think richard stallman needs to use SOAP. (more than once a year).
A real firewall admin will understand the protocols involved, and will have a hell of a lot better understanding of security issues than a programmer.
a real programmer will also understand the protocols invlolved.
I think a good sys admin should have experience in both programming and security. More so in the latter.
Bottom line? In OSS there are no leaders, there are only people more knowledgeable and experienced than others. If you try to lead and you fail then you suppress ideas, and that causes forking, and then your project is doomed
with no leaders of a project, that project will be doomed anyway. Leaders are good for keeping people on track. (the people working on a specific project).
why??
Because Microsoft is going to win the console war, by coming out with a BETTER console?
if their console is better than the rest, and people are using it, they deserve to have the control.
If people leave because it's no longer free, then you really didn't have much of a product to begin with.
not true. The only mistake made, was making it free in the first place. By doing so, you make the customer think it should be free ALL the time. If you are going to charge for a service, your best bet on getting customers, is to charge from the beginning. (Or offer a program, that grandfathers in customers that signed up in the beginning).