The owners are very respected members in the Amiga community long before they became the owners. Though this is a new technology it is made by the people who made the orginal Amiga great, THE AMIGA COMMUNITY!
OK, I'll accept that there are some old Amiga people involved with the current platform. That still doesn't explain why they want to call it the Amiga!
If they wanted to come out and say they are forming a new company to develop a new platform, that would be fine (and accurate). "From the original developers of the Amiga, we present ClueOS 9000!" or something.
Actually, is this new operating system going to be backward compatible with the old Amiga apps? If they did that, then I would retract my statement since it would appear that they are trying to really make a successor to the Amiga. However, I haven't seen anything to that effect. If it's a total break with the past, then what roots of the Amiga are in it?
I am really tired of all the college kids screaming "but its not free". HELLO, WAKEUP !!!
While I agree with you in the general sense, he actually has a point in this case. It's not uncommon to give away developer kits when you are trying to attract developers to a new platform.
This said, it could be a lot worse at $99. That was one of things that held Apple back for years was the outrageous prices they charged for their developer kits.
I can't believe many people are getting caught up in this total marketing scam. The only thing they are taking from the old Amiga is the name. I mean, it's great that they are trying to build a new platform and all, but why call it the Amiga? What does the old Amiga of 1984 have to do with this thing at all?
I don't know; maybe they'll come out with something and it'll be cool. But why do I have the feeling it's going to be a Caddyshack II? (or name your own bad sequel where some genius producer decides to make a movie whose only purpose is tack onto the success of the first movie)
on another note, are we sure that this wasn't a publicity stunt by madonna's pr people to get more people to get the mp3? i would never have even thought to search for a new madonna single had there not been an article.
Finally an original thought regarding Napster!
I don't if that's true, but it would be a brilliant move. If Madonna didn't intend it to be a PR stunt, you can bet that someone will do it in the future.
Who doesn't want something for nothing? Heck, I want everything for free, too. But the bottom line is that someone's work is not being compensated if I download music without paying for it.
The capacity for rationalization on this issue is amazing.
How can they block distribution of something they let anyone download. I would think it just as strange of GNU to allow anyone copying and changing but not to copy the source CD and share it with others.
Actually, GNU does have somewhat similiar restrictions. You cannot share binaries unless you also share the source code. Also, you cannot share the source code if the source code is used as part of another product, unless you also release that product's source code.
Now, you may or may not agree with those restrictions, but the point is that GNU has put very specific restrictions on what you can or can't do with their material. It could just as easily be restrictive in some other direction.
Note, by the way, that this is one of the biggest criticisms of the GPL, namely that it's not truly "free" (as in freedom). That's why many people prefer the BSD license, which is truly non restrictive.
But, back to the point, the GPL is an example of a license that can restrict your behavior, even though it's freely downloadable, and in fact, you don't actually sign anything. Here is the relevent section in the GPL:
You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
Yes, thats what Euclid thought too when he wrote Elements.
Er, I think there was a wee bit less competition back then when there was probably an average of about 10 books published per year.
The fact is, we are overwhelmed with information in today's society. There is no way we can even read 1/1000th of all the information that is available to us at any given time. To rise above all that noise is extremely difficult. In fact, one could say that it's remarkable that anyone rises above it.
Publishers are not just tree processors. You're going to run into the same problem that the people on mp3.com run into... no promotion. Who is going to know who you are? It takes expertise and most of all, big $$$ to create a demand for an unknown author.
There is a reason that publishers (and record companies...) get a big cut. They are taking a big risk by publishing you. It's way more likely that your book will crater rather than being even a modest success. That big cut is paying for the failures.
So ask yourself this question: If I self-publish, how am I going to get anyone to read my book? I know for me, I am much more likely to read a new author that has been published by a "real" publisher. At least I know that has gone through a few levels of crap filtering.
Really, this is not much different from the arguments regarding the use of force in defending one's home against a burglar.
Well, it's not quite the same. If a burglar breaks into my house, there is no question he's guilty and I would have no guilt about shooting him. For an electronic break-in, you can't necessarily identify the guilty part all that easily.
Okay explain sonmething, how is it drones think it's MS's original work through and through?
I don't think anyone thinks that. At least I don't know anyone. Obviously there might be someone out there, but I think the issue is commonly debated in the context of "Microsoft extended the Kerberos protocol" -- which implies that Kerberos was external to Microsoft.
I just don't understand how they can assume distribution rights to something they let anyone download.
How is it that "anyone" can download gcc, yet be bound by the GPL license, which controls distribution and use of that downloaded material?
What if I'm configuring a telecommunications server that will run in a rack for its entire lifetime and the users will never even know they're using it? I don't want it slowed down by unnecessary "enhancements" to the OS.
It really depends on how you define "OS". IE is not part of the Kernel, but it is part of the shell. IE is an object in the same way that KDE has a browser object integrated into their shell (their file browser, for example).
Unfortunately, most people just hear "IE is part of the OS" and start screaming, rather than realize that both KDE and Gnome are doing exactly the same thing.
Also, it's not going to slow down the OS having an IE object that's not used sitting around. Anymore than KDE is slowed down by the ability to display web pages.
[I hate to beat this hamburgerized-horse some more, but...]
Actually, I think a very good case can be made that a browser is an important part of an operating system.
What is a browser, fundamentally? It's a mechanism for displaying formatted text, which is in a well-specified format. That is incredibly useful! Just like "man" or "info" displays man pages, a browser can display help information is a very general way. You'll note that both KDE and Gnome use their browser for their help systems.
Just like you need a program like "notepad" to display regular text, a browser is a great tool for displaying formatted text.
Basically it says that they would never do such a thing and shrugs it off as mere sensationalism.
I'm really pissed off at CmdrTaco's arrogance. That's NOT what he said. What he said (quite rightly) is that people are not bothering to read and understand what the license agreement said. It does not say that Apogee has the right to ban negative reviews (as if they could reserve that right anyway), it simply grants the use of their copyrighted materials for use by their fan base, but only under certain conditions. Obviously they want to be able to retain some control.
I don't blame Miller for laughing it off -- because the whole premise is laughable. Wouldn't be a great world if people actually thought things through before jumping to conclusions?
--
Re:Advertise god dammit, the revolution is out of
on
TurboLinux Layoffs
·
· Score: 1
They do in fact claim copyright of Kerberos.
No, the claim copyright on a document they wrote that documents an extension to the Kerberos protocol. It also happens contain parts of the Kerberos specification. You'll note that it's not a complete specification.
Claiming copyright on an original extension to Kerberos is a far cry from claiming to have "invented Kerberos".
Turns out anyone could download it.
Anyone can download it and view it if they agree to the terms of the license.
You know what this reminds me of? Those awful membrane keyboards, where there is no key travel and you're never sure if you pressed the button or not.
I mean, how can this possibly be an advance? Does Apple have something against tactile feedback? Bottom line, how will this make me more efficient at using the computer?
--
Re:Advertise god dammit, the revolution is out of
on
TurboLinux Layoffs
·
· Score: 1
That's just it. They don't have to.
Thank you for admitting that they didn't ever say that, like you accused them of.
Then they call all software Microsoft. Not even MS Excel. Just MS.
I've never heard anyone use the word Microsoft as a generic term for software. And I suspect you haven't either. The idea is absurd.
Having said that... "Designed for the Internet", now if they can get away with claiming that plus claiming invention of Kerberos (how many ppl know it was an open unix standard for years?), what's next.
Once again: reference please. When has Microsoft ever claimed to have invented Kerberos? Of course, if you can't come up with anything, you will look like a fool (once again).
I could point out rationally that if Microsoft wanted to claim that they invented Kerberos, step 1 would be to change the name. But I suspect rationality is the last thing you are interested in.
I probably wasn't clear. I don't mean code that could still be compiled, I mean code that literally has been obfuscated with "X" characters or something. Another way to say it is, why not just release the GPL parts but excise the original parts?
As far as I know, the GPL doesn't (and can't) require all the source code in the company to be released just because some GPL code sneaks in.
--
Re:Advertise god dammit, the revolution is out of
on
TurboLinux Layoffs
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft, the creator of the rotting tower of best selling APIs aka the Windows series is getting away with claiming invention of the Net.
Reference, please. When has Microsoft ever claimed to have invented the Internet.
Of course, if you can't produce something except "well, I can't find anything now, but I saw it once! I did! I did!", you will look like a complete fool.
Something just occurred to me. If a company uses part of GPL code in their product, what is to stop them from obfuscating all the non-GPL code, and releasing that? That way they are technically allowing downloads of "GPL code", while still keeping it closed source. This is, of course, assuming that a majority or important minority of the code is original.
I recently upgraded my system from Win/98 to Win/2000. It's a Celeron 433 with 128 meg (although, I'm not sure what the memory has to do with transparency). The system seems much snappier than it was before. As for the transparency effect, it's extremely smooth, even on a large transparency (like moving a lot of files).
Now, I'm also running a TNT graphics card. Perhaps you need a decent graphics card to get smooth performance of transparency? (that doesn't seem unreasonable...)
Does this use some sort of backing-store, or does uncovering a bunch of semi-transparent windows cause expose events for every window? If the latter, it would seem like it would be very flashy when uncovering windows.
On another note, an X server written in Java sounds really gross and slow. What next -- Perl? (although that does sound kind of cool in a hackish sort of way)
--
Sorry, Katz, this is not new
on
Virtual War
·
· Score: 2
Once again, a writer states the obvious, and the "intellectuals" wring their hands that the sky has begun to fall.
Who was it who said in the Fourteenth century that "war was obsolete" with the invention of the crossbow? Why did he say that? Because it was the beginning of accurate, deadly war at a distance. It was all about "remote" killing of the enemy, while providing maximal protection of your own forces.
It amazes me that Katz believes protecting your forces from harm is a new style of war. Every defensive technology is about protecting your forces, from mechanized tanks to cruise missiles launched from ships.
Now, this is not to say that the nature of war has not changed in the 20th century. Clearly weapons of mass destruction are new (Mutual Assured Destruction), but that's all that is new in the art of warfare. Ironically, MAD has been the most stabilizing influence in history.
You are so used to buying your culture that you have forgotten how to make it. Go and sing a song with your friends. You'll be delighted by the results.
You are mixing two totally different ideas. That's like saying, "Don't watch professional sports; go and play with your friends. You'll be delighted by the results."
Well, what is wrong with doing both? Watching a world-class athlete (or musician) is a completely different experience than doing it myself. One is a social experience, and one is experiencing the awe of the epitome of human greatness.
Rather than my repeat my last post, reread it and think about it. The greatest music and art has always been sponsored. Today it's usually corporations, in the past it was royalty, the rich and the church.
Thinking that world-class music and art have ever been developed without sponsorship is just mindless idealism.
Slashdot Mirror
The owners are very respected members in the Amiga community long before they became the owners. Though this is a new technology it is made by the people who made the orginal Amiga great, THE AMIGA COMMUNITY!
OK, I'll accept that there are some old Amiga people involved with the current platform. That still doesn't explain why they want to call it the Amiga!
If they wanted to come out and say they are forming a new company to develop a new platform, that would be fine (and accurate). "From the original developers of the Amiga, we present ClueOS 9000!" or something.
Actually, is this new operating system going to be backward compatible with the old Amiga apps? If they did that, then I would retract my statement since it would appear that they are trying to really make a successor to the Amiga. However, I haven't seen anything to that effect. If it's a total break with the past, then what roots of the Amiga are in it?
--
I am really tired of all the college kids screaming "but its not free". HELLO, WAKEUP !!!
While I agree with you in the general sense, he actually has a point in this case. It's not uncommon to give away developer kits when you are trying to attract developers to a new platform.
This said, it could be a lot worse at $99. That was one of things that held Apple back for years was the outrageous prices they charged for their developer kits.
--
I can't believe many people are getting caught up in this total marketing scam. The only thing they are taking from the old Amiga is the name. I mean, it's great that they are trying to build a new platform and all, but why call it the Amiga? What does the old Amiga of 1984 have to do with this thing at all?
I don't know; maybe they'll come out with something and it'll be cool. But why do I have the feeling it's going to be a Caddyshack II? (or name your own bad sequel where some genius producer decides to make a movie whose only purpose is tack onto the success of the first movie)
--
on another note, are we sure that this wasn't a publicity stunt by madonna's pr people to get more people to get the mp3? i would never have even thought to search for a new madonna single had there not been an article.
Finally an original thought regarding Napster!
I don't if that's true, but it would be a brilliant move. If Madonna didn't intend it to be a PR stunt, you can bet that someone will do it in the future.
--
...no, not the record companies. Napster users.
Who doesn't want something for nothing? Heck, I want everything for free, too. But the bottom line is that someone's work is not being compensated if I download music without paying for it.
The capacity for rationalization on this issue is amazing.
--
How can they block distribution of something they let anyone download. I would think it just as strange of GNU to allow anyone copying and changing but not to copy the source CD and share it with others.
Actually, GNU does have somewhat similiar restrictions. You cannot share binaries unless you also share the source code. Also, you cannot share the source code if the source code is used as part of another product, unless you also release that product's source code.
Now, you may or may not agree with those restrictions, but the point is that GNU has put very specific restrictions on what you can or can't do with their material. It could just as easily be restrictive in some other direction.
Note, by the way, that this is one of the biggest criticisms of the GPL, namely that it's not truly "free" (as in freedom). That's why many people prefer the BSD license, which is truly non restrictive.
But, back to the point, the GPL is an example of a license that can restrict your behavior, even though it's freely downloadable, and in fact, you don't actually sign anything. Here is the relevent section in the GPL:
--
Yes, thats what Euclid thought too when he wrote Elements.
Er, I think there was a wee bit less competition back then when there was probably an average of about 10 books published per year.
The fact is, we are overwhelmed with information in today's society. There is no way we can even read 1/1000th of all the information that is available to us at any given time. To rise above all that noise is extremely difficult. In fact, one could say that it's remarkable that anyone rises above it.
--
Publishers are not just tree processors. You're going to run into the same problem that the people on mp3.com run into... no promotion. Who is going to know who you are? It takes expertise and most of all, big $$$ to create a demand for an unknown author.
There is a reason that publishers (and record companies...) get a big cut. They are taking a big risk by publishing you. It's way more likely that your book will crater rather than being even a modest success. That big cut is paying for the failures.
So ask yourself this question: If I self-publish, how am I going to get anyone to read my book? I know for me, I am much more likely to read a new author that has been published by a "real" publisher. At least I know that has gone through a few levels of crap filtering.
--
Really, this is not much different from the arguments regarding the use of force in defending one's home against a burglar.
Well, it's not quite the same. If a burglar breaks into my house, there is no question he's guilty and I would have no guilt about shooting him. For an electronic break-in, you can't necessarily identify the guilty part all that easily.
--
Okay explain sonmething, how is it drones think it's MS's original work through and through?
I don't think anyone thinks that. At least I don't know anyone. Obviously there might be someone out there, but I think the issue is commonly debated in the context of "Microsoft extended the Kerberos protocol" -- which implies that Kerberos was external to Microsoft.
I just don't understand how they can assume distribution rights to something they let anyone download.
How is it that "anyone" can download gcc, yet be bound by the GPL license, which controls distribution and use of that downloaded material?
--
What if I'm configuring a telecommunications server that will run in a rack for its entire lifetime and the users will never even know they're using it? I don't want it slowed down by unnecessary "enhancements" to the OS.
It really depends on how you define "OS". IE is not part of the Kernel, but it is part of the shell. IE is an object in the same way that KDE has a browser object integrated into their shell (their file browser, for example).
Unfortunately, most people just hear "IE is part of the OS" and start screaming, rather than realize that both KDE and Gnome are doing exactly the same thing.
Also, it's not going to slow down the OS having an IE object that's not used sitting around. Anymore than KDE is slowed down by the ability to display web pages.
--
[I hate to beat this hamburgerized-horse some more, but...]
Actually, I think a very good case can be made that a browser is an important part of an operating system.
What is a browser, fundamentally? It's a mechanism for displaying formatted text, which is in a well-specified format. That is incredibly useful! Just like "man" or "info" displays man pages, a browser can display help information is a very general way. You'll note that both KDE and Gnome use their browser for their help systems.
Just like you need a program like "notepad" to display regular text, a browser is a great tool for displaying formatted text.
--
Basically it says that they would never do such a thing and shrugs it off as mere sensationalism.
I'm really pissed off at CmdrTaco's arrogance. That's NOT what he said. What he said (quite rightly) is that people are not bothering to read and understand what the license agreement said. It does not say that Apogee has the right to ban negative reviews (as if they could reserve that right anyway), it simply grants the use of their copyrighted materials for use by their fan base, but only under certain conditions. Obviously they want to be able to retain some control.
I don't blame Miller for laughing it off -- because the whole premise is laughable. Wouldn't be a great world if people actually thought things through before jumping to conclusions?
--
They do in fact claim copyright of Kerberos.
No, the claim copyright on a document they wrote that documents an extension to the Kerberos protocol. It also happens contain parts of the Kerberos specification. You'll note that it's not a complete specification.
Claiming copyright on an original extension to Kerberos is a far cry from claiming to have "invented Kerberos".
Turns out anyone could download it.
Anyone can download it and view it if they agree to the terms of the license.
--
You know what this reminds me of? Those awful membrane keyboards, where there is no key travel and you're never sure if you pressed the button or not.
I mean, how can this possibly be an advance? Does Apple have something against tactile feedback? Bottom line, how will this make me more efficient at using the computer?
--
That's just it. They don't have to.
Thank you for admitting that they didn't ever say that, like you accused them of.
Then they call all software Microsoft. Not even MS Excel. Just MS.
I've never heard anyone use the word Microsoft as a generic term for software. And I suspect you haven't either. The idea is absurd.
Having said that... "Designed for the Internet", now if they can get away with claiming that plus claiming invention of Kerberos (how many ppl know it was an open unix standard for years?), what's next.
Once again: reference please. When has Microsoft ever claimed to have invented Kerberos? Of course, if you can't come up with anything, you will look like a fool (once again).
I could point out rationally that if Microsoft wanted to claim that they invented Kerberos, step 1 would be to change the name. But I suspect rationality is the last thing you are interested in.
--
I probably wasn't clear. I don't mean code that could still be compiled, I mean code that literally has been obfuscated with "X" characters or something. Another way to say it is, why not just release the GPL parts but excise the original parts?
As far as I know, the GPL doesn't (and can't) require all the source code in the company to be released just because some GPL code sneaks in.
--
Microsoft, the creator of the rotting tower of best selling APIs aka the Windows series is getting away with claiming invention of the Net.
Reference, please. When has Microsoft ever claimed to have invented the Internet.
Of course, if you can't produce something except "well, I can't find anything now, but I saw it once! I did! I did!", you will look like a complete fool.
--
Something just occurred to me. If a company uses part of GPL code in their product, what is to stop them from obfuscating all the non-GPL code, and releasing that? That way they are technically allowing downloads of "GPL code", while still keeping it closed source. This is, of course, assuming that a majority or important minority of the code is original.
--
I have this mental image of little bits travelling to the outer reaches of India, saying "I think I can, I think I can, I think I can..."
I think it's time for my Lithium pill now.
--
Since W2K seems to support transparency, has anyone seen a transparent-window hack that makes all the windows transparent?
--
I recently upgraded my system from Win/98 to Win/2000. It's a Celeron 433 with 128 meg (although, I'm not sure what the memory has to do with transparency). The system seems much snappier than it was before. As for the transparency effect, it's extremely smooth, even on a large transparency (like moving a lot of files).
Now, I'm also running a TNT graphics card. Perhaps you need a decent graphics card to get smooth performance of transparency? (that doesn't seem unreasonable...)
--
Does this use some sort of backing-store, or does uncovering a bunch of semi-transparent windows cause expose events for every window? If the latter, it would seem like it would be very flashy when uncovering windows.
On another note, an X server written in Java sounds really gross and slow. What next -- Perl? (although that does sound kind of cool in a hackish sort of way)
--
Once again, a writer states the obvious, and the "intellectuals" wring their hands that the sky has begun to fall.
Who was it who said in the Fourteenth century that "war was obsolete" with the invention of the crossbow? Why did he say that? Because it was the beginning of accurate, deadly war at a distance. It was all about "remote" killing of the enemy, while providing maximal protection of your own forces.
It amazes me that Katz believes protecting your forces from harm is a new style of war. Every defensive technology is about protecting your forces, from mechanized tanks to cruise missiles launched from ships.
Now, this is not to say that the nature of war has not changed in the 20th century. Clearly weapons of mass destruction are new (Mutual Assured Destruction), but that's all that is new in the art of warfare. Ironically, MAD has been the most stabilizing influence in history.
--
You are so used to buying your culture that you have forgotten how to make it. Go and sing a song with your friends. You'll be delighted by the results.
You are mixing two totally different ideas. That's like saying, "Don't watch professional sports; go and play with your friends. You'll be delighted by the results."
Well, what is wrong with doing both? Watching a world-class athlete (or musician) is a completely different experience than doing it myself. One is a social experience, and one is experiencing the awe of the epitome of human greatness.
Rather than my repeat my last post, reread it and think about it. The greatest music and art has always been sponsored. Today it's usually corporations, in the past it was royalty, the rich and the church.
Thinking that world-class music and art have ever been developed without sponsorship is just mindless idealism.
--