"While KDE isn't technically closed, it seems to me that they still hold themselves more financially accountable to the closed software model of doing business. Unlike Gnome, this diverts some of their talent, focus, and resources into gaining revenue from controlling people's copying behavior rather than thru more efficient services and support, or business models more accountable to the free (as in freedom) software paradigm."
WTF are you talking about? KDE is free. Maybe you should specifically state what leads you to say something like the above.
Yes, but I have to ask, since my knowledge of indonesian is non-existant, is the most used word in indonesian also a noun? I'd expect the most used word to be something like "and", or maybe a verb like "is", or maybe "the" or whatever has a similar grammatical role to these in indonesian.
he FSF prefers GPL'd libraries as a matter of principle. Not LGPL. That is why they changed the name to 'Lesser' and put up the why-not-lgpl paper. So, the FSF would rather Qt and GTK+ were both GPL with *no* ability to support proprietary developers... gratis or otherwise.
Yeah, it's really annoying that certain FSF people which don't have a problem to comment on anything and the kitchen remain silent on this fact for so long.
Strawman. The point from the pro-KDE proponents was that it's better for Userlinux to at least also include the KDE libraries and QT. Then the market can decide.
Userlinux is free to choose whatever they want into their distro, it's just that they should not pretend to (strive to) be _the_ Free linux enterprise distribution.
Thirdly, big companies like Adobe can pay for Qt. But userlinux is targeting much smaller enterprises as well, and its doubtful if they can.
Yeah, as can be seen on the fact that no small graphic studios exists because they can't afford photoshop, no small windows shop exists because they can't afford Visual C, no small groceries exist because they can' afford a cash register and so on. Fourth, there's the issue of control. What insurance do you have against Qt jacking up the price of a developer license?
GTK, that's why it should be included in Userlinux.
he LGPL is more friendly towards proprietary software which is something that the target audience of UserLinux(corporations) will want.
So UserLinix has chosen GNOME.
This is a non-sequitur. While it's right that LGPL the LGPL per se is more "friendly" towards companies wanting to develop proprietary software, this argument doesn't suffice for prefering GTK over QT. There are just more factors involved in that decision. And QT is used much more often than GTK for proprietary development, so actually that argument is wrong. This is because using QT saves much more money spend for developer time than it costs.
I think one reason why GTK was choosen was exactly that btw. because now customers have to pay more money to ISVs offering Userlinux development (since they need longer to fullfil a task), and OTOH the ISV doesn't have to share some of his (smaller) revenue with trolltech.
But I think the decision to leave out KDE/QT really will hurt userlinux, because it really hinders adoption of windows shops which often are coding using C++, Visual basic, and so on, but seldom are coding in C. Also, QT on windows is very good, so good that I know companies which prefer to pay for QT instead of using MFC etc., even if they don't plan to port their software to other plattforms.
If you read the mailing list, the proponents of including KDE/QT seem to have much more practical experience and are arguing much more with real life examples than the GTK only camp - this speaks for itself. The only tangible argument I've seen was something about Mr. Perens' prospective investors/clients prefering GTK.
If coding for GTK in C is to be the main alternatice against.NET and winforms, MS won't have to break out in a sweat about this.
Because it's their property, they can market it any way they want. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Or lobby Congress. Stealing it it not the morally correct response.
This is a very valid point. But I didn't intend to give a moral justification for warezing mp3s, more of a social explanation. It's not all about market and law (see my razor blade example). And, in the end, the ultimate legitimation for laws is that they are in line with the moral perception of the people they are made for, and to push the law in the direction the record industry is trying to do perverts this.
Uh, at least my argument to be unsympathetic to these RIAA and whatnot types is a little bit more complex. If the music industry wouldn't sell music for an artificially high price, a lot less people would care to pirate music. Further, a ridicously small part is going to people involved in actually producing that product, most goes into the various instances providing infrastructure for selling that music - the record labels, shops etc. Inform yourself about what young artists get for their first record.
Fact is, music labels as we know them are made redundant by the internet+compression technologies, and that is the real fight they are in. Without the need for an complex and expensive infrastructure, there's suddenly a very low barrier of entry to the market, and this is why the RIAA likes "trusted computing", bdcause they hope this will carry over a higher barrier of entry into the computing age.
A (crude) analogy to that would be if somehow there would have been a influential horse coaches industries when the car was invented. They would also have done anything in their power to prevent this new technology from making them obsolete.
Ask yourself this question: Why does the record industry not simply put up all their music as mp3s into giant web shops and use their save in infrastructure costs to offer music significantly cheaper? So cheap that many more people would simply buy instead of pirating.
Do you really think this would make getting mp3z easier than it is now? No, but this would open the door for everyone to enter this market, preventing the record industry from getting their ridicolous margins by demonopolizing the market.
Something similar can be seen with razor blades, I think read somewhere that razor blades are one of the most stolen items in shops. Why? Because nobody in his right mind believes that the price at which they sell is justified.
Because you'd (for example) have to provide a relational model for the semantics of the english language. And even that wouldn't meet the criterium of "generalized", because, ehm, it's specialized for the english language.
Hey, if you are Mig G. from Chessninja, I just wanted to say that I very much appreciate your approach of communicating chess. It's nice to see someone eloquently trying to show that chess is interesting _and_ fun.
Hey, I'm not so naive to suggest IBM should use shortcomings of SCO unrelated to the present case to defend itself, this is just silly. There are several other obvious practical reasons for IBM to review the linux sorce code.
Absolutely. The term you're looking for is "street teaming"--most likely it would have been the woman who ran by the blogger who was the covert marketer in question.
Maybe that sounds cynical, but isn't the average blogger cheaper than a female model?
Additionaly, if your driver gets accepted into the mainline, you get a whole lot of maintenance for free, including adaptions between minor kernel versions, and, certainly, a lot of free testing.
I rather hope that IBM is doing/has done its own code commonality inspections because it seems highly likely that there is GPLed code in SCO's product (that's the easy way to compatibility you know). If so that would tarnish their case badly, although it's not very likely to be as damning as it was in the BSD case.
Surely IBM has inspected the code! IBM and it's lawyers have acted completely clever in this case until now, do you really think they would forget the obvious? I would be very surprised if IBM hadn't left a lot of aces in their sleeves. Look, they haven't made a lot of noise until now, but everything action of IBM agaist SCO was _extremely_ well dosed. If IBM really felt threatened, they would have a lot of alternatives. They could have bought SCO, they even could have bought Canopy, they could have threatened SCO and/or Canopy with patent lawsuits against them or companies they have a stake in (might still happen, hehe). They didn't do anything like that, instead they go into a lawsuit, well prepared, and acting like someone who knows he will win.
Oh!!, Ok. Now I see what you... Wait a minute! How are they going to dynamically readjust to "legal changes reguarding to [sic] auditing of customer privacy information" that affect its business "without having to modify code and recreate applications"? And how does a company dynamically readjust to "changes to the tax code" that affect its business "without having to modify code and recreate applications"?
Additionally, it's hardly true that the existance of an access app would make doing "the real" thing more expensive, as everybody seems to believe.
Really, what's better, a client who isn't able to tell you everything imporant you need to know for design&implementation, or a client which can show you "this small app", which is a first implementation of what he wants?
And everyone who tells me that data conversion access -> real database is a significant cost factor should really look out for bigger projects.
And you have to add that even if he knew where he wanted to go, it is incredibly hard really get there. After all, he has an opponent which _will_ see a possible advantage far far ahead, so making one very small mistake on could completely destroy his plan against such a monster. I think Kaspy played a brilliant game.
Fritz has an openings database and knows about the win/loose numbers of each opening. I bet he's able to record that loss and therefor degrade that opening.
The problem with you theory is that the operators of fritz stated that Fritz set a new record of search depth in this game (19 ply, IIRC), just _because_ these many pieces blocked each other and limited the width of the search tree. No, the point is not many pieces per se, the point is to get to a closed position, where there's nothing interesting to see in the computer horizon. Sure, these kinds of closed positions normally need many pieces, but search depth isn't the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
"While KDE isn't technically closed, it seems to me that they still hold themselves more financially accountable to the closed software model of doing business. Unlike Gnome, this diverts some of their talent, focus, and resources into gaining revenue from controlling people's copying behavior rather than thru more efficient services and support, or business models more accountable to the free (as in freedom) software paradigm."
WTF are you talking about? KDE is free. Maybe you should specifically state what leads you to say something like the above.
Yes, but I have to ask, since my knowledge of indonesian is non-existant, is the most used word in indonesian also a noun? I'd expect the most used word to be something like "and", or maybe a verb like "is", or maybe "the" or whatever has a similar grammatical role to these in indonesian.
Just some nitpicking, your analogy doesn't quite match. It's the _most_common_ words that are repeated. Neither "anak" nor "really" fit that.
Maybe it's because QT resembles MS Windows more than GTK ...
Which is actually a damn good reason to _include_ QT in UserLinux. Why is left as an exercise to the reader.
he FSF prefers GPL'd libraries as a matter of principle. Not LGPL. That is why they changed the name to 'Lesser' and put up the why-not-lgpl paper. So, the FSF would rather Qt and GTK+ were both GPL with *no* ability to support proprietary developers... gratis or otherwise.
Yeah, it's really annoying that certain FSF people which don't have a problem to comment on anything and the kitchen remain silent on this fact for so long.
Strawman. The point from the pro-KDE proponents was that it's better for Userlinux to at least also include the KDE libraries and QT. Then the market can decide.
Userlinux is free to choose whatever they want into their distro, it's just that they should not pretend to (strive to) be _the_ Free linux enterprise distribution.
Thirdly, big companies like Adobe can pay for Qt. But userlinux is targeting much smaller enterprises as well, and its doubtful if they can.
Yeah, as can be seen on the fact that no small graphic studios exists because they can't afford photoshop, no small windows shop exists because they can't afford Visual C, no small groceries exist because they can' afford a cash register and so on.
Fourth, there's the issue of control. What insurance do you have against Qt jacking up the price of a developer license?
GTK, that's why it should be included in Userlinux.
he LGPL is more friendly towards proprietary software which is something that the target audience of UserLinux(corporations) will want.
.NET and winforms, MS won't have to break out in a sweat about this.
So UserLinix has chosen GNOME.
This is a non-sequitur. While it's right that LGPL the LGPL per se is more "friendly" towards companies wanting to develop proprietary software, this argument doesn't suffice for prefering GTK over QT. There are just more factors involved in that decision. And QT is used much more often than GTK for proprietary development, so actually that argument is wrong. This is because using QT saves much more money spend for developer time than it costs.
I think one reason why GTK was choosen was exactly that btw. because now customers have to pay more money to ISVs offering Userlinux development (since they need longer to fullfil a task), and OTOH the ISV doesn't have to share some of his (smaller) revenue with trolltech.
But I think the decision to leave out KDE/QT really will hurt userlinux, because it really hinders adoption of windows shops which often are coding using C++, Visual basic, and so on, but seldom are coding in C. Also, QT on windows is very good, so good that I know companies which prefer to pay for QT instead of using MFC etc., even if they don't plan to port their software to other plattforms.
If you read the mailing list, the proponents of including KDE/QT seem to have much more practical experience and are arguing much more with real life examples than the GTK only camp - this speaks for itself. The only tangible argument I've seen was something about Mr. Perens' prospective investors/clients prefering GTK.
If coding for GTK in C is to be the main alternatice against
Because it's their property, they can market it any way they want. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Or lobby Congress. Stealing it it not the morally correct response.
This is a very valid point.
But I didn't intend to give a moral justification for warezing mp3s, more of a social explanation.
It's not all about market and law (see my razor blade example). And, in the end, the ultimate legitimation for laws is that they are in line with the moral perception of the people they are made for, and to push the law in the direction the record industry is trying to do perverts this.
Releasing a distro without KDE ... is like going to war with France without the Germans.
Ok, flame me, but I found this funny. Btw. who the fuck could get flamebaited by that? People, these times are long gone.
Uh, at least my argument to be unsympathetic to these RIAA and whatnot types is a little bit more complex.
If the music industry wouldn't sell music for an artificially high price, a lot less people would care to pirate music. Further, a ridicously small part is going to people involved in actually producing that product, most goes into the various instances providing infrastructure for selling that music - the record labels, shops etc. Inform yourself about what young artists get for their first record.
Fact is, music labels as we know them are made redundant by the internet+compression technologies, and that is the real fight they are in. Without the need for an complex and expensive infrastructure, there's suddenly a very low barrier of entry to the market, and this is why the RIAA likes "trusted computing", bdcause they hope this will carry over a higher barrier of entry into the computing age.
A (crude) analogy to that would be if somehow there would have been a influential horse coaches industries when the car was invented. They would also have done anything in their power to prevent this new technology from making them obsolete.
Ask yourself this question:
Why does the record industry not simply put up all their music as mp3s into giant web shops and use their save in infrastructure costs to offer music significantly cheaper? So cheap that many more people would simply buy instead of pirating.
Do you really think this would make getting mp3z easier than it is now?
No, but this would open the door for everyone to enter this market, preventing the record industry from getting their ridicolous margins by demonopolizing the market.
Something similar can be seen with razor blades, I think read somewhere that razor blades are one of the most stolen items in shops. Why? Because nobody in his right mind believes that the price at which they sell is justified.
Err, missed some context in this thread, clearly, XML as opposed to relational wouldn't help here either.
Because you'd (for example) have to provide a relational model for the semantics of the english language. And even that wouldn't meet the criterium of "generalized", because, ehm, it's specialized for the english language.
Hey, if you are Mig G. from Chessninja, I just wanted to say that I very much appreciate your approach of communicating chess. It's nice to see someone eloquently trying to show that chess is interesting _and_ fun.
Yeah, but if he's using a direct xDSL connection, the MAC address _does_ go out directly to provider equipment.
Anyway, in the thread above there seems to be the real explanation, i.e. the thief used the victims AOL account to log in (how dumb is that?).
Is it funny or sad that you got a +5 Informative for that post?
Hey, I'm not so naive to suggest IBM should use shortcomings of SCO unrelated to the present case to defend itself, this is just silly.
There are several other obvious practical reasons for IBM to review the linux sorce code.
Absolutely. The term you're looking for is "street teaming"--most likely it would have been the woman who ran by the blogger who was the covert marketer in question.
Maybe that sounds cynical, but isn't the average blogger cheaper than a female model?
Additionaly, if your driver gets accepted into the mainline, you get a whole lot of maintenance for free, including adaptions between minor kernel versions, and, certainly, a lot of free testing.
I rather hope that IBM is doing/has done its own code commonality inspections because it seems highly likely that there is GPLed code in SCO's product (that's the easy way to compatibility you know). If so that would tarnish their case badly, although it's not very likely to be as damning as it was in the BSD case.
Surely IBM has inspected the code! IBM and it's lawyers have acted completely clever in this case until now, do you really think they would forget the obvious?
I would be very surprised if IBM hadn't left a lot of aces in their sleeves. Look, they haven't made a lot of noise until now, but everything action of IBM agaist SCO was _extremely_ well dosed. If IBM really felt threatened, they would have a lot of alternatives. They could have bought SCO, they even could have bought Canopy, they could have threatened SCO and/or Canopy with patent lawsuits against them or companies they have a stake in (might still happen, hehe).
They didn't do anything like that, instead they go into a lawsuit, well prepared, and acting like someone who knows he will win.
Oh!!, Ok. Now I see what you ... Wait a minute! How are they going to dynamically readjust to "legal changes reguarding to [sic] auditing of customer privacy information" that affect its business "without having to modify code and recreate applications"? And how does a company dynamically readjust to "changes to the tax code" that affect its business "without having to modify code and recreate applications"?
Easy:
MS Access and Excel
Additionally, it's hardly true that the existance of an access app would make doing "the real" thing more expensive, as everybody seems to believe.
Really, what's better, a client who isn't able to tell you everything imporant you need to know for design&implementation, or a client which can show you "this small app", which is a first implementation of what he wants?
And everyone who tells me that data conversion access -> real database is a significant cost factor should really look out for bigger projects.
And you have to add that even if he knew where he wanted to go, it is incredibly hard really get there. After all, he has an opponent which _will_ see a possible advantage far far ahead, so making one very small mistake on could completely destroy his plan against such a monster. I think Kaspy played a brilliant game.
Fritz has an openings database and knows about the win/loose numbers of each opening. I bet he's able to record that loss and therefor degrade that opening.
The problem with you theory is that the operators of fritz stated that Fritz set a new record of search depth in this game (19 ply, IIRC), just _because_ these many pieces blocked each other and limited the width of the search tree.
No, the point is not many pieces per se, the point is to get to a closed position, where there's nothing interesting to see in the computer horizon.
Sure, these kinds of closed positions normally need many pieces, but search depth isn't the problem.