Everyone needs to buy a copy of Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. Why would Dell and Apple be happy about a higher price point? Do you think this translates into more profit for them? If you do, you're foolish. Prices go up because costs go up. If Apple requires Dell to sell more expensive hardware, do you expect that they should charge you the same as cheaper hardware? When a company does that, its called "stupid."
Repeat after me: things are expensive because they have high costs.
If Windows compatibility is so grand, explain to me why I still boot into 98 to play games?
A couple of possible reasons: 1. You're can't afford/won't spend the money on XP. 2. The games you are playing on 98 are actually old DOS games that used crazy memory management schemes that had to be done in DOS mode. 3. You like worrying about VxDs.
Seriously, XP isn't any worse for gaming that 98. Read up on which programs/services don't need to be running and turn them off. The same problem of too many programs running existed on 98, its just that most of them clogged your systray.
Its not the platform, but the applications that make a difference...
True, yes... but more applications will be developed for a platform that makes it easier to write good applications. In this case, if a console maker puts out a kick-ass SDK they are more likely to have new developers making software for their system.
Reverse engineering for interoperability is protected under US copyright law AND the DMCA.
Whether or not this is true, if you agree to a license which says "I will not do such and such," and you do so, you have violated the license. This is a breech of contract law and has nothing to do with copyright law.
I don't think BitMover is all that concerned that their license was violated, though, since we have heard no news of a suit. Their issue is that the FOSS community didn't play by the rules and bit what they (BitMover) saw as a helping hand.
As has been stated before, BitMover is under no obligation to give away anything gratis. They have every right to take BK away if certain elements are attempting to damage their business through their own give-away program.
Again, tell me how a license between Corp A and Corp B can stop US Citizen C from reverse-engineering something?
Contract law. If US Citizen C is employed/contracted by Corp B, and Corp B has a contract with Corp A stating that Corp B nor it's employees/contractors will reverse-engineer Corp A's product, Corp B is responsible to ensure that US Citizen C does not reverse engineer. If the above citizen wishes to continue to reverse-engineer the product in question they are free to do so when their employment/contract with Corp B has been terminated.
If OSDL is the license holder, it is their responsibility to ensure that they and their employees are in compliance with any and all license agreements to which they have agreed.
If reverse engineering is explicitly forbidden in a license, and someone has agreed to that license, then reverse engineering is illegal. If they don't like it, they should have renegotiated the license.
BitMover wrote their free-use license in such a way that the gratis use of their software would benefit the user and not harm BitMover. What exactly is wrong with that? Its their software, and they don't have to let anyone use it without paying. Why should they allow someone who freeloads to reverse engineer their software?
I certainly hope that the FOSS community can duplicate the features of BK, as it sounds like an excellent tool. But their actions are hardly childish. BitMover did everything in their power to work things out with OSDL, and OSDL was either unable or unwilling to work with them. Are you suggesting BitMover should simply roll over and let anyone violate their license? Should PearPC allow CherryOS to get away with violating their license? How are these two situations different?
A number of licenses have been set aside by BitMover (according to TFA) for some kernel developers. No licenses were set aside for Linus or Andrew because of their association with OSDL. They can either purchase licenses on their own, or find new employment.
Wow, non-free software vendor decides to drop support for a piece of software leaving their loyal users out in the cold. Thanks BitMover for proving why Linus' decision to rely on a non-free version control system was a mistake.
How has this left Linux out in the cold? Because he now has to pay to use BitKeeper? What's wrong with that? BitMover feels that OSDL broke faith with them by having a developer who was reverse engineering their product.
If BK is such hot stuff, then it will be worth some money to Linus. If it isn't, I guess he'll find something else to use.
In a nutshell, yes. If you want to know how long something is going to take in the future, you start by knowing how long something took now. Everything comes at a price, and the price of reliably producing software on-time is taking extra time to see how long it takes to do something.
You may not always be right (in fact at first you will probably be wrong) but you need to start somewhere. If you want to be on time, you need to know how long things actually take, not just fudge some numbers together.
I'm sure that 95% of IT shops have little to no software engineering. Until IT Depts. as a whole start to realize the value of things like defect tracking, estimation, time tracking, coding standards, and the like there will be no improvement in this area. It is not necessary to impliment the full-blow SEI CMM to produce good software on-time. If developers would take the time to first make reasonable estimates of how long it will take to finish a project and then track how much time they actually put into it, we might start to see some improvement. On the management side, when managers start to realize that software is not developed instantly and that problem solving takes time we might be able to reduce the number of features that are packed into a piece of software without extending the schedule.
I suspect that hdd brand choice could spark a small-scale religious war.
I've had great success with almost every brand out there (those that I've tried, have worked great), and I've seen spectacular failures with most of them.
An important difference is that the Microsoft tools the government uses are just tools. They were not developed with taxpayer money. The government buys licenses for Microsoft Windows, Office, etc. just like it buys toilet paper or doorknobs.
It seems that much of this discussion comes down to this: If I need software that is guaranteed to do what it says it does, otherwise I go to jail, I should purchase non-free software.
How then can we (as the FOSS community) push non-guaranteed software on corporations and governments?
Put another way, why should the DoD use Linux for mission critical systems if you wouldn't trust an OSS tax prep program?
Ultima Online had the same problem. I bought a copy off of eBay many moons ago. I had to use the original owner's account and we transfered the billing information. Origin was pretty good about the whole situation. Once the billing transfer was done I changed the password and never looked back.
With all the network problems Blizzard has been having with WoW, I wouldn't expect them to get this resolved anytime soon. Their existing customers are going to come first on this one.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... another inconsistancy with the original.
"You are all that's left of their religion."
Hmm...
Everyone needs to buy a copy of Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. Why would Dell and Apple be happy about a higher price point? Do you think this translates into more profit for them? If you do, you're foolish. Prices go up because costs go up. If Apple requires Dell to sell more expensive hardware, do you expect that they should charge you the same as cheaper hardware? When a company does that, its called "stupid."
Repeat after me: things are expensive because they have high costs.
If Windows compatibility is so grand, explain to me why I still boot into 98 to play games?
A couple of possible reasons:
1. You're can't afford/won't spend the money on XP.
2. The games you are playing on 98 are actually old DOS games that used crazy memory management schemes that had to be done in DOS mode.
3. You like worrying about VxDs.
Seriously, XP isn't any worse for gaming that 98. Read up on which programs/services don't need to be running and turn them off. The same problem of too many programs running existed on 98, its just that most of them clogged your systray.
[snip]
but a lot of people saw it as theft
[snip]
That couldn't possibly be because it is theft, now could it?
That said, PDFs are a much friendlier way of distributing "slides" unless you need animations for some reason.
If, for some reason, you need animations you also probably need a good smack to the back of the head.
Its not the platform, but the applications that make a difference ...
True, yes... but more applications will be developed for a platform that makes it easier to write good applications. In this case, if a console maker puts out a kick-ass SDK they are more likely to have new developers making software for their system.
Yeah, it sure is...
Reverse engineering for interoperability is protected under US copyright law AND the DMCA.
Whether or not this is true, if you agree to a license which says "I will not do such and such," and you do so, you have violated the license. This is a breech of contract law and has nothing to do with copyright law.
I don't think BitMover is all that concerned that their license was violated, though, since we have heard no news of a suit. Their issue is that the FOSS community didn't play by the rules and bit what they (BitMover) saw as a helping hand.
As has been stated before, BitMover is under no obligation to give away anything gratis. They have every right to take BK away if certain elements are attempting to damage their business through their own give-away program.
Again, tell me how a license between Corp A and Corp B can stop US Citizen C from reverse-engineering something?
Contract law. If US Citizen C is employed/contracted by Corp B, and Corp B has a contract with Corp A stating that Corp B nor it's employees/contractors will reverse-engineer Corp A's product, Corp B is responsible to ensure that US Citizen C does not reverse engineer.
If the above citizen wishes to continue to reverse-engineer the product in question they are free to do so when their employment/contract with Corp B has been terminated.
If OSDL is the license holder, it is their responsibility to ensure that they and their employees are in compliance with any and all license agreements to which they have agreed.
If reverse engineering is explicitly forbidden in a license, and someone has agreed to that license, then reverse engineering is illegal. If they don't like it, they should have renegotiated the license.
BitMover wrote their free-use license in such a way that the gratis use of their software would benefit the user and not harm BitMover. What exactly is wrong with that? Its their software, and they don't have to let anyone use it without paying. Why should they allow someone who freeloads to reverse engineer their software?
I certainly hope that the FOSS community can duplicate the features of BK, as it sounds like an excellent tool. But their actions are hardly childish. BitMover did everything in their power to work things out with OSDL, and OSDL was either unable or unwilling to work with them.
Are you suggesting BitMover should simply roll over and let anyone violate their license? Should PearPC allow CherryOS to get away with violating their license? How are these two situations different?
And if you continue to read the article, BitMover still considered his and OSDL's actions a violation of their license agreement.
A number of licenses have been set aside by BitMover (according to TFA) for some kernel developers. No licenses were set aside for Linus or Andrew because of their association with OSDL.
They can either purchase licenses on their own, or find new employment.
Wow, non-free software vendor decides to drop support for a piece of software leaving their loyal users out in the cold. Thanks BitMover for proving why Linus' decision to rely on a non-free version control system was a mistake.
How has this left Linux out in the cold? Because he now has to pay to use BitKeeper? What's wrong with that? BitMover feels that OSDL broke faith with them by having a developer who was reverse engineering their product.
If BK is such hot stuff, then it will be worth some money to Linus. If it isn't, I guess he'll find something else to use.
In a nutshell, yes. If you want to know how long something is going to take in the future, you start by knowing how long something took now.
Everything comes at a price, and the price of reliably producing software on-time is taking extra time to see how long it takes to do something.
You may not always be right (in fact at first you will probably be wrong) but you need to start somewhere. If you want to be on time, you need to know how long things actually take, not just fudge some numbers together.
I'm sure that 95% of IT shops have little to no software engineering. Until IT Depts. as a whole start to realize the value of things like defect tracking, estimation, time tracking, coding standards, and the like there will be no improvement in this area.
It is not necessary to impliment the full-blow SEI CMM to produce good software on-time. If developers would take the time to first make reasonable estimates of how long it will take to finish a project and then track how much time they actually put into it, we might start to see some improvement.
On the management side, when managers start to realize that software is not developed instantly and that problem solving takes time we might be able to reduce the number of features that are packed into a piece of software without extending the schedule.
I suspect that hdd brand choice could spark a small-scale religious war.
I've had great success with almost every brand out there (those that I've tried, have worked great), and I've seen spectacular failures with most of them.
I'm told GeekSquad makes more in the $15/hr range.
An important difference is that the Microsoft tools the government uses are just tools. They were not developed with taxpayer money.
The government buys licenses for Microsoft Windows, Office, etc. just like it buys toilet paper or doorknobs.
It seems that much of this discussion comes down to this:
If I need software that is guaranteed to do what it says it does, otherwise I go to jail, I should purchase non-free software.
How then can we (as the FOSS community) push non-guaranteed software on corporations and governments?
Put another way, why should the DoD use Linux for mission critical systems if you wouldn't trust an OSS tax prep program?
I believe that should be Mandibular Gluteus Maximus Manipulation.
Of course!
But what, then, happened to all the elves?
And, I might add, so much for all that "Undying Lands" talk.
They should be called Homo Hobbitus... duh.
And I always pictured The Shire in England somewhere...
Ultima Online had the same problem. I bought a copy off of eBay many moons ago. I had to use the original owner's account and we transfered the billing information. Origin was pretty good about the whole situation. Once the billing transfer was done I changed the password and never looked back.
With all the network problems Blizzard has been having with WoW, I wouldn't expect them to get this resolved anytime soon. Their existing customers are going to come first on this one.
Nothing sounds good when you say it with that attitude.