But, the original poster wasn't arguing that they will only buy used CDs. The poster said they were telling people to buy it used cause the profits go to the music store. If people go out and buy it new, that's something beyond what the original poster stated.
In other words, your statement makes no sense in context of the original post.
In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities. In the expert's mind there are few. --Suzuki-roshi
Now, I have a question about your.sig! I would have figured an expert's mind would be fluid, open to many possibilities, but according to your.sig and the quote on my Silk SoyMilk, it is not. That is a beginners mind. If you are interested in waxing a little philosophy, I would love to hear your take on it. =) Thanks!
That's a good question. However I don't know the differences between GNU/Linux and FreeBSD to be able to answer that. Maybe someone else can answer that. I know the Linux kernel was build with GNU tools which is why RMS is pushing it be called GNU/Linux.
Does FreeBSD depend on GNU tools to be built? Or did they have there own set of tools and utilities? Quite frankly, I know very little about BSD. And I wouldn't be opposed to learn.
but if you can get the source, what keeps people from reading a FAQ or HowToGuide on compiling the code? Or would it just be, pay us for no huss, no fuss?
Wow. I was thinking that about you. The initiative as you so herald, seems to go against the GPL, which RMS is complianing about. Since the software they are using is GPL'ed, this presents a small problem.
He doesn't want to prepend it to everything. He understands the difference between the Linux kernel and the entire system, which he wants to be called GNU/Linux. And I don't mind the name GNU/Linux nor do some other people.
He's got his cause and he's fighting for it. Not that it in itself doesn't warrant mocking. But I still find it inspiring he is sticking to his guns.
It's all about context. I inferred nothing negative in the statement. It seemed the poster thought Bitkeeper was a fancier version of CVS. And asked to find out if it was or wasn't.
Although, I do agree that if it usually is used negatively, to avoid confusion, it should be stated that it is not meant in a negative way. So, I still believe the original poster.
Beyond this, it is just going to be a pissing contest, for neither of us know what the original poster meant; we are just inferring meaning. Unless we ask the poster, who did state they meant nothing negative in it. Regardless, you believe one thing, I believe another. Let us leave it at that.
It all depends on the context. You can ask someone why would you want to reinvent the wheel without any negative connotations. Which, I believe, is true judging from the context of the original post. Just because it is usually used in a condescending way does not mean it always is.
True. And anyone listening to me on the airwaves can look me up and flame me as well. Oh well, they only have my name and address. (And from that my telephone number.) I am already suspicious of large boxes sent to me.;)
The same argument can be used for my website or any other time I post my name on the net.
I don't normally flame people, but I will take your advise under consideration.
Now you have struck a chord between the difference between a car and software, at least in the mind of a pirate. Copying software is cheap. To copy software all you need is a 50 cent CD-R and a CD burner. It's quick, easy and inexpensive to do.
Copying a car is more difficult. You need the material, machines and tools to build a car. The amount of work to copy a car is considerable as compared to software. So you won't hear people trying to get a car dealer to give them a car. (Unless you are Bob and David.)
With something so cheap, inexpensive and easy to copy like software, it becomes easier for people to rationalize. I have heard, "if I ever make money from it, I'll buy it. Until then I'll just play around with it." Because it is so easy to do, it becomes harder to perceive they are doing something wrong. Or their actions are hurtful to the company.
Although, I could be off my mark here. Any thoughts on this?
But there is a difference between selling a finished product and selling a beta of the product. (Although, from what I remember reading, some company(ies) were having their beta testers buy the product...)
If Microsoft was annoucing that for $200 you could buy the latest version of WindowsXP, I think do not think many people would bite. With commercial companies, they want there product to function right out of the box. Over the years, I have not had many chances to install Windows, but when I have it worked great. It's only ever I start playing around and "tweaking" things does the system start going a little haywire. And granted, like you said, not all the bugs can be caught. (Even user created ones.;)
But, with freely available source code, you better know what you are getting into when you download the source. I am not going to discredit the developers because I am sure many of them try their best to have the software work as well as it can. They have there own QA procedures and debug methods which might not qualify them for Six Sigma but it shakes out some bugs. Those downloading the beta stuff know it might still be buggy and are usually sympathic to the developers and will report bugs if they run into them.
Mozilla is are great example of such a product. Using Bugzilla, users can post bugs and errors they find in the course of running the software. I admit this isn't for the weak of heart or the computer illiterate, but then again, how many computer illiterate people are going to want to install Linux and download Mozilla - or any other free software for that matter - for their system. Unless they have an interest in learning about Linux and becoming computer literate, I say very few.
I should have originally stated that public beta testing or "screwing the user" is one of the ways to shake bugs out of the code. I am sure developers do their fair share and they look towards interested users who are willing to help. Especially if you can't afford a QA department, in the free software world, public beta testing isn't such a bad deal. Not ideal mind you, but not too shabby either.
(And I should add, you will have those developers who are like "Listen. This works on my machine. If it doesn't work on yours, fix it. I'm too busy to deal with you." And in that case, there public beta testing is really "screwing the user".)
But doesn't Open Source projects have public beta testers. Now, I don't know anything about quality assurence with Open Source but I think it is a good assumption to make that if enough people start using it, many of the more common bugs will be shaken out.
Without a QA plan in place it might be more haphazard than compared to the commercial variant, but it gets the job done. How well, I shall leave that up to those who like to compare things to make them happy.;)
sit his or her ass down and ask them to write an essay. prove the purposed talent.
i don't think the copying mentality works well when competition or money is involved. at least, from what I have seen.
i think I read it here a long time ago: you have a group of coders who all work together and collborate for free. Everything is great. Offer to pay one of them and watch how the dynamic of the group changes.
Assuming, of course, the money is not distributed equally among everyone. Even so, what if so-and-so isn't doing their fair share...
It's a mentality thing. One I would like to see broken.
Agreed. Have you noticed the shift in their thinking? The article quotes them saying college kiddies are making CDs and selling them to their friends. Not, we should stop people from making mixes and possibly giving a few to their friends.
The focus seems to be moving to those individuals who are making a profit. Keeping up the RIAA's momentum in pushing their agenda. Or it could have just been the slant of that article.
Either way, I make mixes all the time and listen to them at work. These "pending" copy protection schemes keep me from making my mixes. Thankfully it has been limited to crappy music.
Oh, and Elvis Costello is an idiot.;) Well, his analogy was effing horrible. I guess that doesn't make him an idiot...
Why not? For me, the reason I wouldn't want others to read my paper is either because 1) i would be embarassed 2) it completely sucks 3) both 1 and 2. If others did read my paper and like it, great for me. After writing for my college paper, I enjoy letting others read my work, and for FREE!
A question just occurred to: has Microsoft ever giving anything in return when it absorbed or used free software from somewhere?
I do not spend my time following everything Microsoft does or does not do, but I am wondering if they contribute monetarily back to the system which they take from. Or is it a sort of "slam, blam, thank you ma'am, what? it wasn't as good for you as it was for me" type of deal.
i'm just curious and hoping someone could fill me in. I mean, I don't believe Microsoft is completely ungrateful to free (non-GPL'ed)software and I am wondering what kind of reward/encouragement system they have set up.
If you haven't had a chance to read "In the beginning was the Command Line" by Neal Stephenson , I would suggest it as it is good reading. In particular, from the text Neal says
"In trying to understand the Linux phenomenon, then, we have to look not to a single innovator but to a sort of bizarre Trinity: Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, and Bill Gates. Take away any of these three and Linux would not exist.
So, it's not that I don't believe you, but it seems like a good thing for those who haven't read it to read. =)
I became an EE because I was the only one in my family who was interested in electronics. I had no one to turn to help me out and I was giving little direction when I was a kid. "You want to play with electronics? Try fixing the VCR." I decided college was my best bet.
Now, college didn't help me out too much either. Sure I learned theory, but I played with electronics very little. Which disappointment me greatly. But at least at work, with the project I somehow landed in, I am able to play around with electronics. I am designing some quick little vector boards to help with a prototype design.
It's a little late, but I thought I would throw in my thoughts on the matter. I think I happened to luck into everything, and now I have the confidence and knowledge to play around. I would love to help others out to learn the basics of electronics and so everyone can just start playing around. I find learning that way to be much more fun!
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmmm... on my microwave there is a button labeled "pizza reheat".
But, the original poster wasn't arguing that they will only buy used CDs. The poster said they were telling people to buy it used cause the profits go to the music store. If people go out and buy it new, that's something beyond what the original poster stated.
In other words, your statement makes no sense in context of the original post.
That was a very good way of putting it. Thanks! Now I am beginning to understand.
Thank you for your response.
.sig! I would have figured an expert's mind would be fluid, open to many possibilities, but according to your .sig and the quote on my Silk SoyMilk, it is not. That is a beginners mind. If you are interested in waxing a little philosophy, I would love to hear your take on it. =) Thanks!
In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities. In the expert's mind there are few. --Suzuki-roshi
Now, I have a question about your
I guess I'm still a beginner...
That's a good question. However I don't know the differences between GNU/Linux and FreeBSD to be able to answer that. Maybe someone else can answer that. I know the Linux kernel was build with GNU tools which is why RMS is pushing it be called GNU/Linux.
Does FreeBSD depend on GNU tools to be built? Or did they have there own set of tools and utilities? Quite frankly, I know very little about BSD. And I wouldn't be opposed to learn.
Oh that was bad. That was very bad. But damn, I laughed. I feel so dirty. ;)
but if you can get the source, what keeps people from reading a FAQ or HowToGuide on compiling the code? Or would it just be, pay us for no huss, no fuss?
That man is an idiot sometimes
Wow. I was thinking that about you. The initiative as you so herald, seems to go against the GPL, which RMS is complianing about. Since the software they are using is GPL'ed, this presents a small problem.
He doesn't want to prepend it to everything. He understands the difference between the Linux kernel and the entire system, which he wants to be called GNU/Linux. And I don't mind the name GNU/Linux nor do some other people.
He's got his cause and he's fighting for it. Not that it in itself doesn't warrant mocking. But I still find it inspiring he is sticking to his guns.
And you know this because you are a close personal friend of RMS? ;)
It's all about context. I inferred nothing negative in the statement. It seemed the poster thought Bitkeeper was a fancier version of CVS. And asked to find out if it was or wasn't.
Although, I do agree that if it usually is used negatively, to avoid confusion, it should be stated that it is not meant in a negative way. So, I still believe the original poster.
Beyond this, it is just going to be a pissing contest, for neither of us know what the original poster meant; we are just inferring meaning. Unless we ask the poster, who did state they meant nothing negative in it. Regardless, you believe one thing, I believe another. Let us leave it at that.
It all depends on the context. You can ask someone why would you want to reinvent the wheel without any negative connotations. Which, I believe, is true judging from the context of the original post. Just because it is usually used in a condescending way does not mean it always is.
I wonder if people have a sense of humor. chewing gum! now that's funny. And a reference to the Rocketeer, if you remember. ;)
True. And anyone listening to me on the airwaves can look me up and flame me as well. Oh well, they only have my name and address. (And from that my telephone number.) I am already suspicious of large boxes sent to me. ;)
The same argument can be used for my website or any other time I post my name on the net.
I don't normally flame people, but I will take your advise under consideration.
Woulnd't that be nice. More frequencies would be great. Honestly, I just wanted to post my call sign. ;) I'm egotistical that way!
KC2JPU.
If you like the software, or the music you listen to, why don't you pay for it?
Now you have struck a chord between the difference between a car and software, at least in the mind of a pirate. Copying software is cheap. To copy software all you need is a 50 cent CD-R and a CD burner. It's quick, easy and inexpensive to do.
Copying a car is more difficult. You need the material, machines and tools to build a car. The amount of work to copy a car is considerable as compared to software. So you won't hear people trying to get a car dealer to give them a car. (Unless you are Bob and David.)
With something so cheap, inexpensive and easy to copy like software, it becomes easier for people to rationalize. I have heard, "if I ever make money from it, I'll buy it. Until then I'll just play around with it." Because it is so easy to do, it becomes harder to perceive they are doing something wrong. Or their actions are hurtful to the company.
Although, I could be off my mark here. Any thoughts on this?
But there is a difference between selling a finished product and selling a beta of the product. (Although, from what I remember reading, some company(ies) were having their beta testers buy the product...)
;)
If Microsoft was annoucing that for $200 you could buy the latest version of WindowsXP, I think do not think many people would bite. With commercial companies, they want there product to function right out of the box. Over the years, I have not had many chances to install Windows, but when I have it worked great. It's only ever I start playing around and "tweaking" things does the system start going a little haywire. And granted, like you said, not all the bugs can be caught. (Even user created ones.
But, with freely available source code, you better know what you are getting into when you download the source. I am not going to discredit the developers because I am sure many of them try their best to have the software work as well as it can. They have there own QA procedures and debug methods which might not qualify them for Six Sigma but it shakes out some bugs. Those downloading the beta stuff know it might still be buggy and are usually sympathic to the developers and will report bugs if they run into them.
Mozilla is are great example of such a product. Using Bugzilla, users can post bugs and errors they find in the course of running the software. I admit this isn't for the weak of heart or the computer illiterate, but then again, how many computer illiterate people are going to want to install Linux and download Mozilla - or any other free software for that matter - for their system. Unless they have an interest in learning about Linux and becoming computer literate, I say very few.
I should have originally stated that public beta testing or "screwing the user" is one of the ways to shake bugs out of the code. I am sure developers do their fair share and they look towards interested users who are willing to help. Especially if you can't afford a QA department, in the free software world, public beta testing isn't such a bad deal. Not ideal mind you, but not too shabby either.
(And I should add, you will have those developers who are like "Listen. This works on my machine. If it doesn't work on yours, fix it. I'm too busy to deal with you." And in that case, there public beta testing is really "screwing the user".)
But doesn't Open Source projects have public beta testers. Now, I don't know anything about quality assurence with Open Source but I think it is a good assumption to make that if enough people start using it, many of the more common bugs will be shaken out.
;)
Without a QA plan in place it might be more haphazard than compared to the commercial variant, but it gets the job done. How well, I shall leave that up to those who like to compare things to make them happy.
sit his or her ass down and ask them to write an essay. prove the purposed talent.
i don't think the copying mentality works well when competition or money is involved. at least, from what I have seen.
i think I read it here a long time ago: you have a group of coders who all work together and collborate for free. Everything is great. Offer to pay one of them and watch how the dynamic of the group changes.
Assuming, of course, the money is not distributed equally among everyone. Even so, what if so-and-so isn't doing their fair share...
It's a mentality thing. One I would like to see broken.
Agreed. Have you noticed the shift in their thinking? The article quotes them saying college kiddies are making CDs and selling them to their friends. Not, we should stop people from making mixes and possibly giving a few to their friends.
;) Well, his analogy was effing horrible. I guess that doesn't make him an idiot...
The focus seems to be moving to those individuals who are making a profit. Keeping up the RIAA's momentum in pushing their agenda. Or it could have just been the slant of that article.
Either way, I make mixes all the time and listen to them at work. These "pending" copy protection schemes keep me from making my mixes. Thankfully it has been limited to crappy music.
Oh, and Elvis Costello is an idiot.
Why not? For me, the reason I wouldn't want others to read my paper is either because 1) i would be embarassed 2) it completely sucks 3) both 1 and 2. If others did read my paper and like it, great for me. After writing for my college paper, I enjoy letting others read my work, and for FREE!
I still think the analogy needs fixing.
A question just occurred to: has Microsoft ever giving anything in return when it absorbed or used free software from somewhere?
I do not spend my time following everything Microsoft does or does not do, but I am wondering if they contribute monetarily back to the system which they take from. Or is it a sort of "slam, blam, thank you ma'am, what? it wasn't as good for you as it was for me" type of deal.
i'm just curious and hoping someone could fill me in. I mean, I don't believe Microsoft is completely ungrateful to free (non-GPL'ed)software and I am wondering what kind of reward/encouragement system they have set up.
If you haven't had a chance to read "In the beginning was the Command Line" by Neal Stephenson , I would suggest it as it is good reading. In particular, from the text Neal says
"In trying to understand the Linux phenomenon, then, we have to look not to a single innovator but to a sort of bizarre Trinity: Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, and Bill Gates. Take away any of these three and Linux would not exist.
So, it's not that I don't believe you, but it seems like a good thing for those who haven't read it to read. =)
I became an EE because I was the only one in my family who was interested in electronics. I had no one to turn to help me out and I was giving little direction when I was a kid. "You want to play with electronics? Try fixing the VCR." I decided college was my best bet.
Now, college didn't help me out too much either. Sure I learned theory, but I played with electronics very little. Which disappointment me greatly. But at least at work, with the project I somehow landed in, I am able to play around with electronics. I am designing some quick little vector boards to help with a prototype design.
It's a little late, but I thought I would throw in my thoughts on the matter. I think I happened to luck into everything, and now I have the confidence and knowledge to play around. I would love to help others out to learn the basics of electronics and so everyone can just start playing around. I find learning that way to be much more fun!