Gnutella seems like a good alternative to Napster. However, I don't think it's Free, despite the name.(I just looked at a Gnutella website, they mentioned joining development teams, but I believe they're developing clients only)
Gnutella is a peer-to-peer networking server, but there is no central server (unlike Napster). Instead, individuals set up their own Gnutella server, and so the users are responsible (so MPEG can't sue the company if music piracy occurs with Gnutella).
Although some people think that this will increase piracy, any sort of file-sharing tool increases piracy somewhat. That's because pirated software/music represents a percentage of the files that users want to share, and file-sharing tools increase the amount of files that users can share. (Of course, with free software and music, piracy becomes obsolete. So if you use free software (like if you start from Debian or QLinux), then you can't really pirate software, or be accused of it easily.)
I think that the best solution would be a large, Internet-coordinated development effort to create a Gnutella-like server and client, that are Free Software. This would probably be the best solution to the problems with Napster, plus it would offer a powerful file-sharing solution for GNU/Linux users.
(This suggestion is not to make piracy easier, but to make free software/music sharing simpler. While the Internet is very good for many purposes, peer-to-peer file-sharing networks offer some advantages.)
--
daedalus587
(Non-Sun) OpenWindows: A Waste Of Time? Take off the "_NOSPAM" to eMail me
/. is complaining about "Invalid Form Keys", but my username is daedalus587 and you can eMail me here (take off the "_NOSPAM"!): daedalus587@crosswinds.net_NOSPAM
At first, I liked the idea of this non-Sun OpenWindows, but if you think about it, it's probably simply a waste of their time. Of course, I am referring to the non-Sun OpenWindows in this post.
I can see the benefits of WINE. Then you could run a few Windows games on your Linux box, without having to put up with memory-hogging commercial (more importantly, Microsoft) bloatware. There is a large base of potential WINE users. But, who would want to use OpenWindows?
There is exactly one distinct market for OpenWindows: Windows lusers (oops, I mean users) who are sick of the Microsoft bloatware and upgrade cycle, but are not intelligent enought to see through the FUD, so they are "afraid" to use GNU/Linux.
Other than that, you really have to ask, who needs to use it? All you can run are Windows apps! So, instead of using proprietary Windows, you get to use an alternative! And, of course, there is no way that any alternative can completely reproduce M$'s brain-dead API, so it (due to gaps in the API) doesn't work as well as the Windows you got (free) with your computer!
I could see uses for this, if only WINE didn't exist. But, it does, which is good. Anyway, why use a Windows clone? When you can use WINE software, running under GNU/Linux, that lets you run Windows apps under GNU/Linux! IMHO, the OpenWindows team should collaborate with the WINE team, rather than using up valuable hacking time writing an OS with no future.
To summarize, normal users will want to stay with the M$ bloatware (M$ Windows 9x/2000/NT), for "stability, security, and compatibility" (the compatibility may be a valid point; how can you make something "more compatible" than the product you're trying to clone?). GNU/Linux users, on the other hand, will use WINE software, so they don't have to exit Linux and boot another OS. Therefore, there is basically no future for this product. Plus, the name "OpenWindows" is already taken by Sun Microsystems, although that product is only Windows 3.x compatible.
This isn't a flame. Good luck to the OpenWindows team, but I really hope they consider collaborating with the WINE project team, so they can spend their valuable time working towards a more valid goal: making M$ Windows apps run under GNU/Linux.
.net_NOSPAM is not a valid domain suffix. (take off the "_NOSPAM" when you eMail me...)
Slashdot Mirror
Gnutella seems like a good alternative to Napster. However, I don't think it's Free, despite the name.(I just looked at a Gnutella website, they mentioned joining development teams, but I believe they're developing clients only)
Gnutella is a peer-to-peer networking server, but there is no central server (unlike Napster). Instead, individuals set up their own Gnutella server, and so the users are responsible (so MPEG can't sue the company if music piracy occurs with Gnutella).
Although some people think that this will increase piracy, any sort of file-sharing tool increases piracy somewhat. That's because pirated software/music represents a percentage of the files that users want to share, and file-sharing tools increase the amount of files that users can share. (Of course, with free software and music, piracy becomes obsolete. So if you use free software (like if you start from Debian or QLinux), then you can't really pirate software, or be accused of it easily.)
I think that the best solution would be a large, Internet-coordinated development effort to create a Gnutella-like server and client, that are Free Software. This would probably be the best solution to the problems with Napster, plus it would offer a powerful file-sharing solution for GNU/Linux users. (This suggestion is not to make piracy easier, but to make free software/music sharing simpler. While the Internet is very good for many purposes, peer-to-peer file-sharing networks offer some advantages.)
--
daedalus587
Take off the "_NOSPAM" to eMail me
/. is complaining about "Invalid Form Keys", but my username is daedalus587 and you can eMail me here (take off the "_NOSPAM"!): daedalus587@crosswinds.net_NOSPAM
At first, I liked the idea of this non-Sun OpenWindows, but if you think about it, it's probably simply a waste of their time. Of course, I am referring to the non-Sun OpenWindows in this post.
I can see the benefits of WINE. Then you could run a few Windows games on your Linux box, without having to put up with memory-hogging commercial (more importantly, Microsoft) bloatware. There is a large base of potential WINE users. But, who would want to use OpenWindows?
There is exactly one distinct market for OpenWindows: Windows lusers (oops, I mean users) who are sick of the Microsoft bloatware and upgrade cycle, but are not intelligent enought to see through the FUD, so they are "afraid" to use GNU/Linux.
Other than that, you really have to ask, who needs to use it? All you can run are Windows apps! So, instead of using proprietary Windows, you get to use an alternative! And, of course, there is no way that any alternative can completely reproduce M$'s brain-dead API, so it (due to gaps in the API) doesn't work as well as the Windows you got (free) with your computer!
I could see uses for this, if only WINE didn't exist. But, it does, which is good. Anyway, why use a Windows clone? When you can use WINE software, running under GNU/Linux, that lets you run Windows apps under GNU/Linux! IMHO, the OpenWindows team should collaborate with the WINE team, rather than using up valuable hacking time writing an OS with no future.
To summarize, normal users will want to stay with the M$ bloatware (M$ Windows 9x/2000/NT), for "stability, security, and compatibility" (the compatibility may be a valid point; how can you make something "more compatible" than the product you're trying to clone?). GNU/Linux users, on the other hand, will use WINE software, so they don't have to exit Linux and boot another OS. Therefore, there is basically no future for this product. Plus, the name "OpenWindows" is already taken by Sun Microsystems, although that product is only Windows 3.x compatible.
This isn't a flame. Good luck to the OpenWindows team, but I really hope they consider collaborating with the WINE project team, so they can spend their valuable time working towards a more valid goal: making M$ Windows apps run under GNU/Linux.
.net_NOSPAM is not a valid domain suffix. (take off the "_NOSPAM" when you eMail me...)