So this is the person that is to blame for my wasted childhood - days on end sitting in front of the TV, emanciated and dehydrated, trying to wrap the Asteroids score around...
You can use aliases for that. I do all the time. As soon as one of them is incorporated into all the "50 MILLION FRESH OPT-IN EMAIL ADDRESSES" lists in the world, I just delete it. Presto.
And you don't have to live with receiving emails to 'undisclosed-recipient@boffo.net' or whatever.
Um, do a Google on "CleanFlicks christian" and you'll figure it out, I'm sure.
Also, when has it been proven that they infringe on copyright? Do directors even retain copyright?
Studios hold the copyright, but the directors sued on principle. I know I would. I don't think it's that hard to put yourself in the shoes of a movie director and see a company "sanitize" your work and charge a fee for it claiming that they are "protecting families" or some such nonsense. As a parent, it's supremely stupid to allow your children to watch movies that you'd consider a suitable target for sanitizing. I mean, take Black Hawk Down. I thought it was a great movie, and the use of graphic violence is there to make a point. If you sanitize it you'll be left with the credits (assuming they don't have swear words). So what's the point? But in the meantime, CleanFlicks is making money off of consumer stupidity and lack of parenting skills.
Furthermore, take broadcast TV. When they edit movies they pay huge amounts of money to the copyright owners (a cost that is of course added to the broadcast rights). Where is CleanFlicks incurring this expense? Shouldn't they? I think they should.
Let's take it to another level. Let's assume I buy a pair of Nike sneakers. And let's assume I think Nike is an evil corporation because they have sweatshops in Malasya or whatever. So I take my sneakers to CleanSneakers, where they will remove the Nike logo for a fee. So now I'm happy. I dominate the moral high ground. I'm r0xx0r.
How about I just don't fscking buy the sneakers in the first place?
What case have they lost?
None, but then again neither have the makers of Gator or BonzyBuddy, and O.J. Simpson was acquited. It's a strange world.
It happens a lot, but the problem is really *receiving* those messages if the addresses don't exist. If you are getting them, you need to talk to your ISP/hosting provider about bouncing email to unrecognized addresses in the domain (unless you run your own mail server).
I used to host a domain with ValueWeb a few years ago and they had that irritating "feature" where an email to 'x31qwo9dd@mydomain.com' would fall through to my mailbox since I was the primary contact for the domain. That's one of the reasons I ended up dropping them and going to another hosting provider.
This is far better than those wankers over at CleanFlicks who not only have an agenda, but also infringe on the copyright of directors and producers (in fact they've been sued already for that very same reason).
A device that does that puts the power to choose what to see and what not to see in the hands of the consumer, where it belongs.
but.. but... "GPL" and "costs" in the same sentence... me is confuzed
I don't think I get your point. AFAICT, the GPL dictates that software under it is free as freedom to do "stuff" with it but not necessarily free in monetary terms. I.e., you can sell GPL software, correct?
So when you say "costs" are you referring somehow to the fact that the GPL effectively dictates that software licensed under it *cannot* be sold and purchased as a commodity just like any other product or service?
It seems to me Debian is under no obligation whatsoever to include MPlayer in their dist. No apt-get, but then... so what?
The developer seems like he has a bit of a '1337' attitude there, but then again maybe he jumped into the open source thing without really thinking about what he was doing (he's effectively in a legal grey area wrt all the stuff he links to) and he just doesn't want to deal with all the politics. And there's plenty of that to go around in Debian, who are the GPL nazis of the world IMO.
He should just re-release his stuff under some other license (maybe a modified gzip that satisifies his problems with binary distribution) and just go on his way.
Boromir, son of Faramir, King of Gondor and Minas Tirith
Hello,
I am The Bungi, son of Zig, Duke of Bawls and Earl of Hot Gritti.
It is very much nice to meeting you.
Now we may gain the power to unite again under one crown, as in the days of old.
Indeed, sage. The rallying cry of "All Your Base Are Belong To Us!" is already being heard nigh in the mountains to the east and the server room to the north. We await the Second Coming of Mitnick the Great to aid us in fighting the evil Hillary, Duchess Of Rosen. Dark times ahead I see, I do.
RTFA. That's hardly an IT department sponsored kinda project where you can sit down and give the users an estimation after you've finished writing the requirements document and the high-level design.
Your criticism is valid in a case like that, but hardly applicable to BK. If you must make a comment about how much someone sucks because they pooped the timeline, find another project.
Likewise for Redhat. However, there are a lot of other folks you could convince to support whatever old version you want in the case of Redhat. It's not really feasible to try to get someone else to support M$ software - not the way you'd like, anyway
You make a valid point. However, at that point in time you'd be better off upgrading and taking the hit. Ergo, the company's tactic (upgrade or lose support) works. Which was my original point.
It would be seriously counter productive for a company to maintain RedHat 6.x for 10 years at a cost that would dwarf whatever financial impact they'd run into by simply upgrading. And the same thing applies to Windows, where Microsoft basically uses the same tactic (although they have far longer lifecycles).
you have to be smarter then the average bear to pull that off, which rules you out
Ouch. I think? You know, bears are very intelligent critters.
The open source model insures that you can update all of the libraries for all of your software, and updated all of your critical system files/binaries/libs/whatever for the forseeable future
Wow, no kidding? You can still download every update ever released for Windows 3.1 from the Microsoft website. Your argument that "open source" is somehow superior to commercial software because of that is patently absurd.
The community is bigger then Redhat. Redhat knows this, and enterprise users know this. DUH
DUH indeed.
PS: I work in an enterprise, and there is plenty of Linux here (where it counts).
Really? Where does Linux "not count"?
The people that use it appreciate the rapid work of open source development. Hmmm... who is the 13 year old without any real world experience here? Survey says you, so go play with your Pokemon and bug someone else kid.
Will do. Just as soon as you emerge from your hubris-induced haze and explain how supporting an operating system is equivalent to just putting some files in an FTP server somewhere and letting everyone hit it. In my neck of the woods, that's not "support". But then, you obviously know so much more about "enterprise" than I do.
Spare us your fanboy comments. What you said there makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, unless you happen to be a 13-year old script kiddie with nothing better to do than compile the latest kernel while watching Pokemon reruns.
For companies trying to run Linux as part of their enterprise, this is not something you "get accustomed to" and the fact that it's Linux and not Windows doesn't make it any better.
You can grab "Redhat's code" and maintain it yourself, or pay anyone you like to maintain it.
That would make sense except for the fact that it invalidates the very reason for RH's existence, which is to provide precisely that sort of service. People who buy RH are the ones least likely to maintain the code.
I don't see how this is "Microsoftish" -- the code Red Hat creates or includes is still GPL, and you can pay anyone willing to fix it. They're not required to support it forever:)
Yet this is the very thing that Microsoft has been vilified for to no end in the past. Are we having short-term memory problems now?
Since Slashdot's search tool is pretty much unusable I couldn't find the article, but there was one a few months ago about how evil Microsoft was for announcing support cutoff dates for for Win95, 98/ME, NT4 and W2K.
I wasn't keeping score, but you may want to contact Larry and offer your uber-geek madz coding skills. It's obvious you can develop something like BK in time and under budget every time - otherwise you wouldn't possibly think about criticizing them, let alone post your criticism.
Even the NASA didn't do that bad with the ISS.
Maybe "the NASA" has a good job for you. I hear they're looking for volunteers to man the next Voyager mission.
With proprietary software, the only option you have is the latter.
Actually, your choice there is not to buy the software. That's one little detail that people like yourself forget when they decry the evils of closed source.
As with everything else in the real world, you vote with your hard-earned moolah.
The extreme (let's screw ourselves because the tool/os/app we need is not 100% certifiably open source free-as-in-whatever) is problematic at best and stupid at worst.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn you Nolan!
And you don't have to live with receiving emails to 'undisclosed-recipient@boffo.net' or whatever.
Um, do a Google on "CleanFlicks christian" and you'll figure it out, I'm sure.
Also, when has it been proven that they infringe on copyright? Do directors even retain copyright?
Studios hold the copyright, but the directors sued on principle. I know I would. I don't think it's that hard to put yourself in the shoes of a movie director and see a company "sanitize" your work and charge a fee for it claiming that they are "protecting families" or some such nonsense. As a parent, it's supremely stupid to allow your children to watch movies that you'd consider a suitable target for sanitizing. I mean, take Black Hawk Down. I thought it was a great movie, and the use of graphic violence is there to make a point. If you sanitize it you'll be left with the credits (assuming they don't have swear words). So what's the point? But in the meantime, CleanFlicks is making money off of consumer stupidity and lack of parenting skills.
Furthermore, take broadcast TV. When they edit movies they pay huge amounts of money to the copyright owners (a cost that is of course added to the broadcast rights). Where is CleanFlicks incurring this expense? Shouldn't they? I think they should.
Let's take it to another level. Let's assume I buy a pair of Nike sneakers. And let's assume I think Nike is an evil corporation because they have sweatshops in Malasya or whatever. So I take my sneakers to CleanSneakers, where they will remove the Nike logo for a fee. So now I'm happy. I dominate the moral high ground. I'm r0xx0r.
How about I just don't fscking buy the sneakers in the first place?
What case have they lost?
None, but then again neither have the makers of Gator or BonzyBuddy, and O.J. Simpson was acquited. It's a strange world.
I used to host a domain with ValueWeb a few years ago and they had that irritating "feature" where an email to 'x31qwo9dd@mydomain.com' would fall through to my mailbox since I was the primary contact for the domain. That's one of the reasons I ended up dropping them and going to another hosting provider.
A device that does that puts the power to choose what to see and what not to see in the hands of the consumer, where it belongs.
I don't think I get your point. AFAICT, the GPL dictates that software under it is free as freedom to do "stuff" with it but not necessarily free in monetary terms. I.e., you can sell GPL software, correct?
So when you say "costs" are you referring somehow to the fact that the GPL effectively dictates that software licensed under it *cannot* be sold and purchased as a commodity just like any other product or service?
I'm "confuzed".
The developer seems like he has a bit of a '1337' attitude there, but then again maybe he jumped into the open source thing without really thinking about what he was doing (he's effectively in a legal grey area wrt all the stuff he links to) and he just doesn't want to deal with all the politics. And there's plenty of that to go around in Debian, who are the GPL nazis of the world IMO.
He should just re-release his stuff under some other license (maybe a modified gzip that satisifies his problems with binary distribution) and just go on his way.
You should go buy some lottery tickets or expired milk or something! This doesn't happen every day!
I get plenty of exercise because I constantly stand up and walk outside to smoke.
Hello,
I am The Bungi, son of Zig, Duke of Bawls and Earl of Hot Gritti.
It is very much nice to meeting you.
Now we may gain the power to unite again under one crown, as in the days of old.
Indeed, sage. The rallying cry of "All Your Base Are Belong To Us!" is already being heard nigh in the mountains to the east and the server room to the north. We await the Second Coming of Mitnick the Great to aid us in fighting the evil Hillary, Duchess Of Rosen. Dark times ahead I see, I do.
I mean - you cannot deny the man's contributions! <snort/>
Your criticism is valid in a case like that, but hardly applicable to BK. If you must make a comment about how much someone sucks because they pooped the timeline, find another project.
You make a valid point. However, at that point in time you'd be better off upgrading and taking the hit. Ergo, the company's tactic (upgrade or lose support) works. Which was my original point.
It would be seriously counter productive for a company to maintain RedHat 6.x for 10 years at a cost that would dwarf whatever financial impact they'd run into by simply upgrading. And the same thing applies to Windows, where Microsoft basically uses the same tactic (although they have far longer lifecycles).
Ouch. I think? You know, bears are very intelligent critters.
The open source model insures that you can update all of the libraries for all of your software, and updated all of your critical system files/binaries/libs/whatever for the forseeable future
Wow, no kidding? You can still download every update ever released for Windows 3.1 from the Microsoft website. Your argument that "open source" is somehow superior to commercial software because of that is patently absurd.
The community is bigger then Redhat. Redhat knows this, and enterprise users know this. DUH
DUH indeed.
PS: I work in an enterprise, and there is plenty of Linux here (where it counts).
Really? Where does Linux "not count"?
The people that use it appreciate the rapid work of open source development. Hmmm... who is the 13 year old without any real world experience here? Survey says you, so go play with your Pokemon and bug someone else kid.
Will do. Just as soon as you emerge from your hubris-induced haze and explain how supporting an operating system is equivalent to just putting some files in an FTP server somewhere and letting everyone hit it. In my neck of the woods, that's not "support". But then, you obviously know so much more about "enterprise" than I do.
For companies trying to run Linux as part of their enterprise, this is not something you "get accustomed to" and the fact that it's Linux and not Windows doesn't make it any better.
That would make sense except for the fact that it invalidates the very reason for RH's existence, which is to provide precisely that sort of service. People who buy RH are the ones least likely to maintain the code.
Yet this is the very thing that Microsoft has been vilified for to no end in the past. Are we having short-term memory problems now?
Since Slashdot's search tool is pretty much unusable I couldn't find the article, but there was one a few months ago about how evil Microsoft was for announcing support cutoff dates for for Win95, 98/ME, NT4 and W2K.
Even the NASA didn't do that bad with the ISS.
Maybe "the NASA" has a good job for you. I hear they're looking for volunteers to man the next Voyager mission.
Remember to send postcards.
Actually, your choice there is not to buy the software. That's one little detail that people like yourself forget when they decry the evils of closed source.
As with everything else in the real world, you vote with your hard-earned moolah.
The extreme (let's screw ourselves because the tool/os/app we need is not 100% certifiably open source free-as-in-whatever) is problematic at best and stupid at worst.
STFU
Someone needs a fucking hug.
Fuck, bring it on.
*ducks*
If it's any consolation, look at the older posts and ponder their +5, Funny ratings while munching on hot grits [ouch].
Or at least that's what the Perl regex guide said.