When I say they told me to "fuck off", I mean that in the sense that they *told me to fuck off.*
That's all well and good but you continue to blame all this on malice on the part of Philips. I personally ascribe it to stupidity, but that's just me.
This is just as "logical" as putting up a Linux advocacy site and refusing entry to Windows and Mac users.
No, for the last time. They didn't create the product and include "AMAZING: It Doesn't Support Linux (TM)!!!" in the product descriptions. Trust me, I saw it.
Come now, wouldn't you believe that *you* had been told to "fuck off" if a site told you to "go away, you're using Windows, come back when you install Linux"?
I'd probably get over it fairly soon. Especially if it was a site that was promoting a product that I'm not going to buy. I have better ways of spending my money, especially if I'd feel as offended as you seem to, here.
Unfortunately, you've fallen into the Trent Lott trap. THe more you talk about it, the more poeple are going to decide that it's YOUR FAULT that Philips isn't writing Linux drivers. EVen though you've stated taht you WANT linux drivers
You can talk all you want about market share of the OS desktop. Cater to the major OS? Sure. Restrict it to one OS or even browser? Stupid stupid stupid.
Sigh. Look, I mostly understand what you're trying to say here and all, but try to think like a corporation, OK? Have you ever been involved in the development of a commercial software product or service? Everything costs money. They're not restricting it to Windows and OS X. They're just not catering to Linux and BSD. There's a huge difference between the two. Neither you nor I know how that service works or how it was developed, and yet you are not frazzled one bit when you call the webmaster stupid, as if a web site was the extent of the thing. Did you read the article?
Trust me, if it made sense to cater to Linux and BSD and BeOS and so on they would do it. Corporations are, if nothing else, not stupid when it comes to making and losing money. Your assertion that they are restricting you from spending your money on their product to make them richer (get it?) is uninformed and misleading and based on nothing more than your perception of hostility from a company that could just care less.
Jeebus man, pay a little more attention to what you're doing.
Oh, great. My conscience =)
Most open source stuff is not difficult at all if you read the free docs. And yes, most of them have them. I'd know; guess what I work with all day?
Some stuff, yes. Some stuff, no. Whereas with commercial software, most stuff yes, because otherwise you just don't freakin' sell it.
To answer what you're asking about, OSS is open so that developers who are interested and have the time to ADD to the project can ADD to it for free. In that situation, it benefits everyone
Non-sequitur. I'm not asking with what makes OSS tick, I already know that, and it's certainly an interesting model as far as the software development process goes.
one which doesn't care about a bottom line and thus does things right
Now you're just going into wishful thinking mode. Agree?
If you think I'm blowing smoke up your arse, I seriously hope you get a chance to meet some serious OSS developers.
No, I don't. But again, you're missing my point. I'm not questioning the motivations or the driving forces behind software like this.
Reply. I want to hear what you think. Take this point by point, if you have the time.
What were you and I discussing about trolls and flames with OS bias?
Aw, c'mon. It was a joke. It's funny, laugh =)
[BTW, sorry for not following through with our other conversation. I completely forgot and I you just reminded me of it. If you want we can continue in your journal or something]
I'm posting AC for a reason, as this happened very recently to me...
No you didn't =)
if you feel professional to your users, you become professional. if you act like jerks, well... you get the picture.
I can't disagree with you here. I've been using Linux for a few years on and off and I've run into the worst and best out there while looking for information about things like drivers, APIs, etc.
But I think for the most part the folks that work in open source projects are, if nothing else, very smart and mostly helpful. The situation you describe here (at least in my experience) is definitely a bit extreme.
I understand what you're saying here but Nagios is billed as a replacement for a product like Unicenter TNG, with which I'm familiar. CA goes to great lengths to ensure that even the most technically impaired data center operator can use it. Ergo, Nagios is really no competition unless you already have the expertise and you're going for it to save the money, which also makes sense, of course. But that's not the point.
But telling people who don't use your supported platforms * at the moment* to just go "fuck off" is really a bit much, don't you think?
The problem with your logic is that you base it on your emotional reaction. If you feel that they're telling you to "fuck off" then you've lost all perspective and simply immersed yourself in the same hyperbole you acuse me of spewing.
A company like Phillips is not telling Linux or BSD users to go fuck themselves. They just don't fucking care. Why? Because it makes no fucking commercial sense to cater to you, period. Which is the point I was trying to make.
Am I happy because they're Streamium (whatever) doesn't work with Linux or BSD? No. If there is a void there then someone will fill it. But the bottom line is people like you feel entitled to things because you consider yourself to be on the moral and technological high ground. That may or may not be true, but it has nothing to do with the reality of business.
OK then, 96%. Better? What's the difference? I think it's still crappy that manufacturers won't cater to Linux, but how does complaining about it change reality?
pointing out an important piece of info is hardly a "rant."
Your interpretation, to which you are certainly entitled.
Yeah, it's the same reason it's OK to refuse service to niggers, you are still catering to 88% of the universe.
That's a bit extreme, eh? Is there any reason why you must resort to this type of thing?
I can't bring myself to see the connect between racial discrimination and business sense. Maybe you can enlighten us as to how you came to this insighful conclusion.
Oh, and BTW, I'm not black but I'm sure people who happen to be would be offended by your choice of terms. I suggest you think twice before posting crap like this.
Unfortunately PC-Link software is not only proprietary, but it only runs on Windows and it requires you to download the trial version of MusicMatch Jukebox. This is obviously very inconvenient for a non-Windows user
I can agree that this is crappy, but if you stand back a bit and look at things pragmatically, you'd understand that they're only catering to 99.9% of the desktop PC universe.
I really have no simpathy to rants like these because they are completely illogical.
Other than that, I appreciate your review. I've been thinking of getting a component for my home theater that does all this and it'll be helpful.
Money talks. If there's no money, people might not talk. [...] Otherwise you are at the mercy of the generosity and availability of the people on the mailing lists.
Now here's one of the things I've never been able to figure out. How can it make sense to build good, solid, complex software that's supposed to be free (beer, speech, whatever) and then say "here it is, it's free. But if you want to figure out how to use it, pay up". You can download it, see the source, modify it, redistribute it, dress it in polka dots, etc. But if you can't elucidate out how to actually be productive with it, well, tough cookies. I'm not bitching about the fact that I have to spend money to figure out Nagios or whatever. After all, nothing is really free. But I find it hard to grok the logic behind it all.
How is that better than selling the software and including the support as part of the package? Because it's "more moral"? How does this model make open source a viable alternative to commercial software?
It seems to me most open source/free software is essentially an ego trip for the developer (and to be honest, as one, I can understand the motivations so I'm not saying that to be insulting or derisive). But software like this that is potentially extremely useful but just sits there and does nothing because only four people in the world understand it is not particularly useful. How many open source projects are in this situation and thus basically stuck because of it? Do the end user(s) always have to be just an afterthought?
You tell me. Wouldn't you say that's more akin to figuring out if your new SUV will fit in your garage by just driving it in instead of measuring the garage and the SUV first? I.e., knowing what you're doing?
So how would you suggest confirming a piece of code is going to work?
I can't really help you there - if you don't know that a particular piece of code will run or not maybe you've chosen the wrong carrer path.
There's a significant difference between debugging code and using the debugger to figure out how to write the code.
Sigh. Look, first of all, I'm not trying to criticize VB or the people who use it, because then I'd be shooting myself as well beacuse I use it as much as I use VC++. Having said that -
What is wrong with "playing" with your code until "it works" and the "edit and continue" school?
I'd wager good money that 90% of all people who call themselves "VB programmers" that develop applications that way know essentially nothing about proper application design and how the environment and technologies they're using work. I've seen it myself countless times and I've seen internal studies done by Microsoft that confirm it. Write five lines of code, hit F5, walk through it, edit a line, continue, stop, write another 10 lines, lather, rinse, repeat. That's not writing code and that's not being particularly productive. That's learning how the whole thing works while you're supposed to already know it.
The debugger is a tool. I'm not saying you shouldn't use it. But if the debugger happens to be your way of confirming a piece of code is going to work, well, then you have a problem.
Right, and that's my point - the best debugger in the world will not help you if you happen to suck at writing code to begin with. And it's not very helpful if the tool itself promotes the bad habits, though of course that's not the tool's fault, as you say.
A debugger should be the last thing you use when you're writing your application - it shouldn't be integrated into your coding strategy and it shouldn't be the thing you use to figure out that you happen to suck at writing code =)
The VB debugger is the absolute best I've ever worked with, possibly followed by the VC++ graphical debugger and WinDbg. Edit and continue is definitely an impressive feat of software engineering.
But it promotes crappy code. It lets you "play" with your code until "it works" instead of it being just a tool to find problems. There are waaay too many VB programmers out there that graduated from the "edit and continue" school.
The managed.NET debugger is (IMO) nothing to write home about. It's too slow right now. The Everett (RC1) version is a bit better and has less bugs, but it's still a bit slow for my taste.
If your application is badly designed, debugging it is going to be crappy anyway. A good application design has to incorporate things like unit testing (instrumented or not) and a decent state machine management infrastructure.
If you're using a language like VB or Delphi debugging is simple and almost inviting. I think that has always promoted bad application design. "Oh, that didn't work. OK, let's try this. Oh, that didn't work. OK, maybe this will work" and so on.
If you're writing applications in C or C++, and especially as you get closer to the system, you learn to be more careful about what your application does because it's very difficult to change direction in mid-flight. It also forces you to think about what you're doing a lot more. I.e., you have to know what you're doing. Impressive concept, but frequently lost on today's "programmers".
IMO, something like the "edit and continue" feature found in modern integrated IDEs like VB is a bad idea.
Slashdot Mirror
That's all well and good but you continue to blame all this on malice on the part of Philips. I personally ascribe it to stupidity, but that's just me.
This is just as "logical" as putting up a Linux advocacy site and refusing entry to Windows and Mac users.
No, for the last time. They didn't create the product and include "AMAZING: It Doesn't Support Linux (TM)!!!" in the product descriptions. Trust me, I saw it.
Come now, wouldn't you believe that *you* had been told to "fuck off" if a site told you to "go away, you're using Windows, come back when you install Linux"?
I'd probably get over it fairly soon. Especially if it was a site that was promoting a product that I'm not going to buy. I have better ways of spending my money, especially if I'd feel as offended as you seem to, here.
LOL, yeah, it kinda feels that way.
By an Anonymous Coward.
The Prince of Darkness can take me away now.
And my dad can beat up your dad. Or something.
"+5, Funny"???
He didn't add a smiley... did anyone stop to think he might have been serious?
Here's mine: =)
Sigh. Look, I mostly understand what you're trying to say here and all, but try to think like a corporation, OK? Have you ever been involved in the development of a commercial software product or service? Everything costs money. They're not restricting it to Windows and OS X. They're just not catering to Linux and BSD. There's a huge difference between the two. Neither you nor I know how that service works or how it was developed, and yet you are not frazzled one bit when you call the webmaster stupid, as if a web site was the extent of the thing. Did you read the article?
Trust me, if it made sense to cater to Linux and BSD and BeOS and so on they would do it. Corporations are, if nothing else, not stupid when it comes to making and losing money. Your assertion that they are restricting you from spending your money on their product to make them richer (get it?) is uninformed and misleading and based on nothing more than your perception of hostility from a company that could just care less.
Oh, great. My conscience =)
Most open source stuff is not difficult at all if you read the free docs. And yes, most of them have them. I'd know; guess what I work with all day?
Some stuff, yes. Some stuff, no. Whereas with commercial software, most stuff yes, because otherwise you just don't freakin' sell it.
To answer what you're asking about, OSS is open so that developers who are interested and have the time to ADD to the project can ADD to it for free. In that situation, it benefits everyone
Non-sequitur. I'm not asking with what makes OSS tick, I already know that, and it's certainly an interesting model as far as the software development process goes.
one which doesn't care about a bottom line and thus does things right
Now you're just going into wishful thinking mode. Agree?
If you think I'm blowing smoke up your arse, I seriously hope you get a chance to meet some serious OSS developers.
No, I don't. But again, you're missing my point. I'm not questioning the motivations or the driving forces behind software like this.
Reply. I want to hear what you think. Take this point by point, if you have the time.
Your turn =)
Aw, c'mon. It was a joke. It's funny, laugh =)
[BTW, sorry for not following through with our other conversation. I completely forgot and I you just reminded me of it. If you want we can continue in your journal or something]
No you didn't =)
if you feel professional to your users, you become professional. if you act like jerks, well... you get the picture.
I can't disagree with you here. I've been using Linux for a few years on and off and I've run into the worst and best out there while looking for information about things like drivers, APIs, etc.
But I think for the most part the folks that work in open source projects are, if nothing else, very smart and mostly helpful. The situation you describe here (at least in my experience) is definitely a bit extreme.
I understand what you're saying here but Nagios is billed as a replacement for a product like Unicenter TNG, with which I'm familiar. CA goes to great lengths to ensure that even the most technically impaired data center operator can use it. Ergo, Nagios is really no competition unless you already have the expertise and you're going for it to save the money, which also makes sense, of course. But that's not the point.
The problem with your logic is that you base it on your emotional reaction. If you feel that they're telling you to "fuck off" then you've lost all perspective and simply immersed yourself in the same hyperbole you acuse me of spewing.
A company like Phillips is not telling Linux or BSD users to go fuck themselves. They just don't fucking care. Why? Because it makes no fucking commercial sense to cater to you, period. Which is the point I was trying to make.
Am I happy because they're Streamium (whatever) doesn't work with Linux or BSD? No. If there is a void there then someone will fill it. But the bottom line is people like you feel entitled to things because you consider yourself to be on the moral and technological high ground. That may or may not be true, but it has nothing to do with the reality of business.
Hope that helps.
OK then, 96%. Better? What's the difference? I think it's still crappy that manufacturers won't cater to Linux, but how does complaining about it change reality?
pointing out an important piece of info is hardly a "rant."
Your interpretation, to which you are certainly entitled.
That's a bit extreme, eh? Is there any reason why you must resort to this type of thing?
I can't bring myself to see the connect between racial discrimination and business sense. Maybe you can enlighten us as to how you came to this insighful conclusion.
Oh, and BTW, I'm not black but I'm sure people who happen to be would be offended by your choice of terms. I suggest you think twice before posting crap like this.
I can agree that this is crappy, but if you stand back a bit and look at things pragmatically, you'd understand that they're only catering to 99.9% of the desktop PC universe.
I really have no simpathy to rants like these because they are completely illogical.
Other than that, I appreciate your review. I've been thinking of getting a component for my home theater that does all this and it'll be helpful.
Now here's one of the things I've never been able to figure out. How can it make sense to build good, solid, complex software that's supposed to be free (beer, speech, whatever) and then say "here it is, it's free. But if you want to figure out how to use it, pay up". You can download it, see the source, modify it, redistribute it, dress it in polka dots, etc. But if you can't elucidate out how to actually be productive with it, well, tough cookies. I'm not bitching about the fact that I have to spend money to figure out Nagios or whatever. After all, nothing is really free. But I find it hard to grok the logic behind it all.
How is that better than selling the software and including the support as part of the package? Because it's "more moral"? How does this model make open source a viable alternative to commercial software?
It seems to me most open source/free software is essentially an ego trip for the developer (and to be honest, as one, I can understand the motivations so I'm not saying that to be insulting or derisive). But software like this that is potentially extremely useful but just sits there and does nothing because only four people in the world understand it is not particularly useful. How many open source projects are in this situation and thus basically stuck because of it? Do the end user(s) always have to be just an afterthought?
Yay!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You so... oh, never mind.
You tell me. Wouldn't you say that's more akin to figuring out if your new SUV will fit in your garage by just driving it in instead of measuring the garage and the SUV first? I.e., knowing what you're doing?
So how would you suggest confirming a piece of code is going to work?
I can't really help you there - if you don't know that a particular piece of code will run or not maybe you've chosen the wrong carrer path.
There's a significant difference between debugging code and using the debugger to figure out how to write the code.
What is wrong with "playing" with your code until "it works" and the "edit and continue" school?
I'd wager good money that 90% of all people who call themselves "VB programmers" that develop applications that way know essentially nothing about proper application design and how the environment and technologies they're using work. I've seen it myself countless times and I've seen internal studies done by Microsoft that confirm it. Write five lines of code, hit F5, walk through it, edit a line, continue, stop, write another 10 lines, lather, rinse, repeat. That's not writing code and that's not being particularly productive. That's learning how the whole thing works while you're supposed to already know it.
The debugger is a tool. I'm not saying you shouldn't use it. But if the debugger happens to be your way of confirming a piece of code is going to work, well, then you have a problem.
A debugger should be the last thing you use when you're writing your application - it shouldn't be integrated into your coding strategy and it shouldn't be the thing you use to figure out that you happen to suck at writing code =)
But it promotes crappy code. It lets you "play" with your code until "it works" instead of it being just a tool to find problems. There are waaay too many VB programmers out there that graduated from the "edit and continue" school.
The managed .NET debugger is (IMO) nothing to write home about. It's too slow right now. The Everett (RC1) version is a bit better and has less bugs, but it's still a bit slow for my taste.
If you're using a language like VB or Delphi debugging is simple and almost inviting. I think that has always promoted bad application design. "Oh, that didn't work. OK, let's try this. Oh, that didn't work. OK, maybe this will work" and so on.
If you're writing applications in C or C++, and especially as you get closer to the system, you learn to be more careful about what your application does because it's very difficult to change direction in mid-flight. It also forces you to think about what you're doing a lot more. I.e., you have to know what you're doing. Impressive concept, but frequently lost on today's "programmers".
IMO, something like the "edit and continue" feature found in modern integrated IDEs like VB is a bad idea.
We bitch about /.'ed sites but then once in a while you guys do The Right Thing. Kudos.
Looks like it'll be an interesting read. Thanks.
Trollificus, who can only post twice every 24 hours.
I know, that sucks.
Oh, wait...