Heh, that one from Sun? If you like these sorts of games, you might wish to look at JHLabs. Looking at the HTML sources, they don't even require downloading Sun's plug-in.
Mozilla seems to have turned in to a 'developers playground', initially overdesigned and poorly implemented, and subsequently rewritten ad infinitum.
Then the question you have to ask yourself is, has nothing at all changed? The answer might very well be that they gained a lot of experience, like those MS programmers who took various revisions to get to IE3.
3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
Are you trolling? At that point, IBM would be investing in possibly competing firms which do not necessarily even have a snowball's chance in hell of being successful. And it would be showing favoritism to an outside group of developers. Should they also give money to RedHat? Would SourceXchange survived (if they indeed are dead) if it had some IBM money propping up their carcass? There is still some Darwinism inherent in the Open-source model.
IBM should earmark 0.05% of their budget (that's still half a million bucks right?) to - guess what - pay great open source based developers and designers to build a site that would try to get feedback from the Linux community, including developers, users, and purchasers, as to what sort of things we'd like to see.
I heard that's what SourceForge and even Slashdot were about. Before you find that odd, both sites are actually very good barometers of peoples' desires. And plus, they already have alphaWorks and developerWorks, both of which I visit on a regular basis.
Probably for confusion value. Plus, there are times you don't want to signal an operation with a big jeep. This could be used for random special-purpose ops when the situation calls for it. For example, to quickly get near, plant an explosive, and get out.
Are you trolling me? ;) I'm gonna bite!
on
Mundie Responds
·
· Score: 1
Well, interesting you talk about market cap. All of these companies you cited (with perhaps exception of Oracle) are needing people to take vacations to keep some semblance of market cap.
Now, let's look at Amazon. Amazon was well-funded amid a sea of imitators. Red Hat is in an analogous situation, without quite the level of funding. Now, do you really think you would be right in comparing these two companies to Microsoft, which has been alive for decades? No, anyone who holds that notion also holds himself to ridicule.
What is the point? The point is you're comparing old companies to new. If you look at the ratio of successful companies to dead ones in history, it will likely look similar to about.001. Do you know how many companies died in the era Microsoft was ascending? For every Microsoft, at least a thousand died. Despite having the same business model.
Are you telling me that the successful closed-source software companies are as successful as Microsoft? (Hint: Look at stock prices.)
Are you telling me that you didn't expect there to be more successful closed-source software companies than open-source companies? (Clue: They've been around far longer.)
Are you telling me that GNU is actually developing its windowing system faster than Microsoft? (Notice: Windows is a ripoff of Apple's ripoff, so don't say Linux isn't "innovating".)
And I would point out to you that all those companies you cited, every single one are becoming partially open-source companies.
But that's the point. Microsoft is UNIQUE in its success. So what does it mean that it's successful, if other companies can't emulate it, and instead just plaster www.fuckedcompany.com?
Really? On the contrary, I find it signifies intelligence. I wonder why people who look down on the tireless pursuit of money, are throat-deep in the rat race of getting letters on a piece of paper.
Ironic. As I was reading this, I noted a fortune at the bottom from Thomas Jefferson, pointing out that a bit of rebellion is a good thing now & then.
All things considered though, I'd take the boy to live over you anyday. Same goes for getting ass-hammered in jail. And for all I know, you probably feel the same way.
You didn't take the time to learn what XP is all about. Perhaps your friend gave you the wrong impression. XP is SPECIFICALLY against planning things out too deeply. The analogy they use is that building a project is not like shooting a gun -- more like driving a car, with all the little course corrections.
The main disadvantage of this is that you'll inevitably need to change your code around because obstacles come up that you did not foresee. They sand down this disadvantage by strongly supporting "refactoring," which is a method to safely generalize & modify working code.
eXtreme Programming is definitely a hot spot of contention between those who favor a more individualistic approach and those who are more team-oriented. But whatever the case is, I've found that reading the book is useful even if you wish to discard most of what you've read. Many people could stand to consider the merits of automated unit testing, which is not a new concept but few people seem to do it. Same with smaller, faster iteration release schedules for quicker customer feedback. At the very least, the book provides analysis of situations and solutions many have to face.
It's certainly a small enough book to read at the bookstore café, if one has no intention of buying it.
I understand that the Bernoulli effect doesn't explain flight all by itself, but is there such a problem with air going faster over a curved surface? Isn't there more surface area, so the speed relative to the wing's shape is greater?
If my taxes are going to pay for the government to participate in the software industry, then I damn well better be able to use the product of what I've paid to develop.
Fortunately for us Free Software lunatics, many of us pay US taxes as well. And we demand that code that goes into Public Domain go under this brilliant license, before it is made worthless.
If a company says it can innovate -- let it! Make code using the productivity-enhancing GPLed code, as Free Software writers have had to do with proprietary code. Public domain code shouldn't just be the playthings of a few corporations; it should also be for people of other, less developed countries. That the vision I have for my country.
I definitely think people undestimate the utility of planning/design. Oftentimes the corporate world is a tradeoff between designing and just typing something so you have something tangible to show people, even if it's just lines of code.
If the VCs had just made them be 6 to 10 hackers in a garage until Nautilus 2.0 came out, they would have had a chance.
They could not have predicted the huge difference between the financial landscape then and now. And I think it was the right thing to do; they would not have gotten serious financial backing nowadays, and were able to get the advantages of buring through $13M.
I agree, and that's the law that should be made. If one is committing a crime with DeCSS, then the penalty should be a bit stiffer. That would be an illegal use of something that was allowed for freedom. But to ban crowbars outright is certainly something that the MPAA will have a hard time living up to.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the first page I've ever saved on Slashdot. Good job. Acute neophytes will notice this applies to far more than just game companies.
Heh, that one from Sun? If you like these sorts of games, you might wish to look at JHLabs. Looking at the HTML sources, they don't even require downloading Sun's plug-in.
Mozilla seems to have turned in to a 'developers playground', initially overdesigned and poorly implemented, and subsequently rewritten ad infinitum.
Then the question you have to ask yourself is, has nothing at all changed? The answer might very well be that they gained a lot of experience, like those MS programmers who took various revisions to get to IE3.
No, Bill plays bridge with his main partner Warren Buffett. It's an information game.
Are you trolling? At that point, IBM would be investing in possibly competing firms which do not necessarily even have a snowball's chance in hell of being successful. And it would be showing favoritism to an outside group of developers. Should they also give money to RedHat? Would SourceXchange survived (if they indeed are dead) if it had some IBM money propping up their carcass? There is still some Darwinism inherent in the Open-source model.
IBM should earmark 0.05% of their budget (that's still half a million bucks right?) to - guess what - pay great open source based developers and designers to build a site that would try to get feedback from the Linux community, including developers, users, and purchasers, as to what sort of things we'd like to see.
I heard that's what SourceForge and even Slashdot were about. Before you find that odd, both sites are actually very good barometers of peoples' desires. And plus, they already have alphaWorks and developerWorks, both of which I visit on a regular basis.
Probably for confusion value. Plus, there are times you don't want to signal an operation with a big jeep. This could be used for random special-purpose ops when the situation calls for it. For example, to quickly get near, plant an explosive, and get out.
Well, interesting you talk about market cap. All of these companies you cited (with perhaps exception of Oracle) are needing people to take vacations to keep some semblance of market cap.
.001. Do you know how many companies died in the era Microsoft was ascending? For every Microsoft, at least a thousand died. Despite having the same business model.
Now, let's look at Amazon. Amazon was well-funded amid a sea of imitators. Red Hat is in an analogous situation, without quite the level of funding. Now, do you really think you would be right in comparing these two companies to Microsoft, which has been alive for decades? No, anyone who holds that notion also holds himself to ridicule.
What is the point? The point is you're comparing old companies to new. If you look at the ratio of successful companies to dead ones in history, it will likely look similar to about
Slashdot really brings out the darkest in me. Didn't mean to be so cruel. But next time, be less sarcastic.
Are you telling me that the successful closed-source software companies are as successful as Microsoft? (Hint: Look at stock prices.)
Are you telling me that you didn't expect there to be more successful closed-source software companies than open-source companies? (Clue: They've been around far longer.)
Are you telling me that GNU is actually developing its windowing system faster than Microsoft? (Notice: Windows is a ripoff of Apple's ripoff, so don't say Linux isn't "innovating".)
And I would point out to you that all those companies you cited, every single one are becoming partially open-source companies.
Now, don't make me do this to you again.
But that's the point. Microsoft is UNIQUE in its success. So what does it mean that it's successful, if other companies can't emulate it, and instead just plaster www.fuckedcompany.com?
Really? On the contrary, I find it signifies intelligence. I wonder why people who look down on the tireless pursuit of money, are throat-deep in the rat race of getting letters on a piece of paper.
Ironic. As I was reading this, I noted a fortune at the bottom from Thomas Jefferson, pointing out that a bit of rebellion is a good thing now & then.
All things considered though, I'd take the boy to live over you anyday. Same goes for getting ass-hammered in jail. And for all I know, you probably feel the same way.
The copyright owner can ALWAYS grant exceptions. Wanna sell a closed version? As long as you hold the license to the entire codebase, you can.
You didn't take the time to learn what XP is all about. Perhaps your friend gave you the wrong impression. XP is SPECIFICALLY against planning things out too deeply. The analogy they use is that building a project is not like shooting a gun -- more like driving a car, with all the little course corrections.
The main disadvantage of this is that you'll inevitably need to change your code around because obstacles come up that you did not foresee. They sand down this disadvantage by strongly supporting "refactoring," which is a method to safely generalize & modify working code.
eXtreme Programming is definitely a hot spot of contention between those who favor a more individualistic approach and those who are more team-oriented. But whatever the case is, I've found that reading the book is useful even if you wish to discard most of what you've read. Many people could stand to consider the merits of automated unit testing, which is not a new concept but few people seem to do it. Same with smaller, faster iteration release schedules for quicker customer feedback. At the very least, the book provides analysis of situations and solutions many have to face.
It's certainly a small enough book to read at the bookstore café, if one has no intention of buying it.
I wonder if these guys will be smart and not charge $100 million for a license.
Don't you just love the idea of an RIAA tax on your band's demo CD-R's? ;)
I understand that the Bernoulli effect doesn't explain flight all by itself, but is there such a problem with air going faster over a curved surface? Isn't there more surface area, so the speed relative to the wing's shape is greater?
;)
Time to pull out my Feynmans.
Methinks some company needs better hype. ;)
If my taxes are going to pay for the government to participate in the software industry, then I damn well better be able to use the product of what I've paid to develop.
Fortunately for us Free Software lunatics, many of us pay US taxes as well. And we demand that code that goes into Public Domain go under this brilliant license, before it is made worthless.
If a company says it can innovate -- let it! Make code using the productivity-enhancing GPLed code, as Free Software writers have had to do with proprietary code. Public domain code shouldn't just be the playthings of a few corporations; it should also be for people of other, less developed countries. That the vision I have for my country.
I definitely think people undestimate the utility of planning/design. Oftentimes the corporate world is a tradeoff between designing and just typing something so you have something tangible to show people, even if it's just lines of code.
If the VCs had just made them be 6 to 10 hackers in a garage until Nautilus 2.0 came out, they would have had a chance.
They could not have predicted the huge difference between the financial landscape then and now. And I think it was the right thing to do; they would not have gotten serious financial backing nowadays, and were able to get the advantages of buring through $13M.
I agree, and that's the law that should be made. If one is committing a crime with DeCSS, then the penalty should be a bit stiffer. That would be an illegal use of something that was allowed for freedom. But to ban crowbars outright is certainly something that the MPAA will have a hard time living up to.
Do we ban normal crowbars? And if DeCSS is a digital crowbar, is there any cause to ban it too?