"About the only way you can get legally some of this licencing software to work on some machines is to buy a USB to ethernet converter and get a licence for the MAC address -" Because it is impossible to clone a MAC....
"I'll be far happier if these companies just worked out a way to live off support and the licensing software vanished entirely." That idea has been stated time and time again. But if a program is easy to use and stable why do you need support. I use Solidworks at my office. I have never called for support. I use GCC at my office. I never need to paid support. It can work for some products but not all. In fact it would encourage buggy and hard to use software!
Interesting but will it still be a civil matter? If they made the statement in court that there was no need to put Novells money in a trust because there where not going to file for bankruptcy isn't possible contempt of court or perjury? If so then then this may not be a civil matter.
Could be a big win for Red Hat, Novell, and maybe Sun. There are some big companies that are using SCO for mission critical applications. The logical way for them to go is to Linux or Solaris.
And without Hitler there would have been no European Union,United Nations, or Israel...
Well the first part is true. Microsoft's claim is a bit silly. If it had not been Microsoft it would have been Digital Research, or Commodore, or Sinclair, or DEC. Someone would have come out with a new workable standard or Digital Research's CP/M would have evolved into from CP/M-86 into CP/M-86+GEM into a full 32 bit multitasking OS, or maybe OS/2 would have worked because Digital Research would have stayed the course with IBM and made it work. Or Novell and or AT&T would have figured out how to market Unix or Apple would have grown to be the the great Evil Empire that it could have been. Or Radio Shack/Tandy would be the major computer manufacture on the planet. So many possibilities some better then what we have now and some worse. What if IBM had realized that they where going setting a standard that would live for 25+ years? Do you think they would have created Microsoft and Intel? Or do you think that they would have made their own CPU and OS? Maybe we would all be living with CPUs based on the IBM 360 today?
Just as if the Wright Brothers hadn't built their plane Sanitos Dumont would have been the first. If not him then someone else.
"The way to beat the pirates is to provide a better service to your customers than they do. The commonly advocated business model is to provide support on the software to paying users - and since your target is business customers this makes a lot of sense." Just a quick question? Have you ever written a program and sold it for a living?
Your idea which I have heard many times before just doesn't work. It is at best a myth. If you write your software well and create a good enough on line help system you will decrease the need for support. So your model actually increases the profits from a program if it is hard to use, has poor user documentation, and is full of bugs..
If a program is intuitive and well written then why do they need tech support?
The simple truth is if the program is cheap enough you then you probable just want to put some kind of minimal copy protection like on line registration. Just to keep honest people honest. If the software costs enough you may want to look into one of the hardware dongles. If you do then you are going to have to have some kind of replacement policy for when it fails and some of them will fail and some kind of bypass code to let them run for a limited time without a dongle.
None of this will stop sophisticated pirates. But sophisticated pirates would probably never buy your software to start with.
I tend to think that just living with fact that some people are just dishonest is usually the best course. Charge a fair amount for your work and live with the fact that some people will not respect your right to control how your code is distributed and used.
Actually I may be trolling but I really didn't mean too be. I am just so ticked off at all the clueless people that have stated time and time again. "all they have to do is release the specs and "we" will write the drivers. Of course they are using that special we that only people that don't actually write code use. I am all for ATI/AMD releasing the specs but I just don't believe that any complex driver will ever be written without the manufacture doing a lot of the heavy lifting. The actually developers at X.org and other FOSS projects that I use have nothing but my thanks and respect. The rant is more for those people that say "all they have to do is release the specs", it just isn't that easy.
If it was a hardware issue then they would need to ship NEW hardware to fix it.
I suggest you read this again or maybe for the first time!
"'For instance, there are some problems -- like accelerated video playback issues with Intel drivers -- that can only be resolved by using the EXA accelerated rendering framework which is still not ready yet. When asked why Intel isn't addressing the driver issue, technical board member Mathew Garrett explained that "Intel are working on the basis that composited desktops won't be ready for rolling out until EXA is stable enough anyway, so it's not a concern [for them].' "
So what part of DRIVER ISSUE don't you understand?
So without the company that created the hardware dedicating resources to a driver project the driver may or not be done in a timely manner. So if a company wants their driver in the Kernel they will have to not just release the documentation but dedicate programming staff to the project. So they pretty much have to make the same effort as they would with a closed source driver but also prepare the documentation, manage the open source contributions if they get any, and make sure that their software is legally clean to publish as open source. So what I am hearing is that I shouldn't hold my breath for those new good FOSS drivers for ATI.
Yes they do. 1. TV in the US is traditionally "free" if you get it over the air. Why pay for it. 2. DRM and ease of use. I want to put the shows on my media player no matter what it is. I want to store them on my HD or Burn them to a DVD. Just like I can do with any show I capture with my VCR, DVD-R or capture card on my PC.
Frankly the producers of the TV shows must have mixed feelings. They would probably love to cut out the networks, local stations, and cable companies. They could have all the lovely ad money. But they would loss all that money from syndication and selling the DVDs.
It could be that "core" gamers are just not that important. There are probably a lot more casual gamers out there. Think of all the Nintendo DSs that have been sold. The Wii targets that same demographic. I honestly think that the low cost of the Wii gives Nintendo a big chance to jump a generation. If they produce an HDWii in two or three years and sell it for the same price people will buy it. They will have a few years of Moore's law on there side and all they have to do to keep people happy is make it play their old games just like DS and Wii can do now. If you think that people will crab about such a short life cycle I really doubt it, sure didn't hurt the DS lite.
They have released the docs for their GPU. I have been told time and time again on Slashdot that all that has to happen is to document your hardware and a legion of FOSS programmers will write a better driver than you could. So why does Intel need to address anything?
What is bazzare when you add the idea of "Do no evil" and have a private 767 and talk about using solar energy to save power. Like I said even if they got a super plush Gulfstream that can fly none-stop from California to Paris they would be saving A LOT OF FUEL.
No I think having the money for a private jet is cool. But why bother with solar panels on the GooglePlex when you are burring thousands of lbs of fuel in a private 767? Even a private Gulfstream which is a very nice long rang private jet would burn a fraction of the fuel of that 767. If they where willing to slum it and fly first class they would then reduce their carbon print by an order of magnatude.
I don't have a problem with wealth. I have a problem whith hypocites.
I doubt that Google used Linux to gain mind share. They used Linux because they could get the source and was free. It was the cheapest and best solution for building a super large COTS cluster. It is nice that AMD gave the 2D specs away. I will go to great when they give out the 3-D specs. I will buy and AMDTI video card when we have good working drivers.
Would Zealotry be a term you like more? Social Movement? Freedom? It is software. That is all it is. Software patents yes they should be outlawed. But the very idea that FOSS is some great liberating social movement is exactly what I am talking about. As I have said I have been writing Open Source software since before there was a GPL. It is a good idea but the idea that it is a great cause like civil rights is just silly. Unlike the vast majority of zealots I do give more than lip service to the idea of FOSS, I actually give away my code. So yes I really dislike the GPLV3 I have stated it time and time again the reasons why I dislike it and I will not contribute code to GPLV3 projects unless it is a project I really need and I actively need that feature. I will probably work hard to find a project that can do the same thing with out the burden of GPLV3 code.
Sorry but this statement from RMS smells like religion to me "However, if you don't want to lose your freedom, you had better not follow him." So we should follow RMS instead? You may disagree but I don't follow RMS or Linux. I may disagree or agree with them on things but I don't follow them.
What don't you understand. The GPL and Free software is his religion. He has the only keys to salvation and if you question his vision you are going to lead people into closed software hell! I am a big fan of FOSS. I like GPL V2 and I released my first opens source software way back in the 80s. There was no GPL yet so it was public domain but unlike a lot of Public domain stuff I included the source with the executables. I wrote both and early an virus checker for the Amiga and REXX bindings for Modula-2. I use Linux and write for it, I use OO, and my wife uses GIMP to do digital scrapbooking and keeps telling me that it is so much easier to use than Photoshop Elements. I like GPL and BSD software. I just really don't like the zealotry that goes on and I really don't like the RMS version of the zealotry. I do think it is harmful to FOSS.
The GPL is RMS's religion, he is it's high priest. If you dare to question the true church you are a heretic. It is the same thing with GNU-Linux. Because Linux uses the GNU user-space programs like ls RMS feels that it should have to carry the GNU name. I for one I am not a follower of RMS or a follower of Linus. I don't like GPL V3 because I feel that it is predatory towards Tivo and other Consumer devices that use Linux while allowing "professional" equipment to not follow the same rules.
Slashdot Mirror
funny I thought it was exactly the mass of 6.02x10^26 hydrogen atoms.
Ummm... Duh... This was in a joke thread. Yes the good old Wave-partical duality. Should I have to reference the Dual-slot experiment?
"About the only way you can get legally some of this licencing software to work on some machines is to buy a USB to ethernet converter and get a licence for the MAC address -"
Because it is impossible to clone a MAC....
"I'll be far happier if these companies just worked out a way to live off support and the licensing software vanished entirely."
That idea has been stated time and time again. But if a program is easy to use and stable why do you need support.
I use Solidworks at my office. I have never called for support.
I use GCC at my office. I never need to paid support.
It can work for some products but not all. In fact it would encourage buggy and hard to use software!
I thought Lasers use waves? They always talk about what wavelength they are.
Interesting but will it still be a civil matter? If they made the statement in court that there was no need to put Novells money in a trust because there where not going to file for bankruptcy isn't possible contempt of court or perjury?
If so then then this may not be a civil matter.
Could be a big win for Red Hat, Novell, and maybe Sun.
There are some big companies that are using SCO for mission critical applications. The logical way for them to go is to Linux or Solaris.
And without Hitler there would have been no European Union ,United Nations, or Israel...
Well the first part is true. Microsoft's claim is a bit silly.
If it had not been Microsoft it would have been Digital Research, or Commodore, or Sinclair, or DEC. Someone would have come out with a new workable standard or Digital Research's CP/M would have evolved into from CP/M-86 into CP/M-86+GEM into a full 32 bit multitasking OS, or maybe OS/2 would have worked because Digital Research would have stayed the course with IBM and made it work.
Or Novell and or AT&T would have figured out how to market Unix or Apple would have grown to be the the great Evil Empire that it could have been.
Or Radio Shack/Tandy would be the major computer manufacture on the planet.
So many possibilities some better then what we have now and some worse.
What if IBM had realized that they where going setting a standard that would live for 25+ years? Do you think they would have created Microsoft and Intel? Or do you think that they would have made their own CPU and OS? Maybe we would all be living with CPUs based on the IBM 360 today?
Just as if the Wright Brothers hadn't built their plane Sanitos Dumont would have been the first. If not him then someone else.
"The way to beat the pirates is to provide a better service to your customers than they do. The commonly advocated business model is to provide support on the software to paying users - and since your target is business customers this makes a lot of sense."
Just a quick question? Have you ever written a program and sold it for a living?
Your idea which I have heard many times before just doesn't work. It is at best a myth.
If you write your software well and create a good enough on line help system you will decrease the need for support. So your model actually increases the profits from a program if it is hard to use, has poor user documentation, and is full of bugs..
If a program is intuitive and well written then why do they need tech support?
The simple truth is if the program is cheap enough you then you probable just want to put some kind of minimal copy protection like on line registration. Just to keep honest people honest.
If the software costs enough you may want to look into one of the hardware dongles. If you do then you are going to have to have some kind of replacement policy for when it fails and some of them will fail and some kind of bypass code to let them run for a limited time without a dongle.
None of this will stop sophisticated pirates. But sophisticated pirates would probably never buy your software to start with.
I tend to think that just living with fact that some people are just dishonest is usually the best course. Charge a fair amount for your work and live with the fact that some people will not respect your right to control how your code is distributed and used.
Actually I may be trolling but I really didn't mean too be. I am just so ticked off at all the clueless people that have stated time and time again. "all they have to do is release the specs and "we" will write the drivers. Of course they are using that special we that only people that don't actually write code use.
I am all for ATI/AMD releasing the specs but I just don't believe that any complex driver will ever be written without the manufacture doing a lot of the heavy lifting.
The actually developers at X.org and other FOSS projects that I use have nothing but my thanks and respect. The rant is more for those people that say "all they have to do is release the specs", it just isn't that easy.
No problem sorry that I snapped. I have made similar mistakes myself.
No because it isn't true.
If it was a hardware issue then they would need to ship NEW hardware to fix it.
I suggest you read this again or maybe for the first time!
"'For instance, there are some problems -- like accelerated video playback issues with Intel drivers -- that can only be resolved by using the EXA accelerated rendering framework which is still not ready yet. When asked why Intel isn't addressing the driver issue, technical board member Mathew Garrett explained that "Intel are working on the basis that composited desktops won't be ready for rolling out until EXA is stable enough anyway, so it's not a concern [for them].' "
So what part of DRIVER ISSUE don't you understand?
DRIVER == SOFTWARE
So without the company that created the hardware dedicating resources to a driver project the driver may or not be done in a timely manner.
So if a company wants their driver in the Kernel they will have to not just release the documentation but dedicate programming staff to the project. So they pretty much have to make the same effort as they would with a closed source driver but also prepare the documentation, manage the open source contributions if they get any, and make sure that their software is legally clean to publish as open source.
So what I am hearing is that I shouldn't hold my breath for those new good FOSS drivers for ATI.
Yes they do.
1. TV in the US is traditionally "free" if you get it over the air. Why pay for it.
2. DRM and ease of use. I want to put the shows on my media player no matter what it is. I want to store them on my HD or Burn them to a DVD. Just like I can do with any show I capture with my VCR, DVD-R or capture card on my PC.
Frankly the producers of the TV shows must have mixed feelings. They would probably love to cut out the networks, local stations, and cable companies. They could have all the lovely ad money. But they would loss all that money from syndication and selling the DVDs.
It could be that "core" gamers are just not that important. There are probably a lot more casual gamers out there. Think of all the Nintendo DSs that have been sold. The Wii targets that same demographic. I honestly think that the low cost of the Wii gives Nintendo a big chance to jump a generation. If they produce an HDWii in two or three years and sell it for the same price people will buy it. They will have a few years of Moore's law on there side and all they have to do to keep people happy is make it play their old games just like DS and Wii can do now. If you think that people will crab about such a short life cycle I really doubt it, sure didn't hurt the DS lite.
They have released the docs for their GPU. I have been told time and time again on Slashdot that all that has to happen is to document your hardware and a legion of FOSS programmers will write a better driver than you could.
So why does Intel need to address anything?
What is bazzare when you add the idea of "Do no evil" and have a private 767 and talk about using solar energy to save power.
Like I said even if they got a super plush Gulfstream that can fly none-stop from California to Paris they would be saving A LOT OF FUEL.
If it filters everything down to a virus exactly what is left for the UV to kill?
This wouldn't filter out toxins like hydrocarbons and other nasty stuff that is in flood waters.
No I think having the money for a private jet is cool. But why bother with solar panels on the GooglePlex when you are burring thousands of lbs of fuel in a private 767?
Even a private Gulfstream which is a very nice long rang private jet would burn a fraction of the fuel of that 767.
If they where willing to slum it and fly first class they would then reduce their carbon print by an order of magnatude.
I don't have a problem with wealth. I have a problem whith hypocites.
And when I think of Freedom I think of Marxism.
I doubt that Google used Linux to gain mind share. They used Linux because they could get the source and was free. It was the cheapest and best solution for building a super large COTS cluster.
It is nice that AMD gave the 2D specs away. I will go to great when they give out the 3-D specs. I will buy and AMDTI video card when we have good working drivers.
Would Zealotry be a term you like more?
Social Movement? Freedom? It is software. That is all it is. Software patents yes they should be outlawed. But the very idea that FOSS is some great liberating social movement is exactly what I am talking about. As I have said I have been writing Open Source software since before there was a GPL. It is a good idea but the idea that it is a great cause like civil rights is just silly. Unlike the vast majority of zealots I do give more than lip service to the idea of FOSS, I actually give away my code. So yes I really dislike the GPLV3 I have stated it time and time again the reasons why I dislike it and I will not contribute code to GPLV3 projects unless it is a project I really need and I actively need that feature. I will probably work hard to find a project that can do the same thing with out the burden of GPLV3 code.
Sorry but this statement from RMS smells like religion to me "However, if you don't want to lose your freedom, you had better not follow him."
So we should follow RMS instead?
You may disagree but I don't follow RMS or Linux. I may disagree or agree with them on things but I don't follow them.
Minix 3
It looks very interesting to me.
What don't you understand. The GPL and Free software is his religion. He has the only keys to salvation and if you question his vision you are going to lead people into closed software hell!
I am a big fan of FOSS. I like GPL V2 and I released my first opens source software way back in the 80s. There was no GPL yet so it was public domain but unlike a lot of Public domain stuff I included the source with the executables. I wrote both and early an virus checker for the Amiga and REXX bindings for Modula-2.
I use Linux and write for it, I use OO, and my wife uses GIMP to do digital scrapbooking and keeps telling me that it is so much easier to use than Photoshop Elements. I like GPL and BSD software. I just really don't like the zealotry that goes on and I really don't like the RMS version of the zealotry. I do think it is harmful to FOSS.
The GPL is RMS's religion, he is it's high priest. If you dare to question the true church you are a heretic. It is the same thing with GNU-Linux. Because Linux uses the GNU user-space programs like ls RMS feels that it should have to carry the GNU name.
I for one I am not a follower of RMS or a follower of Linus. I don't like GPL V3 because I feel that it is predatory towards Tivo and other Consumer devices that use Linux while allowing "professional" equipment to not follow the same rules.