"How to create a profitable business from Free Software is still a black art and in many cases may be impossible[...]"
Humm? Red Hat is doing fairly well, and by all means seem to be getting profitable. Doesn't that prove that a business on Free Software is NOT black art, and is viable?
The reason why noone else seem to be able to, is just because the Linux market currently isn't big enough for more than a few players. Either the Linux market grows a lot, or most of the players will die, while Red Hat will probably survive anyway. Just natural selection.
"MandrakeSoft, which more and more appears to be now #2 in term of installed user base, is the biggest defender of Free Software after Debian."
What makes MandrakeSoft a bigger defender of Free Software than Red Hat? I'm just curious. Red Hat has AFAIK open-sourced all of their tools, and they are a huge contributor to different free software projects.
"In my opinion, Red Hat is lucky because they can stay open and make real business, MandrakeSoft is *extremely* innovative in inventing a real business model for Free Software while being a fervent defender of its rules."
So you're saying that Red Hat is just lucky for being where they are? I'm curious about this one as well. Mandrake would never even be where they are if it weren't for Red Hat. In fact, Mandrake owes Red Hat its life.
Red Hat got a lot of shit for doing the 2.96-gcc release.. but Mandrake does the exact same thing.
Right now it might not make much sense to you, but if Transgaming manages to optimize their WineX it makes a lot of sense.20 months from now the story might be very different, and 20 months from now Windows 98 might not even run newer games very well.
Especially to me. I have a nVidia-card.. and hate the idea of booting just to play a game. It takes so long I mostly don't.
There is no reason why Linux might not become "The right tool for this job".
Besides Wine is not an emulator.. it is an implementation of the Windows-API. WineX is also an implementation of DirectX. The whole thing comes down to the job they do in their DirectX-implementation. Right now it is slow, it does not mean it have to be so.
Should everybody that wants Linux to be a gaming system just give up? That way it will never improve.
Re:Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sent
on
Mozilla RC3 Released
·
· Score: 2
Remember that Opera and Konqueror (and probably a few others as well) are _very_ often set up masking themselves as IE. This increases their market share quite a bit.
Re:The coders are getting a bit punch though.
on
Mozilla RC3 Released
·
· Score: 2
It is actually good judgement.
The feature will most surely come back at some time, but if some features requires more work than they are worth for 1.0, then they have to go. I'd rather see them release a very solid Mozilla 1.0 instead of one with lots of half-finished features.
This is just sane practice.
Wow.. this was one way to put it
on
Two Helpings of WINE
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
"which was done in an attempt to steal TransGaming's Direct3D code and force them to open up all their work (thus have no means to make money)."
The licensing change was made because the Wine-project didn't really want "leeches". That is, companies using their work, without contributing back. This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with stealing.
If this hurts TransGaming, then that is their problem, not the Wine-projects.
PS! I actually like WineX, and I am a subscriber, but they have no universial right to use all the work of the Wine-project unless the contributors think that is ok (stated with a license). If they succeed in "swapping code" that is ok. Bitching about not being able to use LGPL-code, is not.
At least my initial thought when I read the headline "Comet Hunting For The Masses" was that some kind of comet is out there searching for masses of people to kill. Gives a whole new meaning to "Armageddon", I guess I understand all the drama in that movie now.
First, there is already a great reply to this. I just want to add the following:
Just use free software in binary form. If you do, you should have no worries, and you won't have any less rights than for regular binary distributed software.
Being exposed to GPL-code is something you could have been no matter what software you use, because GPL-code is (like it or not) all over the Internet. Just using a Red Hat 7.x binary CD doesn't make you any more exposed than not using it. After all, an employee could just have downloaded and used GPL-code no matter what OS or software you run in your company.
Well.. your intention may be right, but the post turns out wrong.
Why? Because you do not properly distinguish between USAGE and copying code.
GPL-applications ARE "free to use". The only reason for needing to read the license is if you want to modify it or redistribute or as you say use GPL-code in other apps.
I do agree with you that there should be a warning about you not being free to reuse the code in other apps if you do not follow the license.
They don't wipe out your old menus. They introduce a NEW menu that is used as default. If you right click on the foot-menu you can choose what menu to use. I think you can do the same from the control-center, but I'm not sure because I've moved to GNOME 2.0 recently.
He is prosecuted by the norwegian government. THEY are the ones that should take special note of Norwegian laws.
Re:The worst parts of Microsofts attack on the GPL
on
GPL's Strength
·
· Score: 2
Simply because I wasn't comparing BSD and GPL. I was comparing Microsoft and the GNU/GPL.
BSD and GPL have been debated to the death. They are both reasonable licenses.
Use GPL if you want to keep all modifications in the open. Use BSD if you do not care about this, and want to let anyone (including proprietary software developers use your code).
Well.. personally I think they did, but the Norwegian authorities claim that whats-his-name was prosecuted solely based on Norwegian law. I don't think they could actually defend prosecuting him using the DMCA since it isn't Norwegian law.
The worst parts of Microsofts attack on the GPL..
on
GPL's Strength
·
· Score: 3, Informative
.. is that they somehow imply that all organizations that USE GPL-based software should have to carefully examine the license in counsel with lawyers.
This makes the GPL sound way more complicated than it is.
If an organization does nothing but USE GPL-based software (installing Linux one corporate servers or desktops), they need not bother with the GPL-license at all. They can just rest assured that the GPL-license gives them some rights over most other software, if they should ever decide to modify it.
Compared to Microsofts proprietary licenses. The GPL-license is nothing but added rights. There is no drawback whatsoever with the license itself. Though Microsoft might debate that free software can never be as good as non-free software (I would disagree), or that they might not get good enough support (I still disagree).
Now. The BSD-license grants you even more rights. But that is another story.
Actually.. even some of George W. Bush's own remarks may be considered "hate speech".
For instance all his talk about "evil", which is a very dangerous term to use.
I personally like the idea of a porn-domain, but this has to be exclusively for pr0n (*). As you say, determining what is "hate speech" is nobody's right.
You missed the part about price-fixing right? The prices are artificially high, because the record industry has a non-competitive agreement on price. The industry wants to sell us less music for higher prices because they know that will keep us starved for more. The consumers however have shown through Napster and the other music-sharing thingies, that they don't want to put up with this. The music industry is trying to take away more consumer rights so they can keep milking us for money. Instead they should have to adapt.
The prices need to go down, we need real competition in the music industry.
The industry doesn't seem to WANT to compete with eachother, so the consumers have found a way to force competition.
... would have to change. So should the music industry. They should have to become leaner and more focused on quality and price instead of just driving legislation. I understand that the music industry wants to keep their stranglehold, where they can charge pretty much what they want.
There is a strong competition on furniture, electronics, computing etc.. so why not in this industry as well?
The whole napster/gnutella/whatever issue is just a wakeup-call from the consumers that they are sick of price-fixing and control-freakish behaviour from RIAA and their members.
Instead of just listening to the industry, legislators should let the music-sharing force the industry onto a new path.
What the consumers want is pretty clear: 1. We want to be able to buy a lot more music. Price has to go down. 2. We want more control over how we get the music and what music we want (no longer having to buy an album with 13 shitty songs, just to have 2 good ones. 3. We want a much more innovative and competive industry.
You are very wrong in your emphasis on selling binaries.
It does not matter if you sell it, rent it, give it away, lend it or anything like that. As long as you distribute it, you have to abide by the GPL.
You are however right in that they don't have to provide source unless someone requests it. Now someone HAVE requested it however, and they have to comply with that request.
I'd suggest Netscape 6.2 actually. Mozilla isn't really intended for general usage, although most Linux-users will probably use it instead of Netscape 6.2 because of the higher release rate.
Slashdot Mirror
No... but it is themes found on http://sunshineinabag.co.uk
The release candidate was postponed, the release team is still confident that the final release will be on time.
"How to create a profitable business from Free Software is still a black art and in many cases may be impossible[...]"
Humm? Red Hat is doing fairly well, and by all means seem to be getting profitable. Doesn't that prove that a business on Free Software is NOT black art, and is viable?
The reason why noone else seem to be able to, is just because the Linux market currently isn't big enough for more than a few players. Either the Linux market grows a lot, or most of the players will die, while Red Hat will probably survive anyway. Just natural selection.
"MandrakeSoft, which more and more appears to be now #2 in term of installed user base, is the biggest defender of Free Software after Debian."
What makes MandrakeSoft a bigger defender of Free Software than Red Hat? I'm just curious. Red Hat has AFAIK open-sourced all of their tools, and they are a huge contributor to different free software projects.
"In my opinion, Red Hat is lucky because they can stay open and make real business, MandrakeSoft is *extremely* innovative in inventing a real business model for Free Software while being a fervent defender of its rules."
So you're saying that Red Hat is just lucky for being where they are? I'm curious about this one as well. Mandrake would never even be where they are if it weren't for Red Hat. In fact, Mandrake owes Red Hat its life.
Red Hat got a lot of shit for doing the 2.96-gcc release.. but Mandrake does the exact same thing.
Right now it might not make much sense to you, but if Transgaming manages to optimize their WineX it makes a lot of sense.20 months from now the story might be very different, and 20 months from now Windows 98 might not even run newer games very well.
Especially to me. I have a nVidia-card.. and hate the idea of booting just to play a game. It takes so long I mostly don't.
There is no reason why Linux might not become "The right tool for this job".
Besides Wine is not an emulator.. it is an implementation of the Windows-API. WineX is also an implementation of DirectX. The whole thing comes down to the job they do in their DirectX-implementation. Right now it is slow, it does not mean it have to be so.
Should everybody that wants Linux to be a gaming system just give up? That way it will never improve.
Remember that Opera and Konqueror (and probably a few others as well) are _very_ often set up masking themselves as IE.
This increases their market share quite a bit.
It is actually good judgement.
The feature will most surely come back at some time, but if some features requires more work than they are worth for 1.0, then they have to go. I'd rather see them release a very solid Mozilla 1.0 instead of one with lots of half-finished features.
This is just sane practice.
"which was done in an attempt to steal TransGaming's Direct3D code and force them to open up all their work (thus have no means to make money)."
The licensing change was made because the Wine-project didn't really want "leeches". That is, companies using their work, without contributing back. This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with stealing.
If this hurts TransGaming, then that is their problem, not the Wine-projects.
PS! I actually like WineX, and I am a subscriber, but they have no universial right to use all the work of the Wine-project unless the contributors think that is ok (stated with a license). If they succeed in "swapping code" that is ok. Bitching about not being able to use LGPL-code, is not.
At least my initial thought when I read the headline "Comet Hunting For The Masses" was that some kind of
comet is out there searching for masses of people to kill. Gives a whole new meaning to "Armageddon", I guess I understand all the drama in that movie now.
First, there is already a great reply to this. I just want to add the following:
Just use free software in binary form. If you do, you should have no worries, and you won't have any less rights than for regular binary distributed software.
Being exposed to GPL-code is something you could have been no matter what software you use, because GPL-code is (like it or not) all over the Internet. Just using a Red Hat 7.x binary CD doesn't make you any more exposed than not using it. After all, an employee could just have downloaded and used GPL-code no matter what OS or software you run in your company.
Well.. your intention may be right, but the post turns out wrong.
Why? Because you do not properly distinguish between USAGE and copying code.
GPL-applications ARE "free to use". The only reason for needing to read the license is if you want to modify it or redistribute or as you say use GPL-code in other apps.
I do agree with you that there should be a warning about you not being free to reuse the code in other apps if you do not follow the license.
I believe Apple once tried to sue Microsoft over look and feel, and lost.
I believe MS have no claims over Evolution at all.
They don't wipe out your old menus. They introduce a NEW menu that is used as default. If you right click on the foot-menu you can choose what menu to use. I think you can do the same from the control-center, but I'm not sure because I've moved to GNOME 2.0 recently.
He is prosecuted by the norwegian government. THEY are the ones that should take special note of Norwegian laws.
Simply because I wasn't comparing BSD and GPL. I was comparing Microsoft and the GNU/GPL.
BSD and GPL have been debated to the death. They are both reasonable licenses.
Use GPL if you want to keep all modifications in the open.
Use BSD if you do not care about this, and want to let anyone (including proprietary software developers use your code).
Well.. personally I think they did, but the Norwegian authorities claim that whats-his-name was prosecuted solely based on Norwegian law.
I don't think they could actually defend prosecuting him using the DMCA since it isn't Norwegian law.
.. is that they somehow imply that all organizations that USE GPL-based software should have to carefully examine the license in counsel with lawyers.
This makes the GPL sound way more complicated than it is.
If an organization does nothing but USE GPL-based software (installing Linux one corporate servers or desktops), they need not bother with the GPL-license at all. They can just rest assured that the GPL-license gives them some rights over most other software, if they should ever decide to modify it.
Compared to Microsofts proprietary licenses. The GPL-license is nothing but added rights. There is no drawback whatsoever with the license itself. Though Microsoft might debate that free software can never be as good as non-free software (I would disagree), or that they might not get good enough support (I still disagree).
Now. The BSD-license grants you even more rights. But that is another story.
Actually, you make too much of an assumption yourself. You cannot always assume that the user can move a mouse or click a button.
This is why one of the foremost goals of GNOME 2 is accessibility.
Actually.. even some of George W. Bush's own remarks may be considered "hate speech".
.cum, please! :)
For instance all his talk about "evil", which is a very dangerous term to use.
I personally like the idea of a porn-domain, but this has to be exclusively for pr0n (*). As you say, determining what is "hate speech" is nobody's right.
(*) but let it be named
You missed the part about price-fixing right? The prices are artificially high, because the record industry has a non-competitive agreement on price. The industry wants to sell us less music for higher prices because they know that will keep us starved for more.
The consumers however have shown through Napster and the other music-sharing thingies, that they don't want to put up with this.
The music industry is trying to take away more consumer rights so they can keep milking us for money. Instead they should have to adapt.
The prices need to go down, we need real competition in the music industry.
The industry doesn't seem to WANT to compete with eachother, so the consumers have found a way to force competition.
... would have to change. So should the music industry.
They should have to become leaner and more focused on quality and price instead of just driving legislation.
I understand that the music industry wants to keep their stranglehold, where they can charge pretty much what they want.
There is a strong competition on furniture, electronics, computing etc.. so why not in this industry as well?
The whole napster/gnutella/whatever issue is just a wakeup-call from the consumers that they are sick of price-fixing and control-freakish behaviour from RIAA and their members.
Instead of just listening to the industry, legislators should let the music-sharing force the industry onto a new path.
What the consumers want is pretty clear:
1. We want to be able to buy a lot more music. Price has to go down.
2. We want more control over how we get the music and what music we want (no longer having to buy an album with 13 shitty songs, just to have 2 good ones.
3. We want a much more innovative and competive industry.
True. You have to make receivers aware of their right to aquire source, but it doesn't make my sentence any less true.
You only have to provide source on request.
You are very wrong in your emphasis on selling binaries.
It does not matter if you sell it, rent it, give it away, lend it or anything like that. As long as you distribute it, you have to abide by the GPL.
You are however right in that they don't have to provide source unless someone requests it. Now someone HAVE requested it however, and they have to comply with that request.
I'd suggest Netscape 6.2 actually. Mozilla isn't really intended for general usage, although most Linux-users will probably use it instead of Netscape 6.2 because of the higher release rate.