In many ways, I think that the mod community is a more grown-up version of kids using these types of games to build their own creations.
But that misses the point. The idea of, say, Halflife or Quake is not to build something but rather run around shooting at bots and other online players. Sure, to the right person its the basis for building a great hack. But it takes dedication and a steep learning curve to begin building. And it takes someone with a slightly different outlook to see Quake and think "build world" instead of "frag llamas".
Go back and re-read the description of Music Construction Set. Look at the other tittles listed in the link (Adventure Contruction Set and Pinball Construction Set). Mod-friendly engines, while very cool, are not the same.
[Poink!] "If you are EXCITING and SEXY, you already knew Megawhip Brand whipped cream remains firm and tasty even after contact with body heat!" [Pop!]
Re:Old game engines with mods impress me...
on
The Mod Squad
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
What amazes me is that people (myself included) still play the origional QuakeWorld Team Fortress (now days you HAVE to include "QuakeWorld" in the description as there's an entire generation who equate "Team Fortress" with Team Fortress Classic and know nothing else - damn kids). That alone shows the amazing draw to a good mod. If it wasn't for the easy modification of Quake, it would have burned through its cycle years ago - and computer games tend to have an amazingly short burn cycle.
Before someone says it - QWTF is dying. Yes. Its been dying for years now. Its like the classic Monty Python scene.
"I'm not dead yet!"
"Wait a minute. He says he's not dead yet."
"Well he will be in a minute."
QWTF is just about to the point where it goes "I feel happy!" and then meets with a sudden ending at the end of a club (some claim that such a clubbing was attempted by Carmak's releaseing Quake source code and the rampant cheating that followed). But right now - its not QUITE dead yet.
Why do we always hear "Windows/Outlook/both suck because a gazillion boxes were infected by the ILoveYou virus" instead of "Windows users suck when it comes to security related issues, as a gazillion of them opened unknown attachments and got infected?"
First, I agree that security ultimately rests with the individual user and system administrator. Security is not a shrink-wrapped product or a final destination. It is a process. Users are often the weakest link in any system and must use some judgment to avoid endangering the systems they rely on. And system administrators must remain vigilant to keep the systems in their care properly maintained and up to date. But there are systems that are exceptionally difficult to use and maintain due to architectural mistakes in their design.
The combination of Windows and Outlook is riddled with issues. Attachments shouldn't appear to be one data type but actually be malicious executable code (due to Outlook's desire to hide file extensions and how it handles conflicts with MIME types and extensions). But say our users treat all attachments as plague-infested rats and refused to touch them. Past vulnerabilities have meant that simply READING a malicious email (and/or having it displayed in the preview panel) executed malicious code. Yes - the age-old joke about "don't read email called 'fun time'" became reality. Outlook, and its incorporation with Windows, has created a very virus/trojan friendly environment. If it weren't for the excellent scheduling features of an Outlook/Exchange combination, it would likely be dropped from any security-conscious corporate desktop.
Windows systems themselves are an interesting challenge. We'll ignore the fatally flawed Win9x architecture and focus on the industry favorite NT/2k/XP. The very tools that should help an administrator keep his/her system safe has gained a certain degree of fear over the years - service packs and hotfixes have been known to cause more trouble than they fix. WinNT administrators tend to delay rollout of new service packs until they feel comfortable all bugs have been discovered by early adopters. Any system configuration (adding or removing system software components) often reverse changes by service packs, hotfixes, and administrator configurations and requires re-application of those changes. The infosec standard of hardening a host by removing all unnecessary components is foreign to the Windows environment. Windows system components are rarely designed to be removed and attempting to remove them means traversing a minefield of illogical dependencies - thankfully there are a few good minefield maps in the form of hardening guides. Of course, keep the guide close at hand. Any addition or removal of system components, hotfixes, or service packs will mean re-applying the hardening process.
In short, Windows was not designed with good security principles in mind - and it shows. It IS possible to configure a secure Windows host (assuming vulnerabilities are patched in an expedient manner). But its a pain.
In 1986, Jarre performed a public concert in Houston, TX. It was appropriately called Rendezvous Houston and used the city skyline as a backdrop - at one point the fireworks, lazers, and spotlights seemed to set the skyline ablaze. The music was excellent. Jarre's performance was great - some of his electronic instraments have definate crowd appeal, and Jarre himself is an excellent showman.
The Final Redezvous had an amazing emotional impact. It had origionally involved a solo sax piece that was to be played by astronaut Ron McNair from the orbiting Challenger. Instead it was played by Kirk Whalum and became a poignant tribute to the lost shuttle and its fallen crew. The entire crowd of over a million was silent.
The solo is found on the Rendezvous album and is tittled, simply, "Ron's Piece".
Unlike today, you mean, where Linux can't run any Windows software anyway. (if you want to share files with MS Office users the answer is Open Office, not Wine)
While mostly true... this isn't entirely correct. First, Open Office doesn't handle ALL MS Office files correctly. If you deal with such difficult documents on a regular bassis, the answer may actually be CrossOver Office by CodeWeavers. And that is based on, yes, Wine. I've been pleasantly suprised at the increasing number of apps and games that will run with Wine or a Wine-based variation.
Now, this doesn't mean Wine is the kind of answer Lindows likes to present itself. And I always prefer native Linux applications. But Wine does present an occasional choice.
Re:I've seen it over and over and I'm tired of it.
on
The Power of Palladium
·
· Score: 2
In his newest article, Cringely notes that "The Palladium was a famous theater in London and another in Hollywood" and finds that rather appropriate. One, because the apparent source of this drive is Hollywood and other content holders. Secondly, because he finds the idea that Microsoft could be bossed around by an industry that, while impressive, is dwarfed by its own current liquid holdings has a certain sense of... theatre... in itself. But that's an entirely different discussion.
Re:Details on Palladium from EFF's Seth Schoen...
on
The Power of Palladium
·
· Score: 2
His notes are more technical in nature and he doesn't make much in the way idle speculation, so they tend to disagree with much of the reporting that's shown up on slashdot.
The implication here is that Mr. Schoen disagrees with the negative press for Palladium being presented by Slashdot. Hardly. This link points to notes and summeries from a meeting with Microsoft that Schoen attended. These notes do not include commentary or analysis outside what was presented by Microsoft. Or at least they don't intend to; Schoen does note that anything he presents in that document should be double-checked with Microsoft before being reported as coming from Microsoft.
This is good information. But it does little more than present what Microsoft wishes to present. It certainly does not counter the criticisms of Palladium.
...and you believe that the authors of all this spyware and scumware (which despite the negative terms, are currently legal and 'valid' software) won't be able to get their applications signed?
The only thing to add is that is exactly what they should be doing.
It might be worth noting that your origional post stated:
There is nothing wrong with being a far better supplier then everyone else, and MS has done an excellent job of providing a solution people want to buy.
Note the word "want" as opposed to what is being discussed here... "must". You imply choice - and possibly quality. What is argued is that choice is being taken away (at the detriment of quality). And you've said good.
There's a difference in morality at play here. There is the geek morality of functionality - that a product should sell well because it functions well. There is often a opposing buisness morality - a product should sell well no matter what it takes to ensure it sells. These moralities CAN coincide. But within the IT industry, they often clash as business strategy interferes with functionality to lock in sales.
You've expressed this business-centric morality. I would wholeheartedly disagree.
Re:Details on Palladium from EFF's Seth Schoen...
on
The Power of Palladium
·
· Score: 2
Let me put my bias right out front. First, I often note Sheldon's posts with disagreement. But I appreciate opinions I don't agree with. Secondly, whenever karma is specifically mentioned in a post, I suspect that the poster is either a troll or afflicted with pompous delusions of martyrdom. Though I will admit to noticing that moderation points are sometimes used as an argument instead of intelligent discussion.
There is a difference between disagreeing with someone and responding as such... and moderating as flame or troll.
What I have noticed is that posts frequently are moderated as troll or flame because they are accurate, and that just bugs the hell out of certain people. It's sort of a Ostrich syndrome.
Trolling offers a double-edged sword. On one hand, it offers a chance to play Devil's Advocate and put forward unpopular ideas and opinions for discussion. On the other hand, it can generate a lot of useless noise and mask those who do genuinely believe in ideas that are in strong disfavor in an environment like Slashdot. The unfortunate outcome is that those who are being earnest are misidentified as noise and moderated down as such. They are thus likely to feel persecuted and a good chance for debate on an issue is lost. And furthermore, they walk away feeling justified in their opinion - and so will anybody else who notes the exchange and agrees with that opinion.
Slashdot often fosters and attracts a certain bias . If you frequent this forum, you either agree with this bias, are interested in opinions counter to your own (and maybe eager for a bit of debate), or are simply looking for trouble. Its a shame that sometimes the first and last points sometime detract from the second point, and real value to this environment - debate and discussion.
Re:Details on Palladium from EFF's Seth Schoen...
on
The Power of Palladium
·
· Score: 2
It is possible to imagine that a Palladium-hardware-aware version of Linux could be created and could make full use of Palladium's hardware features in order to achieve trust comparable to the Windows implementation.
Let's assume that one would even WANT a Palladium-hardware-aware version of Linux. We'll ignore all the nasty industry trends that exist with today's "content management" systems and likely future DRM schemes. For some reason, Palladium is seen as a Good Idea and Linux (as well as other OS producers) are ready to implement it.
Microsoft is only writing an implementation for Windows, but plans to publish all the technical details.
Microsoft has a great history of publishing technical details. When Microsoft DOES publish specs, they are often incomplete. And these documents have had a history of including ornerous licensing and restrictions. The idea that Microsoft would publish specifications that would allow, for example, Linux to match their use of Palladium hardware completely ignores years of previous history.
In short, it was time to get one's undies in a bind when "Palladium" was first uttered.
Is VShell based off of OpenSSH? I didn't notice anything that would indicate it. In fact, their FAQ mentions an incompatability (and deviation from the standard, I think) from the SSH protocol that breaks PuTTY and OpenSSH clients.
once again the vast majority of the IT industry fails to recognize sarcasm and makes total ass of self. said 'IT industry' also spending much of their time in moms basement.
That's the problem with humor. Its such a subjective thing. What can be hillarious when delivered by one individual can also make someone less skilled with their timing seem like an ass.
Once again... like a vast majority of the IT industry, you fail to realize that the definition of "free" does not start and stop at the exchange of currency.
This is one of the dangers with Open Source accepting the "freeware" label. I've seen the term used more and more within the industry when referring to Open Source. And its the same problem that's faced Open Source software for years - price isn't everything.
Sure - "free beer" is nice. We all like freebies - assuming they don't blow up in our face. I've been involved in projects where the low price has been a major help. But I have also worked on projects where there are ample funds for any needed technology... and Open Source software STILL held value.
It is all the other aspects of "free software" where the real value comes in to play.
I would like to add a few supportive words for SANS.
The courses tend to be top notch. But that is just part of SANS' value. SANS conferences also feature a series of night courses and informal Birds of a Feather (BOF) meetings (complete with snacks and refreshments). The BOFs cover a whole slew of subjects and if you wish to add to a subject (whether you are an expert or simply curious), you are welcome to sign up and form one and room / snacks are provided for you. These add incredible value to attending a SANS conference.
SANS also does a lot of other interesting things. They have a top-notch certification program (which has generated some interesting documents available to the public). And they are offering more and more of their certification tracks via online training programs as well as starting a localized mentor program to work with the online component.
If you stood in a public meusum and screamed for an hour, you'd be escored out. If you stood on a street corner and screamed for an hour, you would likely be told to move along by the local police (the time it takes for this to happen probably depends greatly on the city that you pick to scream in). Most cities have ordinances concerning some form of "disturbing the peace". That doesn't make street corners any less public.
And true, passes ARE being sold. And the event is on private property. But passes to enter the private property are being offered for sale to the general public. It is, in fact, a public event. This is not a private party. This is not an event by invitation only. Comparing a trade show to a private party is simply silly.
Having said all that - I don't feel that IDG is required to give out free tickets to the press. They're free to pick and choose at their leisure. Its petty. Its short-sighted. But IDG and Apple are more than welcome to be petty. There's no laws against it. Per se.
But as we allow IDG and Apple to exercise their rights to be petty - lets not try and pretend this is some kind of private party.
When I worked at a telco, we had a Linux box that was our log server (about 100GB of logs from different servers ran through it at some point during the day) had been up for 3 years. ...
Uptime doesn't count for shit.
Three years of faithfully handling, by your count, 100GB of data. And its uptime doesn't count? It would be rather differnt if that machine was constantly missing data due to crashes.
...think about it... Coca Cola doesn't sell a can of carbonated sugar water, they sell an image. If you just want a soda, you could buy RC or Shasta or Kmart Cola. In Europe, you can even buy Coca Cola designer clothes.
Sometime in the 80s, "Coca-Cola" labled clothes were fashionable in the US. I specifically remember rugby-style shirts with the trademark logo in stores. People spending money to become walking billboards show that Coke is more than sugar water with a slightly sharp taste and an effective delivery for caffeinne. Coke is an image. And to be sure - its not just Coke. Pepsi runs the same gambit. Sure, they've done "The Pepsi Challenge" which supposedly has something to do with a real product issue - taste. But slogans such as "Taste of the New Generation" and having Britney Spears jingling along that Pepsi is "for those who think young", reveals that Pepsi is competing with Coke on something that has little to do with taste - product identity.
I like to think I'm beyond all that. I thought "Coca-Cola" shirts were silly. I buy soda according to what taste I like (or whats available). But then - I'm a bit of cynic. I marvel at the economic / marketing machine spinning around me during a family trip to Disney World. I constantly have talks with my kid over the manipulation being attempted by various TV shows and advertisements on TV - especially those targeted at kids. Meanwhile, it doesn't seem like the masses notice.
Apple has an interesting strategy. Cool underlying technology, partly in thanks to a BSD core (first time I've actually started considering Apple hardware since Apple II days). And some really slick consumer-level design and marketing. It might actually pay off.
But even if the strategy doesn't pay - its a marvel to watch.
Exactly. Businesses don't want anything to do with honesty or consiseness (that isn't a word, is it?).
Seriously though, it does do those things, but it's also not professional. Like it or not, the professional world doesn't like blunt honesty.
You may have noticed Slashdot's customary moniker that reads, in part, "News for Nerds." Note that nowhere does it say "News for Business Professionals." It doesn't mention executives, or financiers, nor does it come close to suggesting marketing or PR professionals. Nerds.
Its been my experience that the really heavy techies in the Industry... the real Nerds and Geeks... tend to handle brutal honesty rather well. Especially when it involves tech subjects they have an opinion about. They may not appreciate the particular opinion. But they'll be glad to voice their own and defend their argument. And if they're successful in their environment - they're very aware to handle the Business Types with considerable more tact.
Talk about WinXP's bloat all you want, check out the latest Linux distributions... very few Linux distributions are still available via a single CD install, quite a shame that the everything to everyone attitude is trashing things.
We'll ignore that distros offer fire-and-forget auto-installs of suggested packages OR the ability to narrow down to select packages (and often the ability to automate this customized install process). Lets also ignore that the nature of Open Source software allows distros to include a vast range of software that wouldn't normaly be included in other operating system offerings - and that this software is completely optional and often not even installed in the default install process. Instead, we'll go for a nice quick WinXP vs Linux comparison.
In Linux distros, I can go "Ya know, I really don't like this default Netscape browser that was installed. I'm going to completely remove it and install... ohhh... saaaaay... Opera instead." It doesn't take a howto document and a series of ugly registry hacks to do it. And it didn't take a federal court case.
Comparisons to WinXP and complaints about multiple CDs sounds like a fear of choice.
I would like to maybe see a sourceforge section entirely devoted to win32 Open Source projects.
I understand what you're getting at. But I don't think the distinction is needed. You can already find projects on Sourceforge that have a very heavy Windows focus to them (Quakeforge, for example). Windows projects can live on Sourceforge just as easy as Linux projects... or PalmOS projects... or cross-platform projects (like OpenRPG).
[[the situation of win32 GPL development as I can see it is that most people who will develop on the platform realize they can charge any amount for any application.
My own theory (completely unsubstantiated, you understand) is that of currency. Linux works on a gift culture - if you work with, use, or develop for Linux (and other OS-centric environments) you've already taken advantage of OS software. So developing more OS projects is simply enriching the environment and returning the favor.
In a Windows environment, you've paid hard cash for your OS, cash for your development tools, small amounts of cash for the various little shareware apps that make life nice... and can expect to spend MORE cash in the future if you ever wish to upgrade and/or expand your current holdings. Its no suprise developers wish to replenish that pool of available cash.
And that's the difference in currency - code vs cash; a gift culture vs a monetary system.
That's not to say one can't mix cash and gift cultures. But it would go towards explaining the vastly different software landscapes between Windows and (for example) Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Go back and re-read the description of Music Construction Set. Look at the other tittles listed in the link (Adventure Contruction Set and Pinball Construction Set). Mod-friendly engines, while very cool, are not the same.
[Poink!]
"If you are EXCITING and SEXY, you already knew Megawhip Brand whipped cream remains firm and tasty even after contact with body heat!"
[Pop!]
What amazes me is that people (myself included) still play the origional QuakeWorld Team Fortress (now days you HAVE to include "QuakeWorld" in the description as there's an entire generation who equate "Team Fortress" with Team Fortress Classic and know nothing else - damn kids). That alone shows the amazing draw to a good mod. If it wasn't for the easy modification of Quake, it would have burned through its cycle years ago - and computer games tend to have an amazingly short burn cycle.
Before someone says it - QWTF is dying. Yes. Its been dying for years now. Its like the classic Monty Python scene.
"I'm not dead yet!"
"Wait a minute. He says he's not dead yet."
"Well he will be in a minute."
QWTF is just about to the point where it goes "I feel happy!" and then meets with a sudden ending at the end of a club (some claim that such a clubbing was attempted by Carmak's releaseing Quake source code and the rampant cheating that followed). But right now - its not QUITE dead yet.
The combination of Windows and Outlook is riddled with issues. Attachments shouldn't appear to be one data type but actually be malicious executable code (due to Outlook's desire to hide file extensions and how it handles conflicts with MIME types and extensions). But say our users treat all attachments as plague-infested rats and refused to touch them. Past vulnerabilities have meant that simply READING a malicious email (and/or having it displayed in the preview panel) executed malicious code. Yes - the age-old joke about "don't read email called 'fun time'" became reality. Outlook, and its incorporation with Windows, has created a very virus/trojan friendly environment. If it weren't for the excellent scheduling features of an Outlook/Exchange combination, it would likely be dropped from any security-conscious corporate desktop.
Windows systems themselves are an interesting challenge. We'll ignore the fatally flawed Win9x architecture and focus on the industry favorite NT/2k/XP. The very tools that should help an administrator keep his/her system safe has gained a certain degree of fear over the years - service packs and hotfixes have been known to cause more trouble than they fix. WinNT administrators tend to delay rollout of new service packs until they feel comfortable all bugs have been discovered by early adopters. Any system configuration (adding or removing system software components) often reverse changes by service packs, hotfixes, and administrator configurations and requires re-application of those changes. The infosec standard of hardening a host by removing all unnecessary components is foreign to the Windows environment. Windows system components are rarely designed to be removed and attempting to remove them means traversing a minefield of illogical dependencies - thankfully there are a few good minefield maps in the form of hardening guides. Of course, keep the guide close at hand. Any addition or removal of system components, hotfixes, or service packs will mean re-applying the hardening process.
In short, Windows was not designed with good security principles in mind - and it shows. It IS possible to configure a secure Windows host (assuming vulnerabilities are patched in an expedient manner). But its a pain.
The Final Redezvous had an amazing emotional impact. It had origionally involved a solo sax piece that was to be played by astronaut Ron McNair from the orbiting Challenger. Instead it was played by Kirk Whalum and became a poignant tribute to the lost shuttle and its fallen crew. The entire crowd of over a million was silent.
The solo is found on the Rendezvous album and is tittled, simply, "Ron's Piece".
Now, this doesn't mean Wine is the kind of answer Lindows likes to present itself. And I always prefer native Linux applications. But Wine does present an occasional choice.
In his newest article, Cringely notes that "The Palladium was a famous theater in London and another in Hollywood" and finds that rather appropriate. One, because the apparent source of this drive is Hollywood and other content holders. Secondly, because he finds the idea that Microsoft could be bossed around by an industry that, while impressive, is dwarfed by its own current liquid holdings has a certain sense of... theatre... in itself. But that's an entirely different discussion.
This is good information. But it does little more than present what Microsoft wishes to present. It certainly does not counter the criticisms of Palladium.
...and you believe that the authors of all this spyware and scumware (which despite the negative terms, are currently legal and 'valid' software) won't be able to get their applications signed?
There's a difference in morality at play here. There is the geek morality of functionality - that a product should sell well because it functions well. There is often a opposing buisness morality - a product should sell well no matter what it takes to ensure it sells. These moralities CAN coincide. But within the IT industry, they often clash as business strategy interferes with functionality to lock in sales.
You've expressed this business-centric morality. I would wholeheartedly disagree.
Slashdot often fosters and attracts a certain bias . If you frequent this forum, you either agree with this bias, are interested in opinions counter to your own (and maybe eager for a bit of debate), or are simply looking for trouble. Its a shame that sometimes the first and last points sometime detract from the second point, and real value to this environment - debate and discussion.
In short, it was time to get one's undies in a bind when "Palladium" was first uttered.
Is VShell based off of OpenSSH? I didn't notice anything that would indicate it. In fact, their FAQ mentions an incompatability (and deviation from the standard, I think) from the SSH protocol that breaks PuTTY and OpenSSH clients.
Once again... like a vast majority of the IT industry, you fail to realize that the definition of "free" does not start and stop at the exchange of currency.
This is one of the dangers with Open Source accepting the "freeware" label. I've seen the term used more and more within the industry when referring to Open Source. And its the same problem that's faced Open Source software for years - price isn't everything.
Sure - "free beer" is nice. We all like freebies - assuming they don't blow up in our face. I've been involved in projects where the low price has been a major help. But I have also worked on projects where there are ample funds for any needed technology... and Open Source software STILL held value.
It is all the other aspects of "free software" where the real value comes in to play.
I would like to add a few supportive words for SANS.
The courses tend to be top notch. But that is just part of SANS' value. SANS conferences also feature a series of night courses and informal Birds of a Feather (BOF) meetings (complete with snacks and refreshments). The BOFs cover a whole slew of subjects and if you wish to add to a subject (whether you are an expert or simply curious), you are welcome to sign up and form one and room / snacks are provided for you. These add incredible value to attending a SANS conference.
SANS also does a lot of other interesting things. They have a top-notch certification program (which has generated some interesting documents available to the public). And they are offering more and more of their certification tracks via online training programs as well as starting a localized mentor program to work with the online component.
And true, passes ARE being sold. And the event is on private property. But passes to enter the private property are being offered for sale to the general public. It is, in fact, a public event. This is not a private party. This is not an event by invitation only. Comparing a trade show to a private party is simply silly.
Having said all that - I don't feel that IDG is required to give out free tickets to the press. They're free to pick and choose at their leisure. Its petty. Its short-sighted. But IDG and Apple are more than welcome to be petty. There's no laws against it. Per se.
But as we allow IDG and Apple to exercise their rights to be petty - lets not try and pretend this is some kind of private party.
While your birthday party may be a private function, this is a public event.
"Uhhh. Sure. What?"
"I dunno. Take the cell and send me a few pictures of what they've got."
(grumble) Just great.
I like to think I'm beyond all that. I thought "Coca-Cola" shirts were silly. I buy soda according to what taste I like (or whats available). But then - I'm a bit of cynic. I marvel at the economic / marketing machine spinning around me during a family trip to Disney World. I constantly have talks with my kid over the manipulation being attempted by various TV shows and advertisements on TV - especially those targeted at kids. Meanwhile, it doesn't seem like the masses notice.
Apple has an interesting strategy. Cool underlying technology, partly in thanks to a BSD core (first time I've actually started considering Apple hardware since Apple II days). And some really slick consumer-level design and marketing. It might actually pay off.
But even if the strategy doesn't pay - its a marvel to watch.
Its been my experience that the really heavy techies in the Industry... the real Nerds and Geeks... tend to handle brutal honesty rather well. Especially when it involves tech subjects they have an opinion about. They may not appreciate the particular opinion. But they'll be glad to voice their own and defend their argument. And if they're successful in their environment - they're very aware to handle the Business Types with considerable more tact.
In Linux distros, I can go "Ya know, I really don't like this default Netscape browser that was installed. I'm going to completely remove it and install... ohhh... saaaaay... Opera instead." It doesn't take a howto document and a series of ugly registry hacks to do it. And it didn't take a federal court case.
Comparisons to WinXP and complaints about multiple CDs sounds like a fear of choice.
In a Windows environment, you've paid hard cash for your OS, cash for your development tools, small amounts of cash for the various little shareware apps that make life nice... and can expect to spend MORE cash in the future if you ever wish to upgrade and/or expand your current holdings. Its no suprise developers wish to replenish that pool of available cash.
And that's the difference in currency - code vs cash; a gift culture vs a monetary system.
That's not to say one can't mix cash and gift cultures. But it would go towards explaining the vastly different software landscapes between Windows and (for example) Linux.