If they'd just done a simple, Windows-only, WWW-only program, what incentive would there be for people to use it, when IE is already there?
Because it is a better WWW-only program?
No, the true value of Mozilla (and the Communicator suite which preceded it)
Value?!?! Communicator sucked because of all its "features". You would think they would have learned from their mistake.
Netscape knows that trying to compete with Microsoft on the Windows platform is suicide due to Microsoft's bundle-opoly.
So Mozilla decided to create their own "bundle-opoly" by making you use only the internal Mozilla tools for accessing the web.
Microsoft had no bundle-opoly on the Mac Platform. How come Microsoft defeated Netscape there?
The Mozilla project is still meaningful, and I believe it is one of perhaps three or four programs whose continued existence are absolutely crucial to the preservation of a world in which Microsoft does not have 100 percent market share of all three major sectors (desktop, server, and embedded).
Mozilla existence will do nothing to preventing Microsoft from taking 100 percent of the market as long and it insists on being bloatware. Browsers like kmeleon(0.4 is out) and Opera will.
This message has been proudly posted using OmniWeb on Mac OS X
The GPL does not enforce that software be available at no cost, but the market forces inherent in free software do (would you buy a Red Hat CD for $50, without any manuals or support, if you could get the same for about five bucks with shipping or download it off the Net for pennies?
It just makes it impossible to make money by making software.
Lets get all the disclaimers of the world and put them all in one place, that way people can just point to this one place when they want tot disclaim something
I mean in the current way SourceForge runs everyone is uploaded to a central server.
Instead have a sourceforge P2P network. You buy your own server space and put your project on it and hook up to the sourceforge P2P network. So there is no central server just a lot of small servers in a P2P network.
I probably would have just assumed General Motors owned it. I mean remember when George W. Bush brought all those domains like GeorgeWBushSucks.com? They all point to the GWB web site. If I had found this domain name some other way I would have assumed General Motors was trying to pull the same thing.
They talked about hacking he did in high school. One time he broke into the schools computer and changed all the times the bells rang.
Another time he left a box which had a ticking sound in it. The principal ended up rushing the thing into the middle of the football field thinking it was a bomb. The person saying this was laughing about it
If he did this stuff today how many YEARS of prison would he get?
Remember before the internet this kind of updating was not possible. You could not get updates to everyone quickly.
You always had to buy boxes in the store.
Of course after the internet many companies still upgrade this way.. with big "service packs".
I remember the Ping of Death problem, it took Linux hours to fix while it took these companies months.
Maybe they could fix it just as fast. But they didn't want to release it until the next "Service Pack".
They have been working on the next version to work with the previous version. Of course now this little patch screws it all up. Some people will patch some will not, so you have to make sure your upgrade works with the non-patched and patched version. AHHHHH
Is he somehow denying them by not letting them redistribute his software under a license not of his choosing?
uhhh...yeah
No, he's *granting* them rights to his software
So does Microsoft, just today I got *granted* the rights to use Outlook Express Hooray!
but the GPL certainly doesn't *take away* rights, it merely grants more limited rights.
Same is true with Microsoft they just don't *grant* you rights to their source code
That is a blatant lie. Without the GPL you have no rights to the code. With it, you are granted limited rights. If the license was BSD, you would arguably have more rights, but the fact of the matter is that the GPL is *adding* to your rights. So, effectively, you are whining because Stallman isn't giving you all that you want out of him. You seem to want him to give you *his* software on *your* terms.
The same whining Stallman does when he can't get everything he wants?
Look I don't think the GPL is *bad*. I think in certain situations I would use it. Why? to restrict certain uses of the software.
Interesting I submitted a ask slashdot asking the difference between "Free Software" and "Open Source" and it was rejected.
Anyway the GPL is not Free it even breaks the Free Software Definition.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
Can I go to my neighbor and with a install cd and install linux on his computer? Well I also have to do one of the following
I have to also have to do one of the following
a)
Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b)
Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c)
Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
So I have to make extra CD for him or copy the source on to his computer.
Don't have a CD-RW not enough room on neighbor HD to fit source. Can't "give" software to neighbor.
I am going through the APSL and RMS say this about it.
any modified version "deployed" in an organization must be published.
I can't find where in the license it says this. Even if it does so what? RMS complains about privacy, but the Free Software Definition says nothing about privacy
On deploying execute only code the APSL says this.
if You Deploy Covered Code in object code, executable form only, You must include a prominent notice, in the code itself as well as in related documentation, stating that Source Code of the Covered Code is available under the terms of this License with information on how and where to obtain such Source Code.
you'll both end up changing the same code at the same time. Or trying to compile half-way through the other person's change. It'd be disaster
I agree what I mean is the second person corrects spelling errors, missing semicolons stuff like that. And only when the first person has finished with that code.
One thought I had was instead of having the second person looking over the shoulder of the first. Have the second person on another computer next to the first person. The second person sees the code the first person makes and can also change it. The second people can automatically proof-read the code and correct minor mistakes without interrupting the first person.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never heard of anything like this happening.
There is a first time for everything.....
If they'd just done a simple, Windows-only, WWW-only program, what incentive would there be for people to use it, when IE is already there?
Because it is a better WWW-only program?
No, the true value of Mozilla (and the Communicator suite which preceded it)
Value?!?! Communicator sucked because of all its "features". You would think they would have learned from their mistake.
Netscape knows that trying to compete with Microsoft on the Windows platform is suicide due to Microsoft's bundle-opoly.
So Mozilla decided to create their own "bundle-opoly" by making you use only the internal Mozilla tools for accessing the web.
Microsoft had no bundle-opoly on the Mac Platform. How come Microsoft defeated Netscape there?
The Mozilla project is still meaningful, and I believe it is one of perhaps three or four programs whose continued existence are absolutely crucial to the preservation of a world in which Microsoft does not have 100 percent market share of all three major sectors (desktop, server, and embedded).
Mozilla existence will do nothing to preventing Microsoft from taking 100 percent of the market as long and it insists on being bloatware. Browsers like kmeleon(0.4 is out) and Opera will.
This message has been proudly posted using OmniWeb on Mac OS X
The GPL does not enforce that software be available at no cost, but the market forces inherent in free software do (would you buy a Red Hat CD for $50, without any manuals or support, if you could get the same for about five bucks with shipping or download it off the Net for pennies?
It just makes it impossible to make money by making software.
First they went after video games... but I did not speak because I did not play videos games
Then they went after the internet... but I did not speak because I did not use the internet.
Then they went after TV... but I did not speak because I did not watch TV
Finally they went after books...by then it was illegal for me to speak
I already got this story on the other site.
This post is only meant to be read by authorized readers
Authorized readers includes but is not limited to people rating this post up
UnAuthorized readers includes but is not limited to people rating down
Author of post is not liable for any spelling mistakes, or idiot comments made in this post
That would be because of an recently discovered Slashdot feature ironicly called a "lameness filter"
This post will self-destruct in 10 secs.
Lets get all the disclaimers of the world and put them all in one place, that way people can just point to this one place when they want tot disclaim something
How bout we just mod it down to -1. That is basically the same thing
Yeah I have found shareware in the Windows world to be crap.
But in the Mac world the shareware is usually quite good. This is because mac users demand apps to be "Mac-like" and easy to use.
Check out Marathon Aleph One from Bungie. Believe it is Marathon 2 open sourced and enhanced
They started this before being brought out by Microsoft, and seem to be still doing it.
Just use Ogg Vorbis so you can label them .ogg
I mean in the current way SourceForge runs everyone is uploaded to a central server.
Instead have a sourceforge P2P network. You buy your own server space and put your project on it and hook up to the sourceforge P2P network. So there is no central server just a lot of small servers in a P2P network.
If little Billy still goes out and shoots someone, nobody will blame the congress critter for the failure of his bill.
Yeah instead everyone says this bill doesn't go far enough. Then they just ban all violent video games.
Why can't they just use DejaNews like the rest of us?
I believe apple plans to release Mac OS X Server 2.0 soon.
Anyone hoping some PowerPC Rackmounts will be released at the same time?
I probably would have just assumed General Motors owned it. I mean remember when George W. Bush brought all those domains like GeorgeWBushSucks.com? They all point to the GWB web site. If I had found this domain name some other way I would have assumed General Motors was trying to pull the same thing.
We do not want to be associated with AOL users.
About a month ago I saw a Biography on Steve Wozniak.
They talked about hacking he did in high school. One time he broke into the schools computer and changed all the times the bells rang.
Another time he left a box which had a ticking sound in it. The principal ended up rushing the thing into the middle of the football field thinking it was a bomb. The person saying this was laughing about it
If he did this stuff today how many YEARS of prison would he get?
Try codewarrior from metrowerks which is good for Mac OS 9. But Mac OS X actually comes with a CD of Development tools.
This could be the start to a bad joke.
The Iowa Attorney General, Norton and a law professor walk into a bar.....
Remember before the internet this kind of updating was not possible. You could not get updates to everyone quickly.
You always had to buy boxes in the store.
Of course after the internet many companies still upgrade this way.. with big "service packs".
I remember the Ping of Death problem, it took Linux hours to fix while it took these companies months.
Maybe they could fix it just as fast. But they didn't want to release it until the next "Service Pack".
They have been working on the next version to work with the previous version. Of course now this little patch screws it all up. Some people will patch some will not, so you have to make sure your upgrade works with the non-patched and patched version. AHHHHH
Is he somehow denying them by not letting them redistribute his software under a license not of his choosing?
uhhh...yeah
No, he's *granting* them rights to his software
So does Microsoft, just today I got *granted* the rights to use Outlook Express Hooray!
but the GPL certainly doesn't *take away* rights, it merely grants more limited rights.
Same is true with Microsoft they just don't *grant* you rights to their source code
That is a blatant lie. Without the GPL you have no rights to the code. With it, you are granted limited rights. If the license was BSD, you would arguably have more rights, but the fact of the matter is that the GPL is *adding* to your rights. So, effectively, you are whining because Stallman isn't giving you all that you want out of him. You seem to want him to give you *his* software on *your* terms.
The same whining Stallman does when he can't get everything he wants?
Look I don't think the GPL is *bad*. I think in certain situations I would use it. Why? to restrict certain uses of the software.
Interesting I submitted a ask slashdot asking the difference between "Free Software" and "Open Source" and it was rejected.
Anyway the GPL is not Free it even breaks the Free Software Definition.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
Can I go to my neighbor and with a install cd and install linux on his computer? Well I also have to do one of the following
I have to also have to do one of the following
So I have to make extra CD for him or copy the source on to his computer.
Don't have a CD-RW not enough room on neighbor HD to fit source. Can't "give" software to neighbor.
I am going through the APSL and RMS say this about it.
any modified version "deployed" in an organization must be published.
I can't find where in the license it says this. Even if it does so what? RMS complains about privacy, but the Free Software Definition says nothing about privacy
On deploying execute only code the APSL says this.
if You Deploy Covered Code in object code, executable form only, You must include a prominent notice, in the code itself as well as in related documentation, stating that Source Code of the Covered Code is available under the terms of this License with information on how and where to obtain such Source Code.
That's seems alot more free then the GPL.
What we have 23 choices? Oh no we all know how much the FSF hates choice
you'll both end up changing the same code at the same time. Or trying to compile half-way through the other person's change. It'd be disaster
I agree what I mean is the second person corrects spelling errors, missing semicolons stuff like that. And only when the first person has finished with that code.
One thought I had was instead of having the second person looking over the shoulder of the first. Have the second person on another computer next to the first person. The second person sees the code the first person makes and can also change it. The second people can automatically proof-read the code and correct minor mistakes without interrupting the first person.