So saying "shut up" just because there are dinosaurs is fair enough, but the original JP was a flat out bad movie, and an insult to a great book. Incidentally, that is the only decent book Crichton has written. The guy is a worse hack than John Grisham.
I hate to point this out, but Crichton has never written a good book. Why does everyone seem to think that JP was at all decent? Crichton took a few random concepts (chaos theory, insects preserved in amber, frogs can change sex and fake computer systems) and combined them without doing any real research. I mean, exactly what operating system was the park running on? How the hell can a minute amount of DNA allow a dinosaur to change sex? Just how similar are frogs to dinosaurs anyway? The entire book pissed me off almost as much as The Andromeda Strain.
if their code is rolled into a bloated, expensive, commerical product with bells and whistles tacked on, the developers can now claim that product so-and-so uses our codebase! save yourself some money and use our software instead.
You're assuming that credit would be given.
you gpl motherfuckers don't seem to get it. i like using free software - it's usually better than the shite i have to use under AIX or Solaris, but you don't like me using it because i paid for the operating system?
Real "GPL motherfuckers" wouldn't even consider castigating you for using a GPLed program on a proprietary OS. If you understood the FSF's philosophy at all you'd realize that. FYI, you don't have to believe that RMS is god to support the GPL.
Freedom means that you do NOT restrict, dipshits.
I suppose that depends on your definition of freedom, now doesn't it? Microsoft's definition of freedom is evidently different than yours as well, but you don't seem to care all that much.
Although your reply is obviously biased, some response is required. Business plans are generally innacurate and overly optimistic. Many, many companies with "solid" business plans have failed, and some with "weak" ones have succeeded. You may not like the FSF-sponsored business model, but until it's fully disproven I think your comments are inappropriate.
Re:RMS as inflammatory as ever.
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 1
Not everyone here really cares what RMS has to say. He's a bright enough guy, and he's certainly contributed to the development of free software, but you don't have to agree with him to like the GPL. I happen to like it because it means that my program won't be used by someone trying to save time and making a good deal of money in the process. If I want to make something available to everyone, I use the BSD license. Different strokes and all that...
The GPL is not about gaining some consideration for use, but denying a certain use to a certain group. It is designed purely as a deliberate attack on proprietary software developers.
An attack on developers? I'd laugh in your general direction, but that would be redundant. How can anything that is entirely opt-in be construed as an attack? Don't like the license? Write your own code. Don't like the philosophy of the FSF? Use a different license. No one here is trying to ram RMS doctrine down your throat so stop trying to ram Microsoft's down mine.
They have no willingness to negotiate, and despite offering it to proprietary software developers, they deliberately prohibit the use it's wanted for.
I hate to point this out, but no one's forcing proprietary software developers to use code licensed under the GPL. The contract isn't intended to be reasonable and why should it be? Remember, just because developers of GPLed software don't want to hand over all rights to a company doesn't mean they're "bargaining" in bad faith.
By traditional contract standards, this is not at all reasonable.
By traditional contract standards, providing services without payment is generally considered rare. Any company attempting to enforce such a contract would probably be seen as unreasonable. Why is this case any different?
Although "cheap over everything" does tend to drive the market a little too much.
A paper written by George Ritzer entitled "The McDonaldization of Society" touches on this very subject. I won't bore you with the details, but he essentially argues that our society has become over-rationalized. Rationalization is good in small amounts (certain applications of non-human labor certainly decrease costs and improve productivity), but over-rationalization leads to disillusionment, dehumanization and disinterest in all areas of life. Microsoft certainly seems to be a bastion of the low-quality business model.
This trend can be seen in everything from car production to publications, but in the software industry it is particularly disturbing. Unlike traditional production models, software is (if written properly) easy to modify and mass-produce. When Ford produced inferior cars, it was difficult to dissemniate a "fix" for their problems. Software is unique in its easy-of-modifiability. Why, then, does Microsoft insist on relying on marketing gimmicks rather than solid products? Perhaps someone at MS will give everyone a straight answer rather than the FUD which seems to be their primary mode of communication.
Since Katz doesn't review every movie, I think it's safe to assume that he doesn't believe that every movie "has to intrigue the viewer." He evidently didn't find the material amusing enough to recommend this movie, and I'm surprised that anyone would criticize him for that.
It seems to me that movie producers are making an unambiguous statement by presenting material like The Mummy Returns: they don't believe their audience cares about the quality of the material they're releasing. I personally disliked the original, and the sequel is far worse. A few scenes intended to "pay homage," as someone else suggested, to films that were actually good and amusing do not a successful comedy make.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to point this out, but Crichton has never written a good book. Why does everyone seem to think that JP was at all decent? Crichton took a few random concepts (chaos theory, insects preserved in amber, frogs can change sex and fake computer systems) and combined them without doing any real research. I mean, exactly what operating system was the park running on? How the hell can a minute amount of DNA allow a dinosaur to change sex? Just how similar are frogs to dinosaurs anyway? The entire book pissed me off almost as much as The Andromeda Strain.
We can only hope that the acronym ICANN isn't prophetic (ICANN do this so I will, etc.).
if their code is rolled into a bloated, expensive, commerical product with bells and whistles tacked on, the developers can now claim that product so-and-so uses our codebase! save yourself some money and use our software instead.
You're assuming that credit would be given.
you gpl motherfuckers don't seem to get it. i like using free software - it's usually better than the shite i have to use under AIX or Solaris, but you don't like me using it because i paid for the operating system?
Real "GPL motherfuckers" wouldn't even consider castigating you for using a GPLed program on a proprietary OS. If you understood the FSF's philosophy at all you'd realize that. FYI, you don't have to believe that RMS is god to support the GPL.
Freedom means that you do NOT restrict, dipshits.
I suppose that depends on your definition of freedom, now doesn't it? Microsoft's definition of freedom is evidently different than yours as well, but you don't seem to care all that much.
Although your reply is obviously biased, some response is required. Business plans are generally innacurate and overly optimistic. Many, many companies with "solid" business plans have failed, and some with "weak" ones have succeeded. You may not like the FSF-sponsored business model, but until it's fully disproven I think your comments are inappropriate.
Not everyone here really cares what RMS has to say. He's a bright enough guy, and he's certainly contributed to the development of free software, but you don't have to agree with him to like the GPL. I happen to like it because it means that my program won't be used by someone trying to save time and making a good deal of money in the process. If I want to make something available to everyone, I use the BSD license. Different strokes and all that...
An attack on developers? I'd laugh in your general direction, but that would be redundant. How can anything that is entirely opt-in be construed as an attack? Don't like the license? Write your own code. Don't like the philosophy of the FSF? Use a different license. No one here is trying to ram RMS doctrine down your throat so stop trying to ram Microsoft's down mine.
They have no willingness to negotiate, and despite offering it to proprietary software developers, they deliberately prohibit the use it's wanted for.
I hate to point this out, but no one's forcing proprietary software developers to use code licensed under the GPL. The contract isn't intended to be reasonable and why should it be? Remember, just because developers of GPLed software don't want to hand over all rights to a company doesn't mean they're "bargaining" in bad faith.
By traditional contract standards, this is not at all reasonable.
By traditional contract standards, providing services without payment is generally considered rare. Any company attempting to enforce such a contract would probably be seen as unreasonable. Why is this case any different?
A paper written by George Ritzer entitled "The McDonaldization of Society" touches on this very subject. I won't bore you with the details, but he essentially argues that our society has become over-rationalized. Rationalization is good in small amounts (certain applications of non-human labor certainly decrease costs and improve productivity), but over-rationalization leads to disillusionment, dehumanization and disinterest in all areas of life. Microsoft certainly seems to be a bastion of the low-quality business model.
This trend can be seen in everything from car production to publications, but in the software industry it is particularly disturbing. Unlike traditional production models, software is (if written properly) easy to modify and mass-produce. When Ford produced inferior cars, it was difficult to dissemniate a "fix" for their problems. Software is unique in its easy-of-modifiability. Why, then, does Microsoft insist on relying on marketing gimmicks rather than solid products? Perhaps someone at MS will give everyone a straight answer rather than the FUD which seems to be their primary mode of communication.
It seems to me that movie producers are making an unambiguous statement by presenting material like The Mummy Returns: they don't believe their audience cares about the quality of the material they're releasing. I personally disliked the original, and the sequel is far worse. A few scenes intended to "pay homage," as someone else suggested, to films that were actually good and amusing do not a successful comedy make.