Yep. I used Register.com two weeks ago and was well pleased. They also offer a host of links to other sites to help a budding business (like incorporating, trademarks, etc.) I think their site is more customer oriented.
I agree with your point *somewhat*. People do base their decisions on whether any OS is up to the job they need doing.
They also, however, base their decisions on "who's winning". Why? Large userbases, large development communities, large support networks, etc. (all of which Linux has to some extent, but Microsoft moreso) help provide the user a "safety blanket" in making their decision as to which OS to use, since they may not have the time nor the expertise to make the in-depth analysis that you may.
Even though I use Linux, I can understand the MS community's use of a "safety blanket". It's a throwback to the old maxim "Safety in numbers."
Given that Yahoo can still "use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate," or create derivative works from" anything you post on their site, they have, in effect, made themselves "co-owners".
Nice touch. Hey you still own your work, but we do too!
A protest site detailing the rights grab by the Yahooligans: Das Extrablatt
I say flood the system: as in randomly [ bomb ] sprinkle comments [ big bomb ] throughout your communications [ VERY BIG BOMB ] so their automatic scanning software [ AN AUSTIN POWERS SIZED BOMB ] continually spits out false positives [ Hillary Rodham is SHAGALICIOUS ]. Maybe we could even invent an email add-on that randomly inserts these for us. Ain't technology fun????
Check out the first question in the article. It goes to the heart of the matter:
FDT: Why should a company pay for software it will not control?
They won't, not in the long run. sourceXchange is kidding itself and so are any developers who sign on. When a company lays down cash as a sponser, they're expecting something. A developer who accepts this cash, no matter how much they espouse open source and its freedom, will know this deep down and eventually bow to the company's demands, direct or indirect. It's human nature not to bite the hand of those who feed you.
I believe that as an open source developer begins to rely on cash payments from a company (like using the casholine to help make car payments, pay rent, or buy food), they will become less and less likely to turn off the casholine spigot by ignoring a company's demands.
Slashdot Mirror
Try a step into 1999.
Yep. I used Register.com two weeks ago and was well pleased. They also offer a host of links to other sites to help a budding business (like incorporating, trademarks, etc.) I think their site is more customer oriented.
I agree with your point *somewhat*. People do base their decisions on whether any OS is up to the job they need doing.
They also, however, base their decisions on "who's winning". Why? Large userbases, large development communities, large support networks, etc. (all of which Linux has to some extent, but Microsoft moreso) help provide the user a "safety blanket" in making their decision as to which OS to use, since they may not have the time nor the expertise to make the in-depth analysis that you may.
Even though I use Linux, I can understand the MS community's use of a "safety blanket". It's a throwback to the old maxim "Safety in numbers."
Given that Yahoo can still "use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate," or create derivative works from" anything you post on their site, they have, in effect, made themselves "co-owners".
Nice touch. Hey you still own your work, but we do too!
A protest site detailing the rights grab by the Yahooligans: Das Extrablatt
I've already nuked my site and put up a protest one in its place:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8984
So much for free space (now at the low, low cost of ownership of your work).
I say flood the system: as in randomly [ bomb ] sprinkle comments [ big bomb ] throughout your communications [ VERY BIG BOMB ] so their automatic scanning software [ AN AUSTIN POWERS SIZED BOMB ] continually spits out false positives [ Hillary Rodham is SHAGALICIOUS ]. Maybe we could even invent an email add-on that randomly inserts these for us. Ain't technology fun????
Check out the first question in the article. It goes to the heart of the matter:
FDT: Why should a company pay for software it will not control?
They won't, not in the long run. sourceXchange is kidding itself and so are any developers who sign on. When a company lays down cash as a sponser, they're expecting something. A developer who accepts this cash, no matter how much they espouse open source and its freedom, will know this deep down and eventually bow to the company's demands, direct or indirect. It's human nature not to bite the hand of those who feed you.
I believe that as an open source developer begins to rely on cash payments from a company (like using the casholine to help make car payments, pay rent, or buy food), they will become less and less likely to turn off the casholine spigot by ignoring a company's demands.