I do agree that you will see consolidation over time. You could probably argue that the e-mail experience that you and I and a lot of others lived through over the past 20 to 25 years is probably going to be repeated--perhaps more quickly than last time because the Internet makes that kind of evolution easier.
We're gonna go through this spam thing again, aren't we? Man it's like living in Groundhog Day. On the other hand, this does give us a use for Bunker Buster bombs - instant localized retaliation against any spammer. And their families. And friends. And neighborhood.
And what method do you propose that would have the effect of getting BestBuy to change their practices by DMCA'ing someone? They're actually right (I'll stipulate it - hell, I'll shout it out from the rooftop), but the DMCA is a badly written law and corporations are finding more and more inane uses for it.
It's not like people are going to get it changed - Congress and the White House don't care about consumers, they listen to corporations. So if we have to force corporations to change their tune by boycotting them, then so be it. The only other alternative is armed warfare and I'm definitely not in favor of that (recent events have shown us just how f'd up that can get).
Looks like it's time to add another company to the list of companies to never, ever do business with again under any circumstances. It's a pity that more people don't use the boycott as a tool to force companies to change their practices.
I've often wondered what would happen if enough people from one political party refused to do business with companies affiliated with some other political party.
So all I need to know is why should ekkoBSD exist?
I used to ask the same thing - then I realized the correct answer is: why not? Even if all it does in it's entire lifetime is make five or six people happy then it has accomplished something.
Damn. I hate when I get feeling all happy with the world.
Most people probably do think it's legal. Being told we can't share music violates one of the most basic precepts of our upbringing (mine at least). My grandmother hammered it into my head that "sharing is good - it's good to share". So RIAA's fighting against that? Fat chance.
On the other hand, I do understand their complaint and somewhat sympathize. But it's hard to find much more sympathy when they are proclaiming this from multi-million dollar offices.
No one cared much when FOSS was confined to academia and the occasional Kaczynski-cabin hacker, but now it's going to face some calumny, some of it deserved, some undeserved. It's just people being people.
Caveat: I hate Scott McNealy - mostly because I think he is a loudmouthed asshole. There are other issues, but that's the main one.
In his defense, part of the pressure to outsource is based on the income of the corporation, which he is under constant pressure from a Board of Directors and stockholders to improve, pretty much the same as any CEO. A lot of these stockholders don't particularly care what product Sun makes, as long as it's profitable because they invested to make money, not to help a company product a given product.
In fact, a large percentage of the stockholders probably know that Sun makes computers and software and that's about it. They don't know the specifics and aren't really bothered by that fact because they're concerned with running their own businesses making some other product.
Our economy has grown past the point where any one individual can be fully aware of all the details of the many companies he or she may invest in because he or she may be investing at a distance through mutual funds or other aggregators.
It's more of a social problem than anything else and until we evolve to handle it more efficiently (probably time to introduce the Robot Overlords or something), we're going to be stuck with it.
And that right there is the reason I hate Sun with a passion bordering on some/.'ers hatred of Microsoft (well, that and Scott McNealy's big mouth).
Cobalt wasn't the greatest or cheapest computer but it did what it did quite well. It had a good interface for administering the box that was easily explained to an end-user. It was all around just a decent little machine for it's purpose (expensive, though).
Sun bought them just to kill them off. Die Sun! Die!
Hey, I'm right there with you on the DMCA being a bad law (right along with PATRIOT, PATRIOT II, and a lot of other horse manure generated by the asses in WashDC). Get the law changed? Not me - I won't even have representation when the Emperor DeLay and Monkeyboy Perry's little redistricting sham completes.
I'm as frustrated as you are, probably, and my brain was shutting down, so I may have been overly harsh.
You missed the point of the argument - a lot of professional Photoshop users aren't on the Adobe upgrade train because they what they're currently using does what they need it to. It has nothing to do with whether or not they need The GIMP, but more about trying to convince people to switch when it's not really necessary.
The GIMP is great for people who don't have any experience with Photoshop.
Personally, I find the interface somewhat clunky and at least in Windows - it doesn't mesh well with the existing interface, but that's probably a minor quibble. The lack of a CMYK mode makes it pretty useless for print work, IMHO.
I'll buy that argument for the first time you buy a DVD - if you weren't aware of the DMCA, etc.
But now that you are aware of the DMCA, if you buy a DVD expecting to play it on a Linux system, then you're an idiot, pure and simple. From the point the law was passed, that was THE LAW and being ignorant of it is not a valid excuse.
No - they are not stealing your time. If you buy a DVD, then you are a willing participant in the so-called "theft" of your time and it is not really theft anymore.
If you happen to live a country not being crushed under the heels of the DMCA, good for you. If not, quit bitching and get the right equipment, or change the law.
The thing to realize is that a lot of the things missing from Photoshop that are easier in other programs are the things that Photoshop users have learned to work around while still remaining in Photoshop, frequently ignoring upgrades to stay with a version familiar to them.
Photoshop is a lot like Autocad - once you get used to it functioning a certain way and have customized it, there's no need to upgrade just because Adobe says so. An upgrade may add some new features, but if you've learned quick workarounds, why bother?
The same with Gimp - I'm familiar with Photoshop, I know how to get the things done I need to do - why bother switching programs? The extra frustration that comes with learning a new way of doing the same old things doesn't justify the change.
Many, many times I have heard the same thing from other, far less luminous persons, usually in this forum and seen the idea uniformly poo-poo'd or worse. And yet, Bruce Perens says it, and suddenly it's not such a bad idea.
I dunno - think about it. If you use an open-sourced program that has a trojan, without examining the source, then you, as the user, are liable. You didn't write the offending code, but you also failed to exercise due diligence before installing the code.
In this specific sense, closed source is actually a protection. Since you have no access to the source, there is no due diligence involved in ensuring the code is free of trojans, only that the machine is protected as well as available technology and practicality allow.
The correct response would be to go to the business in question and confront the owner or secretary with your complaint. Then present them a bill for advertising fees on your device.
You own it, they should pay for the privilege of using it.
What did you expect? It's DARPA, for godsakes. They more or less worked on the foundation of the internet and look what a CF that has turned out to be.
A real conservative should believe that anything done for any reason other than to make a profit is necessarily wrong.
Actually, I think you've got Republicans and Conservatives mixed up there, dude. Real Conservatism and Liberalism have nothing to do with all the political horse manure that Republicans and Democrats have piled on it.
Real Conservatism is about slow, careful change. More tweaking than actual, sweeping changes to the social landscape.
Slashdot Mirror
I do agree that you will see consolidation over time. You could probably argue that the e-mail experience that you and I and a lot of others lived through over the past 20 to 25 years is probably going to be repeated--perhaps more quickly than last time because the Internet makes that kind of evolution easier.
We're gonna go through this spam thing again, aren't we? Man it's like living in Groundhog Day. On the other hand, this does give us a use for Bunker Buster bombs - instant localized retaliation against any spammer. And their families. And friends. And neighborhood.
Which is as it should be.
And what method do you propose that would have the effect of getting BestBuy to change their practices by DMCA'ing someone? They're actually right (I'll stipulate it - hell, I'll shout it out from the rooftop), but the DMCA is a badly written law and corporations are finding more and more inane uses for it.
It's not like people are going to get it changed - Congress and the White House don't care about consumers, they listen to corporations. So if we have to force corporations to change their tune by boycotting them, then so be it. The only other alternative is armed warfare and I'm definitely not in favor of that (recent events have shown us just how f'd up that can get).
Looks like it's time to add another company to the list of companies to never, ever do business with again under any circumstances. It's a pity that more people don't use the boycott as a tool to force companies to change their practices.
I've often wondered what would happen if enough people from one political party refused to do business with companies affiliated with some other political party.
Let's hope we get a chance to find out.
So all I need to know is why should ekkoBSD exist?
I used to ask the same thing - then I realized the correct answer is: why not? Even if all it does in it's entire lifetime is make five or six people happy then it has accomplished something.
Damn. I hate when I get feeling all happy with the world.
Most people probably do think it's legal. Being told we can't share music violates one of the most basic precepts of our upbringing (mine at least). My grandmother hammered it into my head that "sharing is good - it's good to share". So RIAA's fighting against that? Fat chance.
On the other hand, I do understand their complaint and somewhat sympathize. But it's hard to find much more sympathy when they are proclaiming this from multi-million dollar offices.
No one cared much when FOSS was confined to academia and the occasional Kaczynski-cabin hacker, but now it's going to face some calumny, some of it deserved, some undeserved. It's just people being people.
Caveat: I hate Scott McNealy - mostly because I think he is a loudmouthed asshole. There are other issues, but that's the main one.
In his defense, part of the pressure to outsource is based on the income of the corporation, which he is under constant pressure from a Board of Directors and stockholders to improve, pretty much the same as any CEO. A lot of these stockholders don't particularly care what product Sun makes, as long as it's profitable because they invested to make money, not to help a company product a given product.
In fact, a large percentage of the stockholders probably know that Sun makes computers and software and that's about it. They don't know the specifics and aren't really bothered by that fact because they're concerned with running their own businesses making some other product.
Our economy has grown past the point where any one individual can be fully aware of all the details of the many companies he or she may invest in because he or she may be investing at a distance through mutual funds or other aggregators.
It's more of a social problem than anything else and until we evolve to handle it more efficiently (probably time to introduce the Robot Overlords or something), we're going to be stuck with it.
Sun gave up on MIPS seconds after buying Cobalt.
/.'ers hatred of Microsoft (well, that and Scott McNealy's big mouth).
And that right there is the reason I hate Sun with a passion bordering on some
Cobalt wasn't the greatest or cheapest computer but it did what it did quite well. It had a good interface for administering the box that was easily explained to an end-user. It was all around just a decent little machine for it's purpose (expensive, though).
Sun bought them just to kill them off. Die Sun! Die!
Amazing how technology allows parents to surrender the responsibilities of childcare to a metal and plastic surrogate, ain't it?
I'd be surprised, but I have to watch TV first.
somebody had to say it. might as well be me.
Following your metaphor - the internet's genitalia must be really huge then. Or at least the portion of the brain responsible for sex.
Hey, I'm right there with you on the DMCA being a bad law (right along with PATRIOT, PATRIOT II, and a lot of other horse manure generated by the asses in WashDC). Get the law changed? Not me - I won't even have representation when the Emperor DeLay and Monkeyboy Perry's little redistricting sham completes.
I'm as frustrated as you are, probably, and my brain was shutting down, so I may have been overly harsh.
You missed the point of the argument - a lot of professional Photoshop users aren't on the Adobe upgrade train because they what they're currently using does what they need it to. It has nothing to do with whether or not they need The GIMP, but more about trying to convince people to switch when it's not really necessary.
The GIMP is great for people who don't have any experience with Photoshop.
Personally, I find the interface somewhat clunky and at least in Windows - it doesn't mesh well with the existing interface, but that's probably a minor quibble. The lack of a CMYK mode makes it pretty useless for print work, IMHO.
Did you say Loo or Louvre? This is hardly comparable to breaking into a well-guarded museum, methinks.
I'll buy that argument for the first time you buy a DVD - if you weren't aware of the DMCA, etc.
But now that you are aware of the DMCA, if you buy a DVD expecting to play it on a Linux system, then you're an idiot, pure and simple. From the point the law was passed, that was THE LAW and being ignorant of it is not a valid excuse.
No - they are not stealing your time. If you buy a DVD, then you are a willing participant in the so-called "theft" of your time and it is not really theft anymore.
If you happen to live a country not being crushed under the heels of the DMCA, good for you. If not, quit bitching and get the right equipment, or change the law.
The thing to realize is that a lot of the things missing from Photoshop that are easier in other programs are the things that Photoshop users have learned to work around while still remaining in Photoshop, frequently ignoring upgrades to stay with a version familiar to them.
Photoshop is a lot like Autocad - once you get used to it functioning a certain way and have customized it, there's no need to upgrade just because Adobe says so. An upgrade may add some new features, but if you've learned quick workarounds, why bother?
The same with Gimp - I'm familiar with Photoshop, I know how to get the things done I need to do - why bother switching programs? The extra frustration that comes with learning a new way of doing the same old things doesn't justify the change.
Many, many times I have heard the same thing from other, far less luminous persons, usually in this forum and seen the idea uniformly poo-poo'd or worse. And yet, Bruce Perens says it, and suddenly it's not such a bad idea.
... thy name is /.
Oh, Irony
Get that phrase in the hands of a lawyer on the opposite side and see how much you'll hate it.
I dunno - think about it. If you use an open-sourced program that has a trojan, without examining the source, then you, as the user, are liable. You didn't write the offending code, but you also failed to exercise due diligence before installing the code.
In this specific sense, closed source is actually a protection. Since you have no access to the source, there is no due diligence involved in ensuring the code is free of trojans, only that the machine is protected as well as available technology and practicality allow.
The correct response would be to go to the business in question and confront the owner or secretary with your complaint. Then present them a bill for advertising fees on your device.
You own it, they should pay for the privilege of using it.
I think I'd rather the Supreme Court left edible fruits and veggies where they are and get that vegetable out of the White House.
However, legally, according to the Supreme Court of the United States, tomatos are vegetables.
So was ketchup, according to Ronald Reagan. Did anyone ever rescind that?
Too lazy to Google for it. Now, THAT'S lazy.
Sounds like a Japanese corporation, if ya ask me.
...
Ya didn't, but I'm just sayin' is all
Tomatsup Heavy Industries - we make things with nicotine.
What did you expect? It's DARPA, for godsakes. They more or less worked on the foundation of the internet and look what a CF that has turned out to be.
A real conservative should believe that anything done for any reason other than to make a profit is necessarily wrong.
Actually, I think you've got Republicans and Conservatives mixed up there, dude. Real Conservatism and Liberalism have nothing to do with all the political horse manure that Republicans and Democrats have piled on it.
Real Conservatism is about slow, careful change. More tweaking than actual, sweeping changes to the social landscape.