" And by perpetuating Windows lock-in, that supports the growth of cross-platform software how, exactly?"
I actually fought with myself a bit figuring out if I should answer this or not. Not only have I clarified my view here, but it's also actually quite simple. If a user cannot switch because of lock-in, they're still locked in. I could not switch to Mozilla because I was locked in with MS.
Mozilla perpetuated the lock-in. Simple simple simple.
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Therefore, my client is not guilty."
I didn't bother reading past that. I don't mind when people disagree with me, but you're intentionally not listening just to argue. Well I'm sorry I'm not singing the praises of Mozilla.
"The companies that use the DMCA wrote the damn thing and bribed congress to pass it. Surely a little hate in their direction is in order."
Not really. I mean, do we hate Apple for not giving everything away for free? Nah. Why? Because it's perfectly reasonable and expectd behaviour of Apple or any other company. Adobe values the locking of PDF files, somebody broke that, and they wanted something done. The gov't said "Hey, you can lock him up with this vaguely defined law!", and so it was done. Anybody who expected Adobe to be altruistic about it lives in a very bizarre world.
"Instead of ranting and raving about open source, CROSS-PLATFORM software not supporting some proprietary junk that only works on a single platform, maybe you should be ranting and raving at your organization for locking itself into ActiveX in the first place..."
One of the reasons behind the establishment of Mozilla was to unseat Internet Explorer as the de-facto browser and replace it with something that is cross-platform. By ignoring this feature of IE, they are making their jobs harder. By not supporting a non-cross-platform feature, they're slowing the growth of cross-platform software.
Whether or not my previous company was acting intelligently or not, it doesn't have the slightest bearing on the behaviour of the Mozilla development team. It is not my nor my previous company's fault they intentionally chose not to support a feature that has some healthy use in the IE world.
You can sit here and tell me I'm wrong all you want, but at the end of the day there are a lot of people wanting to leave IE and can't. Since the Mozilla team has the power to solve this problem, and won't, the fault is theirs.
"The problem I see for TV episodes on UMD is that a lot of TV is already available online for download which means why bother with UMD when you can put shows on a memory stick."
How many memory sticks do you have? If you got a UMD with most DVDs, then you could just drag them along and not have to worry about juggling more than one expensive "MemoryStickTM".
"OMFG if episode 3 doesn't live up to my ultra critical, obsessive standards I'm going to kill myself!!!"
"OMFG!! THIS MOVIE LOOKS GREAT!!! Not only will it blow away the other movies (even though there's no real track record here to base that on...), but everybody who doesn't like it is mentally defective! Now I'm off to go stand in line for 2 months at the wrong theater!"
Myself and quite a few other professional 3d artists have NOT been impressed by the CG in this movie. Not only is the color palette nauseating, but the effect is far from realistic. It's a step BACKWARDS from Episode I. The space scenes in particular... blerg.
Believe me, we've nitpicked the shit out of EpIII. Hehe.
You know, just once, I'd like to get complimented for using that correctly. I make that mistake like once a month and I always get my ass jumped for it. LIGHTEN THE FUCK UP.
"Brand loyalty. It's strong with Opera. It's also the only reason I can think of."
That and FireFox feels clunky compared to Opera. I've tried using FireFox before, and there were just too many jarring hiccups. Paste and Go comes to mind. It's possible I could have gone and modified FireFox, but for what? I have Opera right here.
Considering you're three major updates behind, you're not really the one to ask this question.
"Why would anyone use this when they can get free browsers that are as good as, or better, without the adware?"
An Opera zealot, such as myself, would tell you that it's better than FireFox. There's some debate about that. But I can tell you that I installed Opera, had a ton of interesting features I use, and I didn't have to go sifting through plugin downloads to make it work. (built in mail client perfect for forum updates, 'paste and go', page magnification that actually works, an intuitive UI where damn near anything can be moved, turned on/off, or added...)
As for the ads, Opera switched to text based ads eons ago. They take up very little space and they don't blink.
"The reason is that artists don't have a culture of sharing like coders do (way before FSF or GNU), because that model doesn't really work with art - at least traditional art for obvious reasons."
You'd be surprised. Head on over to www.scifi-meshes.com. There are models of a bunch of starships there that anybody can download. Then you can post your artwork with those models. It's been around for years.
You've got a point that traditional artwork isn't so easy to share. However, communities can share in more ways than one. Technique is just as valuable as sharing code. At least with the communities I hang out with, most people are quite happy to share how they achieved a certain effect. Quite a few even take the time to post how-to's.
I realize we're not talking about precisely the same thing here, but I hope you get my point. Quite a bit of time is spent between artists helping each other out.
"One major problem with open-source is the lack of artists willing to work under such a license. For an example ot what results, see the "new" FreeCIV."
I see your point, but I'm not sure the problem is the licensing. I think it's the lack of incentive.
To get a job as an artist, you have to do some stand-out work and/or have project experience. Sadly, this creates a nasty problem: How does one get a job as an artist if they haven't had a job as an artist? The answer? Do some cool stuff on your own. Many artists do this. (Check out www.cgtalk.com to see what I mean.) However, it can be difficult for a self-starter to complete some ambitious work. I know I had that problem. If I couldn't get something done in an evening, I wouldn't do it. So what'd I do? Simple: I took on some pro-bono work.
I did some artwork for a game called Ferion. (Now some of you will understand why it's in my sig.) There was no paycheck. Instead, the agreement was that I'd do the work provided I could take the time I needed to expand on my artform. The result? The work I did for Ferion almost single-handedly got me my dream job. There's absolutely no way I would have produced anything like that without somebody needing me to do it. I'm too lazy.
So, how's this relate to OSS? I think really all it needs is the right presentation. There are LOTS of people who want to make artwork for a living. So long as they know that they're gaining valuable experience, you'll be able to find people willing to get the job done. If the project can offer some visibility, even better!
"Out of curiosity, does your phone actually let you roam everywhere?"
Yep! (Bear in mind that I'm assuming 'everywhere' means in the 50 states. I imagine it'll work in Canada, too. If you mean outside of the states, I honestly don't know but I'd bet 'no'.)
I haven't actually tried it, but I used to be with AT&T wireless. I used to travel to Kansas City (I'm in Cali) and it didn't show up any different on my bill. If Cingular's different, I'm going to be pissed. (Not worried, though...)
I wish I had some advice for you about Colorado, but sadly I do not. I can tell you that AT&TWS bought Cingular. That might be of some comfort... but.. hehee.
"Sure I can. ActiveX controls are native code, and have access to any API in Windows."
Right, but FireFox doesn't have to allow download or execution of an AX control. Set it up with a white-list, and then it's entirely up to the user. (as opposed to arbitrarily deciding I cannot have it at all, which Microsoft gets flambe'd about all the time.)
"Once you have ActiveX in Firefox, Firefox isn't safe anymore and you might as well run IE."
The answer to that is simple: Don't enable it by default. Warn the hell out of the user when they turn it on. Only allow it to be on with certain domains, I don't care.
I have an idea: Instead of shaking your head "no no no" in order to avoid supporting *gasp* a Microsoft feature, try working on how it COULD be implemented so that you can have a broader audience with FireFox or OO. Somehow I doubt serious thought (at least by the Slashdotters that have replied so far) has been put into making this feasible. Afterall, we're quite comfy where we are right now.
"It is simply not worth it; whatever the problem is, ActiveX is never the solution:-)"
*Sigh* This is what I'm talking about! I know AX ain't great. I'm no fan of it, either. But when it's needed, it's NEEDED. Since OO and FireFox wouldn't support it, we had to use a MORE INSECURE office and browsing app! You cannot honestly tell me that the OSS Community couldn't develop something to support AX and maintain security. Heck, all it would really need is to be off by default and the user has to either turn it on or install a special module. I don't care. It certainly would have been infinitely better than what we had.
Whatever. I seriously doubt this has been given serious consideration. Flipping off MS is fun, but you're also flipping off some people who can't switch.
I think you missed it, but I added a correction to my previous post. I misread what that person had said.
"Oh and you can't add it to Linux products."
Um yeah. A Windows user trying to switch to FireFox or OO doesn't give a flying fuck if AX will work on Linux or not. Pardon my bluntness, but you're rationalizing NOT putting a feature in that some people need. That's bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
" Something's fishy but I can't seem to see what it is."
Maybe you've just been around Slashdot so long that it's startling to read a criticism of Linux that isn't viewable past -1.
" And by perpetuating Windows lock-in, that supports the growth of cross-platform software how, exactly?"
I actually fought with myself a bit figuring out if I should answer this or not. Not only have I clarified my view here, but it's also actually quite simple. If a user cannot switch because of lock-in, they're still locked in. I could not switch to Mozilla because I was locked in with MS.
Mozilla perpetuated the lock-in. Simple simple simple.
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Therefore, my client is not guilty."
I didn't bother reading past that. I don't mind when people disagree with me, but you're intentionally not listening just to argue. Well I'm sorry I'm not singing the praises of Mozilla.
If that's the attitude that the community is going to take, then they're no less evil than Microsoft.
"The companies that use the DMCA wrote the damn thing and bribed congress to pass it. Surely a little hate in their direction is in order."
Not really. I mean, do we hate Apple for not giving everything away for free? Nah. Why? Because it's perfectly reasonable and expectd behaviour of Apple or any other company. Adobe values the locking of PDF files, somebody broke that, and they wanted something done. The gov't said "Hey, you can lock him up with this vaguely defined law!", and so it was done. Anybody who expected Adobe to be altruistic about it lives in a very bizarre world.
"Instead of ranting and raving about open source, CROSS-PLATFORM software not supporting some proprietary junk that only works on a single platform, maybe you should be ranting and raving at your organization for locking itself into ActiveX in the first place..."
One of the reasons behind the establishment of Mozilla was to unseat Internet Explorer as the de-facto browser and replace it with something that is cross-platform. By ignoring this feature of IE, they are making their jobs harder. By not supporting a non-cross-platform feature, they're slowing the growth of cross-platform software.
Whether or not my previous company was acting intelligently or not, it doesn't have the slightest bearing on the behaviour of the Mozilla development team. It is not my nor my previous company's fault they intentionally chose not to support a feature that has some healthy use in the IE world.
You can sit here and tell me I'm wrong all you want, but at the end of the day there are a lot of people wanting to leave IE and can't. Since the Mozilla team has the power to solve this problem, and won't, the fault is theirs.
"The problem I see for TV episodes on UMD is that a lot of TV is already available online for download which means why bother with UMD when you can put shows on a memory stick."
How many memory sticks do you have? If you got a UMD with most DVDs, then you could just drag them along and not have to worry about juggling more than one expensive "MemoryStickTM".
"Am I the only one who finds it odd that the proprietary format for the PSP is called "universal"?"
Not really. No doubt, they meant that it can play back any types of media, not just video like DVDs or music like CDs.
It's sorta like asking several people whether or not Star Wars is sci-fi.
"OMFG if episode 3 doesn't live up to my ultra critical, obsessive standards I'm going to kill myself!!!"
"OMFG!! THIS MOVIE LOOKS GREAT!!! Not only will it blow away the other movies (even though there's no real track record here to base that on...), but everybody who doesn't like it is mentally defective! Now I'm off to go stand in line for 2 months at the wrong theater!"
"But the CGI was frelling fantastic."
Yes, it was frelling, but it wasn't fantastic.
Myself and quite a few other professional 3d artists have NOT been impressed by the CG in this movie. Not only is the color palette nauseating, but the effect is far from realistic. It's a step BACKWARDS from Episode I. The space scenes in particular... blerg.
Believe me, we've nitpicked the shit out of EpIII. Hehe.
Yeah, I knew a dumbfuck mod would come along and demonstrate my point.
Oh, geez.
You know, just once, I'd like to get complimented for using that correctly. I make that mistake like once a month and I always get my ass jumped for it. LIGHTEN THE FUCK UP.
"So FUCK THEM. Karma has bitten their asses, and I don't feel sorry at all."
This isn't karma, it's a stupid fucking law! No DMCA? No Skylarov case. No DMCA? No prevention of Photoshop support.
It's fun to hate companies that use the DMCA and all, but you're hate is misdirected.
That's the nice thing about Opera, nobody's a leech!
"I think I'd consider trying Opera out if it was free (as in beer) and I wasn't hearing how bad the ad-blocking is."
An Open Source fan who's close minded. Cute, no?
"Brand loyalty. It's strong with Opera. It's also the only reason I can think of."
That and FireFox feels clunky compared to Opera. I've tried using FireFox before, and there were just too many jarring hiccups. Paste and Go comes to mind. It's possible I could have gone and modified FireFox, but for what? I have Opera right here.
Man, I feel like a Mac user.
"...how relevant is Opera really?"
Considering you're three major updates behind, you're not really the one to ask this question.
"Why would anyone use this when they can get free browsers that are as good as, or better, without the adware?"
An Opera zealot, such as myself, would tell you that it's better than FireFox. There's some debate about that. But I can tell you that I installed Opera, had a ton of interesting features I use, and I didn't have to go sifting through plugin downloads to make it work. (built in mail client perfect for forum updates, 'paste and go', page magnification that actually works, an intuitive UI where damn near anything can be moved, turned on/off, or added...)
As for the ads, Opera switched to text based ads eons ago. They take up very little space and they don't blink.
"Its the other way around buddy...
:)
Cingular bought AT&T."
Argh! Can't believe I said that! Hehe.
"The reason is that artists don't have a culture of sharing like coders do (way before FSF or GNU), because that model doesn't really work with art - at least traditional art for obvious reasons."
You'd be surprised. Head on over to www.scifi-meshes.com. There are models of a bunch of starships there that anybody can download. Then you can post your artwork with those models. It's been around for years.
You've got a point that traditional artwork isn't so easy to share. However, communities can share in more ways than one. Technique is just as valuable as sharing code. At least with the communities I hang out with, most people are quite happy to share how they achieved a certain effect. Quite a few even take the time to post how-to's.
I realize we're not talking about precisely the same thing here, but I hope you get my point. Quite a bit of time is spent between artists helping each other out.
"One major problem with open-source is the lack of artists willing to work under such a license. For an example ot what results, see the "new" FreeCIV."
I see your point, but I'm not sure the problem is the licensing. I think it's the lack of incentive.
To get a job as an artist, you have to do some stand-out work and/or have project experience. Sadly, this creates a nasty problem: How does one get a job as an artist if they haven't had a job as an artist? The answer? Do some cool stuff on your own. Many artists do this. (Check out www.cgtalk.com to see what I mean.) However, it can be difficult for a self-starter to complete some ambitious work. I know I had that problem. If I couldn't get something done in an evening, I wouldn't do it. So what'd I do? Simple: I took on some pro-bono work.
I did some artwork for a game called Ferion. (Now some of you will understand why it's in my sig.) There was no paycheck. Instead, the agreement was that I'd do the work provided I could take the time I needed to expand on my artform. The result? The work I did for Ferion almost single-handedly got me my dream job. There's absolutely no way I would have produced anything like that without somebody needing me to do it. I'm too lazy.
So, how's this relate to OSS? I think really all it needs is the right presentation. There are LOTS of people who want to make artwork for a living. So long as they know that they're gaining valuable experience, you'll be able to find people willing to get the job done. If the project can offer some visibility, even better!
"Out of curiosity, does your phone actually let you roam everywhere?"
Yep! (Bear in mind that I'm assuming 'everywhere' means in the 50 states. I imagine it'll work in Canada, too. If you mean outside of the states, I honestly don't know but I'd bet 'no'.)
I haven't actually tried it, but I used to be with AT&T wireless. I used to travel to Kansas City (I'm in Cali) and it didn't show up any different on my bill. If Cingular's different, I'm going to be pissed. (Not worried, though...)
I wish I had some advice for you about Colorado, but sadly I do not. I can tell you that AT&TWS bought Cingular. That might be of some comfort... but.. hehee.
Good luck!
"Sure I can. ActiveX controls are native code, and have access to any API in Windows."
Right, but FireFox doesn't have to allow download or execution of an AX control. Set it up with a white-list, and then it's entirely up to the user. (as opposed to arbitrarily deciding I cannot have it at all, which Microsoft gets flambe'd about all the time.)
"Once you have ActiveX in Firefox, Firefox isn't safe anymore and you might as well run IE."
The answer to that is simple: Don't enable it by default. Warn the hell out of the user when they turn it on. Only allow it to be on with certain domains, I don't care.
I have an idea: Instead of shaking your head "no no no" in order to avoid supporting *gasp* a Microsoft feature, try working on how it COULD be implemented so that you can have a broader audience with FireFox or OO. Somehow I doubt serious thought (at least by the Slashdotters that have replied so far) has been put into making this feasible. Afterall, we're quite comfy where we are right now.
"It is simply not worth it; whatever the problem is, ActiveX is never the solution :-)"
*Sigh* This is what I'm talking about! I know AX ain't great. I'm no fan of it, either. But when it's needed, it's NEEDED. Since OO and FireFox wouldn't support it, we had to use a MORE INSECURE office and browsing app! You cannot honestly tell me that the OSS Community couldn't develop something to support AX and maintain security. Heck, all it would really need is to be off by default and the user has to either turn it on or install a special module. I don't care. It certainly would have been infinitely better than what we had.
Whatever. I seriously doubt this has been given serious consideration. Flipping off MS is fun, but you're also flipping off some people who can't switch.
"At any rate, "just support ActiveX" is a wrong answer, and repeating it doesn't make it any better."
Ignoring it and hoping it goes away is not the right answer, either.
"No, you don't understand."
I think you missed it, but I added a correction to my previous post. I misread what that person had said.
"Oh and you can't add it to Linux products."
Um yeah. A Windows user trying to switch to FireFox or OO doesn't give a flying fuck if AX will work on Linux or not. Pardon my bluntness, but you're rationalizing NOT putting a feature in that some people need. That's bullshit.