It should make a hell of a difference. Specially if those other players can be get to known. I think meeting people face to face is much better than any online multiplayer RPG, but it will make a hell of a diference.
So is PHP, unless you never used it for command line scripting. It's http biased because that's how it was born. But it has much more in it that www stuff.
I am using it for parsing all emails of a certain domain (an automated email ticketing system. The username is a ticket, not really a username.:-)
It's not a business, so of course they don't have a business model. They don't make it for a profit (as is getting more money after paying all salaries and expenses). They just want their salaries paid.
Having said that, commercial (for profit) OSS projects have to find a way that involves NOT controlling the source. There are some examples, but it's easier in a non-OSS for now. But for a small company with little capital, an OSS project has the winning cards.
OSS -> support from the consumers / users. CSS -> selfsupport from established player (selffunding), support from a fund or from a big company (ie: wants to buy you)
They have a job you fool. Hundred of thouthands of developers arround the globe are using their (free) product and they just need a little support to keep it great and evolving.
If you can't find a job then don't blame others. And keep in mind these people can find another job in just milisecond.
"what will it take to unite all these individual IM networks under one umbrella?"
2 new Windows releases (or 4 years). Everyone will be using MS Messenger by then. It comes preinstallled and can't be uninstalled by the average user without breaking other apps.
Well, Windows 95 locks up a lot more. As always, they never let you keep a product and get them to support it. They always support whatever they are selling. That is ok, but it means that you will have to whatever they like you to use in the future.
Now that I come to think about it, the don't need to rent you the hardware. They can rent you or lease the OS. So eventually, you can't tamper it in any way you don't like. Controlling the hardware would mean they get keep their renting "revenues" for a eternity. What's good a machine, if you can't run non-rented software on it?
Mhh... maybe I am beign too paranoid:) After all, all this are not matters of life and death.
Well, if all OS writers liked to exlusively program XBill game variants, we'll end up being forced to use Windows or MacOSX.
So you claim is true, but it doesn't help OSS as a movement. We need to have a complete set of tools. Sure, you can and will do whatever you want, but it's the people that actually write what's NEEDED that get my respects.
If they enjoyed programing said apps or if they didn't, but just though they HAD to contribute that piece in order to make OSS viable as an alternative to closed source system, is irrelevant. The important thing is that thanks to them I have software that I can use. I don't think Stallman had lot of fun porting all the boring stuff in GNU. He just though It was needed, he had a mission. On the other hand, Linus not doubt enjoys kernel hacking. They day he gets bored, he'll quit (as he has already stated).
So the important thing to keep in mind is that what's important is that the apps beign produced are usefull. And only those people deserve credit. Everything else well...I think it's irrelevant (ie: good for you!)...
It's not the same case i think. Microsoft can upgrade whatever they want from your computer as they see fit. And if people don't like it, they can go to hell. The have the means to make it so that they DON'T care. They never cared and never will.
I was trying to explain to my ex (girlfriend) what DRM and Palladium where, and she couldn't grasp why it they could be bad. After all, she doesn't mind. She just buys DVD, uses a pirated Office to write some articles, and send emails and browses the web.
Truth is she is defenseless, and Microsoft can do anything they want with her (computer) and she wouldn't care/notice.
So well, we lose for now. But it's not the final word. It's just something that we'll have to deal with in the future. If most people don't care, it will become dominant, and we'll be locked of from accessing it legaly.
Well, people in the US need to buy DVD, Software (same apps many times a decade really), gadget, go to the movies, etc. Basically, if piracy goes to a high level, it means American will have more money to buy: hamburgers, cars, vacations, etc.
If that ever happens, then you will no longuer be able to: - Sell those movies, music, soft to everyone else in the world (no critical mass). Ie: no more 100% revenues with no cost. Less capital inflow. - Buy food, housing, etc. at the same price. As more people buy Real Stuff, you'll start to see prices going up.
Basically, the only way an average American can earn 3x what people earn in others countries is by having a cool way of neutralizing that purchasing power with "Soft Goods".
Meaning you do NEED DRM to keep the american dream alive. They day people stop buying software, music, movies, etc. and that at the same time, the rest of the world stops buying your movies, software, apps (and weapons) is the day the US will decline (economically). Anyway, you will still be able to live through rents (if the rest of the world honors them).
So hidden and buried in an economistic view, DRM will keep your soft industries alive and kicking. And that's good for you (and it's bad for the rest of the world).
"... you really don't have enough data to generalize. I get it to lock up my keyboard once in a while but even then I don't generalize."
Why not generalize? It locks your keyboard once in a while. I messes copy/paste. They not only are not developing it, they are breaking it on purpose. What evidence do you need?
"However, I have never had a single corrupted Windows registry. While it's possible that it gets corrupted, it doesn't happen often enough to warrant this outcry."
You are now generalizing with just 1 sample (you case). Funny!
I have seen this line of though a lot of time. I think this line of though is wrong. Here's how I see it.
Microsoft has to sell 30 games per xbox. That's the number of games, based on an estimate of the "genuine" xbox they have in their business plan.
If they happen to sell more xboxes, they have no aditional costs. Surely the hardware is pretty cheap to manufacture, so they DON'T care about selling 100 million xboxes to the Linux geeks. They will NOT lose money because of this, they may even earn profits from this.
But the point is they need to sell games to make a sucessfull console. Ie: they need normal buyers (96% of them are this now) buying games, and Linux on XBox will (SURPRISE) *not* *affecting* games sold.
Anyone that thinks the "marginal cost" of producing an XBox is higher than the selling price is wrong. This ain't true.
They may lose money because they can't fully recover the developement cost (patents, engineering, OS, PR, etc.), and when they sell at a loss it means they don't expect to sell enough games/consoles to compesate those spendings. But selling more XBoxes will NOT hurt them economically.
Now, if anyone can prove to me they are paying more for EACH XBox produced than the selling price, please enlighten me. Because I'd bet sisters it ain't so.
How log until law states you are not actually buying hardware, but somethng like renting it for some purposes?
I mean, if I buy a DVD and want to play it on Linux (legaly) I can't. Isn't this like a lifetime "renting" of hardware? If I can't access play a DVD I own on Hardware I know, then I don't really own anything.
How long until until we are restricted from modifing our hardware as we see fit?
Yes, it certainy bothers the newspaper that they are giving information for free, and the linkers are charging money.
The system as it is now is unstable, meaning a lot of newspapers will dissapear. I know this because i run a content company that provides big portals with specific sectors news, but they don't pay us $$$. That's "the policy"...we get to survive, but it' s a bit unfair:)
1) "the learning curve is steep" 2) "the interface is _great and makes sense only when you get to know it_"
Meaning that a flat learning curve thas has a huge cost. You learn it fast, but it limits you in unexpected ways.
Windows is a 4 story building with huge elevators. Linux (and in this case Blender) is a 10 story building with staircases from flor 1 to 4 and a modest elevator for the rest.
So the result is people think building as 4 story tall. Most people still think of Linux (Blender) as a Windows building clone with just starcases.
Sorry for having to resort to analogies:) But that's my Linux experience and it's difficult to tell....For the sake of it, a final analogy: I think Linux needs to finish the 1-4 elevator for the lazy folks. But they'll still have to take the 1-4 staircaes if they want to access the 5-10 floors.
http://www.computerworld.dk/Default.asp?Mode=2&A rt icleID=15247 (or ay other deep link)
What is the problem? The feature that the user can avoid the copy/paste and can just click a "link"? Or is the sole act of saying there some page with specific content there ilegal?
In any case, it's the client accesing the page (if the link is a fair non-embeded, non direct-download link).
Here's the correct version, I should always preview first.....
The analogy is correct, but I don't agree it's the same case. Houses are meant to be private, the Internet, shared. Not copier, but at least REFERENCED by links. Your proposal is like building a public museum and museum guides that tell you what are the hot spots.
I agree that deep-linking can be abused. That means there FAIR deep-linking and UNFAIR deep-linking. Taking you to another homepage (not embeding a part and making it look like your own with IFRAME or whatever technology) is not ok. Pseudo "you didn't leave my site" top bars, etc. are not ok either (some will disagree). Another unfair use of DL is direct content downloading. For example, i don't like bandwith stealing or notice avoidance, so if you want to link to a Video, please link to the page that has the link to download the video, not the video directly (there are a lot of reason why I say this. Maybe some people can think this is an "antideeplinking trolling" but it's not.).
But I wouldn't like to have to resort to a full batch of lawers to start battling a site to remove unfair deep linking (or cheap linking). This alone would kill a lot of sites that can't hire a lawer for every link they place. And also, you have the problem that site policies may change without notice, so what do you do? Recheck every link in your page every fscking day to make sure you can still to those places? Nonsense.
So what we need fair-use deep linking policies. I think a fine rule would be:
Link to html pages, not actual files (.jpg,.zip, whatever). Maybe sites could choose a role from a limited "fair use linking", for example: - Content site: Deep link to html pages only - Mirror site: Deep link whatever
You should be able to restrict linking to html pages. If you don't want them, don't be on the Internet. Sites should be warranted the right to link to every html page without limitation. If you want to limit that, don't allow deep linking at a technical level.
Well I don't agree. The analogy is correct. There are deep-linking abused. For example, i believe in FAIR deep-linking. That is, taking you to another homepage (not embeding a part and making it look like your own with IFRAME or whatever technology). Just plain linking with FULL screen, no compromise (pseudo "you didn't leave my site" top bars, etc). Another thing is content downloading. For example, i don't like bandwith stealing or notice avoidance, so if you want to link to a Video, please link to the page that has the link to downlaod the video, not the video directly (there are a lot of reason why I say this. Maybe some people can think this is an "antideeplinking trolling" but it's not.).
But i would like to have to resort to a full batch of lawers to start battling for cheap-linking (new term for bad deep linking). It would kill a lot of sites that can't hire a lawer for every link they place. And also, you have the problem that site policies may come without notice, so what do you do? Recheck every link in your page every fscking day to make sure you can still to those places? Nonsense.
So what we need a fair-use deep linking policy. I think a fine rule would be:
Link to html pages, not actual files (.jpg,.zip, whatever). Maybe sites could choose a role from a limited "fair use linking", for example: - Content site: Deep link to html pages only - Mirror site: Deep link whatever
You should be able to restrict linking to html pages. If you don't want them, don't be on the internet. Sites should be warranted the right to link to every html page without limitation. If you want to limit that, don't allow deep linking at a technical level.
Slashdot Mirror
It should make a hell of a difference. Specially if those other players can be get to known. I think meeting people face to face is much better than any online multiplayer RPG, but it will make a hell of a diference.
It's a valid point. Perl adds an overhead which is hidden and that you come to discover when someone else has to maintain the code.
It's real like it not not. Perl is easy/fast to write and hard/slow to maintain.
Just curious. How much did you fund them last time?
So is PHP, unless you never used it for command line scripting. It's http biased because that's how it was born. But it has much more in it that www stuff.
:-)
I am using it for parsing all emails of a certain domain (an automated email ticketing system. The username is a ticket, not really a username.
Can't you read? They are talking about PHP. Perl is widely used for generic scripting and everybody knows that.
It's not a business, so of course they don't have a business model. They don't make it for a profit (as is getting more money after paying all salaries and expenses). They just want their salaries paid.
Having said that, commercial (for profit) OSS projects have to find a way that involves NOT controlling the source. There are some examples, but it's easier in a non-OSS for now. But for a small company with little capital, an OSS project has the winning cards.
OSS -> support from the consumers / users.
CSS -> selfsupport from established player (selffunding), support from a fund or from a big company (ie: wants to buy you)
They have a job you fool. Hundred of thouthands of developers arround the globe are using their (free) product and they just need a little support to keep it great and evolving.
If you can't find a job then don't blame others. And keep in mind these people can find another job in just milisecond.
dot parrot (or .parrot)?
Ok...
"what will it take to unite all these individual IM networks under one umbrella?"
2 new Windows releases (or 4 years). Everyone will be using MS Messenger by then. It comes preinstallled and can't be uninstalled by the average user without breaking other apps.
Well, Windows 95 locks up a lot more. As always, they never let you keep a product and get them to support it. They always support whatever they are selling. That is ok, but it means that you will have to whatever they like you to use in the future.
And this is scary (though it's no news).
Now that I come to think about it, the don't need to rent you the hardware. They can rent you or lease the OS. So eventually, you can't tamper it in any way you don't like. Controlling the hardware would mean they get keep their renting "revenues" for a eternity. What's good a machine, if you can't run non-rented software on it?
:) After all, all this are not matters of life and death.
Mhh... maybe I am beign too paranoid
Well, if all OS writers liked to exlusively program XBill game variants, we'll end up being forced to use Windows or MacOSX.
So you claim is true, but it doesn't help OSS as a movement. We need to have a complete set of tools. Sure, you can and will do whatever you want, but it's the people that actually write what's NEEDED that get my respects.
If they enjoyed programing said apps or if they didn't, but just though they HAD to contribute that piece in order to make OSS viable as an alternative to closed source system, is irrelevant. The important thing is that thanks to them I have software that I can use. I don't think Stallman had lot of fun porting all the boring stuff in GNU. He just though It was needed, he had a mission. On the other hand, Linus not doubt enjoys kernel hacking. They day he gets bored, he'll quit (as he has already stated).
So the important thing to keep in mind is that what's important is that the apps beign produced are usefull. And only those people deserve credit. Everything else well...I think it's irrelevant (ie: good for you!)...
"(they loose money on the hardware, so what could be sweeter!)"
Are you SURE? I don't mean the biased "total cost figures" that include R&D, law, PR, etc. I mean the raw cost of production and distribution.
Because if you are wrong (as i suspect) it would mean Linux hackers giving they hard earned money to MS pockets.
It's not the same case i think. Microsoft can upgrade whatever they want from your computer as they see fit. And if people don't like it, they can go to hell. The have the means to make it so that they DON'T care. They never cared and never will.
I was trying to explain to my ex (girlfriend) what DRM and Palladium where, and she couldn't grasp why it they could be bad. After all, she doesn't mind. She just buys DVD, uses a pirated Office to write some articles, and send emails and browses the web.
Truth is she is defenseless, and Microsoft can do anything they want with her (computer) and she wouldn't care/notice.
So well, we lose for now. But it's not the final word. It's just something that we'll have to deal with in the future. If most people don't care, it will become dominant, and we'll be locked of from accessing it legaly.
Well, people in the US need to buy DVD, Software (same apps many times a decade really), gadget, go to the movies, etc. Basically, if piracy goes to a high level, it means American will have more money to buy: hamburgers, cars, vacations, etc.
If that ever happens, then you will no longuer be able to:
- Sell those movies, music, soft to everyone else in the world (no critical mass). Ie: no more 100% revenues with no cost. Less capital inflow.
- Buy food, housing, etc. at the same price. As more people buy Real Stuff, you'll start to see prices going up.
Basically, the only way an average American can earn 3x what people earn in others countries is by having a cool way of neutralizing that purchasing power with "Soft Goods".
Meaning you do NEED DRM to keep the american dream alive. They day people stop buying software, music, movies, etc. and that at the same time, the rest of the world stops buying your movies, software, apps (and weapons) is the day the US will decline (economically). Anyway, you will still be able to live through rents (if the rest of the world honors them).
So hidden and buried in an economistic view, DRM will keep your soft industries alive and kicking. And that's good for you (and it's bad for the rest of the world).
For's good for the economy is good for you!
"... you really don't have enough data to generalize. I get it to lock up my keyboard once in a while but even then I don't generalize."
Why not generalize? It locks your keyboard once in a while. I messes copy/paste. They not only are not developing it, they are breaking it on purpose. What evidence do you need?
"However, I have never had a single corrupted Windows registry. While it's possible that it gets corrupted, it doesn't happen often enough to warrant this outcry."
You are now generalizing with just 1 sample (you case). Funny!
I have seen this line of though a lot of time. I think this line of though is wrong. Here's how I see it.
Microsoft has to sell 30 games per xbox. That's the number of games, based on an estimate of the "genuine" xbox they have in their business plan.
If they happen to sell more xboxes, they have no aditional costs. Surely the hardware is pretty cheap to manufacture, so they DON'T care about selling 100 million xboxes to the Linux geeks. They will NOT lose money because of this, they may even earn profits from this.
But the point is they need to sell games to make a sucessfull console. Ie: they need normal buyers (96% of them are this now) buying games, and Linux on XBox will (SURPRISE) *not* *affecting* games sold.
Anyone that thinks the "marginal cost" of producing an XBox is higher than the selling price is wrong. This ain't true.
They may lose money because they can't fully recover the developement cost (patents, engineering, OS, PR, etc.), and when they sell at a loss it means they don't expect to sell enough games/consoles to compesate those spendings. But selling more XBoxes will NOT hurt them economically.
Now, if anyone can prove to me they are paying more for EACH XBox produced than the selling price, please enlighten me. Because I'd bet sisters it ain't so.
How log until law states you are not actually buying hardware, but somethng like renting it for some purposes?
I mean, if I buy a DVD and want to play it on Linux (legaly) I can't. Isn't this like a lifetime "renting" of hardware? If I can't access play a DVD I own on Hardware I know, then I don't really own anything.
How long until until we are restricted from modifing our hardware as we see fit?
Yes, it certainy bothers the newspaper that they are giving information for free, and the linkers are charging money.
:)
The system as it is now is unstable, meaning a lot of newspapers will dissapear. I know this because i run a content company that provides big portals with specific sectors news, but they don't pay us $$$. That's "the policy"...we get to survive, but it' s a bit unfair
Pretty strange...
Well, yes. We are so happy. Nonetheless, Linux and GNU are not a "failed products" combo. They where thought out that way from the beggining.
Companies that think that can get an advantage for OSS is nice. WOuld you better like Blender selling for 4k to Autodesk?
(Sorry, but I need to ask this)
Meaning what?
I think he meant:
:) But that's my Linux experience and it's difficult to tell....For the sake of it, a final analogy: I think Linux needs to finish the 1-4 elevator for the lazy folks. But they'll still have to take the 1-4 staircaes if they want to access the 5-10 floors.
1) "the learning curve is steep"
2) "the interface is _great and makes sense only when you get to know it_"
Meaning that a flat learning curve thas has a huge cost. You learn it fast, but it limits you in unexpected ways.
Windows is a 4 story building with huge elevators. Linux (and in this case Blender) is a 10 story building with staircases from flor 1 to 4 and a modest elevator for the rest.
So the result is people think building as 4 story tall. Most people still think of Linux (Blender) as a Windows building clone with just starcases.
Sorry for having to resort to analogies
This surelly can't the ilegal:
A rt icleID=15247
http://www.computerworld.dk/Default.asp?Mode=2&
(or ay other deep link)
What is the problem? The feature that the user can avoid the copy/paste and can just click a "link"? Or is the sole act of saying there some page with specific content there ilegal?
In any case, it's the client accesing the page (if the link is a fair non-embeded, non direct-download link).
Here's the correct version, I should always preview first.....
.zip, whatever). Maybe sites could choose a role from a limited "fair use linking", for example:
The analogy is correct, but I don't agree it's the same case. Houses are meant to be private, the Internet, shared. Not copier, but at least REFERENCED by links. Your proposal is like building a public museum and museum guides that tell you what are the hot spots.
I agree that deep-linking can be abused. That means there FAIR deep-linking and UNFAIR deep-linking. Taking you to another homepage (not embeding a part and making it look like your own with IFRAME or whatever technology) is not ok. Pseudo "you didn't leave my site" top bars, etc. are not ok either (some will disagree). Another unfair use of DL is direct content downloading. For example, i don't like bandwith stealing or notice avoidance, so if you want to link to a Video, please link to the page that has the link to download the video, not the video directly (there are a lot of reason why I say this. Maybe some people can think this is an "antideeplinking trolling" but it's not.).
But I wouldn't like to have to resort to a full batch of lawers to start battling a site to remove unfair deep linking (or cheap linking). This alone would kill a lot of sites that can't hire a lawer for every link they place. And also, you have the problem that site policies may change without notice, so what do you do? Recheck every link in your page every fscking day to make sure you can still to those places? Nonsense.
So what we need fair-use deep linking policies. I think a fine rule would be:
Link to html pages, not actual files (.jpg,
- Content site: Deep link to html pages only
- Mirror site: Deep link whatever
You should be able to restrict linking to html pages. If you don't want them, don't be on the Internet. Sites should be warranted the right to link to every html page without limitation. If you want to limit that, don't allow deep linking at a technical level.
Well...thanks for reading my point of view!
Well I don't agree. The analogy is correct. There are deep-linking abused. For example, i believe in FAIR deep-linking. That is, taking you to another homepage (not embeding a part and making it look like your own with IFRAME or whatever technology). Just plain linking with FULL screen, no compromise (pseudo "you didn't leave my site" top bars, etc). Another thing is content downloading. For example, i don't like bandwith stealing or notice avoidance, so if you want to link to a Video, please link to the page that has the link to downlaod the video, not the video directly (there are a lot of reason why I say this. Maybe some people can think this is an "antideeplinking trolling" but it's not.).
.zip, whatever). Maybe sites could choose a role from a limited "fair use linking", for example:
But i would like to have to resort to a full batch of lawers to start battling for cheap-linking (new term for bad deep linking). It would kill a lot of sites that can't hire a lawer for every link they place. And also, you have the problem that site policies may come without notice, so what do you do? Recheck every link in your page every fscking day to make sure you can still to those places? Nonsense.
So what we need a fair-use deep linking policy. I think a fine rule would be:
Link to html pages, not actual files (.jpg,
- Content site: Deep link to html pages only
- Mirror site: Deep link whatever
You should be able to restrict linking to html pages. If you don't want them, don't be on the internet. Sites should be warranted the right to link to every html page without limitation. If you want to limit that, don't allow deep linking at a technical level.
Well...thanks for reading my point of view!