Slashdot is asking that you either watch the adds so that they can finance the bandwidth and other costs, or to make a little contribution.
The subscription money is not to block the ads, but to fund the website. Seen you are a huge fan of Slashdot (you have a userid of #379) i cannot really believe you don't find value added in slashdot.
Regarding the support of "IGN", I opted to support the FSF with a $35 donation. And i get a value added from them, they protect our rights. Yes, your rights as well as mine.
Slashdot's subscription is stupid: I pay to not get something I had. In fact, since there's junkbuster... I'm paying for not getting something I already didn't have. Kinda silly.
It truly confirms my views. I'm glad I've been moderated down on this one, just to remember me beign more doesn't mean being right (i had forgotten that).
And by the way, I still do not know how can your post be insightfull if you where just plain wrong, blaming the great mozilla for a problem traced to your particular adkiller software?
The client owns the source code in almost all contracts. If I "go nuts", he can hire anyone he wants to work on it without giving it to the whole world as an open source gift. Your lack of logic is astounding.
And that's exactly what i'm saying. You need to convince the _client_ to use GPL and not the other way arround. If you read the post i replied to, the poster implies there's no reason why the coder will want to put the code under GPL.
Your lack of logic is astounding.
No, your is as well as your reading skills.
Re:Mozilla employs security through obscurity....
on
Mozilla 1.0 RC2 is out
·
· Score: 2
That's security and it's not by obscurity. It's a precaution. It's plain and simple. Your idea of security would imply sending passwords in plaintext or having the password widgets echo what you type.
I don't want to force them to view the ads first. Content goes first, ads go second. Should i force everyone to download an ad because of the guys riping them off? No
Anyway, i already stated that the problem is not technical or wheter i can force them to load the ads. It's the attitude. I find this usefull but i don't care if you can survive or if i am helping you just by loading this ad.
This is the same exact reason loki and many other great companies got broke. While some people helped, the mayority just though they could get it for free (as in no contribution at all). A shame.
I don't know if illegal. I'd say it's selfish. Because if something is funded by ads it's because people are not willing to pay. But they are not only NOT willing to pay and go to the extend to blocking the ads. Their proposal is hipocrat one. Let the stupid watch the ads, i get it for free.
Note: I'm as anonymous for protection from the hipocrats...
Let me know where i say that you should be forced to watch an ad. I don't care if you watch it or not, i only care that my website is offered for free as long as you keep it unmodified and view it in the intended way.
This guy which ask that mozilla respect his proxy setting does not respect the website will to display an ad. Can it be technicaly done? Yes. But is it ok? I don't think so.
A note: I don't make money with ads, but i respect a site wich is funded by ads. I don't necesarilly look at the ads, but some times I find them usefull.
You are again, free-riding. It's an ethical decision. I don't care being moderate to -100 for stating my personal view on this subject.
This guy EXPECTS mozilla to respect it's adkiller tools, yet he doesn't care to even help the sites he is looking at that base their revenue on ads.
If you don't find an ad usefull and you don't pay attention to it, it's ok. If you are concerned about your privacy is ok. But if you mod me down (go ahead, i don't care) for merely expresing my point of view, then it speaks for the biasedness of moderators.
And beign pro open source and avid slashdot reader, i never trully realized how much this moderation hurts the discusions, putting away all the mess that _we don't want_ to read.
Also, i would like to ask to the guy that uses these adkillers and to the people that modded my initial post down if they are paying for a slashdot subscription (so that they don't see the ads). And if they are not paying it, if they are using it when they visit slashdot. And lastly, if they don't think it's at least one tiny bit unfair to "have the no-ad" version without paying what the site owners.
What you do should be illegal. I wish there was a eula that regulated that. But eulas do turn bad in the end.
My argument goes as follows: if you don't like the ads, visit your own website.
PD: i can understand cookies issues and abusive ads, but not ALL ads. These companies rely on adverticing so what you are doing is free-riding and raping them.
Buyer: Why do I not just wait for them to contact you to write an open source solution and then use what you write for free?
In the meantime what would you use? Pay for a propietary version?
So you end up spending that same money and get nothing in return because your competitors can buy that too yet the code is not available to any of you. And the you realize that that software producer owns you and your fellow competitor.
You can't wait. You either fund a private company and own nothing, or you distribute the cost among competitors, or you fund your own closed version (an in this case, if you have a lot of competitors they may end up funding a closed source version in which case you will be forced to buy that thing too, or (cross your fingers) they wisely GPLd their code, so you will have an incentive to use it and better it).
Look at what happened in real life. People reasoned like you, and look where they ended. Now you are asuming they will not learn the lesson and keep doing the same mistake forever.
Your client will already own the code, so they can give it to whomever they want. Why would it be in their interest to obligate themselves to give it to any more people than absolutely necessary?
Pretty simple. So that they are not locked to your solution. If you ever go nuts they have a way out. So it is not YOU that make it GPL, is the client forcing you to make it GPL (if he has brains).
And they find out that they are prime players selling a product that is worst tenfold what they could produce individualy and are getting a larger market shre everyday despite layoffs and chapter 10s (can't remember the number).
Sometimes it makes sense, some other times does not. When you want a competitive advantage and stagnated developement (beyond what you do) then don't make it free.
But if you prefer to but closed source and fund a company that OWNS ALL OF IT, and many people do that, then it just does not make economic sense.
After all, i see no important company benefiting from Office beign expensive and irreplaceable, and having to buy it over and over every two years. EVERY will have this suite and the competitive advantage will go to the product seller.
In cases where you KNOW you will not really have a competitive advantage is where open source will excel. And it can be proven that in most of the cases you will NOT have a competitive advantage. Competitive advantages come in another form: naely what you do with those tools, your strategy as a company.
- Paying ALL the cost and ALL the upgrades, in which case making it open is a no. - Paying someone else who did the product, still getting nothing. The someone can also sell the product to everyone of you competitors. And you fund that company.
Then you and your competitors start to realize that they are BOTH paying money do this other company which got in the middle, and because you really depend on that single app, you'll have to pay whatever price they ask. And by that time, you also realize that if you NOW want to produce your own tool, it will costs you the SUM of ALL MONEY you and your competitors spent on this product.
And this is what companies are nowadays finding out. They thought they had a competitive advantage, and everyone thought that. But reality turned out that the software producer was the one that had the competitive advantage. How else would you collect $40B in a competitive market?
The need only look at peak speeds. If you ever get past a limit, you are toasted.
The best way to get arround this would be to have some the gateways do the QoS, so that certain IP would only get what the "internal record in their servers" say the guy can use.
Is this so difficult? You could do it with a Linux box like a celeron 500 easily i think. No need for a monitor either.
Save your time, according to this articule, Linux in the mainframe will fail because:
"The company says that, at least for the moment, Linux isn't capable of running more complex, critical applications, such as e-mail notification systems."
Intel-based servers are emerging with mainframe-like capabilities
Ok, here is the alternate dialogue where the educated Buyer is also required to take economics.
Coder: Let's open source this after you pay me to write it. Buyer: Wait. So once we pay you to produce this for us, you want us to let you open source it, in effect giving it away for free? Coder: Yeah. So that if other people find it usefull and make it better, we can benefit from it. Buyer: But you want to be paid. Coder: Yeah, I gots ta get paid. But if you closed source it, you will have to pay me forever, and if someone else puts more money than you, you'll be damned. For nobody will help you out and you'll be on your own. And even if you start to depend on this someone, it will always be for the price they ask. So your "competitive edge" either costs you a lot, reducing the incentive, or it is avalilable to everyone else, same result as making it free. The difference is now you don't own the product, you can't make it better and you can't even modify it if you even want to add some speacial feature for use within your company (that GLP explicitly allows). Buyer: Mhhh, then did computer science majors start including economics course?
I ask you a question, what good is innovating if you can't comunicate? Samba allows comunication. It's NOT supposed to be innovative.
I understand your point but fail to understand your critic. Open Source HAS indeed innovated in many areas. But that doesn't mean you don't need products that people already use and find very usefull not to say a must have. Thus the replacement or "coping" of some windows apps. But Microsoft didn't invent them either so the credit goes to some small companies and invididuals and nobody gives them a god damn credit about that.
I which "usefull" innovative products get recognition, yet value a lot the fact that i Samba allows me to deploy Linux NOW where would be otherwise imposible.
The only real cures... (to) take mean steps to cut down the birth rate (like, here, we'll feed you and your family for as long as you allow us to put this norplant thing into your woman).
"Stop having children if you want to eat, you poor stupid bastards" is ok, human and a honorable and thoughtfull proposition. Asking the guy to start by castrating himself is a personal attack.
My point was forced castration is not a solution, as prima nocte was not a solution for destroying scotland. You need to educate these people, while feeding them.
Why as Red Hat support about your CPU? OMG the lameless filter:( (Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.) It may be lame, but maybe this guy finds it usefull next time...
fferreres@fede:~$ cat/proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel model name : Celeron (Mendocino) cpu MHz : 432.331 cache size : 128 KB bogomips : 861.79
Aaron, Samba is popular due to Windows popularity, yes. But it also extends SMB (has more features), and also, they are not reinventing the weel. We already HAD better alternatives, but these guys just took what was mainstream used and made it better, whiout any help from Microsoft and without any real budget.
So this is why the get the award IHMO. Also, Microsoft innovating? How? Inventing a web browser? Inventing TCP/IP? Inventing a PC? Inventing the mouse? The graphical UI? The first DOS? The spreadsheet concept? Inventing the Messenger style communicators?
Please let me know which innovations are from MS and I will begin to understand.
I have already stated this. The vendor should specify the security level rating of the product. That is, offer some limited warranties.
Microsoft you offer their products for home destop users at a NO WARRANTY AT ALL level, same as with Open Source.
But competing firms in biz markets (say Sun, or whoever) could offer some higher security product (implied warranty, or public scrutiny of the source, private audition, etc). And finantial firms, banks and the goverment should be forced to use products like this.
For Open Source, it would mean that companies would be able to audit the code for money and release them back for us. Also, they could provide warranties, or "promot response" (warranty to solve an issue in a given timeframe), etc.
How is it a good think? Unless you are not the one unborn, you'll have a hard time proving your point.
If there was no food, no space, no resources i could undestand it. Anyway, my point was about the guy beign slaped as flaimebait for calling the guy that wanted to erradicate poverty by taking their fertility away an "ANIMAL".
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot is asking that you either watch the adds so that they can finance the bandwidth and other costs, or to make a little contribution.
The subscription money is not to block the ads, but to fund the website. Seen you are a huge fan of Slashdot (you have a userid of #379) i cannot really believe you don't find value added in slashdot.
Regarding the support of "IGN", I opted to support the FSF with a $35 donation. And i get a value added from them, they protect our rights. Yes, your rights as well as mine.
Good luck!
Slashdot's subscription is stupid: I pay to not get something I had. In fact, since there's junkbuster ... I'm paying for not getting something I already didn't have. Kinda silly.
It truly confirms my views. I'm glad I've been moderated down on this one, just to remember me beign more doesn't mean being right (i had forgotten that).
And by the way, I still do not know how can your post be insightfull if you where just plain wrong, blaming the great mozilla for a problem traced to your particular adkiller software?
Trully awakened now...
The client owns the source code in almost all contracts. If I "go nuts", he can hire anyone he wants to work on it without giving it to the whole world as an open source gift. Your lack of logic is astounding.
And that's exactly what i'm saying. You need to convince the _client_ to use GPL and not the other way arround. If you read the post i replied to, the poster implies there's no reason why the coder will want to put the code under GPL.
Your lack of logic is astounding.
No, your is as well as your reading skills.
That's security and it's not by obscurity. It's a precaution. It's plain and simple. Your idea of security would imply sending passwords in plaintext or having the password widgets echo what you type.
Nice quote :) I was beign honest though. I'd agree that we always fall in the "hippocrats" category at some point in life.
I don't want to force them to view the ads first. Content goes first, ads go second. Should i force everyone to download an ad because of the guys riping them off? No
Anyway, i already stated that the problem is not technical or wheter i can force them to load the ads. It's the attitude. I find this usefull but i don't care if you can survive or if i am helping you just by loading this ad.
This is the same exact reason loki and many other great companies got broke. While some people helped, the mayority just though they could get it for free (as in no contribution at all). A shame.
This was a correction to my previous. I wanted to make it anonymous, but what the hell. Thanks.
I don't know if illegal. I'd say it's selfish. Because if something is funded by ads it's because people are not willing to pay. But they are not only NOT willing to pay and go to the extend to blocking the ads. Their proposal is hipocrat one. Let the stupid watch the ads, i get it for free.
Note: I'm as anonymous for protection from the hipocrats...
Let me know where i say that you should be forced to watch an ad. I don't care if you watch it or not, i only care that my website is offered for free as long as you keep it unmodified and view it in the intended way.
This guy which ask that mozilla respect his proxy setting does not respect the website will to display an ad. Can it be technicaly done? Yes. But is it ok? I don't think so.
A note: I don't make money with ads, but i respect a site wich is funded by ads. I don't necesarilly look at the ads, but some times I find them usefull.
You are again, free-riding. It's an ethical decision. I don't care being moderate to -100 for stating my personal view on this subject.
This guy EXPECTS mozilla to respect it's adkiller tools, yet he doesn't care to even help the sites he is looking at that base their revenue on ads.
If you don't find an ad usefull and you don't pay attention to it, it's ok. If you are concerned about your privacy is ok. But if you mod me down (go ahead, i don't care) for merely expresing my point of view, then it speaks for the biasedness of moderators.
And beign pro open source and avid slashdot reader, i never trully realized how much this moderation hurts the discusions, putting away all the mess that _we don't want_ to read.
Also, i would like to ask to the guy that uses these adkillers and to the people that modded my initial post down if they are paying for a slashdot subscription (so that they don't see the ads). And if they are not paying it, if they are using it when they visit slashdot. And lastly, if they don't think it's at least one tiny bit unfair to "have the no-ad" version without paying what the site owners.
Eat my karma, i prefer my dignity.
What you do should be illegal. I wish there was a eula that regulated that. But eulas do turn bad in the end.
My argument goes as follows: if you don't like the ads, visit your own website.
PD: i can understand cookies issues and abusive ads, but not ALL ads. These companies rely on adverticing so what you are doing is free-riding and raping them.
Buyer: Why do I not just wait for them to contact you to write an open source solution and then use what you write for free?
In the meantime what would you use? Pay for a propietary version?
So you end up spending that same money and get nothing in return because your competitors can buy that too yet the code is not available to any of you. And the you realize that that software producer owns you and your fellow competitor.
You can't wait. You either fund a private company and own nothing, or you distribute the cost among competitors, or you fund your own closed version (an in this case, if you have a lot of competitors they may end up funding a closed source version in which case you will be forced to buy that thing too, or (cross your fingers) they wisely GPLd their code, so you will have an incentive to use it and better it).
Look at what happened in real life. People reasoned like you, and look where they ended. Now you are asuming they will not learn the lesson and keep doing the same mistake forever.
Your client will already own the code, so they can give it to whomever they want. Why would it be in their interest to obligate themselves to give it to any more people than absolutely necessary?
Pretty simple. So that they are not locked to your solution. If you ever go nuts they have a way out. So it is not YOU that make it GPL, is the client forcing you to make it GPL (if he has brains).
That are the two only real solutions today.
Opps :) When i said "worst" in the first line, i meant to say "worth". Don't make jokes!!
And they find out that they are prime players selling a product that is worst tenfold what they could produce individualy and are getting a larger market shre everyday despite layoffs and chapter 10s (can't remember the number).
Sometimes it makes sense, some other times does not. When you want a competitive advantage and stagnated developement (beyond what you do) then don't make it free.
But if you prefer to but closed source and fund a company that OWNS ALL OF IT, and many people do that, then it just does not make economic sense.
After all, i see no important company benefiting from Office beign expensive and irreplaceable, and having to buy it over and over every two years. EVERY will have this suite and the competitive advantage will go to the product seller.
In cases where you KNOW you will not really have a competitive advantage is where open source will excel. And it can be proven that in most of the cases you will NOT have a competitive advantage. Competitive advantages come in another form: naely what you do with those tools, your strategy as a company.
Well, it that case your company ends up either:
- Paying ALL the cost and ALL the upgrades, in which case making it open is a no.
- Paying someone else who did the product, still getting nothing. The someone can also sell the product to everyone of you competitors. And you fund that company.
Then you and your competitors start to realize that they are BOTH paying money do this other company which got in the middle, and because you really depend on that single app, you'll have to pay whatever price they ask. And by that time, you also realize that if you NOW want to produce your own tool, it will costs you the SUM of ALL MONEY you and your competitors spent on this product.
And this is what companies are nowadays finding out. They thought they had a competitive advantage, and everyone thought that. But reality turned out that the software producer was the one that had the competitive advantage. How else would you collect $40B in a competitive market?
Good try though...
The need only look at peak speeds. If you ever get past a limit, you are toasted.
The best way to get arround this would be to have some the gateways do the QoS, so that certain IP would only get what the "internal record in their servers" say the guy can use.
Is this so difficult? You could do it with a Linux box like a celeron 500 easily i think. No need for a monitor either.
"The company says that, at least for the moment, Linux isn't capable of running more complex, critical applications, such as e-mail notification systems."
Intel-based servers are emerging with mainframe-like capabilities
Geezz...
Ok, here is the alternate dialogue where the educated Buyer is also required to take economics.
Coder: Let's open source this after you pay me to write it.
Buyer: Wait. So once we pay you to produce this for us, you want us to let you open source it, in effect giving it away for free?
Coder: Yeah. So that if other people find it usefull and make it better, we can benefit from it.
Buyer: But you want to be paid.
Coder: Yeah, I gots ta get paid. But if you closed source it, you will have to pay me forever, and if someone else puts more money than you, you'll be damned. For nobody will help you out and you'll be on your own. And even if you start to depend on this someone, it will always be for the price they ask. So your "competitive edge" either costs you a lot, reducing the incentive, or it is avalilable to everyone else, same result as making it free. The difference is now you don't own the product, you can't make it better and you can't even modify it if you even want to add some speacial feature for use within your company (that GLP explicitly allows).
Buyer: Mhhh, then did computer science majors start including economics course?
I ask you a question, what good is innovating if you can't comunicate? Samba allows comunication. It's NOT supposed to be innovative.
I understand your point but fail to understand your critic. Open Source HAS indeed innovated in many areas. But that doesn't mean you don't need products that people already use and find very usefull not to say a must have. Thus the replacement or "coping" of some windows apps. But Microsoft didn't invent them either so the credit goes to some small companies and invididuals and nobody gives them a god damn credit about that.
I which "usefull" innovative products get recognition, yet value a lot the fact that i Samba allows me to deploy Linux NOW where would be otherwise imposible.
The only real cures ... (to) take mean steps to cut down the birth rate (like, here, we'll feed you and your family for as long as you allow us to put this norplant thing into your woman).
"Stop having children if you want to eat, you poor stupid bastards" is ok, human and a honorable and thoughtfull proposition. Asking the guy to start by castrating himself is a personal attack.
My point was forced castration is not a solution, as prima nocte was not a solution for destroying scotland. You need to educate these people, while feeding them.
Why as Red Hat support about your CPU? OMG the lameless filter :( (Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.) It may be lame, but maybe this guy finds it usefull next time...
/proc/cpuinfo
fferreres@fede:~$ cat
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
model name : Celeron (Mendocino)
cpu MHz : 432.331
cache size : 128 KB
bogomips : 861.79
Aaron, Samba is popular due to Windows popularity, yes. But it also extends SMB (has more features), and also, they are not reinventing the weel. We already HAD better alternatives, but these guys just took what was mainstream used and made it better, whiout any help from Microsoft and without any real budget.
So this is why the get the award IHMO. Also, Microsoft innovating? How? Inventing a web browser? Inventing TCP/IP? Inventing a PC? Inventing the mouse? The graphical UI? The first DOS? The spreadsheet concept? Inventing the Messenger style communicators?
Please let me know which innovations are from MS and I will begin to understand.
I have already stated this. The vendor should specify the security level rating of the product. That is, offer some limited warranties.
Microsoft you offer their products for home destop users at a NO WARRANTY AT ALL level, same as with Open Source.
But competing firms in biz markets (say Sun, or whoever) could offer some higher security product (implied warranty, or public scrutiny of the source, private audition, etc). And finantial firms, banks and the goverment should be forced to use products like this.
For Open Source, it would mean that companies would be able to audit the code for money and release them back for us. Also, they could provide warranties, or "promot response" (warranty to solve an issue in a given timeframe), etc.
How is it a good think? Unless you are not the one unborn, you'll have a hard time proving your point.
If there was no food, no space, no resources i could undestand it. Anyway, my point was about the guy beign slaped as flaimebait for calling the guy that wanted to erradicate poverty by taking their fertility away an "ANIMAL".
It's his opinion. It's not a flame.