" If a vendor licenses windows for it's product (computers), it should be able to modify it in whichever way they want in order to produce their product."
So JoBlowPC on the corner "modifies" Windows, messes it up and isntalls it on all these machines. Microsoft gets the support nightmare AND the reputation problem because some dimwit "modified" their system?
Funny, wan't this supposed to be impossible under Open Source?
Seriously, it looks like maybe it isn't so simple. In the "golden days" a lot of companies bought into the idea that Open Source code was free from these types of major flaws... now they see this isn't true.
So, when the glow is off the rose we see that Linux is no more reliable (thanks to 4.2) and no more secure than a well maintained Windows 2000/XP system.
"Bill Joy, co-founder and chief scientist of Sun Microsystems, is the principal designer of the Berkeley version of the Unix operating system (BSD) and a co-author of "The Java Language Specification."
So he doesn't like.NET. What a shock. he's usually so balanced and objective.
Ah well, when he gets stomped flat again he can always sue, that seems to be sun's primary strategy these days.
That maybe the Open Source model isn't the
be all and end all?
Remember in the old days, when everyone
believed that if you took the money out of programming somehow you magically got
software that was faster/better/more innovative and bug free?
Not.
I think Open Source is doing a good
job with what they are working on - but this cult like mentality has to go. of
course, the most important thing to most people is really the "free" (beer)
part.
You mean they will give me stuff
for free and feed me a philosophy that lets me pirate everything else I want in
the name of "freedom"? WOW! SIGN ME UP!
But after the glow fades:
GCC isn't the worlds best compiler
Linux not only crashes and has bugs, but
some of them are caused by ego clashing and political tension... AND there are
zealots who will try and cover them up.
Mozilla (the shining jewel of Open
Source) is years late and many dollars short of beating IE.
Loki is dead and so goes the myht that
Linux is a market that is large and willing to buy. They listened to the Linux
zealots and got screwed.
Slashdot is squelching topics and
moderators are abusing their power - so there goes the myth of the open minds
of the Open Source community. The dream is gone and good riddance.
In the end, I like and support the Open
Source world... I think amazing things have happened...
But your much better off when you realize
it is simply another dynamic - it is not the best one and it certainly isn't the
only one.
Fight tyranny and repression.... read/. at -1!
This is clearly true - as Linux becomes more and more common there will be more and more less sophisticated users... and a system that relies for it's security on the interlocking permission settings on thousands of files is inehrantly hard to evaluate in this regard for them.
Remember, most of the new Linux users will spend their whole life running as their personal userid - and a virus will not need root access to gra their email, compromise their information and files and so on - it only needs to compromise their account.... a trivial task.
In objective terms? I couldn't begin to tell you for sure. You can find an article here. An estimate is that in 1999 the industry pulled almost 245 million dollars to the large sites. That will grow to almost 400 million in 2001.
That number is way low IMHO. It only counts the really large sites, not the thousands of smaller sites (including ours).
"do u have to file 10k and all that?"
We file all the normal paperwork, pay taxes and so on.
"why dont u ipo?"
Some have. But the majority of the sites are either too small to IPO or they are making a lot of money as private firms and the owners have no desire to lose control.
"how much do the workers make?"
Depends on what you mean by "worker". I know some models who runt heir own sites who make 3-4K a day, I know some models who are only worth $200 a photo shoot.
Who really cares all that much about streaming media?
Maybe for some segments, but for those in entertainmetn, especially for those in the adult side of entertainment there is no humor in it at all.
One of our most profitable sites relies on streamed video and streamed audio to do it's thing and we have build sites for clients that serve hundreds of simultaneous audio/video feeds.
Just like porn jpegs helped drive faster modems and better video cards (not to mention bigger disk drives)...
Just like the desire for cybersex drove the rise of AOL and IRC....
The desire to watch pretty girls do bad things is driving streaming video.
The adult side of the web is, unlike the other sides consistently and very profitable. We often have uses for technology the rest of you can't see one for... yet.
Well, for our sites we say that specifically. Not because we use IE tags, but simply because we use HTML 4.0 / layers. Netscape sucks itself dry when it hits those pages - and they are dead sstraight normal HTML.
Arghhh! Now, she wants an iMac. The reason: everything will look and feel consistent, and she'll be able to use Eudora again, official versions of ICQ and AIM, and she can even get IRC and MUD clients for it.
You might want to re-think that:) The Mac is a good machine in it's place, but the ICQ version is WAY WAY WAY lagged behind the mainstream versions, and the IRC clients lack a lot.
We use ICQ and IRC a lot in our work at girl2 so the girls can talk to people and the MAC system has real trouble compared to the windows boxen.
Ken
Re:I've had great luck with WORA with servlets
on
Java Success Stories
·
· Score: 1
I don't care how portable your ANSI C code is, but that is almost unheard of.
That's interesting, and untrue. Porting straightforward C/C++ code among those OS's is no bigh trick at all.
But hell, by THAT standard PERL is WORA, so is Python. We sure don;t need all of Sun's Java overhead for that.
Of course, no matter what SUN would liek you to believe, java was SUPPOSED to be WORA on the >CLIENT side as well... it just couldn't cut it - reinventing itselve as a server side tool is cute, but hardly important.
Hmmm... so if I say I need software that is fully windows(tm) compatible then the answer is that only windows can do it... thus, I can use the commercial stuff.
Then let's see some half assed government comittee try and decide what software is "equal".
This article's summary and the implicationsof it are downright misleading.
We have all heard over and over that/. is not a conventional news organization. Fine, I can understand that. However, that should be a reason to grant it lattitude on what topics it covers - not on the accuracy of the post.
But as a technical person I have a hard time excusing completely inaccurate information.
This is about posting a rumor and having it turn out wrong - that's fine. This is about postign a story with a summary that abolutely 100% is not in line with the article it is linked too.
It is currently so bad that there is no point in trusting the summaries.
What I meant is that GPL'd code cannot be effectively sold under the normal licensing scheme used in matters of intellectual property. The GPL seeks to destroy that as a viable source of income, replacing it with nothing commensurate.
Tom, first off let me tell you how much you have done for all of us out here by letting your work be used in a truly free manner. It is an amazing statement and a wonderful contribution.
That being said, I think the important issue is the one embodies in the quote above. The GPL simply does not acknowledge that human intellectual property exists. Thus, the viral nature is dedicated to the erradication of this concept.
While the original and sole author could sell his original code under a separate licence, he must make sure not to use any bug fixes people send him, because of course they only looked at the GPL version. This is impractical and counterproductive.
Absolutely true. it is one of the parasitic issues with the GPL that it even manages to infect the origional code.
"Where did you read this? Microsoft has been staggering releases of Office between Windows and Macintosh platforms. Office 97 was released for Windows, Office 98 was released for the Mac. The file formats are compatible."
Office 2000 was release FIRST on the Mac. The idea that Microsoft couldn't port Office to Linux is simply wishful thinking at best.
This "undocumented API" stuff is pretty amusing. In all the time I have heard about it, I have not seen ONE single instance where an undocumented API call gave an MS product a distinctive commercial or technical advantage over a competitor.
This makes complete, perfect, logical sense to me.
If I release some code, and you add origional work of your own to the codebase then it makes complete sense to me that you can do whatever you want to your changes/additions - including keep it closed source.
How much more "Open" and "Free" can you get? You don't tell me what to do with my code, and I don't tell you what to do with your code.
"And they quite rightly recoil from that. And it's bloody hard to convince them after they've heard the linux/GPL(sic) folks go on and on that such things as the BSD license exist and don't carry that baggage."
And that baggage has hurt the FSF and OSS movements a lot over the years. I know for a long time AT&T wouldn't let us even THINK of loading GCC on our boxes so we didn't 'infect' their code. Further, they forbade many developers to work on OSS projects for fear of some GPL infection.
I wouldn't contribute to a GPL'ed project - I have nod esire to risk the rest of my work and limit my future options that way, If I start a project, I will put it under the BSD or Artistic lisence so that others don't have to be afraid of my code either.
"Charging for something is not evil. Restricting freedom, with the excuse of, 'i am just charging for my product' IS evil, no matter what popular opinion says."
I write some code. I own it. I can do whatever the hell I want with it.
THAT is freedom.
If your going to claim that restricting how one's code is used is "evil" then I assume you agree that the GPL is evil?
"I gotta admit, the whole 'It's gotta be free!' thing bothers me a bit. I personally like the idea of giving your software away and paying for support. The people get free software, the companies gets people who love to code to fix their stuff and corperations have somebody to turn to when it's broken. "
Sorry, I don't see it. It seems to me that paying for support for free software is exactly the wrong economic incentive to create software >I
The company in question profits almost completely by releasing a buggy, badly documented product.
Slashdot Mirror
" If a vendor licenses windows for it's product (computers), it should be able to modify it in whichever way they want in order to produce their product."
So JoBlowPC on the corner "modifies" Windows, messes it up and isntalls it on all these machines. Microsoft gets the support nightmare AND the reputation problem because some dimwit "modified" their system?
This is supposed to be reasonable?
"What I was trying to say was that Microsoft's software will always be installed by default"
*gasp* so you mean those evil bastards at Microsoft don't ship someone elses software on their operating system by default?
How dare they want to be able to control the product they developed and shipped!
The scum!
Next topic: Forcing Mozilla to ship with the IE rendering engine as a default component.
You already CAN install an alternate browser.
You already CAN use an alternate IM system.
You already CAN use another media player.
So what, exactly, is all the bitching about? Or is it just random pointless anti-MS bitching?
Funny, wan't this supposed to be impossible under Open Source?
Seriously, it looks like maybe it isn't so simple. In the "golden days" a lot of companies bought into the idea that Open Source code was free from these types of major flaws... now they see this isn't true.
So, when the glow is off the rose we see that Linux is no more reliable (thanks to 4.2) and no more secure than a well maintained Windows 2000/XP system.
And that's something some of us knew all along
"Bill Joy, co-founder and chief scientist of Sun Microsystems, is the principal designer of the Berkeley version of the Unix operating system (BSD) and a co-author of "The Java Language Specification."
.NET. What a shock. he's usually so balanced and objective.
So he doesn't like
Ah well, when he gets stomped flat again he can always sue, that seems to be sun's primary strategy these days.
-
GCC isn't the worlds best compiler
-
Linux not only crashes and has bugs, but
some of them are caused by ego clashing and political tension... AND there are
zealots who will try and cover them up.
-
Mozilla (the shining jewel of Open
Source) is years late and many dollars short of beating IE.
-
Loki is dead and so goes the myht that
Linux is a market that is large and willing to buy. They listened to the Linux
zealots and got screwed.
-
Slashdot is squelching topics and
moderators are abusing their power - so there goes the myth of the open minds
of the Open Source community. The dream is gone and good riddance.
In the end, I like and support the Open Source world... I think amazing things have happened... But your much better off when you realize it is simply another dynamic - it is not the best one and it certainly isn't the only one. Fight tyranny and repression.... read"The odds of a single blackhat exploiting a bug en masse before the thousands of white hats can close it is quite slim."
Yet recently, exactly that happened.
The URL's are....
bsdgirl
linuxchiq
This is clearly true - as Linux becomes more and more common there will be more and more less sophisticated users... and a system that relies for it's security on the interlocking permission settings on thousands of files is inehrantly hard to evaluate in this regard for them.
Remember, most of the new Linux users will spend their whole life running as their personal userid - and a virus will not need root access to gra their email, compromise their information and files and so on - it only needs to compromise their account.... a trivial task.
If you think Linux is safe... your wrong.
Ken
Wow. This guy really is an diot.
Ken
"VHS beat BetaMax, which was infact supperior to VHS..."
This is one of the great myths. Betamax had slightly better resolution, but was far far far from a better solution in most other ways.
Short record times for one.
Ken
"how big is the porn business"
In objective terms? I couldn't begin to tell you for sure. You can find an article here. An estimate is that in 1999 the industry pulled almost 245 million dollars to the large sites. That will grow to almost 400 million in 2001.
That number is way low IMHO. It only counts the really large sites, not the thousands of smaller sites (including ours).
"do u have to file 10k and all that?"
We file all the normal paperwork, pay taxes and so on.
"why dont u ipo?"
Some have. But the majority of the sites are either too small to IPO or they are making a lot of money as private firms and the owners have no desire to lose control.
"how much do the workers make?"
Depends on what you mean by "worker". I know some models who runt heir own sites who make 3-4K a day, I know some models who are only worth $200 a photo shoot.
Ken
Who really cares all that much about streaming media?
... yet.
Maybe for some segments, but for those in entertainmetn, especially for those in the adult side of entertainment there is no humor in it at all.
One of our most profitable sites relies on streamed video and streamed audio to do it's thing and we have build sites for clients that serve hundreds of simultaneous audio/video feeds.
Just like porn jpegs helped drive faster modems and better video cards (not to mention bigger disk drives)...
Just like the desire for cybersex drove the rise of AOL and IRC....
The desire to watch pretty girls do bad things is driving streaming video.
The adult side of the web is, unlike the other sides consistently and very profitable. We often have uses for technology the rest of you can't see one for
Ken
those "this site best viewed with IE" buttons?
Well, for our sites we say that specifically. Not because we use IE tags, but simply because we use HTML 4.0 / layers. Netscape sucks itself dry when it hits those pages - and they are dead sstraight normal HTML.
Ken
Arghhh! Now, she wants an iMac. The reason: everything will look and feel consistent, and she'll be able to use Eudora again, official versions of ICQ and AIM, and she can even get IRC and MUD clients for it.
:) The Mac is a good machine in it's place, but the ICQ version is WAY WAY WAY lagged behind the mainstream versions, and the IRC clients lack a lot.
You might want to re-think that
We use ICQ and IRC a lot in our work at girl2 so the girls can talk to people and the MAC system has real trouble compared to the windows boxen.
Ken
I don't care how portable your ANSI C code is, but that is almost unheard of.
That's interesting, and untrue. Porting straightforward C/C++ code among those OS's is no bigh trick at all.
But hell, by THAT standard PERL is WORA, so is Python. We sure don;t need all of Sun's Java overhead for that.
Of course, no matter what SUN would liek you to believe, java was SUPPOSED to be WORA on the >CLIENT side as well... it just couldn't cut it - reinventing itselve as a server side tool is cute, but hardly important.
Ken
Well no - it is NOT better than nothing. I want the government, and the LAW totally out of this industry.
How will you feel when some idiot ramrods a bill in that you can't use PERL for govt stuff because his son/nephew hates perl?
NOTHING is more dangerous than lawmakers governing technology.
Ken
Equivelent functionality?
Hmmm... so if I say I need software that is fully windows(tm) compatible then the answer is that only windows can do it... thus, I can use the commercial stuff.
Then let's see some half assed government comittee try and decide what software is "equal".
Ken
This article's summary and the implicationsof it are downright misleading.
/. is not a conventional news organization. Fine, I can understand that. However, that should be a reason to grant it lattitude on what topics it covers - not on the accuracy of the post.
We have all heard over and over that
But as a technical person I have a hard time excusing completely inaccurate information.
This is about posting a rumor and having it turn out wrong - that's fine. This is about postign a story with a summary that abolutely 100% is not in line with the article it is linked too.
It is currently so bad that there is no point in trusting the summaries.
Ken
Tom, first off let me tell you how much you have done for all of us out here by letting your work be used in a truly free manner. It is an amazing statement and a wonderful contribution.
That being said, I think the important issue is the one embodies in the quote above. The GPL simply does not acknowledge that human intellectual property exists. Thus, the viral nature is dedicated to the erradication of this concept.
Absolutely true. it is one of the parasitic issues with the GPL that it even manages to infect the origional code.
Office 2000 was release FIRST on the Mac. The idea that Microsoft couldn't port Office to Linux is simply wishful thinking at best.
This "undocumented API" stuff is pretty amusing. In all the time I have heard about it, I have not seen ONE single instance where an undocumented API call gave an MS product a distinctive commercial or technical advantage over a competitor.
Ken
This makes complete, perfect, logical sense to me.
If I release some code, and you add origional work of your own to the codebase then it makes complete sense to me that you can do whatever you want to your changes/additions - including keep it closed source.
How much more "Open" and "Free" can you get? You don't tell me what to do with my code, and I don't tell you what to do with your code.
Ken
And that baggage has hurt the FSF and OSS movements a lot over the years. I know for a long time AT&T wouldn't let us even THINK of loading GCC on our boxes so we didn't 'infect' their code. Further, they forbade many developers to work on OSS projects for fear of some GPL infection.
I wouldn't contribute to a GPL'ed project - I have nod esire to risk the rest of my work and limit my future options that way, If I start a project, I will put it under the BSD or Artistic lisence so that others don't have to be afraid of my code either.
Ken
years whenI write some code. I own it. I can do whatever the hell I want with it.
THAT is freedom.
If your going to claim that restricting how one's code is used is "evil" then I assume you agree that the GPL is evil?
Sorry, I don't see it. It seems to me that paying for support for free software is exactly the wrong economic incentive to create software >I
The company in question profits almost completely by releasing a buggy, badly documented product.