Those "free" programs you speak of were shareware, and users were on thier honor to pay for them eventually if they continued to use it.
Maybe they noticed that there wasn't much "honor" out there. Maybe they noticed thier software being used everywhere and how few people were willing to pay the usually dirt cheap registration fee.
Any-way, what you're looking for is called OSS, and it does exist for windows too.
The problem with these games is that you end up finishing them.
Anybody remember Federation? It was (is?) a text based online game that was on Genie then AOL then the net proper. The coolest thing about it was that after you gained a certain status in the game, you got to create your own planet in the game. Complete with it's own economy (sorta, each player was like a corporation).
If you advanced far enough past that, you got your own fiefdom of planets to control (the players in your system had to pay tax or something like that, it's been awhile). The majority of the world created itself as a function of the game, so it was impossible to "finish" the game.
Look at the Sims, the thing takes on a life of it's own.
If someone can figure out how to do an everquest/SWG/diablo type game, with unlimited player created worlds, using even a third of the graphics abilites availabe.... That would be sweet!
That's a little exaggerated, but I see your point. A lot of the things that there are no cross-platform libraries for, are things I would rather use the most effecient method for on each platform, wrapped in an interface that is the same on all ports so that the rest of my program works without changes.
Java is great when you are not going to have an opportunity to build a port for every platform your app is going to be used on. But that benefit comes at a price. It's a trade off that makes sense in some situations, but given the oppurtunity, I would rather build a app that uses the methods that work best on each platform that it needs to work on. And use generic methods where I can elsewhere.
Yes it takes a little more effort, but unless we're seriously under the gun here, whats the problem?
In short, what I'm saying it C++ is cross platform enough for most (not all) needs.
Is there any hope for reverse engineering in the new "IP friendly" future?
Do you think that Compaq would have been able to do what they did with the PC clone in todays environment? What does that say about the future of research and development?
JAVA only works on one platform, the JVM. And there are so many little differences in JVMs that most java apps of any size I've are anything but "write once, run anywhere".
Also, if you want protabe C++ code, all you have to do is draw a firm line in your design between platform specfic and the rest of your code.
We already been sorta doing it for years...
on
The Power of Sewage
·
· Score: 1
I know of at least one power plant in northern CA that uses a combination of natural gas and sewage gas. The gas turbines used in a lot of power plants now are quite capable of running on different kinds of fuel without running like crap.
Free (as in freedom, but not necessarly as in beer) software. To put it another way "As long as my code is free, I don't care what you do with your code." If you want to take my code, combine it with yours and sell it, so be it. My code is no less free because of it.
The FSF position is far more concerned with money. "Is my code being exploited for money?" My code is free, and anything containing it must be free as well.
Take a look at any discussion here where it comes up. The two positions are quite clear. I don't get why the two sides seem to have such a probelm with the others position. They are not incompatible, just different.
Just take a look at a few recent discussions ont he subject here. It is pretty clear that for a percentage of OSS advocates:
It is a regiously held belief.
Making closed source software is wrong. Even if you do OSS work on the side.
(on the extreme side) Selling software as a commercial product is morally wrong.
Myself, I think as you do, but don't think that we represent the whole of the OSS community with this stance.
*When I say OSS, I'm actually lumping together two groups: 1. Open source people who are more concerned with OSS as a method than an philosiphical point. "free as in speech" They aren't as concerned with how other people make money. 2. Free software people, who view it as an entire philosophy. This category seems more worldview restrictive. They very much care how other people make thier money. (i.e. BSD style license vs. GPL, the main differnece is the ability to create commercial forks like OSX)
If I'm giving code away, then I am not going to care if someone else out there finds a way to make money off it as long as they don't make false claims about who did what. I'm giving it away for the world to use as it sees fit.
Some people feel exploited if someone else makes money off the code they gave away. I don't get that, but I respect it as thier choice to make. To me it's free either way; to them it's only free if all derivations are also free.
We may disagree, but we can still work together, as long as we are honest about what we are really working for.
More unnecessary, redundant legislation made solely for the short term benefit of a few people, without any regard for how much we are screwing our future selves.
This is really only for people who want a portable home gaming/entertaiment PC. It's overkill for most workplace desktops and too heavy for frequent travellers.
If I were a student looking for a gaming system I might consider it (easier to lug from dorm to dorm etc..). But for working on the go, a small PC and docking station do the same thing, and your back will thank you.
They must believe that these guys will fold without taking this all the way to trial.
Even though the claims are crap, this has to hurt Autozone in the stock market, where perception is more important than reality.
Is there not some kind of law against frivolous lawsuits soley for the purpose of slander?
It wouldn't surprise me if there was some kind of backdoor dealing going on to get a settelment out of this or another case that SCO can waive around to continue the FUD. It would be illegal, but since when has that stopped anyone. Ken Lay got away with it, why not Darl?
You're talking about the valuation of different kinds of items. Yes, there are different kinds of value, but that's not the point.
The issue here is a person who has challenged the author of this article with the idea that his work on closed software is an immoral act. The parent of my post also seems to think that producing closed, propritary software for the purpose of giving it only to those who pay is morally wrong.
He speaks of a persons rights being voilated by commercial, closed software. Do you or I have an inherent (sp?) right to any great innovation that Joe Blow III might create. How is charging for software, the fruit of a programmers labor, different than charging for widgets or books or music or doughnuts, etc... ?
Regardless of wether the value of the item in question is affected, when does it become wrong to require payment for the product of ones labor.
If you or I wish to donate the things we create to the OSS community, that's great. There are things that OSS clearly does better. But when we suggest that a person must or is evil if they don't give thier vaulable creations away for the common good; how is that not a form of slavery?
I remember reading suck on the old 486's in the back of the IT dept at my univ. while waiting for tech support calls. We were offering free ethernet access in the dorm rooms, and only had a few takers. Those were the days....
I get what you are saying, but that is not what the parent seemed to state. He was talking about peoples rights being violated.
Lock in may suck, but just what rights are being trampled upon. It is still you and I who choose the products we use. If those products lock us in and end up biting us in the ass, is it not our mistake?
Once you outsoucre all froms of labor, what is left?
Middlemen and executives
No wonder there are so many out there singing the praises of outsourcing. But can anyone give an example of a working economy (I said ecomomy not market) of only managers and salesmen?
True, but most HD TVs I've seen in action outside the showroom floor have been in standard TV mode. Even on stuff that is available on digital (like this last superbowl, they just had regular tv streched to fit the screen).
Maybe one reason is that you stil have to buy an extra (200-400 $$) reciver in most cases for broadcast, and cable usually requres you to buy the highest tier of service in order to get HD.
Slashdot Mirror
they = Apple, the company and it's leadership.
Maybe they noticed that there wasn't much "honor" out there. Maybe they noticed thier software being used everywhere and how few people were willing to pay the usually dirt cheap registration fee.
Any-way, what you're looking for is called OSS, and it does exist for windows too.The high level guys with big slabs of Apple stock would care, but why would the company as a whole?
Should they not be more concerned with making a profit and staying in the black than with making investment bankers money?Just look up first sale doctrine or ask a lawyer.
It also makes it easier to abstract things for portability if you want to.
Anybody remember Federation? It was (is?) a text based online game that was on Genie then AOL then the net proper. The coolest thing about it was that after you gained a certain status in the game, you got to create your own planet in the game. Complete with it's own economy (sorta, each player was like a corporation).
If you advanced far enough past that, you got your own fiefdom of planets to control (the players in your system had to pay tax or something like that, it's been awhile). The majority of the world created itself as a function of the game, so it was impossible to "finish" the game.Look at the Sims, the thing takes on a life of it's own.
If someone can figure out how to do an everquest/SWG/diablo type game, with unlimited player created worlds, using even a third of the graphics abilites availabe.... That would be sweet!Java is great when you are not going to have an opportunity to build a port for every platform your app is going to be used on. But that benefit comes at a price. It's a trade off that makes sense in some situations, but given the oppurtunity, I would rather build a app that uses the methods that work best on each platform that it needs to work on. And use generic methods where I can elsewhere.
Yes it takes a little more effort, but unless we're seriously under the gun here, whats the problem?In short, what I'm saying it C++ is cross platform enough for most (not all) needs.
Yeah but there's always that one that you really didn't want to see in Hi-res.... Yeah, just sit there and give me the info babe....
You actually booted off the game disk, how's that for gettting close to the metal.
Pretty good GUI for that era too. In all its 16-color TGA glory.Used to rush in with an inferior force and win by swordfightng. Fewer guys to split the loot with that way.
Good times... good times...Do you think that Compaq would have been able to do what they did with the PC clone in todays environment? What does that say about the future of research and development?
Also, if you want protabe C++ code, all you have to do is draw a firm line in your design between platform specfic and the rest of your code.
I know of at least one power plant in northern CA that uses a combination of natural gas and sewage gas. The gas turbines used in a lot of power plants now are quite capable of running on different kinds of fuel without running like crap.
Seems to be the case nowadays. Feh.
The FSF position is far more concerned with money. "Is my code being exploited for money?" My code is free, and anything containing it must be free as well.
Take a look at any discussion here where it comes up. The two positions are quite clear. I don't get why the two sides seem to have such a probelm with the others position. They are not incompatible, just different.
It is a regiously held belief.
Making closed source software is wrong. Even if you do OSS work on the side.
(on the extreme side) Selling software as a commercial product is morally wrong.
Myself, I think as you do, but don't think that we represent the whole of the OSS community with this stance.*When I say OSS, I'm actually lumping together two groups: 1. Open source people who are more concerned with OSS as a method than an philosiphical point. "free as in speech" They aren't as concerned with how other people make money. 2. Free software people, who view it as an entire philosophy. This category seems more worldview restrictive. They very much care how other people make thier money. (i.e. BSD style license vs. GPL, the main differnece is the ability to create commercial forks like OSX)
If I'm giving code away, then I am not going to care if someone else out there finds a way to make money off it as long as they don't make false claims about who did what. I'm giving it away for the world to use as it sees fit.
Some people feel exploited if someone else makes money off the code they gave away. I don't get that, but I respect it as thier choice to make. To me it's free either way; to them it's only free if all derivations are also free.We may disagree, but we can still work together, as long as we are honest about what we are really working for.
Phew! that was long...
The legal system needs a reset button.
If I were a student looking for a gaming system I might consider it (easier to lug from dorm to dorm etc..). But for working on the go, a small PC and docking station do the same thing, and your back will thank you.
Will they play nice, or do what ever it takes, to survive?
How do you code competitveness? (or spell it for that matter)They must believe that these guys will fold without taking this all the way to trial.
Even though the claims are crap, this has to hurt Autozone in the stock market, where perception is more important than reality.Is there not some kind of law against frivolous lawsuits soley for the purpose of slander?
It wouldn't surprise me if there was some kind of backdoor dealing going on to get a settelment out of this or another case that SCO can waive around to continue the FUD. It would be illegal, but since when has that stopped anyone. Ken Lay got away with it, why not Darl?The issue here is a person who has challenged the author of this article with the idea that his work on closed software is an immoral act. The parent of my post also seems to think that producing closed, propritary software for the purpose of giving it only to those who pay is morally wrong.
He speaks of a persons rights being voilated by commercial, closed software. Do you or I have an inherent (sp?) right to any great innovation that Joe Blow III might create. How is charging for software, the fruit of a programmers labor, different than charging for widgets or books or music or doughnuts, etc... ?Regardless of wether the value of the item in question is affected, when does it become wrong to require payment for the product of ones labor.
If you or I wish to donate the things we create to the OSS community, that's great. There are things that OSS clearly does better. But when we suggest that a person must or is evil if they don't give thier vaulable creations away for the common good; how is that not a form of slavery?I remember reading suck on the old 486's in the back of the IT dept at my univ. while waiting for tech support calls. We were offering free ethernet access in the dorm rooms, and only had a few takers. Those were the days....
Lock in may suck, but just what rights are being trampled upon. It is still you and I who choose the products we use. If those products lock us in and end up biting us in the ass, is it not our mistake?
How does makeing software and then selling for money violate the rights of anyone? That seems to be what you're implying.
If charging for software is evil, then how is charging for support not evil. Or charging for doughnuts?Middlemen and executives
No wonder there are so many out there singing the praises of outsourcing. But can anyone give an example of a working economy (I said ecomomy not market) of only managers and salesmen?Feh.
Maybe one reason is that you stil have to buy an extra (200-400 $$) reciver in most cases for broadcast, and cable usually requres you to buy the highest tier of service in order to get HD.