Lets not forget SCO had its own Linux distribution, and did a lot to support Linux itself. So IBM supports Linux and it's some sort of plot to take down Unix, but SCO supports Linux and it's alright????
Finally I thought I could get a 5+ funny and here you go and steal my joke. I mean, what are the chances of somebody else thinking of this exact same joke on Slashdot? 1 in 3?
I dunno? What are the chance that SCO will send them a bill for $1399 x 2070?
The article doesn't seem to say, but do they include email as a non-browser based Internet appliaction? Seems odd to just ignore what is likely the most (or second most?) used application on the net.
There's this amazing new thing called 'statistics'. It allows you to learn things like this without finding out what the 'entire internet' is doing.
Now, I also imagine that a company like that does post their methods, so it seems harsh to start accusing them when the news release meant for the public isn't specific.
If advertising or merchandising is out (for ethical or whatever reasons), then they should be turning to foundations that can help with non-profit fundraising.
Umm, this is just a form of fundraising that a lot of groups use. Just look at PBS, while it might not be there only source of revenue, they do regularly ask for donations from their viewers.
Canadian system works, but only if people stop voting for the party and start voting for the representative.
Most people vote for the party or it's leader, *not* their representitive. Why? Because in Canadian politics it's your only chance to have a say in what essentially acts as our 'executive', and individual members tend to get forced to vote certain ways by the party.
As much as I prefer most Canadian politicians to American politicians, our political system doesn't have as much protection in terms of separation of powers, (we have only 1 truly active legislative body, the senate has little function), and our Consitution is easily usurped with the 'notwithstanding-clause'. It makes me very worried to think what would happen if the Canadian Alliance were to come into power (which to a large extent is probably why the Liberals have such a stranglehold.) If the people running the US were running under the Canadian model... well, it would not be good.
I'm not sure you are being fair. A lot of interesting A.I. and machine learning problems with issues like style. While his system might not handle grammar and organization, its ideas could become the basis of another system that could. Research goes a step at a time.
I wish Microsoft had more to say about this "Law #1". I think the personal computer is in dire need of a serious security overhaul. Running a program shouldn't equate to giving it total access to your computer. Obviously it's impossible to cover for all issues, but something as simple as double clicking on an application (or attachment) SHOULD NOT be able to wreak havok on your computer. Most programs only access files that the user explicitly asks for in a dialog box, so why should they get access to everything? All programs should by default be around the equivalent of a sandbox, mixed with a UI that implicitly gives a program access only to files the user chooses in some manner. Only programs that absolutely need access to the entire system should get it, such as virus scanners. (which hopefully wouldn't be needed in such a system)
While he is referring to AIX, McBridge admits how useful it is to wait to allow damages to pile. Has some implications with their unwillingness to actually say in public what they think is their's that is in Linux.
McBride: Right now, we're talking about the Linux base. We're a little company we have to choose our battles. Our goal is to take the Linux thing and get that tightened down and then swing back around on AIX. We're sort of fine to let the AIX thing tick, because the longer it goes, when we actually end up in courtroom, we can go back to June 13, 2003, and add damages. We're sort of fine to let that one run. I don't sense they've stopped shipping AIX and both sides right now are kind of on the Linux battlefront.
In terms of realistic movement, I think part of the reason Final Fantasy looked so artificial was in part because the actual renderrings looked so good. When you see something that looks so real, you expect the animation to look right as well. On the other hand, with cartoons you have lowered expectations of the animation since you already perceive what you are watching as relatively fake. As for Toy Story, well... the renderrings weren't realistic and I personally didn't see a problem with the animation. It's hard to say what a toy should really look like when it's alive.:)
In terms of hand-drawn Disney movies, I think it's more a matter of the style that can be attained by drawn images. However, a LOT of work goes into that. Most cartoons don't have nearly that amount expressiveness, yet they still don't look as stilted as Final Fantasy did.
While cartoons may be drawn in 2D, nearly all are attempting to capture the essence of 3D scenes. Computer-related definately can work with a 2D model in mind to get 3D-looking results, and I'm sure you will see some movies eventually try that (Flash is for the most part 2D, and there are some very interesting animations coming from that). 2D tools are good for quick one-offs.
However, programs working with 3D model just map so much better when you want the result to look 3D. Rotating an object doesn't require redrawing it. You can do more with your camera then just pan. Things done in 3D are much more reuseable, making large projects more feasible.
True, as with most good movies it's the story that matters above most anything else.
This can be seen with anime, which for some reason is stuck with the same damn style for nearly every show, leaving shows to standout almost purely based on the story they tell.
Not necessarily. A lot of work is going into user interfaces for prototyping.
Either way, hand-drawn cartoons and Pixar-style 3d renderrings are just a few of the MANY MANY styles of animation out there now and there are possible. We are only now finally breaking away from standard cartoons, and imo it's for the better.
>>.... after understanding the basics of the computer in terms of memory, files, etc.,...
I read this as precisely the author's point. It's possible to use spend years before a GUI and not know these things.
To an extent, but the article seemed to focus on people knowing the 'language of the computer'. Things like the file system are exposed by the user interface, arguably in manner which is faster to work with than the command-line for most tasks.
I think for your average user, the times they have to get off the beaten (GUI) path is when something goes wrong. A program has an out of date DLL, the registry is corrupt, etc. The answer to these problems is a more robust system, not forcing the user to know the intricate details of how the computer that are only useful for fixing whatever specific problem they are having.
On that note, what I do think users need to learn how to do is read documentation. By that, I don't mean they should be forced to read a tomb to get their spreadsheet working. However, they should be skilled enough to be able to look up something when they are having problems. I think some progress is being made, as people learn how much a friend 'google' can be to them.
In general though, programs should strive for to be easy to learn. There are cases where a program should needs a learning curve to use professiently,
but the author seems to be saying the programs should be hard to use so that the user can have some sort of frustrated learning experience. He is making one the worst mistakes a programmer can: blaiming the user. If you are going to force a learning experience on the user, their better be something tangible to them at the end of it. For cars, you learn to drive so you can get from place to place. It takes time. You don't, however, have to learn all the inner workings of your car. Only the enthusiasts tend to... yet the other non-enthusiasts seem to get around just fine. Eventually, if/when cars become automated, the learning curve for driving will be less as well. At that point, do you think people will go through all that trouble to learn to drive? Why would you buy a car that can drive on it's own costing about the same? I can see enthusiasts being the main people wanting this type of control, just like computer enthusiasts want to be able diddle with the inner-workings of their computers. Everyone can be happy.
The article doesn't really give a reason that users should learn languages. Their only reason is being 'stuck in the Matrix'. Gee, thanks...
I'm not sure the average user need to start cracking open books on Java (or even VB). Yeah, as a programmer I take great interest in how the computer works, and it probably makes me more productive. However, I think I was very productive with the computer without actually knowing any programming languages that well.
The key to being productive, after understanding the basics of the computer in terms of memory, files, etc., is tools. How do you search for text in files (grep, find)? How do edit HTML files (text or GUI based program)? How do you move files around? (samba, ftp, etc.)
It may be useful to at least be able to wrap your head around something like a regular expression, though even being able to understand what "*.txt" means is nearly as useful. For the adventurous, a scripting language. I don't think any more, at least given the current tools, is that necessary. Making a full-fledged program is hard work, it takes time. Most tasks you may think require programming are already be implemented.
Obvoiusly, computers shouldn't be made purely for those who have no patience to learn. However, there is a balance, and everyone knowing assembler Java, or even HTML isn't it.
I'm sorry, but I'm from Ontario and have *never* seen these commercials, it is cruel punishment is unconstitional here as well. Please be more specific as to what you are referring to.
I would suggest not whining, though, and maybe working on changing things. Nothing's going to get done educating us on how the laws in Canada work (though I appreciate it) because, in the end, there's nothing we will ever be able to do about it.
I think if you ask any one outside of Quebec what they think about the language laws and the like (or the separatists), they will not be so happy about them. The core problem is that Quebec feels it has a raw deal, which may in the past have been true but people have bent over backwards in the last 20 years to appease them (hence the weak constitution we have).
You may believe that one person can't change it, but it's always amazing what happens when a group of "one persons" come together and discuss the issue in a civil manner.
How refreshingly idealistic, but unfortunately unrealistic. Either way, as I said the core problem is some in Quebec's attitude about the rest of Canada. Many people in high places are trying to change that as it is, and you could argue some progress is being made given that the separatist party no longer controls it. Most anglo-Canadians aren't hostile towards Quebec, and tend to be confused as to why there is still such a fuss.
From my vantage point in Detroit, there's a preference, on both sides, to hurl insults at each other, but there are always people in the background who are willing to put in hard work for change. I know the current state of affairs was a compromise (I read Trudeau's Memoirs on a long train trip back from Montreal), but it is a step in the right direction. No one seems to have picked up the banner after he left office 20 years ago, however...
You could argue our outgoing prime minister, Jean Chretien, has done quite a lot to try to mend fences. On the other hand many separatists are pissed off because of the things he's done to try to stop them from separating (such as the Clarity Act, which would require a clear referendum question on separation and more than a majority to separate).
I, for one, would like to see this come to a good end that everyone can agree on because, frankly, we in the States have a similar problem brewing: we can't come to grips how large our Spanish-speaking and Arabic-speaking (metro Detroit has the largest population of Arabs outside of the Middle East) populations are, so we ignore it and sweep it under the rug.
Well, I'm in Toronto and we have a large arab population, and a very large asian population. I think people are very respectful towards each other here, though we definately have our problems, especially when it comes to jobs. (i.e. doctor from overseas gets to start medical school from square one). I think the case of the latter, it may help to not detain them indefinately without trial, but I guess I'm old fashioned in that opinion.
Otherwise, in 10 or 20 years we'll be faced with bilingual packaging in the US...and the strife that helped bring that into being...
Hard to say. As a 'melting pot', people tend to get by by learning English and melding with others. This is what the French are worried about and they are a large enough force to do something about it, but I think in Canada and the United States they are a special case.
I'm saying that those of us who aren't Canadian can't sit and whine about "the Frogs" not allowing more English into Quebec because we deem it "stoopid."
HOWEVER, I will defend the right of the Quebecois government to uphold their laws and the laws of Canada.
These laws are actually against the Canadian constitution, however they are enforceable to do to what is called the notwithstanding clause in the consitution that essentially allows it be ignored. It was an attempt to appease Quebec to get them to agree to the constitution, but it didn't work out anyway.
While it might not seem so bad for them to want to support their culture, these kinds of laws have driven out many angliphones and marginalized other non-French speakers (aboriginals, Jews, etc.) Culture's evolve, and it's doubtful with so much support for these language laws that their culture would disappear without them anyway.
Re:Kylix/CLX has too many problems
on
Kylix in Limbo
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately Borland has for a while now being turning out very shoddy products. The first 2 versions of JBuilder were an awful mess, and while the current versions are usable I'm not sure it's worth the cost compared to say, Eclipse (that's not to say there aren't useful features that I'm sure are useful to some, but is it worth the trouble and cost?) I think the reason Borland switched names to "Inprise" for a while was to try to get away from the bad reputation they made for themselves.
It's really quite sad. Turbo and Borland C were fine products back in the day, and Delphi was ahead of VB for quite some time in terms of features, customizability, and speed. While I haven't personally used Kylix, I'm not suprised to here these types of problems. It's quite a shame that Borland can't get their acts together, though I guess that's a hard given how tough Microsoft is in the programming language business. (No matter how much you may dislike MS, Visual C++ is one of the best IDEs out there. Hopefully Eclipse will do something about that when they get better C++ support, but I guess we'll wait and see.)
If I was a (hypothetical) member of the Diebold mailing list, and there were a few e-mails in that bunch that I authored, do I retain copyright on my e-mail? I always assumed I was offering a non-exclusive right to the audience of the list to read/retain/copy/etc., but if that audience increases without my knowledge or consent do I lose the legal right to complain?
You almost for sure retain the copyright, and I think it's assumed you at least are allowing people on the mailing list to read/retain it since you did posted it.
This whole situation of using copyright to hide memos highlights the problem with making things copyrighted by default without any registration requirement. When bad press comes from anything a company wrote, including simple memos and emails, they can (at least try to) claim copyright infringment. I would *seriously* hope the courts consider fair use since it clearly has no commercial value, but I'm not holding my breath.
Companies should be required to explicitly register copyrights. This ensures only things that are of commercial value are copyrighted, which is exactly what copyright was made for. (As well, there should be a requirement to renew copyright, but that's for another story...)
I'm not trying to slam Mandrake, I've used it before and it's a pretty nice distribution, though I personally stick with Debian.
They could always make it more difficult to give around for free, adding commercial software/parts, so anyone wanting to copy it would have to remove/replace those. Of course, I doubt they would be anywhere near as popular if they didn't give it away in a nice package for free, so it's a tradeoff.
Anyway, in terms of money, the truth of the matter, which I think many people here don't realize or won't admit to, is that there isn't much money to be made simply selling OSS software.
Sure, you may be paying for the convienence of having something on a CD, but there is nothing stopping someone from taking that CD and manufacturing it themselves. And while there is a money to be made in support/services, as well as hardware sales using previously created OSS software for support (*cough*LINKSYS*cough*), this money doesn't necessarily automatically go to the original creators of the software themselves. So if money is going to be spent, Mandrake isn't the only one deserving a piece.
I admit that I'm disappointed with the evident glee that some of my peers appear to be taking in posting public torrents for Mandrake 9.2. Mandrake is a company that has contributed a great deal to the open source community, but it is a company that must pay wages to living, breathing people
Companies that create Linux distributions are trying to make something that essentially has zero cost (though not zero value) associated with it. While I agree people should support those who make contributions to the pool of open source work available, there is nothing stopping us from freely making a copy for ourselves.
Also, why should Mandrake be the ones to make the money off open source software? What about the countless programmers who give up their time and energy to create most of the software in the first place? They are living, breathing people as well. Most of them are not getting a finacial reward, so what exactly entitles Mandrake?
It is unfair to vilify people for not paying for your work when at the same time you are not paying for most of the work you are making money off of.
In terms of the advertising and the like, anything too obtrusive won't work for open source software. Even if it wasn't open, the type of people who use it generally will find a way around it.
Carmack mentions things like "use" buttons and "crouch" needless complicated. However, something about nearly all id games since Wolfenstein 3D, and most games within the FPS genre, is how complicated the levels themselves are. Now in some cases an open-ended level may make sense, but in most of these games what happens is you just get lost trying to find something, wanderring aimlessly till you finally find that pathway you missed. This is not helped by the fact that the same texture is often used throughout a level, leaving very little in the way of a visual reference to tell you where you are.
While Quake 1 may have been "easier" to some without the "use" button, at least with DOOM you had a map you could refer to which lets you know where you have been. You could still get lost in DOOM if you accidently missed a switch somewhere, but it wasn't as bad.
Some of the newer multiplayer games further complicate matters, with new maps coming out often. I used to play RTCW and SOF2 regularly, but now if I want to go back just to play I find not only do I have to relearn the old levels, but I have to learn a large number of new, overly complex levels I've never played. That combined with so many servers staying on a level for under half an hour, it's hard to get a chance to even learn these them. I can hold my own very well in the original set of levels and those added in the first couple of patches, but it just gets boring playing level after level of maps I don't know, just running around not knowing WTF to do, and then having the level switch just when I start figuring out a few paths.
Maybe I just suck at FPSes, but I don't find the idea running around aimlessly fun.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets not forget SCO had its own Linux distribution, and did a lot to support Linux itself. So IBM supports Linux and it's some sort of plot to take down Unix, but SCO supports Linux and it's alright????
I dunno? What are the chance that SCO will send them a bill for $1399 x 2070?
The article doesn't seem to say, but do they include email as a non-browser based Internet appliaction? Seems odd to just ignore what is likely the most (or second most?) used application on the net.
Now, I also imagine that a company like that does post their methods, so it seems harsh to start accusing them when the news release meant for the public isn't specific.
Umm, this is just a form of fundraising that a lot of groups use. Just look at PBS, while it might not be there only source of revenue, they do regularly ask for donations from their viewers.
Most people vote for the party or it's leader, *not* their representitive. Why? Because in Canadian politics it's your only chance to have a say in what essentially acts as our 'executive', and individual members tend to get forced to vote certain ways by the party.
As much as I prefer most Canadian politicians to American politicians, our political system doesn't have as much protection in terms of separation of powers, (we have only 1 truly active legislative body, the senate has little function), and our Consitution is easily usurped with the 'notwithstanding-clause'. It makes me very worried to think what would happen if the Canadian Alliance were to come into power (which to a large extent is probably why the Liberals have such a stranglehold.) If the people running the US were running under the Canadian model... well, it would not be good.
I'm not sure you are being fair. A lot of interesting A.I. and machine learning problems with issues like style. While his system might not handle grammar and organization, its ideas could become the basis of another system that could. Research goes a step at a time.
I wish Microsoft had more to say about this "Law #1". I think the personal computer is in dire need of a serious security overhaul. Running a program shouldn't equate to giving it total access to your computer. Obviously it's impossible to cover for all issues, but something as simple as double clicking on an application (or attachment) SHOULD NOT be able to wreak havok on your computer. Most programs only access files that the user explicitly asks for in a dialog box, so why should they get access to everything? All programs should by default be around the equivalent of a sandbox, mixed with a UI that implicitly gives a program access only to files the user chooses in some manner. Only programs that absolutely need access to the entire system should get it, such as virus scanners. (which hopefully wouldn't be needed in such a system)
McBride: Right now, we're talking about the Linux base. We're a little company we have to choose our battles. Our goal is to take the Linux thing and get that tightened down and then swing back around on AIX. We're sort of fine to let the AIX thing tick, because the longer it goes, when we actually end up in courtroom, we can go back to June 13, 2003, and add damages. We're sort of fine to let that one run. I don't sense they've stopped shipping AIX and both sides right now are kind of on the Linux battlefront.
In terms of hand-drawn Disney movies, I think it's more a matter of the style that can be attained by drawn images. However, a LOT of work goes into that. Most cartoons don't have nearly that amount expressiveness, yet they still don't look as stilted as Final Fantasy did.
While cartoons may be drawn in 2D, nearly all are attempting to capture the essence of 3D scenes. Computer-related definately can work with a 2D model in mind to get 3D-looking results, and I'm sure you will see some movies eventually try that (Flash is for the most part 2D, and there are some very interesting animations coming from that). 2D tools are good for quick one-offs.
However, programs working with 3D model just map so much better when you want the result to look 3D. Rotating an object doesn't require redrawing it. You can do more with your camera then just pan. Things done in 3D are much more reuseable, making large projects more feasible.
This can be seen with anime, which for some reason is stuck with the same damn style for nearly every show, leaving shows to standout almost purely based on the story they tell.
Either way, hand-drawn cartoons and Pixar-style 3d renderrings are just a few of the MANY MANY styles of animation out there now and there are possible. We are only now finally breaking away from standard cartoons, and imo it's for the better.
I read this as precisely the author's point. It's possible to use spend years before a GUI and not know these things.
To an extent, but the article seemed to focus on people knowing the 'language of the computer'. Things like the file system are exposed by the user interface, arguably in manner which is faster to work with than the command-line for most tasks.
I think for your average user, the times they have to get off the beaten (GUI) path is when something goes wrong. A program has an out of date DLL, the registry is corrupt, etc. The answer to these problems is a more robust system, not forcing the user to know the intricate details of how the computer that are only useful for fixing whatever specific problem they are having.
On that note, what I do think users need to learn how to do is read documentation. By that, I don't mean they should be forced to read a tomb to get their spreadsheet working. However, they should be skilled enough to be able to look up something when they are having problems. I think some progress is being made, as people learn how much a friend 'google' can be to them.
In general though, programs should strive for to be easy to learn. There are cases where a program should needs a learning curve to use professiently, but the author seems to be saying the programs should be hard to use so that the user can have some sort of frustrated learning experience. He is making one the worst mistakes a programmer can: blaiming the user. If you are going to force a learning experience on the user, their better be something tangible to them at the end of it. For cars, you learn to drive so you can get from place to place. It takes time. You don't, however, have to learn all the inner workings of your car. Only the enthusiasts tend to... yet the other non-enthusiasts seem to get around just fine. Eventually, if/when cars become automated, the learning curve for driving will be less as well. At that point, do you think people will go through all that trouble to learn to drive? Why would you buy a car that can drive on it's own costing about the same? I can see enthusiasts being the main people wanting this type of control, just like computer enthusiasts want to be able diddle with the inner-workings of their computers. Everyone can be happy.
I'm not sure the average user need to start cracking open books on Java (or even VB). Yeah, as a programmer I take great interest in how the computer works, and it probably makes me more productive. However, I think I was very productive with the computer without actually knowing any programming languages that well.
The key to being productive, after understanding the basics of the computer in terms of memory, files, etc., is tools. How do you search for text in files (grep, find)? How do edit HTML files (text or GUI based program)? How do you move files around? (samba, ftp, etc.)
It may be useful to at least be able to wrap your head around something like a regular expression, though even being able to understand what "*.txt" means is nearly as useful. For the adventurous, a scripting language. I don't think any more, at least given the current tools, is that necessary. Making a full-fledged program is hard work, it takes time. Most tasks you may think require programming are already be implemented.
Obvoiusly, computers shouldn't be made purely for those who have no patience to learn. However, there is a balance, and everyone knowing assembler Java, or even HTML isn't it.
I'm sorry, but I'm from Ontario and have *never* seen these commercials, it is cruel punishment is unconstitional here as well. Please be more specific as to what you are referring to.
I think if you ask any one outside of Quebec what they think about the language laws and the like (or the separatists), they will not be so happy about them. The core problem is that Quebec feels it has a raw deal, which may in the past have been true but people have bent over backwards in the last 20 years to appease them (hence the weak constitution we have).
You may believe that one person can't change it, but it's always amazing what happens when a group of "one persons" come together and discuss the issue in a civil manner.
How refreshingly idealistic, but unfortunately unrealistic. Either way, as I said the core problem is some in Quebec's attitude about the rest of Canada. Many people in high places are trying to change that as it is, and you could argue some progress is being made given that the separatist party no longer controls it. Most anglo-Canadians aren't hostile towards Quebec, and tend to be confused as to why there is still such a fuss.
From my vantage point in Detroit, there's a preference, on both sides, to hurl insults at each other, but there are always people in the background who are willing to put in hard work for change. I know the current state of affairs was a compromise (I read Trudeau's Memoirs on a long train trip back from Montreal), but it is a step in the right direction. No one seems to have picked up the banner after he left office 20 years ago, however...
You could argue our outgoing prime minister, Jean Chretien, has done quite a lot to try to mend fences. On the other hand many separatists are pissed off because of the things he's done to try to stop them from separating (such as the Clarity Act, which would require a clear referendum question on separation and more than a majority to separate).
I, for one, would like to see this come to a good end that everyone can agree on because, frankly, we in the States have a similar problem brewing: we can't come to grips how large our Spanish-speaking and Arabic-speaking (metro Detroit has the largest population of Arabs outside of the Middle East) populations are, so we ignore it and sweep it under the rug.
Well, I'm in Toronto and we have a large arab population, and a very large asian population. I think people are very respectful towards each other here, though we definately have our problems, especially when it comes to jobs. (i.e. doctor from overseas gets to start medical school from square one). I think the case of the latter, it may help to not detain them indefinately without trial, but I guess I'm old fashioned in that opinion.
Otherwise, in 10 or 20 years we'll be faced with bilingual packaging in the US...and the strife that helped bring that into being...
Hard to say. As a 'melting pot', people tend to get by by learning English and melding with others. This is what the French are worried about and they are a large enough force to do something about it, but I think in Canada and the United States they are a special case.
I'm Canadian so I'm allowed to whine.
These laws are actually against the Canadian constitution, however they are enforceable to do to what is called the notwithstanding clause in the consitution that essentially allows it be ignored. It was an attempt to appease Quebec to get them to agree to the constitution, but it didn't work out anyway.
While it might not seem so bad for them to want to support their culture, these kinds of laws have driven out many angliphones and marginalized other non-French speakers (aboriginals, Jews, etc.) Culture's evolve, and it's doubtful with so much support for these language laws that their culture would disappear without them anyway.
It's really quite sad. Turbo and Borland C were fine products back in the day, and Delphi was ahead of VB for quite some time in terms of features, customizability, and speed. While I haven't personally used Kylix, I'm not suprised to here these types of problems. It's quite a shame that Borland can't get their acts together, though I guess that's a hard given how tough Microsoft is in the programming language business. (No matter how much you may dislike MS, Visual C++ is one of the best IDEs out there. Hopefully Eclipse will do something about that when they get better C++ support, but I guess we'll wait and see.)
You almost for sure retain the copyright, and I think it's assumed you at least are allowing people on the mailing list to read/retain it since you did posted it.
This whole situation of using copyright to hide memos highlights the problem with making things copyrighted by default without any registration requirement. When bad press comes from anything a company wrote, including simple memos and emails, they can (at least try to) claim copyright infringment. I would *seriously* hope the courts consider fair use since it clearly has no commercial value, but I'm not holding my breath.
Companies should be required to explicitly register copyrights. This ensures only things that are of commercial value are copyrighted, which is exactly what copyright was made for. (As well, there should be a requirement to renew copyright, but that's for another story...)
They could always make it more difficult to give around for free, adding commercial software/parts, so anyone wanting to copy it would have to remove/replace those. Of course, I doubt they would be anywhere near as popular if they didn't give it away in a nice package for free, so it's a tradeoff.
Anyway, in terms of money, the truth of the matter, which I think many people here don't realize or won't admit to, is that there isn't much money to be made simply selling OSS software.
Sure, you may be paying for the convienence of having something on a CD, but there is nothing stopping someone from taking that CD and manufacturing it themselves. And while there is a money to be made in support/services, as well as hardware sales using previously created OSS software for support (*cough*LINKSYS*cough*), this money doesn't necessarily automatically go to the original creators of the software themselves. So if money is going to be spent, Mandrake isn't the only one deserving a piece.
Companies that create Linux distributions are trying to make something that essentially has zero cost (though not zero value) associated with it. While I agree people should support those who make contributions to the pool of open source work available, there is nothing stopping us from freely making a copy for ourselves.
Also, why should Mandrake be the ones to make the money off open source software? What about the countless programmers who give up their time and energy to create most of the software in the first place? They are living, breathing people as well. Most of them are not getting a finacial reward, so what exactly entitles Mandrake?
It is unfair to vilify people for not paying for your work when at the same time you are not paying for most of the work you are making money off of.
In terms of the advertising and the like, anything too obtrusive won't work for open source software. Even if it wasn't open, the type of people who use it generally will find a way around it.
Or better yet, file a complaint here.
Carmack mentions things like "use" buttons and "crouch" needless complicated. However, something about nearly all id games since Wolfenstein 3D, and most games within the FPS genre, is how complicated the levels themselves are. Now in some cases an open-ended level may make sense, but in most of these games what happens is you just get lost trying to find something, wanderring aimlessly till you finally find that pathway you missed. This is not helped by the fact that the same texture is often used throughout a level, leaving very little in the way of a visual reference to tell you where you are.
While Quake 1 may have been "easier" to some without the "use" button, at least with DOOM you had a map you could refer to which lets you know where you have been. You could still get lost in DOOM if you accidently missed a switch somewhere, but it wasn't as bad.
Some of the newer multiplayer games further complicate matters, with new maps coming out often. I used to play RTCW and SOF2 regularly, but now if I want to go back just to play I find not only do I have to relearn the old levels, but I have to learn a large number of new, overly complex levels I've never played. That combined with so many servers staying on a level for under half an hour, it's hard to get a chance to even learn these them. I can hold my own very well in the original set of levels and those added in the first couple of patches, but it just gets boring playing level after level of maps I don't know, just running around not knowing WTF to do, and then having the level switch just when I start figuring out a few paths.
Maybe I just suck at FPSes, but I don't find the idea running around aimlessly fun.