Not to mention, it might've been smart to at least *try* to make the game a little different than WarCraft.
Personally, I fail to see how enforcing IP rights on this is such a barbaric thing. People are up-in-arms because it's an open-source project, but I doubt any of you would be too happy if you were running a small dev studio and saw people copying your work and passing it off as their own. It doesn't matter if the game is old or not, it's still *your* creation.
I'm no expert on software deployments within..well, anything, but doesn't it seem smarter for governments to be writing their own open-source software, rather than depending on tools written by outside sources? If a government agency or network is reliant upon outside, unrelated developers to provide patches and updates, it makes me wonder if they aren't leaving themselves wide open to potential security holes and feature flaws. If they were to keep things in-house, at least they'd have the original developers on hand to track that kind of thing and keep things running smoothly. At the very least, it would allow them to tailor the software they're using specifically to the needs of their particular network.
I realize that there are financial concerns to worry about, but if we can toss out billions and billions of dollars to fund tanks and bombs, it seems perfectly logical to make that same investment in the security of government networks. I'd like to think that this should extend beyond just going shopping for hardware and software, and instead looking for the "best of the best" amongst the many developers out there.
This doesn't just apply to ADHD, however..this kind of opportunism is equally relevant for everything from Clinical Depression to ADD.
From about age 14 to age 18, I was in counseling and on a variety of medications for depression. My medications over that period of time ranged from Zoloft to Paxil to Effexor. Counseling included a counselor for myself, one for my mother, and a family counselor.
NONE of the above medications actually had any beneficial effect for me, and in the instance of Effexor, only served to make me more irritable, groggy, and jittery. One could say that I simply hadn't been put on the correct medication; however, based on the age that this all stopped and some of the cirumstances during this span of time, I think that's relatively unlikely.
Effexor was the most noticeably "fake", both upon introduction and in retrospect. I had gone into the doctors office with my mother for an appointment she had scheduled, and sat in the lobby as several doctors working at the clinic were given a presentation on a new medication said to be useful for both ADD and depression patients.
That drug? If you guessed Effexor, you'd be correct!
Shortly after turning 17, I stopped taking the medications, my mother and I both simultaneously decided that the counseling was worthless, and voila: suddenly, I wasn't so depressed. Things were looking different to me. Of course, this wasn't an overnight 180, but things felt like they were improving just slightly, and over the next year, I stopped being depressed altogether and my mother and I became closer than we'd ever been.
So what's my point?
I wasn't "clinically depressed" and the medications didn't do jack. What "worked", so to speak, was the same thing we all go through: growing up. I finally tossed aside the teenage angst, figured out what was truly important to me, learned to be a bit more patient and mature about how I deal with certain situations, and that was it.
While i've seen a very small number of kids who probably *did* benefit from ritalin or whatever they were taking, I firmly believe that most of these conditions truly are little more than instant money makers for drug companies. The intensive lobbying that takes place within hospitals and clinics trying to promote this shit is insane. If your doctor is suggesting them to you, don't think for a *minute* that they necessarily have your best interests at heart. Even if they do, there are dozens upon dozens of spin doctors surrounding them with new offerings, and chances are, the care you receive is going to be determined in some way by those very same sales pitches. Get a second opinion and a third or fourth if necessary. Medications like Ritalin can seriously throw your body and mind out-of-whack, so you'd better be damned sure that they're necessary before you start popping them like they're Children's Chewable Morphine.
Actually, I tend to agree with you..what I should have added in there (but apparently didn't) was that Apple tries to lock their users into using their hardware if they want certain software, which is somewhat limiting.
There's a big push on the Mac side for various developers of Windows apps to port stuff over to their side, but it's tough to find Mac-only apps being ported to Windows. It isn't a lack of user demand, either; it's straight-up platform snobbery. Christ, even Cubase is available for the Mac.
So, rephrase my comment to scratch out Windows and just keep the BSD/Linux. Dunno what the hell I was thinking by posting that, as your comment echoes perfectly what i'm always saying!
It does if you custom build your machines. In general, I can also build a system with this stuff at a considerably cheaper price than it would cost me to run out and buy a new Apple computer.
Just to mention, I think both Mac and PC have their own individual strengths..but it's a shit situation any way you slice it. Mac's can't hit the processing power of most modern PC's, but you're stuck using Windows or BSD/Linux/etc, which means a lack of professional music and graphics applications. Mac's have a better interface, but you're locked into using paying out the ass for a system that you can't build yourself and there's a lack of 3rd party support for certain types of applications. So, we as users have to pick and choose.
Cut the slagging on each others systems; it's all relative to what we use our computers for. Personally, I want a Mac for my audio work, a PC for graphics (sorry, but until XSI is ported over..), and a FreeBSD box for day-to-day use and servers. In the meantime, i'm stuck with my one PC, because I'm not exactly rolling in cash, and paying $4000-$6000 for a Mac that's loaded with the type of specs I expect isn't really within my budget right now.
I have to admit, scripting like that would also be a nice way to extend things. Will these be compile-time options, so if I just want support for Python, I can compile it with support for that and not the rest?
In any case, hopefully he will re-emerge, and if not, kudos to you and the rest of the team for a brave attempt.
To an extent, i'd say your concerns and frustrations are quite valid. I'm still not sure i'd start forking off just yet, though.. his last update on the site mentioned that he'd be on vacation until mid-January, so he's probably playing a bit of catch up on the project.
Whatever the case, I can see how it'd be frustrating. But in writing a fork, doesn't the possibility still exist that you might be duplicating his efforts? It sucks if he's giving little response to you guys as to what's going on, but it seems a little premature to jump ship without verification of what direction the project is taking.
Why does it suck? Assuming it is his intention to be the sole developer of the project, maybe it's because he started the project so that he could write a wm that *he* would like above all others, not that the community-at-large would like.
I use waimea regularly and love it, despite it lacking one or two things i'd like to see added. So why not just write a few patches?
If his code quality is the issue, perhaps he's treating the project as a learn-as-you-go experience? Why not help him out if you happen upon mistakes?
I'm not saying that creating a fork is/isn't a good idea, but your attitudes towards him seem a little ungrateful. It's free software for chrissakes; what do you want, customer service?
He created a project that you felt, at least at one point, was interesting. That should deserve at least a "thanks, but we have other ideas." rather than criticism of his methods and code.
Well, forgive my assumption, but I thought this was a discussion on software. As such, "freedom to do whatever the hell you want" should give a pretty obvious indication that i'm referring to freedom to do whatever the hell you want with software.
Whatever words you want to mince, a restriction is still a restriction. Enforcement is still enforcement. For the record, i'm not anti-GPL or FSF. I don't want to see RMS on a pike (well, usually..). I'm simply tired of seeing headline after headline about companies, associations, and individuals trying to impress their ideals and fair use on one another, noble intentions or not. I admit, I may be making an over-generalization, but you have to admit, licensing makes up for more than it's share of headaches, rediculous "battles", and petty squabbles (just look at SCO).
I wasn't referring to a developer creating GPL'ed software and expecting to get paid. I was referring to a developer of proprietary software expecting to get paid for his efforts.
Look, the topic at hand is software. Not human rights, not murder, just SOFTWARE. Freedom of use concerning software may be "a subset of all cases", but the same conventions that apply for murder do not apply for something like software. Taking a stance that they are is just plain retarded.
Who's talking about "absolute freedom in all cases"? I'm talking about software; nothing more, nothing less.
Also, how is facilitating some freedoms, and restricting others, all that different from a proprietary software company? Is it so far fetched to consider that some of those developers think that charging for software facilitates *better* software, but the tradeoff is that the end-user can't edit the code?
Oh, and pull the "logically necessary" bug out of your ass. It's just as logical for a developer to expect payment for his efforts so that he can feed his family.
What the hell does free software have to do with killing or slavery?
Second, it *does* place constraints on what you can do with software. If a developer uses portions of code that was released under the GPL, their product must also be released under the GPL. However, I did not say whether or not I agreed or disagreed with the license itself.
I've already been marked a troll because I spoke up against the *attitudes* of the FSF and the way that the GPL is enforced, which if you'll look back, is what my post was about. NOT about whether the guidelines of the GPL were right or wrong. In fact, I make specific mention of the fact that it is WITHIN REASON AND LEGAL RIGHT for it to be enforced.
Am I the only one here who's absolutely sick of hearing about licensing this-licensing that? The GPL and FSF are just as bad as any proprietary software company, at least in attitude if not outright practice. The word "free" indicates to me "the freedom to do whatever the hell you want", but this is a far cry from the actuality of the FSF.
By all means, it is within reason and legal right for the FSF to enforce the guidelines of the GPL..but at the end of the day, bully tactics are still bully tactics, no matter who's doing the pushing. This kind of bureacratic pushing and shoving over licensing agreements is simply childish and counterproductive.
Before you toss the flames my way, just bear in mind that i'm stating a very simple point: Despite RMS and his ideals about software, there are multiple elements within the software world that are just as "evil" as proprietary software. This is one among many.
Yeah, nothing like an organization that gives awards to people like Peter Pan . Sounds like something I definitely want to support.
I say good riddance. The sooner crap like this is gone, the better off we'll all be. Award shows always have and will always be a complete waste of time; I hardly think the Webby Awards are a special case.
This won't affect people like us because we're constantly reading about/keeping an eye on these types of issues.
It *will* affect regular ol' shoppers like our parents or whoever from picking up discs that can't be copied (or in some cases, won't work in certain cd/dvd players). It may not have a huge effect on people's buying habits, but at the least, it might raise awareness about the general issue of copy protection.
Actually, I do. It's called ages 1-14. Perhaps without smoking, my sense of taste would be even *better*, assuming that our sense of taste changes as we experience puberty (I don't know, so feel free to correct me), but all in all, i'm fine with things so far. Strawberries are lush and sweet, pineapple juice still makes my stomach upset, and onions are still..well, onions.
Mmm. Onions.
In any case, I don't doubt that it does eventually ruin my sense of taste, but after 7 years as a smoker, I haven't had any real problem s. Strawberries don't suddenly taste like chicken, grapefruit doesn't suddenly taste like a bucket of pus or anything.
Actually, i don't know if that's entirely accurate to say.
There are plenty of foods that I enjoy that have little or no taste, but I enjoy their texture. Similarly, there are *many* foods which I like the taste of, but the texture puts me off. For example, I love orange juice, but I don't like oranges. I like pineapple juice, but it bothers my stomach, so I don't eat it.
Simply saying "what tastes good is what you eat and that determines your diet" is just too black and white. For one thing, we're also eliminating factors like environment.. I don't like the taste of ash, but i've accidentally drank from a glass that someone had flicked cigarette ash into. Though not something that occurs routinely in my eating habits, certainly it could be considered a potential factor.
Similarly many distributions assume that pppd & kppp are essential components. Which simply isn't true...
Definitely true.. To sum it up, I think what irks me the most is the sudden need to make packaged suites or all-in-one applications. Let's take Realplayer, for instance..do I really need a web browser on a media player?
But we don't expect drivers to be their own car mechanics. Setting up networking, default locale, paper size, etc. Isn't really an end user task. In many cases Windows users end up relying on someone else to set things up so they can use it...
True..but we do expect people to learn how to drive prior to hitting the road. Most drivers know at least menial maintenance things to watch out for, if not repair on their own, too. Nobody goes, "Pff. Stupid car!" when their engine light pops on suddenly...at the least, they'll call up a mechanic, tell them what they can, and take the car in.
I would note, however, that if we held the same standards to cars that we hold to software, we'd been up shit creek:>
We're also assuming that most users would download or install the software on their own. Those same Windows users predominantly buy from the OEM's, which kind of removes the need for configuration wizards.
You're definitely right about many Windows users relying on someone else, though..I recently got back from visiting said grandparents and aunt, and I wound up doing tech support for both of them:p
Since when does "flexible and configurable" have to be "bloated and difficult to use"?
Here's a hint: Stop tossing us unnecessary crap like network configuration tools for Desktop Environment A, B, and C. Stop giving us "wizards".
I keep seeing the argument that we need to make all of this easy enough for your grandparents to use, usually citing Windows as a basis for comparison.
Bzzt. Keep friggin' dreaming. My grandparents and my aunt both use Windows, and they still can't figure even half of it out. It doesn't matter what version; people who aren't tuned in to computers are either going to get it or they won't. No amount of helping them along or gentle pushes is going to change that. If someone has the drive to learn, they will. Our job, as users and developers, is to try and keep things flexible and useable with a minimum number of casualties. So what if my 86 year old grandfather isn't using Linux? Concentrate on the people who've converted from Windows seeking a better alternative. Worry about your existing and long-time users. If you alienate these people, you've lost already, and by that time, your grandparents won't give a shit and neither will anyone else.
Some of you are probably thinking, "Yeah, right on!" Here's where i'll probably piss you off, if I haven't already (though I have a feeling many of you already think i'm rambling about nothing).
Desktops need to be attractive, at least to an extent. My thought is, if i'm going to be staring at something for hours on end, I don't want it to look like a remnant of a black plague victim. It doesn't have to look like some kind of weird coloring book gone awry (*cough*longhorn*cough), but it does have to look nice enough that i'm not gouging my eyes out. And really, is this so difficult to do without bogging down system resources? Think about it.
To keep things minimal but customizable, allow the user to change the colors, fonts, background, window borders; the basics, so to speak. Allow the use of gradients so things are a little easier on the eyes, and allow anti-aliasing control. A small bit of code will take care of transparency control for the applications menu, and the file manager and taskbar can be left to third-party applications and/or plugins. If you want to attract the more "non-geek" audience, offer up a package that has all of that stuff pre-built in as a bundle, so they don't have to do any footwork hunting for new capabilities.
And for chrissakes, stop with the ugly application interfaces. IRIX, Solaris, etc. are a good example of what i'm talking about, but there are *many* on Linux/BSD/etc. A lot of people could take a nod from some of the apps out there for QNX. Nice looking, but very clean, well-laid out, and uncluttered. In particular, I like phirc, but even if you don't like that specific look, I think it gets across what i'm talking about, if only a little. Better still, stop offering applications that are tied to ONE desktop. This whole "applications for Gnome" and "applications for KDE" thing is bullshit.
We've already got most of this with window managers like Blackbox, Fluxbox, Waimea, etc. In some cases, things are only halfway where they should be (in my eyes, anyway), in others, they fall very short. However, I still have to ask myself, with almost every desktop i've used, "what the hell was the developer thinking?" I ask this even more with 99% of the applications i've used.
So perhaps the question shouldn't be about desktops being bloated so much as software in general, and the design problems that consistently plague them? Just a thought.
My Little Pony was off the air before the Internet really took off and everyone and their grandma had it. I'd hardly say it's an equal comparison if we're comparing direct figures like number of websites.
That said, i'm sure that My Little Pony had quite a large following back in it's day, though i'd bet that most people don't give a crap anymore. I'd expect the same to happen to something like Sailor Moon.
Don't mistake sales figures for quality, innovation, or historical impact. People will buy anything if they're exposed to it long enough.
Christ, people even bought the Pet Rock and the Chia Pet.
Quit whining, fanboy/girl. Regardless of whether or not you think Sailor Moon or some other wanky anime is worthy of mention, they obviously didn't. Fucking cope.
Who cares if it did ten figures in merchandising? I'm sure My Little Pony did great back in the 80's, but how many people would honestly consider that to be innovative, influential, interesting, or historically worth noting? Answer? Nobody except for a select few who obviously missed the whole goddamned point.
Re:What really matters is quality of play and cost
on
A Tale in the Desert
·
· Score: 1
Wrong. EverQuest is successful because it's populated by, and generally attracts, socially-inept losers with nothing better to do but PAY to chat with people.
After trying it briefly, the only "game" I could find was one that consisted of repeatedly killing monsters. Then you take on a quest and kill monsters. Then you talk to people..and kill monsters. You consistently level up, but your only reward is a bunch of crap that will aid you in the killing of monsters.
Maybe i'm missing something, but when did things like "story" and "fun" take a backseat to all this unnecessary crap like chatting with other players?
Gamer1: LETS GO KILL TEH MONSTAR! Gamer2: OK! Gamer1: I GOT A WEAPON FROM IT! LET'S KILL MONSTERS FOR ANOTHER 16 HOURS AND PRETEND WE'RE HAVING FUN DOING NOTHING! Gamer2: YEAH!
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention, it might've been smart to at least *try* to make the game a little different than WarCraft.
Personally, I fail to see how enforcing IP rights on this is such a barbaric thing. People are up-in-arms because it's an open-source project, but I doubt any of you would be too happy if you were running a small dev studio and saw people copying your work and passing it off as their own. It doesn't matter if the game is old or not, it's still *your* creation.
Oh give me a break...do you really think that anyone with even half a braincell is going to confuse the StarCraft game with the StarCraft van?
I'm no expert on software deployments within..well, anything, but doesn't it seem smarter for governments to be writing their own open-source software, rather than depending on tools written by outside sources? If a government agency or network is reliant upon outside, unrelated developers to provide patches and updates, it makes me wonder if they aren't leaving themselves wide open to potential security holes and feature flaws. If they were to keep things in-house, at least they'd have the original developers on hand to track that kind of thing and keep things running smoothly. At the very least, it would allow them to tailor the software they're using specifically to the needs of their particular network.
I realize that there are financial concerns to worry about, but if we can toss out billions and billions of dollars to fund tanks and bombs, it seems perfectly logical to make that same investment in the security of government networks. I'd like to think that this should extend beyond just going shopping for hardware and software, and instead looking for the "best of the best" amongst the many developers out there.
This doesn't just apply to ADHD, however..this kind of opportunism is equally relevant for everything from Clinical Depression to ADD.
From about age 14 to age 18, I was in counseling and on a variety of medications for depression. My medications over that period of time ranged from Zoloft to Paxil to Effexor. Counseling included a counselor for myself, one for my mother, and a family counselor.
NONE of the above medications actually had any beneficial effect for me, and in the instance of Effexor, only served to make me more irritable, groggy, and jittery. One could say that I simply hadn't been put on the correct medication; however, based on the age that this all stopped and some of the cirumstances during this span of time, I think that's relatively unlikely.
Effexor was the most noticeably "fake", both upon introduction and in retrospect. I had gone into the doctors office with my mother for an appointment she had scheduled, and sat in the lobby as several doctors working at the clinic were given a presentation on a new medication said to be useful for both ADD and depression patients.
That drug? If you guessed Effexor, you'd be correct!
Shortly after turning 17, I stopped taking the medications, my mother and I both simultaneously decided that the counseling was worthless, and voila: suddenly, I wasn't so depressed. Things were looking different to me. Of course, this wasn't an overnight 180, but things felt like they were improving just slightly, and over the next year, I stopped being depressed altogether and my mother and I became closer than we'd ever been.
So what's my point?
I wasn't "clinically depressed" and the medications didn't do jack. What "worked", so to speak, was the same thing we all go through: growing up. I finally tossed aside the teenage angst, figured out what was truly important to me, learned to be a bit more patient and mature about how I deal with certain situations, and that was it.
While i've seen a very small number of kids who probably *did* benefit from ritalin or whatever they were taking, I firmly believe that most of these conditions truly are little more than instant money makers for drug companies. The intensive lobbying that takes place within hospitals and clinics trying to promote this shit is insane. If your doctor is suggesting them to you, don't think for a *minute* that they necessarily have your best interests at heart. Even if they do, there are dozens upon dozens of spin doctors surrounding them with new offerings, and chances are, the care you receive is going to be determined in some way by those very same sales pitches. Get a second opinion and a third or fourth if necessary. Medications like Ritalin can seriously throw your body and mind out-of-whack, so you'd better be damned sure that they're necessary before you start popping them like they're Children's Chewable Morphine.
Actually, I tend to agree with you..what I should have added in there (but apparently didn't) was that Apple tries to lock their users into using their hardware if they want certain software, which is somewhat limiting.
There's a big push on the Mac side for various developers of Windows apps to port stuff over to their side, but it's tough to find Mac-only apps being ported to Windows. It isn't a lack of user demand, either; it's straight-up platform snobbery. Christ, even Cubase is available for the Mac.
So, rephrase my comment to scratch out Windows and just keep the BSD/Linux. Dunno what the hell I was thinking by posting that, as your comment echoes perfectly what i'm always saying!
It does if you custom build your machines. In general, I can also build a system with this stuff at a considerably cheaper price than it would cost me to run out and buy a new Apple computer.
Just to mention, I think both Mac and PC have their own individual strengths..but it's a shit situation any way you slice it. Mac's can't hit the processing power of most modern PC's, but you're stuck using Windows or BSD/Linux/etc, which means a lack of professional music and graphics applications. Mac's have a better interface, but you're locked into using paying out the ass for a system that you can't build yourself and there's a lack of 3rd party support for certain types of applications. So, we as users have to pick and choose.
Cut the slagging on each others systems; it's all relative to what we use our computers for. Personally, I want a Mac for my audio work, a PC for graphics (sorry, but until XSI is ported over..), and a FreeBSD box for day-to-day use and servers. In the meantime, i'm stuck with my one PC, because I'm not exactly rolling in cash, and paying $4000-$6000 for a Mac that's loaded with the type of specs I expect isn't really within my budget right now.
Makes sense, given that explanation.
I have to admit, scripting like that would also be a nice way to extend things. Will these be compile-time options, so if I just want support for Python, I can compile it with support for that and not the rest?
In any case, hopefully he will re-emerge, and if not, kudos to you and the rest of the team for a brave attempt.
To an extent, i'd say your concerns and frustrations are quite valid. I'm still not sure i'd start forking off just yet, though.. his last update on the site mentioned that he'd be on vacation until mid-January, so he's probably playing a bit of catch up on the project.
Whatever the case, I can see how it'd be frustrating. But in writing a fork, doesn't the possibility still exist that you might be duplicating his efforts? It sucks if he's giving little response to you guys as to what's going on, but it seems a little premature to jump ship without verification of what direction the project is taking.
Why does it suck? Assuming it is his intention to be the sole developer of the project, maybe it's because he started the project so that he could write a wm that *he* would like above all others, not that the community-at-large would like.
I use waimea regularly and love it, despite it lacking one or two things i'd like to see added. So why not just write a few patches?
If his code quality is the issue, perhaps he's treating the project as a learn-as-you-go experience? Why not help him out if you happen upon mistakes?
I'm not saying that creating a fork is/isn't a good idea, but your attitudes towards him seem a little ungrateful. It's free software for chrissakes; what do you want, customer service?
He created a project that you felt, at least at one point, was interesting. That should deserve at least a "thanks, but we have other ideas." rather than criticism of his methods and code.
Well, forgive my assumption, but I thought this was a discussion on software. As such, "freedom to do whatever the hell you want" should give a pretty obvious indication that i'm referring to freedom to do whatever the hell you want with software.
Whatever words you want to mince, a restriction is still a restriction. Enforcement is still enforcement. For the record, i'm not anti-GPL or FSF. I don't want to see RMS on a pike (well, usually..). I'm simply tired of seeing headline after headline about companies, associations, and individuals trying to impress their ideals and fair use on one another, noble intentions or not. I admit, I may be making an over-generalization, but you have to admit, licensing makes up for more than it's share of headaches, rediculous "battles", and petty squabbles (just look at SCO).
I wasn't referring to a developer creating GPL'ed software and expecting to get paid. I was referring to a developer of proprietary software expecting to get paid for his efforts.
Look, the topic at hand is software. Not human rights, not murder, just SOFTWARE. Freedom of use concerning software may be "a subset of all cases", but the same conventions that apply for murder do not apply for something like software. Taking a stance that they are is just plain retarded.
Who's talking about "absolute freedom in all cases"? I'm talking about software; nothing more, nothing less.
Also, how is facilitating some freedoms, and restricting others, all that different from a proprietary software company? Is it so far fetched to consider that some of those developers think that charging for software facilitates *better* software, but the tradeoff is that the end-user can't edit the code?
Oh, and pull the "logically necessary" bug out of your ass. It's just as logical for a developer to expect payment for his efforts so that he can feed his family.
What the hell does free software have to do with killing or slavery?
Second, it *does* place constraints on what you can do with software. If a developer uses portions of code that was released under the GPL, their product must also be released under the GPL. However, I did not say whether or not I agreed or disagreed with the license itself.
I've already been marked a troll because I spoke up against the *attitudes* of the FSF and the way that the GPL is enforced, which if you'll look back, is what my post was about. NOT about whether the guidelines of the GPL were right or wrong. In fact, I make specific mention of the fact that it is WITHIN REASON AND LEGAL RIGHT for it to be enforced.
Get the picture now?
Am I the only one here who's absolutely sick of hearing about licensing this-licensing that? The GPL and FSF are just as bad as any proprietary software company, at least in attitude if not outright practice. The word "free" indicates to me "the freedom to do whatever the hell you want", but this is a far cry from the actuality of the FSF.
By all means, it is within reason and legal right for the FSF to enforce the guidelines of the GPL..but at the end of the day, bully tactics are still bully tactics, no matter who's doing the pushing. This kind of bureacratic pushing and shoving over licensing agreements is simply childish and counterproductive.
Before you toss the flames my way, just bear in mind that i'm stating a very simple point: Despite RMS and his ideals about software, there are multiple elements within the software world that are just as "evil" as proprietary software. This is one among many.
Yeah, nothing like an organization that gives awards to people like Peter Pan . Sounds like something I definitely want to support.
I say good riddance. The sooner crap like this is gone, the better off we'll all be. Award shows always have and will always be a complete waste of time; I hardly think the Webby Awards are a special case.
Your question somewhat answers itself.
This won't affect people like us because we're constantly reading about/keeping an eye on these types of issues.
It *will* affect regular ol' shoppers like our parents or whoever from picking up discs that can't be copied (or in some cases, won't work in certain cd/dvd players). It may not have a huge effect on people's buying habits, but at the least, it might raise awareness about the general issue of copy protection.
How can that possibly be a bad thing?
Actually, I do. It's called ages 1-14. Perhaps without smoking, my sense of taste would be even *better*, assuming that our sense of taste changes as we experience puberty (I don't know, so feel free to correct me), but all in all, i'm fine with things so far. Strawberries are lush and sweet, pineapple juice still makes my stomach upset, and onions are still..well, onions.
Mmm. Onions.
In any case, I don't doubt that it does eventually ruin my sense of taste, but after 7 years as a smoker, I haven't had any real problem s. Strawberries don't suddenly taste like chicken, grapefruit doesn't suddenly taste like a bucket of pus or anything.
Hrm, that's funny..i've been a smoker since age 15, and my sense of taste seems perfectly fine.
Actually, i don't know if that's entirely accurate to say.
There are plenty of foods that I enjoy that have little or no taste, but I enjoy their texture. Similarly, there are *many* foods which I like the taste of, but the texture puts me off. For example, I love orange juice, but I don't like oranges. I like pineapple juice, but it bothers my stomach, so I don't eat it.
Simply saying "what tastes good is what you eat and that determines your diet" is just too black and white. For one thing, we're also eliminating factors like environment.. I don't like the taste of ash, but i've accidentally drank from a glass that someone had flicked cigarette ash into. Though not something that occurs routinely in my eating habits, certainly it could be considered a potential factor.
Similarly many distributions assume that pppd & kppp are essential components. Which simply isn't true...
:>
:p
Definitely true.. To sum it up, I think what irks me the most is the sudden need to make packaged suites or all-in-one applications. Let's take Realplayer, for instance..do I really need a web browser on a media player?
But we don't expect drivers to be their own car mechanics. Setting up networking, default locale, paper size, etc. Isn't really an end user task. In many cases Windows users end up relying on someone else to set things up so they can use it...
True..but we do expect people to learn how to drive prior to hitting the road. Most drivers know at least menial maintenance things to watch out for, if not repair on their own, too. Nobody goes, "Pff. Stupid car!" when their engine light pops on suddenly...at the least, they'll call up a mechanic, tell them what they can, and take the car in.
I would note, however, that if we held the same standards to cars that we hold to software, we'd been up shit creek
We're also assuming that most users would download or install the software on their own. Those same Windows users predominantly buy from the OEM's, which kind of removes the need for configuration wizards.
You're definitely right about many Windows users relying on someone else, though..I recently got back from visiting said grandparents and aunt, and I wound up doing tech support for both of them
Since when does "flexible and configurable" have to be "bloated and difficult to use"?
Here's a hint: Stop tossing us unnecessary crap like network configuration tools for Desktop Environment A, B, and C. Stop giving us "wizards".
I keep seeing the argument that we need to make all of this easy enough for your grandparents to use, usually citing Windows as a basis for comparison.
Bzzt. Keep friggin' dreaming. My grandparents and my aunt both use Windows, and they still can't figure even half of it out. It doesn't matter what version; people who aren't tuned in to computers are either going to get it or they won't. No amount of helping them along or gentle pushes is going to change that. If someone has the drive to learn, they will. Our job, as users and developers, is to try and keep things flexible and useable with a minimum number of casualties. So what if my 86 year old grandfather isn't using Linux? Concentrate on the people who've converted from Windows seeking a better alternative. Worry about your existing and long-time users. If you alienate these people, you've lost already, and by that time, your grandparents won't give a shit and neither will anyone else.
Some of you are probably thinking, "Yeah, right on!" Here's where i'll probably piss you off, if I haven't already (though I have a feeling many of you already think i'm rambling about nothing).
Desktops need to be attractive, at least to an extent. My thought is, if i'm going to be staring at something for hours on end, I don't want it to look like a remnant of a black plague victim. It doesn't have to look like some kind of weird coloring book gone awry (*cough*longhorn*cough), but it does have to look nice enough that i'm not gouging my eyes out. And really, is this so difficult to do without bogging down system resources? Think about it.
To keep things minimal but customizable, allow the user to change the colors, fonts, background, window borders; the basics, so to speak. Allow the use of gradients so things are a little easier on the eyes, and allow anti-aliasing control. A small bit of code will take care of transparency control for the applications menu, and the file manager and taskbar can be left to third-party applications and/or plugins. If you want to attract the more "non-geek" audience, offer up a package that has all of that stuff pre-built in as a bundle, so they don't have to do any footwork hunting for new capabilities.
And for chrissakes, stop with the ugly application interfaces. IRIX, Solaris, etc. are a good example of what i'm talking about, but there are *many* on Linux/BSD/etc. A lot of people could take a nod from some of the apps out there for QNX. Nice looking, but very clean, well-laid out, and uncluttered. In particular, I like phirc, but even if you don't like that specific look, I think it gets across what i'm talking about, if only a little. Better still, stop offering applications that are tied to ONE desktop. This whole "applications for Gnome" and "applications for KDE" thing is bullshit.
We've already got most of this with window managers like Blackbox, Fluxbox, Waimea, etc. In some cases, things are only halfway where they should be (in my eyes, anyway), in others, they fall very short. However, I still have to ask myself, with almost every desktop i've used, "what the hell was the developer thinking?"
I ask this even more with 99% of the applications i've used.
So perhaps the question shouldn't be about desktops being bloated so much as software in general, and the design problems that consistently plague them? Just a thought.
My Little Pony was off the air before the Internet really took off and everyone and their grandma had it. I'd hardly say it's an equal comparison if we're comparing direct figures like number of websites.
That said, i'm sure that My Little Pony had quite a large following back in it's day, though i'd bet that most people don't give a crap anymore. I'd expect the same to happen to something like Sailor Moon.
Don't mistake sales figures for quality, innovation, or historical impact. People will buy anything if they're exposed to it long enough.
Christ, people even bought the Pet Rock and the Chia Pet.
Quit whining, fanboy/girl. Regardless of whether or not you think Sailor Moon or some other wanky anime is worthy of mention, they obviously didn't. Fucking cope.
Who cares if it did ten figures in merchandising? I'm sure My Little Pony did great back in the 80's, but how many people would honestly consider that to be innovative, influential, interesting, or historically worth noting? Answer? Nobody except for a select few who obviously missed the whole goddamned point.
Wrong. EverQuest is successful because it's populated by, and generally attracts, socially-inept losers with nothing better to do but PAY to chat with people.
After trying it briefly, the only "game" I could find was one that consisted of repeatedly killing monsters. Then you take on a quest and kill monsters. Then you talk to people..and kill monsters. You consistently level up, but your only reward is a bunch of crap that will aid you in the killing of monsters.
Maybe i'm missing something, but when did things like "story" and "fun" take a backseat to all this unnecessary crap like chatting with other players?
Gamer1: LETS GO KILL TEH MONSTAR!
Gamer2: OK!
Gamer1: I GOT A WEAPON FROM IT! LET'S KILL MONSTERS FOR ANOTHER 16 HOURS AND PRETEND WE'RE HAVING FUN DOING NOTHING!
Gamer2: YEAH!
Pff. Fuck all that.
What the hell are you talking about? Vinyl records degrade a little bit everytime they're played!