Spying? Come on. You massively over-exaggerate this. If you connect to a game server over the internet, is it 'spying' on you??? I mean, it knows which keys you pressed whilst you were connetced. These ad servers do nothing more than (possibly, at most) track what websites you visit IF you enable cookies in your browser, so as to better target ads at you. Please don't go on about this Big Brother bullshit, ads are not spying on you. Your government is.
If they don't want to put a full featured web site on-line for free, they don't have to.
Uhm, but they're NOT putting it online for free. This is a common misconception by you ad-blockers. Their charge is that YOU VIEW THE ADS. Even if you ignore them mentally. End of story.
This just sounds like Windows is polling the mouse more often (about time because they used to poll it as 40hz in Win95, now I think the default 200hz). This results in 'smoother' operation of the mouse; however, if it's impossible to get the mouse pointer to actually go to a certain pixel on the screen then yes, that does sound like a pretty serious flaw in the OS.
Ahahahahahaha. I'm seeing the problem. You thought you could do it from the command line. What's more, you thought you could do it using the exact same syntax as you used in *nix! Hahaha.
If the 'Search' dialogue implemented with this new file system is ANYTHING like the one in XP, i'll stick with my Windows Grep, thank you very much. The Windows XP dialogue uses a 'filter' system to search through files with extensions *which it has filters for*. If it doesn't... the file is ignored. There is NO way to do a Windows 98 style search for an ASCII string, unless you use a third party app (not as far as I know, anyway).
Frankly, it doesn't matter much how well the filesystem is designed if its implementation is crap.
This is a retarded comment, especially as the answer is obvious. The action of opening a link beginning 'My' is clearly meant to have the same effect as telling the computer that you want something, or telling someone that you want something. If you were doing that, you would say 'I want My files', not 'I want Your files'.
Slashdot, you've linked to the wrong review. Sorry to have to point it out, but if you look at the screenshots, you will see it's just Windows XP. And the title also says that it's... oh.
But what really annoys me is when an application makes FULL use of this, and inserts itself in every little nook and cranny it can. AOL, for example, puts itself (automatically) in the Programs folder, the Start Menu, the Desktop, the Quick launch folder AND the System Tray. Just in case the user forgets where they can find it, eh?
Anyone who can tell the difference between a 192kbps rip and an audio CD is really quite sad. Sorry, but it's true. 128kbps is perfectly OK for me, and actually I can't tell the difference. Whatsmore, I bet it takes up a ton of space on your hard drive, but I suppose you're one of those people who have a 200 gig hard drive so it doesn't matter anyway.
Of course people are unlikely to go digging around in the source code immediately just to search for bugs. What they are likely to do, however, with OSS, is go digging around in the source code when they DISCOVER a bug. With the Ransom model, they would likely have to pay for that priviledge or wait 10 years, which is going to heavily discourage people from doing it.
This post should be modded up! It gives a very good overview of why the Ransom model isn't a very good idea.
Re: Good comments, but here are some responses
on
Software For Ransom
·
· Score: 2
my "DESKPAINT", if I could get it (it's closed source, went free as in beer, and then went unfree as in unavailable)
Then just copy the original binaries and install it on other machines. In order for it to be unavailable as opposed to abandonware, the company has to have explicitly stated that the product must no longer be licensed out. Otherwise they've likely just gone bankrupt.
Other products, like web browsers or decompression programs, I always wait for the free version.
Web browsers tend now always to be free, and there is NEVER a free version of decompression programs for Windows, only ever shareware. And decompression programs for *nix are almost always free.
Re:anyone seen trigger happy tv?
on
Software For Ransom
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
That show's the biggest pile of shit i've ever seen. 5 seconds of the big mobile phone scene, and I switched over.
But if the binaries get released, there's no chance in hell of them breaking even. The number of programmers who will want or need to pay for the source will be minimal. The vast majority will only need the binaries.
But this relies *entirely* on the assumption that there will be enough demand for a product to make up the development costs. At $5 a piece, it would take 100,000 people paying for the software to just break even. And with many people thinking that it will become free in future, are that many likely to buy it?
Ask for donations, and if enough aren't received, close down the codebase?
No, that's a ridiculous model, because the sourcecode would already be out there. Closing down the codebase would achieve nothing. I don't know what you mean by 'new releases on a certain date if a certain amount of money isnt raised'. You mean artificially hold up the release of a new version just because they haven't earned enough from this version? Sounds like Microsoft tactics.
Slashdot Mirror
Spying? Come on. You massively over-exaggerate this. If you connect to a game server over the internet, is it 'spying' on you??? I mean, it knows which keys you pressed whilst you were connetced. These ad servers do nothing more than (possibly, at most) track what websites you visit IF you enable cookies in your browser, so as to better target ads at you. Please don't go on about this Big Brother bullshit, ads are not spying on you. Your government is.
If they don't want to put a full featured web site on-line for free, they don't have to.
Uhm, but they're NOT putting it online for free. This is a common misconception by you ad-blockers. Their charge is that YOU VIEW THE ADS. Even if you ignore them mentally. End of story.
This just sounds like Windows is polling the mouse more often (about time because they used to poll it as 40hz in Win95, now I think the default 200hz). This results in 'smoother' operation of the mouse; however, if it's impossible to get the mouse pointer to actually go to a certain pixel on the screen then yes, that does sound like a pretty serious flaw in the OS.
It's not condensed, it's specially encoded in case Microsoft finds out.
Ya know, it might be me, but that 'dock' looks suspiciously like what appears when I uncheck 'lock the taskbar' and drag it to the left of the screen.
Ahahahahahaha. I'm seeing the problem. You thought you could do it from the command line. What's more, you thought you could do it using the exact same syntax as you used in *nix! Hahaha.
If the 'Search' dialogue implemented with this new file system is ANYTHING like the one in XP, i'll stick with my Windows Grep, thank you very much. The Windows XP dialogue uses a 'filter' system to search through files with extensions *which it has filters for*. If it doesn't... the file is ignored. There is NO way to do a Windows 98 style search for an ASCII string, unless you use a third party app (not as far as I know, anyway).
Frankly, it doesn't matter much how well the filesystem is designed if its implementation is crap.
This is a retarded comment, especially as the answer is obvious. The action of opening a link beginning 'My' is clearly meant to have the same effect as telling the computer that you want something, or telling someone that you want something. If you were doing that, you would say 'I want My files', not 'I want Your files'.
Windows File Protection sucks, that's why I disabled it.
Slashdot, you've linked to the wrong review. Sorry to have to point it out, but if you look at the screenshots, you will see it's just Windows XP. And the title also says that it's ... oh.
Yes, that picture in the 'My Pictures' folder looks really horrible. It'd be the kind of thing that i'd immediately look for a way to disable.
But what really annoys me is when an application makes FULL use of this, and inserts itself in every little nook and cranny it can. AOL, for example, puts itself (automatically) in the Programs folder, the Start Menu, the Desktop, the Quick launch folder AND the System Tray. Just in case the user forgets where they can find it, eh?
LOL, no, I was just saying. I now have another Athlon, of exactly the same spec, which is working fine with my new Volcano 7+.
Anyone who can tell the difference between a 192kbps rip and an audio CD is really quite sad. Sorry, but it's true. 128kbps is perfectly OK for me, and actually I can't tell the difference. Whatsmore, I bet it takes up a ton of space on your hard drive, but I suppose you're one of those people who have a 200 gig hard drive so it doesn't matter anyway.
we live in a capitalist nation
:-)
Hey, don't make such assumptions. You might offend the Slashdot visitors from China or North Korea
Yep, you sure do seem weird. Especially to pay for a high street CD when you've gone to all the trouble of first creating a good copy yourself.
Of course people are unlikely to go digging around in the source code immediately just to search for bugs. What they are likely to do, however, with OSS, is go digging around in the source code when they DISCOVER a bug. With the Ransom model, they would likely have to pay for that priviledge or wait 10 years, which is going to heavily discourage people from doing it.
This post should be modded up! It gives a very good overview of why the Ransom model isn't a very good idea.
my "DESKPAINT", if I could get it (it's closed source, went free as in beer, and then went unfree as in unavailable)
Then just copy the original binaries and install it on other machines. In order for it to be unavailable as opposed to abandonware, the company has to have explicitly stated that the product must no longer be licensed out. Otherwise they've likely just gone bankrupt.
Other products, like web browsers or decompression programs, I always wait for the free version.
Web browsers tend now always to be free, and there is NEVER a free version of decompression programs for Windows, only ever shareware. And decompression programs for *nix are almost always free.
That show's the biggest pile of shit i've ever seen. 5 seconds of the big mobile phone scene, and I switched over.
But if the binaries get released, there's no chance in hell of them breaking even. The number of programmers who will want or need to pay for the source will be minimal. The vast majority will only need the binaries.
the nature of open source is to encourage experimentation and trying new things
Yes, in CODING terms. I don't think that phrase is also meant to extend to messing about with the opensource license.
But this relies *entirely* on the assumption that there will be enough demand for a product to make up the development costs. At $5 a piece, it would take 100,000 people paying for the software to just break even. And with many people thinking that it will become free in future, are that many likely to buy it?
Ask for donations, and if enough aren't received, close down the codebase?
No, that's a ridiculous model, because the sourcecode would already be out there. Closing down the codebase would achieve nothing. I don't know what you mean by 'new releases on a certain date if a certain amount of money isnt raised'. You mean artificially hold up the release of a new version just because they haven't earned enough from this version? Sounds like Microsoft tactics.
OTOH, do you really want, say, the Windows source?
Yes.