Encylopedia Britannica has the same problem with WikiPedia... in most cases it's the same people writing for both. The only difference is that the supply/demand fomula is on open source's side for that one. Tell the world's leading expert on a topic that's worth only three pages in the printed encylopedia he can write for you only if he will agree not to write for anybody else on that topic, and he'll not work for you.
OSS != GPL. There are plenty of products that claim to be open source but are traps into proprietary systems with onerous licensing terms. (FileZilla FTP... which has no relation to the Mozzila foundation... comes to mind as an example. And let's not forget Day 1 of Google Chrome!)
With zillions of OSS license varients out there, there's no way studio legal can approve them all. They pick the tools they want to use. Sure, if they did the investigation into The GIMP they'd most likely sign off on it as okay, but to expect them to do investigation into every open tool every consultant wanted to bring into the shop is just plain unreasonable. If you want to do consultant work, you have to use the tools they provide for you, you can't expect them to make major software changes just to suit you.
Who has been collecting every remote keystroke (and what action that key reprents) since the beginning of the product, and will gladly sell samples of that data to advertisers and TV networks. They just launched an settop-box-to-Domino's-Pizza interface.
Dish Network and EchoStar Corp. may be two legal entities, but they're one system. EchoStar builds the settop boxes, DVRs, and satellites. Dish Network rents the rights to use those satellites, puts programming on them, then sells EchoStar's hardware to consumers.
Nobody else but Dish uses EchoStar's products, and Dish uses only EchoStar products. They may have divorced but they're still close friends.
EchoStar was rumored to be deveoloping a non-Dish broadcast DVR product, but their recent losses in court to TiVo over patent violations threaten that product.
I didn't say it was impossible to make money off of open source. My point is you can't cry to Slashdot when users of open source software find that they have to pay up and go "enterprise" to get business-class features.
What that basically translates to that the makers of the software have cut off support on the open source version, and convinced their consultants to do the same by offering them a better deal. Anybody who wants to can support the open source version, but nobody wants to. Get the enterprise version, learn how to do it without consultants. Don't whine to Slashdot.
Why do you want an open source customer management system anyway? You clearly want to make money using it, so why are you surprised that the people who are going to help you do so want money too?
It's simple... the writers of the open source system wanted to make money so they made a commerical enterprise varient, then told all of the consultants hanging off of them that if they still wanted access to official support, they'd have to agree to only support the enterprise edition. No law violated for that. Either learn how to run the open version yourself, or pay for enterpise. Your choice.
This seems to be SOP whenever the Chinese authorities find content they like accessable by a search engine, just redirect the entire search engine to Baidu until the site owners comply.
Maps areial views around here are about 10 years old, Street View is clearly newer than that where it exists. Is it censorship or just outdated images taken before the building was built?
Clamshell packaging is not proof that the package came from the manufacturer as new. Returns can be sent back to the manufactuer and reclamshelled same as the originals, your only defense is truth-in-labeling laws.
I think my Frustration Trivia game has done a pretty good job of defining levels... it rewards with a slightly harder question for each one answered right, and throws you back to the bottom of the tower when you get one wrong.
It's hard to test these things without the FCC's help... you need to set up a scale model of TV station signals, and that requires an FCC license to do.
There's unused radio spectrum (called "white space") between the TV channels that are designed to give the stations protection. Google (and others) claim that small radio devices can transmit on those frequencies and not harm the TV signals, TV stations of course fearful of anything that might cost them viewers disputed that.
So the FCC set up a field test of a Google device and other devices to see if everything work right. The result of that test was a "fail" for Google's side... but the news is that Google is claiming the wireless microphone channel being tested equated to a local TV broadcasting channel, and therefore was unfair.
Larry is an executive at the company that's claiming it was held to an unfair test. You think Google doesn't employ radio experts who could have told him what to say?
Some things just plain need competition to work. When HD-DVD was around, Blu-Ray providers had incentive to win the format war. Now, there's no need to spend marketing dollars on "I'm better than you!" campaigns, they're just going to grow at the rate of HD adoption... and the public seems to have a big "don't care" about that one.
You have the ability to share with your neighbor under a bandwidth cap... you just need to purchase a web hosting plan from one of the hundreds of places offering them if you want to publish more than just casually.
All of the major cell phone companies give you a free text message and/or wireless web page that tells you as best as they can how many minutes/bytes you've used this billing cycle and such. Why Comcast can't do the same for their bandwidth limit is beyond me.
That's the solution to the old model of blocking you... under the new plan that'll just put you deeper in the whole because adding all of TOR's routing information just makes your packets bigger. And bigger packets mean more bits against the 250 GB.
Yeah, but the summary's links are the wrong people to make that point. They're saying "But that means we won't be able to steal movies anymore!" when the real problem is "That means we won't be able to download the legal content anymore!"
Slashdot Mirror
Encylopedia Britannica has the same problem with WikiPedia... in most cases it's the same people writing for both. The only difference is that the supply/demand fomula is on open source's side for that one. Tell the world's leading expert on a topic that's worth only three pages in the printed encylopedia he can write for you only if he will agree not to write for anybody else on that topic, and he'll not work for you.
OSS != GPL. There are plenty of products that claim to be open source but are traps into proprietary systems with onerous licensing terms. (FileZilla FTP... which has no relation to the Mozzila foundation... comes to mind as an example. And let's not forget Day 1 of Google Chrome!)
With zillions of OSS license varients out there, there's no way studio legal can approve them all. They pick the tools they want to use. Sure, if they did the investigation into The GIMP they'd most likely sign off on it as okay, but to expect them to do investigation into every open tool every consultant wanted to bring into the shop is just plain unreasonable. If you want to do consultant work, you have to use the tools they provide for you, you can't expect them to make major software changes just to suit you.
Who has been collecting every remote keystroke (and what action that key reprents) since the beginning of the product, and will gladly sell samples of that data to advertisers and TV networks. They just launched an settop-box-to-Domino's-Pizza interface.
Dish Network and EchoStar Corp. may be two legal entities, but they're one system. EchoStar builds the settop boxes, DVRs, and satellites. Dish Network rents the rights to use those satellites, puts programming on them, then sells EchoStar's hardware to consumers.
Nobody else but Dish uses EchoStar's products, and Dish uses only EchoStar products. They may have divorced but they're still close friends.
EchoStar was rumored to be deveoloping a non-Dish broadcast DVR product, but their recent losses in court to TiVo over patent violations threaten that product.
I didn't say it was impossible to make money off of open source. My point is you can't cry to Slashdot when users of open source software find that they have to pay up and go "enterprise" to get business-class features.
What that basically translates to that the makers of the software have cut off support on the open source version, and convinced their consultants to do the same by offering them a better deal. Anybody who wants to can support the open source version, but nobody wants to. Get the enterprise version, learn how to do it without consultants. Don't whine to Slashdot.
Why do you want an open source customer management system anyway? You clearly want to make money using it, so why are you surprised that the people who are going to help you do so want money too?
It's simple... the writers of the open source system wanted to make money so they made a commerical enterprise varient, then told all of the consultants hanging off of them that if they still wanted access to official support, they'd have to agree to only support the enterprise edition. No law violated for that. Either learn how to run the open version yourself, or pay for enterpise. Your choice.
You gave Google permission to do that when you installed Google add-on software like Toolbar or Desktop.
This seems to be SOP whenever the Chinese authorities find content they like accessable by a search engine, just redirect the entire search engine to Baidu until the site owners comply.
Maps areial views around here are about 10 years old, Street View is clearly newer than that where it exists. Is it censorship or just outdated images taken before the building was built?
Clamshell packaging is not proof that the package came from the manufacturer as new. Returns can be sent back to the manufactuer and reclamshelled same as the originals, your only defense is truth-in-labeling laws.
No, they don't. Children don't have credit cards and therefore can't shop at Amazon without adult supervision.
That's not the CNN TV feed... that's window #1 out of CNN Pipeline, an internet-only service.
I think my Frustration Trivia game has done a pretty good job of defining levels... it rewards with a slightly harder question for each one answered right, and throws you back to the bottom of the tower when you get one wrong.
It's hard to test these things without the FCC's help... you need to set up a scale model of TV station signals, and that requires an FCC license to do.
Here's the summary:
There's unused radio spectrum (called "white space") between the TV channels that are designed to give the stations protection. Google (and others) claim that small radio devices can transmit on those frequencies and not harm the TV signals, TV stations of course fearful of anything that might cost them viewers disputed that.
So the FCC set up a field test of a Google device and other devices to see if everything work right. The result of that test was a "fail" for Google's side... but the news is that Google is claiming the wireless microphone channel being tested equated to a local TV broadcasting channel, and therefore was unfair.
Larry is an executive at the company that's claiming it was held to an unfair test. You think Google doesn't employ radio experts who could have told him what to say?
Uhm... the article is about Blu-Ray vs. DVD stats. DVDs have DRM too.
Some things just plain need competition to work. When HD-DVD was around, Blu-Ray providers had incentive to win the format war. Now, there's no need to spend marketing dollars on "I'm better than you!" campaigns, they're just going to grow at the rate of HD adoption... and the public seems to have a big "don't care" about that one.
You have the ability to share with your neighbor under a bandwidth cap... you just need to purchase a web hosting plan from one of the hundreds of places offering them if you want to publish more than just casually.
Early dial-up providers promised "unlimited"... when has Comcast used "unlimited" in its ads?
All of the major cell phone companies give you a free text message and/or wireless web page that tells you as best as they can how many minutes/bytes you've used this billing cycle and such. Why Comcast can't do the same for their bandwidth limit is beyond me.
Similar systems already exist overseas and with the US satellite Internet providers.
That's the solution to the old model of blocking you... under the new plan that'll just put you deeper in the whole because adding all of TOR's routing information just makes your packets bigger. And bigger packets mean more bits against the 250 GB.
Yeah, but the summary's links are the wrong people to make that point. They're saying "But that means we won't be able to steal movies anymore!" when the real problem is "That means we won't be able to download the legal content anymore!"