Just because most environmentalists are non violent hippy types doesn't mean they all are.
Just because most non-environmentalists are non violent peacable types doesn't mean they all are.
Environmentalism is orthorgonal to violent behaviour.
People who persist in labelling groups of people who happen to share common goals unrelated to violence as violent, or non-violent, are doing freedom and democracy a disservice.
Those interested in dodgy drug testing might want to see a movie on current release, The Constant Gardener starring Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz. It's a thriller and doesn't go too deeply into it but does bring it to life.
---
I'm not worried about the use of DRM. I'm worried about the abuse.
Correct as far as it goes but you've missed a bit:
Mega Corp gets extra research results partly subsidized by taxpayer funding.
Not saying that you're wrong here, just that it's very important in any arrangement that involves taxpayers' money that you identify all the costs and benefits.
Unfortunately, in any mixed private/public funding scenario it's all too easy to engage in dodgy accounting practices, everything from company tax avoidance to free advertising to biased education to academic feather nesting. I'm wary of such arrangements simply because it is too easy.
Ah yes, a classic/. non sequitur. If you don't like patent opportunists being described as a "mafia" then I'd suggest you get a thicker skin, because the current patent system has all the hallmarks of a protection racket.
or are unfamiliar with the US Patent system.
Trusting that you're merely uninformed, see MPEP 2143.
I'm already familiar with it thank you.
You're in denial, refusing to acknowledge that that is a trash definition of obviousness, and trying on a bogus appeal to authority rather than to actually argue the merits of your case.
I'd suggest you talk to actual IP creators, not opportunists trying to take advantage of a broken patent system, and see what they have to say. Your view appears to be biased by only dealing with people who naively or opportunistically choose to deal with the patent system. I've dealt with them and many other creators.
---
It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work. It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons. Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.
Blame the marketing 'droids. It's all about production differentiation. There's also a dose of "How do we justify how existence?" by the software engineering department at Dell.
Good point. Maybe a combination of RAM, battery backed up RAM, flash and a smart, multi-level caching file system would do the trick. Don't like the battery though.
---
Don't be a programmer-bureaucrat; someone who substitutes marketing buzzwords and software bloat for verifiable improvements.
No, I am saying that drug development is a very expensive process,
And the question is: Why is it so incredibly inefficient? What is the organizational/structural impediment to more efficient drug development strategies being developed?
Sounds to me like a lot of people are taking a cut. Apart from anything else the drug cartels waste much money on marketing. I know medical research is expensive and the naive reasons why. The question is, why isn't competition finding alternatives? I don't think it's because medical research is intrinsically expensive, though many people with a vested interest in the industry will of course claim this.
---
Have you written to your representatives about patents? A write-in campaign is our only hope!
As for advanced features, I think the GP is referring to things like the swappable OS subsystems; a hybrid micro-kernel; a strong and flexible access control model; a highly portable hardware abstraction layer supporting three widely different architectures; and an extremely versatile file-system. This was all really groundbreaking in the early 1990's
This is lying marketing speak. All those things were available long before NT. NT polished and packaged them, that's all.
---
Have you written to your representatives about patents? A write-in campaign is our only hope!
The problem usually arises because people are in gross misunderstanding about the definition of obviousness. Obviousness and utility are probably the two most mis-understood terms used by people when discussing patents.
No, we know the patent mafia are using self-serving definitions of obviousness and utility.
Those definitions fail the reality check, as even a cursory examination of any recent patent with the word software in it will show.
The consistent refusal to acknowledge even that simple fact here, though it has been repeated numerous times as they continue to ignore it, just goes to show the ethics of the patent lobby, and what their true agenda is. They don't want natural justice or anything like it, they want to parasitise.
---
Have you written to your representatives about patents? A write-in campaign is our only hope!
I made no claim that I have received any reward at all.
There is a fundamental disconnect in your reasoning.
You claim patents are needed because they encourage innovation. You also state that, despite having gone through the entire process, the patent provided you with nothing significant to encourage your innovation.
That sort of woolly headed reasoning is unfortunately all too common with the patent proponents. There is no scientific, objective evidence that patents encourage innovation, just hand waving by vested interests.
Let me give you a counter-example to your example: I have a work colleague who worked full time for two years developing a new idea to turn it into a product. During that time he applied for patents worldwide. Two weeks before the patent was due to be awarded somebody on the other side of the world got a conflicting patent. He investigated but there was no way around it.
Thousands of dollars in patent lawyer fees and two years of his life down the toilet because of patents. He's now a wage earner.
Patents will continue to be trash until, amongst many other problems, they acknowledge simultaneous invention, inventions "whose time has come" and also have a realistic definition of obviousness.
---
Have you written to your representatives about patents? A write-in campaign is our only hope!
BTW, 2. really should be used as one of the criteria of patentability: the thing should be patentable only if it can be successfully kept as a trade secret.
Excellent idea. If it can't be kept secret then the thing they're trying to patent is probably a minor variant of something copied from elsewhere anyway.
This BS where parasites can get monopolies on ideas that require no investment has got to stop.
---
Scientific, evidence based IP law. Now there's a thought.
You're seriously suggesting that every commercial software and IP developer on the planet should be employing a patent lawyer? You're insane.
Great way to put the economy in the toilet.
Pleading ignorance about patents is akin to pleading ignorance about taxes.
No. It's akin to ignoring patent parasites. The patent mafia are trying parasitise the rest of society. Large parts of society are, quite reasonably, ignoring them.
---
Scientific, evidence based IP law. Now there's a thought.
True. M$ marketing has been very good at embracing generic words/phrases with general meanings like "word", "excel", "access" and "SQL server" and attaching them to their products, thus making it impossible for people to talk about a word processor with mentioning M$' word, to talk about accessing their data without mentioning M$ access and so on.
Compare this to other, more responsible, companies which choose specific, distinctive names that won't come up in normal conversation. e.g. WordPerfect, CorelDraw, Apache etc.
M$' approach is legal and good marketting but has the ethics of alley cats.
---
Marketing talk is not just cheap, it has negative value. Free speech can be compromised just as much by too much noise as too little signal.
Parallel access to flash memory is relatively easy, unlike disk which is inherently serial to each platter. If demand for fast, large flash takes off I expect they'll just parallelize access to it, with the appropriate price/performance tradeoff off course.
A free market by your definition means warlordism, might makes right.
All modern markets have regulation to restrict negative competitive behaviour (e.g. fraud, anti-trust, safety, truth-in-advertising etc.) and to promote positive competitive behaviour (e.g. corporation law, tax breaks for new businesses, treaties etc.).
---
Unregulated DRM = Total Customer Control = Ultimate Customer Lockin = Death of the free market.
So it's crap because of the licence? I don't buy that
I don't think many people said it's crap (I haven't checked all the posts!). I think people are just disappointed that an important piece of open source has stopped being sponsored. We'll see if the open source version takes off, like ssh/openssh.
I regard them as a nicety, not an essential. End of the day, I want the best security across my servers, and I'd rather accept a closed source nessus with superior detection than an open source gnessus with inferior detection. (Of course if Gnessus takes off and becomes better, great stuff, I'd prefer that).
Fair enough. However I have concerns that if the government hasn't done so already it will soon be secretly mandating backdoors in closed source software for the purposes of law enforcement. A security checker that is deliberately blind to FBI TCP/IP bugging for example. Ditto backdoors for commercial purposes. Open source isn't perfect but it's less likely to have those sorts of holes and in addition gives me the opportunity to check precisely what the scanner is doing.
It did say they were gaining very little benefit from being open source, very little code had been contributed, and when it happened, i remember reading it was about rebranding.
The press release on businesswire referenced by this slashdot story did not say any of this.
When you go into making a product like this, you like to keep the nature of free software open, you don't go about assuming that people will take your product and rebrand it, thereby stealing your custom
Hope for the best case, plan for the worst case. In a world of billions of people it's a statisical certainty you'll get at least a few bad apples.
So you're willing to settle for inferior security for the sake of a licence?
The license is part of the security architecture. I plan my security architecture in a way that has the minimum hidden dependencies on third parties. To give you an idea of the sort of thing that can happen at least one big name router vendor deliberately re-routed a small fraction of all http requests on at least one of their routers to their website for advertising purposes. I'm not saying Nessus are doing similar things, just that with closed source they have more of a temptation to do so, and over time there's less checks and balances.
A nicety only, security is the most important thing to their systems, you can't afford to skimp based on licence.
For you a nicety, for others core.
Naturally people will see different features as important, but i would say it was safe to assume that in security, effectivemess at creating security is the best thing, and so nessus would win out over gnessus.
Security is defence in depth. You can't make it perfect. The degree that the new closed source version is technically superior to the previous open source version is a judgement call and may or may not be important.
Of course I'm here purely thinking from the point of view that I want my servers to stay standing for the forseeable future...
Depends on what you're doing as to whether the new version of the scanner is worthwhile.
What can you provide to a free/beer product that makes it more valuable than rebrands?
You're the expert. You're the one that people know best. You're the one that people trust. People buy name brands (e.g. Nike) all the time for exactly that reason.
You can't pull closed source here because you're claiming the main fault with nessus is it's closed source.
I didn't. I said there are many licensing options. Traditional closed source is just one of many. Parallel licensing with restrictions on branding is common.
As for another open source licence, I agree this should have been done in the first place, but c'est la vie.
Typical marketing nonsense. At the time of writing not a single article is claiming entitlement or anything like it. All they're saying is they think the license change for them is a step backwards.
A license is part of the featureset of a program. Some people think the license is an important feature. Deal with it.
I'm quick sick of all these GPL-fanatical twits going on about how evil Tenable is
Nonsense. At the time of writing I don't see even a single post claiming Tenable is evil or anything like it. I do see a number of posts saying that they think the license change is important and a step backwards. Deal with it.
---
Unregulated DRM = Total Customer Control = Ultimate Customer Lockin = Death of the free market.
Except for the license, which apparently took a major step backwards.
Of the people here, most of them won't care that it's closed source,
You have no idea. Likely, people who don't regard open and free licenses as important are reading cnet etc. anyway, not slashdot.
purely because of the reason they closed the source.
Which is? The two page press release said nothing.
If it hadn't been for rebranding issues, (IMO a fault with the GPL), nessus would still be open source.
Wrong. They chose the license and if they wanted they could've had a variant of GPL with whatever branding exceptions they wanted.
It's still the best there is,
Except for the license.
people will still use it.
I won't, I'll be using the forked open source version.
Not everyone will avoid anything that isn't free/libre, especially if the quality is good.
The license is part of the feature set of the program. Different people regard different features as important. Some people regard a quality license as important. No surprises there.
The free software community brought it upon themselves by not helping out and in the case of the rebranders, for stealing all sources of revenue nessus had when GPL.
I don't know the situation but just as likely it's Nessus' fault for not controlling their brand with the appropriate license, open or closed, and/or providing a service that consumers would prefer over the rebranders.
More likely Nessus is going closed source because they've got mindshare now and they think they can make more money closed source. It's happened before. Open source for them was simply a loss leader to get free advertising.
100 hour weeks hacking on code don't come for free, you know.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. There are many motivations besides money for creating code and with 6,500,000,000+ people in the world all it takes is 0.0001% coding to get something happening.
We'd all prefer it to be free, but it's not essential
Depends on the individual and whether they regard an open license as a negative, unimportant, important or essential.
---
Unregulated DRM = Total Customer Control = Ultimate Customer Lockin = Death of the free market.
A commercial society (not necessarily a consumer society) needs advertisement to some extent. This can be anything from word of mouth to a herald on the streetcorner. Even if we had absolutely perfect search techology with everything perfectly indexed, there would be interesting, useful things that you could use that someone invented, but you didn't think to search for.
Not true.
I'm talking about truly useful products. These sorts of things are today mostly lost among the screaming shiny baubles of consumerism, but they do exist. And, ultimately, there needs to be a way for you to find out about them.
Easy. If I'm interested I'll do a search like any other. "New products in my areas of interest" is just another search category. Or even "surprise me". No intrusive, irrelevant, unsolicited advertising needed at all, just appropriate registration with search engines and a consumer amenable to new products.
---
Marketing talk is not just cheap, it has negative value. Free speech can be compromised just as much by too much noise as too little signal.
You're right, I watch little TV but unfortunately it's only a stop-gap solution.
The problem is that the marketing industry is trying to push into every entertainment medium. In every new movie the product placement is increasing. In every cineplex the ad's before the movie are increasing. In every new DVD the advertising load increases. Only books and cartoons appear to be weathering it currently and they're only a matter of time.
The only long term solution is regulation. Though I'm not sure how you'd go about it without compromising free speech. Maybe a progressive tax on companies and individuals that spend more than 0.1% of their income on advertising.
---
Marketing talk is not just cheap, it has negative value. Free speech can be compromised just as much by too much noise as too little signal.
Frankly, I'm willing to tolerate ads and product placement as long as I don't have to pay the actual staggering cost for my entertainment.
Youre paying. Twice with ad's, once in the increased price of the product to pay for the ad and secondly in your time and attention to watch the ad. Ad's don't save you any money at all and they cost you the time of your life.
And please, no nonsense about you ignoring the ad's and other people paying for it. In the end, on average, those ad's are targetted at you and the products you buy.
---
The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".
Slashdot Mirror
Just because most environmentalists are non violent hippy types doesn't mean they all are.
Just because most non-environmentalists are non violent peacable types doesn't mean they all are.
Environmentalism is orthorgonal to violent behaviour.
People who persist in labelling groups of people who happen to share common goals unrelated to violence as violent, or non-violent, are doing freedom and democracy a disservice.
---
Keep your options open!
Those interested in dodgy drug testing might want to see a movie on current release, The Constant Gardener starring Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz. It's a thriller and doesn't go too deeply into it but does bring it to life.
---
I'm not worried about the use of DRM. I'm worried about the abuse.
Correct as far as it goes but you've missed a bit:
Mega Corp gets extra research results partly subsidized by taxpayer funding.
Not saying that you're wrong here, just that it's very important in any arrangement that involves taxpayers' money that you identify all the costs and benefits.
Unfortunately, in any mixed private/public funding scenario it's all too easy to engage in dodgy accounting practices, everything from company tax avoidance to free advertising to biased education to academic feather nesting. I'm wary of such arrangements simply because it is too easy.
---
Keep your options open!
You're either expressing paranoid schizophrenia
Ah yes, a classic /. non sequitur. If you don't like patent opportunists being described as a "mafia" then I'd suggest you get a thicker skin, because the current patent system has all the hallmarks of a protection racket.
or are unfamiliar with the US Patent system.
Trusting that you're merely uninformed, see MPEP 2143.
I'm already familiar with it thank you.
You're in denial, refusing to acknowledge that that is a trash definition of obviousness, and trying on a bogus appeal to authority rather than to actually argue the merits of your case.
I'd suggest you talk to actual IP creators, not opportunists trying to take advantage of a broken patent system, and see what they have to say. Your view appears to be biased by only dealing with people who naively or opportunistically choose to deal with the patent system. I've dealt with them and many other creators.
---
It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.
I don't understand it personally.
Blame the marketing 'droids. It's all about production differentiation. There's also a dose of "How do we justify how existence?" by the software engineering department at Dell.
---
Paid marketers are the worst zealots.
In Malaysia, they provide you with all the CDs.
Maybe it's because you're using the superior Windows/XP Pirate Edition, not the inferior Windows/XP Home Edition? Crippleware sucks.
Good point. Maybe a combination of RAM, battery backed up RAM, flash and a smart, multi-level caching file system would do the trick. Don't like the battery though.
---
Don't be a programmer-bureaucrat; someone who substitutes marketing buzzwords and software bloat for verifiable improvements.
No, I am saying that drug development is a very expensive process,
And the question is: Why is it so incredibly inefficient? What is the organizational/structural impediment to more efficient drug development strategies being developed?
Sounds to me like a lot of people are taking a cut. Apart from anything else the drug cartels waste much money on marketing. I know medical research is expensive and the naive reasons why. The question is, why isn't competition finding alternatives? I don't think it's because medical research is intrinsically expensive, though many people with a vested interest in the industry will of course claim this.
---
Have you written to your representatives about patents? A write-in campaign is our only hope!
As for advanced features, I think the GP is referring to things like the swappable OS subsystems; a hybrid micro-kernel; a strong and flexible access control model; a highly portable hardware abstraction layer supporting three widely different architectures; and an extremely versatile file-system. This was all really groundbreaking in the early 1990's
This is lying marketing speak. All those things were available long before NT. NT polished and packaged them, that's all.
---
Have you written to your representatives about patents? A write-in campaign is our only hope!
The problem usually arises because people are in gross misunderstanding about the definition of obviousness. Obviousness and utility are probably the two most mis-understood terms used by people when discussing patents.
No, we know the patent mafia are using self-serving definitions of obviousness and utility.
Those definitions fail the reality check, as even a cursory examination of any recent patent with the word software in it will show.
The consistent refusal to acknowledge even that simple fact here, though it has been repeated numerous times as they continue to ignore it, just goes to show the ethics of the patent lobby, and what their true agenda is. They don't want natural justice or anything like it, they want to parasitise.
---
Have you written to your representatives about patents? A write-in campaign is our only hope!
I made no claim that I have received any reward at all.
There is a fundamental disconnect in your reasoning.
You claim patents are needed because they encourage innovation. You also state that, despite having gone through the entire process, the patent provided you with nothing significant to encourage your innovation.
That sort of woolly headed reasoning is unfortunately all too common with the patent proponents. There is no scientific, objective evidence that patents encourage innovation, just hand waving by vested interests.
Let me give you a counter-example to your example: I have a work colleague who worked full time for two years developing a new idea to turn it into a product. During that time he applied for patents worldwide. Two weeks before the patent was due to be awarded somebody on the other side of the world got a conflicting patent. He investigated but there was no way around it.
Thousands of dollars in patent lawyer fees and two years of his life down the toilet because of patents. He's now a wage earner.
Patents will continue to be trash until, amongst many other problems, they acknowledge simultaneous invention, inventions "whose time has come" and also have a realistic definition of obviousness.
---
Have you written to your representatives about patents? A write-in campaign is our only hope!
we both know that something is not obvious if it cannot be found in the prior art.
No, that is the patent mafia's self-serving definition. Actual creators know better.
---
Have you written to your representatives about patents? A write-in campaign is our only hope!
Nobody knew what the Internet was capable of, and it may well have been a unique insight.
Only a PTO patsy would say that. Hyperlinks were invented at least 60 years ago. Pausing of recording media was also at least 60 years ago.
The only people who talk about ideas as units are the patent mafia. People who really create know better.
---
Have you written to your representatives about patents? A write-in campaign is our only hope!
BTW, 2. really should be used as one of the criteria of patentability: the thing should be patentable only if it can be successfully kept as a trade secret.
Excellent idea. If it can't be kept secret then the thing they're trying to patent is probably a minor variant of something copied from elsewhere anyway.
This BS where parasites can get monopolies on ideas that require no investment has got to stop.
---
Scientific, evidence based IP law. Now there's a thought.
Hire an expert or expect problems.
You're seriously suggesting that every commercial software and IP developer on the planet should be employing a patent lawyer? You're insane.
Great way to put the economy in the toilet.
Pleading ignorance about patents is akin to pleading ignorance about taxes.
No. It's akin to ignoring patent parasites. The patent mafia are trying parasitise the rest of society. Large parts of society are, quite reasonably, ignoring them.
---
Scientific, evidence based IP law. Now there's a thought.
True. M$ marketing has been very good at embracing generic words/phrases with general meanings like "word", "excel", "access" and "SQL server" and attaching them to their products, thus making it impossible for people to talk about a word processor with mentioning M$' word, to talk about accessing their data without mentioning M$ access and so on.
Compare this to other, more responsible, companies which choose specific, distinctive names that won't come up in normal conversation. e.g. WordPerfect, CorelDraw, Apache etc.
M$' approach is legal and good marketting but has the ethics of alley cats.
---
Marketing talk is not just cheap, it has negative value. Free speech can be compromised just as much by too much noise as too little signal.
Parallel access to flash memory is relatively easy, unlike disk which is inherently serial to each platter. If demand for fast, large flash takes off I expect they'll just parallelize access to it, with the appropriate price/performance tradeoff off course.
---
Keep your options open!
Don't confuse a free market with a regulated one.
A free market by your definition means warlordism, might makes right.
All modern markets have regulation to restrict negative competitive behaviour (e.g. fraud, anti-trust, safety, truth-in-advertising etc.) and to promote positive competitive behaviour (e.g. corporation law, tax breaks for new businesses, treaties etc.).
---
Unregulated DRM = Total Customer Control = Ultimate Customer Lockin = Death of the free market.
So it's crap because of the licence? I don't buy that
I don't think many people said it's crap (I haven't checked all the posts!). I think people are just disappointed that an important piece of open source has stopped being sponsored. We'll see if the open source version takes off, like ssh/openssh.
I regard them as a nicety, not an essential. End of the day, I want the best security across my servers, and I'd rather accept a closed source nessus with superior detection than an open source gnessus with inferior detection. (Of course if Gnessus takes off and becomes better, great stuff, I'd prefer that).
Fair enough. However I have concerns that if the government hasn't done so already it will soon be secretly mandating backdoors in closed source software for the purposes of law enforcement. A security checker that is deliberately blind to FBI TCP/IP bugging for example. Ditto backdoors for commercial purposes. Open source isn't perfect but it's less likely to have those sorts of holes and in addition gives me the opportunity to check precisely what the scanner is doing.
It did say they were gaining very little benefit from being open source, very little code had been contributed, and when it happened, i remember reading it was about rebranding.
The press release on businesswire referenced by this slashdot story did not say any of this.
When you go into making a product like this, you like to keep the nature of free software open, you don't go about assuming that people will take your product and rebrand it, thereby stealing your custom
Hope for the best case, plan for the worst case. In a world of billions of people it's a statisical certainty you'll get at least a few bad apples.
So you're willing to settle for inferior security for the sake of a licence?
The license is part of the security architecture. I plan my security architecture in a way that has the minimum hidden dependencies on third parties. To give you an idea of the sort of thing that can happen at least one big name router vendor deliberately re-routed a small fraction of all http requests on at least one of their routers to their website for advertising purposes. I'm not saying Nessus are doing similar things, just that with closed source they have more of a temptation to do so, and over time there's less checks and balances.
A nicety only, security is the most important thing to their systems, you can't afford to skimp based on licence.
For you a nicety, for others core.
Naturally people will see different features as important, but i would say it was safe to assume that in security, effectivemess at creating security is the best thing, and so nessus would win out over gnessus.
Security is defence in depth. You can't make it perfect. The degree that the new closed source version is technically superior to the previous open source version is a judgement call and may or may not be important.
Of course I'm here purely thinking from the point of view that I want my servers to stay standing for the forseeable future...
Depends on what you're doing as to whether the new version of the scanner is worthwhile.
What can you provide to a free/beer product that makes it more valuable than rebrands?
You're the expert. You're the one that people know best. You're the one that people trust. People buy name brands (e.g. Nike) all the time for exactly that reason.
You can't pull closed source here because you're claiming the main fault with nessus is it's closed source.
I didn't. I said there are many licensing options. Traditional closed source is just one of many. Parallel licensing with restrictions on branding is common.
As for another open source licence, I agree this should have been done in the first place, but c'est la vie.
More likely Nessus is going closed sour
Typical marketing nonsense. At the time of writing not a single article is claiming entitlement or anything like it. All they're saying is they think the license change for them is a step backwards.
A license is part of the featureset of a program. Some people think the license is an important feature. Deal with it.
---
Paid marketers are the worst zealots.
I'm quick sick of all these GPL-fanatical twits going on about how evil Tenable is
Nonsense. At the time of writing I don't see even a single post claiming Tenable is evil or anything like it. I do see a number of posts saying that they think the license change is important and a step backwards. Deal with it.
---
Unregulated DRM = Total Customer Control = Ultimate Customer Lockin = Death of the free market.
Except for the license, which apparently took a major step backwards.
Of the people here, most of them won't care that it's closed source,
You have no idea. Likely, people who don't regard open and free licenses as important are reading cnet etc. anyway, not slashdot.
purely because of the reason they closed the source.
Which is? The two page press release said nothing.
If it hadn't been for rebranding issues, (IMO a fault with the GPL), nessus would still be open source.
Wrong. They chose the license and if they wanted they could've had a variant of GPL with whatever branding exceptions they wanted.
It's still the best there is,
Except for the license.
people will still use it.
I won't, I'll be using the forked open source version.
Not everyone will avoid anything that isn't free/libre, especially if the quality is good.
The license is part of the feature set of the program. Different people regard different features as important. Some people regard a quality license as important. No surprises there.
The free software community brought it upon themselves by not helping out and in the case of the rebranders, for stealing all sources of revenue nessus had when GPL.
I don't know the situation but just as likely it's Nessus' fault for not controlling their brand with the appropriate license, open or closed, and/or providing a service that consumers would prefer over the rebranders.
More likely Nessus is going closed source because they've got mindshare now and they think they can make more money closed source. It's happened before. Open source for them was simply a loss leader to get free advertising.
100 hour weeks hacking on code don't come for free, you know.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. There are many motivations besides money for creating code and with 6,500,000,000+ people in the world all it takes is 0.0001% coding to get something happening.
We'd all prefer it to be free, but it's not essential
Depends on the individual and whether they regard an open license as a negative, unimportant, important or essential.
---
Unregulated DRM = Total Customer Control = Ultimate Customer Lockin = Death of the free market.
A commercial society (not necessarily a consumer society) needs advertisement to some extent. This can be anything from word of mouth to a herald on the streetcorner. Even if we had absolutely perfect search techology with everything perfectly indexed, there would be interesting, useful things that you could use that someone invented, but you didn't think to search for.
Not true.
I'm talking about truly useful products. These sorts of things are today mostly lost among the screaming shiny baubles of consumerism, but they do exist. And, ultimately, there needs to be a way for you to find out about them.
Easy. If I'm interested I'll do a search like any other. "New products in my areas of interest" is just another search category. Or even "surprise me". No intrusive, irrelevant, unsolicited advertising needed at all, just appropriate registration with search engines and a consumer amenable to new products.
---
Marketing talk is not just cheap, it has negative value. Free speech can be compromised just as much by too much noise as too little signal.
You're right, I watch little TV but unfortunately it's only a stop-gap solution.
The problem is that the marketing industry is trying to push into every entertainment medium. In every new movie the product placement is increasing. In every cineplex the ad's before the movie are increasing. In every new DVD the advertising load increases. Only books and cartoons appear to be weathering it currently and they're only a matter of time.
The only long term solution is regulation. Though I'm not sure how you'd go about it without compromising free speech. Maybe a progressive tax on companies and individuals that spend more than 0.1% of their income on advertising.
---
Marketing talk is not just cheap, it has negative value. Free speech can be compromised just as much by too much noise as too little signal.
Frankly, I'm willing to tolerate ads and product placement as long as I don't have to pay the actual staggering cost for my entertainment.
Youre paying. Twice with ad's, once in the increased price of the product to pay for the ad and secondly in your time and attention to watch the ad. Ad's don't save you any money at all and they cost you the time of your life.
And please, no nonsense about you ignoring the ad's and other people paying for it. In the end, on average, those ad's are targetted at you and the products you buy.
---
The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".