Re:Who cares? Machine cycles are cheap...
on
Does C# Measure Up?
·
· Score: 1
Spending money on Hardware also IMO makes code better to maintain.
When code is built around business functionality alone, following what a program does can be quite straightforward. When you start adding efficiency changes in, the code becomes more complex to understand because it looks less like the business requirements.
Any changes done to the code after the efficiency changes can also take longer and are more risky.
It's also pretty screwy that someone went to the bother of trying to get a bill passed, with all the inherent costs so that a few multimillionaires can drive ludicrously fast cars.
Still, I suppose some senators won't have to worry about where to get their designer suits and computer games from now on.
My point was that Microsoft.NET on Linux as Mono doesn't make them any money. So they aren't going to do it - it also strengths the hand of Linux which isn't good for their sales of Windows operating systems. The only way they could probably make money is out of sales of Visual Studio (although there are alternative editors).
As for Microsoft 'playing it right' that's what they've always done. Business-wise, I take my hat off to them. They've sewn up so much of the computer business.
It's not that I don't trust Microsoft, it's that their pattern of behaviour over the past 10 years has been the same - to control the market and extend themselves further. And part of that control relies on the operating system. It relies on Windows update buttons offering Microsoft upgrades to give new products which use MS file formats and squeeze out the competition. Software embedded in the operating system so that you use THEIR messenger and not someone else's.
It's also a pretty good money earner.
As for large corporations using MONO, I imagine that there will be some changes to the.NET framework, destandardized and any code written in Visual Studio won't work.
How many movies get 'McDonalds Happy Meal Toy' status or Action Figure status. I know lots of people talk about merchandising, but it's probably
And some movies don't shift merchandise because their subject matter doesn't suit it or they have a more adult audience. The Reservoir Dogs lunch box with bonus ear, anyone?
I don't know about Python, but having used PHP and ASP.NET, I know which I prefer.
Sure, PHP is a little more work to get some things done like form callbacks, and you have to sometimes write 'protective' code, but once you get in the habit, they are no problem.
The big thing to me is that ASP.NET doesn't feel simple, and that it doesn't feel as controllable to me. I certainly didn't feel any productivity gain over PHP.
Question 1: how does Microsoft make money from.NET on Linux?
Question 2: how does it help MS control the market?
The answers are 1) It can't. 2) It doesn't. If Microsoft have allowed it, it's either because it's seen as too small to be a priority, or it's a trap to get more people onto.NET with the eventual aim of getting people back onto Windows.
Do not being under any illusion that the Microsoft leopard has changed its spots. Ever.
The doomsday scenario on this one is that lots of people end up coding C#/ASP.NET on a Linux platform, Microsoft work out a legitimate way to get it off Linux, and corporations see the best way forward as being to port their code to Windows.
I know Java is in the hands of a corporation, but Java is designed to work cross platform.
What's wrong with PHP and Python anyway?
Re:hypocrisy, rhetoric: is it time for something n
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
Music has been a basic part of cultures since mankind figured out how to hold a pitch with their voice, and long before copyright ever existed. The only thing copyright has done is allow a smaller number of people to control the mass distribution of certain creative works, allowing them to make money without having to produce continuously (unlike any normal job).
Most corporations would much rather have Intellectual Property (whether that be brands or patents) than do day-to-day graft of making better products in a competing marketplace.
Re:hypocrisy, rhetoric: is it time for something n
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
I'm not entirely against Copyright, I'm playing devil's advocate with the idea that without copyright, great art won't be produced. Plenty of people survived without being court musicians - they were musicians of the people. Shakespeare made his money by making plays that people wanted to see, but I imagine that others borrowed heavily from his work, and probably reproduced it.
The problem with copyright protection is that it's not a problem to people who start music from a love of music - ask Radiohead, Prince, The Foo Fighters or Courtney Love what they think of file sharing. They know that their music will still sell, that their tickets will still sell, because they have talent and fans who are dedicated to their music.
As for a tiny minority, It's the people who manage the discardable trash that have the most to lose. And losing them would be no great loss.
Besides, I would take Eminem over over Motzart. Classical music is from a time past that doesn't appeal to me. Just because you don't like the music (dare I say too bigoted to even listen to it without bias) doesn't mean it sucks.
Let's see if people are listening to Eminem in 200 years then.
Anyway, Eminem is just a white rapper designed to create a generation gap between middle class parents and their offspring. Schooly D was doing Eminem's act over 15 years ago.
Re:Welcome To The New World, Geek Fewl...
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
If you want Classical music, check out music on the Naxos label. It's a brilliant small CD label which works in an opposite manner to the big boys.
Rather than being obsessed with creating brands from named sopranos or pianists and then charging a fortune for the disc, Naxos gets a quality orchestra to make a recording, and then they sell it.
For instance, you could buy a Verdi Requiem Mass (2 CD) with Renee Fleming singing on it for 20 from Amazon UK.
The Naxos recording with the Hungarian State Opera and soloists I've never heard of (but probably very highly trained) costs 9. Incidentally, this was a very highly rated in Gramophone magazine.
Re:hypocrisy, rhetoric: is it time for something n
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
After all, copyright protection is mandatory for great art to be produced.
I don't personally have a problem with Closed source software, it's closed standards I really object to.
I recently had to do a little job to move some text in an Adobe Postscript file sent by a client. Unfortunately, they hadn't made it very nice (think it was generated by a package), and it took some time to work out, but I worked out an algorithm and got it to work.
Could I do that with a Word Document? Well, I could as long as I had Office running on the server, which IIRC isn't allowed.
I'm designing a product related to Amazon Web Services, and intend it to be a serious piece of work that people can embed into web sites.
It's also going to be Open Source. And my reasons are more than political.
Firstly, I can get it used by many thousands of people straight off. Bug notifications and fixes will come in. Secondly, plenty of people will use it. Thirdly, whilst people CAN view and change the code, a lot of people would rather people with experience did it. Fourthly, people often want support in case something goes wrong with the software.
I think you misunderstood what is being said. It's not saying that closed source is better than open source as a model, just that a lot of the software is not sufficiently developed.
Take MySQL. It's currently behind Oracle/SQL because it doesn't have a whole bunch of features of those databases. Primarily: Stored Procedures. When it gets that (which is not far away), a whole chunk of users (who do not currently) will look at MySQL.
So, you and all the people who don't like it, stump up the $7,000 and get a white screen put on it. Mandrake aren't Microsoft.
Someone's gotta pay for the hosting and bandwidth costs of that software. Personally, I'd rather everyone who installed and liked Linux gave $20 to the distro maker and/or the Open Source Foundation as a contribution. As it seems many (or most) people just leech it, this is the only (and sad) alternative.
I'm not saying that artists don't want money. I'm saying that it's not their driving force.
You see Britney Spears as an artist? I see someone shifting product, but not particularly creatively. I doubt that she'll be remembered in 20 years, let alone 300.
The people you mention I would certainly call artists (although the Rolling Stones have added nothing to the artistic pool in the past 30 years in my opinion). Of all those people, they all would be known, or their songs would, copyright or not.
The Stones, Aerosmith and Nirvana - all were built on the foundation of a strong following. Remember, people heard of all sorts of composers and performers like Paganini or Mozart and would travel to see them even before copyright. The difference was that they made their money by performing then, because there was no recording.
As for there being more fast food workers, you are probably right. N-Sync might be fast food workers, New Kids on the Block would be fast food workers, and artists who have been undiscovered (like nowadays) would be fast food workers. The difference would be that the record company manufactured chaff wouldn't appear, and more quality would be allowed to rise to the top.
Speeding. How many countries have identical speed limits? Some jurisdictions have none. Mostly, speed limits are based on stopping distances of cars from 40 years ago, and designed to raise taxes.
Jaywalking. No jaywalking law in the UK where I live, or in France. How come we don't view it as a morally bankrupt behaviour to choose to cross the road when it suits you?
Narcotics. Stupid 'war against drugs'. Governments deciding to legislate on free-market transactions between 2 people.
Mostly, laws work when they have general consent of the population. Busting industrial pirates seems to have consent, but many people see sharing as an OK thing to do.
The difference between a luxury car and a CD is down to the monopoly of copyright.
Sony Music have a right to sell the CDs of certain artists and a monopoly right to sell it. That means that you can't go to another record company and get a George Michael/Oasis CD.
As those companies have a monopoly, there should be certain restrictions to prevent market abuse. Works should be reasonably priced and accessible.
Slashdot Mirror
When code is built around business functionality alone, following what a program does can be quite straightforward. When you start adding efficiency changes in, the code becomes more complex to understand because it looks less like the business requirements.
Any changes done to the code after the efficiency changes can also take longer and are more risky.
Still, I suppose some senators won't have to worry about where to get their designer suits and computer games from now on.
As for Microsoft 'playing it right' that's what they've always done. Business-wise, I take my hat off to them. They've sewn up so much of the computer business.
It's not that I don't trust Microsoft, it's that their pattern of behaviour over the past 10 years has been the same - to control the market and extend themselves further. And part of that control relies on the operating system. It relies on Windows update buttons offering Microsoft upgrades to give new products which use MS file formats and squeeze out the competition. Software embedded in the operating system so that you use THEIR messenger and not someone else's.
It's also a pretty good money earner.
As for large corporations using MONO, I imagine that there will be some changes to the .NET framework, destandardized and any code written in Visual Studio won't work.
I don't think I'd run a major online financial system with it, but for a lot of database applications, it is more than good enough for the job.
All I'm saying is that it's not where Oracle is yet, but based on what the MySQL website says, things like Stored Procedures are planned.
Touring
Ringtones (more profitable than singles)
T-shirts
Radio play
Sheet music
Advertising/Sponsorship (how much is Justin Timberlake getting from McDonalds).
Fan clubs
Concert videos/DVDs
Rights for songs being used in Movies
There's also a lot of movies that have little merchandising. I don't recall The Sixth Sense having any merchandise except maybe the soundtrack.
How many movies get 'McDonalds Happy Meal Toy' status or Action Figure status. I know lots of people talk about merchandising, but it's probably And some movies don't shift merchandise because their subject matter doesn't suit it or they have a more adult audience. The Reservoir Dogs lunch box with bonus ear, anyone?
Sure, PHP is a little more work to get some things done like form callbacks, and you have to sometimes write 'protective' code, but once you get in the habit, they are no problem.
The big thing to me is that ASP.NET doesn't feel simple, and that it doesn't feel as controllable to me. I certainly didn't feel any productivity gain over PHP.
Question 2: how does it help MS control the market?
The answers are 1) It can't. 2) It doesn't. If Microsoft have allowed it, it's either because it's seen as too small to be a priority, or it's a trap to get more people onto .NET with the eventual aim of getting people back onto Windows.
Do not being under any illusion that the Microsoft leopard has changed its spots. Ever.
The doomsday scenario on this one is that lots of people end up coding C#/ASP.NET on a Linux platform, Microsoft work out a legitimate way to get it off Linux, and corporations see the best way forward as being to port their code to Windows.
I know Java is in the hands of a corporation, but Java is designed to work cross platform.
What's wrong with PHP and Python anyway?
Most corporations would much rather have Intellectual Property (whether that be brands or patents) than do day-to-day graft of making better products in a competing marketplace.
The problem with copyright protection is that it's not a problem to people who start music from a love of music - ask Radiohead, Prince, The Foo Fighters or Courtney Love what they think of file sharing. They know that their music will still sell, that their tickets will still sell, because they have talent and fans who are dedicated to their music.
As for a tiny minority, It's the people who manage the discardable trash that have the most to lose. And losing them would be no great loss.
Let's see if people are listening to Eminem in 200 years then.
Anyway, Eminem is just a white rapper designed to create a generation gap between middle class parents and their offspring. Schooly D was doing Eminem's act over 15 years ago.
Rather than being obsessed with creating brands from named sopranos or pianists and then charging a fortune for the disc, Naxos gets a quality orchestra to make a recording, and then they sell it.
For instance, you could buy a Verdi Requiem Mass (2 CD) with Renee Fleming singing on it for 20 from Amazon UK.
The Naxos recording with the Hungarian State Opera and soloists I've never heard of (but probably very highly trained) costs 9. Incidentally, this was a very highly rated in Gramophone magazine.
No copyright - Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert. Copyright - N'Sync, Britney Spears, Eminem.
I recently had to do a little job to move some text in an Adobe Postscript file sent by a client. Unfortunately, they hadn't made it very nice (think it was generated by a package), and it took some time to work out, but I worked out an algorithm and got it to work.
Could I do that with a Word Document? Well, I could as long as I had Office running on the server, which IIRC isn't allowed.
It's also going to be Open Source. And my reasons are more than political.
Firstly, I can get it used by many thousands of people straight off. Bug notifications and fixes will come in. Secondly, plenty of people will use it. Thirdly, whilst people CAN view and change the code, a lot of people would rather people with experience did it. Fourthly, people often want support in case something goes wrong with the software.
Take MySQL. It's currently behind Oracle/SQL because it doesn't have a whole bunch of features of those databases. Primarily: Stored Procedures. When it gets that (which is not far away), a whole chunk of users (who do not currently) will look at MySQL.
The next step will be a 'brain-drain', probably to Europe or somewhere like Korea.
The US attitude to intellectual property and more and more, civil rights will drive bright people away.
If Linux and open source grow, I think that Germany will have the new Silicon Valley.
Someone's gotta pay for the hosting and bandwidth costs of that software. Personally, I'd rather everyone who installed and liked Linux gave $20 to the distro maker and/or the Open Source Foundation as a contribution. As it seems many (or most) people just leech it, this is the only (and sad) alternative.
You see Britney Spears as an artist? I see someone shifting product, but not particularly creatively. I doubt that she'll be remembered in 20 years, let alone 300.
The people you mention I would certainly call artists (although the Rolling Stones have added nothing to the artistic pool in the past 30 years in my opinion). Of all those people, they all would be known, or their songs would, copyright or not.
The Stones, Aerosmith and Nirvana - all were built on the foundation of a strong following. Remember, people heard of all sorts of composers and performers like Paganini or Mozart and would travel to see them even before copyright. The difference was that they made their money by performing then, because there was no recording.
As for there being more fast food workers, you are probably right. N-Sync might be fast food workers, New Kids on the Block would be fast food workers, and artists who have been undiscovered (like nowadays) would be fast food workers. The difference would be that the record company manufactured chaff wouldn't appear, and more quality would be allowed to rise to the top.
But I know that organisations like BT had to work within parameters set by regulators when it had some monopoly services.
When AT&T had a phone monopoly in the USA, they had to meet a number of conditions as part of the monopoly on their product.
But corporations who get involved in price-fixing do it because they know they won't.
Speeding. How many countries have identical speed limits? Some jurisdictions have none. Mostly, speed limits are based on stopping distances of cars from 40 years ago, and designed to raise taxes.
Jaywalking. No jaywalking law in the UK where I live, or in France. How come we don't view it as a morally bankrupt behaviour to choose to cross the road when it suits you?
Narcotics. Stupid 'war against drugs'. Governments deciding to legislate on free-market transactions between 2 people.
Mostly, laws work when they have general consent of the population. Busting industrial pirates seems to have consent, but many people see sharing as an OK thing to do.
Sony Music have a right to sell the CDs of certain artists and a monopoly right to sell it. That means that you can't go to another record company and get a George Michael/Oasis CD.
As those companies have a monopoly, there should be certain restrictions to prevent market abuse. Works should be reasonably priced and accessible.