If the data was that important, I don't think I could trust anyone to hold on to it for me. For important things, I'd keep them in underwear, where no one would dare take it from. Emails, contact information, etc. No wait. The most important thing already IS in my underwear. =D
I'm just wondering (as I didn't read the article)... if Kazaa starts charging... will it remain a P2P network? Or will it become THE source for music?
I'm thinking, it will be good to start charging for Kazaa... as long as the source of the music is reliable (a central server). This way, what I pay for and download will be, theoretically, perfect. If Kazaa remains P2P, then it doesn't make sense. What is someone starts sharing a slightly corrupted file? Then what? I get a lousy copy. That's like buying a scratched CD of some top band that someone made from their garage with their own CD burner. What if there are multiple shares, and I was dumb enough to first download a wma file at 64kbps? Then I realize how lousy the sound is, and download another copy that's an MP3 at 160kbps. I get charged twice!
Like I said... paying for a P2P network doesn't make sense if I'm paying for what other people share. Make it a reliable centralized server, then maybe I'll pay.
I think that is the point. That people look at Linux and are ignorant about it. So when they do try it out, they say they hate it because they don't understand it. Majority of people aren't open-minded, and always believe they are the greatest. Example, my ex-boss. Tried Red Hat Linux 6.2 (horrible by the way), hated it because it wasn't like Windows. He doesn't want to bother adjusting. He wants everything to be like Windows, especially since he believes in Bill Gates and what Microsoft does. Yes he calls himself, in his own words, "i'm a computer expert lah".
i still like using a pencil. i like the fact that its: 1. erasable
- for whenever i make a mistake. 2. sharpenable
- for whenver i need a break from what i'm writing. 3. breakable
- for whenever i get angry and need to break something (and that something has to be cheap), or whenever i want to impress kids with my super human strengths.
plus, i feel that having an eraser at one end makes a pencil easier to spin on like a drum stick.
Well, true, Windows can be cheaper to use than Linux. Imagine getting the electricity bills for a Linux server running several months as opposed to a Windows machine running on a desktop. Of course I have to compare these two situations, considering that MS has 95% on the desktop and Linux has 95% on the server (numbers bloated to show my lack of mathematical skills and unending bias).
I'm sorry what was the study about again? Electricity conservation right? Or something.
In the letter SCO states:
two developments occurred that adversely affect the long-term credibility of the Open Source community
pointing to the DoS attacks and the Bruce Perens "admission".
I'm just wondering if SCO realizes that their long-term credibility as also been affected. How? They were once part of the UnitedLinux group, then all of a sudden attacking Open Source. And without any actual proof.
--
the SCO Group is open to ideas of working with the Open Source community to monetize software technology and its underlying intellectual property for all contributors, not just SCO
What about those who help with development of the kernel that aren't interested in monetizing software? Who exactly is SCO writing this letter to? Those who develop free and open source software? Or those who use said software and sell with support/added-value/etc?
But if the Open Source community is to become a software developer for global corporations, respect for intellectual property is not optional--it is mandatory
Open source does respect intellectual property. If not, everyone would hide the code, not letting anyone know if the code is stolen. How about just plain old respect being mandatory? The term "to become a software developer for global corporations" sounds a little too condescending to me.
Working together, there are ways we can make sure this happens
Show the code. Developers will fix it so it doesn't infringe on your IP if it does. I'm sorry, though, that SCO hasn't really shown this "working together" thing they're claiming. If they did believe this, they would have approached UnitedLinux members first and discuss the problems, before attacking Open Source in general.
Slashdot Mirror
If the data was that important, I don't think I could trust anyone to hold on to it for me. For important things, I'd keep them in underwear, where no one would dare take it from. Emails, contact information, etc. No wait. The most important thing already IS in my underwear. =D
I'm just wondering (as I didn't read the article)... if Kazaa starts charging... will it remain a P2P network? Or will it become THE source for music? I'm thinking, it will be good to start charging for Kazaa... as long as the source of the music is reliable (a central server). This way, what I pay for and download will be, theoretically, perfect. If Kazaa remains P2P, then it doesn't make sense. What is someone starts sharing a slightly corrupted file? Then what? I get a lousy copy. That's like buying a scratched CD of some top band that someone made from their garage with their own CD burner. What if there are multiple shares, and I was dumb enough to first download a wma file at 64kbps? Then I realize how lousy the sound is, and download another copy that's an MP3 at 160kbps. I get charged twice! Like I said... paying for a P2P network doesn't make sense if I'm paying for what other people share. Make it a reliable centralized server, then maybe I'll pay.
I think that is the point. That people look at Linux and are ignorant about it. So when they do try it out, they say they hate it because they don't understand it. Majority of people aren't open-minded, and always believe they are the greatest. Example, my ex-boss. Tried Red Hat Linux 6.2 (horrible by the way), hated it because it wasn't like Windows. He doesn't want to bother adjusting. He wants everything to be like Windows, especially since he believes in Bill Gates and what Microsoft does. Yes he calls himself, in his own words, "i'm a computer expert lah".
i still like using a pencil. i like the fact that its:
1. erasable
- for whenever i make a mistake.
2. sharpenable
- for whenver i need a break from what i'm writing.
3. breakable
- for whenever i get angry and need to break something (and that something has to be cheap), or whenever i want to impress kids with my super human strengths.
plus, i feel that having an eraser at one end makes a pencil easier to spin on like a drum stick.
Well, true, Windows can be cheaper to use than Linux. Imagine getting the electricity bills for a Linux server running several months as opposed to a Windows machine running on a desktop. Of course I have to compare these two situations, considering that MS has 95% on the desktop and Linux has 95% on the server (numbers bloated to show my lack of mathematical skills and unending bias). I'm sorry what was the study about again? Electricity conservation right? Or something.
In the letter SCO states: two developments occurred that adversely affect the long-term credibility of the Open Source community pointing to the DoS attacks and the Bruce Perens "admission". I'm just wondering if SCO realizes that their long-term credibility as also been affected. How? They were once part of the UnitedLinux group, then all of a sudden attacking Open Source. And without any actual proof. -- the SCO Group is open to ideas of working with the Open Source community to monetize software technology and its underlying intellectual property for all contributors, not just SCO What about those who help with development of the kernel that aren't interested in monetizing software? Who exactly is SCO writing this letter to? Those who develop free and open source software? Or those who use said software and sell with support/added-value/etc? But if the Open Source community is to become a software developer for global corporations, respect for intellectual property is not optional--it is mandatory Open source does respect intellectual property. If not, everyone would hide the code, not letting anyone know if the code is stolen. How about just plain old respect being mandatory? The term "to become a software developer for global corporations" sounds a little too condescending to me. Working together, there are ways we can make sure this happens Show the code. Developers will fix it so it doesn't infringe on your IP if it does. I'm sorry, though, that SCO hasn't really shown this "working together" thing they're claiming. If they did believe this, they would have approached UnitedLinux members first and discuss the problems, before attacking Open Source in general.