That's OK. When I read TFS, I had this image in my head of Edwin Hubble happily fishing out on the ocean, only to be grabbed by the sunken city of Atlantis below him. The sad part is that I don't even do drugs.
What does "political correctness" have to do with this?
Nothing directly. I saw the fall of NASA. This was partly due to the internal administration putting political correctness ahead of science. I believe the same happened at the CIA. A weakened agency is susceptible to silly directives.
BTW, I normally get an email from slashdot when someone replies to one of my posts. Strange that I didn't get one this time.
When I was a young man I had, like many kids, aspirations of becoming an astronaut or otherwise working in the space exploration industry. My goals began to change as I watched NASA go from the world's best research agency (IMHO) to a politically correct institution lacking any cohesive vision.
Dude, get your joke-meter fixed. One of the we-didn't-go-to-the-moon conspiracy theory pieces of evidence was the flag "blowing" in the "wind" on film.
Indeed. Perhaps I should have asked, "Is there value in this beyond the rare enthusiast's curiosity or perhaps an academic archive?" Your point is well taken.
...or want to pay another programmer to do it. Or submit a feature request. I do see what you mean, but consider the economy that could be created by paying "bounties" for features you want in open source projects. It is likely others would want the same thing, reducing your cost for the feature you want. Why not take the money you would spend on proprietary software and do such a thing? You would certainly get more proverbial bang for your buck as there are no sales, marketing, packaging, distributing departments, corporate taxes or Highly Paid Executives in the loop.
Yesterday a colleague asked me about open source personal accounting software (small business accounting software, actually). I pointed her to GnuCash. I have little need of it myself (refer to my sig), but it had been a few years since I had looked at it, and I was interested to see the following:
"GnuCash is personal and small-business financial-accounting software, freely licensed under the GNU GPL and available for GNU/Linux, BSD, Solaris, Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows." (It didn't run on Windows last I looked.)
"QIF/OFX/HBCI Import, Transaction Matching" It might be worth a look.
One of the problems is that files from old versions don't work well (or at all) with new versions.
As legal solutions go, I don't know that I have yet seen certain proprietary software ever work as advertised (I'm headed toward MS with this one).
The original issue, though, is that of proprietary versus free/open source. I was simply stating that the few proprietary applications I use don't measure up.
You should know that when I read your comment, I grinned with delight. You see, it is normally a no-no to argue from analogy, and I avoid doing so whenever I can, but yours is so good I just can't resist.
Uhh, do I have the right to demand that Ford come and install automatic wipers on my car for free because they weren't offered as an option when I bought it back in the day?
Absolutely not. This is the very reason I am loathe to use proprietary software in the first place. If I want automatic wipers on my car, I should be able to install them myself, or, if I choose, pay, cajole, or otherwise incent someone to do it for me. Under the proprietary model of software, I cannot do this. I am required to buy a whole new car just to get the automatic wipers.
You can't really complain about them wanting you to upgrade to a new version just because of problems with the old one, unless the old one never worked as intended.
Precisely. It it's not broken, don't push an upgrade. If it is broken, what did I pay for? Even Ford issues and pays for recalls when their cars new cars are "broken."
Like my sibling poster, I think you are better off not knowing. At this point consider someone holding a red pill in one hand and a blue pill in the other. Here is a kind version of the man.
So... it's bad that when a company adds new features to a product, they want to be compensated for it?
No. There is a difference between features and "features." You'll notice I was careful to put mine in quotes. Yes, by all means, if a company wants to sell software they should produce something of value to sell. If, on the other hand, they see revenue is down and need to add something to their software to make it appear more valuable in order to increase sales, then it is a "feature." Don't pretend you haven't seen it.
If I don't think it's worth the money they ask, I don't pay for it, it's simple.
Then you are not the average consumer who is easily awed by the whiz-bang must-have "feature" that said software company's marketing department has spun up for them. Better yet, you are not the reluctant consumer who would rather not upgrade, but keeps receiving and/or downloading files he/she cannot work with because others chose to upgrade.
Hell, I have the same amount of control over the features in open-source software.
That is simply not true. Research "feature requests" in open source projects and come back once you are educated in the matter.
Control is not just about shutting off, as per TFS, but is about much more. As an example, what control do you have over "features" in your software? Are features there to help you do what you want, or are they there to be listed as a bullet point on the software box so the software company in question can sell you an "upgrade."
I occasionally use a certain closed-source GIS application that has constant version compatibility problems. The company line is "Upgrade." "Buy more." Isn't that about control?
Slashdot Mirror
It's 216, you insensitive clod!
Exactly! Where else could quantum mechanics come from?
thank you. I'm still giggling.
"I Am Mot A Lawyer," said the man with the harelip.
That's OK. When I read TFS, I had this image in my head of Edwin Hubble happily fishing out on the ocean, only to be grabbed by the sunken city of Atlantis below him. The sad part is that I don't even do drugs.
Mmmm. Slurm. [roll-eyes upwards, let's tongue hang out] Aaaaagggggaaaaaaaaaaaggggghh.
What does "political correctness" have to do with this?
Nothing directly. I saw the fall of NASA. This was partly due to the internal administration putting political correctness ahead of science. I believe the same happened at the CIA. A weakened agency is susceptible to silly directives.
BTW, I normally get an email from slashdot when someone replies to one of my posts. Strange that I didn't get one this time.
When I was a young man I had, like many kids, aspirations of becoming an astronaut or otherwise working in the space exploration industry. My goals began to change as I watched NASA go from the world's best research agency (IMHO) to a politically correct institution lacking any cohesive vision.
Sir Mix-a-lot? Is that you?
Dude, get your joke-meter fixed. One of the we-didn't-go-to-the-moon conspiracy theory pieces of evidence was the flag "blowing" in the "wind" on film.
5' 5.2" is the height of the average Japanese man. That talentless wonder you refer to is 6' 4". I guess that makes him hug (or huge).
Indeed. Perhaps I should have asked, "Is there value in this beyond the rare enthusiast's curiosity or perhaps an academic archive?" Your point is well taken.
...I fail to see the value in this aside from the rare enthusiast's curiosity or perhaps an academic archive. Am I missing something?
...awful name. I can't help but think of Geek Squad, and that doesn't make me happy.
You must be new here.
More free time than a slashdot nerd. Wait...
... Russian Mafia eggs you!
Love him or hate him, Cringely is talking about a somewhat related topic today.
...or want to pay another programmer to do it. Or submit a feature request. I do see what you mean, but consider the economy that could be created by paying "bounties" for features you want in open source projects. It is likely others would want the same thing, reducing your cost for the feature you want. Why not take the money you would spend on proprietary software and do such a thing? You would certainly get more proverbial bang for your buck as there are no sales, marketing, packaging, distributing departments, corporate taxes or Highly Paid Executives in the loop.
Yesterday a colleague asked me about open source personal accounting software (small business accounting software, actually). I pointed her to GnuCash. I have little need of it myself (refer to my sig), but it had been a few years since I had looked at it, and I was interested to see the following:
"GnuCash is personal and small-business financial-accounting software, freely licensed under the GNU GPL and available for GNU/Linux, BSD, Solaris, Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows." (It didn't run on Windows last I looked.)
"QIF/OFX/HBCI Import, Transaction Matching" It might be worth a look.
One of the problems is that files from old versions don't work well (or at all) with new versions.
As legal solutions go, I don't know that I have yet seen certain proprietary software ever work as advertised (I'm headed toward MS with this one).
The original issue, though, is that of proprietary versus free/open source. I was simply stating that the few proprietary applications I use don't measure up.
Uhh, do I have the right to demand that Ford come and install automatic wipers on my car for free because they weren't offered as an option when I bought it back in the day?
Absolutely not. This is the very reason I am loathe to use proprietary software in the first place. If I want automatic wipers on my car, I should be able to install them myself, or, if I choose, pay, cajole, or otherwise incent someone to do it for me. Under the proprietary model of software, I cannot do this. I am required to buy a whole new car just to get the automatic wipers.
You can't really complain about them wanting you to upgrade to a new version just because of problems with the old one, unless the old one never worked as intended.
Precisely. It it's not broken, don't push an upgrade. If it is broken, what did I pay for? Even Ford issues and pays for recalls when their cars new cars are "broken."
Like my sibling poster, I think you are better off not knowing. At this point consider someone holding a red pill in one hand and a blue pill in the other. Here is a kind version of the man.
No. There is a difference between features and "features." You'll notice I was careful to put mine in quotes. Yes, by all means, if a company wants to sell software they should produce something of value to sell. If, on the other hand, they see revenue is down and need to add something to their software to make it appear more valuable in order to increase sales, then it is a "feature." Don't pretend you haven't seen it.
If I don't think it's worth the money they ask, I don't pay for it, it's simple.
Then you are not the average consumer who is easily awed by the whiz-bang must-have "feature" that said software company's marketing department has spun up for them. Better yet, you are not the reluctant consumer who would rather not upgrade, but keeps receiving and/or downloading files he/she cannot work with because others chose to upgrade.
Hell, I have the same amount of control over the features in open-source software.
That is simply not true. Research "feature requests" in open source projects and come back once you are educated in the matter.
Control is not just about shutting off, as per TFS, but is about much more. As an example, what control do you have over "features" in your software? Are features there to help you do what you want, or are they there to be listed as a bullet point on the software box so the software company in question can sell you an "upgrade."
I occasionally use a certain closed-source GIS application that has constant version compatibility problems. The company line is "Upgrade." "Buy more." Isn't that about control?