I want that carrot... Can I have the carrot if you don't want it? Please?
Your assumption that coders do projects because "they feel like it" is wrong and assuming. We scratch an itch like someone else said here. We do something because something either doesn't work, there's no open source equivalent out already, it's new and innovative, or what's there simply doesn't do what we need it to.
I think it's a very good idea, and I hope it will take off. That said, there's a couple things I wonder.
What incentives to companies have to use this?
The obvious answer is of course that the code can be seen and updated by the OSS community but IMHO most don't see the value in that and would rather stick with their own development team to do their work for them (think the Microsoft argument of having someone to fire).
How do we convince companies that their software will be supported?
My guess would be that it's effectively the same for them (since they could commission patches much the same as they could pay their programmers to update software) but again, management probably doesn't like it that they have to pay someone out of house to do it.
It's about time that someone created a method such as this to make the creation of open source code generate some funds for the programmer. If companies can see that keeping these programs open can be beneficial not only to them in the support of the OSS community but the the industry as a whole then I think everyone should be benefitted by something like this.
I figure a lot of people are going to say something along the lines of "to hell with this, we don't ALL need a logo", but IMHO it's just a cool little thing that could easily be embedded (or hidden) in things like logos or programs (being just a 9x9 matrix).
Though I think it would probably be best and easiest represented as pixels rather than circles on a grid.
When information (and eventually physical items, I imagine... think replicators) can become digital, there's a key difference between it and anything the world has seen before... There is an infinite supply of digital information, because it can be copied with no loss of value.
It's interesting looking at the recording industry facing a shift in thinking like this... An industry previously surviving on information limited by the media that it was carried on, but now easily exploitable by cheap CD copiers. One wonders, as software (NB: open source would create the digital paradigm for this information) and other goods become digital and of which it is simple to access an unlimited supply, whether and/or how our economy, which is largely based on the sale of individual items, will adapt.
Don't look at me for an answer though, I just like to muse on these things.;^)
You... don't work at the same place I work, do you?:^D
Didn't want to mention it was for Compaq, but meh. And I'm not sure about whether Compaq included it or not, I've seen it on a LOT of pre-merger models...
Copyright law says that I, as creator of my work, can control how it is used and by whom.
Licences give me the power to selectively allow freedoms to be given out.
The Microsoft EULA is an example of such a licence, in which paying the licence fee for a Microsoft product allows limited usage of the product as per the terms of the licence. That's what one pays for when they get the product, the right to use it under the terms of the accompanying licence.
The General Public Licence allows one as a Copyright owner to selectively give rights to users to use the product as long as they accept the licence. Said licence tells them that any derivative works must also be licenced under the GPL.
So what am I missing here? Is SCO saying that licences shouldn't exist? Are they saying that Copyright law is wrong? Have they just simply gone out of their minds? Because the licensing business model has existed in the software industry for ages.
The idea behind the GPL is nothing new, it's just intended to guarantee freedom rather than restrict it. It's another type of licence, and it's certainly as valid as something any other software vendor would choose to put on their products.
Do you really think that Microsoft (or for that matter, the Linux community) should be responsible for badly programmed software that *other developers* run on their operating system? I mean, if the law went with your definition, the operating system vendor would also be responsible for viruses, popups, dialers, and any other things that the user did not expect before they were subjected to them.
Let's be reasonable here, sue Gator for Gator, not Microsoft.
I do tech support, and one of the worst things I've seen is a piece of software called New.Net. While not technically spyware (though that's arguable), it actually overwrites parts of the user's TCP/IP stack so that any time they access the internet (not just their browser), it gets pushed through the (usually fairly buggy) New.Net DLLs.
And the fun part is, if you (or the user) uncheck the New.Net software in MSCONFIG, it doesn't just stop New.Net from working... They simply stop being able to use the internet. At all. So then we have to pray that their version of New.Net has a working uninstaller, or we have to go through a huge manual uninstall that involves removing multiple registry keys.
BTW, if anyone here gets this or other spyware that is difficult to remove, try using a program called HijackThis and "Fix" anything that looks out of the ordinary (use common sense... don't delete everything).
As mentioned above, this story isn't about patents. According to the story, X10 was previously paying commissions to the brothers, and stopped.
Exactly why isn't it reasonable for them to sue for the money that their contract says they should receive? And where in the article does it mention patents at all?
If there are patents involved here somewhere, then fine, but if there aren't, I wonder whether the Slashdot editors actually took the time to do some research on this matter before making some off the cuff remark about patents simply because it makes more people want to reply angrily.
It doesn't help much if we start calling EVERYTHING a patent issue.
It's interesting how all these issues coming up nowadays seem to correlate to one another. SCO vs. FSF / IBM, RIAA vs. P2P, Verisign vs... ummm... everyone. Is the internet really going to eventually come to a war between the business world and the rest of us like Mr. Scalvos has said?
Irunno. I used to figure that things would keep working themselves out, but businesses seem to see the internet strictly as a way to shuck their wares (no pun intended) at us, and that it should be made to work strictly for that purpose, because as we all know, everything that a corporation does is OBVIOUSLY the best way of going about things.
Consumerism = idiocy.
Admittedly, but such classification would also allow us to see when an account started sending messages. Hence, we could block messages from accounts that have, say, never sent a message before yours. Might make Hotmail a little annoyed, but meh.;^)
Here's an idea. Instead of blacklisting domains that spammers use (because we all know that they have effectively an infinite supply) or going to extreme lengths such as paying for each email sent, why don't we make it so that emails may be classified based on the volume of mail they send, and such classification be mandatory? Hence, we could block certain accounts that were sending, say, more than 10,000 emails per day.
If, for example, there were a digital certificate in each email that added one to a remote counter for that email operated by an independant entity, and our emails were configured to only accept emails sent with such a certificate, I think it would be a feasible idea (except perhaps for the bandwidth costs involved in keeping track of said counters, but I don't have the answers to everything).
Slashdot Mirror
I want that carrot... Can I have the carrot if you don't want it? Please?
Your assumption that coders do projects because "they feel like it" is wrong and assuming. We scratch an itch like someone else said here. We do something because something either doesn't work, there's no open source equivalent out already, it's new and innovative, or what's there simply doesn't do what we need it to.
The obvious answer is of course that the code can be seen and updated by the OSS community but IMHO most don't see the value in that and would rather stick with their own development team to do their work for them (think the Microsoft argument of having someone to fire).
My guess would be that it's effectively the same for them (since they could commission patches much the same as they could pay their programmers to update software) but again, management probably doesn't like it that they have to pay someone out of house to do it.
It's about time that someone created a method such as this to make the creation of open source code generate some funds for the programmer. If companies can see that keeping these programs open can be beneficial not only to them in the support of the OSS community but the the industry as a whole then I think everyone should be benefitted by something like this.
MP3Ds anyone?
Yeah, I realized that earlier. But it's fun to see the flames that come of something like this :^)
Perhaps you mean this :^)
.*.
..*
***
(select Code as the post type)
I did... my brain apparently died when I started typing however. Seems to do that often...
I figure a lot of people are going to say something along the lines of "to hell with this, we don't ALL need a logo", but IMHO it's just a cool little thing that could easily be embedded (or hidden) in things like logos or programs (being just a 9x9 matrix).
Though I think it would probably be best and easiest represented as pixels rather than circles on a grid.
It's interesting looking at the recording industry facing a shift in thinking like this... An industry previously surviving on information limited by the media that it was carried on, but now easily exploitable by cheap CD copiers. One wonders, as software (NB: open source would create the digital paradigm for this information) and other goods become digital and of which it is simple to access an unlimited supply, whether and/or how our economy, which is largely based on the sale of individual items, will adapt.
Don't look at me for an answer though, I just like to muse on these things. ;^)
You... don't work at the same place I work, do you? :^D
Didn't want to mention it was for Compaq, but meh. And I'm not sure about whether Compaq included it or not, I've seen it on a LOT of pre-merger models...
This is how I understand it:
Copyright law says that I, as creator of my work, can control how it is used and by whom.
Licences give me the power to selectively allow freedoms to be given out.
The Microsoft EULA is an example of such a licence, in which paying the licence fee for a Microsoft product allows limited usage of the product as per the terms of the licence. That's what one pays for when they get the product, the right to use it under the terms of the accompanying licence.
The General Public Licence allows one as a Copyright owner to selectively give rights to users to use the product as long as they accept the licence. Said licence tells them that any derivative works must also be licenced under the GPL.
So what am I missing here? Is SCO saying that licences shouldn't exist? Are they saying that Copyright law is wrong? Have they just simply gone out of their minds? Because the licensing business model has existed in the software industry for ages.
The idea behind the GPL is nothing new, it's just intended to guarantee freedom rather than restrict it. It's another type of licence, and it's certainly as valid as something any other software vendor would choose to put on their products.
Do you really think that Microsoft (or for that matter, the Linux community) should be responsible for badly programmed software that *other developers* run on their operating system? I mean, if the law went with your definition, the operating system vendor would also be responsible for viruses, popups, dialers, and any other things that the user did not expect before they were subjected to them.
Let's be reasonable here, sue Gator for Gator, not Microsoft.
And the fun part is, if you (or the user) uncheck the New.Net software in MSCONFIG, it doesn't just stop New.Net from working... They simply stop being able to use the internet. At all. So then we have to pray that their version of New.Net has a working uninstaller, or we have to go through a huge manual uninstall that involves removing multiple registry keys. BTW, if anyone here gets this or other spyware that is difficult to remove, try using a program called HijackThis and "Fix" anything that looks out of the ordinary (use common sense... don't delete everything).
We all live in... no, I know, it's redundant. No, I'll see myself out...
Another great background for that monitor that can do 30000x40000.
I didn't know that my old laptop with a decent hard drive and a wireless router was worth $2800!
Exactly why isn't it reasonable for them to sue for the money that their contract says they should receive? And where in the article does it mention patents at all?
If there are patents involved here somewhere, then fine, but if there aren't, I wonder whether the Slashdot editors actually took the time to do some research on this matter before making some off the cuff remark about patents simply because it makes more people want to reply angrily.
It doesn't help much if we start calling EVERYTHING a patent issue.
It's interesting how all these issues coming up nowadays seem to correlate to one another. SCO vs. FSF / IBM, RIAA vs. P2P, Verisign vs... ummm... everyone. Is the internet really going to eventually come to a war between the business world and the rest of us like Mr. Scalvos has said? Irunno. I used to figure that things would keep working themselves out, but businesses seem to see the internet strictly as a way to shuck their wares (no pun intended) at us, and that it should be made to work strictly for that purpose, because as we all know, everything that a corporation does is OBVIOUSLY the best way of going about things. Consumerism = idiocy.
Admittedly, but such classification would also allow us to see when an account started sending messages. Hence, we could block messages from accounts that have, say, never sent a message before yours. Might make Hotmail a little annoyed, but meh. ;^)
Here's an idea. Instead of blacklisting domains that spammers use (because we all know that they have effectively an infinite supply) or going to extreme lengths such as paying for each email sent, why don't we make it so that emails may be classified based on the volume of mail they send, and such classification be mandatory? Hence, we could block certain accounts that were sending, say, more than 10,000 emails per day. If, for example, there were a digital certificate in each email that added one to a remote counter for that email operated by an independant entity, and our emails were configured to only accept emails sent with such a certificate, I think it would be a feasible idea (except perhaps for the bandwidth costs involved in keeping track of said counters, but I don't have the answers to everything).
I run DOS games on my 233 dual booting Win98 because XP has little to no backward compatibility. But the 233 owns for running Epic Pinball anyway ;^)