The tone of your response implies that you're in favor of the path that has been taken thus far. Speaks volumes about your opinion in my book.
I tend to agree with the GP. At this stage of the game, I would have hoped we wouldn't still be dealing with incompatible document formats. And I *certainly* don't want or expect to see us end up with a technological dictatorship.
The information age is still very young -- barely out of diapers. In the long run, most common data formats should -- no,/need/ -- to be open and free if we expect the future of information technology and communications to be equitable to all and not just another control vector applied to the human race. Obviously, as communications technology continues to grow, so will its importance in our daily lives. I just can't imagine a future (at least not one in which there is widespread intellectual growth) in which the basic data formats used for communications and archiving are owned and controlled, let alone by a single company. That would be like a company owning and controlling growth of a common spoken language.
Personally, I think it is time to dump the GPL, and fucking compete!
Ah, but the GPL is one of the components *used* to "compete." Until you understand what that means, you'll continue to be confused and frustrated by the OSS community.
Hehe, excellent response! I was thinking somewhat along the same lines, but I couldn't have said it better.
It seems that those who use such outlandish sigs don't realize that the sig alone will often negate the value of their opinion in the eyes many, if not most, readers.
If there is a Linux release that will run a GUI acceptably and do anything useful of old machines without much memory, I've never encountered it. My feeling is that to get anything like Windows 95 performance and capability out of linux you probably need a MINIMUM of 64mb of memory (and more than 500mb of disk storage probably). And that might be optimistic.
Heh, many of us were getting better functionality (GUI and otherwise) with Linux in 1995 (before Windows 95 was released) than was ever possible with Windows 95! Much depends on your needs and willingness to learn something new. So don't assume your experiences and opinions are absolute truths.:)
Over the past 6 years or so, I've used Cinelerra (and its predecessor, Broadcast 2000) to create around a dozen videos, mostly consisting of pan/zoom stills (up to 800 in a single video) with fade transitions and multiple sound tracks. Final product runtimes have ranged from 15 minutes to 2 hours. I know what you're talking about regarding the stability, but I've had few problems in that area with the community version. I've built it several times over the last year or so (mostly on Kubuntu, but previously on Mandriva also) with no build problems and only the occasional runtime crash.
I've mixed captured video with stills, using around 100 video tracks and 4 audio tracks, applying various video effects, with little difficulty. The various keyframe controls (fades, camera, projector, effects, etc.) take a little getting used to, and until recently, the documentation was quite lacking. But the documentation seems to have improved significantly over the past year, and once you get the feel for the controls, they seem easy enough to work with for me.
I've found the render farm capability easy to work with and a real time-saver (using the 4 PCs in our house).
I'm not a professional video editor, just an enthusiast/hobbiest, so I don't have any comparison experience with other, proprietary apps. But I do know that it works fine for me, and I appreciate the fact that it works with an XML EDL file format, which has allowed me to write a few scripts to pre-build project files to save myself many hours of otherwise manual layout.
I hope this small bit of information encourages you to try the community version. And I hope you experience the same results as I. As I said, I have no comparative experience with other apps, but for me, Cinelerra works great.
A point that is often overlooked in copyright discussions is that copyright was never intended to be forever. When originally enacted in the United States, the founding fathers decided that, in a free society, *all* information should be, by default, in the public domain. But they thought it would help spur advancements and innovation by giving the creator a *limited time* monopoly on the copying of their works in order for them to profit from their efforts.
The problem is that, in the last century, Congress has bowed to the will of the corporations and repeatedly extended the copyright lifespan to the point where it is effectively forever. This goes very much against the original intent. The whole point of copyright was supposed to be the advancement of the sciences and the arts, not to be an eternal free ride for Disney and other corporations. It was never intended that anyone would control the copying and distribution of their works forever.
If copyright was rolled back to, say, 20 years with an optional one-time renewal, I think the number of people complaining about copyrights would drop significantly. The balance between what's good for the creator and what's good for society is in need of a serious rebalancing.
By all evidence, a large segment of society would prefer copyright modifications, possibly back to something similar to the original rules (i.e., reasonable time limits), with serious amendments for digital information. And I'm guessing another large segment is relatively indifferent and/or ignorant on the subject. I don't know how you can claim to know what society (i.e., the citizens) as a whole would prefer.
Don't confuse the wishes of society with the decisions made by our elected leaders. They're not always the same.
Exactly! Thanks for spelling out the scenario, Karl.
In a sense, copyright is to software (and books, music, video, etc.) as patents are to hardware: They cover a specific creation or implementation of a concept. The implementation is protected, not the general concept. In the case of software patents, it seems the general concept, whether or not there exists an actual implementation, is protected -- to the detriment of the industry as a whole.
Nice try to paint me as some sort of IP anarchist, but wrong. There is a vast difference between copyrights and patents, and, in my opinion (and that of many others), patents have no place in software. Most knowledgable people agree that currently there is practically no way to write software without infringing on someone's patent, either knowingly or unknowingly. That should be a red flag that the current system is screwed up in a major way.
Unfortunately, I don't know that things will change for the better until we have enough ongoing lawsuits over mostly trivial software patents to bring software advancements and competition to a crawl. After all, it seems relatively clear that software patents are more about milking and/or killing the competition than about spurring competition. And personally, I'd prefer to see the technologists win rather than the lawyers. Sounds like maybe you prefer the opposite?
The best move would be for users to ditch distributions that do not provide patent indemnification or to seek out third-party indemnification. If anything, Novell ought to be cheering Ballmer for steering more people in their direction.
I think the best move would be for people to revolt against the silly software patent insanity and refuse to play that game. The sooner we bring the software patent stew to a boil, the sooner we can move towards a balanced and healthy legal system in which to grow new technologies.
Hehe, you seem to be having difficulty with this relatively simple concept, so I'll not bother with anything beyond this: "What matters" depends on the situation. It's not always "what works best for your companies." You have a habit of talking in absolutes that don't apply "absolutely". That's what I was emphasizing in my first response and what you apparently totally missed, based on your second response. So use Windows if that's what makes you happy. But be careful in your attempts to extrapolate your views to the larger world.
... but really if you know what your doing you soon relise Microsoft is WAY better than other OS's (Based on what you want to use it for)
Wow! That's so insightful! With that conditional, you could replace "Microsoft" with any OS and still be correct!;)
I think I'll stick with what gives me the most flexibility, easiest installation of the tools I want, guaranteed free updates, access to the source code, has been relatively easily secured more or less since inception, and all at the lowest initial cost. That's what works best for me and that's what I support for family and friends (a group that keeps growing as people become more and more frustrated with MS Windows). You may not agree with these points *from your perspective* but that's my experience and thus my opinion.
But I fully support your right to choose the system you want.
Supporting Microsoft in the office arena is supporting closed data formats. That's what the discussion really boils down to. Microsoft certainly has the right to make offers to schools, but I think everyone not directly employed by Microsoft should be able to see the value in supporting tools that use open standards communication formats. Arguing otherwise is equivalent to saying that it would be perfectly acceptable if all telephone manufacturers implemented their own closed communication protocols so that only phones of the same company could communicate with one another. I think most people would disagree with that suggestion.
It's the 21st century! I would have thought we'd be over these proprietary data format growing pains of the "information age" by now!
Yes, isn't it just terrible when people put restrictions on how you can use the fruits of their labors? I'm glad to hear that you're in favor of free, no-strings-attached labor. So when would be a good time for you to come over and paint my house?
I agree. Our development group has moved our design documentation, build guide, users guide, and test cases from MS Word to LaTeX during the past year, using CVS to version control our documentation right alongside our source code. Having 8 developers simultaneously working to create a 400-page document in a couple of months---well, let's just say I would rather not attempt that in Word.
At the beginning of our Word-to-LaTeX conversion, only one developer had indepth experience with LaTeX and a couple of others had a little experience in school several years ago. The team was pretty-much up to speed with LaTeX within a week or so. Upon completing the conversion, everyone approved of the method and the results (inlcuding management).
Dude! You're making it way too hard! I only install viruses packaged by my distro using apt-get. That way it automatically downloads and installs all of the required libraries, launches itself, and proceeds to delete all of the automatically downloaded and installed libraries, followed by deleting itself. Very convenient!
Ok, come on.. Do we really have to put.. "AND IT ALL RUNS ON LINUX" on every freaking article?
No, we don't. And I don't see it on every article. My response was just to let you know how you were coming across. Nothing more.
I won't say "take care", as you apparently like to mock kindness and sincerity... Maybe it is something that exists outside your realm of reality.
I think your shields are set a little too high. I quoted your "take care" because that is a common closure that I also use. And as with you, I do intend it to mean "hope things go well in your life." Sorry if that was misunderstood. Please don't stop using the phrase if you mean it. There's way too much ill feeling in the world as it is. We need as many "positive vibes" as we can get!:)
The deal is, your over-the-top response makes you sound no less foolish and insecure than the author of the article summary. I could be wrong (been known to happen), but I'm guessing there are practically zero knowledgeable Slashdot readers that would buy into the idea that a data compression algorithm can only be coded to run on a single OS. That you felt compelled to point out the relatively obvious in such a heavy-handed manner gives the impression that you have are just as much anti-Linux as the summary author is pro-Linux.
The above may or may not be true, but that's certainly the impression I was given. Just some food for thought.
Yeah, I agree with you regarding most of the home consumers. But I think Microsoft has to be more concerned with their "partner" companies and third-party developers that support the Microsoft line. These groups are where the Microsoft future lies. Present income relies on the end user. Future income relies on third-party developers, companies, and governments. If this "future income" group sees Microsoft's tactics as overly anti-competetive. They would end up losing much more than they could hope to gain by attacking Linux in non-technical ways.
I just think it's sad when companies have to resort to legal tactics because they don't have the way or will to compete on technical abilities. Most of us realize that software patents have little to do with technical prowess and everything to do with controlling pieces of the market.
Wow, I see all these posts saying how easy it will be for Microsoft to bring down Linux by suing for patent violations. Well, on paper that may look all so easy, but I really don't see it as a realistic scenario. Microsoft would make way too many enemies by such a move. If you think people hate MS now, suing Linux companies and users would most likely quadruple the quantity and quality of the hate.:) It sure did wonders for SCO's reputation, didn't it? And some of those old and new enemies have their own patent portfolios that MS is undoubtedly infringing upon in many cases.
I really don't think Microsoft is reckless or scared enough to start such a process. Obviously I could be wrong, but I just don't see it happening.
Shortly after MS hits Linux with patent infringement lawsuits, IBM and others who are now basing large portions of their business on Linux will respond with patent infringement lawsuits against MS. The ole Mutual Assured Destruction aspect of our current out-of-control software patent scenario.
Practically no software on the market today can claim to be 100% clean of patent infringements because software patents have been handed out like candy for the most trivial and obvious of things. The best thing that could happen would be for our governments to come to their senses, actually listen to what the developer community is saying, and realize that software patents are ridiculous and will either be totally unenforcable or lead to the total stagnation of true innovation.
infringement. You photocopy a page out of a book, we cut off your pinky finger! You put a copy of the page on the Internet, we cut off your hand!
After all, whether it's a song or a page out of a book or magazine, it's the same thing with respect to copyright law. What holds for one should hold for the other. We can talk fair use, but that's a gray area. Under some interpretations, placing a song on your computer in a directory that happens to be publicly available via the Internet is fair use.
Are all of the supporters of this new law still feeling so smug about their position? Hmm?
Slashdot Mirror
The tone of your response implies that you're in favor of the path that has been taken thus far. Speaks volumes about your opinion in my book.
I tend to agree with the GP. At this stage of the game, I would have hoped we wouldn't still be dealing with incompatible document formats. And I *certainly* don't want or expect to see us end up with a technological dictatorship.
The information age is still very young -- barely out of diapers. In the long run, most common data formats should -- no, /need/ -- to be open and free if we expect the future of information technology and communications to be equitable to all and not just another control vector applied to the human race. Obviously, as communications technology continues to grow, so will its importance in our daily lives. I just can't imagine a future (at least not one in which there is widespread intellectual growth) in which the basic data formats used for communications and archiving are owned and controlled, let alone by a single company. That would be like a company owning and controlling growth of a common spoken language.
Hehe, excellent response! I was thinking somewhat along the same lines, but I couldn't have said it better.
It seems that those who use such outlandish sigs don't realize that the sig alone will often negate the value of their opinion in the eyes many, if not most, readers.
Ah, Rico... Suave!
(Sorry, but I can't always ignore the voices in my head.)Over the past 6 years or so, I've used Cinelerra (and its predecessor, Broadcast 2000) to create around a dozen videos, mostly consisting of pan/zoom stills (up to 800 in a single video) with fade transitions and multiple sound tracks. Final product runtimes have ranged from 15 minutes to 2 hours. I know what you're talking about regarding the stability, but I've had few problems in that area with the community version. I've built it several times over the last year or so (mostly on Kubuntu, but previously on Mandriva also) with no build problems and only the occasional runtime crash.
I've mixed captured video with stills, using around 100 video tracks and 4 audio tracks, applying various video effects, with little difficulty. The various keyframe controls (fades, camera, projector, effects, etc.) take a little getting used to, and until recently, the documentation was quite lacking. But the documentation seems to have improved significantly over the past year, and once you get the feel for the controls, they seem easy enough to work with for me.
I've found the render farm capability easy to work with and a real time-saver (using the 4 PCs in our house).
I'm not a professional video editor, just an enthusiast/hobbiest, so I don't have any comparison experience with other, proprietary apps. But I do know that it works fine for me, and I appreciate the fact that it works with an XML EDL file format, which has allowed me to write a few scripts to pre-build project files to save myself many hours of otherwise manual layout.
I hope this small bit of information encourages you to try the community version. And I hope you experience the same results as I. As I said, I have no comparative experience with other apps, but for me, Cinelerra works great.
A point that is often overlooked in copyright discussions is that copyright was never intended to be forever. When originally enacted in the United States, the founding fathers decided that, in a free society, *all* information should be, by default, in the public domain. But they thought it would help spur advancements and innovation by giving the creator a *limited time* monopoly on the copying of their works in order for them to profit from their efforts.
The problem is that, in the last century, Congress has bowed to the will of the corporations and repeatedly extended the copyright lifespan to the point where it is effectively forever. This goes very much against the original intent. The whole point of copyright was supposed to be the advancement of the sciences and the arts, not to be an eternal free ride for Disney and other corporations. It was never intended that anyone would control the copying and distribution of their works forever.
If copyright was rolled back to, say, 20 years with an optional one-time renewal, I think the number of people complaining about copyrights would drop significantly. The balance between what's good for the creator and what's good for society is in need of a serious rebalancing.
By all evidence, a large segment of society would prefer copyright modifications, possibly back to something similar to the original rules (i.e., reasonable time limits), with serious amendments for digital information. And I'm guessing another large segment is relatively indifferent and/or ignorant on the subject. I don't know how you can claim to know what society (i.e., the citizens) as a whole would prefer.
Don't confuse the wishes of society with the decisions made by our elected leaders. They're not always the same.
Exactly! Thanks for spelling out the scenario, Karl.
In a sense, copyright is to software (and books, music, video, etc.) as patents are to hardware: They cover a specific creation or implementation of a concept. The implementation is protected, not the general concept. In the case of software patents, it seems the general concept, whether or not there exists an actual implementation, is protected -- to the detriment of the industry as a whole.
Unfortunately, I don't know that things will change for the better until we have enough ongoing lawsuits over mostly trivial software patents to bring software advancements and competition to a crawl. After all, it seems relatively clear that software patents are more about milking and/or killing the competition than about spurring competition. And personally, I'd prefer to see the technologists win rather than the lawyers. Sounds like maybe you prefer the opposite?
Hehe, you seem to be having difficulty with this relatively simple concept, so I'll not bother with anything beyond this: "What matters" depends on the situation. It's not always "what works best for your companies." You have a habit of talking in absolutes that don't apply "absolutely". That's what I was emphasizing in my first response and what you apparently totally missed, based on your second response. So use Windows if that's what makes you happy. But be careful in your attempts to extrapolate your views to the larger world.
Wow! That's so insightful! With that conditional, you could replace "Microsoft" with any OS and still be correct! ;)
I think I'll stick with what gives me the most flexibility, easiest installation of the tools I want, guaranteed free updates, access to the source code, has been relatively easily secured more or less since inception, and all at the lowest initial cost. That's what works best for me and that's what I support for family and friends (a group that keeps growing as people become more and more frustrated with MS Windows). You may not agree with these points *from your perspective* but that's my experience and thus my opinion.
But I fully support your right to choose the system you want.
It's the 21st century! I would have thought we'd be over these proprietary data format growing pains of the "information age" by now!
Yes, isn't it just terrible when people put restrictions on how you can use the fruits of their labors? I'm glad to hear that you're in favor of free, no-strings-attached labor. So when would be a good time for you to come over and paint my house?
At the beginning of our Word-to-LaTeX conversion, only one developer had indepth experience with LaTeX and a couple of others had a little experience in school several years ago. The team was pretty-much up to speed with LaTeX within a week or so. Upon completing the conversion, everyone approved of the method and the results (inlcuding management).
Dude! You're making it way too hard! I only install viruses packaged by my distro using apt-get. That way it automatically downloads and installs all of the required libraries, launches itself, and proceeds to delete all of the automatically downloaded and installed libraries, followed by deleting itself. Very convenient!
The deal is, your over-the-top response makes you sound no less foolish and insecure than the author of the article summary. I could be wrong (been known to happen), but I'm guessing there are practically zero knowledgeable Slashdot readers that would buy into the idea that a data compression algorithm can only be coded to run on a single OS. That you felt compelled to point out the relatively obvious in such a heavy-handed manner gives the impression that you have are just as much anti-Linux as the summary author is pro-Linux.
The above may or may not be true, but that's certainly the impression I was given. Just some food for thought.
Take Care...
You too! :)
I just think it's sad when companies have to resort to legal tactics because they don't have the way or will to compete on technical abilities. Most of us realize that software patents have little to do with technical prowess and everything to do with controlling pieces of the market.
I really don't think Microsoft is reckless or scared enough to start such a process. Obviously I could be wrong, but I just don't see it happening.
Indeed you are correct. Good point.
Practically no software on the market today can claim to be 100% clean of patent infringements because software patents have been handed out like candy for the most trivial and obvious of things. The best thing that could happen would be for our governments to come to their senses, actually listen to what the developer community is saying, and realize that software patents are ridiculous and will either be totally unenforcable or lead to the total stagnation of true innovation.
And grow a sense of humor. It'll do you wonders! :)
After all, whether it's a song or a page out of a book or magazine, it's the same thing with respect to copyright law. What holds for one should hold for the other. We can talk fair use, but that's a gray area. Under some interpretations, placing a song on your computer in a directory that happens to be publicly available via the Internet is fair use.
Are all of the supporters of this new law still feeling so smug about their position? Hmm?