My whole take on Linux/OSS is that people have a basic right to have a decent operating system and office suite (i.e: productivity software) without paying thousands of dollars for them.
Umm... why is it a basic right? Are people going to die (or even suffer for that matter) if they don't have a free operating system and office suite? This is about as stupid as saying that you believe it should be a basic right that everyone should have an automobile without paying thousands of dollars for them (which in my oppinion would actually be much more useful to people that software).
This gets down to the basic disagreement I have been seeing in these posts: Why does paying money for something violate your rights?
Sounds like a good theory. I just don't think that having drive and determination are necessarily a bad thing. Maybe some people only find fulfilment out of success. What good are you to humanity if you are more interested in your own happiness than in being successful (Which benefits everyone).
In this regard, unpaid OSS developers are just as useful as paid developers (success doesn't have to involve money).
My arguement is that there is nothing wrong with making some money off of my hard work. I personally don't get much of a thrill from developing software, and wouldn't do it if there wasn't a pay check. I'd find something else that was useful to humanity that I could get paid to do. I work too hard to be poor.
we make enough and enjoy what we do which is better than being loaded with cash and miserable.
Explain why being "loaded with cash" and being "miserable" are tied to each other. Selling a product isn't evil. I'd much rather enjoy what I do, and be loaded with cash. If you enjoy writing software, why does it become miserable to sell it?
You are exactally the kind of person he wrote the letter to.
Unlike some assholes, I'm quite happy helping people improve their lives without demanding something in return. Gee, imagine that.
Yeah it is hard to imagine. He made a really good case in his letter for why doing exactally what you are doing is self-defeating.
What kind of "asshole" works for free?
A stupid one.
Writing free software doesn't help people improve their lives. It helps big corporations turn a profit. How does having free software help any one live a happier life? There is very little that some one needs a computer for outside of working. So, in effect, what you are doing is working for free so that other people can use your software to make some money for themselves.
Good for you. You are making a difference! You are a hero!
By the way, I use free software, so thanks for your hard work. I appreciate it, because it lets me play with cool toys for free. It doesn't make my life any better though, just cheaper.
Reagan was a steaming pile of crap. Putting him on a coin would be a disgrace to the entire nation (much like making him president in the first place). The only U.S. president in recent history as bad as Reagan is the current one.
If you want a third republican president for the coin why not Nixon? Now he was a republican president! At least with him, we knew he was a cold calculating liar, which makes a much better president than the mentally retarded (Reagan, Bush Jr.).
Ok, everyone is mentioning the great games for the GC which there are many, but how could you all miss Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? I personally couldn't be happier by the resurgence of TMNT popularity. The TMNT game for the GC is simply awsome. Some how they were able to adapt the feel of the old style 2D side scrollers (like TMNT2 for the NES, or Streets of Rage for the Sega Genesis), to 3D, and it transitions very well. The graphics are done so well that it looks just like a cartoon.
Bottom line though, GC has an excellent selection of games that cant be found elsewhere (although, I haven't checked, so TMNT may be on other consoles).
Why should the manufatures care about how many consoles they sell to pirates? Most of them are taking a loss on the console with the hope of making a profit on the software. Just because XBox is outselling GC doesn't mean that it make MS the winner. MS is losing money through the nose on XBox, and Nintendo is turning a profit on GC. Who is the real winner?
I couldn't agree more. The only reason I held out on buying a GC for so long was because I was tempted to get a PS2 for GranTurismo3. Zelda: Wind Waker came out, and so made my choice a whole lot easier. I still wish I could play GT3 though (I can't see any other reason to own a PS2). If PS2 drops to $99, I may buy it just for GT3.
That is a good point, but in the case of the GameCube, the handful of games there really are that good. Nintendo's first party games are top notch. They should be first and foremost a software company, because their games would get played anywhere.
You note that you have yet to pick up a GameCube, because you consider it a creative rut to be making frachise games.
After having actually played these games, I couldn't disagree more. It doesn't seem to be mentioned much here, but Zelda: Wind Waker isn't just the best Zelda game ever, it is simply one of the most inovative and entertaining games I have ever played on any system (including the PC). It isn't just a sequel, it is an amazingly well done, inventive game that happens to have a story line that is tied to previous games (very well I might add).
Doing franchise games doesn't have to mean that they have to be rehashes of previous games. It just means that the story and the characters are familiar.
I never picked up a PS2 (or PS for that matter), or XBox, because of the fact that their games rarely seemed to have the kind of engaging atmosphere found in Nintendo games. The types of games that are great on these consoles are the same types of games that are great on the PC (which is where I play them). A noteable exception is the GranTurismo series (which should be on the PC).
Slashdot Mirror
Umm... why is it a basic right? Are people going to die (or even suffer for that matter) if they don't have a free operating system and office suite? This is about as stupid as saying that you believe it should be a basic right that everyone should have an automobile without paying thousands of dollars for them (which in my oppinion would actually be much more useful to people that software).
This gets down to the basic disagreement I have been seeing in these posts: Why does paying money for something violate your rights?
Sounds like a good theory. I just don't think that having drive and determination are necessarily a bad thing. Maybe some people only find fulfilment out of success. What good are you to humanity if you are more interested in your own happiness than in being successful (Which benefits everyone).
In this regard, unpaid OSS developers are just as useful as paid developers (success doesn't have to involve money).
My arguement is that there is nothing wrong with making some money off of my hard work. I personally don't get much of a thrill from developing software, and wouldn't do it if there wasn't a pay check. I'd find something else that was useful to humanity that I could get paid to do. I work too hard to be poor.
And as a major, publicly traded corporation doing anything but that would be insanely stupid and irrational.
Why is ok to pay money for a physical product, but not an intellectual one? Or would you suggest that we not pay for anything?
Explain why being "loaded with cash" and being "miserable" are tied to each other. Selling a product isn't evil. I'd much rather enjoy what I do, and be loaded with cash. If you enjoy writing software, why does it become miserable to sell it?
What kind of "asshole" works for free?
A stupid one.
Writing free software doesn't help people improve their lives. It helps big corporations turn a profit. How does having free software help any one live a happier life? There is very little that some one needs a computer for outside of working. So, in effect, what you are doing is working for free so that other people can use your software to make some money for themselves.
Good for you. You are making a difference! You are a hero!
By the way, I use free software, so thanks for your hard work. I appreciate it, because it lets me play with cool toys for free. It doesn't make my life any better though, just cheaper.
Washington and Lincoln were great presidents.
Reagan was a steaming pile of crap. Putting him on a coin would be a disgrace to the entire nation (much like making him president in the first place). The only U.S. president in recent history as bad as Reagan is the current one.
If you want a third republican president for the coin why not Nixon? Now he was a republican president! At least with him, we knew he was a cold calculating liar, which makes a much better president than the mentally retarded (Reagan, Bush Jr.).
Ok, everyone is mentioning the great games for the GC which there are many, but how could you all miss Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? I personally couldn't be happier by the resurgence of TMNT popularity. The TMNT game for the GC is simply awsome. Some how they were able to adapt the feel of the old style 2D side scrollers (like TMNT2 for the NES, or Streets of Rage for the Sega Genesis), to 3D, and it transitions very well. The graphics are done so well that it looks just like a cartoon.
Bottom line though, GC has an excellent selection of games that cant be found elsewhere (although, I haven't checked, so TMNT may be on other consoles).
Why should the manufatures care about how many consoles they sell to pirates? Most of them are taking a loss on the console with the hope of making a profit on the software. Just because XBox is outselling GC doesn't mean that it make MS the winner. MS is losing money through the nose on XBox, and Nintendo is turning a profit on GC. Who is the real winner?
I couldn't agree more. The only reason I held out on buying a GC for so long was because I was tempted to get a PS2 for GranTurismo3. Zelda: Wind Waker came out, and so made my choice a whole lot easier. I still wish I could play GT3 though (I can't see any other reason to own a PS2). If PS2 drops to $99, I may buy it just for GT3.
That is a good point, but in the case of the GameCube, the handful of games there really are that good. Nintendo's first party games are top notch. They should be first and foremost a software company, because their games would get played anywhere.
You note that you have yet to pick up a GameCube, because you consider it a creative rut to be making frachise games. After having actually played these games, I couldn't disagree more. It doesn't seem to be mentioned much here, but Zelda: Wind Waker isn't just the best Zelda game ever, it is simply one of the most inovative and entertaining games I have ever played on any system (including the PC). It isn't just a sequel, it is an amazingly well done, inventive game that happens to have a story line that is tied to previous games (very well I might add). Doing franchise games doesn't have to mean that they have to be rehashes of previous games. It just means that the story and the characters are familiar. I never picked up a PS2 (or PS for that matter), or XBox, because of the fact that their games rarely seemed to have the kind of engaging atmosphere found in Nintendo games. The types of games that are great on these consoles are the same types of games that are great on the PC (which is where I play them). A noteable exception is the GranTurismo series (which should be on the PC).