You morons will be left holding ancient patented and copyrighted dreck
Right, because the OLD storylines are the bad ones. Screw Shakespeare and Sophocles, no one would bother to copy that dreck! DOOM is teh awsome.
And that's where I think the idea of patenting story lines is most obviously absurd-- patents require novelty. There aren't any new stories. Show me a story line or a plot point, and I'll find you some prior art.
Maybe it's just me, but if I check to see how much I need to work in my regular job to make 65 cents, then it does not make any sense to invest more than a few minutes into a task like this, and it seems that it would take more than that to actually complete it.
Ah, but I think you miss the point. How much to you get paid for a couple minutes at your regular job? Add 65 cents to that, and that's how much you'll get paid at your normal job to slack off and surf Amazon.
This law doesn't matter to anyone with a brain. A TV card with an offending chip can be "repaired" by anyone determined enough. You'd have to integrate your crap into the DAC and MPEG-4 encoders of every device, then hope someone doesn't hack the controls out of the software, or that someone doesn't make an open source version, fully functional (and easily modified), on the premise of interoperability.
And what everyone needs to remember is that it doesn't need to be easy to get access to the audio/video, there just need to be people somewhere who can do it. Put all the DRM you want on something, and yes, it might keep Joe Sixpack from being able to distribute his version, but as long as Joe Uber-nerd is out there somewhere stripping the DRM, it'll end up on P2P. And then Joe Sixpack will download the DRM-free version because he's sick of not being able to play it on [insert obscure device here], or because he doesn't want to pay for it, or whatever. It'll spread, and finally be just as accessible as if the [RI|MP]AA had posted it on the internet themselves.
I think this is one instance where we should care about total usage (which is what I think they mean here). The real reason is that there's no pressure on web developers to code according to W3C standards (as opposed to Microsoft standards) unless their users are using non-Microsoft browsers. Likewise, Microsoft feels no pressure to make their browser compliant with W3C standards until web-developers demand it.
Therefore, if we want a free web where any browser can allow users to interact with any page properly, we, as customers, need to choose non-Microsoft browsers for our daily needs. The point isn't to run MS out of business, but to gain enough hits on major web sites to force Microsoft into standards-complaince.
I think the key is to be low-key about the donations. Mozilla has a little text-link at the bottom of the page. If they got in your face about it, and claimed that they really needed your donation or they wouldn't be able to survive, it'd run counter to the goal of appearing stable, reliable, and professional.
I don't foresee web developers dropping support for IE for as long as IE has a substantial install base. They'll start supporting Firefox in addition to IE.
However, this still might be bad news for Microsoft, and may lead to a drop in IE use anyhow. The reason is, if they're supporting Firefox, then they're more likely to be following real standards, and paying attention to their cross-browser incompatibility. This means fewer pages will be IE only, and pages developed for Firefox (and therefore more towards real standards) are very likely to work in any standards-compliant browser.
10% might be enough that poorly-written IE-only pages will be viewed as a problem. Once there's no penalty for using a non-IE browser, we may see more people switching.
Their absolutely right! No one is going to try to write anything creative anymore. In fact, I was right about to finish writing a book, but now that I found out someone might read something I wrote without paying, I'm just going to trash the whole thing.
So, now how do I get paid for writing this post? I don't? All right, that's it! ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
ok, dictionary boy. So if OSX has a 2% install base, and linux has 2.01%, than Linux has prevailed because there are more Linux computers? Quote whatever definitions you want, but that's not what you meant.
You meant it in the sense of winning out, defeating ones enemies, like Linux will take Apple's market share and run them out of business.
Well, I'm assuming that the hope is that support for encoding/decoding h264 will be put into hardware going forward (meaning it will find its way into low-end cards as well). I know encoding h264 is the longest, most processor intensive task I do with a computer these days, and a hardware solution that would drop any time off that task would be appreciated.
I think you're somewhat right. I am arguing with that underlying assumption. See my other post to this article.
I'm definitely not arguing against Linux at all. I'm just saying that the currently, cheap naked PCs don't have an extremely wide appeal.
In other words, if you think Linux will take over the world by being cheap, you're wrong. That's not to say that Linux can't have a good share of the market, or even that it can't take over the world, but the reason for it won't be because consumers are itching for crappy computers that don't work out-of-the-box.
Like I said, "It's worth a couple hundred more to get an decent machine, OS installed, with decent support." That goes for Linux, too. For most consumers, if they're confronted with buying:
A) a shoddy machine with no OS for $200
-or-
B) a decent-quality computer from a major vendor, installed with Linux, and with good support, for $500
which do you think they'd choose? It doesn't take a marketing genius.
The only problem for Linux here is that there aren't a lot of big vendors offering lots of pre-installed Linux machines with good support. Rather, there are a couple vendors offering a couple Linux models, and little support from 3rd parties.
So you see, my post is not intended to be a statement about the quality of Linux as an operating system, but just a statement about the market for poor-quality, unsupported computers without operating systems. If Linux is to succeed at capturing a large user-base, it by offering competitive features and quality at a competitive price-- but price isn't everything.
I can go out and buy a decent Naked PC... for two hundred dollars, slap Linux on it and have a boatload of applications. You can't do that with Apple (or Microsoft).
True, but most people don't want to get a naked pc, figure out how to download a Linux ISO, burn it to disc, and install it. Maybe cheap PCs pre-installed with Linux will have appeal, but right now, they aren't quite there yet. Well, first, I wouldn't buy one of those $200 PCs for most circumstances, because you tend to get what you pay for. I mean, they're fine, but in some cases they use poor-quality parts, prevent upgrades, or simply don't ship is a good configuration (not enough RAM, for example).
I'm not saying here that Linux is bad, but just that $200 naked PCs, at this point, are a bit of a market niche for cheap/poor geeks. For most people, the money saved isn't worth the aggravation. It's worth a couple hundred more to get an decent machine, OS installed, with decent support. Macs aren't unreasonably priced these days. They're actually well priced for the quality/features/support that you get, and I wouldn't assume that consumers will ignore that.
You're entitled to your opinion, and I can respect that you prefer Linux. I like Linux too, but Apple's making some great products these days, and if they keep it up, I'd think they'll continue to be successful.
Why must anything "prevail"? Why can't we live in a world with OSX, Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Haiku, Zeta, and anyone else who wants to join the party? Hell, let's even make room for Windows.
Yes, it's definitely good for everyone to have completely free (gratis&libre) software. The important thing, however, is free/open *standards* for file formats and communication protocols. In other words, we need to make sure that you and I can work together no matter what operating systems we're running, and then everyone will be able to choose whatever operating system we want.
In the end, we don't need a software monoculture. There's no need, and it causes problems. It stifles innovation, it's a security risk, and I repeat: there's no need.
Yeah! I'm sick of Sony with their underhanded business tactics and their lack of support for open formats! So screw the PS3, I'm going to buy an Xbox2 instead! Nope, no big, evil corporations are getting my money that way...
If the answer is because that's where his family is, then why put him with his family... when his family is also related to Darth Vader?
Yeah, I think I can buy that. Maybe it's a little bit of hiding in plain sight, but maybe not. Tatooine is in the outskirts, and the Empire rarely has any business there. Why would Vadar come back? To visit the half-brother he doesn't know, and seems to resent. If you grew up a slave in the boondocks someplace, and the only person there connected to you was a brother that you hated and perhaps were jealous of, would you go back to show off to him how you'd become a horribly disfigured freak? If you were an egomaniacal Sith Lord, would you want to go back home to reminisce about being a lowly slave?
I'm not saying I liked the movies, and I do think there was a lot of heavy-handedness by Lucas, but I can let that one pass.
Of course, it'd be a little nicer if they were more general about it, like, you know, supporting web standards in general so that any web browser that worked according to those standards would... work?
But it's not the final version anyway, so whatever.
I'm usually very understanding of people defending linux, unix, bsd... and in fact, I'm an avid NetBSD user myself. However, people who don't support open source software on Microsoft platforms are really just hurting themselves. For example, how can one argue against the "low quality of open sourced software" to a Windows user, who cannot try any open source software themselves? Mozilla Firefox has helped immensely in this regard, showing how open source software can truly trump proprietary software.
I know that you only meant to give one example, but I think true multi-platform solutions are key to the success of FOSS, and for a very important reason that you didn't mention: it opens a window for people to switch to whatever platform they choose. Let's face it, if all Windows users were using multi-platform FOSS exclusively, you could switch a whole lot of people over to any number of operating systems, and it would be a trivial occurrence.
Let's look at Massachusetts as a real-life example. This whole OpenDocument debate going on? It wouldn't be going on if not for OpenOffice running on Windows. Part of their rationale for switching over to OpenOffice is that it can run on a wider variety of platforms than Office 2003. No users are locked out for being unable to install OpenOffice, and Massachusetts can keep their old Win98 machines running the latest version of their preferred office suite.
To try to port everyone over to Linux (including the citizens) all at once would be an enormous undertaking, and they'd never attempt such a thing. If OpenOffice only ran on Linux, that's what they'd need to do in order to switch office suites. However, once all their machines are running OpenOffice, they can switch a machine here and there over to Linux, or maybe FreeBSD, or whatever-- and they won't need to worry about the ability to read office documents.
So really, multi-platform being so crucial to FOSS, I'm not surprised that a guy making Windows-only software would have trouble attracting developers. If he wants to develop the app for Windows and still attract developers, he should probably be using a methodology that allows/promotes porting to other platforms.
I was just about to make a big stink about the "cross-platform" issue. Now, I'm not one to complain about anyone writing any OSS that people are finding useful, but it seems to me that making your programs cross-platform is obviously the ideal. The whole "open" and "free" thing hopefully also extends to being able to run it on... whatever.
Of course, it's not always going to be the case. Start an open source application on Windows? Fine. There's no ground for anyone to complain. If it's good, people will use it and work on it, and if not, they won't. If it's really good, I hope some of the development ends up making it more platform independent, and eventually ported to whatever platform I'm using at the time. At least, being open source, it will happen if there's enough interest in it.
Shareholders own and manage the company, not employees. If employees dont like it they can leave.
...and the same PHB that came up with that line also whines that his employees don't seem to be "team players" and don't show an interest in the welfare of the company beyond their own job.
I would think she'd lose all claims to credibility by making statements like that. For one, she's making an ad hominem (although not against a singular person in this case) argument by arguing that the groups are wrong because they are (allegedly) supported by Microsoft. That argument falls apart, logically, because someone could offer a simple counter statement of "so, why does that make them wrong?"
This complaint would be more... moving?.... if that was all that she had said on the topic. She was at a hearing on the subject, and among other things, was asked about some complaints. Her response was that many of the groups who have complained had been funded by Microsoft.
Yes, I know, I'm still bound to run into shouts of "AD HOMINEM!!!" People just love to show off that they know the technical wordings for things. However, whether these groups are influenced by Microsoft goes to the heart of things. You see, any response that she comes up with as to why these objections are invalid/wrong, she must answer the question: well, why would they just make these things up then? What's the motivation of some group or another to claim that a file format is insufficient? Why would normal people go out of their way to spread lies and misinformation about something like a file format?
The answer being, they have a political agenda and economic incentive.
I'm assuming they (or at least Ms. Hamel) don't think things through all the time.
Yes, ok, so why does that make her wrong? AD HOMINEM!!!
Yes, I'm aware that many people are hoping that database-like file systems and such will remove the need for file management. I like spotlight, but I don't think it's to a point, yet, where I'm comfortable with the idea of just throwing your data wherever. For example, if I need to run a search for any documents opened today, I'm not sure I'll really get all my documents because Apple has a specific definition of a "document" that doesn't match up with mine. If I ask it to show me all files accessed today, I'll get a lot of crap that I'm certainly not looking for. So this is one place where it makes sense to have at least some sort of file structure sorting.
Additionally, I would say that there are times where I can simply click on the "Documents" icon or "Pictures" icon in the sidebar, and what I'm looking for is right there. Trying to figure out how to come up with the correct search parameters to find that same file, and then typing it in, would take longer.
To be completely honest, I'm not entirely convinced that searches will replace file structures. People are very spacial, and sometimes it's easier to think of these things in terms of "where it is". At the very least, we can think of these sorts of metaphorical "locations" as an extra piece of metadata that can make our documents easier to find. I like spotlight, and I really like smart folders. These innovations may make organization far less necessary, and perhaps your file structures don't need to be as rigorous as a result. However, I don't believe I've seen a system that can sufficiently serve as a replacement for traditional methods of file management, and I'm a bit skeptical about the possibility of such a thing happening in the near future.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, because the OLD storylines are the bad ones. Screw Shakespeare and Sophocles, no one would bother to copy that dreck! DOOM is teh awsome.
And that's where I think the idea of patenting story lines is most obviously absurd-- patents require novelty. There aren't any new stories. Show me a story line or a plot point, and I'll find you some prior art.
Ah, but I think you miss the point. How much to you get paid for a couple minutes at your regular job? Add 65 cents to that, and that's how much you'll get paid at your normal job to slack off and surf Amazon.
And what everyone needs to remember is that it doesn't need to be easy to get access to the audio/video, there just need to be people somewhere who can do it. Put all the DRM you want on something, and yes, it might keep Joe Sixpack from being able to distribute his version, but as long as Joe Uber-nerd is out there somewhere stripping the DRM, it'll end up on P2P. And then Joe Sixpack will download the DRM-free version because he's sick of not being able to play it on [insert obscure device here], or because he doesn't want to pay for it, or whatever. It'll spread, and finally be just as accessible as if the [RI|MP]AA had posted it on the internet themselves.
And she's right to blame the website. Professional web developers should know better than to code IE-only sites.
I don't understand. Why isn't it possible that the US just happens to be taking Firefox up more quickly?
Therefore, if we want a free web where any browser can allow users to interact with any page properly, we, as customers, need to choose non-Microsoft browsers for our daily needs. The point isn't to run MS out of business, but to gain enough hits on major web sites to force Microsoft into standards-complaince.
But indeed, they take donations.
However, this still might be bad news for Microsoft, and may lead to a drop in IE use anyhow. The reason is, if they're supporting Firefox, then they're more likely to be following real standards, and paying attention to their cross-browser incompatibility. This means fewer pages will be IE only, and pages developed for Firefox (and therefore more towards real standards) are very likely to work in any standards-compliant browser.
10% might be enough that poorly-written IE-only pages will be viewed as a problem. Once there's no penalty for using a non-IE browser, we may see more people switching.
So, now how do I get paid for writing this post? I don't? All right, that's it! ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
You meant it in the sense of winning out, defeating ones enemies, like Linux will take Apple's market share and run them out of business.
Well, I'm assuming that the hope is that support for encoding/decoding h264 will be put into hardware going forward (meaning it will find its way into low-end cards as well). I know encoding h264 is the longest, most processor intensive task I do with a computer these days, and a hardware solution that would drop any time off that task would be appreciated.
Should read: Yes, it's definitely good for everyone to have completely access to free (gratis&libre) software.
I'm definitely not arguing against Linux at all. I'm just saying that the currently, cheap naked PCs don't have an extremely wide appeal.
In other words, if you think Linux will take over the world by being cheap, you're wrong. That's not to say that Linux can't have a good share of the market, or even that it can't take over the world, but the reason for it won't be because consumers are itching for crappy computers that don't work out-of-the-box.
Like I said, "It's worth a couple hundred more to get an decent machine, OS installed, with decent support." That goes for Linux, too. For most consumers, if they're confronted with buying:
which do you think they'd choose? It doesn't take a marketing genius.The only problem for Linux here is that there aren't a lot of big vendors offering lots of pre-installed Linux machines with good support. Rather, there are a couple vendors offering a couple Linux models, and little support from 3rd parties.
So you see, my post is not intended to be a statement about the quality of Linux as an operating system, but just a statement about the market for poor-quality, unsupported computers without operating systems. If Linux is to succeed at capturing a large user-base, it by offering competitive features and quality at a competitive price-- but price isn't everything.
True, but most people don't want to get a naked pc, figure out how to download a Linux ISO, burn it to disc, and install it. Maybe cheap PCs pre-installed with Linux will have appeal, but right now, they aren't quite there yet. Well, first, I wouldn't buy one of those $200 PCs for most circumstances, because you tend to get what you pay for. I mean, they're fine, but in some cases they use poor-quality parts, prevent upgrades, or simply don't ship is a good configuration (not enough RAM, for example).
I'm not saying here that Linux is bad, but just that $200 naked PCs, at this point, are a bit of a market niche for cheap/poor geeks. For most people, the money saved isn't worth the aggravation. It's worth a couple hundred more to get an decent machine, OS installed, with decent support. Macs aren't unreasonably priced these days. They're actually well priced for the quality/features/support that you get, and I wouldn't assume that consumers will ignore that.
You're entitled to your opinion, and I can respect that you prefer Linux. I like Linux too, but Apple's making some great products these days, and if they keep it up, I'd think they'll continue to be successful.
Yes, it's definitely good for everyone to have completely free (gratis&libre) software. The important thing, however, is free/open *standards* for file formats and communication protocols. In other words, we need to make sure that you and I can work together no matter what operating systems we're running, and then everyone will be able to choose whatever operating system we want.
In the end, we don't need a software monoculture. There's no need, and it causes problems. It stifles innovation, it's a security risk, and I repeat: there's no need.
Yeah! I'm sick of Sony with their underhanded business tactics and their lack of support for open formats! So screw the PS3, I'm going to buy an Xbox2 instead! Nope, no big, evil corporations are getting my money that way...
Yeah, I think I can buy that. Maybe it's a little bit of hiding in plain sight, but maybe not. Tatooine is in the outskirts, and the Empire rarely has any business there. Why would Vadar come back? To visit the half-brother he doesn't know, and seems to resent. If you grew up a slave in the boondocks someplace, and the only person there connected to you was a brother that you hated and perhaps were jealous of, would you go back to show off to him how you'd become a horribly disfigured freak? If you were an egomaniacal Sith Lord, would you want to go back home to reminisce about being a lowly slave?
I'm not saying I liked the movies, and I do think there was a lot of heavy-handedness by Lucas, but I can let that one pass.
Yeah, that's nice...
Of course, it'd be a little nicer if they were more general about it, like, you know, supporting web standards in general so that any web browser that worked according to those standards would... work?
But it's not the final version anyway, so whatever.
I know that you only meant to give one example, but I think true multi-platform solutions are key to the success of FOSS, and for a very important reason that you didn't mention: it opens a window for people to switch to whatever platform they choose. Let's face it, if all Windows users were using multi-platform FOSS exclusively, you could switch a whole lot of people over to any number of operating systems, and it would be a trivial occurrence.
Let's look at Massachusetts as a real-life example. This whole OpenDocument debate going on? It wouldn't be going on if not for OpenOffice running on Windows. Part of their rationale for switching over to OpenOffice is that it can run on a wider variety of platforms than Office 2003. No users are locked out for being unable to install OpenOffice, and Massachusetts can keep their old Win98 machines running the latest version of their preferred office suite.
To try to port everyone over to Linux (including the citizens) all at once would be an enormous undertaking, and they'd never attempt such a thing. If OpenOffice only ran on Linux, that's what they'd need to do in order to switch office suites. However, once all their machines are running OpenOffice, they can switch a machine here and there over to Linux, or maybe FreeBSD, or whatever-- and they won't need to worry about the ability to read office documents.
So really, multi-platform being so crucial to FOSS, I'm not surprised that a guy making Windows-only software would have trouble attracting developers. If he wants to develop the app for Windows and still attract developers, he should probably be using a methodology that allows/promotes porting to other platforms.
Of course, it's not always going to be the case. Start an open source application on Windows? Fine. There's no ground for anyone to complain. If it's good, people will use it and work on it, and if not, they won't. If it's really good, I hope some of the development ends up making it more platform independent, and eventually ported to whatever platform I'm using at the time. At least, being open source, it will happen if there's enough interest in it.
...and the same PHB that came up with that line also whines that his employees don't seem to be "team players" and don't show an interest in the welfare of the company beyond their own job.
This complaint would be more... moving?.... if that was all that she had said on the topic. She was at a hearing on the subject, and among other things, was asked about some complaints. Her response was that many of the groups who have complained had been funded by Microsoft.
Yes, I know, I'm still bound to run into shouts of "AD HOMINEM!!!" People just love to show off that they know the technical wordings for things. However, whether these groups are influenced by Microsoft goes to the heart of things. You see, any response that she comes up with as to why these objections are invalid/wrong, she must answer the question: well, why would they just make these things up then? What's the motivation of some group or another to claim that a file format is insufficient? Why would normal people go out of their way to spread lies and misinformation about something like a file format?
The answer being, they have a political agenda and economic incentive.
I'm assuming they (or at least Ms. Hamel) don't think things through all the time.
Yes, ok, so why does that make her wrong? AD HOMINEM!!!
At least, being open source, you won't be without recourse. Can the same be said of Microsoft's new Word formats?
I'd work more towards .pdf in the near-term and see how these openDoc formats shake out.
PDF is fine, but not so great if you want anyone to be able to edit it down the road.
Additionally, I would say that there are times where I can simply click on the "Documents" icon or "Pictures" icon in the sidebar, and what I'm looking for is right there. Trying to figure out how to come up with the correct search parameters to find that same file, and then typing it in, would take longer.
To be completely honest, I'm not entirely convinced that searches will replace file structures. People are very spacial, and sometimes it's easier to think of these things in terms of "where it is". At the very least, we can think of these sorts of metaphorical "locations" as an extra piece of metadata that can make our documents easier to find. I like spotlight, and I really like smart folders. These innovations may make organization far less necessary, and perhaps your file structures don't need to be as rigorous as a result. However, I don't believe I've seen a system that can sufficiently serve as a replacement for traditional methods of file management, and I'm a bit skeptical about the possibility of such a thing happening in the near future.