The person in the post above you listed the fair ways to get this done: first come, first served, lottery, and highest bidder - all of these can be audited.
A javascript game cannot be audited, as the results are dependent on network, lan, and workstation lag, or lack thereof and less dependent on actual user input. Because as ICANN should know, packet switched networks are not real-time and cannot possibly be real-time or fair in this case.
This, I believe, is a way to let ICANN's politically connected buddies get preferential treatment and to hide it under the "well, you just didn't click fast enough" excuse.
>If the company is not going to make a native application anyway, it's pointless to try to appease that company by making the rest of the system more to its liking
This sentence is self-contradictory because "wine, itself, is an effort to make Linux more appealing", but anyway...
1. It starts off assuming companies *won't* make native applications, when this is clearly not true because there are companies who do. Corel made Word Perfect for Linux for *years* and the only reason why they stopped was because Microsoft basically bought them.
Siemens UG/NX is native on Linux.
Etc.
2. If it's pointless, then why wine? Companies, like Google actively use Wine and Winelib to get applications cross-platform on Linux.
>It's very important to realize that most of "requests" that Linux developers are bombarded with, are fake,
No, they are uneducated requests, for the most part, and totally unrelated to the issue at hand, which is "how do we get companies to write native applications for Linux when the current companies are making closed source, while we point at them and tell them they're unethical?"
Your attitude in this entire message is "don't bother"
Well that is certainly defeatist, isn't it. With that attitude, nothing will change, ever.
Meanwhile I send fanmail to Dassault asking for Solidworks on Linux, because how else are they going to know there is a demand even if it's small? Want Solidworks on Linux? Tell them.
It works as well as you can expect. After a couple of full turns, the sample gets loose and you have to reheat it and reseat it. It's not a lab quality microtome, but then it costs only a few cents, maximum.
But for what it is, it works surprisingly well. You can use a jam nut behind the sample holding nut to better control the turn friction.
Freeze a sample in some solution of water and corn syrup such that it would be possible to section it like that.
Freezing tends to make cells burst open from ice crystals, doesn't it?
The medical/pharmaceutical industries undoubtedly require complex software, but the unavoidable animal testing at the end of the pipeline probably lifts its body count higher even than the defense industry's.
Animal testing has saved human lives for decades. People against animal testing say that we can use computer models to test drugs. Where, exactly, do they think the data for those computer models are going to come from? It doesn't magic itself into existence.
And that's not even mentioning that the computer models we have are woefully incomplete.
Animal testing is worthwhile science and saves millions of lives in the long run. To say this is unethical and should be stopped means the deaths of millions due to medicine that is never researched.
>My point quite clearly was that one should still point out unethical behaviour when its true, whether it makes friends or not.
Making closed source software, in itself is not unethical, and calling those who do, who do not go on and screw the user with DRM (again, a separate issue entirely) and other shenanigans is casting aspersions at those who write such software who actually do contribute to society. People have the right to write closed source software. Software is speech. Software is sometimes political speech, the most protected speech there is.
>when it's true
In the vast majority of cases it's not. It is simply closed source. Closed source, in itself, does not defraud anyone, steal anything from anyone, etc. And people who comprise the boards of companies and individual software authors who write closed source software listen to this nonsense and call it for what it is, nonsense.
It's like the argument from Closed Source trolls that "F/OSS is communism" in itself. I don't know about you, but I've become bloody tired of that BS.
"Hi, I see you write closed source software. You're unethical" "Fuck you. Shut up and go away."
"Hi. F/OSS is communism" "Fuck you. Shut up and go away."
Calling people who write closed source software unethical may feel good in the short term, but it loses the war for all of us who want F/OSS.
>Comparing this situation to the tobacco companies
>My point was only that your argument against ID was silly.
No, no it isn't. ID is Religion. Capital R. As Espoused by the Discovery Institute and Churches Across The Country (TM).
There is *nobody* promoting ID that is not a religious nutbag.
but neither is there any specific evidence that our planet was not the pet project of some alien life form a million years or so more advanced than us. It is unlikely, but certainly not impossible.
You seem to think that this is related to ID. You have not even looked at the Wikipedia page of what Intelligent Design is.
ID is not Panspermia hypothesis. It makes no claims about interstellar seeding of life. ID is not an Abiogenesis hypothesis, because it claims that below a certain level of complexity, "the intelligent designer did it." And this level of complexity is at the multicellular level for multicellular life.
ID is Religion. It is pushed by the Discovery Institute and its backers. From a religious point of view, it is heretical if you actually believe Genesis. From a scientific point of view is is pure nonsense.
I don't know how else to tell you this. I suggest you actually read about the Discovery Institute, the Dover School Board case, and other items in the news about the Discovery Institute.
>. If you are going to make an argument make it with logic and/or empirical observation or the results of experiments, not by claiming that some Important Person said something so it must be true.
Go read the judgement. It just reaffirms what everyone knows about ID, DI, Behe, and the rest of the scumbags pushing ID.
I'm not going to spoon feed you this. Google is --->over there.
I am certain the IDers are wrong and that there is no question about it, because ID is based upon Genesis when you get down to it, a Bronze Age creation tale, like the Mahabharata. Genesis is allegory, like the Mahabharata. It is not science and sane people do not pretend it is. If you had paid attention to the Dover PA school district trial, it is clearly religiosity pretending to be science.
That's the facts, guy. Anything else is bogus.
>claiming to be atheist
That has nothing to do with anything. The fact is that ID is religion and whether you are of any religion or not changes nothing.
I'm being pretty specific here. Mentioning Wine in one breath while mentioning DRM in the other breath as a danger because of natively ported applications seems to be a contradiction, no?
>Adobe will NEVER port Photoshop to Linux, so one of those possibilities does not exist.
But that's not relevant to what I asked him.
He claimed that native proprietary software on Linux leads to a slippery slope of DRM.
Then he mentioned running Windows software on Wine.
I don't see how Wine is better than native. I would have liked an answer from him, but oh well.
>I had no problems using VariCAD
Neither have I. It's pretty good for the price, considering Autocad LT is 600 smackers on any platform and it is purely 2D.
Oh yeah, DraftSight for 2D. Spectacular.
>In any case, DSS can have Solidworks port to Linux tomorrow if they decided to do so today -- there is nothing to stop them but their own capricious will.
This. I don't understand it.
>No, they would find some other excuse to insist on using Windows. They would demand that stupid Windows ball logo buttons or something.
I don't think it's as bad as you think.
A former employer has grown increasingly tired of Windows, Microsoft, etc., and years ago considered OpenOffice when it was 1.x. It's hard to bite the bullet when there aren't other reasons to move. Solidworks on Linux would be one of those reasons. They don't like Windows. It's viewed grudgingly as a necessity.
It's not even that. It has been found *in court* by a Reagan appointed judge, to be Religion, capital R and thus not science and thus cannot be endorsed by the government and thus not allowed in the science classroom with equal weight to actual science.
There are facts and then there are lies. ID is a lie. It is a mealy-mouthed reaction to real science, by those who are frightened that their faith could be shaken by truth.
ID is a lie from both the religion POV (IDers would have burned alive in the 15'th century as heretics) and invents entire circular, untestable arguments that say "here is where you stop investigating, because you cannot reduce the structure any more."
>The next step after major companies declaring to port stuff to Linux is demand for a non-removable DRM component for Linux.
>slippery slope argument
Linus has come out and said that DRM is not necessarily bad on Linux.
I disagree and say that DRM is bad on all platforms, but that's me. We've even seen pushback on DRM on closed OSes, so at least there is hope. DRM while related to closed source, is a separate issue.
>Which is why we have GIMP even though Adobe hasn't ported Photoshop to Linux?
There are a lot of people who will tell you that they will not move to Linux until Photoshop or Solidworks works on Linux. We ignore them at our peril.
Slashdot Mirror
The person in the post above you listed the fair ways to get this done: first come, first served, lottery, and highest bidder - all of these can be audited.
A javascript game cannot be audited, as the results are dependent on network, lan, and workstation lag, or lack thereof and less dependent on actual user input. Because as ICANN should know, packet switched networks are not real-time and cannot possibly be real-time or fair in this case.
This, I believe, is a way to let ICANN's politically connected buddies get preferential treatment and to hide it under the "well, you just didn't click fast enough" excuse.
--
BMO
>If the company is not going to make a native application anyway, it's pointless to try to appease that company by making the rest of the system more to its liking
This sentence is self-contradictory because "wine, itself, is an effort to make Linux more appealing", but anyway...
1. It starts off assuming companies *won't* make native applications, when this is clearly not true because there are companies who do. Corel made Word Perfect for Linux for *years* and the only reason why they stopped was because Microsoft basically bought them.
Siemens UG/NX is native on Linux.
Etc.
2. If it's pointless, then why wine? Companies, like Google actively use Wine and Winelib to get applications cross-platform on Linux.
>It's very important to realize that most of "requests" that Linux developers are bombarded with, are fake,
No, they are uneducated requests, for the most part, and totally unrelated to the issue at hand, which is "how do we get companies to write native applications for Linux when the current companies are making closed source, while we point at them and tell them they're unethical?"
Your attitude in this entire message is "don't bother"
Well that is certainly defeatist, isn't it. With that attitude, nothing will change, ever.
Meanwhile I send fanmail to Dassault asking for Solidworks on Linux, because how else are they going to know there is a demand even if it's small? Want Solidworks on Linux? Tell them.
--
BMO
>unflattering slashdot meme about me
Right. And what would that be? This should be good.
--
BMO
>How well does that work?
It works as well as you can expect. After a couple of full turns, the sample gets loose and you have to reheat it and reseat it. It's not a lab quality microtome, but then it costs only a few cents, maximum.
But for what it is, it works surprisingly well. You can use a jam nut behind the sample holding nut to better control the turn friction.
Freeze a sample in some solution of water and corn syrup such that it would be possible to section it like that.
Freezing tends to make cells burst open from ice crystals, doesn't it?
--
BMO
The medical/pharmaceutical industries undoubtedly require complex software, but the unavoidable animal testing at the end of the pipeline probably lifts its body count higher even than the defense industry's.
Animal testing has saved human lives for decades. People against animal testing say that we can use computer models to test drugs. Where, exactly, do they think the data for those computer models are going to come from? It doesn't magic itself into existence.
And that's not even mentioning that the computer models we have are woefully incomplete.
Animal testing is worthwhile science and saves millions of lives in the long run. To say this is unethical and should be stopped means the deaths of millions due to medicine that is never researched.
Where are your so-called "ethics" now, OP?
--
BMO
>My point quite clearly was that one should still point out unethical behaviour when its true, whether it makes friends or not.
Making closed source software, in itself is not unethical, and calling those who do, who do not go on and screw the user with DRM (again, a separate issue entirely) and other shenanigans is casting aspersions at those who write such software who actually do contribute to society. People have the right to write closed source software. Software is speech. Software is sometimes political speech, the most protected speech there is.
>when it's true
In the vast majority of cases it's not. It is simply closed source. Closed source, in itself, does not defraud anyone, steal anything from anyone, etc. And people who comprise the boards of companies and individual software authors who write closed source software listen to this nonsense and call it for what it is, nonsense.
It's like the argument from Closed Source trolls that "F/OSS is communism" in itself. I don't know about you, but I've become bloody tired of that BS.
"Hi, I see you write closed source software. You're unethical"
"Fuck you. Shut up and go away."
"Hi. F/OSS is communism"
"Fuck you. Shut up and go away."
Calling people who write closed source software unethical may feel good in the short term, but it loses the war for all of us who want F/OSS.
>Comparing this situation to the tobacco companies
Really? Really?
--
BMO
>My point was only that your argument against ID was silly.
No, no it isn't. ID is Religion. Capital R. As Espoused by the Discovery Institute and Churches Across The Country (TM).
There is *nobody* promoting ID that is not a religious nutbag.
but neither is there any specific evidence that our planet was not the pet project of some alien life form a million years or so more advanced than us. It is unlikely, but certainly not impossible.
You seem to think that this is related to ID. You have not even looked at the Wikipedia page of what Intelligent Design is.
ID is not Panspermia hypothesis. It makes no claims about interstellar seeding of life. ID is not an Abiogenesis hypothesis, because it claims that below a certain level of complexity, "the intelligent designer did it." And this level of complexity is at the multicellular level for multicellular life.
ID is Religion. It is pushed by the Discovery Institute and its backers. From a religious point of view, it is heretical if you actually believe Genesis. From a scientific point of view is is pure nonsense.
I don't know how else to tell you this. I suggest you actually read about the Discovery Institute, the Dover School Board case, and other items in the news about the Discovery Institute.
>. If you are going to make an argument make it with logic and/or empirical observation or the results of experiments, not by claiming that some Important Person said something so it must be true.
Go read the judgement. It just reaffirms what everyone knows about ID, DI, Behe, and the rest of the scumbags pushing ID.
I'm not going to spoon feed you this. Google is --->over there.
ID is religion. It is nonsense.
--
BMO
"You seem religious in your certainty"
I am certain the IDers are wrong and that there is no question about it, because ID is based upon Genesis when you get down to it, a Bronze Age creation tale, like the Mahabharata. Genesis is allegory, like the Mahabharata. It is not science and sane people do not pretend it is. If you had paid attention to the Dover PA school district trial, it is clearly religiosity pretending to be science.
That's the facts, guy. Anything else is bogus.
>claiming to be atheist
That has nothing to do with anything. The fact is that ID is religion and whether you are of any religion or not changes nothing.
--
BMO
So how, then does Wine make it better?
I'm being pretty specific here. Mentioning Wine in one breath while mentioning DRM in the other breath as a danger because of natively ported applications seems to be a contradiction, no?
--
BMO
What does that have to do with anything? Are you daft?
--
BMO
You seem butthurt. I suggest you get a doctor to look at it.
ID is bunk. And I will tell people whether you like it or not.
Deal with it.
--
BMO
>nothings stopping you, just put a "view the image with a computer" to the end.
Sigh, probably true.
>on the sidenote, what's a good usb microscope?
Don't know. Never tried one.
And after looking for 10 minutes, "How much do you want to spend?"
There are toys all the way up to industrial quality.
--
BMO
I would patent it if it wasn't in the Tasco microscope manual I had as a kid.
--
BMO - passin' on knowledge through the generations.
>Consider also that you need thin translucent slices if you want to view tissues
You can make a microtome out of a bolt and a nut. UNF or UNEF thread pitch is helpful
Screw nut on to end of bolt by a couple of threads.
Put sample in cavity at end.
Pour paraffin wax into cavity and let cool to hold the sample in place.
Take a razor blade, screw bolt into nut by small partial turns and slice off thin slices of your sample on to slides.
taa, daa.
--
BMO
>Adobe will NEVER port Photoshop to Linux, so one of those possibilities does not exist.
But that's not relevant to what I asked him.
He claimed that native proprietary software on Linux leads to a slippery slope of DRM.
Then he mentioned running Windows software on Wine.
I don't see how Wine is better than native. I would have liked an answer from him, but oh well.
>I had no problems using VariCAD
Neither have I. It's pretty good for the price, considering Autocad LT is 600 smackers on any platform and it is purely 2D.
Oh yeah, DraftSight for 2D. Spectacular.
>In any case, DSS can have Solidworks port to Linux tomorrow if they decided to do so today -- there is nothing to stop them but their own capricious will.
This. I don't understand it.
>No, they would find some other excuse to insist on using Windows. They would demand that stupid Windows ball logo buttons or something.
I don't think it's as bad as you think.
A former employer has grown increasingly tired of Windows, Microsoft, etc., and years ago considered OpenOffice when it was 1.x. It's hard to bite the bullet when there aren't other reasons to move. Solidworks on Linux would be one of those reasons. They don't like Windows. It's viewed grudgingly as a necessity.
--
BMO
But companies have boards and management who are humans (though I suppose that people will challenge that).
And they take "you're unethical" as they will take it.
No?
--
BMO
>I'll take solid results in basic research over vision, interest, and dreams any day.
Vision, interest, and dreams are prerequisites for solid results.
HTH.
--
BMO
>Intelligent Design, at best, is a hypothesis.
It's not even that. It has been found *in court* by a Reagan appointed judge, to be Religion, capital R and thus not science and thus cannot be endorsed by the government and thus not allowed in the science classroom with equal weight to actual science.
There are facts and then there are lies. ID is a lie. It is a mealy-mouthed reaction to real science, by those who are frightened that their faith could be shaken by truth.
ID is a lie from both the religion POV (IDers would have burned alive in the 15'th century as heretics) and invents entire circular, untestable arguments that say "here is where you stop investigating, because you cannot reduce the structure any more."
--
BMO
ID is religion.
The investigation of Natural Selection is science.
They are *not* compatible, by definition.
--
BMO
And what would you rather have, nobody making science look good?
Without the popularizers of science, science loses funding. It's really that simple.
>He's an entertainer.
Where is /your/ PhD in Astrophysics?
--
BMO
>Since when has any reasonable individual listened to a politician over a scientist, to ideology over reason? This person you imagine does not exist.
They think they are reasonable, and they vote.
>writing them off instead of fighting them tooth and nail.
Yup, a sure strategy for getting ideologues, religionists, etc, off of school committees and out of state legislatures.
Yup.
--
BMO
So how is Wine better than having companies make native ports?
>only kids who pirate software use Photoshop or Solidworks
I dunno, manufacturers who do CAD and CAE would go to Linux if you had Solidworks and other CAE/CAD/CAM software on Linux. Wouldn't they?
OpenCASCADE isn't enough.
--
BMO
>The next step after major companies declaring to port stuff to Linux is demand for a non-removable DRM component for Linux.
>slippery slope argument
Linus has come out and said that DRM is not necessarily bad on Linux.
I disagree and say that DRM is bad on all platforms, but that's me. We've even seen pushback on DRM on closed OSes, so at least there is hope. DRM while related to closed source, is a separate issue.
>Which is why we have GIMP even though Adobe hasn't ported Photoshop to Linux?
There are a lot of people who will tell you that they will not move to Linux until Photoshop or Solidworks works on Linux. We ignore them at our peril.
--
BMO
But to point at software companies and say "you're unethical" doesn't earn friends.
--
BMO
>What is so evil about getting paid?
Oh look, another idiot that thinks the GPL "outlaws" the exchange of software for money.
--
BMO