All people really want is for others not to tell them what to do. The fact is that the music is already available for free. It isn't exactly anyone's fault. However, now you have a bunch of money sucking machienes, looking at you to profit from. What's worse, it's all based on a hype that doesn't really fit anywhere in the real world. What they are doing is creating a good illusion which the uninformed simply assumes to be reality. Because the uninformed so greately outnumber those that do actually know what they are talking about, you have a situation where individuals who have done nothing wrong punished. I cannot understand under what terms, what code of law, what moral ground that that is concidered acceptable. Isn't it why it's controversy in the first place?
When you create something worth having, you'd be the first to jump on those who give it away.
--- Assuming I care.
Reading your post, it seems unlikely that you're the type to ever create anything worth having.
--- You gathered all that from how many words?
Downloading music is generally illegal - I've no problem with downloading music, software, or anything else, which the author has put up for free download.
Taking something "because I can" is no better than taking my car stereo "because you can". Okay, there's a difference in that if you take my car stereo then I can't use it, but that really is a minor triviality.
--- Assuming I actually take/download things that I'm not "supposed" to. Buddy, software, no need, it's all GPL'd or BSD'd. I don't particularly have a large music collection, but, rest assured, they're on CD's. Why am I on trial here?
As for "put on a good show" - the "better" the album (the bar is pretty low right now) the more likely it is to be illegally copied.
--- Forget the CD's for a second, leave your room, look outside, there're clouds out there n other neat things. Not everything in life runs through wires. Shows consist of many people gathering a shit load of bills from horny teenagers in ticket sales. Trust me, music's worth hearing when music's worth playing, and if it's worth playing often, than I'm sure the artist has put his shit up long ago.
And there's no incentive because they're looking in the wrong place. "Here, let me throw money at you, get better, why aren't you better yet... here's more money... aw screw it, next."
TWOC
--- Arg! Quit it, you don't know me. Forget Britney, I don't care for her, at all, not even as an analogy, it just doesn't do much for me.
My point is/was/will be that as long as we don't learn to leave eachother alone (which by the way is the only thing we're ever going to learn from this) we will have this bullshit to deal with. It makes no sense to sell what can be copied in the first place, reguardless of what I, or anyone else, does with it. Go ahead, tell them all not to do it, MS has been trying for years, so now there's open source, wow, what a surprise, didn't see that coming.
What makes you think, that us hippies, hold on to the fact that music should be free? The issue here, as it always is, is that greedy people want more money. Be it MS, or some music label, all they want to do is sit back and let the cash flow in. Yes they did their job. They created something that we appearantly enjoy.
With reguards to music, if you want to make money, put on a good show. They will come. It makes no sense to sell the same thing over and over again and expect it to be the main source of income.
With reguards to software, if you want to make money, write something that people would use. They will pay you to develope it, they will pay you to maintain it, or they will go somewhere else if you can't do the job. Selling it over and over, is again, over emphesized.
People need to learn to leave eachother alone, after all is said and done. You cannot fight the interweb!
Why would they have to switch to a different os? They're just using buggy software, OS can fix that without bothering much.
In other words, Microsoft has created the image that only MS software should run on MS, and other softwere else where. In OS, everything is pretty much fair game.
Generally I don't understand why so many people buy into this whole market share illusion. The only reason it actually exists for us to discuss it is because we keep thinking it does. The reality of the situation, as been pointed out, is that hardware gets cheaper, and cheaper, and that old market ways are indeed dying. That is what's happening in the world today.
The only reason this is happening is because the number of consumers of hardware is growing. As this is a chain reaction, it makes software, inevitably, a comodoty.
What's more surprizing in all these comparisons made here is that Gnome and KDE are the only linux players. Linux, at least right now, is a system for personal tastes. It's flexible. Arguably, too flexible. But, you're better off paying someone else to do it, if that's how you feel. (Hmm.. why.. pay... but it's free?). Yup, but it will work, not by the guarantee of the creator, but by the guarantee of, well, the internet.
All I'm really talking about is that software future is really going to break free of politics. It's just too new a concept for our old ways. It just doesn't have anything to do with them, that's all, and we all argue cause non of it makes sense when we come across it.
Hold on a second, you will recommend a system that cannot handle a pdf, or a an OO file while installing the system?
Re:Nice, but they've got it all wrong...
on
Linux Desktop Guide
·
· Score: 1
Something is amiss here. How can you claim that the only machienes sold are the ones have windows on them? True, there isn't really a "market" but there is more out there than there was before.
Before, people didn't know what you were talking about when you mentioned linux, now people mostly just think it's way over their heads. Tomorrow someone will say: "That's Linux?" And probably with a recognizable tone of surprise.
Why? How can that happen if there's a strong a monopoly of Windows as you say? Well, tomorrow is when I say it should happen, then tomorrow will tell.
The reason I am sure of this is simple. I ended up with having to configure my home PC to be "as usable as possible". My Windows background has sucessfully made the installation of Win98 pointless. It didn't like my mouse, in any shape, or form. Now that I'm running this comp to do pretty much anything (Gentoo, ooh yeah), I can safely say, there's space for this software in peoples homes (at least), and anywhere else there's a processor (probably). It just has the quality. It also evolves at a rate that simply cannot be compared to that from proprietary sources.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps quantity isn't as relevent as quality?
But they're... everywhere... so... easy... so... tempting... must resist... nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I think that is the best way anyone has ever put it. I'm gonna wipe off the tear now. *lights a candle*
"having un-protected sex with 15 donkeys"
I suppose that having it protected is a much better alternative...
brb
Is it just me, or is this all just based on your fear of dying?
All people really want is for others not to tell them what to do. The fact is that the music is already available for free. It isn't exactly anyone's fault. However, now you have a bunch of money sucking machienes, looking at you to profit from. What's worse, it's all based on a hype that doesn't really fit anywhere in the real world. What they are doing is creating a good illusion which the uninformed simply assumes to be reality. Because the uninformed so greately outnumber those that do actually know what they are talking about, you have a situation where individuals who have done nothing wrong punished. I cannot understand under what terms, what code of law, what moral ground that that is concidered acceptable. Isn't it why it's controversy in the first place?
--- Um... thanks?
--- Assuming I care.
--- You gathered all that from how many words?
--- Assuming I actually take/download things that I'm not "supposed" to. Buddy, software, no need, it's all GPL'd or BSD'd. I don't particularly have a large music collection, but, rest assured, they're on CD's. Why am I on trial here?
--- Forget the CD's for a second, leave your room, look outside, there're clouds out there n other neat things. Not everything in life runs through wires. Shows consist of many people gathering a shit load of bills from horny teenagers in ticket sales. Trust me, music's worth hearing when music's worth playing, and if it's worth playing often, than I'm sure the artist has put his shit up long ago.
And there's no incentive because they're looking in the wrong place. "Here, let me throw money at you, get better, why aren't you better yet... here's more money... aw screw it, next."
--- Arg! Quit it, you don't know me. Forget Britney, I don't care for her, at all, not even as an analogy, it just doesn't do much for me.
My point is/was/will be that as long as we don't learn to leave eachother alone (which by the way is the only thing we're ever going to learn from this) we will have this bullshit to deal with. It makes no sense to sell what can be copied in the first place, reguardless of what I, or anyone else, does with it. Go ahead, tell them all not to do it, MS has been trying for years, so now there's open source, wow, what a surprise, didn't see that coming.
What makes you think, that us hippies, hold on to the fact that music should be free? The issue here, as it always is, is that greedy people want more money. Be it MS, or some music label, all they want to do is sit back and let the cash flow in. Yes they did their job. They created something that we appearantly enjoy. With reguards to music, if you want to make money, put on a good show. They will come. It makes no sense to sell the same thing over and over again and expect it to be the main source of income. With reguards to software, if you want to make money, write something that people would use. They will pay you to develope it, they will pay you to maintain it, or they will go somewhere else if you can't do the job. Selling it over and over, is again, over emphesized. People need to learn to leave eachother alone, after all is said and done. You cannot fight the interweb!
A flaw? MS, you dissapoint me.
Popularity, and influence, are two distinct concepts. Popularity projects an influence, but influence does not rely on the existance of popularity.
You and your silly schemes
In other words, Microsoft has created the image that only MS software should run on MS, and other softwere else where. In OS, everything is pretty much fair game.
Generally I don't understand why so many people buy into this whole market share illusion. The only reason it actually exists for us to discuss it is because we keep thinking it does. The reality of the situation, as been pointed out, is that hardware gets cheaper, and cheaper, and that old market ways are indeed dying. That is what's happening in the world today.
The only reason this is happening is because the number of consumers of hardware is growing. As this is a chain reaction, it makes software, inevitably, a comodoty.
What's more surprizing in all these comparisons made here is that Gnome and KDE are the only linux players. Linux, at least right now, is a system for personal tastes. It's flexible. Arguably, too flexible. But, you're better off paying someone else to do it, if that's how you feel. (Hmm.. why.. pay... but it's free?). Yup, but it will work, not by the guarantee of the creator, but by the guarantee of, well, the internet.
All I'm really talking about is that software future is really going to break free of politics. It's just too new a concept for our old ways. It just doesn't have anything to do with them, that's all, and we all argue cause non of it makes sense when we come across it.
Hold on a second, you will recommend a system that cannot handle a pdf, or a an OO file while installing the system?
Something is amiss here. How can you claim that the only machienes sold are the ones have windows on them? True, there isn't really a "market" but there is more out there than there was before.
Before, people didn't know what you were talking about when you mentioned linux, now people mostly just think it's way over their heads. Tomorrow someone will say: "That's Linux?" And probably with a recognizable tone of surprise.
Why? How can that happen if there's a strong a monopoly of Windows as you say? Well, tomorrow is when I say it should happen, then tomorrow will tell.
The reason I am sure of this is simple. I ended up with having to configure my home PC to be "as usable as possible". My Windows background has sucessfully made the installation of Win98 pointless. It didn't like my mouse, in any shape, or form. Now that I'm running this comp to do pretty much anything (Gentoo, ooh yeah), I can safely say, there's space for this software in peoples homes (at least), and anywhere else there's a processor (probably). It just has the quality. It also evolves at a rate that simply cannot be compared to that from proprietary sources.