The entire point of OS is that it doesn't matter that there are "only" 25 developers.
If Tomcat's growth is astronomical, there will be people/businesses that want more features (or the 25 would be enough after all.) The thing is, it's open! They can hire someone to do that work. This is not feasible for most companies perhaps, but it's exactly what large corporations would (should?) do. Need better documentation? Pay someone to write it for you. Note that I'm not saying: "You can write it yourself." I'm saying that since it's open and you want the feature badly enough, you CAN pay someone to add it. This is impossible with most closed source software, unless you have some SERIOUS clout.
Here we come to the real dividing line between free and libre.
+1 on Synology. I have the DS107+ w/ 128MB RAM. Very nice. Has all the bells and whistles, uses WAY less power than a regular PC (try and beat 20W peak for disk spinup, regular use ~10W) and they even have an official modding forum. The 207 is RAID0 or 1, the 107 is single disk. It's more expensive than the competition though. It does have everything, even eSata. Happy customer.
Now for Time Machine running over the network... (Synology is looking into it, according to their forum.)
Oh, good points! So that's why all elections have been failing in the civilised world! Yes, yes, I can see it now, every election in Europe was bought by the largest party, just because they could, it being so trivial!
Or you could have been following the discussion and reading up on the reality of voting and how that works without machines, you would have known that it isn't all as easy and trivial as you like.
Just a couple of pointers to help you on your way: paper trail, possibility of recount, multiple parties involved in each counting hub, economy of scale (if one counting hub somehow gets corrupted, it's just that hub, not the entire state as it is with machines), rooting of voting machines trivially easy as has been shown by people who installed a chess program on it, closed source code in the machines, etc.
I'd rather see this today than tomorrow. Apart from your conclusions about communism and capitalism (there seems to be no place for a sliding scale in your story?) I agree with what you say. I too am a fan of popular stuff, enjoy pop and rock. Still, I like to think my taste is a little above the masses. I expect you know the Wilco "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" story, where Wilco's label wouldn't publish the album because it was deemed unsellable. This is just one example of how other people decide what you and I get to listen to. The same people that hardly pay the artist anything for their efforts, see the Albini story linked earlier. The music industry is a big middle man. Your beloved capitalism is also about harsh efficiency, which means cutting out the middle men, see Amazon for how that turns out.
Yes, there is a need for music industry people. Yes, there is a need for artist guidance, setting up gigs, getting the right studio musicians, recording studios, etc etc. But not at any price, and not the way it works today. The music biz has turned fat and old, rather buying up "support" than changing their failing business model. Oh, as to the business model: if they're losing money, it's failing. No-one ever said capitalism was nice and sweet and friendly. > If something has value, but is impossible to sell for profit, pretty soon no one will be able to sell it. I'm no economist, but that reeks of failing business model to me.
You can stop being so dramatic over pop and rock dieing. Pop and rock aren't going anywhere. Will it change? Likely. Will it change for the better? I'm positive it will. Will new and interesting music come out? Yes. Will new and easy and cheesy and one-hit-wondery and forgettable music come out? Oh yes.
Really, just the way it is now, but... better! So bring on the "death" of music as we know it. The music isn't going to die, just the industry surrounding it. As said, better today than tomorrow.
>Public domain lends artists the building blocks to create artworks, and the artists eventually have to pay the public domain back so it can profit from it. Sure the public domain are the owners of what helps create artworks, but they don't have any ownership rights over it until the artist has had his share.
"They"? "The owners"? Are you sure you know what you're talking about? The public domain is the default. It is not a person or group or lobby, it's the umbrella thing that all creative stuff falls under. Anything. All RIAA music, all Hollywood movies, anything.
There is an exception. The people (you, among others) have decided to grant the creators a temporary monopoly so they can create more of that fine creative stuff (whatever it is) by earning some money from it. There are two very important distinctions here; it's temporary so after a while the monopoly is over, and it's an incentive for the creator to create MORE stuff.
The RIAA/MPAA/etc are turning this around in multiple ways. They're trying to make us believe that the default is copyrighted and unfree instead of free with temp monopoly. They want longer monopolies, so they can make more money, which is pointless, certainly beyond the death of the original creator. And they represent companies who themselves are not the original creators but who do make money from their work. They're also obscuring the point that the monopoly is there for the creators to make MORE, instead making it look like they're getting paid for the work that they've already done.
And please, don't give me any crap about poor artists that aren't making any money with their creations. That's entirely the fault of the companies that the RIAA/etc represent.
> The govt because the information is allegedly top secret and would allegedly harm ongoing investigations;
Fixed that for you. There is no way for us to know whether those documents contain actual state secrets. There is no-one who can check to make sure, even without telling the court. Even knowing if there are secrets in there is secret, remember? Trias politika, checks and balances, etc.
Yes, those ARE cool projects. But maybe it's time to stop apologising for Microsoft's failures by pointing at their research. Yes, they can and do hire really really smart people. Regrettably, these people aren't calling the shots. They code some cool code, which gets churned up by an insane management chain, cut, diced, sliced, rubbed, and finally ground out of existence. No products come from there. I have seen a lot of cool stuff from MS R&D, but nothing ever gets translated into a projects that is out on the street, now, for me to buy.
As was noted earlier in the comments, MS has its own interest, then it has the interest of their peers (like the music industry for example, that's why we have DRM) and somewhere way in the back is the customer that gets to buy the product.
For all its faults, this is the reason why open source rocks. It plays above table. Its clear where the priorities lie.
Can we just call it a website please? I don't need my photos solved. I want them stored.
This kind of hot air speak works really well for people who don't know what they're doing, ie managers with no tech background making tech decisions, but it doesn't hold water for the real folk. Joe off the street won't think MS' site is more kick ass than Flickr because it's a "photo solution" instead of a website (if that's what Flickr calls its site.) Also, I'm a software engineer, I work with software engineers both high (tech manager) and low (html programmer) in the food chain, and never have they told me that they're working on a "solution" (heh, except if they've created a bug, right.) It's always a program or a website or whatever.
If I remember correctly, rsnapshot saves diffs of files. This is good for space reasons and works well with text, but not so with large binary objects, which will probably be stored as a new copy. This negates the space profit. Macs tend to be used by people involved with video/graphics/music.
Ah, the exact same system we've had in the Netherlands for years now. Recently, the carriers have been offering SIM-only deals as well, something that was only offered by third parties so far. These deals are VERY cheap.
Usually you buy a phone with a plan at a store. This store sells plans for all the carriers, and all phones work with all carriers (yay for GSM!) When they sell you a plan they get subsidised by the carrier so they can offer you the phone for free/cheap. The idea was that when you buy a plan but no phone, the subsidy goes straight into your bank account, making the plan VERY cheap or even free. This was such a big hit that the carriers are offering these plans themselves now.
You just need to serve out your first year, get your phone unlocked and off you go.
No need for the scare quotes around broken. The business model is: everyone will look at our ads, so we make money. Users aren't looking at the ads, so the model is broken. That's the way it works. A different model could be: a lot of people will look at our ads, some because they don't know how to block them, some because they support our site that way, we also sell subscriptions with added benefits and t-shirts and other stuff.
Am I stealing from Penny Arcade because I haven't bought any of their t-shirts? Am I stealing from Toyota when I go to a dealer and get informed about one of their cars but decide to buy a Porsche instead? (Had to get the car analogy in there) The answer is no. It's not no, but... It's just no.
Remember, when people aren't making money with their business model and rant about how users are immoral, it's a clear sign of bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
The entire point of OS is that it doesn't matter that there are "only" 25 developers.
If Tomcat's growth is astronomical, there will be people/businesses that want more features (or the 25 would be enough after all.) The thing is, it's open! They can hire someone to do that work. This is not feasible for most companies perhaps, but it's exactly what large corporations would (should?) do. Need better documentation? Pay someone to write it for you. Note that I'm not saying: "You can write it yourself." I'm saying that since it's open and you want the feature badly enough, you CAN pay someone to add it. This is impossible with most closed source software, unless you have some SERIOUS clout.
Here we come to the real dividing line between free and libre.
I agree with what you're saying, but you sound like a PS3/360 owner ;)
> Even wiiplay and wiisports are little more than tech demos
I know. It's true! But WHY are they so much FUN?
I know! My mother teaches and she pretty much knows as well.
I was just trying to counter the phrase in the GP with another phrase. These soundbytes are rarely relevant.
Still, those who know do and those who don't, teach.
From personal experience, this goes for about 90% of uni/college tutors (in my neck of the wood, at least.)
Also, it _does_ block ads.
+1 on Synology. I have the DS107+ w/ 128MB RAM. Very nice. Has all the bells and whistles, uses WAY less power than a regular PC (try and beat 20W peak for disk spinup, regular use ~10W) and they even have an official modding forum. The 207 is RAID0 or 1, the 107 is single disk. It's more expensive than the competition though. It does have everything, even eSata. Happy customer.
Now for Time Machine running over the network... (Synology is looking into it, according to their forum.)
Doesn't that make you all warm and fuzzy inside when thinking of electronic voting? That we just established that they can easily get away with it?
Oh, good points! So that's why all elections have been failing in the civilised world! Yes, yes, I can see it now, every election in Europe was bought by the largest party, just because they could, it being so trivial!
Or you could have been following the discussion and reading up on the reality of voting and how that works without machines, you would have known that it isn't all as easy and trivial as you like.
Just a couple of pointers to help you on your way: paper trail, possibility of recount, multiple parties involved in each counting hub, economy of scale (if one counting hub somehow gets corrupted, it's just that hub, not the entire state as it is with machines), rooting of voting machines trivially easy as has been shown by people who installed a chess program on it, closed source code in the machines, etc.
So yeah, great one.
> the death of music as we know it
I'd rather see this today than tomorrow. Apart from your conclusions about communism and capitalism (there seems to be no place for a sliding scale in your story?) I agree with what you say. I too am a fan of popular stuff, enjoy pop and rock. Still, I like to think my taste is a little above the masses. I expect you know the Wilco "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" story, where Wilco's label wouldn't publish the album because it was deemed unsellable. This is just one example of how other people decide what you and I get to listen to. The same people that hardly pay the artist anything for their efforts, see the Albini story linked earlier. The music industry is a big middle man. Your beloved capitalism is also about harsh efficiency, which means cutting out the middle men, see Amazon for how that turns out.
Yes, there is a need for music industry people. Yes, there is a need for artist guidance, setting up gigs, getting the right studio musicians, recording studios, etc etc. But not at any price, and not the way it works today. The music biz has turned fat and old, rather buying up "support" than changing their failing business model. Oh, as to the business model: if they're losing money, it's failing. No-one ever said capitalism was nice and sweet and friendly.
> If something has value, but is impossible to sell for profit, pretty soon no one will be able to sell it.
I'm no economist, but that reeks of failing business model to me.
You can stop being so dramatic over pop and rock dieing. Pop and rock aren't going anywhere. Will it change? Likely. Will it change for the better? I'm positive it will. Will new and interesting music come out? Yes. Will new and easy and cheesy and one-hit-wondery and forgettable music come out? Oh yes.
Really, just the way it is now, but... better! So bring on the "death" of music as we know it. The music isn't going to die, just the industry surrounding it. As said, better today than tomorrow.
I did not know that. Going to give it a try now.
Camino: no adblock. No deal.
>Public domain lends artists the building blocks to create artworks, and the artists eventually have to pay the public domain back so it can profit from it. Sure the public domain are the owners of what helps create artworks, but they don't have any ownership rights over it until the artist has had his share.
"They"? "The owners"? Are you sure you know what you're talking about? The public domain is the default. It is not a person or group or lobby, it's the umbrella thing that all creative stuff falls under. Anything. All RIAA music, all Hollywood movies, anything.
There is an exception. The people (you, among others) have decided to grant the creators a temporary monopoly so they can create more of that fine creative stuff (whatever it is) by earning some money from it. There are two very important distinctions here; it's temporary so after a while the monopoly is over, and it's an incentive for the creator to create MORE stuff.
The RIAA/MPAA/etc are turning this around in multiple ways. They're trying to make us believe that the default is copyrighted and unfree instead of free with temp monopoly. They want longer monopolies, so they can make more money, which is pointless, certainly beyond the death of the original creator. And they represent companies who themselves are not the original creators but who do make money from their work. They're also obscuring the point that the monopoly is there for the creators to make MORE, instead making it look like they're getting paid for the work that they've already done.
And please, don't give me any crap about poor artists that aren't making any money with their creations. That's entirely the fault of the companies that the RIAA/etc represent.
> The govt because the information is allegedly top secret and would allegedly harm ongoing investigations;
Fixed that for you. There is no way for us to know whether those documents contain actual state secrets. There is no-one who can check to make sure, even without telling the court. Even knowing if there are secrets in there is secret, remember? Trias politika, checks and balances, etc.
There is war in Afghanistan?
I refer you to my earlier post.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=360481&cid=21360941
Yes, those ARE cool projects. But maybe it's time to stop apologising for Microsoft's failures by pointing at their research. Yes, they can and do hire really really smart people. Regrettably, these people aren't calling the shots. They code some cool code, which gets churned up by an insane management chain, cut, diced, sliced, rubbed, and finally ground out of existence. No products come from there. I have seen a lot of cool stuff from MS R&D, but nothing ever gets translated into a projects that is out on the street, now, for me to buy.
As was noted earlier in the comments, MS has its own interest, then it has the interest of their peers (like the music industry for example, that's why we have DRM) and somewhere way in the back is the customer that gets to buy the product.
For all its faults, this is the reason why open source rocks. It plays above table. Its clear where the priorities lie.
> photo web solutions
Can we just call it a website please? I don't need my photos solved. I want them stored.
This kind of hot air speak works really well for people who don't know what they're doing, ie managers with no tech background making tech decisions, but it doesn't hold water for the real folk. Joe off the street won't think MS' site is more kick ass than Flickr because it's a "photo solution" instead of a website (if that's what Flickr calls its site.) Also, I'm a software engineer, I work with software engineers both high (tech manager) and low (html programmer) in the food chain, and never have they told me that they're working on a "solution" (heh, except if they've created a bug, right.) It's always a program or a website or whatever.
If I remember correctly, rsnapshot saves diffs of files. This is good for space reasons and works well with text, but not so with large binary objects, which will probably be stored as a new copy. This negates the space profit. Macs tend to be used by people involved with video/graphics/music.
Something about reinvented and poorly. Now how did that go?
Ah, the exact same system we've had in the Netherlands for years now. Recently, the carriers have been offering SIM-only deals as well, something that was only offered by third parties so far. These deals are VERY cheap.
Usually you buy a phone with a plan at a store. This store sells plans for all the carriers, and all phones work with all carriers (yay for GSM!) When they sell you a plan they get subsidised by the carrier so they can offer you the phone for free/cheap.
The idea was that when you buy a plan but no phone, the subsidy goes straight into your bank account, making the plan VERY cheap or even free. This was such a big hit that the carriers are offering these plans themselves now.
You just need to serve out your first year, get your phone unlocked and off you go.
Sure, but I never hear anyone talking about cutting spending and everyone's always on about lowering taxes...
> Why?
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Any more questions?
+1 on that. I had some trouble having Mail.app importing my Thunderbird files and this fixed it. Should work well for Eudora -> Thunderbird as well.
> The GPL does not modify copyright law.
You mean it derives from copyright law?
No need for the scare quotes around broken. The business model is: everyone will look at our ads, so we make money. Users aren't looking at the ads, so the model is broken. That's the way it works. A different model could be: a lot of people will look at our ads, some because they don't know how to block them, some because they support our site that way, we also sell subscriptions with added benefits and t-shirts and other stuff.
Am I stealing from Penny Arcade because I haven't bought any of their t-shirts? Am I stealing from Toyota when I go to a dealer and get informed about one of their cars but decide to buy a Porsche instead? (Had to get the car analogy in there)
The answer is no. It's not no, but... It's just no.
Remember, when people aren't making money with their business model and rant about how users are immoral, it's a clear sign of bullshit.