There's always the dead-tree approach to communication, or, *gasp* face to face contact.
Some people simply do not care about the trash being produced and labeled as entertainment, and as a result don't care if it ever finds its way into the public domain, or if they'll only be allowed to watch it if it has been approved. I'm one of those. There's very, very little music created in the last 100 years or so that I listen to. There's even fewer television shows and movies that I care about (which translates to exactly zero).
"They" can lock down your ability to listen to modern crap, and I'll continue to enjoy spending time at the symphony hearing wonderful music from the 1700s and 1800s -- "They" do not affect me or my enjoyment in the least, and I'm not going to get upset because your "right" to listen to the latest manufactured noise is being limited.
I'm still fairly young (late 20s) but I don't give a damn about limitations on being able to take your tv shows with you. Get out, live life, and do something for yourselves instead of sitting on your ass sucking down the mindless drivel and turning your brains to mush.
Well, guessing most people did visit the restroom at least once in the last 24 hours, yeah, I'd say there are people who would get off on that. For proof I offer webcam-for-pay sites. And german and japanese fetish porn.
Personally, anyone who wants to watch my fatass get up and go to work, come back, fix dinner, and relax by working on one of about 20 projects scattered around my workshop and garage...needs to get off their ass and find a hobby or two. (or three, or four, or a dozen, or whatever).
Go fishing. Go hunting. Go take photos. Paint something. Build something. Brew something. Just turn of the damned tv and live a little.
Ok, re-reading the summary, its not the founder of wiki that's making the comments about selling out. But my point still stands -- more attention = more money later.
In the summary quote he pretty much announces his intention to sell out at some point. More attention now leads to more money later, either through having a higher-profile name, or through suckering more people into developing his search rankings.
So the guy founded Wikipedia. Good for him. It doesn't mean he walks on water, and the advent of yet another search engine doesn't deserve front page of slashdot. Especially when you know its going to get swamped by spammers (or their bots) and quickly become useless.
The biggest problem with your comparison is that KDE is a GUI, where Vista is an entire OS.
I hate Vista, but even I can tell its more than "XP with a shiny new face".
So the KDE group is developing a GUI as fast as a 100 billion dollar company is developing an entire OS.
Then there's the little problem that Vista is out, where KDE4 is not. Maybe you know exactly what features and functionality is going to be in KDE4 -- but for all I know its just a new set of icons. (Note, I don't use KDE, I use blackbox and generally do everything from the command line if at all possible, so while I know my "icon-pack-as-new-major-version-release" is silly, I simply do not know what KDE4 is supposed to provide) A comparison of development time is further complicated when the features and functionality are still unknown for one side.
Am I the only one that finds the focus on the books he happened to own more than a little disturbing?
Even if he had a book titled "How to murder your wife and get away with it" it doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean he was planning anything, or even thinking about doing anything -- I agree, notes in margins, highlighting/underlining pieces, etc might mean something, but that is different than just having the books.
This type of thinking is EXACTLY why library staff get pissed about the patriot act allowing law enforcement access to their records of who borrowed what, and when.
It may be a lame comparison, but they DID put ads in books, as mentioned elsewhere, usually in the form of tear out cards.
In a way, its a better comparison than many -- the ad is there, and its annoying, but with a little effort, it can be removed. In a game, that removal would be considered a 'crack', and given how loosely applied the DMCA is, could result in criminal charges against you if companies really wanted to force the issue.
Because businesses tend to be run by people in suits who don't really know much about the tech, and to most of them "we spend money developing this, then give it away and charge people to connect to our server to play" doesn't sound like a good business plan to them. Especially when one of those people-who-knows-just-enough-to-be-dangerous points out that since, at minimum, the client source would be available, someone could make a new server, and the company wouldn't make any money that way.
Selling hosting service doesn't require creation of your own IP.
Companies are protective of their own IP, and many do not like the GPL because of the terms it imposes.
I'm all for having an open framework; I just don't think that it should come with the strings of GPL attached. Drop it in the public domain, or license it via a BSD type license, and let anyone who wants it, do anything they want with it, including make changes they don't want to give back, and make money from their work.
I guess our disagreement is rather funadmental -- you believe that people should be forced to contribute their work back. I don't, which is why I prefer the BSD license -- when I release stuff under the BSD license, I'm thrilled to see someone else take it, modify it, and if they can turn a profit with it, even better for them.
The problem, from a commercial standpoint, is that you still have to release the code for the client -- anything you want to do as far as communication would get distributed.
True, you could modify the server side as much as you wanted, but most commercial entities are not going to be happy controlling only one piece of the pie.
Its a moot point if they're wanting to put it under the GPL, which is not commercial friendly, by design.
Now, if they were to buy it, and put everything into the public domain, or release it under the BSD license, THEN it'd be commercial-friendly, and I'd consider supporting it.
The FOSS community will develop something that will sound or look good, but then during implementation the primadonnas will get their panties all bunched up and development will slow to a crawl as the project is forked, and teamwork turns into a flamewar. Eventually the very promising project will die.
MS will, as they've repeatedly done in the past, incorporate the features promised and anticipated in the FOSS stuff (probably badly in comparison) and will keep chugging along.
No, charity doesn't enter into this. My comments about a socialist leaning for a large portion of slashdot is based entirely on the number of "corporations are evil" "capitalism is evil" "they made money, they're evil" "anything not open source is evil because we can't share it" posts.
What you do with your money is your choice, what I do with mine is my choice. No one should tell you, or me, or anyone else what they should do with their money, regardless of wether its for what they deem the "greater good".
But all that is irrelavent, I was merely asking to see why foregoing profit is considered to be noble.
Same here. Then again, I've had the game since release, but only play for a few minutes here and there, and generally forget what I was doing, so I just randomly wander around. I might actually make progress if I had more than 30 minutes at a time to play. Ah well, its still a good time-waster, which is ultimatly all games are.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't include javascript.
More crap about a company that's only products are image and crappy coffee.
Neither of those are constitutionally protected rights, which is what TFA is about.
There's always the dead-tree approach to communication, or, *gasp* face to face contact.
Some people simply do not care about the trash being produced and labeled as entertainment, and as a result don't care if it ever finds its way into the public domain, or if they'll only be allowed to watch it if it has been approved. I'm one of those. There's very, very little music created in the last 100 years or so that I listen to. There's even fewer television shows and movies that I care about (which translates to exactly zero).
"They" can lock down your ability to listen to modern crap, and I'll continue to enjoy spending time at the symphony hearing wonderful music from the 1700s and 1800s -- "They" do not affect me or my enjoyment in the least, and I'm not going to get upset because your "right" to listen to the latest manufactured noise is being limited.
I'm still fairly young (late 20s) but I don't give a damn about limitations on being able to take your tv shows with you. Get out, live life, and do something for yourselves instead of sitting on your ass sucking down the mindless drivel and turning your brains to mush.
Ah, but the "music club" racket has fine-print that spells out an agreement you make when you join.
Would anyone watch it?
Well, guessing most people did visit the restroom at least once in the last 24 hours, yeah, I'd say there are people who would get off on that. For proof I offer webcam-for-pay sites. And german and japanese fetish porn.
Personally, anyone who wants to watch my fatass get up and go to work, come back, fix dinner, and relax by working on one of about 20 projects scattered around my workshop and garage...needs to get off their ass and find a hobby or two. (or three, or four, or a dozen, or whatever).
Go fishing. Go hunting. Go take photos. Paint something. Build something. Brew something. Just turn of the damned tv and live a little.
Useless for us, yes, but it does make it convenient for showing clueless middle-management types.
That said, I think the clueless middle-management types are the target of that website, given the amount of junk they're selling.
I prefer LCD. Then again, I'm not after a living-room-dominating TV either, and plasma tvs seem to be 40+ inch.
If a 32" plasma tv had been available locally, I might have had a harder time picking.
How many would carry various fetish videos, and how many people want to be seen renting or buying such videos?
Compare that number with the people that actually do watch such videos.
A) I'd suspect that people would find most fetishes are fairly common
B) People still wouldn't want to be seen renting it.
Ok, re-reading the summary, its not the founder of wiki that's making the comments about selling out. But my point still stands -- more attention = more money later.
In the summary quote he pretty much announces his intention to sell out at some point. More attention now leads to more money later, either through having a higher-profile name, or through suckering more people into developing his search rankings.
So the guy founded Wikipedia. Good for him. It doesn't mean he walks on water, and the advent of yet another search engine doesn't deserve front page of slashdot. Especially when you know its going to get swamped by spammers (or their bots) and quickly become useless.
The biggest problem with your comparison is that KDE is a GUI, where Vista is an entire OS.
I hate Vista, but even I can tell its more than "XP with a shiny new face".
So the KDE group is developing a GUI as fast as a 100 billion dollar company is developing an entire OS.
Then there's the little problem that Vista is out, where KDE4 is not. Maybe you know exactly what features and functionality is going to be in KDE4 -- but for all I know its just a new set of icons. (Note, I don't use KDE, I use blackbox and generally do everything from the command line if at all possible, so while I know my "icon-pack-as-new-major-version-release" is silly, I simply do not know what KDE4 is supposed to provide) A comparison of development time is further complicated when the features and functionality are still unknown for one side.
Maybe.
Then again, the RIAA has a history of going after people who haven't actually shared anything.
So there's no guarantee the target of their litigation has actually done ANYTHING, much less the "good thing" of sharing.
Am I the only one that finds the focus on the books he happened to own more than a little disturbing?
Even if he had a book titled "How to murder your wife and get away with it" it doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean he was planning anything, or even thinking about doing anything -- I agree, notes in margins, highlighting/underlining pieces, etc might mean something, but that is different than just having the books.
This type of thinking is EXACTLY why library staff get pissed about the patriot act allowing law enforcement access to their records of who borrowed what, and when.
It may be a lame comparison, but they DID put ads in books, as mentioned elsewhere, usually in the form of tear out cards. In a way, its a better comparison than many -- the ad is there, and its annoying, but with a little effort, it can be removed. In a game, that removal would be considered a 'crack', and given how loosely applied the DMCA is, could result in criminal charges against you if companies really wanted to force the issue.
Because businesses tend to be run by people in suits who don't really know much about the tech, and to most of them "we spend money developing this, then give it away and charge people to connect to our server to play" doesn't sound like a good business plan to them. Especially when one of those people-who-knows-just-enough-to-be-dangerous points out that since, at minimum, the client source would be available, someone could make a new server, and the company wouldn't make any money that way.
Selling hosting service doesn't require creation of your own IP.
Companies are protective of their own IP, and many do not like the GPL because of the terms it imposes.
I'm all for having an open framework; I just don't think that it should come with the strings of GPL attached. Drop it in the public domain, or license it via a BSD type license, and let anyone who wants it, do anything they want with it, including make changes they don't want to give back, and make money from their work.
I guess our disagreement is rather funadmental -- you believe that people should be forced to contribute their work back. I don't, which is why I prefer the BSD license -- when I release stuff under the BSD license, I'm thrilled to see someone else take it, modify it, and if they can turn a profit with it, even better for them.
The problem, from a commercial standpoint, is that you still have to release the code for the client -- anything you want to do as far as communication would get distributed.
True, you could modify the server side as much as you wanted, but most commercial entities are not going to be happy controlling only one piece of the pie.
under entirely free licenses
r ofit-from-adding-to-it like the GPL?
Entirely free, as in BSD, or free-as-long-as-you-don't-ever-want-to-make-any-p
Its a moot point if they're wanting to put it under the GPL, which is not commercial friendly, by design.
Now, if they were to buy it, and put everything into the public domain, or release it under the BSD license, THEN it'd be commercial-friendly, and I'd consider supporting it.
Why not? Because second life does it that way, and it sucks.
Yes.
The FOSS community will develop something that will sound or look good, but then during implementation the primadonnas will get their panties all bunched up and development will slow to a crawl as the project is forked, and teamwork turns into a flamewar. Eventually the very promising project will die.
MS will, as they've repeatedly done in the past, incorporate the features promised and anticipated in the FOSS stuff (probably badly in comparison) and will keep chugging along.
No, charity doesn't enter into this. My comments about a socialist leaning for a large portion of slashdot is based entirely on the number of "corporations are evil" "capitalism is evil" "they made money, they're evil" "anything not open source is evil because we can't share it" posts.
What you do with your money is your choice, what I do with mine is my choice. No one should tell you, or me, or anyone else what they should do with their money, regardless of wether its for what they deem the "greater good".
But all that is irrelavent, I was merely asking to see why foregoing profit is considered to be noble.
Same here. Then again, I've had the game since release, but only play for a few minutes here and there, and generally forget what I was doing, so I just randomly wander around. I might actually make progress if I had more than 30 minutes at a time to play. Ah well, its still a good time-waster, which is ultimatly all games are.