I know Joe. He wants a lot of things. He wants our web design firm to make it so that whatever funky formatting he tries to paste in from MS Word will come out in the site exactly how it looks in Word.
Joe has a problem: the cost of creating an online application that mirrors Word (and Excel and friends) exactly is in the several-millions, and is furthermore legally proscribed by patents anyway.
We can hook Joe up with some great RTEs and OOo templates that work for a couple thousand dollars, but Joe wants the illegal multimillion dollar project for $2,000.
I'm not interested in trying to accomodate Joe anymore.
"I'm trying to imply that not all content on Youtube is copyrighted, and only a small fraction of it is going to be copyrighted by an owner actively defending their copyrights."
Well, the first clause here is outright false. The second is true, but raises the question:
What cool, space-age tech will the Zune use to determine whether the copyright holder is actively defending her rights before it blocks the playback? Can't wait to see it!
"if a version shipped with features nobody wanted, people would stop buying it. Instant negative feedback"
Totaly. Dead on, man. I remember when I bought Vista, and its DRM started preventing me from watching movies that I paid Netflix to watch. I stopped buying Vista that day and bam! DRM & trusted computing module were gone by sunrise.
When I hear "rich web experiences" nowadays, I generally run.
To me this phrase means no context menus (right-clicking), no "open in new tab" and other *totally normal browsing behavior, no retrieving information for local storage..
In sum, it means the *one way of navving the site that designers anticipated will be nice and rich. Point, click, grunt..
free software development won't gravitate toward 'new and radical' because it is (in the main) not in a competitive race for market share. There's not as big an impetus to wow users and get them to switch, etc. 90% of the things people like doing with computers rely on technology that was boring in 1993. The bells and whistles are *market *differentiators.
you're trying to make FOSS look bad for losing a game it wasn't built to play.
It's pretty much the same as saying 'So tell me what source code has Microsoft released? What protocols or standards have they tried to open up for competition?'
Don't do another pseudo-open API like Android. I had been all excited about the prospect of playing with that (woot, an Eclipse plugin already!) until I read about its licensing.
I could care less who flocks to what in droves. But "hardware support" is a measurable quality. You measure it by the number of pieces of hardware that are supported.
It's not particularly interesting to me that a few dozen nonfree devices have partnered up with a couple of nonfree OSes so that they might appear to have "better hardware support" or "better usability".
Linux supports more devices on more architectures than any other OS. And, if I recall correctly, it's not even close.
The latest sound cards and "unusual" video cards (from Best Buy?) are not a good test of hardware support. They only test market share.
But the fact is that -- especially with IT systems -- "interchangeability" is the one that leads to all the others.
If the level of quality, environmental friendliness, safety, reliability, and efficiency that you're getting isn't enough for you, it *doesn't matter if you're technologically incapable of switching to another solution.
>>Life without profit has a name: "loss".
My business dictionary says that the name would actually be "breakeven".
Also that this condition is sustainable, all other things being equal
Specifically, the contention of some broadcasters that they can control every use of the #$%#$6ing electromagnetic waves that are *shooting *into *your *house.
You want to keep control of X and all its externalities? Keep it and all of its externalities off my property!
Slashdot Mirror
The latest versions of Vista Genuine Service Pack Premium are able to tell that when you type domain name X, you really meant domain name Y.
For example, it knows utube.com means youtube.com (and should be blocked) and it knows that google.com means "live.com" and so on.
Their brilliance brings a tear to me eyes.
"then the point-click-drool solution doubtlessly is "better" for them."
for now.
I know Joe. He wants a lot of things. He wants our web design firm to make it so that whatever funky formatting he tries to paste in from MS Word will come out in the site exactly how it looks in Word.
Joe has a problem: the cost of creating an online application that mirrors Word (and Excel and friends) exactly is in the several-millions, and is furthermore legally proscribed by patents anyway.
We can hook Joe up with some great RTEs and OOo templates that work for a couple thousand dollars, but Joe wants the illegal multimillion dollar project for $2,000.
I'm not interested in trying to accomodate Joe anymore.
"When will MS begin to put the interests of their customers first?"
When their customers grow a pair and realize that MS sells something for which there are substitutes.
Also the federal government.
"For just a little extra money, you can have degraded performance and not have to worry about all that controlling-your-own-hardware nonsense"
Alas, like most of their similar pitches, I'm putting my money on it working spectacularly.
I was going to take issue with the same quote. Accepting technology control measures like DRM affects *everyone.
.. copyright infringement is pretty bad, but it's not as bad as subversive speech/hate speech/insert-whatever-someone-would-like-to-suppress...
Thought experiment: in a decade or so, when the RIAA and MPAA no longer exist, what good will all these Trusted Computing Modules be?
Gee
Surely these modules could be refurbished to help fight the War Against Nonpatriotic Stuff!
"I'm trying to imply that not all content on Youtube is copyrighted, and only a small fraction of it is going to be copyrighted by an owner actively defending their copyrights."
Well, the first clause here is outright false. The second is true, but raises the question:
What cool, space-age tech will the Zune use to determine whether the copyright holder is actively defending her rights before it blocks the playback? Can't wait to see it!
My OS Will be called "GINGL"
It stands for "Gingl Is Not GNU/Linux"
For now, it will just be a rebranded dyne:bolic.
"if a version shipped with features nobody wanted, people would stop buying it. Instant negative feedback"
Totaly. Dead on, man. I remember when I bought Vista, and its DRM started preventing me from watching movies that I paid Netflix to watch. I stopped buying Vista that day and bam! DRM & trusted computing module were gone by sunrise.
When I hear "rich web experiences" nowadays, I generally run.
..
To me this phrase means no context menus (right-clicking), no "open in new tab" and other *totally normal browsing behavior, no retrieving information for local storage
In sum, it means the *one way of navving the site that designers anticipated will be nice and rich. Point, click, grunt..
as explained here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=85392&title=server-crossfire&to=2
I agree with you on those points, and think that FOSS is more innovative where it counts.
My general point is against the deduction that being-less-innovative (in the limited sense most people understand it) doesn't amount to inferiority.
Where are all the white women at?
free software development won't gravitate toward 'new and radical' because it is (in the main) not in a competitive race for market share. There's not as big an impetus to wow users and get them to switch, etc. 90% of the things people like doing with computers rely on technology that was boring in 1993. The bells and whistles are *market *differentiators.
you're trying to make FOSS look bad for losing a game it wasn't built to play.
It's pretty much the same as saying 'So tell me what source code has Microsoft released? What protocols or standards have they tried to open up for competition?'
You know what would be awesome? A *single scrap of evidence for your contention that
'although some people get paid to do this, most do it in their free time while getting paid to work another, "real" job.'
yes. That part of the story was about Android. I am hoping not to be thusly disappointed again w/r/t igoogle. so far am not
Just posting the TOS in case anyone else was interested in this question. IANAL, but this TOS seems pretty acceptable to me.
http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS
Don't do another pseudo-open API like Android. I had been all excited about the prospect of playing with that (woot, an Eclipse plugin already!) until I read about its licensing.
I could care less who flocks to what in droves. But "hardware support" is a measurable quality. You measure it by the number of pieces of hardware that are supported. It's not particularly interesting to me that a few dozen nonfree devices have partnered up with a couple of nonfree OSes so that they might appear to have "better hardware support" or "better usability".
Linux supports more devices on more architectures than any other OS. And, if I recall correctly, it's not even close. The latest sound cards and "unusual" video cards (from Best Buy?) are not a good test of hardware support. They only test market share.
Forgot: This is just another way of saying that the availability of substitutes is important to the functioning of any competitive market
But the fact is that -- especially with IT systems -- "interchangeability" is the one that leads to all the others. If the level of quality, environmental friendliness, safety, reliability, and efficiency that you're getting isn't enough for you, it *doesn't matter if you're technologically incapable of switching to another solution.
>>Life without profit has a name: "loss". My business dictionary says that the name would actually be "breakeven". Also that this condition is sustainable, all other things being equal
Specifically, the contention of some broadcasters that they can control every use of the #$%#$6ing electromagnetic waves that are *shooting *into *your *house. You want to keep control of X and all its externalities? Keep it and all of its externalities off my property!