I'll be sure to tell the RedHat millionaires that next time I see them at the Polo club.
Ok, so you're saying that the sucess of the Red Hat Project is the norm with other projects of that nature? Obviously there are exceptions, hence my saying usually. It works sometimes, most of the time it dosn't. I'm not saying it's wrong to do, just saying from either a general business standpoint or an open source developer standpoint, it's usually a bad idea.
No, I'm saying that if I sell software it is for the purpose of profit and to do that I would want to at least try to protect my serivce by closing the source. If I want to develop something with the intention of releasing it for free, and I have, then I do it for nothing more than furthering the open source community. When you try to mix the two it *usually* dosn't pan out.
Understandable, however, because I live in America and I write software so that I can make money and live a comfortable happy life, if I write software for profit, I want to make sure that it stays with me. If it's gpl anyone can modify and anyone can have it taking me out of the loop. Which is great in some cases, but in others not so much. If I want to write something to contribute / donate to the community I do that, if I want to profit I close the source so that I can maintane and support the product properly. It just makes sense to do it that way to me. When you start trying to mix the two, complications often arrise.
There's nothing wrong with non free software, so long as the cost is worth the end result. Sometimes it makes more sense to buy something because it is supported and stable and someone can be held accountable for mistakes. Don't get me wrong, open source software has it's place, but that place is not every where. For the most part Open Source means Open Sore, which is fine if you have the time/engery/resources to make it work the way it needs to. Not everything is free.
I would use linux as it can be as light wieght as you need it to be (Cheack out damn small linuxhttp://www.damnsmalllinux.org/) or more robust to suit your needs. Also here's a fine example of a linux pda http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT2134869242. html
I personally think it is the most simple route to go as it's free and people will be more than will to make their own software for it.
WEll I guess no one really cares about this. Or there's something completely awesome going on and I'm missing it because I'm lurking on slashdot. Check out http://www.apple-history.nl/support_files/h8.html
for some interesting mac history all the way from the 1970's to today.
check out here http://www.apple.com/macosx/uptodate/ it says people who purchased on april 12th or after will be able to upgrade for the cost of the media...which is nice as I ordered my new ibook last night...so I should qualify...I think.
Some of the best games I have ever played were on my father's anchient atari 5200. Back when games where focus on having challenging gameplay and great replay value. Since when has pac man or galazia or qbert gotten boring? It would seem most games nowadays are more focused on fancy visual effects rather than basic gameplay. It's a shame, but at least we still have the classics. Interesting wiki http://wiki.media-culture.org.au/index.php/Videoga mes_history on the history of video games.
The general concencious is that software patents are mainly stiffling the ability for new software to be produced. Here's an interesting tid bit about problems with software patents. It's a really interesting read I suggest it. Here it is http://perens.com/Articles/PatentFarming.html
Personally, if I'm getting a monitor I want it to be dvi and have a very fast response rate. I think that the majority of people buying monitors have no idea what most specs even mean. Tom's hardware had a good article on this not too long ago http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20040226/
Doubt most of the slashdot crowd would find much new information there, but perhaps some will.
I suppose you have two simple options....learn the skills you would need to write your own app and release it to the community, or ask the community to write one. Sounds like a realativly simple project to me. You could ask around on dirrent forums or even post the job on http://www.rentacoder.com/ and you could ask people to do it for free.
Of course his alternative is his own software, I just don't see what the problem is with GPL. All it does is make sure that if you want your code open, anyone else wants to use it has to keep theirs open as well. It encourages idea sharing, not some money making scheme for rising third world nations. If you want some interesting history of the GPL check this out http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/
I agree with you about the necessity of using purly open source solutions in an open source project, however in some cases, compromises are thought necessary to make. I suppose in this case the compromise was shown to have a less than satisfactory outcome. Linux world has an interesting interview with McVoy here http://www.linuxworld.com/story/32618.htm which kind of explains a little bit more about why Linus origionally decided to use bitkeeper.
That's the real key, if the network can't be scalable then you're not setting your self up to do further work for the company. When you give someone a solution it should have the ability to grow with them. In the end it's almost allways cheaper to go with the more complete solution than the simple one.
I don't understand why the community is up in arms about Linus using a different tool for kernel development. If that's what he feels most productive using, what difference does it make? On a side note, found an interesting wiki on the history of bitkeeper http://www.osdl.org/cgi-bin/osdl_development_wiki. pl?action=history&id=OSDL_Bitkeeper.Osdl.Org_How_T o
It's a realativly interesting read if you want to know more about it.
I suppose that I never really looked at it that way but you are right. Because enough people have reverse compiled the cherry os code and compaired it the the pear pc code it has generated quite an angry buzz in the opensource community. It's funny how allmost anything can be controlled by a large enough online community. just in case anyone is interested I stumbled across this http://www.gpl-violations.org/the other day. Good site to keep an eye on and support, if I do say so myself.
I have to aggree, it's about time someone did something. There are countless websites compairing the two program's code. http://www.ht-technology.com/cherryos-pearpc/cherr yos-pearpc.html/ [ht-technology] is one of the better comparisons. This can't go untreated, or the GPL will lose it's merit IMHO.
Who cares...VB is quite possibly the worst language ever...horibly inefficent code and utterly simple syntax. Why not re code it in a real language like C++?:)
Wow, what a novel idea...now if HP hadn't allready done that some 8 months ago and if releasing that kind of information was legal and the story was real...this might actually be pretty cool.
Slashdot Mirror
How is this news? They've had this in the works fro quite sometime now, why is it news today and not oh say two or three months ago?
Well, why decrease your chances of success even more then?
Ok, so you're saying that the sucess of the Red Hat Project is the norm with other projects of that nature? Obviously there are exceptions, hence my saying usually. It works sometimes, most of the time it dosn't. I'm not saying it's wrong to do, just saying from either a general business standpoint or an open source developer standpoint, it's usually a bad idea.
No, I'm saying that if I sell software it is for the purpose of profit and to do that I would want to at least try to protect my serivce by closing the source. If I want to develop something with the intention of releasing it for free, and I have, then I do it for nothing more than furthering the open source community. When you try to mix the two it *usually* dosn't pan out.
Understandable, however, because I live in America and I write software so that I can make money and live a comfortable happy life, if I write software for profit, I want to make sure that it stays with me. If it's gpl anyone can modify and anyone can have it taking me out of the loop. Which is great in some cases, but in others not so much. If I want to write something to contribute / donate to the community I do that, if I want to profit I close the source so that I can maintane and support the product properly. It just makes sense to do it that way to me. When you start trying to mix the two, complications often arrise.
There's nothing wrong with non free software, so long as the cost is worth the end result. Sometimes it makes more sense to buy something because it is supported and stable and someone can be held accountable for mistakes. Don't get me wrong, open source software has it's place, but that place is not every where. For the most part Open Source means Open Sore, which is fine if you have the time/engery/resources to make it work the way it needs to. Not everything is free.
I would use linux as it can be as light wieght as you need it to be (Cheack out damn small linuxhttp://www.damnsmalllinux.org/) or more robust to suit your needs. Also here's a fine example of a linux pda http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT2134869242. html
I personally think it is the most simple route to go as it's free and people will be more than will to make their own software for it.
dude, take a look at the two year report, no the report for today http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/2y/a/aapl.gif There is deffinitly a steady and steep rise here.
WEll I guess no one really cares about this. Or there's something completely awesome going on and I'm missing it because I'm lurking on slashdot. Check out http://www.apple-history.nl/support_files/h8.html for some interesting mac history all the way from the 1970's to today.
check out here http://www.apple.com/macosx/uptodate/ it says people who purchased on april 12th or after will be able to upgrade for the cost of the media...which is nice as I ordered my new ibook last night...so I should qualify...I think.
Some of the best games I have ever played were on my father's anchient atari 5200. Back when games where focus on having challenging gameplay and great replay value. Since when has pac man or galazia or qbert gotten boring? It would seem most games nowadays are more focused on fancy visual effects rather than basic gameplay. It's a shame, but at least we still have the classics. Interesting wiki http://wiki.media-culture.org.au/index.php/Videoga mes_history on the history of video games.
The general concencious is that software patents are mainly stiffling the ability for new software to be produced. Here's an interesting tid bit about problems with software patents. It's a really interesting read I suggest it. Here it is http://perens.com/Articles/PatentFarming.html
Personally, if I'm getting a monitor I want it to be dvi and have a very fast response rate. I think that the majority of people buying monitors have no idea what most specs even mean. Tom's hardware had a good article on this not too long ago http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20040226/
Doubt most of the slashdot crowd would find much new information there, but perhaps some will.
I suppose you have two simple options....learn the skills you would need to write your own app and release it to the community, or ask the community to write one. Sounds like a realativly simple project to me. You could ask around on dirrent forums or even post the job on http://www.rentacoder.com/ and you could ask people to do it for free.
Of course his alternative is his own software, I just don't see what the problem is with GPL. All it does is make sure that if you want your code open, anyone else wants to use it has to keep theirs open as well. It encourages idea sharing, not some money making scheme for rising third world nations. If you want some interesting history of the GPL check this out http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/
I agree with you about the necessity of using purly open source solutions in an open source project, however in some cases, compromises are thought necessary to make. I suppose in this case the compromise was shown to have a less than satisfactory outcome. Linux world has an interesting interview with McVoy here http://www.linuxworld.com/story/32618.htm which kind of explains a little bit more about why Linus origionally decided to use bitkeeper.
That's the real key, if the network can't be scalable then you're not setting your self up to do further work for the company. When you give someone a solution it should have the ability to grow with them. In the end it's almost allways cheaper to go with the more complete solution than the simple one.
I don't understand why the community is up in arms about Linus using a different tool for kernel development. If that's what he feels most productive using, what difference does it make? On a side note, found an interesting wiki on the history of bitkeeper http://www.osdl.org/cgi-bin/osdl_development_wiki. pl?action=history&id=OSDL_Bitkeeper.Osdl.Org_How_T o
It's a realativly interesting read if you want to know more about it.
I suppose that I never really looked at it that way but you are right. Because enough people have reverse compiled the cherry os code and compaired it the the pear pc code it has generated quite an angry buzz in the opensource community. It's funny how allmost anything can be controlled by a large enough online community. just in case anyone is interested I stumbled across this http://www.gpl-violations.org/the other day. Good site to keep an eye on and support, if I do say so myself.
I have to aggree, it's about time someone did something. There are countless websites compairing the two program's code. http://www.ht-technology.com/cherryos-pearpc/cherr yos-pearpc.html/ [ht-technology] is one of the better comparisons. This can't go untreated, or the GPL will lose it's merit IMHO.
Who cares...VB is quite possibly the worst language ever...horibly inefficent code and utterly simple syntax. Why not re code it in a real language like C++? :)
Make the bogus news stop...someone...please.
The sad part is that this has allready happened some time ago with pizza hut and everquest two in SOE's neverending quest to control all MMO players in the Universe. -link- http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/?t=archives&date= 2005-02-21
and
http://everquest2.station.sony.com/pizza/
It's just sad.
Didn't I kind of say that...?
Wow, what a novel idea...now if HP hadn't allready done that some 8 months ago and if releasing that kind of information was legal and the story was real...this might actually be pretty cool.