It's probably not a result that would interest me.
The volunteers aren't directly rewarded financially (as if that was our motivator!). I write software because I enjoy writing software (though I don't call my software "Open Source" - it's Free Software).
Just because the relationship isn't directly finnacial doesn't mean that the relationship is exploitive (though some companies do actively exploit our communities - Microsoft and Apple in particular have used code without returning improvements).
These companies employ many hackers and fund many hacker project. I think Red Hat and IBM especially are a net gain.
The reason it's important is that these are two quite important members of the "Mac Community". Both are big, much read bloggers, and both are probably pretty influential.
Two people can be a huge loss if they're big opinion formers. Imagine if George Bush decided that the War on Terror was a bad idea. Would it still be just one person with a different opinon?
Because the users of the pirate copies won't like it.
You ask that question like Microsoft have some inheirant moral right to stop people using pirate copies. They have no such moral right. They happen to have the legal right in some places, but in all honestly that doesn't mean much in philosophy.
How about we begin to consider that taking Microsoft software without paying for it is morally acceptable? Imagine if I decided to jail everyone who copied and pasted the text of this post - Microsoft killswitching/jailing users of WinXP is the same principle.
It's not like I use a pirate copy either; I've been on Unix for a long time. I don't use Windows in the course of my day, but I strongly believe that others have a right to. It's time to give up on the idea that you can force someone to pay you a commission ($200 or whatever XP is now) on what is a private transfer between two people.
It would be useful to remember that this is the same paper that pushed the MMR Jab issue; telling people that it would give kids autism and bowel diseases.
A healthly amount of skepticism when dealing with the Daily Mail would be wise.
Four years ago, Corel shutdown their OSS site and now they are seeing a return to stability. While it is debatable whether their OSS division was the direct cause of financial hardship, it certainly seems to have been a factor.
This is a good point. People often seem to expect that FOSS is always a good venture for a business; it may not be. FOSS businesses have to handle themselves in a very careful way, and they have a business model that is a bit innovative and different.
They seemed to be not quite sure if they were a FOSS company or not, and, honestly, that normally makes things pretty difficult. The community doesn't appreciate it if you try and mix Free Software with closed stuff, and having two competing interests is never a good idea.
Some companies, such as Sun, have tried doing it both ways as a transitional period. I know Sun didn't like it much (neither did their profits) and they're now semi-decided that Free Software is the way they want to go. After all, why maintain a program alone, when they'res thousands of people of there who'd be interested in helping, if you're make your software Free?
It would have been smarter for Corel to go the Free Software route. They were an early competitor in the market, and could probably be a pretty big force today if they'd stuck at it. Thanks for reading my totally unqualified armchair businessman assestment of a multi-million dollar tech company.;)
One, Macromedia has a vested interest in keeping its sticky thumbs in everyones browser via Flash installations. They're not going to allow SVG to usurp the great thing they've got going, not matter how many users it infuriates. Expect a wealth of new Flash upgrades and especially better Flash authoring tools if SVG even look slike it's goign mainstream.
So what you're saying is...Macromedia will want to compete with any opposition? You mean, like they're some kind of business or something? Like, if, theoretically, they were a for-profit organisation trying to make enough money to cover what they spend on development? Jesus, that's a hell of an insight you have there.
Two, Flash is entrenched. It's not going anywhere fast. It's supported on a huge number of browsers and has no real competator. Even the mighty Google used it as a basis for their video serive. When Google relies on something, you know it's here to stay.
Obviously, if Google are using something for a brand new business sector that is currently popular, but not currently especially profitable, then Flash is obviously here to stay. Even if Google hate it (you can bet, with the level of talented programmers at Google - they despise it), obviously it's here to stay.
What really bugs me, apart from all these idiotic, obvious and entirely redundant reasons why "Flash is here to stay" is that for some reason, I actually had you friended until you made this post (I give my friends a +6 bonus to ensure I see their replies. Considering I normally browse at 3 moderation points, friends make up around 30-40% of the comments I read). Obviously, I must have considered you opinion as valueable at some point in the past. Well, no longer.
I don't know what you're talking about. Everybody is out here in force talking about how bad Freenode is. All the posts I've seen are negative. No one has said that Freenode has a good design, and people are talking about it's faults.
There's no hypocrisy here. People are using the same standards of stupid security on Win32 as they are on Freenode. You're an idiot looking to score apologist points.
Honestly, this isn't unusual for a startup that's taken on way to many high level staff. It's also not unsual for a business that makes this mistake to collapse quickly, or to find themselves uncompetitive.
Nothing's certain, but the chances shoot through the roof with a 1:3 exec to employee ratio.
The thing that bugs me most is that in ~37 years, we're gonna have a dupe.
Re:Not to be too pedantic about it, but...
on
Ubuntu Hacks
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Well, at least you got to plug your blog either way. Thank god for that.
I mean, if I hadn't discovered you blog (which is automatically linked as part of your user comment header, by the way; hows that for redundancy?) with it's gnome tips, funny pictures and flash animations (that obviously won't work on any real linux-users machine) I would have been seriously intellectually impoverished.
Either way, I think the word I'm looking for is thankyou.
Re:This is a book report, not a review
on
Ubuntu Hacks
·
· Score: 1
So? Time to get over yourself. I found it pretty useful.
There comes a point where you judge something on it's value rather than its definition. I couldn't give a flying fuck what slashdot calls it, and I'm not an Ubuntu user, but this looked like a pretty reasonable book for someone who was new.
Microsoft's last browser that supported windows 9x was released 5 years ago, while firefox is still planning on supporting it in new releases for at least another year.
It's not about comparision. We should support 9x for as long as possible. What Microsoft is doing is largely irrelevant; we're Free Software, I I believe we are very much better than them.
It remains to be seen what kind of market share 9x will have when Fx3 is released, but if it's above 5%, I see it as worth supporting.
A lot of people who are users of mail clients don't have control over server-side stuff.
What they (and I, from time to time) need is a mail client that can do more than it's share of the work. People who run mailservers are exclusively competent. Sometimes, they're so idiotic, that I've ended up having to do the work myself in order to compensate.
Slashdot Mirror
It's probably not a result that would interest me.
The volunteers aren't directly rewarded financially (as if that was our motivator!). I write software because I enjoy writing software (though I don't call my software "Open Source" - it's Free Software).
Just because the relationship isn't directly finnacial doesn't mean that the relationship is exploitive (though some companies do actively exploit our communities - Microsoft and Apple in particular have used code without returning improvements).
These companies employ many hackers and fund many hacker project. I think Red Hat and IBM especially are a net gain.
The reason it's important is that these are two quite important members of the "Mac Community". Both are big, much read bloggers, and both are probably pretty influential.
Two people can be a huge loss if they're big opinion formers. Imagine if George Bush decided that the War on Terror was a bad idea. Would it still be just one person with a different opinon?
Yes, exactly.
Open Source is totally unprofitable
Because the users of the pirate copies won't like it.
You ask that question like Microsoft have some inheirant moral right to stop people using pirate copies. They have no such moral right. They happen to have the legal right in some places, but in all honestly that doesn't mean much in philosophy.
How about we begin to consider that taking Microsoft software without paying for it is morally acceptable? Imagine if I decided to jail everyone who copied and pasted the text of this post - Microsoft killswitching/jailing users of WinXP is the same principle.
It's not like I use a pirate copy either; I've been on Unix for a long time. I don't use Windows in the course of my day, but I strongly believe that others have a right to. It's time to give up on the idea that you can force someone to pay you a commission ($200 or whatever XP is now) on what is a private transfer between two people.
It would be useful to remember that this is the same paper that pushed the MMR Jab issue; telling people that it would give kids autism and bowel diseases.
A healthly amount of skepticism when dealing with the Daily Mail would be wise.
Four years ago, Corel shutdown their OSS site and now they are seeing a return to stability. While it is debatable whether their OSS division was the direct cause of financial hardship, it certainly seems to have been a factor.
;)
This is a good point. People often seem to expect that FOSS is always a good venture for a business; it may not be. FOSS businesses have to handle themselves in a very careful way, and they have a business model that is a bit innovative and different.
They seemed to be not quite sure if they were a FOSS company or not, and, honestly, that normally makes things pretty difficult. The community doesn't appreciate it if you try and mix Free Software with closed stuff, and having two competing interests is never a good idea.
Some companies, such as Sun, have tried doing it both ways as a transitional period. I know Sun didn't like it much (neither did their profits) and they're now semi-decided that Free Software is the way they want to go. After all, why maintain a program alone, when they'res thousands of people of there who'd be interested in helping, if you're make your software Free?
It would have been smarter for Corel to go the Free Software route. They were an early competitor in the market, and could probably be a pretty big force today if they'd stuck at it. Thanks for reading my totally unqualified armchair businessman assestment of a multi-million dollar tech company.
One, Macromedia has a vested interest in keeping its sticky thumbs in everyones browser via Flash installations. They're not going to allow SVG to usurp the great thing they've got going, not matter how many users it infuriates. Expect a wealth of new Flash upgrades and especially better Flash authoring tools if SVG even look slike it's goign mainstream.
So what you're saying is...Macromedia will want to compete with any opposition? You mean, like they're some kind of business or something? Like, if, theoretically, they were a for-profit organisation trying to make enough money to cover what they spend on development? Jesus, that's a hell of an insight you have there.
Two, Flash is entrenched. It's not going anywhere fast. It's supported on a huge number of browsers and has no real competator. Even the mighty Google used it as a basis for their video serive. When Google relies on something, you know it's here to stay.
Obviously, if Google are using something for a brand new business sector that is currently popular, but not currently especially profitable, then Flash is obviously here to stay. Even if Google hate it (you can bet, with the level of talented programmers at Google - they despise it), obviously it's here to stay.
What really bugs me, apart from all these idiotic, obvious and entirely redundant reasons why "Flash is here to stay" is that for some reason, I actually had you friended until you made this post (I give my friends a +6 bonus to ensure I see their replies. Considering I normally browse at 3 moderation points, friends make up around 30-40% of the comments I read). Obviously, I must have considered you opinion as valueable at some point in the past. Well, no longer.
Whoops, my mistake. I did know that (I promise!), it was just a sreudian flip. ;)
There's really no need to state the obvious.
Bear in mind that Brussels is a pretty important European Country, in terms of governance.
They're not trying to make money, they're just trying to cover their losses. IIRC correctly DSL is non-commercial.
I don't know what you're talking about. Everybody is out here in force talking about how bad Freenode is. All the posts I've seen are negative. No one has said that Freenode has a good design, and people are talking about it's faults.
There's no hypocrisy here. People are using the same standards of stupid security on Win32 as they are on Freenode. You're an idiot looking to score apologist points.
Honestly, this isn't unusual for a startup that's taken on way to many high level staff. It's also not unsual for a business that makes this mistake to collapse quickly, or to find themselves uncompetitive.
Nothing's certain, but the chances shoot through the roof with a 1:3 exec to employee ratio.
I agree. I think you'll find, however, that no one else does.
Wall of text? You ever read a newspaper son?
The thing that bugs me most is that in ~37 years, we're gonna have a dupe.
Well, at least you got to plug your blog either way. Thank god for that.
I mean, if I hadn't discovered you blog (which is automatically linked as part of your user comment header, by the way; hows that for redundancy?) with it's gnome tips, funny pictures and flash animations (that obviously won't work on any real linux-users machine) I would have been seriously intellectually impoverished.
Either way, I think the word I'm looking for is thankyou.
So? Time to get over yourself. I found it pretty useful.
There comes a point where you judge something on it's value rather than its definition. I couldn't give a flying fuck what slashdot calls it, and I'm not an Ubuntu user, but this looked like a pretty reasonable book for someone who was new.
Microsoft's last browser that supported windows 9x was released 5 years ago, while firefox is still planning on supporting it in new releases for at least another year.
It's not about comparision. We should support 9x for as long as possible. What Microsoft is doing is largely irrelevant; we're Free Software, I I believe we are very much better than them.
It remains to be seen what kind of market share 9x will have when Fx3 is released, but if it's above 5%, I see it as worth supporting.
It's an excellent point, and an excellent precedent. Thanks for the text.
I'm interested in reading the explaination of reasoning, but it seems your link is broken with some db error (The event log file is full).
You got another link?
A lot of people who are users of mail clients don't have control over server-side stuff.
What they (and I, from time to time) need is a mail client that can do more than it's share of the work. People who run mailservers are exclusively competent. Sometimes, they're so idiotic, that I've ended up having to do the work myself in order to compensate.
Christ, you got two replies where you've been disagreed with, and you've left two screaming personal attacks.
People don't always agree with you. The solution may be to keep cool and deal with it.
I was almost fooled.
Well, whatever. If we had something that was Free, it would obviously be flexible enough for people to do whatever.