Definitely a +1 on this. If they want it badly enough, they'll pay. And then to clear your conscience, you can always donate to the project with your newfound riches.
Honstly, if the code is BSD licensed, the only reason they want you to do this is to get rid of competition for their own benefit, which makes them undeserving of a generous price for your time and reputation. It's not like the BSD license would restrict them from using your project anyway, even for commercial purposes.
I've worked with XMPP, and despite having it's own organization devoted to developing the standard, it suffers from a lot of issues regarding actual standardization. Most of these issues are in the form of deprecated extensions. I think that will be the biggest hurdle for XMPP - yay standardization and open source and all that, but when old clients do things in a deprecated way and new clients do things the right way and don't bother with the deprecated features (because they're deprecated) then you start having some issues. Just look at all the extensions and tell me that this is a viable protocol for interoperability: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/
I second this. I bought a signed certificate from them and indeed it was about that much. No fancy subdomain or multidomain features or anything or that, just enough to get browsers to shut up about self-signed certificates. And it makes the site feel ten times more professional. Really, it's worth the investment for a basic signed cert if you're trying to run any sort of non-personal website.
You know, it's really starting to get to me, everyone beating on MS all the time. I mean, when you're the biggest, a lot of times your flaws stand out easier. Really, so what if a bunch of geeks on their spare time can write a 3D interface which performs better, and existed much earlier than the product of ten times as many full-time professionals? So what if you can do awesome things like formatting an empty file with its own filesystem? I mean, a huge security vulnerability in animated mouse cursors, and then releasing a patch that breaks more than it fixes... that's a mistake anyone can make, right? Well... apparently except for Linux, Apple, Amgia, Palm, BSD, or... well, pretty much anyone else.
Sarcasm aside, how exactly did it come to pass that the guy who wrote the code for animated mouse cursors managed to open an "extremely critical" security vulnerability in the process... and then how did it become so important that fixing it breaks applications which relied on said bug?
I'm sorry, I'm not entirely 100% anti-MS (XBox Live owns, Visual Studio.NET is one of the best IDEs that I've ever used, etc.) but really, these are some mighty clumsy mistakes to be making considering the magnitude of some of their more powerful clients...
Seriously, click those images and look at the full-sized versions. They're remarkably similar. And I've checked with our PR group to make sure that this wasn't just a template that Microsoft gave to all partners. It's not.
Friend of mine made this image - http://www.notsorandom.com/y-g.png. It shows the color difference between the two pages when overlayed. Note - Black pixels signify the exact same color.
I'm sorry Google... I love you and all... but this is just low. Not only ripping off the layout, they copied the entire page itself...
Hmm. This is a good point. I must have forgotten about how god can make you do things. I keep thinking that we have free will, and that people make choices based on their experience, sometimes influenced by the religious texts they read. No idea where I got that ridiculous idea from.
Sarcasm aside, I have a very hard time believing that because a few fundamentalists flew planes into some buildings, that's exactly what their god wanted them to do. I have to disagree with you, and argue that they, in fact, are the same God. The difference in the religion (see my last post) is what "made" those people sacrifice themselves for what they believe in. I personally don't believe any god would "make" his people kill anyone else for any reason.
Aye. As creepy and (in my opinion) anti-Christian as it is, by removing this game from the shelves, we set a president not for religious equality, but complete intolerance of any religion whatsoever (See: 'Happy Holidays'). As far as my beliefs go, I believe that 'Religion' and 'Faith' are not even close to being the same thing. Religion, in fact, kinda creeps me out. I do, however, have Faith that God (Note: I don't mean the "Christian god", I mean that guy that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship) is good, forgiving, and gave me a hell of a lot more than I deserve. In fact, taking this game off the shelves, in my interpretation (ianal), would be unconstitutional. I quote from http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs /billeng.htm - "Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". I see nothing in there about "Congress shall make laws forbidding establishment of religion". For fucks sake people, Wal-Mart is NOT the Government. Some guy wishes you a Merry Christmas at a store, it does NOT mean that the government is growing to favor Christianity.
Ok, so bit of a rant, but honestly - let people what they want to believe. Some guy wants to make a game (serious or not) about fundamentalist religious groups, he has the right to do that and is protected (both in religion and speech) by the first amendment. Get over it. Nobody's making you play it.
I would recommend the Eclipse CDT - it does C and C++, works on Windows with MinGW, Linux or Mac with GCC, and has far more descriptive syntax highlighting than VC++.
It's about freedom and users DO understand that if you put it in terms of costing you money:)
Unfortunately, that hasn't been my experience. In the digital age which has sprouted with the coming of the internet, data as a commodity costs nothing to duplicate. (This is a key difference between Open Source and Communism (Sounds foolish, but I've heard people accuse Linux of being a "communist OS"), but that's not my point). I'm sure everyone has heard the phrase "You get what you pay for". This has been a principle to live by since... well, a lot longer than I've been around. All of a sudden though, with the dawn of infinitely-reproducible goods, it's not necessarily true. Many people continue to live by this principle, and pay for "better" software, such as Oracle over MySQL, ISS over Apache, Windows over Linux, etc. So next time you tell a user "Oh yes, Linux is free", think of what that means to them in their age: "Why would they just give that away? Is it really that bad?"
I think that might be jumping the gun. American or not, the internet plays a huge role in the functionality of the modern world. Just imagine the chaos if international office networks went from "I can't open this word document you sent me because it's in a different format" to "I can't get email from you because you're on a different internet". American DNS control or not, decentralizing the internet like you suggest might happen could be one of the worst things that could happen for global communications.
I am currently employed as a programming intern in Product Support for a large company (not a software company, but I do software, so whatever.) I got this job because I'm good at programming. I got good at programming not by being in other jobs or taking classes, but by doing independent work. I don't think there are many people who can say this, but when I'm finished at work for the day, and have been staring at code for 8 hours straight with the occasional bathroom break, I go home and sit down at my computer and work on my own coding projects.
It was asked "What's the motivation?". My motivation is that I write code for precisely the same reason an artist creates art. Nobody becomes an artist for the money - they all do it because they love to create, and express themselves through a non-traditional way. I create code because I like to. I enjoy solving the types of problems that come up when I'm learning how to create windowed applications with GTK+ (http://www.gtk.org/) or something. I enjoy figuring out the best way to structure my application so that I can make code as reusable as possible. And as for "is code an art?" It depends on why you do it. People work on open source projects because they like to code. For this reason, commercial software will never extinguish FOSS, simply because there will always be people who enjoy programming and who want to work on the software that they use every day. These people are artists of their trade because they do it for the love of it, and nothing else. The person who goes to work every day, bounces back and forth between writing code and watching the time, and in general choses to be a programmer for the money, is no more an artist than anyone else who goes into their field for a reason other than just because they love it.
I catch a bit of crap here and there for taking the "easy way out" with Ubuntu, but you know what? I don't care. I've tried Debian, Fedora (Core 3, just as Core 4 came out, and then upgraded), Slack, and I almost attempted Gentoo, but the install guide scared me so I didn't. I've done my time, I deserve to take the easy way out now;). Besides, it's good to see a Linux install go so flawlessly - it makes non-Linux users confident that more things can go their way, and that Linux isn't a fight all the way through.
Anyway, right now I have 3 boxes running various flavors of Ubuntu. I have a Desktop PC running Dapper with XGL/Beryl, a Laptop running Xubuntu (Ubuntu with XFCE, rather than Gnome), and an Apache/MySQL/PHP5/FTP/BitTorrent-Tracker/whatever- else-I-feel-like server on an old Dell 533Mhz/64MB RAM/Terabyte Raid0 array running the Ubuntu server version. I use Ubuntu server, rather than Slack or something for two reasons: Hardware support, and Apt. I run Ubuntu as a desktop OS because of Apt, Ease of install, and because it's wicked sexy looking.
I've never tried SuSE, but I can't seem to find anything that Ubuntu can't do for me. (And in case you're wondering, yes, Ubuntu does offer Enterprise support, not that it really matters to me at the moment.)
"The Palm complaint also centers on products, services and systems that integrate e-mail systems with wireless communications, including the Treo, Palm VII, Palm i700 and Tungsten products."
How is that even possible? Owning a patent for email-via-wireless? Unless I'm mistaken, that's been done since the beginning of wireless.
I think what they meant is that a user can customize their style of the actual site. For instance: if I, Mr. Joe Sixpack Compn00b, followed a link from an email to "PayPal", which was actually some phisher's site, I might notice that this style is blue and white rather than my personalized Purple and Cyan (Joe Sixpack Compn00b has no artistic style)
Slashdot Mirror
Definitely a +1 on this. If they want it badly enough, they'll pay. And then to clear your conscience, you can always donate to the project with your newfound riches.
Honstly, if the code is BSD licensed, the only reason they want you to do this is to get rid of competition for their own benefit, which makes them undeserving of a generous price for your time and reputation. It's not like the BSD license would restrict them from using your project anyway, even for commercial purposes.
I've worked with XMPP, and despite having it's own organization devoted to developing the standard, it suffers from a lot of issues regarding actual standardization. Most of these issues are in the form of deprecated extensions. I think that will be the biggest hurdle for XMPP - yay standardization and open source and all that, but when old clients do things in a deprecated way and new clients do things the right way and don't bother with the deprecated features (because they're deprecated) then you start having some issues. Just look at all the extensions and tell me that this is a viable protocol for interoperability: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/
I second this. I bought a signed certificate from them and indeed it was about that much. No fancy subdomain or multidomain features or anything or that, just enough to get browsers to shut up about self-signed certificates. And it makes the site feel ten times more professional. Really, it's worth the investment for a basic signed cert if you're trying to run any sort of non-personal website.
I'm sorry, I can't find that text on that page. It must have been peer reviewed and found fallacious.
You know, it's really starting to get to me, everyone beating on MS all the time. I mean, when you're the biggest, a lot of times your flaws stand out easier. Really, so what if a bunch of geeks on their spare time can write a 3D interface which performs better, and existed much earlier than the product of ten times as many full-time professionals? So what if you can do awesome things like formatting an empty file with its own filesystem? I mean, a huge security vulnerability in animated mouse cursors, and then releasing a patch that breaks more than it fixes... that's a mistake anyone can make, right? Well... apparently except for Linux, Apple, Amgia, Palm, BSD, or... well, pretty much anyone else.
.NET is one of the best IDEs that I've ever used, etc.) but really, these are some mighty clumsy mistakes to be making considering the magnitude of some of their more powerful clients...
Sarcasm aside, how exactly did it come to pass that the guy who wrote the code for animated mouse cursors managed to open an "extremely critical" security vulnerability in the process... and then how did it become so important that fixing it breaks applications which relied on said bug?
I'm sorry, I'm not entirely 100% anti-MS (XBox Live owns, Visual Studio
Second to last paragraph before the Update:
Friend of mine made this image - http://www.notsorandom.com/y-g.png. It shows the color difference between the two pages when overlayed. Note - Black pixels signify the exact same color.
I'm sorry Google... I love you and all... but this is just low. Not only ripping off the layout, they copied the entire page itself...
Hmm. This is a good point. I must have forgotten about how god can make you do things. I keep thinking that we have free will, and that people make choices based on their experience, sometimes influenced by the religious texts they read. No idea where I got that ridiculous idea from. Sarcasm aside, I have a very hard time believing that because a few fundamentalists flew planes into some buildings, that's exactly what their god wanted them to do. I have to disagree with you, and argue that they, in fact, are the same God. The difference in the religion (see my last post) is what "made" those people sacrifice themselves for what they believe in. I personally don't believe any god would "make" his people kill anyone else for any reason.
Aye. As creepy and (in my opinion ) anti-Christian as it is, by removing this game from the shelves, we set a president not for religious equality, but complete intolerance of any religion whatsoever (See: 'Happy Holidays'). As far as my beliefs go, I believe that 'Religion' and 'Faith' are not even close to being the same thing. Religion, in fact, kinda creeps me out. I do, however, have Faith that God (Note: I don't mean the "Christian god", I mean that guy that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship) is good, forgiving, and gave me a hell of a lot more than I deserve. In fact, taking this game off the shelves, in my interpretation (ianal), would be unconstitutional. I quote from http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs /billeng.htm - "Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". I see nothing in there about "Congress shall make laws forbidding establishment of religion". For fucks sake people, Wal-Mart is NOT the Government. Some guy wishes you a Merry Christmas at a store, it does NOT mean that the government is growing to favor Christianity.
Ok, so bit of a rant, but honestly - let people what they want to believe. Some guy wants to make a game (serious or not) about fundamentalist religious groups, he has the right to do that and is protected (both in religion and speech) by the first amendment. Get over it. Nobody's making you play it.
I would recommend the Eclipse CDT - it does C and C++, works on Windows with MinGW, Linux or Mac with GCC, and has far more descriptive syntax highlighting than VC++.
I think that might be jumping the gun. American or not, the internet plays a huge role in the functionality of the modern world. Just imagine the chaos if international office networks went from "I can't open this word document you sent me because it's in a different format" to "I can't get email from you because you're on a different internet". American DNS control or not, decentralizing the internet like you suggest might happen could be one of the worst things that could happen for global communications.
Aye. I agree with this 100%.
I am currently employed as a programming intern in Product Support for a large company (not a software company, but I do software, so whatever.) I got this job because I'm good at programming. I got good at programming not by being in other jobs or taking classes, but by doing independent work. I don't think there are many people who can say this, but when I'm finished at work for the day, and have been staring at code for 8 hours straight with the occasional bathroom break, I go home and sit down at my computer and work on my own coding projects.
It was asked "What's the motivation?". My motivation is that I write code for precisely the same reason an artist creates art. Nobody becomes an artist for the money - they all do it because they love to create, and express themselves through a non-traditional way. I create code because I like to. I enjoy solving the types of problems that come up when I'm learning how to create windowed applications with GTK+ (http://www.gtk.org/) or something. I enjoy figuring out the best way to structure my application so that I can make code as reusable as possible. And as for "is code an art?" It depends on why you do it. People work on open source projects because they like to code. For this reason, commercial software will never extinguish FOSS, simply because there will always be people who enjoy programming and who want to work on the software that they use every day. These people are artists of their trade because they do it for the love of it, and nothing else. The person who goes to work every day, bounces back and forth between writing code and watching the time, and in general choses to be a programmer for the money, is no more an artist than anyone else who goes into their field for a reason other than just because they love it.
I catch a bit of crap here and there for taking the "easy way out" with Ubuntu, but you know what? I don't care. I've tried Debian, Fedora (Core 3, just as Core 4 came out, and then upgraded), Slack, and I almost attempted Gentoo, but the install guide scared me so I didn't. I've done my time, I deserve to take the easy way out now ;). Besides, it's good to see a Linux install go so flawlessly - it makes non-Linux users confident that more things can go their way, and that Linux isn't a fight all the way through.
- else-I-feel-like server on an old Dell 533Mhz/64MB RAM/Terabyte Raid0 array running the Ubuntu server version. I use Ubuntu server, rather than Slack or something for two reasons: Hardware support, and Apt. I run Ubuntu as a desktop OS because of Apt, Ease of install, and because it's wicked sexy looking.
Anyway, right now I have 3 boxes running various flavors of Ubuntu. I have a Desktop PC running Dapper with XGL/Beryl, a Laptop running Xubuntu (Ubuntu with XFCE, rather than Gnome), and an Apache/MySQL/PHP5/FTP/BitTorrent-Tracker/whatever
I've never tried SuSE, but I can't seem to find anything that Ubuntu can't do for me. (And in case you're wondering, yes, Ubuntu does offer Enterprise support, not that it really matters to me at the moment.)
"The Palm complaint also centers on products, services and systems that integrate e-mail systems with wireless communications, including the Treo, Palm VII, Palm i700 and Tungsten products." How is that even possible? Owning a patent for email-via-wireless? Unless I'm mistaken, that's been done since the beginning of wireless.
or, building off that, why were the W3 standards not implemented fully (but instead completely ignored) way back when?
I think what they meant is that a user can customize their style of the actual site. For instance: if I, Mr. Joe Sixpack Compn00b, followed a link from an email to "PayPal", which was actually some phisher's site, I might notice that this style is blue and white rather than my personalized Purple and Cyan (Joe Sixpack Compn00b has no artistic style)