I've seen some talk lately about using Flash to create GUIs for games and other 3D apps. I would think that open-sourcing Flex would get those same people to think about using it instead. I think this is probably a pretty solid move for Adobe and will drive adoption of Flex quite a bit faster.
The ability to improve it yourself definitely doesn't hurt, either.
Why would a shop with Windows boxes reject a piece of software on the basis that it runs on Windows?
I suppose it's vaguely possible that they are trying to get rid of the Windows boxes, but that places them back in the category of 'non-Windows shop.'
The only other option I see is that it's his personal preference and not the company's. In that case, you are correct, he might be making a poor decision. I tend to assume people have a modicum of sense until they've proven otherwise, though.
So, you're saying you think it might be cheaper for an completely non-windows shop to set up a windows server solely to run their dynamic DNS and then hire someone that knows how to keep it running rather than find a solution that runs on their current OS of choice?
If they've decided that they don't want Windows machines in their shop at all, it isn't very likely to be cost-effective to have one there.
Shop? Have you SEEN the selection out there? I'm sure they DO shop... For things they CARE about. Most users don't have ANY clue what the OS itself does. They don't care, and shouldn't have to. It's the apps on top of it that matter.
My father would rather be shopping for new tools. My mother, clothes. My sisters, toys for their kids and clothes for themselves. None of them have ANY interest in shopping for an OS.
You shop for things that will DO something for you. If you can't tell the difference between 2 apparently identical items, how do you decide between them? You buy the most popular one. In this case, it's even more simple: Windows runs all their current programs and Linux does not. That's why they choose it. You can advocate Linux all day long and that's what will make 99% of 'users' choose Windows. (This does not include anyone with any computer know-how.)
"it is unstructured choice that makes it difficult for consumers"
I'll agree with that. Now tell me where the structure is in choosing a distro for Linux.
MS offers choices in their new Vista, and the 5 or so versions that they offer is an almost unbearable choice for consumers. ('Ohhh, do I really need feature X? What if I choose not to get it, and need it later?') At least they have a chart that shows you the features and what you'll be missing if you buy the cheap ones.
Linux offers dozens of distros and I've never yet seen a chart that shows the pros and cons of each one, or even the biggest 5. For instance, check this page. http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2005/10/ 27/what-is-a-linux-distribution.html It says 'Choosing a Linux Distribution' and lists the major ones. Does it tell you what they do? No, it tells you how they were born. WTF good is that?? It does recommend Debian for servers, and Ubuntu for newcomers. But it doesn't say the features at all.
So it's unstructured choice. You could spend months on the net researching distros before you actually found the one that suited you. With the Windows Vista chart, it would take an hour, tops.
BTW, that link was the first result from Googling 'linux distro chart' and none of the other results even seem relevant.
Yeah, he's wrong about 'every commercial product is designed either by one person, or by very small group of people'. But small companies DO tend to have a strict visionary leading the way. The company I work for does. Every time I am blinded by possibilities, I simply ask. He always has an answer, and it usually goes WAY deeper than I was thinking when I asked the question. He's got a goal clearly in mind and the programming team is how he's going to get there.
So instead, I'd say that initially, every -new- commercial product is -dreamt- 'either by one person, or by very small group of people.' Where it goes from there makes the difference.
FOSS projects, on the other hand, may have come from that, but they might also just be someone's passing fancy.
I really like the idea of Extreme Programming and building an app a little at a time. But I've found it's a LOT easier to have a vision of the end-goal and work towards that, rather than work on a little piece at a time as if that piece was a distinct unit. Commercial vs FOSS is kind of like that, too. A commercial product typically heads right for the goal, where a FOSS project has a smaller goal, then a larger one, then... etc etc. It grows, instead of being built.
And you seem to misunderstand his entire point. Maybe it'll help if I call it Gnu/Linux.
Gnu/Linux has too many divergent ways to display graphical things. Windows and OSX each have 1 way and there's no choice. You only have to test with a single windowing system on each of those.
Gnu/Linux has dozens. Literally. There's a few mainstream ones, though, and even that is a hassle. If you had your choice to build an app on a system that you had to test with 1 windowing system or 4, which would you pick? In the long run, making it work with multiple will probably improve the quality of your code, but businesses are worried about getting the product out the door and making money. The GP also noted legal issues. They have to understand and abide by different licenses for each system they officially deploy on. Quite annoying.
Gnu/Linux has 1 major problem left, and this is it. I have no idea how the issue will be resolved, though. I'm a KDE zealot myself, and I never want to give it up, mainly for the extras it provides like KIO slaves. (The FISH protocol is a god-send.)
That sums it up exactly. I've -tried- to like it. The auto-battle seems even intrigues me, as a programmer. But really you fight from place to place for no apparent reason and get a little cutscene when you get there. Because they were trying to focus on everyone, instead of the main character, the cutscenes are too generic and the few that DO have a main character have a different one each time.
I like having more than 1 main character. FF8 was a great example of this. You'd switch back and forth between their stories and learn each a bit at a time. But move that to 6 characters (I don't even remember how many were in 12 now... How sad) and you end up with such a tiny slice of each that it's pointless.
FF12's biggest failing was immersion. I never felt like I was there with any of the characters and I certainly didn't care about what happened to any of the characters. Even the soccer-dork in FFX was more interesting to me.
Most of the older ones do. Then for a while, they were just an OEM windows disk, and then you had to install all the add-ons afterwards. I think they are still that way.
It doesn't matter though, because it is NOT illegal to download a real OEM cd that exactly matches your (XP Home OEM, XP Pro OEM, etc.) and use YOUR key code. If you don't match it exactly, your keycode won't work.
I have done this to many computers to clean them up. It's also a lot handier to have a single OEM Home and OEM Pro laying around than try to get the customer to find their OEM CD.
Occasionally, very very occasionally, it'll accept the number and still make you call in because there's something off-kilter. I've never had them turn me down for activation over the phone, though. The correct answer is 'This software is only installed on this computer.' And as long as that's true, you've gone -nothing- illegal. (Or even immoral.)
I actually considered that, but I knew that donating to Wine wouldn't make it happen any faster and it wouldn't help push the project in the direction I wanted. (The games I own, that is.)
The opposite is true about this company. They need the money badly, and they might actually listen to the first few people that donate. (Or the group, once a lot of have donated.)
I subscribed to Cedega for a while, too, but once I realized that it wasn't that much better than Wine, I decided that they were too commercial to really do well compared to Wine.
Yes, I paid. I'm one of very few so far, apparently. At the time, I thought their focus was to make Windows games run natively on Linux, 1 at a time. (Meaning the game will work well and they won't move on to the next until it does.) The very next week, their focus is shifted to DX10. 'Cool,' I thought, thinking it was DX10 on Linux. I now see it's on Windows XP... Bleh. No answer from them on if they plan to make it work on Linux also.
$50 wasted.
See, I've -got- the money to spend on the hardware and the OS and all the upgrades for the next few years. That isn't the issue. I just want games to work on an OS with good moral character. Or at least neutral. I'd settle for 'not completely shady.' But nooooo.
By the way, their Linux demo that is only for paying people... It doesn't work on my system. There's no sound, and it crashes after the menu. They spent a couple weeks looking at it, but their final answer was 'We can't reproduce this bug' and 'we need to focus our effort on the product.' While I agree that's probably the right attitude at some point... When you've only got a very very few paying customers, you make ALL of them very happy so they'll bring in other paying customers.
I'm only 30, and I've never thought the 'American Dream' was anything but 'get rich quick.' I mean, sure, maybe 200 years ago. But even in the early 1900s, all the movies show immigrants coming to America and suddenly they have nice clothes and smiles. Just from moving here.
It's been a LONG time since the 'American Dream' was portrayed as anything but 'move to America and be fat and happy'.
As for the stock market, my Dad is caught in the middle. He watches it short term (daily, ugh!) but says he wants it as a long-term investment. He curses day-traders constantly. I just stay away from it. I figure it'll eventually settle down again and be an investment, and if it doesn't, it isn't what I want anyhow.
The manufacturing process and design of a product don't get put in public domain when a patent expires for a device. Why should software be any different?
"I see but if this is really the issue, wouldn't it be enough to require a way to recompile the application in case of static linking not just disallow it?"
Sure, that license is called the GPL. The ONLY way to recompile the application is to distribute the source. The LGPL, as it is, allows you to keep your source closed but use LGPL libraries. That is MUCH better than requiring the source to be distributed.
And yes, library upgrades don't always work. But in the case of a bug fix, you can backport the bugfix to the library without changing the API and then use that with the application as if it were the original library. With static linking, this is not possible without the source code for the entire application and every library it static linked to.
"Viral license" is not "stupid wording." It is descriptive. It only means that anything that is touched by it is affected by it. You can't use GPL code without your entire application being GPL'd. If someone had chicken pox on their left arm, do you say 'He's got chicken pox, but only on his left arm'? No, you just say 'He has chicken pox.' It affects the entire body, not just the left arm. The GPL is the same way.
Notice that people don't say the LGPL is a viral license. That's because the only way it is viral is if you compile the code into your own. If you link it as a shared library, the LGPL does not affect your code. Since you have the option of using it either way, it is not viral.
If the code is GPL, you only have the option to use or not use it. The same as a virus. You CAN choose to not get a virus. All you have to do is build yourself a little germ-free bubble and take the most insane safety precautions.
Because it's a viral license. If I use project X's code in my project, and I improve that code, I have -no- problem with returning that improvement. If I have to also give away my entire project because of it... No. Just no.
The no-static-linking clause is mainly to allow upgrades to that library for the people using your application. If it's statically linked, and you don't release your code, I'm stuck with an app on my system that I can't upgrade the libraries for. The main reason to want to upgrade them would be to remove security holes, but added features, improved performance, and other fun stuff are also good reasons.
There's something wrong with ALL licenses. There's no such thing as the 'perfect' license because each developer wants to give different permissions.
That would be theft, yes, and DOES deserve to go to court. (Copyright infringement, whatever.) Assuming it really happened, of course. The reasons this case is going on so long is because SCO hasn't really been wronged, and it will -never- be possible to prevent idiots from attempting to sue. (Unless nobody can sue, ever, and that would pretty much defeat the point.)
"Are you convinced five years is enough time to reap the benefits from an invention?"
For the majority of them. For the remainder, if it took the company 5 years to get it working, how would another company manage to do it enough better to screw the original company out of their investment? And honestly, if they can, shame on the original company.
In the end, I think it comes down to this: Patents help 1 high-investment exist while thousands of small investments reap way more benefit than they should.
Mandatory car analogy: Ford patents the car. With no competition, he doesn't bother to improve it much. Would cars be ANYTHING like they are today if Ford had managed to have the only car for YEARS? (Like all proper car analogies, this one has flaws. But it shows my point.)
Is the first post automatically scored -1 now or something? This is on topic and I'm sure a TON of us feel the same way. I am extremely sick of all the BS lawsuits, patents, and all the other non-programming crap.
I used to -hate- the GPL. Now, I like the LGPL and I'm starting to think the GPL is the right way to go after all. Could RMS actually be a visionary and not just a zealot? It's already undeniable that he's done the entire software industry a world of good by sticking to his beliefs.
And all because the world of corporate greed has managed to get a toe-hold on the world of programming.
I personally think they should make patents only good for 5 years, give everyone that currently has a patent 5 years remaining, and be done. In 5 years time, we'd see such a monumental growth in the software industry that it will be amazing. The simple stuff that was costing tons of money would come out as open source projects, and commercial products would in turn work on stuff that's truly innovative.
Oddly enough, the distinction isn't so fine as you make it sound.
http://dict.die.net/hacker/
2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who
enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about
programming.
8. (Deprecated) A malicious meddler who tries to discover
sensitive information by poking around. Hence "password
hacker", "network hacker". The correct term is cracker. http://dict.die.net/cracker/
jargon An individual who attempts to gain unauthorised
access to a computer system. These individuals are often
malicious and have many means at their disposal for breaking
into a system.
While it is expected that any real hacker will have done some
playful cracking and knows many of the basic techniques,
anyone past larval stage is expected to have outgrown the
desire to do so except for immediate practical reasons (for
example, if it's necessary to get around some security in
order to get some work done). So while most hackers are crackers, most crackers are not hackers. (Sort of like 'all panthers are cats, but not all cats are panthers.')
AMD does indeed need to invest in some advertising. The last campaign I remember of theirs was when they started advertising Athlons, I think. I remember that their advertising actually said 2 mutually exclusive things on the same ad sheet, but I don't remember exactly what it said. Something about 133 cycles vs 100 being better, and then they actually said the opposite in the paragraph next to it. (I think they were TRYING to said that Mhz was not an accurate measurement anymore, because of the 133 cycles thing, but they flubbed it.)
I switched away from Intel once, to a Cyrix. It was such an amazingly crappy piece of junk that I switched back as soon as I could afford to replace it. When I started to think about AMD, there was some issues with some games not working on AMD that worked on Intel. That's when I pretty much gave up and I pretty much refuse to use anything but Intel now. I don't have a problem with selling AMDs to others, I just won't use them myself. (Kinda hypocritical, now that I think about it.)
Whoa, wait a minute there bucko. Where did I say that Apple does it right? I don't actually own a single Apple product. Not a Mac Mini, not an iPod, nothing. I've thought about an iPod, and a ModBook, and a Mac Mini. But since the first thing I'd do would be to put Kubuntu on the computers, or MP3s on the iPod, it didn't make sense to spend my money that way.
I'll admit it. I used to -really- hate Apple computers. After the IIe, and before OS X, I found nothing I liked about them. I used Windows most of that time, and recently (a couple years ago) switched to Linux for most of my computing needs. (Games! -sigh-)
So no, none of my 'comebacks' are in your list. Here it is instead:
Are you better than the MS-bashers or not? Why would you follow their lead if you are? Just because they mistakenly take MS articles with the wrong tag does not mean that you should do the same to Apple, and it certainly doesn't mean you should attempt to encourage others to.
I think you have totally misunderstood what that tag means. It means that the designer specifically designed the device to not do something that is normally expected or wanted, or has been designed in such a way as to annoy the user constantly. In other words, they had to work harder to make sure the device did not work. Typical MS things that are defective by design are DRM, Clippy, and that new security thing in Vista that is so annoying.
These were bugs, not by design. Apple didn't not specifically intend for them to exist, and has now fixed them.
Hah, no worries. I know better than to feed the trolls, but I posted my comment anyhow. Chalk it up to being sick and tired. Literally. (Been working extra hours to get this freaking project out.) I am (horrifying) reinstalling Windows at the moment to test on IE6 because that VM got corrupted. -sigh-
I see you didn't bother to read mine. It's not the one you are used to seeing. I responded to that one.
No, I didn't 'forget' to click 'Post Anonymously.' I'm not a troll and I have no worries about what I post. The only time I post anonymously is when I don't want to be a karma-whore.
I've decided that the freak that posts this is actually a Mac hater and is trying to promote Microsoft by making everyone think Mac user are elitist assholes. I could have believed the first one I saw was actually just a dumbass. The second time... Well, a persistent dumbass.
But to post this very same post on each and every single Slashdot posting... That takes someone dedicated to a cause. And since the person wasn't born with a Mac, there was a time when they didn't know all the things in the list. Any idiot could think their way through that.
So it's got to be someone trying to make Macs look bad by pretending to be a Mac troll. And just for kicks:
ATTN: TROLLEURS
If you routinely get modded -1 Troll, GTFO. If you have nothing to say worth reading, GTFO. If you post the same exact post over and over, GTFO. If you can't be part of a community and interact with others like a civilized human being, GTFO.
Trolls are not welcome among real Slashdot reader. Keep your filthy, troll fingers to yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen some talk lately about using Flash to create GUIs for games and other 3D apps. I would think that open-sourcing Flex would get those same people to think about using it instead. I think this is probably a pretty solid move for Adobe and will drive adoption of Flex quite a bit faster.
The ability to improve it yourself definitely doesn't hurt, either.
Why would a shop with Windows boxes reject a piece of software on the basis that it runs on Windows?
I suppose it's vaguely possible that they are trying to get rid of the Windows boxes, but that places them back in the category of 'non-Windows shop.'
The only other option I see is that it's his personal preference and not the company's. In that case, you are correct, he might be making a poor decision. I tend to assume people have a modicum of sense until they've proven otherwise, though.
So, you're saying you think it might be cheaper for an completely non-windows shop to set up a windows server solely to run their dynamic DNS and then hire someone that knows how to keep it running rather than find a solution that runs on their current OS of choice?
If they've decided that they don't want Windows machines in their shop at all, it isn't very likely to be cost-effective to have one there.
Shop? Have you SEEN the selection out there? I'm sure they DO shop... For things they CARE about. Most users don't have ANY clue what the OS itself does. They don't care, and shouldn't have to. It's the apps on top of it that matter.
My father would rather be shopping for new tools. My mother, clothes. My sisters, toys for their kids and clothes for themselves. None of them have ANY interest in shopping for an OS.
You shop for things that will DO something for you. If you can't tell the difference between 2 apparently identical items, how do you decide between them? You buy the most popular one. In this case, it's even more simple: Windows runs all their current programs and Linux does not. That's why they choose it. You can advocate Linux all day long and that's what will make 99% of 'users' choose Windows. (This does not include anyone with any computer know-how.)
"how on earth did this dire article make it through the editors process?
Its of abysmal quality and precious little substance."
When grammar/spelling-nazi'ing, please be sure your own post is correct first. At the very least, -1- of your 2 sentences could have been correct.
"it is unstructured choice that makes it difficult for consumers"
/ 27/what-is-a-linux-distribution.html It says 'Choosing a Linux Distribution' and lists the major ones. Does it tell you what they do? No, it tells you how they were born. WTF good is that?? It does recommend Debian for servers, and Ubuntu for newcomers. But it doesn't say the features at all.
I'll agree with that. Now tell me where the structure is in choosing a distro for Linux.
MS offers choices in their new Vista, and the 5 or so versions that they offer is an almost unbearable choice for consumers. ('Ohhh, do I really need feature X? What if I choose not to get it, and need it later?') At least they have a chart that shows you the features and what you'll be missing if you buy the cheap ones.
Linux offers dozens of distros and I've never yet seen a chart that shows the pros and cons of each one, or even the biggest 5. For instance, check this page. http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2005/10
So it's unstructured choice. You could spend months on the net researching distros before you actually found the one that suited you. With the Windows Vista chart, it would take an hour, tops.
BTW, that link was the first result from Googling 'linux distro chart' and none of the other results even seem relevant.
Yeah, he's wrong about 'every commercial product is designed either by one person, or by very small group of people'. But small companies DO tend to have a strict visionary leading the way. The company I work for does. Every time I am blinded by possibilities, I simply ask. He always has an answer, and it usually goes WAY deeper than I was thinking when I asked the question. He's got a goal clearly in mind and the programming team is how he's going to get there.
So instead, I'd say that initially, every -new- commercial product is -dreamt- 'either by one person, or by very small group of people.' Where it goes from there makes the difference.
FOSS projects, on the other hand, may have come from that, but they might also just be someone's passing fancy.
I really like the idea of Extreme Programming and building an app a little at a time. But I've found it's a LOT easier to have a vision of the end-goal and work towards that, rather than work on a little piece at a time as if that piece was a distinct unit. Commercial vs FOSS is kind of like that, too. A commercial product typically heads right for the goal, where a FOSS project has a smaller goal, then a larger one, then... etc etc. It grows, instead of being built.
And you seem to misunderstand his entire point. Maybe it'll help if I call it Gnu/Linux.
Gnu/Linux has too many divergent ways to display graphical things. Windows and OSX each have 1 way and there's no choice. You only have to test with a single windowing system on each of those.
Gnu/Linux has dozens. Literally. There's a few mainstream ones, though, and even that is a hassle. If you had your choice to build an app on a system that you had to test with 1 windowing system or 4, which would you pick? In the long run, making it work with multiple will probably improve the quality of your code, but businesses are worried about getting the product out the door and making money. The GP also noted legal issues. They have to understand and abide by different licenses for each system they officially deploy on. Quite annoying.
Gnu/Linux has 1 major problem left, and this is it. I have no idea how the issue will be resolved, though. I'm a KDE zealot myself, and I never want to give it up, mainly for the extras it provides like KIO slaves. (The FISH protocol is a god-send.)
THANK YOU.
That sums it up exactly. I've -tried- to like it. The auto-battle seems even intrigues me, as a programmer. But really you fight from place to place for no apparent reason and get a little cutscene when you get there. Because they were trying to focus on everyone, instead of the main character, the cutscenes are too generic and the few that DO have a main character have a different one each time.
I like having more than 1 main character. FF8 was a great example of this. You'd switch back and forth between their stories and learn each a bit at a time. But move that to 6 characters (I don't even remember how many were in 12 now... How sad) and you end up with such a tiny slice of each that it's pointless.
FF12's biggest failing was immersion. I never felt like I was there with any of the characters and I certainly didn't care about what happened to any of the characters. Even the soccer-dork in FFX was more interesting to me.
Most of the older ones do. Then for a while, they were just an OEM windows disk, and then you had to install all the add-ons afterwards. I think they are still that way.
It doesn't matter though, because it is NOT illegal to download a real OEM cd that exactly matches your (XP Home OEM, XP Pro OEM, etc.) and use YOUR key code. If you don't match it exactly, your keycode won't work.
I have done this to many computers to clean them up. It's also a lot handier to have a single OEM Home and OEM Pro laying around than try to get the customer to find their OEM CD.
Occasionally, very very occasionally, it'll accept the number and still make you call in because there's something off-kilter. I've never had them turn me down for activation over the phone, though. The correct answer is 'This software is only installed on this computer.' And as long as that's true, you've gone -nothing- illegal. (Or even immoral.)
I actually considered that, but I knew that donating to Wine wouldn't make it happen any faster and it wouldn't help push the project in the direction I wanted. (The games I own, that is.)
The opposite is true about this company. They need the money badly, and they might actually listen to the first few people that donate. (Or the group, once a lot of have donated.)
I subscribed to Cedega for a while, too, but once I realized that it wasn't that much better than Wine, I decided that they were too commercial to really do well compared to Wine.
Why oh why must I be so gullible!?
Yes, I paid. I'm one of very few so far, apparently. At the time, I thought their focus was to make Windows games run natively on Linux, 1 at a time. (Meaning the game will work well and they won't move on to the next until it does.) The very next week, their focus is shifted to DX10. 'Cool,' I thought, thinking it was DX10 on Linux. I now see it's on Windows XP... Bleh. No answer from them on if they plan to make it work on Linux also.
$50 wasted.
See, I've -got- the money to spend on the hardware and the OS and all the upgrades for the next few years. That isn't the issue. I just want games to work on an OS with good moral character. Or at least neutral. I'd settle for 'not completely shady.' But nooooo.
By the way, their Linux demo that is only for paying people... It doesn't work on my system. There's no sound, and it crashes after the menu. They spent a couple weeks looking at it, but their final answer was 'We can't reproduce this bug' and 'we need to focus our effort on the product.' While I agree that's probably the right attitude at some point... When you've only got a very very few paying customers, you make ALL of them very happy so they'll bring in other paying customers.
I'm only 30, and I've never thought the 'American Dream' was anything but 'get rich quick.' I mean, sure, maybe 200 years ago. But even in the early 1900s, all the movies show immigrants coming to America and suddenly they have nice clothes and smiles. Just from moving here.
It's been a LONG time since the 'American Dream' was portrayed as anything but 'move to America and be fat and happy'.
As for the stock market, my Dad is caught in the middle. He watches it short term (daily, ugh!) but says he wants it as a long-term investment. He curses day-traders constantly. I just stay away from it. I figure it'll eventually settle down again and be an investment, and if it doesn't, it isn't what I want anyhow.
The manufacturing process and design of a product don't get put in public domain when a patent expires for a device. Why should software be any different?
"I see but if this is really the issue, wouldn't it be enough to require a way to recompile the application in case of static linking not just disallow it?"
Sure, that license is called the GPL. The ONLY way to recompile the application is to distribute the source. The LGPL, as it is, allows you to keep your source closed but use LGPL libraries. That is MUCH better than requiring the source to be distributed.
And yes, library upgrades don't always work. But in the case of a bug fix, you can backport the bugfix to the library without changing the API and then use that with the application as if it were the original library. With static linking, this is not possible without the source code for the entire application and every library it static linked to.
"Viral license" is not "stupid wording." It is descriptive. It only means that anything that is touched by it is affected by it. You can't use GPL code without your entire application being GPL'd. If someone had chicken pox on their left arm, do you say 'He's got chicken pox, but only on his left arm'? No, you just say 'He has chicken pox.' It affects the entire body, not just the left arm. The GPL is the same way.
Notice that people don't say the LGPL is a viral license. That's because the only way it is viral is if you compile the code into your own. If you link it as a shared library, the LGPL does not affect your code. Since you have the option of using it either way, it is not viral.
If the code is GPL, you only have the option to use or not use it. The same as a virus. You CAN choose to not get a virus. All you have to do is build yourself a little germ-free bubble and take the most insane safety precautions.
Because it's a viral license. If I use project X's code in my project, and I improve that code, I have -no- problem with returning that improvement. If I have to also give away my entire project because of it... No. Just no.
The no-static-linking clause is mainly to allow upgrades to that library for the people using your application. If it's statically linked, and you don't release your code, I'm stuck with an app on my system that I can't upgrade the libraries for. The main reason to want to upgrade them would be to remove security holes, but added features, improved performance, and other fun stuff are also good reasons.
There's something wrong with ALL licenses. There's no such thing as the 'perfect' license because each developer wants to give different permissions.
"SCO is claiming code was lifted straight off."
That would be theft, yes, and DOES deserve to go to court. (Copyright infringement, whatever.) Assuming it really happened, of course. The reasons this case is going on so long is because SCO hasn't really been wronged, and it will -never- be possible to prevent idiots from attempting to sue. (Unless nobody can sue, ever, and that would pretty much defeat the point.)
"Are you convinced five years is enough time to reap the benefits from an invention?"
For the majority of them. For the remainder, if it took the company 5 years to get it working, how would another company manage to do it enough better to screw the original company out of their investment? And honestly, if they can, shame on the original company.
In the end, I think it comes down to this: Patents help 1 high-investment exist while thousands of small investments reap way more benefit than they should.
Mandatory car analogy: Ford patents the car. With no competition, he doesn't bother to improve it much. Would cars be ANYTHING like they are today if Ford had managed to have the only car for YEARS? (Like all proper car analogies, this one has flaws. But it shows my point.)
Is the first post automatically scored -1 now or something? This is on topic and I'm sure a TON of us feel the same way. I am extremely sick of all the BS lawsuits, patents, and all the other non-programming crap.
I used to -hate- the GPL. Now, I like the LGPL and I'm starting to think the GPL is the right way to go after all. Could RMS actually be a visionary and not just a zealot? It's already undeniable that he's done the entire software industry a world of good by sticking to his beliefs.
And all because the world of corporate greed has managed to get a toe-hold on the world of programming.
I personally think they should make patents only good for 5 years, give everyone that currently has a patent 5 years remaining, and be done. In 5 years time, we'd see such a monumental growth in the software industry that it will be amazing. The simple stuff that was costing tons of money would come out as open source projects, and commercial products would in turn work on stuff that's truly innovative.
http://dict.die.net/hacker/ 2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who
enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about
programming. 8. (Deprecated) A malicious meddler who tries to discover
sensitive information by poking around. Hence "password
hacker", "network hacker". The correct term is cracker. http://dict.die.net/cracker/ jargon An individual who attempts to gain unauthorised
access to a computer system. These individuals are often
malicious and have many means at their disposal for breaking
into a system. While it is expected that any real hacker will have done some
playful cracking and knows many of the basic techniques,
anyone past larval stage is expected to have outgrown the
desire to do so except for immediate practical reasons (for
example, if it's necessary to get around some security in
order to get some work done). So while most hackers are crackers, most crackers are not hackers. (Sort of like 'all panthers are cats, but not all cats are panthers.')
AMD does indeed need to invest in some advertising. The last campaign I remember of theirs was when they started advertising Athlons, I think. I remember that their advertising actually said 2 mutually exclusive things on the same ad sheet, but I don't remember exactly what it said. Something about 133 cycles vs 100 being better, and then they actually said the opposite in the paragraph next to it. (I think they were TRYING to said that Mhz was not an accurate measurement anymore, because of the 133 cycles thing, but they flubbed it.)
I switched away from Intel once, to a Cyrix. It was such an amazingly crappy piece of junk that I switched back as soon as I could afford to replace it. When I started to think about AMD, there was some issues with some games not working on AMD that worked on Intel. That's when I pretty much gave up and I pretty much refuse to use anything but Intel now. I don't have a problem with selling AMDs to others, I just won't use them myself. (Kinda hypocritical, now that I think about it.)
Whoa, wait a minute there bucko. Where did I say that Apple does it right? I don't actually own a single Apple product. Not a Mac Mini, not an iPod, nothing. I've thought about an iPod, and a ModBook, and a Mac Mini. But since the first thing I'd do would be to put Kubuntu on the computers, or MP3s on the iPod, it didn't make sense to spend my money that way.
I'll admit it. I used to -really- hate Apple computers. After the IIe, and before OS X, I found nothing I liked about them. I used Windows most of that time, and recently (a couple years ago) switched to Linux for most of my computing needs. (Games! -sigh-)
So no, none of my 'comebacks' are in your list. Here it is instead:
Are you better than the MS-bashers or not? Why would you follow their lead if you are? Just because they mistakenly take MS articles with the wrong tag does not mean that you should do the same to Apple, and it certainly doesn't mean you should attempt to encourage others to.
I think you have totally misunderstood what that tag means. It means that the designer specifically designed the device to not do something that is normally expected or wanted, or has been designed in such a way as to annoy the user constantly. In other words, they had to work harder to make sure the device did not work. Typical MS things that are defective by design are DRM, Clippy, and that new security thing in Vista that is so annoying.
These were bugs, not by design. Apple didn't not specifically intend for them to exist, and has now fixed them.
Hah, no worries. I know better than to feed the trolls, but I posted my comment anyhow. Chalk it up to being sick and tired. Literally. (Been working extra hours to get this freaking project out.) I am (horrifying) reinstalling Windows at the moment to test on IE6 because that VM got corrupted. -sigh-
I see you didn't bother to read mine. It's not the one you are used to seeing. I responded to that one.
No, I didn't 'forget' to click 'Post Anonymously.' I'm not a troll and I have no worries about what I post. The only time I post anonymously is when I don't want to be a karma-whore.
I've decided that the freak that posts this is actually a Mac hater and is trying to promote Microsoft by making everyone think Mac user are elitist assholes. I could have believed the first one I saw was actually just a dumbass. The second time... Well, a persistent dumbass.
;)
But to post this very same post on each and every single Slashdot posting... That takes someone dedicated to a cause. And since the person wasn't born with a Mac, there was a time when they didn't know all the things in the list. Any idiot could think their way through that.
So it's got to be someone trying to make Macs look bad by pretending to be a Mac troll. And just for kicks:
ATTN: TROLLEURS
If you routinely get modded -1 Troll, GTFO.
If you have nothing to say worth reading, GTFO.
If you post the same exact post over and over, GTFO.
If you can't be part of a community and interact with others like a civilized human being, GTFO.
Trolls are not welcome among real Slashdot reader. Keep your filthy, troll fingers to yourself.
I think it needs some work, but it's not bad.