I wonder if they take into account such matters as government presence and control in media (since this is inversely proportional to how free the press and media are). It's kind of high in the UK (BBC)...
Actually, I would argue the opposite. In the case of the BBC (and the Canadian CBC, probably others), the organisation gets money without being controlled by the government. This makes it much more independent. In the US all major media are privately owned, making them easier to manipulate. The government just has to give "incentive" to these private companies for saying the right thing. An organisation like the BBC would be much harder to corrupt because it is not "for profit".
No, worst case is there's a nuclear war and we all die. Shouldn't the GPLv3 address that and say that you are not allowed to use GPLv3 software for launching missiles. That way, we'll be sure never to have a nuclear war, right? Do you really think changing the GPL will prevent DRM and "trusted computing"? I'm actually thinking the GPLv3 is worded in a way that would make it very easy to *exclude* free software from hardware. Say Linux was released under GPLv3, if I made a hack to port Linux to the XBox XYZ, I wouldn't be allowed to distribute it because I don't have the key (and possibly rely on a DRM hole or a mod chip). What this also means is that I can also start manufacturing computers that require a key to run software. I can then give the key to anyone freely under GPLv3-imcompatible terms. Everyone can now write software for my machine, but I'll make sure no GPLv3 code can be run on it legally. Nice!
The Linux kernel may not switch, but that will not doom V3, nor will it doom the FSF or Stallman.
That's not the issue. The problem is that it's becoming likely that GPLv3 will split FOSS software in two, with half the people going with GPLv2-only and the other half going with GPLv3-or-later. This means no possible exchange of code between the two pools and possibly lots of forks, especially for libraries. I hope the worst case scenario doesn't happen, but GPLv3 has potential for doing much more damage than any gain it can provide (even it you think it's good in itself). As far as I'm concerned all the (L)GPL software I write will be GPLv2-or-later, making GPLv3 useless, but mitigating the incompatibility problem.
Sorry, your understanding of MP3 is entirely wrong. The closest MP3 does to what you're talking about it trying to discriminate between tones and noise (each instrument usually contains both) when computing the psychoacoustic masking curve. In all cases, only a single signal is processed and there no separation (which is BTW impossible outside of "toy problems" when you only have a single channel) taking place.
Mozilla is an application and you include hundreds in an application?
Sorry, I meant in a distribution.
Most packages are not modified in terms of functionality from distro to distro. Customized packages tend to be of the "underlying function" type and not of the "end user application" type. You're looking at a small minority out of a very small minority of packages that are affected by issues such as this.
Mozilla isn't "modified in terms of functionality" any more than other applications. I suspect Gnome, KDE, OpenOffice, X.Org, and the kernel are much more modified.
Debian is a distro: a collection of software and you only use one at a time. Mozilla is an application and you usually include hundreds in an application. Just try to imagine what would happen if every single open-source project decided to have the same policy as Debian. Think that would work?
Well, next thing you know Mozilla Corp will claim that they can't guarantee that Debian didn't break the Gecko rendering engine, so Debian should be calling it something different.
2) So (just for my information), Mozilla is totally uninterested in bugs I encounter on my machine? 4) So there's less difference between the Windows and the Linux versions of Mozilla as there is between the official and the unofficial Linux versions?
So only the distributions that ship exactly Linus' kernel can be called Linux? Only the PC vendors that ship Windows *totally unmodified* from the MS CD can say they ship Windows?
You're kidding. You think that without the portion of the Userbase that runs Mozilla on Debian, that Mozilla's usage statistics would plummet???
No, I said that if all Linux distros did remove the Firefox user agent string, then the statistics would drop (not plummet). Since everyone wouldn't update at the same time, it could also just make the Firefox usage numbers stagnate for quite a while (reducing the number of Linux users at the same rate as the increase in Windows users). While Linux only has about 5% (sounds right, but not sure what the exact numbers would be) of the market, that's where Firefox is the most dominant. So with Linux, they have 90% of 5%, whereas for Windows they might have 5% of 90%. Numbers are made up but should be within a factor of 2, you get the idea.
One could argue the distributions are being the PITA, by not following the guidelines Mozilla asked them to.
As the author of Speex, I demand that any distro who want to use the name Speex needs to display my picture as the boot screen. Oh, and I want then to bow before me and call me "Your Highness". If they choose not to comply with my guidelines, they're just being a PITA.
[Note to distributions: This is a joke, please don't do that!]
Yes, I can imagine it. It would fucking ROCK. Being able to assume that "GNOME 2.10" really is "GNOME 2.10" everywhere, and not "GNOME 2.10 plus some stuff that I thought might cool and without the stuff I thought I didn't need"... well, it would make life a lot simpler for app developers.
You're getting it wrong here. It would mean that Debian would have "TROLL 2.10 plus some stuff that I thought might cool and without the stuff I thought I didn't need", and RedHat would have "EMONG 2.10 plus some stuff that I thought might cool and without the stuff I thought I didn't need" and so on. Distribution are *integrators*, they can't just ship everything unmodified (they'd all be the same otherwise). (Most) People want something polished where apps fit together and all.
Looks like the Mozilla Foundation is pretty much in line with the Debian usage here.
There's a difference here, one is an application and the other is a distribution. People who modify Debian usually *want* to turn it into a very different product. That's what Ubuntu did. For Firefox, people want it to be the same except for some minor (hopefully invisible) patches. Or are you saying all other software maintainers do the same as Mozilla and ask people to use a different name?
Mozilla has their own license. Why should they have to conform to the ideals of other licenses. Or should Mozilla not be free to choose their license? Maybe Microsoft and Adobe should have to adopt one of those licenses as well.
Mozilla is free to choose their license. They could have made Firefox a proprietary browser (assuming they owned all the copyright) if they wanted to. They could have asked $1000/seat. We're not arguing the legality, but the fact that they're being a PITA for Linux distributions, who will have to change the name. Everyone has a right to be a PITA, everyone also has a right to complain about people who are a PITA.
I don't blame them for being concerned about the quality, but instead of making threats, they could simply have helped Debian in their process or try to talk them out of doing certain changes. What they're doing now is counter-productive. Debian users will still know it's Firefox underneath and will still blame Firefox. Depending on whether the Firefox actually accepts bug reports coming from Debian builds we'll have either: 1) Same as before, they get blamed for all bugs, even those introduced by Debian 2) They will lose the Debian bug reports, which means Debian will have to make the fixes themselves, making the two builds diverge further. I can't see any of these options being good for anyone.
If Mozilla Corp is smart, they'll exclude the user-agent string from trademark issues so that at least usage statistics will show a unified product, rather ruining firefox's growing usage statistics rank in a schism.
That's an interesting one. Maybe it would be a way for Debian and the others to put pressure on Mozilla Corp. After all, using Firefox as the user-agent string would be claiming "I am an [official] Firefox browser", which Moz corp said they weren't allowed to do. So yes, I'd expect the usage statistics would drop a bit while Linux distros are making the switch.
Debian don't want to include certain icons related to Firefox because the licensing of those graphics isn't consistent with the aims of their project. Mozilla say that's fine, as long as Debian don't call the package "Firefox".
I think it's not that much about the logo as it is about other changes Debian makes.
No villains, and everyone lives hapily ever after. The end.
Sure, everyone is technically in their right. However, Mozilla is being very much of a pain in the ass. Can you imagine how life would be for distros if GNOME decided it doesn't get called GNOME unless it's the official GNOME release (no modifications)? And then KDE could do the same, along with X.Org, OpenOffice.org,... So you would get a Linux distro (actually, it couldn't be called Linux) and you'd find all kinds of programs you never heard about, each of them being a "rebranded" version of the official package. Or alternatively, each Linux distro would need to ask each maintainer for the permission to apply each of their patch (i.e. for every cvs/svn commit during development!). I really hope all Linux distros drop Firefox (the name, not the software) and go with the same new name (IceWeasel?). Maybe that could even make Mozilla change their decision, although I'm not too optimistic. At least it would be a name all Linux users would recognise (Firefox? What's Firefox?).
They *can't*. They wish the could, but the Mozilla people are threatening to take action if they ship with the name Firefox. The only way for them to use the name Firefox would be to ask permission for *every* single change they want to make. This not only defeats the purpose of open-source, but opens the door to other similar abuses. Think what would happen if the maintainer of every Debian package asked to approve patches before allowing use of the name! So this is why Debian has no choice but to change the name. Note that I'm not involved in Debian in any way, but I can understand why they're doing this.
So I suppose the issue here is really "why are support contracts so expensive?" rather than "why is the software so expensive?".
Except that in at least some of the examples given (XP, VS), there is no support included. MS will charge an extra for support, which should be included in the price if you want to compare with supported OSS. I'd say in general regardless of whether it's OSS or proprietary, support will tend to cost more than the software simply because that one cannot be duplicated at a near-zero cost.
However, there are a lot of professional writers who have to integrate high proportions of graphics into their work, and for them a WYSIWYG tool is quite appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if they take into account such matters as government presence and control in media (since this is inversely proportional to how free the press and media are). It's kind of high in the UK (BBC)...
Actually, I would argue the opposite. In the case of the BBC (and the Canadian CBC, probably others), the organisation gets money without being controlled by the government. This makes it much more independent. In the US all major media are privately owned, making them easier to manipulate. The government just has to give "incentive" to these private companies for saying the right thing. An organisation like the BBC would be much harder to corrupt because it is not "for profit".
No, worst case is there's a nuclear war and we all die. Shouldn't the GPLv3 address that and say that you are not allowed to use GPLv3 software for launching missiles. That way, we'll be sure never to have a nuclear war, right? Do you really think changing the GPL will prevent DRM and "trusted computing"? I'm actually thinking the GPLv3 is worded in a way that would make it very easy to *exclude* free software from hardware. Say Linux was released under GPLv3, if I made a hack to port Linux to the XBox XYZ, I wouldn't be allowed to distribute it because I don't have the key (and possibly rely on a DRM hole or a mod chip). What this also means is that I can also start manufacturing computers that require a key to run software. I can then give the key to anyone freely under GPLv3-imcompatible terms. Everyone can now write software for my machine, but I'll make sure no GPLv3 code can be run on it legally. Nice!
The Linux kernel may not switch, but that will not doom V3, nor will it doom the FSF or Stallman.
That's not the issue. The problem is that it's becoming likely that GPLv3 will split FOSS software in two, with half the people going with GPLv2-only and the other half going with GPLv3-or-later. This means no possible exchange of code between the two pools and possibly lots of forks, especially for libraries. I hope the worst case scenario doesn't happen, but GPLv3 has potential for doing much more damage than any gain it can provide (even it you think it's good in itself). As far as I'm concerned all the (L)GPL software I write will be GPLv2-or-later, making GPLv3 useless, but mitigating the incompatibility problem.
Sorry, your understanding of MP3 is entirely wrong. The closest MP3 does to what you're talking about it trying to discriminate between tones and noise (each instrument usually contains both) when computing the psychoacoustic masking curve. In all cases, only a single signal is processed and there no separation (which is BTW impossible outside of "toy problems" when you only have a single channel) taking place.
Mozilla is an application and you include hundreds in an application?
Sorry, I meant in a distribution.
Most packages are not modified in terms of functionality from distro to distro. Customized packages tend to be of the "underlying function" type and not of the "end user application" type. You're looking at a small minority out of a very small minority of packages that are affected by issues such as this.
Mozilla isn't "modified in terms of functionality" any more than other applications. I suspect Gnome, KDE, OpenOffice, X.Org, and the kernel are much more modified.
Debian is a distro: a collection of software and you only use one at a time. Mozilla is an application and you usually include hundreds in an application. Just try to imagine what would happen if every single open-source project decided to have the same policy as Debian. Think that would work?
Well, next thing you know Mozilla Corp will claim that they can't guarantee that Debian didn't break the Gecko rendering engine, so Debian should be calling it something different.
2) So (just for my information), Mozilla is totally uninterested in bugs I encounter on my machine?
4) So there's less difference between the Windows and the Linux versions of Mozilla as there is between the official and the unofficial Linux versions?
So only the distributions that ship exactly Linus' kernel can be called Linux? Only the PC vendors that ship Windows *totally unmodified* from the MS CD can say they ship Windows?
You're kidding. You think that without the portion of the Userbase that runs Mozilla on Debian, that Mozilla's usage statistics would plummet???
No, I said that if all Linux distros did remove the Firefox user agent string, then the statistics would drop (not plummet). Since everyone wouldn't update at the same time, it could also just make the Firefox usage numbers stagnate for quite a while (reducing the number of Linux users at the same rate as the increase in Windows users). While Linux only has about 5% (sounds right, but not sure what the exact numbers would be) of the market, that's where Firefox is the most dominant. So with Linux, they have 90% of 5%, whereas for Windows they might have 5% of 90%. Numbers are made up but should be within a factor of 2, you get the idea.
One could argue the distributions are being the PITA, by not following the guidelines Mozilla asked them to.
As the author of Speex, I demand that any distro who want to use the name Speex needs to display my picture as the boot screen. Oh, and I want then to bow before me and call me "Your Highness". If they choose not to comply with my guidelines, they're just being a PITA.
[Note to distributions: This is a joke, please don't do that!]
Yes, I can imagine it.
It would fucking ROCK.
Being able to assume that "GNOME 2.10" really is "GNOME 2.10" everywhere, and not "GNOME 2.10 plus some stuff that I thought might cool and without the stuff I thought I didn't need"... well, it would make life a lot simpler for app developers.
You're getting it wrong here. It would mean that Debian would have "TROLL 2.10 plus some stuff that I thought might cool and without the stuff I thought I didn't need", and RedHat would have "EMONG 2.10 plus some stuff that I thought might cool and without the stuff I thought I didn't need" and so on. Distribution are *integrators*, they can't just ship everything unmodified (they'd all be the same otherwise). (Most) People want something polished where apps fit together and all.
Looks like the Mozilla Foundation is pretty much in line with the Debian usage here.
There's a difference here, one is an application and the other is a distribution. People who modify Debian usually *want* to turn it into a very different product. That's what Ubuntu did. For Firefox, people want it to be the same except for some minor (hopefully invisible) patches. Or are you saying all other software maintainers do the same as Mozilla and ask people to use a different name?
Mozilla has their own license. Why should they have to conform to the ideals of other licenses. Or should Mozilla not be free to choose their license? Maybe Microsoft and Adobe should have to adopt one of those licenses as well.
Mozilla is free to choose their license. They could have made Firefox a proprietary browser (assuming they owned all the copyright) if they wanted to. They could have asked $1000/seat. We're not arguing the legality, but the fact that they're being a PITA for Linux distributions, who will have to change the name. Everyone has a right to be a PITA, everyone also has a right to complain about people who are a PITA.
I don't blame them for being concerned about the quality, but instead of making threats, they could simply have helped Debian in their process or try to talk them out of doing certain changes. What they're doing now is counter-productive. Debian users will still know it's Firefox underneath and will still blame Firefox. Depending on whether the Firefox actually accepts bug reports coming from Debian builds we'll have either:
1) Same as before, they get blamed for all bugs, even those introduced by Debian
2) They will lose the Debian bug reports, which means Debian will have to make the fixes themselves, making the two builds diverge further.
I can't see any of these options being good for anyone.
If Mozilla Corp is smart, they'll exclude the user-agent string from trademark issues so that at least usage statistics will show a unified product, rather ruining firefox's growing usage statistics rank in a schism.
That's an interesting one. Maybe it would be a way for Debian and the others to put pressure on Mozilla Corp. After all, using Firefox as the user-agent string would be claiming "I am an [official] Firefox browser", which Moz corp said they weren't allowed to do. So yes, I'd expect the usage statistics would drop a bit while Linux distros are making the switch.
Debian don't want to include certain icons related to Firefox because the licensing of those graphics isn't consistent with the aims of their project. Mozilla say that's fine, as long as Debian don't call the package "Firefox".
... So you would get a Linux distro (actually, it couldn't be called Linux) and you'd find all kinds of programs you never heard about, each of them being a "rebranded" version of the official package. Or alternatively, each Linux distro would need to ask each maintainer for the permission to apply each of their patch (i.e. for every cvs/svn commit during development!). I really hope all Linux distros drop Firefox (the name, not the software) and go with the same new name (IceWeasel?). Maybe that could even make Mozilla change their decision, although I'm not too optimistic. At least it would be a name all Linux users would recognise (Firefox? What's Firefox?).
I think it's not that much about the logo as it is about other changes Debian makes.
No villains, and everyone lives hapily ever after. The end.
Sure, everyone is technically in their right. However, Mozilla is being very much of a pain in the ass. Can you imagine how life would be for distros if GNOME decided it doesn't get called GNOME unless it's the official GNOME release (no modifications)? And then KDE could do the same, along with X.Org, OpenOffice.org,
I think they should just relax and let it slide.
They *can't*. They wish the could, but the Mozilla people are threatening to take action if they ship with the name Firefox. The only way for them to use the name Firefox would be to ask permission for *every* single change they want to make. This not only defeats the purpose of open-source, but opens the door to other similar abuses. Think what would happen if the maintainer of every Debian package asked to approve patches before allowing use of the name! So this is why Debian has no choice but to change the name. Note that I'm not involved in Debian in any way, but I can understand why they're doing this.
How long do you think before it becomes Iceweasel Portable?
Couldn't the difference be due to reflections, refraction and dispersion?
Crap! There goes SCO's case.
So I suppose the issue here is really "why are support contracts so expensive?" rather than "why is the software so expensive?".
Except that in at least some of the examples given (XP, VS), there is no support included. MS will charge an extra for support, which should be included in the price if you want to compare with supported OSS. I'd say in general regardless of whether it's OSS or proprietary, support will tend to cost more than the software simply because that one cannot be duplicated at a near-zero cost.
Sorry, you can't. Too much prior art.
However, there are a lot of professional writers who have to integrate high proportions of graphics into their work, and for them a WYSIWYG tool is quite appropriate.
...or a WYSIWYM tool.
Have I missed something or is this device already holding 4x what TFA describes?