I know I'm gonna get modded down for this, but I was a usual reader at digg, and ever since I started spending more time on slashdot, I gotta tell you, it's a whole different level.
Digg is filled with "Take that sony!", "A kid got killed doing something stupid, humanity wins." one-line-comments; slashdot on the other hand, always has insightful comments, sometimes very interesting debates (I know, I browse only at +3).
To me, the most important part of slashdot is the comments section. A lot of useful information, specially on developers articles.
Digg basically only shows us the articles.
Well, I'm pro-open-source too, but if, in your view, the community can improve open-source projects, and closed-source authors can steal those improvements at will, while making other improvements and keeping them secret, it seems to me that it's open-source that would be at a disadvantage. Yes, open-source projects would enjoy contributions by the community, but closed-source ones would enjoy both the community (through stolen ideas and code) AND proprietary software developers' contributions. Looks like a disadvantage to me...
Those that do distribute closed-source software will be unable to compete with those that distribute open-source software, and get enhancements back from the community. If there are no copyrights, what stops them from getting the enhancements from the open-source software, and thus, the community?
Slashdot Mirror
I know I'm gonna get modded down for this, but I was a usual reader at digg, and ever since I started spending more time on slashdot, I gotta tell you, it's a whole different level. Digg is filled with "Take that sony!", "A kid got killed doing something stupid, humanity wins." one-line-comments; slashdot on the other hand, always has insightful comments, sometimes very interesting debates (I know, I browse only at +3). To me, the most important part of slashdot is the comments section. A lot of useful information, specially on developers articles. Digg basically only shows us the articles.
Well, I'm pro-open-source too, but if, in your view, the community can improve open-source projects, and closed-source authors can steal those improvements at will, while making other improvements and keeping them secret, it seems to me that it's open-source that would be at a disadvantage. Yes, open-source projects would enjoy contributions by the community, but closed-source ones would enjoy both the community (through stolen ideas and code) AND proprietary software developers' contributions. Looks like a disadvantage to me...