... however I fear too many people would rather a few dollars than freedom, and in time you could find special interest groups owning a large number of votes, so many in fact that they can do anything they want...
Well, if you're right and things do go that way, we'll just end up with the system we have now. And that's no good reason not to try something new.:-)
Not necessarily. You can do wondrous things with stereo plugs in your laptop, two good quality mikes and a 64studio distro.
Its a very nice GNU/Linux flavour, unfortunately I had to ditch it because its basically crippled for general use. 1.1 Xserver, Abiword, and to top it all off GAIM instead of the newer, more stable and slicker Pidgin. It was back to ubuntu hardy for me. I was sad tho.
HAHAHAHA Obama votes against a large portion of his supporter's will, both expanding surveillance and providing immunity to large corporations from criminal lawsuits! HAHAHAHA There's your change! How do you like your precious Obama now???
Well, if a candidate making one decission the voter does not agree with is grounds for no longer support that candidate, then the voter will be out of any options, very soon.
Might explain low voter turn outs, actually.
I was going to vote for Obama. I probably still will. At least he made a decision and didn't abstain so he could plead that he never voted for it. Was it the decision I was hoping for? No. Does it change my view of how responsible he may be in Office? A little. Has it changed my vote? No.
Phhhfff... the guy voted for a blatantly inconstitutional, police state-like bill and you go "Does it change my view of how responsible he may be in Office? A little. Has it changed my vote? No.". A LITTLE? Where's the sense of accountability? His _actions_ are screaming so loud and you're still listening to the 'change' talky-talk.
This makes it clear to me that Americans are too far in the brainwashed-by-the-media department to even be able to realize the road they're on right now. Remember Ben Franklin's words, they'll make a lot more sense in the coming years.
Not unviable as many people are making money off it. Companies whose business model are still based on proprietary software can go bankrupt by my book, I really don't care.
I think you should look up 'quid-pro-quo' since I don't think it means what you think.
Read what he says again. When he wants quid-pro-quo, he licenses under LGPL. Which means, use it for whatever you want, but if you modify that code (rather than just building on top of it), please release your modifications.
Oh... *blushes*, sorry for being stupid there, parents.:)
I really think the GPL vs. BSD license debate really comes down to the differences in the point of view of who or what is actually "free".
In the case of the GPL, it is the code that is free; it is born free and stays free. And modifications will still keep it free. For BSD, it is the person who obtains the code that is free; the person can more or less do whatever he/she sees fit with the code.
So, I think there is a fundamental philosophical difference of which entity the freedom is assigned to.
I disagree with the BSD = free person vs. GPL = free code false dychotomy.
The GPL doesn't make the code free, that's absurd, code can't exercise liberty, people can.
Rather, it makes _you_ free to access the source. You are also free to modify it, but you are NOT 'free' to take from others that same freedom _you_ exercised to modify it ( it's kind of hard to modify a code you don't have access to, no? ), which is not freedom at all, but _power_ to restrict others' freedom.
I would agree with you. RMS and his cohorts have long valued the freedom of code over the freedom of people. (RMS, at least, seems to think it's an absolute sin that people dare to make money off software; his essays are frightening things.)
I think you should look up 'quid-pro-quo' since I don't think it means what you think.
The GPL IS like that though. You modify it and release it, you must provide your source. Whoever does the same later must reciprocate. Quid-pro-quo.:-)
My god, this notion that "you're not supposed to charge for distributing GPL software" is completely WRONG.
In the lemonade example, it starts in the wrong track, because we're not talking about lemons, but recipes. So if I am a BSD license user and someone gets my recipe he can sell the lemonade for whatever and keep the recipe for himself, change it, or redistribute it as he will.
If I am a GPL using person, if you take my recipe and use it, you can sell the lemonade for as much as you like, you just need to provide the source with your modifications to everyone you distribute your code to, and he will be bound by the GPL as well.
That is my understanding of the issue, if i'm wrong i'll welcome correction from GPL scholars, that's a surprisingly tricky license to fully grasp. I'll give credit where its due to the BSD license for its simplicity.:)
Hey, you're totally right. But what if a GNU/Linux port means some extra 5,000 copies sold? That's 250k. Might be worth having a little trouble to get it to run on Wine with some detailed instructions posted on their website to help.
But of course, I'm sure there are more then 5000 gamers out there using Lignux.
Heck, I think even ppl who don't even love playing games might buy it, just for the novelty. But that might be wishful thinking.;-)
Guys, I wrote to Blizz begging for GNU/Linux port for D3 and they said they can't take such suggestions legally by mail. Ya ya, I know.:o)
So lets all write to them on that forum, flood it, lets show some hands! Someone has already posted there suggesting a Wine-focused solution. Whether you are for that or native, make sure to write!
Hey, here's what I wrote. I encourage everyone with a little interest in Linux and gaming to write them, even if you don't care too much for Diablo. Might start a trend.:-)
"Hi guys, I'm a long time Diablo player, purchasing all those
games you released. Great work, I hate you, you made me flunk in college several times with D2:LOD particularly.;-)
However, I no longer am a Windows user and I won't be able to play the upcoming Diablo 3 if it only comes out for Win and Mac. Soooooooooooo I figured I'd ask you to pleaaase make it available for Linux as well. Since you're releasing it for the Mac which is Unix based I reckon it won't be as impossible as once would be.
And hell, maybe if you even compromise not to a full port, but to make it work under Wine it'd be gigantic; Not to mention that'd make Blizzard look very cool for making such a pioneering move, which I think you guys more than deserve, as in my opinion you are the most kickass game developer around.
That's it! Now get back to work!:)
Best regards,
Marco Antonio Costa"
What you think? Did I talk shit about the Mac and Unix-based thing, I'm not exactly an expert on that subject.
I thought SSL encryption was about secure comunications ( that armored vehicle you're talking about ), not who is authorized to do what. By the way, anyone stupid enough to give their money to such a truck in the fable you spinned up deserves to have it gone.
When they are later victims of phishing attacks everyone on Slashdot will laugh at them for entering their bank account and password into a site that reads www-we-will-screw-you.mybank.com.
And that is the most important problem caused by third-party signed certificates. False sense of security and paternalistic gov't-like measures that make encryption look like a privileged tool for the ruling elite, and not mere mortals.
...was just was an underhanded Google stunt to maintain status quo for handset vendors to lock people into their versions of 'Droid.
"The ASL will allow individual handset makers to develop proprietary customizations for the platform as needed to accommodate the unique technologies in their individual products."
So even if people decide to fork into FreeAndroid under the GPL we're screwed cause the drivers to make the phone freaking ring will be proprietary with a different interface for Motorola, Nokia, LG and CornershopCellPhones. It's back to reverse engineering for everyone. Shit.
Unfortunately that's what it is. Once the gov't starts to decide which speech is and isn't free, you can bet it won't stop, and speech ain't free no more. More like controlled speech.
This is the deeper meaning of it that most people don't grasp, free speech includes things we personally don't want to hear. And that means obnoxious nazi/skinhead websites, other hate speech, slander, libel and lie-spreading.
I'd even go to say that despite all technological advances, this issue show how really backward a people we are.
Slashdot Mirror
You click on his name and you land on a store. What a surprise. Slashdot editors....
... however I fear too many people would rather a few dollars than freedom, and in time you could find special interest groups owning a large number of votes, so many in fact that they can do anything they want...
Well, if you're right and things do go that way, we'll just end up with the system we have now. And that's no good reason not to try something new. :-)
Grrr.... Liberals.... grrrr....
Looking at the bigger picture, Obama's got a whole lot more going for him than against.
Thats the problem with the big picture. It distracts people from the really important details.
Not necessarily. You can do wondrous things with stereo plugs in your laptop, two good quality mikes and a 64studio distro.
Its a very nice GNU/Linux flavour, unfortunately I had to ditch it because its basically crippled for general use. 1.1 Xserver, Abiword, and to top it all off GAIM instead of the newer, more stable and slicker Pidgin. It was back to ubuntu hardy for me. I was sad tho.
HAHAHAHA Obama votes against a large portion of his supporter's will, both expanding surveillance and providing immunity to large corporations from criminal lawsuits! HAHAHAHA There's your change! How do you like your precious Obama now???
Well, if a candidate making one decission the voter does not agree with is grounds for no longer support that candidate, then the voter will be out of any options, very soon. Might explain low voter turn outs, actually. I was going to vote for Obama. I probably still will. At least he made a decision and didn't abstain so he could plead that he never voted for it. Was it the decision I was hoping for? No. Does it change my view of how responsible he may be in Office? A little. Has it changed my vote? No.
Phhhfff... the guy voted for a blatantly inconstitutional, police state-like bill and you go "Does it change my view of how responsible he may be in Office? A little. Has it changed my vote? No.". A LITTLE? Where's the sense of accountability? His _actions_ are screaming so loud and you're still listening to the 'change' talky-talk.
This makes it clear to me that Americans are too far in the brainwashed-by-the-media department to even be able to realize the road they're on right now. Remember Ben Franklin's words, they'll make a lot more sense in the coming years.
That's 'change we can believe in' for you.
Not unviable as many people are making money off it. Companies whose business model are still based on proprietary software can go bankrupt by my book, I really don't care.
Times change, business models change.
I think you should look up 'quid-pro-quo' since I don't think it means what you think.
Read what he says again. When he wants quid-pro-quo, he licenses under LGPL. Which means, use it for whatever you want, but if you modify that code (rather than just building on top of it), please release your modifications.
Oh... *blushes*, sorry for being stupid there, parents. :)
I really think the GPL vs. BSD license debate really comes down to the differences in the point of view of who or what is actually "free".
In the case of the GPL, it is the code that is free; it is born free and stays free. And modifications will still keep it free. For BSD, it is the person who obtains the code that is free; the person can more or less do whatever he/she sees fit with the code.
So, I think there is a fundamental philosophical difference of which entity the freedom is assigned to.
I disagree with the BSD = free person vs. GPL = free code false dychotomy.
The GPL doesn't make the code free, that's absurd, code can't exercise liberty, people can.
Rather, it makes _you_ free to access the source. You are also free to modify it, but you are NOT 'free' to take from others that same freedom _you_ exercised to modify it ( it's kind of hard to modify a code you don't have access to, no? ), which is not freedom at all, but _power_ to restrict others' freedom.
I would agree with you. RMS and his cohorts have long valued the freedom of code over the freedom of people. (RMS, at least, seems to think it's an absolute sin that people dare to make money off software; his essays are frightening things.)
You should read this RMS article then. Really scary. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
You're wrong. And I'll give you a very exotic example: World of Warcraft.
It's sold for support. Just think about it. They could scrap the cost of the boxed set and still make gazillions off it.
I think you should look up 'quid-pro-quo' since I don't think it means what you think.
:-)
The GPL IS like that though. You modify it and release it, you must provide your source. Whoever does the same later must reciprocate. Quid-pro-quo.
My god, this notion that "you're not supposed to charge for distributing GPL software" is completely WRONG.
:)
In the lemonade example, it starts in the wrong track, because we're not talking about lemons, but recipes. So if I am a BSD license user and someone gets my recipe he can sell the lemonade for whatever and keep the recipe for himself, change it, or redistribute it as he will.
If I am a GPL using person, if you take my recipe and use it, you can sell the lemonade for as much as you like, you just need to provide the source with your modifications to everyone you distribute your code to, and he will be bound by the GPL as well.
That is my understanding of the issue, if i'm wrong i'll welcome correction from GPL scholars, that's a surprisingly tricky license to fully grasp. I'll give credit where its due to the BSD license for its simplicity.
Hey, you're totally right. But what if a GNU/Linux port means some extra 5,000 copies sold? That's 250k. Might be worth having a little trouble to get it to run on Wine with some detailed instructions posted on their website to help.
;-)
But of course, I'm sure there are more then 5000 gamers out there using Lignux.
Heck, I think even ppl who don't even love playing games might buy it, just for the novelty. But that might be wishful thinking.
Guys, I wrote to Blizz begging for GNU/Linux port for D3 and they said they can't take such suggestions legally by mail. Ya ya, I know. :o)
:P
So lets all write to them on that forum, flood it, lets show some hands! Someone has already posted there suggesting a Wine-focused solution. Whether you are for that or native, make sure to write!
URL: http://www.battle.net/forums/board.aspx?fn=suggestions
Forwaaaard!!
Well, I certainly hope so for wine`s sake, I really like it. But having a native linux port would be degrees higher in awesomeness. :-)
:P
But I agree, D3 is likely to come out late 2013.
Hey, here's what I wrote. I encourage everyone with a little interest in Linux and gaming to write them, even if you don't care too much for Diablo. Might start a trend. :-)
;-)
:)
"Hi guys, I'm a long time Diablo player, purchasing all those games you released. Great work, I hate you, you made me flunk in college several times with D2:LOD particularly.
However, I no longer am a Windows user and I won't be able to play the upcoming Diablo 3 if it only comes out for Win and Mac. Soooooooooooo I figured I'd ask you to pleaaase make it available for Linux as well. Since you're releasing it for the Mac which is Unix based I reckon it won't be as impossible as once would be.
And hell, maybe if you even compromise not to a full port, but to make it work under Wine it'd be gigantic; Not to mention that'd make Blizzard look very cool for making such a pioneering move, which I think you guys more than deserve, as in my opinion you are the most kickass game developer around.
That's it! Now get back to work!
Best regards, Marco Antonio Costa"
What you think? Did I talk shit about the Mac and Unix-based thing, I'm not exactly an expert on that subject.
Of course I didn't. This is /., isn't it? ;)
I thought SSL encryption was about secure comunications ( that armored vehicle you're talking about ), not who is authorized to do what. By the way, anyone stupid enough to give their money to such a truck in the fable you spinned up deserves to have it gone.
When they are later victims of phishing attacks everyone on Slashdot will laugh at them for entering their bank account and password into a site that reads www-we-will-screw-you.mybank.com.
And that is the most important problem caused by third-party signed certificates. False sense of security and paternalistic gov't-like measures that make encryption look like a privileged tool for the ruling elite, and not mere mortals.
...was just was an underhanded Google stunt to maintain status quo for handset vendors to lock people into their versions of 'Droid.
"The ASL will allow individual handset makers to develop proprietary customizations for the platform as needed to accommodate the unique technologies in their individual products."
So even if people decide to fork into FreeAndroid under the GPL we're screwed cause the drivers to make the phone freaking ring will be proprietary with a different interface for Motorola, Nokia, LG and CornershopCellPhones. It's back to reverse engineering for everyone. Shit.
The things it claims to be successful are it's most obnoxious and buggy applications? Heck...
Unfortunately that's what it is. Once the gov't starts to decide which speech is and isn't free, you can bet it won't stop, and speech ain't free no more. More like controlled speech.
This is the deeper meaning of it that most people don't grasp, free speech includes things we personally don't want to hear. And that means obnoxious nazi/skinhead websites, other hate speech, slander, libel and lie-spreading.
I'd even go to say that despite all technological advances, this issue show how really backward a people we are.
A freedom of speech ISSUE. Gah, stupid submit buttons so similar to continue editing.
This something you mean, SHUTTING UP, does make this a freedom of speech.
You can call a tail a leg, but that doesn't make it a leg.