We are mostly alternative OS users, i.e., Linux, *BSD, OSX, etc(sorry OS2 users).
Really. You have numbers to back up that wild-ass claim? Because this poll would kind of disagree with you. (No, it's not scientific, but if anything the GNUtards are more likely to jump on that as a chance to proclaim how they don't use Windows than Windows users are to respond!)
God forbid anybody write their ToS in regular, everyday, guy-on-the-street English (or the local language of choice). If it weren't for all the legalese written by lawyers, for lawyers, that only a third lawyer could understand, this sort of crap wouldn't happen.
I don't entirely disagree, but it's worth noting that "legalese" is used because it is highly specific in a way that vernacular English simply is not. There are words, terms, and concepts only found in legalese that have highly precise definitions that help avoid gnarly court battles.
Be fair, though: that's a pretty out-there edge case for what C# and.NET are targeted to. And the debugger facilities for native code are a good bit better.
The only argument I can see is that the jailbreaking software may be considered a derivative work because of its use of intimate knowledge related to the original work.
I mean, Stallman wants people to believe that a similar situation (no, not the same, but similar) exists with the GPL and modules extending GPL'd code, that by using an API in the GPL'd code you're creating a derivative work.
Until there's case law to back a real decision, we aren't gonna know.
Except that it still costs a very real sum to create the original berries, to continue with your (unpleasantly non-car) analogy. You will get many fewer new kinds of berries, and at lower quality. Which is fine if you don't want new kinds of berries, but personally, I like new kinds of berries.
I don't disagree with your lists (except for Fallout 3, which is kind of shitty when weighed as a Fallout game)--but how the hell do you (apparently) value Deus Ex over System Shock 2...?
Re-implementing other established technologies inside of MS products doesn't really count as research in my book
Re-implementing technology is the basis of a hell of a lot of academic papers. (MSR also puts out more research work than any other company I can think of except maybe IBM.)
Think Bell Labs when you think of MSR. If it comes up with one or two useful things (Midori/Singularity look extremely promising), it's made its money. "Just because Microsoft has never done it, doesn't mean that it's new and innovative"? Just because you don't like what they're spending money on doesn't mean that it's a bad idea.
R&D is not always "innovation". Often it's just making something practical.
You do realize that "changing their activex object" means that everybody else has to have a working browser component that can just be arbitrarily plugged in, right?
And that not even Mozilla has kept a regularly updated component to do that?
When you plug in MSHTML.dll, you know it's going to work.
(That's not to say that they can't remove the Internet Explorer executable itself, but trying to change all that is preposterous.)
He doesn't have an agenda, he's complaining about how difficult it is to use these programs. If anything, his criticism can only lead to progress.
Thank you. I don't have an agenda. I want to see open source software do well, if only so I don't have to fucking sink money into closed source software. But my time is worth more than my money: if I can buy top-shelf closed source tools that already work the way I work and are comfortable and familiar or waste time futzing with open source tools that use a user paradigm that is hostile to my OS of choice (if you tell me the GIMP isn't a pain in the ass when you don't have virtual desktops I'm going to call you a liar) and require a new workflow that I have to relearn from scratch, I'm gonna buy the closed source one and be happy about it.
If you want people to adopt your stuff, make it better than the stuff you have to pay for. It's really that simple.
For me at least, it's not support of commercial tools. It's support of what works.
For programming, my most common tools are Java, PHP, and.NET/Mono (and all my stuff's tested in both, so it should work without changes on Linux or OS X even when that's not a priority). The open source tools are good--I'm absolutely fucking loving NetBeans for Java and PHP, I wish it was this awesome a couple years ago--so I use them. For my graphics stuff, I use Adobe and Maya because it works damn well, and better than the alternatives I have tested. If an open-source graphical workflow was as productive for me as my current set, I'd be all over that. But I'm not switching to Linux as my primary desktop anytime soon (I did for a while, but it was more of a frustration than I wanted to deal with) and I already own my tools. What does switching to open-source net me? And don't say "upgrades will cost money," because I'm using the Adobe CS2 toolkit and have no intentions of upgrading to CS4; my current stuff works for what I need it to.
It's mostly "don't fix what isn't broken." If the open-source tools had a big win attached to them, I'd use them. Instead, they're either on par or outright regressions. What do you think would compel me to use them? Where's the rational-actor reasoning behind it?
That's funny. See, the only graphics work I do is a value-add for my own contract work. It's hard to not be employed when you're contracting to yourself unless the contract sources dry up. And the quality of my work seems to be getting me plenty of repeat business even in this climate. Fun stuff!
Hell, all my web work's on LAMP machines--it's where open source is doing kickass work. Media processing? Not so much, though I'll be the first to say that they've got decent stuff under the hood, just shitty workflows. Is it so hard to admit that yeah, there's places closed source software's still better?
OK. Let's go at this another way. One guy says "I can learn any tool you need" on his resume. The other guy has "experience with Photoshop, Flash, Maya" on his resume.
Who's going to get looked at? I'm not asking who you'd hire, or who I'd hire. I'm asking who a HR drone is likely to pull out of the pile when looking at a resume scanner.
Like it or not, the modern university is a vo-tech school. You use the industry standard because it's what your students will be expected to use in the real world.
(And saying you don't use Java doesn't mean much. It's still an industry standard tool that a ton of people use. D, not so much.)
Slashdot Mirror
It wasn't broad. A Unix is a certified Unix. Anything else isn't. Hence GNU--"GNU's Not Unix".
We are mostly alternative OS users, i.e., Linux, *BSD, OSX, etc(sorry OS2 users).
Really. You have numbers to back up that wild-ass claim? Because this poll would kind of disagree with you. (No, it's not scientific, but if anything the GNUtards are more likely to jump on that as a chance to proclaim how they don't use Windows than Windows users are to respond!)
Are any of the free BSDs or Linux variants certified Unixes?
(Honest question, I don't know.)
You can put windows in it if you must.
Some might escape before crush depth. Can't have that.
Citation, please.
God forbid anybody write their ToS in regular, everyday, guy-on-the-street English (or the local language of choice). If it weren't for all the legalese written by lawyers, for lawyers, that only a third lawyer could understand, this sort of crap wouldn't happen.
I don't entirely disagree, but it's worth noting that "legalese" is used because it is highly specific in a way that vernacular English simply is not. There are words, terms, and concepts only found in legalese that have highly precise definitions that help avoid gnarly court battles.
Be fair, though: that's a pretty out-there edge case for what C# and .NET are targeted to. And the debugger facilities for native code are a good bit better.
3) Patent encumbrance
The only argument I can see is that the jailbreaking software may be considered a derivative work because of its use of intimate knowledge related to the original work.
I mean, Stallman wants people to believe that a similar situation (no, not the same, but similar) exists with the GPL and modules extending GPL'd code, that by using an API in the GPL'd code you're creating a derivative work.
Until there's case law to back a real decision, we aren't gonna know.
Solution 3: (from consumer) Nom, nom, nom. (performs magic) Nom, nom, nom. Repeat.
Except that it still costs a very real sum to create the original berries, to continue with your (unpleasantly non-car) analogy. You will get many fewer new kinds of berries, and at lower quality. Which is fine if you don't want new kinds of berries, but personally, I like new kinds of berries.
The copyright violation occurs when you give it to someone else.
Don't like the terms of copyright? Don't buy a license to the copyrighted work.
One could argue that by buying the iPhone, you are tacitly accepting and encouraging their business practices.
Obviously you forgot your "NO CARRIER".
It's a troll, I think.
You're right, of course. I should have said "software companies" (yes, IBM has hardware, but less and less as time goes on).
I don't disagree with your lists (except for Fallout 3, which is kind of shitty when weighed as a Fallout game)--but how the hell do you (apparently) value Deus Ex over System Shock 2...?
Ever play The Longest Journey or I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream?
Re-implementing other established technologies inside of MS products doesn't really count as research in my book
Re-implementing technology is the basis of a hell of a lot of academic papers. (MSR also puts out more research work than any other company I can think of except maybe IBM.)
Think Bell Labs when you think of MSR. If it comes up with one or two useful things (Midori/Singularity look extremely promising), it's made its money. "Just because Microsoft has never done it, doesn't mean that it's new and innovative"? Just because you don't like what they're spending money on doesn't mean that it's a bad idea.
R&D is not always "innovation". Often it's just making something practical.
You do realize that "changing their activex object" means that everybody else has to have a working browser component that can just be arbitrarily plugged in, right?
And that not even Mozilla has kept a regularly updated component to do that?
When you plug in MSHTML.dll, you know it's going to work.
(That's not to say that they can't remove the Internet Explorer executable itself, but trying to change all that is preposterous.)
Imagine how many Russians would pirate MS Windows if they can get THE "Russian OS" for free?
The overwhelming majority of them.
He doesn't have an agenda, he's complaining about how difficult it is to use these programs. If anything, his criticism can only lead to progress.
Thank you. I don't have an agenda. I want to see open source software do well, if only so I don't have to fucking sink money into closed source software. But my time is worth more than my money: if I can buy top-shelf closed source tools that already work the way I work and are comfortable and familiar or waste time futzing with open source tools that use a user paradigm that is hostile to my OS of choice (if you tell me the GIMP isn't a pain in the ass when you don't have virtual desktops I'm going to call you a liar) and require a new workflow that I have to relearn from scratch, I'm gonna buy the closed source one and be happy about it.
If you want people to adopt your stuff, make it better than the stuff you have to pay for. It's really that simple.
For me at least, it's not support of commercial tools. It's support of what works.
For programming, my most common tools are Java, PHP, and .NET/Mono (and all my stuff's tested in both, so it should work without changes on Linux or OS X even when that's not a priority). The open source tools are good--I'm absolutely fucking loving NetBeans for Java and PHP, I wish it was this awesome a couple years ago--so I use them. For my graphics stuff, I use Adobe and Maya because it works damn well, and better than the alternatives I have tested. If an open-source graphical workflow was as productive for me as my current set, I'd be all over that. But I'm not switching to Linux as my primary desktop anytime soon (I did for a while, but it was more of a frustration than I wanted to deal with) and I already own my tools. What does switching to open-source net me? And don't say "upgrades will cost money," because I'm using the Adobe CS2 toolkit and have no intentions of upgrading to CS4; my current stuff works for what I need it to.
It's mostly "don't fix what isn't broken." If the open-source tools had a big win attached to them, I'd use them. Instead, they're either on par or outright regressions. What do you think would compel me to use them? Where's the rational-actor reasoning behind it?
That's funny. See, the only graphics work I do is a value-add for my own contract work. It's hard to not be employed when you're contracting to yourself unless the contract sources dry up. And the quality of my work seems to be getting me plenty of repeat business even in this climate. Fun stuff!
Hell, all my web work's on LAMP machines--it's where open source is doing kickass work. Media processing? Not so much, though I'll be the first to say that they've got decent stuff under the hood, just shitty workflows. Is it so hard to admit that yeah, there's places closed source software's still better?
Black Viper's stuff is iffy at best these days, too. I strongly doubt that it makes much of a difference anymore.
That, and he's batfuck insane.
OK. Let's go at this another way. One guy says "I can learn any tool you need" on his resume. The other guy has "experience with Photoshop, Flash, Maya" on his resume.
Who's going to get looked at? I'm not asking who you'd hire, or who I'd hire. I'm asking who a HR drone is likely to pull out of the pile when looking at a resume scanner.
Like it or not, the modern university is a vo-tech school. You use the industry standard because it's what your students will be expected to use in the real world.
(And saying you don't use Java doesn't mean much. It's still an industry standard tool that a ton of people use. D, not so much.)