Copy protection that is actively harmful punishes consumers for buying legitimately, yes. SecuROM, etc., suck ten miles of dick and should be not only avoided, but actively killed.
A developer won't every dissuade the pirates. But what copy protection does--in theory, at least, and at least in part in practice because most people are pretty dumb and can't find keygens, etc. that aren't virus-laden to hell and back--is keep the honest people honest. It's like a lock on the door of your house--it won't stop a determined thief, but it'll keep people who don't make their living (or, in this case, their entertainment) from piracy. (This is why the software I'm working on just has a basic ID/key combo. And I'm thinking about making it a web service, due to piracy concerns.)
The entitlement mentality of the asshole in the great-grandparent post is what pisses me off, though. Piracy isn't "free advertising" when it comes to games; that logic would work for Windows or Adobe, where the goal is corporate mindshare, but for games? Hell no.
The Congress has absolutely zero authority to tell them that anyway. The USAF takes orders, as do all branches of the military, only from the President.
You...do know that soldiers get a couple of days of acclimation time when being deployed before being sent into the field, right? A general usually doesn't have the time to wipe his ass when he's off the plane before he has to be at work.
Oh, so all piracy is of stuff by big media corporations? Really? How about small game developers whose games are regularly pirated? I guess they suck too, 'cause they aren't giving it to you for free.
Piracy isn't a "mass advertising campaign." A few pirating gamers might say something about a game to a friend or two. But the idea that that's more beneficial than getting paid for their fucking work is astonishingly retarded. (Especially given that said pirating gamer would probably just say to his friend "here, I'll burn you a copy.")
Rationalize it all you want: you're still fucking people over.
Do you think everyone who uses illegal copies of software/music would buy the stuff if there were no illegal copies of it?
Nobody credible thinks that. However, to proclaim that everyone who uses pirated software wouldn't have bought it if they couldn't pirate it is lazy, stupid thinking. So, yes, the publisher does lose money.
This "fuck that guy and his expenses, I want it for free" mindset that many posters here have (not you, nautsch, just in general) is pretty sickening. Companies spend a mind-boggling amount of money making these computer games, and should be compensated for it if you want to play it. Instead, people brag about giving them the finger and using their software without renumeration. It's pathetic.
I most definitely do know how to use them, buddy, I've been writing code on *nix platforms for about five years now and using *nix machines for over a decade.
From a hardware POV, citing SGI and Sun as examples of UNIX being great for workstations is disingenuous. SGI and Sun had decent UNIX workstations in the past because there was no more useful alternative and because they had a hardware advantage (SGI in particular--MIPS boxes running IRIX were a lot better than PCs running...well, anything, at the time). At the time, X Windows and UNIX on non-x86 archs were the best of all the choices out there. But with modern computers, that's just not really true anymore.
From a software POV, citing them as examples of UNIX being great is just plain wrong. It still sucks to use as a workstation because--guess what? You still need a decent desktop environment for a workstation to be worthwhile. UNIX simply does not have that. It's got a bunch of weird fucking DEs programmed by people who can't follow HCI guidelines to save their lives and random, completely perplexing usability issues. The underlying OS is great, don't get me wrong--but it has to be a decent desktop in order to be a decent workstation.
If we were comparing workstations in 1994, sure, I'd agree with you that they're worth using, because everything else sucked. The reverse is true today. I can write code on Windows (and don't misunderstand me, Windows isn't perfect or even all that good, but at least it is consistent as a desktop, which means it's consistent as a workstation) and deploy code on Linux/BSD/Solaris remote machines or virtual machines just fine.
Yeah, I have an MSDN subscription. Big deal. That doesn't change the fact that I still probably do more *nix development than you do. I would love for Linux to get off its ass and stop sucking. It seems entirely uninterested in doing so.
I don't want themes. I don't want any of that shit. I want a desktop that acts intelligently and has applications with halfway decent HCI. On Linux? Not happening so far.
If you think OpenOffice is a drop-in replacement for Microsoft Office, you're not looking at it objectively. OpenOffice is a steaming pile, as was StarOffice before it.
Somebody disagrees with you, so they're trolling? Interesting.
Internal Mail apps? And you think Exchange is EASY to administer?
I haven't seen a better mail/calendaring solution out there. Zimbra is unpleasant at best.
Plus, you don't pay anything for it past the cost of learning and setting it up.
"Free software is only free if your time has no value."
I've moved on from Microsoft software, maybe you should look at what you are bashing and give it a shot.
Right, because I don't write software that targets Linux all the time. 'Course not. None of it, ever.
(Hint: that would be sarcasm. I write a lot of software that targets Solaris/BSD/Linux. I've used it extensively both as a desktop and a server. I'd rather a Windows server any day for anything except, as I said, production use of a service or web app or the like.)
Currently companies are neglecting it but may end up chasing the little guys if they like it or push so much DRM and piracy prevention in their software that the user experience will degrade.
Blissfully wrong. In the home market, piracy is good for their business and they know it. Hell, look no further than Microsoft's DreamSpark initiative--giving away full versions of their development software, their Expression Studio stuff, and even Windows 2003 in an attempt to get people interested in their software. Because if people become used to it, they will want to continue using it in the workplace.
Microsoft likes when home users pirate Office, because it means that in a professional capacity they'll go "I need to write a document? Well, my boss better buy Office for me."
Adobe likes when home users pirate Photoshop, because it means that in a professional capacity they'll go "I need to do some graphics work? Well, my boss better buy Photoshop for me."
Pay several hundreds of dollars ? because that's what it's going to cost for legit softwares.
Nobody buys it. I have a legit copy of Adobe CS3 only because my university has a massive student discount.
People don't pay for decent presentation/layout, they just steal it (or have a friend lend them an install CD) because they currently can get away with it.
And that will not change anytime soon.
Besides, in a choice between The GIMP and paying for Photoshop--I'd pay for Photoshop. The GIMP is that shitty.
I was thinking about the more basic stuff, though. Like...err...a mail server that's worth using. There's nothing that steps up to Exchange in the OSS world. There's also software like SharePoint whose functionality doesn't really even exist in the OSS world.
For, say, high-load web apps (not written in ASP.NET, of course, although Mono's ASP.NET implementation is getting good), Linux makes a lot of sense. But for internal apps? Why make life harder on yourself?
Not trolling. Ubuntu Server sucks. Ubuntu's the best Linux has on the desktop (although Debian packages are starting to make my eye twitch--why are there 15 different packages, all necessary for most software, in order to install Mono?), but on a server? You're being silly. Things change far, far too fast in the Ubuntu repos for that to be a smart idea.
Solaris, RHEL, SLES--those are some decent, supported *nix server OSes. Ubuntu? LOL, no, sorry. BSD would be great if you can find some corporate-level support. I don't really know of anyone who does it though.
Slashdot Mirror
They did.
In theory, yes (and I agree with you; it'd be a great system...if it worked right). In practice, that's not how it ever really works.
Copy protection that is actively harmful punishes consumers for buying legitimately, yes. SecuROM, etc., suck ten miles of dick and should be not only avoided, but actively killed.
A developer won't every dissuade the pirates. But what copy protection does--in theory, at least, and at least in part in practice because most people are pretty dumb and can't find keygens, etc. that aren't virus-laden to hell and back--is keep the honest people honest. It's like a lock on the door of your house--it won't stop a determined thief, but it'll keep people who don't make their living (or, in this case, their entertainment) from piracy. (This is why the software I'm working on just has a basic ID/key combo. And I'm thinking about making it a web service, due to piracy concerns.)
The entitlement mentality of the asshole in the great-grandparent post is what pisses me off, though. Piracy isn't "free advertising" when it comes to games; that logic would work for Windows or Adobe, where the goal is corporate mindshare, but for games? Hell no.
The Congress has absolutely zero authority to tell them that anyway. The USAF takes orders, as do all branches of the military, only from the President.
You...do know that soldiers get a couple of days of acclimation time when being deployed before being sent into the field, right? A general usually doesn't have the time to wipe his ass when he's off the plane before he has to be at work.
The U.S. Congress can't tell the military to do anything directly. Only the President can. This "lawful mandate" isn't.
Do you want your high-end decision makers to arrive tired? He's got a very valid point.
Oh, so all piracy is of stuff by big media corporations? Really? How about small game developers whose games are regularly pirated? I guess they suck too, 'cause they aren't giving it to you for free.
Piracy isn't a "mass advertising campaign." A few pirating gamers might say something about a game to a friend or two. But the idea that that's more beneficial than getting paid for their fucking work is astonishingly retarded. (Especially given that said pirating gamer would probably just say to his friend "here, I'll burn you a copy.")
Rationalize it all you want: you're still fucking people over.
No, I bought the game.
Nope. You bought a box containing physical media and one license to use the game. It's just like a copy of Windows coming with a set of CALs.
(Not that I don't agree with you; EULAs should be on the back of the box, every time.)
No, but if you think that your claim has any real leg to stand on, I hope you have a Wookiee Defense at the ready.
Do you think everyone who uses illegal copies of software/music would buy the stuff if there were no illegal copies of it?
Nobody credible thinks that. However, to proclaim that everyone who uses pirated software wouldn't have bought it if they couldn't pirate it is lazy, stupid thinking. So, yes, the publisher does lose money.
This "fuck that guy and his expenses, I want it for free" mindset that many posters here have (not you, nautsch, just in general) is pretty sickening. Companies spend a mind-boggling amount of money making these computer games, and should be compensated for it if you want to play it. Instead, people brag about giving them the finger and using their software without renumeration. It's pathetic.
I most definitely do know how to use them, buddy, I've been writing code on *nix platforms for about five years now and using *nix machines for over a decade.
From a hardware POV, citing SGI and Sun as examples of UNIX being great for workstations is disingenuous. SGI and Sun had decent UNIX workstations in the past because there was no more useful alternative and because they had a hardware advantage (SGI in particular--MIPS boxes running IRIX were a lot better than PCs running...well, anything, at the time). At the time, X Windows and UNIX on non-x86 archs were the best of all the choices out there. But with modern computers, that's just not really true anymore.
From a software POV, citing them as examples of UNIX being great is just plain wrong. It still sucks to use as a workstation because--guess what? You still need a decent desktop environment for a workstation to be worthwhile. UNIX simply does not have that. It's got a bunch of weird fucking DEs programmed by people who can't follow HCI guidelines to save their lives and random, completely perplexing usability issues. The underlying OS is great, don't get me wrong--but it has to be a decent desktop in order to be a decent workstation.
If we were comparing workstations in 1994, sure, I'd agree with you that they're worth using, because everything else sucked. The reverse is true today. I can write code on Windows (and don't misunderstand me, Windows isn't perfect or even all that good, but at least it is consistent as a desktop, which means it's consistent as a workstation) and deploy code on Linux/BSD/Solaris remote machines or virtual machines just fine.
Well put; this would be a lot of why I avoid Linux on the desktop these days. The gnulot who replied after you is hilarious though.
The gnulot calling anyone an idiot? That's funny.
Yeah, I have an MSDN subscription. Big deal. That doesn't change the fact that I still probably do more *nix development than you do. I would love for Linux to get off its ass and stop sucking. It seems entirely uninterested in doing so.
I don't want themes. I don't want any of that shit. I want a desktop that acts intelligently and has applications with halfway decent HCI. On Linux? Not happening so far.
If you think OpenOffice is a drop-in replacement for Microsoft Office, you're not looking at it objectively. OpenOffice is a steaming pile, as was StarOffice before it.
Krita has a better chance of being worthwhile than The GIMP does.
That's what Obama will do too, so...what's the "change"?
I know of a lot more who wouldn't. Your point?
Say what you want about Steve Jobs. To me the big difference is Steve Jobs has _taste_.
A preference for curves in your industrial design does not in any way, shape, or form mean that you have "taste."
And OS X is a shining example of having no taste whatsoever. Hideous, hideous thing.
Wow, I've seen trolls, but this takes the cake.
Somebody disagrees with you, so they're trolling? Interesting.
Internal Mail apps? And you think Exchange is EASY to administer?
I haven't seen a better mail/calendaring solution out there. Zimbra is unpleasant at best.
Plus, you don't pay anything for it past the cost of learning and setting it up.
"Free software is only free if your time has no value."
I've moved on from Microsoft software, maybe you should look at what you are bashing and give it a shot.
Right, because I don't write software that targets Linux all the time. 'Course not. None of it, ever.
(Hint: that would be sarcasm. I write a lot of software that targets Solaris/BSD/Linux. I've used it extensively both as a desktop and a server. I'd rather a Windows server any day for anything except, as I said, production use of a service or web app or the like.)
Currently companies are neglecting it but may end up chasing the little guys if they like it or push so much DRM and piracy prevention in their software that the user experience will degrade.
Blissfully wrong. In the home market, piracy is good for their business and they know it. Hell, look no further than Microsoft's DreamSpark initiative--giving away full versions of their development software, their Expression Studio stuff, and even Windows 2003 in an attempt to get people interested in their software. Because if people become used to it, they will want to continue using it in the workplace.
Microsoft likes when home users pirate Office, because it means that in a professional capacity they'll go "I need to write a document? Well, my boss better buy Office for me."
Adobe likes when home users pirate Photoshop, because it means that in a professional capacity they'll go "I need to do some graphics work? Well, my boss better buy Photoshop for me."
Pay several hundreds of dollars ? because that's what it's going to cost for legit softwares.
Nobody buys it. I have a legit copy of Adobe CS3 only because my university has a massive student discount.
People don't pay for decent presentation/layout, they just steal it (or have a friend lend them an install CD) because they currently can get away with it.
And that will not change anytime soon.
Besides, in a choice between The GIMP and paying for Photoshop--I'd pay for Photoshop. The GIMP is that shitty.
I was thinking about the more basic stuff, though. Like...err...a mail server that's worth using. There's nothing that steps up to Exchange in the OSS world. There's also software like SharePoint whose functionality doesn't really even exist in the OSS world.
For, say, high-load web apps (not written in ASP.NET, of course, although Mono's ASP.NET implementation is getting good), Linux makes a lot of sense. But for internal apps? Why make life harder on yourself?
Not trolling. Ubuntu Server sucks. Ubuntu's the best Linux has on the desktop (although Debian packages are starting to make my eye twitch--why are there 15 different packages, all necessary for most software, in order to install Mono?), but on a server? You're being silly. Things change far, far too fast in the Ubuntu repos for that to be a smart idea.
Solaris, RHEL, SLES--those are some decent, supported *nix server OSes. Ubuntu? LOL, no, sorry. BSD would be great if you can find some corporate-level support. I don't really know of anyone who does it though.
You can toss those DLLs into the 2003 install, I believe.
Well said. I respect the people who work on Linux an awful lot. (I wouldn't be working on a project to allow Windows developers to seamlessly test .NET/Mono apps on Linux if I didn't think that Linux was a good thing. But to say that it's anywhere near as out-of-the-box good as Windows just doesn't make sense.
Evangelists want you to convert to their OS--and then do a bunch of work to make it work right. Why do that when Windows already works right?