The last part of my comment was more directed at the GGP then your post in particular. I agree with you in that there is no money to be had with Firefox though.
1) Redhat are huge contributers to numerous open source projects. 2) How is that relevant at all? Everybody knows that one of the benifits of running a business like Redhat is that you don't have to do all the work yourself.
At the end of the day, Redhat is both a F/OSS company, and incredibly sucessful. You really can't argue with results like that.
Well, Opera seems to be doing decently, selling mobile browsers or whatever they do (I don't use Opera browsers, I'm somewhat unfamilar with their products), but in this case I agree with you. No business model can save you if your product is crap people won't buy.
Right now Mozilla's product is users, which they are selling to google. I believe trying to make their browser the product would be a terrible move, regardless of how they do it.
All of this said, calling F/OSS business models bust because one particular company wouldn't be able to do it is particularly stupid. Business models are not "one size fits all".
Absolutely, I am baffled by the shear number of people who seem to think tearing apart the foundations the country was built upon will somehow make it more stable.
That's the whole business model of F/OSS, isn't it?
No, that is only one of many possible F/OSS business models. Other common F/OSS business models include dual licensing and paid support. Examples include Redhat, formerly Trolltech (aquired by Nokia), and many others.
isn't viable unless a project has a sugar-daddy like the big Linux distros?
Of the big linux distrobutions, only one (ubuntu) comes to mind as relying on a so called "sugar daddy". Debian is entirely community run, and Fedora is community run, with support from Redhat (an extremely sucessful and profitable F/OSS company).
Time will tell.
Time has already shown the concept to be quite workable.
Javascript runs on your hardware, not on whatever server it was hosted on. A site getting slashdotted will make a page more sluggish to load, but not run.
They are clearly intending this to be used for far more than just speakers, webcams, and video though. Hence the comments about ethernet and whatnot. I think it's a promising piece of technology and would like to see it gain further adoption, but I think it has a rather poorly chosen name.
You clearly have absolutely no fucking idea how unlikely you are to die in a terrorist attack, particularly in a pre-Patriot Act world. By your logic, we should all give up any semblance of freedom and have our government lock us away in cages to prevent automobile deaths.
Why is it called "Displayport" if it's meant to do all of this other fancy stuff as well? Did they just not look ahead at future applications when they named it?
The windows terminal emulator software sucking hard (and it most certainly does) doesn't really have much to do with windows not having a rich, powerful, and universal set of command line utilities, with properly designed and useful flags and options. Implementing such a pathetic system years after Unix was designed is laughable.
Also, it's shell is woefully underfeatured, compared to something like zsh, or even bash. I could never see myself actually attempting to do real work with it.
It wasn't until I started going through my dad's old photography books that I understood what 1/2 of the tools were and why they were named.
Great, so you are saying I have to be a photography expert before I can even start to understand the names of things in photoshop. That seems much better.
Are you asserting that the piratebay has legal copies of windows, or are you just trying to make yourself look like a dumbass by completely missing the point of what the GP was saying?
A 2.7 kernel would not be for general consumption, it'd be used for development during a transition to 2.8. I believe Linus has publicly stated that he has no intention of going to 2.8 anytime in the forseeable future though.
We're using Xen to run over 5000 FreeBSD instances on a singe high-end server.
Try reading the original post next time.
They definetly should be using freebsd jails, but are instead running thousands of seperate freebsd instances with Xen. If that is not the definition of "doing it wrong", I don't know what is.
They are not "burning all copies they've already printed", they are just not distributing those copies themselves anymore. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade.
No shit, "punching someone in the eye" is physical assault. If you are honestly trying to compare "dropping divx/avi support" to "physical assault", then you have some issues.
This is more akin to someone giving you a free paper (btw, there are free papers just about everywhere, not really a UK phenomenon), and not publishing articles that are of interest to you. If you called the newspaper douchey because they didn't publish enough articles about, say cats, then you would indeed be rather douchey.
Slashdot Mirror
The last part of my comment was more directed at the GGP then your post in particular. I agree with you in that there is no money to be had with Firefox though.
1) Redhat are huge contributers to numerous open source projects.
2) How is that relevant at all? Everybody knows that one of the benifits of running a business like Redhat is that you don't have to do all the work yourself.
At the end of the day, Redhat is both a F/OSS company, and incredibly sucessful. You really can't argue with results like that.
Well, Opera seems to be doing decently, selling mobile browsers or whatever they do (I don't use Opera browsers, I'm somewhat unfamilar with their products), but in this case I agree with you. No business model can save you if your product is crap people won't buy.
Right now Mozilla's product is users, which they are selling to google. I believe trying to make their browser the product would be a terrible move, regardless of how they do it.
All of this said, calling F/OSS business models bust because one particular company wouldn't be able to do it is particularly stupid. Business models are not "one size fits all".
Absolutely, I am baffled by the shear number of people who seem to think tearing apart the foundations the country was built upon will somehow make it more stable.
Redhat is not a sugar daddy supporting a F/OSS company. They are a F/OSS company.
That you consider them worthy of a "sugar daddy" label only serves to demonstrate just how well a F/OSS business model is working for them.
FUD.
No, that is only one of many possible F/OSS business models. Other common F/OSS business models include dual licensing and paid support. Examples include Redhat, formerly Trolltech (aquired by Nokia), and many others.
Of the big linux distrobutions, only one (ubuntu) comes to mind as relying on a so called "sugar daddy". Debian is entirely community run, and Fedora is community run, with support from Redhat (an extremely sucessful and profitable F/OSS company).
Time has already shown the concept to be quite workable.
Javascript runs on your hardware, not on whatever server it was hosted on. A site getting slashdotted will make a page more sluggish to load, but not run.
I say, "If one is looking for proofs in witty sayings, then he is missing the point. Rather, one should look for insight."
Minor correction: I'd rather be dead than a slave. Being an undead slave would probably suck too.
They are clearly intending this to be used for far more than just speakers, webcams, and video though. Hence the comments about ethernet and whatnot. I think it's a promising piece of technology and would like to see it gain further adoption, but I think it has a rather poorly chosen name.
You clearly have absolutely no fucking idea how unlikely you are to die in a terrorist attack, particularly in a pre-Patriot Act world. By your logic, we should all give up any semblance of freedom and have our government lock us away in cages to prevent automobile deaths.
I'd rather be dead then a slave.
Why is it called "Displayport" if it's meant to do all of this other fancy stuff as well? Did they just not look ahead at future applications when they named it?
And I take it you are one of those *BSD cretins? ;)
The windows terminal emulator software sucking hard (and it most certainly does) doesn't really have much to do with windows not having a rich, powerful, and universal set of command line utilities, with properly designed and useful flags and options. Implementing such a pathetic system years after Unix was designed is laughable.
Also, it's shell is woefully underfeatured, compared to something like zsh, or even bash. I could never see myself actually attempting to do real work with it.
You are not very familar with the security scene are you? This is just how things operate, hardly anything new.
Great, so you are saying I have to be a photography expert before I can even start to understand the names of things in photoshop. That seems much better.
No, and yet it seems only open source programs get it right 99% of the time.
Are you asserting that the piratebay has legal copies of windows, or are you just trying to make yourself look like a dumbass by completely missing the point of what the GP was saying?
A 2.7 kernel would not be for general consumption, it'd be used for development during a transition to 2.8. I believe Linus has publicly stated that he has no intention of going to 2.8 anytime in the forseeable future though.
Try reading the original post next time.
They definetly should be using freebsd jails, but are instead running thousands of seperate freebsd instances with Xen. If that is not the definition of "doing it wrong", I don't know what is.
They are not "burning all copies they've already printed", they are just not distributing those copies themselves anymore. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade.
Get a fucking grip.
And getting yourself into one of those scenarios is most likely "doing it wrong" as well.
No shit, "punching someone in the eye" is physical assault. If you are honestly trying to compare "dropping divx/avi support" to "physical assault", then you have some issues.
This is more akin to someone giving you a free paper (btw, there are free papers just about everywhere, not really a UK phenomenon), and not publishing articles that are of interest to you. If you called the newspaper douchey because they didn't publish enough articles about, say cats, then you would indeed be rather douchey.
Calling people that give you software for fucking free "douchey", is well, pretty douchey.
I'm genuinely curious as to what I'm apparently missing here? Would someone care to actually explain, or is my crime just doubting the Church of Jobs?