This overview remarks that members of the community are allowed to keep performance enhancements; they are not "required" to submit them back to the public. However, members "must" return to the community fixes for "errors" in the code base. What's an "error" and what's a performance enhancement? Seems like an arbitrary distinction to me, and one that adds weakness to this license.
I understand that Sun wants to let users of Solaris function in a proprietary manner; that's why they allow extensions (albeit with "open" interfaces). Personally, I wouldn't be very happy with such a system. Where do the proprietary extensions stop? After how many years will we have the same old hunk of binary again?
Yes, that's just my speculation, but it's the difference between buying nice Sun hardware to run an operating system I can't tinker and share with my friends and buying a nice Alpha where I can.
I agree...but with all this critiszizzzms (can't spell) flying around, I just want to say that eveyone should wait for OSX before making judgments as to Apples lame OS. This will be very cool..
Aah... yes, and Windows NT is the ultimate operating system. Why? Oh, well, NT 4.0, sure... it has problems. Lots of them. BUT! Wait until NT 5.0; it will fix all the bugs, add all the features you could ever add, be FASTER, be EASIER, be BETTER than ever before! You just wait! Seriously, it's hard to judge an operating system that doesn't exist. I think Carmack did a good job explaining that MacOS (as it is now) sucks for a good deal of reasons. I think he's also hoping Apple can pull off MacOS X; he mentioned its design a few times in the.plan. He can't write games now for an operating system that might exist in a few years and hope to sell any copies.
Sony wants to be proprietary with their Playstation, but they realize such a strategy would have doomed them from the start (hence the SDKs and documentation available to anyone with a few hundred dollars). This is a prime example of old company thinking, where they've built an empire around a few little secrets, and it all waits to crumble when those secrets are revealed. In this case, some smart guys have reverse-engineered Sony's little secrets. They have figured out a puzzle, and Sony wants to sue them for it.
I say, if you're in the proprietary game, you lose when you lose. Someone leak your secret? Did someone reverse-engineer your work? Too bad. You can't sanely tell your customers that by using your product they're now not allowed to be curious, or even have _similar_ ideas. You can't use law to force other bright, motivated people from looking at your work and trying to do better from their own fresh start. Sony built their house of cards, Connectix just brought in the winds.
I usually read the "mainstream Linux" articles expecting them to be full of inaccuracies, half-truths, and a competitive slant where there often is none. But this article was an honest portrait of Linus; the family research and interviews were excellent. Can you imagine a similar exchange with Gates's relatives? I can't.
Even though they said something like "Linux is cheaper than Unix" without explaining their criteria for costly Unix, the article was devoid of that silly word "freeware!" However, they didn't touch on the freedom aspect of the software... which doesn't bother me much. I think the article was much more about Linus than his creation.
Nothing beats the Sex Sells Ads on /.
on
Linux 2.2.0pre5
·
· Score: 1
Ads? On Slashdot? Oh yeah... www.junkbusters.com.:)
You've left out an important case
on
GIMP Book
·
· Score: 1
WilberWorks will do it for you. And for what? Oh, money. The same thing you're shelling out for proprietary, commercial software. But you don't get the code that way, either.
Oh, yes, I thought I implied the licensing fees there. I've never run a theatre, so I don't know the breakdown of the business model, but I realize the motion picture publishers are the ones making the big money.
The QT way isn't free software. The user isn't free to do a whole host of things with the code he has, like make major improvements and share them with his friends. I think it's better to make money off the services often desired from a software vendor (support, customization, consulting).
Read the GNU manifesto a few times. Software is a sequence of numbers... on today's hardware, it costs next to nothing to reproduce (and when it's "stolen", it's not even on the CPU or I/O time of the vendor, but on some unattached customer). If you're talking movies in a theatre, your admission supports the services provided (paying for shipment of the reels, staff to run the projector, clean up the theatres, etc). If you're talking just the content of a video tape, or a DVD, well, it's not much different from the software model. Same with CDs. It's the recording industry and movie industries of the world gouging its customers on licensing fees.
Slashdot Mirror
This overview remarks that members of the community are allowed to keep performance enhancements; they are not "required" to submit them back to the public. However, members "must" return to the community fixes for "errors" in the code base. What's an "error" and what's a performance enhancement? Seems like an arbitrary distinction to me, and one that adds weakness to this license.
I understand that Sun wants to let users of Solaris function in a proprietary manner; that's why they allow extensions (albeit with "open" interfaces). Personally, I wouldn't be very happy with such a system. Where do the proprietary extensions stop? After how many years will we have the same old hunk of binary again?
Yes, that's just my speculation, but it's the difference between buying nice Sun hardware to run an operating system I can't tinker and share with my friends and buying a nice Alpha where I can.
Seriously, it's hard to judge an operating system that doesn't exist. I think Carmack did a good job explaining that MacOS (as it is now) sucks for a good deal of reasons. I think he's also hoping Apple can pull off MacOS X; he mentioned its design a few times in the
Sony wants to be proprietary with their Playstation, but they realize such a strategy would have doomed them from the start (hence the SDKs and documentation available to anyone with a few hundred dollars). This is a prime example of old company thinking, where they've built an empire around a few little secrets, and it all waits to crumble when those secrets are revealed. In this case, some smart guys have reverse-engineered Sony's little secrets. They have figured out a puzzle, and Sony wants to sue them for it.
I say, if you're in the proprietary game, you lose when you lose. Someone leak your secret? Did someone reverse-engineer your work? Too bad. You can't sanely tell your customers that by using your product they're now not allowed to be curious, or even have _similar_ ideas. You can't use law to force other bright, motivated people from looking at your work and trying to do better from their own fresh start. Sony built their house of cards, Connectix just brought in the winds.
I usually read the "mainstream Linux" articles expecting them to be full of inaccuracies, half-truths, and a competitive slant where there often is none. But this article was an honest portrait of Linus; the family research and interviews were excellent. Can you imagine a similar exchange with Gates's relatives? I can't.
Even though they said something like "Linux is cheaper than Unix" without explaining their criteria for costly Unix, the article was devoid of that silly word "freeware!" However, they didn't touch on the freedom aspect of the software... which doesn't bother me much. I think the article was much more about Linus than his creation.
Ads? On Slashdot? Oh yeah... www.junkbusters.com. :)
WilberWorks will do it for you. And for what? Oh, money. The same thing you're shelling out for proprietary, commercial software. But you don't get the code that way, either.
Oh, yes, I thought I implied the licensing fees there. I've never run a theatre, so I don't know the breakdown of the business model, but I realize the motion picture publishers are the ones making the big money.
The QT way isn't free software. The user isn't free to do a whole host of things with the code he has, like make major improvements and share them with his friends. I think it's better to make money off the services often desired from a software vendor (support, customization, consulting).
Read the GNU manifesto a few times. Software is a sequence of numbers... on today's hardware, it costs next to nothing to reproduce (and when it's "stolen", it's not even on the CPU or I/O time of the vendor, but on some unattached customer). If you're talking movies in a theatre, your admission supports the services provided (paying for shipment of the reels, staff to run the projector, clean up the theatres, etc). If you're talking just the content of a video tape, or a DVD, well, it's not much different from the software model. Same with CDs. It's the recording industry and movie industries of the world gouging its customers on licensing fees.