What your basically is saying is: Screw X. Everything in it is bloated. Let's get some people team up to create a new and better interface that'll beat X anyday!!!
However, X is what it is. Alot of experience and effort has been put in it. It doesn't try to define more than it is. In such way, it is much cleaner, portable and flexible than most other GUIs out there. Why go into the same traps that other OSes have gone into? You have to be willing to sacrifice something for choice. And it's not like features can't be turned off. If you want a faster X, why don't you just tweak the source and get it much faster? Can't be that hard to turn off the "slow" networking part. However, I doubt you'll notice much difference.
I'd say it's not worth to remake the wheel just because it's ugly. Though, I'm happy that people are investing time in proving me wrong. I make a different choice in what I'll use for now though.
Hearing about companies using GPLed work and distributing modifications warms my heart. Of course it would warm my heart even more if they not only did it because they had to, but because they wanted to.
The point here isn't about the output, but the server program (which would be derivative). He is addressing a license that would enforce making the source for the server program publicly available if people are using information generated by this program.
Of course the sheer difficulty, intrusiveness and draconian efforts of such a mess makes it kinda laughable at best. People are yet again trying to measure and control where information is to be flowing. Why can't people accept that you have to give in order to receive, and stop this bullshit about licenses and profits. No license or profit margin programmed a great program, ever.
You forgot the parsing of the mail address. It can't be that hard to make a script delete characters that's not typically part of a mail-address. I bet I could make a script that will dechiper most of the fake slashdot mailaddresses.
A few simple rules, you can juggle with the rules to create more mailaddresses. One or more might be the true one:
ignore mails lacking @, at or a substitute. You MUST have an @. The same with dot. at = @ , dot = . , plus = + especially with spaces in the text attempt stripping everything after.com,.edu and.org attempt stripping everything in caps, and vica versa (lowercase) attempt stripping certain keywords: SPAM, REMOVE, IGNORE. Attempt to widen the scope of this, checking for same caps or until a special symbol occurs. strip illegal symbols and sequences of symbols, like spaces, question-marks, dollar-signs, paranthesis, [ , ] , @. ,.. , etc. ignore addresses resolving to localhost, localdomain, root, webmaster, abuse, admin. These will only get you in trouble for little gain.
This is only on top of my head, I'm sure someone looking at a list of fake addresses can come up with more "rules". I'm also sure that if you apply this to the addresses you find here on/., you'll be surprised how easy it is to send spam to those who wants to be found.
Of course you have to be pretty sick in your head for doing this, but spammers probably are already.
Well it's a step further than just doing what's been done over and over isn't it? You don't have to be able to predict your whole future, you can't. However, you sure as hell should try figuring it out, or face the consequences.
This is great advice you bring forth, food for thought etc. However, you have to think further to see the implications of Open Sourcing your product: Okay, in the beginning you will have a product that companies will pay for. They want your support, dedication, bug-fixes, security-fixes, a smile and pat on the back when they do it right. Initially they don't really know this is Open Source at all. They pay, and request new features and bugfixes as they need'em. However, they will become more and more knowledgeable with the software, especially from the user-side. This will extend codewise if they can get the source easily. There'll be situations where they want to fix stuff themselves, in order to meet deadlines and other things.
It takes no wizard to see that they will find out they're paying the price for every freeloader that you have on your product. Now, if the bugs in your product gets fixed, they will have no incentive to further support you. Especially when they got all the features they need. The companies will review their budgets and find what to cut down, and believe me, they'll cut whatever they can in bad financial times. Regardless if they "support" the Open Source movement or not. Note that this will only happen if your customers see your product as "finished". (Side-note: Quite the opposite is why Microsoft and other companies is such a big success. With a big enough smirk, you can fool anyone into buying glory promises, and forget the gory truth.)
So, all in all, there is money in this. You just can't expect to live on it forever. There's also less money than if you make it big proprietary. On the other hand, you may get support from freelance coders, and you will get good PR through the geek community.
Successful Open Source projects tend to start living lives on their own. Proprietary projects tends to get cloned by a competitor, though this is more costly and difficult. There's no guarantee for making money either way. To make sure your code is not used by competitors in their proprietary applications, I would recommend a license aka GPL. Public domain or BSD-style licenses is not something an egotistical company should use on software they have developed.
On the other hand, if the initial code or concept is so simple it can be cloned or extended by any competitor in the market. You're in big trouble from the beginning on. As a small company you don't really have much to say, and a big competitor may use lots of more money than you just to catch on and get in the leading position. So I would make sure I had plenty of deals with companies before making the bold decision to Open Source the wares or even go public with your products.
It would also be wise to patent whatever you can, otherwise you may very well find yourself in a patent-infringing lawsuit. Don't listen to people who tell you not to patent, because the system is just not willing to listen when you complain afterwards.
Have sales increased? Yes. However, that doesn't say much. Wether the increase of sales has increased (acceleration) is more interesting, and even that is not really showing much either. Numbers today are not numbers tomorrow. People relying on statistics instead of common sense shoot themselves and others in the foot.
...and it consists of ftp and telnet. Please don't kill this easy-to-access information and remote processes just yet. The right solution isn't to ban the telnet and ftp protocol, then having to figure out what program to use to get stuff done each time you need to. Instead, wrap the telnet, ftp and every other information protocol inside a _standard_ security protocol. I don't want to know if I have to use freessh, ssh2, openssh or whatever is out there. I don't want to have to compile these on machines I don't own. You could even make it transparent to the user (so we can continue using telnet and ftp on that machine). Leave the choice to the user wether he wants security or not. And notify him/her if the connection is not secure.
You are correct I said this in a negative way. Everything may be viewed from a positive or a negative pole, and I chose the negative one. Why did I do this? Simply because the poster I was replying too already had a negative view of things. He wanted to own his ideas, and keep use of it restricted even though that is not natural. I responded with a blatant remark, backed up with some explanation as not to be marked as flame-bait, because that's how I felt that day. I sort of fought fire with fire, to show the meaninglessness of owning or putting constraints of information.
You wrote your post beautifully I think, and I really enjoyed a more positive version of the whole thing. I don't think it was a flame at all, it merely stated what you thought about my angle of opinion, which I believe is right. Plus it is probably more effective than my rant, but perhaps not if the reader is against any "communistic" ideas and all that crap.
Now anyone who reads both ours posts will succumb;*)
I'm glad that you see it's a personal opinion because that's what I intended with my blatant remark;-)
I missed your "for me" distinction, although you are limiting yourself to only eye-candy games with such an opinion. What about chess for instance? You don't even need a computer to enjoy a game. That too is subjective though, and changeable with weather.
If you're afraid that people will warp your story, don't tell it to anyone.
Really, that's the only way to be sure. Now, I'm pretty sure someone has come up with a similar story before anyways, and maybe that your story is a "warped" story from someone else you've heard. So why worry? What do you lose? Why be afraid over a perfectly natural thing?
I don't believe quality games can be made easily by Open Source efforts. Sure, libraries, game-engines, AI, and endless other code-snippets may be "easily" created by the community spirit. Even these tend to be mediocre at the beginning. It takes time for these things to mature. However, when it comes to artistic music, graphics, sound-effects, plots, themes, etc, it's a whole different ballgame. It takes something special to make everyone play on the same team and create a _consistent_ world. One other thing is to make artists put their works under a GPL-style license, or public domain.
I said it was difficult, not impossible. And even a quality game can fall short of the joys and thrills of creating and sharing a free world.
I think the best solution is to make available an initial game-world in which everyone can share their ideas by copying and extending them. Then instantly interact with the new objects with your friends. MUDs is a good example of this. Such a game would be very difficult from the proprietary games we have now (that are graphical), but would nevertheless be much more interesting, freer and make you more productive d;-) than MMORGs than Everquest and Ultima Online. We already have them in text, it would be interesting to have graphical and audio implementations that are similarly extendable and reflective (to some degree) as LP-muds. You shouldn't just be allowed to create new objects, you should be allowed to create new concepts to the game and extending already existing classes without clashes.
"If you don't like a technology, then simply don't get involved with it."
It's also a good idea to say what you think is wrong about that technology to others. People will think for themselves, and the power-structures will crumble.
It's just too sad you have to replace power with power, since people are too insecure in themselves and others to live without being controlled.
And what is intent if I may ask? How do you prosecute someone based on intent? What is the intent of MP3.com here? Who are you to say who's got what intent?
"O yeah it is pain.. so is going to work every morning. What's your solution for that ?"
Stop working, change job, marry a wealthy woman, win the lottery, live on the street, rob a bank. Plenty of options, you just have to look for them.:-)
About communism, what kind are you refering to:
communism 'käm-y&-"ni-z&m, noun Etymology: French communisme, from commun common Date: 1840 1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed 2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively
The distinction is crucial. As the Russians found out you can't force something down on people.
"None of this prevents you from being deeply embarrassed or angry if the information becomes widespread, and I'm not suggesting that people be compelled to divulge everything they know to anyone."
If the GPL is deemed invalid, normal copyright laws will apply. The GPL doesn't really restrict you in any way: It gives you the "freedom" (I sound like a GNU-acolyte now..;) to modify and distribute under a list of terms. Now if you disagree on these terms, the GPL is void for you and you will need to be the copyright holder or be given another license that expressively gives you those rights.
It's the copyright laws that are draconian, not licenses like the GPL. This is somewhat related to the issue of half-full and half-empty bottles (depends on your perception of it, not what it truly is). Without copyright laws, the GPL would be draconian. If the world lived happily without them, I doubt RMS would suddenly create the GPL. It's a means to survival under current power-structures and predatory companies.
Maybe this will lend some understanding to why many BSD-guys don't like the GPL.
This society is a sad one when it is not allowed to share music and everyone is holding on to their own stuff in fear of losing it. When was the last time you helped someone without thinking about any rewards for doing so?
What is it that makes us a strong, happy and resistant community? Certainly not when everything and everyone comes for a price. There's just too much resistance and friction in the economic model, it can't possibly scale down to everything we do. (When was the last time you needed a program your company refused to buy, or how much trouble did you have to go through in order to get it? How many forms did you sign? How much did you have to research and contemplate in order tell your boss you really needed this, and not some other program.)
Slashdot Mirror
What your basically is saying is: Screw X. Everything in it is bloated. Let's get some people team up to create a new and better interface that'll beat X anyday!!!
However, X is what it is. Alot of experience and effort has been put in it. It doesn't try to define more than it is. In such way, it is much cleaner, portable and flexible than most other GUIs out there. Why go into the same traps that other OSes have gone into? You have to be willing to sacrifice something for choice. And it's not like features can't be turned off. If you want a faster X, why don't you just tweak the source and get it much faster? Can't be that hard to turn off the "slow" networking part. However, I doubt you'll notice much difference.
I'd say it's not worth to remake the wheel just because it's ugly. Though, I'm happy that people are investing time in proving me wrong. I make a different choice in what I'll use for now though.
- Steeltoe
Hearing about companies using GPLed work and distributing modifications warms my heart. Of course it would warm my heart even more if they not only did it because they had to, but because they wanted to.
- Steeltoe
The point here isn't about the output, but the server program (which would be derivative). He is addressing a license that would enforce making the source for the server program publicly available if people are using information generated by this program.
Of course the sheer difficulty, intrusiveness and draconian efforts of such a mess makes it kinda laughable at best. People are yet again trying to measure and control where information is to be flowing. Why can't people accept that you have to give in order to receive, and stop this bullshit about licenses and profits. No license or profit margin programmed a great program, ever.
- Steeltoe
People are already buying crap to install on their local harddrives. What will prevent them to use crap on distant servers?
I do however, agree with your attitude. Let those who will live in the crap, it's the only way to learn.
- Steeltoe
You forgot the parsing of the mail address. It can't be that hard to make a script delete characters that's not typically part of a mail-address. I bet I could make a script that will dechiper most of the fake slashdot mailaddresses.
.com, .edu and .org .. , etc.
/., you'll be surprised how easy it is to send spam to those who wants to be found.
A few simple rules, you can juggle with the rules to create more mailaddresses. One or more might be the true one:
ignore mails lacking @, at or a substitute. You MUST have an @. The same with dot.
at = @ , dot = . , plus = + especially with spaces in the text
attempt stripping everything after
attempt stripping everything in caps, and vica versa (lowercase)
attempt stripping certain keywords: SPAM, REMOVE, IGNORE. Attempt to widen the scope of this, checking for same caps or until a special symbol occurs.
strip illegal symbols and sequences of symbols, like spaces, question-marks, dollar-signs, paranthesis, [ , ] , @. ,
ignore addresses resolving to localhost, localdomain, root, webmaster, abuse, admin. These will only get you in trouble for little gain.
This is only on top of my head, I'm sure someone looking at a list of fake addresses can come up with more "rules". I'm also sure that if you apply this to the addresses you find here on
Of course you have to be pretty sick in your head for doing this, but spammers probably are already.
- Steeltoe
Well it's a step further than just doing what's been done over and over isn't it? You don't have to be able to predict your whole future, you can't. However, you sure as hell should try figuring it out, or face the consequences.
- Steeltoe
I'd like to know how you play EverQuest in Linux. Using Wine or VMWare?
;-)
Btw, have you read Tomas Covenant the Unbeliever?
- Steeltoe
I'd recommend a box, not just a CD. And manuals, and, and, and... There's lots of things to put in a box :-)
- Steeltoe
This is great advice you bring forth, food for thought etc. However, you have to think further to see the implications of Open Sourcing your product: Okay, in the beginning you will have a product that companies will pay for. They want your support, dedication, bug-fixes, security-fixes, a smile and pat on the back when they do it right. Initially they don't really know this is Open Source at all. They pay, and request new features and bugfixes as they need'em. However, they will become more and more knowledgeable with the software, especially from the user-side. This will extend codewise if they can get the source easily. There'll be situations where they want to fix stuff themselves, in order to meet deadlines and other things.
It takes no wizard to see that they will find out they're paying the price for every freeloader that you have on your product. Now, if the bugs in your product gets fixed, they will have no incentive to further support you. Especially when they got all the features they need. The companies will review their budgets and find what to cut down, and believe me, they'll cut whatever they can in bad financial times. Regardless if they "support" the Open Source movement or not. Note that this will only happen if your customers see your product as "finished". (Side-note: Quite the opposite is why Microsoft and other companies is such a big success. With a big enough smirk, you can fool anyone into buying glory promises, and forget the gory truth.)
So, all in all, there is money in this. You just can't expect to live on it forever. There's also less money than if you make it big proprietary. On the other hand, you may get support from freelance coders, and you will get good PR through the geek community.
Successful Open Source projects tend to start living lives on their own. Proprietary projects tends to get cloned by a competitor, though this is more costly and difficult. There's no guarantee for making money either way. To make sure your code is not used by competitors in their proprietary applications, I would recommend a license aka GPL. Public domain or BSD-style licenses is not something an egotistical company should use on software they have developed.
On the other hand, if the initial code or concept is so simple it can be cloned or extended by any competitor in the market. You're in big trouble from the beginning on. As a small company you don't really have much to say, and a big competitor may use lots of more money than you just to catch on and get in the leading position. So I would make sure I had plenty of deals with companies before making the bold decision to Open Source the wares or even go public with your products.
It would also be wise to patent whatever you can, otherwise you may very well find yourself in a patent-infringing lawsuit. Don't listen to people who tell you not to patent, because the system is just not willing to listen when you complain afterwards.
- Steeltoe
Have sales increased? Yes. However, that doesn't say much. Wether the increase of sales has increased (acceleration) is more interesting, and even that is not really showing much either. Numbers today are not numbers tomorrow. People relying on statistics instead of common sense shoot themselves and others in the foot.
- Steeltoe
...and it consists of ftp and telnet. Please don't kill this easy-to-access information and remote processes just yet. The right solution isn't to ban the telnet and ftp protocol, then having to figure out what program to use to get stuff done each time you need to. Instead, wrap the telnet, ftp and every other information protocol inside a _standard_ security protocol. I don't want to know if I have to use freessh, ssh2, openssh or whatever is out there. I don't want to have to compile these on machines I don't own. You could even make it transparent to the user (so we can continue using telnet and ftp on that machine). Leave the choice to the user wether he wants security or not. And notify him/her if the connection is not secure.
Just my 2 cents.
- Steeltoe
You are correct I said this in a negative way. Everything may be viewed from a positive or a negative pole, and I chose the negative one. Why did I do this? Simply because the poster I was replying too already had a negative view of things. He wanted to own his ideas, and keep use of it restricted even though that is not natural. I responded with a blatant remark, backed up with some explanation as not to be marked as flame-bait, because that's how I felt that day. I sort of fought fire with fire, to show the meaninglessness of owning or putting constraints of information.
;*)
You wrote your post beautifully I think, and I really enjoyed a more positive version of the whole thing. I don't think it was a flame at all, it merely stated what you thought about my angle of opinion, which I believe is right. Plus it is probably more effective than my rant, but perhaps not if the reader is against any "communistic" ideas and all that crap.
Now anyone who reads both ours posts will succumb
- Steeltoe
I'm glad that you see it's a personal opinion because that's what I intended with my blatant remark ;-)
I missed your "for me" distinction, although you are limiting yourself to only eye-candy games with such an opinion. What about chess for instance? You don't even need a computer to enjoy a game. That too is subjective though, and changeable with weather.
- Steeltoe
"This is the ultimate proof for me that art does make the game."
Let this sentence be the proof that any blatant over-generalisation about one incident to be worth null and void.
;) Steeltoe
If you're afraid that people will warp your story, don't tell it to anyone.
Really, that's the only way to be sure. Now, I'm pretty sure someone has come up with a similar story before anyways, and maybe that your story is a "warped" story from someone else you've heard. So why worry? What do you lose? Why be afraid over a perfectly natural thing?
- Steeltoe
I don't believe quality games can be made easily by Open Source efforts. Sure, libraries, game-engines, AI, and endless other code-snippets may be "easily" created by the community spirit. Even these tend to be mediocre at the beginning. It takes time for these things to mature. However, when it comes to artistic music, graphics, sound-effects, plots, themes, etc, it's a whole different ballgame. It takes something special to make everyone play on the same team and create a _consistent_ world. One other thing is to make artists put their works under a GPL-style license, or public domain.
I said it was difficult, not impossible. And even a quality game can fall short of the joys and thrills of creating and sharing a free world.
I think the best solution is to make available an initial game-world in which everyone can share their ideas by copying and extending them. Then instantly interact with the new objects with your friends. MUDs is a good example of this. Such a game would be very difficult from the proprietary games we have now (that are graphical), but would nevertheless be much more interesting, freer and make you more productive d;-) than MMORGs than Everquest and Ultima Online. We already have them in text, it would be interesting to have graphical and audio implementations that are similarly extendable and reflective (to some degree) as LP-muds. You shouldn't just be allowed to create new objects, you should be allowed to create new concepts to the game and extending already existing classes without clashes.
- Steeltoe
Why you need McGuyver when you got Walker Texas Ranger?
=) Steeltoe
"If you don't like a technology, then simply don't get involved with it."
It's also a good idea to say what you think is wrong about that technology to others. People will think for themselves, and the power-structures will crumble.
It's just too sad you have to replace power with power, since people are too insecure in themselves and others to live without being controlled.
- Steeltoe
You didn't mention alcohole :-)
- Steeltoe
And what is intent if I may ask? How do you prosecute someone based on intent? What is the intent of MP3.com here? Who are you to say who's got what intent?
Intent is NOT the key.
- Steeltoe
This is functional programming in my book: You describe what to do, not how to do it. Namely a specification.
OOP and functional programming is not contradictory.
Of course I wouldn't call this programming at all, or a protocol. I would call BXXP a meta-protocol.
- Steeltoe
"O yeah it is pain .. so is going to work every morning. What's your solution for that ?"
:-)
Stop working, change job, marry a wealthy woman, win the lottery, live on the street, rob a bank. Plenty of options, you just have to look for them.
About communism, what kind are you refering to:
communism 'käm-y&-"ni-z&m, noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
Date: 1840
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively
The distinction is crucial. As the Russians found out you can't force something down on people.
- Steeltoe
"None of this prevents you from being deeply embarrassed or angry if the information becomes widespread, and I'm not suggesting that people be compelled to divulge everything they know to anyone."
:->
Why not?
- Steeltoe
If the GPL is deemed invalid, normal copyright laws will apply. The GPL doesn't really restrict you in any way: It gives you the "freedom" (I sound like a GNU-acolyte now..;) to modify and distribute under a list of terms. Now if you disagree on these terms, the GPL is void for you and you will need to be the copyright holder or be given another license that expressively gives you those rights.
It's the copyright laws that are draconian, not licenses like the GPL. This is somewhat related to the issue of half-full and half-empty bottles (depends on your perception of it, not what it truly is). Without copyright laws, the GPL would be draconian. If the world lived happily without them, I doubt RMS would suddenly create the GPL. It's a means to survival under current power-structures and predatory companies.
Maybe this will lend some understanding to why many BSD-guys don't like the GPL.
- Steeltoe
"OK, copying music is wrong ..."
This society is a sad one when it is not allowed to share music and everyone is holding on to their own stuff in fear of losing it. When was the last time you helped someone without thinking about any rewards for doing so?
What is it that makes us a strong, happy and resistant community? Certainly not when everything and everyone comes for a price. There's just too much resistance and friction in the economic model, it can't possibly scale down to everything we do. (When was the last time you needed a program your company refused to buy, or how much trouble did you have to go through in order to get it? How many forms did you sign? How much did you have to research and contemplate in order tell your boss you really needed this, and not some other program.)
Sad.
- Steeltoe