If you want an entirely isolated hippie utopia commune, hey, feel free, but you'll have no effect on the world of grown-ups.
Right, as opposed to the deep, rippling worldly effects that typically come from using MS products religiously.
We use open source, much of it works, much of it could be improved, much of it will be improved, unlike Windows, should you successfully peddle your "get with the herd" mentality.
It's not exactly fair to pin the blame for lack of choice exclusively on open source software. There are other factors as well. For one, we (often) have proprietary software competing in the same field, sucking up the market share from smaller enterprises. There's also the free market, which, while providing many benefits, naturally favours more popular products (like OSS), and can't sustain less popular products (like some small proprietary software). Finally, there are the people who, thanks to their being given a choice, have chosen the cheaper yet completely functional alternative to small proprietary software. It's a combination of these factors that cause small proprietary software developers to go out of business.
In fact, similar processes occur in every market, where a competitor arrives in a market with a different way of doing things, that produces similar products for cheaper, and then people start to prefer their products over the competition. Then the competition have the choice to either adapt or close shop. So, yes, a few choices die along the way, and the freedom of choice is devalued slightly, but then other products pop up, and people are given new choices to replace the old. The dead competitors are not typically mourned, because their market share was obviously too small, or their product too inferior to the new competitor's, for them to survive. The same principles apply to OSS; old companies die because, well, people just didn't like them as much as the OSS alternative.
Let's face it, consumers don't give a rat's ass about source code -- it looks like noise to them (heck, even most geeks can't add their own feature to the OSS code).
Having access to the code is not merely about modification or copying features; it's about trust. If you have a copy of the code, then chances are many other people, including some who have the skills necessary to read or modify code, have read the code (in accumulation) and have verified that it doesn't contain malicious code. Of course, it's not fool-proof, but in the days of silent phoning home, and bundled rootkits from big brand, or trusted sources, it doesn't exactly hurt.
If doing something important they are going to do for months or years, few consumers will haggle over $0 vs. $50.
$50 isn't a lot for software like that, but it does make a difference. With that $50, you could buy another piece of software to do a different function, while still retaining the services of the original software. Or you could rely on OSS for that as well, and spend it on something else yet again!
But, then again you may be right; maybe people are just as happy to fork over $50 than to fork out nothing. That's the beauty of free market; the market can decide for itself.
All OSS fans really care about is destroying the evil, closed-source software world.
Well, I for one, am an OSS fan, but I happily use closed-source software, and I have no problem with them existing. I think they provide a valuable alternative to OSS, and vice versa. I will readily admit that there are many proprietary software packages that OSS hasn't managed to equal (without mentioning any names and starting a flamewar). What makes OSS worthy of my fandom is its ability to make something out of nothing (financial). The price is certainly right! But of course, I'm not averse to paying for certain software packages, e.g. Finale, that fulfil my needs better than any OSS packages. I know many other OSS fans who feel the same.
Closed-source software promotes competition and a wide variety of programs because your competitor's code is not available to you and there's the profit motive
It's true that if your code is locked down, you get a larger variety of code. However, there's also a darker side to this. It means that developers need to code the same functions independently, which requires large amounts of r
There, I just weakened my argument, and made a complete ass of myself, specifically with by making evident my inability to distinguish between evidence and examples.
Plus, having real people to talk to is a step towards making it easier to use a valid, purchased product than a pirated product, which is step 1 in fighting piracy (the real way).
Easier than acquiring the pirated product? I don't know if you've ever tried piracy, but it's quite easy these days. Plus, even if it's somehow simpler to acquire the legal product, there's still the problem of uncompetitive pricing.
It's a battle between the seller and buyer, and only an idiot consumer sides with the seller.
That's elementary, theoretical concepts of trade. In the real world, all out war between sellers and buyers results in less profits for sellers, and less goods for buyers. Trust is an important part of trade, and without it, sellers won't be able to offload their goods, and buyers won't feel confident in forking over their cash. There is real incentive for being conservative in business, and actually giving customers what they want. The same goes, to a much lesser extent, for buyers; if they rock the boat too much, or demand prices that are too low, then sellers will sell to someone else, or if every seller does it, they'll find some other way to make money.
That's not to say we should all like companies, or that we should always blindly give them the benefit of the doubt, but it doesn't usually hurt to prefer one company over the other, and build some basic trust relationship with them. One example I'm sure we're all aware of is our ISPs, who we trust to provide us internet services.
Certainly not, because as soon as it becomes the issue, it becomes painfully apparent exactly what "freedoms" are being defended by 90% of anti-copyright statements.
I bet it has happened to you, especially on internet forums. It gives the crazies a chance to mouth off about their opinions, and suddenly it becomes all partisan politics, and no genuine consideration for other people's opinions.
But, on the same token, it would be unfair and grossly inaccurate to characterise a viewpoint by those who express them anonymously on the internet. For example, I just read the OP's post, who opposes internet filtering, and who accuses, in a sweeping statement, people with the opposite opinion of jumping to conclusions, but that doesn't mean I can conclude that everyone against filtering is a hypocrite. All I'd have to do is choose one of the many intelligent statements on the subject, some right here on this forum, to see that it's not true.
We are already well on the way to establishing the Pirate Party of Australia (http://ppau.info/)
Groan. They'll have to inject some sense into their copyright policy before I even consider voting for them. Removing filters is very good, but not nearly enough to overlook the gaping voids of common sense riddled throughout their policies.
The idea of "common carrier" status (as opposed to "safe harbour", which applies to copyright) is that the liability for actions is passed downstream to the users, where, IMHO, it rightly belongs. It's the user's actions that caused the offence, and the ISP has no feasible capability to prevent them from causing those offences. It can't apply to people because there's no-one downstream of the end user (hence the name), so there's nowhere to pass the liability, nor would we really want to, since we've already found the culprit.
It's certainly not supposed to be a "get out of jail free" option for anyone.
Optional for ISPs + Mandatory for users = Optional for users.
Choose an ISP that doesn't support filtering. If they want to make money (which you can bet that they do), they'll have to keep their service unfiltered. Problem solved.
if you question the sense, you are a pedophile, or support them.
I've heard debates about this sort of thing, and I've never heard this sentiment be expressed or even remotely implied by supporters of filtering. Most (vocal) supporters are quite aware that paedophilia is not supported among the community, and that there are other reasons to oppose filtering.
In fact, it's almost like you're saying, "if you support filtering, then you jump to conclusions and you don't think critically."
Easter eggs are one thing, but I see no reason why a corporate super-giant couldn't hire a couple of comedy writers. It's not like people don't appreciate a good bit of comedy.
Actually, that's a good point. What do the copyright treaties say about this? After all, the copyright is owned by a UK-based institution, and thus hold a UK-standard copyright. Should the US (legally) respect this, or can they simply treat the copyright like their own?
Slashdot Mirror
Right, as opposed to the deep, rippling worldly effects that typically come from using MS products religiously.
We use open source, much of it works, much of it could be improved, much of it will be improved, unlike Windows, should you successfully peddle your "get with the herd" mentality.
... haven't you seen a sci-fi movie before!?
It's not exactly fair to pin the blame for lack of choice exclusively on open source software. There are other factors as well. For one, we (often) have proprietary software competing in the same field, sucking up the market share from smaller enterprises. There's also the free market, which, while providing many benefits, naturally favours more popular products (like OSS), and can't sustain less popular products (like some small proprietary software). Finally, there are the people who, thanks to their being given a choice, have chosen the cheaper yet completely functional alternative to small proprietary software. It's a combination of these factors that cause small proprietary software developers to go out of business.
In fact, similar processes occur in every market, where a competitor arrives in a market with a different way of doing things, that produces similar products for cheaper, and then people start to prefer their products over the competition. Then the competition have the choice to either adapt or close shop. So, yes, a few choices die along the way, and the freedom of choice is devalued slightly, but then other products pop up, and people are given new choices to replace the old. The dead competitors are not typically mourned, because their market share was obviously too small, or their product too inferior to the new competitor's, for them to survive. The same principles apply to OSS; old companies die because, well, people just didn't like them as much as the OSS alternative.
Having access to the code is not merely about modification or copying features; it's about trust. If you have a copy of the code, then chances are many other people, including some who have the skills necessary to read or modify code, have read the code (in accumulation) and have verified that it doesn't contain malicious code. Of course, it's not fool-proof, but in the days of silent phoning home, and bundled rootkits from big brand, or trusted sources, it doesn't exactly hurt.
$50 isn't a lot for software like that, but it does make a difference. With that $50, you could buy another piece of software to do a different function, while still retaining the services of the original software. Or you could rely on OSS for that as well, and spend it on something else yet again!
But, then again you may be right; maybe people are just as happy to fork over $50 than to fork out nothing. That's the beauty of free market; the market can decide for itself.
Well, I for one, am an OSS fan, but I happily use closed-source software, and I have no problem with them existing. I think they provide a valuable alternative to OSS, and vice versa. I will readily admit that there are many proprietary software packages that OSS hasn't managed to equal (without mentioning any names and starting a flamewar). What makes OSS worthy of my fandom is its ability to make something out of nothing (financial). The price is certainly right! But of course, I'm not averse to paying for certain software packages, e.g. Finale, that fulfil my needs better than any OSS packages. I know many other OSS fans who feel the same.
It's true that if your code is locked down, you get a larger variety of code. However, there's also a darker side to this. It means that developers need to code the same functions independently, which requires large amounts of r
From here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
No, I'm pretty sure he'd do it simply because it'd be funny.
FTFY.
Easier than acquiring the pirated product? I don't know if you've ever tried piracy, but it's quite easy these days. Plus, even if it's somehow simpler to acquire the legal product, there's still the problem of uncompetitive pricing.
... or he reveals just how irrational your views truly are.
Thanks for clearing that up.
As is blind faith in a single sentence principle (irony duly noted and accommodated for).
A message to all Slashdotters:
Unless you work high up in Apple, chances are, you don't know what business decisions are most profitable.
That is all.
That's elementary, theoretical concepts of trade. In the real world, all out war between sellers and buyers results in less profits for sellers, and less goods for buyers. Trust is an important part of trade, and without it, sellers won't be able to offload their goods, and buyers won't feel confident in forking over their cash. There is real incentive for being conservative in business, and actually giving customers what they want. The same goes, to a much lesser extent, for buyers; if they rock the boat too much, or demand prices that are too low, then sellers will sell to someone else, or if every seller does it, they'll find some other way to make money.
That's not to say we should all like companies, or that we should always blindly give them the benefit of the doubt, but it doesn't usually hurt to prefer one company over the other, and build some basic trust relationship with them. One example I'm sure we're all aware of is our ISPs, who we trust to provide us internet services.
... for an informative and subtle point about the universal nature of fanboyism.
I don't think so. A shortage of electrons? That's the most absur
Huh. They wish.
You can get rich while being an idiot, but that rich? He had to have some brains somewhere.
Certainly not, because as soon as it becomes the issue, it becomes painfully apparent exactly what "freedoms" are being defended by 90% of anti-copyright statements.
Apparently so. ;)
I bet it has happened to you, especially on internet forums. It gives the crazies a chance to mouth off about their opinions, and suddenly it becomes all partisan politics, and no genuine consideration for other people's opinions.
But, on the same token, it would be unfair and grossly inaccurate to characterise a viewpoint by those who express them anonymously on the internet. For example, I just read the OP's post, who opposes internet filtering, and who accuses, in a sweeping statement, people with the opposite opinion of jumping to conclusions, but that doesn't mean I can conclude that everyone against filtering is a hypocrite. All I'd have to do is choose one of the many intelligent statements on the subject, some right here on this forum, to see that it's not true.
Groan. They'll have to inject some sense into their copyright policy before I even consider voting for them. Removing filters is very good, but not nearly enough to overlook the gaping voids of common sense riddled throughout their policies.
The idea of "common carrier" status (as opposed to "safe harbour", which applies to copyright) is that the liability for actions is passed downstream to the users, where, IMHO, it rightly belongs. It's the user's actions that caused the offence, and the ISP has no feasible capability to prevent them from causing those offences. It can't apply to people because there's no-one downstream of the end user (hence the name), so there's nowhere to pass the liability, nor would we really want to, since we've already found the culprit.
It's certainly not supposed to be a "get out of jail free" option for anyone.
Optional for ISPs + Mandatory for users = Optional for users.
Choose an ISP that doesn't support filtering. If they want to make money (which you can bet that they do), they'll have to keep their service unfiltered. Problem solved.
I've heard debates about this sort of thing, and I've never heard this sentiment be expressed or even remotely implied by supporters of filtering. Most (vocal) supporters are quite aware that paedophilia is not supported among the community, and that there are other reasons to oppose filtering.
In fact, it's almost like you're saying, "if you support filtering, then you jump to conclusions and you don't think critically."
Why?
Easter eggs are one thing, but I see no reason why a corporate super-giant couldn't hire a couple of comedy writers. It's not like people don't appreciate a good bit of comedy.
Actually, that's a good point. What do the copyright treaties say about this? After all, the copyright is owned by a UK-based institution, and thus hold a UK-standard copyright. Should the US (legally) respect this, or can they simply treat the copyright like their own?