There's a justification; it's just not a good justification. The justification is that it promotes the wealth of already very wealthy companies. That's a one-sided justification, and one that only benefits the Microsofts, Sonys and IBMs of the world at the expense of everybody else-- but it's a justification nonetheless. (Mind you, it's one that I disagree with...)
The people pushing for software patents have very, very, very deep pockets. As in billions of dollars. It is also in their financial best interests (and remember that publically traded corporations are obligated to maximize return on investment for their investors; whether they are ethical or not in the process is not part of the equation) to obtain strict protection for their ridiculous software patents.
Therefore, they will very patiently keep plugging away until either (A) they get their way, or (B) something drastic happens (like tossing those who push for the patents in jail, or amending the EU Constitution to ban software patents). I'm putting my money on (A).
I'm a longtime advocate of free (as in speech) software, but comparing the leaders of the open-source movement to the sages of old, and comparing their struggles to those of Helen Keller and other heroes of the past, is downright egotistical.
Yes, open-source/free software does face "rabid opposition"; however, it likely always will. As much as I love free software, do you ever forsee a time where it will become the "standard"? Can you imagine Microsoft, or Adobe, or EA Games, making most or all of their software open-source (under any license?)
I can't either.
It's not so much that free/open-source software faces a "time" of rabid opposition. It will always face rabid opposition. It is virtually inconceivable that the BSA (not the boy scouts;) ) and ESA members will switch to an open-source model, and-- like it or not-- they are what crank out the vast majority of software that the vast majority of end-users (and corporate "IT" people, as contrasted with "geeks" like us) use.
Don't like that? Crank out games as nice as the commercial vendors can. Release them under the GPL. Make OpenOffice as good as MS Office. Make a GNU/Linux system as easy to use as Windows, and 99% compatible with 99% of existing Windows software, or come up with GPLed equivalents for 99% of existing Windows software. Until that happens, free/open-source software will perpetually face "rabid opposition", because those who oppose it (BSA/ESA member companies) will always be the most powerful force driving software development and use.
It's just that they don't know when to say "no" versus when not to say "no".
Any dealing with any large, bureaucratic organization (a government bureau of any stripe, any telco, any cable company, any other sort of "utility", eBay/PayPal, Microsoft, IBM, etc.) will demonstrate quite aptly that no, they have no bloody problem saying "no". You can make a reasonable request and they'll quite cheerfully say "no" since it isn't part of their "script" to say "yes". (Then they'll tell you they're "sorry" they couldn't say yes. They aren't.) Meanwhile, the "bad guys" probably know how to work the system anyhow, and can get them to say "yes" by understanding said "script".
Simple example: I do business under my initials, and PayPal wouldn't let me change the name on my account to my initials for "security reasons". Even after I provided proof that both of my bank accounts had already been changed (to my initials). Even after I went back and forth with them at least half a dozen times. I finally had to go in the "back way" via talking to an ex-PayPal employee, who talked to a current PayPal employee, etc. etc...
They wouldn't change my name to my initials despite indisputable (and verifiable) proof from two established brick-and-mortar banks, yet they have absolutely no problems letting you set a crappy-ass password on your account... You see? Their priorities are backwards. They love saying "no", but they have no clue when to do it and when not to. The end result is that they suffer not only from security risks, but from bad PR.
The Mozilla Foundation isn't a wealthy, for-profit entity. They also don't produce extremely expensive pieces of software largely used to crank out highly annoying adverts. Comparing the Mozilla Foundation to Macromedia is kind of like comparing the Free Software Foundation to Adobe or Microsoft.
You'd be an angry zealot too if some Johnny-come-lately with the personal appeal of a sea slug came in, copied your ideas, renamed the "Trash Can" to the "Recycling Bin", renamed the "Finder" to the "Explorer", and convinced hundreds of millions of people to buy your software on no valid technical basis.
1) Netscape releases source to Netscape browser, which by that point really sucks.
2) This source spawns Mozilla, which becomes pretty good.
3) This source spawns Firefox, which becomes even better (and actually popular)
4) Firefox gets used as the basis for a new Netscape browser, which (if the screenshot is any indication) really sucks...
There is no "5) Profit!".
The sad thing is that a lot-- and I mean a lot-- of users (particularly Windows-only folks, which is still 90+% of the population) think that the only two browsers out there are IE and Netscape. When I say "I don't use IE", I sometimes get a response like "So you use Netscape?"
Netscape's name-brand recognition among the great uneducated masses of Internet users might actually convince millions of otherwise-competent people to use this abomination.
It always kinda bothers me when people say that Linux doesn't have software.
What Linux doesn't have in quantity constitutes two things: commercial software, and quality games. Period.
Linux has plenty of software if you're, say, a systems administrator looking for systems administration tools, or a programmer looking for development tools.
It even has plenty of games, but they all seem to be Pac-Man knockoffs and puzzle games that remind one of the contents of a Windows shareware catalog circa 1990.;) Commercial games, or large and detailed commercial-quality games that are GPLed, are much rarer than in the Windows world.
Now (even though I'm responding directly to your point, I have to keep this related to the original topic (Mac Minis and knockoffs thereof, and by extension PC vs. Mac) or some jerkwad will mod me "Off-Topic")... Macs can use 99% of the Linux stuff anyhow. (Interestingly, Windows can use most--maybe 50-90%?-- of it too, by virtue of stuff like Cygwin and whatnot, but those are kluges.)
That case looks JUST like a Mac Mini. Almost identical. It reminds me of the iMac knockoffs (I'm talking about the original iMacs which came in one colour (Bondi blue) and looked vaguely like a gumdrop) that came out shortly after the launch of that product.
Mac OS X is based heavily on open-source software (at least, its BSD subsystem is), but the whole thing was never open-source.
Apple's OS was also never, as far as I can tell, free (as in beer), although you can obtain old versions of Mac OS (pre-Mac OS X), a.k.a. the "System", from apple.com. (Ever wanted to play with System 7.5.3? You can now, for free. Only catch is that you still need a non-free Apple ROM to run it, even with an emulator. Go buy an old used Mac IIci or something on eBay.)
(here is text to circumvent the lameness filter) (here is text to circumvent the lameness filter) (here is text to circumvent the lameness filter) (evidently, I can't YELL when imitating Steve Ballemr;) )
In the context of Western business in the early 21st century, decisions like this aren't "questionable". In fact, it's considered "questionable" to question them! We've seen many companies do things like this to screw over their customers, and we will continue to see much more of the same, until the fundamental philosophy of business has changed.
Look at, for example, how the price of printer cartridges, per unit of ink, has remained obscenely high. You pay more for the tiny amount of ink in that cartridge (and yes, I know, they contain print heads too... how much do you honestly think those cost HP to make?) than you would for an identical amount of fine vintage wine. I'm quite sure HPaq's shareholders love this! Everyone else hates it, of course. The problem is that, although every company goes out of their way to talk about how "[Companyname]'s mission is to improve the lives of its customers, one innovation at a time" (or similar meaningless rhetoric), the reality is that the days of "the customer is always right" are long dead.
To you and I, these decisions are "questionable". In the context of business at present, if you'd question them, people would think you're insane! When something is profitable and at least theoretically legal, any businessman worth his salt would say you'd have to be completely off your rocker to stop doing it. Angry customers get easily trumped by high earnings-- every single time.
This guy's other company makes some really, really nifty small-form-factor PCs (roughly the size of one or two 5.25" drives). This is very nifty, but after this stunt, there's no way in hell this shitbucket will ever see even a cent of my money.
Who are his competitors? So we can buy from them instead?
Microsoft is going to get a plan together, crank the condescension generator up to 11, and say "There there, now, you see what we've always said about "forking"? Let Mama Microsoft make it all better." They'll then proceed to release their own standard via the usual culprits (The Gartner Group, PC Magazine, every other PHB news source). The geeks like us will whine about it, but Joe Businessman will smile and nod and go with the "standards" of the newly-minted Microsoft Web Pro Standards (or whatever silly name they'll call it).
Slashdot Mirror
Key mapping? KEY mapping? The vast majority of MS Office users don't use the keys, they use the menus.
Wasn't Skype created by the same people? Will Skype be affected by this?
There's a justification; it's just not a good justification. The justification is that it promotes the wealth of already very wealthy companies. That's a one-sided justification, and one that only benefits the Microsofts, Sonys and IBMs of the world at the expense of everybody else-- but it's a justification nonetheless. (Mind you, it's one that I disagree with...)
The people pushing for software patents have very, very, very deep pockets. As in billions of dollars. It is also in their financial best interests (and remember that publically traded corporations are obligated to maximize return on investment for their investors; whether they are ethical or not in the process is not part of the equation) to obtain strict protection for their ridiculous software patents.
Therefore, they will very patiently keep plugging away until either (A) they get their way, or (B) something drastic happens (like tossing those who push for the patents in jail, or amending the EU Constitution to ban software patents). I'm putting my money on (A).
...is that you can pronounce it "nipple". Read: "Nipple Digital Gallery Open to Public." Doesn't sound so boring now, does it? ;)
And yes, I used to live in NYC, and my friends and I always referred to it as "Nipple".
Austria: European nation. Speaks German.
NSA: American government agency.
Austria: Not part of the United States.
I'm confused. Are you?
I'm a longtime advocate of free (as in speech) software, but comparing the leaders of the open-source movement to the sages of old, and comparing their struggles to those of Helen Keller and other heroes of the past, is downright egotistical.
;) ) and ESA members will switch to an open-source model, and-- like it or not-- they are what crank out the vast majority of software that the vast majority of end-users (and corporate "IT" people, as contrasted with "geeks" like us) use.
Yes, open-source/free software does face "rabid opposition"; however, it likely always will. As much as I love free software, do you ever forsee a time where it will become the "standard"? Can you imagine Microsoft, or Adobe, or EA Games, making most or all of their software open-source (under any license?)
I can't either.
It's not so much that free/open-source software faces a "time" of rabid opposition. It will always face rabid opposition. It is virtually inconceivable that the BSA (not the boy scouts
Don't like that? Crank out games as nice as the commercial vendors can. Release them under the GPL. Make OpenOffice as good as MS Office. Make a GNU/Linux system as easy to use as Windows, and 99% compatible with 99% of existing Windows software, or come up with GPLed equivalents for 99% of existing Windows software. Until that happens, free/open-source software will perpetually face "rabid opposition", because those who oppose it (BSA/ESA member companies) will always be the most powerful force driving software development and use.
It's just that they don't know when to say "no" versus when not to say "no".
Any dealing with any large, bureaucratic organization (a government bureau of any stripe, any telco, any cable company, any other sort of "utility", eBay/PayPal, Microsoft, IBM, etc.) will demonstrate quite aptly that no, they have no bloody problem saying "no". You can make a reasonable request and they'll quite cheerfully say "no" since it isn't part of their "script" to say "yes". (Then they'll tell you they're "sorry" they couldn't say yes. They aren't.) Meanwhile, the "bad guys" probably know how to work the system anyhow, and can get them to say "yes" by understanding said "script".
Simple example: I do business under my initials, and PayPal wouldn't let me change the name on my account to my initials for "security reasons". Even after I provided proof that both of my bank accounts had already been changed (to my initials). Even after I went back and forth with them at least half a dozen times. I finally had to go in the "back way" via talking to an ex-PayPal employee, who talked to a current PayPal employee, etc. etc...
They wouldn't change my name to my initials despite indisputable (and verifiable) proof from two established brick-and-mortar banks, yet they have absolutely no problems letting you set a crappy-ass password on your account... You see? Their priorities are backwards. They love saying "no", but they have no clue when to do it and when not to. The end result is that they suffer not only from security risks, but from bad PR.
The Mozilla Foundation isn't a wealthy, for-profit entity. They also don't produce extremely expensive pieces of software largely used to crank out highly annoying adverts. Comparing the Mozilla Foundation to Macromedia is kind of like comparing the Free Software Foundation to Adobe or Microsoft.
Touche!
You'd be an angry zealot too if some Johnny-come-lately with the personal appeal of a sea slug came in, copied your ideas, renamed the "Trash Can" to the "Recycling Bin", renamed the "Finder" to the "Explorer", and convinced hundreds of millions of people to buy your software on no valid technical basis.
1) Netscape releases source to Netscape browser, which by that point really sucks.
2) This source spawns Mozilla, which becomes pretty good.
3) This source spawns Firefox, which becomes even better (and actually popular)
4) Firefox gets used as the basis for a new Netscape browser, which (if the screenshot is any indication) really sucks...
There is no "5) Profit!".
The sad thing is that a lot-- and I mean a lot-- of users (particularly Windows-only folks, which is still 90+% of the population) think that the only two browsers out there are IE and Netscape. When I say "I don't use IE", I sometimes get a response like "So you use Netscape?"
Netscape's name-brand recognition among the great uneducated masses of Internet users might actually convince millions of otherwise-competent people to use this abomination.
The Qube is not nearly as small as the Mac Mini, though, is it?
It always kinda bothers me when people say that Linux doesn't have software.
;) Commercial games, or large and detailed commercial-quality games that are GPLed, are much rarer than in the Windows world.
What Linux doesn't have in quantity constitutes two things: commercial software, and quality games. Period.
Linux has plenty of software if you're, say, a systems administrator looking for systems administration tools, or a programmer looking for development tools.
It even has plenty of games, but they all seem to be Pac-Man knockoffs and puzzle games that remind one of the contents of a Windows shareware catalog circa 1990.
Now (even though I'm responding directly to your point, I have to keep this related to the original topic (Mac Minis and knockoffs thereof, and by extension PC vs. Mac) or some jerkwad will mod me "Off-Topic")... Macs can use 99% of the Linux stuff anyhow. (Interestingly, Windows can use most--maybe 50-90%?-- of it too, by virtue of stuff like Cygwin and whatnot, but those are kluges.)
That case looks JUST like a Mac Mini. Almost identical. It reminds me of the iMac knockoffs (I'm talking about the original iMacs which came in one colour (Bondi blue) and looked vaguely like a gumdrop) that came out shortly after the launch of that product.
How many photons does it take to mass one kilogram? I'd imagine roughly a metric fuckton.
Uhh, I already signaled that I understand the difference between "free as in beer" and "free as in speech". Read my post again please.
Umm, what?
Mac OS X is based heavily on open-source software (at least, its BSD subsystem is), but the whole thing was never open-source.
Apple's OS was also never, as far as I can tell, free (as in beer), although you can obtain old versions of Mac OS (pre-Mac OS X), a.k.a. the "System", from apple.com. (Ever wanted to play with System 7.5.3? You can now, for free. Only catch is that you still need a non-free Apple ROM to run it, even with an emulator. Go buy an old used Mac IIci or something on eBay.)
DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS!
;) )
(here is text to circumvent the lameness filter)
(here is text to circumvent the lameness filter)
(here is text to circumvent the lameness filter)
(evidently, I can't YELL when imitating Steve Ballemr
We all know you can't say "motherfucker" on the airwaves, but how about:
* Nigger
* Kike
* Faggot
etc.?
...is responsible for quite a few pop-under ads. That's why I'll never give them my money.
In the context of Western business in the early 21st century, decisions like this aren't "questionable". In fact, it's considered "questionable" to question them! We've seen many companies do things like this to screw over their customers, and we will continue to see much more of the same, until the fundamental philosophy of business has changed.
Look at, for example, how the price of printer cartridges, per unit of ink, has remained obscenely high. You pay more for the tiny amount of ink in that cartridge (and yes, I know, they contain print heads too... how much do you honestly think those cost HP to make?) than you would for an identical amount of fine vintage wine. I'm quite sure HPaq's shareholders love this! Everyone else hates it, of course. The problem is that, although every company goes out of their way to talk about how "[Companyname]'s mission is to improve the lives of its customers, one innovation at a time" (or similar meaningless rhetoric), the reality is that the days of "the customer is always right" are long dead.
To you and I, these decisions are "questionable". In the context of business at present, if you'd question them, people would think you're insane! When something is profitable and at least theoretically legal, any businessman worth his salt would say you'd have to be completely off your rocker to stop doing it. Angry customers get easily trumped by high earnings-- every single time.
This guy's other company makes some really, really nifty small-form-factor PCs (roughly the size of one or two 5.25" drives). This is very nifty, but after this stunt, there's no way in hell this shitbucket will ever see even a cent of my money.
Who are his competitors? So we can buy from them instead?
There's a whole convention devoted to FUD?
Microsoft is going to get a plan together, crank the condescension generator up to 11, and say "There there, now, you see what we've always said about "forking"? Let Mama Microsoft make it all better." They'll then proceed to release their own standard via the usual culprits (The Gartner Group, PC Magazine, every other PHB news source). The geeks like us will whine about it, but Joe Businessman will smile and nod and go with the "standards" of the newly-minted Microsoft Web Pro Standards (or whatever silly name they'll call it).