Nero for Linux!!!!!!

[a1mck]

Hi everyone,

I just went onto the Nero site, and I was pleasantly surprised to find out that they've finally released the Nero burning software for Linux!!!

This is one of the main programs that I use, and now it's just one more thing that keeps me moving towards Linux!

Anyway, maybe you guys already know about it, but it sure is big news to me.

Take care,
a1mck

http://www.nero.com//enu/NeroLINUX_Info_Page.html

[pofnlice]

cool.

[davidnix71]

Excellent. Nero always had there own dlls in Windows, and the Linux version has its own aspi layer. That will reduce system security some, but it offers an opportunity for others to use that apsi layer for other programs.

[Orethrius]

Wow, I've always used K3b for my burning needs because of its sheer openness.  I guess Nero wins, though - please, Ahead, rape me with your infinite wisdom and proprietary knowledge!  

Bah.

[Aloone_Jonez]

I can see some GNU fanboys being annoyed about another piece of proprietary software further polluting their free platform but if it increases the number of people using it then it can only be a good thing.

[Orethrius]

I must admit that my own feelings on this issue are somewhat divided.  Having people try something new is always a Good Thing(tm), but they should at least do it for the right reasons.  As much as I hate to say this, one company porting their software to Linux then inevitably claiming it's "new and innovative" when another, IMO better solution has existed for the past eight years is disingenuous at best.

Bottom line: People should switch to Linux because they want freedom, not because they want to enslave themselves on a different platform.

[Aloone_Jonez]

There again why should people switch to Linux for wanting freedom, why can't they switch because they prefer it to the alternatives?

[Orethrius]

There again why should people switch to Linux for wanting freedom, why can't they switch because they prefer it to the alternatives?

I'm not saying they shouldn't, but why prefer it if not for the freedom?  

My problem is that we're getting huge throngs of users that neither know nor care of the history of why Torvalds made the Linux kernel and why Stallman continues to push open-source for it.  The entire platform is about freedom, both of choice and of knowledge, and attempts by corporations to port applications to it without bothering to release the source should always be seen as a failure of the model.  It is, quite literally, a slap in the face to everyone that ever worked to create FOSS alternatives because the proprietary vendors were too selfish to release their source specifications in any form.

EDIT:  Bottom line:  Remember when MASM was around, and people could do whatever the hell they wanted with Windows?  Remember what happened after that?  I'll be damned if I'll stand by and let that happen to Linux, and if that means the banishment of proprietary software, then so be it.

[yahurd]

I'm not saying they shouldn't, but why prefer it if not for the freedom?

My problem is that we're getting huge throngs of users that neither know nor care of the history of why Torvalds made the Linux kernel and why Stallman continues to push open-source for it. The entire platform is about freedom, both of choice and of knowledge, and attempts by corporations to port applications to it without bothering to release the source should always be seen as a failure of the model. It is, quite literally, a slap in the face to everyone that ever worked to create FOSS alternatives because the proprietary vendors were too selfish to release their source specifications in any form.

EDIT: Bottom line: Remember when MASM was around, and people could do whatever the hell they wanted with Windows? Remember what happened after that? I'll be damned if I'll stand by and let that happen to Linux, and if that means the banishment of proprietary software, then so be it.

you didnt end in a smiley:eek:

[H_TeXMeX_H]

So can we do a comparison ... what can nero do that k3b can't ?

[yahurd]

on a serious note the gplv3 will help but were on the right track, if sun succeeds in becoming very known after ms goes down (in <5 years) people will do as they do

[Aloone_Jonez]

My problem is that we're getting huge throngs of users that neither know nor care of the history of why Torvalds made the Linux kernel and why Stallman continues to push open-source for it.

That's got to happen if Linux is going to become a mainstream OS, by all means bitch about how bad Microsoft software is and that it shouldn't have the whole market in its grip but you can't have it both ways.

The entire platform is about freedom, both of choice and of knowledge, and attempts by corporations to port applications to it without bothering to release the source should always be seen as a failure of the model.

You could also argue that software developers should have the freedom to choose whatever license they want to release their software under.

This is my main issue with this and is why I hate MASM32 so much.
http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10215&highlight=MASM32

It is, quite literally, a slap in the face to everyone that ever worked to create FOSS alternatives because the proprietary vendors were too selfish to release their source specifications in any form.

I can see your point that allowing proprietary software on Linux violates the key principles on which it was founded upon.

I don't agree with it, primarily because I don't agree that proprietary software is immoral or that open source software is inherently better. I don't buy into the argument that it can software vendors can make money purely from services and support (yes, this may work in the bussiness market but I fail to see how it will work in the domestic market).

I'm no GNU fanboy, piratePenguin, Calum, you and I have all discussed this before and you'll never get me to agree with you (even though I can see your points of view) so let's save ourselves 15 pages of flame.

EDIT:  Bottom line:  Remember when MASM was around, and people could do whatever the hell they wanted with Windows?  Remember what happened after that?  I'll be damned if I'll stand by and let that happen to Linux, and if that means the banishment of proprietary software, then so be it.

I remember MASM (it was a very horrible assembler) but I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Are you talking about dissassembly, reverse engineering, MASM32 or am I totally on the wrong wavelength?

[yahurd]

I'm no GNU fanboy, piratePenguin, Calum, you and I have all discussed this before and you'll never get me to agree with you (even though I can see your points of view) so let's save ourselves 15 pages of flame.  

that puts a stop to the 40 pages of stallmen essays i was about to post

[yahurd]

I can see some GNU fanboys being annoyed about another piece of proprietary software further polluting their free platform but if it increases the number of people using it then it can only be a good thing.

normally that gnu fanboy would be me but this is a start of a great trend, something ive been emailing macromedia and adobe to do for a while.

[Orethrius]

That's got to happen if Linux is going to become a mainstream OS, by all means bitch about how bad Microsoft software is and that it shouldn't have the whole market in its grip but you can't have it both ways.

Like hell I can't.  Microsoft forgot their roots in Windows, especially after they "squashed" OS/2.  I say "squashed" because Warp is actually still showing up in some financial institutions these days.  I'm not going to let that happen to Linux, and I hope nobody else does either.  If that means bitching about Microsoft until I'm blue in the face, then I'll be a constant thorn to every proprietary advocate that slithers this way.  Think of me what you will, but know that I'll disregard it.  

You could also argue that software developers should have the freedom to choose whatever license they want to release their software under.

This is my main issue with this and is why I hate MASM32 so much.
http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10215&highlight=MASM32

Oh wow.  I didn't mean the MASM licence.  I meant MASM back when it was understood, not demanded, that the only thing it could build would be Win32 binaries.  The restriction on not allowing open-source licences was a bastard move, and I hope people literally disregard that left and right.  Besides, I'm pretty sure that it's illegal to restrict the licence terms of a conceptual product with a real product like that - some violation of IP copyright laws or another - but that's yet to be tested in a court of law.  I suspect that clause is effective because of rampant fearmongering in jurisdictions where it may be null and void.

I can see your point that allowing proprietary software on Linux violates the key principles on which it was founded upon.

I don't agree with it, primarily because I don't agree that proprietary software is immoral or that open source software is inherently better. I don't buy into the argument that it can software vendors can make money purely from services and support (yes, this may work in the bussiness market but I fail to see how it will work in the domestic market).

I'm no GNU fanboy, piratePenguin, Calum, you and I have all discussed this before and you'll never get me to agree with you (even though I can see your points of view) so let's save ourselves 15 pages of flame.

Wait, you see my point?  Then why deflect to the straw-man "software has morals" argument?  I'd expect that you, of all people, would see the advantages in clear-box code where particularly amoral or immoral organisations may be concerned.  

My major problem with proprietary software isn't that it's proprietary, believe it or not.  My major problem is what's so bad about the source that the issuing company doesn't want me to see it?  Would you buy a car if the hood were riveted shut?  How about a house with the windows boarded up and the doors nailed closed?  How can someone guarantee a quality product if you can't "wander through it" if you so desire?  

I think it'd come as a huge shock were Microsoft to ever disclose their sales versus support numbers, since they charge $35 per unique issue and one of their most infamous avenues of infection is via piracy.  The BSA protects them from this, you say?  How many suits have they filed against individual or collective pirate groups in the past five years?  How about the past decade?  How many have they filed as "findings of fact" against unsatisfied corporate customers?  I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.  Why give our hard-won dollars to a giant money vacuum that sues its best clients, services its small-time customers (to put it in gentler terms), and restricts the inalienable right of American citizens (to say nothing of global citizens) to be secure in their liberty and property?  Were some of these products to be airplanes, you can bet the FAA would be dealing with an epidemic of crashes this very moment.  God forbid Windows should ever make it onto a Boeing in anything but an entertainment center.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to start a flame war, I just don't agree with the perspective you're espousing.  It sounds remarkably like someone who's been gaming on a PS2 a little too long, and forgets that the Revolution and 360 are still viable options.  Call me what you will, I just prefer to see the forest rather than the trees.  

I remember MASM (it was a very horrible assembler) but I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Are you talking about dissassembly, reverse engineering, MASM32 or am I totally on the wrong wavelength?

More reverse engineering than anything, particularly before they put that bastard clause in the licence.