I watched this happen with DOS. Hell, remember Amiga? Ever see AROS recently? It's atrocious. I just don't want to see a decent development community go down the crapper because of some bad legal and business decisions.
Fair enough, there are other alternatives, and I'm not saying everything needs to be GPL per se.
I'm assuming you're not a total nihilist here, please correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't it easier to determine the legality of copyrighted source, to find the true origins of so-called "intellectual property", by making the process as transparent as possible? If so, I'm left to wonder what proprietary vendors have to gain from keeping source closed.
What's the problem with mandating clear-box code?
I don't think proprietary code should necessarily be punishable by incarceration, but I do happen to believe that detrimental acts should be punished by severe fines.
I'm tempted, but I'd have to say categorically: no. I've seen far too much bullshit along the lines of "we'll share this, this, and this, but module X is a confidential trade secret" when module X contains damning code.
That depends, the software or the source? If you mean the software, then I don't see that as a huge problem. If you're talking about the source under an NDA, though,
then I have to question again - why isn't this public knowledge? What if I find out about a number of felonies committed in the acquisition of the source code, but the NDA prevents me from saying anything for fear of reprisal?
I'd just as soon not enter into such an agreement, thanks.
What's so bad about doing this for something else millions of people use on a daily basis?
My motherboard doesn't currently dictate what I do with my software,
my television doesn't tell me what to watch
My main concern is that open standards are just one step shy of real, legally-enforceable licence agreements.
it won't happen in Linux because it is already dominated by open standards so there's no competitive advantage of making something incompatible with everything else because no one will buy it.
What are you suggesting then?I thought you were implying that proprietary software shouldn't be allowed on Linux; am I right?
I would rather prefer some superior software that fulfills my needs rather than having to make do with second best. I don't have to see the source code to know that Opera is superior to Firefox, just the fact that it has more useful features, it's smaller and uses less memory is good enough for me and if I were selecting some software at work I would do the same.
I can see your point (open source is easier to prove in court) but they have more to loose than gain; the thing that they're loosing is their "intellectual property" ( I am fully aware that this is what the validity of "intellectual property is what you disagree with)..QuoteLots of 0pen source software I've used isn't very innovative; OpenOffice.org and Firefox are prime examples of this and you should know that I'm not saying that Microsoft is. I often feel that this is because companies don't innovate because it doesn't give them a competitive edge. For example if a software company producing proprietary database software decides to develop a new AI pattern recognition algorithm to pick out the most suitable applicants in for a job, they can write the code, keep it secret and their product will have an advantage over their competitors. This wouldn't happen if their system was open source because their competitor could just include this feature in their own product. The most innovative open source software seems to be geeky things like programming languages and shells where the programmer has made a library either or the fun of it or because they need it; GTK+ and bash are prime examples of this.not true. if it was indeed true than things like gnome, xgl, Firefox and Openoffice would not exist also a lot of proprietary stuff wasn't innovative either but some was, so too was some open source software innovative*cough*amarok*ahem*also, have you noticed that Novell has not gone belly up? they are not the only ones who worked on mono and xgl at first but everyone has it now, because you can use the gpl, if someone DOES decide to take your products feature and add it, than take their code and rebrand it yourself, it takes a while to get a new feature into your code unless you have it first (Novell had xgl first) so you if two companies compete than the innovator will rake in and customers will win because companies have to compete or at least aim for different things so that it is a matter of opinion between them, like suse and red hatQuote:pQuoteNo, the whole thing shared, total transparency, the only restriction being redistribution.fair enoughQuotethere are already very strict rules imposed on safety critical software a lot of which can't be open source e.g. the software that runs military vehicles, airplanes etc.well, yeah things need to be done in house in those cases but generally consumers profit from not being locked in to vendors because of x featureQuoteDoesn't Windows look at the motherboard to ensure you don't upgrade your PC?YEAH windoze does, do YOU run that POSQuoteAren't some cable channels encrypted in your area?I don't have Sky TV but I've heard that you can't record certain programs and films.Vendor lock-in also affects, mobile phones, food processors and even electric razors, there's no limit!that doesn't mean that your tivo tells you, "no way buster you're watching the best of full house" also, GET THE FUCK OFF SKYTV IF IT DOES THAT:eek:ps. that sounds very similar to an argument i heard "Firefox and internet explorer both let the user run programs (activex are programs)" i saw no evidence it effects Firefox and i don't see evidence it effects VCR's and tivo:nothappy:QuoteThe main reason why I disagree with mandating open source by law is that intellectual property is responsible for such a large proportion of the UK's economy (I can't speak for the US but I'd imagine it's not to different) that scrapping it would hurt big time.that doesn't mean we would be saying that all proprietary software is illegal to use, it means that it would be open to see, all proprietary software would not just go away, but we could sue the HELL out of Microsoft for stolen code, you seealso i leave you with these notesIt is no lie that free software is more reliable. There are good reasons why free software tends to be of high quality. One reason is that free software gets the whole community involved in working together to fix problems. Users not only report bugs, they even fix bugs and send in fixes. Users work together, conversing by email, to get to the bottom of a problem and make the software work trouble-free. Another is that developers really care about reliability. Free software packages do not always compete commercially, but they still compete for a good reputation, and a program which is unsatisfactory will not achieve the popularity that developers hope for. What's more, an author who makes the source code available for all to see puts his reputation on the line, and had better make the software clean and clear, on pain of the community's disapproval. There are general reasons why all computer users should insist on free software. It gives users the freedom to control their own computers--with proprietary software, the computer does what the software owner wants it to do, not what you want it to do. Free software also gives users the freedom to cooperate with each other, to lead an upright life.
Lots of 0pen source software I've used isn't very innovative; OpenOffice.org and Firefox are prime examples of this and you should know that I'm not saying that Microsoft is. I often feel that this is because companies don't innovate because it doesn't give them a competitive edge. For example if a software company producing proprietary database software decides to develop a new AI pattern recognition algorithm to pick out the most suitable applicants in for a job, they can write the code, keep it secret and their product will have an advantage over their competitors. This wouldn't happen if their system was open source because their competitor could just include this feature in their own product. The most innovative open source software seems to be geeky things like programming languages and shells where the programmer has made a library either or the fun of it or because they need it; GTK+ and bash are prime examples of this.
No, the whole thing shared, total transparency, the only restriction being redistribution.
there are already very strict rules imposed on safety critical software a lot of which can't be open source e.g. the software that runs military vehicles, airplanes etc.
Doesn't Windows look at the motherboard to ensure you don't upgrade your PC?
Aren't some cable channels encrypted in your area?I don't have Sky TV but I've heard that you can't record certain programs and films.Vendor lock-in also affects, mobile phones, food processors and even electric razors, there's no limit!
The main reason why I disagree with mandating open source by law is that intellectual property is responsible for such a large proportion of the UK's economy (I can't speak for the US but I'd imagine it's not to different) that scrapping it would hurt big time.
It is no lie that free software is more reliable. There are good reasons why free software tends to be of high quality. One reason is that free software gets the whole community involved in working together to fix problems. Users not only report bugs, they even fix bugs and send in fixes. Users work together, conversing by email, to get to the bottom of a problem and make the software work trouble-free. Another is that developers really care about reliability. Free software packages do not always compete commercially, but they still compete for a good reputation, and a program which is unsatisfactory will not achieve the popularity that developers hope for. What's more, an author who makes the source code available for all to see puts his reputation on the line, and had better make the software clean and clear, on pain of the community's disapproval.
Anyway, the number one thing (IMO) that makes open source software better has nothing to do with the openness of the source. Rather, it has to do with the spirit of the author. Don Knuth, Larry Wall, Dennis Richie, RMS, Linus, and the others all wrote their famous programs to do their own work. Not one of those guys would have cared a damn if no one else had ever seen or used their programs. But they did it anyway, because it was important to them. Programs developed by an assembly line on the factory floor are more products than programs. Word and Excel and iTunes and Nero are products. emacs and gimp and troff and awk are programs. Do you see what I'm saying? The fact that these guys made their work open and free is almost tangential.
As I said the playing field is fuzzy when it comes to what the applications can do.
it still doesn't have the full features of MS Word
wrong, only 5 distros are free and everyone seems to like including proprietary drivers
obviously you haven't tried any extensions yet
you also spelled so many things wrong you NEED Firefox:rolleyes:,
opera has limited functionality and Firefox has been refined amazingly in minefield from what i saw, also,
it is very obnoxious to say it is better than Firefox,
i see why someone would prefer it, but in the end it is a matter of what suits your needs. also because of the modularity it is possible to get 5000+ Firefox developers working on it. so it is released more often
not true. if it was indeed true than things like gnome, xgl, Firefox and Openoffice would not exist
also a lot of proprietary stuff wasn't innovative either but some was, so too was some open source software innovative*cough*amarok*ahem*
have you noticed that Novel has not gone belly up? they are not the only ones who worked on mono and xgl at first but everyone has it now, because you can use the gpl, if someone DOES decide to take your products feature and add it, than take their code and re-brand it yourself, it takes a while to get a new feature into your code unless you have it first (Novel had xgl first) so you if two companies compete than the innovator will rake in and customers will win because companies have to compete or at least aim for different things so that it is a matter of opinion between them, like suse and red hat
YEAH windoze does, do YOU run that POS
have you used word to make 3d stuff,
and used word to make sure word xp users and word 95 and 6 users can live in peace?
The whole software game comes down to "Which one is most like Microsoft Word?" And obviously, Word is going to win that match.
That's because the hardware is mostly closed source therefore the drivers are too, but would you prefer proprietary drivers than no drivers or free drivers that contain bugs, lack functionality or are unstable because they are a product of reverse engineering?The fact that some hardware companies support Linux is a good thing, it means more people will want to use the operating system.I suppose, you've got me on that one, there again, I wasn't really talking about drivers. I was talking more about applications such as drawing and word-processors. Vendor lock-in with Linux software is highly unlikely even if some proprietary does become popular, for example because the OpenOffice.org.org dominates no one would consider using an office suit on Linux that isn't compatable with it, even if they prefer a proprietary alternative.No, because with Opera I don't need any.Opera does have a spellchecker but I don't bother using it, perhaps I should, anyway perhaps more software should include a grammar/punctuation checker, since you've missed out capital letters everywhere!No, Firefox has limited functionality; the fact that many people have to rely on extensions demonstrates this.Why should I bother wasting my time with buggy extensions that can possibly break Firefox and possibly introduce new security flaws when Opera does all I need without any, whilst being faster and uses less resources?
Ah, So I suppose Opera can automically download videos to your HD from sites like youtube, google video,etc
...,let you use GMAIL as a file hosting service,
let you switch between the IE and FF rendering engine?
Or how bout converting text to binary,rot13, morse,etc?
Or even control your media player from your browser?
How about a plugin that automatically can block nearly every ad on the internet, let you easily block images, flash animations,etc..?
Or imageshack upload plugin so you can just upload an image that you see to imageshack? Haven't seen opera do any of that.
Tl;dr
even if you're renting you've got more rights than if you're using windows.
That's because the hardware is mostly closed source therefore the drivers are too, but would you prefer proprietary drivers than no drivers or free drivers that contain bugs, lack functionality or are unstable because they are a product of reverse engineering?The fact that some hardware companies support Linux is a good thing, it means more people will want to use the operating system.I suppose, you've got me on that one, there again, I wasn't really talking about drivers. I was talking more about applications such as drawing and word-processors. Vendor lock-in with Linux software is highly unlikely even if some proprietary does become popular, for example because the OpenOffice.org.org dominates no one would consider using an office suit on Linux that isn't compatible with it, even if they prefer a proprietary alternative.
[ i haven't tried any extensions yet] because with Opera I don't need any.
Opera does have a spellchecker but I don't bother using it, perhaps I should, anyway perhaps more software should include a grammar/punctuation checker, since you've missed out capital letters everywhere!
Looking at it another way, Firefox has limited functionality; the fact that many people have to rely on extensions demonstrates this.
Why should I bother wasting my time with buggy extensions that can possibly break Firefox and possibly introduce new security flaws when Opera does all I need without any, whilst being faster and uses less resources?
Sorry if I've annoyed you, but it should've been obvious that I was expressing my opinion.
There again it depends on what you mean by better, if you're talking about security for example then Opera is better in this regard, there are not unpatched Opera vulnerabilities whilst there is still one unpatched Firefox 2.x advisory.
I can also see why you prefer Firefox, the extensions are an advantage but, as I've said previously I'd rather do without them because they pose an additional security risk.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're crap, I like both Gnome and OpenOffice.org but I don't think there's anything particularly novel about either of them.They don't exist because they're innovative, they exist largely because they are, lower cost than their alternatives, they are good quality and they appeal to people like us who oppose the Microsoft and even Apple.
I've never even heard of that, I suppose it isn't something that I would use.
Hell, I wasn't even meaning to say that open source software can't be innovative, it was just my theory as to why some of it isn't very innovative and there is no proof that it is less innovative than proprietary software. I just feel that the ability for companies to keep trade secrets is often a motive for innovation.
I often feel that innovators are mostly relatively small software companies who are trying to get more people using their software, take Opera for example, they are a lot smaller than Netscape or Microsoft but they've produced the one of the most innovative browsers, the lots of features that appear in Firefox have actually been borrowed from it.
I don't buy your argument, for one the companies you're talking about also produce proprietary software and I don't see the big delay in a competitor using code, not to mention that you can't actually make someone pay for free source software.
Being a bit hypocritical aren't we?A Windows supporter might find that remark very obnoxious.To answer your question, yes I do run Windows and search the forum if you don't know why.
There is no proof to back up what you have said above, all that is, is an opinion maybe or even a theory, it has been proven no more than my theory that software developers releasing there products as free software might not have any motivation to innovative because they can't keep any trade secrets.Take the Opera vs Firefox security debate, why is there still an unpatched Firefox advisory? Where are all the 1000,000s of people trying to fix it?There is also the disadvantage that hackers can find exploits in the source there again most exploits aren't found in the manner.
That still doesn't detract from the fact that OpenOffice is playing catch up with Word on a couple of things, sure, you can create better 3D shapes but how many people actually use that feature? Isn't this something more useful in a drawing package? Even then it really belongs in a 3D CAD program and compared to that it's pretty poor.I would say that OpenOffice.org isn't that far behind MS Office as far as features are concerned but it is enough to put some people off and not without valid reason.My main criticism with OpenOffice.org is that despite being more compact than MS Office, it still uses more memory, it still takes longer to load than any MS Office program. This is because MS Office is made up of smaller binaries whilst OpenOffice has one big fuck-off soffice.bin, for example you load Word and word.exe loads, you load Writer and soffice.bin loads containing Impress, Calc, Draw etc. even though you don't need them. You might say, oh what about, swriter.exe, sdraw.exe etc? Well those little binaries just launchers, if you look at your task list, you'll find that soffice.bin loads regardless of which launcher you run.
Please also note that I'm looking at this from the user's perspective. I am fully aware that the vendor lock-in associated with MS Office is a bad thing and has noting to do with the quality of 0penOffice.org, however it does effect how useful it is. You can't just tell everyone who sends you a Word to resend it in ODF or PDF, it will put people off doing business with you.
Because Word has dominated the market for so long, this will be the case. Suppose a user tries OpenOffice.org only to realise that they can't do something they could in Word, they will drop it like a hot potato and come rushing back to MS Word. The only way a word processor can actually beat Word is by being able to do everything that Word can do and more while being cheaper and more stable.A simple word processor with extensions might be a good idea but I don't always like extensions as the can often cause stability and security issues. Perhaps if they were to be implemented in such a way that they could fuck things up then I would support them.___
the openness of 0penoffice makes it possible to make things compatible with it very easily, i use abiword for light things and koffice for memos and openoffice for heavy duty word proccesing, what if people use staroffice? thats proprietary and thats compatible
fair enough i see why you prefer it but when does 10.0 come out?
once again fair enough, thats your opinion but you quote bigpimping, making an edit so as to "correct him" that it is his opinion not fact that windows gets less secure with each release, then you turn around and oh so blatantly state firefox is inferior!
if you are talking about KNOWN vulnerabilities than sure it is less secure but altogether firefox wins in that regard,
if you want innovation then go with novell who pioneered xgl and mono and made macros from excel work in calc
kde the most innovative thing ever!
netscape was more innovative, actually, at least until microsoft killed them and aol bought them up also apple is big and its name goes hand in hand with innovation
well then as you run windows that remark applies
but i laugh at youre remark as orethrius
so you might as well say "all non microsoft oses are kubuntu"
ok fine on a windows machine, word starts up faster but if you try it under wine or crossover compared to the windows version of 0penoffice youll see it for the bloated pos it is, it is tied to the operating system is why its faster! i use it occasionally under crossover and i HATE its startup!
no you cant but you CAN open the .doc and save in .doc so it doesnt matter! from what you say it seems like you need to try 2.0 i dont think you have, you may have tried 1.x but 2.0 deals with all the issues
Author
Topic: Nero for Linux!!!!!! (Read 2207 times)
Share or donate
