 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six years,
it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the point where
you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:55:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six
> years, it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the
> point where you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.
I've not found that to be the case consistently. The newsreader I use,
for example, is at version 0.133 currently, and it generally does a very
good job.
Version numbers in OSS, like commercial software, are nothing more than
marketing tools.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I've not found that to be the case consistently. The newsreader I use,
> for example, is at version 0.133 currently, and it generally does a very
> good job.
Would you build a commercial product around it? :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:43:53 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I've not found that to be the case consistently. The newsreader I use,
>> for example, is at version 0.133 currently, and it generally does a
>> very good job.
>
> Would you build a commercial product around it? :-)
As it's included in commercial distributions, the question seems somewhat
moot to me. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> As it's included in commercial distributions,
Commercial distributions of Linux? That doesn't count. The more broken it
is, the more money they make.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six
> years, it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the
> point where you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.
FOSS version numbers usually grow at snail pace. Emacs is still at 23.1
ever since the Paleolithic. The Linux kernel is still 2.6!!
Also, the more specialized and difficult, the slower to change.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:20:07 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> As it's included in commercial distributions,
>
>
> Commercial distributions of Linux? That doesn't count. The more broken
> it is, the more money they make.
Um, I don't see how. Either that or SLE isn't broken enough. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> Um, I don't see how. Either that or SLE isn't broken enough. ;)
>
> Jim
See! I _told_ you that Novell had its business model wrong :-D
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six years,
> it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the point where
> you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.
Would you trust a software which version number is 1.0? Or would you wait
for at least something like 1.0.5?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:20:07 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> As it's included in commercial distributions,
>>
>> Commercial distributions of Linux? That doesn't count. The more broken
>> it is, the more money they make.
>
> Um, I don't see how.
If you can copy it for free, the only business model is to charge to fix it.
Indeed, that's the usual answer to "well, how do programmers make a living
if all software is free?"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> FOSS version numbers usually grow at snail pace.
Yes, and I used to think that was just because there was no pressure to
market "new" versions. I found I was wrong. :-)
(I've also seen version numbers like 0.9.9.89 as well as version numbers
that go backwards for some reason.)
IMO, when you release it to the outside world, that's 1.0. Anything less and
you're just making excuses.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six years,
>> it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the point where
>> you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.
>
> Would you trust a software which version number is 1.0? Or would you wait
> for at least something like 1.0.5?
It's not so much the version numbers. I used to think it was a problem with
commitment or a problem with not having any marketing reason to declare
"this is good enough to ship". I'm discovering that no, the 0.x stuff in
FOSS sucks as much as the 0.X stuff in commercial software, pretty much.
Would I use 1.0? Sure. I've used commercial stuff that had no version
number at all because the company licensing it to us never intended it to
leave the company. Not without some support, mind, which is where most of
the problems come in. For lots of this stuff, there's no good place to
ask, or people have moved on to a version three after yours and want you
to rip out everything that works to support their new choice of build
platform or whatever.
Funny conversation remembered from graduate days:
"Darren, do you want us to upgrade your workstation to SunOS 4.0?"
"Sure, why not?"
"Because it's the only workstation licensed to run the code you need."
"And?"
"And it's 4.0."
"Oh. You mean, do you want my to upgrade to 4.0.0! No, leave it."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: What I'm learning about open source
Date: 25 Aug 2009 12:52:28
Message: <4a9416cc@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:22:52 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:20:07 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> As it's included in commercial distributions,
>>>
>>> Commercial distributions of Linux? That doesn't count. The more
>>> broken it is, the more money they make.
>>
>> Um, I don't see how.
>
> If you can copy it for free, the only business model is to charge to fix
> it.
Or support it, or consult on it, or train on it....there is a whole
services model around software that's more than just charging to fix it.
Besides, under the GPL, if you fix it and distribute the fix, you have to
distribute the code freely as well, so you can't really charge to fix it,
even.
> Indeed, that's the usual answer to "well, how do programmers make a
> living if all software is free?"
Consulting, custom programming, etc.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:47:30 +0100, Doctor John wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>> Um, I don't see how. Either that or SLE isn't broken enough. ;)
>>
>> Jim
>
> See! I _told_ you that Novell had its business model wrong :-D
LOL, I've always said (particularly with regard to NetWare) that the
software was *too* stable. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Or support it, or consult on it, or train on it....there is a whole
> services model around software that's more than just charging to fix it.
Right. *All* of those fall down when the software is easy to use, stable, etc.
> Besides, under the GPL, if you fix it and distribute the fix, you have to
> distribute the code freely as well, so you can't really charge to fix it,
> even.
Sure. You charge for support contracts, not for the fixes.
>> Indeed, that's the usual answer to "well, how do programmers make a
>> living if all software is free?"
>
> Consulting, custom programming, etc.
I.e., not via software, but via services. That's my point.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:14:33 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Or support it, or consult on it, or train on it....there is a whole
>> services model around software that's more than just charging to fix
>> it.
>
> Right. *All* of those fall down when the software is easy to use,
> stable, etc.
Perhaps, though I might debate "consult" - sometimes consulting is
brought in not because of ease-of-use issues but because of manpower
issues.
>> Besides, under the GPL, if you fix it and distribute the fix, you have
>> to distribute the code freely as well, so you can't really charge to
>> fix it, even.
>
> Sure. You charge for support contracts, not for the fixes.
Exactly.
>>> Indeed, that's the usual answer to "well, how do programmers make a
>>> living if all software is free?"
>>
>> Consulting, custom programming, etc.
>
> I.e., not via software, but via services. That's my point.
The same holds true for non-OSS in that case, so I'm not sure what your
point is....?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Perhaps, though I might debate "consult" - sometimes consulting is
> brought in not because of ease-of-use issues but because of manpower
> issues.
That and expertise, yes.
>>>> Indeed, that's the usual answer to "well, how do programmers make a
>>>> living if all software is free?"
>>> Consulting, custom programming, etc.
>> I.e., not via software, but via services. That's my point.
>
> The same holds true for non-OSS in that case, so I'm not sure what your
> point is....?
Sorry? I can charge for non-OSS software, is what I mean. I can sell it
twice and make twice as much money as selling it once. I.e., I don't have to
do work every single time I make some money, so I can afford to make
something that no one single person would pay for.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:10:38 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Perhaps, though I might debate "consult" - sometimes consulting is
>> brought in not because of ease-of-use issues but because of manpower
>> issues.
>
> That and expertise, yes.
Yup.
>>>>> Indeed, that's the usual answer to "well, how do programmers make a
>>>>> living if all software is free?"
>>>> Consulting, custom programming, etc.
>>> I.e., not via software, but via services. That's my point.
>>
>> The same holds true for non-OSS in that case, so I'm not sure what your
>> point is....?
>
> Sorry? I can charge for non-OSS software, is what I mean. I can sell it
> twice and make twice as much money as selling it once. I.e., I don't
> have to do work every single time I make some money, so I can afford to
> make something that no one single person would pay for.
I can charge for OSS software as well. I can sell it twice and make
twice as much money selling it once.
There is in fact OSS software that's dual licensed to support just that -
though it doesn't have to be dual licensed. MySQL is available in a GPL
version and a non-GPL version.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Isn't that true of a lot of commercial software these days including
another operating system
that's a pane. ;)
David
Darren New wrote:
> Commercial distributions of Linux? That doesn't count. The more broken
> it is, the more money they make.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
> Or support it, or consult on it, or train on it....there is a whole
> services model around software that's more than just charging to fix it.
They're all based on the user being unable to deal with the software
efficiently all by himself though - obviously.
You want to make money out of a GPL'd product? Then it /must not/ be
user-friendly, intuitive and bug-free.
> Besides, under the GPL, if you fix it and distribute the fix, you have to
> distribute the code freely as well, so you can't really charge to fix it,
> even.
But you can fix it on behalf of someone else. If you're hacking the code
right into some company's copy of the source code, you're not
distributing the code, are you?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 01:20:21 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> Or support it, or consult on it, or train on it....there is a whole
>> services model around software that's more than just charging to fix
>> it.
>
> They're all based on the user being unable to deal with the software
> efficiently all by himself though - obviously.
>
> You want to make money out of a GPL'd product? Then it /must not/ be
> user-friendly, intuitive and bug-free.
I disagree. Given that I work for a company that does work to make (for
example) the Linux desktop user-friendly, intuitive, and bug-free, it's
fair to say that I do know a little bit about what I'm talking about.
At the same time, I do agree to an extent, but that's not the exclusive
area of GPL'ed software. You make more money out of a software product
by keeping people on the "upgrade treadmill", and the way you do that is
by not fixing bugs in the current version, but fixing them in the future
version and requiring a paid upgrade. Microsoft are the masters of
this....
>> Besides, under the GPL, if you fix it and distribute the fix, you have
>> to distribute the code freely as well, so you can't really charge to
>> fix it, even.
>
> But you can fix it on behalf of someone else. If you're hacking the code
> right into some company's copy of the source code, you're not
> distributing the code, are you?
Technically, I believe you are, if you're fixing it "on behalf of someone
else", then you are required on the GPL to distribute that fix with your
fixed code. Now, if you submit the patch upstream and it's rejected,
that doesn't mean you can't use the patch any more. But your code
becomes a derivative work and as such has to be provided to anyone you
provide the binary to.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Darren New escreveu:
> > When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six
> > years, it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the
> > point where you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.
>
> FOSS version numbers usually grow at snail pace. Emacs is still at 23.1
> ever since the Paleolithic. The Linux kernel is still 2.6!!
It's hardly relevant to bring it up here, but this is already off-topic, so
what's the harm?
I'm a huge fan of the TeX numbering system. It's currently at version
3.1415926. According to the Wikipedia page,
"TeX developer Donald Knuth has stated that the 'absolutely final change (to be
made after my death)' will be to change the version number to pi, at which
point all remaining bugs will become permanent features."
Seems a change bumping it up to pi violates the whole idea, but I love the idea
of convergence on an ideal rather than never-ending expansion.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David H. Burns wrote:
> Isn't that true of a lot of commercial software these days including
> another operating system
> that's a pane. ;)
No. They make money whether it's broken or not.
Indeed, if you look at Vista, they obviously made much less money because of
how broken it was.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> Besides, under the GPL, if you fix it and distribute the fix, you have
>>> to distribute the code freely as well, so you can't really charge to
>>> fix it, even.
>> But you can fix it on behalf of someone else. If you're hacking the code
>> right into some company's copy of the source code, you're not
>> distributing the code, are you?
>
> Technically, I believe you are, if you're fixing it "on behalf of someone
> else", then you are required on the GPL to distribute that fix with your
> fixed code.
What if I'm not distributing anything I fixed? What if I only distribute
/the fix/?
What if all I do is sit at a terminal on that company's premises,
hacking at the keyboard to remove some code from the original source and
add some other instead?
Technically, if it does constitute any distribution of code at all, then
I'd say what I distribute is purely my own work, containing no part of
the stuff I'm patching.
(Note that I'm not talking about what the company then does with that
code; I'm assuming for now that they're using the software in-house.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> You want to make money out of a GPL'd product? Then it /must not/ be
>> user-friendly, intuitive and bug-free.
>
> I disagree. Given that I work for a company that does work to make (for
> example) the Linux desktop user-friendly, intuitive, and bug-free, it's
> fair to say that I do know a little bit about what I'm talking about.
I do confess that I'm exaggerating a good deal here, and not mentioning
the closed-source software side.
But I think given the hype of GPL, it's worth pointing out flaws in the
FSF's oh-so-glorious "we promote free open source software and still
allow anyone to make money from it, thus bettering the world" point of view.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
triple_r schrieb:
> "TeX developer Donald Knuth has stated that the 'absolutely final change (to be
> made after my death)' will be to change the version number to pi, at which
> point all remaining bugs will become permanent features."
>
> Seems a change bumping it up to pi violates the whole idea, but I love the idea
> of convergence on an ideal rather than never-ending expansion.
That's why he presumably chose pi: Try to actually bump up the version
number to that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> That's why he presumably chose pi: Try to actually bump up the version
> number to that...
I guess the last change is just all the leftover. Like the pi mile run (aka 5k)
that has two finish lines: a lower and an upper bound.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: What I'm learning about open source
Date: 25 Aug 2009 21:57:39
Message: <4a949693@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 03:08:39 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> You want to make money out of a GPL'd product? Then it /must not/ be
>>> user-friendly, intuitive and bug-free.
>>
>> I disagree. Given that I work for a company that does work to make
>> (for example) the Linux desktop user-friendly, intuitive, and bug-free,
>> it's fair to say that I do know a little bit about what I'm talking
>> about.
>
> I do confess that I'm exaggerating a good deal here, and not mentioning
> the closed-source software side.
>
> But I think given the hype of GPL, it's worth pointing out flaws in the
> FSF's oh-so-glorious "we promote free open source software and still
> allow anyone to make money from it, thus bettering the world" point of
> view.
Without recognising the flaws, they cannot be addressed. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 03:04:36 +0200, clipka wrote:
> What if I'm not distributing anything I fixed? What if I only distribute
> /the fix/?
You mean like distributing a patch? Sure, since the code that's being
patched is available, it's all the same.
> What if all I do is sit at a terminal on that company's premises,
> hacking at the keyboard to remove some code from the original source and
> add some other instead?
You have to make the source available to at least the people you
distribute it to.
> Technically, if it does constitute any distribution of code at all, then
> I'd say what I distribute is purely my own work, containing no part of
> the stuff I'm patching.
>
> (Note that I'm not talking about what the company then does with that
> code; I'm assuming for now that they're using the software in-house.)
See above. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:00:16 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> David H. Burns wrote:
>> Isn't that true of a lot of commercial software these days including
>> another operating system
>> that's a pane. ;)
>
> No. They make money whether it's broken or not.
>
> Indeed, if you look at Vista, they obviously made much less money
> because of how broken it was.
They'll make up for it with the upgrades to Windows 7. You don't think
they're going to give all Vista customers Windows 7 for free, do you? ;-)
It's the old upgrade treadmill.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> They'll make up for it with the upgrades to Windows 7. You don't think
> they're going to give all Vista customers Windows 7 for free, do you? ;-)
Of course. It's also incorrect to imply that W7 is merely bugfixes on Vista.
But I was saying that MS doesn't make money when stuff is broken. They've
had several notable failures, including Vista. People just didn't upgrade to
Vista like one might expect.
> It's the old upgrade treadmill.
You don't have to upgrade if you don't need to.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: What I'm learning about open source
Date: 25 Aug 2009 22:18:00
Message: <4a949b58@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:05:38 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> They'll make up for it with the upgrades to Windows 7. You don't think
>> they're going to give all Vista customers Windows 7 for free, do you?
>> ;-)
>
> Of course. It's also incorrect to imply that W7 is merely bugfixes on
> Vista. But I was saying that MS doesn't make money when stuff is broken.
> They've had several notable failures, including Vista. People just
> didn't upgrade to Vista like one might expect.
I'm not implying that W7 is just bugfixes, but they are going to make
money getting people to upgrade. Is it as much as if they'd done a good
job with Vista? Probably not. But they'll make it worth *their* while.
>> It's the old upgrade treadmill.
>
> You don't have to upgrade if you don't need to.
Except, of course, that the nature of the beast is such that if you want
to run the newest software (games in particular) or have particular bugs
fixed, an upgrade is ultimately going to be required.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
triple_r wrote:
> I'm a huge fan of the TeX numbering system. It's currently at version
> 3.1415926. According to the Wikipedia page,
>
> "TeX developer Donald Knuth has stated that the 'absolutely final change (to be
> made after my death)' will be to change the version number to pi, at which
> point all remaining bugs will become permanent features."
awesome! The man is a legend! ^_^
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> What if all I do is sit at a terminal on that company's premises,
>> hacking at the keyboard to remove some code from the original source and
>> add some other instead?
>
> You have to make the source available to at least the people you
> distribute it to.
So as all I do is just modify the GPL'ed code and not distribute it (it
stays on their machines all the times, right?), just providing that
company with some additional (non-GPL'ed) code of my own design, I fail
to see the problem.
And after all, it's not much of a difference to a regular employee of
that company adapting the GPL'ed code to the company's needs.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:25:40 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> What if all I do is sit at a terminal on that company's premises,
>>> hacking at the keyboard to remove some code from the original source
>>> and add some other instead?
>>
>> You have to make the source available to at least the people you
>> distribute it to.
>
> So as all I do is just modify the GPL'ed code and not distribute it (it
> stays on their machines all the times, right?), just providing that
> company with some additional (non-GPL'ed) code of my own design, I fail
> to see the problem.
Your code, by definition, is required to be under the GPL because it is
incorporated in a GPL'ed program. That doesn't mean you have to
distribute it publicly, but you do legally (by the GPL license) have to
provide the company with the code.
> And after all, it's not much of a difference to a regular employee of
> that company adapting the GPL'ed code to the company's needs.
Well, it is a little different, in that the employee doing the work is
generally going to be required to turn ownership over to their employer.
As a contractor, though, you'd be required by the GPL to do the same.
But if you were to be doing that as a matter of practice, you should
consult with a laywer who specializes specifically in the GPL.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'm not implying that W7 is just bugfixes, but they are going to make
> money getting people to upgrade.
Well, sure. I think I've lost track of why we're discussing it. :-)
> Except, of course, that the nature of the beast is such that if you want
> to run the newest software (games in particular) or have particular bugs
> fixed, an upgrade is ultimately going to be required.
Yup. But if you're happy with the system as is, you don't need to upgrade.
You're only on an upgrade treadmill if you want a different product.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:11:42 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I'm not implying that W7 is just bugfixes, but they are going to make
>> money getting people to upgrade.
>
> Well, sure. I think I've lost track of why we're discussing it. :-)
Same here. :-)
>> Except, of course, that the nature of the beast is such that if you
>> want to run the newest software (games in particular) or have
>> particular bugs fixed, an upgrade is ultimately going to be required.
>
> Yup. But if you're happy with the system as is, you don't need to
> upgrade. You're only on an upgrade treadmill if you want a different
> product.
For which Microsoft will be happy to provide you with many, many reasons
- ultimately pushing the existing product out of support. (To MS'
credit, they don't do this very quickly and it seems to be set early in
the cycle).
Want DX10 on XP? They laugh at you (from what I recall, though some
enterprising individual figured out a workaround IIRC).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> So as all I do is just modify the GPL'ed code and not distribute it (it
>> stays on their machines all the times, right?), just providing that
>> company with some additional (non-GPL'ed) code of my own design, I fail
>> to see the problem.
>
> Your code, by definition, is required to be under the GPL because it is
> incorporated in a GPL'ed program. That doesn't mean you have to
> distribute it publicly, but you do legally (by the GPL license) have to
> provide the company with the code.
(1) Code incorporated into a GPL'd program does /not/ need to be GPL'd,
unless the whole smash is to be distributed.
(2) In that hypothetical example, I /am/ hacking the code into the
company's copy of the source files anyway - how closer can I possibly
get to providing them with the source code?? :-P
But after reading the GPL again, I guess you're right insofar as in
order to circumvent having to GPL the changes, I'd have to grant the
company any rights to the modifications I make - including the right to
redistribute them (which they'd have to do under the GPL).
Did I mention before that I think the GPL sucks...?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> For which Microsoft will be happy to provide you with many, many reasons
Unless you're using it as a router in the corner or something, yeah. That's
more the sort of thing I'm talking about. If you're the kind of person who
has a computer so you can once a month check your email and occasionally
maybe print out a nice photo you took with your digital snapshot camera,
chances are you never need to upgrade. If you have a non-networked computer
running a piece of lab equipment, you're probably not going to upgrade until
you change the lab equipment.
If you use your computer regularly in a desktop environment, yah, you'll
likely be upgrading it regularly. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I'm a huge fan of the TeX numbering system. It's currently at version
>> 3.1415926. According to the Wikipedia page,
>>
>> "TeX developer Donald Knuth has stated that the 'absolutely final
>> change (to be
>> made after my death)' will be to change the version number to pi, at
>> which
>> point all remaining bugs will become permanent features."
>
> awesome! The man is a legend! ^_^
FWIW, MetaFont is converging to Epsilon, the base of natural logarithms.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 schrieb:
> FWIW, MetaFont is converging to Epsilon, the base of natural logarithms.
That's actually not greek epsilon, but ordinary latin small e ("Euler's
number").
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six
> years, it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the
> point where you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.
>
OpenOffice is at version 3.1. I've encountered data corrupting bugs in
every version I've tried including the most recent.
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD wrote:
> OpenOffice is at version 3.1. I've encountered data corrupting bugs in
> every version I've tried including the most recent.
Really? That's interesting... I often use OpenOffice to *fix* data
corruption bugs caused by MS Word.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> LOL, I've always said (particularly with regard to NetWare) that the
> software was *too* stable. :-)
>
> Jim
Indeed. As I more than once remarked to PFYs it wasn't the easiest
system to configure but once you'd got it right, it was so easy to
maintain that it could be delegated to them with no particular worries -
thus leaving me with plenty of time for more important tasks like lunch :-)
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> SharkD wrote:
>
>> OpenOffice is at version 3.1. I've encountered data corrupting bugs in
>> every version I've tried including the most recent.
>
> Really? That's interesting... I often use OpenOffice to *fix* data
> corruption bugs caused by MS Word.
But we're already aware of the statistically uncanny failure rate of MS
Office in your vicinity. Something about your magnetronic
electrochemical oscillations is off.
In other words, you're giving off bad vibes, man, and Office don't like
it! ;)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:32:23 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> For which Microsoft will be happy to provide you with many, many
>> reasons
>
> Unless you're using it as a router in the corner or something, yeah.
Well, if you're using it as a router in the corner and can't patch the
latest network vulnerability, the machine could be compromised. More
likely, though, that a box running as a router in the corner is running a
BSD or Linux variant than Windows. Why put a paid-for OS on such a box
when you can license software that does the job for free?
> That's more the sort of thing I'm talking about. If you're the kind of
> person who has a computer so you can once a month check your email and
> occasionally maybe print out a nice photo you took with your digital
> snapshot camera, chances are you never need to upgrade. If you have a
> non-networked computer running a piece of lab equipment, you're probably
> not going to upgrade until you change the lab equipment.
>
> If you use your computer regularly in a desktop environment, yah, you'll
> likely be upgrading it regularly. :-)
That's the use case I'm thinking of. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:56:53 +0100, Doctor John wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>> LOL, I've always said (particularly with regard to NetWare) that the
>> software was *too* stable. :-)
>>
>> Jim
>
> Indeed. As I more than once remarked to PFYs it wasn't the easiest
> system to configure but once you'd got it right, it was so easy to
> maintain that it could be delegated to them with no particular worries -
> thus leaving me with plenty of time for more important tasks like lunch
> :-)
Yup. Consequently, NetWare servers tended to not be noticed. Back in
the 3.x days when Novell added the "Novell NetWare" banner to the
LOGIN.EXE program, it was an attempt to make the server more visible.
Caused all sorts of headaches for system admins because batch files that
displayed information broke. They had to add a switch to disable the
banner.
But the idea was good because often users didn't have any idea that they
were using a NW box.
I've just completed (as of yesterday) updating my Open Enterprise Server
2 system here at home - it's a Linux box, but the eDirectory tree started
on a NetWare 4.01 system back in the early 90's. I definitely am a geek,
running NetWare at home. :-)
The NW system had been upgraded to 4.11, and later to 5 and 6 - and then
I moved it into a VMware instance (it was handling printing for my home
network), but the host system lost power and when it came back up, the
vmdk file was corrupted. :-(
So now printing is handled by that host system instead. Time to move the
printer to the server, I think. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:46:59 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> So as all I do is just modify the GPL'ed code and not distribute it
>>> (it stays on their machines all the times, right?), just providing
>>> that company with some additional (non-GPL'ed) code of my own design,
>>> I fail to see the problem.
>>
>> Your code, by definition, is required to be under the GPL because it is
>> incorporated in a GPL'ed program. That doesn't mean you have to
>> distribute it publicly, but you do legally (by the GPL license) have to
>> provide the company with the code.
>
> (1) Code incorporated into a GPL'd program does /not/ need to be GPL'd,
> unless the whole smash is to be distributed.
If you give the binary to your customer, then you've just distributed it,
making it necessary to GPL the code.
> (2) In that hypothetical example, I /am/ hacking the code into the
> company's copy of the source files anyway - how closer can I possibly
> get to providing them with the source code?? :-P
>
>
> But after reading the GPL again, I guess you're right insofar as in
> order to circumvent having to GPL the changes, I'd have to grant the
> company any rights to the modifications I make - including the right to
> redistribute them (which they'd have to do under the GPL).
>
> Did I mention before that I think the GPL sucks...?
You are entitled to that opinion. If you don't want to release your
code, base your product on code licensed under BSD, or link in if it's
LGPL.
But if you want to modify someone else's program which is released under
the GPL, their express wish is that modifications must be distributed and
that their code needs to continue to be distributed. Just look at all
the lawsuits over BusyBox.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:41:30 -0400, SharkD wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six
>> years, it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the
>> point where you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.
>>
>>
> OpenOffice is at version 3.1. I've encountered data corrupting bugs in
> every version I've tried including the most recent.
That's impressive, because I use OpenOffice 3.1 (and have used version
2.x and 3.0 as well as even the 1.x versions), and I've never had data be
corrupted in it. Ever. Even when the application crashes, if the files
were saved, the data isn't corrupted.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD wrote:
> OpenOffice is at version 3.1. I've encountered data corrupting bugs in
> every version I've tried including the most recent.
I never said it goes the other direction. ;-) And of course MS it doesn't
matter what the version number is if you haven't gotten a SP yet.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
