This is a long one, so batten down the hatches and prepare for a long rant. Hope I make some sense here.
There's no such virtual drive daemon on linux which supports it, so I'd have little need for Nero.
For ISO or NRG? ISO's can be mounted on a local loopback,
like so. NRG will probably see support for this before too much longer, since Ahead is porting over to Linux.
Guys, I didn't mean to start a war here....I just really like Nero, and I thought it was great that a mainstream program is being ported to Linux. Which means that Linux is finally being recognized as a viable option to Windoze.
On the contrary, it's good to have healthy debate time and again. It helps to reinforce our stronger beliefs and to sway our weaker thoughts. I think it's GREAT that Ahead sees Linux as a real enough threat to the Windows marketplace to bother porting to it. I do not, however, agree with their licensing methods.
As far as the argument about proprietary software vs open source...well, that's to the individual to decide.
From a commercial standpoint, this is a perfectly viable stance. Unfortunately, when it comes down to determining the legal origins of software, there are some things you can find out with open source that you just can't with proprietary software.
I like the program, but it's the only one that I've used with Windoze that actually consistently works. I'm sure that there are lots of other ones out there for Linux, and once again, it's purely up to the individual to decide what he or she likes.
Well, that's what the community is all about, the freedom to make a decision. However, were I to agree with proprietary philosophies, I'd probably stick with Nero, too. It's representative of what that community should be rather than the horror show we have today.
Anyway, you guys rock, and happy burnin';-)
Actually, I'd like to thank you - and so should the forum - for bringing this to our attention. As much as I don't like some of their finer-grained business policies, Ahead supporting Linux is HUGE news. :cool:
Why do you think this will happen with Linux?
If you've not noticed this before now, as much as I don't want to flame you, I can't help wondering if you've been reading anything I said. 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.
Just because masses of people who don't agree with the GNU it doesn't mean that everything will become closed source.
Fair enough, there are other alternatives, and I'm not saying everything needs to be GPL
per se.
I don't agree that Linux should be like some sort of religion where you have to agree with a certain philosophy, if all open source software is going to be like that then give me Microsoft any day.
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.
I was under the impression that your opposition to closed source software is a morral one. Perhaps I was putting you in the same crowd as piratePinguin who often makes claims about the evilness of proprietary software; if I'm wrong then I appologise.
That's understandable, but Penguin's views are actually quite in-line with my own. The key difference is that he's gone ahead and applied an intrinsic characteristic of evil practices to an a device that is, in and of itself, neither good nor evil. More often than not, he's referring to the corporations that close source for nefarious purposes - Sony comes to mind, XCP in particular.
I do see the advantages but of open source but I don't mandate it.
What's the problem with mandating clear-box code? Aside from the loss of questionably-gained profits, I don't see much else wrong with it. 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. Let me put it this way: if I had my way, by now Sony would have to sell its drive manufacturing plants to Fujitsu and split off Epic into its own independent agency just to stay afloat. I don't think ignoring the crime encourages anything but recidivism in the perpetrator.
What about sharred source software then?
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. It's like buying a dozen eggs that may or may not contain a shellacked hand-grenade.
Would you consider buying a piece of proprietary software that comes with source code but prohibits you from redistributing it?
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.
That's almost the case with some modern cars these days anyway, you can't tinker with them like you used to and this is why I've known poeple who prefer classic cars. Personally I don't care about modifying or tinkering with my car, providing I can do a basic service I don't care, actually I tell a lie, I normally send it to the garrage for a service, all I ever do is check the oil, water, break fluid, tires etc.
You're missing the point. You can't observe any problems under the hood when you can't open it, so even those simple diagnostics can't be done. You'd have to rely on the idiot panel, which can be notoriously inaccurate (read: bad ABS sensors). You couldn't take it to your neighborhood mechanic, either - you'd have to get a new one from the manufacturer. My point is this: why do people put up with this shit from software vendors, when hardware manufacturers doing the same would cause bloody
riots?
That's a silly annalogy and you know it.
Silly doesn't mean invalid. If you got the message, it worked. :p
But you can still only see what's on the surface.
Do you know how secure the foundations are?
Are you sure that the walls underneath all that plaster are strong enough?
Can you be certain that there are no cockroaches nesting between the floorboards?
How do you know it isn't haunted? Well you get the idea.
I get the idea. Around here, at least, we have building codes to address those issues. Stiff fines
and prison sentences are associated with persistent violators. What's so bad about doing this for something else millions of people use on a daily basis?
Very few things that you buy are totally open everything from the firmware in your, PC, TV mobile phone, pocket calculator to the design of your motherboard; they are all closed.
My motherboard doesn't currently dictate what I do with my software, my television doesn't tell me what to watch (not even ONE properly configured V-chip in this household), and my calculator doesn't tell me not to include Liquid Paper as an office expense. All of those have open initiatives in one form or another to prevent that from happening in the future. Why should I settle for whatever short-sighted purpose the original vendor decided to give my 1's and 0's? Why should I
PAY to see their short-sighted purpose? If they want to help me adapt, by all means, charge for that. But I
don't appreciate being told to pay for something I can't adapt to my needs. I wouldn't buy a car without asking questions about the engine, and if the hood won't open, I won't buy it.
Likewise.
Fair enough, I suppose I've let my emotions into this, but I can't really help that when I feel as passionately about something like this.
Nope, don't play computer games. :p
Wiseass. You got the point.
The MASM32 forum explains it all.
http://www.masm32.com/board/index.php?topic=171.0
I was tempted to join and do some trolling, but I thought I should do some reading first and decided against it. There's some interesting debate on there surounding licences but I'll discuss this in the MASM32 thread.
Wise decision. I didn't mean to argue about MASM but it seemed a decent example.
The only thing I'm really against is closed standards whether it be the file format a piece of software uses or the latest music or video format. I promote royalty-free open standards over free software because they are more fair on the software developers. I actually advocate the scrapping of all laws regarding interlectual property where system compatability is concerned. Developers don't have to release the source but they shoudn't be allowed to sue if someone reverse engineers their file format.
Well, don't get me wrong, I'm as anti-DMCA as the next anarchist. My main concern is that open
standards are just one step shy of real, legally-enforceable licence agreements. If someone can see the source, there's no question about what was created by whom when. I don't mean this individually, but from a corporate and bureaucratic standpoint, the current licensing situation is a literal nightmare.
