Miscellaneous > Applications
Nero for Linux!!!!!!
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: Orethrius ---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.
--- End quote ---
I'm wondering now whether I can understand your point of view, what's this got to do with Linux been taken over by proprieatry software?
Anyway that will never happen.
Why?
Mainly because of the GPL and more improtantly the Network effect, while it has created lock-in in the case of Windows, it won't happen in Linux because it is already dominated by open standards so there's no competitive advantage of making something imcompatable with everything else because no one will buy it.
--- Quote ---Fair enough, there are other alternatives, and I'm not saying everything needs to be GPL per se.
--- End quote ---
What are you suggesting then?
I thought you were implying that proprietary aoftware shouldn't be allowed on Linux; amd I right?
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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 vadility of "interelectual property is what you disagree with)..
Lots of open 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 priorietary database software decides to develop a new AI pattern recognition algorithm to pick out the most suitible 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.
--- Quote ---What's the problem with mandating clear-box code?
--- End quote ---
Nothing, that's your personal choice.
I would rather prefer some superiour 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 superiour 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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
:D
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
No, the whole thing sharred, total transparency, the only restriction being redistribution.
--- Quote ---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,
--- End quote ---
Not quite, just restrictions on it being redistributed or how many people can use it, for example, you can't compile it or run it on more than one computer or use it in your own program without paying a royalty fee.
--- Quote --- 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?
--- End quote ---
Good point, but the same sort of thing crops up every day, patient-doctor confidentiality, business ethics, etc.
--- Quote --- I'd just as soon not enter into such an agreement, thanks.
--- End quote ---
That's your choice of course.
--- Quote --- What's so bad about doing this for something else millions of people use on a daily basis?
--- End quote ---
That depends on what you mean but they 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, airoplanes etc.
--- Quote ---My motherboard doesn't currently dictate what I do with my software,
--- End quote ---
Doesn't Windows look at the motherboard to ensure you don't upgrade your PC?
--- Quote --- my television doesn't tell me what to watch
--- End quote ---
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!
--- Quote ---My main concern is that open standards are just one step shy of real, legally-enforceable licence agreements.
--- End quote ---
The main reason why I disagree with mandating open source by law is that interlectual property is responsible for such a large proportion of the UK's economy (I can't speak for the US but I'd imagane it's not to different) that scrapping it would hurt big time.
[offtopic]That of open thing's starting to really piss me off, and this forum doesn't support noparse tags.[/offtopic]
yahurd:
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
wrong, only 5 distros are free and everyone seems to like including proprietary drivers nowadays and some distros boast proprietary stuff, if it keeps up nothing will be free just cost-free
--- Quote ---What are you suggesting then?
I thought you were implying that proprietary software shouldn't be allowed on Linux; am I right?
--- End quote ---
it shouldn't exist PERIOD look at mandrake 5.1 and redhat 5.1, redhat didn't die because Linux was easy to install it gained because more people were able to use Linux thanks to mandrakes advances
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
obviously you haven't tried any extensions yet(you should hear music if you use it and foxytunes)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
--- Quote ---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)..
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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 hat
--- Quote ---:D
--- End quote ---
:p
--- Quote ---No, the whole thing shared, total transparency, the only restriction being redistribution.
--- End quote ---
fair enough
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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 feature
--- Quote ---Doesn't Windows look at the motherboard to ensure you don't upgrade your PC?
--- End quote ---
YEAH windoze does, do YOU run that POS
--- Quote ---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!
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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 see
also i leave you with these notes
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.
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.
--- End quote ---
worker201:
--- Quote from: yahurd ---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.
--- End quote ---
Thanks for bringing this up. While it is certainly true that open source SHOULD be better because of the multiple eyes watching the code, it might not. I've never actually looked at the source for most of the programs I've used, and I've never found a real bug. So the program being open source has not helped me to make the program better. Although cooperative development probably helps the dev cycle, it doesn't necessarily guarantee a good program. Even so, everyone points to it as the reason GNU is better. Probably because of ESR's essay about cathedrals and bazaars.
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.
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: worker201 ---
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.
--- End quote ---
I like that. :thumbup:
ReggieMicheals:
Mostly what I find excelling over proprietary software in Open Source Software are text editors, and web related applications(Firefox, Apache, PHP). Other than that the playing field is fuzzy - I can't find a better open source interface in a Image editor than Fireworks, I seem to not be able to do in OpenOffice than in MS Word, and. Each of the examples stated above aren't even clear who could beat out who because each has clear advantages over the other(GIMP has the better tools yet can't beat the cleanliness of the Fireworks interface, OpenOffice has the better format and can export to PDFs(only format I can be guarunteed my users can use on every operating system that can be stuffed in a single file) but it still doesn't have the full features of MS Word). As I said the playing field is fuzzy when it comes to what the applications can do.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version