Every Proprietary Company Goes Bad Eventually
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/opera_mini_and_china/>, to plug a
“hole” that allowed its Chinese customers to evade Government censorship of
the Internet.
Every company, at some point, is going to be tempted to prioritize its own
interests over those of its customers. When this happens with proprietary
software, you’re screwed. Free Software is your defence.
peterwn
Opera no doubt faced having its compression servers outside China
firewalled.
There is going to be increasing political pressure to regulate
internet access. Stopping kiddie porn provides a very plausible excuse
for this.
victor
> On Nov 25, 11:01 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> the Internet.
>>
>> Every company, at some point, is going to be tempted to prioritize its own
>> interests over those of its customers. When this happens with proprietary
>
> Opera no doubt faced having its compression servers outside China
> firewalled.
>
> There is going to be increasing political pressure to regulate
> internet access. Stopping kiddie porn provides a very plausible excuse
> for this.
So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers, nothing to do with
proprietary vs free software at all.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers, nothing to do with
> proprietary vs free software at all.
Their browser doesn’t seem to support the use of alternative compression
servers. And customers in China were forced to upgrade to the new version
that used Chinese-based servers.
Allistar
What has that got to do with proprietary vs. open source though? The exact
same issue could happen with an open source browser.
--
A.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
No it couldn’t.
Allistar
Sure it could. An open source browser could be implemented such that there
is no support for alternative compression servers. Once the open source
community fixes this issue, customers in China would be forced to upgrade
to the new version. Just like with a proprietary browser.
--
A.
Sailor Sam
Dear Usenet, I have no idea how someone could change the code of an open
source application to suit their needs.
whoisthis
Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
Dear Usenet, I failed to recognise that better than 95% of people who
own a computer are incapable of writing any code at all, thus making
open source no better than closed source.You may as well have given them
a bicycle pump, more people would have a use for it.
Sailor Sam
> In article <heko1o$mlm$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
>
>> Allistar wrote:
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <hek505$k6r$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, victor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers, nothing to do with
>>>>> proprietary vs free software at all.
>>>> servers. And customers in China were forced to upgrade to the new version
>>>> that used Chinese-based servers.
>>> What has that got to do with proprietary vs. open source though? The exact
>>> same issue could happen with an open source browser.
>> Dear Usenet, I have no idea how someone could change the code of an open
>> source application to suit their needs.
>
> Dear Usenet, I failed to recognise that better than 95% of people who
> own a computer are incapable of writing any code at all, thus making
> open source no better than closed source.You may as well have given them
> a bicycle pump, more people would have a use for it.
And I forget that it only takes one person to change the code, and then
distribute it to the rest of the 95%.
(Esp. in china where there is an organised network that distributes this
type of 'subversive' material)
whoisthis
Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
> whoisthis wrote:
> > In article <heko1o$mlm$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
> >
> >> Allistar wrote:
> >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In message <hek505$k6r$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, victor wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers, nothing to do with
> >>>>> proprietary vs free software at all.
> >>>> Their browser doesn⤁t seem to support the use of alternative
> >>>> compression
> >>>> servers. And customers in China were forced to upgrade to the new
> >>>> version
> >>>> that used Chinese-based servers.
> >>> What has that got to do with proprietary vs. open source though? The
> >>> exact
> >>> same issue could happen with an open source browser.
> >> Dear Usenet, I have no idea how someone could change the code of an open
> >> source application to suit their needs.
> >
> > Dear Usenet, I failed to recognise that better than 95% of people who
> > own a computer are incapable of writing any code at all, thus making
> > open source no better than closed source.You may as well have given them
> > a bicycle pump, more people would have a use for it.
>
> And I forget that it only takes one person to change the code, and then
> distribute it to the rest of the 95%.
> (Esp. in china where there is an organised network that distributes this
> type of 'subversive' material)
Which is still irrelevant as that same 95% would not know how to report
a bug or ask for changes. Therefore for 95% of people there is no
discernible difference between open and closed source. Equally ignored
is the fact that the Major developers (Redhat, Google,Novell,Intel,
IBM,Apple,etc) have their own agenda, and that these companies primary
agenda is to make money. Open source is NOT free, someone is paying for
it.
Sailor Sam
> In article <hekt3q$nqq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
>
>> whoisthis wrote:
>>> In article <heko1o$mlm$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Allistar wrote:
>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <hek505$k6r$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, victor wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers, nothing to do with
>>>>>>> proprietary vs free software at all.
>>>>>> servers. And customers in China were forced to upgrade to the new
>>>>>> version
>>>>>> that used Chinese-based servers.
>>>>> What has that got to do with proprietary vs. open source though? The
>>>>> exact
>>>>> same issue could happen with an open source browser.
>>>> Dear Usenet, I have no idea how someone could change the code of an open
>>>> source application to suit their needs.
>>> Dear Usenet, I failed to recognise that better than 95% of people who
>>> own a computer are incapable of writing any code at all, thus making
>>> open source no better than closed source.You may as well have given them
>>> a bicycle pump, more people would have a use for it.
>> And I forget that it only takes one person to change the code, and then
>> distribute it to the rest of the 95%.
>> (Esp. in china where there is an organised network that distributes this
>> type of 'subversive' material)
>
> Which is still irrelevant as that same 95% would not know how to report
> a bug or ask for changes.
Um, from the network they received it from???
> Therefore for 95% of people there is no
> discernible difference between open and closed source.
??????
Pray tell, how do they ask for the illicit copy from the closed source
vendor?
> Equally ignored
> is the fact that the Major developers (Redhat, Google,Novell,Intel,
> IBM,Apple,etc) have their own agenda,
???????
> and that these companies primary
> agenda is to make money. Open source is NOT free, someone is paying for
> it.
?????
What fucking planet are you on????
victor
the "alternative compression servers" of which you speak.
I expect that whatever they do they are at the mercy of their mobile
phone company, not Opera.
Allistar
More to the point, they are at the mercy of their corrupt
communist/socialist government. (Then again, so are we).
--
A.
victor
> In article <hekt3q$nqq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
>
>> whoisthis wrote:
>>> In article <heko1o$mlm$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Allistar wrote:
>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <hek505$k6r$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, victor wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers, nothing to do with
>>>>>>> proprietary vs free software at all.
>>>>>> servers. And customers in China were forced to upgrade to the new
>>>>>> version
>>>>>> that used Chinese-based servers.
>>>>> What has that got to do with proprietary vs. open source though? The
>>>>> exact
>>>>> same issue could happen with an open source browser.
>>>> Dear Usenet, I have no idea how someone could change the code of an open
>>>> source application to suit their needs.
>>> Dear Usenet, I failed to recognise that better than 95% of people who
>>> own a computer are incapable of writing any code at all, thus making
>>> open source no better than closed source.You may as well have given them
>>> a bicycle pump, more people would have a use for it.
>> And I forget that it only takes one person to change the code, and then
>> distribute it to the rest of the 95%.
>> (Esp. in china where there is an organised network that distributes this
>> type of 'subversive' material)
>
> Which is still irrelevant as that same 95% would not know how to report
> a bug or ask for changes. Therefore for 95% of people there is no
> discernible difference between open and closed source. Equally ignored
> is the fact that the Major developers (Redhat, Google,Novell,Intel,
> IBM,Apple,etc) have their own agenda, and that these companies primary
> agenda is to make money. Open source is NOT free, someone is paying for
> it.
There are other browsers available, the Nokia Web Browser is open source.
http://opensource.nokia.com/projects/S60browser/
Built on open source WebKit like the Apple Safari browser.
That still doesn't help access Opera's compression servers, and they are
quite entitled to control subscription services in any way they like,
Its got nothing to do with their software licensing.
victor
Thats news to me, I'm not having any problems with Opera Mini on my phone.
Unlike iPhone users who are banned from using anything but Safari.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message <z-WdnYxZRpjdR5DW...@giganews.com>, Allistar
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <hek505$k6r$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, victor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers, nothing to do with
>>>>> proprietary vs free software at all.
>>>>
>>>> Their browser doesn’t seem to support the use of alternative
>>>> compression servers. And customers in China were forced to upgrade to
>>>> the new version that used Chinese-based servers.
>>>
>>> What has that got to do with proprietary vs. open source though? The
>>> exact same issue could happen with an open source browser.
>>
>> No it couldn’t.
>
> Sure it could. An open source browser could be implemented such that there
> is no support for alternative compression servers.
No-one would even try.
> Once the open source community fixes this issue, customers in China would
> be forced to upgrade to the new version. Just like with a proprietary
> browser.
No-one would be “forced” to do anything—that’s the beauty of Free Software.
I think you spend too much time with proprietary software, otherwise you
wouldn’t think as you do.
Allistar
Do you live in China, and have to be surrounded by "the great firewall"?
> Unlike iPhone users who are banned from using anything but Safari.
People who buy an iPhone know the deal with the browser they use. That's
what you get when you buy a phone that doesn't have an open technology
stack.
--
A.
Allistar
> In message <bMedncpxGcYKfJDW...@giganews.com>, Allistar
> wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message <z-WdnYxZRpjdR5DW...@giganews.com>, Allistar
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <hek505$k6r$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, victor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers, nothing to do with
>>>>>> proprietary vs free software at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Their browser doesn’t seem to support the use of alternative
>>>>> compression servers. And customers in China were forced to upgrade to
>>>>> the new version that used Chinese-based servers.
>>>>
>>>> What has that got to do with proprietary vs. open source though? The
>>>> exact same issue could happen with an open source browser.
>>>
>>> No it couldn’t.
>>
>> Sure it could. An open source browser could be implemented such that
>> there is no support for alternative compression servers.
>
> No-one would even try.
The point is that as with proprietary software, there will always be limits
coded in.
>> Once the open source community fixes this issue, customers in China would
>> be forced to upgrade to the new version. Just like with a proprietary
>> browser.
>
> No-one would be “forced” to do anything—that’s the beauty of Free
> Software.
They would be "forced" because the government of China sets all the rules.
This isn't really about software, it's about a corrupt political system.
> I think you spend too much time with proprietary software,
> otherwise you wouldn’t think as you do.
?? My main OS (at both work and home) has been some flavour of Linux for the
past 8 years.
--
A.
whoisthis
victor <reda...@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
Thats funny, a very quick look on the App store showed a number of
browsers..... did you bother to check ?
whoisthis
Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
Which is why there are over 100,000 Applications for the iPhone, why it
accounts for 50% of Phone web traffic, AND why there are also other
browsers for the iPhone
The Webkit engine is used by
Safari
Dooble
Google Chrome
iCab
OmniWeb
Web Browser for S60
Android
Shiira
Arora
Midori
ABrowse
Sunrise
Epiphany
Palm Pre WebOS
Webkit is open source.
But hey, dont ever let truth get in the way of prejudice...
victor
> In article <helm05$abv$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> victor <reda...@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>> Allistar wrote:
>>> victor wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> In message <hek505$k6r$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, victor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers, nothing to do with
>>>>>> proprietary vs free software at all.
>>>>> servers. And customers in China were forced to upgrade to the new version
>>>>> that used Chinese-based servers.
>>>> Then the users should change to an open source browser which supports
>>>> the "alternative compression servers" of which you speak.
>>>> I expect that whatever they do they are at the mercy of their mobile
>>>> phone company, not Opera.
>>> More to the point, they are at the mercy of their corrupt
>>> communist/socialist government. (Then again, so are we).
>> Thats news to me, I'm not having any problems with Opera Mini on my phone.
>> Unlike iPhone users who are banned from using anything but Safari.
>
> Thats funny, a very quick look on the App store showed a number of
> browsers..... did you bother to check ?
Not Opera though.
Why is that ? Not approved by Apple maybe ?
victor
> victor wrote:
>
>> Allistar wrote:
>>> victor wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> In message <hek505$k6r$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, victor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers, nothing to do with
>>>>>> proprietary vs free software at all.
>>>>> Their browser doesn’t seem to support the use of alternative
>>>>> compression servers. And customers in China were forced to upgrade to
>>>>> the new version that used Chinese-based servers.
>>>> Then the users should change to an open source browser which supports
>>>> the "alternative compression servers" of which you speak.
>>>> I expect that whatever they do they are at the mercy of their mobile
>>>> phone company, not Opera.
>>> More to the point, they are at the mercy of their corrupt
>>> communist/socialist government. (Then again, so are we).
>> Thats news to me, I'm not having any problems with Opera Mini on my phone.
>
> Do you live in China, and have to be surrounded by "the great firewall"?
You were the one that claimed we are at their mercy.
I'm saying that no government is preventing me using Opera Mini on my
Nokia phone.
Apple won't approve it for the app store though so I can't use it on my
itouch
If you connect through a cellphone you are limited by the cellphone isp
regardless of the software on the phone.
If there was a loophole that violated China's laws, then the connection
would be blocked and Opera would need to use servers inside the firewall.
ToS restrictions on mobiles are nothing new.
victor
And thats completely irrelevant.
Symbian is free software, the nokia browser is free software, they can
still be blocked.
The un upgraded International version of Opera still won't connect
because the Opera servers are blocked. The upgraded Chinese version
connects with the firewalled servers.
Its not an issue with proprietary code, changing the code would fix nothing.
Allistar
> Allistar wrote:
>> victor wrote:
>>
>>> Allistar wrote:
>>>> victor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>> In message <hek505$k6r$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, victor wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers, nothing to do with
>>>>>>> proprietary vs free software at all.
>>>>>> Their browser doesn’t seem to support the use of alternative
>>>>>> compression servers. And customers in China were forced to upgrade to
>>>>>> the new version that used Chinese-based servers.
>>>>> Then the users should change to an open source browser which supports
>>>>> the "alternative compression servers" of which you speak.
>>>>> I expect that whatever they do they are at the mercy of their mobile
>>>>> phone company, not Opera.
>>>> More to the point, they are at the mercy of their corrupt
>>>> communist/socialist government. (Then again, so are we).
>>> Thats news to me, I'm not having any problems with Opera Mini on my
>>> phone.
>>
>> Do you live in China, and have to be surrounded by "the great firewall"?
>
> You were the one that claimed we are at their mercy.
By "their" I mean "our government". I wasn't referring specifically to
browser running on a phone, I was speaking more in general terms of the
unnatural power the state have over us as supposedly free people.
> I'm saying that no government is preventing me using Opera Mini on my
> Nokia phone.
> Apple won't approve it for the app store though so I can't use it on my
> itouch
Yes - that's what you get for choosing a closed platform, a platform where
the develop decides what runs on it and what does not. You could always
jailbreak it.
> If you connect through a cellphone you are limited by the cellphone isp
> regardless of the software on the phone.
> If there was a loophole that violated China's laws, then the connection
> would be blocked and Opera would need to use servers inside the firewall.
> ToS restrictions on mobiles are nothing new.
--
A.
Allistar
The iPhone is popular because it's a damn nice phone. I wish I had one, but
I can't justify the cost.
> The Webkit engine is used by
> Safari
> Dooble
> Google Chrome
> iCab
> OmniWeb
> Web Browser for S60
> Android
> Shiira
> Arora
> Midori
> ABrowse
> Sunrise
> Epiphany
> Palm Pre WebOS
>
> Webkit is open source.
>
> But hey, dont ever let truth get in the way of prejudice...
My point is that with the iPhone apple calls all of the shots as far as what
software you can use on it. I personally have no issue with that, and it
wouldn't deter me from buying one. I do think it's a bit rich to know how
apple controls the device, and then complain about that control.
--
A.
Sailor Sam
Changing the code to use routes that aren't firewalled, however, remains
an option.
whoisthis
Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
I can not live without mine now, I have 5 pages of Apps, most free, but
I have spent about $100 on buying some Apps.
>
> > The Webkit engine is used by
> > Safari
> > Dooble
> > Google Chrome
> > iCab
> > OmniWeb
> > Web Browser for S60
> > Android
> > Shiira
> > Arora
> > Midori
> > ABrowse
> > Sunrise
> > Epiphany
> > Palm Pre WebOS
> >
> > Webkit is open source.
> >
> > But hey, dont ever let truth get in the way of prejudice...
>
> My point is that with the iPhone apple calls all of the shots as far as what
> software you can use on it. I personally have no issue with that, and it
> wouldn't deter me from buying one. I do think it's a bit rich to know how
> apple controls the device, and then complain about that control.
Apple (like Google, Palm,Nokia) have rules about what can/can not be run
on the phone. As time has passed Apple has relaxed some of the rules (ie
"mature content"). This is no different to the PS3, XBox, etc etc. I
bought it KNOWING the rules, but the benefits far out weigh the downside.
whoisthis
victor <reda...@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
> whoisthis wrote:
> > In article <helm05$abv$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > victor <reda...@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Allistar wrote:
> >>> victor wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> >>>>> In message <hek505$k6r$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, victor wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers, nothing to do with
> >>>>>> proprietary vs free software at all.
> >>>>> Their browser doesn⤁t seem to support the use of alternative
> >>>>> compression
> >>>>> servers. And customers in China were forced to upgrade to the new
> >>>>> version
> >>>>> that used Chinese-based servers.
> >>>> Then the users should change to an open source browser which supports
> >>>> the "alternative compression servers" of which you speak.
> >>>> I expect that whatever they do they are at the mercy of their mobile
> >>>> phone company, not Opera.
> >>> More to the point, they are at the mercy of their corrupt
> >>> communist/socialist government. (Then again, so are we).
> >> Thats news to me, I'm not having any problems with Opera Mini on my phone.
> >> Unlike iPhone users who are banned from using anything but Safari.
> >
> > Thats funny, a very quick look on the App store showed a number of
> > browsers..... did you bother to check ?
>
> Not Opera though.
> Why is that ? Not approved by Apple maybe ?
No, because HTML engines are effectively running arbitrary code, so this
has nothing to do with Opera , ANY application that runs arbitrary code
is stopped, this is why the C64 emulator was blocked too. if Opera made
a browser that used the webkit engine then they are free to gibe it
away, sell it or what ever.
Allistar
<envy>
Yes, I'd agree. May get it as a birthday present next year.
--
A.
victor
accepted eventually, its available for MacOSX.
The page loads are noticeably quicker, and having bookmark syncing and a
really excellent tab interface is really cool.
I like how the Apple fanbois dump on free software, yet when kickass
proprietary software is excluded from their shiny iphone app store by
anti competitive practice at Apple thats got a perfectly rational
explanation (that they just made up) too.
Allistar
Yes, I have a Windows Mobile device (using it to develop software for a
client) and Opera is much better than IE on it.
> I like how the Apple fanbois dump on free software, yet when kickass
> proprietary software is excluded from their shiny iphone app store by
> anti competitive practice at Apple thats got a perfectly rational
> explanation (that they just made up) too.
I don't understand anyone dumping on any software development model. Use the
best tools for the job you have to do.
--
A.
whoisthis
victor <reda...@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
Opera is available for OSX because there is no rule about any
application being able to run arbitrary code, there always has been on
the iPhone (HTML being that arbitrary code).
whoisthis
Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
until they too are blocked
Sailor Sam
> In article <hen211$akc$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
>
>> victor wrote:
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> In message <bMedncpxGcYKfJDW...@giganews.com>, Allistar
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <z-WdnYxZRpjdR5DW...@giganews.com>, Allistar
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <hek505$k6r$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, victor wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers, nothing to do with
>>>>>>>>> proprietary vs free software at all.
>>>>>>>> compression servers. And customers in China were forced to upgrade to
>>>>>>>> the new version that used Chinese-based servers.
>>>>>>> What has that got to do with proprietary vs. open source though? The
>>>>>>> exact same issue could happen with an open source browser.
>>>>> Sure it could. An open source browser could be implemented such that
>>>>> there
>>>>> is no support for alternative compression servers.
>>>> No-one would even try.
>>>>
>>>>> Once the open source community fixes this issue, customers in China
>>>>> would
>>>>> be forced to upgrade to the new version. Just like with a proprietary
>>>>> browser.
>>> And thats completely irrelevant.
>>> Symbian is free software, the nokia browser is free software, they can
>>> still be blocked.
>>> The un upgraded International version of Opera still won't connect
>>> because the Opera servers are blocked. The upgraded Chinese version
>>> connects with the firewalled servers.
>>> Its not an issue with proprietary code, changing the code would fix
>>> nothing.
>> Changing the code to use routes that aren't firewalled, however, remains
>> an option.
>
> until they too are blocked
At which point, what can you do, oh wait, change the code again for new
routes. And so on to infinity.
Are you another one that doesn't understand how malleable code is?
victor
It looks like a bogus policy if the software they exclude runs on every
other smart-phone.
I expect they will sort it out as their product line matures, having a
high percentage of their customers "jailbreaking" their phones to get
extra functionality does look like they haven't got it quite right yet.
whoisthis
Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
> whoisthis wrote:
> > In article <hen211$akc$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
> >
> >> victor wrote:
> >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> >>>> In message <bMedncpxGcYKfJDW...@giganews.com>, Allistar
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In message <z-WdnYxZRpjdR5DW...@giganews.com>, Allistar
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In message <hek505$k6r$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, victor wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers, nothing to do with
> >>>>>>>>> proprietary vs free software at all.
> >>>>>>>> Their browser doesn⤁t seem to support the use of alternative
> >>>>>>>> compression servers. And customers in China were forced to upgrade
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> the new version that used Chinese-based servers.
> >>>>>>> What has that got to do with proprietary vs. open source though? The
> >>>>>>> exact same issue could happen with an open source browser.
> >>>>>> No it couldn⤁t.
> >>>>> Sure it could. An open source browser could be implemented such that
> >>>>> there
> >>>>> is no support for alternative compression servers.
> >>>> No-one would even try.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Once the open source community fixes this issue, customers in China
> >>>>> would
> >>>>> be forced to upgrade to the new version. Just like with a proprietary
> >>>>> browser.
> >>>> No-one would be ⤦forced�? to do anything⤲that⤁s the beauty of
> >>>> Free
> >>>> Software. I think you spend too much time with proprietary software,
> >>>> otherwise you wouldn⤁t think as you do.
> >>> And thats completely irrelevant.
> >>> Symbian is free software, the nokia browser is free software, they can
> >>> still be blocked.
> >>> The un upgraded International version of Opera still won't connect
> >>> because the Opera servers are blocked. The upgraded Chinese version
> >>> connects with the firewalled servers.
> >>> Its not an issue with proprietary code, changing the code would fix
> >>> nothing.
> >> Changing the code to use routes that aren't firewalled, however, remains
> >> an option.
> >
> > until they too are blocked
>
> At which point, what can you do, oh wait, change the code again for new
> routes. And so on to infinity.
>
> Are you another one that doesn't understand how malleable code is?
Yeah, I write assembler.
Sailor Sam
> In article <henf51$1dp$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
>
>> whoisthis wrote:
>>> In article <hen211$akc$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
>>>
>>>> victor wrote:
>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>> In message <bMedncpxGcYKfJDW...@giganews.com>, Allistar
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <z-WdnYxZRpjdR5DW...@giganews.com>, Allistar
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In message <hek505$k6r$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, victor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers, nothing to do with
>>>>>>>>>>> proprietary vs free software at all.
>>>>>>>>>> compression servers. And customers in China were forced to upgrade
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> the new version that used Chinese-based servers.
>>>>>>>>> What has that got to do with proprietary vs. open source though? The
>>>>>>>>> exact same issue could happen with an open source browser.
>>>>>>> Sure it could. An open source browser could be implemented such that
>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>> is no support for alternative compression servers.
>>>>>> No-one would even try.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once the open source community fixes this issue, customers in China
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> be forced to upgrade to the new version. Just like with a proprietary
>>>>>>> browser.
>>>>>> Software. I think you spend too much time with proprietary software,
>>>>> And thats completely irrelevant.
>>>>> Symbian is free software, the nokia browser is free software, they can
>>>>> still be blocked.
>>>>> The un upgraded International version of Opera still won't connect
>>>>> because the Opera servers are blocked. The upgraded Chinese version
>>>>> connects with the firewalled servers.
>>>>> Its not an issue with proprietary code, changing the code would fix
>>>>> nothing.
>>>> Changing the code to use routes that aren't firewalled, however, remains
>>>> an option.
>>> until they too are blocked
>> At which point, what can you do, oh wait, change the code again for new
>> routes. And so on to infinity.
>>
>> Are you another one that doesn't understand how malleable code is?
>
> Yeah, I write assembler.
If that's true, why are you (and Allistar) so thick when it comes to code?
me
> Which is why there are over 100,000 Applications for the iPhone, why it
> accounts for 50% of Phone web traffic, AND why there are also other
> browsers for the iPhone
Don't say you actually fell for that bogus statistic of 50% traffic?
And of those 100,000 apps, around 80% are never downloaded
whoisthis
victor <reda...@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
What "high percentage"...??
As for those "other smart-phones"... they have their own limitations
whoisthis
Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
> whoisthis wrote:
> > In article <henf51$1dp$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
> >
> >> whoisthis wrote:
> >>> In article <hen211$akc$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >>> Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> victor wrote:
> >>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> >>>>>> In message <bMedncpxGcYKfJDW...@giganews.com>, Allistar
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In message <z-WdnYxZRpjdR5DW...@giganews.com>, Allistar
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In message <hek505$k6r$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, victor
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers, nothing to do
> >>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>> proprietary vs free software at all.
> >>>>>>>>>> Their browser doesn�??t seem to support the use of alternative
> >>>>>>>>>> compression servers. And customers in China were forced to upgrade
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> the new version that used Chinese-based servers.
> >>>>>>>>> What has that got to do with proprietary vs. open source though?
> >>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>> exact same issue could happen with an open source browser.
> >>>>>>>> No it couldn�??t.
> >>>>>>> Sure it could. An open source browser could be implemented such that
> >>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>> is no support for alternative compression servers.
> >>>>>> No-one would even try.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Once the open source community fixes this issue, customers in China
> >>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>> be forced to upgrade to the new version. Just like with a proprietary
> >>>>>>> browser.
> >>>>>> No-one would be �?|forced�?? to do anything�?2that�??s the beauty of
> >>>>>> Free
> >>>>>> Software. I think you spend too much time with proprietary software,
> >>>>>> otherwise you wouldn�??t think as you do.
> >>>>> And thats completely irrelevant.
> >>>>> Symbian is free software, the nokia browser is free software, they can
> >>>>> still be blocked.
> >>>>> The un upgraded International version of Opera still won't connect
> >>>>> because the Opera servers are blocked. The upgraded Chinese version
> >>>>> connects with the firewalled servers.
> >>>>> Its not an issue with proprietary code, changing the code would fix
> >>>>> nothing.
> >>>> Changing the code to use routes that aren't firewalled, however, remains
> >>>> an option.
> >>> until they too are blocked
> >> At which point, what can you do, oh wait, change the code again for new
> >> routes. And so on to infinity.
> >>
> >> Are you another one that doesn't understand how malleable code is?
> >
> > Yeah, I write assembler.
>
> If that's true, why are you (and Allistar) so thick when it comes to code?
We are not, we simply disagree with you on somethings
Sailor Sam
For example, it's ability to be changed, when you have the source....
Colour me convinced.
whoisthis
Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
which for 99% of people is worthless. It like giving the complete
schematics of a 747 to passengers in case of emergency, meaningless, and
hence worthless.
victor
The 1% can provide the service to the rest, the 1% can increment
improvements and innovations and incorporate features from other free
software. The 1% don't have to waste time developing from scratch if
there is free software they can use to build on top of. At any time
anyone can join the 1% without changing jobs, changing countries. When
they stop work on their contribution, it isn't lost. others are free to
use it.
Its all a net benefit to the other 99%
Sailor Sam
Not if they employ someone capable of changing the code. Without the
code, they can hire who they like, and still be stuck. This much is
obvious to learner programmers, let alone someone who 'claims' to code
in 'assembler'
> It like giving the complete
> schematics of a 747 to passengers in case of emergency, meaningless, and
> hence worthless.
Wrong. Very very wrong.
It's supplying the plane, and the plans to build a new one (and the
parts). The users will *always* spot new use cases, some even unimagined
by the system designers, and now have the oppourtunity to take the plans
to someone capable of changing them, and saying, we want 'foo'
functionality added please.
In every code for hire job I've ever seen, that's precisely how the
employer has behaved, ie. here's the code, here's the functionality we
want changed/added/removed, have it done by Monday.
Dave Doe
says...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compression servers. And customers in China were forced to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the new version that used Chinese-based servers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What has that got to do with proprietary vs. open source though?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> exact same issue could happen with an open source browser.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sure it could. An open source browser could be implemented such
> >>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>> is no support for alternative compression servers.
> >>>>>>>>>> No-one would even try.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Once the open source community fixes this issue, customers in China
> >>>>>>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>>>> be forced to upgrade to the new version. Just like with a
> >>>>>>>>>>> proprietary
> >>>>>>>>>>> browser.
> >>>>>>>>>> Software. I think you spend too much time with proprietary software,
How on earth did you work that out? 'Whoisthis' is not commenting on
the open-source (project) development folk. He's talking about every
one else - and that of those folk, probably a lot less than 1%, have the
ability to make changes. These changes are likely to be of benefit to
themselves - and no-one else (or if anyone, a small hand-full of
people). They are not members of the development team - they are not
contributing code back to the development team - they are not members so
cannot do so. And they are unlikely to do so.
It is of no benefit to the other 99% at all!
--
Duncan.
victor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compression servers. And customers in China were forced to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the new version that used Chinese-based servers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What has that got to do with proprietary vs. open source though?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exact same issue could happen with an open source browser.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it could. An open source browser could be implemented such
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no support for alternative compression servers.
>>>>>>>>>>>> No-one would even try.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once the open source community fixes this issue, customers in China
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be forced to upgrade to the new version. Just like with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proprietary
>>>>>>>>>>>>> browser.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Software. I think you spend too much time with proprietary software,
Sure it is, its an asset that powers Google Facebook Twitter, MacOSX
Tivo and so much more, and as you rightly point out it takes a lot less
than 1%, Wikipedia has 35 employees.
It only takes one to make a fork.
whoisthis
Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
Ahh yes... "for hire".... so how many $$ is this now going to cost ????
This precisely what mum and dad owners want to know.
Of course with complex software it is not just rip in and code either is
it, you should have some knowledge of what you changes will be doing to
other part of the program.....all of course adding cost.
I know I dont work for free, your time may of course have no value, but
I sure as hell have other things I prefer to do than working for nothing.
Sailor Sam
Wth???
Are you telling us proprietary code is done for free?????
> This precisely what mum and dad owners want to know.
It costs, what they are willing to pay.
> Of course with complex software it is not just rip in and code either is
> it, you should have some knowledge of what you changes will be doing to
> other part of the program.....all of course adding cost.
And this has what to do with anything?
> I know I dont work for free, your time may of course have no value, but
> I sure as hell have other things I prefer to do than working for nothing.
To sum up.
You failed with you claims that OSS meant that the code could not be
changed.
Then you failed with your claims that the code could not be changed as
soon as the environment changed.
Then you failed trying to claim that the code was useless to the users.
Then you to claim that OSS will cost too much for them
And to finish you claim that your time is worth something. Which I doubt
very much given the logic (or lack thereof) that you have displayed so
far.
whoisthis
Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
Actually with a number of shareware packages I have paid for, yes, I
have had excellent support, bug fixes, and feature requests.
>
> > This precisely what mum and dad owners want to know.
>
> It costs, what they are willing to pay.
Nothing, the software was FREE, so too was the code.
>
> > Of course with complex software it is not just rip in and code either is
> > it, you should have some knowledge of what you changes will be doing to
> > other part of the program.....all of course adding cost.
>
> And this has what to do with anything?
The cost of the programmer ....
>
> > I know I dont work for free, your time may of course have no value, but
> > I sure as hell have other things I prefer to do than working for nothing.
>
> To sum up.
> You failed with you claims that OSS meant that the code could not be
> changed.
WHERE did I claim that ??
>
> Then you failed with your claims that the code could not be changed as
> soon as the environment changed.
WHERE did I claim that ??
>
> Then you failed trying to claim that the code was useless to the users.
Ok, lets put your money where your mouth is. I will find an open source
piece of software and give it to a user. If they can make the changes
themselves I will pay you $100, if they cant, you pay me $100. They will
have 24 hours to make those changes and that person must be an average
user, not a programmer, nor can they give the problem to anyone else to
solve for them. Now we can make it a trivial problem, say finding a
basic text editor and getting the user to add a word concordance
function to it with it bring sorted in both alphabetical and frequency.
The code must be integral to the application (no external calls allowed).
ie the USER must add the functionality to an existing application by
themselves within 24 hours. It must be their own work, and they will be
supplied the source code, IDE, and computer (no net connection so no
cheating!).
If as you say the source code is NOT useless they will be able to
complete the task. If however as I contend that for 95% of people having
the source code is about as much use as bicycles are to fish.... then I
win because they will not even know where to begin the task.
>
> Then you to claim that OSS will cost too much for them
>
> And to finish you claim that your time is worth something. Which I doubt
> very much given the logic (or lack thereof) that you have displayed so
> far.
All I have claimed is that having the source code is worthless to 99% of
people, all the other inferences are yours, as is the personal abuse.
Sailor Sam
?????????????????
>>> This precisely what mum and dad owners want to know.
>> It costs, what they are willing to pay.
>
> Nothing, the software was FREE, so too was the code.
???????????????????
>>> Of course with complex software it is not just rip in and code either is
>>> it, you should have some knowledge of what you changes will be doing to
>>> other part of the program.....all of course adding cost.
>> And this has what to do with anything?
>
> The cost of the programmer ....
>
???????????????????
>>> I know I dont work for free, your time may of course have no value, but
>>> I sure as hell have other things I prefer to do than working for nothing.
>> To sum up.
>> You failed with you claims that OSS meant that the code could not be
>> changed.
>
> WHERE did I claim that ??
>
What were you trying to claim in this post:
>> Changing the code to use routes that aren't firewalled, however,
remains
>> an option.
> until they too are blocked
>> Then you failed with your claims that the code could not be changed as
>> soon as the environment changed.
>
> WHERE did I claim that ??
See above.
>> Then you failed trying to claim that the code was useless to the users.
>
> Ok, lets put your money where your mouth is. I will find an open source
> piece of software and give it to a user. If they can make the changes
> themselves I will pay you $100, if they cant, you pay me $100. They will
> have 24 hours to make those changes and that person must be an average
> user, not a programmer, nor can they give the problem to anyone else to
> solve for them. Now we can make it a trivial problem, say finding a
> basic text editor and getting the user to add a word concordance
> function to it with it bring sorted in both alphabetical and frequency.
> The code must be integral to the application (no external calls allowed).
> ie the USER must add the functionality to an existing application by
> themselves within 24 hours. It must be their own work, and they will be
> supplied the source code, IDE, and computer (no net connection so no
> cheating!).
> If as you say the source code is NOT useless they will be able to
> complete the task. If however as I contend that for 95% of people having
> the source code is about as much use as bicycles are to fish.... then I
> win because they will not even know where to begin the task.
>
Miss the point much?
If that person takes the source code to a programmer, then the code is
no longer useless to them.
>> Then you to claim that OSS will cost too much for them
>>
>> And to finish you claim that your time is worth something. Which I doubt
>> very much given the logic (or lack thereof) that you have displayed so
>> far.
>
> All I have claimed is that having the source code is worthless to 99% of
> people, all the other inferences are yours, as is the personal abuse.
Ah, no.
You may try to rewrite history all you like, but google (and a few
others) has recorded your stupidity for all to see.
whoisthis
Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
Me, I did not say that. One hopes your checking of code is better than
your attributing of quotes is.
>
> >> Then you failed with your claims that the code could not be changed as
> >> soon as the environment changed.
> >
> > WHERE did I claim that ??
>
> See above.
Yes, do see above, go back through the thread and correctly attrubute
quotes.
>
> >> Then you failed trying to claim that the code was useless to the users.
> >
> > Ok, lets put your money where your mouth is. I will find an open source
> > piece of software and give it to a user. If they can make the changes
> > themselves I will pay you $100, if they cant, you pay me $100. They will
> > have 24 hours to make those changes and that person must be an average
> > user, not a programmer, nor can they give the problem to anyone else to
> > solve for them. Now we can make it a trivial problem, say finding a
> > basic text editor and getting the user to add a word concordance
> > function to it with it bring sorted in both alphabetical and frequency.
> > The code must be integral to the application (no external calls allowed).
> > ie the USER must add the functionality to an existing application by
> > themselves within 24 hours. It must be their own work, and they will be
> > supplied the source code, IDE, and computer (no net connection so no
> > cheating!).
> > If as you say the source code is NOT useless they will be able to
> > complete the task. If however as I contend that for 95% of people having
> > the source code is about as much use as bicycles are to fish.... then I
> > win because they will not even know where to begin the task.
> >
>
> Miss the point much?
> If that person takes the source code to a programmer, then the code is
> no longer useless to them.
95% of Users <> programmers.
THAT is the point.
>
>
> >> Then you to claim that OSS will cost too much for them
> >>
> >> And to finish you claim that your time is worth something. Which I doubt
> >> very much given the logic (or lack thereof) that you have displayed so
> >> far.
> >
> > All I have claimed is that having the source code is worthless to 99% of
> > people, all the other inferences are yours, as is the personal abuse.
>
> Ah, no.
>
> You may try to rewrite history all you like, but google (and a few
> others) has recorded your stupidity for all to see.
ROTFLMAO... indeed, you should have checked to see who actually wrote
what.
Sailor Sam
http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz.comp/msg/ad4a696b6d0d6e21?hl=en&dmode=source
I left the post you were replying to in for context, and left the
attribution marks in to make it clear.
It's clear (now) to everyone how low you sink when you've lost.
> Me, I did not say that. One hopes your checking of code is better than
> your attributing of quotes is.
>
My checking of code vs your integrity.
>>>> Then you failed with your claims that the code could not be changed as
>>>> soon as the environment changed.
>>> WHERE did I claim that ??
>> See above.
>
> Yes, do see above, go back through the thread and correctly attrubute
> quotes.
>
I did.
>>>> Then you failed trying to claim that the code was useless to the users.
>>> Ok, lets put your money where your mouth is. I will find an open source
>>> piece of software and give it to a user. If they can make the changes
>>> themselves I will pay you $100, if they cant, you pay me $100. They will
>>> have 24 hours to make those changes and that person must be an average
>>> user, not a programmer, nor can they give the problem to anyone else to
>>> solve for them. Now we can make it a trivial problem, say finding a
>>> basic text editor and getting the user to add a word concordance
>>> function to it with it bring sorted in both alphabetical and frequency.
>>> The code must be integral to the application (no external calls allowed).
>>> ie the USER must add the functionality to an existing application by
>>> themselves within 24 hours. It must be their own work, and they will be
>>> supplied the source code, IDE, and computer (no net connection so no
>>> cheating!).
>>> If as you say the source code is NOT useless they will be able to
>>> complete the task. If however as I contend that for 95% of people having
>>> the source code is about as much use as bicycles are to fish.... then I
>>> win because they will not even know where to begin the task.
>>>
>> Miss the point much?
>> If that person takes the source code to a programmer, then the code is
>> no longer useless to them.
>
> 95% of Users <> programmers.
> THAT is the point.
>>
Wrong, and you know this, which is why you need to outright lie.
All the user needs to do is take that code to any competant programmer
to get the changes they require. With a closed source application all
they can do is whistle.
>>>> Then you to claim that OSS will cost too much for them
>>>>
>>>> And to finish you claim that your time is worth something. Which I doubt
>>>> very much given the logic (or lack thereof) that you have displayed so
>>>> far.
>>> All I have claimed is that having the source code is worthless to 99% of
>>> people, all the other inferences are yours, as is the personal abuse.
>> Ah, no.
>>
>> You may try to rewrite history all you like, but google (and a few
>> others) has recorded your stupidity for all to see.
>
>
> ROTFLMAO... indeed, you should have checked to see who actually wrote
> what.
http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz.comp/msg/ad4a696b6d0d6e21?hl=en&dmode=source
I did.
whoisthis
Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
So you are saying that a factual point about how new routes can be
blocked is the same as code not being able to be changed ?
>
> > Me, I did not say that. One hopes your checking of code is better than
> > your attributing of quotes is.
> >
>
> My checking of code vs your integrity.
Indeed, please show WHERE I HAVE EVER SAID CODE CAN NOT BE CHANGED which
is what you have accused me of in your summing up.
>
> >>>> Then you failed with your claims that the code could not be changed as
> >>>> soon as the environment changed.
> >>> WHERE did I claim that ??
> >> See above.
> >
> > Yes, do see above, go back through the thread and correctly attrubute
> > quotes.
> >
>
> I did.
And failed to show where I ever said code could not be changed, which si
what you are accusing me of.
>
> >>>> Then you failed trying to claim that the code was useless to the users.
> >>> Ok, lets put your money where your mouth is. I will find an open source
> >>> piece of software and give it to a user. If they can make the changes
> >>> themselves I will pay you $100, if they cant, you pay me $100. They will
> >>> have 24 hours to make those changes and that person must be an average
> >>> user, not a programmer, nor can they give the problem to anyone else to
> >>> solve for them. Now we can make it a trivial problem, say finding a
> >>> basic text editor and getting the user to add a word concordance
> >>> function to it with it bring sorted in both alphabetical and frequency.
> >>> The code must be integral to the application (no external calls allowed).
> >>> ie the USER must add the functionality to an existing application by
> >>> themselves within 24 hours. It must be their own work, and they will be
> >>> supplied the source code, IDE, and computer (no net connection so no
> >>> cheating!).
> >>> If as you say the source code is NOT useless they will be able to
> >>> complete the task. If however as I contend that for 95% of people having
> >>> the source code is about as much use as bicycles are to fish.... then I
> >>> win because they will not even know where to begin the task.
> >>>
> >> Miss the point much?
> >> If that person takes the source code to a programmer, then the code is
> >> no longer useless to them.
> >
> > 95% of Users <> programmers.
> > THAT is the point.
> >>
>
> Wrong, and you know this, which is why you need to outright lie.
I do not lie.
>
> All the user needs to do is take that code to any competant programmer
> to get the changes they require. With a closed source application all
> they can do is whistle.
Incorrect. I have had bug fixes and features added to closed source code
for FREE, unless you now wish to state that shareware and other closed
source small developers don't count.
>
> >>>> Then you to claim that OSS will cost too much for them
> >>>>
> >>>> And to finish you claim that your time is worth something. Which I doubt
> >>>> very much given the logic (or lack thereof) that you have displayed so
> >>>> far.
> >>> All I have claimed is that having the source code is worthless to 99% of
> >>> people, all the other inferences are yours, as is the personal abuse.
> >> Ah, no.
> >>
> >> You may try to rewrite history all you like, but google (and a few
> >> others) has recorded your stupidity for all to see.
> >
> >
> > ROTFLMAO... indeed, you should have checked to see who actually wrote
> > what.
>
> http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz.comp/msg/ad4a696b6d0d6e21?hl=en&dmode=sour
> ce
>
> I did.
No you did not. You have actually proven I did NOT say "code can not be
changed", I looked very closely and there was only ONE line I wrote
consisting of 5 words which I will quote here
"until they too are blocked"
Now I am the first to admit "code can not be changed" and "until they
too are blocked" both contain exactly 5 words which may be what is
causing your confusion, however the meanings of each are totally
different and I am at a loss as to how you can equate the two.
Sailor Sam
As anyone who has dealt with virus prevention will tell you, your
'point' is meaningless.
>>> Me, I did not say that. One hopes your checking of code is better than
>>> your attributing of quotes is.
>>>
>> My checking of code vs your integrity.
>
> Indeed, please show WHERE I HAVE EVER SAID CODE CAN NOT BE CHANGED which
> is what you have accused me of in your summing up.
Your integrity is being called because you suddenly claimed not to have
written that which was pasted.
>>>>>> Then you failed with your claims that the code could not be changed as
>>>>>> soon as the environment changed.
>>>>> WHERE did I claim that ??
>>>> See above.
>>> Yes, do see above, go back through the thread and correctly attrubute
>>> quotes.
>>>
>> I did.
>
> And failed to show where I ever said code could not be changed, which si
> what you are accusing me of.
Have it your way, what point *were* you trying to make then?
You claimed not to have written that which was pasted.
>> All the user needs to do is take that code to any competant programmer
>> to get the changes they require. With a closed source application all
>> they can do is whistle.
>
> Incorrect. I have had bug fixes and features added to closed source code
> for FREE, unless you now wish to state that shareware and other closed
> source small developers don't count.
>
Awesome, ask for Opera to change their code regarding the servers, and
let me know when they do...
How long do you think you will need?
>>>>>> Then you to claim that OSS will cost too much for them
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And to finish you claim that your time is worth something. Which I doubt
>>>>>> very much given the logic (or lack thereof) that you have displayed so
>>>>>> far.
>>>>> All I have claimed is that having the source code is worthless to 99% of
>>>>> people, all the other inferences are yours, as is the personal abuse.
>>>> Ah, no.
>>>>
>>>> You may try to rewrite history all you like, but google (and a few
>>>> others) has recorded your stupidity for all to see.
>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO... indeed, you should have checked to see who actually wrote
>>> what.
>> http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz.comp/msg/ad4a696b6d0d6e21?hl=en&dmode=sour
>> ce
>>
>> I did.
>
> No you did not. You have actually proven I did NOT say "code can not be
> changed", I looked very closely and there was only ONE line I wrote
> consisting of 5 words which I will quote here
> "until they too are blocked"
>
> Now I am the first to admit "code can not be changed" and "until they
> too are blocked" both contain exactly 5 words which may be what is
> causing your confusion, however the meanings of each are totally
> different and I am at a loss as to how you can equate the two.
Have it your way the, tell me what /was/ your point.
whoisthis
Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
So what you are now saying is that competent programmers are able to
change and extend commercial software even though they do not have the
source code...after all, isnt this what a virus is doing ?
>
> >>> Me, I did not say that. One hopes your checking of code is better than
> >>> your attributing of quotes is.
> >>>
> >> My checking of code vs your integrity.
> >
> > Indeed, please show WHERE I HAVE EVER SAID CODE CAN NOT BE CHANGED which
> > is what you have accused me of in your summing up.
>
>
> Your integrity is being called because you suddenly claimed not to have
> written that which was pasted.
MY integrity is not in question at all. You are ascribing statements to
me that I did not make. You clearly stated "You failed with you claims
that OSS meant that the code could not be changed."
I HAVE stated that for better than 95% of users they are incapable of
changing the code.
I am happy to claim everything I posted, I however will not accept your
grossly incorrect interpretation.
I wrote "until they too are blocked", nothing more, nothing less.
>
> >> All the user needs to do is take that code to any competant programmer
> >> to get the changes they require. With a closed source application all
> >> they can do is whistle.
> >
> > Incorrect. I have had bug fixes and features added to closed source code
> > for FREE, unless you now wish to state that shareware and other closed
> > source small developers don't count.
> >
>
> Awesome, ask for Opera to change their code regarding the servers, and
> let me know when they do...
>
> How long do you think you will need?
No idea, I do not use Opera. I did not make any claims about ALL
programs or programmers, nor am I trying to intimate that one example
applies to all.
YOU said "With a closed source application all they can do is whistle."
to which I factually pointed out that I have had closed source software
bug fixed and features added. Go look at comments made to many shareware
applications about how responsive (or not) the developer is. As with
anything YMMV.
I am equally not going to ask you how long any piece of code
modification will take because we both know that depends on the
complexity of the change, how well the code is documented, if the code
relies on external libraries (and which versions), how familiar the
programer is with the code, if the code contains "work arounds" for bugs
in the compiler/OS/Hardware, and a hundred different other things a
"competent" programmer needs to consider.
Equally it may often be better to start from scratch than to try and
modify mismanaged code, abandoned code, or code written in unsupported
languages or those which use depreciated libraries. This will allow it
to use newer programming methods, languages, libraries, etc. The time
commitment for the programmer may also be less.
Right well here was the line I replied to:
"Changing the code to use routes that aren't firewalled, however,
remains an option."
To which I wrote
"until they too are blocked"
Now if code were immutable as you are trying to make out I said then
neither statement could be made. BOTH statement are only possible if
change is possible.
Sailor Sam
Anti virus software (generally) reacts to signatures, derived by
performing various calculations on binary objects.
It takes a great deal of analysis to determine what a few kilobytes of
binary is doing.
The virus writers change their code faster than the analysis can take
place (witness the bot networks that have constantly upgraded their
viral software in order to stay ahead of the anti virus makers and their
software)
>>>>> Me, I did not say that. One hopes your checking of code is better than
>>>>> your attributing of quotes is.
>>>>>
>>>> My checking of code vs your integrity.
>>> Indeed, please show WHERE I HAVE EVER SAID CODE CAN NOT BE CHANGED which
>>> is what you have accused me of in your summing up.
>>
>> Your integrity is being called because you suddenly claimed not to have
>> written that which was pasted.
>
> MY integrity is not in question at all.
It is, in more ways than one.
I am seriously doubting you have anything to do with programming, for
instance.
> You are ascribing statements to
> me that I did not make.
I did not.
> You clearly stated "You failed with you claims
> that OSS meant that the code could not be changed."
>
I have asked for you alternative interpretation, and you have remained
silent.
> I HAVE stated that for better than 95% of users they are incapable of
> changing the code.
>
Which is meaningless when they find a programmer.
>>>>>>>> Then you failed with your claims that the code could not be changed as
>>>>>>>> soon as the environment changed.
>>>>>>> WHERE did I claim that ??
>>>>>> See above.
>>>>> Yes, do see above, go back through the thread and correctly attrubute
>>>>> quotes.
>>>>>
>>>> I did.
>>> And failed to show where I ever said code could not be changed, which si
>>> what you are accusing me of.
>> Have it your way, what point *were* you trying to make then?
>>
Silence noted.
What is your alternate interpretation then?
>>>> All the user needs to do is take that code to any competant programmer
>>>> to get the changes they require. With a closed source application all
>>>> they can do is whistle.
>>> Incorrect. I have had bug fixes and features added to closed source code
>>> for FREE, unless you now wish to state that shareware and other closed
>>> source small developers don't count.
>>>
>> Awesome, ask for Opera to change their code regarding the servers, and
>> let me know when they do...
>>
>> How long do you think you will need?
>
> No idea, I do not use Opera.
ROFL, weak.
> I did not make any claims about ALL
> programs or programmers, nor am I trying to intimate that one example
> applies to all.
You admit failure then.
> YOU said "With a closed source application all they can do is whistle."
Well, what are they going to do with Opera?
> to which I factually pointed out that I have had closed source software
> bug fixed and features added. Go look at comments made to many shareware
> applications about how responsive (or not) the developer is. As with
> anything YMMV.
>
So, nothing then.
> I am equally not going to ask you how long any piece of code
> modification will take because we both know that depends on the
> complexity of the change, how well the code is documented, if the code
> relies on external libraries (and which versions), how familiar the
> programer is with the code, if the code contains "work arounds" for bugs
> in the compiler/OS/Hardware, and a hundred different other things a
> "competent" programmer needs to consider.
>
So, explain this post then:
http://groups.google.com/group/nz.comp/msg/768c8eb1311aef1c?dmode=source
Ok, lets put your money where your mouth is. I will find an open source
piece of software and give it to a user. If they can make the changes
themselves I will pay you $100, if they cant, you pay me $100. They will
have 24 hours to make those changes and that person must be an average
user, not a programmer, nor can they give the problem to anyone else to
solve for them. Now we can make it a trivial problem, say finding a
basic text editor and getting the user to add a word concordance
function to it with it bring sorted in both alphabetical and frequency.
The code must be integral to the application (no external calls allowed).
ie the USER must add the functionality to an existing application by
themselves within 24 hours. It must be their own work, and they will be
supplied the source code, IDE, and computer (no net connection so no
cheating!).
If as you say the source code is NOT useless they will be able to
complete the task. If however as I contend that for 95% of people having
the source code is about as much use as bicycles are to fish.... then I
win because they will not even know where to begin the task.
Sounds like you want one set of rules for one thing, and another set of
rules for anything you don't understand.
> Equally it may often be better to start from scratch than to try and
> modify mismanaged code, abandoned code, or code written in unsupported
> languages or those which use depreciated libraries. This will allow it
> to use newer programming methods, languages, libraries, etc. The time
> commitment for the programmer may also be less.
>
>
Seems you're on your own there.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
Try again.
whoisthis
Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
Thats in one method, yes.
>
> It takes a great deal of analysis to determine what a few kilobytes of
> binary is doing.
>
> The virus writers change their code faster than the analysis can take
> place (witness the bot networks that have constantly upgraded their
> viral software in order to stay ahead of the anti virus makers and their
> software)
actually I was meaning how the virus writers we able to exploit OS's,
Applications, and avoid anti-virus software without having the source
code.
>
>
> >>>>> Me, I did not say that. One hopes your checking of code is better than
> >>>>> your attributing of quotes is.
> >>>>>
> >>>> My checking of code vs your integrity.
> >>> Indeed, please show WHERE I HAVE EVER SAID CODE CAN NOT BE CHANGED which
> >>> is what you have accused me of in your summing up.
> >>
> >> Your integrity is being called because you suddenly claimed not to have
> >> written that which was pasted.
> >
> > MY integrity is not in question at all.
>
>
> It is, in more ways than one.
> I am seriously doubting you have anything to do with programming, for
> instance.
Please do tell, you are obviously holding some facts that I am unaware
of. Oh wait, is this an attempt to slur someone else in order to bolster
ones own position...
>
> > You are ascribing statements to
> > me that I did not make.
>
> I did not.
Oh, then please show where I said "code can not be changed".
I repeat all I said was "until they too are blocked".
>
> > You clearly stated "You failed with you claims
> > that OSS meant that the code could not be changed."
> >
>
> I have asked for you alternative interpretation, and you have remained
> silent.
OK, I will type slowly so you can keep up.
You said... are you keeping up
""Changing the code to use routes that aren't firewalled, however,
remains an option."
Can we agree that is what you said...?????
I said ""until they too are blocked".
Can you agree on that....????
The clear interpretation is that that code will ONLY work until those
routes are fire walled.
See, no mention of code being unchangeable, no mention of the fire
walling being unchangeable.
>
> > I HAVE stated that for better than 95% of users they are incapable of
> > changing the code.
> >
>
> Which is meaningless when they find a programmer.
Assuming that they have the money to PAY for the programmer, whats the
going rate.. $100/hr.... Tell me what is the change going to
cost...$1,000...$10,000... more ?? Looks to me that the small change
they want could cost them MORE then the whole computer system and all of
its software put together..... brilliant, I can see exactly how
beneficial that is to 95% of users...
>
> >>>>>>>> Then you failed with your claims that the code could not be changed
> >>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>> soon as the environment changed.
> >>>>>>> WHERE did I claim that ??
> >>>>>> See above.
> >>>>> Yes, do see above, go back through the thread and correctly attrubute
> >>>>> quotes.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I did.
> >>> And failed to show where I ever said code could not be changed, which si
> >>> what you are accusing me of.
> >> Have it your way, what point *were* you trying to make then?
> >>
>
> Silence noted.
Yes your silence has been noted, you have consistently failed to
show/prove where I said "code can not be changed".
God, are you that desperate to try and score points...
>
> > I did not make any claims about ALL
> > programs or programmers, nor am I trying to intimate that one example
> > applies to all.
>
>
> You admit failure then.
God, are you that desperate to try and score points...
You are like an infomercial where to prove how good their product is
they show a competing product being used like a moron.
>
> > YOU said "With a closed source application all they can do is whistle."
>
> Well, what are they going to do with Opera?
Ahh, I see, apparently Opera is the ONLY piece of closed source code out
there. So that way when you make a global assertion it only need ONE
example to prove it.
Ok, to make it simple, lets take... hmm say GIMP, its open source. Tell
me exactly how long adding the ability to import TRS-80 bit mapped
graphics is going to take so that they can be exported as ZX Spectrum
Graphics.
I will need the hours taken, the total cost, and the delivery time....
and you must be 100% accurate. Please supply within 2 hours....
What, are you now going to tell me you cant... or are you just going to
make up numbers....
Best not come up with a weak argument....
>
> > to which I factually pointed out that I have had closed source software
> > bug fixed and features added. Go look at comments made to many shareware
> > applications about how responsive (or not) the developer is. As with
> > anything YMMV.
> >
>
> So, nothing then.
Logical thought is not your strong suit, I can see that now.
So lets be clear:
Are you saying closed source code can not be modified Y/N
.... obviously it can be
Are you saying closed source programmers will not bug fix Y/N
.... obviously they do
Are you saying closed source programmers will not add features Y/N
.... again obviously they do
Not at all. I am very happy to give BOTH a programmer and a USER the
same piece of code and ask BOTH to modify it.
>
> > Equally it may often be better to start from scratch than to try and
> > modify mismanaged code, abandoned code, or code written in unsupported
> > languages or those which use depreciated libraries. This will allow it
> > to use newer programming methods, languages, libraries, etc. The time
> > commitment for the programmer may also be less.
> >
> >
>
> Seems you're on your own there.
> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
I see your problem now, you believe in absolutes.
Are you saying there is NEVER a reason to start from scratch ?
Are you saying that there are no abandoned programming languages ?
Are you saying that there are no abandoned/depreciated libraries ?
Are you saying it makes more sense to spend hundreds of MORE hours
in fixing old code than writing new code ?
Why ?
Sailor Sam
And....
>> It takes a great deal of analysis to determine what a few kilobytes of
>> binary is doing.
>>
>> The virus writers change their code faster than the analysis can take
>> place (witness the bot networks that have constantly upgraded their
>> viral software in order to stay ahead of the anti virus makers and their
>> software)
>
> actually I was meaning how the virus writers we able to exploit OS's,
> Applications, and avoid anti-virus software without having the source
> code.
>
You mean, how the closed source applications do not change until they
are exploited?
Or do you mean, kind of like the firewall, not changing until the
transgressions are detected, if at all.
Black box testing is far, far, more difficult than white box testing,
any ideas why?
>>
>>>>>>> Me, I did not say that. One hopes your checking of code is better than
>>>>>>> your attributing of quotes is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> My checking of code vs your integrity.
>>>>> Indeed, please show WHERE I HAVE EVER SAID CODE CAN NOT BE CHANGED which
>>>>> is what you have accused me of in your summing up.
>>>> Your integrity is being called because you suddenly claimed not to have
>>>> written that which was pasted.
>>> MY integrity is not in question at all.
>>
>> It is, in more ways than one.
>> I am seriously doubting you have anything to do with programming, for
>> instance.
>
> Please do tell, you are obviously holding some facts that I am unaware
> of. Oh wait, is this an attempt to slur someone else in order to bolster
> ones own position...
Given your conduct in this thread, it is a more than fair conclusion to
draw.
>>> You are ascribing statements to
>>> me that I did not make.
>> I did not.
>
> Oh, then please show where I said "code can not be changed".
> I repeat all I said was "until they too are blocked".
>
>
Do tell what you meant, I have asked, several times, only to be met with
silence.
>>> You clearly stated "You failed with you claims
>>> that OSS meant that the code could not be changed."
>>>
>> I have asked for you alternative interpretation, and you have remained
>> silent.
>
> OK, I will type slowly so you can keep up.
> You said... are you keeping up
> ""Changing the code to use routes that aren't firewalled, however,
> remains an option."
>
> Can we agree that is what you said...?????
>
> I said ""until they too are blocked".
>
> Can you agree on that....????
>
> The clear interpretation is that that code will ONLY work until those
> routes are fire walled.
>
> See, no mention of code being unchangeable, no mention of the fire
> walling being unchangeable.
>
Wriggle all you like, tell us, how the firewall will know to change, and
where.
Whilst you're at it explain how the dissident users of chinese internet
have been able to continue to use the internet in ways that violate the
chinese governments desires.
Oh, wait, they have, for years, by staying one step ahead of the
government, by continuously changing.
That was the original point being made, to which you countered, that the
firewall would change, yet it hasn't changed enough to stop the
dissidents...
>>> I HAVE stated that for better than 95% of users they are incapable of
>>> changing the code.
>>>
>> Which is meaningless when they find a programmer.
>
> Assuming that they have the money to PAY for the programmer, whats the
> going rate.. $100/hr....
Funny, you have mentioned shareware, and claimed that the programmer
does not have to be paid. Why the change in goalposts I wonder...
> Tell me what is the change going to
> cost...$1,000...$10,000... more ?? Looks to me that the small change
> they want could cost them MORE then the whole computer system and all of
> its software put together..... brilliant, I can see exactly how
> beneficial that is to 95% of users...
>
Gosh, with accounting skills like that, nobody will ever be able to
afford to have applications written, ever...
>>>>>>>>>> Then you failed with your claims that the code could not be changed
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> soon as the environment changed.
>>>>>>>>> WHERE did I claim that ??
>>>>>>>> See above.
>>>>>>> Yes, do see above, go back through the thread and correctly attrubute
>>>>>>> quotes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did.
>>>>> And failed to show where I ever said code could not be changed, which si
>>>>> what you are accusing me of.
>>>> Have it your way, what point *were* you trying to make then?
>>>>
>> Silence noted.
>
> Yes your silence has been noted, you have consistently failed to
> show/prove where I said "code can not be changed".
You have offered no alternative, despite being invited to do so.
Silence, noted.
>>>>>> All the user needs to do is take that code to any competant programmer
>>>>>> to get the changes they require. With a closed source application all
>>>>>> they can do is whistle.
>>>>> Incorrect. I have had bug fixes and features added to closed source code
>>>>> for FREE, unless you now wish to state that shareware and other closed
>>>>> source small developers don't count.
>>>>>
>>>> Awesome, ask for Opera to change their code regarding the servers, and
>>>> let me know when they do...
>>>>
>>>> How long do you think you will need?
>>> No idea, I do not use Opera.
>> ROFL, weak.
>
> God, are you that desperate to try and score points...
Weak.
Have a read of this thread, what is it about, and why.
>>> I did not make any claims about ALL
>>> programs or programmers, nor am I trying to intimate that one example
>>> applies to all.
>>
>> You admit failure then.
>
> God, are you that desperate to try and score points...
>
Weak.
> You are like an infomercial where to prove how good their product is
> they show a competing product being used like a moron.
If that's how you feel about your posts, who am I to disagree.
>>> YOU said "With a closed source application all they can do is whistle."
>> Well, what are they going to do with Opera?
>
> Ahh, I see, apparently Opera is the ONLY piece of closed source code out
> there. So that way when you make a global assertion it only need ONE
> example to prove it.
>
So nothing?
> Ok, to make it simple, lets take... hmm say GIMP, its open source. Tell
> me exactly how long adding the ability to import TRS-80 bit mapped
> graphics is going to take so that they can be exported as ZX Spectrum
> Graphics.
>
Tell me, how long will it take you to add that functionality to, um,
Photoshop?
What about, Microsoft Paint?
> I will need the hours taken, the total cost, and the delivery time....
> and you must be 100% accurate. Please supply within 2 hours....
>
Right after you.
> What, are you now going to tell me you cant... or are you just going to
> make up numbers....
>
I'm waiting.
> Best not come up with a weak argument....
>
>
I'll leave that to you.
>>> to which I factually pointed out that I have had closed source software
>>> bug fixed and features added. Go look at comments made to many shareware
>>> applications about how responsive (or not) the developer is. As with
>>> anything YMMV.
>>>
>> So, nothing then.
>
> Logical thought is not your strong suit, I can see that now.
>
> So lets be clear:
> Are you saying closed source code can not be modified Y/N
> .... obviously it can be
> Are you saying closed source programmers will not bug fix Y/N
> .... obviously they do
> Are you saying closed source programmers will not add features Y/N
> .... again obviously they do
>
>
How's that Opera bug coming along?
Had a reply yet?
For every single OSS project on the planet (dead or alive) it is
possible to change, can you say that for closed source?
EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION.
Cool, post a link here for the source for the closed source application
so we can see someone independent modify it (Opera is a good place to
start).
Better yet, flick me the source...
>>> Equally it may often be better to start from scratch than to try and
>>> modify mismanaged code, abandoned code, or code written in unsupported
>>> languages or those which use depreciated libraries. This will allow it
>>> to use newer programming methods, languages, libraries, etc. The time
>>> commitment for the programmer may also be less.
>>>
>>>
>> Seems you're on your own there.
>> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
>
> I see your problem now, you believe in absolutes.
> Are you saying there is NEVER a reason to start from scratch ?
> Are you saying that there are no abandoned programming languages ?
> Are you saying that there are no abandoned/depreciated libraries ?
> Are you saying it makes more sense to spend hundreds of MORE hours
> in fixing old code than writing new code ?
>
Are you saying you cannot read?
Because, apart from making no sense, you're really just wriggling to get
out of the mess you've made for yourself.
whoisthis
Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
Et tu...
>
> > You are like an infomercial where to prove how good their product is
> > they show a competing product being used like a moron.
>
>
> If that's how you feel about your posts, who am I to disagree.
Shit, you missed the "My dad is bigger than you dad", or were you saving
that as the coup de grace.
>
>
> >>> YOU said "With a closed source application all they can do is whistle."
> >> Well, what are they going to do with Opera?
> >
> > Ahh, I see, apparently Opera is the ONLY piece of closed source code out
> > there. So that way when you make a global assertion it only need ONE
> > example to prove it.
> >
>
>
> So nothing?
Yes, Booxter, FileSalvage, Parallels, MathType, SuperDuper. So there are
5 programs where I have had bug fixes, they are all closed source.
Parallels gave me access to a Beta of their next update within 5 minutes
of me contacting them to test. This is one of the reasons I have bought
the every version since version 1 (2 was actually free) and have bought
multiple copies of different versions. I am more than happy to say that
Parallels response was out of the norm, but it did happen.
>
> > Ok, to make it simple, lets take... hmm say GIMP, its open source. Tell
> > me exactly how long adding the ability to import TRS-80 bit mapped
> > graphics is going to take so that they can be exported as ZX Spectrum
> > Graphics.
> >
>
>
> Tell me, how long will it take you to add that functionality to, um,
> Photoshop?
No idea, I write assembler for micro controllers. You were the one who
originally set the task about Opera, so I mistakenly assumed that you
had enough skills and knowledge to make a guess on a similar problem,
with you having the source code. I will accept that I am grossly
mistaken in that regard.
> What about, Microsoft Paint?
>
> > I will need the hours taken, the total cost, and the delivery time....
> > and you must be 100% accurate. Please supply within 2 hours....
> >
>
> Right after you.
I made things simple for you by giving you access to the source code....
don't tell me, you are one of the 95% who are incapable... I freely
admit I am one the the 95% too, all my coding is micro controller
assembler, I can barely read C and no nothing about OOP.
>
> > What, are you now going to tell me you cant... or are you just going to
> > make up numbers....
> >
>
> I'm waiting.
Why, I will take this as an admission from you the task I set you is too
hard for you.
>
>
> > Best not come up with a weak argument....
> >
> >
>
> I'll leave that to you.
wow, what a come back....
>
> >>> to which I factually pointed out that I have had closed source software
> >>> bug fixed and features added. Go look at comments made to many shareware
> >>> applications about how responsive (or not) the developer is. As with
> >>> anything YMMV.
> >>>
> >> So, nothing then.
> >
> > Logical thought is not your strong suit, I can see that now.
> >
> > So lets be clear:
> > Are you saying closed source code can not be modified Y/N
> > .... obviously it can be
> > Are you saying closed source programmers will not bug fix Y/N
> > .... obviously they do
> > Are you saying closed source programmers will not add features Y/N
> > .... again obviously they do
> >
> >
>
> How's that Opera bug coming along?
>
> Had a reply yet?
>
> For every single OSS project on the planet (dead or alive) it is
> possible to change, can you say that for closed source?
>
> EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION.
do you want some of my old CPM, TRS-80 ones, it will be quicker to
rewrite them. That is the problem with your grand generalizations they
do not hold true every time, which is what I said.
lets go back to the task for GIMP, I want to see an average user achieve
the task, it must after all be significantly simpler....
>
>
>
> >>> Equally it may often be better to start from scratch than to try and
> >>> modify mismanaged code, abandoned code, or code written in unsupported
> >>> languages or those which use depreciated libraries. This will allow it
> >>> to use newer programming methods, languages, libraries, etc. The time
> >>> commitment for the programmer may also be less.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Seems you're on your own there.
> >> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
> >
> > I see your problem now, you believe in absolutes.
> > Are you saying there is NEVER a reason to start from scratch ?
> > Are you saying that there are no abandoned programming languages ?
> > Are you saying that there are no abandoned/depreciated libraries ?
> > Are you saying it makes more sense to spend hundreds of MORE hours
> > in fixing old code than writing new code ?
> >
>
> Are you saying you cannot read?
Nope, but I am old enough and wise enough not the believe in absolutes.
et tu
Sailor Sam
That's what I thought.
>>>> It takes a great deal of analysis to determine what a few kilobytes of
>>>> binary is doing.
>>>>
>>>> The virus writers change their code faster than the analysis can take
>>>> place (witness the bot networks that have constantly upgraded their
>>>> viral software in order to stay ahead of the anti virus makers and their
>>>> software)
>>> actually I was meaning how the virus writers we able to exploit OS's,
>>> Applications, and avoid anti-virus software without having the source
>>> code.
>>>
>> You mean, how the closed source applications do not change until they
>> are exploited?
>> Or do you mean, kind of like the firewall, not changing until the
>> transgressions are detected, if at all.
>>
>>
>> Black box testing is far, far, more difficult than white box testing,
>> any ideas why?
>>
That's what I thought.
That's what I thought.
I'm fairly sure that's the card you were already trying to play.
>>>>> YOU said "With a closed source application all they can do is whistle."
>>>> Well, what are they going to do with Opera?
>>> Ahh, I see, apparently Opera is the ONLY piece of closed source code out
>>> there. So that way when you make a global assertion it only need ONE
>>> example to prove it.
>>>
>>
>> So nothing?
>
> Yes, Booxter, FileSalvage, Parallels, MathType, SuperDuper. So there are
> 5 programs where I have had bug fixes, they are all closed source.
>
> Parallels gave me access to a Beta of their next update within 5 minutes
> of me contacting them to test. This is one of the reasons I have bought
> the every version since version 1 (2 was actually free) and have bought
> multiple copies of different versions. I am more than happy to say that
> Parallels response was out of the norm, but it did happen.
>
So, how's your Opera patch coming along then.
>
>>> Ok, to make it simple, lets take... hmm say GIMP, its open source. Tell
>>> me exactly how long adding the ability to import TRS-80 bit mapped
>>> graphics is going to take so that they can be exported as ZX Spectrum
>>> Graphics.
>>>
>>
>> Tell me, how long will it take you to add that functionality to, um,
>> Photoshop?
>
> No idea, I write assembler for micro controllers.
I'm sure.
> You were the one who
> originally set the task about Opera,
Ah, no, have a read of the thread.
> so I mistakenly assumed that you
> had enough skills and knowledge to make a guess on a similar problem,
> with you having the source code. I will accept that I am grossly
> mistaken in that regard.
>
You're mistaken about a lot of things.
>> What about, Microsoft Paint?
>>
>>> I will need the hours taken, the total cost, and the delivery time....
>>> and you must be 100% accurate. Please supply within 2 hours....
>>>
>> Right after you.
>
> I made things simple for you by giving you access to the source code....
That's the point isn't it.
Having the source code makes it simple, not having it makes it
difficult, to impossible.
> don't tell me, you are one of the 95% who are incapable...
Oh, no, I couldn't code to save my life.
> I freely
> admit I am one the the 95% too, all my coding is micro controller
> assembler, I can barely read C and no nothing about OOP.
>
So, what you're saying is, you have no expertise on the subject at hand,
other than to say, you don't have a clue?
>>> What, are you now going to tell me you cant... or are you just going to
>>> make up numbers....
>>>
>> I'm waiting.
>
> Why, I will take this as an admission from you the task I set you is too
> hard for you.
>
>>
Have you completed it yourself?
>>> Best not come up with a weak argument....
>>>
>>>
>> I'll leave that to you.
>
> wow, what a come back....
>
Best not come up with a weak argument then...
>>>>> to which I factually pointed out that I have had closed source software
>>>>> bug fixed and features added. Go look at comments made to many shareware
>>>>> applications about how responsive (or not) the developer is. As with
>>>>> anything YMMV.
>>>>>
>>>> So, nothing then.
>>> Logical thought is not your strong suit, I can see that now.
>>>
>>> So lets be clear:
>>> Are you saying closed source code can not be modified Y/N
>>> .... obviously it can be
>>> Are you saying closed source programmers will not bug fix Y/N
>>> .... obviously they do
>>> Are you saying closed source programmers will not add features Y/N
>>> .... again obviously they do
>>>
>>>
>> How's that Opera bug coming along?
>>
>> Had a reply yet?
>>
No?
>> For every single OSS project on the planet (dead or alive) it is
>> possible to change, can you say that for closed source?
>>
>> EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION.
>
> do you want some of my old CPM, TRS-80 ones, it will be quicker to
> rewrite them. That is the problem with your grand generalizations they
> do not hold true every time, which is what I said.
Are you trying to say they haven't been ported to another architecture?
Are you trying to say it is impossible to do so?
Photoshop.
I want to see an average user achieve the task, it must after all be
significantly simpler, not even having the code to hand to a Romanian.
>>
>>
>>>>> Equally it may often be better to start from scratch than to try and
>>>>> modify mismanaged code, abandoned code, or code written in unsupported
>>>>> languages or those which use depreciated libraries. This will allow it
>>>>> to use newer programming methods, languages, libraries, etc. The time
>>>>> commitment for the programmer may also be less.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Seems you're on your own there.
>>>> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
>>> I see your problem now, you believe in absolutes.
>>> Are you saying there is NEVER a reason to start from scratch ?
>>> Are you saying that there are no abandoned programming languages ?
>>> Are you saying that there are no abandoned/depreciated libraries ?
>>> Are you saying it makes more sense to spend hundreds of MORE hours
>>> in fixing old code than writing new code ?
>>>
>> Are you saying you cannot read?
>
> Nope, but I am old enough and wise enough not the believe in absolutes.
>
Yet your posts have been littered with them.
I'm not the one complaining.