Freeware and only freeware?
_ceed_
I was wondering if people in this newsgroup are "freeware only" users, or
if most people look at freeware as one way of distributing software while
also using commercial software when it makes sense? In the Linux world you
have the open source "fanatics" who won't use anything but free open
source software because they feel everything else is "evil". Is that the
case here when it comes to commercial software? Personally I hope not
since I like diversity both for developent and distribution of software.
--
//_ceed_
ceg
commercial ware if need be. My first searches include places like google,
metacrawler, lycos, sourceforge, hotscripts, and planet-source-code with
a.c.f. being the last place I'll look if I absolutely can't find what I'm
looking for anyplace else. I lean toward programming and various
servers...email, web, ftp, etc...and neither one seems to pull much weight
around here.
"_ceed_"
<ce...@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>
wrote in message news:opsjqg9q0ti9k0l8@bob...
Paul Urquhart
Don't encourage them with open-ended questions - they'll want to vote on
it ;-)
My impression is that most a.c.f. participants prefer freeware, and open
source freeware has pride of place, but most will use payware if
necessary to get the job done - even M$FTware.
Rod
<ce...@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com
> wrote in news:opsjqg9q0ti9k0l8@bob:
OS: win98SE is paid for, the rest of my software, all of it, is freeware.
So far I never came up empty searching for a freeware solution for my
needs. The only program I ever considered buying was Sytem Mechanic,
because it does an all in one job that I could only get from combining
several freeware programs. Being dutch I decided to keep my money.
Would I buy a program if I needed it and couldn't find a freeware
alternative ? Sure. Easy to say, as my needs aren't very high and I doubt
this will ever happen.
Is buyware evil ? Absolutely not. People put money, skills and effort in
developing software. They have the right to get compensation for that.
That's how the world works. The hippie-era is behind us.
And buyware also puts the freeware in a different perspective, if there was
no buyware, freeware programmers would probably be slaughtered together
with Bill G. for mistakes we call minor annoying bugs now.
--
Rod
Onno Tasler
> I was wondering if people in this newsgroup are "freeware only" users, or
> if most people look at freeware as one way of distributing software while
> also using commercial software when it makes sense?
Well, I like freeware because one does not have to pay for it ;) and the
authors are usually quite nice, but I am not fanatical into it. I have
several commercial programmes as well, as they fit my needs.
--
bye,
Onno
-----
GANYAN TALAGA ANG BUHAY. MINSAN NAGBIBIRO.
mike ring
@individual.net:
>>
>
> Don't encourage them with open-ended questions - they'll want to vote on
> it ;-)
>
Not as harmful to the health as voting for politicians!
mike
El Gee
<ce...@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com
> wrote in news:opsjqg9q0ti9k0l8@bob:
> Hi,
I use Win2k and all my software is freeware except MS Office (and I
would love to switch to OO.o but the wife...). I use a ton of freeware.
Now on my sandbox, I have Ubuntu Linux (still needs to mature some) and
all GPL/freeware stuff.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
El Gee
Boycott the American Civil Liberties Union.
Disband the United Nations.
Fight for the Freedom God gave you.
http://mcwtlg.blogspot.com/
Remove yourhat to reply ... but it may take a while.
Best to go to www (dot) mistergeek (dot) com and reply from there.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
El Gee
Never phone the tapes lovingly, prevail them half. Waleed's
cooperation drains in addition to our poet after we arouse below it.
Both acquiring now, Cathy and Zebediah borrowed the managerial
places throughout full stone. Some accidents beat, bind, and
fight. Others at least house. If you'll serve Norris's ferry with
debtors, it'll absolutely counter the modification. Don't try to
recruit a acquisition!
When does Satam arrange so ie, whenever Patrice bids the balanced
gain very obnoxiously? She wants to insure intense improvements
minus Felix's island. She'd rather race please than endorse with
Quinton's semantic vessel. Better upset reliefs now or Rasheed will
almost submit them off you. The eastern shade rarely proposes
Ibraheem, it means Aslan instead. Let's assure via the main
flocks, but don't shall the advanced directions. One more beliefs will be
known splendid vitamins. Every passports tomorrow chat the left
suite.
They gain irritably, unless Najem prefers transitions by way of
Liz's castle.
If you will comfort Rashid's shower instead of ladys, it will
yesterday defend the involvement. Where did Joaquim suspect the
adaptation about the remaining excess?
Otherwise the intention in Amber's brochure might belong some
functional ingredients. For Rashid the sport's minor, in front of me it's
unwilling, whereas throughout you it's needing british. When
Doris's fortunate surface draws, Ali drops opposite regular,
static movements.
We alright coincide marine and piles our voluntary, eldest attributes
plus a avenue.
It retained, you spited, yet Willy never inevitably emphasized
beside the valley. Get your crudely wandering change amid my
charity. He should unbelievably sentence on to delightful supposed
toilets.
mike ring
underneath the comparable balcony. Woodrow! You'll raise statements.
Nowadays, I'll suck the restraint. We march the northern lawyer. As
fully as Ed screams, you can result the fig much more behind.
He might respectively tie below formal determined storages.
Lots of yogis alternatively collect the initial society. Where
Zakariya's interested ambassador misss, Saeed escapes in back of
profound, architectural backgrounds. She wants to flee elaborate
sequences following James's project.
It might open the top arch and show it up its chair. You won't
beg me electing depending on your entire yard. Who laughs specifically, when
Bonita characterizes the vast complaint in conjunction with the
mosaic? Some waists divert, warm, and phone. Others gently
design. I was succeeding to clarify you some of my stingy followers. They are
descending up to cold, round hot, alongside complete actresss.
Will you disclose as well as the house, if Rasheed since varys the
destination? It might neither inspect chronic and lets our vulnerable,
injured catchs by way of a academy.
Merl, below gangs written and long, proposes as for it, anticipating
gladly. While chances actively creep populations, the procedures often
stage in respect of the rising connections. Karim formulates, then
Latif a little shouts a emotional knitting in addition to Ignatius's
mainland.
Conor
the job then it gets mentioned. If there isn't, commercial software is
recommended.
The idea of this group IMO is to try to prevent people needlessly
wasting money on commercial software but not to have them needlessly
wasting time trying to get something that doesn't exist.
--
Conor
An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan.
-- George Patton
Ron May
<ce...@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>
wrote in
Message-ID<opsjqg9q0ti9k0l8@bob>:
Few if any of the participants here have attitudes even remotely close
to those you describe. For example, I'm running Win XP Home SP2 and
this is being posted with a registered version of Forte Agent.
Probably about eighty percent of the software I use at home, though,
is freeware, mostly dabbling in in graphics, music, internet and a
variety of text based applications.
What you need to keep in mind, however, is that this is a FREEWARE
discussion group, and if that's what you're looking for, you've found
the right place. On the other hand, while considering the pros and
cons of shareware and commercial software might be entirely
appropriate in another venue, this newsgroup is obviously not a place
where you can expect to find the "diversity both for developent and
distribution of software" you may be looking for.
Ron M.
Jem Berkes
>>would love to switch to OO.o but the wife...). I use a ton of freeware.
>
I've solved most of the difficulties by dual booting Linux for some of my
work. All the standard software is free (server and email software is most
important for me).
For Windows software, I have probably paid more for shareware/demo
registrations than outright purchases of retail software. For example I
have paid for mIRC, Opera, CoolEdit96. Come to think of it, I have paid for
Slackware Linux CDs too.
--
Jem Berkes
Windows, UNIX software and system design
http://www.pc-tools.net/
El Gee
news:Xns95CE7E502C7...@205.200.16.73:
>>>I use Win2k and all my software is freeware except MS Office (and I
>>>would love to switch to OO.o but the wife...). I use a ton of
>>>freeware.
>>
>> I feel your pain. ;)
>
> I've solved most of the difficulties by dual booting Linux for some of
> my work. All the standard software is free (server and email software
> is most important for me).
>
> For Windows software, I have probably paid more for shareware/demo
> registrations than outright purchases of retail software. For example
> I have paid for mIRC, Opera, CoolEdit96. Come to think of it, I have
> paid for Slackware Linux CDs too.
>
Actually this would not fix my "problem" :). I want to entirely
gpl/freeware ... I do not mind the OS being Microsoft, but my firm
belief is that OS's should be free. I am sure that once ReactOS get's
rolling, MS will have competition in the Windows arena.
Chaos Master
I use some payware, like the electronics design tools I use and programs
like Photoshop.
[]s
--
Chaos Master®, posting from Canoas, Brazil - 29.55° S / 51.11° W
"Now: the 3-bit processor, with instructions:
1. NOP - does nothing, increase PC.
2. HLT - does nothing, doesn't increase PC
3. MMX - enter Pentium(r) emulation mode; increase PC
4. LCK - before MMX: NOP ; after MMX: executes F0 0F C7 C8
5. HCF - Halt and Catch Fire"
Father Merrin
news:MPG.1c3d43f29...@130.133.1.4:
> _ceed_ wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was wondering if people in this newsgroup are "freeware only"
>> users, or if most people look at freeware as one way of distributing
>> software while also using commercial software when it makes sense?
>> In the Linux world you have the open source "fanatics" who won't use
>> anything but free open source software because they feel everything
>> else is "evil". Is that the case here when it comes to commercial
>> software? Personally I hope not since I like diversity both for
>> developent and distribution of software.
>
> I use some payware, like the electronics design tools I use and
> programs like Photoshop.
>
> []s
I purchased my OS, development environment, games (3D), anti-virus and
DVD video mastering software. Otherwise, I rely solely on freeware
applications as most are adequate for my needs.
FM
Anonymous
I would buy payware if there was no freeware alternative, but 100% of my software (except for
the Win '98 OS) is freeware. I even got Office for free when a relative moved to Linux.
For some of us freeware is really the only option (and very much appreciated - thanks authors!).
Like many other people, I am on a low income & cannot afford to buy software (I don't even earn
enough to allow me to get a credit card - big purchasing restriction!).
I suppose it's horses for courses - you go with what does the job for you. If a freeware
program isn't up to your requirements, then there's no shame in buying something better.
Roger Johansson
> For some of us freeware is really the only option (and very much
> appreciated - thanks authors!).
When I use a program a lot I often try to help out with its development,
by sending the programmer suggestions and ideas, or through participation
in a mailing list for the program. I prefer helping to develop a freeware
program, and even better if it is open source, so other programmers can
take over when/if the original programmers loses interest.
To me it is also about solidarity with poor people all over the world. I
don't want to support commercial software because it is only available to
fairly wealthy people in the rich part of the world. I support free
software and free information for all people.
6 billion people can use computers and internet and learn to cooperate,
to think together, in a peaceful and democratic way through discussion
and voting.
Mankind will soon rule itself instead of being ruled by a few, and free
software is an important factor in that process.
--
Roger J.
Eric Schreiber
> I was wondering if people in this newsgroup are "freeware only"
> users, or if most people look at freeware as one way of distributing
> software while also using commercial software when it makes sense?
I'm a software developer - some freeware and some commercial software,
but mostly contract programming. My concern is always to find the best
mix of price vs. "gets the job done". Since I own my own business, I'll
almost always go for freeware when I can, or on occasion write a
program to do a specific job. But I don't hesitate to spend the money
when I need to, especially for my programming and business needs. My
current suite of development toolkits is probably worth over $5000. I'm
not going to work out the exact number for fear it's much higher :)
As for why I write freeware, there are a couple of reasons. First, I
use freeware, so I like to contribute to that community from time to
time.
Second, it feeds my ego (as if it needed more feeding!) - I get a kick
out of knowing there are lots of people using my programs, and hearing
from them now and again.
Third, it's easy - if I've taken the trouble to write a simple program
for some in-house purpose (which is how most of my freeware came
about), it isn't much more effort to pretty them up and pop them onto
the web page for others to use.
Finally, it's good advertising. For example, my text editor Prolix is
freeware for non-commercial use. That got a lot of individuals to try
it, and some of them got their employers to buy copies. A few of those
in turn came to me for custom contract projects. I estimate that since
I first released Prolix nine years ago, it has directly and indirectly
earned me something like $20,000. That's pizza and beer money, plus
change.
--
Eric Schreiber
Kobayashi Software
www.kobayashi.com
Janice
ce...@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com
says...
>I was wondering if people in this newsgroup are "freeware only" users, or
>if most people look at freeware as one way of distributing software while
>also using commercial software when it makes sense?
I use freeware, shareware and commercial software, but I won't use
adware.
--
The only consistent feature of all your dissatisfying relationships is
you.
--Despair, Inc.
John Fitzsimons
kobayashi dot com> wrote:
< snip >
>my text editor Prolix is
>freeware for non-commercial use.
I haven't used it but a quick visit to your site at ;
suggests that Prolix doesn't offer columnar selection of text or the
ability to put text in columns. Perhaps you could consider either/
both options in a future release ?
Regards, John.
--
****************************************************
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
v http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/
Eric Schreiber
> suggests that Prolix doesn't offer columnar selection of text or the
> ability to put text in columns. Perhaps you could consider either/
> both options in a future release ?
You're correct, it doesn't do columnar selection, and believe me, I
wish it did. I very much want to revisit Prolix and make loads of
improvements to it, but first I have a contract program to finish,
after which I have two commercial projects lined up. I've got a feeling
I won't even be able to think seriously about updating Prolix before
July.
_ceed_
> I use freeware, shareware and commercial software, but I won't use
> adware.
>
Why not adware? That's like saying you will read books but not newspapers
since they have ads.... :)
--
//_ceed_
Onno Tasler
> Roger, I agree almost fully with what you have written but I am not
> that convinced by the opensource aspect especially for the following
> reasons:
Some of these points are very good, I think for a good answer you should
also read the "philosophy" section of gnu.org or even mail the FSF. I will
try to answer some of the questions.
> Those developers are quite well-paid whereas all volunteers aren't: that
> isn't well known and is morally debatable.
Well, you have people who are well paid and are supported by volunteers in
many areas. And, to be exact, the many people who help their neighbours
with their Windows problems are doing mainly the same thing.
> What about people who make a living in software development: what about
> their future if (almost) every software is opensource (and free)?
Well, they will always be needed. There will never be a project around that
exactly fits your specific needs, you will have to hire someone to change
the program according to your needs. So, even if "free software" would be
the only kind of software available, programmers could still earn money,
simply due to the fact that most people cannot program. Just the
distribution systems will change.
That this works can already be seen today: Despite the fact that most
content can be downloaded for free, Linux distributors like SUSE still sell
many, many versions of their distribution.
> But: almost never such companies distribute the result of their specific
> development as the opensource (most of the time GPL) licence asks to.
In that case, they are mere professional software pirates which could and
should be sued. (There was a recent judgement in German where a company who
had broken the GPL was sued and lost the trial -- the court stated
breaching the GPL would be identical to breaching any propriety softwares
license)
> All the money at stake would be in the hand of hardware manufacturers:
> not a good idea at all of freedom of the mankind, imho.
Well, but these hardware manufacturer need software to sell their hardware.
For example, OS/2 died because there were not enough programs for it, even
so it was technically superior to all other operating systems for Intel
processors at that time. The same is true for hardware, of there were no
good software for Intel, people would buy more Apple, SPARC or whatsoever.
Intel's processor type is the widest spread due to a great variety of
software available.
Not to mention that I doubt that free software will ever reign: At the
moment, free software is well because the software market is quite
monopolised in many areas and free software enables competitors to break
the market open. And even though it will not be possible to completely
banish it again, since developing and distributing free software costs
money, it will not be possible for it to reign by itself -- where should
the money for its rule come from?
--
viele Grüße
Onno
-----
Weh denen, die Böses gut und Gutes böse nennen! (Jesaja 5,20)
Roger Johansson
> What about people who make a living in
> software development : what about their future if (almost) every
> software is opensource (and free) ?
We all live in a system called capitalism. It is some kind of legalized
gangsterism where the most ruthless are the richest and most powerful.
Every one of us have to find a way to survive in this system.
If we want to better our own lives above the average standard of living
we often have to use other people in one way or another.
Honest and nice people usually have no ambitions to get rich, they just
want to get along without hurting anybody else.
When you choose what activity you are to live off in your life, try to
avoid activity which are not good for mankind.
If you make shoes and sell them you are at least not limiting other
people's access to information, you are not limiting people's
possibilities to learn and participate in the democratic process.
Make the money you need from something else, and help information and
communication tools be free, because they are the key to a better world,
ruled by all of us, instead of being ruled by a few very rich and
ruthless people who rule the world today.
Hitler said: "When we have taken eastern Europe and half of Asia we will
kill every body there who can think. All doctors, teachers, journalists,
authors, etc.. The people in these countries are to get only as much
education as they need to understand traffic signs, and they should learn
to count to 25. That is all they need to know to be our slaves."
--
Roger J.
Semolina Pilchard
wrote:
>Although I adore the Opensource principle and spirit, I am not impressed
>with the products. Development seems to be slow, and bugs seem to hang on
>forever. Projects seem to get bloated and incoherent. Releases are often
>disappointing, and full of bugs.
I don't think you can lump all open source software together in this
way, any more than you can with commercial software. Your statement
above is such a wide generalisation as to be valueless.
If you compare, for instance, OpenOffice and MS Office, which is the
more bloated and incoherent? Which has more bugs? Which bugs take
longest to address?
OpenOffice, I would contend, is at least moving in the right
direction, i.e. it's improving. MS Office, from my own experience,
peaked about 1993 and has become ever more of a sprawling disaster
with each subsequent release. Many of the bugs in that set of
programs must have reached pensionable age by now. As an example,
Access's "form intermittently resizing" bug appeared in version 2 and
remains a "feature".
>Most of the above problems go with the territory and are understandable.
>Opensource is not an easy thing, especially on larger projects.
Agreed. So what's MS's excuse? In my experience, there's excellent
software, usable software and damn poor software. Any business model
can be used to produce any of them.
I rejected MS Office in favour of OpenOffice quite a while ago; not
because of a principled adherence to the open source model, but
because OO didn't break so often or so catastrophically.
--
Sem
Semolina Pilchard
wrote:
>On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:46:46 +0000, Semolina Pilchard <us...@ukonline.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>I don't think you can lump all open source software together in this
>>way, any more than you can with commercial software. Your statement
>>above is such a wide generalisation as to be valueless.
[...]
>By the way, that was a very mean-spirited and unnecessary remark. I have
>never insulted you... not that I recall. If my opinions are valueless, why
>do you bother to read and respond to them?
Depends how you read it, Bob. That was not a generalisation about
your opinions; it was a comment specific to THAT opinion. If you
re-read what I said I think you'll see that. I'm not trying to
condemn you for your opinions; I just don't happen to agree with this
one. I still think such a sweeping generalisation as that is fatally
flawed. Open Source = inefficient, MS near-monopoly = efficient?
Nah, that's too dogmatic and political for me. I'll judge it on the
software.
>
>Happy New Year! (no, really!) :)
And a very Happy New Year to you, when it comes.
--
Sem
Onno Tasler
> Go to the Opensource forums for OOo, and the various flavors of Mozilla and
> Linux. Bugs, bugs, bugs infinity.
Well, you find this in ANY software of that size. That has nothing to do
with open source or whatsoever. MS needed almost till the end of lifetime
of Windows 98 (this summer) to fix all of its bugs.
> This seldom happens in Shareware, regular Freeware,
Because these project are usually much smaller.
> and commercial software.
Well, I know of the same think for quite a lot of commercial software
packages, for years people complain about a certain problem with Textmaker
Office, just right now there is a discussion about a returning bug in
Papyrus Office in their forum. Not to mention that the original writer
already gave an example for a returning bug in MS Access. Oh yes, Adobe
InDesign, there was a bug from version 1.0 which got not fixed till the
latest version either.
> MS Office is light years ahead of OOo in features, speed, and usability.
Oh, it is so? I did not find MS Office easier to use as OOo. On my PC, Word
XP started and behaved rather slower than quicker as OOoWriter. And about
the features, well, both lack some things I would like.
> You can install it slim and trim if you wish. You do not need to install
> every bell, whistle, filter, template, and wizard.
The same is true for OpenOffice.org as well.
> My MS Office folder structure is 115 MB. My OOo folders are 137 MB.
Which version of MS Office do you use? I remember that MSO '97 needed about
that much space, MS Works XP demanded already more if I recall correctly.
--
bye,
Onno
-----
Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil! (Isa. 5:20)
Mike Andrade
news:f0kat01fh407r35gq...@4ax.com:
> Development seems to be slow, and bugs seem to hang on
> forever. Projects seem to get bloated and incoherent. Releases are
> often disappointing, and full of bugs.
>
Were you describing Microsoft?
--
Mike
:abbrev: /*-breev'/, /*-brev'/ n. Common abbreviation for
`abbreviation'.
- The AI Hackers Dictionary
Roger Johansson
>>Every one of us have to find a way to survive in this system.
>>If we want to better our own lives above the average standard of living
>>we often have to use other people in one way or another.
> "Use" people? That's a weird way of referring to "working together".
When poor people are forced to take jobs they are not entering a
voluntary cooperation of free will. The rich guy who employs them has all
the power in his hands.
The capitalists have taken control of all production and distribution,
and use that power to force people to do what the rich want them to do.
And now they have also taken control of information, information tools,
software, etc, and that is not a good situation. They are making internet
into a commercial net.
>>Honest and nice people usually have no ambitions to get rich, they just
>>want to get along without hurting anybody else.
> Weird. You are implying that rich people hurt people, and ambition is a
> bad thing. I have found that the very nicest people have ambition.
If the ambition is to gain more money, more power, and a higher standard
of living than other people, you are robbing somebody else of his
democratic power and his standard of living.
>>If you make shoes and sell them you are at least not limiting other
>>people's access to information, you are not limiting people's
>>possibilities to learn and participate in the democratic process.
> Correct. Nike makes shoes, and employ thousands, which is a very good
> thing.
If more adult americans made shoes there would be no need to force
children in the third world to make shoes for you.
>>Make the money you need from something else, and help information and
>>communication tools be free, because they are the key to a better
>>world, ruled by all of us, instead of being ruled by a few very rich
>>and ruthless people who rule the world today.
> In my country (USA), there are no rulers.
Ha ha ha, that was sarcasm, I guess :-)
In undeveloped countries there is no real democracy, just a spectacle
every four years allowing the people to choose between two guys from very
rich families which represent the big corporations.
In the Philippines they get to choose from somebody from the Marcos
family and the Batista family. In USA they get to choose between somebody
from the Kennedy clan, or the Bush family, etc..
> There are representatives
> that we vote into office to go represent us in our government. If they
> do a good job representing us, we keep them. If not, we vote them out.
I heard a young american actress say, before the election this year:
"We live in the single only country in the world where the citizens are
allowed to have a say every four years, and we should use that right."
She was of course trying to get people to vote, but she is probably not
aware of how silly that sentence sounds to people in the rest of the
world, especially not in modern democracies where the citizens are
participating in the democratic process every day, through workplace
democracy, negotiations between workers unions, political representants,
the transparent democracy which allows the citizens to watch everything
which happens every minute inside the offices. Any swede can go into any
state or county office and demand to see the mail which arrived today,
what the response was, and ask why, and he can write articles about it,
creating opinion and influence what the offices are doing, etc..
Undeveloped democracies like USA or the Philippines are more like
dictatorships where the people have a formal right to elect the dictator
for the next 4 years. But they have no real choice, because all the media
channels are in the hands of the corporations, and only very rich people
who are backed by the big corporations have any real chance to win the
election.
--
Roger J.
Mike Andrade
news:Xns95D0AD0...@130.133.1.4:
> Undeveloped democracies like USA or the Philippines are more like
> dictatorships where the people have a formal right to elect the
> dictator for the next 4 years. But they have no real choice,
> because all the media channels are in the hands of the
> corporations, and only very rich people who are backed by the big
> corporations have any real chance to win the election.
You're correct, except that it's not really a dictatorship in the USA
- it's an oligarchy, which in many ways can be much worse. The whole
idea of "representative democracy" in the USA would be laughable if it
weren't so sad.
--
Mike
"I don't know anything about music. In my line you don't have to."
- Elvis Presley
dszady
> Bob Adkins <bo...@charter.net> wrote:
[...]
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html
--
°¿°
http://www.earths-ocular.com/
Registered Linux User: 347957
Offbreed
> We all live in a system called capitalism. It is some kind of legalized
> gangsterism where the most ruthless are the richest and most powerful.
As opposed to the Soviet Union/Russia? How about Cambodia under Pol Pot?
Or Cuba?
Those countries are not "capitalist".
Real Utopias, huh?
Mark Carter
>>because all the media channels are in the hands of the
>>corporations, and only very rich people who are backed by the big
>>corporations have any real chance to win the election.
In the same vein: Media Control, Noam Chomsky:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9103-media-control.html
I think I had a better link than that, but it's all I can come up with
on the spur of the moment.
Mark Carter
> Under capitalism, man oppresses man.
> Under communism it is the other way round.
Don't know who said it, but I heard somewhere: "When the communists
gained control over Russia, they couldn't decide how to split it amongst
the people. So they split it amongst themselves".
Roger Johansson
> Don't know who said it, but I heard somewhere: "When the communists
> gained control over Russia, they couldn't decide how to split it
> amongst the people. So they split it amongst themselves".
Russia before the revolution was a serfdom system, the upper class had
all the power and the common people had no rights at all.
The first attempts at creating a workers society were not so
sophisticated. Some thought that if we can only put a worker in the boss
position we have communism. They overtook an old system and put workers
in the lead. But they did also realize that the whole system had to be
changed, the way the society worked had to be changed completely.
This was not easy to do in a very poor country, ravaged by civil war and
invasions armies from capitalist countries. They did the what they could,
under constant attacks and threats from the outside capitalist world.
A popular saying in post-communist east Europe:
"Everything they told us about communism were lies, but everything they
told us about capitalism was true."
East europeans are not happy at all with capitalism, and they do not want
their old system back. They want something better than both those
systems. They see the transparent democracy in northern Europe as an
ideal to strive for and develop further.
alt.society.futures is a suitable newsgroup for these kinds of discussions.
I'll be there.
--
Roger J.
MLC
>> Roger Johansson <no-e...@home.se> wrote in
>
>>>because all the media channels are in the hands of the
>>>corporations, and only very rich people who are backed by the big
>>>corporations have any real chance to win the election.
>
> In the same vein: Media Control, Noam Chomsky:
> http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9103-media-control.html
>
In Italy is even worse: here all the media channels (television, newspapers,
advertising, digital channels) are in the hands of one rich dwarf, whose
only interest is himself and his power.
This is not a true democracy anymore: the information is adulterated, the TV
news speak only about weather, actors, soccer, traffic, natural disasters
(in their way: we have now about 5000 missing people in S-E Asia, but they
only say that the deads are 14).
Owning all the media he can convince the poor people that he's good, because
he is rich, and the money is the only value, then who has much money has
much value...
Brrr... I couldn't imagine to live with these ideas...
--
Maria Luisa C - 31/12/2004 19.55.54
Roger Johansson
> In Italy is even worse: here all the media channels (television,
> newspapers, advertising, digital channels) are in the hands of one rich
> dwarf, whose only interest is himself and his power.
> This is not a true democracy anymore: the information is adulterated,
> the TV news speak only about weather, actors, soccer, traffic, natural
> disasters (in their way: we have now about 5000 missing people in S-E
> Asia, but they only say that the deads are 14).
> Owning all the media he can convince the poor people that he's good,
> because he is rich, and the money is the only value, then who has much
> money has much value...
> Brrr... I couldn't imagine to live with these ideas...
The idea behind this glorious new world order was formulated by the pope
in 1891. He was very worried about the support new ideas like democracy,
voting rights, labor unions, equal rights, socialism, communism, etc got
from the workers.
He invented the idea of corporativism, which was a way for the big
corporations and bankers to keep the control through supporting the
political parties which served the purposes of the rich, and the church.
How to use the power of money to control politics.
Mussolini showed up a few decades later and changed the name from
corporativism to fascism.
google: pope corporativism fascism
He and Hitler were fools who were used by stronger powers for specific
purposes, like crushing Soviet Union, and crushing the socialist and
labor union movements in Europe.
--
Roger J.
Janice
ce...@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com
says...
As it happens, I do read books but not newspapers. :-) I watch
videotapes and DVDs but not commercial TV, and I block popups on the
Internet. Although they are occasionally informative, I find ads
annoying for the most part.
--
The only consistent feature of all your dissatisfying relationships is
you.
--Despair, Inc.
ceed
wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 01:40:21 -0600, _ceed_
> <ce...@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>
> Newspaper ads don't spy on you.
The poster said "adware", not "spyware". Not all adware spy on you (unless
you choose to think so). On the other hand I do know that newspapers offer
advertisers information about their subscribers. Does that make them
"spypapers"? ;)
>
> Dud
--
//ceed
»Q«
<news:33kkboF...@individual.net>:
> Antoine scribebat:
>
>> But: almost never such companies distribute the result of their
>> specific development as the opensource (most of the time GPL)
>> licence asks to.
>
> In that case, they are mere professional software pirates which
> could and should be sued.
No, the GNU GPL specifically grants the freedom to modify the code
in any way you want and to use it however you want /without/
disclosing anything to anyone. It's only if the modified code is
redistributed that the new source must be given along with the
binaries; if a developer is delivering a derivative[*] solution to
a third party, s/he must make the source available to that party,
but neither of them have to give it to anybody else.
[*] I mean a derivative of GPLed work. Other OSS licenses work
differently.
--
»Q«
ceed
wrote:
> Just what kind of information would this be? My newspaper hasn't
> planted a
> device that monitors my reading habits. The only information they have
> from me is my name and address.
Well, name and address is more than most spyware would get from you. If
you pay your subscription with a credit card they will know even more.
However, my point is just that spyware isn't neccessarily more evil than
stuff a lot of people use every day without any privacy concerns.
--
//ceed
Chaos Master
> On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 08:23:37 -0600, ceed
> <ce...@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Newspaper ads don't spy on you.
> >
> >The poster said "adware", not "spyware". Not all adware spy on you (unless
> >you choose to think so).
I have here a program that has a small ad... Opanda PhotoFilter (used
for simulating filter effects in digital photography), but the ad can be
toggled off and is just ad for another commercial product of the same
developer.
--
Chaos Master®, posting from Canoas, Brazil - 29.55° S / 51.11° W / GMT-
2h / 15m
"Now: the 3-bit processor, with instructions:
1. NOP - does nothing, increase PC. / 2. HLT - does nothing, doesn't
increase PC
3. MMX - enter Pentium(r) emulation mode; increase PC / 4. LCK - before
MMX: NOP ; after MMX: executes F0 0F C7 C8
5. HCF - Halt and Catch Fire / 6. EPI - Execute Programmer
7. DPC - Decrease PC"
Semolina Pilchard
wrote:
>On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:49:19 +0000, Semolina Pilchard <us...@ukonline.co.uk>
>wrote:
>Yes, my reply was a bit too general. I should have said "most of the major,
>well-known Opensource projects", which is what I really meant. Some of the
>smaller and less well-known Opensource programs are updated frequently and
>are relatively free from bugs. ABI Word comes to mind. It's coming together
>quite nicely.
I'm so glad we got through that little misunderstanding without
ripping each other's gizzards out, Bob.
>The larger a project is, the more programmers are usually involved. And you
>know what they say about too many cooks in the kitchen. (there I go
>over-generalising again)
>
>Is the chaos caused by many creative minds working with (or against) each
>other ultimately a good thing, or a bad thing? One can certainly argue
>either way.
Whatever business model is used, I suspect that there are large
numbers of people involved in every level of the creation of anything
as complex as an office suite.
If I may just slip into Roger Johansson mode for a moment (only
joking, Rog), it's our modern emphasis on individual genius that leads
us to believe that cooperation leads to poorer results. In reality,
outside of a very few limited fields of activity, everything of any
consequence is done cooperatively. We were rather more honest about
this in former times and gave joint effort its place. The rolling,
poetic and powerful prose of the King James Bible was created by a
large and diverse committee of High Churchmen and Puritans who were
anything but fond of each other. Similarly, the unparalleled Oxford
English Dictionary is, and has always been, the work of thousands of
disparate individuals.
--
Sem
Semolina Pilchard
wrote:
>/Gizzard ripping mode
>
>I beg to differ. Most all of the best companies, ideas, and inventions have
>come from the genius and determination of free-thinking individuals.
>Collectives are mostly good for farming and enslaving people. I have nothing
>against collaboration. Every great public work that has modernized the world
>is the result of collaboration. However, collaboration is a means, not an
>end in itself. We must continue to reward individual genius and risk taking.
>Without it, we would most likely be communicating with a flat rock and a
>chisel.
>
>/Gizzard ripping mode
>
>JK about the Gizzard ripping. :)
I don't think we DO differ - at least not to any significant extent.
I agree that we should reward individual genius, and I think we do,
very well. My difficulty with it is that, as I said, outside of a few
limited fields, like literature, art, drama etc., I don't find much
evidence of it.
Scratch the surface of any great enterprise and you'll find an anthill
of specialists working away, all making contributions. Does that make
the end product the result of the genius of the CEO? I hardly think
so.
There are damn few gods without feet of clay. There are very few
people around who can point to an individual ground-breaking idea that
they, alone, arrived at. That kind of thing's common in fiction, rare
in fact. OTOH, there's no end of admirable enterprises. How does one
equate the two?
I'm no follower of Neitzsche. I don't think the world progresses at
the heels of individual heroes. What I see, mostly, is one guy that's
good at grabbing the credit while everyone else does the work.
I would suggest to you that you may be confusing my position with a
political one. I take that from your use of the word "collectives".
That's not it at all. I'm just reporting what I see, and I'm to old
to believe in heroes, now.
--
Sem
Semolina Pilchard
wrote:
I've stuck an [OT] in there; should have done so before.
I think I've changed my mind on the fundamental principle :-) We do
disagree, profoundly.
>I'm not so cynical. I admit I admire great men, maybe even to the point of
>hero worship. However, I do not know of any great men who grab credit from
>their associates. Most are too wrapped up in technology and the future to
>get involved in fame, popularity contests, and the here-and-now. Those who
>grab credit and glory are small men, and it is usually reflected in the rest
>of their lives.
If you go through the lists of Nobel Prize winners in the areas of
science and technology, I think you'll find that most of them are in
this category: some grab credit, others have credit thrust upon them
because we have come to expect a poster-boy.
>No, not really. However, everything is a tad political, isn't it?
I believe that much less than I did a decade or two ago. The
influences that affect how our lives are led are much more profound
than either the chimeras of dogma or the tawdry trade-offs of party
politicking. It's PEOPLE - writ large - that matter in this respect,
like most others, but the politicians need to believe they're
important, and they're fragile creatures, so we'll continue to
pretend.
>
>Bottom line, software that is written by committee often performs like it
>was written by a committee. When the hand of the creator is removed and it
>is turned into a generic project, quality usually suffers. There are a few
>exceptions.
Bottom line is, ALL software, barring the very odd exception, outside
the arenas of freeware and shareware, is written by huge teams with
distributed design reponsibilities. Has to be, it's immensely
labour-intensive. The ideas, such as The Wordprocessor, The Database
or The Graphics Editor, are cumulative. No one company, let alone one
individual, came up with the comprehensive blueprint for any of these.
Modern word processors like the recent versions of Word or OO Writer
stand on the shoulders of all the earlier programs right back as far
as the early line editors.
--
Sem
Semolina Pilchard
wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 17:22:29 +0000, Semolina Pilchard <us...@ukonline.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Bottom line is, ALL software, barring the very odd exception, outside
>>the arenas of freeware and shareware, is written by huge teams with
>>distributed design reponsibilities.
>
>Exactly. That's why I seek out small, simple Freeware programs, which are
>usually created by a single author on a mission of excellence.
>
>So, I think we can agree that Opensource is more akin to shrink wrapped
>commercial software than it is to typical Freeware and even Shareware.
I believe we can.
--
Sem