Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Really? (Score 3, Interesting) 99

by Svartalf (#48899205) Attached to: Why We Still Can't Really Put Anything In the Public Domain

Considering that RMS didn't dream these licenses up, but rather Eben Moglen, you might want to contemplate who knows more about this... The law professor that actually teaches on this subject or someone claiming that there is a right of revocation in there that's effectively free of Promissory Estoppel and the like on the subject. Just because there's a law on one side doesn't mean other laws don't cause OTHER, equally bad problems on the subject and effectively preclude the hypothesized notion out of box.

Comment: Re:Perhaps ... (Score 1) 99

by Svartalf (#48899037) Attached to: Why We Still Can't Really Put Anything In the Public Domain

No, if you're doing your legal documents right, it does place it into the Public Domain as intended. How? Promissory Estoppel prevents such an act from even being ran up the flagpole on an infringement suit. If you actually DID this, just because you can revoke assignments, etc. doesn't give you carte-blanche to actually DO it the way they're describing there.

Without covenants in place as part of the agreement, yeah. There's a problem. With them, this is really nothing more than the nattering of someone trying to make a vastly bigger deal of things than is really there.

Comment: Heh... (Score 5, Interesting) 99

by Svartalf (#48899013) Attached to: Why We Still Can't Really Put Anything In the Public Domain

Bingo!

You can't make promises or covenants of this nature with the intent of even remotely considering to revoke them. Your successors are also bound to them. Typically someone will bring up Promissory Estoppel and then raise Bad Faith- and then move to dismiss the case you brought against them...and most typically get it.

Comment: Re: Well... (Score 1) 241

by Svartalf (#48856597) Attached to: Could Tizen Be the Next Android?

Heh...it does fit the bill well, doesn't it?

The biggest problem, though, with all of this is that the dysfunctional pile (of sh.. if you must know...) sitting there has a massive network effect that you're going to have to counter. The network effect there with Android is going to work massively against you unless you can come out with something compelling. MeeGo could've been it...had they not been dysfunctional in their own way. Tizen...heh...I don't see that going well. I could be wrong. But I suspect I won't be.

As for cross-platform in the sense others talk to...it's a fail. WinCE had that in it's beginnings. Shortly thereafter, even though you could make for SH4, MIPS, and ARM, the pain and hassle of maintaining code for all three ended up with the software vendors working off a similar kind of network effect. Which class of arch was the most popular SoC's on the most popular WinCE devices? ARM. So you ended up with ARM only binaries for a *LOT* of the apps. At some point, it became more moot because everybody and his dog started doing nothing but ARM WinCE devices. This is why I think all these X86 Android devices popping up are silly. It's just Intel buying their way into relevance in this space. Much like the recent push for Edisons, etc. in the space that ARM devices like the BeagleBone Black reign.

If Intel can make something honestly compelling instead of the smoke and mirrors they've got going right now...great. Otherwise, you're fighting a network effect you're just not going to win playing against.

Comment: Re:Rubbish (Score 1) 241

by Svartalf (#48856245) Attached to: Could Tizen Be the Next Android?

That's part of where the thinking about Tizen being all but a never-ran comes into play.

Tizen currently makes some small sense on something like a Smart TV (which could use Android, but could go with something else since you can live with "less apps") or a GPS system where it, too, doesn't "need" apps to make it worthwhile as an OS, UI, and target application.

But then, you could go with Android. The developer space is already there and the network effect for it is compelling.

In order to counter that network effect and have a chance, you'll need apps. LOTS of apps. Maybe not as many as Android or IOS have for them- but quite a few. Perhaps as many as half of what is in the Play market to start with.

I, personally, don't see that happening. Not with some HTML5 driven frameworks like Sailfish, FirefoxOS, or Tizen. You'll have to make it compelling enough to make a tectonic shift in the developer marketplace. Almost immediately. It's doable. Just not with this stuff we're talking about.

Comment: Re:"Half Baked"? (Score 1) 241

by Svartalf (#48856205) Attached to: Could Tizen Be the Next Android?

That's because Chipzilla's involved with it. They've been flailing around with all sorts of crap, muddying up the whole picture with MeeGo, Tizen, now Edison and Tesla. They want to have it all for themselves. An admirable business notion, but unaccomplishable in the manners unto which they've been fucking things up with in this space.

Comment: Re:ignored (Score 1) 104

by Svartalf (#48812161) Attached to: Where Cellular Networks Don't Exist, People Are Building Their Own

Sort of like Rural America is strategically ignored by the main players for Internet Access. Best play so far is Verizon...so long as you're nearby a primary corridor for LTE, that is. Otherwise, you get the dubious joy of Satellite Fraudband, 2/3G, or dialup. To put it in would be only as a loss leader play because the overall expense of putting in tower coverage versus payback unless you're talking a highway corridor is a bad picture in the bean counter sense of things. It's a dead loss. I very strongly suspect the same story for Mexico out around the area they're doing this...so, strategically, they ignore them.

Comment: Re:Nope... Nailed It (Score 1) 186

by Svartalf (#48435181) Attached to: It's Not Developers Slowing Things Down, It's the Process

And, if you've not figured out what I'm trying to tell you, my answer in your example would be, "Unless you want to spend two more million and spend 12 more months in development, and COMMIT to that- no."

The idiot notion of not being "negative" is fantasy that some crazy HR people came up with to whitewash over the real problems going on in a given company. You need to not just simply say, "no", but in the same vein, trying to not say no is stupid, crazy, etc. Sometimes things ***ARE*** really negative things and you can't wish/will them any other way.

The Wright Bothers weren't the first to fly. They were just the first not to crash.

Working...