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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:These days... (Score 1) 892

Do you pay $6 for your toothpaste at 7-11, or $4 for the same brand and size at Walmart?

Well in that case you aren't actually negotiating with anybody, I think it's more that the potential reward of the sale to the vendor (if they even have the authority to set prices) and/or the savings value to customer is not worth the effort of negotiating. You don't go to 7-11 and try to convince them to sell you that $6 toothpaste for $4.

But you're absolutely right on higher priced items, it's worth the vendor cutting into their profit a little if it's the difference between making the sale and not, and there's obviously much more incentive for the customer if you're talking hundreds or thousands of dollars rather than tens of cents.

Comment: Re:These days... (Score 1) 892

All monetary transactions are like that. Yet we don't negotiate for toothpaste, gas, etc.

Because it isn't worth it, either they would rather not have your business or you would rather just pay the set price than bother negotiating for it, not to mention most people selling toothpaste or gas aren't in the authoritative position to be able to change the price. However if you are talking about a house or a car these generally are worth negotiating for, so we do.

Comment: Re:(A)GPL solves this (Score 1) 146

by exomondo (#49419037) Attached to: The New Struggles Facing Open Source

If you use software based on a BSD/Apache2 license, and someone extends it and makes the result non-open source, and the software you use begins to require these extensions, you don't have a secure upgrade path anymore. GPL solves this problem and guarantees that you will always have an upgrade path, because derivatives need to be open source.

But it doesn't. In the AGPL case it can easily call out to another proprietary web service or a different process just like the way GPL software can communicate with a proprietary process which creates a non-free workflow.

Comment: Re:So does this mean.... (Score 1) 133

by exomondo (#49331597) Attached to: Microsoft Releases Windows 10 SDK

They are removing from users the choice of installing an operating system other than Windows on their hardware of choice.

If by "they" you mean the OEMs (not Microsoft) and you have an example of an OEM who has actually done that then yes perhaps you may have a point. But if your hardware "of choice" doesn't have the ability to choose what operating system you put on it then obviously you chose wrong.

Comment: Re:"Free" with restrictions is not Free! (Score 1) 198

by exomondo (#49331391) Attached to: Pixar Releases Free Version of RenderMan

Knowing this, Pixar should have released it free as in free

Nobody except FSF devotees considers something offered "free" to mean anything other than free of charge. If you interpret something offered "free" to mean free of restriction with an onus on the provider to also provide you the instructions and material associated to re-create a modified version of it then you're an idiot.

Comment: Re:When did Slashdot become a press agent? (Score 1) 198

by exomondo (#49331351) Attached to: Pixar Releases Free Version of RenderMan

As if there weren't a bunch of free tools already?

There are some but few of industry quality so the defacto in the industry for the most part is Renderman.

I think anyone serious about making money is going to be either invested in a proper professional package, or has devoted to Blender et al.

Blender? How is Blender in any way an alternative or competitor to Renderman?

If Pixar wants some space here, it's simply because they want young talent to use their stuff.

Of course it is, that's why it's for non-commercial use. It's so you can learn a professional tool without having to pay for it when you aren't going to use it to make any money.

I guess the end result is, if you are young and want to maybe work for Pixar someday, learn this software, that way they won't have to train you and you're in.

Yeah because nobody in the CG industry except Pixar uses Renderman right?

Comment: Re:Free as in (Score 1) 198

by exomondo (#49331313) Attached to: Pixar Releases Free Version of RenderMan

Blender being open source and free to use for most anything, even commercial, vs the Pixar product that is "free", but only if you don't try to make any money with any creations YOU make from it.

Why are you comparing Blender and Renderman? It's apples and oranges, they aren't even the same kind of tool!

Renderman is now free of charge for non-commercial use, i.e. for evaluating it, creating your showreel or learning it so that when you move into the commercial space you are familiar with the industry tools. If these terms and limitations confuse you or upset you then just ignore this announcement and continue using something like POVRay or BMRT.

Comment: Re:I know I'll get flamed... (Score 1) 165

by exomondo (#49325139) Attached to: RMS Talks Net Neutrality, Patents, and More

No one considers using fucking Android to be "running Linux" in the common sense.

Well what is "running Linux in the common sense"? If what you're saying is that GNU/Linux has a lot more GNU in it than non-GNU/Linux then that's obviously pretty redundant and makes no point at all.

Similarly, I don't "run Linux" when I use the seat-back terminal on a Virgin America flight or when i turn on a router.

Well that's not a personal computing sense, it isn't your computer but on a smartphone or a tablet it absolutely is. So which of the following is "running Linux in the common sense" and why: Ubuntu, Ubuntu Phone, Maemo, ChromeOS, Android?

Comment: Re:I know I'll get flamed... (Score 1) 165

by exomondo (#49323797) Attached to: RMS Talks Net Neutrality, Patents, and More

RMS did not invent free software. But he was the first to espouse the philosophy of free software, and argue that it was an ethical and moral issue.

That's really the part that hasn't taken off though. Even Linux - Free Software's biggest claim to fame - is about open source and code sharing rather than the ethics and morals of the FSF.

This is something they knew, GCC could have easily had a license term (just like the GPL has with library linkage) that the input to it must be GPL-compatible and as such could only be used for Free Software but they didn't because people are more interested in getting things done than aligning with the FSF's philosophical point of view. This gives developers who use GCC the ability to not give the Free Software freedoms to other people and that is exactly the thing the FSF's restrictive licenses exist to prevent.

If you run Linux, you are likely using a lot more code written by RMS than by Linus.

Not really, this is where the distinction is important. If you run GNU/Linux then maybe, but if you run another Linux - like Android for example - you may find there is very little GNU in there.

You do not have mail.