Adobe is a pussy ass whiny bitch

[kingofsp]

You have to adapt. Complaining about open source is like the record labels complaining about pirated music. They're complaining themselves into non-existence. Change is inevitable.

 

[Cap'nShplanky]

lol wut? its terrible for bill gates and other ballers. its fantastic for noobs/sheep

Which one are you?

 

[miketpowell]

They took our jeorbs!

 

[flysarescary]

a developer who would rather make money and pay for licenses (if everyone else would lol)

 

[flysarescary]

records labels are also complaining about open source

record labels will eventually get power over the average internet user

also see:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-vbwgIQdHE"]YouTube- Eminem - My 1st Single[/ame]

at around 3:45

 

[Midas Touch]

That has nothing to do with the fact that you just said that open source was bad, and then you use it. I think you're confusing open source with freeware, because vbulletin is open source, but definitely not free.

.......^^^^^...This!!

Open Source vs. Freeware

I see a need for BOTH open and proprietary sourced software.

They each have their strengths & weaknesses and place in the computing world.

"I" personally like the idea of open source simply for the reason that MORE eyes are looking at it which aids in it's stability, security, flexibility, and speed of development.

Now, when I have software developed that gives me an edge over other programs available to my competition, I prefer to NOT have the source code readily available. Kinda like a Trade Secret thing.

 

[RuDeDoGg]

Just like you faggots who think opensource and cheap flash games are good for anyone except the sheep

u mad conversion?

brb destroying an industry of developers by flooding the users with free flash games

brb destroying billions of dollars of license revenues and taxes with opensource

opensource is worse than piracy

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX161ulHrSA]YouTube - Internet Arguments[/ame]

 

[matthew1471]

records labels are also complaining about open source

Where have you got that from?

 

[emp]

I recommend you read this book:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Wikinomics-Mass-Collaboration-Changes-Everything/dp/1591841933/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270894679&sr=8-1"]Amazon.com: Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything (9781591841937): Don Tapscott, Anthony D. Williams: Books[/ame]

There is a whole chapter on why big businesses (IBM and Oracle, for example) support Open Source and even pay their coders to code Open Source.

MySQL, PHP, HTML, Java, OpenOffice, the Apache Web Server, Linux, etc..

All open Source and no one is poorer for it.

I know more than a few Java coders who make mad bank.

On the contrary, open source allows more people to build wealth, as the foundation for a business (for example...hmm... a web page such as google, reddit, etc?) is free or low in cost.

::emp::

 

[xentech]

lol wut? its terrible for bill gates and other ballers. its fantastic for noobs/sheep

You say it's terrible for bill gates and others ballers, but they are still ballin?

And you use it, so are you a noob/sheep?

:\

 

[guerilla]

On the contrary, open source allows more people to build wealth, as the foundation for a business (for example...hmm... a web page such as google, reddit, etc?) is free or low in cost.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw-MFeR8Frw"]YouTube - Nina Paley's "Copying is not theft" - arrangement by Willbe[/ame]

 

[pileofcrap]

I've bought software that was open source before. all it means is that they don't mind their code being tampered with.

And in most cases with free open source software... it's terrible. It's usually worth it to pay for a script that will have good updates, addons, and features.

CentOS pretty much operates by open source developers, right? That sort of makes you a hypocrite.


Get over it and get the fuck off.

 

[Supergeek]

"Open Source" and "source available with purchase" are two different things. I think this conversation could do with some standardized terms.

MS allows anyone to develop for Windows; there are hundreds of ways to write software for Windows. You can give them away or you can charge for them. That does not hurt Windows; in fact, it makes Windows more successful because so many applications are available for it, and that's why I use it for my desktop. I have thousands of games and applications to choose from.

Imagine if Windows required you to purchased Microsoft's development kit and you couldn't use any of the hundreds of development platforms to make applications that run under Windows. Do you think Windows would be as ubiquitous as it is?

If you want your *platform* to be successful in the future, you open it up and make it easy to develop for. You make less money in the short run, but your platform gets a solid hold in the community. Ballmer didn't chant "Developers, developers, developers" for nothing; third-party developers have made Windows the success that it is. Restricting development is greedy and shortsighted.

 

[emp]

Also to be noted is that the .NET SDK is free and has been used to do another IDE (csharp.net) that you can download for free as well as to port .NET apps over to Linux in the shape of the mono project.

::emp::