Apertus, the Open Source HD Movie Camera 152
osliving writes "This article takes a tour of the hardware and software behind the innovative Apertus, a real world open source project. Led by Oscar Spierenburg and a team of international developers, the project aims to produce 'an affordable community driven free software and open hardware cinematic HD camera for a professional production environment'."
Big names supporting this? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
* Cake not included
Open hardware? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Open hardware? (Score:4, Insightful)
And MPEG-LA would lose in court. You cannot enforce a license like that. Its like Ford saying i cant use my vehicle for commercial purposes or I would have to pay Ford special commercial use tax.
Never underestimate the insanity of modern intellectual property law.
Re:Open hardware? (Score:5, Informative)
I think you are wrong. In "GENERAL TALKING PICTURES CORP. V. WESTERN ELEC. CO., 304 U. S. 175 (1938)" [justia.com]the SCOTUS found that a patent holder CAN authorize a manufacturer to only manufacture for a particular market (home use vs commercial), and that any subsequent purchasers only get the same authorization that the manufacturer had. For example, if MPEG-LA authorized Canon to use MPEG patents in consumer cameras only, and you bought one of those cameras and used it for commercial use, you are infringing the patent.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are wrong. In "GENERAL TALKING PICTURES CORP. V. WESTERN ELEC. CO., 304 U. S. 175 (1938)" [justia.com]the SCOTUS found that a patent holder CAN authorize a manufacturer to only manufacture for a particular market (home use vs commercial), and that any subsequent purchasers only get the same authorization that the manufacturer had. For example, if MPEG-LA authorized Canon to use MPEG patents in consumer cameras only, and you bought one of those cameras and used it for commercial use, you are infringing the patent.
Would you care to say how, I, as a hypothetical consumer using a purchased good for commercial use would be infringing on a patent by use of said good when I was not a party to the original patent license? I'm not a party to the license agreement therefor it does not apply to me as an end purchaser and owner of the final product.
If I were to encode the final video product in MPEG 2 or MPEG 4 and attempt to sell it then I would require a commercial license but not for using a camera.
Re:Open hardware? (Score:4, Informative)
You need authorization to make, sell, offer to sell, or use any patented invention. If a manufacturer has a license to use a patent for a specific thing (say home use), and you have that manufactured thing, then you automatically have authorization to use that thing for it's intended purpose (patent exhaustion). If you buy the thing and use it for a different purpose (say commercial use), which the manufacturer had no license for, then you have no license. It does not matter if you were a party to the agreement (the manufacturer does need to inform you that the product is only licensed for certain use), because in the absence of specific authorization you have no authorization.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that if I take pictures with my digital camera and sell prints I am violating MPEG-LA?
I call bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no. MPEG has nothing to do with 'pictures' or 'prints'. MPEG concerns video. And, yes, if you take videos over 12 minutes long and sell them you need a license from MPEG-LA.
Re: (Score:2)
As explained, no you do not need to agree to anything. The law says you need authorization to use a patented invention. A manufacturer can not sell you something it does not have. The manufacturer does not the right to sell you a commercial license. There is no EULA, but there IS a notification stating you have not purchased a commercial license.
As for 'double dipping': do you know what the fee is that the manufacturer pays for the right to put the tech in the camera? $0.20 (yes, twenty cents, MAX). A
Re: (Score:2)
The device is not 'for personal use only'. The device can be used for anything you want, and no-one has anything to say about it.
However, if you are selling videos, you need a license from MPEG-LA (to sell the videos, not to operate the camera). It is not the camera manufacturers responsibility to tell you that (although most do).
I recently purchased a car, and nowhere in the sales or vehicle documentation does it say I need a license to drive the car on a public road. Does that mean I don't need a licen
Re: (Score:2)
I'll try, but I am seriously beginning to question your ability to comprehend it.
The things that say there are restrictions on the use of the device (H.264 encoder) are:
1) The fact that it is patented, and
2) US Patent Law which says you need permission from the patent owner to use a patented thing
Now, perhaps you could show me where you got that permission from. Don't say the camera manufacturer, because they don't have the authority to give it to you, regardless of what they do or don't tell you.
If I le
Re: (Score:2)
I apologize for the insulting statement. I also agree that the manufacturers SHOULD put such a notice in the box (I honestly thought they did, I know the camera I bought came with such a notice). My only point in arguing this is that it really bothers me when people make statements about legal issues that just are not true, such as saying that you don't have to have a license just because you were not party to an agreement. The current situation may indeed suck, and a court test would be nice, but I would
Re: (Score:2)
You need authorization to make, sell, offer to sell, or use any patented invention. If a manufacturer has a license to use a patent for a specific thing (say home use), and you have that manufactured thing, then you automatically have authorization to use that thing for it's intended purpose (patent exhaustion). If you buy the thing and use it for a different purpose (say commercial use), which the manufacturer had no license for, then you have no license. It does not matter if you were a party to the agreement (the manufacturer does need to inform you that the product is only licensed for certain use), because in the absence of specific authorization you have no authorization.
Sorry but no I do not. I need a license to encode and distribute the video either by download or physical media for profit. I do not need a license to operate the camera and produce my own "copyright" original works. If I am purchasing commercial quality encoder then I would end up paying a "commercial" license for that product. End of story. The company that created the camera already paid the license for the encoder on the device and I most likely will not be taking the raw video and distributing it but w
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I believe you. There's no contract that I am party to when I bought or use my camera that says I can't sell prints or set up a portrait studio.
You are misunderstanding the case, I think. That doesn't mean there's not a lawyer crazy enough to sue me, but the case would be tossed in a heartbeat.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? This article, and every post about it, is discussing VIDEO. Still cameras, prints, and portraits have nothing to do with MPEG or MPEG-LA, because they don't involve video compression.
Now, if you change your argument to 'nothing says I can't use my consumer camera to create and sell commercial videos', then you are wrong. As I explained, you don't need to be a party to a contract that says that, because the LAW says it ('anyone who makes, sells, offers to sell, or uses a patente
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say you own a building. You sign a lease with someone. Part of the terms of the lease is no commercial use of the space allowed. That party does a cash transaction with another party (no lease) to allow him to use the space for a month. Third party sets up a store in the space. Have you, as the property owner, lost your ability to control the use of your space? No. The law is that no-one has use of the space except you, unless you authorize it. You did not authorize use of the space for commerc
Re: (Score:2)
I don't buy it. Are you saying that car rental companies have to pay special license fees to patent holders of technology in their cars to stay in business?
Nobody would ever start a trucking firm, or a taxi business or a car rental agency if that was the case. No, I don't think it would "be upheld" or it would have been tried already. Hertz and Budget have deep pockets. Some patent troll would have tried their luck. Same with the biggest U
Re: (Score:2)
No, I did not say that. I said it COULD happen. In the very next sentence is said it WON'T happen. Then I listed the reason it won't happen: the car companies are not interested in segmenting the market. Both commercial and private uses are vital to their business. They will not agree to a license structure that treats commercial and private use differently, because it would be bad for their business. Furthermore, it doesn't even make much sense for the patent holder to want such a split. If one tra
Re:Open hardware? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, let me get this straight.
You're saying that in an alternate universe where MPEG-LA and the Supreme Court said things that it did not say in this universe, it might be possible that you COULD be violating a patent by using a consumer camera for professional purposes, except not.
OK. Got it.
I guess now I can understand why patents are so completely worthless. Because of people who think like you.
I suppose you believe there should also be two tiers of super-sharp nanotech chef's knives. One for someone who cooks for their family and one for a master chef who owns a chain of restaurants.
If I invent the greatest oil paint ever, should I have two levels of licenses? One for somebody who paints still lifes in their family room and another for famous artists whose paintings sell for hundreds of thousands?
How 'bout this one? Think of all the patents involved with your desktop computer. There should be a divided market for personal computers. One for the kid who play WoW and another for his older brother who uses his computer to build a website which becomes the next Facebook. I mean, according to you, it's the only way to make licensing "fair".
I have no doubt that you're going to go down swinging with this idea, bws111. You'll aver to the end that of course there should be two price levels for golf clubs with patented technology. One for the Republican congressman who plays 160 rounds of golf per year with his 10 handicap and another for Tiger Woods.
But you would be completely insane. However, you have inadvertently made a great case for why our current patent system is completely useless.
So the answer to your question, "How do you structure license fees fairly?" is, "You do NOT structure license fees "fairly". You make your invention, you license it, you make some money and then invent something else. Your patent should not grant you fortunes for your descendants to the tenth generation. Your patent should not be a tax on everything. Your patent should not pass beyond whoever uses your invention to manufacture a product and sells it to someone. YOU GOT PAID BY THE MANUFACTURER FOR GOD'S SAKE, NOW SUCK IT UP AND INVENT SOMETHING ELSE. Don't be a baby and expect that the world owes you riches beyond measure just because you had one fucking idea, even if it happens to be a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that MPEG and MPEG-LA is some special category of patent with reach that regular patents don't have; that MPEG and MPEG-LA are "super-patents" with powers that allow them to reach out across transactions and forces people who buy certain cameras to never use them professionally.
That's just silly.
I've got a video camera that encodes MPEGs. I've looked through th
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really this dense? How does the line you quoted turn into some sort of 'special patent' rant? Let's try to take this real slow...
You said there is no contract that says you can't sell prints or set up a portait studio.
I pointed out that patents that cover MOVING PICTURES have nothing to do with STILL PICTURES (prints and portraits).
Just for the record, there are millions of OTHER patents that have nothing to do with portrait photography.
Now for the parts that seem so hard for you to understand...
Y
Re: (Score:2)
I'm looking through the material that came with my cheap Canon video camera, and I don't see anything that says it's "intended for amateur use only".
Re: (Score:2)
using the mpeg encoder in the cameras in cheap cameras.
I hate to tell you how to mod since I clearly don't know how to type, but "-1 redundant" is intended to express distaste for redundant concepts that are found in prior posts, not grammar-nazi distaste for redundancy in sentences.
Re:Open hardware? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now that there is Ogg, WebM, HTML5 video, the 'Ubuntu' video editor for Gnome and the Kdenlive video editor for KDE4, all HD camera's are still recording to h.264 by default.
This is a huge problem for free software because it not only involves patents when dealing with h.264, but also a license.
Now you might think: *yeah well license... bla bla bla bla bla. Free software doesn't concern me.* But if you knew what kind of a threat this poses not only to free software, but also to you; you'd be very, _VERY_ concerned. (unless you wouldn't mind George Orwell scenarios, but in any case you asked what the problem was...)
You see the license you get with your camera, even expensive proffesional camera's, basically sais; all your base are belong to Mpeg-LA, even when converted to another format. This sucks, but oh well you can alsways buy a different camera because capitalism rules! But in this case it doesn't; try finding HD camera's that do not shoot in h.264 first.
For more info Google is at your service ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Open hardware? (Score:5, Insightful)
> So not open source = George Orwell? Are you really that much of a blind zealot?
When you play with someone else's ball, they get to dictate terms.
You don't have to be a "zealot" to understand this. HELL, the film industry fled the East coast over this very nonsense.
That is why there is a Hollywood to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, sure seems like they've got us by the balls, doesn't it?
Re:Open hardware? (Score:4, Interesting)
MPEG-LA basically claims certain financial rights over your project in exchange for the right to use the h.264 codec. This means that if you shoot a scene in h.264, but switch to something else to release on the web, they still have rights over you. If a contractor shoots in h.264 but sends you the video in a different format, they still claim rights over you. As far as I know, pretty much all HD cameras shoot in h.264.
Some of this is definitely winnable in court, some isn't. But if you're an independent filmmaker, you don't have the money to go against one of the biggest legal groups in filmmaking.
So yes, this particular situation is a bit Orwellian.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is not correct. I am not defending MPEG-LA, but I think it's important that we get the facts straight. Once video has been converted from H.264 to another format, MPEG-LA cannot assert anything over it. This e-mail exchange which I archived on Libre Video [librevideo.org] explains this point using their own, documented words.
Re: (Score:2)
They can indeed enforce it if they can prove the camera it was shot on originally encodced the video in an MPEG-LA codec.
Re: (Score:2)
So not open source = George Orwell? Are you really that much of a blind zealot?
Are you so stupid not to recognize that if the printing presses (e-book formats, video formats, etc.) are entirely controlled by a few big corporations, we can kiss our democracy goodbye?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now that there is Ogg, WebM, HTML5 video, the 'Ubuntu' video editor for Gnome and the Kdenlive video editor for KDE4, all HD camera's are still recording to h.264 by default.
Of course they are.
Just about the only place you will find WebM video is on YouTube. Transcoded from H.264.
HTML5 doesn't specify a video codec.
H.264 is used in such applications as players for Blu-ray Discs, videos from YouTube and the iTunes Store, web software such as the Adobe Flash Player and Microsoft Silverlight, broadcast servi
transcoding? (Score:2)
Is there efficient transcoding from h.264 to WebM? The two codecs are so similar that it may be possible to transcode without decompression and the associated quality loss.
If there is efficient transcoding, that would greatly reduce the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that you need a license to do the format conversion, and you only have a noncommercial license for that, too (or no license at all if you're using OSS tools). So even if the end product isn't covered by patents, they can still sue you. Naturally, when they sue you for doing the patented format conversion, the amount they will demand as a settlement will just happen to be at least equal to the amount they would charge if you were distributing a patented end product.
Re: (Score:2)
Nikon DSLR's don't. They're deliberately using older tech. (read that as patent expired) Which is why Nikons can be used professionally, where Cannons cannot.
True, if you want to take a photograph, a cannon isn't very useful.
Having said that, many many professional photopgraphers use Canon equipment, so please stop talking out of your ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is open hardware really that big a problem? It's not like opening a Fab is cheap.
The optical and mechanical requirements of a production-grade camera are demanding. Three - large - HD sensors are the norm. I don't see the savings here.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like opening a Fab is cheap.
This is one, but not the only, reason why I oppose patents on hardware.
Falcon
Good luck with that... (Score:4, Interesting)
Didn't I read someplace that MPAA, in collusion with camera equipment manufacturers and the camera operators' unions, is looking to place patents on these devices so as to preclude competition?
CODECs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Last time I checked, .mov was a container, not a CODEC.
A .mov file can use a lot of things. Quicktime 7 gives me PNG, JPEG, JPEG 2000, DV, DVCPro, Apple Pixlet, MPEG-4 and H.264 as video CODEC options. Older Quicktime versions would have offered me older CODECs too.
And what's JP4? Never heard of it. I sure hope they don't mean their camera runs on jet fuel [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In terms of video codecs the camera supports .mov, JP4 RAW (requires post production conversion), .ogm, and JPEG sequence plus optional tags like geo information/GPS coordinates.
Last time I checked, .mov was a container, not a CODEC.
.ogm is a container too. It's made by the same company that made vorbis (audio) and theora (video).
Is your quote from the article? If so, they just don't know anything about AV.
Open source camera? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You think they'll actually get one to market? Overly optimistic of you!
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, without a profit motive, this tends to be the case.
Re: (Score:2)
meanwhile apple will sell millions of iPhone 5's where you personally have to ask Steve Jobs permission any time you use it
Re: (Score:2)
...hampered by an interface that only a CS grad student could decipher.
Score:5, Truth [xkcd.com]
Cinema on a Sensor that Small? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
bieber is absolutely right. What makes the Canon 5D Mark II amazing is the large sensor (even larger than 35mm motion picture film), enabling good control of depth of field. No matter what you do, with that sensor it's going to look like phone-cam video.
Canon EOS 5D Mark II (Score:2)
bieber is absolutely right. What makes the Canon 5D Mark II amazing is the large sensor (even larger than 35mm motion picture film), enabling good control of depth of field.
The Mark II only captures 29 seconds of video though. Because of the sensor size, 35mm full-frame, I've thought about getting one. That or a Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III, but that's more than twice the price of the 5D Mark II.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
29 seconds? It's more along the lines of 12 minutes, iirc.
That's what I thought I read in early reviews, but a review on photo.net [photo.net] says it can record 12 minutes in HD or 29 minutes, 59 seconds in SD. Being able to record 12 minutes, you should be able to break up scenes into small enough segments to record all of it, so maybe with the right accessories maybe it can be a decent movie camera.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
yea, and it's using C-mount lenses, this thing is obviously not designed to compete with full sized sensors and cameras...
Re: (Score:2)
Really, the only true advantage of a larger sensor is having potentially larger pixels. This allows
Re: (Score:2)
Really, the only true advantage of a larger sensor is having potentially larger pixels.
It may not matter to you but resolution does matter to some people. Better signal-to-noise ratios is also important to some.
Falcon
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
the only true advantage of a larger sensor is having potentially larger pixels
Not at all.
The large sensor gives you long focal lengths, which give you small depth of field, which is extremely important for cinema.
While this camera may be a very interesting project, and may end up being useful for certain things, it doesn't look like it's real use will be anywhere in the realm of professional film making.
The small sensor is an essential drawback. The C-mount for lenses is absurd (that was used on "high-end" Super 8 cameras, and amateur 16 mm. cameras several generations ago. Good luck
Re: (Score:2)
The large sensor gives you long focal lengths, which give you small depth of field, which is extremely important for cinema.
I never understood this - if you want small depth of field, why not just open up the aperture?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In doing some reading [toothwalker.org], I also recognize now that "background blur" is enhanced by more magnification of the background, which comes from the ability to use longer lenses.
This results in the background looking more blurred despite having the same "depth of field".
Re: (Score:2)
Ouch, the sensor size is a limitation, you can get a new Canon camcorder with a sensor about that size for about $700 from a reputable shop. Sure, it won't have all the same features but that puts the whole thing into a bit of a perspective. The kit in question is above the base price of a 5D Mk. II, the saving grace of the Apertus is maybe access to less expensive lenses. I see some features that make it more useful in a production environment, but the sensor size is a major limitation.
While the interfa
Lens Not Included? (Score:2)
I don't get it. The crux of image acquisition is the lens and they don't include one?
I don't see how that contraption could possibly penetrate the production side of entertainment industry. What is the market for this device?
Re:Lens Not Included? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Prosumer (I hate the word too) level cameras tend to be offered with or without a lens. Often there's two packages, a camera body+battery+remote, and a full kit with all that plus a lens, a bag, and a crappy cleaning kit. So it is slightly odd for something at this level (in small sensor land) to not be offered with a lens, but it's not really that big a deal.
Re: (Score:2)
While you can buy some SLR (and possibly cinema, I'm not really familiar with that world) cameras in a package deal with a lens, experienced users generally won't, unless the package just happens to include a lens that they want to have at a discount for buying it with the camera.
That made it sound like they were bad. The primary reason is that they're all generally bundled with an all-round lens and if you already have an SLR - which is pretty much a requirement for being called an advanced user - you already have it from your last camera. Unless they are changing lens system, which for a professional photographer is a huge decision not taken lightly. The best lenses are never bundled as far as I know, it's more of a "starter kit" for people that don't have any lenses already.
Re: (Score:2)
because even amateur photographers have a few lenses
which one you use depends on your location, lighting, etc
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever lens you get with the camera isn't going to be a very good one. Good lenses can easily cost more than the camera itself, so of course that's not what they're going to bundle with it.
I don't see much of an advantage... (Score:4, Informative)
This thing is trying to compete with the RED camera system and the 5D Mk. II. As others have said, the sensor is already behind. Everyone doing 2K on the cheap is using the 5D Mk. II as a video camera - it has a bigger, better sensor than anything anywhere in that price bracket, plus Canon's awesome lenses. The next step up is the RED system for 4K, which is just on fire right now because of its revolutionary modularity. This thing is pretty small potatoes compared to either of those two. It might be good for student filmmakers though. A school could buy a batch of them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'd also like to add the T2i or the 7D. It's "Good Enough" for 1080p, continues to use great EOS lenses, does it cheaper than the 5D mk II and is $1k or less. As TFA points out, the cost of the system their pitching has a camera that STARTS at $2k and "More advanced sensor frontends could drastically increase this price". To me, Drastically increasing $2k puts you closer to a RED camera, and not quite so drastic, the 5D mk II, so the $2k camera is close to the same as the T2i or 7D and they cost quite a bit
Re:I don't see much of an advantage... (Score:4, Interesting)
Being limited to the C or CS lenses seems like a pretty big thing when the 5D has a large range of interchangeable lenses, and apparently the Red One can use Nikon and Canon lenses with adapters and even have full electronic control of them. The people developing the Magic Lantern firmware [wikia.com] seem to be a fan of the 5D's larger sensor compared to the Red One, etc to the point where they are reverse engineering the camera to add some cinematic improvements to its firmware. That's pretty hard core.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can get an adapter, but a 1/2.5" sensor has a crop factor of 6, so a 28mm lense becomes a (probably quite soft) 168mm lens and a 50mm lens because 300mm.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now full frame seems like the way to go because it's easy to find cheap but good new and used lens. However, not too many cameras
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
the Red One can use Nikon and Canon lenses
You can do that, but in practice you almost never do it, except for some very special single shots. These are photo lenses which are not well suited for cinematography. The RED has a standard PL mount that takes any of the standard film camera lenses (Zeiss, Cooke, ...) from your local renting company.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe a better solution would be to find an existing camera that's A.Cheap B.Good enough for amateur cinema work (the target audience here) and C.Hackable.
Then you go and produce a custom firmware that only records into non-patented formats.
MPEG-LA comes knocking on your door, you can show them that the footage was NEVER encoded in MPEG.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe a better solution would be to find an existing camera that's A.Cheap B.Good enough for amateur cinema work (the target audience here) and C.Hackable.
And that camera would be...? The whole point of the effort in this article and the Magic Lantern is that no such thing exists, particularly at HD quality. This effort is trying to put the hardware together from scratch and Magic Lantern is trying to hack existing hardware that has the features they want. However you should read up on the things they have to do to decode the Canon firmware just to have the chance to try to improve it. And that's for one of the cameras it's possible for.
Is it just me? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
several "open camera" software projects (Score:2)
too big, not intuitive enough (Score:2)
So...it has the size of a medium format or even large-format camera...but the resolution of a DSLR that is 5 years out of date. Doesn't seem too impressive to me.
Now these points of data make a beautiful line (Score:2)
I can't be the only one reading the name Apertus and humming that tune, right?
Only a 1/2.5 sensor, definitely not cinematic (Score:2)
That's the same kind of sensor you get in a small compact camera like an IXUS, you'll never get anywhere near cinematic quality with that because of noise, lack of dynamic range and most of all the small sensor gives a large depth of field, so no fancy depth of field effects. For comparison a 1/2.5" sensor is about the same size as Super8 film.
For cinematic image quality (at least in terms of shallow depth of field) you need at least a 4/3rds size sensor (which is a bit larger than 16mm film), even better w
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
In OSS, if everyone can't agree on something, it either stalls or splits projects into forks which isn't always a good thing. Stalling means you can't rely on whatever the group is/was working on, and forks means the workforce of the old and the new forked project has been split too, sometimes leading to the death of the original, the fork or both.
In a company, someone or at least a group usually has the last say in how something should be done so that things can move forward. Like Oracle buying everything
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much every closed source software is in it to do business. That doesn't mean they always play nice when maximizing profit like lock-in and forced obsolescence, but most of the time they're looking to satisfy the customers because it leads to more sales and being able to take higher prices. The project shapes to meet the demands of the users. Open source on the other hand, for the most part goes in whatever damn direction they feel like, and being a user gets you essentially very little say-so. You wa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I never understood all the hate towards open source by trolls here on Slashdot. Like anything, the way the open source community operates has flaws just like any other community....but what about it butthurts people so badly that they have to troll about it?
The fact that they don't have to participate in it if they don't want to has never stopped the less-enlightened from railing against something and hoping it fails and ceases to exist. It's not good enough for them that they don't have to participate; they cannot rest until no one else may participate either. This is by no means limited to Open Source, software, or computing. It was in fact a huge driving force behind movements like Prohibition.
Re: (Score:2)
Aw. come on, RMS isn't _that_ bad, is he?
Re: (Score:2)
The hardline is entirely the point of it for a lot of people. And to me, it makes sense. The defining characteristic of being a vegetarian is not eating meat. The defining characteristic of open source is not being closed. You don't compromise on your most central reason for being, you work to advance it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do, because you believe the tradeoff is worth it. Things done for the sake of principles are rarely easy.
Fortunately in this area it's possible and quite easy to make a contribution and help fix the problems.
Re: (Score:2)
The hardline is entirely the point of it for a lot of people.
And those are the ones getting mocked.
You don't compromise on your most central reason for being, you work to advance it.
When your main figurehead/Most Illustrious Prophet tells the world that people who don't like his particular brand of Kool-aid are sociopaths because they get paid to write closed-source software, you've moved beyond "working to advance" anything and are firmly entrenched in the "raving fucking nutter" zone.
Re: (Score:2)
Please feel free to, I don't mind.
Free Software isn't a religion, and RMS isn't its prophet. I'm a member of the FSF and never spoke to the guy and haven't looked at
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Free Software isn't a religion, and RMS isn't its prophet.
Not all members/supporters of the FSF are as level-headed, unfortunately. Take a look at any of the flamewars on ./ (or wait 20 minutes and another one will come up.)
As for the RMS interview I spoke of, ca 2005 I think... http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484 [kerneltrap.org] (Not trying to convince you of anything one way or another, but just so you know I'm not making this shit up).
JA: What about the programmers...
Richard Stallman: What about them? The programmers writing non-free software? They are doing something antisocial. They should get some other job.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I've seen him speak, and based on that can tell you two things:
1. He's very strange. As in socially awkward, and this is obvious within less than 5 minutes from when he shows up.
2. He's very true to what he believes in, and as far as I can tell what he professes is very internally consistent.
This for example has a quite consi
Re: (Score:2)
Or it could be that you implied everybody who isn't a fan of open source is less-enlightened and your general bullshit attitude like mac fans. Bitches love to bitch, haters love to hate, and bitches and haters aren't just open or closed source.
I actually don't think you're trolling so I'll answer this.
There are reasonable people who can decide that something doesn't suit them. They don't also feel a need to make negative posts all about how something is terrible for everyone else merely because it does not meet their personal needs.
As a contrast, there are the less-enlightened. It's not good enough for them that they don't have to use whatever it is that doesn't suit their needs (be that Open Source or anything else). No, they also have