| |||||||||||||
LCA: Addressing the failure of open sourceLCA: Addressing the failure of open sourcePosted Jan 18, 2012 15:22 UTC (Wed) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)In reply to: LCA: Addressing the failure of open source by Seegras Parent article: LCA: Addressing the failure of open source
I addressed your first paragraph in my comment, if you bothered to read it. As for the second, yes, I know what open access is in research publishing, thank you.
(Log in to post comments)
LCA: Addressing the failure of open source Posted Jan 19, 2012 0:53 UTC (Thu) by wdaniels (guest, #80192) [Link]
I assume this is what you think addressed it: "Saying no to locked-down hardware, under names like DRM, "trusted computing" and the like, is not unrealistic."?
My problem is that it becomes very difficult to "say no" if you have no viable alternative, and without open _source_ there never would have been.
I agree that the FOSS fundamentalists reach a point with mere applications that they end up uselessly fixated on the wrong problem, but I don't think it has been the wrong problem either from the start or across the board.
LCA: Addressing the failure of open source Posted Jan 27, 2012 16:25 UTC (Fri) by whitemice (guest, #3748) [Link]
>My problem is that it becomes very difficult to "say no" if you have no
>viable alternative, and without open _source_ there never would have been.
+1
Nail, Hammer, Hit it.
|
|||||||||||||