1. By and large, we didn’t learn to not put –gate on the end of things to signify a scandal.
You know, if it had been called the Watercock hotel instead of the Watergate hotel, the entire landscape of media for the last several decades would have been far different, or at least much funnier.
2. Most of us didn’t learn to get Linden Lab’s name right.
You’d think people would start getting that right eventually, wouldn’t you?
3. We didn’t learn to rethink our our basis for trust and for exercising caution and software hygiene when faced with the allure of shiny features.
Security professionals are doubtless still tearing their collective hair out over that, as they have for years.
So, give me all your money, while we’re on the subject, and maybe there could be a shiny feature in it for you… possibly. Thanks heaps!
If it wasn’t open source, it would probably take longer for things like those to be spotted
Maggie, I knew something was shouting at the back of my mind when I half noticed the 2600 pop up. Wow that brought back some history
Thanks for jolting the old memories. Must be getting old lol
again… either 0 or 1 capitalist like gordon gecko, or communist like Stalin… evil or good. yawn.
*sends L$1* to Tats. Feeeeeaaaaaatures! Feeeeeeeeeatures!!
“blender is a glorified freeware app attempt” that an idiotic statement
too bad about emerald, i never got to see my boobs bounce (only thing i know about emerald) =)
no its true ener… why not communicate with its creator, ask him what his goal was a decade a go.
blender has almost no usage penetration in any commercial way after over a decade of its existance.
it wasnt created to be a “commecial” solution, never funded to be. or marketed to be. so surprise. it isnt.
it still exists as an extention of a few egos…. much like many 3d engines and apps over the last 20 years.
blender and scuplties in Sl are pretty much dead end systems and were by design.
It wasn’t created to be a commercial solution?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton_Roosendaal
In 1998, Roosendaal founded a new company called Not a Number (NaN), to further market and develop Blender. NaN’s business model involved providing commercial products and services around Blender. In 2000 the company secured growth financing by several investment companies. Target was to create a free creation tool for interactive 3D (on-line) content, and commercial versions of the software for distribution and publishing.”
His initial business plan failed, true. He then turned around and opened up the code under the GPL, and created the Blender Foundation, and it took off. He might not have made the big bucks he set out to gain, but I don’t think he’s giving back his honorary doctorate from Leeds Metropolitan University over it. http://www.blender.org/blenderorg/blender-foundation/press/honorary-doctorate/
One might as well call GIMP a failure because it “has no market share”. Corps feel better buying stuff. And some software is worth buying, especially if you use it intensively; IntelliJ IDEA is vastly superior to Eclipse.
There *is* a use case for free software. In my day job we use a mix, freeware where it meets the purpose, purchased when the individual product makes it worthwhile.
Linden Labs should provide a high-quality viewer to support its revenue stream. To the extent that they have failed to do that, open-source efforts have tried to fill in based on the Linden code codebase. But there’s all kinds of software politics issues around that, as we have seen by the constant drama.
Software is pervasively different from material goods. But Prok never understood that, no point in feeding the troll.