While I would have rather seen a pre-announcement of when Rhapsody would be available to Linux users, I thought that overall he did a fair job of explaining his position. I think in a lot of ways he and his company resemble Linspire and it's CEO.
The one fault they also seem to share is that they get geek speak, but I'm not sure they truly understand. IOW, they understand the promise of the really open market, but don't live and breathe it in their business. So they're better than many of the alternatives (like our dear MS Borg), but still aren't taking advantage of the full market they could get if they made that extra step and truly opened up...
FWIW, I've spent money with both companies in the past, and will do so again if Rhapsody ever does offer a Linux version.
Obligatory plug - please check out my online novel [blogspot.com]
Linux needs a Music service to be a viable desktop, its something that is getting very popular and could be the deciding facor for alot of users holding on to dual booting.
However, if raphsody goes to linux, it won't be open source, it cant be. Source hackers will try to get music for free and then all hell would break loose if a bug/exploit is found that will do that.
And -ot- on Linspire, I don't agree that they are better than MS. MS charges for a propriatery product that can't be gotten legally elsewh
Bullshit! This is EXPLICITLY allowed and encouraged by the GPL! There is NOTHING wrong with selling free software. If the users have the knowledge to get it elsewhere, more power to them -- they can redirect thier apt-sources. Linspire also spends money on things like servers and development.
I'm not a fan of thier product -- doesn't do exactly what I need. However, thier business strategy is totally legit. What do you say about other distributors that charge? Red Hat charges for Up2Date (or whatever it's c
I agree that Linux needs a Music service, and I agree that I would prefer one that is founded on and focused on Linux. Considering the likelihood of that at this point, I consider getting a service like Rhapsody to support Linux "the next best thing".
As for Linspire, the service they charge for is based on apt-get, but serves packages that they have done the dependency resolving on so you don't have the problem in apt-get where one tree of dependency crashes into another tree. Whether someone thinks that a
"By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began
to suspect "Hungry."
-- a Larson cartoon
Not bad... (Score:3, Interesting)
The one fault they also seem to share is that they get geek speak, but I'm not sure they truly understand. IOW, they understand the promise of the really open market, but don't live and breathe it in their business. So they're better than many of the alternatives (like our dear MS Borg), but still aren't taking advantage of the full market they could get if they made that extra step and truly opened up...
FWIW, I've spent money with both companies in the past, and will do so again if Rhapsody ever does offer a Linux version.
Obligatory plug - please check out my online novel [blogspot.com]
Real for Linux (Score:1)
However, if raphsody goes to linux, it won't be open source, it cant be. Source hackers will try to get music for free and then all hell would break loose if a bug/exploit is found that will do that.
And -ot- on Linspire, I don't agree that they are better than MS. MS charges for a propriatery product that can't be gotten legally elsewh
Re:Real for Linux (Score:2)
I'm not a fan of thier product -- doesn't do exactly what I need. However, thier business strategy is totally legit. What do you say about other distributors that charge? Red Hat charges for Up2Date (or whatever it's c
Re:Real for Linux (Score:2)
As for Linspire, the service they charge for is based on apt-get, but serves packages that they have done the dependency resolving on so you don't have the problem in apt-get where one tree of dependency crashes into another tree. Whether someone thinks that a