Yet no one calls their homemade food a product and offer to others for free calling it that. The semantic prominence of a commercial product would prevail as the first thing that comes to mind for anyone because that's also one of the meanings of the word product.
It's simply confusing to call something that can and is commonly monetized as a (commercial) product - that is, software - and not expect others to believe its something paid.
e.g. "Apache is a product for serving web pages" would surely be read by majority of people not familiar with Apache as if it's paid.
> That type of pedantry is why people make fun of the free software movement.
No. They make fun because people use terms like open-source to mean more than just a source that is open.
Or free and open-source whereas free, like product can also have more than one meaning. And they expect people unfamiliar to understand it means free as in liberty not as in price.
These are confusing, just like using the word product for unpaid software done that is done in spare time and has no commercial support whatsover.
If I could decide, the movement would have been called something like "source code free to see and to modify (and redistribute, if applicable)". Lengthy, yes, but also pretty clear.
As I said, it's not the pedantry that gets the free software movement to be made fun of, its the overloading of terms and then having to overly explain them.
Creative Commons is very clear in its license and it - rightfully - doesn't get as much complaint as open-source evangelists about its lingo.
Having to say "but technically a product is anything that is produced" to go against a expected reading and then complain about pedantry in the same comment is way more humorous as it's a prime example of what they're talking about.
Just like no one calls food at a restaurant a product, despite it being paid. But it is a product. You’re nitpicking the example to explain a concept instead of the argument.
> No. They make fun because people use terms like open-source to mean more than just a source that is open.
That is nonsensical. It’s like saying people make fun of Lord of the Rings fans because of how they pronounce Balrog. You need to be inside the community to understand the nuance of it in the first place.
While you believe people make fun of the movement for something so subtle, you won’t be able to change their mind.
> Lengthy, yes, but also pretty clear.
Also pretty dead in the water. No one would have called it that, ever. With such a name you’d either have doomed the movement before it started or everyone would have called it something else instead.
Email attachments are defined through MIME and don't depend at all on HTML being available as a Content-Type. We could well have had another format and attachments together.
To me a great translation should have Translator Notes (TN) and not be afraid of using neologisms. It seems TNs used to be more common but are increasingly rare.
All according to *keikaku*
(TN: keikaku means plan)
This meme comes from the overuse of TNs in anime fansubs to explain obvious things, things that did not need explaining, or where there would be a perfectly straightforward English word that would do the job.
Neologisms: do you mean neologism in the source language or the target language? This usually happens in the other direction, where the English words for things get copied straight over to other languages to refer to new items. There must be examples in the other direction but I can't immediately think of one.
I dislike translation notes. Translations are already a form of notes, so appending notes to notes is just bad form.
Some translations can be so awkward or simply impossible that leaving a translation note becomes inevitable, but a good translator should not have to need them everywhere.
I would be interested to know what you think about translating word plays.
One example. In LOTR there is a hobbit named Meriadoc, but his friends call him Merry, which is a shorthand for his name but also carries meaning. In one translation into my language, the translator opted to translate Merry into "Srečko", which is close in meaning. The connection to the original name is lost and the translator put that in the translation notes to explain that there is a connection. The rest of the book(s) then always use the semantic meaning. I found that solution to be great for the given problem.
Later translations didn't opt for that, instead keeping the shorthand, which would be just "Meri", which is a nice shorthand but completely drops the semantic meaning.
Word plays are by far among the most notoriously difficult pieces to translate, assuming it's even possible. Those kinds of situations are what I meant when I said some translation notes are simply inevitable.
Worse still is there might not be a "correct" way. Like in your example, one preserves the context while the other preserves the name. I'm sure we can agree both of them are critically important, but we (probably) can't have both of them.
Interestingly, in Brazil's transit code a person carrying their bycicle unmounted is considered a pedestrian. Otherwise, they're a non motorized light vehicle.
> If you publish something, you should be prepared for others to reproduce it and take it without credit.
> the net cost of copying data is effectively nothing.
Since the cost of including the author and the link to original work is so cheap I dont see why not have the courtesy of adding that info. They're are already doing the work for free, recognition is the least you could pay in respect for it.
Granted, sometimes things are a complex tree of authorship transformations and it's an interesting question of how far back you d go for that but sometimes its pretty cut and dry too.
> It wasnt windows's fault its just that its update utility had to overwrite a part of MBR
It was a reasonable assumption that whatever drive Windows' was installed on already had a working bootloader installed, otherwise it wouldn't have been able to boot itself to do Windows Update. Windows did NOT have to override it.
This was not MBR fault. AFAIK Linux did NOT do the same thing as overriding, which is why it has separate `grub2-install` and `update-grub` commands. Once installed to a drive, `update-grub` will only change the simple config file it reads at boot. Perhaps both of them did override themselves when a bugfix or new feature was available, but I don't think Windows's bootloader changed much after any OS release.
Now, GPT/UEFI is a million times better in that aspect because it can allow easily multiple different bootloaders that don't have to know of each other's existence. But I blame Windows in MBR case very much.
Also, some though not all motherboards allow you booting from BOTH old-school MBR and newer GPT so you may not need to disable CSM and still eat your GPT cake. This may be useful if you e.g. have an old MBR drive with Linux and another GPT one with Windows.
One that have the same binary name as yours for compability reasons, but then proceeds to be not so compatible with slight command line options. Thus, made a whole lot of confusion because people didn't expect that depending on what distro they were using they could be using similar but incompatible software with the same executable filename.
I believge the name you're looking for is Jungle Gym (non-UK) or Climbing Frame (UK). In portuguese we call them trepa-trepa ("climb-climb") which I think is quite fitting.
It's simply confusing to call something that can and is commonly monetized as a (commercial) product - that is, software - and not expect others to believe its something paid.
e.g. "Apache is a product for serving web pages" would surely be read by majority of people not familiar with Apache as if it's paid.
> That type of pedantry is why people make fun of the free software movement.
No. They make fun because people use terms like open-source to mean more than just a source that is open.
Or free and open-source whereas free, like product can also have more than one meaning. And they expect people unfamiliar to understand it means free as in liberty not as in price.
These are confusing, just like using the word product for unpaid software done that is done in spare time and has no commercial support whatsover.
If I could decide, the movement would have been called something like "source code free to see and to modify (and redistribute, if applicable)". Lengthy, yes, but also pretty clear.