i think i haven't quite got the VA-or-actual-person thing yet but i'm getting there
2007-09-26 26927, 2007
deadchip
actually warp just explained it in a way which made me get it
2007-09-26 26933, 2007
deadchip
well and you
2007-09-26 26909, 2007
CatCat
ok,
2007-09-26 26910, 2007
warp
deadchip: i would have voted no on the edit which moved that release from timecode to VA
2007-09-26 26914, 2007
CatCat
im goign to turn in
2007-09-26 26918, 2007
CatCat
itas uh ,been a big day
2007-09-26 26932, 2007
CatCat
not everyday you go to your parents fuenral :s
2007-09-26 26932, 2007
deadchip
warp: well there are a few things to consider
2007-09-26 26941, 2007
deadchip
warp: yes it says mixed by timecode on the cover but..
2007-09-26 26949, 2007
deadchip
warp: a) It's a promo release from Moving Shadow
2007-09-26 26950, 2007
warp
CatCat: goodnight mo :/
2007-09-26 26956, 2007
CatCat
natta warp <3
2007-09-26 26920, 2007
deadchip
warp: b) Timecode is an alias for Rob Playford and Rob Playford is one of the guys who run Moving Shadow (that in itself doesn't make a difference, but considering it's a promo release for that label it's slightly different)
2007-09-26 26926, 2007
deadchip
warp: c) the tracks aren't really mixed either
2007-09-26 26930, 2007
deadchip
nite canidae
2007-09-26 26931, 2007
deadchip
CatCat*
2007-09-26 26943, 2007
warp
the not mixed together is not something which has any bearing on it IMO.
2007-09-26 26954, 2007
canidae growls
2007-09-26 26959, 2007
deadchip
:P
2007-09-26 26903, 2007
warp
you can still be credited for a release even if you 'just' compile it
2007-09-26 26915, 2007
deadchip
hmm ok
2007-09-26 26946, 2007
warp
i agree though that the cover in this case does not _clearly_ make it a 'Timecode' release.
2007-09-26 26929, 2007
deadchip
well one thing i don't agree in a general sense is to attribute everything fully and only to the cover
2007-09-26 26933, 2007
warp
i still think it is more useful to have it under Timecode, but i can see the POV of those wanting it as a VA.
2007-09-26 26939, 2007
deadchip
i guess you would agree that the cover can't be the last and definitive source of judgement?
2007-09-26 26957, 2007
deadchip
at least not if there is more genuine information to consider
2007-09-26 26912, 2007
warp
no, usually the spine is more useful, as graphic artists tend to make a mess of the cover ;)
2007-09-26 26923, 2007
deadchip
eh :p
2007-09-26 26902, 2007
ruaok will return shortly
2007-09-26 26904, 2007
ruaok has quit
2007-09-26 26911, 2007
warp
in general, i like the basic fields (release title/artist, track titles/artists) to match the cover, the accurate information about which persons are really behind a release can go in the ARs.
2007-09-26 26929, 2007
trolloma2 joined the channel
2007-09-26 26911, 2007
deadchip
yeah i see it the same way but if you have information which while contradicting the cover can clearly be proven to be more useful when attributing to a specific artist, it should get priority?
2007-09-26 26915, 2007
warp
can you give an example of when any information would be 'clearly be proven to be more useful...' ?
2007-09-26 26936, 2007
warp afk-ish, cooking.
2007-09-26 26904, 2007
deadchip
well with the moving shadow disc
2007-09-26 26933, 2007
deadchip
it says mixed by timecode, and even if it said timecode in bigger letters, it's a promo release and the entity to have released it, the person/entity "whose" release it is, is still Moving Shadow
2007-09-26 26916, 2007
trollomat has quit
2007-09-26 26949, 2007
warp
isn't moving shadow the label?
2007-09-26 26951, 2007
warp
it's already credited to moving shadow in the appropriate way.
2007-09-26 26937, 2007
warp
(a bit like the dj kicks albums, the series as a concept are clearly releases by !K7, !K7 is the label and credited as such).
2007-09-26 26935, 2007
deadchip
yeah i know those
2007-09-26 26940, 2007
deadchip
yeah it's the label
2007-09-26 26949, 2007
deadchip
but it's not an actual album
2007-09-26 26903, 2007
deadchip
well i don't know there is just a difference to a real compilation or regular album
2007-09-26 26910, 2007
deadchip
it's a show-off of their upcoming catalogue
2007-09-26 26918, 2007
warp
i understand that.
2007-09-26 26924, 2007
deadchip
releasetype="Promo" :)
2007-09-26 26958, 2007
trolloma1 has quit
2007-09-26 26959, 2007
Kerensky97
Grrrr. I'm surrounded by idiots. There are two guys here arguing over whether "open source" will continue to exist or die out.
2007-09-26 26906, 2007
Kerensky97
Apparently Linux sucks and all of it's programs are buggy because they are created by people in their spare time and not from a "profitable business".
2007-09-26 26925, 2007
Kerensky97
That's why it doesn't have a decent market share against OSX and windows.
2007-09-26 26942, 2007
juhae
If they're stuck in a mindset where everything is either "totally awesome" or "utter shite", it's not a conversation worth participating.
2007-09-26 26904, 2007
Freso
Of course Open Source will cease to exist. People will suddenly stop developing and using the applications they might have as a huge part of their identity. That's a no-brainer. Duh.
2007-09-26 26934, 2007
pankkake
actually, Linux and other open-source software have a bigger market share, outside the desktop
2007-09-26 26904, 2007
pankkake
used and supported by profitable businesses
2007-09-26 26923, 2007
pankkake
and they are not using open source software because it's cheaper, but because it's more reliable
2007-09-26 26912, 2007
ruaok joined the channel
2007-09-26 26945, 2007
trollomat joined the channel
2007-09-26 26918, 2007
trolloma2 has quit
2007-09-26 26911, 2007
Freso
pankkake: Yes. But it's only a matter of time before proper OS' will replace Linux, since they have monetary backup, and, as I just demonstrated, people will suddenly stop developing and using Open Source applications, including Linux.
Freso: hmm... yes, people will eventually stop developing open source software, but i can assure you that in norway at least there are numerous teenagers getting into open source
2007-09-26 26918, 2007
canidae
so while some stop, new come
2007-09-26 26951, 2007
Infinito_ has quit
2007-09-26 26900, 2007
Aankhen``
<Freso> pankkake: Yes. But it's only a matter of time before proper OS' will replace Linux, since they have monetary backup, and, as I just demonstrated, people will suddenly stop developing and using Open Source applications, including Linux. # wait, you were serious?
2007-09-26 26936, 2007
canidae shrugs
2007-09-26 26917, 2007
warp
lol
2007-09-26 26926, 2007
Shepard doesn't think so
2007-09-26 26932, 2007
trollomat joined the channel
2007-09-26 26955, 2007
ruaok
I don't see why large corporations who run large numbers of server would ever be willing to pay hundreds of $$$ for software for each server.
2007-09-26 26902, 2007
ruaok
again, that is.
2007-09-26 26904, 2007
ruaok
they used to.
2007-09-26 26915, 2007
ruaok
but that time has gone, fortunately.
2007-09-26 26922, 2007
ojnkpjg
lots are still locked-in
2007-09-26 26910, 2007
Shepard
IIS still has a big market share
2007-09-26 26956, 2007
ruaok has seen large data centers in the sillicon valley with no m$ servers in sight.
2007-09-26 26950, 2007
ojnkpjg
what's sort of funny about this $60 MS office business is that you're basically paying them $60 to get locked into software that you'll be forced to pay to upgrade after some indeterminate length of time
2007-09-26 26906, 2007
Aankhen``
How will you be forced to pay to upgrade?
2007-09-26 26910, 2007
ruaok
when you're not in school anymore.
2007-09-26 26925, 2007
ojnkpjg
or they stop supporting it when their new greatest thing comes around
2007-09-26 26936, 2007
Freso
Aankhen``: Right I was.
2007-09-26 26941, 2007
ojnkpjg
or the new greatest thing won't be backwards compatible
2007-09-26 26942, 2007
Aankhen``
I don't get it; what exactly is forcing you to upgrade?
2007-09-26 26947, 2007
Freso
Aankhen``: I am the embodiment of seriousness.
2007-09-26 26950, 2007
Aankhen``
Freso: Heh.
2007-09-26 26953, 2007
Shepard
Aankhen``: through security holes
2007-09-26 26907, 2007
ojnkpjg
either the terms of the license or the inability to use it with whatever new file formats they invent
2007-09-26 26909, 2007
Aankhen``
Shepard: Isn't that what patches are for?
2007-09-26 26909, 2007
Freso is a FOSS developer too, for the record
2007-09-26 26918, 2007
ojnkpjg
what incentive does anyone have to upgrade office 2000
2007-09-26 26925, 2007
ojnkpjg
what have they really done that's made it more useful
2007-09-26 26933, 2007
Aankhen``
No incentive, and no one's forcing anyone to…
2007-09-26 26948, 2007
ojnkpjg
well, they'll stop issuing updates eventually
2007-09-26 26957, 2007
ojnkpjg
and it probably won't (or can't already) cope with new file formats
2007-09-26 26904, 2007
ojnkpjg
then you're stuck
2007-09-26 26910, 2007
Aankhen``
You can't expect them to support products until the end of time.
2007-09-26 26958, 2007
ojnkpjg
so what do you do when the software reaches EOL?
2007-09-26 26924, 2007
Aankhen``
Upgrade, I suppose, if its state at that time is not satisfactory.
2007-09-26 26939, 2007
ojnkpjg
yeah, because they've got you locked-in
2007-09-26 26957, 2007
ojnkpjg
you don't have much of a choice
2007-09-26 26909, 2007
Aankhen``
What choice do you have with an open source package, for comparison?
2007-09-26 26925, 2007
warp
ojnkpjg: our current outlook at work is actually missing a feature which outlook 2007 does have. I don't remember what exactly, but something about sharing bits of mail/calender with a co-worker.
2007-09-26 26935, 2007
ojnkpjg
a near guarantee that backwards compat. won't be broken
2007-09-26 26941, 2007
Aankhen``
ojnkpjg: Who says?
2007-09-26 26942, 2007
ojnkpjg
and if it is, that either you can fix it yourself
2007-09-26 26945, 2007
ojnkpjg
or someone else will
2007-09-26 26903, 2007
Aankhen``
I have way more problems with backwards compatibility when it comes to OSS.
2007-09-26 26925, 2007
ojnkpjg
technical problems, maybe
2007-09-26 26934, 2007
Aankhen``
As opposed to?
2007-09-26 26936, 2007
ojnkpjg
but it's not because the vendor is playing a game where the objective is to trap you
2007-09-26 26908, 2007
Aankhen``
Ah.
2007-09-26 26943, 2007
Aankhen``
So breaking backwards compatibility for a commercial product is intentional, whereas with OSS it's because the developer couldn't be bothered.
2007-09-26 26911, 2007
Aankhen``
(This might be a good time to note that I'm using a lot of hyperbole in this discussion. Please don't take it personally. :-)
2007-09-26 26921, 2007
ojnkpjg
big software companies create new file formats all the time to make older versions of software either useless or marginally useful
2007-09-26 26930, 2007
ojnkpjg
even if you don't upgrade, if everyone else does, you lose
2007-09-26 26917, 2007
ojnkpjg
look at adobe CS, for example
2007-09-26 26922, 2007
ojnkpjg
how much has changed between CS1 and CS3, really
2007-09-26 26927, 2007
ojnkpjg
but just talk to people trying to get them to play nice
2007-09-26 26932, 2007
ojnkpjg
and look at the price tag
2007-09-26 26935, 2007
ojnkpjg
which OSS apps give you problems?
2007-09-26 26910, 2007
ojnkpjg
with new versions breaking compatiblity with older ones, i mean
2007-09-26 26930, 2007
Shepard
woah.. sun has accepted a bug report of mine after exactly seven months.. and they told me their average response time is three weeks
