#musicbrainz

i think i haven't quite got the VA-or-actual-person thing yet but i'm getting there

actually warp just explained it in a way which made me get it

well and you

ok,

deadchip: i would have voted no on the edit which moved that release from timecode to VA

im goign to turn in

itas uh ,been a big day

not everyday you go to your parents fuenral :s

warp: well there are a few things to consider

warp: yes it says mixed by timecode on the cover but..

warp: a) It's a promo release from Moving Shadow

CatCat: goodnight mo :/

natta warp <3

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)

warp: c) the tracks aren't really mixed either

nite canidae

CatCat*

the not mixed together is not something which has any bearing on it IMO.

:P

you can still be credited for a release even if you 'just' compile it

hmm ok

i agree though that the cover in this case does not _clearly_ make it a 'Timecode' release.

well one thing i don't agree in a general sense is to attribute everything fully and only to the cover

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.

i guess you would agree that the cover can't be the last and definitive source of judgement?

at least not if there is more genuine information to consider

no, usually the spine is more useful, as graphic artists tend to make a mess of the cover ;)

eh :p

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.

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?

can you give an example of when any information would be 'clearly be proven to be more useful...' ?

well with the moving shadow disc

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

isn't moving shadow the label?

it's already credited to moving shadow in the appropriate way.

(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).

yeah i know those

yeah it's the label

but it's not an actual album

well i don't know there is just a difference to a real compilation or regular album

it's a show-off of their upcoming catalogue

i understand that.

releasetype="Promo" :)

Grrrr. I'm surrounded by idiots. There are two guys here arguing over whether "open source" will continue to exist or die out.

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".

That's why it doesn't have a decent market share against OSX and windows.

If they're stuck in a mindset where everything is either "totally awesome" or "utter shite", it's not a conversation worth participating.

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.

actually, Linux and other open-source software have a bigger market share, outside the desktop

used and supported by profitable businesses

and they are not using open source software because it's cheaper, but because it's more reliable

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.

Shepard` is now known as Shepard

I hate the evil empire

Ooh! If you're currently attending a US college/university get MS Office Ultimate($679) for $60. http://www.microsoft.com/education/ultimatestea...

I'm really not a M$ shill but that is a good deal.

Runs till Apr '08

ultimate steal

pay to steal :)

i don't use office applications (except at work, where, obviously, i don't pay for it).

i was just reading that rick rubin thinks that people should pay 20 bucks a month to hear and download and acquire music anyway you can/want

I think that makes sense. I'm down with that.

i'm down with that too.

sort of maybe

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

so while some stop, new come

<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?

lol

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.

again, that is.

they used to.

but that time has gone, fortunately.

lots are still locked-in

IIS still has a big market share

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

How will you be forced to pay to upgrade?

when you're not in school anymore.

or they stop supporting it when their new greatest thing comes around

Aankhen``: Right I was.

or the new greatest thing won't be backwards compatible

I don't get it; what exactly is forcing you to upgrade?

Aankhen``: I am the embodiment of seriousness.

Freso: Heh.

Aankhen``: through security holes

either the terms of the license or the inability to use it with whatever new file formats they invent

Shepard: Isn't that what patches are for?

what incentive does anyone have to upgrade office 2000

what have they really done that's made it more useful

No incentive, and no one's forcing anyone to…

well, they'll stop issuing updates eventually

and it probably won't (or can't already) cope with new file formats

then you're stuck

You can't expect them to support products until the end of time.

so what do you do when the software reaches EOL?

Upgrade, I suppose, if its state at that time is not satisfactory.

yeah, because they've got you locked-in

you don't have much of a choice

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.

a near guarantee that backwards compat. won't be broken

ojnkpjg: Who says?

and if it is, that either you can fix it yourself

or someone else will

I have way more problems with backwards compatibility when it comes to OSS.

technical problems, maybe

As opposed to?

but it's not because the vendor is playing a game where the objective is to trap you

Ah.

So breaking backwards compatibility for a commercial product is intentional, whereas with OSS it's because the developer couldn't be bothered.

(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. :-)

big software companies create new file formats all the time to make older versions of software either useless or marginally useful

even if you don't upgrade, if everyone else does, you lose

look at adobe CS, for example

how much has changed between CS1 and CS3, really

but just talk to people trying to get them to play nice

and look at the price tag

which OSS apps give you problems?

with new versions breaking compatiblity with older ones, i mean

woah.. sun has accepted a bug report of mine after exactly seven months.. and they told me their average response time is three weeks