Slashdot Mirror
Report From "Get The Facts"
Richard W.M. Jones writes "Huw Lynes wrote an interesting
report from Microsoft's
"Get The Facts" show in London
(earlier
Slashdot story).
Along with the report he provides some
analysis of their apparent strategy, which
includes equating "Shared Source" with "Open Source"
and making out that Linux isn't free."
Microsoft believes in free software too. Ever use Internet Explorer and see how fast all the free software shows up on your computer?
making out that Linux isn't free
This is one of the few ways that Linux will ever be associated with "making out"...
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
From the article: He quoted heavily from a Meta analysis which shows that Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for linux and windows is comparable.
Microsoft must be suffering if they are going at Open Source head on. I remember taking an advertising class once, and we studied the Coke/Pepsi Cola War. Essentially Coke was the biggest cola company on the block, until they acknowledged Pepsi as a competitor. By doing so, Coke gave Pepsi the kind of credit they needed to gain significant market share, and obtain lucrative endorsement celebrities, who may not have supported Pepsi if Coke had held the "one true cola" stance and simply ignored Pepsi.
The bottom line is that Microsoft is taking a page from Coke, and they are going to lose out bigtime in doing so, because their math is voodoo math, and they charge exorbitant license fees, so their cost of usage will always be much much higher than Open Source, no matter which spindoctor tries to make it look and taste differently than it is.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Even worse, does Airbus (or Boeing for that matter) manufacture every single of a million parts in a plane themselves?
Hell no! Certainly not. There's an abundance of suppliers supplying parts for a plane, from the altimeter to the leather chairs in first class.
You don't even have to go so far as to look at the airplane industry. Car manufacturers make only a miniscule percentage of the components themsleves. The rest is manufactured and delivered by suppliers.
Otherwise the cost for a car would be comparatively so outrageously high like the cost for some uh! software...
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
"Linux training costs were 15% higher on average"
Well that's because training to fix windows is "just hit reset"
Haha... so Microsoft's strategy of pushing the idea that Linux has an equal or greater TCO than Windows basically ignores the fact that Linux is free and that any businesses wanting to use it will naturally go for the most expensive possible distribution (i.e RedHat uber deluxe professional platinum addition for business).
Perhaps if they faced the "facts", their study might be worth something.
And as for the comparison of Linux to a DOS prompt... Microsoft seems to think that adding a huge bloated GUI to a server OS is going to improve things. Well, I say that any half-decent system administrator should be able to do his job completely from a command-line interface and should not need a GUI.
slashdott'ed already...
damn low capacity servers...
Anyone got a copy of it?
It seem MS is pretty scared with all this linux popularity to start making campaigns that make you think windows is *TEH* best and has less vunerabilities. I dunno, i'm using linux for years and after each instalation i didn't get any msg saying that my system is going to reboot automatically after 60 seconds..
Fucking a fat girl is like riding a scooter... it's fun 'til someone sees you.
View source on the page. They've part commented out. Wonder why they did that.
It's pretty easy to come up with something like this. Here is how it goes. Someone comes up with a conclusion they want then they write something to get there. It's like with stats or polls. You know the outcome you want to so manipulate the "data" to show that. Then you promote the hell out of it and people believe you.
They do it because it works.
Evolution or ID?
MS has $40,000,000,000 USD in cash still before all the lawsuit dust has settled. Certainly they are not going to spend it all buying schools new computers. The noise is only going to grow louder about TCO from them. The open source distro community has to pull together and face them head-on. Eroding into the AIX, HP-UX, and Solaris market share is going to help MS because these companies all have big marketing dollars too.
Have you Meta Moderated t
The overall tone of this event makes it fairly clear as to Microsoft's anti-Linux strategy.
:P)
1.Claim that linux isn't free.
2.Pretend that Shared source is the same as Open Source
3.Make a big deal about the migration costs of moving to Linux
4.Use the forrester report to claim that Linux is insecure
5.Belittle the quality of the toolset available on Linux
Point 1 and 2 I won't dignify with a reply.
On Point 3 - Yes, there are migration costs... but that is a dumb argument. There is ALWAYS a migration cost when upgrading (horse and buggy to car - airtravel - spacetravel etc)
4. Yes, linux can be insecure ---- so can windows and anything else (except OpenBSD!!
5. On this point, I dont' care who says what - Microsoft has better (and I mean this in all respects) tools available for Rapid development.
...and admit that most of the "risk" in using open source is artificial, and is deliberately created by Microsoft.
First they ignore you,
Then they laugh at you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.
I'd say that we were at Stage 3 now, we were at Stage 2 last year and the year before.
Things are looking up!
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Monday morning, and we've already gotten our FDA recommended doses of vitamins F, U, and D for the whole week? OK. Let's find out where this road show is going next and show up with some boxes of LiveCD Linux distributions. I recommend the Gentoo 2004.1 CD's, which perform quite well across a broad variety of hardware. Then ask tough questions about why every Windows machine in the world shares drive C: at all times as \\IP-address\C$ by default and always, always, always re-enables it at reboot even if you explicitly turn it off, making the machine wildly vulnerable to file thefts and password based attacks to take complete control of it?
Sure, Linux training costs are 15% higher. When I get a windows upgrade at work there is no training. It's just figure it out. There are no training courses on windows at all here.
But, if you convert over to Linux you would have to give some basic training. Answer some employees questions. Seems a small price to pay
Evolution or ID?
How they can call this "Get the facts" is beyond me. It reminds me a lot of IBM vs. Data General. When DG first got going IBM started calling allot of its key customer's saying "you don't want to deal with this nasty upstart company data general." Said customers promptly phoned data general (a company that, at that point, they'd probably not even heard of, and got their sales people in. I would have thought MS would know better though. They've pulled basically the same stunt with .NET by getting the J2EE community to talk about how terrible it is thus assuring all enterprise decision makers look at .NET seriously...
Don't you know the secretary is supposed to be the administrator of a Windows server? If you are hiring additional staff to maintain Windows servers, you are doing something wrong.
I think there should be a system where all business PC's get linux instead of windows, and all home PC's continue to use windows. Surely all the business software would then be available for linux.
That way the businesses have all the good things of linux but the Joe sixpacks in the world could still use the stuff they know best. Most important, virus/worm writers still focus on windows for there unbreakable security and the fact that most average users don't care about security anyway. Virusses can spread better through home PC's than (secured) corporate networks anyway.
That way, everybody's happy! (I know I sure am...)
Dependency hell? =>
Yes. Very clever. You've made a pedantic observation which completely ignores the actual point.
Perhaps I should have put the word "legally" in there. I simply assumed that people here were intelligent enough not to need every litle trivial technicality spelled out.
Cost of setup of Windows:
Windows itself for each computer
Microsoft software for windows, eg Office
Big server with enterprise software
Cost of setup of Linux:
Linux for each workstation
Open-source software, eg. OpenOffice
Big server with free software
I dunno about you guys but the second option looks a little cheaper to me. As for that report about linux being having more vulnerabilities - if the backbone linux servers of the world had as many issues as the Microsoft-based ones the internet would break down completely.
I appreciate both linux & windows for what each is. I know it is Linus Torvalds' plan to get Linux onto the desktops. This is not necessarily bad news for Microsoft - they might just have to do what everyone else does and sell their software for competitive prices. You can't beat free, but they do have a market for people who are used to windows. It's worth paying for stuff you already know how to use - it's more productive - unless it's several hundred dollars per machine more than what it would be for linux.
--Methynutnut
1.Claim that linux isn't free.
2.Pretend that Shared source is the same as Open Source
3.Make a big deal about the migration costs of moving to Linux
4.Use the forrester report to claim that Linux is insecure
5.Belittle the quality of the toolset available on Linux
Missing point:
6.PATENT EVERYTHING
Has anyone else noticed that in the metagroup TCO analysis, they compare a windows server running on a two processor intel machine, and a linux server running on (one or two - can't remember) MAINFRAME processors.
I mean - cm'on, perhaps they should have pitted a walmart PC with windows installed vs Linux running on a Cray server... The TCO takes into account the entire purchase of hardware, and in the Mainframe case - you probably looking at 16 processor machine to begin with, which kind'a spikes the price up...
But - the graph looks very convincing - and isn't it what it's all about?
Just a little food for thought...
In the glossy brochure they give out at the event they have a file of 'case studies'. Several are from organisations (such as Newham Borough Council) who were about to transition to Open Source but were then bought off^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H convinced that, in fact, sticking with Windows would cost them less(!).
:)
The truth is they are terrified. They've got wind of what's on its way over here in the UK.
Relax, don't panic. Wait and see what us Brits have got coming for MS over the next few months
I was at the Edinburgh event last week which was the 2nd event in their roadshow.
Here's some advice for people who'll be at their next two events (Manchester this week I think, and Wales the week after (Newport, IIRC)):
- Plan in your coffee break questions to ask them (be careful about providing them with the question on paper as they reworded mine - try and ask it in person at the end).
- Ask more about IBM involvement in Linux, they tried to claim that IBM were trying to lock people in to Linux, try and provide counter examples as to how it'd be easier to escape an IBM stranglehold than an MS one.
- They cite interoperability as one of Microsoft's main aims, people mentioned the office file formats and recent patents, but they hedged around the question, someone needs to seriously challenge them on this at the event.
- Talk to the other delegates in clear concise language why you think Linux should be considered as a serious option. Don't sound like a zealot and accept there's many times when Windows would be more suitable than Linux.
- Point out to people that open source doesn't always mean Linux, in fact doesn't always mean changing an OS at all. There's some quality open source software for Windows - promote Firefox and OpenOffice as examples
Moreover, it exposes the degree to which Microsoft is engaging in "Not Invented Here" self-delusion for them to try and compare a DOS prompt (command.com and its standard utilities) to a real shell (bash, tcsh or zsh) and the standard set of utilities (the GNU file utils, find utils and text utils) that ship with most linux distributions.
Personally, I'd reverse the comparison and say the DOS prompt is "almost as good as a Unix shell."
utter rubbish
I haven't had such a good laugh in ages. I love MS BS. I'm reminded of a factious piece of software in Douglas Adams' Dirk Gently which allowed you to enter the conclusion you wanted and the starting point. It would then construct a logical set of arguments to justify going from one to the other and was used to justify the original Starwars project....
any businesses wanting to use it will naturally go for the most expensive possible distribution (i.e RedHat uber deluxe professional platinum addition for business).
/. Sadly many who are called sys admins don't really know a whole lot.
Many companies like the one I work for require you to be able to get a service contract for any software. So, to use Linux they have to be able to get a service contract. That's why they go for those expensive ones. They have the service.
Well, I say that any half-decent system administrator should be able to do his job completely from a command-line interface and should not need a GUI.
You're figureing on half decent sys admins. Many of the ones I know can't do anyting outside the GUI. And they don't even have half of an understanding of what is really going on. Some have never even herd of
Evolution or ID?
Not in an enterprise network environment. MCSE admins are a dime a dozen, you can practically pay them minimum wages and have them run servers. Linux admins demand a very high price - at least 2-3 times that of the average NT admin. Why? Running a Linux server requires more than point/clicking your way around. A linux admin is required to have at least basic programming skills.
...
I don't understand a few things about this. Why do people believe this type of thing when Microsoft brings absolutely *NO* proof of any of these claims? Can any of this be considered slander? They're trying to throw mud on Linux's image with no real proof.
And why did this guy sit through this entire "seminar" in the first place?
When I get a windows upgrade at work there is no training. It's just figure it out. There are no training courses on windows at all here.
.If you "figure it out" at you work time,your employer effectively pay for your training cost,as they have to pay your salary for your work(i.e. learning Windows skill)
SOMEONE must pay for your training
Linux is Free and Open Source. Freedom with restrictions is a fact of life. You have Free speech but you can't yell fire in the theater. You are Free to Vote for who you want to but you can't vote over and over. You can do whatever you want with the Linux kernel. But if you redistribute it you have to make your changes public thus keeping the code Free,Open and accessible. Your analogy of Free as in beer is wrong. Internet Explorer is Free as in beer. Linux isn't.
Free as in "The damn code is Free and remains that way" not Free as in "Whiny little bitch freeloaders like you arn't free to do as you please". Freedom of the code is nothing to do with your freedom. Get the fuck over it and write your own damn code; stop trying to rip off mine all the damn time you telentless code monkey.
If that's what you care about, use BSD.
anything after is not free. i value my time, and so does my employer. i wish i could have put mandrake or suse on the companies new boxes that every employee got... but winxp pro and ms office it was.
Really, Well, I just installed mandrake 10 this weekend to replace w2k on an old pc. My first linux. And it was, free.
I downloaded it, burned it, and installed. I had minimal help and everything went very smoothly.
Er, right.
"linux ISNT free?" "really? heres 10 free copies of mandrake right now." "youll have to pay to support it." "ah, then dont you mean linux SUPPORT isnt free? Is windows support free?" *insert adhominem attack they are trained to do here*
I imagine the best thing you can do at these is hand out free linux install cds, and allow people to make the choice for themselves.
Again, mandrake 10 was SUPRISINGLY easy to get working.
no
Essentially Coke was the biggest cola company on the block, until they acknowledged Pepsi as a competitor.
You say this as if they aren't still the biggest on the block. Coke is still (as it has always been) well ahead of Pepsi in both global market share and global market value. Their stock price is higher, and they still ship many more units / yaar then Pepsi. Sure Pepsi may have more flashy ads in the US, but that doesn't mean squat to their international presence. Just do a Google on the cola wars.
This said, if Linux ever got to the point that it was as much of a competitor to MS as Pepsi is to Coke, I'd be damn happy.
I don't care about whether I can do this or not.
Just pointing out that unless I'm permitted to do so, it isn't "free", and GPL enthusiasts should stop parroting the EFF party line.
You are in the minority because you offer not a shread of proof for your statement. The reality is that I can admin 3x as many linux boxes as you can your windows machine. Not that I would have to because linux unlike windows is way more efficient in the data center. I do not have a single linux machine at work that does not run to nearly full capacity. I can do this because I can run more than just a email server, or database server on a single machine. How often do you see exchange running on the same machine as a sql server?
In my opinion you are nothing more than a astroturf for MS.
Got Code?
From what I've seen companies spend about $0 on Windows training, so a 15% increase is still $0.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
This is not being pedantic. Maybe you'll call any idiotic song by Britney Spears "Free Speech". Just try to mix it with your own music/lyrics and try to redistribute it, just to see what happens next...
Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
Once you factor in the costs of viruses and worms (for a timely example, see the article from earlier today on being unable to pull down updates fast enough to avoid having your XP install infected before it can be updated), MS-Windows is danged expensive.
The only time I use a compiler on this machine is to build software for other people, and it's stuff like a tweaked KDM for an Internet cafe. Let's see you tweak MS Windows Login like that at any price, sucker.
Now... let's have some more facts from Microshills, shall we? Big heaps of steaming facts, coming right up! Mooooove over!
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
How comments like this get modded up as being "interesting" is one of those unsolvable mysteries of life for me.
.. Not to mention the TCO of breathing air if there's a risk of breathing poluted or contaminated air.
You don't mention if you mean using linux in the desktop or server space, neither what kind of applications or services your refering to when you say "in my experiance". Basicly you give no foundation at all for this comment to be taken seriously at all; Nevermind give the impression that you have any notion of what "Enterprise level" is.
And just saying that Linux isn't 'free' is stating the obvious.. Even breating air takes time and thus costs money
The question is not 'is linux's TCO free', it's 'how does linux's TCO compare to a similair microsoft based solution'.
if only i had mod point's today you would've gotton a -1 flamebait or overrated from me..
Microsoft certainly does not make all of the components in a running Windows system. First of all, I'm pretty sure that most people running Windows are not running any Microsoft hardware except for perhaps a mouse, keyboard, and/or gaming peripheral. So your setup is not 100%-microsoft - it's not even close if you take hardware into account. It gets a lot closer when you look at macs, but nowadays even they use (modified) versions of commodity hardware, such as nVidia and ATI graphics cards. Also, last time I checked, commodity hardware was a good thing, seeing as it drives competition over price and quality. Now, as for your software department - just take a look at drivers. If you're using an nVidia or ATI card, you are probably using their drivers. Microsoft, as far as I know, did NOT write those, and yet they are an integral part of the system (so integral, as a matter of fact, that nVidia drivers have been known to bring X on Linux to a screeching halt). Also, if I am not mistaken, Windows uses BSD's TCP/IP stack. True, today the code is maintained by Microsoft coders, but I can't imagine them having needed to completely overhaul it - they are using a modified version of a product (piece of code) that was manufactured (written) by someone else. And last but not least, a major factor keeping people on Windows is software that is written for it, which they can't do without or find a replacement for which runs on their target OS. Guess what? Most of that software isn't written by Microsoft either. Many people swear by Adobe Photoshop, and don't switch to Linux because they find The Gimp inadequate. Others want to play their favorite computer games, which simply do not work [well] on Linux. And even if, say, their favorite computer game is Microsoft Flight Simulator or Microsoft's Age of Empires - yep, that's right. Microsoft didn't make those. They just bought them. A large, complex product is best manufactured by multiple specialty manufacturers which adhere to well-known standards. F/OSS supporters know this. Microsoft knows this as well.
If it weren't for fog, the world would run at a really crappy framerate.
Yeah but our windows server fell over after a power failure last week, this morning for no apparent reason the network stopped functioning. No settings were changed, Windows just decided we didn't want a network. So now I'm sat here with a box that has ran for 1 year (automatically rebooting once every couple of weeks), no settings changed, no reasons given, why are the system log files not all in one place? TOTAL FAILURE.
This has never happened once on our *nix machines yet it has happened on every single Windows box that has ever been palmed of on me.
Britney Spears songs aren't free either.
Neither is Microsoft Windows.
Neither is Linux.
But Microsoft do not claim Windows is free, and Britney doesn't claim her songs are free.
I dread getting that bill from Stallman then, I've been running Linux for five years now! I knew it was too good to be true.
CB
free ipod and free gmail!
except it's not. anywhere near :)
Well, anyway... in at least 30% of businesses I visit, a secretary or near equivalent is Level 1 Tech Support. Some of the "dumb blonde" mobile accident catalysts I've seen know an awesome amount about resuscitating MS-Windows.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I can't confirm this for certain (as it didn't happen to me).
One of my colleagues who also went to the Edinburgh event was talking to one of the speakers there (one of the Nick's from Microsoft I believe) and I Microsoft guy admitted his niece had thousands of viruses on her machine last time he checked it!
I wish I could confirm it, but I don't see he has any reason to lie
I jumped in to the "Desktop Linux Consortium" back in the Feb 2003 to offer some thoughts about direction for the forming DLC and the linux desktop in general. If you have any interest in what I said back then:
l c-discuss/2003-February/000002.html
http://www.desktoplinuxconsortium.org/pipermail/d
I think that the crucial missing application and management pieces are staring us all right in the face. It is not enough to have an easy install. It's not enough to have a slick desktop and functional apps. Those are important, certainly, but if we are really doing well at them, why hasn't the momentum shifted?
I've worked IT for fifteen years and the number of systems I've imaged with their OS and software loads dwarfs by 100 to 1 the number of times I've used any OS installer, even if you count the last five years of Install Parties at the Melbourne Florida LUG! The things most developers and non-corporate users think are important don't apply to corporate IT like people outside of IT would think.
The typical larger IT department has to deal with things like corporate software policies, locking user account profiles, automated application and operating system patches/updates and remote helpdesk. How can I enforce the corporate software policy against instant messengers when every distro except debian bundles all the stock KDE applications (including instant messenger apps) in a few giant RPMs? KDE 3.2 will be doing more profile locking features, but what about applications that don't use the KDE libs? What about Gnome?
I know people point to things like Red Carpet and the Red Hat Network for updates (still not 100% in my opinion), but I think corporations will need to be able to build or rebuild apps with different attributes or patches for distribution to corporate clients. SUSE is using 'autobuild' internally and Red Hat wants you to buy a Red Hat Network Proxy, but again, no-one other than Debian provides access to the build architecture to be able to modify certain stock bundled apps like removing parts from larger RPM's like KDE.
Remote helpdesk and other IT-friendly features are available in most distributions at this point, but they aren't really bundled and configured for that role in the context of the distribution. This needs work and attention. VNC is great, but a distro focusing on corporate desktops needs to have that puppy configured for easy remote desktop support by default.
I've spoken at LinuxWorld and other conferences, but every time I try to submit a topic that addresses some of these kinds of issues, I hear crickets and we get 10 more 'How to install Samba' sessions. We need a focus on what all the "Ticket System Cowboys" know about desktop deployments before some of the spectacular Linux desktop announcements turn into craptastic failures.
Just my $0.02.
DaGoodBoy
My God! It's full of Voids!
Exactly!... same in Munich - not everyone in the council has l33t sk1llz
Why shall I believe any of them?
there you seem to voluntarily take advantage of your language using the same word for free and free.
my post explicitely said "free speech"
if the songs in questions weren't "free speech", I think they couldn't exist (thanks god!)
anyway, there are still limitations on the way you can use them, just like for Free Software.
Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
Their software, out of the box, runs Sobig, Bagel and Blaster as well as it does IE or Office.
A large part of the cost of administering desktops in a business environment is repairing the damage done by users who have been given excessive system privileges because their applications require them to have them. Linux/Unix apps, as a general rule, don't do that. As a result, it is possible to lock a n*x box down to the point that a user can still do his/her job but he/she cannot wreak havoc on the machine or the network. When the user can only install "goodies in his or her $HOME where they also store their precious data, and pr0n^W other irreplaceable information, they are MUCH more careful about what they click "OK" on. This reduces TCO dramatically.
Just my USD0.02
utter rubbish
If you got a bunch of linux users to play "devil's advocate" and come up with reasons to explain advantages of using Windows over using Linux, they would have done a better job than these infomercial drop-outs mentioned in the article. Seriously, for company that has such deep pockets, they seem to manage to blow all their money on the worst there is, from programming quality to advertising and PR. Either they're being stingy and are holding back on spending for quality, or they don't care that they're throwing money away hiring people who just take the cash and do a half-assed job.
I have to agree with you. Linux advocates don't understand TCO. The cost of initial hardware and software is a minor component of TCO. Major components are the retention of suitably trained staff, cost of enterprise systems or development, and optimising productivity of the system as a whole.
Microsoft administrators are often cheaper and come with less brainpower than their *nix counterparts. This makes it cheaper to retain MS trained staff. It is also (generally, thus far) cheaper to outsource Microsoft-based network management.
Enterprise development is also, thus far, cheaper on Microsoft platforms. These platforms have all the tools to develop large systems quickly and effectively. Few organisations are writing their enterprise systems in C anymore! In this respect Java is providing a lifeline to Linux. An equally important consideration is the available of enterprise platforms off the shelf, most of which support *nix (but not Linux) or Windows platforms.
Optimising productivity is again often misunderstood. OS performance is an insignificant factor. Application performs is more significant, but still minor. Since (arguably) the best enterprise "tool" on Linux is Java, and Java is still relatively slow on the desktop, Linux loses on this aspect. Network performance quite important, and Linux is only slightly ahead of Windows (on a WINS network) if you don't have services for automatic network discovery and integration installed.
The real biggies in productivity are avoiding downtime, having the right applications for the job (i.e. productivity applications), and having the right skills to use the application. While workstation failures are irritating (and, frankly, Linux has at most a 10% lead in stability in that environment), network outages (not an OS consideration) and server failures are where the problems lie.
Take a look at the unplanned downtimes of a well-maintained Windows server on good hardware is the correct environment (clean room, UPS, cooling, etc). Three nines is not difficult to achieve. There is only one provider of hardware that guarantees five nines uptime using a non-proprietory OS ... take a guess: its a Windows OS.
Finally, in terms of productivity applications and available skills and/or training, Linux can't touch Windows. They are literally hundreds or applications for every purpose out there that are smooth and polished and do what a business wants. More importantly, you'll easily find staff that are experienced with that package, and that's a huge cost saving.
So yes, Linux is free and cheap and all that, and has tons of applications, and can do amazing stuff. But it doesn't do it out of the box, few people know the desktop environment or the applications, and it takes a less common skillset to configure, administer, maintain and develop in a Linux environment. All of which push up the long term TCO, and allow you to make a very valid cost comparison with Windows.
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
It is "Free" but like many BSD users you're too thick to understand what that means.
Then you would, IMHO, be lying. The DOS prompt has never been even close to a match to a proper Unix shell. Even running bash with the full gnu toolchain in a Windows XP cmd.exe prompt (thankyou cygwin) is still much worse than using the real thing (even their mouse selection stuff is retarded. OK they cannot have X's nice selection style cut'n'paste, but at least make the default selection tool line oriented, rather than block (I cannot remember even once needing the kind of selection you get in cmd.exe, if your text is not neatly on one line)).
Well, explain to this "thick BSD user" (who has rarely if ever actually used BSD) what "Free" means.
Let's just say then Linux is free if you want it to be. A lot of people like boxed sets, they may need support contracts and indeed may need certain proprietary software (e.g. Oracle) to run on Linux.
The doesn't stop Linux being free and legal to those that are comfortable downloading Linux and supporting it themselves possibly using Google and newsgroups for help.
With Windows you have to pay for a licence just to install the software, you could download it for free but that's illegal, you can't even pay to download it as far as I can see. Then if you need support you have to pay extra for that.
Name the number of personal users and small businesses who have made use of MS support? There'll be some, but not many.
For personal users people usually rely on their friends for support and so they're bogged down fixing the viruses and spyware problems on a regular basis if they're not that savvy.
But despite their apparent terror, they've still managed to maintain their market dominance. I don't really think Microsoft is as scared as some Slashdotters would make themselves believe they are. Show me where Linux has taken a significant bite out of Microsoft; then you might have a case.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
15% higher. Not a chance
If I took a Unix course back in 1989 (before Linux even had emerged) most of what I learnded then would still be somewhat useful in Linux of today. How much would 15 years old windows knowledge help me in manageing windows XP of today. Not much I think. Most likely I would have to have more frequent retraining if I run windows.
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
ICAT classified 67% of Microsoft's vulnerabilities as high severity, placing Microsoft dead last among the platform maintainers by this metric.
Already did my thick little chum. The GPL isn't about giving you Freedom, it's about giving the code Freedom.
whats is this drivle !! is there single line that makes sense or is true ? Either he has no idea what hes talking about or is a troll.
- strudles
The FSF says it's about the user's freedom. Then goes on to talk about how restricting the user makes it possible to give him those freedoms.
Why do you persist in personal abuse? It's generally considered to indicate immaturity and an uncertainty of ones own opinions.
They're also playing to the GUI developers gallery...except they seem to have overlooked glade, kdevelop and a bunch of commercial offerings like coldfusion and kylix.
In that case, it reduces to a question of paradigm: IDE's or text editors. Even MS has programmers who will only work in emacs.
Face it, if the major attraction of a platform for you is the pretty toolset then you're no great loss to the real programming world.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
This isn't "informative," it's a migraine waiting to insult someone. At least learn how to format your posts before you engage in your karma-whoring!
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Sir, I applaud your comment. For almost the first time on Slashdot, I have come across a post that I agree with in its entirety!
Well said!
LMAO. Nice troll dude.
Free in that context means the *code* is free. It does NOT mean anyone is free to do what they please with it.
If you'd prefer to play the idiotic analogies-that-don't-prove-anything game...
Suppose you are allowed to take a person, lock them up and sell them. You might really enjoy that freedom, however it says nothing about the freedom of that person.
The BSD zealot line about GPL not being free is retarded. For God's sake I *know* that the GPL doesn't give everyone the 'freedom' to take my code, close it and sell it. That is exactly why I use it. I want my *code* to be free as in can't-be-locked-up-and-sold free. In this sense, BSD licensed code is less free than GPL licensed, but you don't hear any stupid petty rants from the GPL community.
Hate to break it to you /.ers, but Linux isn't free in a corporate setting. I don't know if the TCO is mroe or less or equal than Windows, but it definitely isn't free.
Sure, you can get Linux for free off any website. However, a company is probabl going to want support for the OS. That costs money. In addition, a company is going to need people to administer the servers. Again, this costs money, both in saleries and training costs.
The only time is Linux is free is when you use it on a home machine and it is your hobby.
I'm one of the lucky ones who successfully made the transition away from Windows to Linux. What was my TCO? I'd say I've spent around $300. That includes the cost of books (most of which were of less help than I hoped), and a copy of Lycoris and its Productivity Pak. (It's a nice distro, but it feels constraining.) Ultimately I became a Mandrake user, and it is installed on all three of my PC's.
Had I stuck with using MS Windows, I would still have spent about $300, and two of my PC's would not be "Kosher" according to MS's EULA. Of course if I were to get "picky" I could toss on the cost of all the additional software (Norton's, Office, etc...) and watch the TCO plow through the roof, but then, I don't want to stoop that low.
I just wish MS, and even some Linux zealots out there would get it through their heads: There are places to use MS Windows, places to use Linux, and even places where either will do nicely. (OK, I'll even include Mac's as having a place as well...)
But to make broad claims that draw illogical conclusions based on a pile of inequitable features-- Well, it's just not very professional, and I'm once again disappointed in Microsoft.
Microsoft is at least partially right on this one. While any given distribution of Linux may be free, any process based on Linux will have costs associated with it.
However, given that you've got to spend money (and/or time) one way or the other, do the benefits of a Linux based (open) process outweigh those of a Microsoft based (closed) one? Everyone has their own answer to this. For me, it's worth the up-front investment of my time to put my data into a format that is not exclusively controlled by an outside interest. YMMV.
Free in that context means the *code* is free. It does NOT mean anyone is free to do what they please with it.
You mean like Microsoft's source code?
If you'd prefer to play the idiotic analogies-that-don't-prove-anything game...
I'd rather not. I haven't used an analogy apart from the oft parroted "Free as in speech" one. Your analogy is stupid. Freedom of people and freedom of code are totally different. Code can't be free in that respect. It has no free will
The BSD zealot line about GPL not being free is retarded. For God's sake I *know* that the GPL doesn't give everyone the 'freedom' to take my code, close it and sell it. That is exactly why I use it. I want my *code* to be free as in can't-be-locked-up-and-sold free. In this sense, BSD licensed code is less free than GPL licensed, but you don't hear any stupid petty rants from the GPL community.
So it isn't free then.
I'm kind of heartened by it, as a matter of fact.
What this shows, more than anything, is that Microsoft clearly doesn't understand the enterprise market. What they fail to recognize is this:
Microsoft just doesn't get it. Corporations could care less about streaming video and DirectX. And they aren't fooled by marketing hype - Microsoft can say all they want about "trustworthy computing", but sysadmins know better.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
What the fuck? Now you bring the FSF into this?
Before you were just proven wrong and an imbicile, you (for some reason) took issue with people saying that GPL code is free.
You're really clutching at straws here buddy. I thought you promised to fuck off when that free code thing was cleared up?
And you offer no proof for your statement, dipshit. In my opinion you are nothing more than yet another Linux ballslurper.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
The FSF says it's about the user's freedom. Then goes on to talk about how restricting the user makes it possible to give him those freedoms.
Yes it is and the FSF is dead right. What good is having "free code" available to the users if half of that code can be changed and made non-free at any point in the user. How does help them, as a user? It might not be helpful to you as a developer, but largely the FSF, myself and many other GPL developers just don't care. Don't like the licence? Tough.
Why do you persist in personal abuse?
Because I'm totally sick to the fucking back teeth of people who refuse to grasp simple concepts and then bleat about it as though they're the only person in the world who has discovered this dirty little "secret" about the GPL because, gosh darn it!, the GPL isn't really free! Sick to the back teeth.
It's generally considered to indicate immaturity and an uncertainty of ones own opinions.
Uncertainty? I'm unwavering. Do you see any uncertainty or contradiction in any of my posts? No? Then I'd say that I'm pretty well founded in my opinion. The FSF and I even agree 99% of the time. Nope, I'd say I'm pretty certain.
As for immaturity, sure, why not. I'm feeling immature today. What of it? Doesn't make me any less right and you any less wrong or stupid now does it? Not to mention it's entertaining.
Microsoft Provides FREE Technet events, Training Events and Tons of other support related events FREE all over the country. They have support experts there to answer or help with problems or questions. They also provide FREE sales training and marketing tools. Microsoft does more as a company to support its customers than anyone else I know. Sure, there may be a Yearly gathering from the Linux crew (I truely don't know) but there is no where near the support available from MS. And guess what it is all FREE. They also have the absolute best knowledge base on the planet. I tried troubleshooting issues on the php.net page and was sometimes successful, but on the whole was rather dissapointed with the resutls compared to what I expect from Microsoft. As for me not having a clue or being a troll. I guess a Bachelors in MIS a Masters in CIS and 6+ years in IT and consulting leave me clueless.
I guess http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/facts/default.asp could be moded up as "funny".
Could it be just loads of fud (http://fud-counter.nl.linux.org/) ?
Its looks like Microsoft may be falling foul of UK law with some of their claims.
The CAP Code (Ed 11) : GENERAL RULES
SUBSTANTIATION
3.1 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims, whether direct or implied, that are capable of objective substantiation.
Relevant evidence should be sent without delay if requested by the ASA or CAP. The adequacy of evidence will be judged on whether it supports both the detailed claims and the overall impression created by the marketing communication. The full name and geographical business address of marketers should be provided without delay if requested by the ASA or CAP.
3.2 If there is a significant division of informed opinion about any claims made in a marketing communication they should not be portrayed as generally agreed.
3.3 Claims for the content of non-fiction books, tapes, videos and the like that have not been independently substantiated should not exaggerate the value, accuracy, scientific validity or practical usefulness of the product.
3.4 Obvious untruths or exaggerations that are unlikely to mislead and incidental minor errors and unorthodox spellings are all allowed provided they do not affect the accuracy or perception of the marketing communication in any material way.
http://www.asa.org.uk/index.asp
What the fuck? Now you bring the FSF into this?
I thought everyone used their definition of "free".
Before you were just proven wrong and an imbicile, you (for some reason) took issue with people saying that GPL code is free.
Proven wrong? Don't remember that happening. Violently disagreed with, perhaps.
You're really clutching at straws here buddy. I thought you promised to fuck off when that free code thing was cleared up?
I think I said, 'I'll go away when people stop saying "Waaah! The code is free", when it clearly isn't'.
BSD... anyone remember hearing that BSD networking stack code ended up in Windows?
It's the same Rolls-Royce. They are one of the oldest aero engine manufacturers still in business. Ever wondered why the V12 engines in classic Rolls-Royce and Bentley cars looks a bit like a Merlin?
Proven wrong? Don't remember that happening. Violently disagreed with, perhaps. ...
I think I said, 'I'll go away when people stop saying "Waaah! The code is free", when it clearly isn't'.
You have been proven wrong. Fuck off.
whats ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H mean?
i see it often but dont understand what it signifies?
thanks
You mean like Microsoft's source code?
No, I don't mean that. Are you a spastic?
I'd rather not. I haven't used an analogy apart from the oft parroted "Free as in speech" one.
where di that get you?
So it isn't free then.
The BSD license puts restrictions on use too, you know? So how is BSD license free while GPL not?
Clearly BSD isn't free as in unrestricted usage.
You have been proven wrong. Fuck off.
What makes you say that?
Few years ago the Linux community as a whole received an award for best tech-support in the industry. And that support was done in IRC, usenet, internet, LUG-meetings and mailing-lists FOR FREE!
So apparently the free support you can get for Linux is every bit as good as the support you get for Windows. The free Linux-support might not have the flashy ads, huge conference-halls or the other bells and whistles MS-events might have, but that does not mean it's less effective!
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Well... don't run cygwin in the XP terminal. Just install sshd for Cygwin and login with your favorite terminal emulator.
No, I don't mean that. Are you a spastic?
No, I don't have cerebral palsy. My point is that if you're goping to claim one type of code is free and another isn't, you're drawing an arbitrary line, and redefining the word "free" to fit your arguments.
The BSD license puts restrictions on use too, you know? So how is BSD license free while GPL not?
Good point. BSD code isn't free either.
Imprison: To limit, restrain, or confine in any way.
One can't limit, restrain, or *confine* GPL code. You can confine BSD code.
For the last time, please fuck off. You are just plain wrong and have resorted to spewing bullshit to try to save face. It is getting annoying.
AKA oops, I'm a spastic.
You've convinced me that BSD code isn't free.
And I still don't have cerebral palsy.
The purpose of the GPL is to ensure the software remains free. It has nothing to do with the freedom of the developers.
Slightly off topic, but someone could bring it up with the MS guys at the next event (Manchester)
t m
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3798393.s
Wimbledon switching to Linux
thats going to be a growing problem for Microsoft 'cause the market is already saturated w/ MC**s that making them a dime'o dozen. Hell, I would hire a dozen for that price (they could replace heatsinks and install desktops and stuff). . . leaves more funds for hiring one or two seasoned multiplatformed techs.
MS *should* be worried. I've tried Mandrake since I picked up 8.0, and it has gotten much better with each distro.
I just installed version 10.0 this weekend, and it was up and running, burning CDs, surfing, email, the whole nine yards, in much less time than it takes to install (and patch) XP.
Everyone has their favorite distro, but I think Mandrake 10 will definitely give MS screaming fits, once we get enough people to try it.
I agree, start passing out free CDs at all the shows and conventions. Make as many converts as we can. I've already passed lots of 10.0 on to friends, and they are impressed.
What good is having "free code" available to the users if half of that code can be changed and made non-free at any point in the user.
It can't. Sure, I can rtake it, and not release source code, but it prevent anyone else from doing so.
Because I'm totally sick to the fucking back teeth of people who refuse to grasp simple concepts and then bleat about it as though they're the only person in the world who has discovered this dirty little "secret" about the GPL because, gosh darn it!, the GPL isn't really free! Sick to the back teeth.
It's no secret. "The GPL is free" is dogma. Lots of people know it, but the Linux zealots carry on bleating about how Linux is free.
Some have never even herd of /. Sadly many who are called sys admins don't really know a whole lot.
How is /. the measure of a decent Sysadmin? Unless you run a public website, slashdot is but one of many sources of gossip and invective (and occasional useful info).
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
You can't just say it isn't free because it doesn't meet one of the meanings of free. "BSD code isn't free" means that it isn't free for any meaning of the word. You don't seem to have a solid grasp on the English language and/or basic logic skills, so you must have something wrong with you.
BTW. GPL code is also free because it can't be confined.
who doesn't know of the socket handle leak that MS can't fix because otherwise they'd break 1000's of apps
My sympathy levels for Microsoft engineers skyrocketted after reading this and this, detailing the horrors they have to deal with in the name of compatability.
From the Microsoft website: Thoroughness: Microsoft was the only vendor to have corrected 100% of the publicly known flaws during the study's time period.
Well of course! Microsoft has been known to not admit to flaws publicly. It is only AFTER a virus starts trashing systems they come out with a fix. It is like "oh, yeah, we were getting a round tuit".
For you old enough to remember, this is just like the Ford Pinto where Execs concluded it was far cheaper to settle lawsuits than to fix the thing in the first place.
Were Microsoft to be liable for all the damages caused by their lack of adequate Q/A and Q/C you might see a better product.
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
How often do you see exchange running on the same machine as a sql server?
Bad example - these are both very high load applications. Production DB servers should be isolated with a firewall and run nothing else, while Exchange should probably get its own box due to load requirements. In a small office, you could probably tack on IIS. I like to separate boxes based on security requirements. Of course, I like to run linux too.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
with the same comparison charts. But not sponsored by MS.
I have seen a few slide decks from Microsoft
employees claiming some security failures with
Linux vs Windows.
For the couple of samples I saw, it seems like they
have been very selective about what information
they show. The latest version of Windows Server 2003
vs Fedora Core.
They also plot the number of vulnerabilities
independently of the risk, the impact, or the fact
that some of the security updates are lumped together. Then there is a section on viruses,
they list from some Virus web site about 30
Linux viruses. Never seen a single one of them
in a machine of mine or a server of mine in the
last 12 years.
I would like to know if there are good articulate
responses to those claims. I have been out of the
security loop for a long time, and my constrast
against the Microsoft claims was limited to a few
bits of my own experience.
Marc Cox from Red Hat is quoted by the report,
has he written anything on the subject?
Miguel.
I wouldn't worry about him, his isn't reading your posts. I can prove it.
what is the def of free?
well free means this...
oh yea...well what is the def of free?
well, free means this.
oh yea, well the fsf says this..everyone uses that def of free
well, fuck it...
as you can see, its standard troll, if you can't win, change the argument.
So what would you suggest oh great wise powerful one. I need a solution where I can release my code, make it free, and prevent others from stealing it from the community so it is no longer free by writting a new application and copywrighting my work.
Hmmm....what shall I do.
It's a slam dunk!
sincerely,
George Tenet
You said it, not me. I never have any problems looking for any kinds of information I need for any programming project.
Although, php runs on windows too you know.
"His basic thrust was that everyone is moving from proprietary Unix with its expensive platforms to Windows or Linux on x86 platforms and that it this hardware move, rather than linux versus windows, that will drive all the cost savings."
Linux has been more widely ported than an other OS in history. It is certainly more portable than Windows. When the next, cheaper hardware platform comes around, I expect that by the time it is a commodity, Linux will already be running on it. Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness of particular hardware depends on what you are running on it. Windows doesn't scale up on high-end server hardware. Linux does. With Linux, you have a choice.
Furthermore, the switch from proprietary Unix to Linux is a porting effort that is not particularly difficult. It is certainly easier than making the transition from Unix to Windows. And once you port to Windows, Microsoft has made it very easy to suffer vendor lock-in.
Linux is not free.
This has been a standard Microsoft argument for several years. If they failed to articulate that downloading Debian is not free because of the time and effort involved, then it is their fault for not making that argument clear in their presentation. It is worth noting that there are several costs associated with Windows that have no counterpart with a free Debian download. No licensing costs. The Debian project has never sent the BSA to do an expensive audit of any of its customers. If you reconfigure your hardware with Debian, there are no hassles with reactivating the license. No effort is required to keep employees from taking a copy home. Linux doesn't have a history of viruses and worms. If Microsoft changes the licensing terms of Windows or MS Office, you're stuck. Debian can't change the terms of the GPL. You are always free to use the old terms with the old version and the recent X Windows saga is proof that open source software resists licensing changes very effectively.
"Management tools on Linux are nearly as good as a DOS prompt"
First, every major distro, including the free ones come with some GUI management tools. Second, there is always Webmin. Third, the Linux shells are scriptable in ways that the DOS prompt was never able to match. Finally, remote administration of a Linux box can be done very easily. You don't need a GUI. Headless Linux boxes have been around from the start. GUI administration is not cost-effective when you are trying to administer as many boxes as possible.
"Linux is moving to the same model that Microsoft has been using"
The GPL won't permit Linux distros to own the code. No matter how many people Microsoft shares their code with, to them sharing means that you can look at it. You can't touch it, play with it, change it, or share it with others. Additionally, Linux and open source have resisted restrictive license changes a couple of times recently. As I said earlier, X Windows is an excellent example of this. If Microsoft wants to make this claim, they have to explain what they mean because several obvious interpretations are clearly not true.
My absolute favourite part of the talk was when Barley started to extol the virtues of Windows because everything in it was made by one manufacturer.
Microsoft will stick to this claim as long as it is absolutely convenient. They are quick to blame others when there are buggy third-party device drivers. And as soon as there is an anti-trust suit, they are even quicker to claim they are open to competition.
He made mention of the Forrester report that claimed more vulnerabilities in Linux than Windows.
Name one exploit that had a widespread effect on Linux boxes. Now, name three that hit Windows in the past month. You can't install and patch a Windows XP system without either a firewall or cleaning up the malware that infects it between the time you connect to the net
Linux is free, gratis (and most importantly Free, but I digress), but comapnies want somebody to scream at when things are not working.
That privilege comes at a price. But to say Linux is not gratis is to be either misinformed or a misfit (like perhaps some people that have broken the law are: did you hear me MS?).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
fix windows is "just hit reset"
you forgot to add, "and just take the revenue/productivity loss from the down time"
Can the same really be said for linux?
The sad truth is that most companies don't run on best, they run on cheapest. Oh and they will much rather spend the money on licences than staff, they actually get to own the licences (subject to terms and conditions. milage may vary), staff may wander.
The reason TCO of microsoft is lower than linux is that monkeys are cheaper, (and more plentiful) than penguins.
Microsoft... an infinite number of monkeys can't be wrong (now with free copy of complete works of shakespear)
First they ignore you
Then they laugh at you
Then they lie about you
Then you win
Yes, I know. They were running Apache, PHP and MySQL on NT 4.0 Biggest piece of crap ever. When I started, I was excited about learning something new and expierencing Open Source. I have nothing against those products, I thought they were good. What I did not like was the lack of good Free tools and the lack of features I was used to in the MS product line. Features that were significant time savors and in the course of a year would save more than enough time in labor than the product cost to purchase.
Public domain.
You can release your code.
It is free.
Other people can't steal it, because even if they do release software derived from it, your original code is still in the public domain.
If you want to prevent others from doing something with it by using copyright, it is no longer free.
"Hear ye, Hear ye, total cost of parsnip ownership far outweighs that of turnips" proclaims a sonorous voice. A silence descends as the proximate bumpkins consider this... Suddenly a crabbed voice heckles "You might well say that, you sell turnips!" "Yeah," heckles a second voice "Show us some proof". The turnip advocate considers this for a moment then produces a small, sweetly perfumed bag of gold from the recesses of his garment, "This is the total cost of owning a turnip, "And this" he says triumphantly producing a considerably more weighty bag, reeking of sweat and smeared with bile "Is the total cost of owning a parsnip."
Two problems:
1) Most people DIDN'T take a UNIX course in 1989. So they will require UNIX training now. If you're looking at the TCO of Linux, you'll have to include this retraining, because if you tell your CFO "we did not include the cost of training because it isn't fair," he won't listen to anything else you have to say.
2) There's knowledge of functionality, and then there's knowledge of how to learn a new function in a given philosophy. 15 years ago, you would click on the Control Panel icon in your Program Manager to change display settings. Today, you click on the Control Panel icon on the start menu to do the same. It's evolved a bit, sure, but so has UNIX. The only thing that's stayed the same are locations of config files and the context of the command line...just like the only things that have stayed the same in Windows are how to MANIPULATE Windows (left, right clicks, application bars, etc) and the names of functions.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
No kidding. I can't tell you how many people were totally confused the first time they saw the Windows XP start menu for instance.
But here I think by training costs they mean it is less expensive to train a Windows 2000 user on Windows XP than it would be to train the same user on a linux distro. At least initially. Microsoft, as usual, is probably trying to spin numbers in their favor. And what company wouldn't? It's all about PR.
When talking about training a linux user how to use new linux versions or different distros versus different windows versions, I agree with your argument. Microsoft, however, is probably not talking about that.
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/facts/default.asp
Can anyone figure out how they got these figures?
is that from the day DOS was released to today is the total amount of time the computer industry has been set back because of MS. Before Bill it was considered absurd to sell a computer to an end user without an OS, that is where the "Selling a computer without an OS is like selling a car without an engine comes from". But being the gullible, trusting and greedy nerd we are, we had to let the MBA's take over and now look at the mess we are in.
it is perhaps a sad fact that most of the poeple doing "real" programing are actually not that good at it, they are however good enough to get the job done.
granted it's not the best job, but it works
a lot of business is about just getting something that works, as much as we'd like to think it was about getting the best solution it really isn't.
so yes a lot of these "fake" programmers, like the pretty toolsets, and they get something that mostly works. And in less time than it would have taken them to go and get a "real" programming education.
Hmm right. so linux ain't free. Well apart from the fact that it is, what about it? Linux ain't free vs Windows ain't free. At worst this makes it equal to windows.
Right, just get the company lawyer to study the differences. If they can't find any you need a lawyer who can read.
A really dangerous one. You see there is only migration cost from windows -> linux same as there is for companies going from unix -> windows. From unix -> linux, NO MIGRATION WORTH SPEAKING OFF. Certainly no massive retraining. You might be suprised but starting to use linux might mean you can use all those 40+ employees that learned computers on unix systems. MS is saying that people are moving from unix to windows and linux so it is saying that in those cases linux is the better option because of the lesser migration costs?
Oh please. The only comment possible is hysterical laughter. Must have been the comic relieve bit.
The only point that can make sense if your ms. After all MS believes in its own way of doing things and since Linux way != windows way of course they are going to think linux does it wrong. Some people prefer the unix way, some prefer the windows way. These two are never going to meet in the middle except to have a fight.
So a bunch of idiotic claims and 1 that is about taste. Not exactly going to convince me. In fact all this kinda roadshow might do is give linux free advertising. Consider this. How many people will have seen the name linux first in a MS ad? People who never knew there was another OS?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You clearly aren't reading the posts. It went more like this:
GPL code isn't "free".
You just want to profit from it, so therefore you're evil.
So it's not free then
Hi, I'm a different AC, and I'm going to throw in a non sequiteur about it being about freedom of the code.
The people whop coined the phrase appear to disagree with you.
I don't care about them. It's about freedom of the code
Well what does that mean then?
Have a look at dictionary.com
It doesn't fit that definition.
Really? Eight hours downtime a year? I routinely achieve that with hardware for which the designation "commodity" should be considered fulsome praise. And that's with Mandrake Linux, a distribution hardly noted for being conservative.
Hello? MS-Windows is non-proprietary? I think when you last reached for the paracetamol you got the 1-phenyl-2-amino propanol instead.
Yeah, like IE and Outlook - which is why so many people are switching away from these free programs. The fact that Opera has a market should be all the evidence you need that Microsoft are falling short on something as basic as a web browser.
As for specific, vertical-market applications, that's not an MS-Windows advantage, that's all to do with the applications themselves, and that's precisely what WINE is for. WINE will tide you over until the application vendors come to their senses and abandon platform-specific development environments. dotNYET apparently had "complicating WINE's life" as a subgoal, but it doesn't appear to have been a very effective one, in the end.
Amen. I learned UNIX back in 1984 under BSD 4.1. (Actually, did some work earlier under 2.9.) The system calls are still pretty similar (although I miss MPXIO :-). Device drivers look almost identical in their basic structure. The password file is the same except for the obvious improvement of supporting longer hashes. libc has some more functions in it, but all the old ones work. Etc, etc.
Biggest change is we have X now, but even that is pretty darn similar to X of 1990, except that we have (a) much better HW to run it on (no more 8 bit pseudocolor---yay!) and (b) much better toolkits to run on top of it (no more Xt---yay!).
Probably 80% of the C code I write today would run on the first boxes I worked on with only trivial modifications.
On the administration front, similar. Probably the biggest change has been the introduction of NIS and NFS, but to anyone who knew the old stuff, this isn't a big learning curve.
One of the cool things about UNIX is that improvements tend to be incremental in their learning curve, and unimpactful on existing knowledge. This is evidence that the design was right in the first place...
Bullshit. More like you are making up your own convenient definitions of "free" to suit your argument. Hint: "BSD is not free" is wrong.
If you did that, then it would not be free anymore. So why would you want to?
The whole point is that everyone should have access to the source code. The compiled version is just there for convenience's sake.
What you are saying is a bit like "What good is a marriage certificiate if my wife can still refuse to have sex with me if she doesn't want to?" It doesn't work like that!
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
After your sickening display of ignorance, stupidity, and malice when it comes to the subject, someone would really have to be at death's door before consulting you about anything.
More like you are making up your own convenient definitions of "free" to suit your argument.
Well, I'm using the FSF's definition of free, which implies that the user is free to do what they want with it. Except, the user is not. Hence the FSF have redefined "free" for political reasons.
Alternatively, people argue that the code is free. This is in the sense of "unrestricted". Because the GPL applies restrictions on how the code may be used, it is not free in this sense.
what the hell is a 'Microsoft Refresh'? english, please!
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
No, you are a liar sir, you are not using anyone's definition of anything. You are making crap up as you go along. From the FSF website:
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
You're saying the user of a GPL software does not have one or all of these freedoms? You have absolutely no idea. Give up now retard.
Personally, I'd reverse the comparison and say the DOS prompt is "almost as good as a Unix shell."
Then you haven't actually used both (at least not as a "power user". *nix had real pipes from the beginning. DOS offered you a poor substitute (pseudopipes). Where's the tab completion, line history with command line editing, job control, aliases, `' and $() command quotes, the ~ shortcut for the home directory, procedural constructs that are actually useful for scripting etc. ad nauseam? Granted, doskey fixed at least some of this, but still, compared to e.g. bash, command.com (or cmd.exe as they now call it) sucks goat balls.
What's rather funny is that they finally plan to offer a decent shell bundled with Longhorn (MSH), but then they deride said powerful shells as "DOS prompts". The irony...
I love C++
But I know you Brits are averse to such rude practice :-P
You have enough ammunition on this site to debunk the claims they present as a matter of fact when in reality it is just their interested opinion.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And who exactly causes the migration costs to be high? Could it be that some software vendors purposefully try to make it difficult to migrate?
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
;-) In German, it would read
Erst ignorieren sie Dich,
dann lachen sie Dich aus,
dann bekämpfen sie Dich,
dann siegst Du.
I love C++
You're saying the user of a GPL software does not have one or all of these freedoms?
NO!
I'm saying that the FSF's defintiion of free software is a very limited and arbitrary defintion of free, because it limits the freedom of the end user.
My point is that they used the word free for political purposes and then redefined it.
> Running a Linux server requires more than point/clicking your way around.
First time I read this, I thought you had written ``Running a Linux server requires more than politicing your way around." Still made sense though: every use of Windows in the datacenter seems to be due to business politics, rather than a careful analysis.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
Why not re-write that stuff to throw up a big warning box saying that whatever application tried to do something stupid?
Oh, sorry. That might mean that another platform (like OS/2?) might get some converts.
Microsoft's management decided that it would be better to fill their OS with cruft rather than risk losing any marketshare.
That is what happens when you focus on "user friendly" above all else.
Microsoft programmers can blame the stupid 3rd party app coders for hacking away through the Microsoft code to use UNDOCUMENTED features (which other Microsoft apps have used in the past) but the real problem is Microsoft management not telling the 3rd party app management to get the 3rd party coders to fix the code and then telling the Microsoft coders to clean the cruft out.
I'm saying that the FSF's defintiion of free software is a very limited and arbitrary defintion of free, because it limits the freedom of the end user.
You also said this Well, I'm using the FSF's definition of free, which implies that the user is free to do what they want with it.. Everything you've said is a load of shit and you're trying to reposition yourself and make stuff up to save face. You sicken me. Please fuck off.
My point is that they used the word free for political purposes and then redefined it.
I'm sure you are an expert, seeing as you are so good at redifinging things. I don't suppose you'd like to point to any evidence that they have redefined the word free.
If you did that, then it would not be free anymore.
You'd still have the original code to do stuff with.
So why would you want to?
Some people really don't mind that other people can use their code without giving back. Other people think that if people use their code, then they can return the favour.
The latter of these is not unreasonable, but I think that calling this "freedom" is stretching the defintion a little.
You also said this Well, I'm using the FSF's definition of free, which implies that the user is free to do what they want with it.. Everything you've said is a load of shit and you're trying to reposition yourself and make stuff up to save face. You sicken me. Please fuck off.
Ah. Right. I think I'll call you Mr.Fuckoff. There are so many ACs here, it's difficult to keep track.
You are quite right in that I have mistakenly misrepresented my meaning. Sadly, we are not all incapable of making mistakes.
What I mean to say is that the FSF's says that claims that software is free in the sense that the user has freedom to use it as he chooses. However, they follow this, with a definition that allows people to restrict this freedom.
I'm sure you are an expert, seeing as you are so good at redifinging things. I don't suppose you'd like to point to any evidence that they have redefined the word free.
I point you to this thread
I'm so sorry to hear that you are at death's door. I hope you have your affairs in order.
BSD code isn't free" means that it isn't free for any meaning of the word. You don't seem to have a solid grasp on the English language and/or basic logic skills, so you must have something wrong with you.
No. I say that it isn't free in a specific sense because there are restrictions on how it may be used.
BTW. GPL code is also free because it can't be confined.
Free does not mean "Can't be confined". It means "Isn't confined". However, it is. This has prevented GPLed code from being used in BSD.
Not really, since Microsoft and 95% of their corporate audience understand "free" to mean "as in beer".
Btw, even if free is understood as in free speech, why should a mere user like e.g. Munich care about copyleft? If anything, copyleft just ensures that corporations that do work on the source code, like e.g. IBM, will make their improvements available for free. That's a plus for Linux, not BSD.
I love C++
One can't limit, restrain, or *confine* GPL code.
Nor can you can confine code derived from it. You are not free to do so.
You can confine BSD code.
You can only confine code derived from BSD code. The fact that it lets you do this makes it more free.
Microsoft administrators are often cheaper and come with less brainpower than their *nix counterparts. This makes it cheaper to retain MS trained staff. It is also (generally, thus far) cheaper to outsource Microsoft-based network management.
Because, of course, no corporation which can consider millions of dollars on licensing fees 'cheap' would be willing to spend a paltry few extra hundred thousand a year to get administrators with more brainpower and a genunie dedication to the technology which they use, versus having gotten into computers 'for the money' as most MS-only types do.
Enterprise development is also, thus far, cheaper on Microsoft platforms. These platforms have all the tools to develop large systems quickly and effectively. Few organisations are writing their enterprise systems in C anymore! In this respect Java is providing a lifeline to Linux. An equally important consideration is the available of enterprise platforms off the shelf, most of which support *nix (but not Linux) or Windows platforms.
Erm, last time I checked, there were more programming languages available for Linux than for Windows, although to be fair, Visual Basic and Visual C++ provide very easy-to-use IDEs, unless,of course, your interest is in writing business-critical applications; Visual Anything is much more suited to finding the right shade of beige for your buttons. Serious business tasks shouldn't even require a GUI; they should just get the job done, and be easy to fix if they break.
These are not the hallmarks of a Microsoft solution.
The real biggies in productivity are avoiding downtime, having the right applications for the job (i.e. productivity applications), and having the right skills to use the application. While workstation failures are irritating (and, frankly, Linux has at most a 10% lead in stability in that environment), network outages (not an OS consideration) and server failures are where the problems lie.
You are obviously talking out of your arse here, and have switched from the server to the desktop, where we all agree Windows is generally the better choice, especially for calendaring. However, software-related workstation failures are a problem, especially if they kill your ability to work for the day, or if they expose confidendial data to the outside world through security holes. When a single virus can kill your entire network *and* take out your nicely integrated Calendar/Email solution, it's time to find another vendor.
Finally, in terms of productivity applications and available skills and/or training, Linux can't touch Windows. They are literally hundreds or applications for every purpose out there that are smooth and polished and do what a business wants. More importantly, you'll easily find staff that are experienced with that package, and that's a huge cost saving.
No, these applications aren't smooth and polished; they're generalized. That's how shrinkwrap software works; you spend less on the software than you would for a custom-written application, but you must accept that said application will not be perfectly tailored to your needs. For some things, like word processing, this is fine, but for critical pieces of your business, this is not.
So yes, Linux is free and cheap and all that, and has tons of applications, and can do amazing stuff. But it doesn't do it out of the box, few people know the desktop environment or the applications, and it takes a less common skillset to configure, administer, maintain and develop in a Linux environment. All of which push up the long term TCO, and allow you to make a very valid cost comparison with Windows.
Yes, but only if you ignore Windows' shortcomings in these areas as well, including things like security, yearly hardware and software upgrade costs, etc. You also have to make the assumption that all of your employees have had their brains replaced with pieces of Silly-Putty, as anyone with more than ten functioning neurons,
--
I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy
And why don't they mention in their facts how costly it can be if you install windows while pluged into the internet. 9/10 users would likely get a virus in 5 minutes.
Well, I'm using the FSF's definition of free, which implies that the user is free to do what they want with it. Except, the user is not. Hence the FSF have redefined "free" for political reasons.
No, you redefined "user" for political/ideological reasons. If you're copying & pasting GPL code, you're not a mere user any more, you're a developer. In the same way as you're no longer just a listener, but a musician, if you include other people's samples in your own songs. Get it into your thick skull or don't, but avoid embarassing yourself any further.
I love C++
It's no secret. "The GPL is free" is dogma. Lots of people know it, but the Linux zealots carry on bleating about how Linux is free.
As long as miserable trolls like you can't come up with a better definition of "free software", it is, so put up or shut up. Here's my proposal: If it includes any restrictions beyond public domain code, it's not free. That would make both the BSDL and the GPL non-free. Do you like that definition better?
I love C++
What I mean to say is that the FSF's says that claims that software is free in the sense that the user has freedom to use it as he chooses. However, they follow this, with a definition that allows people to restrict this freedom.
And the user does have all these freedoms, including the right to modify the software. But she/he/it doesn't have unlimited rights of redistributing it (since if SHIT does, SHIT must make the source code available to the recipient, too). Any way, giving copies away is not what a user does, but a distributor. The point that a distributor may also be a user is incredibly irrelevant.
I love C++
You can only confine code derived from BSD code. The fact that it lets you do this makes it more free.
No, and this is the mistake you continue to make. The fact that you can do this makes you more free, but it doesn't imply anything about the freedom of the code.
I think that calling this "freedom" is stretching the defintion a little.
We don't call that "freedom" we call that "The GPL".
No, and this is the mistake you continue to make. The fact that you can do this makes you more free, but it doesn't imply anything about the freedom of the code.
It's not a mistake.
The code is more free, because it can be used more freely. It has fewer restrictions. I think that makes it more free.
And the user does have all these freedoms, including the right to modify the software.
Indeed they have.
But she/he/it doesn't have unlimited rights of redistributing it (since if SHIT does, SHIT must make the source code available to the recipient, too).
Yes. That's the point. This means it can't be used with BSD code.
Any way, giving copies away is not what a user does, but a distributor. The point that a distributor may also be a user is incredibly irrelevant.
A distributer is, legally speaking, a user. Anyone who copies it uses it.
No kidding. I can't tell you how many people were totally confused the first time they saw the Windows XP start menu for instance.
Okay, first up, mods, this is NOT a troll.. but brace yourselves.. I'm about to imply that windows might not be as bad as all that..
I really don't understand what's to be confused by in the XP start menu. Sure, for a new user you open it, and a load of stuff pops up at you, but regardless of whether you're using fischer-price or classic mode, it's pretty straightforward.. I mean.. there's a bit marked "All Programs" - and all your programs are in there. There's a bit marked "My Recent Documents", and your recent documents are in there.. there's a bit marked "Control Panel", and the control panel is in there.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I've never once had a user be confused by the start menu - in fact, it's about the ONLY part of windows most of them find straightfoward, and I'm talking here about people who have close to zero computer knowledge (i.e. don't know terms like "icon" or "minimize")
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
The problem is with "free distribution". The GPL does not permit unrestricted distribution. There is a clause insisitng that you have to distrubute source code.
Also, from the open source inititative's defintion, "License Must Not Restrict Other Software". The GPL does restrict other software. Non GPLed source code may not be distributed in an application where it is linked with GPLed software.
Oh, and what is it with the whole "Fuck off" thing. It really is quite pathetic.
No, I am not going to fuck off, just because you tell me to. If you think that I will, you really must be the biggest idiot.
But really, this has been apparent fot this entire thread. GPL apologists are delightfully naive when they parrot the FSF party line. And then get it wrong.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
How the Open Source world treats SCO...
First they fight you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they ignore you.
Then you lose.
I would say we're at stage 3 right now, just like with the Ghandi quote applied to Microsoft vs. Open Source.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
To be honest, why is that a problem. If your Win2k machines goes down as rarely as a Linux machine. (It doesn't, but they're getting there.), is Win2k's ability to pick itself back up, really an issue?
"I like people. They're like little Happy Meals with legs" - Spike
I'm tired of this whole acceptance of "Linux isn't free" bullshit. It is a straight lie, and we need to point out that it is.
Firstly (but not most importantly), Linux - the product - is free of costs. Of course Linux is just the kernel, but often you get full distributions free. Debian will always be free. You can get it without paying for it. Yes, you may have costs involved in maintaining it and running it, but that does not mean it is not free. Those costs are "support costs", not "Linux-costs". If someone give you a car for free, you are not right in claiming the car isn't free to you just because you have to buy gasoline to go places.
Secondly, Linux is free as in freedom. You are free look at, change, and do mostly whatever you want with Linux, as long as you distribute it under the same fredoms.
I understand that some people agree to the fallacy as a way of acknowledging that there are costs associated with running Linux, but the fact is it is wrong, Linux satisfies the requirement for both meanings of the word "free".
(sorry, didn't mean to rant on parent, I have just seen too many people not contesting Microsofts spin here)
The first thing I thought when I visited MS' "get the facts" page was that I'd seen it before - they did exactly the same thing about 5 years ago, the page layout, the wording and (obviously) the findings are identical.
I seem to remember that they did a performance comparison of an out of the box install of NT server and an out of the box install of redhat. The servers they chose to use were 4 CPU Dell machines.
NT beat the pants off redhat because the out of the box redhat kernel didn't support symmetric multiprocessing, so the 4 CPU NT box was effectively competing with a single CPU redhat.
Unless you control for how much the trainees learn and how useful they are after training the comparison is meaningless. I don't expect they did that. In any case it would be real hard to measure with any accuracy. For example, how do you compare being able to bring up Windows explorer and being able to use its limited functionality to being able to do wizzy things with "find".
Squirrel!
Good points... but your sig:
./ editors moderate: Moderation Totals: Offtopic=10, Insightful=1, Interesting=9, Total=20.
./ ?
Yea
Funny that...I'm deploying Linux servers at a small company where Windows Server 2000 was the server platform of choice and so far we've saved money, headaches, and made better use of our hardware.
Funny that...
the "free" doesn't have one defintion, first off, so this debate (in which the AC I agree with looks like an asshole) is really crazy semantic BS because no one seems to admit there are different definitions of freedom which are separate if somewhat related.
Also, what the hell is going on with even the idea of "one defintion of freedom"? If there were just one for you guys to debate, it would not be absolute.
It's like "Being Smooth". Nothing is smooth. If you magnify anything enough it is not smooth... but it's smooth to some margin of deviation. So the term "smooth" has some value, even though it's never absolutely true.
So with ALL absolute senses of all terms. BSD is not absolutely free, and Linux is not absolutely free, nothing is and nothing can be, absolutes are internally inconsistent, they always lead to problems such as theistic ideas of Omnipotence. Can God make a stone so heavy he can't lift it... and if not, there is a power he does not have.
Having said that... Linux is more self interested than the BSD license. So what... nothing wrong with protecting yourself.
-pyrrho
Succinctly put.
WINE has to deal with official horrors as well as unrecognised ones. They even go so far as to implement workarounds for specific bugs in specific applications, which is something Microsoft won't do (sometimes does the opposite of, think Lotus-and-MS-DOS, DR-DOS-and-Win-3.1) except for their own products. But they're not a monopoly, snerk, snerk, snerk.
You left out the squillion other features (like "for" loops that are actually useful) which really round out BASH and make it - ugly as it is - absolutely sing compared to its poor crippled MS-DOS cousin ("as far removed as possible").
Excellent nick, by the way, I think the real de Tocqueville would go absolutely postal ("completely Bursar", to quote Nobby) if he were alive to see what they were touting in his name today, but Torquemada's methods do parallel those of AdTI quite closely. False claims, confusion and denial du jour.
If meatheaded Meta are going to study only people getting service contracts, then they need to include the cost of those contracts in the study for MS-Windows as well, and explain what they're doing. Unless and until they do, Meta are lying, and by extension Microsoft are lying too (even if it can be considered a lie of omission, it's a pretty important one).
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Friend, I've maintained networks of hundreds of boxes. Since a Windoes *SERVER* in theory can have such uptimes, your analysis makes sense, but only at first. How many Windows servers does it take to run a high volume mail server, domain controller, print server, web server, DNS server, and network health monitoring system with modem dial-out capability and e-paging capability? That's six Windows boxes, unless you invest a truly honking amount of money in quad or octal SMP software due to the poor multi-threading of Windows. And each of the vendors who sell you software for it will want you to install it on a dedicated box, not share it with the other services, because they will conflict with each other's libraries and resources. That's one, maybe two modest Linux boxes. OK, three if you want a backup to install things on and rotate in for the other machines as needed. And the overhead of mastering the wildly divergent commercial grade tools for the Windows server. And if your overall load is not too high, you can do it on a pair of decommissioned 500 MHz laptops to have built-in battery backup.
>> Funny how MS advocates always debunk myths
>> that no one even claimed to be true in the
>> first place
You "can't remember" said myths? Check back in your flood of trollings in this topic.
--- "Alexis de Torquemada" --> PROLIFIC TROLL.
I thought the same way too. By the time I finished my first shell script, a script that used ftpcopy to mirror ftp sites (I'm sure it could hav been done a million other ways) that were listed in a .conf file of my own creation, I changed my mind. COMMAND.COM/CMD.EXE batch files can't even begin to approach the bash shell in terms of awesomeness.
And this is from a relative newbie to Linux (Tried it back in the RH 5.2 days, then again in the RH 7.3 days, now with Fedora Core 2, they've finally been able to dumb things down enough for a Windows power user for me to make the switch)
In short, once you bash, you'll never go back.
I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
No. I say that it isn't free in a specific sense because there are restrictions on how it may be used.
That is why you are wrong, and is why I say you fail to grasp the English language.
Free does not mean "Can't be confined". It means "Isn't confined". However, it is. This has prevented GPLed code from being used in BSD.
GPL code isn't confined. It places restrictions on its *users*, yes. Nobody is claiming it doesn't. The whole point of the GPL is to clarify those restrictions.
First you said a WWW server was an apple, then you said it was a peach.
Which is it?!
I've actually run MS Exchange and an SQL server on the same machine. Of course, I did it on a 2 GHz, 2 Gig of RAM box running PostgresQL under Linux, using VMWare to run the Exchange server via a VNC session to allow me to detach or reconnect to it remotely and slap the Exchange server in the head as needed. And I carefully ran the Exchange server on a FAT32 file system on a distinct installed disk, to allow native Linux access to the FAT32 filesystem for better control of the system. But hey, I'm a masochist.
No-one suspected that when Microsoft means 5% to 20% higher training cost for Linux, they mean training people for Linux after they've been trained for Windows. They didn't state it, but it can be inferred from two facts from Julie Giera's Forrester report. First fact: second of the two reasons that companies report higher training cost is because "customers adopted a more conservative approach to training." Second fact: "Linux-only deployments are also less expensive ... There was no legacy environment to migrate from and no requirements for multiple operating systems to support."
Fact one tells us that companies who train Linux administrators like to play safe with their current infrastructure, which is Windows. Of course, in order to do that, they must be trained for skills on both Windows and Linux. The second fact confirms that if you just train for Linux, then you can cut cost significantly.
Since according to the report, training for both Windows and Linux costs 15% more than training for only Windows, we can say that training for Linux only costs only 15% than training for Windows. This is a fact hidden in the report that Microsoft is not willing to point out.
I once had a signature.
Yes. Digging through the MSDN bloat is much easier than typing:
http://www.php.net/function_i_want_help_on
idiot.
GPL code isn't confined. It places restrictions on its *users*, yes. Nobody is claiming it doesn't. The whole point of the GPL is to clarify those restrictions.
This is very surreal. You seem to be claiming that the code is free to to do what it wants as though it has free will.
If the user isn't free to do what he wants to do with the code, then the code isn't free. You might as well claim that CDs are free music. You can use them however you like. You can even sell them. The only restrictions are on copying them, where there are certain restrictions. But it's a stupid argument. The music isn't free, because there are restrictions on people who want to copy and distribute it.
And GPLed code isn't free, because there are restrictions on how it may be copied and distributed.
If that's the case, Bill, you won't mind handing the source over to the community to patch, port and recompile freely, will you?
Reformat, Reinstall, Reconfigure.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
This is very surreal. You seem to be claiming that the code is free to to do what it wants as though it has free will.
No, that is your straw man you ignorant fuck. The code is free because it is open, it is not constrained.
If the user isn't free to do what he wants to do with the code, then the code isn't free.
You say public domain code is free, and yet you aren't free to then go and copyright it, are you?
You might as well claim that CDs are free music. You can use them however you like. You can even sell them. The only restrictions are on copying them, where there are certain restrictions. But it's a stupid argument. The music isn't free, because there are restrictions on people who want to copy and distribute it.
Whatever turd boy.
And GPLed code isn't free, because there are restrictions on how it may be copied and distributed.
You have just proven yourself to be a nitwit, so say whatever you like. Nobody will listen to you.
Oh but users of public domain code are not free to go and copyright it, therefore it isn't free by your arguments you retard.
This entire thread is basically you contradicting yourself from start to finish in an attempt to make it seem like you've won the argument.
You really are a piece of work.
You respond to my comments fuming with anger and abuse.
I mean, why does it matter to you? You're acting as though whether the code is free is the most important thing in the world.
Do you really care? Do you really think I care? Do you really think that your arguments are as indestructable as you're making out?
Is it really worth getting so agitated?
Do you think that anyone else is listening, apart from myself and the people laughing at you?
Anyone else would have given up a long time ago.
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Oh but users of public domain code are not free to go and copyright it, therefore it isn't free by your arguments you retard.
They can copyright derived works though.
This entire thread is basically you contradicting yourself from start to finish in an attempt to make it seem like you've won the argument.
Nope. That's only half of it. The other half of it is other people coming up with stupid arguments to justify the "GPL is free" dogma.
Ok, valid points, it may seem straight forward, but I've worked tech support for years, and it does take people I've dealt with a while to realize that "My Computer" is now in the start menu, that "Programs" is now "All Programs" and in a different location, that the control pannel is missing options and you have to hit "classic view" to see them, etc. Maybe I'm just dealing with a different user base.
I'm not trying to flame Windows either, I'm a windows user half the time myself, and have learned to deal with its temperments. I'm just saying that there have been a lot of layout changes in between windows versions, and that requires retraining.
it's so common there exists a short-hand for it?
man, that's really perverse, isn't it? that someone says they have no problems as long as they do periodic "refreshes"? it's sick.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
No you are just stupid. Ha ha!!
Bullshit buddy. You can't go pulling the YHBT thing now because your arguments collapsed in a big contradicting heap.
You lost.
You care.
You contradicted yourself so many times that you now have to bail out.
People are laughing at you because you are a fuckwit.
You should have given up a long time ago because you were wrong.
Ha ha!!! Following is a summary of your argument.
* I hate people who say GPL code is free.
* Yeah, BSD code is so cool and free, GPL sucks.
* GPL code isn't free because it restricts the user.
* Oh BSD code does too? Yeah I knew that. It isn't free either.
* GPL and BSD code isn't free.
* Oh they are free? Well I meant free for some definition of free.
* Public domain code is cool. It is free.
* Oh it does place restrictions on the user too?
* How is it free and GPL not? Umm err umm well the thing is... YHBT YHL HAND ha ha you're getting so worked up ha ha yeah I won the argument...
Spastic. You were getting so worked up. I don't know how you genuinely thought you were winning. You were contradicting yourself at every turn. Go back to school.
Welll, what can I say?
I could point you to my journal. Compare the dates.
I could keep arguing that your argument that the code is free is stupid.
I could point out that the only people in this thread are you and me, and any lurker watching the fun.
I could also point you to a previous post about how people whose jobs were being outsourced were clearly underskilled, or my AC post about Van Halen belts.
But I won't. I'm bored now.
This thread is dead.
And you are nowhere near as smart as you think you are.
This isn't necessarily true. It seems to me that if a company does what Coke did and acknowledges the presence of their Pepsi, it's "preparing for battle" - a good business tactic. If the whole Pepsi thing hadn't exploded and Coke was still "the only one", then surely their preparation strategy would have been praised. Now what if Coke hadn't done anything to prepare and Pepsi got huge anyway? People would say that Coke didn't recognize a threat and therefore didn't prepare properly.
Obviously, hings can go either way - that's the thing about markets and strategies. Hopefully the teacher of the class wasn't focusing on "look what happens when you admit there's a threat" but rather on "either way you play the game there's still risk involved".
But if you know of any cmd.exe replacements, that don't require me to either log in through ssh or run the terminal under X (I run a root-less X server, but I would rather not have it involved in my terminals, since it seems slightly less stable than the native terminals (mostly when remote machines crash or hang and such)), I would be glad to hear about it.
so this debate (in which the AC I agree with looks like an asshole)
You see, this is why I carried on. The AC may have a point somewhere, but I'm pretty certain he hasn't thought through the argument totally. Instead, he simply spouts the Linux zealot dogma. I wanted to force him to think about his position. The fact that he insults his opponent, and keeps claiming victory just makes him look like more of an idiot, but I digress.
Of course, I genuinely disagree that the GPL can be said to offer full freedom for the end user. It does allow some freedoms, but that is different. I also think that you make some good points, so any argument would be a fairly pointless discussion on where the line is between "Free" and "Not Free". I also feel that the rationale behind the GPL is based on a flawed assumption that if someone takes your code, and modifies it without giving you the source, then you've lost it.
Having said that... Linux is more self interested than the BSD license. So what... nothing wrong with protecting yourself.
No, but I don't think there's anything wrong with charging a licencing fee either. The GPL imposes a condition on those who want to distribute modified works. Not an unreasonable one either.
snip bullshit face saving attempts.
And you are nowhere near as smart as you think you are.
That really made me laugh, coming from you.
You see, this is why I carried on. The AC may have a point somewhere, but I'm pretty certain he hasn't thought through the argument totally. Instead, he simply spouts the Linux zealot dogma. I wanted to force him to think about his position. The fact that he insults his opponent, and keeps claiming victory just makes him look like more of an idiot, but I digress.
Well excuse me! You forget how this all started. Let me refresh your memory.
You: I hate Linux zealots talking about how GPL is free. BSD license is free.
Me: please clarify.
You: Oh I can't clarify but BSD license isn't free, so I win the argument.
So let's not throw stones in the glass house, OK?
In fact, you were spouting BSD zealot FUD which you couldn't back up and subsequently contradicted yourself (multiple times).
Wahey! You do have a sense of humour.
I was beginning to worry.
(1) well, my point would be that BSD and GPL are both Free, and the term "free" has enough variability of meaning that saying which is more free is just a matter of asking "with respect to what criteria". It's not pointless, but you will find criteria in support of either one, precisely because both provide both gratic and libre "types" of freedom but with unique characteristics.
(2) I think you are right it's fine to charge a fee for software if you like. It's even "fine" to do this with BSD software, after all, the creators have expressly allowed it. HOWEVER: I remember a day before the GPL and free software was generally in the public domain. It was not better for free software. There was not more free software, it was not better. Basically what happens is a commercial company comes and makes a fork which competes with the original. The original cannot keep up because anything they do is available to commercial fork but not vice versa. It's like a ratchet, it only goes in one direction, and that's toward the commercial advantage. The GPL addressed a very important issue for people that want to share their code but not feel or be taken advantage of. I can imagine that the US government should use BSD style licenses... they want commerce to prosper, and such code can also be put into GPLed products. For individuals, it's less clear to me why they would want to use a BSD license.
(3) While you seem to have been far more civil than the AC (shocker!:) I think he's right in that you also seem to be pushing "standard FUD", namely BSD style GPL-ain't-free type FUD. It's your right to spread this by the way, so I don't fault that, just an observation.
(4) summary, standing back from the flaming portion of this debate. Both licenses are "free". They achieve different goals like two different libraries or two different pieces of software. To judge which one prefers is partially a matter of personal preference, but also a matter of what one hopes to accomplish.
-pyrrho
I'm sorry I didn't give your points the time I shoudl have done.
I was busily engaged in a flamewar with another AC who seemed to think that by insulting me he could somehow "win" the argument.
The original cannot keep up because anything they do is available to commercial fork but not vice versa. It's like a ratchet, it only goes in one direction, and that's toward the commercial advantage. The GPL addressed a very important issue for people that want to share their code but not feel or be taken advantage of.
I agree. At least in some cases, the GPL does provide a level playing field. In other cases, it's very useful simply to encourage people to share their improvements.
A recipient who is not competing is at a disadvantage though. Using GPLed software effectively bars you from licencing a lot of other software. Any proprietry library will be incompatible with the GPL. The result is that you have to choose between all GPL, or no GPL. The flipside of this is that without the GPL, a lot of software may not have been released, so the alternative may have been no GPL, or nothing at all.
For individuals, it's less clear to me why they would want to use a BSD license.
Some people are simply very proud of the software they've created, and want it to be used. They already have a decent enough income, but it gives them a thrill to see it used by other people.
While you seem to have been far more civil than the AC (shocker!:) I think he's right in that you also seem to be pushing "standard FUD", namely BSD style GPL-ain't-free type FUD.
You're quite right. And it was quite deliberate FUD. I apologise for that.
As I say, I think there's an element of truth to the argument, but anyone who gets too worked up about "freedom" is probably missing the point. It's more important to ask whether it allows you to do what you want to do. To some people it simply doesn't matter.
I could point you to my journal.
Hmm I just had a look at it. It confirms my suspicion that you are a retarded moron who doesn't know what the fuck you are talking about...
Then when you get picked by someone: "oh it was really a troll ha ha yeah!! that's what it was! all you silly people! you really thought i was serious? YHBT YHL YAND".
You are a sad, sad little person. I don't feel the need to insult you or argue with you anymore because you obviously have a miserable life and must be unusually stupid.
aww. diddums.
i have a 100MHz server with linux on it ......
and i didnt pay a cent for software (or hardware)
but i have 12GB of hdds and a speed of about 7 M bits s^-1 ..... so that 868$ dollars ? or 280$ for windows .... well it (my server) wont run xp , it could run 2k but bearly ..... so i put on a "lite" linux distro rmed all the gui stuff ...... so for 0$ on hardware and 0$ of software i have a legle file server for my backups ....
sorry about the spelling and fragmentions im not to good at spelling ...