Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Not That Open?
mstansberry writes "At the Open Source Business Conference last week, Microsoft's Shared Source mouthpiece Jason Matusow argued the point that open source isn't really open. He said you can't just go changing code on supported Linux offerings without paying extra to companies like Red Hat or Novell. So as Linux is commercialized, it becomes less open. While Matusow made good points during his presentation, many in the open source community are skeptical of the idea at best."
Now with that flamebait title I should get some curious readers :D.
The most un-open thinkg about open-source I'd have to say is GCC. It encourages you to use it extensions*. To me one of the core concepts of freedom is portability/being free from vendor lock-in... well GCC does not provide that. IIRC Intel's CC can't compile the Linux kernel... so now you are locked into using GCC. How this is any different from Microsoft's "embrace and extend" I cannot fathom; nor do I assume RMS to have any nobler intentions than Bill Gates from that matter (both insane genius off on self-serving crusades which may accidently benefit others).
What if I'm on a platform not supported by GCC or one for which GCC produces poor binaries or I have special tools for a particular compiler etc?
*(I've read release notes where they begrudged removing an extension when becoming more compliant and there is a comment about not trying to check for ANSIness in the man page)
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
ooohhhhh!!!! BURRRRNN!!!! you go girlfriend!
When will you hippies realise that communism doesn't work, and never will work!
Nothing costs nothing