I keep seeing web pages that claim they'll give me an operating system, games, even a complete office suite, and that I can download them without paying a cent.
You DO realize that silently auto-starting servers is EXACTLY what many people hate about Microsoft, don't you?
Exactly! It's a calamity. I mean it's just terrible. I turn on my box, and this thing call a 'kernel' auto-starts. I start X and this X protocol thingie starts running. I load my email client and it "auto-starts" a library to connect to the pop3 server.
When you load a program, you expect the program to load itself and function as it should. If you don't like the functionality, then use something else. Complaining may make you feel better, but doesn't do anything productive. If I want an email client that has pop3 support but not imap support, then I'd use an email client with onlyh pop3 support. I won't whine everytime someone tried to add imap support to an email client.
Reebok could then start using it, save a lot of money with the more efficient system, and put the money saved towards making themselves compete with Nike better
Put it under a license that prohibits other companies from 'hiding' their code. That way when bugs and security holes are fixed, your product gets better. That's why you want to release the source code. Sure, other companies may be more efficent because of it, but I'm sure that they'd be putting as much time into supporting it as you are, so I don't see much of a difference there.
If you use a piece of software that your business doesn't depend on, commercially, why are you using it?
"Depend on commercially" means selling it to make a profit. Nike doesn't sell their accounting solution, but I dare say that their business would be in big trouble if they didn't use it.
There you have it folks. The evil empire hasnt learned it's lesson. Hope I have been of some help.
I'll be! Thanks for warning me. I was eyeing one of those fine systems, but a quick call confirmed that no, they couldn't sell be a custom-configured system without Windows.
How come you can have copyright, but Microsoft can't?
Microsoft can have all the copyright they want. Perhaps you failed to take time to read what this is all about. Andover/slashdot *didn't* violate any copyright laws. They didn't post copies of the document, they didn't post links to copies of the document. Nowhere has/. said that copyright was valid, important or legal. And nowhere has slashdot violated copyright laws. Those who violated copyright laws are a bunch of immature idiots who just happened to post on a freely open board. Do you think that slashdot is to play 'Big Brother' and go through the thousands of posts daily to remove the 'bad' ones? If someone breaks the laws, that's their problem, not slashdots.
Should the telephone company be responsible if someone uses the phone to plot a crime? Would you sue the owner of a store if your car was stolen while parked outside? No, of course not. The questoins asked were valid. Before doing anything, it's best to define what you are supposed to be doing and why.
All that because you asked me a question ("does anyone really say Linux is free?") and I answered it in a way that you didn't want me to yet you can't refure? I'll answer your questions one at a time.
I've heard that premise before ("Linux isn't free unless your time is free") and I've never understand what the point of it was. I mean, any OS is going to require "time", so it's not like Linux is any worse then anything else in that area. Windows requires "time" too, just like Linux does. You aren't going to not need "time", just because you use Windows instead of Linux. But I'm sure you already know that.
Now onto your other points.
I really didn't pay anything for my copy of windows, it came with my computer.
I would have had to pay $200 if I wanted to buy a license to have Windows on my PC. Just because you got Windows preloaded, doesn't mean that you didn't pay anything for it. OEM's have to make a profit somehow, and that means that they are recouping the cost of the license. It just may not be as much as Microsoft gouges consumers for.
I can't remember the last time Windows crashed on me requiring a reboot.
Windows continually runs out of resources and then crashes, or refuses to run more applications, or quites redrawing properly. I don't know while, but it happens on all my Windows boxes. I should have those problems with a AMD K6-350 and 64meg ram, when all I'm running is Access, Word, C++ Builder, 2 dozen instances of IE open, and email and irc clients. And a bunch of other software open too. But anyways, I can run a whole lot more programs then that in Linux, without having to close programs down, or hit the reset button.
You're going to pay in terms of the time it takes you to get things working that you had taken for granted in Windows.
I wish I could claim to have that same experience. (Yeah, right!). However, when I've installed Windows, and Linux, it's always been Windows that has taken the time, been frusterating, and never worked. Linux, I can pop in the CD, and in 30 minutes have it rebooted and running. It'll have set everything up that I need, configured all my hardware, and is on the network. With Windows, it takes forever to install Windows to the hard drive. Then you've got to reboot. And reboot. And reboot. Install Office. Reboot. Install the drivers that didn't come with Windows. Reboot. Install Borland C++ Builder. Reboot. Install RealPlayer. Reboot. Install netmeeting. Reboot. Install an X server. Reboot. Configure the box to talk to the network. Reboot. Then if you've only got a modem connection, it'll be all night to download the 40+ meg from the Windows 98 update site that has been release since last June. Reboot. Also if you have the original 98 license, MS will send you the SE patches on CD (for S/H) but you'll have to install 98 first, and then the patches over that. Reboot.
I guess I don't know what to say. I *could* do my work in either Windows or Linux, I suppose. However, I value my time. And that's why I choose to use Linux.
In conclusion, I thank you for exmplaining your reasoning. But I must disagree. First of all, I think that everyone understands that nothing is ever completely free. However, certain qualities of things are free. For instance, in the case of Linux, I don't have to pay licensing costs. I'd call that free. Second, time is valuable. That's why you must make sure that you have a good investment. An OS that can't handle running all the applications I use, with the hardware I give it, isn't a good investment. An OS that doesn't eat up my valuable time be requiring my to run less applications then I should, or that requires me to reboot, certainly is less 'free' (in your own terms), then one that allows my to do everything I want.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I remember a poll about a week ago, where a significant portion of the audience here voted that they liked Linux because it was free (like free beer). There you go, sounds like quite a few people are claiming it.
So what? If they consider it free, what's that to you? Do you really have a problem with it? Do you have something against 'poor' college students being able to have an OS that didn't require real $$'s from them to use? Are you jealous because the OS that you want to use requires you to fork over real $$'s? What's the point of your.sig anyways?
Well, since you had to make an effort to point this out, I've got to reply to it.
There is no one every, anywhere, at any time, that has claimed that Linux was free. (Except for maybe Microsoft) So I guess I'm missing what your (lame) point is. Has anyone claimed that Linux was free?
Can I have a show of hands on how many people are concerned that Corel is buying up anything Linux-related that they can get thier hands on?
Actually, I didn't know that MetaCreations had Linux products. This is a surprise. Please show me where I can pick up a copy of their products for Linux. Thanks.
Is anyone else worried that future versions of Corel-owned Linux software are going to be closed?
No. Why *shouldn't* they be closed source? Open Source software is great, but it's not an exclusive utopia.
I have programmed for the Win32 API since 1994 (yes, even Win32s on Windows 3.1) and this assertion is only about 5% true
If that's so true, then email me an example program written in C++ that takes full advantage of Windows 2000, but also runs on Windows 98, Windows 3.1, Windows NT 4.0, and Windows CE. Without #ifdefs. Sure, NT 4.0, 98, and 2000 are relatively similar, but Windows CE isn't. Neither is Windows 3.1.
Anyways, that's what I'm talking about. I mean sure, program written for Windows 2000 will run fine on all copies of Windows 2000, just like programs written for Solaris will run fine on all copies of Solaris. But is it easier to port the Solaris program to a HPC running Linux, or a Windows 2000 program to Solaris?
I guess someones been listening to too much Microsoft propoganda. In reality, it's easy to get one source base to compile on all the OS's from other vendors, (Solaris, Linux, Mac OS X, BeOS) then it is to get on source base to compile on all the OS's that Microsoft currently markets. (Windows 98, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows CE).
However, it's true that Microsoft would consider MS Visual Studio all the 'cross-platform' development tools that you'd need. Even though that refuse to acknowledge that their OS line is fragmented;)
So how is Tarantella any better, apart from the SCO brand name?
I don't want to have to have a T1 connection to the internet, and store my sensitive data on a server on the internet, just to be able to use it through a web browser.
What's the point in Tarantella, now we have cool things like Workspot (on Slashdot a few days ago) which are a free solution for delivering Unix apps over the Web?
So, I *really* want to use Workspot to run my internal datacenter? I didn't think think so...
It sounds nice at first, but don't get the idea that Qt is replacing X on the desktop anytime soon.
As others have mentioned in here, it is likely that as a consumer desktop graphical system, an X-less QT/KDE interface could fill a big need. Consumers who just want to run graphical applications locally, don't ever need the overhead that X provides.
Is Qt becoming its own windowing system as well?
Seeing that KDE runs on Qt, if Qt/Embedded is source compatible, then the problem is solved. KDE on non-X displays.
Will you be able to run more than one Qt app and have them windowed?
There are 2 answers to this. 1, with embedded devices, such as webtops, PDA's, and refrigerators, only one app is running, and therefore windowing isn't needed. For set top boxes, and consumer Linux installations, windowing can be provided by KDE, or any other Window Manager that is ported to Qt.
Where are the video card drivers coming from without X??
Frame-buffer devices. This is what gives you the graphical penguin on most distributions bootup now.
Sure it's nice for embedded stuff, but a lot of people seem to have the idea that they're getting a small, fast, free X11 replacement for their desktops.
And for those who are looking to run their Qt/KDE applications, they are.
If, by this definition, DeCSS is illegal, then the DVD players you get from department stores are just as illegal!
The movie vendors have explicitly licensed the DVD players, or rather the player manufacturers, which is why the players are legal. DeCSS was not licensed.
Bingo! It's the exact same reason why AOL let other companies use their IM service but not MS. The other companies licensed the service from AOL. Microsoft didn't. So until they do, they'll have no right to use the service.
It's the same with DVD. It's not Linux that's the problem. The problem is licensing. No one wants to license a player for Linux. And until someone does, it will be illegal to have a Linux-based DVD player.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you been visiting that slackware site again?
-BrentLinux does X. I know. I use it.
-BrentYes, that would be Helix-Gnome.
-BrentExactly! It's a calamity. I mean it's just terrible. I turn on my box, and this thing call a 'kernel' auto-starts. I start X and this X protocol thingie starts running. I load my email client and it "auto-starts" a library to connect to the pop3 server.
When you load a program, you expect the program to load itself and function as it should. If you don't like the functionality, then use something else. Complaining may make you feel better, but doesn't do anything productive. If I want an email client that has pop3 support but not imap support, then I'd use an email client with onlyh pop3 support. I won't whine everytime someone tried to add imap support to an email client.
-BrentPut it under a license that prohibits other companies from 'hiding' their code. That way when bugs and security holes are fixed, your product gets better. That's why you want to release the source code. Sure, other companies may be more efficent because of it, but I'm sure that they'd be putting as much time into supporting it as you are, so I don't see much of a difference there.
-BrentIf you use a piece of software that your business doesn't depend on, commercially, why are you using it?
"Depend on commercially" means selling it to make a profit. Nike doesn't sell their accounting solution, but I dare say that their business would be in big trouble if they didn't use it.
-BrentI'll be! Thanks for warning me. I was eyeing one of those fine systems, but a quick call confirmed that no, they couldn't sell be a custom-configured system without Windows.
I'll be putting my $$'s someplace else...
-BrentMicrosoft can have all the copyright they want. Perhaps you failed to take time to read what this is all about. Andover/slashdot *didn't* violate any copyright laws. They didn't post copies of the document, they didn't post links to copies of the document. Nowhere has /. said that copyright was valid, important or legal. And nowhere has slashdot violated copyright laws. Those who violated copyright laws are a bunch of immature idiots who just happened to post on a freely open board. Do you think that slashdot is to play 'Big Brother' and go through the thousands of posts daily to remove the 'bad' ones? If someone breaks the laws, that's their problem, not slashdots.
Should the telephone company be responsible if someone uses the phone to plot a crime? Would you sue the owner of a store if your car was stolen while parked outside? No, of course not. The questoins asked were valid. Before doing anything, it's best to define what you are supposed to be doing and why.
-BrentYes you did, thank you.
All that because you asked me a question ("does anyone really say Linux is free?") and I answered it in a way that you didn't want me to yet you can't refure? I'll answer your questions one at a time.I've heard that premise before ("Linux isn't free unless your time is free") and I've never understand what the point of it was. I mean, any OS is going to require "time", so it's not like Linux is any worse then anything else in that area. Windows requires "time" too, just like Linux does. You aren't going to not need "time", just because you use Windows instead of Linux. But I'm sure you already know that.
Now onto your other points.
I really didn't pay anything for my copy of windows, it came with my computer.I would have had to pay $200 if I wanted to buy a license to have Windows on my PC. Just because you got Windows preloaded, doesn't mean that you didn't pay anything for it. OEM's have to make a profit somehow, and that means that they are recouping the cost of the license. It just may not be as much as Microsoft gouges consumers for.
I can't remember the last time Windows crashed on me requiring a reboot.Windows continually runs out of resources and then crashes, or refuses to run more applications, or quites redrawing properly. I don't know while, but it happens on all my Windows boxes. I should have those problems with a AMD K6-350 and 64meg ram, when all I'm running is Access, Word, C++ Builder, 2 dozen instances of IE open, and email and irc clients. And a bunch of other software open too. But anyways, I can run a whole lot more programs then that in Linux, without having to close programs down, or hit the reset button.
You're going to pay in terms of the time it takes you to get things working that you had taken for granted in Windows.I wish I could claim to have that same experience. (Yeah, right!). However, when I've installed Windows, and Linux, it's always been Windows that has taken the time, been frusterating, and never worked. Linux, I can pop in the CD, and in 30 minutes have it rebooted and running. It'll have set everything up that I need, configured all my hardware, and is on the network. With Windows, it takes forever to install Windows to the hard drive. Then you've got to reboot. And reboot. And reboot. Install Office. Reboot. Install the drivers that didn't come with Windows. Reboot. Install Borland C++ Builder. Reboot. Install RealPlayer. Reboot. Install netmeeting. Reboot. Install an X server. Reboot. Configure the box to talk to the network. Reboot. Then if you've only got a modem connection, it'll be all night to download the 40+ meg from the Windows 98 update site that has been release since last June. Reboot. Also if you have the original 98 license, MS will send you the SE patches on CD (for S/H) but you'll have to install 98 first, and then the patches over that. Reboot.
I guess I don't know what to say. I *could* do my work in either Windows or Linux, I suppose. However, I value my time. And that's why I choose to use Linux.
In conclusion, I thank you for exmplaining your reasoning. But I must disagree. First of all, I think that everyone understands that nothing is ever completely free. However, certain qualities of things are free. For instance, in the case of Linux, I don't have to pay licensing costs. I'd call that free. Second, time is valuable. That's why you must make sure that you have a good investment. An OS that can't handle running all the applications I use, with the hardware I give it, isn't a good investment. An OS that doesn't eat up my valuable time be requiring my to run less applications then I should, or that requires me to reboot, certainly is less 'free' (in your own terms), then one that allows my to do everything I want.
So what? If they consider it free, what's that to you? Do you really have a problem with it? Do you have something against 'poor' college students being able to have an OS that didn't require real $$'s from them to use? Are you jealous because the OS that you want to use requires you to fork over real $$'s? What's the point of your .sig anyways?
-BrentYes
-BrentWell, since you had to make an effort to point this out, I've got to reply to it.
There is no one every, anywhere, at any time, that has claimed that Linux was free. (Except for maybe Microsoft) So I guess I'm missing what your (lame) point is. Has anyone claimed that Linux was free?
Ask QNX if you don't believe this...
-BrentGood Grief!!
If you are going to say something about it, you may as well provide a link.
-BrentActually, I didn't know that MetaCreations had Linux products. This is a surprise. Please show me where I can pick up a copy of their products for Linux. Thanks.
Is anyone else worried that future versions of Corel-owned Linux software are going to be closed?No. Why *shouldn't* they be closed source? Open Source software is great, but it's not an exclusive utopia.
-BrentIf that's so true, then email me an example program written in C++ that takes full advantage of Windows 2000, but also runs on Windows 98, Windows 3.1, Windows NT 4.0, and Windows CE. Without #ifdefs. Sure, NT 4.0, 98, and 2000 are relatively similar, but Windows CE isn't. Neither is Windows 3.1.
Anyways, that's what I'm talking about. I mean sure, program written for Windows 2000 will run fine on all copies of Windows 2000, just like programs written for Solaris will run fine on all copies of Solaris. But is it easier to port the Solaris program to a HPC running Linux, or a Windows 2000 program to Solaris?
-BrentYes, and no thanks. I'll go back to using 'fragmented' OS's as my platform of choice.
-BrentActually, unless I'm downloading the wrong thing, it's much closer to 4 meg.
-BrentI guess someones been listening to too much Microsoft propoganda. In reality, it's easy to get one source base to compile on all the OS's from other vendors, (Solaris, Linux, Mac OS X, BeOS) then it is to get on source base to compile on all the OS's that Microsoft currently markets. (Windows 98, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows CE).
However, it's true that Microsoft would consider MS Visual Studio all the 'cross-platform' development tools that you'd need. Even though that refuse to acknowledge that their OS line is fragmented ;)
-BrentAnd more importantly, I want to know if anyone knows if there are screenshots.
-BrentI don't want to have to have a T1 connection to the internet, and store my sensitive data on a server on the internet, just to be able to use it through a web browser.
-BrentSo, I *really* want to use Workspot to run my internal datacenter? I didn't think think so...
-BrentWow!! It sounds nearly as bad as Windows 2000.
-BrentIt sounds nice at first, but don't get the idea that Qt is replacing X on the desktop anytime soon.
As others have mentioned in here, it is likely that as a consumer desktop graphical system, an X-less QT/KDE interface could fill a big need. Consumers who just want to run graphical applications locally, don't ever need the overhead that X provides.
Is Qt becoming its own windowing system as well?
Seeing that KDE runs on Qt, if Qt/Embedded is source compatible, then the problem is solved. KDE on non-X displays.
Will you be able to run more than one Qt app and have them windowed?There are 2 answers to this. 1, with embedded devices, such as webtops, PDA's, and refrigerators, only one app is running, and therefore windowing isn't needed. For set top boxes, and consumer Linux installations, windowing can be provided by KDE, or any other Window Manager that is ported to Qt.
Where are the video card drivers coming from without X??Frame-buffer devices. This is what gives you the graphical penguin on most distributions bootup now.
Sure it's nice for embedded stuff, but a lot of people seem to have the idea that they're getting a small, fast, free X11 replacement for their desktops.And for those who are looking to run their Qt/KDE applications, they are.
-BrentBingo! It's the exact same reason why AOL let other companies use their IM service but not MS. The other companies licensed the service from AOL. Microsoft didn't. So until they do, they'll have no right to use the service.
It's the same with DVD. It's not Linux that's the problem. The problem is licensing. No one wants to license a player for Linux. And until someone does, it will be illegal to have a Linux-based DVD player.
-Brent