Companies don't pay billions to MS each. What they do do is pay a tiny sum of what it costs to develop the software. MS then collects all the money from all the users and put it into the next version of the software. In your scenario, two possible things might happen.
a) one company/person pay for everything. This is a lot more costly than paying a part of the whole in the above scenario. Also, why pay? Just wait for someone else to pay.
b) You pay a little, but there are no guarantee that the software gets written because not enough constributers might appear. You lose money+you don't get the software.
In the current system, you either pay for software that already exists, or you contract the project out (in which case, you pay for it, but your competitor won't get software you paid for).
Usually don't work, don't really like it. Last year I went home for Christmas (Norway). This year, I'm not (going to Las Vegas for New Year, though). Only reason I'm at work is that there are stuff I wanted done before the New Year. Start the new year with a clean set of sheet, so to speak:-)
We're talking about pirating, as in distributing software you don't have permission to distribute, as in, not following the terms that a software is distributed under. We're not talking about EULA here.
GPL sets certain terms for distribution of software, BSD License sets other terms. Other software packages yet another term.
Again and again, we have gotten this beaten into us at/.: If you don't agree to the term, you can't distribute GPL software. Fine. If you don't agree to the term on a given software, you can't distribute it to your friends, relatives, set up a ftp etc etc.
Why is it OK for these people to break copyright and set up distribution, but it's not OK for me, for instance, to break copyright, and distribute binary only GPL software?
What rule of sharing information? You mean the GPL? Well, if you feel it's OK to break a license you disagree with, why can't I break I license I disagree with?
Else you are taking all the information from everyone and keeping it to yourself.
Let me get this straight. You have information/source code. I use the information/source code, and ADD to it. I then release my PRODUCT/binary, and magically, all the information/source code that was out in the wild disappeared?
What did I take from you that you didn't have before I released my binaries?
Or is this just GPL speak again. It's OK for you, but not for me?
You're right. You should be allowed to do whatever you want with software that you have on your system. It's yours. What does it matter what the license of said software is?
Just like I should be allowed to take your GPL code, modify it as I see fit, and only distribute the binaries. I mean, what does it matter what license it is under?
Yes, and this is a typical Linux user mindset - expecting everybody to write their own stuff. Hmmm... buying something off-the-shelf, or spending the next six months (tying up the resources that it entails), to write your own solution...
I'm suprised you didn't ask the person to RTFM, while you were at it.
As far as the kernel goes, I think Linux is there.
Is this true, though? If you have listened to the chorus lately, they seem to indicate that 2.4.x is not really ready yet (basically, if you're running 2.4.x on a production server, you are being blasted for not caring about stability).
So, you are basically stuck with 2.2.x, and 2.2.x doesn't have the new enterprise features, like more memory support, and better SMP.
There are different levels of enterprises. Are they talking about billion dollar companies, or are they talking about mom-and-pop companies?
Where in the enterprise do they see Linux running?
Is it as a printserver, database server, or the desktop?
Personally, I don't think Windows will be replaced on the desktop in the foreseeable future. The average ubergeek/Linux user hates the normal user too much for that to happen (personally I think it's an inferiority complex...)
On the server side, at my work, we still haven't seen any major request for Linux solutions (we write custom management solutions for midlevel enterprises, i.e. adding specific monitoring support into HP NNM, CA TNG, Tivoli etc). Here, Solaris reigns supreme (if you don't have Solaris support, you can forget it). We looked at Linux support about 6-12 months ago, and the thing is, from a network management point of view, Linux is terrible (right now). SNMP is not fully supported (the UCDavis agent that comes with RedHat doesn't have full SNMPv2 support), and it's harder to get to the underlying hardware than for WinNT and Solaris.
It is getting there though. The Tivoli agent (no matter how you feel about Tivoli TME) has been ported to Linux (at least it was, last time I talked to a Tivoli rep at LinuxWorld '99). The new management standard, WBEM, seems to get full Linux attention from people like IBM, although it's still not there compared to what Sun and Microsoft has in place (basically, the frontend (cimom) seems to be there, the backend (providers) is missing).
Quite frankly, I would be curious to see how people like Google is managing thousands of Linux servers (they're not going around pinging each server each day to see if it's up, are they?)
Sorry about the rambling, it's early in the morning, and it's slashdot.
There is a big advantage to hide the source code even without copyright. If there is a problem, you have to come to me to fix it and create a new fixed binary.
Don't really understand the argument that if copyright went away, suddenly all the closed-source code out there would turn opensource.
I can certainly agree with that if 2.4.x just came out (like in the 2.4.0-2.4.5 range). The thing is, y.[even].x was supposed to be the stable branch, not the experimental branch.
Meaning you don't introduce stuff unless is it really tested. Something like the USB stuff before it was backported to 2.2 series.
If 2.4 doesn't have the timetested guarantee, why should anyone believe 2.2 has it? Why not go with 2.0? Oh, wait, neither 2.0 nor 2.2 has some of the features that was introduced just for the enterprise...
Stop making excuses for the 2.4 series. It's been really shoddy. Doesn't reflect too well...
Sites that don't use PNG:
www.salon.com, www.userfriendly.org, yahoo.com, www.redhat.com, www.debian.org, www.gnu.org, and of course, www.slashdot.org.
Problem is how you look at it. You see Windows, and you see one company behind it. You look at Linux and you see lots of companies behind them, and think of it as dilution of focus.
Thing is, it's the wrong comparison. Think of RedHat Linux, Debian GNU/Linux, Suse Linux as the equivalent of Windows. Linux, the brand, would be like wordprocessor. There are different wordprocessors out there (MSWord, WordPerfect, Lotus WordPro, StarWord etc), each made by a different company/group.
So, you do have an entire company focusing on one version of the OS (RedHat focuses only on their RedHat Linux OS). When they add a feature that everybody like, other distributions add the feature (again like WPs... MS adds a feature, and it gets copied over to WordPerfect, WordPro etc).
As to performance and ease-of-use, I would say Debian does rival RedHat in ease-of-use. Their package management system is far superior to the RPM system that most commercial dists. use.
Think of it like this, Microsoft has had for the longest time, two distributions in their company (NT and 9x line). One company, two distributions. RedHat has always only had one distribution (RedHat Linux).
You don't live down in Santa Theresa area, do you? Just moved here (from an apartment up in Santa Clara where I had DSL). Man, do I miss it:-( No DSL, no Cable, although Covant said they had something called IDSL (144kbs)
Seems reasonable to fire the people who would work on a given project for free anyways. Keep only people on project that nobody outside the company would work on, fire the rest, and let the community take over. Isn't that the strength OS?
Re:Which is what amazes me...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
What do you mean, complacent? They got the plane down in PA. What the heck else do you expect of them?
No quicktime. No Windows Media. No Vietnamese fonts. Linux is not the best tool for the kind of job I'm trying to do (get a useable web experience for my father).
Best tool for the job. Right now, Windows is the better tool for the job
ME, Win2k, 98, XP all have a Start button. All has the File,Edit, menues. All can copy/pase with the same key shortcuts.
I put 98 on my parents system at home, and then Win2k on my system while they are visiting. As far as they're concerned, Win2k is just a newer version than 98 with additional features. They don't really see any difference in usage.
Now, take the difference between Enlightenment and KDE...
Slashdot Mirror
What the point in having a cake if you can't eat it too?
I'm not sure you understand economic realities.
Companies don't pay billions to MS each. What they do do is pay a tiny sum of what it costs to develop the software. MS then collects all the money from all the users and put it into the next version of the software. In your scenario, two possible things might happen.
a) one company/person pay for everything. This is a lot more costly than paying a part of the whole in the above scenario. Also, why pay? Just wait for someone else to pay.
b) You pay a little, but there are no guarantee that the software gets written because not enough constributers might appear. You lose money+you don't get the software.
In the current system, you either pay for software that already exists, or you contract the project out (in which case, you pay for it, but your competitor won't get software you paid for).
Why encrypt it? Kinda parasitic to keep information from people, isn't it? And they're not thiefs. They're information liberators.
Well, I guess that's one way to fall asleep (whatever happened to counting sheep?)
Usually don't work, don't really like it. Last year I went home for Christmas (Norway). This year, I'm not (going to Las Vegas for New Year, though). Only reason I'm at work is that there are stuff I wanted done before the New Year. Start the new year with a clean set of sheet, so to speak:-)
Happy Holidays, and God Jul og Godt Nytt Aar.
I agree. Also, I think most 'normal' people won't buy them either (at least return the CDs), since they won't work in alot of equipment.
What are we talking about here?
/.: If you don't agree to the term, you can't distribute GPL software. Fine. If you don't agree to the term on a given software, you can't distribute it to your friends, relatives, set up a ftp etc etc.
We're talking about pirating, as in distributing software you don't have permission to distribute, as in, not following the terms that a software is distributed under. We're not talking about EULA here.
GPL sets certain terms for distribution of software, BSD License sets other terms. Other software packages yet another term.
Again and again, we have gotten this beaten into us at
Why is it OK for these people to break copyright and set up distribution, but it's not OK for me, for instance, to break copyright, and distribute binary only GPL software?
Else you are taking all the information from everyone and keeping it to yourself.
Let me get this straight. You have information/source code. I use the information/source code, and ADD to it. I then release my PRODUCT/binary, and magically, all the information/source code that was out in the wild disappeared?
What did I take from you that you didn't have before I released my binaries?
Or is this just GPL speak again. It's OK for you, but not for me?
You're right. You should be allowed to do whatever you want with software that you have on your system. It's yours. What does it matter what the license of said software is?
Just like I should be allowed to take your GPL code, modify it as I see fit, and only distribute the binaries. I mean, what does it matter what license it is under?
Yes, and this is a typical Linux user mindset - expecting everybody to write their own stuff. Hmmm... buying something off-the-shelf, or spending the next six months (tying up the resources that it entails), to write your own solution...
I'm suprised you didn't ask the person to RTFM, while you were at it.
Is this true, though? If you have listened to the chorus lately, they seem to indicate that 2.4.x is not really ready yet (basically, if you're running 2.4.x on a production server, you are being blasted for not caring about stability).
So, you are basically stuck with 2.2.x, and 2.2.x doesn't have the new enterprise features, like more memory support, and better SMP.
There are different levels of enterprises. Are they talking about billion dollar companies, or are they talking about mom-and-pop companies?
Where in the enterprise do they see Linux running?
Is it as a printserver, database server, or the desktop?
Personally, I don't think Windows will be replaced on the desktop in the foreseeable future. The average ubergeek/Linux user hates the normal user too much for that to happen (personally I think it's an inferiority complex...)
On the server side, at my work, we still haven't seen any major request for Linux solutions (we write custom management solutions for midlevel enterprises, i.e. adding specific monitoring support into HP NNM, CA TNG, Tivoli etc). Here, Solaris reigns supreme (if you don't have Solaris support, you can forget it). We looked at Linux support about 6-12 months ago, and the thing is, from a network management point of view, Linux is terrible (right now). SNMP is not fully supported (the UCDavis agent that comes with RedHat doesn't have full SNMPv2 support), and it's harder to get to the underlying hardware than for WinNT and Solaris.
It is getting there though. The Tivoli agent (no matter how you feel about Tivoli TME) has been ported to Linux (at least it was, last time I talked to a Tivoli rep at LinuxWorld '99). The new management standard, WBEM, seems to get full Linux attention from people like IBM, although it's still not there compared to what Sun and Microsoft has in place (basically, the frontend (cimom) seems to be there, the backend (providers) is missing).
Quite frankly, I would be curious to see how people like Google is managing thousands of Linux servers (they're not going around pinging each server each day to see if it's up, are they?)
Sorry about the rambling, it's early in the morning, and it's slashdot.
I think they had a Python issue with a naked guy in front of a piano once, if I remember correctly.
There is a big advantage to hide the source code even without copyright. If there is a problem, you have to come to me to fix it and create a new fixed binary.
Don't really understand the argument that if copyright went away, suddenly all the closed-source code out there would turn opensource.
I can certainly agree with that if 2.4.x just came out (like in the 2.4.0-2.4.5 range). The thing is, y.[even].x was supposed to be the stable branch, not the experimental branch.
Meaning you don't introduce stuff unless is it really tested. Something like the USB stuff before it was backported to 2.2 series.
If 2.4 doesn't have the timetested guarantee, why should anyone believe 2.2 has it? Why not go with 2.0? Oh, wait, neither 2.0 nor 2.2 has some of the features that was introduced just for the enterprise...
Stop making excuses for the 2.4 series. It's been really shoddy. Doesn't reflect too well...
Crusade was cancelled before the serie was shown. Some argument between the bosses of TNT and JMS (TNT wanted more sex and violence).
Sites that don't use PNG:
www.salon.com, www.userfriendly.org, yahoo.com, www.redhat.com, www.debian.org, www.gnu.org, and of course, www.slashdot.org.
So, who is using PNG?
Problem is how you look at it. You see Windows, and you see one company behind it. You look at Linux and you see lots of companies behind them, and think of it as dilution of focus.
Thing is, it's the wrong comparison. Think of RedHat Linux, Debian GNU/Linux, Suse Linux as the equivalent of Windows. Linux, the brand, would be like wordprocessor. There are different wordprocessors out there (MSWord, WordPerfect, Lotus WordPro, StarWord etc), each made by a different company/group.
So, you do have an entire company focusing on one version of the OS (RedHat focuses only on their RedHat Linux OS). When they add a feature that everybody like, other distributions add the feature (again like WPs... MS adds a feature, and it gets copied over to WordPerfect, WordPro etc).
As to performance and ease-of-use, I would say Debian does rival RedHat in ease-of-use. Their package management system is far superior to the RPM system that most commercial dists. use.
Think of it like this, Microsoft has had for the longest time, two distributions in their company (NT and 9x line). One company, two distributions. RedHat has always only had one distribution (RedHat Linux).
Who is more focused?
You don't live down in Santa Theresa area, do you?
Just moved here (from an apartment up in Santa Clara
where I had DSL). Man, do I miss it:-(
No DSL, no Cable, although Covant said they had
something called IDSL (144kbs)
Seems reasonable to fire the people who would work on a given project for free anyways. Keep only people on project that nobody outside the company would work on, fire the rest, and let the community take over. Isn't that the strength OS?
What do you mean, complacent? They got the plane down in PA. What the heck else do you expect of them?
CNN has one now.
So, what you're saying is that they should stop arresting shoplifters because they might arrest you one day?
No quicktime. No Windows Media. No Vietnamese fonts. Linux is not the best tool for the kind of job I'm trying to do (get a useable web experience for my father).
Best tool for the job. Right now, Windows is the better tool for the job
What are you talking about?
ME, Win2k, 98, XP all have a Start button. All has the File,Edit, menues. All can copy/pase with the same key shortcuts.
I put 98 on my parents system at home, and then Win2k on my system while they are visiting. As far as they're concerned, Win2k is just a newer version than 98 with additional features. They don't really see any difference in usage.
Now, take the difference between Enlightenment and KDE...