Well for one they don't have to worry about someone stealing their source code. But over all the free software development methodology tends to lead to collaboration which in turn lead to innovation. I'm sure they have benefited from this since they based their own work on free software, which is a good first step toward fully embracing the free software methodology.
And what if they don't want to open source their assets?
They don't have to. No one is forcing them to do that.
Your "desire" to see them "succeed" sounds eerily similar to blackmail: "That's some nice source code there, you should probably just make it open source, it'd be a real shame if something were to happen to it."
If you cannot fundamentally respect their rights to license their work as they see fit - even if you don't agree with their choices - then you have exactly zero standing to complain when somebody else disregards your wishes as to how source code YOU wrote will be released and licensed. If you don't agree with someone's choice to not open source their assets, you do not automatically gain the right to take a copy. Don't like their license? Do without, or write your own open source alternative.
I cannot wait to see the day when thugs who feel they have the right to take anything they want at any time they please are shunned out of any civilized company - as they should be.
I think it's better for them and for all other software developers to produce free software. I don't understand how you can think that's blackmail, it's not like I'm in a position to make them do anything.
The obvious reason is that over time vendor support for all previous versions of Windows will cease, leaving Windows 8.1 and above as your only option.
I'm no disagreeing. If you want newer and/or more optimized software then stock RHEL is not really for you. The key point with RHEL is that it provides a stable ABI, and that makes it more conservative on certain things.
Nothing says that you can't use RHEL as a stable core OS and install any additional software that you need outside of that. It's very simple to do nowdays with Software Collections.
They are happy that a lot of people learn how their system work so that they are more likely to choose Red Hat once they're in a position where they want to pay for Red Hat's services.
Maybe things have changed but when I used Debian they had one stable release in like 5 years...if anyone farts around the fire it's that cluster fuck of Debian dudes.
I don't know what you are talking about. If you look at the release timeline offered by Wikipedia (which is always right) you can see that the longest gap between two releases was between woody and sarge. This was slightly less than three years, which is not unheard of with less rapid release distributions. All new releases since then has taken roughly two years each.
64 bit OS, allowing >4GB memory? There were hacks, and there was XP64, but neither of those really count as solutions
Of course XP64 counts. It's XP and it's 64 bit. It had a couple of problems initally due to bad driver support but that's no longer a problem. You can often install it today on a modern PC without much problems.
SSD Trim support?
I'm not sure about other vendors but at least Intel enabled this using a tool they call Intel SSD Toolbox. Just schedule it to run every once in a while.
I'd be more impressed if they open sourced it and ported it to other platforms But we all know that wont happen This is the next Woz&Jobs
Exactly. This will probably fade out as just another proprietary blip in the history of computing. That's what happen to most proprietary technology. Only open stays.
Not an uncommon property. Torvalds has also accomplished quite a lot if not more; and he can also be an ass, especiaully if you do something he doesn't like on a public mailing list.
Slashdot Mirror
Well for one they don't have to worry about someone stealing their source code. But over all the free software development methodology tends to lead to collaboration which in turn lead to innovation. I'm sure they have benefited from this since they based their own work on free software, which is a good first step toward fully embracing the free software methodology.
And what if they don't want to open source their assets?
They don't have to. No one is forcing them to do that.
Your "desire" to see them "succeed" sounds eerily similar to blackmail: "That's some nice source code there, you should probably just make it open source, it'd be a real shame if something were to happen to it."
If you cannot fundamentally respect their rights to license their work as they see fit - even if you don't agree with their choices - then you have exactly zero standing to complain when somebody else disregards your wishes as to how source code YOU wrote will be released and licensed. If you don't agree with someone's choice to not open source their assets, you do not automatically gain the right to take a copy. Don't like their license? Do without, or write your own open source alternative.
I cannot wait to see the day when thugs who feel they have the right to take anything they want at any time they please are shunned out of any civilized company - as they should be.
I think it's better for them and for all other software developers to produce free software. I don't understand how you can think that's blackmail, it's not like I'm in a position to make them do anything.
It's not for me, I think it's they that will be better of by doing it.
Not to mention the definition of pirate.
Sounds like a good reason to change the assets to something they can ship under a free software license.
The obvious reason is that over time vendor support for all previous versions of Windows will cease, leaving Windows 8.1 and above as your only option.
I would probably give IE a chance, but I'll pass until they provide the source code under a free and open source license.
That could have serious side effects if the bill isn't ammended to allow streaming of copyrighted material under permission.
That was then. This is now.
The primary problem is not JavaScript, but that so few web apps are licensed under AGPLv3+ and thus are not suitable for any kind of serious use.
I'm no disagreeing. If you want newer and/or more optimized software then stock RHEL is not really for you. The key point with RHEL is that it provides a stable ABI, and that makes it more conservative on certain things.
Nothing says that you can't use RHEL as a stable core OS and install any additional software that you need outside of that. It's very simple to do nowdays with Software Collections.
Which packages would that be? Since CentOS is a clone of RHEL you would get the same packages as in RHEL by doing that.
They are happy that a lot of people learn how their system work so that they are more likely to choose Red Hat once they're in a position where they want to pay for Red Hat's services.
How many of these "Linux geeks" can support an entire OS stack for the same money?
But it will work in both space and under water.
When that multiracial group is the one known as "Americans", we see it on Slashdot quite often - so it must be okay!
No it's not OK just because you often see it on Slashdot.
I guess Foxconn should have hired more employees to handle the demand. But it sounds like they just wanted more profit.
Maybe things have changed but when I used Debian they had one stable release in like 5 years...if anyone farts around the fire it's that cluster fuck of Debian dudes.
I don't know what you are talking about. If you look at the release timeline offered by Wikipedia (which is always right) you can see that the longest gap between two releases was between woody and sarge. This was slightly less than three years, which is not unheard of with less rapid release distributions. All new releases since then has taken roughly two years each.
Just outsource the standardization to Apple.
According to Wikipedia, which is always right, there is a Hell in Norway too. But it's not that high up, only 14 meters of elevation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_Norway
I thought the point was not to save money, but to find a machine without TPM.
64 bit OS, allowing >4GB memory? There were hacks, and there was XP64, but neither of those really count as solutions
Of course XP64 counts. It's XP and it's 64 bit. It had a couple of problems initally due to bad driver support but that's no longer a problem. You can often install it today on a modern PC without much problems.
SSD Trim support?
I'm not sure about other vendors but at least Intel enabled this using a tool they call Intel SSD Toolbox. Just schedule it to run every once in a while.
I'd be more impressed if they open sourced it and ported it to other platforms
But we all know that wont happen
This is the next Woz&Jobs
Exactly. This will probably fade out as just another proprietary blip in the history of computing. That's what happen to most proprietary technology. Only open stays.
Not an uncommon property. Torvalds has also accomplished quite a lot if not more; and he can also be an ass, especiaully if you do something he doesn't like on a public mailing list.