Go back to Redmond, you BillGates wannabe. Tell Bill that trolling Slashdot is not making MS any money, and you can go back to your old job - wiping his ass.
and all the linux zealouts licking each others' ass is much better?
it seems mostly like propaganda.
I mean, you have to at least PRETEND to be open-minded to an opinion other than your own?!
Maybe if they focussed on improving their products, instead of resorting to slander, they would be perceived as the world class company that they aspire to be
I think the linux community should take a few hints from this as well....
As it might be true, that's one of the things I love about Linux. Once and for all I can enjoy an OS where the community behind it isn't just a bunch of newbies and generally stupid ppl. When I go to a message board looking for answers, I usually find the answers, not the usual "why doesn't this work?" questions that can be found in "normal" boards for Windows users
There is another side to this. You do find answers for linux problems, but for things you would not have issues with in windows. Take for instance installing Apache,php,mysql all on the same system. A final step was needed to get the modules compiled correctly, that wasn't explained on any of the web sites (the ones that actually created these programs).
If I was installing IIS,SQL 2000, and ASP, I wouldn't have to search for such a problem, because I don't need to compile, and the majority of answers are on Microsoft's site.
Answer: you either download the latest version or you can patch the source code yourself
1) 90% of people will not code a fix themselves
2) isn't this equivalent of getting a 98 upgrade for 95?
if you're still running win95 or win3.11, you should probably upgrade anyway. (as you should if you are running an extremely old version of a linux kernel).
You analogy is flawed. Instead of attacking it I'll just just point out that if fair use applied to digital media (which it should), you could make as many copies as you please and distribute them for free, legally.
If fair use also applied to the software industry, I could take a GPL'd piece of software, and use it any way I wish. But it doesn't...
If you don't believe that you can make money based on Free Software, just ask IBM. They claim to have already recouped the 1G$ investment they made in Linux...
Wow, a large corporation that takes other people's source code, and sells it as their own made a billion dollars.
how about a true open source company making that much money, like maybe the company that made apache, bind, sendmail, or mysql?
On one hand, people pirate shrink wrapped cos it's too expensive too buy. On the other hand, they pirate shareware cos it's convinient (erase registry entry, anyone?).
it's funny....music piracy is defended with the exact same argument: "it's too expensive for music X". Now we see people defending the piracy of shareware (which I might add is usually in the sub $40 range, hardly what I call too expensive). It just makes me wonder if it just isn't a bunch of cheapskates that want to get stuff for free (as in beer).
When will people learn that the internet did not come about as a method of making money. And the way it's designed it was never intended to be a money making medium
when will you learn that it did. It was originally invented as a method of communication between universities (I will give you that). But...The Internet we see today has everything to do with commericalization. Without the ability to make money, the internet would be dead. (including sites like slashdot).
then go to court to make them release all their software as Open Source.
This statement proves that you hate MS products, solely on the basis of ideals (IE: Proporietary).
Otherwise, why bother having the Microsoft source? They suck right?
Just because microsoft used OSS in their operating system, doesn't make open source as a whole better. It makes the BSD stack better. this would have happened regardless of the license. (if it was any different, microsft probably would have just bought it).
How, then, would we prevent someone such as... Microsoft? from interfering with the development of a variety of different opensource groups and purchasing the licenses to the software so as to have the ability to eliminate them from the competition? Scenario A: Microsoft repeatedly hires top developers (buying them off) from Linux Distribution X, resulting the failure of Linux Distribution X because bugs cannot be patched according to the timeline. Distribution X has no money to buy their developers back. Microsoft then bids on and wins the license to Distribution X... (Of course this couldn't work with Linux distro's since Distribution X isn't "Linux" or any of the underlying applications, so they'd actually have to exploit this 'law' across the several hundred pieces that make up Distribution X... But you get my point. =])
You could say the same thing about the OSS community (proprietary company X can't make patching deadline, so their software goes Open Source).
The law should either be ALL or NOTHING. (which is what it will be if it ever gets passed. if lawyers and judges can't understand things like napster, they sure as hell won't understand the difference between OSS an proprietary.)
Open source" is community. "Proprietary" is not. Releasing source to the public would allow them to repair the bug--proprietary groups can easily take opensource and fix the bug.
They can, but do they? Most bugs in open source take just as long to patch or fix as proprietary software. Case in point: PHP. There is a bug that allows a malicious user to upload any file and execute it on your system. this has been there since 3.X and below, but just discovered 2 weeks ago. Where was the community? sleeping? Or not looking at the code for bugs.
Here is the problem with that line of thinking: There's probably only 1% of the OSS community that has the skill to fix such a bug.
Recall that an American Destroyer was rendered dead in the water as a result of NT crashes and space shuttle missions rendered write-offs because of NT crashes. Not to pick on NT, but these are cases where lives did depend upon software. Death is just an example of liability
And if they used linux, and the same thing happened, the developers shouldn't be responsible......why?
That said, I think most of these open source maintainers are more than responsive to bug tracking and fixing. Spend any time on a high volume dev mailing list, and you see some *insane* dedication. Like, you know these guys sleep 8 hours a week whether they need to or not. I don't want to see these people warding off class action lawsuits. Save those for the nebulous corporate entities who bring you Value-Added Enterprise Solutions for the Multi-Tiered Enterprise.
Why should Open Source be favored over Proprietary? If an open source maintainer is not responsible, than neither is a commerical software company. (after all, what about the little mom and pop software companies, they don't need to be fighting off class-action lawsuits either).
How about something even more... Compelling? Software that is not fixed within the maximum time allowed by law is required to release their source to the public domain
Sounds like it favors the Open Source community.
Only if after that same amount of time (with an OSS app), it can become re-released under a license of anyone's choice IE proprietary.
Hurd will almost definitely never become something useful.
HURD will be the next operating system of choice (for the hardcore gnu zealouts), when linux "sells out" (becomes popular enough to the point where joe user knows how to use it).
And your point is... what? Did you actually have a point? Or were you just throwing a comment out there in the hopes that sooner or later one will get modded up?
the asshole notion tha Open Source Creates More Jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
Go back to Redmond, you BillGates wannabe. Tell Bill that trolling Slashdot is not making MS any money, and you can go back to your old job - wiping his ass.
and all the linux zealouts licking each others' ass is much better?
it seems mostly like propaganda.
I mean, you have to at least PRETEND to be open-minded to an opinion other than your own?!
Maybe if they focussed on improving their products, instead of resorting to slander, they would be perceived as the world class company that they aspire to be
I think the linux community should take a few hints from this as well....
As it might be true, that's one of the things I love about Linux. Once and for all I can enjoy an OS where the community behind it isn't just a bunch of newbies and generally stupid ppl. When I go to a message board looking for answers, I usually find the answers, not the usual "why doesn't this work?" questions that can be found in "normal" boards for Windows users
There is another side to this. You do find answers for linux problems, but for things you would not have issues with in windows. Take for instance installing Apache,php,mysql all on the same system. A final step was needed to get the modules compiled correctly, that wasn't explained on any of the web sites (the ones that actually created these programs).
If I was installing IIS,SQL 2000, and ASP, I wouldn't have to search for such a problem, because I don't need to compile, and the majority of answers are on Microsoft's site.
What you can't do is give it to anyone else.
Just like with copyrighted IP.
Answer: you either download the latest version or you can patch the source code yourself
1) 90% of people will not code a fix themselves
2) isn't this equivalent of getting a 98 upgrade for 95?
if you're still running win95 or win3.11, you should probably upgrade anyway. (as you should if you are running an extremely old version of a linux kernel).
You analogy is flawed. Instead of attacking it I'll just just point out that if fair use applied to digital media (which it should), you could make as many copies as you please and distribute them for free, legally.
If fair use also applied to the software industry, I could take a GPL'd piece of software, and use it any way I wish. But it doesn't...
Look at it this way, for $19.99 I can buy the services of an ISP complete with dial-up access, POP3, newgroups, etc ...
Really? If you can find an ISP for roughly $2.50 a month, show me, im interested.
BTW. that $19.99 is yearly......
Is Windows ready as a server?
I guess you never heard of Windows NT, or XP...
Oh, and I've been using free unixes (Linux and FreeBSD) on the the desktop for the past 6 years
Good for you.
If you don't believe that you can make money based on Free Software, just ask IBM. They claim to have already recouped the 1G$ investment they made in Linux...
Wow, a large corporation that takes other people's source code, and sells it as their own made a billion dollars.
how about a true open source company making that much money, like maybe the company that made apache, bind, sendmail, or mysql?
On one hand, people pirate shrink wrapped cos it's too expensive too buy. On the other hand, they pirate shareware cos it's convinient (erase registry entry, anyone?).
it's funny....music piracy is defended with the exact same argument: "it's too expensive for music X". Now we see people defending the piracy of shareware (which I might add is usually in the sub $40 range, hardly what I call too expensive). It just makes me wonder if it just isn't a bunch of cheapskates that want to get stuff for free (as in beer).
When will people learn that the internet did not come about as a method of making money. And the way it's designed it was never intended to be a money making medium
when will you learn that it did. It was originally invented as a method of communication between universities (I will give you that). But...The Internet we see today has everything to do with commericalization. Without the ability to make money, the internet would be dead. (including sites like slashdot).
And in general it succeeds rampantly. (-:
This is more of the exception than the rule.
Yep. That's why CodeRed and Nimda weren't able to do much damage. Oh. Wait.
CodeRead and Nimda damaged many systems only because admins never got the patch from microsoft.
No, Microsoft sucks because they've been on an anti-opensource crusade and are using open source in all their products. It's the hippocricy(sp?).
No, microsoft is using legally licensed code in their operating system, which happens to be BSD licensed.
They are on an anti-GPL crusade, which is largely different.
Get your facts straight.
The GPL prevents them from doingthis directly
No, it prevents the draconian GPL license from embracing and extending their work.
I seriously doubth they would want to use GPL'd source anyway..most of it is attempted replications of proprietary stuff that MS created.
Ah, but what if we made GPL'd code that was so good and so far ahead of everything
It will never happen. Most GPL projects never go anywhere because agreements can't be met, and the people contributing have to go to a normal job.
then go to court to make them release all their software as Open Source.
This statement proves that you hate MS products, solely on the basis of ideals (IE: Proporietary).
Otherwise, why bother having the Microsoft source? They suck right?
Just because microsoft used OSS in their operating system, doesn't make open source as a whole better. It makes the BSD stack better. this would have happened regardless of the license. (if it was any different, microsft probably would have just bought it).
How, then, would we prevent someone such as... Microsoft? from interfering with the development of a variety of different opensource groups and purchasing the licenses to the software so as to have the ability to eliminate them from the competition? Scenario A: Microsoft repeatedly hires top developers (buying them off) from Linux Distribution X, resulting the failure of Linux Distribution X because bugs cannot be patched according to the timeline. Distribution X has no money to buy their developers back. Microsoft then bids on and wins the license to Distribution X... (Of course this couldn't work with Linux distro's since Distribution X isn't "Linux" or any of the underlying applications, so they'd actually have to exploit this 'law' across the several hundred pieces that make up Distribution X... But you get my point. =])
You could say the same thing about the OSS community (proprietary company X can't make patching deadline, so their software goes Open Source).
The law should either be ALL or NOTHING. (which is what it will be if it ever gets passed. if lawyers and judges can't understand things like napster, they sure as hell won't understand the difference between OSS an proprietary.)
Open source" is community. "Proprietary" is not. Releasing source to the public would allow them to repair the bug--proprietary groups can easily take opensource and fix the bug.
They can, but do they? Most bugs in open source take just as long to patch or fix as proprietary software. Case in point: PHP. There is a bug that allows a malicious user to upload any file and execute it on your system. this has been there since 3.X and below, but just discovered 2 weeks ago. Where was the community? sleeping? Or not looking at the code for bugs.
Here is the problem with that line of thinking: There's probably only 1% of the OSS community that has the skill to fix such a bug.
estimates show they would have been able to reduce the number of layoffs by half.
Only because they had half as many employees working for them.
Recall that an American Destroyer was rendered dead in the water as a result of NT crashes and space shuttle missions rendered write-offs because of NT crashes. Not to pick on NT, but these are cases where lives did depend upon software. Death is just an example of liability
And if they used linux, and the same thing happened, the developers shouldn't be responsible......why?
That said, I think most of these open source maintainers are more than responsive to bug tracking and fixing. Spend any time on a high volume dev mailing list, and you see some *insane* dedication. Like, you know these guys sleep 8 hours a week whether they need to or not. I don't want to see these people warding off class action lawsuits. Save those for the nebulous corporate entities who bring you Value-Added Enterprise Solutions for the Multi-Tiered Enterprise.
Why should Open Source be favored over Proprietary? If an open source maintainer is not responsible, than neither is a commerical software company. (after all, what about the little mom and pop software companies, they don't need to be fighting off class-action lawsuits either).
How about something even more... Compelling? Software that is not fixed within the maximum time allowed by law is required to release their source to the public domain
Sounds like it favors the Open Source community.
Only if after that same amount of time (with an OSS app), it can become re-released under a license of anyone's choice IE proprietary.
On the other hand, if you wish to be absolved(sp?) of legal liability for software you create, then offer it for free, like most GPL software is
I have a better idea. Let's tax any software that's not proprietary. That's about as logical as only holding proprietary software creators liable.
if your idea came true, you can bet it would be the final nail in linux's coffin. All businesses would steer clear of it.
Hurd will almost definitely never become something useful.
HURD will be the next operating system of choice (for the hardcore gnu zealouts), when linux "sells out" (becomes popular enough to the point where joe user knows how to use it).
And your point is... what? Did you actually have a point? Or were you just throwing a comment out there in the hopes that sooner or later one will get modded up?
the asshole notion tha Open Source Creates More Jobs.