They are not taking away anything from anyone. They only thing they are close sourcing is their modifications to the project.
If these modifications are of value, then pay for them.
If these modifications are not of value, then don't... continue to use the free version.
If they are very simple modifications, than go to your own effort to add them into the free version.
At no time can anybody take the freely released BSD version and hide it from you. Never. It's just not possible. Once released it's out in the world to stay.
Umm... How can you disagree with me and agree at the same time?
Whether or not IBM is releasing a version of Linux is irrelevant.
What is relevant is whether IBM releases DB/2 source under a GPL license.
By tying all research/development costs of software into the cost of the hardware, IBM places themselves in an interesting situation of not being price competitive on the hardware side.
Why should I buy IBM hardware which costs $X + $Y(for the cost of software) when I can go to HP and buy equivalent hardware for $X and download the software off IBM's website for free?
Anyway, I think it's obvious that you completely agree with me, you just can't see that now.
Exactly how has it not worked out for those in Africa dying of AIDS?
The drug companies have certainly been willing to accomodate the needs of those governments by providing low cost drugs.
Without the IP laws those drugs would not even exist to begin with. No company can afford to provide billions in research for free.
You seem to be of the notion that the world owes you a favor, and should be forced to donate their money to your cause, either through tax dollars or tithes.
So I suggest you look towards the Catholic Church for help in this endeavor.
But Apple never took anything which wasn't offered freely.
And the obvious intent of offering the software for free under the BSD license was to invoke the spirit of Open Source. Share it with others so many can benefit.
In this case, millions of Apple users will benefit.
These same apple users could also run NetBSD or something similar if they wanted. But Apple has extended the Unix environment with a unique new user interface which is very desirable and helpful to consumers.
As far as your last snide remark. I didn't say sharing is selfish, I said 'sharing with strings attached' is selfish.
I also do not own an Apple, do not own Apple hardware, do not really care for Steve Jobs. But I at least understand and appreciate what they are trying to do.
Exactly how is Apple taking anything from the community by utilizing BSD code?
That uses the explicit assumption that software is a scarce item and that by using BSD code, Apple is taking away from others being able to use BSD code.
That is simply not the case.
The code still exists, the source still exists, you and everybody else is still completely free to use it. It never goes away because it's been released for free under a BSD license.
Does it protect the authors? Absolutely. In the same exact way as Public Domain and the GPL. Obviously they have chosen to give their code away for free, so so be it. What more protection do they need? Freedom from being sued? Ok, put a warranty disclaimer on it like the GPL has, big deal.
More importantly the BSD license protects subsequent authors who add value. It gives these authors the freedom and liberty to do with their own modifications what they want. They can in turn release their modifications under the BSD license, or they can keep them closed, whatever.
Does it protect consumers? Again, absolutely. Consumers still have a choice, they can use the original code for free, or they can use the value-add code for a small fee. It all depends on whether that value-add is worth something to the consumer.
There are a lot of products distributed in this fashion. A free version, and a value-add version. I don't see consumers complaining. Isn't this what has made X-11, sendmail, Apache, etc. so successful?
The GPL doesn't protect consumers at all. It insures they have the source code, but it also disclaims all warranties on the condition of that source. It may or may not work, we don't care, don't bug us we'll call you if we care, but don't sit by the phone.
It's amazing how incredibly selfish GPL proponents are. It seems so against the whole nature of this Open Source thing and giving to the community.
Let's say IBM does develop a really really cool application for Linux. I don't know what that is, but just call it foo.
They release it under the GPL. That means that now you as the consumer are granted the specific rights to obtain the source code. But even more importantly you have the rights to modify, copy, distribute without restriction.
So you just take foo and throw it up on your own webpage for free download.
Redhat comes along, takes the free download and incorporates it into their product. So does SuSe, Caldera, Slackware and Corel.
Great for the community.
Not so great for IBM who is out a billion research bucks with a $0 ROI.
Honestly, I can't help but wonder why you aren't petitioning the Pope to convince him to start up a software development house at the Vatican.
Then when the starving children in Africa come looking for help, you can explain how much better Linux is and why they should support the GPL.
Microsoft's motive is to produce a product which people want to buy. That is a product that people can derive value from in terms of increased productivity and ability to do things.
Linux users on the other hand is only interested in if it's free beer. Could care less if it makes them less productive as long as they don't have to pay for it.
It depends on your perspective I guess.
On the other hand, I am not at all impressed by Microsoft's attempts to replace software purchases with subscription. It may make them more money, but I don't see how it benefits me.
However, I haven't seen the terms. If I can "rent" Office XP for $5/month, then that is a preferable alternative to buying it for $400 or whatever it is.
This is the reason most people have cable television after all. HBO is $10/month, or you can go out and buy video tapes at $15/each.
Ahh, if you want to persist some data then in the Microsoft world you could use the Shared Property Manager.
There are other options for this as well, it all depends.
It seems to me that trying to persist this data in the server objects adds considerable overhead in terms of object management and I can't imagine it'd be a performance gainer. Although I can see where it might be faster than having to go back to the database every time, as database I/O is an expensive operation.
You're right on the last part. It is difficult to do meaningful comparisons because the way I would write an app using VB is completely different than how you would use Java. This issue of stateful server components is such an example.
I'm saying if you want to sell Linux as being better, then you need developers who write software for Linux which is really cool and different then what you can get elsewhere.
I have a Sparcstation 10 at home and run Solaris 8. My primary reason is because I wanted an Oracle platform, and this is one of the available downloads.
I see some other comments about heterogeneous environments, which is a valid concern. Although I find it humorous to see this coming from Linux advocates who bitch about Microsoft heterogeneous environments created for the very same reason.:)
I guess to me the reason to buy Sparc hardware is solely to run Solaris and learn more about it. If I just wanted another Linux PC, I could buy a PC a lot faster than my SS10 for the same money.
But regarding the slashdot comment about Microsoft trying to blur Open Source and Free Software...
Doesn't slashdot do this virtually every day? Well maybe not intentionally, but I see it in a lot of posts by Linux fanatics, etc.
There is a *HUGE* divide in the OSS camp between the BSD and GPL crowds. That divide seems to get larger every day.
What I find curious is that a lot of the GPL-GNU/Linux crowd frequently refers to BSD projects as being tremendous successes and they prove the validity of Open Source.
But then they go on muttering under their breath:
"Oh yeah, but if you are going to release something it should be under the GPL."
There is a debate here which is worth arguing about. I believe the problem is that there is not two sides to this camp. It is not Open Source versus Microsoft.
It's Microsoft versus GPL proponents, with BSD proponents kind of off in the sidelines and not really wanting to agree with either of these other two groups.
Basically my point is, Microsoft isn't the only one blurring the lines. Each group seems to blur lines in whatever way is most convenient to them.
One other thing I've noticed. The GNU/Linux-GPL crowd seems to rely not on solid arguments but on a belief that if they overwhelm their opponents with verbal attacks the other guys will just give up. It's worked so far with the BSD proponents, KDE, etc.
But I doubt this will work with Microsoft.
One thing Microsoft has a history of, and is really quite good at is losing gracelessly. They throw something out to the public, doesn't work, they come back with version 2, doesn't work... Here's version 3, and then it finally sticks.
What you're seeing now is Version 1 of Microsoft Argumentation. It'll be refined internally and Version 2 will evolve.
However, I'm not in agreement that not being able to hold state with global variables is a negative feature of the language. That sounds like a really bad idea considering most app servers are load balanced, and I highly doubt Java can read the memory across machine boundaries.
I'd also be curious to see some performance comparisons. You make some implicit claims that Java is faster than VB, yet I've never seen this backed up with benchmarks. The one benchmark I did see comparing the different environments showed VB as twice as fast as Java, with C++ being three times as fast. But it wasn't necessarily fair as it also compared different hardware, i.e. VB on a Compaq, Java on a Sun.
Roger Sessions was recently in town here, and had a presentation on.Net versus J2EE. It's available here: http://www.objectwatch.com/pres/MSDN2/tour_files/f rame.htm
It's interesting reading. I believe his conclusion was that using Java was primarily a religious argument. If you are dead set on using Java, continue to do so. If on the other hand your concerned with performance and cost to deliver, then.Net is for you.;)
Actually I don't buy the cost of software compared to the cost of hardware argument. Perhaps if you are talking bundling, but hardly any PC's at less than $1000 come with bundled software of any consequence.
I do think that Microsoft is going to have to lower their charges for Office in order to convince people to do the upgrade. As a boss of mine once said "it's better to have a handful of nickels than no quarters"
But like you said, the real threat to Microsoft is their old versions. It's certainly not Linux which is hardly what I would call useful, neither is StarOffice.
I didn't realize Samba was psychic. This must be a new feature just added recently?
The last time I used it, it was still quite a pain in the ass(at least compared to Win2k) to setup new file shares, new print queues, new users, setting/changing passwords, etc.
I am sure Microsoft is deeply sorry that they have disappointed you.
The fact is they probably dropped this for right now because of slowing economic strains. In order to implement this they'd have to take a hit to their short term financial growth in favor of a long term sustainable model. I suspect they are afraid of what would happen to their stock value if they announced next quarter a 20% reduction in earnings.
As far as Samba. It's really not a threat, and never has been. It's a nice solution if you already have some Unix machines in place and need to serve to Microsoft clients.
But even with the improvements, it's still a nightmare to support.
Slashdot Mirror
So who cares?
They are not taking away anything from anyone. They only thing they are close sourcing is their modifications to the project.
If these modifications are of value, then pay for them.
If these modifications are not of value, then don't... continue to use the free version.
If they are very simple modifications, than go to your own effort to add them into the free version.
At no time can anybody take the freely released BSD version and hide it from you. Never. It's just not possible. Once released it's out in the world to stay.
Umm... How can you disagree with me and agree at the same time?
Whether or not IBM is releasing a version of Linux is irrelevant.
What is relevant is whether IBM releases DB/2 source under a GPL license.
By tying all research/development costs of software into the cost of the hardware, IBM places themselves in an interesting situation of not being price competitive on the hardware side.
Why should I buy IBM hardware which costs $X + $Y(for the cost of software) when I can go to HP and buy equivalent hardware for $X and download the software off IBM's website for free?
Anyway, I think it's obvious that you completely agree with me, you just can't see that now.
"If IBM releases something under the GPL they've prevented anyone from filing off the name and rereleasing it as a proprietary project. "
The same is true of the BSD license.
As far as your other comments... it must not be the bad crack you've been smoking.
Exactly how has it not worked out for those in Africa dying of AIDS?
The drug companies have certainly been willing to accomodate the needs of those governments by providing low cost drugs.
Without the IP laws those drugs would not even exist to begin with. No company can afford to provide billions in research for free.
You seem to be of the notion that the world owes you a favor, and should be forced to donate their money to your cause, either through tax dollars or tithes.
So I suggest you look towards the Catholic Church for help in this endeavor.
But Apple never took anything which wasn't offered freely.
And the obvious intent of offering the software for free under the BSD license was to invoke the spirit of Open Source. Share it with others so many can benefit.
In this case, millions of Apple users will benefit.
These same apple users could also run NetBSD or something similar if they wanted. But Apple has extended the Unix environment with a unique new user interface which is very desirable and helpful to consumers.
As far as your last snide remark. I didn't say sharing is selfish, I said 'sharing with strings attached' is selfish.
I also do not own an Apple, do not own Apple hardware, do not really care for Steve Jobs. But I at least understand and appreciate what they are trying to do.
Ok, let me get this straight.
Exactly how is Apple taking anything from the community by utilizing BSD code?
That uses the explicit assumption that software is a scarce item and that by using BSD code, Apple is taking away from others being able to use BSD code.
That is simply not the case.
The code still exists, the source still exists, you and everybody else is still completely free to use it. It never goes away because it's been released for free under a BSD license.
Does it protect the authors? Absolutely. In the same exact way as Public Domain and the GPL. Obviously they have chosen to give their code away for free, so so be it. What more protection do they need? Freedom from being sued? Ok, put a warranty disclaimer on it like the GPL has, big deal.
More importantly the BSD license protects subsequent authors who add value. It gives these authors the freedom and liberty to do with their own modifications what they want. They can in turn release their modifications under the BSD license, or they can keep them closed, whatever.
Does it protect consumers? Again, absolutely. Consumers still have a choice, they can use the original code for free, or they can use the value-add code for a small fee. It all depends on whether that value-add is worth something to the consumer.
There are a lot of products distributed in this fashion. A free version, and a value-add version. I don't see consumers complaining. Isn't this what has made X-11, sendmail, Apache, etc. so successful?
The GPL doesn't protect consumers at all. It insures they have the source code, but it also disclaims all warranties on the condition of that source. It may or may not work, we don't care, don't bug us we'll call you if we care, but don't sit by the phone.
It's amazing how incredibly selfish GPL proponents are. It seems so against the whole nature of this Open Source thing and giving to the community.
"There's nothing preventing you from charging a million dollars for that binary."
Well that's technically true.
You can charge $1 million to the first sucker who comes along and is willing to pay it.
Then they distribute it for free.
But chances are you'll never find a sucker who is willing to pay you $1 million.
As far as the Apache example. I think you need a little more imagination.
I think you miss the point.
Let's say IBM does develop a really really cool application for Linux. I don't know what that is, but just call it foo.
They release it under the GPL. That means that now you as the consumer are granted the specific rights to obtain the source code. But even more importantly you have the rights to modify, copy, distribute without restriction.
So you just take foo and throw it up on your own webpage for free download.
Redhat comes along, takes the free download and incorporates it into their product. So does SuSe, Caldera, Slackware and Corel.
Great for the community.
Not so great for IBM who is out a billion research bucks with a $0 ROI.
Honestly, I can't help but wonder why you aren't petitioning the Pope to convince him to start up a software development house at the Vatican.
Then when the starving children in Africa come looking for help, you can explain how much better Linux is and why they should support the GPL.
Microsoft's motive is to produce a product which people want to buy. That is a product that people can derive value from in terms of increased productivity and ability to do things.
Linux users on the other hand is only interested in if it's free beer. Could care less if it makes them less productive as long as they don't have to pay for it.
It depends on your perspective I guess.
On the other hand, I am not at all impressed by Microsoft's attempts to replace software purchases with subscription. It may make them more money, but I don't see how it benefits me.
However, I haven't seen the terms. If I can "rent" Office XP for $5/month, then that is a preferable alternative to buying it for $400 or whatever it is.
This is the reason most people have cable television after all. HBO is $10/month, or you can go out and buy video tapes at $15/each.
Ahh, if you want to persist some data then in the Microsoft world you could use the Shared Property Manager.
There are other options for this as well, it all depends.
It seems to me that trying to persist this data in the server objects adds considerable overhead in terms of object management and I can't imagine it'd be a performance gainer. Although I can see where it might be faster than having to go back to the database every time, as database I/O is an expensive operation.
You're right on the last part. It is difficult to do meaningful comparisons because the way I would write an app using VB is completely different than how you would use Java. This issue of stateful server components is such an example.
Why am I suggesting taking away freedom?
I'm saying if you want to sell Linux as being better, then you need developers who write software for Linux which is really cool and different then what you can get elsewhere.
That's no coercion, that's incentive.
I'm not quite clear on this, myself.
:)
I have a Sparcstation 10 at home and run Solaris 8. My primary reason is because I wanted an Oracle platform, and this is one of the available downloads.
I see some other comments about heterogeneous environments, which is a valid concern. Although I find it humorous to see this coming from Linux advocates who bitch about Microsoft heterogeneous environments created for the very same reason.
I guess to me the reason to buy Sparc hardware is solely to run Solaris and learn more about it. If I just wanted another Linux PC, I could buy a PC a lot faster than my SS10 for the same money.
I'm deeply offended that you are offended.
That's not true. Solaris 8 no longer supports the Sun4c(SS1, SS2, IPX, etc), but it still supports sun4m(SS10, SS5, SS20, etc.)
Oh I don't know. I'm an MCSE, but before that was a very active Linux user and have contributed small parts to open source projects over the years.
You'd be amazed at just how well informed us "MS people" are.
But on the other hand, they have well over 10x the risk, as DSL solutions have nowhere the guarantees of availability as the 56K frame relay.
This is part of making an informed IT recommendation, evaluating risk and reward. It's a problem that we juggle with every day.
Now this solution may work exceptionally well right now.
But when the DSL line goes out, and USWest doesn't fix it for two weeks... Will this still look like a good decision?
I don't know, it depends on the business. But most businesses I know of can't survive an extended downtime on their network.
I haven't read the article yet, will do so later.
But regarding the slashdot comment about Microsoft trying to blur Open Source and Free Software...
Doesn't slashdot do this virtually every day? Well maybe not intentionally, but I see it in a lot of posts by Linux fanatics, etc.
There is a *HUGE* divide in the OSS camp between the BSD and GPL crowds. That divide seems to get larger every day.
What I find curious is that a lot of the GPL-GNU/Linux crowd frequently refers to BSD projects as being tremendous successes and they prove the validity of Open Source.
But then they go on muttering under their breath:
"Oh yeah, but if you are going to release something it should be under the GPL."
There is a debate here which is worth arguing about. I believe the problem is that there is not two sides to this camp. It is not Open Source versus Microsoft.
It's Microsoft versus GPL proponents, with BSD proponents kind of off in the sidelines and not really wanting to agree with either of these other two groups.
Basically my point is, Microsoft isn't the only one blurring the lines. Each group seems to blur lines in whatever way is most convenient to them.
One other thing I've noticed. The GNU/Linux-GPL crowd seems to rely not on solid arguments but on a belief that if they overwhelm their opponents with verbal attacks the other guys will just give up. It's worked so far with the BSD proponents, KDE, etc.
But I doubt this will work with Microsoft.
One thing Microsoft has a history of, and is really quite good at is losing gracelessly. They throw something out to the public, doesn't work, they come back with version 2, doesn't work... Here's version 3, and then it finally sticks.
What you're seeing now is Version 1 of Microsoft Argumentation. It'll be refined internally and Version 2 will evolve.
Are you prepared for Version 2?
What's best for the platform is original games that are cool and don't exist elsewhere. Only this will attract new users.
Ports are next best because they make the platform look respectible. But usually ports suck compared to the original game.
Emulation will absolutely kill the platform.
Any time someone decides that to succeed they need to emulate another platform, they admit defeat.
Ahh, pretty good analysis.
.Net versus J2EE. It's available here: http://www.objectwatch.com/pres/MSDN2/tour_files/f rame.htm
.Net is for you. ;)
However, I'm not in agreement that not being able to hold state with global variables is a negative feature of the language. That sounds like a really bad idea considering most app servers are load balanced, and I highly doubt Java can read the memory across machine boundaries.
I'd also be curious to see some performance comparisons. You make some implicit claims that Java is faster than VB, yet I've never seen this backed up with benchmarks. The one benchmark I did see comparing the different environments showed VB as twice as fast as Java, with C++ being three times as fast. But it wasn't necessarily fair as it also compared different hardware, i.e. VB on a Compaq, Java on a Sun.
Roger Sessions was recently in town here, and had a presentation on
It's interesting reading. I believe his conclusion was that using Java was primarily a religious argument. If you are dead set on using Java, continue to do so. If on the other hand your concerned with performance and cost to deliver, then
True true.
Actually I don't buy the cost of software compared to the cost of hardware argument. Perhaps if you are talking bundling, but hardly any PC's at less than $1000 come with bundled software of any consequence.
I do think that Microsoft is going to have to lower their charges for Office in order to convince people to do the upgrade. As a boss of mine once said "it's better to have a handful of nickels than no quarters"
But like you said, the real threat to Microsoft is their old versions. It's certainly not Linux which is hardly what I would call useful, neither is StarOffice.
And we have hundreds of COM components written in VB working fine.
Not to say we have not had some problems, like you, but in each and every case we've tied it back to a problem in the code.
Instead of rewriting it, why don't you just spend the time understanding the code and fixing the problem? Wouldn't that be cheaper?
I didn't realize Samba was psychic. This must be a new feature just added recently?
The last time I used it, it was still quite a pain in the ass(at least compared to Win2k) to setup new file shares, new print queues, new users, setting/changing passwords, etc.
The Register is like the National Enquirer of the computer world. It's interesting and fun to read, but you shouldn't rely on it for accurate news.
If your really paranoid go into regedit and search for the word 'License'.
I am sure Microsoft is deeply sorry that they have disappointed you.
The fact is they probably dropped this for right now because of slowing economic strains. In order to implement this they'd have to take a hit to their short term financial growth in favor of a long term sustainable model. I suspect they are afraid of what would happen to their stock value if they announced next quarter a 20% reduction in earnings.
As far as Samba. It's really not a threat, and never has been. It's a nice solution if you already have some Unix machines in place and need to serve to Microsoft clients.
But even with the improvements, it's still a nightmare to support.
think Excel 2000 file format was compatible with Excel 97.
Access 2000 was definately not compatible with Access 97, however.
Not sure about Powerpoint.