"The FSF has never made a secret of the specific meanings that they mean when they use the term "Free." I believe there is a phrase, you've probably heard it, about beer..."
No, what they did is choose a deliberately misleading name as a marketing ploy. They could have easily called it "freedom software" and they wouldn't have to anthropomorphise "software" in order to justify a non-obvious interpretation of the phrase "free software". The fact is that "free as in free" is more appealing than "free as in dogma".
"That's true; it would suck for Microsoft if Open Office was able to compete on a level playing field."
Given that a level playing field would require history to change (i.e. a timeline in which most people didn't use MS Office), it might suck for a lot of people.
"Yes, but you also need to remember that UNIX is designed around "the lowest common denominator"
Not really. Unix was designed around what was feasible in the 1970s. The fact that its implementation corresponds to the LCD in the 21st century should hardly be surprising.
So what knowledge of computers will be gleaned from learning Linux? Will you learn how to write the microcode that a processor uses to create an instruction? Will you learn how to perform loading analysis to determine if the processor can drive the other digital components? Will you learn how use logic gates, counters, etc.
Like Windows, Linux is an OS with abstractions that have very little to do with "conceptual knowledge of how computers work".
"With Apache interoperability, you'd be able to run.NET internet applications and web services internet wide."
I guess you mean "with Apache interoperability, you'd be able to run.NET internet applications and web services on Apache". Apache is very popular, but it doesn't imply "internet wide" any more than any web server.
I think we're back to equivocating over the term "Linux". If Linux is just a kernel, than I can truthfully tell people "Don't use Linux, it doesn't even have a command line, let alone a GUI". Linux is either a full OS or it's a kernel that is of no interest to anyone except kernel hackers.
Of course you're assuming that the fact that an application is open source means it will be available and supported from different sources. This is not necessarily the case.
Most software isn't mission critical for a business. If it is, it's more likely to be developed internally so that competitors won't have it available.
So what you're saying is that despite the lack of any evidence that a significant percentage of users want to modify source code, it might still be true.
I agree, it might, but given the fact that most users don't have the technical skill to modify code and there's no evidence that they wish to start hiring software consultants, I'd say the more probable truth is that they don't care.
Well, it's not really Apple's expectations that matter, but Wall Street's:
"If the bar is so low that in the next 12 months Apple will only sell another 10 million iPhones at the $200 price point, I would not consider that to be a success," said Trip Chowdhry, an analyst with Global Equities Research. "I would consider that to be a complete disaster. At that price point they should have sold 20 million or 30 million units, and I don't think they can sell that many."
The 10 million figure was based on the iPhone I. To meet expectations the combined sales of both models will have to well exceeed 10 million this year.
"Would you consider an OS that costs nothing and is freely changeable a significant contribution? That OS can be scaled from a cell phone to a mainframe."
Not to science. As far as "scaling" is concerned, it has joined the terms "embedded system" and "real-time" in the land of watered-down definitions.
Slashdot Mirror
Being able to solve toy problems and answer trick questions during an interview doesn't mean you'll make a competent employee.
Hey great. Then Google servers can provide your video RAM and download each scan line to your monitor in real time. 1/60 fps sounds good to me.
since with all the processes it uses, it'll be hogging all the system resources. IE, Firefox, etc won't have enough resources to run.
Can we stop pretending open source is better than closed source just because the source code is available.
"WTF? Since when is "Free as in Speech, not Free as in Beer" anthropomorphization?"
Who is the entity that enjoys this "freedom" that the GPL provides? You've never heard the phrase "code wants to be free" in the context of the GPL?
"The FSF has never made a secret of the specific meanings that they mean when they use the term "Free." I believe there is a phrase, you've probably heard it, about beer..."
No, what they did is choose a deliberately misleading name as a marketing ploy. They could have easily called it "freedom software" and they wouldn't have to anthropomorphise "software" in order to justify a non-obvious interpretation of the phrase "free software". The fact is that "free as in free" is more appealing than "free as in dogma".
"That's true; it would suck for Microsoft if Open Office was able to compete on a level playing field."
Given that a level playing field would require history to change (i.e. a timeline in which most people didn't use MS Office), it might suck for a lot of people.
"Yes, but you also need to remember that UNIX is designed around "the lowest common denominator"
Not really. Unix was designed around what was feasible in the 1970s. The fact that its implementation corresponds to the LCD in the 21st century should hardly be surprising.
So what knowledge of computers will be gleaned from learning Linux? Will you learn how to write the microcode that a processor uses to create an instruction? Will you learn how to perform loading analysis to determine if the processor can drive the other digital components? Will you learn how use logic gates, counters, etc.
Like Windows, Linux is an OS with abstractions that have very little to do with "conceptual knowledge of how computers work".
"And linux is optimised for linux's own hardware"
I've heard arguments about whether linux is an OS or just a kernel, but I've never heard anyone argue that it's a computer.
As long as windows capatability is important, they won't.
With their resources, they could probably develop a Unix clone in a year or two without working up a sweat - but there's not a business case to do so.
Linux is already the commodity Unix OS, in ten years not even Red Hat will be able to make a living selling support for it.
This outcome will be inevitable as Linux adoption grows and users become more comfortable with it.
Further proof that making money off of FOSS by offering "service" is not a viable long-term strategy in most cases.
"So MONO is now being used interchangeably on Linux and Microsoft platforms like Java is?"
Pretty much. Both MONO and Java are primarily used on Unix variants and aren't used much on Windows.
Hmm, the kind of idiot with a real job?
"With Apache interoperability, you'd be able to run .NET internet applications and web services internet wide."
I guess you mean "with Apache interoperability, you'd be able to run .NET internet applications and web services on Apache". Apache is very popular, but it doesn't imply "internet wide" any more than any web server.
I think we're back to equivocating over the term "Linux". If Linux is just a kernel, than I can truthfully tell people "Don't use Linux, it doesn't even have a command line, let alone a GUI". Linux is either a full OS or it's a kernel that is of no interest to anyone except kernel hackers.
"Because their customers want them to."
Sure, because such a large percentage of customers who have legitimate installations of Vista want to run Linux too.
Of course you're assuming that the fact that an application is open source means it will be available and supported from different sources. This is not necessarily the case.
Most software isn't mission critical for a business. If it is, it's more likely to be developed internally so that competitors won't have it available.
So what you're saying is that despite the lack of any evidence that a significant percentage of users want to modify source code, it might still be true.
I agree, it might, but given the fact that most users don't have the technical skill to modify code and there's no evidence that they wish to start hiring software consultants, I'd say the more probable truth is that they don't care.
"Think about it this way ... "
It should be: "Imagine a world ..."
Well, it's not really Apple's expectations that matter, but Wall Street's:
"If the bar is so low that in the next 12 months Apple will only sell another 10 million iPhones at the $200 price point, I would not consider that to be a success," said Trip Chowdhry, an analyst with Global Equities Research. "I would consider that to be a complete disaster. At that price point they should have sold 20 million or 30 million units, and I don't think they can sell that many."
"I think Apple knows its own roadmaps and plans when stating the goal, compared to an Anonymous Coward who knows nothing."
Are you the "Anonymous Coward who knows nothing" or the other guy? This is so confusing!
The 10 million figure was based on the iPhone I. To meet expectations the combined sales of both models will have to well exceeed 10 million this year.
"Would you consider an OS that costs nothing and is freely changeable a significant contribution? That OS can be scaled from a cell phone to a mainframe."
Not to science. As far as "scaling" is concerned, it has joined the terms "embedded system" and "real-time" in the land of watered-down definitions.
What open source code reveals "discoveries" that could be considered a significant contribution to science or the arts?