Indeed, Unix is traditionally used on a lot of small sites per one server. NT can do it too (webjump, ewebcity, etc), but that is not the preferred use.
Office, Word, Internet Explorer, SQL Server, *Flight Simulator*, etc...
Of course, they also have stuff like Microsoft Transaction Server ( that doesn't do transcations ) and Microsoft Application Server ( that doesn't serve applications ) to prove that they probably just use random words out of a dictonary.
It's not enough yet, I'm afraid, you need a little more, like a basic desktop enviroment.
See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/06/30/17342 53&cid=40 for the detials.
Other has mentioned it, but it has a package management format, which is RPM.
The standard desktop framework is *much* more important, IMO.
What is needed is not picking KDE or GNOME, what is needed is something on a more lower level.
Currently, you get X, on top of that XLib, and on top of that, the WM & desktop enviroment.
This is wrong, because the desktop framework is too high level. What is needed is a standard desktop framework, on top of *which*, the WM is then built.
Beside getting ISV to release more software to Linux, this also help reduce the double-application syndrome, where an appliction is written to KDE and someone create an identical application for GNOME.
This way, you write for the standard desktop platfrom (SDP, not a bad name:-} , and it work on every desktop or WM that you've.
No!
GPLing it would give MS all the power it now has.
What is the *point* in GPL os? It can only run GPL programs. *
How many of Windows programs are GPL? 0.01%, maybe.
MS would simply keep on selling the non-GPL OS, and *that* would where all the money will be.
Making it a BSD-like model, where *anyone* can fork the code, and do *whatever* they want with it. But MS keeps the control of the code, (except that they can't close it), is much better remedy.
This nullify the claims for monopol (how can they, when anyone can take the source and make whatever they want with for free), and at the same time, block MS from integrating more products into their OS, because they would need to open source the products that they do integrate.
[*] Linux's license isn't true GPL, there is an exception that let it run a non-GPL programs.
What is the *point* in leaving their main revenue steam? You can make money out of hardware, out of ads?
Hardly.
Especially when most of those ads are from *other* OSDN sites.
SourceForge pays SlashDot that pays NewsForge that pay themez.org that pays SourceForge, ed infintium.
You never could use the GPL to do some things in windows.
Because some things aren't "system libraries".
MFC code, for example, can't be GPL, because it's not (stupidly) a system library on Win95,98 & NT4, and you need to ship the library with your own code, and you can't GPL the library (because you don't have copyright)...
No, that is not true.
I can't force somebody *else* code to be GPL if I GPL my own code.
In fact, if I can't convince him to GPL his code, I can't GPL my code, because that would be in violation of the GPL.
Actually, you can do that for quite a number of libraries.
MFC
C runtime
ATL
WTL
C++ STL
You are not allowed to distribue their source, but you are allowed to distribue patches. The GPL won't let you do that, btw, you'll have to GPL your patches.
No, you can't have GPL code that link to non-GPL library, *even* if you distribue it seperatedly.
Check the KDE & Qt debate, when Qt wasn't GPLed.
RMS claimed that the KDE violated the GPL.
MS doesn't have to be afraid of anything, though, because the worst that can happen is a visit from RMS that would try to convince them to GPL their code (he did, successfully, with Qt).
An SDK isn't aimed at the average customer, it's aimed at developers, and you can bet that most of those are going to have lawyers handy to read, understand & comply the EULA, to avoid all sorts of nasty things like being sued/audited by MS.
Slashdot Mirror
How can *this* be off topic?
--
Two witches watch two watches.
To have any connection to the ground? :-)
--
Two witches watch two watches.
Indeed, Unix is traditionally used on a lot of small sites per one server. NT can do it too (webjump, ewebcity, etc), but that is not the preferred use.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
Yes, and it's doing such a good job at it that even *you* can't exploit it commercially.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
Linux has more desktops than FreeBSD, but FreeBSD has more servers.
Although, NT/2K has more than all other unixes combined.
reference.
Over 50% of the web servers run Windows!
--
Two witches watch two watches.
No, that is silly.
Use the more traditional way:
TAFKAK
The Application Foremrly Known As KIllustrator
--
Two witches watch two watches.
Microsoft had gotten this to the level of an art.
Office, Word, Internet Explorer, SQL Server, *Flight Simulator*, etc...
Of course, they also have stuff like Microsoft Transaction Server ( that doesn't do transcations ) and Microsoft Application Server ( that doesn't serve applications ) to prove that they probably just use random words out of a dictonary.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
It's sad, really.
There is a lot of things in 2000 that are really cool.
Then again, I'm still waiting for that 2000/XP only game. As long as there is a need to run on 9x, applications are going to suck.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
It's not enough yet, I'm afraid, you need a little more, like a basic desktop enviroment.2 53&cid=40 for the detials.
See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/06/30/1734
--
Two witches watch two watches.
Other has mentioned it, but it has a package management format, which is RPM.
:-} , and it work on every desktop or WM that you've.
The standard desktop framework is *much* more important, IMO.
What is needed is not picking KDE or GNOME, what is needed is something on a more lower level.
Currently, you get X, on top of that XLib, and on top of that, the WM & desktop enviroment.
This is wrong, because the desktop framework is too high level. What is needed is a standard desktop framework, on top of *which*, the WM is then built.
Beside getting ISV to release more software to Linux, this also help reduce the double-application syndrome, where an appliction is written to KDE and someone create an identical application for GNOME.
This way, you write for the standard desktop platfrom (SDP, not a bad name
--
Two witches watch two watches.
Without this exception, libc would've to be GPL, thus, anything that uses it would need to be GPL.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
ftp.exe
Or just use telnet.exe to emulate a web browser.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
No!
GPLing it would give MS all the power it now has.
What is the *point* in GPL os? It can only run GPL programs. *
How many of Windows programs are GPL? 0.01%, maybe.
MS would simply keep on selling the non-GPL OS, and *that* would where all the money will be.
Making it a BSD-like model, where *anyone* can fork the code, and do *whatever* they want with it. But MS keeps the control of the code, (except that they can't close it), is much better remedy.
This nullify the claims for monopol (how can they, when anyone can take the source and make whatever they want with for free), and at the same time, block MS from integrating more products into their OS, because they would need to open source the products that they do integrate.
[*] Linux's license isn't true GPL, there is an exception that let it run a non-GPL programs.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
That Microsoft can buy VA Linux for about 1% of its avertising campaign for XBox?
That throwing away the part that *makes* moeny is no way to run a compnay?
That a negative share price is *not* something desireable?
That money is actually *needed* on the real world? You can't eat GPL. Okay, you can, but it's a sorry state of events, and isn't very nurtitent.
That circular advertising is *not* a way to make money?
--
Two witches watch two watches.
What is the *point* in leaving their main revenue steam? You can make money out of hardware, out of ads?
Hardly.
Especially when most of those ads are from *other* OSDN sites.
SourceForge pays SlashDot that pays NewsForge that pay themez.org that pays SourceForge, ed infintium.
Hello? Can anyone find bussiness logic here?
--
Two witches watch two watches.
Microsoft will buy it, turn into a hardware company, and release all their software as GPL.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
Because this is system libraries, but for non-system libraries (MFC comes to mind), you can't do that.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
But they spoke of Open Source, which certainly include BSD.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
WINE stand for Wine Is Not an Emulator, so they do have a leg to stand on.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
You never could use the GPL to do some things in windows.
Because some things aren't "system libraries".
MFC code, for example, can't be GPL, because it's not (stupidly) a system library on Win95,98 & NT4, and you need to ship the library with your own code, and you can't GPL the library (because you don't have copyright)...
--
Two witches watch two watches.
No, that is not true.
I can't force somebody *else* code to be GPL if I GPL my own code.
In fact, if I can't convince him to GPL his code, I can't GPL my code, because that would be in violation of the GPL.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
Actually, you can do that for quite a number of libraries.
MFC
C runtime
ATL
WTL
C++ STL
You are not allowed to distribue their source, but you are allowed to distribue patches. The GPL won't let you do that, btw, you'll have to GPL your patches.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
No, you can't have GPL code that link to non-GPL library, *even* if you distribue it seperatedly.
Check the KDE & Qt debate, when Qt wasn't GPLed.
RMS claimed that the KDE violated the GPL.
MS doesn't have to be afraid of anything, though, because the worst that can happen is a visit from RMS that would try to convince them to GPL their code (he did, successfully, with Qt).
--
Two witches watch two watches.
An SDK isn't aimed at the average customer, it's aimed at developers, and you can bet that most of those are going to have lawyers handy to read, understand & comply the EULA, to avoid all sorts of nasty things like being sued/audited by MS.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
You can choose from many, as long as it's not GPL/and the like.
I don't like what they are doing here, mind you.
BSD, zlib, X11, apache, etc.
--
Two witches watch two watches.