No, the GPL spesify 3rd party as well.
Qoute:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
That kill GPLed customized applications, I guess. You don't want the competition to see your code.
Not at all.
First: I believe that getting the source is the standard in customized applications, probably also transfer of copyright, as well.
Second: The GPL required General Public discoulsoure (You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. )
So you don't want to use GPL if you don't want to expose the code.
Adapt to *what*?
RH (and other linux companies that release GPL programs) doesn't makes money, MS makes billions a year.
That is largely because selling GPL is like selling ice to escimos.
*Why* should I pay for something I get for free?
So RH has to work much harder for their money, and they *still* don't make a profit.
MS makes a lot of dimes.
Explain to me the bussiness model of selling GPL software, please. And how you can profit from it.
Support doesn't count, BTW, commercial software makes money from support as well.
Yes and no.
Being able to program is helpful in a sys-admin, it's not a neccesity, or shouldn't be.
Knowing the system well enough is enough.
Here we get into an interesting problem, what, exactly, is programming.
Does writing perl script or VBS files constitue under programming?
Being able to script stuff and do some basic programming *is* a required skill for a sys-admin.
Being able to create applications isn't, that is the domain of developers. No one says that you can't have someone who wears two hats, but that is beside the point.
Couple of points:
Win2K has one version, the difference is in the tweaking done to the version you have, and what extra software you get with it.
Win2K DC is a customized version of Win2K, that the OEM change to take advantage of its hardware.
If I open source a new cool browser, and a company add some features, and sell it, then they *deserve* it.
My code is still there, anyone who wants it can take it and use it. However, if they feel that the addition to the browser that the company made is worth their money, they are welcome to pay for it.
Again, it's a matter of choice, you can get the free version, without the additions, or get the compnay's version, and pay for the additions.
GPL prevents this choice, thus limiting the scope of my code reuse.
MS comment about GPL underminning commercial software is quite correct, btw. As are you when pointing out that most commercial software development is done for spesific customers.
MS bussiness model is the one that is being undermined by GPL, and I think that they meant bussiness that makes their money of selling their software would be hurt by it.
Bussinesses that makes their money writing software to clients always give the source as well as the binary to the client, so GPL is less of an issue here.
OSS allows you to sell your software, but consider the situation with linux distributions. You *can* buy them, but most people don't.
You can get them for free from a friend, or from the net, or from a Magazine's CD.
I can order them from cheapbytes and pay more for S&H than on the disk.
(Yes, I know that some people buy them, a large precentage doesn't, however)
This mean that you lose a *lot* of paying clients, not a good thing to tell your boss, you would agree.
One last thing, about source forking. I want my software to work on all version of linux, can I have that? Most likely not, because of the forking.
(Yes, this isn't *that* big a problem, but I'm making a point here).
I think that that was what MS meant.
C# I'll grant you.
But COM?
XPCOM (the object model in Mozilla) is based on COM. Bonobo is based on COM. RNA (real-networks platform) is based on COM.
COM was one of the really good things that came out of MS.
The idea of COM, or COM-like systems, might have existed before MS shipped it (I really don't know), but MS was the one that took it and made it into a usable model.
What about MTS, for that matter.
Have you heard about EJB, a vital part of J2EE (a hint, that is the thing that is going to compete with.NET), EJB is basically a copy of MTS.
And MTS was *microsoft* idea.
I doubt that they would switch.
At least not in a fast rate, it works, right? Why fiddle with a thing unbroken?
I think that they would slowly convert to their own systems, like they did with hotmail.com, for a long time, it was on BSD, and was slowly replaced when 2K came out.
You don't just switch an infrastructure for 500,000 users.
Netscape 6 is based on Mozilla.
What you are saying that My Netscape is tailored to screw up it's own browser, right?
Damn, I knew it was no fun to develop to it, but is it *that* bad, that even netscape workers won't code to it?
Shuttle launching code is *nothing* compare to stuff like a Linux distibution, MS-SQL Server, Oracle, etc.
Shuttle launching code is a very detialed problem, which you can *fully* test & simulate.
In addition, you aren't likely to run into "let's ignore CS instructions, because we know better" type of attidute, and you've the privilege of all bugs being considered level 0. To be fixed yesterday.
Alpha - it compiles!!!
Beta1 - still adding features.
Beta2 - nearly everything is in place.
Beta3 - feathure freeze.
Release - now they start hunting those bugs.
Get Win2K B3, it run on Alpha, or tel Compaq to convince MS to restore Win2K on Alpha. It was Compaq's insistance that cause Win2K-Alpha to be discontinued.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, Win9x has a login dialog, and I don't think that even MS would deny that it's single user system.
AtheOS is a multi-user, not very good at it at the moment, though.
However, login dialog mean little.
The problem with microkernels is that they can take a lot of computer resources.
Adn you can reduce it to 1GB for kernel, and 3GB for user programs, sometimes it can be useful.
+ Powerful scripting and text manipulation functions (Unix)
Exist on Windows, usually easier to use.
+ Free programming tools (Unix)
See above, altought ease of use is less evident here.
+ Powerful and logical system management functions (Unix)
Care to give some details about this?
Hardware limitation, not having anything to do with MS.
Wow, you want to tell me that MS invented C++? How facinating, where did you got this info?
What about MS?
What car BG drives in, anyway?
Internet Explorer.
MTS
COM+
MS SQL Server
Four of them right out the top of my head.
Um, I've heard that most (all?) MS applications are being written in C++ & Objective C.
No, the GPL spesify 3rd party as well.
Qoute:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
That kill GPLed customized applications, I guess. You don't want the competition to see your code.
Not at all.
First: I believe that getting the source is the standard in customized applications, probably also transfer of copyright, as well.
Second: The GPL required General Public discoulsoure (You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. )
So you don't want to use GPL if you don't want to expose the code.
Now, if I could do that *legally*...
Adapt to *what*?
RH (and other linux companies that release GPL programs) doesn't makes money, MS makes billions a year.
That is largely because selling GPL is like selling ice to escimos.
*Why* should I pay for something I get for free?
So RH has to work much harder for their money, and they *still* don't make a profit.
MS makes a lot of dimes.
Explain to me the bussiness model of selling GPL software, please. And how you can profit from it.
Support doesn't count, BTW, commercial software makes money from support as well.
Yes and no.
Being able to program is helpful in a sys-admin, it's not a neccesity, or shouldn't be.
Knowing the system well enough is enough.
Here we get into an interesting problem, what, exactly, is programming.
Does writing perl script or VBS files constitue under programming?
Being able to script stuff and do some basic programming *is* a required skill for a sys-admin.
Being able to create applications isn't, that is the domain of developers. No one says that you can't have someone who wears two hats, but that is beside the point.
The difference is that you get to choose, you can not use or buy a commercial software, you can't choose not to sponsor goverment software.
Couple of points:
Win2K has one version, the difference is in the tweaking done to the version you have, and what extra software you get with it.
Win2K DC is a customized version of Win2K, that the OEM change to take advantage of its hardware.
If I open source a new cool browser, and a company add some features, and sell it, then they *deserve* it.
My code is still there, anyone who wants it can take it and use it. However, if they feel that the addition to the browser that the company made is worth their money, they are welcome to pay for it.
Again, it's a matter of choice, you can get the free version, without the additions, or get the compnay's version, and pay for the additions.
GPL prevents this choice, thus limiting the scope of my code reuse.
MS comment about GPL underminning commercial software is quite correct, btw. As are you when pointing out that most commercial software development is done for spesific customers.
MS bussiness model is the one that is being undermined by GPL, and I think that they meant bussiness that makes their money of selling their software would be hurt by it.
Bussinesses that makes their money writing software to clients always give the source as well as the binary to the client, so GPL is less of an issue here.
OSS allows you to sell your software, but consider the situation with linux distributions. You *can* buy them, but most people don't.
You can get them for free from a friend, or from the net, or from a Magazine's CD.
I can order them from cheapbytes and pay more for S&H than on the disk.
(Yes, I know that some people buy them, a large precentage doesn't, however)
This mean that you lose a *lot* of paying clients, not a good thing to tell your boss, you would agree.
One last thing, about source forking. I want my software to work on all version of linux, can I have that? Most likely not, because of the forking.
(Yes, this isn't *that* big a problem, but I'm making a point here).
I think that that was what MS meant.
C# I'll grant you.
.NET), EJB is basically a copy of MTS.
But COM?
XPCOM (the object model in Mozilla) is based on COM. Bonobo is based on COM. RNA (real-networks platform) is based on COM.
COM was one of the really good things that came out of MS.
The idea of COM, or COM-like systems, might have existed before MS shipped it (I really don't know), but MS was the one that took it and made it into a usable model.
What about MTS, for that matter.
Have you heard about EJB, a vital part of J2EE (a hint, that is the thing that is going to compete with
And MTS was *microsoft* idea.
I doubt that they would switch.
At least not in a fast rate, it works, right? Why fiddle with a thing unbroken?
I think that they would slowly convert to their own systems, like they did with hotmail.com, for a long time, it was on BSD, and was slowly replaced when 2K came out.
You don't just switch an infrastructure for 500,000 users.
But appernatly it's looking better is MSIE than Netscape!
Netscape 6 is based on Mozilla.
What you are saying that My Netscape is tailored to screw up it's own browser, right?
Damn, I knew it was no fun to develop to it, but is it *that* bad, that even netscape workers won't code to it?
Shuttle launching code is *nothing* compare to stuff like a Linux distibution, MS-SQL Server, Oracle, etc.
Shuttle launching code is a very detialed problem, which you can *fully* test & simulate.
In addition, you aren't likely to run into "let's ignore CS instructions, because we know better" type of attidute, and you've the privilege of all bugs being considered level 0. To be fixed yesterday.
2 wouldn't be netscape, by any chance, would it?
MS criteria:
Alpha - it compiles!!!
Beta1 - still adding features.
Beta2 - nearly everything is in place.
Beta3 - feathure freeze.
Release - now they start hunting those bugs.
Good, as long as they release the 2000 + line only.
I don't *want* to see 9x code, any of it.
Seriously, MS *still* makes money selling win3.11 licenses!
So don't expect anything OS from them for a *long* while.
Get Win2K B3, it run on Alpha, or tel Compaq to convince MS to restore Win2K on Alpha. It was Compaq's insistance that cause Win2K-Alpha to be discontinued.