Yep, and that's the curse of the FOSS. If there were restrictions on distribution things would be much better. But then I guess Stallman and other uber-zealots will pour shit on it - "It doesn't respect your freedom, it's a malware, blah, blah, blah...".
Well, Android/Chromium OS are open source except the good parts. Chrome OS (Chromium OS) is roughly a modified Chrome/Chromium browser on top of the Linux kernel. What mostly makes Chrome OS and Android successful is the Google's services and apps (Google Play, Google Camera, etc) which are usually proprietary software. Also many vendors fork these OSes and make them proprietary by tivoing and closing the sources (except the Linux kernel, but GPL2 doesn't protect against tivo anyway). So it's not so rosy, Android and Chrome OS are almost proprietary.
https://arstechnica.com/gadget...
Exactly. I was hinting at this. Pure FOSS model is viable in areas such as server and embedded space, but it fails short in consumers' world. Enterprises want pay money for support but not the consumers.
Now the most wondering part for me is the hardcore Linux and GPL zealots' reaction who are claiming "Android is Linux!" and "Linux has won! Windows sux!" with foam from their mouth.
I hope that the multi-billion company has enough resources to to abandon this religious insanity.
Initially, Ubuntu was really what opened the way for Linux on desktops for more or less average users. Yes, then convulsive attempts to somehow get back the invested money accompanied by bouts of NIH syndrome, the apogee of which was the notorious Mir, but Mark raised the bar of friendliness. Now, yes, *ubuntu (including the letters k and x), has many alternatives, but when instead of gratitude to the person who spent a lot of money and time on Linux, you see this, it becomes insulting for humanity.
Canonical's innovations, of course, for the most part are questionable. Yes, when the project stubbornly continued to be unprofitable, and the attempt to repulse costs due to a fairly easily disconnected adware was met with wild opposition (which, however, it is easy enough to understand) NIH began to pull the blanket on itself to the edge of Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish. All this, of course, is sad, but the classic OpenSource model of monetization "money for support" works better for difficult to master and configure products, and not for what "launched - and works." Mark began with the fact that he began to bring the desktop Linux to this state, and this in the financial plan - the occupation is quite hopeless...
It seems that Canonical hasn't enough resources to maintain Unity 7 and bring Unity 8 to a mature state. Nowadays Android and Chrome OS are better alternatives to this hobbyist mess.
Slashdot Mirror
Shortly... https://xkcd.com/619/
Web Browser: systemd Email Client: systemd Terminal: systemd IDE: systemd File manager: systemd Basic Text Editor: systemd IRC/Messaging Client: systemd PDF Reader: systemd Office Suite: systemd Calendar: systemd Video Player: systemd Music Player: systemd Photo Viewer: systemd Screen recording: systemd
Maybe systemd?
Yep, and that's the curse of the FOSS. If there were restrictions on distribution things would be much better. But then I guess Stallman and other uber-zealots will pour shit on it - "It doesn't respect your freedom, it's a malware, blah, blah, blah...".
Just opened C:\$MFT\123 from notepad and then BSOD =).
Considering the patent/copyright holders' insanity, everything is possible. http://www.cracked.com/article...
Maybe. Except when it causes BSOD (google for Amazon Kindle).
So use VIA processors if you want security?
Yeah, "I'm a Linux developer, I do everything strictly for myself".
Maybe... But I meant FOSS in this context.
Well, Android/Chromium OS are open source except the good parts. Chrome OS (Chromium OS) is roughly a modified Chrome/Chromium browser on top of the Linux kernel. What mostly makes Chrome OS and Android successful is the Google's services and apps (Google Play, Google Camera, etc) which are usually proprietary software. Also many vendors fork these OSes and make them proprietary by tivoing and closing the sources (except the Linux kernel, but GPL2 doesn't protect against tivo anyway). So it's not so rosy, Android and Chrome OS are almost proprietary. https://arstechnica.com/gadget...
Exactly. I was hinting at this. Pure FOSS model is viable in areas such as server and embedded space, but it fails short in consumers' world. Enterprises want pay money for support but not the consumers.
So if there are're many professions in OSS, why there is no Linux distro or other free OS of comparable quality to Windows 7 or even XP?
Now the most wondering part for me is the hardcore Linux and GPL zealots' reaction who are claiming "Android is Linux!" and "Linux has won! Windows sux!" with foam from their mouth. I hope that the multi-billion company has enough resources to to abandon this religious insanity.
ReacOS was aimed to be the open source implementation of Win 2000 which is not supported. There is even no proper support for x86_64.
And don't complain that Linux is still around on 2% of desktops.
And also an odd number before the point.
Initially, Ubuntu was really what opened the way for Linux on desktops for more or less average users. Yes, then convulsive attempts to somehow get back the invested money accompanied by bouts of NIH syndrome, the apogee of which was the notorious Mir, but Mark raised the bar of friendliness. Now, yes, *ubuntu (including the letters k and x), has many alternatives, but when instead of gratitude to the person who spent a lot of money and time on Linux, you see this, it becomes insulting for humanity. Canonical's innovations, of course, for the most part are questionable. Yes, when the project stubbornly continued to be unprofitable, and the attempt to repulse costs due to a fairly easily disconnected adware was met with wild opposition (which, however, it is easy enough to understand) NIH began to pull the blanket on itself to the edge of Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish. All this, of course, is sad, but the classic OpenSource model of monetization "money for support" works better for difficult to master and configure products, and not for what "launched - and works." Mark began with the fact that he began to bring the desktop Linux to this state, and this in the financial plan - the occupation is quite hopeless...
It seems that Canonical hasn't enough resources to maintain Unity 7 and bring Unity 8 to a mature state. Nowadays Android and Chrome OS are better alternatives to this hobbyist mess.
Internet wasn't, isn't and won't be the freedom/privacy respecting place regardless of the DRM's "web standard" status.
Also warn about Windows 10 privacy issues.
Now it's called GSOD
Cons: You have no internet connection Pros: Finally Windows 10 doesn't spy you any more
So what do you expect from a malware-like OS?
Dirty COW?