1) Moneydance - personal finance program Runs on Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, Irix, AIX, NT, win95/98, MacOS, HP-UX, OS/2, and others http://seanreilly.com/java/moneydance/
2) JaWaveEdit - very nice audio program http://www.bome.com/JaWavedit/
There are many others, you just gotta know where to look. Sure, they may not be the fastest programs in the world (although in my experience they run just as fast as native apps on OS/2) but since most user-level applications are sitting waiting for input about 95% of the time, speed is not much of an issue.
Linux has become a better Unix than Unix ever was, and it's completely overshadowed Plan 9 and its successors. Thompson's bitter about that.
Have you ever used plan9? I believe it is much better than linux/unix. I think the reason linux has blown it away in the market is because linux is a less radical departure from the status quo - and because it is free (as in beer). Not because linux is a better system than plan 9. I really hope that we're not at the point where open source and free software eclipse innovative products just because they aren't Open Source(TM).
If you don't have the projects at work you really want to be coding, what else do you do but join the Open Source movement?
You get a different job where you can do what you enjoy. You sound as if it's difficult to get a programming job or something. The only people that can't get a programming job doing what they love are the *worst* programmers (and who wants to use software written by them??).
How bout the following weren't these open source? TCP/IP HTTP
That's a silly question... a protocol doesn't have any source - only the implementations do. I guess you could say that they are because the RFC's are public, but your question really doesn't make sense.
It really annoys me how people have to label everything open source or not open source. It's not that black or white. I think it stems from the fact that people want to associate themselves with something larger than themselves, so we manufacture the concept of an "Open Source Movement". I write software and release the source, but I do *not* want to be associated with any "movement". I'm just trying to get my job done, so get out of my face with all of this labelling and political posturing.
The GPL has no impact whatsoever on exlusive deals like the original author mentioned. However, since most of the redhat distribution is GPL'd, the OEMs could theoretically just buy one $50 copy of redhat (or even a $2 copy from cheapbytes) and install it on all of their machines. I expect the redhat "deal", whatever it is, is mainly just for providing support - not for licensing the software itself.
You're right and wrong. The GPL obviously doesn't explicitly set out to keep people from making money. But for a large number of applications, it is next to impossible to make enough money writing (or supporting, customizing, or whatever) GPL'd software to support themselves.
Since RMS doesn't really care if people make any money writing software (and he is obviously content with making under $10k/year), he conveniently ignores many commercial factors when making his "moral" arguments. People like me would rather not live in poverty, so we need also need to address the commercial side of writing software and making a profit.
RMS doesn't seem to be anti-commercial - just anti-proprietary - but he leaves no room in his "world-view" for people to survive while writing free software as their primary job. I think that is what the original poster was trying to say.
I've never seen so many people get so upset for such a stupid reason. You'd think that Steve Jobs himself assassinated RMS or something. What has Apple done to open source? Did they take anything away from open source? No. They are giving the community some of their software. They didn't have to, they could just keep it closed-source. They had every right to keep it closed source. If you don't like their software - DON'T USE IT!!!
This is a fine example of a geek who needs to get out more. For god sakes, take a drive through the country or something. Calm down a little before your head explodes. Do you get this excited over everything in life, or just issues concerning apple operating systems?
RMS needs to get a grip and focus on something that really matters. If he wants to call it GNU/Linux, then he can make his own distribution and put whatever name he wants on it. Hell, call it RMS/Linux for all I care.
The fact is that people are free to call it whatever they want to call it. Just as RMS is free to complain about what other people are calling Linux. Just as I am free to call RMS a whiny freak who has his priorities out of whack.
1) Laws are created and enforced in the US to protect the rights of citizens.
2) Babies are not considered "citizens" until they are born. To say that life begins at conception is a religious and very subjective opinion.
3) Since we have a separation of church and state in this country, it is not up to the government to dictate to people when life begins, and thus when it is illegal to murder someone.
The christian right needs to get off their high horse of trying to forcing their religious beliefs on everyone else.
Guns don't kill people radical pro-lifers kill people
Slashdot Mirror
1) Moneydance - personal finance program
Runs on Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, Irix, AIX,
NT, win95/98, MacOS, HP-UX, OS/2, and others
http://seanreilly.com/java/moneydance/
2) JaWaveEdit - very nice audio program
http://www.bome.com/JaWavedit/
There are many others, you just gotta know where
to look. Sure, they may not be the fastest programs in the world (although in my experience they run just as fast as native apps on OS/2)
but since most user-level applications are sitting
waiting for input about 95% of the time, speed is
not much of an issue.
Linux has become a better Unix than Unix ever was, and it's completely overshadowed Plan 9 and its successors. Thompson's bitter about that.
Have you ever used plan9? I believe it is much better than linux/unix. I think the reason linux has blown it away in the market is because linux is a less radical departure from the status quo - and because it is free (as in beer). Not because linux is a better system than plan 9. I really hope that we're not at the point where open source and free software eclipse innovative products just because they aren't Open Source(TM).
If you don't have the projects at work you really want to be coding, what else do you do but join the Open Source movement?
You get a different job where you can do what you enjoy. You sound as if it's difficult to get a programming job or something. The only people that can't get a programming job doing what they love are the *worst* programmers (and who wants to use software written by them??).
How bout the following weren't these open source?
TCP/IP
HTTP
That's a silly question... a protocol doesn't have any source - only the implementations do. I guess you could say that they are because the RFC's are public, but your question really doesn't make sense.
It really annoys me how people have to label everything open source or not open source. It's not that black or white. I think it stems from the fact that people want to associate themselves with something larger than themselves, so we manufacture the concept of an "Open Source Movement". I write software and release the source, but I do *not* want to be associated with any "movement". I'm just trying to get my job done, so get out of my face with all of this labelling and political posturing.
The GPL has no impact whatsoever on exlusive deals like the original author mentioned. However, since most of the redhat distribution is GPL'd, the OEMs could theoretically just buy one $50 copy of redhat (or even a $2 copy from cheapbytes) and install it on all of their machines. I expect the redhat "deal", whatever it is, is mainly just for providing support - not for licensing the software itself.
Talk about casting pearls before pigs!
You summed up the whole situation with that one line.
You're right and wrong. The GPL obviously doesn't explicitly set out to keep people from making money. But for a large number of applications, it is next to impossible to make enough money writing (or supporting, customizing, or whatever) GPL'd software to support themselves.
Since RMS doesn't really care if people make any money writing software (and he is obviously content with making under $10k/year), he conveniently ignores many commercial factors when making his "moral" arguments. People like me would rather not live in poverty, so we need also need to address the commercial side of writing software and making a profit.
RMS doesn't seem to be anti-commercial - just anti-proprietary - but he leaves no room in his "world-view" for people to survive while writing free software as their primary job. I think that is what the original poster was trying to say.
Finally, some common sense on
I've never seen so many people get so upset for such a stupid reason. You'd think that Steve Jobs himself assassinated RMS or something. What has Apple done to open source? Did they take anything away from open source? No. They are giving the community some of their software. They didn't have to, they could just keep it closed-source. They had every right to keep it closed source. If you don't like their software - DON'T USE IT!!!
This is a fine example of a geek who needs to get out more. For god sakes, take a drive through the country or something. Calm down a little before your head explodes. Do you get this excited over everything in life, or just issues concerning apple operating systems?
Why doesn't everybody just coooooooool out!
RMS needs to get a grip and focus on something that really matters. If he wants to call it GNU/Linux, then he can make his own distribution and put whatever name he wants on it. Hell, call it RMS/Linux for all I care.
The fact is that people are free to call it whatever they want to call it. Just as RMS is free to complain about what other people are calling Linux. Just as I am free to call RMS a whiny freak who has his priorities out of whack.
1) Laws are created and enforced in the US to protect the rights of citizens.
2) Babies are not considered "citizens" until they are born. To say that life begins at conception is a religious and very subjective opinion.
3) Since we have a separation of church and state in this country, it is not up to the government to dictate to people when life begins, and thus when it is illegal to murder someone.
The christian right needs to get off their high horse of trying to forcing their religious beliefs on everyone else.
Guns don't kill people
radical pro-lifers kill people