While I agree that it not being Free is a Bad Thing, I still think you
are missing something:
With Linux they would have to buy one piece of additional
software that is not in their distribution. Windows may include
printer support out of the box, but what about the other several
thousand programs included in every Linux distro? And no, just because
MS Office was preinstalled on your computer doesn't make it
gratis.
Um, before "we" are able to do QuarkXPress/InDesign-like DTP,
shouldn't there also be QuarkXPress/InDesign-like applications also? I
have yet to see a project that even *tries* to make one.
Actually, especially web browsing etc. is faster without a GUI. While those stupid Mozilla/Konqueror/Opera/IE/whatever-users are still downloading those fancy gif ads, the smart w3m/lynx/links/ whatever-as-long-as-no-gui-is-envolved-user already knows that this nice colorful webpage doesn't include any useful information and is up and away:)
What's wrong with them? Honest question, never had a too close look at them.
However, Python + the "functional" module were one of the reasons for
me to try O'Caml, which makes a very nice complement where speed
matters more (also, type checking and generally more "strictness" are
a Good Thing sometimes).
In fact, *only* Linux users have to upgrade their kernel every so often.
Users of proprietary OSes don't have a chance to, and users of about
any other Free OS - well most other free OSes kernels just aren't
broken every second week.
It's important to remember that much of Linux's competition comes not from the dreaded MS, but from commercial UNIX vendors, like Sun and IBM.
Unfortunatly, this is true the other way around: Linux isn't
replacing Windows anywhere, but other Unices like Solaris or AIX. If
it only were as good an OS...
DTP is really the one domain where I do not know of any working
Free app. Sucks hard, IMHO.
There isn't anything anywhere near Quark, InDesign, Pagemaker
etc. There is, however, KWord, which is a frame-based word processor
and allows more powerful layouts than, say, MS Word, but still...
Another program you might want to check out is called Impress, but frankly, I
didn't like it.
On the other hand, there's LaTeX or Docbook, which are fine for
some areas where Framemaker would be used in Windows-Land (actually,
there was a beta of Framemaker for Windows - while Adobe won't release
it officially, perhaps you find this somewhere lying around).
So the best would be to start a new project - I will be happy to
beta-test it when it's ready:)
Guess what, there are developers out there who couldn't care less
about what general public and corporate managers want. They care about
what *they* want - that is a huge difference, and IMHO the key point
in the success of Free Software.
The "Free" in Free Software is actually not only about licensing
issues. That's the part about it that's nice for the users, but FS is
also about the freedom of the programmers themselves. These guys code
because they love it, not because some suit won't pay them
otherwise. That's a huge difference, and this egoism does indeed lead
to better code. That's why most open source/ Free Software products
are not the buggy bloated pieces of crap you you would expect from the
average commercial software company, they can afford to write code
that is simply *right*, and furthermore *elegant*, instead of caring
about marketing.
Of course, after The Hype[tm] there are loads of buggy bloated pieces
of crap that happen to be open source/ free software - but most of
them (think of OpenOffice and Mozilla) are free only in terms of
licensing - the programmers are mostly hired by some "evil" company
(be it AOL/Netscape, Sun or any hip dot-bomb) and about as free as the
COBOL grinder at the bank next door.
Heck, I really think now that users of Free Software are not
necessarily developers themselves any more, one should really start to
think more about the freedom of the people *writing* software, not
just their licensees!
There are so many things in it I would be happy not to know.
Any opinions on the new Commodore 64 computer. I've seen it and it
looks pretty neat. ...
(viii) it uses the same Microsoft BASIC as the PET. They say
they will have Pascal for it soon.
I'm feeling so dirty now. The C64 was the first computer I used.
How does the bsd ports system work any different from just downloading the source and compiling it?
It is a combination of "compile-your-own" and package
management. Saying "make install" in a port's directory will download
the source, complile it, create a package and install it. After that,
you can use pkg_delete, pkg_info etc. for package management. It also
takes care about downloading and compiling dependencies. And, of
course, it applies patches to make the package behave nicely (like
removing GNUisms when they break compatibility, or make the files go
in the "right" places).
If I wanted to keep using mid-90's software and hardware, I'd just
run Solaris x86 or FreeBSD.
Uhm, you don't have by chance ever tried to use a BSD? (Of course you
have not, scince you are obviously a troll)
I don't know a way how you can get more up-to-date than
via a freshly cvsup'd ports tree - and the binaries you get are compiled
for *your machine*, rather than for a mid-90's 386 like about any
RPM. (Not to speak about how easy it is to create a port on your own
when there isn't one already - way easier than creating a deb, for
example).
Calm down. Those who wrote this article were perfectly right in every major point.
Lets see:
Integrated
Microsoft[tm] is a monopolistic company known for kicking every competition
out of business. Nothing is more integrated than a monoculture.
Comprehensive
Everything an embedded device needs, like the Internet Explorer[tm]
Technology, the Windows Media Player and cool looking themes are
integrated in the core OS.
Unmatched
You won't find any other OS with as good support for the standards
Microsoft[tm] invented and not telling anybody how they work.
Interoperability
Microsoft[tm] Windows[tm] XP embedded will work nicely with all
other versions of Microsoft[tm] Windows[tm] XP.
Proven
There are no unknown or hidden license or development costs. Everyone
knows Microsoft[tm] Windows[tm] is an overpriced piece of crap with
the most abusive license ever thought of.
Global
Everybody uses Microsoft[tm] technology. See also "Integrated".
Linux in Not Free
The costs of buying/ downloading a Linux distribution can easily be
avoided by using an illegal copy of Microsoft[tm] Windows[tm], just
as everybody else does.
Additionaly, the constant down time of Microsoft[tm] Windows[tm], be
it due to crashes or to install the latest and greatest hotfix, has
proven to save expensive bandwidth costs and, in the case of embedded
devices, battery power.
The Microsoft[tm] Windows[tm] license has no clause that urges you to
make the source code available, so it has to be more free.
OEM Licensing
Given that Free Software comes with many different licenses, all basically
granting the same freedoms, it is obviously better for Your Business
Plan to have only one style of license (and only one OEM license, and
only one business license...), allbeit the most restrictive you could dream
of.
Experienced net users are less likely to download music?
I think it's more likely that experienced users just create a pseudo-
newbie indentity on the fly, rather than waiting for a friendly
lawyer to speak with them about the advantages of Digital Rights
Management...
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree that it not being Free is a Bad Thing, I still think you are missing something:
With Linux they would have to buy one piece of additional software that is not in their distribution. Windows may include printer support out of the box, but what about the other several thousand programs included in every Linux distro? And no, just because MS Office was preinstalled on your computer doesn't make it gratis.
Um, before "we" are able to do QuarkXPress/InDesign-like DTP,
shouldn't there also be QuarkXPress/InDesign-like applications also? I
have yet to see a project that even *tries* to make one.
There's a big difference between GDI and Postscript.
Yeah, I still wait for a GDI equivalent of a Postscript Webserver...
Actually, especially web browsing etc. is faster without a GUI. While those stupid Mozilla/Konqueror/Opera/IE/whatever-users are still downloading those fancy gif ads, the smart w3m/lynx/links/ whatever-as-long-as-no-gui-is-envolved-user already knows that this nice colorful webpage doesn't include any useful information and is up and away :)
Actually if you look at the core of OS X (Darwin), you'll find that it's based on a FreeBSD kernel
Um, no, you won't. You'll find a Mach-microkernel based Darwin. They took parts of the Userland from FreeBSD, but not the kernel.
What's wrong with them? Honest question, never had a too close look at them.
However, Python + the "functional" module were one of the reasons for
me to try O'Caml, which makes a very nice complement where speed
matters more (also, type checking and generally more "strictness" are
a Good Thing sometimes).
In fact, *only* Linux users have to upgrade their kernel every so often.
Users of proprietary OSes don't have a chance to, and users of about
any other Free OS - well most other free OSes kernels just aren't
broken every second week.
It's important to remember that much of Linux's competition comes not from the dreaded MS, but from commercial UNIX vendors, like Sun and IBM.
Unfortunatly, this is true the other way around: Linux isn't replacing Windows anywhere, but other Unices like Solaris or AIX. If it only were as good an OS...
Who cares? 5 Minutes downtime are obviously more important than the life of some dumbass unix admin. This is the 21st century, after all!
You are certainly aware that you can download Solaris for Intels for
free as well as for real hardware?
Oscar Wilde was a Python? I never knew he was THAT cool...
DTP is really the one domain where I do not know of any working Free app. Sucks hard, IMHO.
There isn't anything anywhere near Quark, InDesign, Pagemaker etc. There is, however, KWord, which is a frame-based word processor and allows more powerful layouts than, say, MS Word, but still...
Another program you might want to check out is called Impress, but frankly, I didn't like it.
On the other hand, there's LaTeX or Docbook, which are fine for some areas where Framemaker would be used in Windows-Land (actually, there was a beta of Framemaker for Windows - while Adobe won't release it officially, perhaps you find this somewhere lying around).
So the best would be to start a new project - I will be happy to beta-test it when it's ready :)
Good luck!
Funny, when OpenBSD started their license auditing, everybody screamed.
While I can appreciate your idealism, the "outdated" corporate model has proven to make money now.
While I can appreciate your simplemindedness, the "idealistic" free model has proven to make better software now.Guess what, there are developers out there who couldn't care less
about what general public and corporate managers want. They care about
what *they* want - that is a huge difference, and IMHO the key point
in the success of Free Software.
The "Free" in Free Software is actually not only about licensing
issues. That's the part about it that's nice for the users, but FS is
also about the freedom of the programmers themselves. These guys code
because they love it, not because some suit won't pay them
otherwise. That's a huge difference, and this egoism does indeed lead
to better code. That's why most open source/ Free Software products
are not the buggy bloated pieces of crap you you would expect from the
average commercial software company, they can afford to write code
that is simply *right*, and furthermore *elegant*, instead of caring
about marketing.
Of course, after The Hype[tm] there are loads of buggy bloated pieces
of crap that happen to be open source/ free software - but most of
them (think of OpenOffice and Mozilla) are free only in terms of
licensing - the programmers are mostly hired by some "evil" company
(be it AOL/Netscape, Sun or any hip dot-bomb) and about as free as the
COBOL grinder at the bank next door.
Heck, I really think now that users of Free Software are not
necessarily developers themselves any more, one should really start to
think more about the freedom of the people *writing* software, not
just their licensees!
Any opinions on the new Commodore 64 computer. I've seen it and it looks pretty neat.
...
(viii) it uses the same Microsoft BASIC as the PET. They say they will have Pascal for it soon.
I'm feeling so dirty now. The C64 was the first computer I used.
Reading this post, I was more impressed by another point:
To begin with, GNU will be a kernel plus... [Stallman, 1983]
Then, in Linus' announcement (eight years later):
I can (well, almost) hear you asking yourselves "why?". Hurd will be out in a year (or two, or next month, who knows) [Torvalds, 1991]
Some things will never change. When do they play to release the Hurd again?
It is a combination of "compile-your-own" and package management. Saying "make install" in a port's directory will download the source, complile it, create a package and install it. After that, you can use pkg_delete, pkg_info etc. for package management. It also takes care about downloading and compiling dependencies. And, of course, it applies patches to make the package behave nicely (like removing GNUisms when they break compatibility, or make the files go in the "right" places).
Funny thing to read at slashdot...
Well, how about looking at the thingie's homepage? The guys running it should know.
Uhm, you don't have by chance ever tried to use a BSD? (Of course you have not, scince you are obviously a troll)
I don't know a way how you can get more up-to-date than via a freshly cvsup'd ports tree - and the binaries you get are compiled for *your machine*, rather than for a mid-90's 386 like about any RPM. (Not to speak about how easy it is to create a port on your own when there isn't one already - way easier than creating a deb, for example).
Get a clue.
Lets see:
- Integrated
- Comprehensive
- Unmatched
- Interoperability
- Proven
- Global
- Linux in Not Free
- OEM Licensing
Yours, fud@microsoft.orgMicrosoft[tm] is a monopolistic company known for kicking every competition out of business. Nothing is more integrated than a monoculture.
Everything an embedded device needs, like the Internet Explorer[tm] Technology, the Windows Media Player and cool looking themes are integrated in the core OS.
You won't find any other OS with as good support for the standards Microsoft[tm] invented and not telling anybody how they work.
Microsoft[tm] Windows[tm] XP embedded will work nicely with all other versions of Microsoft[tm] Windows[tm] XP.
There are no unknown or hidden license or development costs. Everyone knows Microsoft[tm] Windows[tm] is an overpriced piece of crap with the most abusive license ever thought of.
Everybody uses Microsoft[tm] technology. See also "Integrated".
The costs of buying/ downloading a Linux distribution can easily be avoided by using an illegal copy of Microsoft[tm] Windows[tm], just as everybody else does. Additionaly, the constant down time of Microsoft[tm] Windows[tm], be it due to crashes or to install the latest and greatest hotfix, has proven to save expensive bandwidth costs and, in the case of embedded devices, battery power. The Microsoft[tm] Windows[tm] license has no clause that urges you to make the source code available, so it has to be more free.
Given that Free Software comes with many different licenses, all basically granting the same freedoms, it is obviously better for Your Business Plan to have only one style of license (and only one OEM license, and only one business license...), allbeit the most restrictive you could dream of.
"Open Source does not an ecosystem make."
/. next...
Guess that means they will try to take over
Experienced net users are less likely to download music?
I think it's more likely that experienced users just create a pseudo-
newbie indentity on the fly, rather than waiting for a friendly
lawyer to speak with them about the advantages of Digital Rights
Management...