In the "non computer world" product vendors are required to recall their products if their products are found to be flawed to the point where they are dangerous to the people buying them. This is often done even if the product *contains a warning* but there is a high enough incidence where the warning is ignored.
Everyone should be liable for their product up to a certain point. Should they be liable for the bugs existing in the first place? No. Software is imperfect. Should they be liable for the continued distribution of software with known bugs when they do not inform the users of the bugs? Yes. Should commercial vendors be liable for not fixing the product within a reasonable amount of time after being made aware of the bug? Yes.
I'm not talking about the "Oops. The computer just crashed" bugs that happen every once in a while without truly impairing the ability of the software to function. I'm talking about security holes, and problems that risk the integrity of data.
No one needs to force Redhat or other opensource vendors to fix software, if they want to retain viability they have to because opensource consumers are accustomed to "if it doesn't work, go elsewhere." It's the large commercial companies that tend to drop the ball or drag their feet on issues that they shouldn't.
It would be sort of amusing, though, to see the looks on their faces when they're informed that they're now required to release their source to the public. Knowing the way the courts work I'd be surprised if this ultimatum wasn't issued in error once or twice.
Hm. I don't see why fines based on the size of the company and the severity of the bug would not be legal. A million-dollar fine would put a small company out of business rather than entice them to fix the problem. For a larger company it wouldn't even be an incentive to put down the lid of the toilet seat.
How about something even more... Compelling? Software that is not fixed within the maximum time allowed by law is required to release their source to the public domain?
That is a good argument. Another set of rules should apply to source or software that has been abandoned. (ie: no development has occured, versions released, or bugs patched for x number of months.) If the source is being actively developed, released, and patched then they're held liable for notifying the public of bugs.
Abandoned software should require only that it is obvious that the source has been abandoned and no updates are planned. (Something in the form of a "date last developed" being required for each software release so that no one would have to go back and add it as it would have been added at time of release? It could then be assumed that software whose 'date of release' is older than x number of months has been abandoned and liability is left to the end-user...?)Optionally software can be labled "abandoned" and further development only allowed once the lable is removed and accountability resumed.
Opensource developers who are *actively* involved in the development of the source should not be excluded from liability because they fall into a different category than those who have abandoned or completely given up their source. They show willingness to spend the time developing, and 10 minutes to post a bug report is not a major requirement. Volunteers at physical institutions in the "real world" are often required to fill out paperwork or occasionally fill out forms, I don't see why opensource *development* should be any different, or why it would ever be possible to convince the courts otherwise. Volunteers should never be required to volunteer additional hours to fix the problem, but they should be required to spend the 10 minutes to post the bug report and be held accountable if they do not.
Exploits should not be made available until after the bug fix is released. Under the criteria I detailed above, responsibility for the "fire" falls to the goverment. After a certain amount of time passes then the company will incur fines which can add up to a hefty sum. Microsoft and Apple *DO* care about the public knowing about and being able to exploit the bugs in their software, however they care more about money. Fines will be a larger incentive than will exploits.
Exploits harm the end-users of software for which there IS no fix. It's one thing to release an exploit after the patch is released and people have been given time to patch their systems. It prevents the rest of the world from having to sort through multiple gigs of logs containing attempts by nimda or code red.
When the exploit is published before the fix you open everyone up to liability for which they cannot avoid. If you're a Linux administrator do you really want the world to know that there's a bug that can format the hard drive of your server and that an exploit can be downloaded at http://.... And that there's nothing you can do? If you're a windows end-user do you want to know that there's an exploit circulating already for something that MS hasn't fixed?
It's like releasing a device that disables pacemakers before the people who own them can do anything about it. It doesn't bother the vendors of the pacemakers half as much as it bothers the owners/users.
Heavy *fines* bother the vendors/manufacturers more than the bad press does.
Agreed. New sites that I've posted have been up within a week or two, and new content to already indexed sites usually shows up within search results anywhere from a day to a few weeks later.
If the site is unique to its topic then it will appear higher in the rankings immediately as opposed to *yet another PHP site* which might never climb higher than number 80,991. This is not necessarily harmful to the surfers though the owners of the site will not be pleased.
If it's taking your sites a long time to show up in the rankings then chances are it's not a Google problem so much as well.. Is your site really that unique afterall? Are you using the same search terms that the average user looking for your site is going to use? If you're a shoe store in Massachusetts your customers wouldn't find you by searching for shoes- they'd find you by searching for "Shoes" and "MA".
I'm always finding new content with Google, but I never use it to find up-to-the-minute stuff. I never use *any* search engine to find that. I ask myself what it is I want to know and go to a news site related to that item. Chances are that NO ONE has it indexed yet. Not Google, not Altavista.
Oops. Forgot something. =] Using opensource is a lot like creating a cookie from a recipe. If it says "arsenic" in the recipe, yes you'll be liable for any damage caused by the cookie. However, if you sell cookies with no labels and they contain arsenic then you'll be held liable to a higher degree.
There should be multiple levels of liability for faulty sourcecode just as there are multiple levels of liability in other areas of the law.
Opensource should not automatically be excused of all liability. If a bug exits and a sizeable amount of time passes with no fix, as new users are downloading and using the product *without being warned* then the maintainers of the source should be held liable. Opensource vendors should be required to post an updated list of bugs as they appear and fix them before releasing the next version of the software.
Commercial software vendors should be given a certain amount of time to remedy the problem based on the severity and spread of the problem, and for each day/week/month incur fines until the issue is resolved. Registered users of the software should be notified both when the bug is discovered and when the fix is released. All users should be able to access the information via the internet. A new version of the software cannot be released until known bugs in the last version are fully patched.
The liability of vendors should be clearly outlined and have the same tiers and exceptions that current liability laws have. It should be clear that vendors are not responsible for misuse of intended features of their systems (ie: Linux developers are not responsible for warning people that rm -rf / will trash their system.) and vendors liability will be determined on a set of criteria: a.) Software version number-- it should mean something again. b.) intended impact of software--vendors of backup software will be held to a higher standard if their software fails than would the creators of games or graphics software.
Vendors should not be allowed to attempt to silence those who make bugs public knowledge. There should be fines for companies that try to initiate lawsuits for third-parties publishing bug reports, examples of exploits, or other information. Perhaps there should be a certain set of guidelines as to the "release schedule" of those bug reports, however. Exploits can only be made publically available after a patch is available, bug reports can be made as soon as the bug is discovered, etc.
I think software liability is a good idea as long as it's not a loosely interpreted law that is applied equally to all vendors regardless of software genre and company size.
Did you try YellowDog or Mandrake for the PPC? I gave up on a couple of distros before I found YellowDog. If the hard drive hadn't failed I'd still be running a server with Yellowdog on it. It's one of the best distros I've seen for the PPC and ran *quite* fast on an old 7500/100. It was serving files much faster than the PowerMac G3 that we had as another server (Webstar & OS 9), though not quite as fast as the PC servers. Still, a 7500/100 beating a G3 in a race is not anything to scoff at.
"Redhat is an OS". says he.
"What is Redhat?" says she.
"Linux" says he.
"What's Linux?" says she.
"An OS." says he.
"So they're different things?
Operating on the concept that Redhat is an OS, then all the other flavors of Linux are also OSes. On top of that the Mac OS and OS X are OSes... Wait. Some of them have similarities.
Redhat is a Linux based OS, the Mac OS is a Mac based OS, OS X is a BSD based OS, Windows is a... Hmm. There has to be a way of simplifying it.
Let's try again. Redhat is a peach, apple is an apple, mandrake is a pear.. Hm. No. What is closer to a peach than a pear? Hm. This isn't working.
Redhat is a blood orange, Mandrake is a clementine, Debian is a navel orange.. Mac OS is a Red delicious apple, OS X is a crabapple... This is working a bit better. The general "fruit" is the OS-- ie: Linuxes are "Linux based OSes", with the further differentiation as to what TYPE of Linux OS.
I'm aware that Darwin is opensource. I am also aware that Apple is not very pleasant to work with and has a habit of purchasing or developing technology only to allow it to falter and die.
With the way Apple has treated other developers in the past I have no reason to want to be part of their opensource movement, or of any technology that they develop that does not involve translucent plastic and cute appley logos.
Home users don't, but businesses do. If an application is important to a business they will pay to have development on it continued. Of course, they might wait until the original developers have folded...
If you've read some of my other messages you'll see that I'm all for paying for opensource software- I pay for the ability to use up2date on the servers/workstations running RedHat in the office--installed from the boxed set that I bought even though I had downloaded the iso's already. I support all of the opensource groups whose software I use. It's like paying to walk into the museum. You sincerely enjoy it, want it to be around for the future, and you dig into your pocket and pay the "suggested donation" with a smile. You're ensuring that the software company has a chance of surviving.
It doesn't quite work to compare opensource software to magazines, however. Who pays for magazines these days? Most people I know get the professional discount and the magazine either goes out of business or gets the money from selling advertising.::shudder:: Let's hope Mandrake doesn't add advertisements to their distro.;) (Yes, this is a joke.)
If you use the software, pay for it. If you don't then revert to whatever came with your computer or go warez-ing and contribute to the declining liberties of the internet.::shrugs:: Do NOT, however, allow software that you use to disappear. It's just not productive.
MS products already attempt to control what your PC does, which is why I have Windows on my computer for the times I want 'compatibility', and Linux for when I want the freedom to take advantage of my computer or feel secure.
I haven't heard many people say they used MS products for... flexibility? It's usually because of "features" or "benefits" that the software has over other alternatives.
MS doesn't make the money from selling the OS to users. It makes the money by mass-licensing, selling support, and and selling to companies who can afford the licensing policies.
They're just a bit more successful than opensource groups because they *require* the money while opensource groups "suggest" the donation. It's like the museums that have suggested donations and there are always jerks who say "Well I pay taxes." without stopping to think that "wait a minute... I enjoy this art, I should contribute".
Hey, it could be worse. I mean.. The current release of Mozilla is one of the most stable things I've used, although it leaves some things to desire. When one compares it to "Netscape 6" or "OS 10" or all of these other products that are supposedly beyond the high up in the version rankings... But that still have feature sets lacking and bugs that need fixing..
I'm all for excercizing caution in version numbers. Under-promise, over-deliver. In this world there's a lot of pressure to release versions one, two, and three within months of eachother and to have a high version number before the product has been around for too long. Doesn't anyone remember the days when version numbers *meant* something?
Oh? Funny? I've swapped out peripherals, monitors, cards, SCSI devices, different types of media, hard drives, processors, memory, graphics cards, USB devices, USB cards, monitors... And have never had to manually hunt for and install a driver or reinstall the OS or boot from CD regardless of the fact that coming from a Windows/Mac background I fully expected to have to do this.
How is that funny? Other than in the "That's funny in that a 'hard to use' OS can do that while commercial 'easy to use' OSes can't."
I have tried it. I use it most days on other people's computers and on my own. It's fun for a little while but it gives me too many things to look for 'workarounds' on, and leaves me telling people how to do things they used to know how to do... Or even better- having to research how to do things because the new way isn't intuitive.
OS X is great for a lot of things, I'll admit it has a 'cool' look and is definitely more powerful than the old Mac OS. I love being able to download and compile opensource apps and have them work on a *Mac* of all things. That has me grinning gleefully pretty often. It's great to have a platform where opensource *and* commercial applications can both work and work fairly well.
I won't use the OS as my primary OS, though because I've found that it needs to be modified too much and even when most of the sparkle is disabled it runs more slowly on the same machines as Linux. I also get a higher incidence of crashes and kernel panics.
In a year I'm probably going to love it. It will probably run really fast and the hardware that's out will have come down in price and up in quality...
But until then it's just not my primary.
Hey, though. I like the way you argue. =] I get a bit... Put off when confronted by someone who seems to be saying "Like it or you're dumb, we don't have to give you reasons it's just better". *Arr* There's too MANY of them out there. Nothing wrong with saying "Give it a shot". I have, and I fully intend to keep on doing so. =]
Yes, Darwin is opensource. Yes, OS X is based upon Nextstep/openstep. No, it is not as tested/tried & true as Linux. If it were, then it would work a LOT better than Linux in quite a few situations, remember it's dealing with an extremely *limited* range of hardware. It is dealing only with the line of Macintoshes that Apple has released and has control over. ie: the G3/G4 range. When this operating system encounters a standard hardware configuration and experiences a kernel panic it is NOT stable, it is NOT tested and proven. It is NOT a "version 10" operating system. Linux handles pretty much any range of hardware that I throw at it, including things that are a little more esoteric than anything I'd think of trying with OS X. OS X has required me to change my video card or take out a SCSI controller THAT SHIPPED with my original machine in order to install it.
I would, however, love it if Apple would make OS X an alternative to Windows or Linux on the x86 platform. The more choices there are, the better.
Large parts of OS X are new code that is not based on NeXTstep nor is it opensource. Modifying OS X is kludgy and since large parts of it, including the interface, are proprietary then depending on what you want to modify it's sometimes impossible.
GUARANTEED continued development whether or not the originating company or group wants to develop it or not. Stopped development? Take the source and hire people to modify it, or modify it yourself. IF that's even necessary, as the opensource community probably won't let it die in the first place.
GUARANTEED responsiveness. If something doesn't work, modify it yourself or wait a little while and chances are it will come out in the next release. It's a FAR cry from requesting something from Apple or MS for years on an end without so much as acknowledgement. You're not tied to the whim and fancy of a developer.
GUARANTEED support. The community of opensource developers is highly responsive. They're geeks. They like to answer questions, and they believe in community spirit. The level of tech support is also higher as the people providing it are more often knowledgeable of things beyond how to "save as" and change your billing information.
For.doc files I use OpenOffice or any of a variety of other tools, or even open them in vi and kill all the extra formatting stuff in them. I'm a programmer, I only care about the words and not the hoopla and formatting.
The variety of window managers allows me to use them each initially (and when new versions come out) and choose which is closest to my needs and then modify from there rather than focus on modifying ONE window manager that is intended to behave a certain way and that might or might not like my making changes to it. The competition also keeps things moving forwards.
Border and titlebar styles are the least of my concerns. I choose the ones that suit my needs and leave them alone from that point forth. It's the OTHER things I'm more concerned about. And no, I'm not refering to the different methods of dealing with transparency or the pretty colored icons. I'm refering to functionality.
I use the Win32 GUI, and find it to have the same frustrations as the OS X gui, while KDE or gnome or any of the other window managers for Linux are elegant, easy to modify, and easy to simplify.
Your statement regarding "I've run freebsd for years and never felt the need to install..." also demonstrates another functionality of opensource. If you don't want the GUI at all, ever, then you don't need to install it. OS X does not give you the option to not install the GUI and you either have to delete it at will or waste resources by leaving it on the hard drive. (No, being given the option to hold down a key command at startup is not the equivilent of "It was never installed.")
Because. They're interesting, even if they're inaccurate. It's the same thing with being interested in how different clothing impacts the speed of skaters. Different skaters will perform better with different suits, and it's wildly inaccurate but you still get some sort of an idea.
I suppose it would be more interesting to take a day or two and try out three competing OSes. Yellowdog, OS X and Redhat and see how they compare with eachother for a variety of different tasks.
I guess I'm interested in it for the same reason I'm interested in trying out different OSes in the first place. Because I'm curious.
Slashdot Mirror
In the "non computer world" product vendors are required to recall their products if their products are found to be flawed to the point where they are dangerous to the people buying them. This is often done even if the product *contains a warning* but there is a high enough incidence where the warning is ignored.
Everyone should be liable for their product up to a certain point. Should they be liable for the bugs existing in the first place? No. Software is imperfect. Should they be liable for the continued distribution of software with known bugs when they do not inform the users of the bugs? Yes. Should commercial vendors be liable for not fixing the product within a reasonable amount of time after being made aware of the bug? Yes.
I'm not talking about the "Oops. The computer just crashed" bugs that happen every once in a while without truly impairing the ability of the software to function. I'm talking about security holes, and problems that risk the integrity of data.
-Sara
Set up a Linux print server? =]Worked for me. Different printer, though... But I'd be surprised if you couldn't use it.
-Sara
No one needs to force Redhat or other opensource vendors to fix software, if they want to retain viability they have to because opensource consumers are accustomed to "if it doesn't work, go elsewhere." It's the large commercial companies that tend to drop the ball or drag their feet on issues that they shouldn't.
It would be sort of amusing, though, to see the looks on their faces when they're informed that they're now required to release their source to the public. Knowing the way the courts work I'd be surprised if this ultimatum wasn't issued in error once or twice.
-Sara
Hm. I don't see why fines based on the size of the company and the severity of the bug would not be legal. A million-dollar fine would put a small company out of business rather than entice them to fix the problem. For a larger company it wouldn't even be an incentive to put down the lid of the toilet seat.
How about something even more... Compelling? Software that is not fixed within the maximum time allowed by law is required to release their source to the public domain?
-Sara
That is a good argument. Another set of rules should apply to source or software that has been abandoned. (ie: no development has occured, versions released, or bugs patched for x number of months.) If the source is being actively developed, released, and patched then they're held liable for notifying the public of bugs.
Abandoned software should require only that it is obvious that the source has been abandoned and no updates are planned. (Something in the form of a "date last developed" being required for each software release so that no one would have to go back and add it as it would have been added at time of release? It could then be assumed that software whose 'date of release' is older than x number of months has been abandoned and liability is left to the end-user...?)Optionally software can be labled "abandoned" and further development only allowed once the lable is removed and accountability resumed.
Opensource developers who are *actively* involved in the development of the source should not be excluded from liability because they fall into a different category than those who have abandoned or completely given up their source. They show willingness to spend the time developing, and 10 minutes to post a bug report is not a major requirement. Volunteers at physical institutions in the "real world" are often required to fill out paperwork or occasionally fill out forms, I don't see why opensource *development* should be any different, or why it would ever be possible to convince the courts otherwise. Volunteers should never be required to volunteer additional hours to fix the problem, but they should be required to spend the 10 minutes to post the bug report and be held accountable if they do not.
-Sara
Exploits should not be made available until after the bug fix is released. Under the criteria I detailed above, responsibility for the "fire" falls to the goverment. After a certain amount of time passes then the company will incur fines which can add up to a hefty sum. Microsoft and Apple *DO* care about the public knowing about and being able to exploit the bugs in their software, however they care more about money. Fines will be a larger incentive than will exploits.
Exploits harm the end-users of software for which there IS no fix. It's one thing to release an exploit after the patch is released and people have been given time to patch their systems. It prevents the rest of the world from having to sort through multiple gigs of logs containing attempts by nimda or code red.
When the exploit is published before the fix you open everyone up to liability for which they cannot avoid. If you're a Linux administrator do you really want the world to know that there's a bug that can format the hard drive of your server and that an exploit can be downloaded at http://.... And that there's nothing you can do? If you're a windows end-user do you want to know that there's an exploit circulating already for something that MS hasn't fixed?
It's like releasing a device that disables pacemakers before the people who own them can do anything about it. It doesn't bother the vendors of the pacemakers half as much as it bothers the owners/users.
Heavy *fines* bother the vendors/manufacturers more than the bad press does.
-Sara
Agreed. New sites that I've posted have been up within a week or two, and new content to already indexed sites usually shows up within search results anywhere from a day to a few weeks later.
If the site is unique to its topic then it will appear higher in the rankings immediately as opposed to *yet another PHP site* which might never climb higher than number 80,991. This is not necessarily harmful to the surfers though the owners of the site will not be pleased.
If it's taking your sites a long time to show up in the rankings then chances are it's not a Google problem so much as well.. Is your site really that unique afterall? Are you using the same search terms that the average user looking for your site is going to use? If you're a shoe store in Massachusetts your customers wouldn't find you by searching for shoes- they'd find you by searching for "Shoes" and "MA".
I'm always finding new content with Google, but I never use it to find up-to-the-minute stuff. I never use *any* search engine to find that. I ask myself what it is I want to know and go to a news site related to that item. Chances are that NO ONE has it indexed yet. Not Google, not Altavista.
Isn't that what everyone does?
-Sara
Oops. Forgot something. =] Using opensource is a lot like creating a cookie from a recipe. If it says "arsenic" in the recipe, yes you'll be liable for any damage caused by the cookie. However, if you sell cookies with no labels and they contain arsenic then you'll be held liable to a higher degree.
There should be multiple levels of liability for faulty sourcecode just as there are multiple levels of liability in other areas of the law.
Opensource should not automatically be excused of all liability. If a bug exits and a sizeable amount of time passes with no fix, as new users are downloading and using the product *without being warned* then the maintainers of the source should be held liable. Opensource vendors should be required to post an updated list of bugs as they appear and fix them before releasing the next version of the software.
Commercial software vendors should be given a certain amount of time to remedy the problem based on the severity and spread of the problem, and for each day/week/month incur fines until the issue is resolved. Registered users of the software should be notified both when the bug is discovered and when the fix is released. All users should be able to access the information via the internet. A new version of the software cannot be released until known bugs in the last version are fully patched.
The liability of vendors should be clearly outlined and have the same tiers and exceptions that current liability laws have. It should be clear that vendors are not responsible for misuse of intended features of their systems (ie: Linux developers are not responsible for warning people that rm -rf / will trash their system.) and vendors liability will be determined on a set of criteria: a.) Software version number-- it should mean something again. b.) intended impact of software--vendors of backup software will be held to a higher standard if their software fails than would the creators of games or graphics software.
Vendors should not be allowed to attempt to silence those who make bugs public knowledge. There should be fines for companies that try to initiate lawsuits for third-parties publishing bug reports, examples of exploits, or other information. Perhaps there should be a certain set of guidelines as to the "release schedule" of those bug reports, however. Exploits can only be made publically available after a patch is available, bug reports can be made as soon as the bug is discovered, etc.
I think software liability is a good idea as long as it's not a loosely interpreted law that is applied equally to all vendors regardless of software genre and company size.
-Sara
Did you try YellowDog or Mandrake for the PPC? I gave up on a couple of distros before I found YellowDog. If the hard drive hadn't failed I'd still be running a server with Yellowdog on it. It's one of the best distros I've seen for the PPC and ran *quite* fast on an old 7500/100. It was serving files much faster than the PowerMac G3 that we had as another server (Webstar & OS 9), though not quite as fast as the PC servers. Still, a 7500/100 beating a G3 in a race is not anything to scoff at.
-Sara
Making it much cheaper to just buy Office for OS X instead of trying to put it on an ipod....
Ergh. =] At least I didn't meantion that goat site.
-Sara
"Redhat is an OS". says he.
"What is Redhat?" says she.
"Linux" says he.
"What's Linux?" says she.
"An OS." says he.
"So they're different things?
Operating on the concept that Redhat is an OS, then all the other flavors of Linux are also OSes. On top of that the Mac OS and OS X are OSes... Wait. Some of them have similarities.
Redhat is a Linux based OS, the Mac OS is a Mac based OS, OS X is a BSD based OS, Windows is a... Hmm. There has to be a way of simplifying it.
Let's try again. Redhat is a peach, apple is an apple, mandrake is a pear.. Hm. No. What is closer to a peach than a pear? Hm. This isn't working.
Redhat is a blood orange, Mandrake is a clementine, Debian is a navel orange.. Mac OS is a Red delicious apple, OS X is a crabapple... This is working a bit better. The general "fruit" is the OS-- ie: Linuxes are "Linux based OSes", with the further differentiation as to what TYPE of Linux OS.
Hm. Or maybe I just need sleep. *sigh*
-Sara
I'm aware that Darwin is opensource. I am also aware that Apple is not very pleasant to work with and has a habit of purchasing or developing technology only to allow it to falter and die.
With the way Apple has treated other developers in the past I have no reason to want to be part of their opensource movement, or of any technology that they develop that does not involve translucent plastic and cute appley logos.
-Sara
Home users don't, but businesses do. If an application is important to a business they will pay to have development on it continued. Of course, they might wait until the original developers have folded...
If you've read some of my other messages you'll see that I'm all for paying for opensource software- I pay for the ability to use up2date on the servers/workstations running RedHat in the office--installed from the boxed set that I bought even though I had downloaded the iso's already. I support all of the opensource groups whose software I use. It's like paying to walk into the museum. You sincerely enjoy it, want it to be around for the future, and you dig into your pocket and pay the "suggested donation" with a smile. You're ensuring that the software company has a chance of surviving.
::shudder:: Let's hope Mandrake doesn't add advertisements to their distro. ;) (Yes, this is a joke.)
::shrugs:: Do NOT, however, allow software that you use to disappear. It's just not productive.
It doesn't quite work to compare opensource software to magazines, however. Who pays for magazines these days? Most people I know get the professional discount and the magazine either goes out of business or gets the money from selling advertising.
If you use the software, pay for it. If you don't then revert to whatever came with your computer or go warez-ing and contribute to the declining liberties of the internet.
-Sara
MS products already attempt to control what your PC does, which is why I have Windows on my computer for the times I want 'compatibility', and Linux for when I want the freedom to take advantage of my computer or feel secure.
I haven't heard many people say they used MS products for... flexibility? It's usually because of "features" or "benefits" that the software has over other alternatives.
-Sara
MS doesn't make the money from selling the OS to users. It makes the money by mass-licensing, selling support, and and selling to companies who can afford the licensing policies.
They're just a bit more successful than opensource groups because they *require* the money while opensource groups "suggest" the donation. It's like the museums that have suggested donations and there are always jerks who say "Well I pay taxes." without stopping to think that "wait a minute... I enjoy this art, I should contribute".
-Sara
And here I was thinking they named it the narcotic. :
Merriam-Webster:"the root of a mandrake formerly used especially to promote conception, as a cathartic, or as a narcotic and soporific"
I thought that one could not own the rights to something that is an actual word, other than as they have trademarked it within their industry?
But then again, I never did spend much time studying legalese beyond understanding that in the courts being "right" often does not matter.
-S
Hey, it could be worse. I mean.. The current release of Mozilla is one of the most stable things I've used, although it leaves some things to desire. When one compares it to "Netscape 6" or "OS 10" or all of these other products that are supposedly beyond the high up in the version rankings... But that still have feature sets lacking and bugs that need fixing..
I'm all for excercizing caution in version numbers. Under-promise, over-deliver. In this world there's a lot of pressure to release versions one, two, and three within months of eachother and to have a high version number before the product has been around for too long. Doesn't anyone remember the days when version numbers *meant* something?
-Sara
Oh? Funny? I've swapped out peripherals, monitors, cards, SCSI devices, different types of media, hard drives, processors, memory, graphics cards, USB devices, USB cards, monitors... And have never had to manually hunt for and install a driver or reinstall the OS or boot from CD regardless of the fact that coming from a Windows/Mac background I fully expected to have to do this.
How is that funny? Other than in the "That's funny in that a 'hard to use' OS can do that while commercial 'easy to use' OSes can't."
-Sara
I have tried it. I use it most days on other people's computers and on my own. It's fun for a little while but it gives me too many things to look for 'workarounds' on, and leaves me telling people how to do things they used to know how to do... Or even better- having to research how to do things because the new way isn't intuitive.
OS X is great for a lot of things, I'll admit it has a 'cool' look and is definitely more powerful than the old Mac OS. I love being able to download and compile opensource apps and have them work on a *Mac* of all things. That has me grinning gleefully pretty often. It's great to have a platform where opensource *and* commercial applications can both work and work fairly well.
I won't use the OS as my primary OS, though because I've found that it needs to be modified too much and even when most of the sparkle is disabled it runs more slowly on the same machines as Linux. I also get a higher incidence of crashes and kernel panics.
In a year I'm probably going to love it. It will probably run really fast and the hardware that's out will have come down in price and up in quality...
But until then it's just not my primary.
Hey, though. I like the way you argue. =] I get a bit... Put off when confronted by someone who seems to be saying "Like it or you're dumb, we don't have to give you reasons it's just better". *Arr* There's too MANY of them out there. Nothing wrong with saying "Give it a shot". I have, and I fully intend to keep on doing so. =]
-Sara
Yes, Darwin is opensource. Yes, OS X is based upon Nextstep/openstep. No, it is not as tested/tried & true as Linux. If it were, then it would work a LOT better than Linux in quite a few situations, remember it's dealing with an extremely *limited* range of hardware. It is dealing only with the line of Macintoshes that Apple has released and has control over. ie: the G3/G4 range. When this operating system encounters a standard hardware configuration and experiences a kernel panic it is NOT stable, it is NOT tested and proven. It is NOT a "version 10" operating system. Linux handles pretty much any range of hardware that I throw at it, including things that are a little more esoteric than anything I'd think of trying with OS X. OS X has required me to change my video card or take out a SCSI controller THAT SHIPPED with my original machine in order to install it.
I would, however, love it if Apple would make OS X an alternative to Windows or Linux on the x86 platform. The more choices there are, the better.
-S
Large parts of OS X are new code that is not based on NeXTstep nor is it opensource. Modifying OS X is kludgy and since large parts of it, including the interface, are proprietary then depending on what you want to modify it's sometimes impossible.
Yes, opensource is a benefit.
.doc files I use OpenOffice or any of a variety of other tools, or even open them in vi and kill all the extra formatting stuff in them. I'm a programmer, I only care about the words and not the hoopla and formatting.
Opensource means several things:
GUARANTEED continued development whether or not the originating company or group wants to develop it or not. Stopped development? Take the source and hire people to modify it, or modify it yourself. IF that's even necessary, as the opensource community probably won't let it die in the first place.
GUARANTEED responsiveness. If something doesn't work, modify it yourself or wait a little while and chances are it will come out in the next release. It's a FAR cry from requesting something from Apple or MS for years on an end without so much as acknowledgement. You're not tied to the whim and fancy of a developer.
GUARANTEED support. The community of opensource developers is highly responsive. They're geeks. They like to answer questions, and they believe in community spirit. The level of tech support is also higher as the people providing it are more often knowledgeable of things beyond how to "save as" and change your billing information.
For
The variety of window managers allows me to use them each initially (and when new versions come out) and choose which is closest to my needs and then modify from there rather than focus on modifying ONE window manager that is intended to behave a certain way and that might or might not like my making changes to it. The competition also keeps things moving forwards.
Border and titlebar styles are the least of my concerns. I choose the ones that suit my needs and leave them alone from that point forth. It's the OTHER things I'm more concerned about. And no, I'm not refering to the different methods of dealing with transparency or the pretty colored icons. I'm refering to functionality.
I use the Win32 GUI, and find it to have the same frustrations as the OS X gui, while KDE or gnome or any of the other window managers for Linux are elegant, easy to modify, and easy to simplify.
Your statement regarding "I've run freebsd for years and never felt the need to install..." also demonstrates another functionality of opensource. If you don't want the GUI at all, ever, then you don't need to install it. OS X does not give you the option to not install the GUI and you either have to delete it at will or waste resources by leaving it on the hard drive. (No, being given the option to hold down a key command at startup is not the equivilent of "It was never installed.")
Because. They're interesting, even if they're inaccurate. It's the same thing with being interested in how different clothing impacts the speed of skaters. Different skaters will perform better with different suits, and it's wildly inaccurate but you still get some sort of an idea.
I suppose it would be more interesting to take a day or two and try out three competing OSes. Yellowdog, OS X and Redhat and see how they compare with eachother for a variety of different tasks.
I guess I'm interested in it for the same reason I'm interested in trying out different OSes in the first place. Because I'm curious.
-S