... beating out a commercial portal suite, Traction's TeamPage 3.01, reviewed in the same issue.
How long it takes for people to realize that you can make money with open source so it can be commercial. Commercial software isn't the opposite of open source. Non-free or closed is.
>What this means is if you want to play 3D games in Linux, you have to use non-free drivers.
It is not like that. I play often quake3's mod rq3 with matrox g450 which has Free drivers. There are also Free drivers for ATI's new cards, see http://dri.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/moin.cgi/ATI?ac tion=highlight&value=CategoryHardware. Freedom is good.
>so being for open source and linux is like being against capitalism and MS.
Against capitalism? Open Source is compatible with capitalism. It only changes the software economy from product based to service based. And the core thing which capitalism is based on, competition is better when you have many companies offering services, not one "owner" who has sole rights for distribution and changes.
You don't really get the idea of Free Software which is based on co-operation and sharing information. In the world of Free Software people work for the community's benefit, not for their own selfish needs.
NVidia doesn't have to release their opengl implementation, only tell us how to program the chip so that dri project can make a driver. OpenGL stuff comes from Mesa. How can you lose money if you widen the target audience of the product? I hope that linux developers don't listen to the makers of proprietary drivers.
The kernel module is and has always been open source, and you can compile it for whatever version of the kernel you wish (assuming the kernel module interface hasn't changed drastically, of course).
Do you think that this is Open Source:
/* _NVRM_COPYRIGHT_BEGIN_
*
* Copyright 2001-2002 by NVIDIA Corporation. All rights reserved. All
* information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to NVIDIA
* Corporation. Any use, reproduction, or disclosure without the written
* permission of NVIDIA Corporation is prohibited.
*
* _NVRM_COPYRIGHT_END_
*/
They're in a catch-22: I'm sure they'd like to open the source but it's been mentioned before that some portions of the drivers contain licensed/proprietary code that they do not themselves control. In other words they couldn't even if they wanted to. (Plus, they seem to take drivers very seriously and might see it as giving away trade secrets to the likes of ATI, so maybe they don't even want to.)
Actually they don't have to reveal the code of their OpenGL implementation (which is proprietary) . We have Mesa which is quite compatible with OpenGL specifications. What we only need is some basic info how to program the chip.
NVIDIA doesn't really care about the users of Free Software. If they did they would tell us how to code a free driver for their graphics board by providing a good documentation.
Re:Solaris X86 is no different than a Linux distro
on
Solaris 9 x86 Review
·
· Score: 1
You are saying that there is no difference between a Free GNU/Linux (GNU's Not Unix) distribution and a proprietary unix. It is sad that some people work hard to create a completely Free operating system to replace unix and their work isn't valued a bit.
And while using non-free drivers you are exchanging your freedom to functionality. That kind of trade should never be made. It is better to choose hardware which is supported by Free software.
Realize that linux is only a kernel. There are plenty of other kernels which are suitable for mono. You should use word open source/free software NOT linux to represent the whole software sharing community!
From The GNU Project: (which I translated to Finnish):
Alix
The GNU kernel was not originally supposed to be called the HURD. Its original name was Alix--named after the woman who was my sweetheart at the time. She, a Unix system administrator, had pointed out how her name would fit a common naming pattern for Unix system versions; as a joke, she told her friends, "Someone should name a kernel after me." I said nothing, but decided to surprise her with a kernel named Alix.
It did not stay that way. Michael Bushnell (now Thomas), the main developer of the kernel, preferred the name HURD, and redefined Alix to refer to a certain part of the kernel--the part that would trap system calls and handle them by sending messages to HURD servers.
Ultimately, Alix and I broke up, and she changed her name; independently, the HURD design was changed so that the C library would send messages directly to servers, and this made the Alix component disappear from the design.
But before these things happened, a friend of hers came across the name Alix in the HURD source code, and mentioned the name to her. So the name did its job.
I am not surprised that I know the history of GNU very well;).
Does art exist only to provide money for those who make it? Should an artist be happy because people enjoy his work and at the same time he also gets more popularity. And that means more people will be listening him live.
When majority of computers are capable of DRM, then software and movie companies will start making products that work only if DRM is enabled. Then you don't have many options. You can only access the content if the copyright holder thinks that your computer is safe.
>But because of things like the GPL, they've effectivly shot themselves in the foot.
How is this? If you keep all the copyrights yourself you can release it under a different license. And if you started coding that software project and it is popular you can expect that people want support and new features to it.
Slashdot Mirror
... beating out a commercial portal suite, Traction's TeamPage 3.01, reviewed in the same issue.
How long it takes for people to realize that you can make money with open source so it can be commercial. Commercial software isn't the opposite of open source. Non-free or closed is.
>What this means is if you want to play 3D games in Linux, you have to use non-free drivers. It is not like that. I play often quake3's mod rq3 with matrox g450 which has Free drivers. There are also Free drivers for ATI's new cards, see http://dri.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/moin.cgi/ATI?ac tion=highlight&value=CategoryHardware. Freedom is good.
That makes your system non-free :/.
>so being for open source and linux is like being against capitalism and MS.
Against capitalism? Open Source is compatible with capitalism. It only changes the software economy from product based to service based. And the core thing which capitalism is based on, competition is better when you have many companies offering services, not one "owner" who has sole rights for distribution and changes.
RMS doesn't force, he only suggests. He doesn't tell us to call the system Stallmanix ;).
You don't really get the idea of Free Software which is based on co-operation and sharing information. In the world of Free Software people work for the community's benefit, not for their own selfish needs.
>...open source and commercial software work in peace together.
Commercial doesn't always mean non-free. MySQL and RedHat are both companies which produce commercial software which is open source/free software.
NVIDIA doesn't support GNU/Linux. They only use community as a market. Does 3com support windows by giving away binary drivers?
Check the facts, do the moderating after that.
NVidia doesn't have to release their opengl implementation, only tell us how to program the chip so that dri project can make a driver. OpenGL stuff comes from Mesa. How can you lose money if you widen the target audience of the product? I hope that linux developers don't listen to the makers of proprietary drivers.
Do you think that this is Open Source:
For me open source means something different.
They're in a catch-22: I'm sure they'd like to open the source but it's been mentioned before that some portions of the drivers contain licensed/proprietary code that they do not themselves control. In other words they couldn't even if they wanted to. (Plus, they seem to take drivers very seriously and might see it as giving away trade secrets to the likes of ATI, so maybe they don't even want to.) Actually they don't have to reveal the code of their OpenGL implementation (which is proprietary) . We have Mesa which is quite compatible with OpenGL specifications. What we only need is some basic info how to program the chip.
NVIDIA doesn't really care about the users of Free Software. If they did they would tell us how to code a free driver for their graphics board by providing a good documentation.
You are saying that there is no difference between a Free GNU/Linux (GNU's Not Unix) distribution and a proprietary unix. It is sad that some people work hard to create a completely Free operating system to replace unix and their work isn't valued a bit.
And while using non-free drivers you are exchanging your freedom to functionality. That kind of trade should never be made. It is better to choose hardware which is supported by Free software.
Realize that linux is only a kernel. There are plenty of other kernels which are suitable for mono. You should use word open source/free software NOT linux to represent the whole software sharing community!
Is it Free as in Freedom? Or open like OpenVMS?
From The GNU Project: (which I translated to Finnish): Alix The GNU kernel was not originally supposed to be called the HURD. Its original name was Alix--named after the woman who was my sweetheart at the time. She, a Unix system administrator, had pointed out how her name would fit a common naming pattern for Unix system versions; as a joke, she told her friends, "Someone should name a kernel after me." I said nothing, but decided to surprise her with a kernel named Alix. It did not stay that way. Michael Bushnell (now Thomas), the main developer of the kernel, preferred the name HURD, and redefined Alix to refer to a certain part of the kernel--the part that would trap system calls and handle them by sending messages to HURD servers. Ultimately, Alix and I broke up, and she changed her name; independently, the HURD design was changed so that the C library would send messages directly to servers, and this made the Alix component disappear from the design. But before these things happened, a friend of hers came across the name Alix in the HURD source code, and mentioned the name to her. So the name did its job. I am not surprised that I know the history of GNU very well ;).
Does art exist only to provide money for those who make it? Should an artist be happy because people enjoy his work and at the same time he also gets more popularity. And that means more people will be listening him live.
Not everyone lives on your timezone. In Finland it is 13:45.
Linux guarantees nothing. You must have openssh.
You should remember that linux is just a kernel. A *BSD with same software installed is as vulnerable as GNU/Linux when you don't count kernel bugs.
When majority of computers are capable of DRM, then software and movie companies will start making products that work only if DRM is enabled. Then you don't have many options. You can only access the content if the copyright holder thinks that your computer is safe.
>But because of things like the GPL, they've effectivly shot themselves in the foot. How is this? If you keep all the copyrights yourself you can release it under a different license. And if you started coding that software project and it is popular you can expect that people want support and new features to it.
Basically you are correct if you talk about linux _kernel_. GNU/Linux distributions can ship with as many open ports as they want to.