M$, in my opinion is irrelevant. The "core businesses" you mentioned were never Open Source to begin with. In fact, M$ is an entierly different concept altogether.
At some point in our history, someone thought that a "Personal Computer" is a good idea. However, a personal computer in it's naked form, is useless to everyone save the ones that know the processor speak.
Thus M$ is born, fulfilling the need of putting software, for a computer illiterate user, onto the PC, thereby comming one step further to the dream. Note that this by no means implies that the software had to be of quality, b/c technically, the users wouldn't/shouldn't/couldn't know.
Skip a few decades, here we are today. Computers ARE everywhere, and people are more familiar with them than ever before. It is only *now* that the quality of M$'s work is beggining to shine through. Couple that with another phenomena that was not there "at the beggining". Computers today are heavily networked, and make more use of the network everyday. Which means that anything on one networked computer can be potentially transfered to another. This doesn't fit with the original distribution method on which M$ so heavily relies (and from personal observation, use it to screw it's own customers over).
While I'm not certain of M$'s future, I'm certain that it is the first and last company that will be able to do what they did. Distribute software for the price tag they put on it. The market is changing, and that is the one point you failed to address. That change is driving open software development in to a more favorable position then that of M$'s methods.
~Cheers
How are they gonna sell? And who'll buy it? Source is source, but someone must read it. If I'm the creator, I would probably have the advantage of knowing the system intimately, as it will be thought out by me in the first place. If some chooses to adopt the application, in open source, it's usually because of it's value as a tool. By using my tool, they essentially have agreed to trust me. And if someone is willing to buy that software, as your post implyes, then they are much more likely to buy it from ME.
As a side note, I honestly don't think that if someone was to take my sources, sell them, and give me nothing in return has a bright future. Reputation is a funny thing when it comes to openness.
You are incorrect. Case and point, Open Source Software development is on the rise, which would suggest that there *are* benefits to using this model.
The way I see it, you can start out developing for yourself. After you post it somewhere, someone will eventually see it. Since software doesn't degrade with time in the usual manner, it will be used. If it's really good, someone will even pay you to keep working on it.
Free, in Free Software DOES NOT REFER TO COST. It is merely a side effect that most of it is flowing freely (without restriction) over the internet. Once you get your mind bent around that concept, it will start making sense.
What distribution where you using? Who did you let compile your programs? I don't mean to start a flame war or anything, I have no interest in that, but you speak out of ignorance.
The first mistake you've made, I've pointed out. You compared apples to oranges. The second misconception is that a working linux distribution is the same thing as windows with different features (preloading at startup, etc...). You cannot expect a linux distro to behave like windows, it's simply silly. First off, I'd hate to see these things built into my distribution. If you want preloading, activate your preloading, there's no one to stop you, and you can't convince me that it can't be done. Second, you don't like KDE load time, use a different window/desktop managment toolset. There are plenty good, workable, flexible, simple, programs to go around. I can recommend fluxbox, as it's configuration steps are very strait forward (just save your menu as a text file). While I understand that this may sound a little low tech, this one is incredibaly easy to understand and fix up to your liking. All you'll need to do is give a menu item name, and the program that will run when that item is clicked. Now, the only reason I mention all of this is because of the load time you mentioned. Fluxbox appears instantainusly on my 450MHz AMD Compaq.
Just so you'd know, I'm not serious in my suggestion. I only hope that you understand that you are misinterperting what you think is an OS. An OS should provide an interface to managing your computer. The interface recieves user input, and activates the appropriate program to complete the task. If a program wants to preload itself in the background, there should be a program to handle that that is NOT part of the OS, and probably shouldn't be part of that program either. These programs usually come in a form of a deamon, or a service. That's all you need.
Any open source project will survive based on how useful it is. It has nothing to do with who is maintaining it now. If people *need* this project alive, they will find a way to keep it so. Remember, this is OPEN source, which means that the source can be picked up by anyone. Even if this doesn't happen for a while, it will happen.
While the history is shortlived in terms of giving you a reference example of something similar, it remains a vital clue. Hints of these trends are everywhere. Just think of XFree86 and the emergence of XOrg. One was seen to be doomed, but the piece of software is invaluable. People quickly remedied the situation. I could be wrong.
No, but please explain then, if it is old and obsolete, why are 85% computers using it?
Explanation: Defacto standard with windows. Like your wonderful IE, NTFS is your file system by default.
You're probably correct in every one of your observations except for your last comment. Linux is not the reverse of anything, and there are other perhaps even more solid bases to build off of.
Just to be clear, I've been using a linux distribution for nearly 3 years now almost exclusively. I find it difficult to understand what you mean that the applications are awful. The only thing I can say about them is that they are not like they are on windows. However, I found them to be much more consistant, so once I learned a few, the rest just tend to make themselves somewhat more strait forward.
I don't remember the last time I had to deal with freeware, cause that's just not an issue. If I want my computer to do something, I find the appropriate package, install it, and everything alse is automagic. I get pretty much the latest version of everything I downloaded. To top it off, the software that looks for new packages to configure and install packages comes right with the OS, so it's a matter of typing a command and the name of the package. Elegant, and simple.
It is true that I have gained a lot of experience, and others find themselves lost in a unix based system. But that's to be expected when you never seen it before. Just don't judge what you don't understand, because you might someday get how it all works, and I'm sure, that once that happens, you'd appreciate what it's like to run an Open OS.
Just as a side note, I haven't had to deal with any sort of fragmentation to date. The solution to the problem has been around for quite some time. It's nothing new, but what can we except from good ol' M$.
Look, a person who's taking his "validation" from a video game or a movie/TV show, has an entierly different problem. He/she is not capable of percieving reality. There are terms already defined in psychiatric doctorines all over the world.
Playing GTA does NOT make rape and murder any more appealing. However being the interesting creatures that we are, we know nothing about our reality when we start out. We explore EVERYTHING, we touch EVERYTHING. We are constantly facinated/obsessed with the idea of death cause no one can say what it means to them. So we explore it.
The sad thing is, is that these VERY arguments have been made before time and time again. Remember the time people refused to read novels because they were "lies". Now, ask any highschool english teacher (one that you know... is there to teach) and they'll tell you that the "lies" aren't lies, because you're not looking at them from the right context. They're universal truths. By universal, I simply means, yes, these events didn't happen, but eventes like these happen all the time to different people.
What's happening isn't all that different. Same thing, different medium. Children CAN handle seeing violence. In fact, they *must* see it to know what it is. They must know what it is to know how to best deal with it. For the most part, people choose not to be violent, because they don't see the sense in it. I wonder why that is. How they chose to see violence should be left up to them simply because that's their chosen medium. And I suspect that exploring it through a game is the best simulation there is, and thus the most popular, as it does NOT harm ANYONE, and benefits, through experience, the indevidual to decide AGAINST such actions when it comes down to it.
Bench marks? I hope you're kidding. You shouldn't use ReiserFS on a small harddrive as it consumes about 30mb for it's own metadata. But if you have a choice, save yourself the headache and use it! Don't know how windows will cope with it, but then I won't recommend it anyway. For one, NTFS fragments itself. While it's a "solution" to a "problem", this sort of "problem" has been solved a long long time ago. NT is old, and sounds so "ninties". In my opinion it's obsolete, and only in use b/c it's defacto with a windows install. That and their continuous lack of support for so many other things out there.
Open Source isn't a "buzzword". Success is assured by people.
Re:Wow! think of all them IP addresses.
on
The Next Net
·
· Score: 1
Not only that, but if you had your entire house wired up for internet access, you're still more likely to use *one* internet-to-house access point. Reuse of private network numbers increases potential address space by quite a lot. And it gives you the benefit of controlling your own special numbers of choice.
if one of those succeeds one day. I'm sure that when that day comes, I'll also see the general population running around aimlessly, in all directions, bumping into eachother.
It's not that bad an analogy. DNA simply is set in a different environment. The idea is the same, things happen that cause other things to happen. A computer is a very crude way to duplicate the same system. Instead of molecules, a pattern of electrical signals is used. What those signals mean is arbitrary to the underlying structure, but hey... we have a picture, don't we? To DNA the patterns are all molecular, and produce their own sets of reactions. To DNA, it's arbitrary, but hey, we have eyes, and ears, and all that good stuff. The main similarity is that it's all about layers, seemingly independant, but altimately interconnected.
Seems to me that this interweb here is a nice gateway back to them good ol' days. Those days that there markets consisted of little tents of no more than a cloth over 4 poles, none of the "stores" stood out (aside, perhaps, from how clean it would be inside). You, the one with them coins could walk around and pick and choose whatever 'tis you liked. The sheer size of the mega stores today is beyond those days ever concieved. The common person simply doesn't have the resources to compete, but on them websites it's all back to them little places... oh the choices.
won't claim to be an artist, but I always seem to keep some alternate reality in my head, and then use some language to describe what I see to the compiler/interperter.
Doesn't mean he was right. Financial freedom is only one aspect of one's life. What the person thinks he should or will be doing with his time is left entierly up to them at that point. And if there's no incentive to keep getting richer (ie, it's getting old, what else is there to do). Might not be true for everyone, but given enough time, this won't really matter, as it's a question of numbers. So far we're progressing.
Also, don't you think that the current government will become much less of a necessity under these conditions, and will be essentially pointless? You can't just over look all the other pretty variables that will play their roles.
The other thing that people here need to stop doing is being hypocritical.
Everyone here says "The GPL is great, anyone who violates it should be sued for everything they own" yet those same people willingly admit to violating the copyright of the big corperations (which is just as valid and legally binding as the copyright on software under the GPL).
When you support the GPL, it's not about money. When you copy music, it's not about money. One of the reasons the GPL is around is because of the copyright system, under which the stolen music is being distributed. So this isn't all that hypocritical. This is only happening because we are legaly bound, and corporations seem to be not. Screw that.
Since OpenSource isn't driven like a commercial entity, I'd be surprised if the level of innovation could ever match those of companies like 3M, Cisco, etc, which questions whether they'll ever be an opportunity to "take down Microsoft".
You're right. Software, in general, is not driven like a commercial entity. Software is driven by a contribution of ideas. Companies make it easy to facilitate the environment. But companies are business, and business is, like software, a colaboration of ideas. I don't think that the actual goal of OSS is to "take down M$". It happens to be a convineant side effect.
The thing is that software is driven by the same thing that drives business, which drives commercial entities. It's just problematic to treat it as a commercial entity due to it's nature. So I would argue that OO.o (oooo) is not playing catch up, as much as solving the current set of problems that they heard of. Or trying to. Office is just another aproach to the same problem, by someone else. OO.o is simply maturing into it's own tool for you to compete with, in today's glorious market.
The average consumer doesn't care about "open source"
Are you sure about that? As far as I know, the average joe just can't afford to pay $300/licence every time he needs the computer to perform a new logical function. The average joe is more likely to figure "hey, I bought this magic box, this screen box, this wire. I pay for my cable... so where's that interweb??"
Software, is what the average joe does not care about. No matter how wonderful and magical it is to know about it, they just don't want to deal with software. Hence, it's becoming more and more of an issue to sell it. Hence the popularity of GPL'd, BSD'd style systems. Even Apple is able to charge for it without much criticism.
Don't wanna label you anything or nothing, but there's a very good reason to editing those.conf files. Your problem, it seems to me, is that you want a linux distribution to look and behave like windows. While windows has it's ups in the desktop usability department, it's hardly a good standard to follow. Besides, because of the way window managers are in a linux distribution, you can essentially set it up to that precious windows standard. (or get someone else to do it for you... is what I'd recommend).
"Microsoft's already trained 10s of millions of peoples how to use a computer..."
I beg your pardon???? Using a few programs intiated by mouse clicks is hardly training. What, if anything, did these millions of people LEARN from this windows experience? This isn't called "using a computer," it's much more closely resembles "using an application".
Slashdot Mirror
At some point in our history, someone thought that a "Personal Computer" is a good idea. However, a personal computer in it's naked form, is useless to everyone save the ones that know the processor speak.
Thus M$ is born, fulfilling the need of putting software, for a computer illiterate user, onto the PC, thereby comming one step further to the dream. Note that this by no means implies that the software had to be of quality, b/c technically, the users wouldn't/shouldn't/couldn't know.
Skip a few decades, here we are today. Computers ARE everywhere, and people are more familiar with them than ever before. It is only *now* that the quality of M$'s work is beggining to shine through. Couple that with another phenomena that was not there "at the beggining". Computers today are heavily networked, and make more use of the network everyday. Which means that anything on one networked computer can be potentially transfered to another. This doesn't fit with the original distribution method on which M$ so heavily relies (and from personal observation, use it to screw it's own customers over).
While I'm not certain of M$'s future, I'm certain that it is the first and last company that will be able to do what they did. Distribute software for the price tag they put on it. The market is changing, and that is the one point you failed to address. That change is driving open software development in to a more favorable position then that of M$'s methods. ~Cheers
As a side note, I honestly don't think that if someone was to take my sources, sell them, and give me nothing in return has a bright future. Reputation is a funny thing when it comes to openness.
The way I see it, you can start out developing for yourself. After you post it somewhere, someone will eventually see it. Since software doesn't degrade with time in the usual manner, it will be used. If it's really good, someone will even pay you to keep working on it.
Free, in Free Software DOES NOT REFER TO COST. It is merely a side effect that most of it is flowing freely (without restriction) over the internet. Once you get your mind bent around that concept, it will start making sense.
What distribution where you using? Who did you let compile your programs? I don't mean to start a flame war or anything, I have no interest in that, but you speak out of ignorance.
The first mistake you've made, I've pointed out. You compared apples to oranges. The second misconception is that a working linux distribution is the same thing as windows with different features (preloading at startup, etc...). You cannot expect a linux distro to behave like windows, it's simply silly. First off, I'd hate to see these things built into my distribution. If you want preloading, activate your preloading, there's no one to stop you, and you can't convince me that it can't be done. Second, you don't like KDE load time, use a different window/desktop managment toolset. There are plenty good, workable, flexible, simple, programs to go around. I can recommend fluxbox, as it's configuration steps are very strait forward (just save your menu as a text file). While I understand that this may sound a little low tech, this one is incredibaly easy to understand and fix up to your liking. All you'll need to do is give a menu item name, and the program that will run when that item is clicked. Now, the only reason I mention all of this is because of the load time you mentioned. Fluxbox appears instantainusly on my 450MHz AMD Compaq.
Just so you'd know, I'm not serious in my suggestion. I only hope that you understand that you are misinterperting what you think is an OS. An OS should provide an interface to managing your computer. The interface recieves user input, and activates the appropriate program to complete the task. If a program wants to preload itself in the background, there should be a program to handle that that is NOT part of the OS, and probably shouldn't be part of that program either. These programs usually come in a form of a deamon, or a service. That's all you need.
Any open source project will survive based on how useful it is. It has nothing to do with who is maintaining it now. If people *need* this project alive, they will find a way to keep it so. Remember, this is OPEN source, which means that the source can be picked up by anyone. Even if this doesn't happen for a while, it will happen. While the history is shortlived in terms of giving you a reference example of something similar, it remains a vital clue. Hints of these trends are everywhere. Just think of XFree86 and the emergence of XOrg. One was seen to be doomed, but the piece of software is invaluable. People quickly remedied the situation. I could be wrong.
lol
No, but please explain then, if it is old and obsolete, why are 85% computers using it?
Explanation: Defacto standard with windows. Like your wonderful IE, NTFS is your file system by default.
You're probably correct in every one of your observations except for your last comment. Linux is not the reverse of anything, and there are other perhaps even more solid bases to build off of.
Just to be clear, I've been using a linux distribution for nearly 3 years now almost exclusively. I find it difficult to understand what you mean that the applications are awful. The only thing I can say about them is that they are not like they are on windows. However, I found them to be much more consistant, so once I learned a few, the rest just tend to make themselves somewhat more strait forward.
I don't remember the last time I had to deal with freeware, cause that's just not an issue. If I want my computer to do something, I find the appropriate package, install it, and everything alse is automagic. I get pretty much the latest version of everything I downloaded. To top it off, the software that looks for new packages to configure and install packages comes right with the OS, so it's a matter of typing a command and the name of the package. Elegant, and simple.
It is true that I have gained a lot of experience, and others find themselves lost in a unix based system. But that's to be expected when you never seen it before. Just don't judge what you don't understand, because you might someday get how it all works, and I'm sure, that once that happens, you'd appreciate what it's like to run an Open OS.
Just as a side note, I haven't had to deal with any sort of fragmentation to date. The solution to the problem has been around for quite some time. It's nothing new, but what can we except from good ol' M$.
Playing GTA does NOT make rape and murder any more appealing. However being the interesting creatures that we are, we know nothing about our reality when we start out. We explore EVERYTHING, we touch EVERYTHING. We are constantly facinated/obsessed with the idea of death cause no one can say what it means to them. So we explore it.
The sad thing is, is that these VERY arguments have been made before time and time again. Remember the time people refused to read novels because they were "lies". Now, ask any highschool english teacher (one that you know... is there to teach) and they'll tell you that the "lies" aren't lies, because you're not looking at them from the right context. They're universal truths. By universal, I simply means, yes, these events didn't happen, but eventes like these happen all the time to different people.
What's happening isn't all that different. Same thing, different medium. Children CAN handle seeing violence. In fact, they *must* see it to know what it is. They must know what it is to know how to best deal with it. For the most part, people choose not to be violent, because they don't see the sense in it. I wonder why that is. How they chose to see violence should be left up to them simply because that's their chosen medium. And I suspect that exploring it through a game is the best simulation there is, and thus the most popular, as it does NOT harm ANYONE, and benefits, through experience, the indevidual to decide AGAINST such actions when it comes down to it.
How did you reach that conclusion? I said it's old and obsolete... or are you just trying to amuse yourself?
Bench marks? I hope you're kidding. You shouldn't use ReiserFS on a small harddrive as it consumes about 30mb for it's own metadata. But if you have a choice, save yourself the headache and use it! Don't know how windows will cope with it, but then I won't recommend it anyway. For one, NTFS fragments itself. While it's a "solution" to a "problem", this sort of "problem" has been solved a long long time ago. NT is old, and sounds so "ninties". In my opinion it's obsolete, and only in use b/c it's defacto with a windows install. That and their continuous lack of support for so many other things out there.
Open Source isn't a "buzzword". Success is assured by people.
Not only that, but if you had your entire house wired up for internet access, you're still more likely to use *one* internet-to-house access point. Reuse of private network numbers increases potential address space by quite a lot. And it gives you the benefit of controlling your own special numbers of choice.
Now now, children, settle down.
Ah yes... I smile, and laugh ocasionally too :), though still on the good ol' x86
if one of those succeeds one day. I'm sure that when that day comes, I'll also see the general population running around aimlessly, in all directions, bumping into eachother.
It's not that bad an analogy. DNA simply is set in a different environment. The idea is the same, things happen that cause other things to happen. A computer is a very crude way to duplicate the same system. Instead of molecules, a pattern of electrical signals is used. What those signals mean is arbitrary to the underlying structure, but hey... we have a picture, don't we? To DNA the patterns are all molecular, and produce their own sets of reactions. To DNA, it's arbitrary, but hey, we have eyes, and ears, and all that good stuff. The main similarity is that it's all about layers, seemingly independant, but altimately interconnected.
Seems to me that this interweb here is a nice gateway back to them good ol' days. Those days that there markets consisted of little tents of no more than a cloth over 4 poles, none of the "stores" stood out (aside, perhaps, from how clean it would be inside). You, the one with them coins could walk around and pick and choose whatever 'tis you liked. The sheer size of the mega stores today is beyond those days ever concieved. The common person simply doesn't have the resources to compete, but on them websites it's all back to them little places... oh the choices.
won't claim to be an artist, but I always seem to keep some alternate reality in my head, and then use some language to describe what I see to the compiler/interperter.
I wasn't thinking in terms of revolution. I merely think it will be ignorable eventually.
Also, don't you think that the current government will become much less of a necessity under these conditions, and will be essentially pointless? You can't just over look all the other pretty variables that will play their roles.
When you support the GPL, it's not about money. When you copy music, it's not about money. One of the reasons the GPL is around is because of the copyright system, under which the stolen music is being distributed. So this isn't all that hypocritical. This is only happening because we are legaly bound, and corporations seem to be not. Screw that.
You're right. Software, in general, is not driven like a commercial entity. Software is driven by a contribution of ideas. Companies make it easy to facilitate the environment. But companies are business, and business is, like software, a colaboration of ideas. I don't think that the actual goal of OSS is to "take down M$". It happens to be a convineant side effect.
The thing is that software is driven by the same thing that drives business, which drives commercial entities. It's just problematic to treat it as a commercial entity due to it's nature. So I would argue that OO.o (oooo) is not playing catch up, as much as solving the current set of problems that they heard of. Or trying to. Office is just another aproach to the same problem, by someone else. OO.o is simply maturing into it's own tool for you to compete with, in today's glorious market.
Why do you have such a negative view in the first place?
Let me ask you, is reading this post a hard to come by comodity for you?
Repeat after me, "there are no types of people".
Have you been online lately?
The average consumer doesn't care about "open source"
Are you sure about that? As far as I know, the average joe just can't afford to pay $300/licence every time he needs the computer to perform a new logical function. The average joe is more likely to figure "hey, I bought this magic box, this screen box, this wire. I pay for my cable... so where's that interweb??"
Software, is what the average joe does not care about. No matter how wonderful and magical it is to know about it, they just don't want to deal with software. Hence, it's becoming more and more of an issue to sell it. Hence the popularity of GPL'd, BSD'd style systems. Even Apple is able to charge for it without much criticism.
"Microsoft's already trained 10s of millions of peoples how to use a computer..."
I beg your pardon???? Using a few programs intiated by mouse clicks is hardly training. What, if anything, did these millions of people LEARN from this windows experience? This isn't called "using a computer," it's much more closely resembles "using an application".