I think perhaps what the previous poster was trying to point out, however, is that the U.S. governmnent is, in Benjamin Franklin's words, "a Republic, if you can keep it."
It is not a democracy, so it should not be implementing the will of the people when that will conflicts with the Bill of Rights. Representatives (including the President) who implement that will at the expense of constitutional rights should rightly be considered traitors.
The Republicans and Democrats are simply in a pissing match to see who can "care" more and take away more of our rights to "protect the children."
Democrats try to pass more laws regulating guns, despite the fact that there are already plenty of laws that were supposed to have prevented things like school shootings.
Republicans try to pass more laws to "improve morals", oblivious to the fact that moral instruction by government is an oxymoron.
It's an out-and-out culture war, and it's being played out on the battlefield of the Bill of Rights.
_Ok, let's imagine IBM had made OS/2 Open Source. Would the users have continued the development?
Almost certainly. There were quite a few OS/2 users 3 or so years ago, and many were extremely committed to the platform (so much so, in fact that they started the Win32-OS/2 project).
What if development splits, but both version have features you'd like to have?
You're not for real here, are you? First of all, as we've seen, Open Source software is very resistant to forking. Secondly, if there was a fork, there would be a darn good reason, and I'd certainly come down on one side or the other. I really don't think this is a serious concern; non-Open-Source software is more prone to forking, as we have seen (i.e., Mosaic). Besides, even in the extremely unlikely event of a fork, you're still better off than with no source code, no updates, no support, aren't you? -- Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
As much as I dislike NT, I must say that it is more appropriate than BeOS for a server. What?!? Yes, that's right; you actually heard me, one of the most anti-Microsoft people on the planet say that. Why? Simple. BeOS is single-user! I think it would be even more insecure than NT as a server platform. At least NT has filesystem security (heck, it even has ACLs, if you're into that sort of thing).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell, BeOS has zero, zilch, nada filesystem security. It's much like Win 9x or MacOS in that respect (although I understand that MacOS 8.7 will have some sort of filesystem security, and of course Mac OS X has normal UNIX-type security, AFAIK).
Australian gun laws were tightened dramatically after that. One local pundit observed that perhaps the massacre wouldn't have happened, if everyone had been armed - Martin Bryant would have been shot dead.
Actually, I think the more accurate argument would be that he would never had attempted his crime, for fear of being shot.
I think you're putting the cart before the horse here. Why do you think Linux became popular? There could be a number of reasons, but considering it started as Linus' personal project, one could very easily believe that it was in fact the GPL that propelled the Linux project into wide acceptance in the first place. BSD projects have certainly been around about as long (remember 386BSD? I tried to install it once around 1993, I think).
While the BSD crowd certainly has their beliefs about code sharing, consider that many programmers, if they choose to contribute to an Open Source project, want to ensure that their code remains open, and is never used (at least not legally) in proprietary software. In other words, "Feel free to use my code, as long as you let others use yours. If you don't want to share, then don't use my code." The GPL ensures this. BSD-ish licenses, whatever their other strengths, do not. Hence the popularity of GPLd projects like Linux.
The problem is that Microsoft is not only criticizing Sun for a problem that may well not be their fault; they are also implying that there is a Microsoft solution that is even in the same ball park as the high-end Sun stuff.
It just ain't so. Microsoft is lying again. Nothing new, eh?
I disagree on the web browser bit (Netscape is not "substandard," IMO), but I think you're right on about the mail client bit.
We need a full-featured, high quality GUI mail client. Perhaps KMail will get there eventually, but right now, it's too immature, and doesn't support IMAP (heck, it doesn't even support POP correctly yet).
Actually, if the XFMail guy would port his excellent mail program from XForms (yuk) to Qt/KDE and/or Gtk+/GNOME, it could be the answer. It is open source, so depending on the specific license (I don't recall how its licensed), someone else (maybe a group of people) could do it for him.
Although XFMail is butt-ugly (due to the afore-mentioned use of XForms), it is quite stable/full-featured, and does IMAP, POP, and local spool mail, multiple accounts, lots of filtering options, etc., etc. It's really a good program, and the author is one hell of a good programmer, as far as I can tell.
I'm not quite sure you read my original post; I thought I was quite clear:
Whether or not you decide to hack the kernel, Open Source allows distribution of control of the OS, so that no one organization or group has absolute veto power.
I used to use OS/2. IBM decided that the sort of users that were actually using OS/2 were unimportant, and focused on other areas. As users of a proprietary, closed-source operating system, there was nothing anyone outside of IBM could do.
That cannot happen with an Open Source OS. I use Open Source software almost exclusively, having learned my lesson with the OS/2 debacle.
I see a lot of BeOS advocates shrugging off the importance of Open Source, arguing that most "users" never hack the kernel anyhow.
That utterly misses the point. Open Source is crucial because of the distribution of control.
With BeOS, just as with any other proprietary, closed-source OS, you are at the mercy of one company for bug fixes, feature additions, support, etc. With Open Source, one company can decide to discontinue its distribution, but the software lives on, as long as someone wants to use and/or improve it.
No one organization can control Open Source. That is why it is destined to become the mainstream software model of the future.
Using proprietary software, particularly operating systems, is just too risky, when there are Open Source alternatives.
I used to be absolutely against overclocking, but with the introduction of the Celeron 300A, I had to try it. I've been extremely pleased with the performance of this chip at 450 MHz. So pleased, in fact, that I plan to build a dual Celeron system.
You'd almost have to be nuts *not* to overclock a Celeron.
I really like KDE, too, but my God, it is so boring--it *looks* like a WM written by Germans trying to win enterprise desktops. If that's your goal, why not just use WinNT and be assimilated.
I don't get this; the RedHat default GNOME desktop is fairly Windows-like, too, but you don't judge it based on the default, right?
KDE has theme support through kdethememgr, with MacOS (even uses a global menubar if you like for KDE apps), Drawing Board, and many other cool themes. Theme support will get even better in the future, with the introduction of Qt 2.0.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I really scratched my head over that one, too.
Especially because they talk elsewhere in the article about the Open Source aspect.
I'm thinking it's just Linux, with a wm config that they came up with that mimics BeOS.
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
World domination is at hand. Within five years, Microsoft will be an also-ran.
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
It is not a democracy, so it should not be implementing the will of the people when that will conflicts with the Bill of Rights. Representatives (including the President) who implement that will at the expense of constitutional rights should rightly be considered traitors.
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
Democrats try to pass more laws regulating guns, despite the fact that there are already plenty of laws that were supposed to have prevented things like school shootings.
Republicans try to pass more laws to "improve morals", oblivious to the fact that moral instruction by government is an oxymoron.
It's an out-and-out culture war, and it's being played out on the battlefield of the Bill of Rights.
And we're *all* losing.
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
There are some newer motherboards that don't need a keyboard to boot. I've done it.
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
A brilliant epitaph for a Slashdotter would be:
HERE LIES JOE BLOW
LAST COMMENT!
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
I was just trying to point out that BeOS probably isn't going to cut it as a server, since its single user...
And, no, I don't even know what MPE/iX is, although it sounds fun... :-)
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
So, don't get too worked up.
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
Almost certainly. There were quite a few OS/2 users 3 or so years ago, and many were extremely committed to the platform (so much so, in fact that they started the Win32-OS/2 project).
What if development splits, but both version have features you'd like to have?
You're not for real here, are you? First of all, as we've seen, Open Source software is very resistant to forking. Secondly, if there was a fork, there would be a darn good reason, and I'd certainly come down on one side or the other. I really don't think this is a serious concern; non-Open-Source software is more prone to forking, as we have seen (i.e., Mosaic). Besides, even in the extremely unlikely event of a fork, you're still better off than with no source code, no updates, no support, aren't you?
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell, BeOS has zero, zilch, nada filesystem security. It's much like Win 9x or MacOS in that respect (although I understand that MacOS 8.7 will have some sort of filesystem security, and of course Mac OS X has normal UNIX-type security, AFAIK).
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
Actually, I think the more accurate argument would be that he would never had attempted his crime, for fear of being shot.
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
While the BSD crowd certainly has their beliefs about code sharing, consider that many programmers, if they choose to contribute to an Open Source project, want to ensure that their code remains open, and is never used (at least not legally) in proprietary software. In other words, "Feel free to use my code, as long as you let others use yours. If you don't want to share, then don't use my code." The GPL ensures this. BSD-ish licenses, whatever their other strengths, do not. Hence the popularity of GPLd projects like Linux.
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
It just ain't so. Microsoft is lying again. Nothing new, eh?
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
We need a full-featured, high quality GUI mail client. Perhaps KMail will get there eventually, but right now, it's too immature, and doesn't support IMAP (heck, it doesn't even support POP correctly yet).
Actually, if the XFMail guy would port his excellent mail program from XForms (yuk) to Qt/KDE and/or Gtk+/GNOME, it could be the answer. It is open source, so depending on the specific license (I don't recall how its licensed), someone else (maybe a group of people) could do it for him.
Although XFMail is butt-ugly (due to the afore-mentioned use of XForms), it is quite stable/full-featured, and does IMAP, POP, and local spool mail, multiple accounts, lots of filtering options, etc., etc. It's really a good program, and the author is one hell of a good programmer, as far as I can tell.
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
Whether or not you decide to hack the kernel, Open Source allows distribution of control of the OS, so that no one organization or group has absolute veto power.
I used to use OS/2. IBM decided that the sort of users that were actually using OS/2 were unimportant, and focused on other areas. As users of a proprietary, closed-source operating system, there was nothing anyone outside of IBM could do.
That cannot happen with an Open Source OS. I use Open Source software almost exclusively, having learned my lesson with the OS/2 debacle.
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
That utterly misses the point. Open Source is crucial because of the distribution of control.
With BeOS, just as with any other proprietary, closed-source OS, you are at the mercy of one company for bug fixes, feature additions, support, etc. With Open Source, one company can decide to discontinue its distribution, but the software lives on, as long as someone wants to use and/or improve it.
No one organization can control Open Source. That is why it is destined to become the mainstream software model of the future.
Using proprietary software, particularly operating systems, is just too risky, when there are Open Source alternatives.
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
When everyone stops using Windows. Maybe 2004.
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
Those two companies, more than any others, have pretty much destroyed it... :-)
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
- Lower quality, as it is not peer-reviewed
- An administrative/bookkeeping headache, due to restrictive licensing
- Overpriced
Closed software is going away, except for highly specialized vertical-market stuff. You can bemoan that fact, but it doesn't change the reality.--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
When you bargain with the devil, you deal with him on his terms...
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
Your numbers are *way* off. DSL userbase is probably closer to 20-30% Linux.
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
Your "whole point" was wrong. X11AMP has been around for a while, is Open Source(tm) and can use WinAMP skins.
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
You'd almost have to be nuts *not* to overclock a Celeron.
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
I don't get this; the RedHat default GNOME desktop is fairly Windows-like, too, but you don't judge it based on the default, right?
KDE has theme support through kdethememgr, with MacOS (even uses a global menubar if you like for KDE apps), Drawing Board, and many other cool themes. Theme support will get even better in the future, with the introduction of Qt 2.0.
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!