Linux is open source. That does not mean every and all applications have to be.
While that is true, we need to remember that Linux is one of the "heroes" of OSS. The idea of selling software to run on an OSS software, while plausible (and legal), detracts from the spirit of OSS itself. We are not talking just "should I, should I not", but also "is this wise?" and "does this work with the idea, the spirit of OSS?".
On the flip side, I can run open source software on Windows. Why should I use open source on Windows when I can buy and use closed souces, after all, the OS is closed source?
You are attempting to prove my statement false by proving its opposite to be false. "On" and "Off" are two different things. OSS is ON. Proprietary software is OFF. The idea of OSS is to have as many things ON as possible. Hence, Linux and other open-source applications and products. Of course we wouldn't want to buy proprietary software if we can get OSS that performs just as well, if not better! Claiming ON (Linux) implementing OFF (e.g. Cedega) is equivalent to OFF (Windows) implementing ON is incorrect. But it is a very interesting topic all the same.
I agree. Why buy more software for Linux (which is supposed to be mainly open-source) and run Windows programs like Wine? Why not use an actual Windows environment?
Still, though, I'd love to play Madden 2005 on my Linux. It just sounds so forbidden.:)
Sun won't be embracing the "cancer". What they are doing would be like Microsoft giving away the source code for programs made in Visual Basic (none of which I can recall at the moment ). All they are trying to do is gain more support for Java and its use in further applications.
Basically the only people who want to hack homeland security computers would be terrorists.
Perhaps. But we cannot just point the finger immediately as soon as a computer does get cracked. And the fact that crackers can use anonymous proxies and the like to carry out their attacks doesn't necessarily mean that they'll get caught right off the bat. And we all need good security in any case, really. No one wants a systemwide failure period. That motivation at least should be enough to upgrade Homeland Security Computer Security.
I applaud this effort. I think it's about time an OS implemented techniques similar to what Google has been using. Actually, it reminds me of Google's Desktop Search tool.
The age of linearity within computers is coming to a close.
I agree. We're still going to be looking at price competition between Windows and OSX, and Linux (for the most part) is still free. Besides, both Windows and OSX are closed-source and proprietary, so what kind of "blow" to Linux this may pose may still be trivial.
Let's discuss security a moment.
If I remember correctly, Apple would be moving its OS to Intel and basing that OS around the Windows NT kernel.
And if I remember correctly, the Windows NT kernel is monolithic in design, meaning that it is irreducably complex. Everything interacts with everything, meaning that if one component fails, or is compromised, it can lead to a system failure or system compromization.
If the above is true, then I strongly disagree with the wisdom of Apple's decision, no matter what the motivation may be. And this may give hope to Linux, because if the above is true, all we'll be seeing is another Windows kernel on the market. Not a problem at all.
Let me know what flaws you see in my logic. Thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux is open source. That does not mean every and all applications have to be.
While that is true, we need to remember that Linux is one of the "heroes" of OSS. The idea of selling software to run on an OSS software, while plausible (and legal), detracts from the spirit of OSS itself. We are not talking just "should I, should I not", but also "is this wise?" and "does this work with the idea, the spirit of OSS?".
On the flip side, I can run open source software on Windows. Why should I use open source on Windows when I can buy and use closed souces, after all, the OS is closed source? You are attempting to prove my statement false by proving its opposite to be false. "On" and "Off" are two different things. OSS is ON. Proprietary software is OFF. The idea of OSS is to have as many things ON as possible. Hence, Linux and other open-source applications and products. Of course we wouldn't want to buy proprietary software if we can get OSS that performs just as well, if not better! Claiming ON (Linux) implementing OFF (e.g. Cedega) is equivalent to OFF (Windows) implementing ON is incorrect. But it is a very interesting topic all the same.
I agree. Why buy more software for Linux (which is supposed to be mainly open-source) and run Windows programs like Wine? Why not use an actual Windows environment?
:)
Still, though, I'd love to play Madden 2005 on my Linux. It just sounds so forbidden.
Sun won't be embracing the "cancer". What they are doing would be like Microsoft giving away the source code for programs made in Visual Basic (none of which I can recall at the moment ). All they are trying to do is gain more support for Java and its use in further applications.
Basically the only people who want to hack homeland security computers would be terrorists.
Perhaps. But we cannot just point the finger immediately as soon as a computer does get cracked. And the fact that crackers can use anonymous proxies and the like to carry out their attacks doesn't necessarily mean that they'll get caught right off the bat. And we all need good security in any case, really. No one wants a systemwide failure period. That motivation at least should be enough to upgrade Homeland Security Computer Security.
I applaud this effort. I think it's about time an OS implemented techniques similar to what Google has been using. Actually, it reminds me of Google's Desktop Search tool.
The age of linearity within computers is coming to a close.
I agree. We're still going to be looking at price competition between Windows and OSX, and Linux (for the most part) is still free. Besides, both Windows and OSX are closed-source and proprietary, so what kind of "blow" to Linux this may pose may still be trivial.
Can you really run Linux on a Mac?
I'm sorry, I was mistaken. I must have read a misleading article. :)
Thanks for letting me know.
Let's discuss security a moment. If I remember correctly, Apple would be moving its OS to Intel and basing that OS around the Windows NT kernel. And if I remember correctly, the Windows NT kernel is monolithic in design, meaning that it is irreducably complex. Everything interacts with everything, meaning that if one component fails, or is compromised, it can lead to a system failure or system compromization. If the above is true, then I strongly disagree with the wisdom of Apple's decision, no matter what the motivation may be. And this may give hope to Linux, because if the above is true, all we'll be seeing is another Windows kernel on the market. Not a problem at all. Let me know what flaws you see in my logic. Thanks.