IT departments would migrate to ones with one or more developers, or the IT director's jobs would include knowledge about open source projects and about investing some of their IT budget in those programs for support and development. It's quite simple...really...the company I work for is doing that. It's especially easy migrating from closed source software, because (way too much) money is already allocated for software, so using something free and using some of that money to pay for support/development is pretty simple, I personally know it. That's all I was trying to say is that open source is or will become cheaper for every single need that exists, all you need is more collaboration and it will be. I've seen how crappy closed source software companies make millions, and those days are numbered. Their CEOs can kiss their 20 mansions goodbye.
I disagree, based on personal experience. I think that most consumers don't know that there is a choice besides Apple, if they remember Apple (older generations won't know Apple so much as newer generations, thanks to Apple's marketing targeting frat/etc crowds). When I worked as a technician I was asked several times "Is there an alternative to Microsoft?" Knowledge is power, and once more consumers understand that they could be getting a free OS, I think roughly 80-90% would be using Linux, given that IMO compared to normal desktop users, a small minority are into "those big games". Most would be quite content with what comes installed on a Linux system, and very content once you add on all the other software that is available for Linux, with perhaps a few exceptions where users complained about this or that app being not as good or too different from what they're used to.
OMG thank you for mentioning proprietary laptops, but of course proprietary anything is bad like automobiles too for instance. Do you know of any companies selling or promoting laptop standards? I've heard of "laptop kits" for a while now as the way to get that kind of freedom but that's of course not the answer. The fact that it's a kit means it's proprietary. Give me LCD screens with standardized connectors and hinges, and standard motherboard sizes, etc, like there is now with desktops. I realize that this may be a bit more difficult due to the rapid changes and size shrinking that is happening with laptops, but it's still very possible to create some standards of course.
Businesses love making this unrepairable. It's high time consumers said "up yours".
There are lots and lots of advocates of Open Office, so wanting it as an option for when you buy a computer from Dell is very simple to understand. My parents being two advocates, and they have no idea what "open source" or Linux is. All they know is that it's free and they teach classes on using Open Office to save others money. I've tried to explain what "realm" they are in, that there is a lot more open source software out there than just that, and to explain to them how open source works, but I still don't think they get it. They didn't even find it with my help at all. I had no idea they were using it and teaching classes on it for several years before I finally found out.
No, eight years isn't nothing, and yes any software can have bugs and holes, but like we said open source means more fixable. If it was being exploited though, it probably would have become quickly patched, so most likely only a small few knew about it, if anyone. I'd much rather have the world community see and fix code than have one small company in comparison hide their code from everyone else.
I somewhat agree, but of course sharing information completely openly wouldn't turn the world into some lawless festering hellhole, which I know wasn't what you meant, just saying. It simply depends on what you want IMO, on where you want to draw the line. "Freedom" typically means "respecting" one another, and thus being punished when you don't, so that everyone can stay "free". Yes, that was a cyclical definition. So, is your definition of freedom respecting the lives of others? OK, how about respecting the speech of others? How about the other's "property"? How about taking pictures or videos of something someone else has made? Totally depends on what you want "freedom" to be. ^^
If all governments and organizations and institutions adopted open source, there would be either a) everything anyone needed or b) hardly any work to do to improve some open source software to meet someone's needs. So no, I don't agree, because open source means communicating and working together, and even a dinky independent one-horse-town government could work alongside a much bigger community on a project. You're right in that if there was something that didn't exist, and if no one could communicate and work together, then sure, you might be right, but that's not true. The closed source companies would love for you to think that though.
P.S. Funny I got modded troll when I wasn't trolling.:P
Of course this is probably BS but I'll bite any way...you didn't tell anyone so you could use it against others? How nice of you. Luckily the code is open, so unlike with closed code like with Windows, secrets won't last as long. ^^
(not to mention with the help of the power of the typical GNU/Linux OS with all the monitoring and power tools that are available to find out about such exploits)
They were saying that Linux got to where it is today because of the GPL license. The argument is that Red Hat, IBM, Novell, and other companies wouldn't have contributed to Linux if they weren't forced to by the GPL. Instead, they would have kept the code only in their own software offerings instead of sharing it, and Linux wouldn't have gotten as far along as it is today.
The GPL basically forces collaboration and sharing. I agree that that isn't true freedom in the truest sense, definitely, but certainly it did help get it this far, and has allowed more computer uses to be more free. However ironic that may seem, I believe that's the truth.
Now with the Internet being as developed as it is, it is much easier for collaboration to occur. In my opinion this needs to be much more fortified than it is now though, but at least things are getting there. There needs to be more marketplaces for everyone to buy into collaborative software projects. These need to be made easily available for gamers and desktop users, businesses, education systems, governments, etc etc. I.e. better bounty/support/development systems are needed IMO. Any way, the point I was making was if these systems can blossom, the GPL license won't be really needed as most everyone will understand what "collaborative software" is and the value in having that openness, so that you open things up to anyone contributing to help keep it afloat. Relying on closed commercial software is just dumb and dangerous.
Yes I have a huge agenda and just went insane for a while, but now I'm sane again and Linux and open source software are, no doubt about it, more expensive than closed proprietary source code. Companies and individuals working together to create software, or anything really, is completely impossible. They can't even work together to get a road built! Just look at the pyramids for instance, one of the great wonders of the world, definitely built by one individual no question about it, just like all the other wonders.
Good essay. I find it easier to simply say: several governments around the world have adopted Linux, there's no reason the Swiss government couldn't as well.
Oh, and also, STFU Microsoft shill. ^^
P.S., All governments should adopt open source policies, regardless of what software they choose exactly, and there is no question about that AT ALL. You don't have a zillion different branches of your government each pay $$$$$ for closed source software, that's just lame beyond belief. You instead pay money to developers to either make something, or improve upon existing software, if what you need doesn't exist yet, and you do that for a tiny fraction of the price.
Lol, "In conclusion, do everything I say, because I'm telling you you will BE DESTROYED IF YOU DON'T, but there is no way to know if what I'm saying is a lie or not!" Yeah, um, no. If you're a gullible retard though, then I'm sure that logic makes sense to you. You should only believe in things that you have a real reason for believing, and then you should only *hope* that they work. There's a zillion religions and gods and mythologies to choose from, that you could believe in, so do the wise thing and only believe in what you have a real, legitimate reason to, tempered with a heavy dose of common sense.
Open source drivers do have the potential to be higher quality than closed source. Utilizing communities to aid in fixing and writing drivers will always be an added benefit. However, this does not require force.
One of the choices most everyone has, for instance, is between Opera, Firefox, and Chrome for your browser. While the existence of Opera may pull some users away from the two which are open source, thus slightly slowing their development and progress (which is your point, and I agree that that is a legitimate real-world factor), the attractiveness of open source and the freedom and power that it gives communities will still always be a feature and users will always find that attractive. If someone wants to buy a piece of hardware that only comes with closed source drivers, that's their choice. Linux should mean freedom in every way. Everyone should always be cautious of systems which remove freedom. For instance now with several businesses latching onto Linux, you have to make sure that the ways they intend to profit off Linux are in your best interest as well.
I also think that ultimately the world would be better with no copyright or patent laws. ^^ Would probably be like Star Trek by now.:P
And it doesn't mean anyone should forget all the things Microsoft and other big juggernauts have done, just because competition from Linux pressures them to play nicer.
That's not competing. Both are myths which have evolved greatly through the ages, and are currently lumped into some large modern-day myths. If you believe in modern Satan, you believe in God/Jesus. Really depends on at which "Satan" through history you're talking about though.
The moral? Don't believe in either until you have proof.
The difference being one can be fixed by anyone, and the other cannot. One gives you freedom, the other does not. Thus, flaws found in open source can be quickly addressed by the community.
(P.S., Yes Penumbra is a 3D puzzle game in its own right and all, and isn't trying to be like the Thief series, but I just found myself wanting more interesting puzzles and challenges. Even Silent Hill's puzzles I enjoyed more, so if they can make more interesting and fun physics and other puzzles, that would be awesome.)
I bought Penumbra: Black Plague a long time ago for Linux. This is definitely not new news. The only new news are the sales they have now and then, and that they are making a completely new Linux game of a similar game play apparently (scary + puzzle game) currently not given a title. Here's the link.
Personally what I really miss, and sometimes what I feel Penumbra is trying to be, is basically a 3D sneaker, and fantasies of Thief 4 being awesome pop into my head. Not sure if there will be a Linux version of that though.
Well, not that I care what is in a piece of paper but yeah, I do agree that for certain services to be based on corporate greed it makes things worse. Deregulation is something companies want as funny as it sounds. It's standardization and fair/direct competition that they don't want and that everyone needs. The exact same problems face the natural resources industries as well as phone/TV/internet. Those are things that you cannot have an unlimited number of competitors due to infrastructure restraints just like with a mail service, and IMO should be controlled by the government as well. At least, any of the infrastructure parts like the cables in the streets, just like the electrical lines, at the very least. If not the whole service.
OK can we please stop with the "omg it's so cheap" thing? If you take a huge bunch of letters, which all are usually very flat and thus can fit a lot in a small space, at $0.50 each, and send them all together on a big (thus saving money) transport of some sort, that profit obviously adds up to compensate for it all, since they are profitable. The only reason other companies like UPS and such charge more is because they don't have the massive infrastructure in place, the infrastructure that the tax payers bought for the USPS. Thus, other businesses have to charge more if they wish to create their own infrastructure, and also until they have it in place they have to spend more money since they are going "out of their way" more often to deliver a few parcels. I'm really surprised that they are even able to attempt such a business given that huge barrier to entry. If you can never have lower prices than the USPS (if the USPS's pricing is fair) because you have to charge more because you don't have the infrastructure in place, how do you even attempt it unless you're funded by deep pockets?
I'm sure a lot of businesses face the same challenge with Walmart. Not counting the things Walmart does that should be illegal or are/were illegal, they still have a big infrastructure in place which makes competing with them difficult (if, again, they have fair prices).
Um....yeah, I know that packages are superior. My point was that if you're *not* going to provide cross-distro or distro-specific packages or repositories, at *least* provide straight up binary packages. What should happen though is naming conventions and other problems should be resolved so that Linux can have a universal package management system for all distros. You don't have to limit yourself to one format of package either, you can add new formats to the package managers which exist if you want, but have at least *one* format that can be cross-distro.
Obvious, but some nutcases view good standards as something evil even though they help everyone to have more freedom. Freedom is a feature.
Why you have to feel tied to using a repository to get your software instead of having the freedom to simply download and install a package like you can on Windows just because Linux distros haven't pushed for a universal Linux packaging system is also beyond me. Some great freedom there indeed.
If developers aren't going to offer an up-to-date repository of their software for automatic updates for Linux, that's fine, but at least offer a normal binary package so Linux users can easily have access to their software.
Slashdot Mirror
IT departments would migrate to ones with one or more developers, or the IT director's jobs would include knowledge about open source projects and about investing some of their IT budget in those programs for support and development. It's quite simple...really...the company I work for is doing that. It's especially easy migrating from closed source software, because (way too much) money is already allocated for software, so using something free and using some of that money to pay for support/development is pretty simple, I personally know it. That's all I was trying to say is that open source is or will become cheaper for every single need that exists, all you need is more collaboration and it will be. I've seen how crappy closed source software companies make millions, and those days are numbered. Their CEOs can kiss their 20 mansions goodbye.
I disagree, based on personal experience. I think that most consumers don't know that there is a choice besides Apple, if they remember Apple (older generations won't know Apple so much as newer generations, thanks to Apple's marketing targeting frat/etc crowds). When I worked as a technician I was asked several times "Is there an alternative to Microsoft?" Knowledge is power, and once more consumers understand that they could be getting a free OS, I think roughly 80-90% would be using Linux, given that IMO compared to normal desktop users, a small minority are into "those big games". Most would be quite content with what comes installed on a Linux system, and very content once you add on all the other software that is available for Linux, with perhaps a few exceptions where users complained about this or that app being not as good or too different from what they're used to.
Er sorry, meant pushing laptop standards and trying to sell parts that use them. ^^
OMG thank you for mentioning proprietary laptops, but of course proprietary anything is bad like automobiles too for instance. Do you know of any companies selling or promoting laptop standards? I've heard of "laptop kits" for a while now as the way to get that kind of freedom but that's of course not the answer. The fact that it's a kit means it's proprietary. Give me LCD screens with standardized connectors and hinges, and standard motherboard sizes, etc, like there is now with desktops. I realize that this may be a bit more difficult due to the rapid changes and size shrinking that is happening with laptops, but it's still very possible to create some standards of course.
Businesses love making this unrepairable. It's high time consumers said "up yours".
There are lots and lots of advocates of Open Office, so wanting it as an option for when you buy a computer from Dell is very simple to understand. My parents being two advocates, and they have no idea what "open source" or Linux is. All they know is that it's free and they teach classes on using Open Office to save others money. I've tried to explain what "realm" they are in, that there is a lot more open source software out there than just that, and to explain to them how open source works, but I still don't think they get it. They didn't even find it with my help at all. I had no idea they were using it and teaching classes on it for several years before I finally found out.
No, eight years isn't nothing, and yes any software can have bugs and holes, but like we said open source means more fixable. If it was being exploited though, it probably would have become quickly patched, so most likely only a small few knew about it, if anyone. I'd much rather have the world community see and fix code than have one small company in comparison hide their code from everyone else.
I somewhat agree, but of course sharing information completely openly wouldn't turn the world into some lawless festering hellhole, which I know wasn't what you meant, just saying. It simply depends on what you want IMO, on where you want to draw the line. "Freedom" typically means "respecting" one another, and thus being punished when you don't, so that everyone can stay "free". Yes, that was a cyclical definition. So, is your definition of freedom respecting the lives of others? OK, how about respecting the speech of others? How about the other's "property"? How about taking pictures or videos of something someone else has made? Totally depends on what you want "freedom" to be. ^^
If all governments and organizations and institutions adopted open source, there would be either a) everything anyone needed or b) hardly any work to do to improve some open source software to meet someone's needs. So no, I don't agree, because open source means communicating and working together, and even a dinky independent one-horse-town government could work alongside a much bigger community on a project. You're right in that if there was something that didn't exist, and if no one could communicate and work together, then sure, you might be right, but that's not true. The closed source companies would love for you to think that though.
:P
P.S. Funny I got modded troll when I wasn't trolling.
Of course this is probably BS but I'll bite any way...you didn't tell anyone so you could use it against others? How nice of you. Luckily the code is open, so unlike with closed code like with Windows, secrets won't last as long. ^^
(not to mention with the help of the power of the typical GNU/Linux OS with all the monitoring and power tools that are available to find out about such exploits)
They were saying that Linux got to where it is today because of the GPL license. The argument is that Red Hat, IBM, Novell, and other companies wouldn't have contributed to Linux if they weren't forced to by the GPL. Instead, they would have kept the code only in their own software offerings instead of sharing it, and Linux wouldn't have gotten as far along as it is today.
The GPL basically forces collaboration and sharing. I agree that that isn't true freedom in the truest sense, definitely, but certainly it did help get it this far, and has allowed more computer uses to be more free. However ironic that may seem, I believe that's the truth.
Now with the Internet being as developed as it is, it is much easier for collaboration to occur. In my opinion this needs to be much more fortified than it is now though, but at least things are getting there. There needs to be more marketplaces for everyone to buy into collaborative software projects. These need to be made easily available for gamers and desktop users, businesses, education systems, governments, etc etc. I.e. better bounty/support/development systems are needed IMO. Any way, the point I was making was if these systems can blossom, the GPL license won't be really needed as most everyone will understand what "collaborative software" is and the value in having that openness, so that you open things up to anyone contributing to help keep it afloat. Relying on closed commercial software is just dumb and dangerous.
Yes I have a huge agenda and just went insane for a while, but now I'm sane again and Linux and open source software are, no doubt about it, more expensive than closed proprietary source code. Companies and individuals working together to create software, or anything really, is completely impossible. They can't even work together to get a road built! Just look at the pyramids for instance, one of the great wonders of the world, definitely built by one individual no question about it, just like all the other wonders.
Good essay. I find it easier to simply say: several governments around the world have adopted Linux, there's no reason the Swiss government couldn't as well.
Oh, and also, STFU Microsoft shill. ^^
P.S., All governments should adopt open source policies, regardless of what software they choose exactly, and there is no question about that AT ALL. You don't have a zillion different branches of your government each pay $$$$$ for closed source software, that's just lame beyond belief. You instead pay money to developers to either make something, or improve upon existing software, if what you need doesn't exist yet, and you do that for a tiny fraction of the price.
Lol, "In conclusion, do everything I say, because I'm telling you you will BE DESTROYED IF YOU DON'T, but there is no way to know if what I'm saying is a lie or not!" Yeah, um, no. If you're a gullible retard though, then I'm sure that logic makes sense to you. You should only believe in things that you have a real reason for believing, and then you should only *hope* that they work. There's a zillion religions and gods and mythologies to choose from, that you could believe in, so do the wise thing and only believe in what you have a real, legitimate reason to, tempered with a heavy dose of common sense.
Open source drivers do have the potential to be higher quality than closed source. Utilizing communities to aid in fixing and writing drivers will always be an added benefit. However, this does not require force.
:P
One of the choices most everyone has, for instance, is between Opera, Firefox, and Chrome for your browser. While the existence of Opera may pull some users away from the two which are open source, thus slightly slowing their development and progress (which is your point, and I agree that that is a legitimate real-world factor), the attractiveness of open source and the freedom and power that it gives communities will still always be a feature and users will always find that attractive. If someone wants to buy a piece of hardware that only comes with closed source drivers, that's their choice. Linux should mean freedom in every way. Everyone should always be cautious of systems which remove freedom. For instance now with several businesses latching onto Linux, you have to make sure that the ways they intend to profit off Linux are in your best interest as well.
I also think that ultimately the world would be better with no copyright or patent laws. ^^ Would probably be like Star Trek by now.
And it doesn't mean anyone should forget all the things Microsoft and other big juggernauts have done, just because competition from Linux pressures them to play nicer.
Don't forget the great green Steve.
That's not competing. Both are myths which have evolved greatly through the ages, and are currently lumped into some large modern-day myths. If you believe in modern Satan, you believe in God/Jesus. Really depends on at which "Satan" through history you're talking about though.
The moral? Don't believe in either until you have proof.
Jesus, supernatural figure of lore, please take up my offering of Jesus wallpaper, and protect my computer from viruses in return.
The difference being one can be fixed by anyone, and the other cannot. One gives you freedom, the other does not. Thus, flaws found in open source can be quickly addressed by the community.
(P.S., Yes Penumbra is a 3D puzzle game in its own right and all, and isn't trying to be like the Thief series, but I just found myself wanting more interesting puzzles and challenges. Even Silent Hill's puzzles I enjoyed more, so if they can make more interesting and fun physics and other puzzles, that would be awesome.)
I bought Penumbra: Black Plague a long time ago for Linux. This is definitely not new news. The only new news are the sales they have now and then, and that they are making a completely new Linux game of a similar game play apparently (scary + puzzle game) currently not given a title. Here's the link.
Personally what I really miss, and sometimes what I feel Penumbra is trying to be, is basically a 3D sneaker, and fantasies of Thief 4 being awesome pop into my head. Not sure if there will be a Linux version of that though.
Well, not that I care what is in a piece of paper but yeah, I do agree that for certain services to be based on corporate greed it makes things worse. Deregulation is something companies want as funny as it sounds. It's standardization and fair/direct competition that they don't want and that everyone needs. The exact same problems face the natural resources industries as well as phone/TV/internet. Those are things that you cannot have an unlimited number of competitors due to infrastructure restraints just like with a mail service, and IMO should be controlled by the government as well. At least, any of the infrastructure parts like the cables in the streets, just like the electrical lines, at the very least. If not the whole service.
OK can we please stop with the "omg it's so cheap" thing? If you take a huge bunch of letters, which all are usually very flat and thus can fit a lot in a small space, at $0.50 each, and send them all together on a big (thus saving money) transport of some sort, that profit obviously adds up to compensate for it all, since they are profitable. The only reason other companies like UPS and such charge more is because they don't have the massive infrastructure in place, the infrastructure that the tax payers bought for the USPS. Thus, other businesses have to charge more if they wish to create their own infrastructure, and also until they have it in place they have to spend more money since they are going "out of their way" more often to deliver a few parcels. I'm really surprised that they are even able to attempt such a business given that huge barrier to entry. If you can never have lower prices than the USPS (if the USPS's pricing is fair) because you have to charge more because you don't have the infrastructure in place, how do you even attempt it unless you're funded by deep pockets?
I'm sure a lot of businesses face the same challenge with Walmart. Not counting the things Walmart does that should be illegal or are/were illegal, they still have a big infrastructure in place which makes competing with them difficult (if, again, they have fair prices).
Um....yeah, I know that packages are superior. My point was that if you're *not* going to provide cross-distro or distro-specific packages or repositories, at *least* provide straight up binary packages. What should happen though is naming conventions and other problems should be resolved so that Linux can have a universal package management system for all distros. You don't have to limit yourself to one format of package either, you can add new formats to the package managers which exist if you want, but have at least *one* format that can be cross-distro.
Obvious, but some nutcases view good standards as something evil even though they help everyone to have more freedom. Freedom is a feature.
Why you have to feel tied to using a repository to get your software instead of having the freedom to simply download and install a package like you can on Windows just because Linux distros haven't pushed for a universal Linux packaging system is also beyond me. Some great freedom there indeed.
If developers aren't going to offer an up-to-date repository of their software for automatic updates for Linux, that's fine, but at least offer a normal binary package so Linux users can easily have access to their software.