Author Topic: Why not open source old stuff? (Read 1627 times)

Stilly · « **Reply #90 on:** 27 March 2004, 13:24 »

IT IS MY OPINION THAT OATS ARE NOT GOOD

hooray for expressing your opinion

hm_murdock · « **Reply #91 on:** 29 March 2004, 04:42 »

YAY!

this discussion is now over

edit: I hate how every time you edit a post it says that you did.

UBB sux

[ March 28, 2004: Message edited by: JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder ]

preacher · « **Reply #92 on:** 29 March 2004, 19:43 »

quote:
Originally posted by flap:

Why do you care more about the bloated profits of corporations than your own and the rest of society's freedom to share modify programs?

You think closed source software = slavery? Give me a break. I am a business student and I understand how business works and I see nothing wrong with trying to maximize profits, I have a problem with when they use unlawful practices to strangle competition. This is the main difference between Apple and Microsoft. Yes Apple sells a non-free, proprietary product, but they don't use unlawful practices to kill their competitors either.

Red hat doesn't make tons of money either. I believe after all expenses they had less than $500,000 profit. That is not exactly a huge gain. How much profit did Microsoft pull in this year? What about Apple? Oh and did MySQL make as much as Oracle?

[ March 29, 2004: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]

flap · « **Reply #93 on:** 29 March 2004, 20:18 »

quote:
You think closed source software = slavery?

No; where did I say that?

quote:
Red hat doesn't make tons of money either. I believe after all expenses they had less than $500,000 profit. That is not exactly a huge gain. How much profit did Microsoft pull in this year? What about Apple? Oh and did MySQL make as much as Oracle?

Did you read my posts? I said that I know free software companies make less money than Microsoft et al, and I think that's a good thing. That's my point.

WMD · « **Reply #94 on:** 30 March 2004, 01:57 »

quote:
Red hat doesn't make tons of money either. I believe after all expenses they had less than $500,000 profit. That is not exactly a huge gain. How much profit did Microsoft pull in this year? What about Apple? Oh and did MySQL make as much as Oracle?

Almost a good argument, but:
Microsoft: 93%, Apple: 3% on desktops I think;

And Oracle is much more widespread then MySQL.

Plus, MS makes 80% profit margins on Windows and Office, and because of that they're clearly manipulating the market.

restin256 · « **Reply #95 on:** 30 March 2004, 14:55 »

Are you saying that they would make a lot more profit if Linux were more widespread?

Pyrotechnician_2004 · « **Reply #96 on:** 31 March 2004, 00:52 »

I think that Linux would make more money if people had to buy certain software for it (but for a small price), this would make money, but I mean, even the usage of Linux creates money for the company that has released that distribution.

I think that Microsoft & William are doing it all for the money, this has been an on-going thing, but Windows users refuse to believe that this is true, I don't think Bill even uses Windows personally (maybe he doesn't even use a computer, thats why he makes such a terrible closed-source product these days??).

Another point here, if Windows was built on Unix (or another base not sure what the word is to use :confused

for an OS and sold much cheaper, I think Microsoft wouldn't be so hated, but of course, this is just my opinion & this will never happen I think.

(Oh yes, and I have used Windows all my life & have only just started recently using Linux, but I have many more benefits from it over Windows, I won't have to re-install it as many times, only by my own error that i'd have to install it, not by having to buy really expensive anti-virii & firewall products in Windows).

I also used to use an old Apple PowerPC when I was really young, that was great, I think Apple & Linux will make it, but of course Microsoft will always have the upper hand at the end of the day (possibly).

All of this is MY OPINION, please do not discriminate against my views on false knowledge (always back up your discrimination with reliable sources!!!) please, thanks a lot, would be nice to hear what you guys have to say to this post.

[ March 30, 2004: Message edited by: Sex_Pistols_Fan_Linux_RuleZ_Windows ]

WMD · « **Reply #97 on:** 31 March 2004, 04:15 »

quote:
Originally posted by restin256:
Are you saying that they would make a lot more profit if Linux were more widespread?

I bet they would.

Pyrotechnician_2004 · « **Reply #98 on:** 31 March 2004, 19:10 »

quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
I bet they would.

Agreed.

modulus · « **Reply #99 on:** 2 April 2004, 06:04 »

Acctually, a the Webmaster at www.toastytech.com got some Windows 1.01 programs to run in Windows 98.
He even got the old control panel program to work, and you can still change the mouse speed and color depth. Even the color spectrum bar in the control panel program it still the same function in Windows 98.

So, ya, Microsoft is just to lazy to reprogram ANYTHING. So, if they did release the source, they's cause themselves a big business loss.

(Hmmmm, windows 1.x code in windows 98. lol)

P.S., most companies don't release code 'cause to them it would damage thier business. And it would, some basic algorithms they may have invented that they still need would exist in thier newest programs. "Lets just give the public our technology away!" Though, I beleive they should release old versions of thier software for free if they don't sell and support it anymore.

skyman8081 · « **Reply #100 on:** 2 April 2004, 11:27 »

quote:
Originally posted by Andre Perron:
Acctually, a the Webmaster at www.toastytech.com got some Windows 1.01 programs to run in Windows 98.
He even got the old control panel program to work, and you can still change the mouse speed and color depth. Even the color spectrum bar in the control panel program it still the same function in Windows 98.

So, ya, Microsoft is just to lazy to reprogram ANYTHING. So, if they did release the source, they's cause themselves a big business loss.

(Hmmmm, windows 1.x code in windows 98. lol)

P.S., most companies don't release code 'cause to them it would damage thier business. And it would, some basic algorithms they may have invented that they still need would exist in thier newest programs. "Lets just give the public our technology away!" Though, I beleive they should release old versions of thier software for free if they don't sell and support it anymore.

He actually had to modify it slightly for some to appear to be win 2.x binaries. but I have tested this, and windows 1.x and 2.x apps CAN run in XP with a little modification.

and also with the win 2.x code in later versions, I'm not suprised, new version are not started from scratch each time. code re-use is more common than you think in all forms of software.

BTW, patents show the inner workings of an invention, even software, just nobody else can use it for a short while. Trade Secret protection does not allow the public to have access to. the two are mutually exclusive.

Again they don't own all the code, especially in the device driver realm, other people give them driver code to put in windows as long as they have a source license and cash. other companies might not want their source to be released, or the contracts say that public releases are binary only.

Refalm · « **Reply #101 on:** 2 April 2004, 18:14 »

Try the configuration utility. You can still change the Windows XP colours with it

WMD · « **Reply #102 on:** 3 April 2004, 01:33 »

quote:
Originally posted by Andre Perron:
Acctually, a the Webmaster at www.toastytech.com got some Windows 1.01 programs to run in Windows 98.

They work in XP as well. All he had to do was modify the headers to say "Windows 2.0" instead of 1.0, and they work. Same 1985 copyright date, it's rather freaky if you ask me. :eek:

www.dognoodle99.cjb.net/downloads/win1apps.zip

« previous next » Print Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] Go Down Author Topic: Why not open source old stuff? (Read 1627 times) Stilly Member Posts: 653 Kudos: 29 Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #90 on: 27 March 2004, 13:24 » IT IS MY OPINION THAT OATS ARE NOT GOOD hooray for expressing your opinion Logged just say know hm_murdock VIP Posts: 2,629 Kudos: 378 The Lord of Thyme Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #91 on: 29 March 2004, 04:42 » YAY! this discussion is now over edit: I hate how every time you edit a post it says that you did. UBB sux [ March 28, 2004: Message edited by: JimmyJames: GenSTEP Founder ] Logged Go the fuck ~ preacher VIP Posts: 858 Kudos: 107 Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #92 on: 29 March 2004, 19:43 » quote: Originally posted by flap: Why do you care more about the bloated profits of corporations than your own and the rest of society's freedom to share modify programs? You think closed source software = slavery? Give me a break. I am a business student and I understand how business works and I see nothing wrong with trying to maximize profits, I have a problem with when they use unlawful practices to strangle competition. This is the main difference between Apple and Microsoft. Yes Apple sells a non-free, proprietary product, but they don't use unlawful practices to kill their competitors either. Red hat doesn't make tons of money either. I believe after all expenses they had less than $500,000 profit. That is not exactly a huge gain. How much profit did Microsoft pull in this year? What about Apple? Oh and did MySQL make as much as Oracle? [ March 29, 2004: Message edited by: ThePreacher ] Logged Kansas City Hustle http://kansascity.cjb.net flap Member Posts: 1,268 Kudos: 137 Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #93 on: 29 March 2004, 20:18 » quote: You think closed source software = slavery? No; where did I say that? quote: Red hat doesn't make tons of money either. I believe after all expenses they had less than $500,000 profit. That is not exactly a huge gain. How much profit did Microsoft pull in this year? What about Apple? Oh and did MySQL make as much as Oracle? Did you read my posts? I said that I know free software companies make less money than Microsoft et al, and I think that's a good thing. That's my point. Logged "While envisaging the destruction of imperialism, it is necessary to identify its head, which is none other than the United States of America." - Ernesto Che Guevara http://counterpunch.org http://globalresearch.ca WMD Global Moderator Posts: 2,525 Kudos: 391 Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #94 on: 30 March 2004, 01:57 » quote: Red hat doesn't make tons of money either. I believe after all expenses they had less than $500,000 profit. That is not exactly a huge gain. How much profit did Microsoft pull in this year? What about Apple? Oh and did MySQL make as much as Oracle? Almost a good argument, but: Microsoft: 93%, Apple: 3% on desktops I think; And Oracle is much more widespread then MySQL. Plus, MS makes 80% profit margins on Windows and Office, and because of that they're clearly manipulating the market. Logged My BSOD gallery "Yes there's nothing wrong with going around being rude and selfish, killing people and fucking married women, but being childish is a cardinal sin around these parts." -Aloone_Jonez restin256 Member Posts: 257 Kudos: 0 Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #95 on: 30 March 2004, 14:55 » Are you saying that they would make a lot more profit if Linux were more widespread? Logged This isn't the place you vent your opinions. Pyrotechnician_2004 Newbie Posts: 14 Kudos: 0 Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #96 on: 31 March 2004, 00:52 » I think that Linux would make more money if people had to buy certain software for it (but for a small price), this would make money, but I mean, even the usage of Linux creates money for the company that has released that distribution. I think that Microsoft & William are doing it all for the money, this has been an on-going thing, but Windows users refuse to believe that this is true, I don't think Bill even uses Windows personally (maybe he doesn't even use a computer, thats why he makes such a terrible closed-source product these days??). Another point here, if Windows was built on Unix (or another base not sure what the word is to use :confused for an OS and sold much cheaper, I think Microsoft wouldn't be so hated, but of course, this is just my opinion & this will never happen I think. (Oh yes, and I have used Windows all my life & have only just started recently using Linux, but I have many more benefits from it over Windows, I won't have to re-install it as many times, only by my own error that i'd have to install it, not by having to buy really expensive anti-virii & firewall products in Windows). I also used to use an old Apple PowerPC when I was really young, that was great, I think Apple & Linux will make it, but of course Microsoft will always have the upper hand at the end of the day (possibly). All of this is MY OPINION, please do not discriminate against my views on false knowledge (always back up your discrimination with reliable sources!!!) please, thanks a lot, would be nice to hear what you guys have to say to this post. [ March 30, 2004: Message edited by: Sex_Pistols_Fan_Linux_RuleZ_Windows ] Logged Linux - Open Source, Freedom, Mostly Free. Windows - Closed Source, Virtually No Freedom, Very Expensive (seen XP Pro for WMD Global Moderator Posts: 2,525 Kudos: 391 Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #97 on: 31 March 2004, 04:15 » quote: Originally posted by restin256: Are you saying that they would make a lot more profit if Linux were more widespread? I bet they would. Logged My BSOD gallery "Yes there's nothing wrong with going around being rude and selfish, killing people and fucking married women, but being childish is a cardinal sin around these parts." -Aloone_Jonez Pyrotechnician_2004 Newbie Posts: 14 Kudos: 0 Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #98 on: 31 March 2004, 19:10 » quote: Originally posted by WMD: I bet they would. Agreed. Logged Linux - Open Source, Freedom, Mostly Free. Windows - Closed Source, Virtually No Freedom, Very Expensive (seen XP Pro for modulus Newbie Posts: 1 Kudos: 0 Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #99 on: 2 April 2004, 06:04 » Acctually, a the Webmaster at www.toastytech.com got some Windows 1.01 programs to run in Windows 98. He even got the old control panel program to work, and you can still change the mouse speed and color depth. Even the color spectrum bar in the control panel program it still the same function in Windows 98. So, ya, Microsoft is just to lazy to reprogram ANYTHING. So, if they did release the source, they's cause themselves a big business loss. (Hmmmm, windows 1.x code in windows 98. lol) P.S., most companies don't release code 'cause to them it would damage thier business. And it would, some basic algorithms they may have invented that they still need would exist in thier newest programs. "Lets just give the public our technology away!" Though, I beleive they should release old versions of thier software for free if they don't sell and support it anymore. Logged skyman8081 VIP Posts: 910 Kudos: 187 Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #100 on: 2 April 2004, 11:27 » quote: Originally posted by Andre Perron: Acctually, a the Webmaster at www.toastytech.com got some Windows 1.01 programs to run in Windows 98. He even got the old control panel program to work, and you can still change the mouse speed and color depth. Even the color spectrum bar in the control panel program it still the same function in Windows 98. So, ya, Microsoft is just to lazy to reprogram ANYTHING. So, if they did release the source, they's cause themselves a big business loss. (Hmmmm, windows 1.x code in windows 98. lol) P.S., most companies don't release code 'cause to them it would damage thier business. And it would, some basic algorithms they may have invented that they still need would exist in thier newest programs. "Lets just give the public our technology away!" Though, I beleive they should release old versions of thier software for free if they don't sell and support it anymore. He actually had to modify it slightly for some to appear to be win 2.x binaries. but I have tested this, and windows 1.x and 2.x apps CAN run in XP with a little modification. and also with the win 2.x code in later versions, I'm not suprised, new version are not started from scratch each time. code re-use is more common than you think in all forms of software. BTW, patents show the inner workings of an invention, even software, just nobody else can use it for a short while. Trade Secret protection does not allow the public to have access to. the two are mutually exclusive. Again they don't own all the code, especially in the device driver realm, other people give them driver code to put in windows as long as they have a source license and cash. other companies might not want their source to be released, or the contracts say that public releases are binary only. Logged 2 motherfuckers have sigged me so far. Fuck yeah! Refalm Administrator Posts: 5,163 Kudos: 704 Sjembek! Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #101 on: 2 April 2004, 18:14 » Try the configuration utility. You can still change the Windows XP colours with it Logged Radio Knop . WMD Global Moderator Posts: 2,525 Kudos: 391 Why not open source old stuff? « Reply #102 on: 3 April 2004, 01:33 » quote: Originally posted by Andre Perron: Acctually, a the Webmaster at www.toastytech.com got some Windows 1.01 programs to run in Windows 98. They work in XP as well. All he had to do was modify the headers to say "Windows 2.0" instead of 1.0, and they work. Same 1985 copyright date, it's rather freaky if you ask me. :eek: www.dognoodle99.cjb.net/downloads/win1apps.zip Logged My BSOD gallery "Yes there's nothing wrong with going around being rude and selfish, killing people and fucking married women, but being childish is a cardinal sin around these parts." -Aloone_Jonez Print Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] Go Up « previous next » Stop Microsoft » Forum » Miscellaneous » Applications » Why not open source old stuff?
Share or donate

Author Topic: Why not open source old stuff? (Read 1627 times)

Share or donate