Why not open source old stuff?

[Stilly]

IT IS MY OPINION THAT OATS ARE NOT GOOD

hooray for expressing your opinion

[hm_murdock]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Pyrotechnician_2004]

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]

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]

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

Agreed.  

[modulus]

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]

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]

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

[WMD]

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