Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: Zombie9920 on 12 September 2003, 04:25
-
http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/22242.html (http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/22242.html)
(EDIT) I had to throw this comment in.
Linux = The monopoly of open-source. (http://tongue.gif)
[ September 11, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
A monopoly *controls* a market, and I don't see the Linux kernel controlling anything given all my GNU programs and everything I use will also run on top of BSD. At least in the Free world people are choosing to use Linux rather than being forced to by closed formats and lock in documents... (http://tongue.gif)
Seriously, I don't care if the Linux kernel is amazingly popular, provided I still have a choice to use other things and Linus doesn't deserver getting pulled into any antitrust trials. (http://tongue.gif) Eh... I also suppose that when "Linux" is used to refer to every single GNU/Linux and in some cases BSD program that it would be seen as the whole market - but it's not, just one important part for a large amount of Free users. This article is kinda annoying btw. :(
-
Well, it did started in Linux (Debian).
Origins: Bruce Perens wrote the first draft of this document as "The Debian Free Software Guidelines", and refined it using the comments of the Debian developers in a month-long e-mail conference in June, 1997. He removed the Debian-specific references from the document to create the "Open Source Definition."
But it's still very nice from BSD to follow the right example. ;)
-
A better article would be "Has Open Source eclipsed Free Software?" which, unfortunately, it has.
-
Insomnia please try and make more sense. What did? And why did Debian start it? I use Debian personally, wtf are you talking about?
-
And BSD wasn't following examples you tard. The article (rightly) suggests Linux became dominant after the court case against the open BSDs, so BSD was around *before* Linux was dominant.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
A better article would be "Has Open Source eclipsed Free Software?" which, unfortunately, it has.
I do understand your concerns about "Open Source", but don't you think you attack the wrong people. Basicly the biggest problems are all those different licenses (even GPL does not really follow it intirely). FSF is nice, but it needs Open Source to keep existing.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Faust:
I use Debian personally
Good for you. (http://smile.gif) (http://smile.gif) (http://smile.gif) (http://smile.gif) (http://smile.gif) (http://smile.gif)
(I only meant the legal registration.)
[ September 11, 2003: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
Well, it did started in Linux (Debian).
Origins: Bruce Perens wrote the first draft of this document as "The Debian Free Software Guidelines", and refined it using the comments of the Debian developers in a month-long e-mail conference in June, 1997. He removed the Debian-specific references from the document to create the "Open Source Definition."
But it's still very nice from BSD to follow the right example. ;)
Ah, I get it stop You're speaking in code stop
Please translate stop
-
I think while when one says open source, Linux quickly comes to mind, in its true nature, open source goes far far beyond just Linux. There are open source applications that run on a variety of platforms, like Macintosh, and even windows.
Open source is such a vague broad term referring to programs for which the source code is publically available. Just because tow programs have publically available source code doesn't mean that whatever you can do with one you can do with the other. People who make open source projects have different opinions on what they want people to be able to do with their code, which is why there are so many different licences. BSD licence is very open while GPL requires someone who builds something using GPLed software to make what they build open too.
While its understandable why open-source and Linux are so closely related, this is not an accurate assessment of the situation, and I think people should take care not to confuse this.
V
-
quote:
FSF is nice, but it needs Open Source to keep existing.
Bull. fucking. shit. The GNU project was designed to (and has with the help of the *GPL* *FREE* *not* *open source* Linux kernel) produce a FREE Operating System. Stopping just because you've reached "open" isn't enough. Freedom is what I want, not openness.
-
quote:
I do understand your concerns about "Open Source", but don't you think you attack the wrong people. Basicly the biggest problems are all those different licenses (even GPL does not really follow it intirely). FSF is nice, but it needs Open Source to keep existing.
The different licenses give people more choice when they release their software. And how can the "myriad different licenses" be the fault of the FSF when the OSI license was made to give people an alternative to the already existing GPL?
*The GPL doesnt follow what entirely you tard?* Doesn't follow public thinking? Doesn't follow it's own ideals? Doesn't follow cars? WHAT DOESN"T IT FOLLOW?