Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => Applications => Topic started by: anphanax on 5 December 2003, 06:49
-
I don't understand why companies wont release code for projects that are no longer being worked on because of their obsoleteness. If the code still exists, it would be nice for hobbyists to able to tinker with (http://smile.gif) .
If you're a profit-driven company, what's the big deal of releasing code that wont make you or anyone else any money (release it /w license terms prohibiting commercial usage /wout written consent).
I mean, if the code's crap or is basically stolen and poorly commented with no real structure, I can understand a company not wanting to embaress themselves.. but what other reason is there? From my experience, It doesn't take a lot of effort to make source code availible for the community, after you spend about 30 minutes digging it up.
IE: What would be the harm in Microsoft releasing code for Windows 3.0 (Not 3.1, 3.0. Yes, 3.0 exists)? It's a "16-bit" operating system built over a decade ago. Has windows changed so little that by releasing this code, it could actually harm Microsoft?
-
Even if a company no longer makes money off software because it's not available that fact remains that it's their choice to release it, they may not be hiding anything, they may just choose to not bother with it.
EDIT: To simplify.
Business "It's our code and we'll do what we damn well want with it!"
Dork "Well then why dont you release the code?"
Business "We wont because we dont have to, tough shit!"
And besides, it's MS we're talking about, they're just plain greedy while other companies just dont give a shit.
[ December 05, 2003: Message edited by: Aaron-V4.0 ]
-
If Microsoft Opensourced NT wich is old, you would have the base of Windows XP wich is recent.
free competion would pop up all over the place!
-
quote:
Originally posted by anphanax:
IE: What would be the harm in Microsoft releasing code for Windows 3.0 (Not 3.1, 3.0. Yes, 3.0 exists)? It's a "16-bit" operating system built over a decade ago. Has windows changed so little that by releasing this code, it could actually harm Microsoft?
In a HUGE fact of irony....
YES!!! \o/ :D :D :D
Not to mention, I know someone who disassembled some Windows code recently. He said it was such a huge, giantic mess, that fixing it up wouldn't be worth the gain in knowledge you'd get. :D
-
quote:
I don't understand why companies wont release code for projects that are no longer being worked on because of their obsoleteness. If the code still exists, it would be nice for hobbyists to able to tinker with .
If you're a profit-driven company, what's the big deal of releasing code that wont make you or anyone else any money (release it /w license terms prohibiting commercial usage /wout written consent). [...] but what other reason is there?
Suppose that Microsoft did that, by Open Sourcing Win 95, which they don't have any further interest in. As with Linux, a hacker community would grow up around it. They would continue to code for it, and they'd fix all the bugs. What happens when there are not only new, free apps for it, but its quality rockets past Win XP?
People who want Windows will take the free, Open Source, quality old one over the crappy, expensive, bloated new one.
Ain't gonna happen!
______________________________________
Live Free or Die: Linux
(http://www.otakupc.com/etsig/dolphin.gif)
If software can be free, why can't dolphins?
-
Im not a programmer so i dont know the details... but i would guess that at the very least the competitors would know their tricks, if they have any... and the other would be that maybe its not that simple, maybe its more than just digging it up... -who knows... maybe its too much work...
-
There's also the fact that if microsoft made any of their products open source now, they'd be showing support for the very movement they're trying to destory. But still, if only companies would make all of their stuff open source in the first place, they'd have all of it's benefits in the first place.
-
quote:
Originally posted by jtpenrod:
Suppose that Microsoft did that, by Open Sourcing Win 95... but its quality rockets past Win XP?
Well this really can't happen, unless they rewrite the entire kernel to be 32-bit. And there goes compatibility. After all, even without any bugs, the 16-bit DOS kernel would be rather lousy.
-
Don't forget, MS was pretty pissed off when that australian charity was installing unlicenced old copies of DOS and Windows 3.x on old compuers to be given to poor children.
That wasn't even source... just binaries and they threatened this charity over software that they had declared dead and hadn't sold for years.
I agree with the idea of open sourcing old code which is not of value to the company anymore. Caldera used to do this (before Darth McBride came in). They opensourced GEM and CPM...
-
it would cost them money to release code, it would take them three minutes of hard corpate labour.
-
My suggestion would be to email individual companites who have obsolete software and simply ask them about it...maybe they don't because no one has ever expressed an interest in it...I mean...in reality..if someone were to fix up the program than the company could buy it right back and sell it again...
-
Apologising for lurking wouldn't help, but where's the source to 3.0, anphanax?
[ February 17, 2004: Message edited by: restin256 ]
-
Why only Windows?
How about OS X...
Or even QT's first versions...
-
Well, in philosiphy, Windows 3.11 and down works just like Linux - a graphical front-end for a command prompt. That's exactly why Linux is so damn fast, and Windows XP is so slow. XP is just a giant flash program with good hardware detection, while Linux/Unix/Mac OS runs just as good on half the speed. With the source to 3.1 and DOS you could increase the hardware detection, hack the kernel, make prettier GUIs, and BAM. You'd have yourself the next version of ReactOS.
-
You'd have so much to do if you started with MS DOS and Win3x
-
But once we intergrated APIs that let multiple window managers run, as well as windows programs run natively, it'd be a pretty fun project.
-
... window managers.
you must be joking me.
seriously, say you're shitting me. IS THAT THE ONLY THING ON PEOPLES MINDS!?!!?! WINDOW MANAGERS?
window managers. What's wrong with having a system-default appearance? tell me, what's wrong with CONSISTENCY?
you do realize that having the ability to change window managers that alter the way you interact with windows BREAKS RULE #1 OF UI DESIGN?
What is rule 1?
CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY
-
Jimmy has a point. OSS people know nothing about UI design. there should not be 2 apps that look COMPLETELY different because on UI toolkit was made because the existing one was "not free enough".
Cheapskates.
Grow some balls and suck it up.
Linux will not make it on the desktop as is.
Why don't companies OSS old stuff.
do you think they write the whole thing themselves. you thing they studied the hardware architecture for all those devices writing all that stuff, not all the code in software was written by that company themselves, who might not want the sorce code of their apps released for all the world to see. what about the code with trade-secret protection. or a competing product. there are way to many legel reasons to keep the code to themselves then deal with the messy legal wranglings of OSSing old stuff.
grow some balls and accept that not all software will be the way YOU want it to be.
-
quote:
Originally posted by root@localhost / BOB:
Jimmy has a point. OSS people know nothing about UI design. there should not be 2 apps that look COMPLETELY different because on UI toolkit was made because the existing one was "not free enough".
When GTK was created, QT wasn't free at all.
quote:
Originally posted by root@localhost / BOB:
do you think they write the whole thing themselves. you thing they studied the hardware architecture for all those devices writing all that stuff,
Yes, "closed source" works like that.
quote:
Originally posted by root@localhost / BOB:
not all the code in software was written by that company themselves, who might not want the sorce code of their apps released for all the world to see. what about the code with trade-secret protection. or a competing product. there are way to many legel reasons to keep the code to themselves then deal with the messy legal wranglings of OSSing old stuff.
Sounds like an argument to make everything OSS.
Competition should be about the best "end-product"
and not about who owns the most patents.
PS: If companies want to make "Closed Source", let them.
But the result is always the same: CRAP.
I don't like closed-crap cause it all sucks, and if you didn't know that already, your using the wrong apps(or OS).
[ March 05, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
I don't like closed-[source] cause it all sucks, and if you didn't know that already, your using the wrong apps(or OS).
and people wonder why linux doesn't take off better.
the availiblity of source code has no effect of the quality of the app.
OSS apps can suck. and Closed Source apps can be good. "OMGOMGOMGOMG!!!! YOU USE TEH CLOSED-SOURCE APPS!!! YOUR GETTING LOCKED IN RIGHT NOW!!! SEE?!"
BS.
You can get locked into open-source just as much as Closed Source. have you even heard of a propgram called vi? it uses a poor user-interface, provides to feedback about what it is doing or what state it is in. yet people STILL flock to it with it was writted by God Himself, because they are too afraid to switch to something with a better user interface. that has more feedback or *GASP* can tell the user what the app is doing!
Get A Clue.
Stop making blind judgements on a software application, JUST because of a development method and style, it is childish, stupid, and makes the linux "community" look bad.
-
quote:
Originally posted by root@localhost / BOB:
and people wonder why linux doesn't take off better.
Are you saying Linux was better of without GNU and OSS?
quote:
Originally posted by root@localhost / BOB:
the availiblity of source code has no effect of the quality of the app.
?!?!?!
You clearly don't undertand how a compiler works!
:eek: :confused: :eek:
quote:
Originally posted by root@localhost / BOB:
OSS apps can suck. and Closed Source apps can be good.
Possible, but unlikely.
quote:
Originally posted by root@localhost / BOB:
"OMGOMGOMGOMG!!!! YOU USE TEH CLOSED-SOURCE APPS!!! YOUR GETTING LOCKED IN RIGHT NOW!!! SEE?!"
?
quote:
Originally posted by root@localhost / BOB:
You can get locked into open-source just as much as Closed Source.
?
quote:
Originally posted by root@localhost / BOB:
have you even heard of a propgram called vi? it uses a poor user-interface, provides to feedback about what it is doing or what state it is in. yet people STILL flock to it with it was writted by God Himself, because they are too afraid to switch to something with a better user interface. that has more feedback or *GASP* can tell the user what the app is doing!
Is this a joke?
Their are more editors for Linux than for any other OS. Vi is SMALL(fits on a rescue floppy) and still powerfull.
quote:
Originally posted by root@localhost / BOB:
Get A Clue.
Get some sources.
quote:
Originally posted by root@localhost / BOB:
Stop making blind judgements on a software application, JUST because of a development method and style, it is childish, stupid, and makes the linux "community" look bad.
You just made yourself look bad.
[ March 05, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
All closed-source sucks, eh?
Wow. This is news to me. Imagine that, I've not had one major trouble with Mac OS X. Same with Mac OS 9, which is EVEN MORE CLOSED.
sorry, buddy. your claim doesn't hold water
-
quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames.sytes.net:
All closed-source sucks, eh?
No.
But they would be better with their sources.
;)
-
(http://jimmyjames.sytes.net/media/lol.jpg)
-
insomnia,
as a fellow asshole, I suggest you give up now
the best way to win an argument is to be right.
however, you're wrong.
please note that this is the truth
-
quote:
?
he's insulting you, insomnia.
he's making fun of your CLOSED SOURCE LOCKS YOU IN arguments that are getting so goddamn old.
rhetoric
that's what OSS is becoming to me... RHETORIC AND DOGMA
the OSS community at large doesn't do jack shit. I've not seen quality come out of it that often.
Gnome is very tight, very high quality. KDE is so-so.
then there's apps
GODDAMN WHAT A HODGEPODGE
see, insomnia, you're what we call brainwashed. you talk about "MS sheep" and then you come along with your OSS sheep attitude.
I've got an idea, how about you fuck off you childish little asshat
computers are computers, stop foaming at the mouth over the rhetoric you've learned. go back to your Linux World mags and jack off at pics of Tux.
We've got better things to do than be in the presence of whiny little bitches like you.
-
btw.
I'm right and you're wrong
sucker
-
quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames.sytes.net:
insomnia,
as a fellow asshole, I suggest you give up now
the best way to win an argument is to be right.
however, you're wrong.
please note that this is the truth
About Free Software
Free software is a matter of freedom: people should be free to use software in all the ways that are socially useful. Software differs from material objects--such as chairs, sandwiches, and gasoline--in that it can be copied and changed much more easily. These possibilities make software as useful as it is; we believe software users should be able to make use of them.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html)
Are they all wrong?
-
that in no way supports your argument.
you purport that "closed source" software is ALWAYS of poor quality. this is what your words have communicated to me.
then you come and talk about freedom.
people should be free to use what the fuck they want, but like so many other dorks, you spew a rhetoric against "closed source, proprietary" software.
you wish to REMOVE THE CHOICE
this goes against your very platform of freedom.
now, I suggest that you get your shit in order before you come spouting bullshit again, oh and, insomnia...
(http://jimmyjames.sytes.net/media/assclown.jpg)
Fuck you, Assclown!
[ March 05, 2004: Message edited by: jimmyjames.sytes.net ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames.sytes.net:
he's insulting you, insomnia.
He failed.
Now go play some games on your kiddy-box(no offence for other OS X users).
[ March 05, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
Are you saying Linux was better of without GNU and OSS?
No, just people who are blindly anti-Propeitary software in any way shape or form, like you.
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
?!?!?!
You clearly don't undertand how a compiler works!
I do it translates human readable source code to the native machine language. I have used gentto linux before, there are slight technical advantages of an on-the-spot compile. they are all thrown away when you have a very complex application that can take several days to compile (like OOo on my AMD Athlon XP 1900). especially if you use a non-portable language like C or C++.
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
Possible, but unlikely.
why? you seem to think source availibility is a "magic bullet" and that all software problems will be solved by opening up the source. your "advantages" only work on code that was always open. opening up closed code, can make things worse for a company. you don't take a turtle out of it's shell to help "make it better". you will kill it.
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
?
That is the image that people like you put out to the general public. not very flattering, now is it?
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
?
you think that lock-in in only for Closed-source you are wrong. RPM's are a perfect example of why that is, new package A will not install unless app B is upgraded to a newer version, when it works fine already.
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
Is this a joke?
Their are more editors for Linux than for any other OS. Vi is SMALL(fits on a rescue floppy) and still powerfull.
do you USE all of those editors. I didn't think so. and vi, possibly the worst of them all, is the most popular and comes with all distros. so do most other editors like nano, or pico.
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
Get some sources.
OK, howabout my firsthand experience running several major distros over the course of a year and giving out my observations on what I used. I used Read-hat slackware and gentoo for several months, and I am very comfortable with a CLI, but that does not equate to being better. A GUI is much more logical than the cryptic and confusing terminal apps of linux.
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
You just made yourself look bad.
why? because I speak my mind and I go against the flow of linux/OSS. you people shun others who do not think EXACTLY the same as you do and get in HUGE fights over the preference of two different apps that do exactly the same thing.
[ March 05, 2004: Message edited by: root@localhost / BOB ]
-
I think I might install linux and play some games instead.
I'll be back in an hour or two after I compile everything and have gotten "locked in" to my new open source software.
-
btw
Linux sucks ass
-
quote:
No, just people who are blindly anti-Propeitary software in any way shape or form, like you.
That's a LIE. You attacked OSS...
Some OSS IS proprietary.
quote:
I do it translates human readable source code to the native machine language. I have used gentto linux before, there are slight technical advantages of an on-the-spot compile. they are all thrown away when you have a very complex application that can take several days to compile (like OOo on my AMD Athlon XP 1900). especially if you use a non-portable language like C or C++.
Geuss what?
Unix/Linux [is] written in C or C++.
quote:
why? you seem to think source availibility is a "magic bullet" and that all software problems will be solved by opening up the source. your "advantages" only work on code that was always open. opening up closed code, can make things worse for a company. you don't take a turtle out of it's shell to help "make it better". you will kill it.
Kill what?
A company?
...I couldn't care less.
Closed source protects companies, not software.
quote:
That is the image that people like you put out to the general public. not very flattering, now is it?
?
quote:
you think that lock-in in only for Closed-source you are wrong. RPM's are a perfect example of why that is, new package A will not install unless app B is upgraded to a newer version, when it works fine already.
That's an other LIE.
You don't have to resolve everything.(only noobs do)
quote:
do you USE all of those editors. I didn't think so. and vi, possibly the worst of them all, is the most popular and comes with all distros. so do most other editors like nano, or pico.
You forgot GNU's Emacs.
And yes, I do use most of them.
Vi is very good cause it's small.
quote:
why? because I speak my mind and I go against the flow of linux/OSS. you people shun others who do not think EXACTLY the same as you do and get in HUGE fights over the preference of two different apps that do exactly the same thing.
What are you talking about?
I'm not the one who started offending people.
[ March 05, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
Insomnia,
I wouldn't waste your time if I were you. I've gotten into these kinds of arguments and some people simply can't be changed, closed vs open is just a matter of opinion. Jimmy obviously has no idea what apt-get is, if he thinks he can be locked in by module dependancies. (http://tongue.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by anphanax:
I don't understand why companies wont release code for projects that are no longer being worked on because of their obsoleteness. If the code still exists, it would be nice for hobbyists to able to tinker with (http://smile.gif) .
If you're a profit-driven company, what's the big deal of releasing code that wont make you or anyone else any money (release it /w license terms prohibiting commercial usage /wout written consent).
I mean, if the code's crap or is basically stolen and poorly commented with no real structure, I can understand a company not wanting to embaress themselves.. but what other reason is there? From my experience, It doesn't take a lot of effort to make source code availible for the community, after you spend about 30 minutes digging it up.
IE: What would be the harm in Microsoft releasing code for Windows 3.0 (Not 3.1, 3.0. Yes, 3.0 exists)? It's a "16-bit" operating system built over a decade ago. Has windows changed so little that by releasing this code, it could actually harm Microsoft?
I think if Microsoft released any of there code, they would be in big trouble with lots of comapines who they got it off. Apple, IBM companies like that all had somthing to do with 3.1.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Ford:
I think if Microsoft released any of there code, they would be in big trouble with lots of comapines who they got it off. Apple, IBM companies like that all had somthing to do with 3.1.
Thats a pretty good point.
-
quote:
Insomnia,
I wouldn't waste your time if I were you. I've gotten into these kinds of arguments and some people simply can't be changed, closed vs open is just a matter of opinion. Jimmy obviously has no idea what apt-get is, if he thinks he can be locked in by module dependancies.
restin, if you can't see the point of what I said then,
(http://jimmyjames.sytes.net/media/dumbdivine.gif)
And that's the truth.
BTW, apt-get is not a replacement for an overcomplicated system.
http://calix.calyptos.com (http://calix.calyptos.com)
and to a lesser degree
http://www.calyptos.com (http://www.calyptos.com)
help solve those problems instead of just covering them up with some new command line app
-
quote:
That's an other LIE.
You don't have to resolve everything.(only noobs do)
that is a problem for linux desktop adoption, there needs to be better support than "RTFM n00b!"
many times TFM is poorly written and does not cover it. Read ESR's new rant on said subject matter. Apt still forces upgrades of existing apps even if they work fine already, or may even REMOVE them.
how is that no lock-in?
EDIT: I found the link to said ESR rant, here:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cups-horror.html (http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cups-horror.html)
[ March 08, 2004: Message edited by: root@localhost / BOB ]
-
THAT ARTICLE SAYS IT ALL.
Read it you indoctrinated fools and learn from it.
-
This must be the most useless topic ever.
*OSS has NOTHING to do with proprietorial software
*OSS is NOT linux only.
*Linux is part of OSS.
*No OSS, no Linux.
*People who claim, having all sources isn't a BIG extra, are all wrong.
quote:
that is a problem for linux desktop adoption, there needs to be better support than "RTFM n00b!"
I agree on this.
Only..., people who don't understand UNIX/Linux, OSS, X11, programming, ... shoudn't use wrong facts to make it look stupid.
Those things are very annoying and don't deserve a polite answer.
If you don't understand something, ask a question.
quote:
I found the link to said ESR rant, here:
me[/b] GNU/Linux is the best OS available.
(without 'source code' it simply woudn't work!)
If you don't like it, don't use it.
[ March 09, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ] (http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cups-horror.html
That article is a joke and has nothing to do with available sources.
I started using Linux when you still had to compile it on top of Minix.
Nowdays, Linux is VERY easy.
For [b)
-
quote:
That article is a joke and has nothing to do with available sources.
Uh, it may be a joke, but it's a joke on you. Is the entire point lost on you because you can dismiss it as a "joke"?
And therein lies the problem. The problems will never go away because the "hard core OSS guys" SIMPLY DON'T GIVE A SHIT.
They think that if you don't already have an intimate knowledge of networking and computers, that you shouldn't try. But they make these frienly looking OSes that give a false appearance of being as easy to get through as Windows or Mac OS... but they're not. All because of attention to detail.
The issue isn't whether or not the article is a joke, but the issue is that the point made is true. Those are the problems. No matter how much GUI candy coating that's put on top, the developers always seem obsessed with letting that ole timey Unix mess show through.
I guess they feel that since *they* don't need an explaination of what something is, then nobody should. OSS makes the worst interfaces. I'm sorry, but it's true.
Oh, and you smell like two-day-old beef stew because you disagree.
-
quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames.sytes.net:
Oh, and you smell like two-day-old beef stew because you disagree.
lol
Oh well, I guess we'll never agree on this topic.
PS: Two-day-old beef stew can still be tasteful.
;)
-
As long as at the end of the day, we can still speak intelligently :-D
it can still be flavorful, but the smell can be a little flat :-OP
-
quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames.sytes.net:
restin, if you can't see the point of what I said then,
(http://jimmyjames.sytes.net/media/dumbdivine.gif)
And that's the truth.
Whatever, Maddox wannabe. Ever heard of Synaptic?
-
quote:
Originally posted by restin256:
Whatever, Maddox wannabe. Ever heard of Synaptic?
Name a LARGE, POPULAR distro that has a good installer, and uses that by default for package managment.
it is a good app, it just does not come included in a major, easy to use distro.
just because something is better does NOT mean it will be adopted by the masses.
-
actually, "wannabe" is not a proper term.
while the stylistic similarities are many, my humor is much more biting even than Maddox. I go straight for the throat, and don't let go until you've bled to death.
I also update less than he does
-
quote:
Originally posted by root@localhost / BOB:
Name a LARGE, POPULAR distro that has a good installer, and uses that by default for package managment.
Debian. With the next release of SuSE 9 (SuSE 9.1), Apt4rpm will come standard.
-
Debian, while very good, has issues with ease-of-use, coming from a Gentoo user is critical. if you want linux as it is, use slack and fluxbox, nothing is stopping you, go ahead. if Linux (GNU/Linux if your that type of person) is going to take off on the desktop, it CANNOT stay as it is, if it does linux is doomed to stay as it is, and remain with no support from vendors.
The world will not change to support Linux, Linux has to change to support the world.
-
quote:
Originally posted by root@localhost / BOB:
... if Linux (GNU/Linux if your that type of person ...)
??
[ March 11, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by insomnia:
What are you talking about??
Some people are anal about calling it GNU/Linux. These are the OSS sheep ;)
I like being right in the middle. I do all of my work between closed and open tools. I dont care either way anymore. Linux doesnt work for me as a replacment for my mac, or even my windows box. It does, however, work well as a test bed for websites and PHP apps.
-
quote:
Originally posted by root@localhost / BOB:
Debian, while very good, has issues with ease-of-use, coming from a Gentoo user is critical. if you want linux as it is, use slack and fluxbox, nothing is stopping you, go ahead. if Linux (GNU/Linux if your that type of person) is going to take off on the desktop, it CANNOT stay as it is, if it does linux is doomed to stay as it is, and remain with no support from vendors.
The world will not change to support Linux, Linux has to change to support the world.
Then I should have mentionned RedHat. It's very easy to be directed to www.freshrpms.net (http://www.freshrpms.net) from irc.freenet.
-
see, Ecsyle knows where it's at. to blindly support one side or another is foolish. the best way is to use everything to the greatest benefit.
btw, I like the title, guys.
for speaking your mind you're a troll at MES if your opinions are different from the pussies.
fuckers
-
quote:
Originally posted by jimmyjames.sytes.net:
see, Ecsyle knows where it's at. to blindly support one side or another is foolish. the best way is to use everything to the greatest benefit.
btw, I like the title, guys.
for speaking your mind you're a troll at MES if your opinions are different from the pussies.
fuckers
Thanks jimmyjames (http://smile.gif)
Well. This is one of the reasons i rarely come around here anymore. Being labeled a troll for speaking truth or opinion. Sheep don't like having their world questioned.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Ecsyle...:
Thanks jimmyjames (http://smile.gif)
Well. This is one of the reasons i rarely come around here anymore. Being labeled a troll for speaking truth or opinion. Sheep don't like having their world questioned.
Or for speaking your mind you're stfu'd by jimmy.
-
quote:
Originally posted by restin256:
Or for speaking your mind you're stfu'd by jimmy.
stfu!
-
quote:
Or for speaking your mind you're stfu'd by jimmy.
STFU!! :-D :-D
See? I've been nice to you, but now you're being a dick. Even insomnia knew not to take it personally!
Just remember http://cthulos.sourceforge.net (http://cthulos.sourceforge.net)
It will reconcile all the issues.
-
If I were to continue my dipshitness/taking everything personally, I'd say something like telling me to STFU while speaking my mind and also encuraging people to speak their mind is hypocritical, but I'm not. (http://smile.gif)
-
Consistency is the key to a good UI. Problem is what happens when you don't like the UI? What happens when the UI that comes with MacOS or Windows, or whatever OS you use isn't up to your personal standards for whatever reason.
I am not saying that MacOS is bad, quite the contrary, it is very nice, but I like having options. Perhaps we can work on setting up a more consistent UI for *nix and be able to make themes for it that are highly customizable. Maybe that is a solution.
As for the whole OSS thing, not all of us linux users are crazy OSS fanatics. I have come to realize that we need closed source software, especially applications. If there is no money to be made off of linux, no one will write applications for it and we will be stuck in mediocrity forever.
-
quote:
If there is no money to be made off of linux, no one will write applications for it and we will be stuck in mediocrity forever.
Software doesn't have to be proprietary for there to be money made from it.
-
quote:
Software doesn't have to be proprietary for there to be money made from it.
"Proprietary" sofware doesn't have to be bad, either, does it? :D :D (http://tongue.gif) :D ;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by ThePreacher:
Consistency is the key to a good UI. Problem is what happens when you don't like the UI? What happens when the UI that comes with MacOS or Windows, or whatever OS you use isn't up to your personal standards for whatever reason.
Same here, as many window managers run low-performance for older machines, and many Desktop Enviroments are highly themeable and take up a lot of recources that lower machines won't have. That's why I'd never use an OS that didn't give a choice of UI.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
Software doesn't have to be proprietary for there to be money made from it.
Re-read my post, I never said a thing about software being proprietary. You must have made that up on your own. I said:
quote:
I have come to realize that we need closed source software, especially applications.
I don't think you know the difference between closed source, and proprietary. A lot of linux programs are closed source, but not proprietary. A lot of windows programs are open source and proprietary.
-
If you didn't mean "proprietary" then what difference between "open source" and "closed source" programs do you think makes closed source software more suitable for making money?
quote:
A lot of linux programs are closed source, but not proprietary.
Such as?
-
flap do you do anything but get into bloody arguements?
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
If you didn't mean "proprietary" then what difference between "open source" and "closed source" programs do you think makes closed source software more suitable for making money?
Such as?
Zeus Webserver for one. It is an enteprise level webserver that sells for thousands of dollars. It is not propritary because it can run on multiple different types of hardware and software, yet it is closed source. Also look at Unreal Tournament 2003-4 it is not proprietary either, it will run on macs, linux, and windows pc's, yet you don't see the software makers handing out the source code now do you? I am beginning to see why Jimmy was so angry in this thread. Use some logic and you could have figured that out on your own.
I'd like to see how the makers of games could make money with the source code open. You explain that to me genius.
[ March 23, 2004: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]
-
quote:
It is not propritary because it can run on multiple different types of hardware and software, yet it is closed source. Also look at Unreal Tournament 2003-4 it is not proprietary either, it will run on macs, linux, and windows pc's, yet you don't see the software makers handing out the source code now do you? I am beginning to see why Jimmy was so angry in this thread. Use some logic and you could have figured that out on your own.
I don't know where you got your definition of proprietary (or "logic", for that matter), but the number of platforms a piece of software runs on has absolutely nothing to do with its being proprietary or not. Plenty of free software runs on only one platform, and there is plenty of multi-platform software that is proprietary; Unreal and zeus included. Software being proprietary or free is a question of copyright, not of how many hardware/software platforms it runs on. Where did you get that idea?
[ March 23, 2004: Message edited by: flap ]
-
quote:
I'd like to see how the makers of games could make money with the source code open. You explain that to me genius.
I never specifically asserted that the free software business model could be applied to games (though I never said it couldn't, either), all I said was that software in general doesn't have to be proprietary (and bear in mind what proprietary actually means, as opposed to the random meaning you seem to have assigned to it) in order to make money. Which is true, as is evidenced by the existence of free software businesses such as mysql, red hat etc.
-
The random meaning I have given to it? Here is a dictionary definition
quote:
one that possesses, owns, or holds exclusive right to something
When it comes to software, it is considered proprietary if it is exclusive to a single operating system or hardware type. Since you are too ignorant to know this, I thought I would explain that it has absolutely nothing to do with being open, or closed source.
-
I can't tell if you're joking or not. Surely as a Linux user you must have heard/read a whole host of arguments and discussions about proprietary vs free software; and you thought it was about the number of platforms the software ran on? Are you shitting me? Is iptables proprietary because it only works with Linux? Is Linux proprietary because it exclusively only runs on non-Quantum computers?
Search Google for "proprietary software".
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware)
-
I explained proprietary as it was explained to me. I don't know how others define it. They see proprietary as software that is free. That is not how I see it. I guess it comes down to differing definitions.
I have no problems with proprietary software by their definition. By the definition that I know, I have deep problems with it.
[ March 24, 2004: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]
-
Originally posted by ThePreacher:
[QB]I explained proprietary as it was explained to me. I don't know how others define it. They see proprietary as software that is free. That is not how I see it. I guess it comes down to differing definitions.
I have no problems with proprietary software by their definition. By the definition that I know, I have deep problems with it.
I believe that I use the same definition for proprietary hardware.
-
quote:
Originally posted by ThePreacher:
I explained proprietary as it was explained to me. I don't know how others define it. They see proprietary as software that is free. That is not how I see it. I guess it comes down to differing definitions.
I have no problems with proprietary software by their definition. By the definition that I know, I have deep problems with it.
[ March 24, 2004: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]
No, proprietary software is software that isn't free. Why would you have a problem with software that runs only on one platform? If software is non-free then the fact that it only runs on one platform is a good thing, if anything, as it reduces the number of people who are likely to use it. Proprietary (i.e. non-free) software that runs on many platforms is no better than proprietary software that runs on a single platform.
And I'd be interested to see any links to definitions of proprietary software that define it as having the meaning you give.
[ March 24, 2004: Message edited by: flap ]
-
The reason I use that meaning for software is because that is the meaning for hardware, and I assumed it was the same. Why is non free software bad?
Can you explain that to me. I don't see how Quake 3 arena is bad because I had to pay for it and I don't have it's source code. I don't see how Adobe Photoshop is bad because I had to pay for it and I don't have it's source code. These are companies we are talking about and they deserve to make money.
[ March 25, 2004: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]
-
Well I could give you my take on why free software is a good thing and why proprietary software is bad, but most of what I'd say is much the same as what you can read at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html) , http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html) and the link in my sig.
quote:
These are companies we are talking about and they deserve to make money.
...and, as I've already said (in fact, as was the original reason I posted), software doesn't have to be proprietary for there to be money made from it. And remember, the issue is about freedom, not cost and whether or not you're charged for the software.
[ March 25, 2004: Message edited by: flap ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
Well I could give you my take on why free software is a good thing and why proprietary software is bad, but most of what I'd say is much the same as what you can read at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html) , http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html) and the link in my sig.
...and, as I've already said (in fact, as was the original reason I posted), software doesn't have to be proprietary for there to be money made from it. And remember, the issue is about freedom, not cost and whether or not you're charged for the software.
[ March 25, 2004: Message edited by: flap ]
Freedom of what? Will not having the ability to do whatever you want with the source code of Doom 3 make you die or something? Open Source does not need to be everywhere, and yes closed source applications make a lot more money than open source ones. Case in point Microsoft Windows.
[ March 25, 2004: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by ThePreacher:
Freedom of what? Will not having the ability to do whatever you want with the source code of Doom 3 make you die or something? Open Source does not need to be everywhere, and
Are you disagreeing with the arguments for free software or are you literally just unaware of them? Did you read any of the stuff I just pointed you to? I know lots of people disagree with the idea of free software, and I can argue with you about a specific point if you like, but you seem to have been taken by surprise by its very existence.
quote:
yes closed source applications make a lot more money than open source ones. Case in point Microsoft Windows.
This is arguable, but in my opinion that's one of the reasons why free software is a good thing. I think that if any industry is generating as much money as software is (case in point Microsoft) then there's something wrong, not right, with it.
[ March 25, 2004: Message edited by: flap ]
-
I don't mind closed-source games, they do no harm. Applications, instant messengers, browsers, Operating Systems, etc can be improved more immediately.
-
I'm arguing with the points of free software if it means that they believe all software should be free. I just can't agree with that.
I don't see how it is arguable that closed source software makes more money than open source software. Name a piece of open source software that is more profitable than it's closed source counterpart.
I find it quite acceptable if someone wants to give their source code away, but I don't see one good reason anywhere, that a company should accept lower profits by making their software "free". Do you really think that companies that currently use a closed model can stay in business if they went to an open model? Imagine if Apple just gave away all the secrets to their excellent GUI. What would stop a competitor from copying all of their innovation? Why would anyone want to buy a mac over the competitors nearly identical product?
I am all for money making and companies like Apple and Microsoft know what they have to do to make money and being "free" isn't that.
If supporting Open Source Software means throwing all of your business knowledge out the window I will never support it.
-
quote:
I don't see how it is arguable that closed source software makes more money than open source software
No, I wasn't doubting that, I was saying that it's arguable whether that's a bad or a good thing. Personally, I think it's a bad thing that any company can make as much money as Microsoft does.
quote:
I don't see one good reason anywhere, that a company should accept lower profits by making their software "free". Do you really think that companies that currently use a closed model can stay in business if they went to an open model?
I don't think companies will be quick to voluntarily accept lower profits either, but I'm hoping that eventually they'll be forced to, by businesses and the public demanding free software and all the benefits associated with it.
quote:
I am all for money making and companies like Apple and Microsoft know what they have to do to make money and being "free" isn't that.
If supporting Open Source Software means throwing all of your business knowledge out the window I will never support it.
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?
-
They'd make almost no money if they were open-source.
I accept closed-source like I do christianity. It's okay, but it has to be somwhat controlled. As long as it doesn't get out of hand, make shitty products, and try to take over the world, I'm completely okay with it. Microsoft crossed this boundry, and that's why we hate it.
-
quote:
They'd make almost no money if they were open-source.
Have you heard of Red Hat, or mysql? These companies (and others) are making money already, and free software isn't even dominant yet.
[ March 26, 2004: Message edited by: flap ]
-
Hmm.. you pose a point. They make their software and source available, and make a lot of money at the same time. I'm not sure how much they earn, or how much they pay their programmers, though.
-
quote:
Personally, I think it's a bad thing that any company can make as much money as Microsoft does.
:eek: :eek:
Dude... that don't sound so good
-
Why not?
-
Because it doesn't. I see no need to provide any further reason.
It is my opinion that it sounds bad. I no more need to prove that my opinion to you than I need to sell air conditioners to Inuits.
-
So why did you bother saying anything? Thanks for your valuable contribution anyway.
-
Because I can. I need not reason or authorization to express my thoughts.
If I think that your statement is wrong and dangerous, then I can say so. I cannot tell you that your opinion is wrong. It is, after all, your opinion, which by definition is neither true or false. It simply is your opinion.
Please note that this is the truth.
-
quote:
I cannot tell you that your opinion is wrong.
Okay, I love you.
-
Oh, yeah...
Oats are tasty
Oats are good
Oats are healthy
Oats are food
I like oats
I like oats
Toasted, roasted
Oatmeal too
Oats are natural
Oats are real
Oats are plants
Not called Neil
I like oats
I like Rice
-
IT IS MY OPINION THAT OATS ARE NOT GOOD
hooray for expressing your opinion
-
YAY!
this discussion is now over
(http://jimmyjames.sytes.net/media/shutup2.jpg)
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 ]
-
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 ]
-
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.
-
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.
-
Are you saying that they would make a lot more profit if Linux were more widespread?
-
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 (http://smile.gif) 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. (http://smile.gif) (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 ]
-
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.
-
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
I bet they would.
Agreed. (http://smile.gif)
-
Acctually, a the Webmaster at www.toastytech.com (http://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.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Andre Perron:
Acctually, a the Webmaster at www.toastytech.com (http://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.
-
Try the configuration utility. You can still change the Windows XP colours with it :D
-
quote:
Originally posted by Andre Perron:
Acctually, a the Webmaster at www.toastytech.com (http://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 (http://www.dognoodle99.cjb.net/downloads/win1apps.zip)