Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #31
    Linux User GNU_man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Canada, eh
    Posts
    284

    I totally aggree. I basicly agree with Stallman's ideology. If you see it from his perspective, programming is a science like any other. Scientists in every other field share data, findings etc. and that's how advances are made. When closed source came about, during the middle of his career he saw how damaging it was and decided to oppose it. I salute him for that.

    If you are wondering what 'damage' i'm refering to.. look no further than M$ for a perfect example. Price goes up & quality goes down. Of course Micro$oft is an _extreme_ example,
    UNIX (namely by AT&T) was adversly affected when they went around throwing lawsuits at everyone and trying to monopolize UNIX technology the way M$ did with the IBM-PC.

    Luckily for all of us the GNU project combined with the Linux kernel provide an alternative. Also props to FreeBSD project for their Open Source Attitudes
    PTL x10 Hallelujah!
    AMD Athlon XP 2600+ 512MB RAM Dual 80G WD HD 8MB Cache (1 WinXP Home, 1 CentOS 4.2) GeForce Ti4200 128MB SB Live! 5.1
    Registered Linux user #391521

  2. #32
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    108
    I'm not sure we'd even have unix at all if it weren't for free software.

    From what I remember reading, AT&T pulled the plug on the original system (forget what it was called...multics, munics, munix, unix...). After the project was killed, the original developers GAVE the software and source away to other interested software developers, which caused a sudden flair of interest and popularity. AT&T saw this and ferociously assumed IP rights, grabbing ownership. It was kind of depressing to see big corporations crack the whip on their employees that were just promoting healthy advancement of their field by sharing knowledge and working together.

    Microsoft did a lot to advance the idea that one can own software. I don't know whether or not they invented the software license, but they banked on it when they licensed DOS to IBM (everybody knows this story). IBM didn't understand that software ownership actually mattered (in this scenario), and that what they were really building and selling to consumers were machines.

  3. #33
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,431
    I also agree; open source software is great. And so is GNU. And stallman. And torvalds. And tux. And everyone else in the open source community. And again, not playing tuxracer? wtf? Also, for the tuxracer-fans: you should try PPRacer (PlanetPenguinRacer), it's based on tuxracer but with more config options and more included tracks (but unnfortunatly a bit uglyer logo)... http://projects.planetpenguin.de/racer/index.php

    I don't like the closed source apps neither, but if you think about it; it's better that the big money-firms port their apps to linux then that they sell it only for windows, one of the biggest arguments of the windows masochists is that there are so few linux apps. But that does'nt necesarry mean that I like closed source apps; where ever possible I want to use the free alternatives. Dor instance, one of the most exciting stuff is when GPLFlash2 comes out, I definitly have to try that one...

  4. $spacer_open
    $spacer_close
  5. #34
    Linux Engineer psic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ljubljana, Slovenia
    Posts
    1,205
    Quote Originally Posted by jaboua
    one of the biggest arguments of the windows masochists is that there are so few linux apps.
    But this is an argument from those who don't know any different. They figure that since they don't see much linux apps in stores, they simply don't exist. In reality, I think there are at least as many apps for linux as there are for windows, if not more (think of all those text editors and you see what I mean).

    Hmm, this topic has been brought way off topic.
    Stumbling around the 'net:
    www.cloudyuseful.com

  6. #35
    Linux User GNU_man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Canada, eh
    Posts
    284
    hey figure that since they don't see much linux apps in stores, they simply don't exist. In reality, I think there are at least as many apps for linux as there are for windows,
    i agree. Look at Debian for example. It comes with 1000's of app right on the distro. The question isn't what software is available for Linux, it's what software is _not_ availible for Linux.
    PTL x10 Hallelujah!
    AMD Athlon XP 2600+ 512MB RAM Dual 80G WD HD 8MB Cache (1 WinXP Home, 1 CentOS 4.2) GeForce Ti4200 128MB SB Live! 5.1
    Registered Linux user #391521

  7. #36
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,431
    Yeah, actually thats true... The difference is that the windows equivalents is 1) worse 2) commercial... But what I said was that it's better that they even care about porting their software, but still I won't be using their ported software, I would still want the open source stuff...

  8. #37
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    108
    Well, I do believe that, considering all things, there have been more programs written than for Windows for linux, but in order to understand that we must consider that I mean in addition to commercial (ie boxed) software, I also mean a) shareware/freeware/open source/ports, and b) personal/hobbyist programs. I mean, if you're willing to go back as far as DOS (over two decades), we're talking an enormous legacy. For all intents and purposes though, the vast majority of this "other" software is stuff that will remain totally unknown to us and lies beyond any form of practical usefulness. One advantage of linux is that, based on the open source development model, the vast majority of all software that gets written for it tends to be in some way useful. Even a game can be useful, since the source code is available (and writing a good game requires some above average programming skill).

  9. #38
    Linux User GNU_man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Canada, eh
    Posts
    284
    Speaking of DOS, i'm still a DOS fan. ok, feel free to ridicule me here but it's fun to program and mess around with if you're into OS's. Of course, being an opensource fanatic, i
    speak of FreeDOS. BTW it the was the only M$ branded OS that was any good IMO. Probably because they didn't actually make it!
    PTL x10 Hallelujah!
    AMD Athlon XP 2600+ 512MB RAM Dual 80G WD HD 8MB Cache (1 WinXP Home, 1 CentOS 4.2) GeForce Ti4200 128MB SB Live! 5.1
    Registered Linux user #391521

  10. #39
    Linux Guru budman7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Knee deep in Grand Rapids, Michigan
    Posts
    3,551
    Speaking of DOS, i'm still a DOS fan. ok, feel free to ridicule me here Laughing
    uke: DOS
    Pick up a starving dog, prosper him, and he won't bite you.
    This is the main difference between men and dogs.

    New users read The FAQ

  11. #40
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    108
    DOS is quite good to program for, especially if you like to write assembly code. The OS is very easy to work with in ASM (we worked on DOS virtual machines in my college ASM class). When you write assembly code, you come to realize just how much of a Godsend an operating system is, even DOS. We're really too spoiled with these newfangled "compilers"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •