What does it matter what the NSA (The national snoop on everyone agency) calls Linux? What the NSA deems Linux still does not change the fact that Linux is an OS for geeks only. Which, Nem, is my point about open source.
Toasty you are the one who keeps calling open source "buggy" and "insecure". Since the NSA is your governments expert on security I would think that when they say open source Linux is "secure" that would mean something to you.
Yes security is a moving target. But who do you think is more capable of designing a secure system - the NSA or Microsoft?
Why is itok in your book for Sun to have a perprietary office product but not MS? See, that's where I part company with you over any type of open standard or open source. You're always selling as something anti-MS when in fact you're real agenda is anti-all-business. You're just not willing enough to be right out in the open about it.
Wrongo Toasty. There is a difference. Sun has cooperated in making their document format a public, open and documented standard without legal encumbrance. IBM is also adopting the OpenDocument format for their Office Suite. KOffice (Linux Office suite for the KDE Windowing environment) is also adopting it. That gives at least 4 suites that could be used by Masschusetts. Microsoft could become a 5th is they chose and as the incumbent they would have the advantage next time the contract comes up.
I would applaud Microsoft if they were to do the same with the MS-doc format. I would also applaud Microsoft if they were to adopt the open document format that has resulted from Suns suite. I hope that they do one or the other. I doubt that they will, but I hope.
If I decide to move from OpenOffice.org to another suite, if that suite supports the open format then I can migrate smoothly. If it is proprietary than I will have problems as I have had three times in the past when migrating from suites which moved in directions I didn't want to go (or which just didn't survive in one case).
My objection to Microsoft is two fold. Neither has anything to do with being anti business.
1/ It is my computer and the software I bought is mine (as per copyright law). Microsoft tries to dictate what I can do with it. Example XPs activation system. Example Win2kPro blocked me from copying a DVD (which I had the legal right to copy) because of Microsofts DRM. My system, my software - I - not Microsoft decide how to use it.
2/ Illegal actions designed to eliminate competition. They have been repeatedly convicted and have not reformed.
I like competition in business. Locally we have several retail chains (in different fields) that have been moving more and more towards monopoly in the market by buying out competitors. As that happens my options are progressively limited. I like open options. I don't like the fact that the owners of near monopoly book store chain for example can and do block the local distribution of books and magazines that they don't like.
That is materially misstaing history. The product cycle lasted for years.
It doesn't matter how long the cycle lasted. The point is that the proprietary owner of the products dropped them. Because they were proprietary there were no legal alternatives. People locked into an abandoned proprietary product with proprietary formats have little if any legal recourse.
With open formats they could much more easily migrate to a different system from the same or a different supplier.
Oh boy, and all that happened overnight? No, it didn't. It was developed in an open environment, which in part translates to mean that the consumers where expected to be part of the product development.
People who chose to take part were able to influence the future course of software they wished to use. How is that bad? Isn't that exactly what happens with Microsoft programs in open betas? The basic difference is that Microsoft does not allow people to see the code and thereby loses the opportunity for other sets of eyes finding flaws.
Look at this way...I see a lot of open source projects the same as how Taldren and ATVI released SFCIII. It gave the consumer the chance to pay for the privilege to refine the program.
With truely Open Source software you can use it freely until/if you decide to pay for support. Want to use a free Linux? Download Fedora Core. Want corporate support? Buy RedHat Enterprise edition (based on Fedora Core). Myself currently I'm using SUSE Linux and Windows 2000 Pro. Which do you think I can get support and patches for once the relevant company drops it? If you want to take part in an open Beta official or otherwise go ahead, otherwise with open source nothing prevents you from using an older version that is stable. How many proprietary companies continue to sell the old stable version once they release a new version (especially if the new one is unstable betaware)? Corel used to, beyond that I can't think of any.
SFCII is an example of abandonment. When Interplay dropped support the dynaverse should have died. We were very fortunate that Taldren was willing and able to step in. We were fortunate again when Taldren handed control over to the dynaverse team. The normal thing when the marketing company drops support in anything (such as the D2) that needs corporate support is that it is just gone.
Will SFCIII be as lucky when Activision drops it?
How about Windows XP when MS turns off the activation servers? If you need to do a reinstall on an old XP machine how will you - legally - activate it? Do you think that Microsoft will release a no activation patch?
With open source and open formats it would at least be possible to continue to use these programs without the original corporations support. SFCII for example is popular enough that if the code had been opened under one of the many open source licenses (Microsoft has their own variation) it would have developed substantially by now.
Quakes source code has been released allowing the community to continue support if they so desire. Even new businesses could market games based on the Quake engine.
Wholely irrespective of that. I respond negatrively to your constant rants about open source (or by extension "open standard") not because any love for MS (it is a company fer gawds sake), but because you try to hide your anti-business, anti-profit, anti-monetary-reward bias as anti-MS.
The only part of that on which you are even partly correct is the anti-MS and then only so long as Microsoft continues the two behaviours I mentioned above. If they reform then perhaps I would buy their products again - if they were to make something I liked as they have in the past. I'd likely at least want to stay with Windows for gaming, but not under the ever tighting grip of control that Microsoft is foisting off on compliant consumers such as yourself.
I'm not anti-business. I am at times against a given business because of illegal or unethical actions. Neither am I anti-profit. The closest I come to that is thinking that prices should be fair to the consumer. Notice I said fair, if a fair price is high then the price is high and I have no problem with that - even if it is so high that I can't afford it. Profiteering such as the current gas prices soaring for example does annoy me (even though I don't drive). Companies need to make a profit to pay employees, create new products, expand and update facilities and pay dividends to investors.
That list of quotes I made? They were from
Microsoft.
Topic: The Toasty0 open source thread (Read 8238 times)