Why not open source old stuff?

[hm_murdock]

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?                  

[restin256]

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.

[preacher]

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.

[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?

 

quote:A lot of linux programs are closed source, but not proprietary.

Such as?

[KernelPanic]

flap do you do anything but get into bloody arguements?

[preacher]

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 ]

[flap]

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 ]

[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.

[preacher]

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.

[flap]

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

[preacher]

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 ]

[preacher]

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.

[flap]

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 ]

[preacher]

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 ]

[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/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 ]