Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft as a Company => Topic started by: Interscope on 15 January 2003, 18:37
-
Microsoft stated that they'll release they're source code to company's...
Of course it isn't totally open but I see this as an act of desperation. They're weak, they see the power of open source but they are too blind to do something right.
Weaklings. I'd like to see how soon it'll leak to warez sites and such.
http://slashdot.org/articles/03/01/15/030217.shtml?tid=109 (http://slashdot.org/articles/03/01/15/030217.shtml?tid=109)
-
The shared source licensing plan is very simple:
Some business must already have 1500 licenses in order to get the source.
IT depts. can look at it, but they can't modify it or share it w/ anyone. They just have it to "better understand the software". IT depts. can submit bug reports, but M$ can choose to ignore them if they want, which they will
When shared licensing finally goes into effect, it's going to be on the internet anyway b/c of some disgruntled IT employee.
If crackers had an easy time finding holes in the software now; just imagine if they had the source code. I mean, basically you can close your eyes point your finger at a random place in the source code and find a bug.
I hope M$ does release the souce code. Then maybe black market copies of debugged Windows will show up.
-
that would be awful.
i hope they withold their code to the bitter end because if people made windows better, you can bet microsoft would stick it in one of their mystery service packs and it would give microsoft windows another ten years to live because it wouldn't be quite so shit in the minds of the people.
-
Lets see...
Code leaks>>> People use it to pull WINE out of Alpha stage>>> More people switch to Linux>>> People start making ports for Linux>>>M$ is sqaushed away
It is a failed plan. Just compare it to OSX, Apple withholds some code but the core is open source and EVERYONE can edit it.
Those people cannot edit it and only look at it. Only M$ can edit it. We all know M$, M$ ignores bug reports for at least half a year or so.
-
What I like is that there is more then one way to win. No one will really know what will happen. So Palladium may kill Wind0ze rather then hinder it, or it may not kill it and fuck things up.
Awesome Wine compatibility could mean that Linux doesn't get true ports, but maybe it could because the number of Wind0ze refuges would greatly rise. Then again, maybe it wouldn't make much difference in terms of refuges and just damages the Linux cause. No one knows...
-
Let's see:
Code leaks>>> People use it to pull WINE out of Alpha stage>>> More people switch to Linux>>> MS sues Wine for copyright infringements>>> endless legal battles and fines draining OSS-money.
This is downright dirty.
-
Hmmm excellent point DC, something I never considered!
-
i think wine is shitty software anyway. if it didn't exist, how much more native ports would we see? how many more work hours would have been put into real projects instead?
-
No. Wine(X) is great, because people can play their favorite Windows game in Linux, and stop using Windows.
-
they can stop using windows anyway and get over it! wineX is even worse what with it being closed source and charging you money for alpha/beta stage software (sounds a bit like lindows).
i don't use windows, i don't need to use wine (although it did come with red hat and i confess i tried it out on notepad and defrag (that was funny) to see how it went) and frankly i can live without the software i don't have for linux.
talk about half full/empty! think of all the things you DO get with linux that you don't get with windows! if windows programs are that important to people, they should dual boot and email the program maintainers about it.
-
I guess it's like a hunger strike, if everyone gave up their Wine for 2 years(and dualbooted), good things might happen.
The neat thing is, there is all sorts of games you can play on Linux with emulators, hours and hours and hours of 0ld$k00l! (http://smile.gif)
-
rms commented that emulators like wine are a good thing because, if people must use proprietary windows software, they're better off using the stuff that they already have rather than pressuring software developers to develop the same non-free products for linux.
-
rms says a lot of things.
personally i would be sceptical of a man who seems to get so passionate about free beer.
----
seriously though, i have my opinions and he has his. what he says is based on what's best for the user, what i say is based on what's best for the community and, by extension, the user.
-
mm, that seems the wrong way around to me; it's the free beer idea he's trying to get people away from.
And actually what he wants is what's best for the community, while those who desire immediate convenience want what's best for the individual user. Not the other way around.
-
so why's he saying people should refuse to receive .doc files in their email because they are a proprietary format and then turning a full 180 degrees round and saying people should use proprietary binary programs instead of pestering manufacturers and distributors to relax a little? are you really saying that having no native linux versions and everybody needing to use some alpha stage emulator is the best for the community? (maybe this community has had so much free beer that it can't see in front of its face).
-
No, I'm saying that, for example, instead of people complaining to Adobe that they want a Linux port of Photoshop, it would be better for the community if they would instead use the money they would have spent on Linux Photoshop licences to funding development of free alternatives such as the Gimp. But if they have to use it until the Gimp is adequate for their needs better they run it under Wine (if photoshop ran under Wine) rather than bring the whole body of proprietary software over to our free OS.
-
Wine is shit just like WineX and anything else that encourages develepors not to make NATIVE Linux Ports. If people want to play there games they should pester the developors or dual boot.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Interscope:
Lets see...
Code leaks>>> People use it to pull WINE out of Alpha stage>>> More people switch to Linux>>> People start making ports for Linux>>>M$ is sqaushed away
It is a failed plan. Just compare it to OSX, Apple withholds some code but the core is open source and EVERYONE can edit it.
Those people cannot edit it and only look at it. Only M$ can edit it. We all know M$, M$ ignores bug reports for at least half a year or so.
The kernel of OS-X is open source, which is bullshit, i want aqua
they just did the kernel to suck you in and not make them look like dirty barsteds.
-
i know, they should atleast release specs on it, or give it away like mit did with X11, then agian, mit just wanted x11 to be the most "successful" software
-
quote:
Originally posted by SHES A FAT HAIRY BITCH:
The kernel of OS-X is open source, which is bullshit, i want aqua
they just did the kernel to suck you in and not make them look like dirty barsteds.
yeah right. that is their fucking baby. i dont ever see aqua going open. i wouldnt ever release it either. if i had developed the dopest graphical interface, and wanted people to keep buying my systems, i would never show anyone the code for aqua.
im glad to see them keep their core, safari, rendezvous, etc.. openSource, but not their interface. its too clean. if xWindows can't do something as least as clean as aqua, then fuck xWindows. fuck m$ cheap ass UI too.
what i would love to see, is a graphical interface that puts the mac to shame. i just dont see it happening. (waiting for the flame, but its cool, i have got the fire extenguisher.)
-
this is the only sort of conflict that matters on this site in my opinion.
mac users just CANNOT resist getting out their 1980s PC hater hats and making fun of all the PC using (or anything other than a mac using) linux/BSD/anything other than macOSX types.
Xyle, do you know why open source software is on the whole a ghood idea? well i won't bother to elaborate then, but if you do know then why are you treating us to this 'you're all as bad as microsoft anyway' bollocks.
i'll tell you why, insecurity. you can't imagine that apple computer is just as bad as microsoft (and let's face it, the only difference between apple and microsoft is the number of users of their product and some airy fairy idea of 'style'.
apple computer would be ecstatic if only they too could be convicted monopolists.
all you people who take the easy road of supporting the 'underdog' (ie apple computer) and poopooing all the 'PC users' (those of us who champion the (sometimes slower or less methodical) *right* way to do things) really should throw your sour grapes in the compost and get out of the 1980s.
and put away your fire extinguisher, none of that was flaming, just home truths.
-
quote:
if i had developed the dopest graphical interface, and wanted people to keep buying my systems, i would never show anyone the code for aqua
Then lets hope you never develop any software.
quote:
i'll tell you why, insecurity.
That's a good point. I personally would never primarily use that argument as it's an open source movement argument. There are far more important reasons why software should be Free and not just open, and these are reasons Apple cares for about as much as Microsoft does. Apple has jumped on the awful 'Open Source' bandwagon with their OS core by making it 'Open Source' but released under a restrictive licence that is not free.
This Apple-loving attitude of Mac users is something I find disturbing. Apple fanboys aren't much different from Microsoft fanboys, only the company they support hasn't behaved quite as badly as MS. As Calum says, Apple don't have a monopoly as Microsoft does, but it's not through want of trying.