Why not open source old stuff?

[skyman8081]

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 ]

[hm_murdock]

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.

Code: [Select]

[hm_murdock]

btw

Linux sucks ass

[insomnia]

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 ]

[restin256]

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.  

[bill_ford]

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    .

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.

[Kintaro]

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.

[hm_murdock]

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,

And that's the truth.

BTW, apt-get is not a replacement for an overcomplicated system.

http://calix.calyptos.com

and to a lesser degree

http://www.calyptos.com

help solve those problems instead of just covering them up with some new command line app

[skyman8081]

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

[ March 08, 2004: Message edited by: root@localhost / BOB ]

[hm_murdock]

THAT ARTICLE SAYS IT ALL.

Read it you indoctrinated fools and learn from it.

[insomnia]

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 ]

[hm_murdock]

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.

[insomnia]

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.


 

[hm_murdock]

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

[restin256]

quote:Originally posted by jimmyjames.sytes.net:


restin, if you can't see the point of what I said then,

And that's the truth.

Whatever, Maddox wannabe. Ever heard of Synaptic?