No more warez.


Recommended Posts

Debian will always be a free ride - as will the several other community based distros out there. There is no 'company' to speak of, just a community of non affiliated users are developers.

No packaging, no advertising dept, no corporate structure. Free in this case as in completely free - not free as beer. (Which last time i looked ain't free at all).

How the hell are you going to start charging for this? Who works out who gets paid what?

The whole thing would collapse if money ever really came into it. There are just too many people who are currently feely dolnating their time.

Some people just can't grasp this. They are usually American.

But often people do it for the sheer love of what they do - and because they want to make the world a nicer place for everyone.

There are just some nice people in the world who are keen to make a real contribution.

This is their way of doing it.

GJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Debian will always be a free ride - as will the several other community based distros out there. There is no 'company' to speak of, just a community of non affiliated users are developers.

No packaging, no advertising dept, no corporate structure. Free in this case as in completely free - not free as beer. (Which last time i looked ain't free at all).

How the hell are you going to start charging for this? Who works out who gets paid what?

The whole thing would collapse if money ever really came into it. There are just too many people who are currently feely dolnating their time.

Some people just can't grasp this. They are usually American.

But often people do it for the sheer love of what they do - and because they want to make the world a nicer place for everyone.

There are just some nice people in the world who are keen to make a real contribution.

This is their way of doing it.

GJ

Peace, Love and Software :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*waits for a communisum/Linux comparison*

i'm joking. Free software is no bad thing, open source is no bad thing -- in fact it's the complete opposite, and nobody can turn around and stop it being free, because of the GPL.

Linux is going to be big, very big. and well, if not Linux, then some other GNU project (maybe GNU/Hurd?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean you'll be FREE to copy them to any computer you want? FREE to modify them anyway you want? FREE to distribute them anyway you want? Is that what you are getting at?

Wise up there little boy...come play in the real world.

Listen, I'm only gonna say this one last time....

IF Linux were to EVER become the major desktop OS then there would be no more FREEDOM.

scoobydoobie , Your opinions are noted , but not agreed with.

The Corporate World is not as bad as you paint, you dont need to fear it.

There is two fine examples that spring to mind so early in the morning of the "Corporates"

giving back to community that are now leading open source products.

Example One.... Sun and Open Office.org

Example Two.... Redhat and Fedora Core

There are many more.

If Corporates can make profits from Linux and related products by providing Support and services

then that is a good thing , profit = funds for research and development which will benefit all.

Will Linux dominate the Desktop? Not in the foreseable future , Will it grow in percentage used ? most certainly

Is it desirable to dominate the desktop? No

Having a choice is better, and that is the strenght of Linux and open source it provides a choice and not just

with the OS but in all Apps etc.

And one other thing .... Linux is fun , and so should Neowin , so scoobydoobie , relax Dude

Gee what a mouthfull so early in the morning ... now where is my coffee?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nope, I understand it. I guess you don't understand how corporations can change rules, regulations and licenses to fit thier own needs. The GPL will still be around. never said it wouldn't. BUT the company with the most market share won't be using it

99% of the code included in Red Hat is not their IP. They have no copyright over the code and can not change its license, just like HP can't relicense Windows XP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as mentioned before, if everything were free how could we except quality releases from people who don't get paid for it, they can't be expected to make the whole game with "love"

Becuase if they weren't doing it for love, they wouldnt really be doing it at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as mentioned before, if everything were free how could we except quality releases from people who don't get paid for it, they can't be expected to make the whole game with "love"

We have a very reliable, powerful and functional Linux kernel, GNU OS, and apps like MySQL, Mozilla, GIMP, OpenOffice and more. All from people who donated their free time, and from people who are paid employees of IBM, Oracle, RedHat and other companies.

The payback is to be free to use the software that others have worked to improve, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a very reliable, powerful and functional Linux kernel, GNU OS, and apps like MySQL, Mozilla, GIMP, OpenOffice and more. All from people who donated their free time, and from people who are paid employees of IBM, Oracle, RedHat and other companies.

The payback is to be free to use the software that others have worked to improve, as well.

Agreed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't get overly worked up about scoobie's posts. His argument is severly flawed.

His statements are extremely confusing. His shifts from one point to another while trying to porve the original which was "so much from 'free' software".

As proven by numerous posters, the concept of free has nothing to do with money. This includes selling or making money by any means. The term "free software" and sopftware licensed under compatible licenses enjoy the freedoms to copy, modify, and re-distribute the software under such licenses. Scoobie would like us to confuse the concept of free (of charge) with those freedoms.

Scoobies also would like us to believe that if GNU/Linux were to dominate the desktop market, distributors would suddenly turn on the community (either by changing the license (which is non-permissible) or by attempted to cut-off rights granted by the GPL or compatible licenses). If so so by either means it weould violate the license and those vendors would immediately lose the right to copy, modify, and re-distribute the software and would lose the support of the community. Loss of support would mean that all software donated by that community which Red Hat and other use would cease. Their business model would collapse.

A few other points:

EULAs in distros are not somehow restricting the rights to the use of GPL'd software. They are generally agreements regarding non-free (as in freedom) software (read proprietary).

Also, to clear up confusion enjoyed by another poster. This person posted that home users or home version somehow enjoy a freedom from cost. Not so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

people throw the term "Powerfull" around when talking about linux yet I never hear a good explanation of what "Powerfull" means.

I care about 2 things

1. Does it alow me to do what I need to do and enjoy my time on the computer?

2. Does it not cost me a $#@#$ fortune to do my work.

Linux works 75% of the time when I ask that question, it merely comes up short when I say "I wanna play some games" simply because the mainstream support is lacking, but I support it, I buy linux ports (SOF and Quake) and I've got a Cedega subscription so I can get my quick game fix without moving to a different comp.

Linux resides on 3 of the 4 machines I work with every day at work and 2 out of the 3 machines I deal with at home,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Linux resides on 3 of the 4 machines I work with every day at work and 2 out of the 3 machines I deal with at home,

It makes me giddy to see all the Linux fanatics praise the Linux OS yet STILL NEED thier Windows OS to complete thier computer experience.

and yes, I am a Windows supporter. and yes, I've tried all flavors of Linux (who hasn't so please quit with the "here's another guy disputing Linux without trying it" b.s.)

My take on it? It sucks. pure and simple. It doesn't deserve the praise that it's given other than that it is an alternative to something else. The majority of the public doesn't like it, the majority of the corporations won't sell it as thier primary OS. And the gaming community is slow to embrace it. What do you think the reasons for that are? Becouse it isn't ready for primetime.

The ONLY way Linux will EVER become THe Operating System of choice for the world is if they begin charging for the OS. While it stays FREE (as in freedom or as in free cost), it will never, ever become a viable solution.

Too many cooks spoil the broth. Which is exactly what Linux is. Nothing more than a hackered up OS that anyone and thier brother can play around with. There is no common ground. There are so many different versions that all react differently that to think the public would even consider something like that is foolish. You want it to be the major OS? Then people need to let 1 or 2 companies design for it and leave everyone else out of it. Until then, you can enjoy your pathetic market share and continue the high priase for a semi functional operating system.

Free means freedom? bleh. Free means nothing but headaches, low market share and little incentive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes me giddy to see all the Linux fanatics praise the Linux OS yet STILL NEED thier Windows OS to complete thier computer experience.

and yes, I am a Windows supporter. and yes, I've tried all flavors of Linux (who hasn't so please quit with the "here's another guy disputing Linux without trying it" b.s.)

My take on it? It sucks. pure and simple. It doesn't deserve the praise that it's given other than that it is an alternative to something else. The majority of the public doesn't like it, the majority of the corporations won't sell it as thier primary OS. And the gaming community is slow to embrace it. What do you think the reasons for that are? Becouse it isn't ready for primetime.

The ONLY way Linux will EVER become THe Operating System of choice for the world is if they begin charging for the OS. While it stays FREE (as in freedom or as in free cost), it will never, ever become a viable solution.

Too many cooks spoil the broth. Which is exactly what Linux is. Nothing more than a hackered up OS that anyone and thier brother can play around with. There is no common ground. There are so many different versions that all react differently that to think the public would even consider something like that is foolish. You want it to be the major OS? Then people need to let 1 or 2 companies design for it and leave everyone else out of it. Until then, you can enjoy your pathetic market share and continue the high priase for a semi functional operating system.

Free means freedom? bleh. Free means nothing but headaches, low market share and little incentive.

I think its the Windows users that STILL NEED Linux to complete their computing experience. Let me tell you something else. It has a very good server market share. That's why MS hates it. It doesn't compete with Linux on the desktop side, just on the server side.

Hackered up? You mean a 'remake' of what the world's most secure OS for a couple of decades? And you've tried 'all flavors of Linux'? There are hundreds and hundreds of distros. I'm not even talking about the [enter-big-distro-branch]-based distros.

Do we want it to be a major OS? No. It already is. Maybe not on the desktop front, but who cares? If software vendors won't support Linux, then people will make Linux support the software. That's the POWER of Linux and that's why its so POWERFUL. Because people make an OS that they want. Just like any other open source OS.

What's this about little incentive? I understand you are getting into capitalism where profit is the motivating factor, but the incentive in this case is satisfaction of creating something that YOU want.

And semi-functional? What the hell are you talking about? You've obviously never used Linux before if you think its 'semi-functional'. That's just something you CAN'T argue about. If anything as far as stability goes it would be far better to call windows 'semi-functional'. That goes for actual functionability too.

-

Final Conclusions:

1) scoobydoobie has no experience in Linux

2) scoobydoobie must have never heard of the server market

3) scoobydoobie thinks that continued active gorwing of an OS/Kernal means it is 'semi functional' (I mean it must be, because the only time something changes in windows is to fix a problem :rolleyes:)

4) scoobydoobie thinks that I am a 'fanatic', because I support Linux (we must all be just a bunch of greasy hair, insane geeks ready to march over to Redmond and burn it to the ground)

5) scoobydoobie just wants to add fuel to a fire to get some sort of gratification

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3) scoobydoobie thinks that continued active gorwing of an OS/Kernal means it is 'semi functional' (I mean it must be, because the only time something changes in windows is to fix a problem :rolleyes:)

Ah, my kernel is gorwing!!! Shut it down, shut it down...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we want it to be a major OS? No. It already is. Maybe not on the desktop front, but who cares?

You don't???? hahahahahah that's rich...you ALL want Linux on the desktop

Because people make an OS that they want. Just like any other open source OS.

See, that's the Linux mentality, people want something that works accross the board, the same on thier machine as thier friends machine. standards. That's what Linux lacks...

no worries. It just works..that's what Ms has.

nice way to help me prove my point.

I understand you are getting into capitalism where profit is the motivating factor, but the incentive in this case is satisfaction of creating something that YOU want.

if you understand that then why are you bringing up a totally irrelevent statement? Yes, I am talking about capitalism, you are not.

world's most secure OS for a couple of decades

seems to me I've seen studies that show Linux has an average of more security issues than Windows in a given time frame..I'll look it up if I feel the need

That's why MS hates it. It doesn't compete with Linux on the desktop side, just on the server side.

no, it CAN'T compete on the desktop side and from what I've seen it still lags behind Ms on the server side. (depending on what study you want to use I suppose)

And semi-functional? What the hell are you talking about? You've obviously never used Linux before if you think its 'semi-functional'. That's just something you CAN'T argue about

Well, from a great deal of the Linux posters here, I see a trend. They may use Linux but they keep Windows also to do the things that can't be done on Linux for whatever reason...yep..that's semi functional in my book.

Final Conclusions:

1) scoobydoobie has no experience in Linux

There's that mentality again. becouse I disagree with the Linux community must mean I'venever used the products.

2) scoobydoobie must have never heard of the server market

Uh, can you maybe take the time to read any of my posts? I've been talking about the desktop market....nothing to do with the server market...kids, I tell ya. can't read a single sentence to save thier souls..

) scoobydoobie thinks that continued active gorwing of an OS/Kernal means it is 'semi functional' (I mean it must be, because the only time something changes in windows is to fix a problem

There's that Linux mentality showing again....can't come with a viable rebuttle then BAM, go for the "Microsoft" throat...

4) scoobydoobie thinks that I am a 'fanatic', because I support Linux (we must all be just a bunch of greasy hair, insane geeks ready to march over to Redmond and burn it to the ground)

Well, you seem to be defending Linux for whatever reasons....I don't know if you are a greasy haired kid or not but if you are, you should go take a shower.

5) scoobydoobie just wants to add fuel to a fire to get some sort of gratification

I guess you're posting to my post adds nothing to the "fire"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seems to me I've seen studies that show Linux has an average of more security issues than Windows in a given time frame..I'll look it up if I feel the need
Have you been reading those biased Microsoft ads, or any other Microsoft funded study? Feel free to link me up and prove me wrong.
no, it CAN'T compete on the desktop side and from what I've seen it still lags behind Ms on the server side. (depending on what study you want to use I suppose)

Yeah, you could always go find a study that concludes that Linux is not good for servers just because it can't parse <insert Microsoft proprietary fileformat> as well as IIS. Please elaborate a little, I'm just curious about what parts you feel lag behind on the server side.

And oh, not to question your experience with Linux, but do you have any in-depth experience? Do you know how to compile a kernel, or set up apache, php and mysql for that matter? Not that it really matters, just answer honest and give me the warm fuzzy feeling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You argued that linux is useless because of the desktop market from what I've seen. So I rebuttled about the server market, which is what *I* primarily use it for. That's not to say I won't play a game of Doom 3 or what have you on my linux boxes, but that's not why I use linux in the first place. However some do.

Linux DOES work across the board for what most people use it for. If it doesn't do something than something is made to make it work. There are a lot of things linux will run that windows runs. Sure not all of it is native to the kernal, but then again the same could be said about *nix with windows. And believe me there are a lot of things I'd rather run that linux does than windows. As far as the 'irrelevant statement' about capitalism, I gave the incentive that isn't profit. That's why linux is always in continued developement, which would make your statement more 'irrelevant' than mine.

Studies? I'm sure I can find studies to rebuttal what you say about it in the server side. That's almost like saying IIS has the webserver market, but everyone knows the big dog is Apache. There literally are more linux servers than windows on the internet and in the corporate world. Show me your server market studies, that's fine, because I don't see where they'd get their numbers if there is something that exists saying that windows owns the server market share and there are studies out there saying just the opposite and have been even before Linux.

Your arguement that Linux is semi functional, because people use windows to do other things is a two way street. That's also saying people use Linux for other things, hence windows would also be semi functional. The truth is that on a literal level Linux is more functional, period.

Obviously I read your posts, because I did say: "2) scoobydoobie must have never heard of the server market", because you did not mention it.

You have the 'Windows mentality' going for the 'GNU/Linux throat'. This is what this discussion is about, is it not? If you can be anti-linux and try and argue its down points and compare it to windows, then how can you not expect me to discuss Windows' downfalls and compare it to Linux?

As for my 'fanatic' statement, that was in reference to a prior statement you had made calling everyone here 'Linux fanatics'. I mean that doesn't even make sense if you think that everyone here uses Windows as well.

As for my security statement it was aimed at your 'hackered OS' statement. It is obvious in OS history that you are wrong. UNIX was the most secure OS for decades and argueably still is. Imagine an OS built with security in mind from the start instead of how to get a mouse to work.

And yes I'm adding to the fire of enlightenment. Learn something. And no I still don't think you've spent much, if any, time using Linux, because for one, it is very improbable that you have used 'every linux flavor' since there are so many and I've never seen anything about the actual operation of the GNU/Linux based OS where you give an ACTUAL example of what is bad. You just make blanket statements about it, which if you know anything about people debating, that is a cop out from actually knowing the subject.

And FYI I am not a kid, I am not some 'Linux fanatic'. I'm a Linux user, you aren't. Most of us Linux users know both sides of the playing field in MS vs. GNU/whatever, because we've used both. I can't say that its fact that you don't use Linux or that you haven't ever used it, but the fact is, that it is obvious to everyone here that either you never have, or if you did, it wasn't much time at all.

I'll go, maybe I have another kernel to download to make my Linux experience better. And maybe I have a windows update one my roommate could use so some peice of hardware or software that was supposed to work, will work, but maybe not, it might be awhile before that update comes out, maybe a couple of months, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you been reading those biased Microsoft ads, or any other Microsoft funded study? Feel free to link me up and prove me wrong.
naw, don't feel like it. If someone wants to go look it up then by all means do it.

Too many studies show windows to be the most secure. too many studies show Linux to be the most secure. Too many studies show macs to be the most secure....really, not the main issue I was going for to begin with.

Say what you want. I said I thought I had seen articles showing Linux to have more. if you want to dispute it, you go look for the articles.

Yeah, you could always go find a study that concludes that Linux is not good for servers just because it can't parse <insert Microsoft proprietary fileformat> as well as IIS. Please elaborate a little, I'm just curious about what parts you feel lag behind on the server side

again, the same conclusion...look for yourself if you are worried about it. I on the other hand, am not worried about it.

And oh, not to question your experience with Linux, but do you have any in-depth experience? Do you know how to compile a kernel, or set up apache, php and mysql for that matter? Not that it really matters, just answer honest and give me the warm fuzzy feeling

sigh....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're probably sick and tired of running into the latest Windows security snafu. And you're undoubtedly painfully aware that most versions of Unix have their own major security holes, such as the recent HP-UX whopper. I'm guessing that you're wondering if there's a network operating system that gets security right. There is: OpenBSD.
experts agree that OpenBSD is the most secure server operating system now available

Please try to keep up with what's happening in the world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unix is not the most secure os out there. I believe it's openBSD.

Please try to keep up with what's happening in the world

heh, thanks for showing your true ignorance. OpenBSD is a derivitive of AT&T UNIX and since there is no true UNIX (it was broken up many years ago) you can't compare it to UNIX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to Linux vs Windows security advisories, I have seen reports showing RedHat compared to Windows, and RedHat having many more patches than Windows for the same time period.

However, if you look at what comes with RedHat, and compare it to WIndows Server, you will see that RedHat also includes a LOT more to choose from.

For Webservers, I know of Apache (user mode) and Tux (kernel mode)

For mail servers, the big two are (I think) Sendmail and Postfix

For email clients, I can name kmail, evolution, mozilla mail, pine, mutt.

For web clients, there are also a large number, links, mozilla, konquorer and galeon.

I am sure that there are more than I have listed above.

Now, compare this to Windows, which includes just the one option, you will of course expect to see less issues.

For an accurate comparison, instead of comparing total offerings, you should compare only similar configurations.

MS Win Server with IIS and Exchange Server

to

RHL with Apache and Sendmail

for example.

I think you will see the numbers going the other way. But I don't have the raw data to split it up.

[EDIT: By now, the topic has migrated quite a ways off-topic. I'll let it continue as long as discussion remains civil and coherent. If it gets too muddled, I will split sections off as their own threads.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people don't play games much, like me. I can get Rollercoaster Tycoon 1/2 running in Linux via WINE. I use consoles for (games).

And that's good! I've never had anything illegal on my computer even with Windows. :cool:

But with Linux, it really doesn't have any costly software, and software on it (like WordPerfect 8.x) is extremely cheap (~$30) so thats good. :)

Believe me, if i wasnt a gamer, i would have installed Linux and forgot XP in 2 secs. :alien:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.