Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on January 04, 2003 08:14 AM
GPL is irrelevant? Idiot. "Linux's only real market share..." Ignorant capitalistic pig. If nowhere else, GPL has a place in universities. Hears a simple example: ANSI C++ code compiles in Visual C++, but not vice versa. What does this mean? It means that students who learn to code for a GPL compiler can STILL work in an M$ world, HOWEVER if oh-so-sweet M$ fades away, as all things must, those programmers will still be able to earn a living. Yes, the tech economy NEEDS socialistic software. Ironic isn't it? As to how this relates to Linux...
BSD is a great license, but can be plagiarized. For example, NT/2k/XP is based on BSD, and yet M$ has bit the hand that has fed them. Of course you already know how dependent on FreeBSD M$ is when it comes to webservers. So why GPL? GPL prevents plagiarism. It means that everyone is entitled to the same rights you have recieved. A true libertarian concept if I've ever heard one. Quite "American" actually, although Steve Balmer may disagree. At any rate, what I'm trying to say, is that if GCC was BSD licensed, M$ could just sit back, steal the code, and all the time insert there own stumbling blocks (features and shortcuts in M$ lingo) to "direct" programmers towards "better technologies". Sort of like a road lined with row apon row of tire rippers. It is very, very hard for a BSD licensed compiler to get anywhere in this world. Which brings us to GPL:
With GPL everyone gets to build off of everyone else's work. The wheel must never be re-invented, only refined when needed. GPL means that you have access you everything you need to make your product "work optimally with the operating system". Quicktime, Real[player,One] can theoretically integrate into KDE/GNOME better than they do into Windows. A GPL operating system and GPL GUI mean that all software companies have equal opportunity for a successfull product. It means the best product wins,no matter what license or business ties the developers of that product may have. If students learn that GPL is ok, and they release their preliminary work under it, companies can look their work, and it builds their resume's. I don't believe the world should be opensourced. There are groups such as hardware manufacturers who stand to loose their edge, if the specifications of their products are released. That's what binary modules are for. Things like compression algorithms can be reasonably propriopriatized too. Both these hardware drivers and compression algorithms should be released under a more open license after the next line of produts obsoletes them. (usually safe after three years or so in the tech industry, if I'm correct) This strategy is called "expanding your market share while keeping your edge, while drawing developers to your group by your benevolence". There's something you don't seem to understand: If people become frustrated with a tool, they won't use it. If people are told that they can only use a tool for X, they won't buy it when another another tool will help them do what they need to get done, and then anything they can think of later. People are becoming jaded towards computers. If you haven't noticed, Apple's been taking advantage of this with their switch campaign. We NEED an enlightenment. We NEED a renewal in ingenuity. Linux wasn't build from reactionary thought. It was built because there was needed. Linux can be the beginning of a whole new era tech innovation. The OS business is ludicrous anyway. It's like trying to patent the technique of forging iron. Eventually it will leak out. I believe it was Neal Stephenson, or Bruce Sterling who said that "All Operating Systems are destined to become free". It's much better to allow people to learn how to forge iron, and make money selling shovels, axes, or scythes instead.
Linux will never die, although it might fade away if a better, faster, cheaper, more open alternative becomes available.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:This will be what kills linux
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 04, 2003 08:14 AMBSD is a great license, but can be plagiarized. For example, NT/2k/XP is based on BSD, and yet M$ has bit the hand that has fed them. Of course you already know how dependent on FreeBSD M$ is when it comes to webservers. So why GPL? GPL prevents plagiarism. It means that everyone is entitled to the same rights you have recieved. A true libertarian concept if I've ever heard one. Quite "American" actually, although Steve Balmer may disagree. At any rate, what I'm trying to say, is that if GCC was BSD licensed, M$ could just sit back, steal the code, and all the time insert there own stumbling blocks (features and shortcuts in M$ lingo) to "direct" programmers towards "better technologies". Sort of like a road lined with row apon row of tire rippers. It is very, very hard for a BSD licensed compiler to get anywhere in this world. Which brings us to GPL:
With GPL everyone gets to build off of everyone else's work. The wheel must never be re-invented, only refined when needed. GPL means that you have access you everything you need to make your product "work optimally with the operating system". Quicktime, Real[player,One] can theoretically integrate into KDE/GNOME better than they do into Windows. A GPL operating system and GPL GUI mean that all software companies have equal opportunity for a successfull product. It means the best product wins,no matter what license or business ties the developers of that product may have. If students learn that GPL is ok, and they release their preliminary work under it, companies can look their work, and it builds their resume's. I don't believe the world should be opensourced. There are groups such as hardware manufacturers who stand to loose their edge, if the specifications of their products are released. That's what binary modules are for. Things like compression algorithms can be reasonably propriopriatized too. Both these hardware drivers and compression algorithms should be released under a more open license after the next line of produts obsoletes them. (usually safe after three years or so in the tech industry, if I'm correct) This strategy is called "expanding your market share while keeping your edge, while drawing developers to your group by your benevolence". There's something you don't seem to understand: If people become frustrated with a tool, they won't use it. If people are told that they can only use a tool for X, they won't buy it when another another tool will help them do what they need to get done, and then anything they can think of later. People are becoming jaded towards computers. If you haven't noticed, Apple's been taking advantage of this with their switch campaign. We NEED an enlightenment. We NEED a renewal in ingenuity. Linux wasn't build from reactionary thought. It was built because there was needed. Linux can be the beginning of a whole new era tech innovation. The OS business is ludicrous anyway. It's like trying to patent the technique of forging iron. Eventually it will leak out. I believe it was Neal Stephenson, or Bruce Sterling who said that "All Operating Systems are destined to become free". It's much better to allow people to learn how to forge iron, and make money selling shovels, axes, or scythes instead.
Linux will never die, although it might fade away if a better, faster, cheaper, more open alternative becomes available.
#