VeggieBoards banner

1 - 20 of 53 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
443 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Macintosh? Windows? Linux?<br><br><br><br>
Opensource? Commercial?<br><br><br><br>
Freedom of Information? Healthy competition?<br><br><br><br>
What does it all mean, what is your take, (how) does it fit together?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,042 Posts
GNU/Linux.<br><br><br><br>
Free software can be commercial.<br><br><br><br>
Freedom of information and healthy competition are not mutually exclusive, actually I think that freedom of information is needed for healthy competition, otherwise you end up with incredibly uneven competition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
443 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Starting points from a previous thread:<br><br><br><br><a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html" target="_blank">The Free Software Definition</a><br><br><br><br>
"It has been shown in history that competition and the pursuit of profit advance us greater than any other means of motivation." (courtesy Dukati)<br><br><br><br>
"To me using free software feels right. And honestly I don't trust Microsoft. Their software is secret and there's no telling what is in it. Free software is developed completely out in the open. And you know for sure it won't contain code used to spy on people or render their computers inoperatable." (courtesy Kyo)<br><br><br><br>
"Free software isn't slowing down it has shown that it can work and will work and I get excited watching it happen." (courtesy bigdufstuff)<br><br><br><br>
"OSX, Windows, SkyOS, blah blah just slow down progress in the pursuit of maximum profit." (courtesy Satyagraha)<br><br><br><br>
"... I would compare software to a piece of research. And in the research community, you stand on the shoulder of others. Scientists today build on the work done by generations before them. It would make little sense to start from scratch - to reinvent the wheel so to speak. The same is true for software." (courtesy Indian Summer)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
It's all a moot point.<br><br><br><br>
In the next ten years one OS will be indistinguishable from another.<br><br><br><br>
As networks grow larger and more ubiquitous the necessity of having common platforms will increase to ensure the interoperability of systems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
780 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">GNU/Linux.<br><br><br><br>
Free software can be commercial.<br><br><br><br>
Freedom of information and healthy competition are not mutually exclusive, actually I think that freedom of information is needed for healthy competition, otherwise you end up with incredibly uneven competition.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
That's true and I'm afraid that my posts in the other thread left the impression that free software isn't for profit. But sometimes it is for profit and sometimes it isn't. Some free software costs money and some doesn't. For example, Debian Linux is produced by volunteers and it's not for profit but Red Hat Linux is produced by a commercial company and is for profit. Debian doesn't charge for downloading their distribution but it costs money if you buy a boxed set. Red Hat has a free version that can be downloaded but they also have versions that cost money.<br><br><br><br>
And there's nothing wrong with giving the software away at no cost. Why do the people at Debian volunteer their time? I'm sure that they: enjoy doing it, believe in what they are doing and feel that they are accomplishing something. And I'm sure that they are happy to see people download their software.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
780 Posts
I've had it with Windows. I've gotten adware on my computer twice. The second time it brought my computer to a crawl. When that happened I decided to remove Windows entirely from my computer. I repartitioned my hard drive for Linux only and installed Debian Testing. Using Windows is like living in a bad neighborhood, you can expect your house to be broken into. Linux (and other *nixes) are MUCH safer. Vista MIGHT be better than the older Windows versions security wise; we will see. But it's a resource hog.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Sketchy</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
It's all a moot point.<br><br><br><br>
In the next ten years one OS will be indistinguishable from another.<br><br><br><br>
As networks grow larger and more ubiquitous the necessity of having common platforms will increase to ensure the interoperability of systems.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
The reason this might happen is because free software has allowed the OS and most software to become a commodity. This is what scares MS the most.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>bigdufstuff</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
The reason this might happen is because free software has allowed the OS and most software to become a commodity. This is what scares MS the most.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Completely wrong.<br><br><br><br>
I was referring to the hardware - it is the hardware which drives the software (contrary to what developers might think.)<br><br><br><br>
Think of the hardware as the car and the software as the fuel. A car is useless without fuel, but can use many different grades and types of fuel - some better than others for that particular car. The fuel however serves no purpose whatsoever without the car (in this analogy at least) and would not even exist in its current form if not for the hardware being what it is.<br><br><br><br>
If M$ is so bad what is your opinion of other closed OSes, such as OSX? Or are you simply against M$ and commercial software (which has actually helped commodify the computer MORE than open or free software).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
780 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Think of the hardware as the car and the software as the fuel.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
How about<br><br><br><br>
hardware - car<br><br>
electricity - fuel<br><br><br><br>
Software is a sequence of instructions that controls the hardware. That's very apparent in low level (assembly language) programing. In fact, each step of an assembly language program is called an instruction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Kyo</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
How about<br><br><br><br>
hardware - car<br><br>
electricity - fuel<br><br><br><br>
Software is a sequence of instructions that controls the hardware. That's very apparent in low level (assembly language) programing. In fact, each step of an assembly language program is called an instruction.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Thanks for that.<br><br><br><br>
However I was making an analogy regarding the commoditization of computer hardware - not the technical differences between OS's.<br><br><br><br>
I realize that computers do indeed run on electricity, but they also will not run without instructions, of which low level (assembly language) programs are made.<br><br><br><br>
I will reiterate the point - without a (confusing to some, apparently) analogy.<br><br><br><br>
Computers are becoming generic because one platform has become dominant and hardware makers can realize greater economies of scale by supporting one platform only. It is no accident that Apple has moved to x86 arcitechture, it allows the company to try and leverage their few remaining comparitive advantages (Advertising and Packaging).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Sketchy</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Completely wrong.<br><br><br><br>
I was referring to the hardware - it is the hardware which drives the software (contrary to what developers might think.)</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Or they drive each other. They are both approaching a commodity product.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
897 Posts
I live in both worlds, and I have to admit, RMS' views are compelling. I don't believe the world will eliminate the barriers to copyleft, but I support anyone that personally moves in that direction. There's a strong analog to veggies & omnis from a moral standpoint.<br><br><br><br>
I also see the value of proprietary software. I'm not certain Stallman's argument that software will be advanced best through free software is correct. Massive and complex problems may require massive resources. Much of RMS ideals of living in communities and of a simpler lifestyle seem to shine through.<br><br><br><br>
I'd be lieing if I said I completely bought it, but I do like it.<br><br><br><br><a href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html" target="_blank">http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
780 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Computers are becoming generic because one platform has become dominant and hardware makers can realize greater economies of scale by supporting one platform only. It is no accident that Apple has moved to x86 arcitechture, it allows the company to try and leverage their few remaining comparitive advantages (Advertising and Packaging</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Sorry, I didn't read all your posts so I didn't have the context. The X86 architecture has been very popular for a long time, ever since the IBM PC took a foothold. From the beginning IBM went with Intel and Apple went with Motorola microprocessors. But there is a more software developed for the X86 platform than the 680X0 or Power PC platforms and the X86 hardware is cheaper. I guess Apple decided that if you can't beet them join them. I don't think that means that dramatic changes are taking place. X86 is dominant and has been dominant (at least in the personal computer market) for a long time, since the 1980s I think. Apple has a very small share of the market. Personal computers have been a commodity for a long time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>VeggieFrank</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
I'm not certain Stallman's argument that software will be advanced best through free software is correct.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
RMS doesn't make this claim. The open source advocates do though. RMS claims that there is a moral imperative to support free software, not a technical one. He does say that it is convenient that free software happens to produce technically great software, but that isn't his first concern.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
897 Posts
What are your views on information sharing? Always, unless it harms another?<br><br><br><br>
Would the computer science/industry have advanced this far this fast if there were no copyright laws?<br><br><br><br>
Thanks for your comments.<br><br><br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>bigdufstuff</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
RMS doesn't make this claim. The open source advocates do though. RMS claims that there is a moral imperative to support free software, not a technical one. He does say that it is convenient that free software happens to produce technically great software, but that isn't his first concern.</div>
</div>
<br>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Kyo</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
...there is a more software developed for the X86 platform than the 680X0 or Power PC platforms and the X86 hardware is cheaper.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Are you simply stating a fact here?<br><br><br><br>
Try and think about WHY x86 hardware is cheaper...economies of scale and intense competitive pressure.<br><br><br><br>
Now WHY was more software developed for the x86? Bigger installed user base, BECAUSE of the economies of scale and intense competitive pressure on the hardware side which allowed almost everyone to own an Intel PC.<br><br><br><br>
Now competitve pressure has eliminated the margin on most computer equipment and the only way to generate a profit is through volume, which leads to more and more similar components and systems to leverage - guess what - greater economies of scale.<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Kyo</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
I guess Apple decided that if you can't beet them join them. I don't think that means that dramatic changes are taking place. X86 is dominant and has been dominant (at least in the personal computer market) for a long time, since the 1980s I think.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Apple is trying to leverage their only remaining advantages. Apple produces better advertising and captures small and devoted segments of the market. Apple advertising is directed as much if not more at existing customers (You are the Apple guy, smart, witty, stylish, trendy, versus the stodgy and nerdy PC guy) than prospective customers. This is to generate loyalty and reinforce to macaddicts that they made the best chioce. So it's not really if you can't beat them, join them, it is we can not beat them one way so let's attack somewhere else (where we can win).<br><br><br><br>
Apple switching to x86 was predicted and speculated on for some time before it happened - so no it was not a dramatic change. See my previous point for why x86 has dominated (Hint - Clone wars) since the 1980's.<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Kyo</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Apple has a very small share of the market. Personal computers have been a commodity for a long time.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
I don't know what Apple's market share has to do with PC's being a commodity. Apple computers are PC's, always have been, PC is an abbreviation of Personal Computer.<br><br><br><br>
PC's are not yet a true commodity - a commodity is something which is identical in every way to the one next to it. Wheat, Oil, and Gold are commodities. When (not if) we trade microprocessors on the stock market PC's will become a commodity.<br><br><br><br>
We have reached a point, however, where an average PC user sees no difference between Processors or RAM, and the only consideration is price - that is how commoditites sell, price alone differentiates products. As computers in general become more powerful the top-end users (Graphics, Video and Sound Editing, Video Games) will have less need to search out specialized hardware because the generic hardware will be able to do the job as well for less money. That is where computers become a commodity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
443 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
One other thing working for Apple -- their multimedia and graphic design software. It's the industry standard.<br><br><br><br>
/random
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>MissGarbo</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
One other thing working for Apple -- their multimedia and graphic design software. It's the industry standard.<br><br><br><br>
/random</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Sort of misusing the term "standard". A standard is a specification recognized by a standards group, such as the International Organization of Standardization (ISO), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), or the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).<br><br><br><br>
What you are referring to is sometimes called a "de facto" standard. Meaning that it has a critical mass of market (or mind) share so that it is effectively recognized as a standard. Photoshop on Mac OS X isn't the standard for image editing in the graphic arts world but it might be called the de facto standard. A de facto standard doesn't always openly share a specification nor neccessarily make it easy for interoperability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
443 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>bigdufstuff</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Sort of misusing the term "standard". A standard is a specification recognized by a standards group, such as the International Organization of Standardization (ISO), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), or the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).<br><br><br><br>
What you are referring to is sometimes called a "de facto" standard. Meaning that it has a critical mass of market (or mind) share so that it is effectively recognized as a standard. Photoshop on Mac OS X isn't the standard for image editing in the graphic arts world but it might be called the de facto standard. A de facto standard doesn't always openly share a specification nor neccessarily make it easy for interoperability.</div>
</div>
<br>
Didn't mean it did. Just meant everyone in the industry still uses it and thinks it's the only thing to use.<br><br><br><br>
I like the gimp, if I can ever get used to the interface.
 
1 - 20 of 53 Posts
Top