Re: "Red Hat recommends Windows for consumers"

From: Karsten M. Self (kmself_at_ix.netcom.com)
Date: 11/09/03

  • Next message: David Jardine: "Re: [OT] routing failed"
    Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 08:48:54 +0000
    To: Debian-User <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
    
    
    

    on Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 04:27:42PM +1300, cr (cr@orcon.net.nz) wrote:
    > On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 07:27, Ron Johnson wrote:
    > > On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 11:45, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
    > > > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 11:01:58AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
    > > > > As in "proprietary, closed-source apps"?
    > > > >
    > > > > Well, that depends on if you see them as a "problem", or something
    > > > > that you prefer not to use.
    > > > >
    > > > > I prefer not to use proprietary, closed-source apps, but, when
    > > > > necessary, will pay for them, and use them, even on Debian.
    > > >
    > > > Personally I haven't really made my mind up about prioprietry apps, and
    > > > whether RMS is right or not. However, the success of Linux is widely
    > > > attributed to the open-source development model, so I can't really see
    > > > the future of Linux throwing it away.
    > >
    > > I'm all for the open-source development model. However, we must
    > > respect that some companies want to keep their source closed, and
    > > still sell to the Linux market.
    >
    > (snip)
    >
    > Personally, I think the battle should be about open *standards*. I think
    > Open Source is good, but I quite happily use as my preferred browser, Opera
    > (which I'm pretty sure isn't Open Source), in preference to Konq or Galeon.
    > Just a matter of personal preference.
    >
    > What I won't tolerate (when I have any say in the matter) is proprietary
    > standards whereby one company tries to establish a monopoly (and yes I do
    > mean Microsoft). Anybody sends me a Word doc is likely to be asked to send
    > it again in some open format. I don't care that Open Office can read it
    > (though I rather welcome the existence of OO - anything that helps to
    > undermine the Evil Empire can't be bad :)

    See:

        http://twiki.iwethey.org/Main/FreeSoftwarePrimer

    Both standards *and* free software matter. Without open standards, it's
    very difficult to write good code. Case in point: WINE, which is
    attempting to implemement a "standard" that's both closed and constantly
    in flux.

    Contrast to the webserver space in which the standard is not only open,
    but overwhelmingly dominated by free software.

    Without free software, open standards drift over time (are "embraced and
    extended"), and become fragmented and non-free. Witness the UNIX wars
    and various SQL implementations. (little known fact: "Project ORACLE"
    was a defense data management project in the 1970s which grew into a
    largish proprietary enterprise applications vendor headquartered at
    Redwood Shores. If I've got my stories straight.

        http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/05/20/MN209661.DTL
        http://www.kean.edu/~rpadua/WEBPOSTER.HTML
        http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/996741
        http://www.orafaq.org/faqora.htm

    Peace.
        

    -- 
    Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
     What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
      Backgrounder on the Caldera/SCO vs. IBM and Linux dispute.
          http://sco.iwethey.org/
    
    

    -- 
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org 
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
    


  • Next message: David Jardine: "Re: [OT] routing failed"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: The Open Source Future Is Now
      ... open source does not equal open standards. ... > ideas about support for open source projects. ... > distributor since your distributor will only support packages obtained ...
      (alt.os.linux.suse)
    • Re: Linux Advocates Fear Solaris 10.
      ... >> Open standards ARE better than open source. ... >> that an open source project implements changes, ... Putting the standards first insures interoperability, ...
      (comp.unix.solaris)
    • Re: Linux Advocates Fear Solaris 10.
      ... > I am certain you have lots and lots of examples where you could not compile ... >> standards are only what counts. ... it has nothing to do with Sun. I'm happy with some things about Sun and ... the point behind of free software is to make it avalable for everyone. ...
      (comp.unix.solaris)
    • Re: compiler for c++
      ... compiler and JVM available that is not open source, ... are not owned by anybody and governed by international standards. ... Java is *owned* by Sun. ... the software patent. ...
      (comp.programming)
    • Re: who owns C
      ... ANSI C is one of the generic names for the C language as defined by ... American National Standards Institute but they don't own the language. ... Open source and freeware are terms that apply to software products, ...
      (comp.lang.c)