Research Paper regarding LINUX/Open Source

[nord1899]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: kherman
How aboiut writing an article on how Microsoft is tryong to make open source illegal siting security concerns. A convenient side effect for Microsoft is that this will allow Microsoft to further monopolize the industry.

It's not a commonly discussed topic, yet it is VERY valid and 'm sure you could find lots of sources.

I've also heard about how easy Red Hat 8 is to install! Microsoft whould be quaking in their boots.

How about they change their name to Micropoly. (Miscrosoft Monopoly. Maybe you could buy that make-your-own-opoly board game where you turn the classic game into something of your own. Each space could be another event in Microsoft's hisitroy on how they screwed other companies. What would Boardwalk be????)

I would like to see one valid link to something like this. I do not see anyway that lawmakers could pass a law that would stand up to constitutional scrutiny outlawing open source even if Microsoft was actively pursuing such an initiative.

I think what he is talking about is the group called Software Choice created by Microsoft. Which has its couterpart, Sincere Choice founded by Bruce Perens.

The thing here isn't that MS is outlawing open source outright. Its more like they are trying to make even more patents regarding software, which of course requires royalties, which would basically kill open source software.

Sincere Choice doesn't really care if the source code is open or if the software is free. It just wants the interoperability to be open. That is, the file formats (tip: have MS Word save everything in RTF rather than DOC and everyone can read it), the network protocols (Network Shares), etc...

Back to the topic of the thread: You could do a paper regarding the recent trend of countries investigating (Peru) or mandating (Germany) open source for government projects. One common thread in these countries is that they don't like being tied to a single company in a country other than their own. Thats a decent basis for globalization.

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: nord1899

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: kherman
How aboiut writing an article on how Microsoft is tryong to make open source illegal siting security concerns. A convenient side effect for Microsoft is that this will allow Microsoft to further monopolize the industry.

It's not a commonly discussed topic, yet it is VERY valid and 'm sure you could find lots of sources.

I've also heard about how easy Red Hat 8 is to install! Microsoft whould be quaking in their boots.

How about they change their name to Micropoly. (Miscrosoft Monopoly. Maybe you could buy that make-your-own-opoly board game where you turn the classic game into something of your own. Each space could be another event in Microsoft's hisitroy on how they screwed other companies. What would Boardwalk be????)

I would like to see one valid link to something like this. I do not see anyway that lawmakers could pass a law that would stand up to constitutional scrutiny outlawing open source even if Microsoft was actively pursuing such an initiative.

I think what he is talking about is the group called Software Choice created by Microsoft. Which has its couterpart, Sincere Choice founded by Bruce Perens.

The thing here isn't that MS is outlawing open source outright. Its more like they are trying to make even more patents regarding software, which of course requires royalties, which would basically kill open source software.

Sincere Choice doesn't really care if the source code is open or if the software is free. It just wants the interoperability to be open. That is, the file formats (tip: have MS Word save everything in RTF rather than DOC and everyone can read it), the network protocols (Network Shares), etc...

Back to the topic of the thread: You could do a paper regarding the recent trend of countries investigating (Peru) or mandating (Germany) open source for government projects. One common thread in these countries is that they don't like being tied to a single company in a country other than their own. Thats a decent basis for globalization.

oh so now patents are bad

maybe we should just cut to the chase and stop using money, i mean shouldn't everyone have everything for free anyway?

 

[Jzero]

First, I suggest reviewing this article about the semantic difference between "Free software" and "Open Source software."

Then, perhaps discuss/research how both "Free software" and "Non-free software" are BOTH striving for globalization by travelling in opposite directions. The difference between Free Software and non-free software is not money. As GNU waxes, "Free software as in Free Speech, not necessarily Free Beer."

The difference is that Free Software strives to maximize the rights of the user. The GNU GPL doesn't imply that you can't charge money for your software, it implies only that the source code must be available so that the user may modify it to suit his needs. One of the pitfalls is that there is no way to stop someone from modifying YOUR source code that you are charging money for, and redistributing it for free, or worse, for their own financial benefit.

Non-free Software, OTOH, strives to maximize profit and market dominance by appealing to the people who don't want to tinker with their software, which is a lot more people. One of the pitfalls of this scheme is that it cripples the tinkerer class of users who would like to be able to fix bugs themselves, or perhaps compile an OS kernel that does only what they need it to do.

 

[nord1899]

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: nord1899

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: kherman
How aboiut writing an article on how Microsoft is tryong to make open source illegal siting security concerns. A convenient side effect for Microsoft is that this will allow Microsoft to further monopolize the industry.

It's not a commonly discussed topic, yet it is VERY valid and 'm sure you could find lots of sources.

I've also heard about how easy Red Hat 8 is to install! Microsoft whould be quaking in their boots.

How about they change their name to Micropoly. (Miscrosoft Monopoly. Maybe you could buy that make-your-own-opoly board game where you turn the classic game into something of your own. Each space could be another event in Microsoft's hisitroy on how they screwed other companies. What would Boardwalk be????)

I would like to see one valid link to something like this. I do not see anyway that lawmakers could pass a law that would stand up to constitutional scrutiny outlawing open source even if Microsoft was actively pursuing such an initiative.

I think what he is talking about is the group called Software Choice created by Microsoft. Which has its couterpart, Sincere Choice founded by Bruce Perens.

The thing here isn't that MS is outlawing open source outright. Its more like they are trying to make even more patents regarding software, which of course requires royalties, which would basically kill open source software.

Sincere Choice doesn't really care if the source code is open or if the software is free. It just wants the interoperability to be open. That is, the file formats (tip: have MS Word save everything in RTF rather than DOC and everyone can read it), the network protocols (Network Shares), etc...

Back to the topic of the thread: You could do a paper regarding the recent trend of countries investigating (Peru) or mandating (Germany) open source for government projects. One common thread in these countries is that they don't like being tied to a single company in a country other than their own. Thats a decent basis for globalization.

oh so now patents are bad

maybe we should just cut to the chase and stop using money, i mean shouldn't everyone have everything for free anyway?

I have absolutely no problem with patents. Its software patents that I have a problem with. A patent typically defines some sort of process to either create something or do something. And the patent will have terminology that allows it to be extended to include other processes that end up creating or doing that thing. This works great for the physical world. But sucks horribly for the software world.

I mean, why can't copyrights be good enough for software? They work well for other written works. They protect that method of achieving the end but not the process.

The use of patents in the software world can destroy innovation. A good example: The recent claim of the JPEG patent. Everyone uses JPEG's, has been for years. But now the group that founded it is making a claim on that patent. If they really wanted, to they could force everyone who uses a JPEG encoder or decoder to pay them money. Now to get access to all those pictures you have, you have to pay these guys money for it. Aren't patents great?

In fact, I recently read a quote by Bill Gates, a person you work for. Heres the quote "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today." Do a google search on it, you'll find tons of hits.

Again, aren't software patents great?

This would actually make a good paper topic. Too bad I'm not in college anymore.