Viability of propreitary software on the long run

[ant80]

Initially, Verilog was more popular and powerful. But the govt. did not want to invest heavily in propreitary stuff. So vhdl was born. Initially, verilog was more powerful. However, vhdl overtook it in all respects on the long run.

Now, drawing an analogy, the dept. of defense, homeland security, china, india, (the two countries that have almost a third of the world's population) and several other smaller asian, african, and south american countries have invested in open source software and OSes. How is it going to affect average home users? and how soon?

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: ant80
Initially, Verilog was more popular and powerful. But the govt. did not want to invest heavily in propreitary stuff. So vhdl was born. Initially, verilog was more powerful. However, vhdl overtook it in all respects on the long run.

Now, drawing an analogy, the dept. of defense, homeland security, china, india, (the two countries that have almost a third of the world's population) and several other smaller asian, african, and south american countries have invested in open source software and OSes. How is it going to affect average home users? and how soon?

All of my professors here seem to hate VHDL vehemently....

 

[SuperTool]

Most companies use Verilog.

 

[Reel]

all we learned so far at my school is vhdl. all we've had is a brief mention that verilog is an alternative and a shorter gov't story.

 

[CTho9305]

eh, my school is highly ranked in ECE
anyway, I think pm said intel uses a variant of Verilog, not VHDL

 

[capybara]

i would like to say mS windows and office is logically doomed, no one will pay $100 for windoze and
$200 for office if linux and open office are free and functionally equal. But unfortunately, once you
grab 90% of the market, compatibility with m$ de-facto standard becomes the most important issue.
so all the mS employees and shareholders are assuming proprietary software is here to stay =
even in the long run.

 

[FuriousBroccoli]

But Linux and Open Office AREN'T functionally equal, they are pathetic in scope compared to WindowsXP and OfficeXP. Notice I say scope, I know how many hacker geeks and server operators will rave about Linux, but that's a fraction of what an OS like WindowsXP can do, and do it best.

Software is getting more complex, much more complex. As that happens, the whole free software hippy movement can't keep up with well-organized corporations like Microsoft. Just as nobody can pool their resources and invent a new CPU to compete with Intel, or a space probe to compete with NASA, nobody can expect to make an OS to compete with Windows, and the gap will only widen...

Au contraire, Linux and the open source movement are doomed.

 

[capybara]

if FuriousB is correct, why are corps such as HP and IBM and govt agencies such as
NSA [national sercurity agency] investing billions in linux?
Why do most of the major webservers and databases in the world
run on unix? two reasons: security and stability. What do you think
is the OS for Bank of America? Visa and Mastercard? Anandtech?
Not m$. Unix variants including BSD, Solaris, IBX's AIX,HP-UX and linux.
When millions of dollars are at stake, would u use windoze? Not if
you wanted to keep your job as director of IT.
But to stay on topic ===open source vs. prroprietary===
many of the best unix variants (solaris for ex) are proprietary. If millions of dollars were at stake, my choice would be proprietary solaris, not open source linux.

 

[FuriousBroccoli]

If they are investing billions, sorta defeats the point, doesn't it?;-) You didn't read what I said, I said scope, because Linux still has a competitive place in the server market (competitive, not dominant, despite what you try to allude), but that's all, it's not a *competitive* workstation OS, home OS, development OS, etc. However, Linux's share is decreasing, and if you follow the charts, it's rapidly losing ground to windows in the server market. Windows.NET is going to be another massive blow in that department.

 

[Walleye]

well, if longhorn is going to be what rumors said it was going to be, i think a whole lot of people will very quickly move to linux and similar OS's.

 

[FuriousBroccoli]

What are you talking about? Longhorn looks cool. If you're talking about palladium, then you're a conspiracy nut. You're the kind of person who raved when Intel added ids to their P4s. You can disable palladium if you don't like what it offers you, it's an opt-in program.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ant80
Initially, Verilog was more popular and powerful. But the govt. did not want to invest heavily in propreitary stuff. So vhdl was born. Initially, verilog was more powerful. However, vhdl overtook it in all respects on the long run.

Now, drawing an analogy, the dept. of defense, homeland security, china, india, (the two countries that have almost a third of the world's population) and several other smaller asian, african, and south american countries have invested in open source software and OSes. How is it going to affect average home users? and how soon?

As long as there are companies that are willing to invest bookoo bucks in software development, there will be propreitary software.

 

[Shalmanese]

FuriousB was comparing Linux and Openoffice to WindowsXP and OfficeXP. Please do not come in here ranting about how *nix is superior in the server arena. What he was pointing out is that Linux is still hopelessly inadequate as client software.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: FuriousBroccoli
What are you talking about? Longhorn looks cool. If you're talking about palladium, then you're a conspiracy nut. You're the kind of person who raved when Intel added ids to their P4s. You can disable palladium if you don't like what it offers you, it's an opt-in program.

Umm, Linux(Well, open source *NIX projects in general) is the OS that's been making huge progress, both in terms of user friendlyness and sacalability/performance.

I agree that it's nowhere near ready for the homeusers desktop yet, and there are too many OSS zealots screaming about it, but you OTOH seem like an MS zealot to me.

Oh and the various Open Source projects have done a very good job at competing with traditional closed source companies so far, and I've yet to see this beginning to change.

 

[FuriousBroccoli]

Linux is making good progress, but perhaps you didn't notice that Microsoft are making great progress. Compare Win98 to WinXP, they are on different levels, XP killed those old complaints of crashes and BSODs in the home OS market (and 2K in the pro market 2 years earlier), you can't say with a straight face Linux is more robust any more. Where has Linux got in this time? A few nicer GUIs, still a terrible program selection, a half-arsed windows emulator, it's a second-rate home OS, and always will be next to Windows, unless magically Microsoft stopped making progress for 10 years.

 

[Sunner]

For heavy workstation usage, Linux is more robust IMO.

Of course maybe that's cause I don't understand how to use it, but considdering I've managed to understand how Linux, Solaris, OpenBSD, and Mac OS-X work with relative ease, that would kinda void the "easy to use" point, no?

I believe that the only platform(I say platform cause the OS is only part of the whole) that is even close to being easy enough for your avarge computer illiterate Joe to both install and use is the Mac with OS-X.

My parrents are relatively knowledgeable when it comes to computers, as compared to most people, but I strongly doubt they'd be able to setup WinXP if I handed them a comp and a disc.
Not that they'd be able to setup RedHat 8 either for that matter.

But IMO Linux has been making progress far quicker lately than MS has, just look at the state Linux was in back in 98, performance was ok, but nothing great, the pretty desktops that home users love were fugly and inefficent, etc.
It's come a huge way since then, far longer than MS has gone with Win98 -> WinXP.

The open source community has one big benefit that MS will never have, they're not bound by stock prices, having to worry about upsetting RIAA, etc etc, while MS has to worry about these things.
Open Source is free(as in speech), Microsoft is not, even the mighty MS is still bound by corporate laws.

 

[capybara]

in the defense of m$: the NTFS used in win2k and winXP is a big jump up in stability from fat32. and m$
is ez to use. winxp has a built in cd burner on its desktop.
in criticism of linux: ive used mandrake 8, rh7, and more. try adding a printer. try burning a cd.
try finding a 56k modem and getting earthlink to run on it. possible, but not as easy as windoze.
in defense of unix in general: unix is the gold standard of servers (i wont repeat the long list showing
85% of all big databases and big webservers including anandtk run on it) because of stability
and security. linux has dragged the formerly proprietary unixes (hp-ux, solaris, ibm - aix)
into the open source world. as long as linux is and remains unix compatibile, it shares alot of
their strengths.
linux specifically: look at all the linux OS machines being sold in places like wal-mart for $299
or they give you a choice of the same machine with windoze for $450. this has gotta have m$
shaking in its boots.
dont feel sorrry for m$: theyve been king for a long time and made billions, and will be king
until its as easy on linux to setup a printer, modem, earthlink, AOL, and copy
a cd with linux as it is on m$. that time is not yet here. sorry, i love linux and hate
m$ , but i do understand this reality.
<<<this post written on win2k because i couldnt get linux to do all the things ive mentioned>>>

 

[Armitage]

One serious issue with long term reliance on proprietary software is proprietary, non human-readable document formats. Unethical companies use this to force upgrades when they otherwise wouldn't be needed. If you are archiving data for the long term, tracking down the various converters and supporting software can be a pain. An even bigger pain if they don't all work.

But Linux and Open Office AREN'T functionally equal, they are pathetic in scope compared to WindowsXP and OfficeXP.

IMHO, Windows is pathetic compared to Unix & Linux. Still doesn't have the stability, scalability, security & managability of Unix
I don't have much use for office suites, but I would guess Open Office is adequate for 99% of the users out there.

 

[Sunner]

Im gonna have to agree with ergeorge's post.

To me, Windows is pathetic compared to Linux.
At work, I run Gentoo on my workstation, and it does everything I need it to do, it does it better than Windows, and it does it for free.
It has all the benefits and no cons for my work.

 

[stebesplace]

In the great words of uncle sam. . .

woop dee f***ing do. . .

anyways,

I am sure that we have seen a pinicle here for windows. Windows XP. I say this because on the consumer side, there is going to be some time, 2005? maby later, till windows would bring another OS out. They won't be on their 2 year track anymore. If they build a completly new OS, not built off any previous, then there will be a gap, where, linux can catch up if they want to.

The problem is that linux is open source, in terms of so many people get it, and the wizards that these people are, alter it to their own custom doing. Come on, mom and pop schmo down in timbuktoo don't even know how to turn their sh*t box on, let alone configuire a PPP in linux. I recall RH 5.2, and what a pain it was to configure PPP. So f that.

I am not raving windows, it has sh*t problems to. I am not raving linux, it has more sh*t problems to. NOR am i raving a mac, although i like a mac better than windows and linux combined.

To me, linux is like a crapped out version of osx. Why waste your time with linux when you can get a completly robust version known as mac osx.

Ohh well, the war will always continue.

THE BUMS WILL ALWAYS LOOSE MR. LABOWSKI. . . THE BUMS WILL ALWAYS LOOSE!!!

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: stebesplace
I recall RH 5.2, and what a pain it was to configure PPP.

Yup, PPP was a real PITA in RedHat 5.2. But if your basing your opinion of linux on that ancient version, then I'll just counter that Windows 98 sucks completely. PPP is simple to set up in modern distros.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: stebesplace
In the great words of uncle sam. . .

woop dee f***ing do. . .

anyways,

I am sure that we have seen a pinicle here for windows. Windows XP. I say this because on the consumer side, there is going to be some time, 2005? maby later, till windows would bring another OS out. They won't be on their 2 year track anymore. If they build a completly new OS, not built off any previous, then there will be a gap, where, linux can catch up if they want to.

The problem is that linux is open source, in terms of so many people get it, and the wizards that these people are, alter it to their own custom doing. Come on, mom and pop schmo down in timbuktoo don't even know how to turn their sh*t box on, let alone configuire a PPP in linux. I recall RH 5.2, and what a pain it was to configure PPP. So f that.

I am not raving windows, it has sh*t problems to. I am not raving linux, it has more sh*t problems to. NOR am i raving a mac, although i like a mac better than windows and linux combined.

To me, linux is like a crapped out version of osx. Why waste your time with linux when you can get a completly robust version known as mac osx.

Ohh well, the war will always continue.

THE BUMS WILL ALWAYS LOOSE MR. LABOWSKI. . . THE BUMS WILL ALWAYS LOOSE!!!

The open source part of both a strength and weakness.

On the one hand, what you say is completely true, it's made by nerds for nerds.
But on the other hand, if you were to come up with the concept of making a Linux based OS where PPP configuration was easy, etc, then you could just take all the code wanted, for free, and make your own distro with lots and lots of little graphical interfaces for configuration, etc.

Unmatched flexibility.

 

[FuriousBroccoli]

Again, I said pathetic in scope. You are just being silly if you are going to pretend Linux is on par with Windows XP in areas such as usability, application compatibility and range, multimedia (e.g DirectX), interface, support (Windows comes with great support, and a knowledge library that's bigger than all the resources on every other OS pooled together), hardware support, development tools, and obviously every app you ever use, because open source doesn't have a business model that's going to drive good developers to create software for it. Free software is the equivilent of the 60's hippy free love, nice idea but it doesn't work.

Linux/Unix is for SPECIALIZED tasks (certain server and workstation tasks) and nerds who like to tinker. That's all it is, fact. I have respect for people who cite specifics, like "right now, we use Linux to manage our distributed database backend, and Win2k currently doesn't offer the flexibility we need, and we're on too tight a budget to pay the license fees". But anyone who tries to argue Linux as a general competitor to Windows needs to be shot, hung, drawn, and quartered.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: FuriousBroccoli
Again, I said pathetic in scope. You are just being silly if you are going to pretend Linux is on par with Windows XP in areas such as usability, application compatibility and range, multimedia (e.g DirectX), interface, support (Windows comes with great support, and a knowledge library that's bigger than all the resources on every other OS pooled together), hardware support, development tools, and obviously every app you ever use, because open source doesn't have a business model that's going to drive good developers to create software for it. Free software is the equivilent of the 60's hippy free love, nice idea but it doesn't work.

Linux/Unix is for SPECIALIZED tasks (certain server and workstation tasks) and nerds who like to tinker. That's all it is, fact. I have respect for people who cite specifics, like "right now, we use Linux to manage our distributed database backend, and Win2k currently doesn't offer the flexibility we need, and we're on too tight a budget to pay the license fees". But anyone who tries to argue Linux as a general competitor to Windows needs to be shot, hung, drawn, and quartered.

Usability - Subjective, Linux is far easier for me to use, since Im used to it, Windows annoys the crap out of me, if you've never used Linux, but only Windows, of course Linux is gonna be tough.
Applications - Linux has all the apps I need, and they're free, and in most cases supperior to their Windows equivelants(sp?).
Multimedia - Depends on what you mean I suppose, it does all I need, I can play mp3's and movies, but that's really all I ever use in terms of "multimedia" so I'll take your word on this one.
Interface - Subjective, to me Linux(or *NIX) is far supperior here, I have a very powerful command prompt where I can do pretty much anything, and I can choose between lods of different GUI environments, tailored to different things(KDE - Eyecandy, Blackbox - Speed/Resources, etc).
Support - Not sure what you mean here? Do you mean commercial support? Community support?
Hardware support - Pretty much all common hardware is supported, this hasn't been much of a problem in a long time.
Development tools - Im no developer, no comment, but then I doubt you are a developer as well.

Linux has both cons and pros, but you've only spread FUD so far.

 

[Drakkon]

Free software is the equivilent of the 60's hippy free love, nice idea but it doesn't work.

I think that line right there says it all. If no one pays for software things are going to go to crap. What incentive to write good software if no one will pay you for it?
Personally i enjoy linux for its programming environment, but every time i try and install it I have to spend an extra couple hours looking for distros of drivers for various components in each machine if i want everything working properly. PCMCIA support is far behind imho in linux...I've tried numerous distros on my laptop and each one isn't able to boot past the pcmcia detection. after a few hours i may get it working but it means recompiling a kernal a few times...Windows on the other hand can be up and running in a matter of a hour for me 90% of the time....
Thats about the only frustrated argument i have though. Linux as it gets more competitive will bring a better OS. I mean look at OS X for mac....thats an awesome OS with a unix backing it up. You have to have the cost issue though cause the best programmers cost $$$ without money your only gunna draw in the wanna be programers or the part time programmers who just aren't goign to put the effort into it as someone getting paid is.