What do you think of MS's War on Open-Source

[Pyro]

I personally think Linux and the like must be starting to hurt their bottom line, as articles like this would suggest.


Its also funny seeing how they say its not a threat, but start insulting it on every chance they get.

 

[chiwawa626]

I like open source.

 

[Mikal]

They are scared sh!tless and are resorting to name calling.

 

[chiwawa626]

A lot of the open source software is better then regular software. Its free and it can be spread about easyer.

 

[EnragedPC]

who cares?? until Linux becomes easy like Windows {ex.installing drivers without recompiling kernel, command promt crap, mounting drives, and all the other stuff} it will never be the dominant desktop OS...and all you people who bash on MS...just stop usin them then we dont have to hear you guys complain so much

 

[JohnnyKnoxville]

I think MS is pooping in their pants because the more people using open source means that more people are going to figure out ways to make it user friendlier .

 

[yakko]

I don't care for open source.

 

[Pyro]

<< who cares?? until Linux becomes easy like Windows {ex.installing drivers without recompiling kernel, command promt crap, mounting drives, and all the other stuff} it will never be the dominant desktop OS...and all you people who bash on MS...just stop usin them then we dont have to hear you guys complain so much >>



1. have you tried Mandrake 8? apparently not.
2. I wasn't complaining, just asking for people's opinions, no need to get so defensive

 

[ProviaFan]

I think they're afraid, since it's a competitor that they can't sue, or underprice

 

[nd]

<< who cares?? until Linux becomes easy like Windows {ex.installing drivers without recompiling kernel, command promt crap, mounting drives, and all the other stuff} it will never be the dominant desktop OS...and all you people who bash on MS... >>

You can install drivers without recompiling your kernel. It's called kernel modules. Nvidia distributes their Linux drivers this way.

There is something called the X Windowing system if you don't like the &quot;command promt [sic] crap&quot;.

There are automounting daemons (which some distros enable by default) so that you don't have to manually mount &quot;drives&quot; (partitions actually -- mounting drives is ridiculous).


<< and all you people who bash on MS just stop usin them then we dont have to hear you guys complain so much >>

I stopped &quot;usin them&quot; several years ago, and I only complain when people like you spread misinformation.

 

[SSP]

MS become better with more competetion. Look what they did to Corel and Netscape.


A lot of the open source software is better then regular software. Its free and it can be spread about easyer.

It's not always free.

 

[SSP]

nd, which distros have the auto mounting by default?

 

[Pyro]

ssp, Mandrake as &quot;supermounting&quot; of both cds and floppies.

 

[nd]

SSP,

Mandrake uses Supermount to do this, and Corel uses autofs or automount (can't remember which one) out of the box. Red Hat comes with autofs also, but it isn't enabled by default.

Either way, the point is that it's up to the distro really. It's certainly not a fault of Linux itself.

 

[Argo]

No good software will ever be open source. Microsoft making open source is like ferarri, giving away &quot;build it yourself&quot; kits.

 

[Pretender]

<< Its also funny seeing how they say its not a threat, but start insulting it on every chance they get. >>

Joshpokeball and Paulson aren't 'threats', but we find time to insult them every chance we get, too.

 

[nd]

<< No good software will ever be open source. Microsoft making open source is like ferarri, giving away &quot;build it yourself&quot; kits. >>

Brilliant theory. It's too bad that it was already proven wrong over 20 years ago. Have you been living under a rock? Do you honestly believe that all open source software is of bad quality?

 

[Pretender]

<<

<< No good software will ever be open source. Microsoft making open source is like ferarri, giving away &quot;build it yourself&quot; kits. >>

Brilliant theory. It's too bad that it was already proven wrong over 20 years ago. Have you been living under a rock? Do you honestly believe that all open source software is of bad quality? >>

no, but if its free, there's no obligation for the makers to put in all the bells and whistles. Yes, eventually given enough programmers and enough time it will become fancy, easy to use, and perfect, but instead of paying money, you're paying in time

 

[lucidguy]

<< no, but if its free, there's no obligation for the makers to put in all the bells and whistles >>



Microsoft's obligation is to its shareholders. They ship something that is &quot;good enough&quot; for &quot;most users&quot; and collect the royalties.

Open source programmers have a different obligation. Their obligation is to freedom and excellence. So far, excellence has been interpreted as &quot;small, focused tools that get things done quickly, stably, and correctly each and every time&quot;. And most Open Source and Free Software programs excel in this respect.

Right now, as Linux emerges as a competitor to Windows on the desktop, this definition is being modified somewhat. Linux programmers are making an effort to achieve excellence not only in speed, stability and correctness, but also attractiveness and usability. And the results are astounding. Look at Mozilla, Eazel, Balsa, or any one of the tens of others latest generation Linux tools.

The advantage of Open Source development is the insane turnaround time. &quot;Many minds, many ideas.&quot; These latest generation tools have reached, in less than a year, a level of excellence that took Microsoft about five years to reach.

In the short term future, Microsoft has no hope of surviving as a software company. The competition is smarter, faster, better, and cheaper. (Much, much cheaper) They themselves realize this, and are trying to transition into a services company. But this may be too little too late.

 

[miniMUNCH]

I think Linux, as an operating system, has to be controlled by some group to suceed in the long run against MS and Windows. And the controllling group has to have financial reasons to improve Linux.

Bottom line...IMO, Linux is a nice OS, but if it wants to have a chance against Windows in the long run, truly Open Source is out of the question. Open source entails too many little, nagging problems with software and hardware for it do well in future business applications. But just becuase something is not open source, doesn't mean it has to be expensive. &quot;Very cheap and really good&quot; is the next best thing to &quot;free and very good&quot;.

 

[EnragedPC]

Uhh Pryo you stupid @ss monkey I have used Mandrake 8.0 and I didnt like nor hate it...i was neutral to it since it was only the 2nd Linux disrto ive used...by the time Linux catches up to where Windows is right now...Windows will be 10yrs ahead of it again...

 

[Pyro]

<< Uhh Pryo you stupid @ss monkey I have used Mandrake 8.0 and I didnt like nor hate it...i was neutral to it since it was only the 2nd Linux disrto ive used...by the time Linux catches up to where Windows is right now...Windows will be 10yrs ahead of it again... >>



you have anger issues, don't you?

before you say sh!t like that, consider that linux 1.0 was released in 94 and the fact that dos was released in 1980 or something.

I used mandrake 6 and then 8 and I was amazed at the amount of progress over just one year and several months.

and of course, you are forgetting that right now linux is threatening MS's server market, not the desktop.

 

[IBuyUFO]

I could care less. Both of these OSes have different applications.

 

[AndrewR]

What's most amusing is that in the face of the open source challenge, MS goes and releases something like Office XP with &quot;registration required for use&quot;! Talk about going the exact opposite way.

 

[mackstann]

I can understand both sides, the only things that keep me from going to linux are:

Familiarity. Of course, i will eventually get used to it and figure stuff out, but i am a windows master, and i like that.

Windows 2000: I just got this and I love it. WAAAAAAAY better than 9x. This ought keep me satisfied for a while. Stable, and just well done.

Applications: Most of the stuff I use is written for windows only.

Drivers: Well, yeah.

And also the fact that right now, I could, as I often do, cruise over to hotfiles and look for programs, demos, whatever. With Linux I would be mush more limited in that respect. Of course, I know there are these same things for Linux, but they are fewer by a long shot.