|
|
| Re: Attn: TCB [message #80360 is a reply to message #80357] |
Tue, 20 February 2007 07:28   |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
A representative quote
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Once an IT shop goes Windows, they need to install a client access license
payment pipeline to Microsoft and can then begin going out of business by
making some of the richest executives in the world even richer.
Setting up a Windows shop is like shopping at WalMart; it's deceptively cheap
on the surface, but when the real costs are added up, it is actually outrageously
expensive and destructive on many levels.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
So this is mostly Apple agitprop, and thus only interesting to polemicists.
However, the one comment I will make is that the 'defense' of Apple's open
source 'efforts' is scandalous. It's not surprising, of course, since Apple
is a company that has made its living by being closed and has always claimed
that its primary advantage was that its closed and secret nature made it
better. That culture, unsurprisingly, was not a place where open access to
code was likely to work. What they did was license Darwin under a non-free
(as in speech) license that essentially gave them every right in the world
and an outside developer almost nothing. Needless to say, most developers
interested in FOSS chose to work in an area where their rights and interests
were more protected. None of which kept Apple from using the work of thousands
of hours by academics and developers when _they_ put BSD licensed code into
their OS.
Free software only works when it's a two way street. Contrast what Apple
has done with what IBM has done. IBM pushes linux explicitly to its customers
and has developers working full time on many parts of linux. They released
Eclipse under a license that was good enough that the FSF went out of their
way to be sure GPL v.3 would be compatible with it. I used Eclipse for a
while and it's great software, and it has a burgeoning community around it
creating plug-ins for almost everything. I eventually went back to Emacs
because of problems with java, but I think Eclipse is a great example of
a big company doing free software right. Darwin would be a great example
of how to do open source software wrong.
TCB
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Attn: TCB
>
>You may find the history and the reasons way, interesting, or maybe not.
>
> http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/4B800F78-0F7 5-455A-9681-F186A4365805.html
>
>Almost all Mac users were vary disappointed when Apple chose to not buy
Be
>OS. It was a good move for Apple to buy NEXT because I think SJ staying
>long term was Part of the deal. Obviously they have done quite well since.
> I think they should have still bought Be OS and used what they could have
>from it.
>
> http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/8EBA14E1-63C 0-4771-ABCE-A57E587D21DF.html
>
> http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/016F9027-2A0 7-48D1-8E41-59C57758AEDE.html
>
>
>James
|
|
|
|
| Re: Attn: TCB [message #80368 is a reply to message #80360] |
Tue, 20 February 2007 10:23 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Thad, I suggest that you write a letter to Steve Jobs at Apple Inc., and
ask him to financially support Theo. and the Free BSD project. Tell him
why this would be a good thing to do and the right thing to do. Tell him
about the financial problem Theo is having. You never know he may see the
light. My bet is that Theo has never asked Apple for support. Anyways,
It couldn't hurt.
James
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>A representative quote
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Once an IT shop goes Windows, they need to install a client access license
>payment pipeline to Microsoft and can then begin going out of business by
>making some of the richest executives in the world even richer.
>
>Setting up a Windows shop is like shopping at WalMart; it's deceptively
cheap
>on the surface, but when the real costs are added up, it is actually outrageously
>expensive and destructive on many levels.
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
>
>So this is mostly Apple agitprop, and thus only interesting to polemicists.
>
>
>However, the one comment I will make is that the 'defense' of Apple's open
>source 'efforts' is scandalous. It's not surprising, of course, since Apple
>is a company that has made its living by being closed and has always claimed
>that its primary advantage was that its closed and secret nature made it
>better. That culture, unsurprisingly, was not a place where open access
to
>code was likely to work. What they did was license Darwin under a non-free
>(as in speech) license that essentially gave them every right in the world
>and an outside developer almost nothing. Needless to say, most developers
>interested in FOSS chose to work in an area where their rights and interests
>were more protected. None of which kept Apple from using the work of thousands
>of hours by academics and developers when _they_ put BSD licensed code into
>their OS.
>
>Free software only works when it's a two way street. Contrast what Apple
>has done with what IBM has done. IBM pushes linux explicitly to its customers
>and has developers working full time on many parts of linux. They released
>Eclipse under a license that was good enough that the FSF went out of their
>way to be sure GPL v.3 would be compatible with it. I used Eclipse for a
>while and it's great software, and it has a burgeoning community around
it
>creating plug-ins for almost everything. I eventually went back to Emacs
>because of problems with java, but I think Eclipse is a great example of
>a big company doing free software right. Darwin would be a great example
>of how to do open source software wrong.
>
>TCB
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Attn: TCB
>>
>>You may find the history and the reasons way, interesting, or maybe not.
>>
>> http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/4B800F78-0F7 5-455A-9681-F186A4365805.html
>>
>>Almost all Mac users were vary disappointed when Apple chose to not buy
>Be
>>OS. It was a good move for Apple to buy NEXT because I think SJ staying
>>long term was Part of the deal. Obviously they have done quite well since.
>> I think they should have still bought Be OS and used what they could have
>>from it.
>>
>> http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/8EBA14E1-63C 0-4771-ABCE-A57E587D21DF.html
>>
>> http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/016F9027-2A0 7-48D1-8E41-59C57758AEDE.html
>>
>>
>>James
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
