# Linux Godfather urges revolt against Microsoft



## praka123 (Jul 8, 2008)

> > 07 July 2008
> > *Linux Godfather urges revolt against Microsoft*
> >
> > _By John E. Dunn, Techworld_
> ...


----------



## infra_red_dude (Jul 8, 2008)

I respect Stallman as an architect... grateful to him for so many things on which I enjoy my computing experience 

I however, do not agree with his statement that all software should go open and proprietary software should cease to exist. IMHO, doing what you think correct is fine but saying that everything else is bad is not correct. I feel for a better tomorrow both open and proprietary software are essential. They act as stimulants for one other.


----------



## techtronic (Jul 8, 2008)

*well said buddy. I completely concur with your opinion.*


----------



## CadCrazy (Jul 8, 2008)

Abe Stallman ne Praka ka jhutha kahana to nahin kha liya  ya phir usne digit forum visit kar liya hoga 

Fully agree with Infra. Doesn't matter to me whether a software is open or close.


----------



## The Conqueror (Jul 8, 2008)

infra_red_dude said:


> I however, do not agree with his statement that all software should go open and proprietary software should cease to exist. IMHO, doing what you think correct is fine but saying that everything else is bad is not correct. I feel for a better tomorrow both open and proprietary software are essential. They act as stimulants for one other.


I Agree with you 100%


----------



## Sumeet_naik (Jul 8, 2008)

I can agree wit u guys.. Though restricting watching dvd's on free software is wat i don't like here.


----------



## ThinkFree (Jul 8, 2008)

What is wrong if all software go open source? It is going to help consumers only.


----------



## Jayanth.M.P (Jul 8, 2008)

People should really learn to respect intellectual property just like they do with the physical ones.


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 8, 2008)

if all software is OSS then most of the development will be by non-full time developers. they r not as experienced & fast as full time developers.

Software is like a service. U pay me money & I will make a software for U. I will make another copy which I will sale to someone else who pays me ammount for me. I however won't release my source code as I made it & it's secret. 

This isn't much different from a baker making cakes.

Richard stallman looks like he is frustrated. Instead of making OSS compelling & attractive to consumers he is trying to downplay MS which shows him as jealous. Even I hate uber costly software but I don't want all apps to go open source. We need
Pidgin as well as Yahoo messenger for vista


----------



## infra_red_dude (Jul 8, 2008)

Jayanth.M.P said:


> People should really learn to respect intellectual property just like they do with the physical ones.


Couldn't agree more...



gx_saurav said:


> if all software is OSS then most of the development will be by non-full time developers. they r not as experienced & fast as full time developers.


Lol... thats not the reason I say both should exist.. definitely not. PLZ GET YOUR FACTS RITE.. TRY TO DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE OWNING YOUR OWN SELF BY POSTING SUCH THINGS ON PUBLIC FORUMS.



gx_saurav said:


> Software is like a service. U pay me money & I will make a software for U. I will make another copy which I will sale to someone else who pays me ammount for me. I however won't release my source code as I made it & it's secret.


True.. But there exists "free" service too.. and that's why I'm for both free as well as paid service. 



gx_saurav said:


> We need Pidgin as well as Yahoo messenger for vista


+1.



ThinkFree said:


> What is wrong if all software go open source? It is going to help consumers only.


Software is IP. So its the wish of the developer if he/she wants it to be open or closed. What would happen if Intel releases the confidential Core microarchitecture details? Other companies would simply copy it and produce hardware on the lines. Innovation would be at an all time low.

_No offence to AMD/VIA fans, was just an example._

Jus coz AMD came up with the first Athlon, Intel realized that the flawed Netburst arch. is not going to keep them in the market for long; they raked up their brainz and came up with Core. The Core was an innovation. Similar things happen in software. 

The closed software stimulates the open source developers to come up with something new on their own, out of which many new products are born which even the closed software may not haf in its repos. This will again stimulate the closed software group to come with a better product. End of the day the consumer has a choice and is benefitted.


----------



## chandru.in (Jul 8, 2008)

infra_red_dude said:


> Software is IP. So its the wish of the developer if he/she wants it to be open or closed. What would happen if Intel releases the confidential Core microarchitecture details? Other companies would simply copy it and produce hardware on the lines. Innovation would be at an all time low.



I would not agree on it.  Red Hat has made a record at server-side transaction processing.  Is that not innovation?  The entire code is open but it did not make Red Hat lose money.

Some of the best computer languages (in their respective area of strengths) were developed and available as open technologies (C, C++, Perl, Python).  Proprietary languages like Java (now fully open) and C# (the language is ECMA standard but the framework it depends on is highly closed) would not exist if it was not for the open innovations of C/C++.  Perl is till date the strongest language for text processing (it is used by many scientists to analyze structure of molecules which are generated as text patterns).

So open-source will not inhibit innovation.  In fact, it would promote innovation as people can re-use existing code of other projects and innovate on top of it.  And of course, those innovations will flow back to original project (if it was under a license like GPL).

The most successful hardware architecture today, reached its place because it was an open one.  If alone it was not for the monopoly of Windows, I bet MS's market share would come down too.  I had to quote MS only because it is the only totally closed company which is wildly successful.  (Oracle uses open standards like SQL and Java EE.  So we can't call it completely closed.  Google uses plain HTML, Javascript and Jabber (all are open) for most of its big business services.  Yes, they are not open-source but are far from fully closed.)

I can bet that the moment MS loses its monopoly (less than 75-80% of OS market) it will come down fast and stabilize at some point (maybe a wild guess of 40%).


----------



## praka123 (Jul 8, 2008)

^+++++++


----------



## iMav (Jul 8, 2008)

People seem to have no idea what-so-ever of how many people earn their living and feed their families by coding and selling softwares  And then they preach others about giving away their time, effort and hard work for free for others to innovate on it.  Infosys, Wipro, TCS, the small coders and developers, the big Indian IT firms, leading the IT revolution in India wo oh! India is on the global map. India rules, India this, India that. If Murthy and others started giving away their software for free, India would have been well let's just say still in the 1990s and Murthy wouldn't be even given a job back at Patni  for his lack of business accumen


----------



## chandru.in (Jul 9, 2008)

@iMav

In fact open-sourcing will not affect Indian IT in anyway.  Please understand open-source is not about cost of software.  We can very much sell open-source software.

Most Indian IT companies develop custom software for specific client's needs.  So whether you license it under GPL or your own EULA does not matter.  You develop for a client and charge him for that.  In fact, many clients even ask that the rights for the source code of developed software is granted to them so that once the support contract ends with X they can move to company Y for further support.  My own company did that for the project I work in.  It is a subsidary of a large well known Indian business group (it is not TCS  ).


----------



## tgpraveen (Jul 9, 2008)

i respect richard stallman
but sometimes his statements and philosophy seems to be too extreme and somewhat unrealistic


----------



## infra_red_dude (Jul 9, 2008)

chandru.in said:


> I would not agree on it.  Red Hat has made a record at server-side transaction processing.  Is that not innovation?  The entire code is open but it did not make Red Hat lose money.
> 
> Some of the best computer languages (in their respective area of strengths) were developed and available as open technologies (C, C++, Perl, Python).  Proprietary languages like Java (now fully open) and C# (the language is ECMA standard but the framework it depends on is highly closed) would not exist if it was not for the open innovations of C/C++.  Perl is till date the strongest language for text processing (it is used by many scientists to analyze structure of molecules which are generated as text patterns).
> 
> ...


That is exactly what I'm saying... open and closed software are complimentary to each other. I did not generalize, but gave an example where going "all open" would be detrimental to the society.



iMav said:


> People seem to have no idea what-so-ever of how many people earn their living and feed their families by coding and selling softwares  And then they preach others about giving away their time, effort and hard work for free for others to innovate on it.  Infosys, Wipro, TCS, the small coders and developers, the big Indian IT firms, leading the IT revolution in India wo oh! India is on the global map. India rules, India this, India that. If Murthy and others started giving away their software for free, India would have been well let's just say still in the 1990s and Murthy wouldn't be even given a job back at Patni  for his lack of business accumen


Dude.. there seems to be some misconceptions about earning and open source.

Lemme tell you something... someone I know earns 4 times more working on Linux than what MS pays' its employee at a similar level. Charan will confirm this statement!


----------



## RCuber (Jul 9, 2008)

infra_red_dude said:


> Lemme tell you something... someone I know earns 4 times more working on Linux than what MS pays' its employee at a similar level. Charan will confirm this statement!


Yes .. I have two friends who work on linux and get hefty pay ..... more than any IT company can afford for the same experience.. 

I work in a small company and we sell couple of products. How can a small company survive by making the product free? This is how it used to work before.. small companies selling software and then becoming Software Giants. 

I wonder if we make our product free.. who will pay atleast for my petrol charges?


----------



## Pat (Jul 9, 2008)

^^ Dude you are again missing the point. Open source does not mean giving away your product free of cost! 

If I am not wrong, even Free software does not *necessarily* mean giving it away free of cost! Its more to do with Free as in Freedom and less with Free as in Free Beer!


----------



## RCuber (Jul 9, 2008)

Pat said:


> ^^ Dude you are again missing the point. Open source does not mean giving away your product free of cost!


yea? then people will jump in and say they are making free software paid!!! 



> If I am not wrong, even Free software does not *necessarily* mean giving it away free of cost! Its more to do with Free as in Freedom and less with Free as in Free Beer!



I dont drink beer so I dont know what the word "Free as in Free Beer" means.  

Jokes apart I agree with your point.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Jul 9, 2008)

1. Open Source can ALSO make money. Its been proved.

2. Every developer has the right to release his product under a licence which HE HIMSELF sees as perfect for his use.


----------



## iMav (Jul 9, 2008)

Doesn't Open Source mean you give the source code openly and allow full tinkering with it?


----------



## goobimama (Jul 9, 2008)

Somebody seriously needs to do a really good article in simple english on what Open Source is all about. All that you can do with Open Source. And all that you can't do with Open source. And everything that comes in between…


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Jul 9, 2008)

goobimama said:


> Somebody seriously needs to do a really good article in simple english on what Open Source is all about. All that you can do with Open Source. And all that you can't do with Open source. And everything that comes in between…


Thanks for suggesting my next blog article. Keep looking. Expect it by monday since I am not free often.


----------



## chandru.in (Jul 9, 2008)

infra_red_dude said:


> That is exactly what I'm saying... open and closed software are complimentary to each other. I did not generalize, but gave an example where going "all open" would be detrimental to the society.



I still don't understand how everything being open will be detrimental, when most major technological advancements which have revolutionized the world are open (TCP/IP, HTTP, several major programming languages, etc, etc.)


----------



## unni (Jul 9, 2008)

Really nice thread. Learned a lot of new things from your arguments. Keep arguing.


----------



## sakumar79 (Jul 9, 2008)

@chandru, Should the developer not have any freedom if he wants to keep the source code to himself? If every software is forced to be open source, are you not taking away that freedom from the developer? Whether he is wrong or right in his notion to keep source code to himself, the decision should be available IMHO...

Arun


PS: Just want to add +1 to Anirudh's posts on this topic...


----------



## kumarmohit (Jul 9, 2008)

Seriously what is this thread doing in the news section?
What is the point of making this thread in the first place. For the entire length of the article, nothing has been discussed except repeating the age old rhetoric of Stallman.

News is something which is new, which people do not know. The only thing which can be considered news  in this article is last sentence.



> Last week Stallman urged young people in France to take to the streets to protest against a new copyright law that affects the ability of citizens to watch DVDs using free software.



Everything else in the article is age old, beaten track flame baiting!


----------



## desiibond (Jul 9, 2008)

chandru.in said:


> I still don't understand how everything being open will be detrimental, when most major technological advancements which have revolutionized the world are open (TCP/IP, HTTP, several major programming languages, etc, etc.)



Why are you comparing programming languages and protocols to applications?

ROFLMAO

BTW, If MS releases full source code of Windows OS, hackers will be the first one to take full advantage of it and create havoc.


----------



## Pat (Jul 9, 2008)

People living in Bangalore and interested to learn about OSS movement might be interested in this
*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showthread.php?t=92572
Open Source Conference on 19th July in Bangalore


----------



## iMav (Jul 9, 2008)

infra_red_dude said:


> Dude.. there seems to be some misconceptions about earning and open source.
> 
> Lemme tell you something... someone I know earns 4 times more working on Linux than what MS pays' its employee at a similar level. Charan will confirm this statement!


1. Damn 7:30 AM classes.

2. How is that relevant to my post?

3. I know of 3 free lance writers who earn more than some well experienced TOI & HT writers. Should all HT & TOI writers become free lance writers?

4. Please let me know where does he have this full time job where the company pays him 4 times more than an MS employee.

5. Please specify which MS employee bracket you are referring to. Steve Ballmer & Ray Ozzie too are MS employees.


----------



## infra_red_dude (Jul 9, 2008)

chandru.in said:


> I still don't understand how everything being open will be detrimental, when most major technological advancements which have revolutionized the world are open (TCP/IP, HTTP, several major programming languages, etc, etc.)


As I said.. and say it again open and closed software are stimulants for each other.



sakumar79 said:


> @chandru, Should the developer not have any freedom if he wants to keep the source code to himself? If every software is forced to be open source, are you not taking away that freedom from the developer?


+1. I create something, I haf every right to release it under the license I want. The main point to understand here is that Software is IP.



desiibond said:


> Why are you comparing programming languages and protocols to applications?


Open source is open source.. whether hardware or software.



Charan said:


> I work in a small company and we sell couple of products. How can a small company survive by making the product free? This is how it used to work before.. small companies selling software and then becoming Software Giants.
> 
> I wonder if we make our product free.. who will pay atleast for my petrol charges?


Yes, true very true. You are however confused between open-source and giving software for free.



Pat said:


> If I am not wrong, even Free software does not *necessarily* mean giving it away free of cost! Its more to do with Free as in Freedom and less with Free as in Free Beer!


Yes, thats correct.



iMav said:


> Doesn't Open Source mean you give the source code openly and allow full tinkering with it?


No. When you 'tinker' you talk about free and open source and OSS with the 'tinker' license. With OSS you can "look into" the source and make copies. With closed source, you pay for the the license to use whereas in OSS you pay to get the entity with its source.



iMav said:


> 1. Damn 7:30 AM classes.
> 
> 2. How is that relevant to my post?
> 
> ...



1. Sorry, not in my hands 

2. Its relevant coz you are confused between OSS and "giving away software for free".

3. Totally irrelevant with this topic.

4. Yes, full time job. Check out the development/UI team in RedHat/Novell and many other companies. The pay an MS employee gets at a similar level is much less.

5. 





			
				Me said:
			
		

> ...... MS pays' its employee *at a similar level*.


Except of corz the top level employees; I needn't point this out.. its foolish to compare the assests of Ballmer or of the like with RedHat CEO..



			
				Your siggy said:
			
		

> It's a Microsoft world kid, I am just living in it.


Yes, plz come out of this world. There are other things which exist too..

Milind

If you haf 10mins to spare then read this: *www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html The second part effectively answers what OSS and FOSS are.

To sum it up: OSS allows you to "see" the source code. Its upto the owner/developer to decide whether he/she'll allow the users to modify the code or not. If yes, then OSS will be accompanied by the relevant license.

FOSS is basically a sub-domain of OSS. FOSS = OSS + license to modify the software. Its not mandatory for both OSS and FOSS to be free of cost. In fact the cost factor doesn't come into picture at all.

I hope that clears a lot of things.

I think for the betterment of us both open and closed software should exist. I still haf a lot of respect for Stallman but I do not agree to his view even one bit that all software should be open. If that happens then OSS will become FOSS permanently...


----------



## iMav (Jul 9, 2008)

infra_red_dude said:


> No. When you 'tinker' you talk about free and open source and OSS with the 'tinker' license. With OSS you can "look into" the source and make copies. With closed source, you pay for the the license to use whereas in OSS you pay to get the entity with its source.



Once I get the source i can modify it to as I want and then give or sell it. Now, let's say you make something, I buy it (including the source) for 10$ I change a few things keeping most of ur stuff as is and then re-brand and sell it for $1000. What do you do?


infra_red_dude said:


> 2. Its relevant coz you are confused between OSS and "giving away software for free".


Unfortunately I am not. If you were to read my post, it talks about big IT firms and small companies, you called Charan into the dscussion and he for one has ruled out the possibility for small firms to go OS for obvious reasons. As far as _my misconception_ is concerned, I don't find OSS to be a business model. The moment you give away the core of your product out in the world for a look, bid goodbye to your dreams of making it into the Fortune 500. Xerox made the mistake, Apple made it. But, they made it after they were firmly positioned in the market. For a new start-up it is simply not a viable option to make something exemplary and then give it away with the source.

Adobe is a such a huge software company, there are softwares for which they have given the source code out, then there are the cash milking softwares that are still proprietary. A company that goes all OSS with no firm grounding is like a low cost aviation company. Sooner, or later they shall perish into the oblivion.

BTW, the Linux Ecosystem aims at a worth of $40B by 2010, Infosys plans $4B by next year. I hope you see the point. I think it was Metal who was trumpeting the I don't know, 30 years of development that is expecting to be just worth $40B after all this while.

As far as the sig goes, weren't you like a couple of weeks back saying that as your siggy says, it is a MS world


----------



## infra_red_dude (Jul 9, 2008)

iMav said:


> Once I get the source i can modify it to as I want and then give or sell it. Now, let's say you make something, I buy it (including the source) for 10$ I change a few things keeping most of ur stuff as is and then re-brand and sell it for $1000. What do you do?


Dude.. then why do you think I'm all for both closed and open software? Its for the same reason I do not want all software to be open! Thats exactly what I've been saying all teh while. Read my posts first.. and then comment.



iMav said:


> Unfortunately I am not. If you were to read my post, it talks about big IT firms and small companies, you called Charan into the dscussion and he for one has ruled out the possibility for small firms to go OS for obvious reasons. As far as _my misconception_ is concerned, I don't find OSS to be a business model. The moment you give away the core of your product out in the world for a look, bid goodbye to your dreams of making it into the Fortune 500. Xerox made the mistake, Apple made it. But, they made it after they were firmly positioned in the market. For a new start-up it is simply not a viable option to make something exemplary and then give it away with the source.
> 
> Adobe is a such a huge software company, there are softwares for which they have given the source code out, then there are the cash milking softwares that are still proprietary. A company that goes all OSS with no firm grounding is like a low cost aviation company. Sooner, or later they shall perish into the oblivion.
> 
> BTW, the Linux Ecosystem aims at a worth of $40B by 2010, Infosys plans $4B by next year. I hope you see the point. I think it was Metal who was trumpeting the I don't know, 30 years of development that is expecting to be just worth $40B after all this while.


I really don't understand with whom you are arguing.. as I am saying the same thing as you are!

As far as comparing the "Linux Ecosystem" and "infosys" is concerned.. both are non-comparable entities. One is a product while the other is a services company.



iMav said:


> As far as the sig goes, weren't you like a couple of weeks back saying that as your siggy says, it is a MS world


Yep, look into the context and try to understand the relevance of when and why I quoted your siggy both the times.


----------



## iMav (Jul 9, 2008)

I am not arguing with u man!


----------



## infra_red_dude (Jul 9, 2008)

^^^ Ok.. confusion


----------



## chandru.in (Jul 9, 2008)

sakumar79 said:


> @chandru, Should the developer not have any freedom if he wants to keep the source code to himself? If every software is forced to be open source, are you not taking away that freedom from the developer? Whether he is wrong or right in his notion to keep source code to himself, the decision should be available IMHO...



Yes the programmer has every right to choose his license.  It is his code and thus his choice.  I just don't agree that openness will prohibit innovation as infra_red_dude said.  Innovation can happen faster when it happens in the open.



iMav said:


> Once I get the source i can modify it to as I want and then give or sell it. Now, let's say you make something, I buy it (including the source) for 10$ I change a few things keeping most of ur stuff as is and then re-brand and sell it for $1000. What do you do?



I take back your changes (and possibly innovate on top of it) and sell it for $800.  GPL allows it.  



desiibond said:


> Why are you comparing programming languages and protocols to applications?



I meant innovation can happen in the open.  In fact the first example by infra_red_dude was of Intel's hardware.    I also quoted RHEL's record.  For great open-source software you can look no further than Apache (#1 web server) and Linux (huge share of super computing and embedded OS market).  They are innovations which happened as open-source "software" too.



desiibond said:


> BTW, If MS releases full source code of Windows OS, hackers will be the first one to take full advantage of it and create havoc.



If MS wrote bad code, who can help it?


----------



## kumarmohit (Jul 9, 2008)

> Originally Posted by iMav View Post
> Once I get the source i can modify it to as I want and then give or sell it. Now, let's say you make something, I buy it (including the source) for 10$ I change a few things keeping most of ur stuff as is and then re-brand and sell it for $1000. What do you do?





> I take back your changes (and possibly innovate on top of it) and sell it for $800. GPL allows it.



So much for open source being consumer friendly! From 10 Rs to 1000 Rs and then again 800 Rs!


----------



## Pat (Jul 9, 2008)

Lol! That was a typo, dude


----------



## praka123 (Jul 9, 2008)

most of those commenting dont have any idea about Open Source except that it allows code to be open.


----------



## infra_red_dude (Jul 9, 2008)

chandru.in said:


> Yes the programmer has every right to choose his license.  It is his code and thus his choice.  I just don't agree that openness will prohibit innovation as infra_red_dude said.  Innovation can happen faster when it happens in the open.


I'm not saying open software will prohibit innovation. What I'm saying is that there are more chances of "fake innovation" by simply copying over and flooding the market with alternatives that will only lead to confusion. That was just an example and you are after me for that 

Btw.. 





			
				Title said:
			
		

> Linux Godfather urges revolt against Microsoft


I give it a Thumbs Down! Not that I support MS but this is just plain bad to downplay someone esp. by someone who's RMS himself!!!


----------



## chandru.in (Jul 9, 2008)

infra_red_dude said:


> I give it a Thumbs Down! Not that I support MS but this is just plain bad to downplay someone esp. by someone who's RMS himself!!!



Well, that's his agenda.  His purpose is spreading Free (as in freedom) software and stopping proprietary software.  He is known to urge revolting against all proprietary s/w.  It is just that MS is currently caught in his radar.  He was against proprietary UNIX.  Against proprietary Java (The famous Java Trap page).  But he is the same person who praised Sun when they opened up Java.  I'm sure his attitude towards MS will change when MS opens its code too.

Spreading Free software is RMS's goal and he is doing just that always, not just to MS.  If you like it or not is your choice.


----------



## praka123 (Jul 9, 2008)

^I completely subscribes to the ideas of RMS. 

In this bad bad world ,only software gandhi and followers are only there to save this messy proprietary world 

I am calling it FOSS Utopia.I will try my max to be closer to it.I know it cant be achieved 100%.


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (Jul 9, 2008)

I won't jump much into the debate but let's just assume this.

A cook has a superb recipe for kebabs(i'm from lucknow , what else do you expect). Now this recipe is a trade secret and is kept securely and only the owner of the shop knows how to prepare such kebabs .

Now if the owner makes the recipe open to all , wouldn't it hurt his business and his reputation as a whole because over time most shops will be selling the exact same dish and it wouldn't be his speciality then.

I'm not saying OpenSource is bad , just that every developer has the right to decide what license he wants to distribute his software under.


----------



## praka123 (Jul 9, 2008)

bad analogy! there is a BIG difference between software and kebab!  

consider it with a hardware ,I agree .but not with software.software is virtual .


----------



## goobimama (Jul 9, 2008)

I don't see it as a bad analogy at all. Why is it wrong to have a trade secret?


----------



## chandru.in (Jul 9, 2008)

I wonder how internet would be if Google used ABC technology for displaying content.  Yahoo used XYZ.  And every other site used their own.  Yes everyone will have a trade secret about their technology.


----------



## iMav (Jul 9, 2008)

I did not know Google has given it's bot crawling technology and methodology in the open  Where is it? Can someone point me to it. Google has opened it's Searching algo? Damn man, that's nice. I didn't know that.


----------



## chandru.in (Jul 9, 2008)

iMav said:


> I did not know Google has given it's bot crawling technology and methodology in the open  Where is it? Can someone point me to it. Google has opened it's Searching algo? Damn man, that's nice. I didn't know that.



I never said so.  Read again I said only about content display.  Google is not in anyway open but it helps few FOSS projects.

For the last time I'll post on this thread, closed-source is not exactly evil but openness fosters faster innovation.

One ethernet spec thousands of successful n/w card makers.  One Linux kernel and several successful and record breaking Linux distros.  One successful Firefox and several innovative derivatives like Flock.


----------



## RCuber (Jul 9, 2008)

chandru.in said:


> I never said so.  Read again I said only about content display.  Google is not in anyway open but it helps few FOSS projects.
> 
> For the last time I'll post on this thread, closed-source is not exactly evil but openness fosters faster innovation.
> 
> One ethernet spec thousands of successful n/w card makers.  One Linux kernel and several successful and record breaking Linux distros.  One successful Firefox and several innovative derivatives like Flock.


Yes they keep the profit making technology to themself and give away others technology which may not help their competitor but will help the general public as a whole.


----------



## infra_red_dude (Jul 9, 2008)

chandru.in said:


> Spreading Free software is RMS's goal and he is doing just that always, not just to MS.  If you like it or not is your choice.


I do not force my opinion on anyone. Its my opinion.. and I give it a thumbs down. Thats all I said.



Zeeshan Quireshi said:


> just that every developer has the right to decide what license he wants to distribute his software under.


+1.



praka123 said:


> consider it with a hardware ,I agree .but not with software.software is virtual.


The day you'll get into development you will realize that software is just not some "virtual" thing which you can't touch.. software is IP.



goobimama said:


> I don't see it as a bad analogy at all. Why is it wrong to have a trade secret?


+1



chandru.in said:


> I wonder how internet would be if Google used ABC technology for displaying content.  Yahoo used XYZ.  And every other site used their own.  Yes everyone will have a trade secret about their technology.


Standards are different from business models. Plz don't get confused.


----------



## praka123 (Jul 10, 2008)

I thing it is a battle between democracy and business  
@infreD:
I know s/w controls hardware and more.Software is NOT IP!.that is the biggest foolish thing! if you can have 2+2=4 and 3+1=4  then whatever s/w they patent as IP's they may be discovered by time.the same thing they patented.if some other way they coded or used methods ,what say?

Software Patents -definitely no -it is ,infact more bad than DRM.EULA already make you faint ,now s/w IP and other craps ...Oh man! Sumne iri


----------



## infra_red_dude (Jul 10, 2008)

praka123 said:


> @infreD:
> I know s/w controls hardware and more.* Software is NOT IP*!


You think software is something pre-existing entity and the 'methods' only need to be "discovered"??!!! I hope you understand what IP is.

No point in continuing the discussion.


----------



## Pat (Jul 10, 2008)

iMav said:


> I did not know Google has given it's bot crawling technology and methodology in the open  Where is it? Can someone point me to it. Google has opened it's Searching algo? Damn man, that's nice. I didn't know that.



Just as you say it, Google Open-sources its Internal Data Exchange Language


----------



## sreevirus (Jul 10, 2008)

praka123 said:


> I know s/w controls hardware and more.Software is NOT IP!.that is the biggest foolish thing! if you can have 2+2=4 and 3+1=4  then whatever s/w they patent as IP's they may be discovered by time.the same thing they patented.if some other way they coded or used methods ,what say?
> 
> Software Patents -definitely no -it is ,infact more bad than DRM.EULA already make you faint ,now s/w IP and other craps ...Oh man! Sumne iri


I didn't want to barge in this debate, but you know, those statements seem like Anu Malik-speak. He once said that he is not copying any music, as there are only 7 notes in music and everything is just a variation of the usage of these notes. That is not creativity, and it is a poor excuse to hide one's laziness when he couldn't come up with something by himself. Yes, there might be only seven notes in music, but it is the creative mind of a person that came up with a good tune, and he should be rewarded for his creativity.

I wouldn't say that OSS is anywhere near what Anu Malik does, with due credit given to the developer. But, as infra_red_dude said, it should be totally upto the developer to decide if the code should be released to public or not, as it was (s)he who made it with her mind.

It is a whole different matter if someone releases his music free (like NIN did recently, but even Trent Reznor said that this was on him for all the fans who listened to his music over the years), but maybe some people like MetalheadGautham or nish_higher (I assume them to be guitarists) might understand what I mean to say. If they come up with some rocking riffs, it should be up to them to decide if they should upload it on the net to be distributed for free, or if they should reap the benefits of their creativity. Some people get an encouragement to make better music (or software) when they know that people are paying for their creations, and they are earning good with it. Not everyone might be enthusiastic about donations.

Let both OSS and proprietary s/w co-exist. Let the developers choose how they want to deal with their creations. No one should force an opinion on others.

PS: My statements about Anu Malik was just an argument against 2+2=4. I'm in no way accusing the OSS movement of plagiarism, I know better than that, please be clarified on this aspect. If anyone feels that I'm wrong on anything else, please feel free to correct me.


----------



## iMav (Jul 10, 2008)

Pat said:


> Just as you say it, Google Open-sources its Internal Data Exchange Language


Is it the searching algo?


----------



## Pat (Jul 10, 2008)

Zeeshan Quireshi said:


> I won't jump much into the debate but let's just assume this.
> 
> A cook has a superb recipe for kebabs(i'm from lucknow , what else do you expect). Now this recipe is a trade secret and is kept securely and only the owner of the shop knows how to prepare such kebabs .
> 
> ...



Even though I agree that its upto the cook whether he wants to open it or not, the point you are missing is that the same cook could possibly benefit from opening of 100s of such trade secrets by other cooks ?


----------



## iMav (Jul 10, 2008)

Pat said:


> Even though I agree that its upto the cook whether he wants to open it or not, the point you are missing is that the same cook could possibly benefit from opening of 100s of such trade secrets by other cooks ?


He doesn't want those "free to use" benefits. He believes in himself. The chef believes that his recipe is good enough that he can start his own restaurant. He does not want to reap the benefits of others' work. That is the point. He knows that what he has is something awesome and therefore something that people will pay for. Same goes for software if you keep talking viz-a-vi this analogy.


----------



## Pat (Jul 10, 2008)

iMav said:


> He doesn't want those "free to use" benefits. He believes in himself. The chef believes that his recipe is good enough that he can start his own restaurant. He does not want to reap the benefits of others' work. That is the point. He knows that what he has is something awesome and therefore something that people will pay for. Same goes for software if you keep talking viz-a-vi this analogy.



Which is perfectly O.K is what I am saying. Afterall its his own wish


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2008)

I smell some non-veg stuff here


----------



## CadCrazy (Jul 10, 2008)

Aajkal sab ko smell kyon aa rahi hai


----------



## NucleusKore (Jul 10, 2008)

Revolt is not a very nice word, and is not very practical either. As linux becomes more user friendly (geeks like to call this idiot friendly, whatever), more and more people will try it out. With every release it only gets better. I see a future for OpenSuSE and Ubuntu in this regard, which is why I have thrown my weight behind them (all of 80 kilos  )

However a sudden revolt or revolution is not the way. I am deploying more and more desktop linux here in Mangalore every week. Users are hesitant at first but they settle down in a week. I do get calls like,"How do I install adobe reader", which I can guide over telephone. That's the best part, so far all the problems can be sorted out over the phone. That speaks for the increasing user friendliness.


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2008)

^^OMG thats a dream social service for me


----------



## narangz (Jul 10, 2008)

Zeeshan Quireshi said:


> I won't jump much into the debate but let's just assume this.
> 
> A cook has a superb recipe for kebabs(i'm from lucknow , what else do you expect). Now this recipe is a trade secret and is kept securely and only the owner of the shop knows how to prepare such kebabs .
> 
> ...



+1

He has explained it in very simple words. It's the right of the developer whether he wants to share the source code or not.


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 10, 2008)

Nice example chote nawab


----------



## Sumeet_naik (Jul 10, 2008)

K... Who's taking on da street?


----------



## infra_red_dude (Jul 10, 2008)

^^^

[No offense]

Till now, I can see two people: RMS and Prakash 

[/No offense]


----------



## kumarmohit (Jul 10, 2008)

Woah,

Stay on the footpaths in my street dudes, the road's brand new and the traffic's too much!

No wait. In Delhi we have a BRT thing, let me see if they can make a special FOSS RT as well!


----------



## praka123 (Jul 10, 2008)

first of all ,it is impossible to have analogies for FOSS. kabab eg and all dont work!

I think ,it is because most of you are addicted to window$ that you feel like defending it!.true? 

what you ppl are trying is to equate FOSS to be fit on to it(M$ ecosystem).

but FOSS  means ,another complete new ecosystem which is like democracy.when the shift is completed ,new paths sure opens. FOSS is not about stealing developers roti.

below site discusses some ways:
*follars.com


----------



## Sumeet_naik (Jul 10, 2008)

Taking eco-system as example.. And very eye-opening discussion..


----------



## din (Jul 10, 2008)

Offtopic:

Surprised to see a good discussion (so far  ). No personal attack yet ! Thats good. Really good.


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2008)

Qparka 
collective consciousness ?!!!
sounds rewarding


----------



## Sumeet_naik (Jul 10, 2008)

din said:


> Offtopic:
> 
> Surprised to see a good discussion (so far  ). No personal attack yet ! Thats good. Really good.



Me too..


----------



## RCuber (Jul 10, 2008)

Why dont people just shut up!!! ... Foss guys do your work .. windows guys do your work... end of story.. 

FOSS guys: create your software.. attach whatever licence you want .. distribut them or sell them ... 
Closed Source guys: create your software.. attach whatever licence you want .. distribut or sell them ...  

END OF STORY.. 

OSS & FOSS & Commercial .. live and let live..


----------



## iNFiNiTE (Jul 10, 2008)

^^ whoa...looks like the answer for all fights


----------



## din (Jul 10, 2008)

Hey, you forgot the large majority here 



Charan said:


> Why dont people just shut up!!! ... Foss guys do your work .. windows guys do your work...



Add - Other guys do your work



Charan said:


> FOSS guys: create your software.. attach whatever licence you want .. distribut them or sell them ...
> Closed Source guys: create your software.. attach whatever licence you want .. distribut or sell them ...



Add - Other source (?) guys : create your software.. attach whatever licence you want .. distribut or sell them ...  

Aahh, peace in ThinkDigit forum. Finally..


----------



## phreak0ut (Jul 10, 2008)

Now, thread close


----------



## Hitboxx (Jul 10, 2008)

Just a thought, how is he called the "Linux Godfather" ? Until now I thought Linus Torvalds is that, and RMS is for GNU and GPL and all those things. Or am I mis-interpreting the meaning of "Godfather"?


----------



## NucleusKore (Jul 10, 2008)

Hitboxx said:


> Just a thought, how is he called the "Linux Godfather" ? *Until now I thought Linus Torvalds is that, *and RMS is for GNU and GPL and all those things. Or am I mis-interpreting the meaning of "Godfather"?



Tsk Tsk......I thought he was the Father


----------



## Sumeet_naik (Jul 10, 2008)

Father of GNU..


----------



## goobimama (Jul 10, 2008)

I thought the open source movement was spineless? What's with the Father and all that?


----------



## Hitboxx (Jul 10, 2008)

NucleusKore said:


> Tsk Tsk......I thought he was the Father


Oh alright! So do we have a Godfather for GNU and the like?


----------



## FilledVoid (Jul 10, 2008)

Offtopic: I wonder if I could get the Uncle position. "Uncle Gnu" sounds like a cool name.


----------



## goobimama (Jul 10, 2008)

Uncle position belongs to Uncle Aniruddh (and I don't know for what reason!)


----------



## din (Jul 10, 2008)

Uncle Aniruddh - Mac4Lin
Uncle Goobi - Mac (Mod abuse, do NOT take action)
Uncle Din - Non technical stuff
Uncle Filled Void - IRC Uncle
Uncle Praka - OS Uncle + OS ***** Uncle (refer IRC chat )
and so on ......


----------



## RCuber (Jul 10, 2008)

Eh? Discussion over? 



> Uncle Aniruddh - Mac4Lin


----------



## Garbage (Jul 10, 2008)

FilledVoid said:


> Offtopic: I wonder if I could get the Uncle position. "Uncle Gnu" sounds like a cool name.


u deserves *"GNU Grandmother"* position !!! It also "sounds" kool...


----------



## iMav (Jul 10, 2008)

So FilledVoid fills the grandmother void


----------



## Hitboxx (Jul 10, 2008)

Er! looks like me veered the thread off track. Sorry!

/me will move this to OSS  section to discuss more on grannies and dadas, if the need be.


----------



## Jayanth.M.P (Jul 10, 2008)

praka123 said:


> first of all ,it is impossible to have analogies for FOSS. kabab eg and all dont work!
> 
> I think ,it is because most of you are addicted to window$ that you feel like defending it!.true?
> 
> ...



FOSS/ OSS in no way similar to democracy. Its a nice concept with practical application in *SOME* situations, not everywhere.


----------



## praka123 (Jul 10, 2008)

^ no ,it is! similar to democracy.


----------



## infra_red_dude (Jul 10, 2008)

Can "some" people, including a "mod", stop the offtopic "uncle" posts... baah.. people just fancy calling others "uncle"...

Charan...
Bahut hasi aa rahi hai...???


----------



## RCuber (Jul 10, 2008)

^^


----------



## gary4gar (Jul 11, 2008)

goobimama said:


> Somebody seriously needs to do a really good article in simple english on what Open Source is all about. All that you can do with Open Source. And all that you can't do with Open source. And everything that comes in between…





> Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in.
> .



The Open Source Definition


----------



## aniket.awati (Jul 12, 2008)

iMav said:


> 1. Damn 7:30 AM classes.
> 
> 2. How is that relevant to my post?
> 
> ...



True True.
My only problem with OSS is that what would you do with security?
If you have the code, any dedicated criminal will love it.


----------



## angermanagement (Jul 12, 2008)

^beta ,you are not at all getting the concept of Open Source and the process.Open source means those codes are scrutinized by millions of eyes around the world for vulnerabilities and bug fixes very fast.while closed source like window$ is about not fixing bugs as the code is closed one.only when someone attacks the vulnerability will corporations like M$ fixes bugs!.
for more info  about FOSS :

*makethemove.net  good Luck!


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2008)

^^lolz cat is back


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Jul 12, 2008)

^^ billi wapas 

Anyway, I would once again like to make my position clear:

*From Gautham's Book of Human Rights*

Every person has the right to use his creativity in a profitable way. Every person has the freedom to create something and make money out of it and ofcourse, own what he made..

BUT, every person does NOT have the right to use his creativity but use it in a way which cheats other people. Nobody has the right to just create something and market it in unethical ways.

Thus, both MS and RMS are wrong.
And I Rule


----------

