H
Hasipups
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Must be a poor day in MS, missing brains, Linux IS free but limited forHasipups said:
Stanislaw Flatto said:Linux IS free but limited for non-commercial redistribution,
The ways in which those two OS companies send their products on marketDJ said:Linux may be distributed both commercially and non-commercially. Red
Hat, for example, has many commercial Linux offerings.
Perhaps you meant "limited to non-PROPRIETARY distribution"? That's a
completely different word, you know, with a completely different
meaning.
Even so, you can certainly distribute proprietary applications on
Linux. Look at Oracle for Linux, for example.
Hasipups said:
Stanislaw said:Must be a poor day in MS, missing brains, Linux IS free but limited for
non-commercial redistribution,that's why they don't know how to handle
it. Look what they done to the bought Unix (NT in their own lingo).
Stanislaw
Whom Windows95 converted to Linux, bless you MS.
DJ said:Linux may be distributed both commercially and non-commercially. Red
Hat, for example, has many commercial Linux offerings.
Perhaps you meant "limited to non-PROPRIETARY distribution"? That's a
completely different word, you know, with a completely different
meaning.
Even so, you can certainly distribute proprietary applications on
Linux. Look at Oracle for Linux, for example.
The GPL would cause Microsoft some serious problems if they really
wanted to pull this off. There is no central 'rights holder' who could
restrict owners (those who have purchased or downloaded copies) rights
to use, modify, and redistribute copies.
Microsoft would have to purchase every copy out there. If one slipped
by, its owner could go into business burning copies and starting the
whole movement over again.
Eeyore said:Well ..... Microsoft used to sell a version of Xenix a long time ago.
Graham
Jan Panteltje said:On one hand it is nice for the ego, but on the other hand I wannebee
rich too.
Must be a poor day in MS, missing brains, Linux IS free but limited for
non-commercial redistribution,that's why they don't know how to handle
it. Look what they done to the bought Unix (NT in their own lingo).
Stanislaw
Whom Windows95 converted to Linux, bless you MS.
Well, it's your fault for giving them permission to do so, then.
I've read some of the memos regarding open source software. Aside
from the marketing "stuff", there are 2 real reasons MS won't get any
where near Linux:
1) If there was a chance some GPL'd code got into one of their
products, they could be forced to release the rest of their code.
Matt said:You can find recruiting literature from Microsoft from the mid-80's in which
Gates says he doesn't put much value on advanced degrees in computer
science.
That doesn't seem consistent with trying to get the best and the brightest.
After looking at the history of MS's relationship to Unix and noticing that
my school's graduate CS department had a strong Unix orientation, it didn't
seem so odd.
NT did not start out as Unix. NT started out as OS/2; until XP there
was an 'os2krnl.exe', which was an RMX scheduler.
He put his foot in his mouth there, but I can see where he's coming from: For
every 1 guy who's doing fancy algorithm research, you probably need about 99
that are just doing relatively straightforward coding, and truth be told you
don't even really need a four-year college degree to be a good "coder" like
that -- plenty of high-school kids do it just fine.
Nobody said:A degree won't make you a good "coder", but it may make you a
significantly better software engineer.
I've seen people with 20 years of programming experience do silly stuff
like hand-optimising insertion-sort routines in assembler when a call to
qsort() would have done a better job.
Linux may be distributed both commercially and non-commercially. Red
Hat, for example, has many commercial Linux offerings.
Perhaps you meant "limited to non-PROPRIETARY distribution"? That's a
completely different word, you know, with a completely different
meaning.
Even so, you can certainly distribute proprietary applications on
Linux. Look at Oracle for Linux, for example.
A degree won't make you a good "coder", but it may make you a
significantly better software engineer.
I've seen people with 20 years of programming experience do silly stuff
like hand-optimising insertion-sort routines in assembler when a call to
qsort() would have done a better job.
Rich Grise said:From how I interpret the GPL, you're _allowed_ to distribute
proprietary wrappers, apps, eye candy, etc - the only part that _has
to be_ open source is the part that's already open source when you
get it. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html