Sign up with Google
jes
MyBroadband Alumnus
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2009
- Messages
- 11,992
- Reaction score
- 123
-
Join the MyBroadband community
Ask a question and get free supportUnlock new privileges and see hidden discussionsWin prizes and earn reputationReduced ads -
Question of the Day: How many streaming services are you subscribed to?
I have been a windows user for many years now and have recently switched over to linux in the last few months, and its been great, challenging but great. Situations like this pose a big problem for the open source community, the windows user doesn't need to worry that in a few months microsoft might close their doors, based on their monopoly and their backing. But the open source user worries, it's always a fear somewhere "what if they stop doing updates on it", "what if my operating system that I use stops dead in its tracks", "if it might stop why am I bothering using and configuring it". This doesn't help with convincing manufacturers to release linux drivers for their hardware. I am not favouring Ubuntu linux now, each to his own, but I use it a lot, just imagine if the same thing happened at Canonical? Then the winosaurus wins again, luckily Canonical isn't too small, but if there was just some extremely major company out there whose main objective was an open source os, it would be a major turning point for manufacturers and will ensure the longevity of open source os'e like linux, but in the same sentence, linux has been living for years now and keeps on going strong.
Still, just the rumblings of a new kid on the block
Still, just the rumblings of a new kid on the block
well for the first few years of its life, Linux had no commercial backing at all. Its done well since then.
The other thing to remember is that, for the server part of it at least, companies like IBM contribute to it because its a large part of their business. as for the desktop, Canonical and Red Hat are the main contributors. Red Hat is quite a large company and actually is the most prolific updater as far as I know.
Open source itself will never die out, but its feasible that another open source operating system (such as GNU Hurd, one day!) will overtake it. Why are you against Canonical?
The other thing to remember is that, for the server part of it at least, companies like IBM contribute to it because its a large part of their business. as for the desktop, Canonical and Red Hat are the main contributors. Red Hat is quite a large company and actually is the most prolific updater as far as I know.
Open source itself will never die out, but its feasible that another open source operating system (such as GNU Hurd, one day!) will overtake it. Why are you against Canonical?
Oracle666
Well-Known Member
Think cloud. OpenSuse was like trying to finish up a bottle of RUM while sitting on a sinking ship. But somehow I think this could be a positive move.
Depends on what they sell to attachmate. Microsoft has a big hand in this.
www.groklaw.net is the best place to get the facts about this.
Isn't the supposed advantage of open source software that one, that is you the reader, can write one's own drivers and extensions to the OS?
I always thought that is is just about the worst argument for open source and this post seems to confirm it.
Novells demise started before the purchase of SUSE Linux it simply could not evole itself into the application server market - Microsoft ruled this space. SUSE (and OpenSUSE) brought a lot of critism by the open source community, mainly by the commercial approach by Novell - it was supposed to be Red Hat no. 2. On a side note, SUSE is a really nice Linux Distro.
Sun which focused on Unix and the data centre suffered exactly the same fate due to lack of innovation and scope to move forward. Solaris, I think still has some great features that should in part be integrated into Linux. SMF and ZFS to name but a few - but it will come as part of a different guise I am sure within Linux.
Both companies have a part of computing history - great robust technology and its a damn shame to see things go this way.
It sometimes makes me wonder how topsy turvey this is - Apple which O/S runs on UNIX makes terrible datacentre class hardware but super eye candy desktops, still here, highly successful - go figure.
Sun which focused on Unix and the data centre suffered exactly the same fate due to lack of innovation and scope to move forward. Solaris, I think still has some great features that should in part be integrated into Linux. SMF and ZFS to name but a few - but it will come as part of a different guise I am sure within Linux.
Both companies have a part of computing history - great robust technology and its a damn shame to see things go this way.
It sometimes makes me wonder how topsy turvey this is - Apple which O/S runs on UNIX makes terrible datacentre class hardware but super eye candy desktops, still here, highly successful - go figure.