Open Source - Non Microsoft - Linux - Etc.

[QuantumBalance]

I just saw Hackers 2 and 3, and wow! It's so rare to see a trilogy that gets better with each movie! My god!

Well, hackers 3 was about open source vs microsoft.. metaphorically I suppose.

So, I sorta direct this question and Tsiang Kun or anyone else that knows.

I googled open source and went to the open source definition official looking page and read.. and read.. and it was hard to understand but I got some of it, minus the endless acronyms whose meanings I do not know.

Am I really trapped in a matrix of microsoft? What are my choices to put on my core 2 duo PC? Is Mac just as bad as Microsoft? Is technology really used to influence people unbeknownst to them?

Please answer all questions Anyways, Thank you and see ya at worlds !!

-Samurai

[jon]

Software is neither good nor bad. If you do not want to support a certain company then do not. Use what software makes your life easiest and makes you the happiest (for me this includes Microsoft products).

[QuantumBalance]

Well, since I dont know anything except microsoft...

but your reasoning might be flawed in some perspectives.. true in others.

[wolfpac444]

Well, since normal copyright law does not allow you to copy and distribute the source code for programs, open-source software needs to be released under a license that grants the user additional rights not given by copyright law.

The two most popular licenses are the GPL (GNU General Public License) and the BSD-style licenses. The BSD-style licenses basically allow anyone to do what they want with the code (including using it in closed-source software) so long as they give credit to the original authors. The GPL requires anything that uses GPL software to also be released under the GPL. Thus, you cannot use GPL software in closed-source software.

The most popular open-source operating system is Linux. There are a number of different distributions of Linux which gather all sorts of open-source software and combine them into one working, coherent whole. I would say that Ubuntu (which is based on Debian) is probably the most popular distribution for desktop systems.

Whether or not using Linux would work better for you really depends on what software you use / types of things you want to do. Since I do a lot of software development, I use Linux since I'm more productive in it (do to things like a decent command-line).

But, there are plenty of open-source programs for Windows (for example Firefox, OpenOffice, Azureus, etc.) that you can use.

[Blue_turnip]

Basically what people have to come to grips with is the fact that Windows is a useful operating system. It caters for a wide range of consumers and it does the job well (providing you're not a dumbass and let your PC get viruses).

Mac is far worse with regard to what i think you're speaking about as you're basically FORCED to use mac software on your mac piece of crap. PCs are better.

You probably are 'trapped in a matrix of microsoft'. But its not really a bad thing. You have more options than being trapped in a matrix of mac.

Some linux distros are awesome, others aren't. Even with a good one you're always gonna lack things you can get on a PC.

disclaimer: I always just naturally use PC to refer to a microsoft computer, so i guess i have been microsofts pawn in that regard. So i realise it wasn't right to takl about linux as oposed to PCs because they may be the same.

[quadgun]

Mac is far worse with regard to what i think you're speaking about as you're basically FORCED to use mac software on your mac piece of crap. PCs are better.

What about boot camp for macs ... you get the best of both worlds with that.

[wolfpac444]

Mac is far worse with regard to what i think you're speaking about as you're basically FORCED to use mac software on your mac piece of crap. PCs are better.

What about boot camp for macs ... you get the best of both worlds with that.

In addition, Apple is a lot better than Microsoft with cooperating with software that is not theirs, supporting open standards and the like. OS X also comes with an X11 server, and since it runs on a BSD kernel, it can run a majority of the open-source software written for Unix-type operating systems (see http://pdb.finkproject.org/pdb/index.php?phpLang=en )

But, thank goodness there is choice. I can't imagine myself being stuck with Windows.

[Blue_turnip]

Mac is far worse with regard to what i think you're speaking about as you're basically FORCED to use mac software on your mac piece of crap. PCs are better.

What about boot camp for macs ... you get the best of both worlds with that.

Macs already cost so much that its virtually theft, theres no way I'm gonna fork out even more.

In addition, Apple is a lot better than Microsoft with cooperating with software that is not theirs, supporting open standards and the like.

Well considering the amount of software not written by apple that runs on macs is about 1/100000th the amount of software not written by microsoft that runs on PCs, your point doesn't carry much weight.

OS X also comes with an X11 server, and since it runs on a BSD kernel, it can run a majority of the open-source software written for Unix-type operating systems (see http://pdb.finkproject.org/pdb/index.php?phpLang=en )

Well Mac NEEDS that, because I can just install other OS's on my computer, which you can't do. Apart from windows with bootcamp, which i've already adressed.

[wolfpac444]

Macs already cost so much that its virtually theft, theres no way I'm gonna fork out even more.

Yeah, I agree that Macs don't really cater to the low end of the computing spectrum. But, I think the cost of buying Windows Vista will be a bit more than the cost of the free Bootcamp download.

Well considering the amount of software not written by apple that runs on macs is about 1/100000th the amount of software not written by microsoft that runs on PCs, your point doesn't carry much weight.

I wasn't really talking about third-part software. I was talking about things like Safari (which is based on and has donated back to the open-source KHTML) supporting web standards whereas Microsoft doesn't seem to care much about them with IE7. Or, for example, Apple uses LDAP for their directory management whereas Microsoft makes it difficult for anything other than Microsoft products to work with their ActiveDirectory. Or, Microsoft not providing decent filesystem support for anything other than FAT32 or NTFS. Or, Microsoft making Exchange server difficult for anything other than MS products to work with; on the other hand, Apple uses postfix and cyrus to do its mail services -- both of which are open-source programs and rely on open standards. Or, Microsoft refusing to release the protocol information for SMB/CIFS so that anyone that wants to share file with Microsoft operating systems has to reverse engineer the protocol (props to the Samba project). Or, Microsoft not making POSIX compliance a priority. The list could go on...

While I understand why they do this (they have a monetary incentive to lock people into their software), I fail to see how this type of behavior benefits the end user.

Well Mac NEEDS that, because I can just install other OS's on my computer, which you can't do. Apart from windows with bootcamp, which i've already adressed.

You can install other operating systems on Macs just fine. I know a number of people that got Macbooks to run Linux because they prefer the hardware. Other options for running Windows inside OS X include Parallels ($99) or VMWare Player (free).

I personally don't use OS X and have never owned a Mac in my life. I've been a pretty much exclusive Linux user for the past 7 or so years. I just think that Apple does a lot better in not pretending that everyone uses their products.

[Blue_turnip]

Yeah, I agree that Macs don't really cater to the low end of the computing spectrum. But, I think the cost of buying Windows Vista will be a bit more than the cost of the free Bootcamp download.

Any bets when it's formally released their gonna use it to suck out more money.

I wasn't really talking about third-part software. I was talking about things like Safari (which is based on and has donated back to the open-source KHTML) supporting web standards whereas Microsoft doesn't seem to care much about them with IE7. Or, for example, Apple uses LDAP for their directory management whereas Microsoft makes it difficult for anything other than Microsoft products to work with their ActiveDirectory. Or, Microsoft not providing decent filesystem support for anything other than FAT32 or NTFS[cutoff point]. Or, Microsoft making Exchange server difficult for anything other than MS products to work with; on the other hand, Apple uses postfix and cyrus to do its mail services -- both of which are open-source programs and rely on open standards. Or, Microsoft refusing to release the protocol information for SMB/CIFS so that anyone that wants to share file with Microsoft operating systems has to reverse engineer the protocol (props to the Samba project). Or, Microsoft not making POSIX compliance a priority. The list could go on...

While I understand why they do this (they have a monetary incentive to lock people into their software), I fail to see how this type of behavior benefits the end user.

I couldn't understand anything past the point labelled 'cutoff point'. My only feeble retort is with regards to your comment about IE7 and it's that i use firefox, lol.

I was going to reply to your other stuff but I gave up.

Regardless, my argument is the same: Macs = gay.

[DJJAZZYJEFF]

Macs already cost so much that its virtually theft, theres no way I'm gonna fork out even more.

I think if you really look at the specs, you'll find that Apple computers don't cost much more than a similarly equipped PC. All of the computers that Apple offers are packed with hardware that you won't find in less expensive PCs. When you buy a Mac you are investing in a machine that won't need hardware upgrades and add-ons. They could come with a .
bit more memory, though.

But the fact remains, you get what you pay for.

[wolfpac444]

Any bets when it's formally released their gonna use it to suck out more money.

I'll take you up on that ;-] One footbag?

[Blue_turnip]

Any bets when it's formally released their gonna use it to suck out more money.

I'll take you up on that ;-] One footbag?

i'd like to, but i havn't done any research so yeah.
But I mean, you still have to BUY windows don't you? I mean you cant just get it for free - microsoft and apple wouldn't work like that.

[DJJAZZYJEFF]

Yes, technically you have to buy windows to run it on your Mac.

[Tsiangkun]

I quit using windows in 1994.

I pretty much prefer OS-X to anything
I have ever used. It has flaws, but it just kicks ass in so many ways.

[jay7]

Open source, well, ironically I am typing this on Windows XP, with half of my hard drive partitioned for Linux (ubuntu/Kubuntu/DSL). Basically, it isn't worlds and lightyears better, if you are just the casual web surfer and text writer.

The reason that I am using windows, but advocating Linux/open source, is because there is just still things that aren't worked out. You could, rather easily, switch to Linux/Mac (I actually have a mac in another room, OSX) and live life, but you'll find [well, I did] that since it is really a microsoft world, some of the time you just have to cooperate with it.

My recomendation, is get a few open source programs first. Download Open Office, instead of using Microsoft Word. Download "Amsn" instead of "MSN messenger", and get the feel for how open source things work. While, both of the above programs are extremely well programmed, you can just tell when using them that they are open source.

If you seem to like the freedom of customizing ANYTHING, without any problems, and if you like the fact that Ad's and spyware and other wonderful things aren't splitting at the seems, then I suggest you try out something like Linux, for a day, just for the experience and simplicity in itself.

[Jeremy]

I really like the philosophy of open source. I use some open source programs at the moment, but am running Vista as my OS. When I get a better version, I plan on running Vista and Ubuntu, but at this stage I'm happy just with Vista (it's not like I pay for software anyway )

The thing I love about some parts of web 2.0 is that it's taking the philosophy of open source, and making knowledge accessible to everybody. I think it's clear through history that access to knowledge really is a controlling factor in the development of the world. I'm particularly talking about citizenpedia and eol, neither of which are really up and running yet, but offer the perfect combination of user input, but also reliability and filtering out the rubbish (sorry for drifting off topic).

Anyway the point I was going to make is that web 2.0 really keeps control of the internet (and thus computers) with the users, rather than corporations, and if fosters sharing of information and collaboration, which promotes the expansion of open source.

I read an essay today by Freeman Dyson (incidentally who Gordon Freeman was named after), who is an inspiring physicist/mathematician and he's predicting that the US will no longer be the world super power around 1970. He went on to speculate about which country would take control (and suggested China, Brazil or India), but I, rather optimistically, think that the continued exponential increase in technology, resulting in greater knowledge sharing and communication will result in national boundaries becoming less and less significant. I hope the nation that takes over from the US is the World, and like Freeman Dyson, I hope we see an end to nationalism.