Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 19th Jan 2007 16:33 UTC, submitted by jayson.knight
Windows With the imminent release of Windows Vista to consumers this month, Linus Torvalds, the father of Linux, has claimed Microsoft's latest desktop effort is over-hyped and not a revolutionary advancement. "I don't actually think that something like Vista will change how people work that much," Torvalds told Computerworld. "I think it, to some degree, has been over-hyped as being something completely new and I don't actually think it is."
Thread beginning with comment 203583
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Aussie_Bear
Member since:
2006-01-12

I don't think you understand what is meant by "FREE".

The "FREE" part mainly applies to developers and would-be developers. Free to modify the code. The catch is that you should offer the same freedoms to others, as was offered to you. That's the point of the GPL.

It does NOT necessarily mean free as in give away at no cost. Even though most distros are given away for free, companies like Xandros, RedHat, Novell, Linspire, etc charge money for their distros. (For support contracts to business clients, paid support for desktop users, or to pay for proprietary codecs like MP3, WMV, etc, etc).

Those companies clearly make money on GPL'ed solutions. (Which counters your claim suggesting that you can't make money).

And the GPL v3? Have you actually read the drafts? Or are you just basing things on hear-say?

The GPL v3 is mainly about preventing Tivo-lization. That is, delibrately using hardware (DRM) to prevent users of that device from modifying the Linux code as they wish.

GPL3 does NOT mean DRM-free content. Developers can add DRM the content they distribute. If you want DRM and don't agree with GPL, write your own code. Its your choice.

Is that hard to understand?

Reply Parent Score: 4

CrazyDude0 Member since:
2005-07-10

Is it so hard for you to understand that the cumulative number of jobs provided to software engineers by all GPL based companies is lesser than jobs provided by a handful of commercial companies?

For the ignonrant that you are, i will copy paste my older post again:

http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16891&comment_id=199704
and
And read this post:
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16891&comment_id=199798

Now can you answer to the question i pose in second comment?

-------------
The reason is software ecosystem.

1. Universities do research and release code under BSD style license.
2. Many of these projects are very good and picked up by companies to commercialize them.
3. These companies (in turn software engineers in thse companies) makes money and make software engineering a lucrative discipline for students.
4. The companies donate some of the money back to universities.
5. Go to step 1.

This is the ecosystem promoted by BSD. GPL breaks that. If you ever read statistics, students are losing interest in computer science and once they see that it is not financial a good field to support their family, you will see even less people in this field.

That is why i like BSD and not Linux.

The all combined GPL based products have earned less money than even a handful of non-GPL products.

In a country like USA where a doctor charge 300$ for 30 minutes appointment, you need money to live a good life and GPL is not making software as an interesting field to make that kind of money.

I hope this explains well to you now.

Reply Parent Score: 0

b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

Since some of the hype over Vista has invoked "economic impact" and since CrazyDude0 is also invoking it in his own arguments, I will point to another argument albeit less ephemeral.

One point to ponder is that the market for nonfree software accounts for no more than one-third of the entire market for software. CrazyDude0, if you are serious and will set aside some time in the future, I recommend reading a serious economic argument for things such as the GPL. Do not worry -- it is recent and is not from the FSF or from GNU. The whole thing is worth reading, but you can easily narrow in on the economic bits, which will force you to confront some surprising facts:

http://www.congo-education.net/wealth-of-networks

And if you insist on seeing some endorsements for this (although the logic is sound), find them, including a link to the Amazon ones, at:

http://www.benkler.org/wealth_of_networks/index.php/Main_Page

Good luck!

Reply Parent Score: 5

abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

This is the ecosystem promoted by BSD. GPL breaks that. If you ever read statistics, students are losing interest in computer science and once they see that it is not financial a good field to support their family, you will see even less people in this field.

That's quite a leap you took to link GPL with computer science students losing interest in the field. Did you ever consider outsourcing, the dot-com bust, or the draw of other, more lucrative fields? Your conclusions come with absolutely no proof. Not very convincing. Another thing you do not consider at all is software as a commodity and how that benefits users of software including business.

Reply Parent Score: 5

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

There are two logical errors in your (off-topic) argument. The first is that you assume that those who promote the GPL are responsible for there being "less money" in computer science. In reality, people who *choose* to release software under the GPL do so of their own free will. No one is forcing them to do it. They choose to do it, and do so in much larger proportions than those who choose the BSDL.

Second, it does not matter whether someone chooses to release software under the GPL or the BSDL as far as *their* financial reward is concerned. In both cases, the developer is giving the code away for free, and that particular code remains free. Even if someone makes money from a derivative, the owner will not make money off of it, and so according to your *own* logic, will not have any incentive to continue providing such free code. In other words, if financial gratification is your only motive (which is what you seem to argue), then there is *no* incentive to use either BSD or GPL for your own code.

And there is absolutely no guarantee (or even likelyhood) that companies will give money back in your hypothetical "step 4" cited in your example.

What you fail to realize is that software (of many types) is rapidly becoming commoditized. This is a transformation of the software industry, and it is irreversible. So you basically have two choices: accept it, or close your eyes and put your hands over your ears while going "la la la la I can't hear you"...

Finally, you are completely ignoring the *positive* economic aspect of FOSS, i.e. that it saves money to a *lot* of companies, which means more money for their employees, so they can pay the ridiculous doctor's fees if they are in the U.S.

A lot of FOSS is developed by employees of companies who understand that they have much to gain from a healthy FOSS ecosystem. Sharing development means that *everyone* benefits (except those companies based on selling software as a consumer product).

Now, can we please stop this off-topic discussion?

Reply Parent Score: 5

billnvd Member since:
2006-02-04

"In a country like USA where a doctor charge 300$ for 30 minutes appointment, you need money to live a good life and GPL is not making software as an interesting field to make that kind of money."

You did not specify the amount of money you think you need to "live a good life", but I can tell from your post that you equate money with success and "a good life". Statements like that pretty much sum you up cheif! Just another materialistic idiot that thinks money means happyness and "a good life".

Personally, I know more unhappy people that are slaves to a paycheck to maintain their standard of living. I used to be one of them. After years and years of going up the ladder, I finally walked away. I make 1/3 of what I used to, but my life is actually enjoyable now.

My point, just becuase a job pays $$$$ does not mean the people doing it are doing it because they like it. In fact, I would bet that the majority of people in the high paying fields are there for one reason only. That is the money. So, what makes a person great at a job verse good at a job. Well, it is not money!

Your thought process is wacked. If programming paid $600.00 an hour, would that attrack the best programmers or just a bunch of hacks that want money and churn out code to get a check?

Myself, I can deal with the OSS guys doing it for reasons that include self satisfaction verse the hacks at MS churning out bugware version 9 SP33!

Reply Parent Score: 3

Mathman Member since:
2005-07-08

Heck, university researchers shouldn't release their code at all. That way they can keep whatever commercial product they happen to produce all to themselves. Or wait, that's actually quite common. So where's that leave us?

As for students losing interest in computer science based purely on financial reasons, I'd say good. You must not know what it was like to be studying computer science around the time of the dot com boom. Luckily I went to a decent school and by my senior year most of the disguised business majors were finally majoring in business. But don't get me wrong here, it's not that I'm agreeing with your assertion that the gpl damages academia, in fact having worked in academia for the past 5 years I'd say far from it. To give a small example from my place, we use the GPL'd NetCDF library so that our data is in a common format that other researchers can easily deal with.

And speaking of ignorance, the majority of software is highly specialized, is produced in house, and stays in house. So businesses having a common set of tools work on and develop software with, tools that are open so you're free to fix them or modify them as you see fit, is certainly not going to hurt the bottom line. Now sure, these tools could just as easily have a BSD style license as much as a GPL license. But let's take Walmart for example. Just because Walmart makes some enhancement to some BSD licensed operating system they run their website on, all of a sudden they're going to turn around and turn into a software company? It could happen I suppose. But I think what's far more likely to happen is that their engineers release whatever enhancements they happen to make to some GPL'd software so that everyone benefits.

I hope this explains well to you now.

Reply Parent Score: 3

l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Is it so hard for you to understand that the cumulative number of jobs provided to software engineers

It's not always about your job. You'd need to think a bit broader than your job wishes. Like environment protection, you have to think a bit outside your life span. Thankfully there are many of us out there whom it would take much more to convince about free software development's supposedly caused damages.

Reply Parent Score: 3