To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Since the Client is OSS, someone could just as easy create a backend for a modified version of the client.
And as I said, as it does not actually change your OS in anyway you can always go back to what you had. It's not like they are taking over all OSS software.
Me, I am more like Linus, you have to have something to make money, if you never make money then people will get tired of doing the work. Not every project has a billionare owner like Ubuntu, who can spend lots of his own money.
Sometimes you have to give a little to get a lot. I don't mind allowing Linspire to make money providing me with a service that makes it easy for me to admin my computer.
Sorry but I would rather have a proprietary system that works then a OSS one that doesn't.
Yes but should one pay for something the result of a bad design? of course, one could look at the diversity and call it a feature but I think from the POV of commercial developers for a desktop OS, linux is out of control.
It's almost like praising H&R Block instead of going after the tax code.







Member since:
2005-07-08
I made sure to mention that the CNR client plugin is OSS, but the server is not. I knew someone would bring that up if I didn't. So I tried to spell it out. I guess you just didn't read the one sentence I purposefully set off from the rest as its own paragraph.
Let me say it again... the server part of CNR is NOT OSS. It doesn't really matter if the client is OSS. There are many situations where we have to connect to proprietary services to get on with our lives, and it doesn't matter one lick if the client we use to connect to it is free software. It still sucks. If anything, I'd rather use a fancy proprietary client to connect to a free service than the other way around.