Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Sep 2012 22:30 UTC
Intel You'd think this sort of stuff belonged to the past - but no. Apparently, Microsoft is afraid of Android on its Windows 8 tablets, because Intel has just announced that it will provide no support for Linux on its clover Trail processors. Supposedly, this chip is "designed for Windows 8". What?
Thread beginning with comment 535170
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by stabbyjones
by snowbender on Sat 15th Sep 2012 08:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by stabbyjones"
snowbender
Member since:
2006-05-04

Your reaction makes it very clear you have no clue what you are talking about regarding open systems.

If it wouldn't be for open systems, you would not have internet the way it is today, and it probably would not even exist. You would have a lot of company-specific networks instead, like a Google network, and a Microsoft network, and so on. If it wouldn't be for open systems, email would not exist, ftp would not exist, ssh would not exist, http would not exist.

A lot of technologies in IT would not exist the way they do today. Even OSX wouldn't exist the way it is today, since they wouldn't be able to build it on top of BSD.

That does not mean that there is no proprietary technology that made big advancements or anything like that. But saying that open systems is irrelevant, just shows you are clueless.

Btw, the big difference between open systems and closed systems is that open systems allow others to build on top of them and takes things even further. Closed systems only allow the creator of the closed system to build further on it.

Edited 2012-09-15 08:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[7]: Comment by stabbyjones
by moondevil on Sat 15th Sep 2012 12:03 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by stabbyjones"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Open Systems != Open source.

You can have open systems, where interfaces and protocols are defined, without open source.

Actually Email and other communication mechanisms fall under that situation. They are protocols defined by RFC documents, and they exist way before open source.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by stabbyjones
by oper on Sat 15th Sep 2012 14:28 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by stabbyjones"
oper Member since:
2012-08-30

Actually Email and other communication mechanisms fall under that situation. They are protocols defined by RFC documents, and they exist way before open source.

No, they don't exist way before open source :-) . Open source in software exists at least since the 1950s, when IBM published the source code of mainframes to people and the SHARE user group shared their code libraries.

http://www.cozx.com/~dpitts/ibm7090.html (that page contains a link to IBM 7090/94 IBSYS source, including COBOL and FORTRAN compilers.)

VM and the VM Community: Past, Present, and Future
http://www.princeton.edu/~melinda/25paper.pdf

http://www.share.org/

Edited 2012-09-15 14:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Comment by stabbyjones
by Lennie on Sun 16th Sep 2012 09:21 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by stabbyjones"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

You are kidding right ? Please learn your history.

With source software exited before closed source software.

It used to be true if you bought your hardware from a vendor you'd get the source with it. That was before the Internet even existed.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by stabbyjones
by ilovebeer on Sat 15th Sep 2012 15:10 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by stabbyjones"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Your reaction makes it very clear you have no clue what you are talking about regarding open systems.

Wrong.

If it wouldn't be for open systems, you would not have internet the way it is today, and it probably would not even exist. You would have a lot of company-specific networks instead, like a Google network, and a Microsoft network, and so on. If it wouldn't be for open systems, email would not exist, ftp would not exist, ssh would not exist, http would not exist.

A lot of technologies in IT would not exist the way they do today. Even OSX wouldn't exist the way it is today, since they wouldn't be able to build it on top of BSD.

That does not mean that there is no proprietary technology that made big advancements or anything like that. But saying that open systems is irrelevant, just shows you are clueless.

After all that rambling, some reasonable, some ridiculous, you end it by claiming I said open systems are irrelevant? Just one problem, ...I said no such thing. I suggested the overall contributions to advancement resulting from the two be compared, not that one is relevant while the other isn't. Apparently you don't know the difference which explains, I guess, why you're making ridiculous claims.

Btw, the big difference between open systems and closed systems is that open systems allow others to build on top of them and takes things even further. Closed systems only allow the creator of the closed system to build further on it.

Wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[7]: Comment by stabbyjones
by Lennie on Sun 16th Sep 2012 09:19 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by stabbyjones"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Without the open systems, Google wouldn't even exists. They had no way to be populair or would even be able to index all the now public information that they did.

Reply Parent Score: 3