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 535188
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by stabbyjones
by moondevil on Sat 15th Sep 2012 11:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by stabbyjones"
moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

Python development got funded by the companies Guido worked for.

PHP development is funded by Zend.

Haskell development is funded by Microsoft Research.

Erlang was developed at Ericson, before it got released as open source.

The list goes on.

Very few successful open source projects, if any, would have succeeded if it wasn't for the dirty money that some companies selling closed source software invested on it.

I used to be a big open source fan until I realized, that without a way to pay for bills, being a fan does not help much.

Reply Parent Score: 7

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

[Remnove comment that does not apply anyway]

Very few successful open source projects, if any, would have succeeded if it wasn't for the dirty money that some companies selling closed source software invested on it.


Maybe, maybe not but that's not what we're discussing anyway.
You could also argue that a lot of commercial projects would not have succeeded without the OSS projects they build on and use but that's also not the point.
Who's talking about dirty money anyway? Not me that's for sure.

The point is, for those of you who somehow fail to see it, both closed and open-source software and systems spur advancements and contribute to the field.
I really don't know why some are so dead set against this simple fact.

Edited 2012-09-15 12:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Comment by stabbyjones
by Fergy on Sat 15th Sep 2012 12:51 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by stabbyjones"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Very few successful open source projects, if any, would have succeeded if it wasn't for the dirty money that some companies selling closed source software invested on it.

Let's keep that strawman away from this argument. Free Software is about keeping the power at the consumer side. We still are willing to pay for software but always keep in mind that a competitor can take the source and provide the same service.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

Very few successful open source projects, if any, would have succeeded if it wasn't for the dirty money that some companies selling closed source software invested on it.

I used to be a big open source fan until I realized, that without a way to pay for bills, being a fan does not help much.


You could say much the same about research in to medicine or investment in tertiary education research projects, - are you bitterly opposed to those too?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[9]: Comment by stabbyjones
by moondevil on Sat 15th Sep 2012 13:40 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by stabbyjones"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

I am not opposed to anything.

I also prefer open source over commercial software, if possible.

But I got to understand that a world where all software is free is not possible, given the constraints of how the work market functions in most countries.

Software can only be free, if enough money for continuous source of income for the developers, can be guaranteed by other means other than selling boxed software. At a level that the developers can achieve the same lifestyle as with closed source software.

The moment this fails, we're back at the closed source model.

Reply Parent Score: 4

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

For being such a "fan" of open source, you don't seem to understand what the term actually means. Hint: It has nothing to do with the strawman you just put forth.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by stabbyjones
by Lennie on Sun 16th Sep 2012 09:18 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by stabbyjones"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

OK, so what proprietary software vendor pays for open source ? I think you are confused.

A lot of money from businesses, sure.

Most of the money for open source comes from hardware vendors and services companies (think companies like IBM, RedHat).

I guess I also see Google, Facebook, Twitter, LiveJournal and similair online properties as services companies as they don't sell any software.

They do have proprietary software but they don't sell it, they just deliver a service.

Reply Parent Score: 3