Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Sep 2012 22:30 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 535216
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-08-08
Wrong.
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.
Wrong.