Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Ubuntu Linux vs. Windows Vista
Renegade:
Claiming that Linux is not ready for prime time in general is insanity, because it is all a matter of how you use your computer. It's not ready for everyone sure, but for many others it really is and have been for some time. Oh and regarding your claims that the GPL somehow prevents developers from creating commercial software for the platform, well my Linux version of Zend Studio would seem to indicate otherwise.
-Dirhael (April 28, 2007, 11:06 AM)
--- End quote ---
Ok - I know that I'm not going to be popular for this, but the GPL is VIRAL and it infects everything it touches. Linux is GPL and so is 99.99% of all the software for it. The rest is guilty of license infringement. There's just no way around that with a conserviative reading of the GPL. Period. There is no debate here. Read the GPL.
The GPL has hereto been a bastion of patent infringement. That won't go unnoticed.
Now let's get real. You admit that it is ready for everyone. But "everyone" is "Prime Time". I'm very far from insane in this. And you'll see that as the next few years prove me right. Ubuntu will not win people over. This is not a technology thing at all. It's a business things, and Ubuntu is losing. I'm not advocating any technology - merely stating facts.
The FSF is ruled by a bunch of radicals. And yes. Your proprietary software running on Ubuntu is illegal. Read the GPL again.
While Unbuntu may make sense for a small number of people, it's just not sane for most as you cannot develop software for a GPL'd platform commercially. It's just too hard.
The GPL advocates are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Read the GPL.
This is not about technology - it's about business and philosophy. Ubuntu loses. Windows wins. Windows has people behind it for money. Linux has nothing that's reliable. (In the grand scheme.)
This debate should be open and shut.
Dirhael:
As long as your application doesn't use any GPL'd code, there is absolutely nothing illegal releasing it as commercial software on whatever platform you choose (and I would think that Zend, the guys that actually made the core for PHP, would know a whole lot more about potential licensing issues than you or I do). You argue that by being ready for prime time, the OS has to be ready for absolutely everyone. Well guess what, neither Windows nor OSX is ready for absolutely everyone so by your standards there is no OS in existense today that is [ready for prime time].
If you instead argued that Windows is the best fit for more people that Linux currently is then yes, I would agree. If it was the perfect fit for everyone however, there would be no such thing as Linux, BSD, Mac OS etc.
EDIT: Just to add a few more examples on non-GPL software on Linux:
- Adobe Flash Player/Plugin
- PHP (Open Source yes, but not released under a GPL license)
- Sun Java (they recently GPL'd it, but for years in was commercial software)
- Apache (again, open source but not GPL)
You will have absolutely no luck trying to convince me that those are illegal just because they aren't released under a GPL license.
gjehle:
renegade, if you would actually care about what you say you wouldn't talk like you have to spread propaganda
yes, there is a term called GPL-infection
it happens if you rip off other people's code! code they made public so you could use it NON PROFIT
while you're always argue with "commercial interests" written to your forehead.
maybe it's not about who sells more or less
maybe it's not about "prime time"
also, let me give you some insight into GPL and what it is.
GPL / GNU Public License
you can use code or libraries free of charge if you in return make available:
all changes to the code
your code that is directly linked against a GPLed library
LGPL / Lesser/Library GNU Public License
same as GPL except that you can LINK against LGPLed libraries without making your code public
some people think the wording is not 110% so they add another clause that clarifies this
MIT
is kinda: do whatever you want, i think MPL is similar
BSD is also part of that family
now here's the catchy part that a LOT of folks don't get.
even for GPLed code, there is still a COPYRIGHT holder.
the coder who wrote the code.
said coder decided to offer his code to the public under the terms of said LICENSE.
the coder is free to do whatever else he wants to do with his code.
one thing he could do would be to sell it to you if you wanted to use it in your commercial software.
or he could even give you a "i allow you to commercially use this piece of code if you tattoo 'omgwtf' onto your left arm"-license.
do you come to a realization?
i sure hope so.
GPL may be infective, but if you get infected you did it either out of ignorance, or willingly by violating the rules.
in both cases, your fault, not the GPL's fault, nor the coders, not anyone else's, except for you.
don't blame someone for sharing something he/she created for free that you, oh so sadly, can't use in a commercial product from which you would gain money (at least partially) based on work done by others.
i did my deal of research on this topic, i too work at a company that sells software or hardware on which software runs. and yes, there are products that are based on linux, and YES, we can sell them. while there is still proprietary code running on them. it works. legally perfectly ok.
some facts:
the linux kernel is GPL
a damn lot of the user space libraries are LGPL
if (as i think you do) like to click on buttons, trolltech's Qt is dual-licensed as GPL and QTLICENSE.
yes, they sell it, you can buy it, awesome, isn't it?
even if something is GPL.
if you really care about it, go contact the original author and give him some frickin' credit and he might actually think about other ways to offer a personal license to you.
Renegade:
You will have absolutely no luck trying to convince me that those are illegal just because they aren't released under a GPL license.
--- End quote ---
I was exaggerating. Yes. There is non-GPL software that runs legally.
But really? PHP, Java and Apache? Those are basically server applications and not really end user applications for the desktop.
You argue that by being ready for prime time, the OS has to be ready for absolutely everyone.
--- End quote ---
No. I'm arguing that the software support for Ubuntu isn't ready for Prime Time.
Well guess what, neither Windows nor OSX is ready for absolutely everyone so by your standards there is no OS in existense today that is [ready for prime time].
--- End quote ---
No. I'm arguing that "Prime Time" is mass market, not "everyone". However, there is little difference. For those people that fall outside, they are simply in niche markets, e.g. POS software, fluid dynamics, etc. Those applicatons often still run on the OSes that we're talking about, but sometime on others, e.g. Cray's OS for scientific & engineering applications.
If you instead argued that Windows is the best fit for more people that Linux currently is then yes, I would agree.
--- End quote ---
Not just more, but massively more people.
@gjehle - You *can* sell GPL software for profit. While it isn't popular, it is done. Search eBay for audio editors and you'll see Audacity being sold there.
Here's a quick one? When was the last time that anyone ran World of Warcraft or Grand Theft Auto on Ubuntu? The gamers drive a lot of the computing industry, e.g. Hardware production, etc. Again, Ubuntu is lacking software options and is pretty much out of the market for games. OSX has a enough time there.
zridling:
_________Long post follows. My apologies for your patience. _________
The adoption of the open source Eclipse IDE is a great asset to Linux. Eclipse is not just software, it's a community that has its own distros. And once you get beyond Photoshop (and yes, GIMP doesn't really compare), you see lots of industry steadily moving development off the Windows platform, from IBM, Google, Borland, IBM, QNX Software, Rational Software, etc. If I recall, the "Photoshop" cry was the last thing Apple was heard claiming over and over as they nearly went extinct trying to keep people from using it on Windows. Then they "Jobbed" the stock options, built the DRM iPod, and have "roared back" to 4% share with OS X (okay I'm trying not to laugh either). Therefore I take Renegade's arguments at face value; that is, he's really making a straightforward, simple point — when you get down to Level-1, just you, the keyboard and mouse, we're all looking for the best software. "Support" however, is relative. Sites like LinuxQuestions.org will help you do anything with any problem. And they won't charge you the mandatory minimum $49 Microsoft asks.
The march of open source is relentless, if for no other reasons than by freeing customers from proprietary lock-in and lack of choice. Interoperability is created by open standards (which is different from open source). Just as they have for Apache, BIND, DNS, Eclipse, Fedora, Firefox, Hibernate, JBoss, Kerberos, LDAP, MySQL, Perl, PHP, Python, PostgreSQL, Sendmail, Tomcat. The list goes on. No, these are not desktop applications, but where would customers be without these technologies? All these were developed openly and I didn't have to pay one dime for any of them, much less continue to pay to license them. The GPL is a GREAT thing, otherwise, why should a corporation make profit off the hard work of others who gave their expertise, time, and efforts freely? On the other hand, Microsoft thinks so much of its Office "ribbon" that it won't license its look and structure to direct competitors. Thank goodness for that!
____________
My second point is skewed differently, in that Microsoft has not demonstrated any loyalty to me. In fact, like Adobe et al., Microsoft has succeeded only in criminalizing the consumer. Virtually every "innovation" in the last several years has been to keep me from doing something. In Vista, Microsoft has made certain content files not copyable. Vista also makes it very, very slow to copy, rename, or delete ordinary files (see the Technet article linked at the post). I won't even address the user-hostile EULA, WGA, OGA, and Windows Activation... (I didn't steal your software. I PAID for it. Why are you still treating me as though I'm a shoplifter?) I'll never begrudge Microsoft the freedom to make a profit. But then Microsoft should not begrudge me from walking away from them; further, they should stop actively hindering and frustrating me from using open source software through amoral patent litigation, supporting SCO lawsuits, bogus anti-Linux surveys, and not to mention how they're gaming ISO NBs right now for MS-OOXML.
Until a few years ago, I loved Microsoft. I still use and enjoy apps like Expression Web. But ANY company, ANY developer, ANY one who treats me (and my money) as if to presume I'm a thief, a pirate, and a criminal until I prove otherwise everytime I boot my computer doesn't need me, much less want me at all. So why should I look favorably at anything they do when I'm viewed under that perspective? I guess I'm trying to say that no one gave Microsoft more chances than I did over the past twenty years. When's Microsoft going to give me a break? Apple had it's day in the mid-80s (briefly), then Microsoft went on a 20-year run, but the encroachment of Open Source will continue not because I support it, but because industry and governments do. Desktop-friendly distros like Ubuntu, Fedora, Xandros, Freespire, and others will only pick up speed over the life of Vista and its successors.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version