Posted by High Plains Thumper on April 26, 2006, 6:17 am
.p.jm wrote:
>> .p.jm wrote:
>>
>>> Open Source is based on the same failed fallacies as Communism
>>
>> Well not really.
>>
>> Under open source one has the opportunity to work under that model. No
>> one forces you to share anything.
>
> Sure it does. If you want anyone to use your program, you have to give
> them the source code.
I thought the OS was open source but the aps do not have to be, unless you
want it that way.
Biggest problem I see is that M$ got their foot in the door and kilt all
other competition and wants to keep it that way. I see Linux as an
alternative.
Deviating a little, I remember during US Federal Government symposiums in
the mid '80s, they were all promoting POSIX as the wave of the future, all
computers heading towards a generic Unix like operating system.
Now I find it strangely odd how the US Government has abandoned that
position and has heavily invested in M$. It like Biff from "Back to the
Future" has stolen a time machine and now history is changed.
Also, inasmuch as I enjoyed writing software, I found it enervating. No one
in the late '80s was interested in someone with 10 years experience with
load servo control and data acquisition systems programming on Perkin Elmer
32xx doing FORTRAN and IBM 360J assembly. Hence this is why I changed to
facilities management. I guess I'm just not right. ;-)
--
HPT
Posted by Venture Rider on April 26, 2006, 6:51 am
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:17:42 +0900, High Plains Thumper said:
>Deviating a little, I remember during US Federal Government symposiums in
>the mid '80s, they were all promoting POSIX as the wave of the future, all
>computers heading towards a generic Unix like operating system.
There is a lot of Unix under Windows.
--
"I refuse to answer that question on the grounds
that I don't know the answer."
- Douglas Adams
Posted by Atticus Finch on April 26, 2006, 7:42 am
On 4/26/2006 6:51 AM Venture Rider mumbled something about the following:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:17:42 +0900, High Plains Thumper said:
>
>> Deviating a little, I remember during US Federal Government symposiums in
>> the mid '80s, they were all promoting POSIX as the wave of the future, all
>> computers heading towards a generic Unix like operating system.
>
> There is a lot of Unix under Windows.
>
No there isn't. It was written by the same guy who wrote VMS, but
there's no VMS under the hood either.
Posted by Rob Kleinschmidt on April 26, 2006, 3:12 pm
Atticus Finch wrote:
> On 4/26/2006 6:51 AM Venture Rider mumbled something about the following:
> > On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:17:42 +0900, High Plains Thumper said:
> >
> >> Deviating a little, I remember during US Federal Government symposiums in
> >> the mid '80s, they were all promoting POSIX as the wave of the future, all
> >> computers heading towards a generic Unix like operating system.
> >
> > There is a lot of Unix under Windows.
> >
> No there isn't. It was written by the same guy who wrote VMS, but
> there's no VMS under the hood either.
You're speaking of VMS and NT rather than the original Windows
aren't you ?
Posted by .p.jm on April 26, 2006, 10:15 am
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:17:42 +0900, High Plains Thumper
>.p.jm wrote:
>>> .p.jm wrote:
>>>
>>>> Open Source is based on the same failed fallacies as Communism
>>>
>>> Well not really.
>>>
>>> Under open source one has the opportunity to work under that model. No
>>> one forces you to share anything.
>>
>> Sure it does. If you want anyone to use your program, you have to give
>> them the source code.
>I thought the OS was open source but the aps do not have to be, unless you
>want it that way.
Well, the thing is, you run into the GPL so quickly as soon as
you try to incorporate any 'standard' tools, etc. And the user
community tends to expect 'if it's on Linux, it must be open source'.
>Biggest problem I see is that M$ got their foot in the door and kilt all
>other competition and wants to keep it that way. I see Linux as an
>alternative.
M$ can largely take credit for computers as we know them
today. Without a common OS standard, the price of hardware woudl nto
hvae been able to come down.
>Deviating a little, I remember during US Federal Government symposiums in
>the mid '80s, they were all promoting POSIX as the wave of the future, all
>computers heading towards a generic Unix like operating system.
They had their own language, too, which I forget the name of -
ARP or something ??? That was going to be 'the new standard', too,
because 'all future government software purchases had to be written in
it' :-)
>Also, inasmuch as I enjoyed writing software, I found it enervating. No one
>in the late '80s was interested in someone with 10 years experience with
>load servo control and data acquisition systems programming on Perkin Elmer
>32xx doing FORTRAN and IBM 360J assembly. Hence this is why I changed to
>facilities management. I guess I'm just not right. ;-)
A JCL man ? Geez .... :-) funny you mention FORTRAN - my
major project right now involve a Windows wrapper for some legacy
FORTRAN from the 60's :-)
--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/
Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/
XML Sitemap
>>
>>> Open Source is based on the same failed fallacies as Communism
>>
>> Well not really.
>>
>> Under open source one has the opportunity to work under that model. No
>> one forces you to share anything.
>
> Sure it does. If you want anyone to use your program, you have to give
> them the source code.