It would be nice to know who made this post. Maybe off list we can introduce ourselves.
--- In [email protected], Linux Bangladesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Soyuz > > Presumably you have realized by now that what you have said cannot be > comprehended by the intended audience. Those with a very focused vision > have the advantage of being focused, and disadvantage of missing the > broader picture. So it cuts both ways. > > Dear Zico, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd like to point out a > few things from your mail > > > Google is Open Source. And at least they are helping Open Source world. > > > If I may ask, which part of Google is open source? I haven't found the > code for google desktop source anywhere -- even by searching with google > or in freshmeat or sourceforge. I haven't heard google shares / ever > shared the technology behind its backend database management or the > scripts that runs the entire google. So, just a bunch of summer code > makes it Open Source? > > > > > Google`s items is upgradeable. And it`s much stable than any stuff of M$. > > Who can blame google`s search engine, calendar, book search and so on? > > > Appearently you had never been a beta tester for google, and therefore > have no idea that even these failed to work at some point in time. I'm > sure if you used Windows, you would have preferred Windows 98 over ME, > and 2000 over XP and definitely XP over Vista -- since they are > comperatively more stable than the other. > > The idea of stability is different when you are comparing between a > desktop application, or a web based application, or an entire OS. you do > not compare the lettuce in the salad with the fish in that curry, do > you? They are both different. Likewise, the scope of stability and > performance is entirely different between the two. > > You can argue that M$ products are more susceptible to viruses and > internet attacks. But if you remove that part entirely, I doubt how much > unstability you will find even in their Exchange server. > > > Differences has been given.... > > > Actually, no, you have not given any differences, you merely stated your > opinion which does not indicate any difference. > > Let me put it a bit more bluntly. I am merely summerizing what Sayuz has > said, and then you tell me the difference > > a. Google is encouraging Open Source by arranging competitions, > supporting projects, etc. Microsoft is encouraging Open Source by > donating money. > > b. Google is making money by giving away Free Software that displays > advertisements and brings *them* money; Microsoft is making money by > selling the software that does not show any advertisements. (well, in > the long run, google is making more money than M$ in that way, since > that is a recurring income) > > > Again... i don`t care about money, share and other stuff. I only care about > > Open Source philosophy and rule and also care about a *stable* program. > > > Now I'm stuck. I have seen so many different philosophy of Open Source! > would you like to share your vision of Open Source with me (off list) > please? Also, do you have any statistics on the percentage of Stable > Open Source programmes as opposed to non-stables? > > > > > They need to get rid off *Windows* at least. Cause, it`s really a garbage. > I'm quite certain you don't know the history of Windows -- how it came > to being. If you did, you would have never thought Billy boy is going to > get rid of it. Specially since he has salvaged it from IBM, gave it a > new look and marketed as Windows. The easiest thing for him to would be > to give it a new piece of suit, and sell it with a new name. That's > billy boy. > > You might hate windows and billy as much as you like, but that will very > unlikely change the present scenerio. You might decide to remain blind, > but the open source community cannot afford that Luxury. > > Happy linuxing > > -- > > Linux is for the ones who hate windows > BSD is for the ones who Love Unix. > http://www.leovilletownsquare.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/19190/ >
