>> Are you running a Macintosh?? :) > I may not have enough fingers to run emacs, but I do have enough to use > a three button mouse.
But your nanny certainly wouldn't know which button to click when asked to. So you have to go, left click, middle click, right click, uugh, so disgusting for a user friendly system... >> > If the Mac OS X guys would be so kind as to release their source >> > code instead of simply taking open source tools and using them... >> >> Theres a difference, how do you think a company would sustain growth >> without making money? > > Where did I say that they should give away freebies? They are well > within their right to sell their software, but they should also provide > a means for licenced users of their software to procure the source code > at no *extra* cost. Thats funny, dunno anybody giving away their bread and butter for free. What would stop *those* licensed users from stealing code? Especially what would stop Microsoft from doing that? Somehow this whole concept seems flaky when one tries to do business out of it. > What this means, is that if I buy - pay money for - Mac OS X, then, I > should be entitled to the source code as well, and Apple should give it > to me at no additional charge, except media, shipping and handling. > > If however, I do not own a licence for Mac OS X, and if I want the > source code, I will have to pay the full price of Mac OS X in order to > get it, but I also get the binary. There seems to be no difference between the above two points presented by you. Hope you conveyed what you attempted to. >> Some how I can't bring myself to belive that Open Source can fill up >> [snip] >> had been closed source is too low. > > Having a 12 course meal at the expense of hurting hundreds and thousands > of other people may be fine with you, but most of us have a concience. > I'd rather eat wada pav. Thats why you have intestinal disorder. (eating a lot of wada pav makes you fart a lot) You draw very childish and impractical comparisons with real life. I don't understand why a company which has invested its sweat, blood and finances into creating a great product shouldn't be allowed to reap rewards off it. I guess, thats what happens when you have lived a long time away from realities of a commercial enterprise where every penny spent counts should generate equal or more returns. >> About the Mac OS X guys, well in return for using the open source >> tools, they have opened up their modifications/innovations to the Mach >> kernel, use it... > > Mach is a microkernel developed at CMU. The Hurd is already around for > us to use - based on Mach. Last I heard, the Macintosh had a monolithic > kernel, but that was a long time ago. The HURD is still not ready for prime time, and given the state it is in, it wouldn't be safe for general use for the next 8 to 12 months atleast. Ironically, Linux still has a monolithic kernel, just being "module-based" doesn't mean it is "modular". (probably the same as the difference between Object Oriented and Object Based, as in C++ and VB) Now, this again proves the futility of the Open Source efforts. Technically, Mach based HURD is a superior product and if the amount of energy which was spent on the Linux kernel had been spent on the HURD, we would have had a far superior product, a product which the rest of *them* would have loved to copy. ~Mayuresh _______________________________________________ linux-india-help mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-india-help
