Id like to drag this back to the original topic (now I
have some time to deal with it)...
Hi Tom,
Firstly may I voice agreement with yourself and Andy. This
subject has just about run its course so Ill make my
answer to your questions my last on this thread -
What was their motive for
Don Cameron wrote:
Hi again Taran,
Being very aware this is becoming a one-to-one; as such potentially
inappropriate for a discussion list - may I nonetheless request our
moderators continued tolerance and understanding. Hopefully this is of some
interest to other readers and some may choose to
Don Cameron wrote:
No, at risk of repetition my point was to highlight how monetary reasons are
not the sole reasons for proprietary developments. This was in direct
response to points raised previously in this thread. Understanding (in the
context of discussion) really involves relating the
Hi Dave,
A lot of what I think I already wrote in response to Don, but there are
some things that I'd like to answer here...
Dave A. Chakrabarti wrote:
Taran,
Thinking about Don's comments in disaster management (a field I know
*nothing* about, so feel free to shoot me down on this) I'm
Hi again Taran,
Being very aware this is becoming a one-to-one; as such potentially
inappropriate for a discussion list - may I nonetheless request our
moderators continued tolerance and understanding. Hopefully this is of some
interest to other readers and some may choose to contribute.
You
Taran Rampersad notes:
Secret formulas like this bother me because they are secret.
Hi again Taran,
Something of an exaggeration to call something unpublicised secret,
however yes, proponents of full disclosure will argue that anything unknown
should be knowable by anyone - presumably it is
Taran,
Thinking about Don's comments in disaster management (a field I know
*nothing* about, so feel free to shoot me down on this) I'm inclined to
think that public image / press / etc becomes an important factor. If
this is a closed process, it is open to criticism only in being a closed
Ken,
Unfortunately, I think you are contradicting yourself. You say that you
disagree with the opportunism that Microsoft uses to pry into my
computer under the guise of giving me a critical update ...however,
there is nothing illegal in what Microsoft is doing. It was all there in
an license
Ken -
If we didn't have to prove over and over again that we have the right to use
our version of Windows (or whatever) I would have such a beef. Plus, it is
difficult to respect Microsoft's intellectual property when MS itself runs
roughshod over other entities property and does it's best to
Tom Brough writes:
I know I cant change your mindset on this (but I have to try).
What troubles me is not necessarily proprietary software itself,
but the business practices of companies like Microsoft SCO.
Hi again Tom,
Once again thanks for the thoughtful reply - I do understand, and
Taran Rampersad asks:
Perhaps you could tell us who insisted that some of your code be
proprietary?
Hi Taran,
Great to hear from you again and I hope you are well - May I focus on your
query separately to the main thread because the question is legitimate
however I think something of a
Right now there is a huge stink around the MS anti-piracy software,
euphemistically called Windows Genuine Advantage. Turns out that they've
been using their critical update feature to download and test new versions
of this DRM/validation software. The thing phones home, effectively making
it
While I disagree with the opportunisism that Microsoft utilises to pry
into my computer under the guise of giving me a critical update, I
really don't have a problem with Microsoft jealously guarding their
software. Why shouldn't it be proper to prove you own the software
before you re-install it?
Don Cameron wrote:
Yes I agree OSS offers enormous benefits to society... No I do not agree
that OSS is a mouse in any context other than in the games of OSS
marketers. To be objective is to acknowledge that benefits and pitfalls
exist in all development methodologies.
Cheers, Don
I
Hopping in.
Don Cameron wrote:
The term Open Source Evangelist (Wikipedia ref:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_evangelist) has common use however
my apologies if you find the term misleading; activist if you prefer.
I think quite a few people find such labels misleading. I've never
Tom thanks for your considered reply to some of these points. In recognition
that discussion on software methodologies can degrade to flames, in
continuing may I acknowledge your views and beliefs. The topic can be
discussed without flames when we keep this intelligence within the
discussion.
The
Jesse Sinaiko wrote:
Making the OS an application-heavy bit of one size-fits-all software
actually limits choice and stifles innovation, in spite of Steve Ballmer's
assertion that the only innovative operation on the planet is MS.
In this sense, the last real OS put out by MS was Windows 2000
Don Cameron wrote:
Tom Brough writes:
Fact 1: Proprietary software is written by companies with the
primary goal to satisfy shareholders aspirations by increasing
market share. Another way of saying they have a profit motive.
As a software developer I must comment on this stated
Tom Brough wrote:
Certification is a double edged sword. On the one hand it gives
employers an indication that you have the skills they need, and on the
other its courses are usually provided by vendors of the software,
which encourages lock-in culture (either by accident or design).
However
Taran Rampersad wrote:
That employers look *specifically* for people with Microsoft Office
experience is a real issue and cannot be ignored either - but if you
can use OpenOffice.org, as Dave points out, you can use Microsoft
Office - and vice versa. One of these packages can be used on all
Linus Torvalds is actually on record for saying something similar to
this... that the user *shouldn't* have to care what OS they are using, they
should be focusing on the applications they use.
This point - made by Torvalds and brought here by Taran brings up a point
about what an OS actually is,
Dave,
I am a teacher and interested in how people learn with technology. Here is
another thought - that I have mentioned before - but it bears mentioning
again in this context.
One of the conclusions of a Floaters.org investigation is that (as teachers
would expect) experiencing/learning two
Tom,
A very well articulated post...thanks.
While there is an ideological basis for preferring open source software
over proprietary software, the problem I encounter in these discussions
is that people will generally concede every point you've made, and then
say but, I need something that's
Great post, Tom. Some additions.
Tom Brough wrote:
Much that I hate to open old wounds, but I am compelled by my
convictions to write on the subject of proprietary vs free software.
I think the arguments put forward before have missed some key points.
Firstly Im not interested in my os is
Much that I hate to open old wounds, but I am compelled by my
convictions to write on the subject of proprietary vs free software.
I think the arguments put forward before have missed some key points.
Firstly Im not interested in my os is better / faster / more stable /
less buggy / more
25 matches
Mail list logo
