| |||||||||||||
LCA: Addressing the failure of open sourceLCA: Addressing the failure of open sourcePosted Jan 18, 2012 14:31 UTC (Wed) by Seegras (subscriber, #20463)In reply to: LCA: Addressing the failure of open source by rsidd Parent article: LCA: Addressing the failure of open source
Open Standards will not matter if you can't get your computer to boot whatever you want, because some content-producer lobbyed DRM into everything. Or if Microsoft only "certifies" hardware if they only run windows and the hardware-producers actually implement that.
And I think you misinterpreted "open access" -- it usually means access to any scientific research, not open access to your hardware.
(Log in to post comments)
LCA: Addressing the failure of open source Posted Jan 18, 2012 15:22 UTC (Wed) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
I addressed your first paragraph in my comment, if you bothered to read it. As for the second, yes, I know what open access is in research publishing, thank you.
LCA: Addressing the failure of open source Posted Jan 19, 2012 0:53 UTC (Thu) by wdaniels (guest, #80192) [Link]
I assume this is what you think addressed it: "Saying no to locked-down hardware, under names like DRM, "trusted computing" and the like, is not unrealistic."?
My problem is that it becomes very difficult to "say no" if you have no viable alternative, and without open _source_ there never would have been.
I agree that the FOSS fundamentalists reach a point with mere applications that they end up uselessly fixated on the wrong problem, but I don't think it has been the wrong problem either from the start or across the board.
LCA: Addressing the failure of open source Posted Jan 27, 2012 16:25 UTC (Fri) by whitemice (guest, #3748) [Link]
>My problem is that it becomes very difficult to "say no" if you have no
>viable alternative, and without open _source_ there never would have been.
+1
Nail, Hammer, Hit it.
|
|||||||||||||