| |||||||||||||
Canonical reveals plans to launch Mir display server (The H)Canonical reveals plans to launch Mir display server (The H)Posted Mar 5, 2013 3:44 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333)In reply to: Canonical reveals plans to launch Mir display server (The H) by tjc Parent article: Canonical reveals plans to launch Mir display server (The H)
Yes. That is correct. It is one of the major driving forces behind the widespread adoption of Linux in many areas.
This contrasts the difference between working with somebody like Microsoft. They hold their customers hostage under IP laws. For those people when they pay Microsoft to improve and modify the windows software and related services Microsoft turns around and sells those improvements to their competitors.
With open source ideally you are not for end to share unless its in your best interest.
(Log in to post comments)
Canonical reveals plans to launch Mir display server (The H) Posted Mar 5, 2013 4:13 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Gah. Stupid android keyboard:
> With open source ideally you are not for end to share unless its in your best interest.
With open source, ideally, you are not forced to share unless its in your best interest.
unless its in your best interest. Posted Mar 5, 2013 10:02 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
But the POINT of open source is that it usually IS in your interest to share.
You offload a lot of your maintenance headache onto someone else :-) and you get a pool of experienced workers to hire if you need to :-) and if neither of those options come off, you're no worse off than you would have been.
Cheers,
unless its in your best interest. Posted Mar 5, 2013 13:59 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Yes. Absolutely.
People always act in their best interest. They maybe confused or wrong or behave in a counter productive manner, but you can trust that they are in it for themselves and to further their own goals. There really isn't any point in them behaving in any other manner.
However, more often then not, in a free society people's best interests are served best by being aware and serving other people's best interests. This is what makes a society prosperous and function properly. It's a very nice facet of human nature.
It's when people go crying about licensing and trying to manipulate the legal system to force other people to behave contrary to their desires is one of the ways things start to go to shit.
unless its in your best interest. Posted Mar 5, 2013 18:51 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]
>You offload a lot of your maintenance headache onto someone else :-)
Yes that seems to be the recurrent idea, which is WRONG. The main idea should be exactly about "COOPERATION", that is, Open Source means nothing when end users can't have really tuned systems by compile install with all the "peculiarities" of the processing chips (CPU+GPU+whatever)... its not only about x86 anymore, ARM will be here very soon and they seem to target HSA for most pertinent parts...
And Open Source means nothing when instead of cooperating for that maintenance, and i can add "IMPROVEMENT"... others are just about to fork it, just because seems nice to them to be "different" (delivered with a lot of lame excuses!).
Nowadays in the client side, Open Source means offload not for maintenance and improvement but to the forking party... all seems prone to an eternal start all over again and stagnation, because the projects tend to pile with no certain heading, or be incompatible with each other!
>and you get a pool of experienced workers to hire if you need to :-) and if neither of those options come off, you're no worse off than you would have been.
Well Open Source makes a VERY BAD traditional business model... meaning the software by inherent propriety must be free.
There is the windoze model (their free part is in warez/freeware) of **forced pay** by the hardware side, scheme that everybody seems to more or less endorse now, because is prone to "differentiation", and you hire devs exactly to make it different (fork)...
... and there is the service model, that can go from the in-situ help to online services including **compelling pay** tunned compile-install for the machines of common Joe(something that never was pursued), is much less prone to differentiation, that is, one vendor can't aspire to win all the market, requires a lot of cooperation, but OTOH it can be prone to achieve really sophisticated pieces of software(if the cooperation is intense and projects stay on target -> example Linux kernel)...
I'm afraid at least in the client side "quality" and "sophistication" seems tending to suffer a lot in favor of *fast* and simpler "differentiation"(there are a lot of distros more client oriented struggling now, they want something fast, different and *forced pay* -> like running to nowhere lol)... matter of fact there seems to be a lot of bitching about complexity, something i never read about the Linux kernel as example. Matter of fact the kernel is now about different "namespaces" and "containers" for the same kernel allover, like VMs without VMs... seems absurdly complicated, AFAIK NONE OS have it natively yet in the extent that Linux Kernel seems to be heading (not even solaris), yet nobody complains about complexity (they complain about other issues lol).
Those are "the differences"... results speak volumes for themselves... why Linux kernel devs are forced to cooperate while in the client side they seem to do the opposite, could be prone to endless discussion, but in the end it depends a lot on the ppl involved and the "interests" behind them, and if the ppl involved can have "vision", stay on target and COOPERATE, and be more or less impermeable to those "interests" (with $ dreams) and or other personal fancy issues.
|
|||||||||||||