What is Digg?66 Comments
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+42Lol, look at the advertisement! http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/9739/linuxzd6.jpg
- DickBreath, on 10/10/2007, -2/+26I like Linus's remark: That's a really stupid question.
How about this:
Which aspect of an incandescent light bulb is more important: That it heats a filament to incandescance, or that it gives off light for users?
Did it ever occur to the interviewer that one might cause the other? Sharing source code may be the very thing that empowers users? Duh. - mustiy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19Here are a few programs that i replaced by Open Source applications @ work:
- Lotus Notes Domino || HmailServer
- Lotus notes database for IT inventory || OCS-NG + GLPI (Find me a better inventory, help desk, tracking system and ill paypal asap)
- Symantec Web Security || Privoxy
- Symantec Security for SMTP || ASSP (Simply amazing)
- IBM Tivoli || Bacula (Incredible piece of software)
- Winrar + Winzip (both were licensed for 100 computers) || 7Zip (enough said)
- Win2k3 Server || Ubuntu Server (Lamp and many other misc services running, why waste 975$ on a win2k3 server? But we do run some 2k3 servers)
All in all i must of saved close to 90k $$ with going open source, but what im more happy about is how well these software(s) work. Take GLPI/OCS-Ng for example, theres just no windows APP that can do what it can - let alone do it for free. - Citizenkan3, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17It's just better, Charlie Brown
- DickBreath, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Just because open source hasn't taken off in consumer business yet doesn't mean that it doesn't work. When computers started in, say, 1977, did Adobe, MS Office and the kind of games you are thinking of even exist? When people use, say, Adobe, what they want is the functionaly, not the "Adobe". If a better alternative came along wouldn't people change? That's like saying people want Lotus-123. Look what happened when Excel came along. Do you really think Adobe cannot be replaced? What about Lotus?
When and IF open source produces something consumers want, then it will succeed. Whether it is open source or not is kind of irrelevant. I think it is premature to say open source can never, ever, EVER succeed for consumers. Talk about a "640 K ought to be enough for anybody" kind of mentality. - CoBLeviathan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Notice it says, "former" Director. Windows Server 2003 crashed and he got the sack.
- arjie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Even Linus Torvalds cannot attempt to explain something which is untrue.
- schestowitz, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Here's the latest interview: http://www.linuxworld.com/cgi-bin/mailto/x_linux.cgi?pagetosend=/export/home/httpd/linuxworld/news/2007/080907-torvalds-on-linux-ms-softwares.html&pagename=/news/2007/080907-torvalds-on-linux-ms-softwares.html&pageurl=http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2
- fyre2012, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9"Torvalds' views highlight a fact that has often been overlooked in the recent GPL debates: free software and open source supporters are allies. They may be uneasy allies, blowing raspberries at each other and slinging mud at each other at every opportunity, but they are allies all the same. It's a fact worth mentioning, simply because it hasn't been repeated much recently."
Well said =) - GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8You can turn off atime in fstab. Set noatime in your config options. I'd rather have something and not need it than need something and not have it.
- jeremymccurdy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8How the ***** did you manage to triple post the same thing in three different spots?
- Balla79, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Steel something that's freely available?
Open Source works because the developers don't need to reinvent the wheel over and over again. - Fartag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Uuuuh.. yeah, sure salomejones, Linus is real dumb *rolls eyes*. First you just ignored everything said on topic about why or not open source works and instead tried to nail Linus with an off topic ad homonym attack.
To your point, you say just simply turn off atime but if your application depends on access times in some manner then you're SOL, right? So "just turn it off" surely won't do. If you don't need atime then there's the known mount option to turn it off already just like GMorgan says. relatime will be also an option there too so this isn't forcing anybody to use it. It's an alternative and not more complex and it's not a poor fix, it is more efficient for applications that need lesser information with a big efficiency gain. It answers the question: has anything accessed this file _after_ it was last created/modified? The benefit is that it only has to update this one time (one write for the first access after create/modify) rather than every time (excessive if not needed).
But, on topic now: Open source works because it allows oversight, and it offers an evolutionary programming paradigm that's pushed by actual real live intelligent designers. Open source doesn't contain unfindable gotchas, bugs, backdoors and it removes the leverage that its creator can use against users to force the use of features they don't want, and to leave out features they do. Closed source is simply there to control the _user_ and to make sure the user doesn't know how it affects their machine. - init100, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Open source isn't communist.
- cabazorro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5There is 2 types of users in this world: Those who cry and whine when an app fails and those who open their tools box and fix the app or create new/better one that works. The latter group is the why Open Source works.
- jdhore1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Also, It's not his filesystem! He didn't invent Ext3 or anything, all he does is the kernel...
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5This is just it really. The Free software and Open Source movements do not differentiate on ideology as such. The difference is in *how* we achieve this. The FSF seem to hold the opinion that only they can know the correct path to software freedom, that others can be involved but that they are wrong if they disagree with them and are clearly a separate movement if they want to go about obtaining freedom a different way. When an OSS person speaks of pragmatism, they mean the fastest possible way to achieve the very freedom that the FSF want. Purity is counter-productive in the short term, this much is obvious and no amount of slippery slope fallacies are going to convince people who have thought it through otherwise.
The reason many are now willing to accept things like using LGPL to link in proprietary codecs is that we realise that we can't change current standards so we had better damn well be in the correct position to ensure we can affect the next standardisation process. Firefox has achieved this because it has market share, OSS in general needs market share if we are going to say push Dirac as the next big video standard in place of the inferior proprietary solutions.
This doesn't mean that the stuff the FSF does is inherently bad but that we should be approaching the problem from all angles. Saying we don't need x we should instead do y is stupid, we should do x and y to damn well make certain we go forward. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5What are you referring to, any link?
- MikeWanDo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Can you explain why open source sucks? Cause I sure as hell can't.
- trogdoor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3With communism you are divvying up limited recourses among many people by giving a select few all of the power to do so.Which in practice leads to corruption by people abusing that power and most of the population getting an equal level of barely livable poverty. With open source the recourses aren't limited in that you don't have X copies of information stored on a computer because it can simply be copied at no cost, so everyone gets *everything*, hence no need to decide what a fair amount is and end up with everyone being screwed. Also, instead of giving power to a select few they give equal power to everyone. Add to that the fact that open source software powers most fortune 500 companies and it is clear that open source and capitalism are far from mutually exclusive. So please explain, how is open source communist?
- sadsadrobot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2 "because people always want to make money...."
Yeah.. something about being paid for your work.. and needing to feed your family. - nanday, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4As the interviewer, I really like people who imagine they know better than me when they lack sufficient information or experience to extrapolate.
Did it ever occur to DickBreath that reporters sometimes ask obvious or leading questions in the hopes of getting interesting answers?
Duh, yourself.
I admit, though, that Linus' reply was far more detailed than I had hoped. - mjw2025, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Anyone that use the term fascist these days is incapable of original thought
- cquinnd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Being inaccurate in that way does not help advocacy, it can lead to a bad impression of the software that someone tries to use as a replacment, only to find they have wasted time and money instead of creating a net savings.
- init100, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"I think it is premature to say open source can never, ever, EVER succeed for consumers."
I completely agree. I see a lot of assertions that Linux and F/OSS can *never* do this and that. I always wonder if people realize that "never" is a very long time. The world is constantly changing, why is it absolutely certain that Microsoft will be there in its current shape forever? - arjie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Okay fine, he replaced Tivoli Storage Manager with Bacula. Jesus.
- manbearpigm16, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Too bad Richard Stallman is one of the biggest dicks in FOSS, Linus is cool though.
- manbearpigm16, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How the ***** did you manage to use steel in the wrong context? It's steal, moron. Can't say I'm suprised, coming from someone who goes by "Balla79."
- manbearpigm16, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What if both meals were cooked poorly? Atleast one of the two is on the house and future meals are free and have the potential to taste pretty tasty.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Bastards
- MikeWanDo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I love the fact that people have to point out funny ads because I just don't see them. Thankyou adblock plus.
- withears, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I love this. I get dugg down and I said nothing except TRUTH.
That's the problem with open source discussions. Everyone is enamored with the CONCEPT, but nobody wants to address REALITY. Even when that reality is something as simple as admitting that Bacula is not a SUBSTITUTE for Tivoli. Digging that down is an admission that you don't know what you're talking about. - Twelvevolts, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Ha ha - I thought saying DickBreath was being insulting, until I realised it is the actual name. Anyone using that name doesn't do too much thinking.
- skyscape, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1See you have to be a genious to figure that one out. Open source sucks because Closed source gobbles up.
- goffy59, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Windows user< I take all the open source i can. Why? Because its faster(simplified but complex), more efficient(takes up less resources), more stable(constant bug fixes resulting in better stability; compared to ms waiting for a few thousands complaints then they get off their lazy asses and fix it), and has better features(all in one, no ***** ***** HOME/PRO edition crap. Been using windows for a long time and open source is the best thing that's ever happened as far as programs go. Its even more cool ID software released their amazing quake 3 engine for free. Nvidia finally got off their lazy asses and released a new driver for the 8000 series geforces(158-162); it runs better now, I wish they would make it open source because obviously they cant handle the work load. If it was open source, it would run better and I can get my problems solved without waiting 6 months for enough people to complain.
- dsterry, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It's time for a Free Software amendment to the US Constitution.
- Darcy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2So, who have MS stole code from? I'm pretty sure if there was any evidence of this, the FOSS boys would be milking months and months of propaganda out of it.
- banzai9, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Word up brother Torvalds! People like Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds have done more for my concept of freedom and democracy than any ten world political leaders. The practice between knowledge and empowerment is crucial for the future.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Hi Fartag. I followed you disagreeing somewhat strongly until I read the following: "it offers an evolutionary paradigm"...
Now I just know you're completely full of *****. - f0dder, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Open source works because corporations (Sun, IBM, Netscape, AOL, etc etc) put millions of dollars and programmers into it. Often led by people w/huge egos. The benevolent dictator is often the only open source management model that works.
- Sparkster185, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yeah, the guy with the 2nd or 3rd comment who posted 4 hours before you did.
- manbearpigm16, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I'll agree that a lot of oss apps do have all of those characteristics, but look at the potential. Look at something like firefox, sure it might be slow and sure it may have poor memory management, but it does have extensions!
- MirelezJagger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0But their determination to banish fools foundered ultimately in the installation of absolute idiots.
- KingGorilla, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2did anyone else expect the guy from charlie brown?
- batmant, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2i love open source function, though it never has much form.
- JohnFlux, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0It hasn't been repeated much recently because it's not an uneasy alliance anymore :)
At least, as an OSS coder myself, I haven't seen any mud slinging for a long time. - code2joy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11) ***** user interfaces / overall user experience
2) Every OSS app i've seen has a retarded name
3) Pompous licenses
4) Did I mention ***** user experience?
5) Poor source code quality (i've opened OSS apps to find no commenting, horrible 'linux-esq' naming conventions) - theseusastro, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0You appear to be suffering from ideological obfuscation. It is impossible to steal a gift and the making of money by free individuals would be the polar opposite of communism.
- skyscape, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0The argument isnt about M$ its about Open source vs Closed Source. And Closed Source companies seem to be winning the share. The major problem with Open source is it's alway unfinished. Its like a raw product which you have to cook and then serve, where as closed source companies are orders cooked and served, and lastly I checked people are interested in the latter. That is why open source will always be second. No body is motivated in life to do hard work for free. People are greedy at heart and they want to get paid big bucks for time and efforts spent making a product.
- 7errated, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4It's not a stupid question. It's just more proof that Linus doesn't get it.
It's so f**ing simple. In order to empower users, you have to place restrictions on what developers can do. For example if you want RMS's Freedom 0 - the ability to just _run_ code- then you have to restrict developers from adding stuff like copy protection. This particular one is achieved indirectly by forcing the source code to be available. If you add copy protection, someone will just take it out.
ALL the freedoms work like that. They're all restrictions on what developers can do to users & that interferes with sharing code. A license like BSD that allows anyone to take the code to use it wherever permits usage in closed source apps, thus restricting users.
As more proof that he doesn't get it, Linus says "Anybody who tries to hobble science by saying that they won't share information with people they dislike (the military, for example) is seen as an obvious crackpot and idiot." This has nothing to do with like/dislike. You don't stop tivoization because you dislike tivo. You stop it because it's interfering Freedom 0 - the ability to run the code. -
Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 