What is Digg?95 Comments
- sotopheavy, on 10/10/2007, -8/+64Similar metaphors...
We're gonna let farmers grow food, but only we can eat it or it gets destroyed!
We want a cure for cancer, but if we can't charge a lot for it, It will be banned!
We want to encourage great artists to make great music, but if we don't get 90% of their earnings we will ignore their talent! - Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -8/+58I find this so ironic. Microsoft has spent YEARS trying to discredit the open source movement, mainly because it directly challenged their own business model.
Steve Ballmer has called Linux a "cancer"....and now Microsoft is eager to partner with Novell, Xandros, and Linspire?
And now this. And this: http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/
This all reeks of typical MS corruption. I would be wary. - DickBreath, on 10/10/2007, -1/+34Why this misleading title?
This is no surprise at all. It is business as usual.
Microsoft wants the *appearance* of being friendly to Open Source while actually trying to undermine the very definition of the phrase. - thall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29You've misinterpreted the GPL
- xrenjrvt, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25I think Microsoft knows its days are numbered, they will try everything to protect their business model ie. screw the masses. Time will seal their fate.
- nights0223, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18Why is it after I blocked someone I can still see their posts?
- OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18Ha ha, Microsoft trolls.
How much do they pay to do this kind of stuff on internet forums? Do you get health care? - JonnyTrombone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12This isn't very surprising at all. Its like if you said they weren't actually doing anything about computer viruses. The anti-virus industry is now running over $1 billion a year- why would they want to ruin a 'good thing'?
- Spr0k3t, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Just the name reeks FUD. Do you have a valid reason to call Linux a cancer? Ballmer's reason was the fact his company is losing money to an uncontrollable foe... what's yours... or is it just the fanboy in you?
- techmonkey4u, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Troll.
- bhavinp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Hehe, the wonderful corporations of America.
- gdean2323, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Why does this show up as Linux/Unix news? Seems like all there is in this category is news about MS.
- schoate09, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Surprise, more pro MS apology coming from 7of7.
- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10I asked the same thing about the same exact user
- lengau, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9It's kind of nice, though. Now, I can block someone and still digg them down! Sure I have to click the show comment button next to the [you have blocked 7of7] text, but maybe it's worth it.
- SniperSlap, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8It's just typical of MS to always hinge their products on Windows. Windows is what they rode up, and Windows is what they will ride down. They just can't seem to let go of that OS completely. It's always got to form that home-point of all their future developments.
If they could just start seeing the world in a non-Windows centric way, they'd have so much adoption they would look back on Windows and say "what a great run for something that has taken computing so far!"
It's time has come Microsoft. Let Windows die off slowly and help solidify your legacy in projects like Wine. Bring .NET and other truly deserving products to more than just a Windows/Mac platform. See the big picture for once. - potdarko, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8microsoft rocks? i bet they have bugs also! Only MS could "produce" such rocks!
- GreatDrok, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Do you 'could care less'ers ever actually read what you write? You could really care less could you? Really? Why don't you care less then? You're happy with what you have and yet you could care less.
Or did you perhaps mean you couldn't really care less? As in, there is simply no way you could care less about it? - Salgat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8They just don't want the GPL "virus" spreading.(since it effects the programming it is applied to)
- KibibyteBrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The weird thing is, I think such licenses are impossible to comply with. Most Windows source code can be compiled with WINE libraries or could at least run on WINE or ReactOS or whatever. So what, would you have to purposely somehow make your program not work on WINE to comply? Silly.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6No, its called if you can't beat them, buy them.
- diggeon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5No problem, Microsoft's next step will be to create their own Open Source Group.
- KibibyteBrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+51. You can be bound by many things even if you don't directly agree to use it. In fact, you are bound by every copright/patent/law/court ruling/executive order/city ordinance ever made, and thats a ton of stuff.
2. The GPL was not intended to be a very open source license as much as a free software license. Stallman/the FSF people have said this quite a few times. Personally, I don't like this for most applicatons, and they are OK with that. They just want you to respect what they are doing with the GPL as an extreme Free Software license.
3. There are problems with v3, but its not so much about openness. The problem is that for the first time in GPL history, it impacts users of the software, and not just modifiers and distributors of the code. That is not cool, end of story. - SVPirate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Don't tell me, they gave you a free laptop too...
- jejones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5No, it's no surprise. Microsoft is only interested in subverting Open Source.
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You are too ***** dumb to converse with me. Please go away and die.
To prove that you are dumb I'll quote you and instead of educating you, i'll leave you in the dark.
> "Windows programs are graphical" - daftman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6hmm I guess you don't code much.
#include stdio.h
int main() { printf("Hello World"); }
That would run on both windows and Linux. Using standard ANSI
Furthermore, you are too ***** dumb to understand that not all part of the programs are written specifically for windows. The majority of software are business rules that are cross-platform. Do you think when people port their software over different OS they rewrite 100% of the code? If so then you are a ***** retard.
Furthermore, if their licences prevent this, it obviously means they don't want to play nice and want to maintain their platform dominance in the open source field.
Sometimes the truth do sound like Anti Microsoft propaganda - Gumboot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5So? Neither does http://www.redhat.com or http://www.apple.com.
Now if it was http://www.microsoft.com/webstandards then you might have a point... - aazn, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6The Open Source standards website they host doesn't validate on W3.
- Lunarbunny, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Laced with LSD. That's it.
- ilobmirt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"You can buy any color of a car as long as its black." - Henry Ford
- whataboutdave, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I still contend that the cake the IE7 team sent Mozilla was poisoned. How else do you explain the memory leak problem?
- Atomic1fire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2its not just linux
its mac and the other OSes
multiplatform is a good thing
it means that I dont have to mess with linux to install firefox
or you don't have to mess with mac to install itunes - Stonekeeper, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Absolute rubbish! Next you'll be telling me that Duke Nukem Forever isn't going to be released. Too many of you damn naysayers on digg!
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Because if it's posted in Microsoft section, all the MS fanboy will have a heart attack.
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Let me educate you.
GPLv3 allows you to do all kind of *****, even make money, EXCEPT restrict other from accessing the code.
MS licences are the opposite where by they restrict people from using and accessing the code unless it is on a Microsoft Platform.
You can't compare the two. It's like comparing apple and *****. One is focused on the community, while the other is focused on their own corporation. - SVPirate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm so shocked...
What... what do you mean "that didn't sound convincing"? - theaceoffire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Honestly, I assume its because some users feel that because they use a Microsoft OS and we are implying some kind of fault with their choice, that we are somehow saying that the user is flawed as well.
Most people use MS because of widespread availability, and it is what the majority of users first associate with computers at the moment... Most are not ready for a world of thousands of OSs, and it worries them that MS might not be around forever.
^_^ Many people think Linux is an OS instead of a category of OSs. They think Linux is all text based, that it requires four keyboards and complex coding to even load it. A little explanation can really help widen the average user's horizon... - MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Maybe we'll be lucky and microsoftrocks will win the Darwin award!
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Really? tell me which platform haven't I heard of? Go on list them out.
Furthermore, it's not about Open source and cross platform from a technical view point. It's from a legal view point. Your dumb retard ass can't distinguished the difference. - SVPirate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Correction: in this case I believe it's more like 'If you can't beat them, screw them'
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ms-PL and Ms-CL licenses are very much BSD like. Why do they need to create their own license? Does it have anything that is unique to MS that other license doesn't have?
It seems to me that this is plainly a strategic move by Microsoft to rebrand the Open source ideas into something that THEY own and THEY created. They know for a fact that many IT managers, MS fanboys and morons would rather listen to MS ***** just because they are MS.
Consider MS track record, I don't give a convicted monopolist the benefit of the doubt. - Yazilliclick, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Love educated comments like these. That's precisely why all the anti-virus companies are bitching about Vista. It's more secure and part of the security causes issues with how their anti-virus garbage integrates so they are bitching at MS.
- mheath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's true that I can write code that is platform specific and license it as open-source. However, I can NOT create a license that requires platform specific use and call it open-source. That is NOT an open-source license as it does not follow the open-source definition. There's more to open-source then being able to see and modify the source code.
- JohnFlux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If it's a typo, then fair enough - everyone makes mistakes. But it is annoying when people say "could care less" on purpose when they actually mean could not care less.
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Incorrect, anti-virus companies bitch about Vista because Microsoft release a competitive product. It's call Microsoft One Care. It has nothing to do with being more secure.
- csapdani, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Surprise? I hope it was intended to be ironical.
- KibibyteBrain, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Oepapel: Please write at least one program for another operating system before lecturing on Cross-Platform development technology. It would really help make you not look like an idiot.
BTW: Firefox is cross-platform, and I don't think Mozilla totally rewrites it for every OS they support...nope, they don't. So is: Matlab, Maple, Audacity(with WxWidgets) etc. - Giga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You remember that post above where I said he had a valid point and you should stop flaming him? Well, that last post discredited him, so flame away.
- Giga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"It's a business and it's job isn't to pander to the miniscule open source evangelists."
Yet it seems to try anyway. -
Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is