Even if Microsoft did steal code licensed under the GPL, it would be an improvement! Some of their best code comes from projects in the UNIX space --- they got TCP/IP for nothing by using the completely unemcumbered code that can be copied and either shared or not shared, they bought a fairly buggy but usable Spyglass Mosaic code base to use in Internet Explorer (and managed to lessen the level of security in it).

I hope that freely available code remains freely available. All they have to do to satisfy the GPL, as far as I know, is to make whatever code they produce form GPL code also available. They needn't make all code available, only whatever code gets copied from software produced under the General Public License (GPL).

Since Microsoft is already being required to release SOME source code for defacto standard interfaces, why not pull in a few GREAT GPL programs, release their code to the public, and make people think they are an "open" company? That'd be a great marketing strategy. Those of us who really know would realize that they're only sharing what they're absolutely required to share, but hey, it'd be progress, it might get a few people off their backs and it may actually improve interoperability between systems. What'd they have to lose?

Hello all.

Ok. First of all, I haven't really replied much in these groups. Too much fun just reading all the threads most of the time. But I must say... there are a few times when posts just don't make any sense.

I've used UNIX for as long as I can remember. I've used M$ products as long as I can remember. I've used Linux not quite as long as the other two, but non-the-less long enough.

Long story short:
Linux is NOT windowz. It was never meant to be. Everyone keeps thinking linux is/was created to put M$ on the back burner. This isn't true. It was created to basically make *nix a lil bit easier and more configurable.
Although NOW certain flavors are centered at desktop replacements. Linux has the full capability of doing this, but the lack of $$$$$$$$$$ keeps that from happening. *think about it.. you'll figure it out*

So far, I haven't found anything that wont work in my linux boxes.
Very few things require more than a moment or two to get up n goin.
Burning CD's? Ofcourse you can burn CDs in linux. If you can't, then you either didn't port the software, or you just don't know what your talking about.
Text editors for code? *wipes off the slate* I haven't used a text base editor for code in who knows how long. There are just as many GUI *lazy* tools in *nix as in M$.

Linux is not hard. It just requires you to think for once instead of relying on a third party program to do something for you *which never actually works correctly anywho*

Remember when you went from DOS to Win? oooooooohhhh... or how about regular console to full GUI in linux? or Similar transitions in Mac, or OS/2?

It really is all a matter of what YOU *the end user* prefers to look at, and how much time you want to put into it.
Now a dayz, everyone wants 1 machine to do everything. That's impossible.

Enjoy your hair pulling debates. Hope to she light on someone...

ViRiiEeTr

If you need someone to convince you that you need to use linux... you probably shouldn't.

Linux is NOT windoz. Get that straight first. Then you can configure a linux box to do whatever.

That's not M$ marketing strategies. It will probably never happen. Sorry man... :-(
They want money, and can NOT see the advatages of Open Source. That's my opinion.

Not with linux :-)

Ztyx

If you read any of the early messages from Linus Torvalds himself, Linux was originally not written for anyone other than Linus himself, though he decided to share it with others who were interested in kernel development and trying something novel. It was not until later that even Linus realized that he was on to something.

Torvalds hated Windows, but he didn't create Linux to replace Windows for anyone except possibly himself. He would have used UNIX, but in 1991, UNIX licenses were simply too expensive for a college student to put them on a computer. Torvalds put his money into buying the best computer hardware he could afford at the time, and wrote his OS out of a combination of interest in OS and boredom as far as doing other things.

Linux was originally designed for hobbyists who wanted an inexpensive UNIX look-alike and wanted to share code and ideas. Today, Linux has scaled, both up and down, into an operating system and a complete development and user environment that is an alternative to other approaches. For some, it can be a replacement, for others, it's just another alternative.

The original goals and the current goals, however, seem quite different. Torvalds had no idea what his "Just For Fun" idea had become. I'd agree that the primary goal is not to put anything on the back burner, but it is definitely to offer a decided alternative to those who don't like to do things "the usual way". ... that'd be me, for one!

And to back up masinick's point I include the original Linus' message
Courtesy of http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6000

200th post to this thread!

Hey that's actually really cool, thanks Neo. I never knew that. I jumped on the "linux bandwagon" and never learned the history.

Cool, thanks

You should read "Just For Fun" written by Linus himself. It's really fun reading! There you'll find the story behind Linus and Linux among other interresting things...

I have that book, and I also have another book that's written about the original icon of this entire movement: "Free As In Freedom", about Richard M. Stallman, also known simply as RMS.

Both books give you some real insights into each of these gentlemen, and I recommend them both.

Neither Torvalds nor Stallman are what you would call your typical software engineers; both of them are true experts - Torvalds in system kernel development, and Stallman in just about anything that has to do with software, but generally system utilities.

Linux Torvalds is a bit more of an ordinary guy when it comes to talking with him or things like a family. Richard had a broken family, and that has had a profound effect on just about every decision he's ever made. RMS is a true genius in every sense of the word, and he is a real extremist when it comes to sticking doggedly to the things that he believes in. Torvalds shows hints of that, too, but to a much lesser degree than Stallman.

These two guys, like them or not, have contributed more to the continued freedom of software than any others that I can think of offhand, though the worldwide community today certainly has numerous individuals who have also made huge contributions as well, so it would not be a fair characterization at all to think that these guys have done it all - not even close. But they, more than most others, represent the values that have led to movements like this one. It's worth understanding, in my opinion, at least a little bit about how these guys think, which is what makes each book worthwhile.

allow me to retract my loose comment about the mens room. i should rather think of it as win32 ~ song.mid and linux ~ track.xm

why i love linux?
i hate GUI.
i listen MP3 songs in linux through MPG123 or PLAYMPEG
i connect to internet in linux through WVDIAL
i use LYNX to browse in linux
so now almost no need of GUI for me.
have MICROSOFT,s DOS and COMMAND PROPMT these capabilities?

Well the basic practical reason that I use GNU/Linux is its stability.
Before I switched, my windoows box wlould freeze at least once dailly. If you do some serious computing, like running computer algebra systems or even just compiling large TeX documents windows is just too da*n unstable. If I have to wait three hours
for the result of a calculation I don't want the stupid machine to
freeze in the middle of it and to have to start all over again.
And of course there is also the fact that most Linux software is
free, not only free of charge but open source as well. Supporting the free software/open source movement is also IMHO a serious reason to use Linux.

Cheers

If you are a user who just wants to get some work done, play some games, surf the net, etc, are willing to reboot a couple times a day, and want to be as compatable with the rest of the world as you can, You may not want to switch to Linux. Yet.

If you're more curious about computing, like to learn, like puzzles, enjoy good software elegantly written, want power, speed, and the ability to do what you want, when you want, in the way you want, without having to upgrade every week, you want Linux.

Windows is for those who don't care to learn computers, and don't mind being dependent. Linux is for the independent.

Lets face it, for easy to use apps, Linux just isn't there yet. Hopefully, it will be soon. (I must admit, though, I am often amused by the hardcore Linux users who hate GUIs, but at the same time yearn for the day when Linux takes over the desktop. What they fail to realize is that, for Linux to dominate, it has to have the ease of use of Windows. That means GUIs and lots of well-written graphical apps.)

So what's wrong with hating GUI's?