Open Source What do you think about?????????

[popac 0]

Many people say something like this:I like windows, it is the best OS on the planet, but, 98% of them isn.t even a think about trying anything else, so, I am waiting to all of you say something like this, come on.. show me that you don know what meen open source The question is what is open source on your oppinion???

[xboxrulz 0]

I LOVE OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE!!LONG LIVE LINUX! LONG LIVE OPENSOURCE xboxrulz

[BoSZ 0]

"the best things in life come for free"

[NuHoaXuLa 0]

If you decide introduction a free product with open source code then GNU as best area for your License .

Have many free OS registed at here , we building a asia OS !

Wellcome to GNU Operating System and below is few lines intro about it :

Welcome to the GNU Project web server, http://www.gnu.org/. The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete UNIX style operating system which is free software: the GNU system. (GNU is a recursive acronym for GNU's Not UNIX; it is pronounced guh-noo.) Variants of the GNU operating system, which use the kernel Linux, are now widely used; though these systems are often referred to as Linux, they are more accurately called GNU/Linux systems.

This is also the web site of the Free Software Foundation (FSF). FSF is the principal organizational sponsor of the GNU Project. FSF receives very little funding from corporations or grant-making foundations. We rely on support from individuals like you who support FSF's mission to preserve, protect and promote the freedom to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer software, and to defend the rights of Free Software users. Last year, over 67% of our operating funds came from individual donors. That ongoing support is the primary way we can continue our work. Please consider making a donation today, becoming an Associate Member of FSF, ordering a copy of Free Software, Free Society, and/or encouraging your company to become a Corporate Patron of FSF.

The FSF supports the freedoms of speech, press, and association on the Internet, the right to use encryption software for private communication, and the right to write software unimpeded by private monopolies.

[hatebreed 0]

windows sucks, linux rulz, end of story!

[xboxrulz 0]

that is so true! I finally got Knoppix running on my HDD!xboxrulz

[cloudy 0]

I like opensource. I use OpenOffice and Firefox, and have tried migrating to Linux twice. The advantages are well known and I am sure others will point them out. However, there are some limitations to opensource, particularily from a user point of view....1. If you need a really specialized piece of software, proprietary options are usually better. I mean specialized from the user's point of view. Opensource developers do not often want to work on something that will not be used by that many people.2. Software that tends to have a short life span does not attract developers either. That is one reason why there are not that many good open source games. 3. No open source project (with the possible exception of Mozilla Firefox) pressures its developers to please ordinary users like a commercial project's management does. That is one reason desktop Linux has not gotten as much headway. Something is wrong when you tell Grandma to recompile her kernal. Recently, I read a debate about whether Linux should maintain binary driver compatibility or not. Such a feature would be of immense value to ordinary users - the reason my migration attempts have failed is becuase some drivers don't work, are to difficult to install, or don't work(or at least work easily) with a particular version of Linux. Even Sun feels the need to commit to binary driver compatibilty for Solaris, even though its clients are much more knowledgable than the average windows user. Yet the Linux zealots refuse to commit to binary driver compatibility becuase they would have to support old APIs. If Linux was a commercial project, I'm sure management would demand this in order to please their customers. 4.Forks, Forks, Forks, Forks and more Forks. Even when the code inself isn't actually forked, each "distribution" or version of an Open Source product differ a lot more in what is included than is the case with most closed source products. Many Java developers do not want Java fully open-sourced because of concerns about forks. Sun is very open with java, but is also zealos to protect its unity and integrity. The Java API's will work as advertized in any given implimentation or that implimentation cannot be called Java (Microsoft got sued for violating this.....). One of the reasons that Linux has gotten as far as it has is it has a benevolant dictator - Linus is the final arbiter. 5. Not enough GUI's. Lets face it, there will be very few rank and file users who started using computers after Windows 95 who will willingly use any sort of command line. At least, when they do, they do it kicking and screaming. Yet a great many OpenSource products still require the user to use a command line. Fortunatly, this trend is reversing - most current, widely used open source products include a GUI - albeit not always with the same functionality and flare that one could expect from a commercial product.

[xboxrulz 0]

I think there is enough GUI systems out there. Best of all, KDE and GNOME. I think the current ones are already good and satisfying.xboxrulz

[cloudy 0]

I think there is enough GUI systems out there. Best of all, KDE and GNOME. I think the current ones are already good and satisfying.

xboxrulz

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Linux GUIs are not nearly as internally consistant, far reaching, easy to use, or as well thought out as Windows or Mac. There are many different Linux GUI's. Windows GUI's all look and feel pretty much the same. Linux distributions do not have many good GUI's to do lower level tasks like installing drivers and changing startup settings (registries and the like). Also, Linux desktop programs do not interact with each other as easily from a point-and-click user's point of view. I fear this is not because the Distro makers arn't trying. They are trying very hard. It is because the loosley coupled architecture of a complete Linux system makes it difficult to make such tools that work consistantly and be easy to use.

 

To some extent, a tightly coopled, closed system is the best for usablity. Notice that what was until recently the most closed architecture of all (the Mac) is also reputed to be the easiest to use. Because Apple controlled everything from the hardware to the Web Browser, the user experience was noticibly better. Tight coopling leads to less security and performance because more programs or services are installed by default. It also has less of the kind of flexibility and compatibility that application programmers and administrators like. That is why it is usually considered inferior by those in the know. What those in the know forget is that tight coopling usually leads to a more usable system for those NOT in the know.

 

Another thing Linux proponents forget.... most users are not like Grandma who has never seen a computer. On the other hand, most are not admins or programmers. Linux puts very high demands on those who want to know enough to easily change startup settings, write simple shell scripts, and install drivers. To get to that level of Linux knowledge is hard for a Windows person (I know, I have tried) and you can do less once you get there(at least that's what I suspect). Linux gives you a choice - just buy a premade system with it installed and work with the many less then fully compatible and complete GUIs available, or spend many weekends becoming a guru. The middle road is tough, or at least much tougher than it is with Windows.

 

IN SHORT... Try using a Linux system for any but the most basic things, for any length of time, and you will be forced to use the command line. At least, that is my experience. Linux makes many things that should be simple more difficult because of its loosley coopled architecture. Linux gives less return than windows for your effort if you want to learn "enough to be dangerous" - and many people want that level of knowledge. That is why I fear that Linux will never be a true competitor on the desktop. When there is a serious competitor for Windows, my bet is it will be an X86 version of OS X, openSolaris or something more or less unknown at the present like Sylable.

[ariya 0]

I Love Open Soruce Programbecause You can edit it if you want

[xboxrulz 0]

Cloudy, I learned how to use Linux faster than Windows. It took me 1 year to get use to Windows and it took me 3 months to learn Linux w/ how to use the RPM system perfectly. xboxrulz

[odomike 0]

In the best of my opinion, i think that Open Source is a soft that is provided by the programmer to the public for free consumption and redistribution.I like WIN quite alright but I am thinking of getting Linux but that will be after I get my comp.

[popac 0]

Where is my second post, is somebody deleted it?? I was writing it 10 minutes OK shortly what i was intending to say. It is not the point to use windows open source program, when you don't get the same stabiluty on windows, and remember windows is not open source...Second thing many of linux software are not GNU, or even vorse they are not open code. SUN like unis like OS, but i think that they are not very much open source generaly. Alsow some drivers are closed code, but that is what have to be that way for now

[OpaQue 15]

Microsoft rules ! Thats what I am gonna say. Even though open source if free, it will always fail when compared to microsoft. Microsoft hires one of the finest programmers, developers, designers.. and on top of that, there the work is organised and ther is a proper planning. As compared to opensource, it throughly lacks proper planning.Windows Server 2003 beats Linux and I also read it somewhere that it beats it by 58% or something! now thats what I call quality.It will take lot of time for compete with microsoft.

[xboxrulz 0]

Microsoft rules ! Thats what I am gonna say. Even though open source if free, it will always fail when compared to microsoft. Microsoft hires one of the finest programmers, developers, designers.. and on top of that, there the work is organised and ther is a proper planning. As compared to opensource, it throughly lacks proper planning.Windows Server 2003 beats Linux and I also read it somewhere that it beats it by 58% or something! now thats what I call quality.
It will take lot of time for compete with microsoft.

IF YOU'RE STUCK TO WINDOWS LIKE GLUE, I DO NOT RECOMMEND YOU READ THIS BCAUSE YOU'RE JUST GONNA FALL APART!

So, ur saying that comparing Windows XP to Linux is too far off... let's see:
Windows XP has a hidden feature call "eat itself"
Windows XP is 10x more expensive than Linux (even w/ maintenance... Linux is cheaper to maintain)
Linux never crashes unless the software is bugged up; Windows..*nod in shame* crashes every 3 days.
Linux has a failsafe that is better than Windows XP's safe mode; heck the safe mode doesn't even work if the sound card or other minimal driver gets screwed. Linux doesn't really care because you can fix it after.
The X server for Linux has a framebuffer that is 10x faster, making games faster. Plus, Linux also take less CPU power to process a huge program.
Also, Linux doesn't need a stupid registry to work. It just works as long as the files are there. (plus all the libraries). Windows require a stupid registry (very stupid invention) to work!

The only good thing about Windows is software compatibility. It has 90% of the world's software.

Linux is by far the best OS that is compared to Windows. Linux can run on practically on any architecture. x86, x86_64, SPARC, PPC, Amiga, and more.

Popac, Solaris IS NOT associated to Linux except that both are UNIX. UNIX is a proprietory software. Linux is a better version of UNIX that is not proprietory. Plus, 95% of all Linux software IS opensource under the GNU/GPL license.

DOWN WITH WINDOWS, SCREW IT BILL GATES!

P.S: IF THIS POST SOUNDS HARSH TO ALL WINDOWS USERS, I AM SORRY BECAUSE I'M A LINUX FAN AND USER!

xboxrulz