Posted on 05/17/2007 6:38:27 AM PDT by ShadowAce
Wow, a rise of a whole 10%, and it expects a good chunk of that to come from a rise in third-world sales. What, you thought IBM went all open source? Where have you been? IBM, like Oracle, realizes the good business sense of running their products on Linux. A threat to Linux is a threat to IBM's business model.
Besides, there's still a committed white knight in the Open Invention Network, which has a bunch of patents ready to throw at Microsoft. BTW, IBM is a founder of the OIN.
> Seeing how that resulted in him becoming the richest man on earth it was obviously quite brilliant.
No argument, as I said above, his vision (in that regard), and certainly his ability to turn that vision into an outrageously successful business, are unparalleled.
>> The fact is that free and open software pre-dated Gates and Microsoft, and will be there long after the proprietary model loses the advantage it enjoyed since 1982 or so.
> Well Microsoft and Oracle set new records for income and profit every quarter, while those free software guys protest in the streets in their hazmat suits. I know who I'm betting on LOL.
They do? I had the impression that Microsoft's income and profit were not setting new records every quarter any more. Maybe I'm mistaken. Could you provide a link?
It's common knowledge, and why he's called the father of free software, and actually has a point in claiming it should be called GNU/Linux.
I accuse you, right along with your ideological counterpart Stallman.
No I'm willing to use some open source software such as OpenSolaris and BSD Unix on occassion. I just steer clear of radical green party leftists like Stallman and smarty mouth foreigners like Torvalds, being a strong conservative American, obviously unlike you.
It's not. He has the compiler, a GUI (on some distros) and a set of tools. That is dwarfed by the kernel, OpenOffice, Firefox, and the plethora of non-GNU tools and applications that come with the average distro.
and why he's called the father of free software
Probably to the zealots and the uninformed media who listen to them.
and actually has a point in claiming it should be called GNU/Linux
Why don't we use GNU/Mozilla/Sun/IBM/KDE/Linux?
He has a very big ego. He won't even do interviews if a publication doesn't always use that term. He's just pissed that a kid blew past him to develop a popular kernel while he's been working on one for 17 years and still doesn't have anything approaching production-capable.
BSD Unix on occassion
FreeBSD, isn't that the one that got dumped because of the project leader's anti-American sentiment?
Or are you just mad about the GPL because of the give-back clause?
Wrong of course, Stallman’s groups own the copyright on more code in Linux distros than any other entity. An amazing 75% of everything listed at the sourceforge repository is copyright by them. As for your supposed examples Torvalds himself actually only owns the copyright on a small portion of overall kernel, hilarious how little you understand something so obviously important to you.
As for BSD, nope you’re wrong about that too of course, it was netBSD. As for FreeBSD, don’t you find it hysterical that your linux hit men lawyers at OIN actually ran their website on Free BSD and not Linux for a good while? I do LOL. Linux’s hired guns running their own website on BSD, classic.
Quit trying to quietly move the goalposts. You thought I wouldn't notice? You said that they own "the copyright on most Linux distro code."
Okay, let's check, do they indeed own the copyright on most Linux distro code? Remember, they own the copyright to all GNU packages.
Ubuntu has 15,214 total packages. A search for GNU shows 721 packages. That means that GNU packages make up just under 5% of the total packages in this common Linux distro. That doesn't count the fact that most GNU packages are small applications, utilities and libraries compared to the kernel, OpenOffice, etc., which probably brings you down to under 3%.
Care to retract, or shall we just chalk it up to yet another lie?
An amazing 75% of everything listed at the sourceforge repository is copyright by them.
Here goes another easy fact check:
SourceForge has 148,728 registered projects, but to be nice I'll only include those projects with published files, 66,820. GNU has 5,358 packages. Again to be really nice I'll assume that every single GNU package is in SourceForge, which isn't true.
You said, above, 75%. I just showed, from the sources, 8%. You are WAY off.
Care to retract, or shall we just chalk it up to yet another lie?
As for your supposed examples Torvalds himself actually only owns the copyright on a small portion of overall kernel
And this means what? What matters in this conversation is that the kernel and other non-GNU (FSF-owned) applications dwarf the minimal contribution of GNU software in the average Linux distro.
hilarious how little you understand something so obviously important to you.
I think you need to start laughing at yourself. I know I'm laughing at you.
As for FreeBSD, don’t you find it hysterical that your linux hit men lawyers at OIN actually ran their website on Free BSD and not Linux for a good while?
Not at all. They defend open source software. BSD is open source software. The sound you hear is Captain Obvious hitting you over the head with his clue stick.
As for BSD, nope you’re wrong about that too of course, it was netBSD.
Theo de Raadt, founder of OpenBSD (mistyped Free), guy who was cut off by DARPA for his anti-American attitude, was also one of the four founders of your NetBSD. He even gave NetBSD its name.
Do you feel unclean now?
LOL, what no actual stats to show “copyright”? Talk about moving the goalposts LMAO. Start with this, who has more than the 721 you showed for GNU alone, even in your bloated foreign “Ubuntu” the fattest Linux on the planet? COMPLETE copyright, on the entire module?
Not only is this common knowledge, I checked your link, how many modules are listed for “Torvalds” under your own link? My search showed 8. LMAO! IBM? 171. Total. Sun? 97.
You’re a joke dude, the whole Linux O/S REQUIRES the GNU compilers. According to your own link Stallman has more than Torvalds, IBM, and Sun combined. What an incredible fraud you tried to purpetrate on this board, again.
We’ve already seen you admit to lying, on purpose. Now to see attempt this is after that already happened is even more pathetic. I’m pretty sure I can even go back in my posting history somewhere and show where you’ve already been blown out of the water on this exact same argument.
No, I blow you out of the water from such a safe distance, the real freepers of this board get quite a show.
I only told you I dipped my toe in it occassionally, you're the open source freak here.
Theo de Raadt, founder of OpenBSD (mistyped Free), guy who was cut off by DARPA for his anti-American attitude
Yeah we know. You "mistyped" LOL but this whacko is still another one of your foreign heroes.
The FSF maintains the copyright on all GNU software. Contributors to GNU software are required to turn over their copyrights to the FSF. What software the FSF has a copyright in, it's in the GNU collection.
Your statement was that the FSF owns, quote, "the copyright on most Linux distro code." I just proved it wrong by showing the minimal amount of GNU software in a popular Linux distribution.
I did not expect that you could be honest. BTW, here's an oldie for you.
That's from when SUSE was 5.2, back in 1999, when Linux was a fraction of the size it is now, thus making GNU a larger percentage of the then-young OS. Since then what comes in Linux has grown -- the kernel (over 20 times the size now) but also the inclusion of OpenOffice, etc., and hundreds of thousands of lines of code donated by IBM (we know from the SCO case). And back then GNU contribution was only 10%.
So your claim that the FSF owns "the copyright on most Linux distro code" is absolutely proven false. You need at least 50% to be true, and you are nowhere near that.
I would ask you to retract your lies again, but I don't expect honesty anymore.
Oh, and are you going to answer for lying about "75% of everything listed at the sourceforge repository is copyright by them"? Are you going to try to weasel out of that too? Or will you just run away, as you did recently over Sun after you were caught lying?
The record here is clear. You put up inaccurate statements, and instead of retracting them when show wrong you evade, misdirect, or go on the attack. Basically, you just lied twice. This will go into a bookmark, as will the last thread, for documenting your absolutely, factually proven lies.
ROFL. You’d be safer under a rock.
But you were proud of using it instead of the evil leftist Linux. But you were using America-hating software unknowingly. Your ignorance always gets you, every time.
Yeah we know. You "mistyped"
Free/Net/Open/Trusted/True/BSD, sometimes I mistype. And unlike you I actually correct myself.
LOL but this whacko is still another one of your foreign heroes.
Theo de Raadt is an ass, although an insanely talented programmer and security expert. Most of the open source community is in agreement on this. His attitude is why they kicked him off the NetBSD project.
You've just been caught in two factual lies and complete ignorance of the history of the operating system you use, and you say you somehow won this? Now that's funny.
I take it this means you've given up. You just can't refute the facts, solidly linked, proven. 75% of SourceForge projects owned by the FSF, that's ROFL.
It's time for you to slink away now, soundly defeated by the facts yet again.
No I wasn't. I know all about your antiAmerican hero the Raadt. I corrected your error when you claimed he was associated with FreeBSD. You simply cannot post a single post that is accurate.
You're own link showed leftist fanatic Stallman with more "Ubuntu" files attributed to him than everyone else combined LOL. When you grossly misrepresent your own links you're nothing but chum at this point.
Try Ubuntu
Exactly how is 721 (GNU packages) more than 14,493 (the packages of "everyone else combined")?
But that wasn't your statement. You said he owns "the copyright on most Linux distro code." He obviously doesn't. Now retract, or live with a lie on record.
I see you aren't even trying to weasel out of your lie that "75% of everything listed at the sourceforge repository is copyright by them."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.