Posted on 09/09/2005 11:30:32 AM PDT by Bush2000
That still has nothing to do with B2K's assertion that Linux is "a way for Europeans and Asians to suck commercial Unix IP dry", which sounds like a re-iteration of the baseless claim that Linux developers are stealing IP from Unix. Notwithstanding his earlier "wait & see" stance on this issue, it appears from his statement that he has finally bought into the idea.
As you may remember, The SCO Group and its Microsoft supporters have been trumpeting this for years.
I'd just like to know if anyone has yet found any actual proof of it.
Yet another lie from GE.
Really? I believe you need to learn about the differences of Open Source and Open STANDARDS. They do not have anything to do with one another. For example, TCP/IP is an open standard. Linux Kernel is Open Source.
See the difference yet?
Maybe some more examples:
Open Office = Open Source XML = Open Standards SMTP = Open Standards Apache = Open Source HTTP = Open Standards
Now to use your own logic...it doesn't make sense for closed source vendors to go their own way if they want to play on the Internet. So they leverage Open Standards. And then some enhance the standards when the standards are weak or not evolved enough to give the user a good experience (but if they're smart they make it downward compatible).
Microsoft users HTTP, TCP/IP, SMTP because they are good, mature, reliable open standards.
Oh ya, I also forgot to put in this caveat. Just because something is an Open Standard doesn't mean it's a good standard. There have been lots of bad open standards. Which it is actually amazing that we have any open standards because it requires several competing companies to agree on the standard (if they expect it to be successful).
Actually, TCP/IP is a suite of protocols. Within that family are many standard protocols. Telnet, for example.
Telnet signaling is actually used in quite a few other protocols. SMTP, for example uses a telnet-like protocol to contact mail servers and transfer messages.
Telnet, however, is insecure. It is not a good medium to use if you're transmitting passwords to a system, because it can easily be sniffed. So, out of necessity, a new standard protocol evolved, and it's known as SSH (Secure Shell). All major platforms support SSH natively, except for Microsoft systems. Just another standard that MS has decided not to implement. I guess MS thinks telnet security is just fine.
Now to use your own logic...it doesn't make sense for closed source vendors to go their own way if they want to play on the Internet. So they leverage Open Standards. And then some enhance the standards when the standards are weak or not evolved enough to give the user a good experience (but if they're smart they make it downward compatible).
"Enhancing" a standard is fine, when a standards body is involved with the enhancement. Microsoft, however, doesn't always do it that way. Microsoft's "enhanced" kerberos, for example, is no longer kerberos. It doesn't play with real kerberos because it isn't. Microsoft's "enhanced" HTML as generated by Frontpage and transmitted by IIS isn't real HTML if Internet Explorer is the only browser that can render it properly.
Microsoft is a big enough player in the market that it can go its own way if it wants. But it hurts its own customers when it ignores W3C standards and creates its own, then refuses to let everyone else in on it. It becomes a real-world vs. Microsoft-world problem. And Microsoft needs to realize that, as a convicted monopolist, it no longer has the mindshare that it once had.
To be sure, Microsoft has given the world some wonderful protocol standards. IMAP is one. PPTP is another. These are MS-developed standards that everyone can use, including Open Source programs, so everyone supports them. And Microsoft should be applauded for the contributions it has made.
Good standards are created by consensus, in the spirit of cooperation for the common good. Audio formats are a good example. When a protocol is propietary (WiMP, RM) it cannot be "open"; it is a "lock-in". When a protocol is encumbered by royalties (MP3) not everyone will use it. When a protocol is completely open (Ogg) it will become embraced... eventually.
So, I hope you can see that the standards and the software that implements them are very closely intertwined. If an OSS developer decides to create his very own "protocol standard" and no one else uses it, no one will use his stuff -- it's not worth the effort. MS is big enough and still has enough customers that it can throw its weight around, for a while. But customers are beginning to wake up to the issue, and governments are beginning to demand real-world standards-compliance.
Name one.
And now give me a link that shows Open Source guarantees Open Standards.
So far MP3 is by far leading the way with WMA following. OGG does enjoy an enthusiastic fanbase, but I don't see it catching on.
IMAP was born in 1986 at stanford, MS had nothing to do with it..
FTP ;) what a kludge that one is..
So what makes it a "bad" standard?
And now give me a link that shows Open Source guarantees Open Standards.
I never said that. Read for comprehension.
Scared to link me I see, when you accuse me of lying. The reason, simple, because you're the one who's been exposed as lying, just like last time you attempted to accuse me of it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1473011/posts?page=40#40
Face it shadowdude, you're the liar, and accusing me of it doesn't distract from it at all. With a name like shadowdude, do you really think you're fooling anyone?
And since you don't even understand the communist GPL you so obviously worship, YES, if you "distribute" the software, you must give it away for free. Including to the Chicoms, and Al Queda, and anyone else who wants their own free and legal copy of it. It's how the license works, seems you would at least understand it since you push it on everyone.
Hmph.. I was under the impression that they did, but I just now checked the RFC.
Oh well.
How about UPNP? Is that a standard yet? That one's pretty bizarre.
Shadowdude shouldn't forget this other recent lie of his I exposed. I'm sure he'd like to sweep it under the rug too, since all he's done is ignore it and then go accuse me of being the liar on another thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1481139/posts?page=54#54
GNU says "baloney".
If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?
No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.
See also: Selling Free Software.
MP3 gave Red Hat and Icecast the jitters, especially Icecast, which no longer supports MP3. I personally prefer MP3 because it's more efficient in my applications. But it's got royalty strings attached, and the OSS guys don't like that.
Ogg Vorbis is certainly not taking off like it shoulda, at least not outside OSS.
Link? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1481224/posts?page=32#19
Yes you did say that. You have to read the post you were replying to to understand that. So be sure to read post #18 as well.
Typical Linux Lie. By the actual GPL license, they must provide the source code "on request" by anyone. The most they can charge is shipping costs.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=gpl+%22source+code%22+%22on+request%22&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt
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.