The idea of open source Apple took from Linux "MkLinux was the first attempt by Apple to support a free and open source software project." " Now OSX's whole kernel open source" based on ideas from Linux , BSD, and NeXTSTEP . I support Linux Mint, and the other 700 distributions of Linux that are free that both Apple and Microsoft took ideas from. Both Apple , and Microsoft use a mix of Open, and closed source software . opensource. apple. com ,and microsoft. com/opensource/
@AppleSoldier you could not say that definitively, but if we disregard the abstractions, It's like the communist utopia which competes with the capitalist utopia (good vs evil) all over again, only this time it's in the realm of technology.
most open stuff is slower in development. A few shining examples liek mozilla and sql dont make it so across the board. I dont think all software should be open. We need private and commercial. If I write an app, i dont want everyone being able to look at it. Not having the choice to be private is really bad. I dont want everyone being able to look at the stuff I worked on if thats my want. I will always think 70% of innovation is commercial.
Shared Source Initiative is a perfect example of why seeing code isn't the goal. Freedom is the goal. Decide that you want freedom first, that you want to know what the software you're using is doing, and that independent entities can audit it and you won't be led astray.
Good video. I think a major problem with people's perception of Open Source is that they forget how ubiquitous it is, from smartphones to webbrowsers and webservers, multimedia libraries (OpenGL, OpenAL, SDL, GTK, etc...)
Another issue is that people don't realize why the first serious free software system. It was created so you can use your computer with freedom. That's why Stallman wants people to call it GNU/Linux. It is mostly GNU(in terms of lines of code and what you actually interface with) and only part the kernel(Linux).
Are there that many people who don't understand this? opensource, is open code, and someone can use this to make an app, and sell it. Freeware is free of cost (and full of viruses ..lol..J/K)
I'm currently using Ubuntu for my main machine now. The problem is software development is going to be slow when its a couple of guys in their bedrooms compared to a company with a million pound budget. I love open source and believe more and more open source software is the future.
what about apache, mysql, openAL, they move faster or as fast than their private competitor software? Apache is num 1 in its market, OpenAL, is not standard in Windows and OSX
An easier example is Firefox being better than IE. However I was referring to things like Proffesional video / audio editing software things like that.
@LewisDre4m free software projects of massive scale have greatly surpassed the abilities of products from even mega corporations (like Apple and Microsoft) to produce great, free (libre) software alternatives. And this because those proprietary companies cannot compete with the 1000s of users who desire to donate their time on these projects to help others, not just to make money. Those libre projects are driven by the community, not the corporation, so they go where people want.
i would say that there is as much or more parallel development waste in private development. Most of the distros actually modify and enhance, thus a progress is made vs the whole or end result of a collaborative project which is also happening since anyone can use the modified code.
that is just is opensource can also be pay, the whole point is that being free of charge does not equal opensource. You pay for OSX and a huge chunk of it is opensource.
Great brake down of OSS. I'm big on OSS and the free as beer. I think Ubuntu is going to be more of a player now that Mark isn't CEO. I good movie about it is called "Revolution O.S." it's about the whole thing. I'm sure you'd really like it.
I think open standards are good but I also think proprietary software works better as an entity than most opensource software. Most opensource software I have seen is a cluster ball. Choices are good but I kind of wish people would work on making "Good Software" than more software. I am a fan of "it just works". Opensource is only good when it has direction like OpenGL, etc
@ASCII808 It depends on what you're looking for to do with a source code.
If you wanna take existing software and change it and not have to give back, go with BSD.
If you want to make free software and say if you were trying to make a game engine with better graphics and physics as the crytech 2 engine, but not as buggy. I don't know about you, but I would be pissed if somebody took my work and changed it so it would lock the end user in and not give back. The GPL prevents this unless violated
@roboticterror No, I just don't want it to be used to lock anybody in. Say if I made a free video editor that's better than Vegas, I don't want the forks to be proprietary.
@roboticterror I'm talking about say if I was developing something on a BSD license. Like if I was developing the mach kernel and apple totally changed it and added HFS+J support and relicensed the changes and now I can't use HFS+J in my kernel, but apple's using pieces of my kernel, but I can't use their changes.
That's why I wouldn't use BSD license to license free software, but I would use BSD source code to make closed source software.
@roboticterror No, that's why I'll never license software under the BSD license, because if I did, I can't always use code from forks of my code to make it better, but I would use relicense BSD licensed code to whatever the hell I want.
BSD is good for relicensing and you can keep all of your changes a secret if you wanted to. You can't do that with GPL code.
GPL is good for making sure you can learn from any projects that have used your code.
This has been flagged as spam show
I couldn't find Let's Go For A Drive by Duane Steele anywhere can you please post this song.
I haven't heard this song in a while since 2006 on country radio
randyknowsongt 1 week ago
The idea of open source Apple took from Linux "MkLinux was the first attempt by Apple to support a free and open source software project." " Now OSX's whole kernel open source" based on ideas from Linux , BSD, and NeXTSTEP . I support Linux Mint, and the other 700 distributions of Linux that are free that both Apple and Microsoft took ideas from. Both Apple , and Microsoft use a mix of Open, and closed source software . opensource. apple. com ,and microsoft. com/opensource/
maw88ify 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Better idea about Russian women gettop5.info
carlywcarmesw17 1 year ago
What's a major difference between opensource and free software?
(Not free soft ware as in "free of charge.")
Tecseiryu 1 year ago
Many people who are suggesting that FOSS development is slow: watch?v=L2SED6sewRw
This video offers evidence that Linux is one of the fastest developed pieces of software on the planet.
hal970fx 1 year ago
if you don't use open source you have no saying it it. sh-ut up.
civilknowsbetter 1 year ago
You can offer software free or Open Source and still be profitable.
KnightChatX 1 year ago
doesn't this sound like software socialism? lol.
AppleSoldier 2 years ago
i sent you a pm
mrbit10 2 years ago
@AppleSoldier
Oh shizaduke! SOCIALISM! Like those dirty reds! Pinko commie bastards!
Oh shit. I just realized its 2010 now... like 30 years past the time that sort of thinking was the common propaganda.
Yeah, I like socialism.
moniker127 1 year ago
@AppleSoldier you could not say that definitively, but if we disregard the abstractions, It's like the communist utopia which competes with the capitalist utopia (good vs evil) all over again, only this time it's in the realm of technology.
xjih78 5 months ago
most open stuff is slower in development. A few shining examples liek mozilla and sql dont make it so across the board. I dont think all software should be open. We need private and commercial. If I write an app, i dont want everyone being able to look at it. Not having the choice to be private is really bad. I dont want everyone being able to look at the stuff I worked on if thats my want. I will always think 70% of innovation is commercial.
AppleSoldier 2 years ago
@AppleSoldier do you not like open source because your ashamed of the quality of your code?
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa78815 1 year ago
Shared Source Initiative is a perfect example of why seeing code isn't the goal. Freedom is the goal. Decide that you want freedom first, that you want to know what the software you're using is doing, and that independent entities can audit it and you won't be led astray.
dsterry 2 years ago
Are you playing hackers or something? Your room is do dark!!
DrSunnz 2 years ago
I have my own Richard Stallman quote!
"DRM refers to Digital Restrictions Management. That's the practice of developing software specifically to restrict the users."
Physhi 2 years ago
Good video. I think a major problem with people's perception of Open Source is that they forget how ubiquitous it is, from smartphones to webbrowsers and webservers, multimedia libraries (OpenGL, OpenAL, SDL, GTK, etc...)
hal970fx 2 years ago
Another issue is that people don't realize why the first serious free software system. It was created so you can use your computer with freedom. That's why Stallman wants people to call it GNU/Linux. It is mostly GNU(in terms of lines of code and what you actually interface with) and only part the kernel(Linux).
dsterry 2 years ago
Are there that many people who don't understand this? opensource, is open code, and someone can use this to make an app, and sell it. Freeware is free of cost (and full of viruses ..lol..J/K)
ThingsontheWeb 2 years ago
I'm currently using Ubuntu for my main machine now. The problem is software development is going to be slow when its a couple of guys in their bedrooms compared to a company with a million pound budget. I love open source and believe more and more open source software is the future.
LewisDre4m 2 years ago
what about apache, mysql, openAL, they move faster or as fast than their private competitor software? Apache is num 1 in its market, OpenAL, is not standard in Windows and OSX
mrbit10 2 years ago
An easier example is Firefox being better than IE. However I was referring to things like Proffesional video / audio editing software things like that.
LewisDre4m 2 years ago
@LewisDre4m free software projects of massive scale have greatly surpassed the abilities of products from even mega corporations (like Apple and Microsoft) to produce great, free (libre) software alternatives. And this because those proprietary companies cannot compete with the 1000s of users who desire to donate their time on these projects to help others, not just to make money. Those libre projects are driven by the community, not the corporation, so they go where people want.
foxmuldr 2 months ago
They should make popcorn free, tastes amazing!
ReeshTV 2 years ago
rofl
LewisDre4m 2 years ago
the weakness of opensource is that there is too many projects that do the same thing, they should all join forces and just focus on one!
frvfilms 2 years ago
i would say that there is as much or more parallel development waste in private development. Most of the distros actually modify and enhance, thus a progress is made vs the whole or end result of a collaborative project which is also happening since anyone can use the modified code.
mrbit10 2 years ago
I don't think I could agree with your comment more.
LewisDre4m 2 years ago
exactly , most of the kernel developers get paid, including linus torvalds
frvfilms 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago
Pay apps are also needed.
APPLETHEGREATUSA 2 years ago
not really... I buy nothing software :P
(then again, I make what I can't download)
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago
that is just is opensource can also be pay, the whole point is that being free of charge does not equal opensource. You pay for OSX and a huge chunk of it is opensource.
mrbit10 2 years ago
Both are needed.
michaelmckeever9 2 years ago
good stuff man, well explained as well.
bullboykennels 2 years ago
Great brake down of OSS. I'm big on OSS and the free as beer. I think Ubuntu is going to be more of a player now that Mark isn't CEO. I good movie about it is called "Revolution O.S." it's about the whole thing. I'm sure you'd really like it.
vwbond 2 years ago
Great Video Mr Bit. Spot on
douguk47 2 years ago
BSD>GNU licensing
I don't want to imagine a world when Richard Stallman is taken seriously. It's a scary thought if all of his ideas were adopted.
ASCII808 2 years ago 2
i am not advocating one idea over another, but to state that free of charge is not opensource and that opensource/free software are important.
mrbit10 2 years ago
I think open standards are good but I also think proprietary software works better as an entity than most opensource software. Most opensource software I have seen is a cluster ball. Choices are good but I kind of wish people would work on making "Good Software" than more software. I am a fan of "it just works". Opensource is only good when it has direction like OpenGL, etc
ASCII808 2 years ago
@ASCII808 It depends on what you're looking for to do with a source code.
If you wanna take existing software and change it and not have to give back, go with BSD.
If you want to make free software and say if you were trying to make a game engine with better graphics and physics as the crytech 2 engine, but not as buggy. I don't know about you, but I would be pissed if somebody took my work and changed it so it would lock the end user in and not give back. The GPL prevents this unless violated
commodore256 2 years ago
@commodore256
If you don't want anyone to use your code as they wish, you mind as well make it proprietary.
roboticterror 2 years ago
@roboticterror No, I just don't want it to be used to lock anybody in. Say if I made a free video editor that's better than Vegas, I don't want the forks to be proprietary.
commodore256 2 years ago
@commodore256
The funny part is that no one is lock into using the proprietary fork. They can still use the open version.
roboticterror 2 years ago
@roboticterror I'm talking about say if I was developing something on a BSD license. Like if I was developing the mach kernel and apple totally changed it and added HFS+J support and relicensed the changes and now I can't use HFS+J in my kernel, but apple's using pieces of my kernel, but I can't use their changes.
That's why I wouldn't use BSD license to license free software, but I would use BSD source code to make closed source software.
It depends on what you want to do.
commodore256 2 years ago
@commodore256
Ok, so Apple licenses their changes so you couldn't use it. They should have the freedom to give or not to give away their changes.
If you want to lock people or software vendors out of your code, you mind as well make it proprietary.
roboticterror 2 years ago
@roboticterror No, that's why I'll never license software under the BSD license, because if I did, I can't always use code from forks of my code to make it better, but I would use relicense BSD licensed code to whatever the hell I want.
BSD is good for relicensing and you can keep all of your changes a secret if you wanted to. You can't do that with GPL code.
GPL is good for making sure you can learn from any projects that have used your code.
That's the whole point of what I'm saying.
commodore256 2 years ago