The Marxist Conspiracy liberates mathematics.

[Azathoth]

No patents, no profit. No profit, no code.

Yup the open source model really fucked google didn't it

[Seth]

No patents, no profit. No profit, no code. TANSTAAFL.

Imagine:
Windows 7
Windoze 7
Winders 7
Wandoze 7
Winderp 7
Wonduz 7

All based on Microsoft's core code but with different details making each utterly incompatible with the other...and everything else.

Just look at Unix, Apple OS and MINIX, Linux, and BSD descendants (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and DragonFly BSD).

Only two of those have any significant market share. The rest are all techno-nerd OS that require substantial computer knowledge just to get them running.

Why should rogue programmers get to profit from the billions of dollars spent by either Microsoft or Apple in creating their systems? And if this notion went worldwide why would Microsoft or Apple even bother?

Then there's cyberwar. If I were Microsoft and I knew someone was ripping off my code I'd develop countermeasures that would do things like wipe the drives of users using my stolen code. Or do what they do now, which is require users to have net access so that the validity of their program can be checked from time to time to make sure it's not pirated.

It's not nearly as simple as the simpletons in NZ think it is. About all they are going to accomplish is to get NZ even more marginalized than it already is. It'll be turned into a North Korean-like pariah state by everybody else.

They pass one little law and become North Korea. Seth, you are priceless, Sir!

All it takes is one little law.

[Seth]

No patents, no profit. No profit, no code. TANSTAAFL.

Imagine:
Windows 7
Windoze 7
Winders 7
Wandoze 7
Winderp 7
Wonduz 7

All based on Microsoft's core code but with different details making each utterly incompatible with the other...and everything else.

Just look at Unix, Apple OS and MINIX, Linux, and BSD descendants (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and DragonFly BSD).

Only two of those have any significant market share. The rest are all techno-nerd OS that require substantial computer knowledge just to get them running.

The first statement is correct ... insofar as the traditional desktop/laptop market is concerned. But that is shrinking, both in absolute terms and (especially) in overall terms. Depending on how one counts OS installations across all manner of devices, Linux (including Android) is possibly/probably the most popular OS.

Furthermore, the reason why Windows has dominated the mainstream PC market for so long has less to do with technical excellence, ease of use, etc., and more to do with dodgy business practices by Microsoft.

As for "... requiring substantial computer knowledge ...": I have extensive experience installing, configuring and using operating systems. As things stands, installing most versions of Linux is laughably easy compared to installing Windows 7 or (God forbid) Windows 8. Better still, Linux does not impose restrictions on what other operating systems I can install on my computers. Microsoft goes out of its way to do that.

Also, the supposed lack of standardization that you allude to in Linux does not really exist to the degree that you might perceive. FWIW, it's nearly impossible to find two Windows installations that behave in the exact same way, such are the possible variations in configuration, updates, applications, etc.

Why should rogue programmers get to profit from the billions of dollars spent by either Microsoft or Apple in creating their systems? And if this notion went worldwide why would Microsoft or Apple even bother?

Then there's cyberwar. If I were Microsoft and I knew someone was ripping off my code I'd develop countermeasures that would do things like wipe the drives of users using my stolen code. Or do what they do now, which is require users to have net access so that the validity of their program can be checked from time to time to make sure it's not pirated.

It's not nearly as simple as the simpletons in NZ think it is. About all they are going to accomplish is to get NZ even more marginalized than it already is. It'll be turned into a North Korean-like pariah state by everybody else.

Rant, rant, rant ... You don't seem to get the irony of your posting on a web site which uses free software all the way down.

Ah, but we're not talking about obscure Atheist argument sites. Therefore your statement is a non-sequitur.

[klr]

Ahem. The overwhelming majority of discussion boards the world over use free software.

And if we're so obscure, why are you here?

[Seth]

No patents, no profit. No profit, no code. TANSTAAFL.

Imagine:
Windows 7
Windoze 7
Winders 7
Wandoze 7
Winderp 7
Wonduz 7

All based on Microsoft's core code but with different details making each utterly incompatible with the other...and everything else.

Just look at Unix, Apple OS and MINIX, Linux, and BSD descendants (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and DragonFly BSD).

Only two of those have any significant market share. The rest are all techno-nerd OS that require substantial computer knowledge just to get them running.

The first statement is correct ... insofar as the traditional desktop/laptop market is concerned. But that is shrinking, both in absolute terms and (especially) in overall terms. Depending on how one counts OS installations across all manner of devices, Linux (including Android) is possibly/probably the most popular OS.

Horseshit. Not one of the "most popular OS" is open-source, not even Android.

Furthermore, the reason why Windows has dominated the mainstream PC market for so long has less to do with technical excellence, ease of use, etc., and more to do with dodgy business practices by Microsoft.

Such as?

As for "... requiring substantial computer knowledge ...": I have extensive experience installing, configuring and using operating systems. As things stands, installing most versions of Linux is laughably easy compared to installing Windows 7 or (God forbid) Windows 8.

But keeping it running and getting it to interface with other programs is not. It's not even vaguely plug-and-play.

Better still, Linux does not impose restrictions on what other operating systems I can install on my computers. Microsoft goes out of its way to do that.

So? Microsoft doesn't do anything to you at all if you don't agree to use it now does it? It seems however that more than 90% of computers on the planet do agree to use it. Which is rather my point.

Also, the supposed lack of standardization that you allude to in Linux does not really exist to the degree that you might perceive. FWIW, it's nearly impossible to find two Windows installations that behave in the exact same way, such are the possible variations in configuration, updates, applications, etc.

That's as you say a user issue, not an OS error. Microsoft chose to do that. Apple is substantially easier to use than Windoze because Apple tightly integrates its software and hardware and doesn't force gazillions of decisions on unsophisticated users, who comprise the vast majority of computer users.

Two different business and customer service models.

But you evade the issue. Why should some rogue code programmer in NZ be allowed to take either Windows or Apple's core programming and then "tweak" it and claim it's his product?

[Seth]

Ahem. The overwhelming majority of discussion boards the world over use free software.

And if we're so obscure, why are you here?

Because it amuses me.

[Audley Strange]

You amuse me too Seth.

[klr]

Bah. He's just not trying anymore ...

[Trinity]

My ignorance amuses me...

[Azathoth]

Horseshit. Not one of the "most popular OS" is open-source, not even Android.

http://source.android.com/source/

[Audley Strange]

I'll have you know that most programming has little or nothing to do with mathematics - except for logic.

Does computer logic also have logical fallacies?

It's all ones and zeros to me.

[klr]

Furthermore, the reason why Windows has dominated the mainstream PC market for so long has less to do with technical excellence, ease of use, etc., and more to do with dodgy business practices by Microsoft.

Such as?

Surely you're familiar with the various judgement made against Microsoft for anti-competitive practices?

As for "... requiring substantial computer knowledge ...": I have extensive experience installing, configuring and using operating systems. As things stands, installing most versions of Linux is laughably easy compared to installing Windows 7 or (God forbid) Windows 8.

But keeping it running and getting it to interface with other programs is not. It's not even vaguely plug-and-play.

Err, actually I'm finding it to be easier. As for "other programs", most applications I use are open source, and will run just as well on Windows, Linux or Mac OS.

Better still, Linux does not impose restrictions on what other operating systems I can install on my computers. Microsoft goes out of its way to do that.

So? Microsoft doesn't do anything to you at all if you don't agree to use it now does it? It seems however that more than 90% of computers on the planet do agree to use it. Which is rather my point.

Computers don't "agree" to anything. MS strong-arms vendors into installing Windows on their PCs, and making it very difficult to install anything else. You usually have to pay the "Windows tax", even if you don't plan on using Windows.

Also, the supposed lack of standardization that you allude to in Linux does not really exist to the degree that you might perceive. FWIW, it's nearly impossible to find two Windows installations that behave in the exact same way, such are the possible variations in configuration, updates, applications, etc.

That's as you say a user issue, not an OS error. Microsoft chose to do that. Apple is substantially easier to use than Windoze because Apple tightly integrates its software and hardware and doesn't force gazillions of decisions on unsophisticated users, who comprise the vast majority of computer users.

Two different business and customer service models.

But you evade the issue. Why should some rogue code programmer in NZ be allowed to take either Windows or Apple's core programming and then "tweak" it and claim it's his product?

I never said they should be able to do that. If you read my first post, you will note that I don't actually want a complete free-for-all. I do actually design, write and maintain software for a living.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Ahem. The overwhelming majority of discussion boards the world over use free software.

And if we're so obscure, why are you here?

Because it amuses me.

You sure? I have another explanation...

[Seth]

Furthermore, the reason why Windows has dominated the mainstream PC market for so long has less to do with technical excellence, ease of use, etc., and more to do with dodgy business practices by Microsoft.

Such as?

Surely you're familiar with the various judgement made against Microsoft for anti-competitive practices?

You mean the Socialist Progressive "anti-free-market" laws?

So? Microsoft doesn't do anything to you at all if you don't agree to use it now does it? It seems however that more than 90% of computers on the planet do agree to use it. Which is rather my point.

Computers don't "agree" to anything. MS strong-arms vendors into installing Windows on their PCs, and making it very difficult to install anything else.

Horseshit. All you have to do is wipe the drive and install anything you want.

You usually have to pay the "Windows tax", even if you don't plan on using Windows.

Then don't buy a box from that vendor.

[Azathoth]