popac
Nov 20 2004, 12:08 PM
| | 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??? |
Reply
xboxrulz
Nov 20 2004, 04:46 PM
I LOVE OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE!! LONG LIVE LINUX! LONG LIVE OPENSOURCE  xboxrulz
Reply
BoSZ
Nov 20 2004, 06:44 PM
NuHoaXuLa
Nov 21 2004, 01:51 AM
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, 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.
Reply
hatebreed
Nov 21 2004, 08:03 PM
windows sucks, linux rulz, end of story!
Reply
xboxrulz
Nov 22 2004, 02:42 AM
that is so true! I finally got Knoppix running on my HDD! xboxrulz
Reply
cloudy
Nov 23 2004, 06:25 AM
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.
Reply
xboxrulz
Nov 25 2004, 01:24 AM
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
Reply
cloudy
Nov 28 2004, 05:43 AM
[quote=xboxrulz,Nov 25 2004, 01:24 AM]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 [/quote] 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.
Reply
ariya
Nov 28 2004, 10:11 AM
I Love Open Soruce Program because You can edit it if you want
Reply
gdpglc
Feb 15 2005, 09:06 AM
I love Open Source Program too. There are lots of famous software is Open Source Program, For Example: Tomcat, Structs, XML-RPC, OpenSSL, Linux etc. We can not only use it, but also learn lots of knowlege from open source.<br> Two good open source website: http://jakarta.apache.orghttp://sourceforge.net
Reply
adriantc
Jan 31 2005, 08:03 AM
I think the best thing that ever happend to the computer industry is the open source concept. Many say that they do programming for a living (like I am planning to do in the fuure) and they have to sell their programs to earn money. Well, we all see what happened to poor Bill after creating DOS. He got 40 billion $. I now ask: If he already has 40 billion $ (you can buy a country with that amount of money or almost put a stop to world hunger) why doesn't he give Windows for free, like his gift to mankind. There is the reverse side of the coin. The open source concept is defined by Linux. A world community of people have created one of the best (if not the best) OS ever. They don't sell it, but they still receive money for advertising. They are not working in the same room (as the guys from microsoft) but in every corner of the world and it seems to me they do a great job: stable systems, few bugs (if i where them i would improve the term user-friendly because we all know how difficult is to install a program on Linux). My point is: You don't have to sell a program in order to get money. Open source is the best example. LONG LIVE OPEN SOURCE.
Reply
xboxrulz
Jan 30 2005, 10:23 PM
Linux is getting user-friendly as the day goes on. The only Linux that I find unstable is Mandrake. Also, Fedora isn;t user-friendly when it comes to Samba configuration and KDE usage. xboxrulz
Reply
Judman
Jan 30 2005, 10:21 PM
I can definitley belive that an open source project would be a lot more stable than a regular closed-source(if thats the right word) project. Most of them would be stable because aloth of people can add on features to the project, unlike microsoft or apple.And i could see many people getting it because1. most are free. and 2. there are many variations of the project to choose from. Although i can see that linux, on the other hand, is not very userfriendly, and is widely used for sever purposes only.For instance, I think that Mandrake provides mysql an other major services to help server users start up their site right off the bat.
Reply
xboxrulz
Jan 27 2005, 05:38 PM
it's all about how Microsoft marketed Windows; therefore, Windows dominated the home and commericial market. xboxrulz
Reply
|
|
Searching Video's for open, source
|
advertisement
|
|