Denial

groepaz wrote:

It's the same I'm saying: software which is opensource must be available as source for free.
What you build upon it may not, but that's a different story, and changes based on the type of license.

no and no. there is/was tons of opensource commercial unix software where source is only available to customers. there is even opensource windows stuff available from microsoft for paying customers. "open source" does in no way imply "free" at all.

c*base for the c64 for example was open source too - for paying customers of course =) or CCGMS.

from wikipedia:
"Open-source software (OSS) is computer software with its source code made available and licensed with a license in which the copyright holder provides the rights to study, change and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose".

so what you are talking about is not open source.

You probably mean FOSS (Free and open source software)

Vic 2000 wrote:You probably mean FOSS (Free and open source software)

No I mean OSS = open source software:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

only because its written in wikipedia it doesnt mean its not bullshit, really. (and if you read that article its quite clear its full of FOSS FUD - as always look at the "talk" page and you'll find some valueable info)

open source means that you may look at the source of the software, no more no less. it does NOT mean that you are allowed to distribute or even modify it. many open source licenses put various limitations on what you can do with the source for that matter.

groepaz wrote:only because its written in wikipedia it doesnt mean its not bullshit, really. (and if you read that article its quite clear its full of FOSS FUD - as always look at the "talk" page and you'll find some valueable info)

open source means that you may look at the source of the software, no more no less. it does NOT mean that you are allowed to distribute or even modify it. many open source licenses put various limitations on what you can do with the source for that matter.

I don't want to go on with this discussion as it's a lot offtopic.
You will get a clearer picture if you read about FOSS. You are probably confusing FREE in "free software" with "at no cost", which is not the case.
If you don't believe wikipedia, read the words of people who defined what free software and open source is, like Bruce Perens or Richard Stallman.

You will get a clearer picture if you read about FOSS. You are probably confusing FREE in "free software" with "at no cost"

no, i am not. "open source" is not the same as FOSS. you are confusing "open source" with whatever those FOSS drones came up with. and no, i understand very well that "no cost" isnt a requirement at all.

If you don't believe wikipedia, read the words of people who defined what free software and open source is, like Bruce Perens or Richard Stallman.

those defined what FOSS is. open source software existed before those hippies came up with their twisted views and tried forcing them on everyone. (as said, tons of unix software from that era is/was open source - but available to paying customers only)

and if you dont believe that this first sentence in the wiki article is nonsense, try reading a couple of those open source licenses. even a lot of the licenses which qualify as FOSS put various restrictions on eg who you can give the modified sources too, for various reasons, which may be as stupid as "living in kuba".

groepaz wrote:

You will get a clearer picture if you read about FOSS. You are probably confusing FREE in "free software" with "at no cost"

no, i am not. "open source" is not the same as FOSS. you are confusing "open source" with whatever those FOSS drones came up with. and no, i understand very well that "no cost" isnt a requirement at all.

If you don't believe wikipedia, read the words of people who defined what free software and open source is, like Bruce Perens or Richard Stallman.

those defined what FOSS is. open source software existed before those hippies came up with their twisted views and tried forcing them on everyone. (as said, tons of unix software from that era is/was open source - but available to paying customers only)

and if you dont believe that this first sentence in the wiki article is nonsense, try reading a couple of those open source licenses. even a lot of the licenses which qualify as FOSS put various restrictions on eg who you can give the modified sources too, for various reasons, which may be as stupid as "living in kuba".

OK let's stop it. Let's say that:

You and probably some other people use a different open source definition than me and probably some other people.

That's weird 'cause I've been a linux network administrator, open source programmer and supporter for 20 years at least, but there is always something new to learn!!!

Almost nothing performs better on Linux. At least not on my computer:
http://user.tninet.se/~jad615g/ubuntu_vs_windows/
http://user.tninet.se/~jad615g/benchmarks/

That's often because of DirectX and better drivers in Windows. I noticed the same thing when i used Linux. Firefox was much faster in Windows for exemple. YouTube worked a lot better in Windows too, and so on.

You and probably some other people use a different open source definition than me and probably some other people.

even mr. stallmann doesnt confuse "open source" and "free open source software" like you do. so yes, indeed. (actually you can read lengthy blurbs about how these two are different right on the fsf site)

and as to come back on topic: if you dont like this kind of stupid discussions, choose a non debian based distro =P

Don't missunderstand me, i don't dislike Linux at all. The problem is support because money and real big companies rules the market. Most companies don't care a bit about Linux and most stuff is made for Windows.

It takes a big company or even several to change that. Just look at Google for exemple. Their Android OS is very successful and rules the market for smart phones. Take a look at Google Chrome in the browser market, Google rules that market too novadays, by far. Even Mozilla outperforms Microsoft in the browser market.

Both is open source.

Stallman and the other hippies isn't going to change anything while companies as Google and Mozilla changes the market a lot.

Here's my two cents: http://linuxmint.com

groepaz wrote:even mr. stallmann doesnt confuse "open source" and "free open source software" like you do. so yes, indeed. (actually you can read lengthy blurbs about how these two are different right on the fsf site)

I didn't say Open source software = free software, I just said OSS can be had at no cost for everyone, that's exactly what's on every site I can think of, like wikipedia, http://opensource.org/, http://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source, http://www.techterms.com/definition/opensource etc. etc. etc.
About lengthy blurbs on the fsf site, read this and many others:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-sou ... point.html
which say exactly what I do.

Boray wrote:Almost nothing performs better on Linux. At least not on my computer:
http://user.tninet.se/~jad615g/ubuntu_vs_windows/
http://user.tninet.se/~jad615g/benchmarks/

Really? Stats? And published on 26 Sep 2010. You get a kudo for the disclaimer.

Vic 2000 wrote:There's still nothing to tuch a top spec PC for gaming, not even PS4, but it ain't cheap

You make no point, ral-clan started with his issue that it's an older computer running XP. He's happy to run his XP apps with his specialized "add-ons", but is considering to make it a dual-boot Linux. Not a new issue for ordinary people, and you should already know that with your stated credentials, sir. He is asking for tips to do that, not what new machine/platform he should consider.

And the last thing any ordinary person in this situation should do is to throw a $200 OS on a machine worth less than $100. In steps the hermit crab OS: Linux. A plethora of distros await to make those rigs run longer and with supported software (read as security and bug fixes, important for those XP era machines); I suspect ral-clan intends on continuing his use of the Internet and probably use a browser? Maybe even with Java, Adobe, and Flash plug-ins, but with the choice of closed or open solutions?

And last time I checked, any modest PC can run ral-clan's classic library using emulators @ 100%, a modern Office and Internet suite, at no cost. You can see that for yourself with my 6-year old project: cross-developed on Linux for use with Linux or Windows. I published an older Puppy Linux LIVE boot CD-ROM 8-years ago for even more modest hardware. Yes, both older than Boray's stats.

Robert.

I just answered this..

That's why there is a better experience, platform, and market called a gaming console for those bigger developers.

Or buying a new top spec gaming PC, you don't get better gaming experience even if it's going to cost a lot more then a console.

Regarding slower Linux, it's mostly lack of descent drivers and DirextX that makes most of the difference. I also noticed that common taskt in Windows mostly was faster then in Linux, at least using a decent new computer. Not even Firefox was performing as fast at it does in Windows.

For the most, you don't get any orginal drivers for Linux.