Again, be nice... there's a community of programmers out there.

I think I know the name of Googles next project: Skynet . Please see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088247/plotsummary

Be nice now... there's a community of programmers out there.

Copyright roughly means to restrict the reproduction of the product. So the physical media is yours, just like the CD I buy at a music store. Now if you try to reproduce it, then you are in violation of that copyright.

An interesting point to think about is: it may also prevent you from broadcasting it or playing it in a "public" place. This is a pretty standard part of copyright law, but I've heard that you could broadcast anything "classic". I don't know what that means in terms of number of years, but if you think about a "classic rock" station, they can play songs that weren't released as singles, unlike radio stations playing new music. ... or that's my understanding of copyright laws here in Canada anyway.

If it's not working well for you, then there's something wrong. Linux does a wonderful job handling our 4 TB and up drives, but Windows seems to struggle with anything over 2 TB even when usage is low. I'm talking comparatively of course, but there is certainly a difference. Then there's how you're connecting to it. Anyway, if someone has a better answer to large file systems. I'd love to hear it.

Oh yea, and don't use Windows to host it, use just about anything else. I'd prefer Linux, and here's one reason why:

http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2006/08/17/why_doesn_t_linux_need_defragmenting

Yea, I agree, 8 drives and up to 16 TBs. Easy to use. Or you could start looking at SAN storage. you can't have huge AND cheep. Like one of my CS profs used to say "There's no free lunch"

Your company doesn't have every programmer rewrite the same library do you?

I have recommended many people use Ubuntu 9 and up and they are average Joes. They check their mail, they surf the net, they download and listen to music, and it works beautifully for them. Just because you don't have to pay for something doesn't mean it's not a good solution.

But, if you want to talk about corporations, how many TVs are out there today that have software based on Linux technology? Look at the success of the Eee PC, you think that would have happened in XP? Nokia is still light years ahead of Apple in mobile technology thanks to Linux technology. In fact, if you were in Japan 18 months ago with an iPhone, you would have had the crappiest phone in the country. While I was doing my degree you could get a PS3 from Sony for a summer to do Linux development on it, you think some of that didn't make it into the production system?

I'm not trying to tell people to program, I'm saying that anything you can think of doing or wanting has already been solved at some level. You just don't need to rely on companies to make choices for you. The definition of obtuse is to be narrow minded, to be ridged, to lack insight. It would be obtuse to not open your mind to the possibilities that exist in the open source community. How could Linux be in so many places and be obtuse?

I'm disapointed that someone could have such a low opinion of Linux. “obtuse, difficult to maintain, esoteric software stack”... ouch. I don't want to start some flame war or anything but I don't think you understand the history of Linux.

As for Apple, well I have seen plenty of their products die while my Linux based machines keep going for years.

“Companies like Apple would rather just charge you a higher price up front for something that actually works well and needs little maintenance or consulting. I think Oracle falls somewhere in-between.”

The first problem here is that Apple would RATHER charge you every time you turn on their product, but the market just won't accept that. You talk about the “Linux” business model, there is no such thing. You say obtuse, the whole idea behind Linux is that you can use it for whatever you want. If it doesn't work for you, learn how to make it work, learn to program.

It's my view that you don't have to abondon an idea just because it doesn't fit into some business plan. If there's something you need done, how about learning how to make what you want. Companines that support open source understand that they can take advantage of this great body of work and the cost is contributing to the body of work. The money comes when you support those who do not understand how to make things work for them and don't have the option of figuring it out for themselves.

I just hope Java doesn't dissappear any time soon. I hate to say it, but it really is a good language and I really like programming in it.

If you are a normal consumer and you see a penguin on a product, you probably won't know what it's all about. The same person will almost certainly know the Windows logo. That's enough to make people gravitate towards what they know. People are afraid of the unknown.

Linux has hundreds of flavors (or spins or whatever) and no body advertising how great it is. So the popularity of Linux and related devices will be up to large marketing departments (mostly in Redmond). As much as I hate to say it, Linux doesn't stand a chance against that.

Linux needs a real commercial champion for the everyday consumer market. Just think of the server market. Maybe Google would fit the bill, or maybe they will do the same as Apple. Time will tell.

Please see "Who Killed The Electric Car".

Now that I'm a part owner in G.M. via my taxes, I wonder if I'll ever see a return on my investment.

Must be nice to know that no matter how badly you destroy a company, your pockets will at least get lined with public money.

This is what really excites me. We can dump all those crappy instruction sets from the 80s. It's about time.

As for the Google thing, well it's great brand recognition. Android is Linux, but it's not and that's O.K. because it's all about getting away from the M$/Intel arch. In order to advance, we need to break away from the old and we can't do that until we get the support of the general public.