Re:Big deal - even more OT (Score 2)

If I had mod points and I wasn't posting in this thread, I'd mod you up without question.

Actually, I think the confusion about what open source is lies firmly in the collective mind of the open source community itself. On one end of the spectrum, you have people who like open source because they simply like to hack on whatever feature they personally like, as you've mentioned. Fine. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those like me who hope that open source is a method for creating self-organizing software projects with the ultimate goal of those projects being better than they otherwise could be.

From a development perspective, there is no confusion. Open source is liberating, what you can do with your own hardware is up to you. I've had quite a bit of experience with the win32 api developing for commerical software companies. I actually know win32 far better than I know any other platform. Closed platforms truly scare me (what? my audio driver receive a particular stream because it isn't signed by some company? I thought this was my computer).

The point is, if I have the choice, I will choose to develop on a system where I have access to the source, for a number of reasons, only partially technical. There is no "collective mind". Developers are highly independent and like to work on what interests them. If you're interested in reaping the rewards from something, you sometimes need to earn them. Whether this is actually contributing code, funding development, etc.

Open source platforms were created by hackers, for hackers. And typically we don't give a damn about widespread acceptance or overthrowing microsoft's dominance of the desktop. We just want something that works well for what we need. Try to understand it from that perspective and you'll do better.

People want to have Linux be a hackers paradise, yet topple Microsoft's OS monopoly by supplanting the desktop. Think about it, are these two goals really compatible?

People want a lot of things, but the only people who really matter here are the people implementing this system. See, thats the great part, if you want it to be something it's not, make it that way. And personally, I do think they're possible. If it weren't for legacy applications, Linux would likely be on a lot more desktops than it is. I know any clueful sysadmin would much rather maintain a bunch of linux boxen than windows boxen. From a management perspective, Linux is lightyears beyond windows. Especially considering if something doesn't work right, instead of looking for a kludge or trying to get a vendor to include the needed functionality (usually a combonation of the two), you can locate the problem, isolate it, and correct it. I know of at least one place I've worked where this ability would have saved the company literally millions of dollars.

Exactly. So let's see the fanboys excited by this news go out and make Linux a viable desktop OS, or shut the hell up about it replacing Windows.

Theres nothing wrong with cheerleaders to keep the team motivated. As a matter of fact, if you really think about it, recognition is the sole form of payment quite a few oss developers receive. Its all about the right tool for the job. If you want to play the latest and greatest games, linux isn't a good desktop choice for you. For the people maintaining 5000 corporate PCs with custom apps, it becomes a very sensible desktop OS.

Personally, I run FreeBSD and a mix of NT/2000. Windows is still a requirement for me (a couple of addictive games, and some apps that my job requires). And the majority of the time I'm in windows, I have emacs/tcsh/python windows up (Exceed is a dream here). I personally would LOVE to get windows off my desktop, but it's the applications that keep me there, applications are key.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply :)