It looks like Oracle will have the greatest contribution in Open Source.
http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-20-2009/0005008591&EDATE=
_
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List
http://lists.lin
This is the Windows Services for Unix that you have to download separately
from Microsoft. It's like running a Unix-like environment on top of the
supposedly microkernel core of the then Windows NT architecture.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Andy Sy wrote:
> Danny Escasa quoted from http://ww
Danny Escasa quoted from http://www.reactos.org/en/newsletter_54.html
> The Windows version that ReactOS officially targets has been
> a point of confusion for some time now. There are actually two
> specified targets, one involving the NT kernel and the other for
> the Win32
>
> subsystem.
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Kelsey Hartigan Go
wrote:
> I started writing shareware utilities in the 80's only to find them being
> sold in some in'famous' computer store in Greenhills.
I never knew that! Share!
Well I guess we were a bit ahead of our time - we had the technology
but not t
I started writing shareware utilities in the 80's only to find them being
sold in some in'famous' computer store in Greenhills.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Miguel Paraz wrote:
>
> In retrospect, I learned programming at that age. I did a lot of hobby
> programming in high school/college but
Quoting Orlando Andico :
Yes I am aware of Sun's efforts in this regard.
[snip]
But the bottom line is that Microsoft won't even document their API's
and entry points accurately because they see obfuscation as a
competitive advantage for them. So open-sourcing XP is much more far
out.
I co
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Andy Sy wrote:
> It was a smart move but provoked by the desire to survive
> and not out of any "goodness of the soul". See
> http://www.google.com/search?q=ibm+jews+hitler
Godwin wants a word with you. :P
--
Zak B. Elep || zakame.net
1486 7957 454D E529 E4F
Yes I am aware of Sun's efforts in this regard.
But Solaris (and Java) are far less complex than Windows licensing-wise.
For example, Java implements image codecs using Sun-written code.
While most of the Windows image, audio, and video codecs are licensed
from third parties (a quick dig through
From: Orlando Andico
Date: 04/10/2009 20:58
> > I am waiting for Microsoft to truly open source (as in GPL)
> Not possible. There is far too much third-party licensed code inside
> Windows that Microsoft doesn't have the right to redistribute.
> They would have to rip out this code and document h
Sabi ni Xander noong Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:35 PM:
> This is bordering OT, but...
IMHO, not entirely because ReactOS is GPL.
> ReactOS aims to be binary compatible with WIndows XP. They claim that
> the code is "cleanly reverse engineered" and is GPL'ed.
>
> Last time I looked, the UI still looks
This is bordering OT, but...
ReactOS aims to be binary compatible with WIndows XP. They claim that
the code is "cleanly reverse engineered" and is GPL'ed.
Last time I looked, the UI still looks like WIn98 :D
http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Pablo Manalastas
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Pablo Manalastas
wrote:
>
> --- On Thu, 4/9/09, Andy Sy wrote:
>
>> Microsoft, as of late, is also starting to "get" open source.
>
> I am waiting for Microsoft to truly open source (as in GPL)
> Windows XP. After all, they have discontinued support for it.
> Why
--- On Thu, 4/9/09, Andy Sy wrote:
> Microsoft, as of late, is also starting to "get" open source.
I am waiting for Microsoft to truly open source (as in GPL)
Windows XP. After all, they have discontinued support for it.
Why don't they just give Windows XP source code to the community?
Making i
On 4/9/09, Andy Sy wrote:
> Pablo Manlalastas wrote:
>
> > Sun will probably have the greatest contributions to the
> > free software community, with NFS, Java, OpenOffice, etc.
> > Next comes IBM with Eclipse, Apache, etc. Oracle and
>
> And yet IBM doesn't want to buy Sun to save it from
Pablo Manlalastas wrote:
> Sun will probably have the greatest contributions to the
> free software community, with NFS, Java, OpenOffice, etc.
> Next comes IBM with Eclipse, Apache, etc. Oracle and
And yet IBM doesn't want to buy Sun to save it from
impending doom... after IBM themselves hav
Yeah that's true I can't imagine what I'd be doing now if I had
access to Google and the info on the Intertubes back in 1994.
Oh wait there was internet in 1994, but information wasn't as
accessible as it is now.
But who's to deny the kids their fun? I'm sure our elders would say
the same thi
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 17:05, Miguel Paraz wrote:
> This is why I expect more about "kids of today" - they can connect to
> the community and join. But instead (rant mode on) they play MMOGs,
> spend time on SNS, etc.
I have the same sentiments.
_
P
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Orlando Andico wrote:
> People like Migs Paraz who worked on FreeRadius, did so because their
> work required it. However I didn't say local contributors are
> nonexistent, just quite rare.
One guy I've met who Did It For Fun(TM) is the one I mentioned
earlier, Rya
Yup and like I mentioned in the Oracle haters thread... Gerard has
moved to Canada.
Now I don't expect all open-source contributors to end up like Linus
and be gifted with $20M of Red Hat stock. However it does underscore
the fact that there's not enough support, and not enough reward, for
open-so
Rare yes, but not non-existent. Comes to mind is Gerard Paul Java formerly
of Mozcom Cebu for iptraf.I believe there are a few more contributors to
joomla/mambo etc.
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Orlando Andico wrote:
>
> It's quite rare to find Free contributors from poorer countries, I
> gu
>Author: Orlando Andico
>Date: 2009-04-03 14:01 +800
>Notice that even in the Linux kernel, a bulk of the original
>contributors were from Scandinavian countries which, even more than
>the US, provide for their citizens' needs. So they need not worry
>about pedestrian concerns like paying their re
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 3:23 AM, paul wrote:
> actually, AT&T never intended to make profit from
> UNIX in the beginning. i think the early development
> of UNIX was similar to linux. ken thompson wanted
> to play games (as a hobby) so he created an OS. AT&T
> did not tell ken to create UNIX so tha
I read an article somewhere... that it's socialist Western economies
which are most likely to produce these types of contributors.
Notice that even in the Linux kernel, a bulk of the original
contributors were from Scandinavian countries which, even more than
the US, provide for their citizens' ne
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Pablo Manalastas wrote:
> Don't we all wish that there were more Torvalds, Thompsons,
> Stallmans, Raymonds, etc out there, making this world a
> better place for all of us? Thank you Dr. Palmes for
> these insights.
and I'd like them to be Pinoys as well... but a
] Corporate contributions to free software (Pablo
> Manalastas)
> To: p...@lists.linux.org.phree
> Date: Friday, April 3, 2009, 3:23 AM
> hi,
>
> just my random thoughts
>
> actually, AT&T never intended to make profit from
> UNIX in the beginning. i think the early
hi,
just my random thoughts
actually, AT&T never intended to make profit from
UNIX in the beginning. i think the early development
of UNIX was similar to linux. ken thompson wanted
to play games (as a hobby) so he created an OS. AT&T
did not tell ken to create UNIX so that they can sell it.
i
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Pablo Manalastas
wrote:
..
> Prior to 1981, AT&T was only too glad to get contributions
> to the Unix source code from academe, specifically from
> UCBerkeley. They were not barred from selling hw and sw
> prior to 1981 because the court ruling came only in 1982
>
--- On Thu, 4/2/09, Orlando Andico wrote:
> And the reason why AT&T virtually gave away Unix prior
> to 1981, was
> specifically because they were barred from selling data
> processing
> equipment and software..
Prior to 1981, AT&T was only too glad to get contributions
to the Unix source code
hopefully IBM and Sun will get married and it will all remain free.
On 04 2, 09, at 6:29 PM, Miguel Paraz wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Orlando Andico
> wrote:
>> As a corollary to Doc Mana's last statement...
>>
>> It seems that so long as a piece of software is profitable, there
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Orlando Andico wrote:
> As a corollary to Doc Mana's last statement...
>
> It seems that so long as a piece of software is profitable, there is
> no incentive to Free it.
>
> Java, you may argue... but look at Sun struggling. They've never
> managed to monetize Java
As a corollary to Doc Mana's last statement...
It seems that so long as a piece of software is profitable, there is
no incentive to Free it.
Java, you may argue... but look at Sun struggling. They've never
managed to monetize Java effectively.
_
Phi
Further down on http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix/history_timeline.html
it mentions that 4.4BSD-Lite was specifically released, as 4.4BSD
without the encumbered code from AT&T Unix.
4.4BSD-Lite wouldn't even boot, due to two missing source files, so
Bill and Lynne Jolitz wrote those two files and
>From the first paragraph at
http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix/history_timeline.html
"Since it began to escape from AT&T's Bell Laboratories in the early
1970's, the success of the UNIX operating system has led to many
different versions: recipients of the (at that time free) UNIX system
code all b
Doc, that's the thing... after 1981, AT&T could sell Unix because they
had already agreed to break up into the Baby Bells, and thus the
constraint that they could not sell computers and software, was no
longer there..
But prior to 1981, virtually anyone could get a copy of Unix for the
cost of the
--- On Thu, 4/2/09, Orlando Andico wrote:
> My original contention was that although Unix was
> originally free (pre-1984) its freedom arose due to
> regulatory constraints on AT&T, and not because AT&T
> was being altruistic or was embracing open source.
I'm sorry, but Unix (even in its ear
My mistake. I didn't mean SysV as SysV came out in 1984, it was a
parallel development to 4.x BSD.
As for SCO's ancient unix program, that came way later:
AT&T -> Unix System Laboratories -> Novell -> Santa Cruz Operation
So from FreeBSD's point of view, BSD does contain System 6, 7, and 32V
co
>And I don't think 4.0BSD was completely SysV-code free. That's why
>there was a lawsuit in 1997 (?) which resulted in the settlement. Even
>Jolitz' 386BSD had to replace a couple of crucial files in 4.0BSD
>which were encumbered.
this article from the FreeBSD core team begs to disagree:
http://ww
Doc, SysV unix became commercial and closed after the AT&T breakup.
But prior to the breakup, as you yourself point out, "all UCB had to
do was copy the tape."
Bell Labs wouldn't let just anyone copy the tape if it wasn't de facto
open source. And the reason it was open source was because AT&T was
--- On Wed, 4/1/09, Orlando Andico wrote:
> but Bell Labs "shared" their innovations not out of
> altruism, but because the anti-trust settlement between
> AT&T and the US government forbade AT&T from selling
> any computers or software, so Bell Labs "gave away" the
> source code.
You got yo
Tito, that *is* true, but the baseline OS came from Bell Labs. If
there wasn't a baseline OS to enhance via DARPA grant
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Tito Mari Francis Escaño
wrote:
> I think this will be debateable since according to BSD history, UC Berkeley
> added innovations that becam
Unless of course it's April 1st today and you meant to humor the list once
in a while :)
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Tito Mari Francis Escaño <
titomarifran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this will be debateable since according to BSD history, UC Berkeley
> added innovations that became commo
I think this will be debateable since according to BSD history, UC Berkeley
added innovations that became common (should we say standard?) features of
Unix like service daemons, TCP/IP networking stack, and multi-(user,
tasking, processing, programming) as per DARPA grant.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 3:38 PM, paul wrote:
..
> i think the prime movers of these companies have big influence on this:
> Sun, Google, and Yahoo (Im not sure if yahoo has a good soul)
> founders are from stanford university so they carry with them their
> academic culture...
Hmmm.. so companies
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 3:38 PM, paul wrote:
> i think the prime movers of these companies have big influence on this:
> Sun, Google, and Yahoo (Im not sure if yahoo has a good soul)
> founders are from stanford university so they carry with them their
> academic culture...
Yahoo = YUI (BSD), Hado
hi,
> But my original statement about Sun and IBM, on the one hand,
> and Microsoft and Oracle on the other, holds water, and I believe,
> is a reflection on the difference in the corporate "souls" of
> these two groups.
>
> Pablo
i think the prime movers of these companies have big influence on
--- On Tue, 3/31/09, Jerome Gotangco wrote:
> Although not directly related to their business, Google
> also has SoC for the 5th year and giving out money as
> code bounties.
IBM is the corporate sponsor of the Regionals and World Finals
of the ACM international Collegiate Programming Contest
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Pablo Manalastas
wrote:
>
> Sun will probably have the greatest contributions to the free software
> community, with NFS, Java, OpenOffice, etc. Next comes IBM with
> Eclipse, Apache, etc. Oracle and Microsoft are probably the richest
> corporate software entitie
Doc,
That's an interesting comparison, because you are right -- Oracle and
Microsoft actually have similar strategies around open source.
IBM makes most of its revenue around services, software, and hardware.
Sun, from services and hardware sales.
While Oracle and MS have software as their core
Sun will probably have the greatest contributions to the free software
community, with NFS, Java, OpenOffice, etc. Next comes IBM with
Eclipse, Apache, etc. Oracle and Microsoft are probably the richest
corporate software entities, but their "give-away" software (not to
mention free and open sou
49 matches
Mail list logo
