Should the MSX community go open-source?

Page 2/2
1 |

By sjoerd

Hero (593)

sjoerd's picture

28-04-2003, 14:07

whahahahaha, you make me laugh sjoerd.I like it when people smile at me. Smile However I have not much to add to the other replies here...

What about *nix OS's??? are those communities still alive??? YES!!! Is cash involved ??? well, perhaps sometimes, but FREE is the base of those communities. The first thought that crossed my mind when reading your reply is: you are full of ignorance!!! I really pity you for posting such an worthless reply.Most Unix OSes are NOT free. You probably refer to Linux on PC, which only exists because of Microsoft and other very commercial companies who make software so that hardware can be sold. Without commercial software no hardware sales, exit Linux. And looking at the number of PC's in the world, the opensource communities are quite small.
Open source is very different from free, anyway. Computer systems do not survive by giving software away...
But I have to agree my reply was worthless. Smile

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get real. There are no communities that survive on an open-source basis. Computer systems survive as long as there is money involved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm... to get back to MSX a bit; I strongly disagree with this! We (Team Bomba) really aren't into it for the money, there's no money to be made with MSX anyways. We only do it for our own fun and just try to let as many people as possible play the game!
The question here is: 'How many people does it take for a computersystem to be alive?'

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (109)

anonymous's picture

28-04-2003, 15:12

The question here is: 'How many people does it take for a computersystem to be alive?' One could argue a computersystem is only 'alive' when it has a 'soul', like MSX Smile

By Bart

Paragon (1423)

Bart's picture

28-04-2003, 17:05

I'd like to add to the "*nix being free part".

Although most linux distro's are free, companies intentionally keep the end-user away from ***GOOD*** and full documentation. You can argue that enough books and sites are available, but then my question is: why is RedHat on the NasDaQ making millions of dollars??? So what's free in the end?

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (109)

anonymous's picture

28-04-2003, 17:35

Did you see what Micro$oft charges for documentation? It's not unique to *nix at all.

By Bart

Paragon (1423)

Bart's picture

28-04-2003, 23:29

Did you see what Micro$oft charges for documentation? It's not unique to *nix at all.

Where did you see me write that it's unique to *nix?

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (109)

anonymous's picture

29-04-2003, 16:13

I didn't. I'm just saying that Micro$oft is doing it too, and that way making double money.

By snout

Ascended (15187)

snout's picture

29-04-2003, 16:31

that's one of the problems open-source has imho

Open-source isn't about programs being available for free. Why blame someone or a company for charging money for a program he spent hours and hours coding? It's about the SOURCES, the INFORMATION ON HOW TO CODE being available for free. And, IMHO the MSX and the 'opensource community' could benifit more from well-documented information and bits of code combined with in-depth articles than from large bits of badly documented spaghetticode.

Page 2/2
1 |