Originally posted by sage45
Ok, before I comment on anything that you posted, please go back and read my whole post rather than the parts that you want to see or dont want to see... If you do that your own questions will be answered...
I did read your whole post,I even quoted your whole post (broken up in parts ofcourse)...
Nowhere did I say that anything in any of the *nix based OS's cost a single penny nor did I make a reference to cost association... Secondly, I did and I quote say "All of the *nix based os's do not have the same functionality built-in... In other words, you can take and either create your own changes to the kernel, as with GNU/Linux, or use an add-on program to accomplish... But from the base, the novice to beginner would not be able to accomplish this..." In other words, I was admitting to some of the same functionality that Microsoft has incorporated being built-in to some of but not all of the *nix based OS's/Kernel's...
I am not sure what you want to say,not all of the MS Windows kernels have the same functionality.The win32 API changed overtime.For example:programs that use the translucent windows function will only work in MS Windows "XP" and 2000 for example.Furthermore,the behaviour of some functions changed too,so that the programs using it will not behave the same under diferent Window's.The SetForegroundWindow function for examples changed between Windows 95 and 98 and then it got a diferent behaviour again in Windows XP.
I could also give you a really really long list of things that the Linux or Hurd kernel can do and the MS WIndows kernel can't.
HUH??? Did you not grasp the concept of what I was pointing out??? Again, nothing about price or cost was mentioned... Let me try another explanation... *nix based operating system's, by way of their open source licenses, allow for people (of any knowledge level) to re-write the base code of the kernel/OS... In this way, it allows for to many variable's in an equation of "How do I make my software compatible with your Operating System and garuntee that it will run safely on said Operating System?"
We are misunderstaning eachother here.
No it doesn't,you can't talk about *nix OS'.They are all really diferent,and not made by the same people,so you can't say all the *nix OS' are this and that.We are talking about GNU/Linux and WIndows here,and actually no distribution has changed the OS that much that it is incompatibable with the others.If someone is nuts,he/she can ofcourse mutilate the OS enough to make it incompatible,but you have to be stupid to do this.
Now as for the last part of that comment of yours... Stable yes, secure no... We will not see eye to eye on this one because the first thing you are going to say is "why do people constantly hack blah blah..."
How can you know what I am going to say?Stop saying such childish things.
Btw,I think that you mean crack?
First of all, there is no perfect lock, we can at least agree on that... A *nix based OS can be hacked just as easily as a Microsoft based OS... The main problem here is that there are currently more systems with Microsoft available (making them the big fish) and if I am any sort of an angler, I will always go after the big fish... If that doesn't make sense how about this one, my hacking or exposing flaws or creating virii for any OS other than a Microsoft based OS would be like a bank robber robbing a quick trip/convenience store/gas station that is sitting right next to the largest bank in the country...
Well,you are ofcourse right about this,because since their monopoly forces the majority of the people to use it,it will have more crackers and scriptkiddies and they can do more damage since more people use it.But MS Windows is simply way too insecure and can be cracked that easily (hell,there is even an application which lets you type in someones IP address and you get acces to his/her hard disk.I havent seen such an app for GNU/Linux...).Further,have you ever wondered why there are no viruses at all for GNU/Linux and millions for Windows??
You love that phrase don't you??? I never said that a person should not pay for the support, but what I am saying is that the support will be either:
A.) Very Costly
or
B.) Very Limited
Let me explain something, yes, because of our capitalistic society, everyone wants to make a buck, however, if a company can buy a piece of software and get garunteed support over paying someone to create a program with little to no support then nine times out of ten, then that company will most likely pay for the software...
I apologize if I overused some phrase.
What you are saying is illogical;Why would support be very costly?The fact is that it isn't,and you should check things before you post them.
If you buy a distribution like lets say Suse,then you will get support with that (I can know,because I bought Suse once and used their help thingy).I paid like 20 euro for a whole OS (Suse) and got support with that.Windows costs hundreds of euros...Ofcourse,if you download Suse without paying,then you can't expect to get support (the people have to earn money).
Do you know what being sarcastic means???
No,what is that?
Anywho, Mac's may only hold a 1% of the market but that is for different reasons... They are not more expensive... And finally, the hardware that is currently used is not that different from a pc compatible system the only difference is the processor, but that does not mean that they cannot have a *nix based OS installed on them... With the right drivers you can put a *nix based OS on an apple with no problem's... The reason that a Windows Based OS would fight you is because of the Processor... Apples use a Motorola Processor which uses a different base code whereas Intel uses the x86 codeset...
Hmmm,I believe they are,but then again the latest Macs have the latest hardware,which is expensive with other computers as well.
I know that you can run GNU/Linux on Mac (there was a thread about this recently too).Even better,Mac Os X = a unix.But most of the GNU/Linux applications are meant for the other architecture.
I agree with you whole heartedly, but let me pose this to you... You even yourself said that you do not know how, right??? Well, does that mean that you don't want to learn or know how??? I think not...
I know how to contribute code to opensource/free projects,just I can't write that code myself because I am not a good programmer yet (I am still learning C/C++).
One true thing that is allowed by modifying the source code is the same thing that has allowed the web to flourish in the way that it has, expanded learning... However, the web too has rules... You cannot modify the source of the web to create your own web sites but rather you have to follow guidelines and use a specific set of instructions (if you were able to, then noone would be able to access your website unless they used a browser that was compatible with your website)...
Now, lets be real, no I would not purchase a vehicle that had my hood wielded shut, but in accordance with my statement, anyone who wielded the hood shut would not be able to provide good support themselves as they would have locked themselves out of solving any problems as well... You may also come along and retort by saying, "Microsofts support is carpy..." in an attempt to further prove your point or embarass me... However, Microsoft's support is not carpy because the hood is wielded shut, to use your analogy, but rather they have 10million cars lined up outside of a one car garage and it takes them 10weeks to fix a minor problem with the cooling system but what they end up doing is changing the windshield wipers... This is what I and everyone else do not like about Microsoft... But I understand that by your statement you are trying to say that I cannot or would not be able access the kernel for a windows based OS... The only problem is that you can access it... You are (by license) not allowed to change/modify or redistribute... You can however, reverse engineer it to find out how it was created or how they did what they did... But because you cannot modify or redistribute it, you cannot use the reverse engineered product... This all allows for a compatibility, so that they can say to the people creating programs for windows, when you throw this at the OS this is what you will get...
-sage- [/B]
Actually,what I meant was not to emberass you,but to make clear that if I had a problem with Windows,I can't fix it myself,while with GNU/Linux I could for example recompile the kernel with the options I want.Microsofts forces you to buy their OS,but then doesn't allow you fix problems yourself (and there are plenty of security and stability issues in Windows which one would like to fix),hence forcing you to depend on Microsoft for help.
Reverse engeneering is maybe possible,but it doesn't even come near having the sourcecode.You can't do all the stuff that you can if you have the sourcecode.Now lets assume that you could and you fixed all the stability and security issues in Windows,what use would it be if you couldn't redistribute it?With Linux,I could submit the fixed code and it would be included in the next version,making Linux much better.