Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

justinkterry.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 75 posts

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#61

Post by dogma1138 »

b4ux1t3 wrote: post #60
asfdsfggtfd wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is largely a subjective matter, It just isn't subjective. "Open Source" is a technical term with a clear well understood meaning.

It is a technical term defined by a bunch of people who got together and agreed that their opinions (however educated they may be) are more correct than other people's. That's extremely subjective, and not universally accepted. Technical terms have definitions that transcend the opinions of people who use them. When I say "byte", everyone knows exactly what I mean, as it's a unit of measurement. When I say "agile", i…

That's how definitions work. The fact that you ignore one doesn't make you more thoughtful or insightful it just makes you look like a special snowflake.

Your example is also incorrect because I'll assume you think that a Byte is 8 bits but technically it's not, it's an arrangement of bits a byte can be 0-255bits, it was common to have non 8bit bytes in the past.

The 8 bit byte was set by a specific ISO standard and later by IEEE but it's defined as 8 bits only within those standards.

Agile also has a definition if nothing else because you have bodies and various foundations promoting a specific implementation of it.

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#62

Post by b4ux1t3 »

dogma1138 wrote: post #61
b4ux1t3 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a technical term defined by a bunch of people who got together and agreed that their opinions (however educated they may be) are more correct than other people's. That's extremely subjective, and not universally accepted. Technical terms have definitions that transcend the opinions of people who use them. When I say "byte", everyone knows exactly what I mean, as it's a unit of measurement. When I say "agile", i…

That's how definitions work. The fact that you ignore one doesn't make you more thoughtful or insightful it just makes you look like a special snowflake. Your example is also incorrect because I'll assume you think that a Byte is 8 bits but technically it's not, it's an arrangement of bits a byte can be 0-255bits, it was common to have non 8bit bytes in the past. The 8 bit byte was set by a specific ISO standard and…

I'm not ignoring or disagreeing with anything. There's no need to be a dick. I'm just saying that there are conflicting "definitions" out there.

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#63

Post by dogma1138 »

b4ux1t3 wrote: post #62
dogma1138 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how definitions work. The fact that you ignore one doesn't make you more thoughtful or insightful it just makes you look like a special snowflake. Your example is also incorrect because I'll assume you think that a Byte is 8 bits but technically it's not, it's an arrangement of bits a byte can be 0-255bits, it was common to have non 8bit bytes in the past. The 8 bit byte was set by a specific ISO standard and…

I'm not ignoring or disagreeing with anything. There's no need to be a dick. I'm just saying that there are conflicting "definitions" out there.

I'm not trying to be a dick, there aren't "conflicting" definitions, at least not on the subject of source code redistribution.

"Open Source" has a specific definition that is the one from the OSI.

https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

Any conflicts that exist are not conflicts in the definition of Open Source, but are different definitions for different terms which is why the terms open-source software and free and open-source software exist.

This isn't a subjective matter, this is a very well defined term, if nothing else because OSS and FOSS software is used in the industry including in commercial products this requires the definitions and the licenses to be very very specific to meet legal and regulatory requirements.

So while you can say there are different software licenses to meet the requirements of being Open Source it needs to meet the definitions set by the OSI which are in general mean that the source code must be available, that the distribution is not restricted in any way which usually means that it's distributed under a free and non-discriminatory license agreement.

You may chose not the follow this definition but this doesn't mean that this is a correct action, this is no more subjective than the definition of a kilogram. Definitions exist for a reason and that is to remove ambiguity, if ambiguity exists its either because there is no definition or consensus which is clearly not the case with Open Source Software.

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#64

Post by b4ux1t3 »

dogma1138 wrote: post #63
b4ux1t3 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not ignoring or disagreeing with anything. There's no need to be a dick. I'm just saying that there are conflicting "definitions" out there.

I'm not trying to be a dick, there aren't "conflicting" definitions, at least not on the subject of source code redistribution. "Open Source" has a specific definition that is the one from the OSI. https://opensource.org/osd-annotated Any conflicts that exist are not conflicts in the definition of Open Source, but are different definitions for different terms which is why the terms open-source software and free and o…

> "Open Source" has a specific definition that is the one from the _OSI_

Emphasis mine.

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#65

Post by dogma1138 »

b4ux1t3 wrote: post #64
dogma1138 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to be a dick, there aren't "conflicting" definitions, at least not on the subject of source code redistribution. "Open Source" has a specific definition that is the one from the OSI. https://opensource.org/osd-annotated Any conflicts that exist are not conflicts in the definition of Open Source, but are different definitions for different terms which is why the terms open-source software and free and o…

> "Open Source" has a specific definition that is the one from the _OSI_ Emphasis mine.

And? Kilogram has a definition if you take the one from NIST it will follow the one defined by the CGS system.

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#66

Post by uoaei »

youdontknowtho wrote: post #23
occultist_throw wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The longer I go in computing, the more I see that Stallman was, and is right. Last month, I joined the FSF. I find that great parts of my livelihood are thanks in part to his efforts in computing, law, and rights.

I disagree. The majority of money that generated the electronic boom were from defense spending. I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I personally don't find what he is doing to be effective in a sense larger than the personal interest of a user of a device that wouldn't exist if it weren't for the nuclear state. I mean to say, is Raytheon's freedom to use a compiler as important as individual freedom? There are some…

It seems you are approaching this topic from the perspective that technological progress is of most value.

For others, ethical progress--that is, technological progress that does not impede on human rights--is of higher value than technological progress alone.

>[I]s Raytheon's freedom to use a compiler as important as individual freedom?

"As important" is a distraction: comparing degrees of importance with respect to rights and freedoms will always be a rabbit hole into which you will get lost as you differentiate infinitesimal cases in context. Freedom is freedom, and if humans are allowed that, that is enough.

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#67

Post by asfdsfggtfd »

b4ux1t3 wrote: post #54
matz1 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, when hear the term open source the first thing that come in mind is that the source is readable, thats it nothing else is implied. That being said, oher entities/organization might have their own definition. I'm sure there are many people who use the term open source like mine.

You're not alone. I'm of the mind that it doesn't matter what the license, state of the source, or whatever, I'm here to get things done, not quibble over trivialities and semantics. When I can see the source for something, I call it open source. If the OSI has a problem with that, I invite them to explain to me how my definition affects their goals in any way, shape, or form. I like the OSI. I use a lot of stuff tha…

> not quibble over trivialities and semantics

I recommend just using the definitions of things correctly then :) much easier that trying to persuade other people that the definition does not exist.

When cooking I use the kilogram as defined by the SI system - I don't use some other random mass that I call a kilogram.

Similarly with software legalities. I also just use the standard terminology so other people e.g. my company's legal department gets the correct inference of what I am talking about. If you use it to mean something else you will confuse them.

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#68

Post by matz1 »

asfdsfggtfd wrote: post #58
matz1 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, when hear the term open source the first thing that come in mind is that the source is readable, thats it nothing else is implied. That being said, oher entities/organization might have their own definition. I'm sure there are many people who use the term open source like mine.

Lots of people get technical language wrong much the time. This is fine. Normally one does not correct heavily because one is polite. When one hears someone starting to spread the mistake one feels a duty to correct to prevent further misinformation. This is tedious but still fine. What is not fine is when the person using the technical language wrong starts explaining that their ignorance is better than other people…

Right or wrong is relative, I agree if you believe its wrong then it should be your duty to correct it, and so does the other people you deemed wrong.

For me its not ignorance, I am aware of both definition, I just prefer one better than other.

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#69

Post by sigi45 »

cliffy wrote: post #52
d44m wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is your Android, iOS, macOS and every linux flavour out there. What's so special about Windows being insecure?

Closed-source just ups the uncertainty about security. I'm not saying open source is a panacea, but I think in general it increases certainty about security to some extent.

You remember the OpenSSL debacle?

Re: An Argument for Why Windows Will Go Open Source

#70

Post by matz1 »

asfdsfggtfd wrote: post #67
b4ux1t3 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not alone. I'm of the mind that it doesn't matter what the license, state of the source, or whatever, I'm here to get things done, not quibble over trivialities and semantics. When I can see the source for something, I call it open source. If the OSI has a problem with that, I invite them to explain to me how my definition affects their goals in any way, shape, or form. I like the OSI. I use a lot of stuff tha…

> not quibble over trivialities and semantics I recommend just using the definitions of things correctly then :) much easier that trying to persuade other people that the definition does not exist. When cooking I use the kilogram as defined by the SI system - I don't use some other random mass that I call a kilogram. Similarly with software legalities. I also just use the standard terminology so other people e.g. my…

Correct or not is relative, its a matter of which definition you subscribe to. Using the term Open source as source is available is not just random. Apparently many people including developer use it that way. I think its fault of OSI to use such common words to define something so specific.
Post reply on HN