Jump to content


Photo

Open Source


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Eraserheads

Eraserheads

    Immortal Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 375 posts

Posted 29 August 2006 - 06:23 AM

Open Source? What the hell is this? :P Any Idea? Pls share... :lol:

#2 WarXchild

WarXchild

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,603 posts

Posted 29 August 2006 - 11:18 AM

are you seriously asking what Open Source is? :P

#3 Thy mushroom

Thy mushroom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 29 August 2006 - 03:34 PM

I think he is...

Anyway, Open source just means that the source code used to create the program you are running is available to view and edit, assuming you know what your doing.

...:P

#4 WarXchild

WarXchild

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,603 posts

Posted 29 August 2006 - 07:36 PM

In addition to TM's summary definition above, here is the long version:

The "open source" label came out of a strategy session[3] held at Palo Alto in reaction to Netscape's January 1998 announcement of a source code release for Navigator. The group of individuals at the session included Christine Peterson who suggested "open source" and also included Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, and Eric S. Raymond. They used the opportunity before the release of Navigator's source code to clarify a potential confusion caused by the ambiguity of the word free in English, so that the perception of free software is not anti-commercial. Netscape listened and released their code as open source under the name of Mozilla.

The term was given a big boost at an event organized in April 1998 by technology publisher Tim O'Reilly. Originally titled the "Freeware Summit" and later known as the "Open Source Summit"[4], the event brought together the leaders of many of the most important free and open source projects, including Linus Torvalds, Larry Wall, Brian Behlendorf, Eric Allman, Guido van Rossum, Michael Tiemann, Paul Vixie, Jamie Zawinski of Netscape, and Eric Raymond. At that meeting, the confusion caused by the name "free software" was brought up. Tiemann argued for "sourceware" as a new term, while Raymond argued for "open source." The assembled developers took a vote, and the winner was announced at a press conference that evening.

This milestone may be commonly seen as the birth of the open source movement. However, earlier researchers with access to the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) used a process called Request for Comments, which is similar to open standards, to develop telecommunication network protocols. Characterized by contemporary open source work, this collaborative process led to the birth of the Internet in 1969.

The Open Source Initiative formed in February 1998 by Eric S. Raymond and Bruce Perens. With about 20 years of evidence from case histories of closed development versus open development already provided by the Internet, the OSI continued to present the 'open source' case to commercial businesses. They sought to bring a higher profile to the practical benefits of freely available source code, and they wanted to bring major software businesses and other high-tech industries into open source. Bruce Perens adapted Debian's Free Software Guidelines to make the Open Source Definition. [5]

Critics have said that the term "open source" fosters an ambiguity of a different kind, in that it confuses the mere availability of the source with the freedom to use, modify, and redistribute it. Developers have used the term Free/Open-Source Software (FOSS), or Free/Libre/Open-Source Software (FLOSS), consequently, to describe open-source software that is freely available and free of charge.

Source: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Opensource

#5 engines

engines

    Immortal Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts

Posted 29 August 2006 - 10:16 PM

In addition to TM's summary definition above, here is the long version:


Source: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Opensource


Might be the long version but the corect one :P good piece WarXchild

#6 Eraserheads

Eraserheads

    Immortal Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 375 posts

Posted 30 August 2006 - 01:55 AM

Open source is quite interesting... I think microsoft is ready to go with the open source policy... :P

#7 WarXchild

WarXchild

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,603 posts

Posted 30 August 2006 - 03:43 AM

Open source is quite interesting... I think microsoft is ready to go with the open source policy... :P


hehe not in a million years :lol:

#8 Eraserheads

Eraserheads

    Immortal Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 375 posts

Posted 30 August 2006 - 07:12 AM

I heard they really doing the open source policy and I think it was supposed to be the Vista Edition. :P

#9 engines

engines

    Immortal Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts

Posted 30 August 2006 - 09:28 AM

Open source is quite interesting... I think microsoft is ready to go with the open source policy... :P


OH!!! and pigs might fly!!!

#10 Eraserheads

Eraserheads

    Immortal Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 375 posts

Posted 30 August 2006 - 02:01 PM

Hahaha.... You dont believe me... do you? :P

#11 WarXchild

WarXchild

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,603 posts

Posted 30 August 2006 - 04:47 PM

Hahaha.... You dont believe me... do you? :lol:


my crystal ball tells me....... NO! :P

#12 Thy mushroom

Thy mushroom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 30 August 2006 - 11:01 PM

IS this what your referring to ?

http://www.gamasutra...php?story=10691

#13 engines

engines

    Immortal Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts

Posted 31 August 2006 - 12:24 PM

Hahaha.... You dont believe me... do you? :P

nope not at all - you have as much chance as seeing the pigs fly as to see M$ go to open source.

#14 Eraserheads

Eraserheads

    Immortal Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 375 posts

Posted 02 September 2006 - 02:35 AM

Microsoft's two existing open-source projects have used a type of open-source license from IBM called the CPL, or common public license, which some companies tend to favor because it clearly delineates some critical ground rules for an open-source technology's use. Analysts say that choice of license shows that Microsoft takes issue not as much with the broader open-source concept as with the GPL, a different type of open-source license used for Linux and other programs.

#15 WarXchild

WarXchild

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,603 posts

Posted 02 September 2006 - 03:28 AM

Microsoft's two existing open-source projects have used a type of open-source license from IBM called the CPL, or common public license, which some companies tend to favor because it clearly delineates some critical ground rules for an open-source technology's use. Analysts say that choice of license shows that Microsoft takes issue not as much with the broader open-source concept as with the GPL, a different type of open-source license used for Linux and other programs.


Microsoft released Windows Installer XML , Windows Template Library and FlexWiki under CPL, those are hardly 0.0001% of Microsoft's business, nor are they core elements. Mr.Bush gives $1 per month to charity, he is yet to win an award for his kindness. So umm, ya... Microsoft is not ready to go with Open Source, they are ready to throw away silly little projects at it :P

#16 crimsonblood

crimsonblood

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts

Posted 07 September 2006 - 02:22 AM

:P

Edited by crimsonblood, 07 September 2006 - 07:02 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users