I have been, in the past distinguishing Original and Chipset motherboard.
The former is described as one with Chipsets (on the motherboard) manufactured by Intel themselves along with the board. So, if I say, Intel Original Motherboard, I mean the motherboard, along with the chipsets on it, are manufactured by Intel.
The latter is described as one with Chipsets (on the motherboard) manufactured by Intel, but the motherboard manufactured by a third party such as HIS, VIA, Gigabyte, MSI etc.
Am I correct?
The cost of VIA, HIS, Gigabyte etc. is compartively less.
I have understood them this way, as this is a colloquial followed by most vendors at Lamington Road :).
Please correct me if I am using terms wrongly.
To be slightly on topic, have Linux distro users on this list, used motherboads manufactured by HIS, VIA,etc. (Not many have replied to Mr. Rony's question of compatible motherboard)
-- http://www.linuxreality.com (Podcasts also for LINUX USERS)
__________________________________________________________ Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new http://in.answers.yahoo.com/
I use his chipset. I also use via chipset and both work well with gnu/linux. regards. Krishnakant.
On Wednesday 11 October 2006 11:57, Roshan wrote:
To be slightly on topic, have Linux distro users on this list, used motherboads manufactured by HIS, VIA,etc. (Not many have replied to Mr. Rony's question of compatible motherboard)
Yeah, my old P4 1.8 box has a HIS mobo with a VIA chipset. Worked just fine. Even this Sempron64 box has an MSI mobo with VIA chipset. Those VIA chipsets are cheap and fit my purpose very well.
The only glitch I have with this new mobo, is that the Unichrome chip wasn't properly supported by Xorg. I think the drivers have improved with Xorg 7. But by the time that came out, I had put in an NVIDIA card anyway...
Sometime on Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 12:20:07PM +0530, Mrugesh Karnik said:
The only glitch I have with this new mobo, is that the Unichrome chip wasn't properly supported by Xorg. I think the drivers have improved with Xorg 7.
S3 Unichrome card works perfectly with Xorg7, the one that comes with Ubuntu Dapper :)
Anurag
On Wednesday 11 October 2006 11:57, Roshan wrote:
I have been, in the past distinguishing Original and Chipset motherboard.
The former is described as one with Chipsets (on the motherboard) manufactured by Intel themselves along with the board. So, if I say, Intel Original Motherboard, I mean the motherboard, along with the chipsets on it, are manufactured by Intel.
No. Intel does not "manufacture" motherboards. They outsource the manufacturing of the mobo.
It hardly makes a diff to the kernel. All that matters is the chipset.
jtd wrote:
No. Intel does not "manufacture" motherboards. They outsource the manufacturing of the mobo.
It hardly makes a diff to the kernel. All that matters is the chipset.
I have noticed in Mercury 845 mobos that display does not go beyond 640 x 480. I even tried out different live cds at different places, but other 845 machines give very good results.
Regards,
Rony.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On Wednesday 11 October 2006 21:20, Rony wrote:
I have noticed in Mercury 845 mobos that display does not go beyond 640 x 480. I even tried out different live cds at different places, but other 845 machines give very good results.
Mercury 845 works at 1024x768 without problems. I have quite a few of them at various places. u will have to modprobe i830 (check /lib/modules for the right name). And the x driver is i810. Also add the right frequency and resolution in XF86Config-4 - particularly in debian.
Roshan wrote:
To be slightly on topic, have Linux distro users on this list, used motherboads manufactured by HIS, VIA,etc. (Not many have replied to Mr. Rony's question of compatible motherboard)
Except for Devdas who is not a follower of GNU, no other supporter of 'freedom' , 'open source', 'gnu' and 'gpl' gave any details of the motherboards they used for their clients. When it comes to some else's fruits of labour, its freedom and open source but when it comes to opening the source code of their own fruits of labour, they clam up. Then you get a lot of advice but not the actual information you are looking for.
Thats why I had asked that question and I ask again....
How many freedom fighters on this list actually own commercial software companies and how many of these software companies are making non-customized software that can be used by everyone *and* , are the source codes of these non-customized softwares available to everyone on the internet under the gpl?
Sorry for hijacking your thread. My apologies.
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________ Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
On 11/10/06 21:59 +0530, Rony wrote:
Roshan wrote:
To be slightly on topic, have Linux distro users on this list, used motherboads manufactured by HIS, VIA,etc. (Not many have replied to Mr. Rony's question of compatible motherboard)
Except for Devdas who is not a follower of GNU, no other supporter of 'freedom' , 'open source', 'gnu' and 'gpl' gave any details of the motherboards they used for their clients. When it comes to some else's
s/client/employer/. Said employer requires support contracts and *immediate* response time. Downtime would make headines.
fruits of labour, its freedom and open source but when it comes to opening the source code of their own fruits of labour, they clam up. Then you get a lot of advice but not the actual information you are looking for.
Quite a few of us don't _own_ companies (yet). I know a few people who do, but again, they make their living by consulting and not by selling hardware. I know that one of them gets clients *only* because his code is GPLed (His clients insist on the code being available and modifiable).
Devdas Bhagat
Sometime on Wednesday 11 October 2006 21:59, Rony said:
How many freedom fighters on this list actually own commercial software companies and how many of these software companies are making non-customized software that can be used by everyone *and* , are the source codes of these non-customized softwares available to everyone on the internet under the gpl?
While several of us contribute to gpl projects, I dont think anyone from this list makes retail software. I may be wrong also.
Anurag
On 11-Oct-06, at 11:59 PM, Anurag wrote:
While several of us contribute to gpl projects, I dont think anyone from this list makes retail software. I may be wrong also.
i do - but dont have many customers - and the software is up under the GPL
On 10/11/06, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Except for Devdas who is not a follower of GNU, no other supporter of 'freedom' , 'open source', 'gnu' and 'gpl' gave any details of the motherboards they used for their clients. When it comes to some else's fruits of labour, its freedom and open source but when it comes to opening the source code of their own fruits of labour, they clam up. Then you get a lot of advice but not the actual information you are looking for.
I strongly object to the above para Rony. Me and many others have given you our hardware info running Linux. I do not have any "clients" and probably for others it is the same. So we offered you all the info available with us without holding back anything.
You might be looking for very specific information from other business owners. But then do not blame all the "supporter of 'freedom' , 'open source', 'gnu' and 'gpl'" I expect an apology from you.
Thats why I had asked that question and I ask again....
How many freedom fighters on this list actually own commercial software companies and how many of these software companies are making non-customized software that can be used by everyone *and* , are the source codes of these non-customized softwares available to everyone on the internet under the gpl?
There are millions out there who think closed source is the only successful business model. How many of them actually own commercial software companies?? I don't understand the point you are making.
How about starting your own software company and writing a closed source Auto-CAD software which would be a successful market leader. Sirf khayaali khichdi pakaana chhod do Rony.
The bottom line as jtd pointed out in other thread is, being successful in business takes more than just opening or closing your code.
Aseem Rane wrote:
On 10/11/06, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Except for Devdas who is not a follower of GNU, no other supporter of 'freedom' , 'open source', 'gnu' and 'gpl' gave any details of the motherboards they used for their clients. When it comes to some else's fruits of labour, its freedom and open source but when it comes to opening the source code of their own fruits of labour, they clam up. Then you get a lot of advice but not the actual information you are looking for.
I strongly object to the above para Rony. Me and many others have given you our hardware info running Linux. I do not have any "clients" and probably for others it is the same. So we offered you all the info available with us without holding back anything.
Nothing personal. Read my original request for mobos. It was a request to those who *had* clients and regularly installed linux workstations for them. If you do not fall in that category, why feel upset. I had already thanked everyone for giving information on self-owned mobos.
You might be looking for very specific information from other business owners. But then do not blame all the "supporter of 'freedom' , 'open source', 'gnu' and 'gpl'" I expect an apology from you.
Again it does not apply to you. It is those business owners who withheld information about their trade secrets on hardware they use for clients and then supporting freedom of information on others' labour of writing code ( foss vs closed) . I am not against holding back information that someone has painstaking collected over the years through hard work. But then they should give this freedom to others too. I was surprised that none of the total freedom supporters reprimanded the fanatic who tried to take away this freedom from his ideological opponent. Only one person stood up. Freedom is a 2 way process.
Thats why I had asked that question and I ask again....
How many freedom fighters on this list actually own commercial software companies and how many of these software companies are making non-customized software that can be used by everyone *and* , are the source codes of these non-customized softwares available to everyone on the internet under the gpl?
There are millions out there who think closed source is the only successful business model. How many of them actually own commercial software companies?? I don't understand the point you are making.
How about starting your own software company and writing a closed source Auto-CAD software which would be a successful market leader. Sirf khayaali khichdi pakaana chhod do Rony.
Khayali or not, if I make a CAD software, I will not open its source code.
The bottom line as jtd pointed out in other thread is, being successful in business takes more than just opening or closing your code.
I personally feel that FOSS or GNU or GPL whatever you call it, will not survive in the retail sector. Thats why from the responses to my question it is clear that hardly anyone on this list is doing a roaring business in foss retail software. Customizing GPled software is one of the very successful business strategies but in retail, one cannot survive by letting others know your code. GNU/FOSS/GPL is a social service to the user community. Thats why most FOSS softwares are called 'projects' not commercial ventures. Even their websites have .org as their url. In retail software I feel there are only 2 ways to sell it. One through closed source and make money on the copies sold or *Institutional* commercial grade support to the programmers who take pains ( not voluntary work ) to write the FOSS code and let it be open for everyone. That way they make good money writing the code and the people benefit from free as in beer or low cost software. The pros. will give customized versions to corporates and make good money on support. The copy cats will loose out because the software is already available for free/low cost in its best form.
My question was meant to be incisive. If it has hurt anybodys' feelings then my apologies to them all. The whole issue is about giving the foss retail programmer his commercial due for writing the retail foss code that benefits all of us. It started with a comment on how a foss creator will make money.
Regards,
Rony.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On 10/12/06, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Nothing personal. Read my original request for mobos. It was a request to those who *had* clients and regularly installed linux workstations for them. If you do not fall in that category, why feel upset.
Go read your *original* request. It does not asks inputs only from "those who *had* clients and regularly installed linux workstations for them." So I guess I am justified in feeling upset.
I had
already thanked everyone for giving information on self-owned mobos.
I would highly appreciate if you can guide me to this mail thanking everyone.
I expect an apology from you.
Again it does not apply to you.
I feel it does apply to me and still expect an apology from you.
I personally feel that FOSS or GNU or GPL whatever you call it, will not
survive in the retail sector.
FOSS not only survives but is in top few slots in many categories. Probably you mean FOSS cannot make obscene money in retail sector. I hope you see the difference.
The whole issue is about giving the foss retail programmer his commercial due for writing the retail foss code that benefits all of us. It started with a comment on how a foss creator will make money.
If you are good enough to write a CAD software on your own, I am sure many companies will hire you to write FOSS software. I am yet to come across a good FOSS programmer who is commercially not successful. But on second thought probably you are right. Making obscene money is not the sole primary motive for many Free Software developers. It is all about building a better society as I understand it. Be careful, people supporting Open Source might not have this view. So if you are motivated only by money and do not know how to do it with FOSS then asking around how to do it will be of little help.
PS: Don't forget to read your original request and do show me the thanking mail
Aseem Rane wrote:
On 10/12/06, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Nothing personal. Read my original request for mobos. It was a request to those who *had* clients and regularly installed linux workstations for them. If you do not fall in that category, why feel upset.
Go read your *original* request. It does not asks inputs only from "those who *had* clients and regularly installed linux workstations for them." So I guess I am justified in feeling upset.
I have later clarified in the next posts on the same thread...."My query was not related to an install how-to but to know what hardware is being used by the experts for their business. While everyone is giving details of their own hardware, what I would like to know is the motherboards used for customers' workstations. The reason is that for self owned hardware, a lot of time is available to experiment and it is purchased only once. There are many big players on this list, who install 50, 100 or more systems at a stretch in big companies and the hardware used will have to be one that requires minimum setup time. It is this hardware detail that I am looking for, from the last six months. I would highly appreciate if the big players can provide these details, at least for 5 latest mobos used for their clients. "
I had
already thanked everyone for giving information on self-owned mobos.
I would highly appreciate if you can guide me to this mail thanking everyone.
"All your inputs are most welcome. What I am observing is that linux experts/gurus are not parting with information of the hardware they use. Its is as if its top secret. I wonder why. "
I feel it does apply to me and still expect an apology from you.
How does this statement involve you to upset you? "Except for Devdas who is not a follower of GNU, no other supporter of 'freedom' , 'open source', 'gnu' and 'gpl' gave any details of the motherboards they used for their clients." You don't have clients so stop getting fanatic. Thats the problem with GNU guys and I make this assumption after reading the entire thread.
I personally feel that FOSS or GNU or GPL whatever you call it, will not
survive in the retail sector.
FOSS not only survives but is in top few slots in many categories.
Like? ( In retail sales volume please ).
Probably you mean FOSS cannot make obscene money in retail sector. I hope you see the difference.
What is obscene money?
The whole issue is about giving the foss retail programmer his commercial due for writing the retail foss code that benefits all of us. It started with a comment on how a foss creator will make money.
If you are good enough to write a CAD software on your own, I am sure many companies will hire you to write FOSS software. I am yet to come across a good FOSS programmer who is commercially not successful.
In the retail software segment? Having his own company? I already asked the question to this list and I got the information I wanted.
But on second thought probably you are right. Making obscene money is not the sole primary motive for many Free Software developers. It is all about building a better society as I understand it. Be careful, people supporting Open Source might not have this view. So if you are motivated only by money and do not know how to do it with FOSS then asking around how to do it will be of little help.
Read my mail again.
Regards,
Rony. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Sometime on Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:39:44AM +0530, Rony said:
How does this statement involve you to upset you? "Except for Devdas who is not a follower of GNU, no other supporter of 'freedom' , 'open source', 'gnu' and 'gpl' gave any details of the motherboards they used for their clients." You don't have clients so stop getting fanatic. Thats the problem with GNU guys and I make this assumption after reading the entire thread.
I dont understand. Do you mean there are several people on this list who have hardware/amc business and are withholding the information about what motherboard they use for their clients? I know of only 3/4 such people(i think so) including you who do hardware stuff :-)
And what does being a GNU guy have to do with posting motherboard model details on this list?
Anurag
Anurag wrote:
Sometime on Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:39:44AM +0530, Rony said:
How does this statement involve you to upset you? "Except for Devdas who is not a follower of GNU, no other supporter of 'freedom' , 'open source', 'gnu' and 'gpl' gave any details of the motherboards they used for their clients." You don't have clients so stop getting fanatic. Thats the problem with GNU guys and I make this assumption after reading the entire thread.
I dont understand. Do you mean there are several people on this list who have hardware/amc business and are withholding the information about what motherboard they use for their clients? I know of only 3/4 such people(i think so) including you who do hardware stuff :-)
Currently I don't deal in linux hardware. ;) So I wanted that information from the senior members who are fully into linux based hardware support for their clients.
And what does being a GNU guy have to do with posting motherboard model details on this list?
It was related to freedom of information. :)
Regards,
Rony. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On Friday 13 October 2006 10:39, Rony wrote:
I have later clarified in the next posts on the same thread...."My query was not related to an install how-to but to know what hardware is being used by the experts for their business. While everyone is giving details of their own hardware, what I would like to know is the motherboards used for customers' workstations. The reason is that for self owned hardware, a lot of time is available to experiment and it is purchased only once. There are many big players on this list, who install 50, 100 or more systems at a stretch in big companies and the hardware used will have to be one
And these wont do (prices, need to run doze, games, 3d accl) for an average user.
that requires minimum setup time.
FAI, dd, cp. U think there are 25 guys installing manually on 100 machines or what. U plug in 23 of em on a 24 port switch and do FAI. Many a times dont do that either. Just install on one server en of story.
It is this hardware detail that I am looking for, from the last six months. I would highly appreciate if the big players can provide these details, at least for 5 latest mobos used for their clients. "
What 5 "latest" motherboards are u talking of. The latest and greatest mobos are AMD opteron and friends TYAN, Iwill, asus all work within the limitations stated above.
How does this statement involve you to upset you? "Except for Devdas who is not a follower of GNU, no other supporter of 'freedom' , 'open source', 'gnu' and 'gpl' gave any details of the motherboards they used for their clients.
I did. Right now i am installing about 350 machines. No mucking around individual installs. The mobos are via cle266 and Opteron servers.
I personally feel that FOSS or GNU or GPL whatever you call it, will not survive in the retail sector.
Ya wait until u become an also ran. Or take it as an opportunity.
Like? ( In retail sales volume please ).
Your retail volume is always 1 to 4 even if u are selling 200 a month. and the overhead is almost the same for 1 or fifty.
The whole issue is about giving the foss retail programmer his commercial due for writing the retail foss code that benefits all of us. It started with a comment on how a foss creator will make money.
Repeat 10 times : i will create a good business plan.
In the retail software segment? Having his own company? I already asked the question to this list and I got the information I wanted.
You mean packaged software. Read my earlier mails. Branding not locks. If you mean small time individual programmer burning the night oil to create some master piece, all of the above applies even more. Closing his package will not protect him against piracy but will force him to toil ever harder trying to keep abreast of the quantum jumps in this industry.
But on second thought probably you are right. Making obscene money is not the sole primary motive for many Free Software developers. It is all about building a better society as I understand it. Be careful, people supporting Open Source might not have this view. So if you are motivated only by money and do not know how to do it with FOSS then asking around how to do it will be of little help.
Rony is trying hard to understand the pitfalls and business model ;-) No problems at all.
On 13/10/06 11:31 +0530, jtd wrote: <snip>
And these wont do (prices, need to run doze, games, 3d accl) for an average user.
3D accel? What do you mean, you have a video card on that server?
that requires minimum setup time.
FAI, dd, cp. U think there are 25 guys installing manually on 100 machines or what. U plug in 23 of em on a 24 port switch and do FAI.
Or kickstart, or any of the other ways in which you replicate over a network. And then bring it up to date with cfengine, bcfg2, or puppet.
Many a times dont do that either. Just install on one server en of story.
That too.
Devdas Bhagat
jtd wrote:
In the retail software segment? Having his own company? I already asked the question to this list and I got the information I wanted.
You mean packaged software. Read my earlier mails. Branding not locks. If you mean small time individual programmer burning the night oil to create some master piece, all of the above applies even more. Closing his package will not protect him against piracy but will force him to toil ever harder trying to keep abreast of the quantum jumps in this industry.
I am curious to know, how much money did Linus earn for creating the kernel and how much does he earn every year on giving out new kernels? Rough figures will do.
Regards,
Rony. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On 13-Oct-06, at 6:54 PM, Rony wrote:
I am curious to know, how much money did Linus earn for creating the kernel and how much does he earn every year on giving out new kernels? Rough figures will do.
roughly, to five decimal accuracy: 0.00000 (in bangladeshi takas)
On 14/10/06 07:29 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 13-Oct-06, at 6:54 PM, Rony wrote:
I am curious to know, how much money did Linus earn for creating the kernel and how much does he earn every year on giving out new kernels? Rough figures will do.
roughly, to five decimal accuracy: 0.00000 (in bangladeshi takas)
I have no clue about actual numbers, but he does have his current employment because of writing the kernel. He got a few shares in a bunch of companies as well, before IPO.
That's quite a bit of money.
Devdas Bhagat
On 14-Oct-06, at 7:44 AM, Devdas Bhagat wrote:
I am curious to know, how much money did Linus earn for creating the kernel and how much does he earn every year on giving out new kernels? Rough figures will do.
roughly, to five decimal accuracy: 0.00000 (in bangladeshi takas)
I have no clue about actual numbers, but he does have his current employment because of writing the kernel. He got a few shares in a bunch of companies as well, before IPO.
there is direct income and indirect income. On doing foss for fun, indirect income jumps like hell. Guys like linus, guido, jeremy etc etc can ask for any salary in any company in the world. In doing foss for profit, there is direct income - check out mahiti, srijan, deeprootlinux, jtd and similar indian companies, or collabnet, operational dynamics, infrae, sql-ledger, katipo, redhat, novell ...
On Friday 13 October 2006 18:54, Rony wrote:
I am curious to know, how much money did Linus earn for creating the kernel
Kudos 10000.00^30
and how much does he earn every year on giving out new kernels? Rough figures will do.
Gratitude 10000.00^30
He earned money in the past working at Transmeta for debugging their VM which emulated an x86. Read somewhere it was USD.0.125 million
jtd wrote:
On Friday 13 October 2006 18:54, Rony wrote:
I am curious to know, how much money did Linus earn for creating the kernel
Kudos 10000.00^30
and how much does he earn every year on giving out new kernels? Rough figures will do.
Gratitude 10000.00^30
He earned money in the past working at Transmeta for debugging their VM which emulated an x86. Read somewhere it was USD.0.125 million
Hmm. So in reality, he did not earn any money from the sales of the wonderful piece of software he created for the world, while everyone down the line is making mega bucks installing, customizing and maintaining his software. If the same was sponsored by a big foss supporting institution he would have made money on the software too.
Whatever other benefits he received would have come his way even if he made world famous closed software. I am not trying to pull down foss but my point is that since it is for the people, it needs support from large independent foss promoting institutions that pay good money to developers such that they can release their software under their own banner.
Regards,
Rony.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On 14/10/06 19:12 +0530, Rony wrote: <snip>
Hmm. So in reality, he did not earn any money from the sales of the wonderful piece of software he created for the world, while everyone
You mean, like pre-IPO shares in RedHat?
down the line is making mega bucks installing, customizing and maintaining his software. If the same was sponsored by a big foss supporting institution he would have made money on the software too.
What part of "he made money from writing Linux, which he would not have made otherwise", do you not understand?
Whatever other benefits he received would have come his way even if he made world famous closed software. I am not trying to pull down foss but
Nope. He would have been too busy writing code to make that much money. Money is merely a way to keep score. Code it written for the challenge of writing it, and for having fun while doing so.
my point is that since it is for the people, it needs support from large
FOSS is democratic. By the people, for the people. You are looking at only the financial aspect of FOSS. The people responding to you don't. Merely looking at the short term balance sheet leads leads to things like burning petroleum regardless of enviornmental impact, DRM and copyright additions, regardless of the incredible damage it does to the creative arts ....
Devdas Bhagat
Devdas Bhagat wrote:
On 14/10/06 19:12 +0530, Rony wrote:
<snip>
my point is that since it is for the people, it needs support from large
FOSS is democratic. By the people, for the people. You are looking at only the financial aspect of FOSS. The people responding to you don't. Merely looking at the short term balance sheet leads leads to things like burning petroleum regardless of enviornmental impact, DRM and copyright additions, regardless of the incredible damage it does to the creative arts ....
My mail has not been understood properly and I don't mean what you have mentioned above.
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________ The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
On Saturday 14 October 2006 19:12, Rony wrote:
Hmm. So in reality, he did not earn any money from the sales of the wonderful piece of software he created for the world, while everyone down the line is making mega bucks installing, customizing and maintaining his software. If the same was sponsored by a big foss supporting institution he would have made money on the software too.
He CAN make hughe amounts of money if he wishes to. And is pretty well off otherwise. He could be making big money from investing in foss companies for all u know, and hence does not need to work - or more appropriately toil - for money.
Whatever other benefits he received would have come his way even if he made world famous closed software.
Really? how do u know. The vast majority of microserfs barely exist as compared to most of the free developers, who besides doing what they love and being failrly well off, get invited to all sorts of seminars and conferences at exotic places.
I am not trying to pull down foss
U can try, but it wont make one whit of a diff - ask Bill baba who funded SCO to attack linux and some other idiot who attacked Linus.
but my point is that since it is for the people, it needs support from large independent foss promoting institutions that pay good money to developers such that they can release their software under their own banner.
Umm.. if one were in that class u could easily get a couple of million from the venture capitalists, large corps like IBM, Google, RH, Novell, AMD, TYAN yakyakyak and that goes for the closed or open version. Computer associates (and afaik also SAP) released their database under the gpl. Why?. CA then ran a competition 1million USD for the best app on Ingres. Why?
There is a major disconnect in your logic. U very illogically believe that closing an app protects your market. Closing your app puts an enormous burden from every side - marketing, development, maintainence, etc - while giving absolutely nothing in return. Tally is closed right? just count the number of legal copies v/s illegal copies around. It's 15 is to one in my vicinity - the one legal copy is mine circa 1995 and a free (fight) upgrade in 98. U think the legal copies were purchased because they were closed? In fact i found that stupid parallel port dongle such a pain in the ass that i cracked it in a couple of hours, wrote (rather copied from stevens) a small tsr that bypassed the dongle. And i neednt have bothered. The floppies were available for Rs.50/-. So what did closing achieve? beats my poor IQ.
In developing a closed app u incurr a cost wholly unneccessary, then try to build a business to recoup the cost and find the marketing logistics to be un manageable, then start blaming all the copyright violators for the unrenumerative business, then spend even more money on dongles which u imagine would make software thieves disappear, On the contrary u make them richer, while reducuing your margin.
U need to think completely differently on whatever it is U have in mind. But rest assured that closing ANY app does not make one whit of a diff to the final success or failure. Even when very tightly coupled with hardware (Xbox, Sony PS, Cisco AP,). All u do is prevent yourself from recieving code, ideas and new market penetration, while increasing your costs and enriching the crooks.
As i said earlier i knew personally many people who wrote state of the art closed packages - with dongle and all - that ran the pants off imported equiv costing 10 times more almost all failed.
On 14-Oct-06, at 7:12 PM, Rony wrote:
I am not trying to pull down foss but my point is that since it is for the people, it needs support from large independent foss promoting institutions that pay good money to developers such that they can release their software under their own banner.
there are those who do foss for fun and those who do foss for profit. And those who do it for both. Those who do it for fun - typically releasing their code under the GPL, also profit indirectly from it in terms of recognition, jobs etc. Those who do it for profit - usually releasing their code under some BSD style license profit both directly and indirectly. But, be aware, if you have a business mindset that follows the proprietary software business model, you will not profit. You have to thing laterally, think differently, this is a whole new and different ball of wax. If you are biblically minded, think of the story of casting bread onto waters ...
On 10/12/06, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
How does this statement involve you to upset you? "Except for Devdas who is not a follower of GNU, no other supporter of 'freedom' , 'open source', 'gnu' and 'gpl' gave any details of the motherboards they used for their clients." You don't have clients so stop getting fanatic. Thats the problem with GNU guys and I make this assumption after reading the entire thread.
I feel involved because I consider myself supporter of "Freedom" and "GPL" If you are targeting only a selected 4-5 people on the list why not take names? Stop beating around the bush and call them hypocrites directly
FOSS not only survives but is in top few slots in many categories.
Like? ( In retail sales volume please ).
Survival of a software according to my definition is having considerable user base It has nothing to do with who earns how much on selling it. OpenOffice for example is surviving, no matter what are its sales figures. If your definition is different then we are on separate planes and there is no point in continuing this discussion
The whole issue is about giving the foss retail programmer his commercial due for writing the retail foss code that benefits all of us. It started with a comment on how a foss
creator
will make money.
If you are good enough to write a CAD software on your own, I am sure many companies will hire you to write FOSS software. I am yet to come across a good FOSS programmer who is commercially not successful.
In the retail software segment? Having his own company?
Define commercial success. I consider myself commercially successful since my earnings are sufficient to support *my* lifestyle. It has nothing to do with owning a company.
BTW Miguel De Icaza was in retail software, he did own his company and later he was hired by another firm to do what he does best. write FOSS. Google for others, I am not going to do all the homework for you.
I already asked
the question to this list and I got the information I wanted.
But on second thought probably you are right. Making obscene money is not the sole primary motive for many Free Software developers. It is all about building a better society as I understand it. Be careful, people supporting Open Source might not have this view. So if you are motivated only by money and do not know how to do it with FOSS then asking around how to do it will be of little help.
Read my mail again.
Read my mail again
On Wednesday 11 October 2006 21:59, Rony wrote:
Roshan wrote:
To be slightly on topic, have Linux distro users on this list, used motherboads manufactured by HIS, VIA,etc. (Not many have replied to Mr. Rony's question of compatible motherboard)
Except for Devdas who is not a follower of GNU,
rubbish i did mail.
Thats why I had asked that question and I ask again....
How many freedom fighters on this list actually own commercial software companies
Wrong question.
and how many of these software companies are making non-customized software that can be used by everyone *and* , are the source codes of these non-customized softwares available to everyone on the internet under the gpl?
we make "customised" software as part of a package involving hardware, software and the customers legacy app. All of it runs on GNU/linux. The "customisation" is trivial most of the time (php frontends, start stop scripts, logos etc.). What is not so trivial and invariably un usable by others are the tables and database logic, so far written from scratch, loaded on the customers drive and handed over on cd and promptly forgotten.
-
Anurag -
Aseem Rane -
Devdas Bhagat -
Dinesh Joshi -
jtd -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
krishnakant Mane -
Mrugesh Karnik -
Rony -
Roshan