Re: cpu-x

On 2024-05-15, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:

On Wed, 15 May 2024 14:10:54 +0000, RonB wrote:
>

On 2024-05-15, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:

On Wed, 15 May 2024 05:45:03 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>

On 14 May 2024 01:02:56 GMT, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
 

On Tue, 14 May 2024 00:42:29 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
 

On 14 May 2024 00:11:11 GMT, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
 

So, it would be beneficial to open-source developers to make sure
that their software breaks easily and crashes, so as to sell the
support.

 
Clearly you have never used the stuff.
 
No, actually, you are depending crucially on it right now, without
realizing it. Without Open Source, there would be no Internet.

 
We both know that's not true. Without open-source, there would have
been an alternative based on UNIX or Windows.

 
Those alternatives existed, way back when. Before the Internet, there
were “online services” such as Compuserve, AOL, Prodigy and others.
Before the World-Wide Web came to dominate, and in competition with
it,
there was Microsoft’s “Project Blackbird”, Quark’s “Immedia” and no
doubt something from Adobe as well.
 
(Are these names unfamiliar to you? Go look them up in the usual
places.
There will be a test--if you want to continue this thread.)

>
I am aware of them (I'm 45 years-old). In fact, Delphi Internet was my
first venture onto the Internet.
>

Linux is chosen because it's good enough and free, not because it is
necessarily better.

 
Open Source was better than all of those put together. That’s why it
wiped them out. Those proprietary products had the backing (financial,
marketing, technical) of some of the world’s biggest megacorporations
of the time, but they could not compete with Open Source and open
standards.

>
Not on price, that's for sure. If I recall correctly, those proprietary
services also wanted to make sure that you remained exclusive to that
service. There was no benefit for them to allow you to venture outside
of their walled garden, since that would cause you to eventually look
for a cheaper service which still gave you access to things like
Usenet, IRC and the World Wide Web without needing to pass through
their graphical interface. That might be why their systems were
primitive compared to the Linux ones, based on UNIX, which resisted a
user having any sort of middleman.

 
Microsoft could use their own server software for free on their Cloud.
They don't. They use Linux for their servers. That's all you really need
to know about the superiority of Linux for servers. I think Apple mostly
gave up on the server market a few years back.
 
If you're using the Internet, you're using Linux.

>
Apple probably gave up because the hardware they were selling when they
were pushing servers was wholly inappropriate, as was the software running
atop it. As impressive as the PowerPC was, combining it with Mac OS at the
time wasn't a great solution for running a server. Whether today or back
then, the mere fact that you can run a server with Linux without even
needing a GUI ensures that performance will be good, and better than the
alternative software on the same hardware. Either way, I am glad that
Linux runs servers well and especially that a license from Microsoft,
Apple or IBM isn't required to create our own web server. I'm just
pointing out that without Linux, one of those would likely be behind most
of the servers.

I think Apple is very good at selling fancy goo-gaws in the retail market,
and the server market really wasn't their thing. They've been using UNIX for
years now and, if they really wanted to get into the server market, they
probably could. But that's not their strength. Besides, it's hard to compete
against free OS for servers.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..."     — St. Augustine