[sigtau]

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/06/29/hp-said-to-dump-microsoft-over-surface/ (thanks to Swantz/achtung for the link)

It may just be a rumor now, but I think this is a wonderful, wonderful thing.  It appears that Microsoft is going to lose OEMs over forcing them to push new standards--in this case, the Windows RT/ARM tablet architecture.

I'm terribly glad for this.

[Mikes]

Where else are they gonna go? Linux? Android lol.

If this is only about ARM devices then frankly... storm in a teacup. If it's about Microsoft Windows in general.... then HP would saw off the branch that they are sitting on so... pfft.


Frankly, this comment seems more accurate than the actual article:

Joe Jun 29, 2012 at 12:36 pm #

Please! He doesn’t have any information. He’s just trying to get hits to his website.

[Ghostavo]

HP dumping Windows as a desktop OS is a laughable proposition. It would basically be suicide for HP. Might as well close their offices and pack their stuff.

[LordMelvin]

Updated news in the various pipelines seems to imply that HP is not dumping windows, but is instead dumping ARM as a tablet architecture for the next product cycle.

[achtung]

I got excited for a split moment when I first saw the article elsewhere, I thought it was implying HP was dropping Windows altogether. A glorious world without consumer HP, and a weaker Microsoft. Then I snapped back to reality.

[Davros]

does this not apply any more ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14584428

[The E]

does this not apply any more ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14584428

No. There's a reason why Leo Apotheker is no longer CEO of HP. That silly idea being it.

[mormon_boy]

Hp owns webos so they have some legit alternatives to windows tablets if they can tap some opensource awesomeness

[Klaustrophobia]

i thought the whole point of open source was that it ISN'T commercialized and sold?

[el_magnifico]

i thought the whole point of open source was that it ISN'T commercialized and sold?

Not sure if sarcasm, or wrong in so many levels.

[jr2]

i thought the whole point of open source was that it ISN'T commercialized and sold?

erm maybe you confuse open source and freeware?  Sometimes open source is freeware, and sometimes it isn't.  Sometimes freeware is open source, and sometimes it isn't.  Open Source just means the source is released.  The license to use that source is a whole different matter; some licenses let you use it, but only for noncommercial purposes, others let you use it for commercial purposes; but IIRC you have to include your modifications in the open source, so I guess nothing prevents someone from copying what you did..

However, that's just my brief, very stunted, possibly (probably?) incorrect summary.

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

first couple of paragraphs:

In production and development, open source is a philosophy,[1][not in citation given][2][not in citation given] or pragmatic methodology[2][not in citation given] that promotes free redistribution and access to an end product's design and implementation details.[3] Before the phrase open source became widely adopted, developers and producers used a variety of phrases to describe the concept; open source gained hold with the rise of the Internet, and the attendant need for massive retooling of the computing source code.[citation needed] Opening the source code enabled a self-enhancing diversity of production models, communication paths, and interactive communities.[4] The open-source software movement was born to describe the environment that the new copyright, licensing, domain, and consumer issues created.[citation needed]

The open-source model includes the concept of concurrent yet different agendas and differing approaches in production, in contrast with more centralized models of development such as those typically used in commercial software companies.[5] A main principle and practice of open-source software development is peer production by bartering and collaboration, with the end-product, source-material, "blueprints", and documentation available at no cost to the public. This is increasingly being applied in other fields of endeavor, such as biotechnology.[6]

[Nuke]

i thought the whole point of open source was that it ISN'T commercialized and sold?

not really. there are a lot of people making buttloads of money with open source hardware right now. not only do they sell you something but they also give away all the design information so you can build your own or make a derivative. in terms of software *nix is big buisness and *nix specialists are highly payed individuals. one advantage of using open source technology over proprietary technology, aside from the obvious fact that its cheaper and the people who support that technology dont need to be in bed with the ones that made it (for example when an apple product breaks you have to have it fixed at an apple store unless you want to void the warranty), so you dont have to rely on some other company's support cycle (like the way ms forces obsolescence in its old software by not supporting it so you have to buy the new version every few years).

the other good thing about it is you reduce wasted effort in the r&d department. if a company needs database server for example they have 3 options: higher a programmer and develop it in house. buy some software from a proprietary vendor like ms, or they could go with some piece of software off of sourceforge. it may look nice but it needs some additional features, so the company decides to allocate a programmer from another department to add said features to the software, and because its open source the company has to release their code, which my get merged into the codebase by its original development team. if another company decides to use that software they will also allocate personnel to maintaining it, by introducing performance improvements or new features, maybe a port to some other platform perhaps. they benefit from the previous companie's work on it, and add their own contributions benefit the other company. if both companies had developed it in house then they would have both had to hire a large development team and designed the same thing from the ground up, and if they had bought some software they would have gotten jacked.

so dont think that open source is communist or anti-corporate in any way. its really just about being more efficient. another point i like to make is that in the event of a catastrophic event like a nuclear war or some kinda megalithic natural disaster, a majority of the proprietary technologies will be lost. only the open technologies with wide distribution in the public domain will survive just on the grounds of being everywhere, while the blueprints for a proprietary machine aiding in the mass production of toilets is hidden in some vault in some city which got nuked. the result: you know have to **** in a bucket until somone re-invents the machine to do the job.

[The E]

As someone once said, Open Source Software is only free if your time has no value. Which is an exaggeration and hyperbole, but carries a kernel of truth; after all, if you go down the OSS route, you will sooner or later find yourself in a position where the product you're using has some form of limitation that requires you to do a workaround (either in code or in your usage), thus costing time.

Now, I am not saying that closed source commercial products are all that different in that regard for private users, but in a commercial environment, where you are usually not just buying software but also support contracts for that software, you are in a different position to the developers. That is, you can go to them and say "We need this feature added to the product, please implement it or we switch to a different product and cancel our contracts with you", which when dealing with the open source community simply does not work.

[achtung]

As someone once said, Open Source Software is only free if your time has no value. Which is an exaggeration and hyperbole, but carries a kernel of truth; after all, if you go down the OSS route, you will sooner or later find yourself in a position where the product you're using has some form of limitation that requires you to do a workaround (either in code or in your usage), thus costing time.

Now, I am not saying that closed source commercial products are all that different in that regard for private users, but in a commercial environment, where you are usually not just buying software but also support contracts for that software, you are in a different position to the developers. That is, you can go to them and say "We need this feature added to the product, please implement it or we switch to a different product and cancel our contracts with you", which when dealing with the open source community simply does not work.

Unless you get a contract with an OSS support vendor like red hat.

[Ghostavo]

OSS is not the same thing as FOSS.

[The E]

I am sorry for having forgotten to make that distinction. Yes, OSS + Support contract is just as good, if not better, than closed source + support contract.

[Nuke]

As someone once said, Open Source Software is only free if your time has no value.

and thats why i use windows. for now at least. i still use a lot of open source applications though, and id use an open source operating system if one existed that wasnt a bloated, overcomplicated piece of crap.

[mormon_boy]

As someone once said, Open Source Software is only free if your time has no value.

and thats why i use windows. for now at least. i still use a lot of open source applications though, and id use an open source operating system if one existed that wasnt a bloated, overcomplicated piece of crap.

you mean haiku os(lol)? but yes it is disappointing that linux isn't the old hardware Resurrection OS that it used to be(and don't even get me started on gnome3 and unity). no one wants to risk thier main machine on a botched install so trying it out on an old machine is how most people learn learn to love it (once they work past the quirks).

[jr2]

If they work past the quirks.

Oh, you misconfigured your video?  No problem, new Linux user, please lrn 2 navigate your ext4 partition using bash and edit the appropriate config file with vi.

  wtf, no safe mode / system restore????  Going back to the devil, I guess...

It's hard to Google the fix if it's your only computer that's down.  Unless you had the foresight to dual-boot.

I managed to work through that particular nightmare on my first try, but it took a good day or so of fighting with it and researching on dual boot (when the dial-up was not being retarded, that is).  Oh and ofc it was ext3 or ext2 back then IIRC.  Same thing from the user's perspective though.

[achtung]

I'll never understand how people have show-stopping issues with desktop linux. The worst I've had to deal with has been video drivers years ago, flash, and broadcom wireless drivers before they opened up. This has been across 8 machines with varying hardware, and only one was built with Linux in mind. Unless I'm doing something unusual everything is pretty seamless and smooth.