Microsofts new way of bashing Linux
Alexander Jacob Tsykin
stsykin at gmail.com
Fri Jun 16 08:22:16 BST 2006
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:28, Michael T. Richter wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-15-06 at 21:10 -0400, Andrew Zajac wrote:
> > I think people are shortly going to notice that they are paying
> > proprietary software companies to hold back the develpment of the
> > software. The software can get better in thousands of ways, but no
> > one is allowed to do anything with it, except for the employees of the
> > owner of that software.
> Windows 98 (and likely Windows 95) has far superior sound support to any
> Linux distribution out there. It's 8 years old (or 11 if my guess that
> 95 is also better than Linux).
> How exactly has software development with the GPL made sound support
> leap forward again?
this may be a dumb question, but if that is the case, then why are you using
> > Now, (back to reality) if people obtained software for free and only
> > paid someone when they needed it to do something it doesn't do and
> > those improvements were given back to the community, the software
> > would improve at a considerably faster rate than it does presently for
> > proprietary software.
> Just like sound support for Linux. Or Bluetooth support.
> > If people ended up spending an equal amount of money as they do today
> > on software, but each dollar went into genuine development (paying at
> > the point of value), instead of some company collecting the same
> > royaly for the same software over and over, I think we would really
> > see some intersting software, developed at a staggering rate.
> I see nothing which supports this assertion yet. Well, except for a few
> programming environments. Ruby kicks ass, for example. But in general,
> at the end-user level? You get what you pay for with free software.
You may find that some people disagree with you. Sound support in Linux is
fine for me.
More information about the sounder