@Rayden:

When a program is created, a programmer first has to create source code for it, which can be C++, pascal, assembly, or any other programming language. To get an executable program, the programmer compiles his source code into a binary, which consists of machine code, for the target platform. This compilation process is done by a compiler that turns the source code into machine code.
The difference between source code and machine code is that source code is meant to be understandable to humans, but not to computers. Machine code on the other hand, is something that can be directly executed by the processor.
Uncompiled programs can't run, because the processor doesn't understand the source code. There is however one exception, which is interpreted source code. Some languages are meant to be run in an interpreter, like perl, php, qbasic, javascript, etc. In this case, a binary program (the interpreter) parses the script (the source code to be interpreted) and executes it.

When a program is open source, it means that this source code is publicly available, so that others can download this source code, and compile it themselves so they can compile it optimally for their platform, and so they can make modifications to the source if they want to add functionality.

The X Window system runs in compiled form in linux. So does your video card driver and your sound driver and all other drivers. Especially drivers, since they are kernel mode programs, so interpreting them would be very inefficient, and probably also almost impossible.

The reason that doom 3 sometimes runs at very low frame rates on linux, is because installing drivers that give good hardware support is a real pain in the ass sometimes on linux. This has nothing to do with uncompiled video drivers or anything though.

Now never say such weird things again

Regards,

unstable

you have understood what i said in part no in total the xserer is not closed source and if you look under your xinit file you will see that or your xorg.conf these are scripts as i considered them they run but don't run they are run by other programs is what i'm trying to say and about your video driver try to install the nvidia one and you will see the boot speed that your system gains in opengl programs and by the way they aren't dificult of install if you ever install FreeBsd you will see what is a nightmare for the installation "in Freebsd we have to configure everything like the screen driver the sound driver the keyboard the mouse the usb filesystem and the memory ram many of these steps are already maded but most part you have to do them and even the xserver you have to configure" and if you try to install doom3 demo you will see a program that is opensource... running... when it start uncompressing the data just open it another thing is the makefiles open them they are not compiled.... but they run... is it for example installing a program ./configure-> isn't this one opensource so how he runs...

Rayden, once again as other people have said, you are wrong with the concepts of "Open Source", "Program", "Binary module", "Script", "Compile", ... I don't think it's your English, I think it's more related to the lack of some computing basics. And before you say it.. no, those concepts are not different in FreeBSD.

I know you learn fast and you'll see soon what we are telling you. Open your mind

I just had an amazing "omg" feeling reading up on this thread...

this day an age linux can be as userfriendly as windows (ubuntu ok ok at the cost of a lot of performance, and extensibility). What i bet the developers might have overlooked, was the ability for outsiders to understand the concept of opensource..


closed source: you have no idea what is going on (until you extensivle reverse it). THis is bad. Software on you windows is doing a lot of stuff you don't want. like the WGA that is phoning home every day. And so many other "windows features". Furthermore you are trusting all your data, work to your computer system (hard and software). What opensource provides is a clean transparant software layer. Not the dark sesspool that is windows.


Just believe me; opensource == good, closed source == bad
(btw there is a lot of opensource software for windows too) FOR EXAMPLE FIREFOX (something that i wouldn't call particulary slow, or impractical.



the hatred you have for what you called opensource, is actually a hatred agains interpretation. Aim your arrows at java and .NET

cheers.

Well stating the obvious, closed source isn't always that bad. A lot of commercial programs are closed source and I don't think all of them are bad applications. Moreover, i don't think all open source programs are good either. There are some good examples, but that doesn't make every open source program good. (Of course, the opposite for closed source).

Every linux freak thinks open source is the best there is, but you cannot live in a world with *only* open source. Try asking your grandmother or mother to install a program on linux, give them a big book "Linux for dummies".. let me know how far they got.

Windows might look very bad etc etc, bla bla.. more bashing.. bla bla, etc etc.. but it is the current leading OS.

Anyway, there is no need to change someone's mind over such a thing. If I were to say "XML sucks", we can start another thread with all the pros and cons.

@Rayden:

- xorg.conf is just a configuration file, it's not a program.
- Yes, the original nvidia drivers do speed up opengl applications a lot, but this is because they add hardware support. With the default drivers, often 3d graphics are software-rendered, which explains the low frame rates. The nvidia drivers are indeed easy to install, but there are a lot of video card drivers that are a lot harder to install properly.
- ./configure is a batch script. It is interpreted by the shell interpreter.

I know alot of this stuff can be pretty confusing when you're just starting out, especially some of the terminology used. Just try to keep an open mind. The more you'll experiment with things like this, the better you will understand the concepts. TBS is a good place to learn new things

@rhican:

For some situations, closed source is imho a very good thing. Open source just isn't very attractive for big commercial corporations. Take Adobe, for example. The quality of most of their applications is imho unrivaled by open source alternatives.
This is mainly because Adobe pays its employees to carefully design and implement the software. You'll have to agree with me that for aspiring artists and graphical designers Adobe Photoshop just performs a lot better than, say, an open source application like the Gimp. In big open source projects, such as the Gimp, a lot of the programmers and designers involved are mainly focused on the features they want for themselves. Often, this also means compromises in usability. A lot of *nix tools have no graphical user-friendly interface at all, simply because the programmers don't care.

Also, some applications are so specific that an open source (non commercial) application just isn't viable. Take, for instance, an accounting application for a specific profession. The odds that enough people with design and programming skills will gather together and create such an application open source and for free are slim at best, simply because the target audience is too small. Commercial corporations just need to keep their applications closed source to protect their intellectual property.

When you buy a commercial product, you also pay for support, and sometimes also certain services. You might have obtained a level of competence with computers that you don't need this support or service. A lot of end users do want this, especially when it's for business.

Well, now I'm starting to sound like a closed source-fanatic, which I'm not . Open source is a beautiful thing, but remember, it's a privilege... not a right!

Regards,

unstable

offcourse there is no black and no white, a lot of gray. And i do make my mother use linux actually. My grandparents however never used computers though maybe in another life. To maintain install it is a lot more difficult sure. but maiking internet a point and click experience works just as well in linux. (also the current state of ease of use has no relation with the nature of opensource).

I'm not sure why you see opensource on an application to application base. The idea of OPENsource is good. The value of each piece of software does offcourse vary. That certain applications are closed source, offcourse doesn't mean they are bad percé. However imo they should just disclose their sourcecode. How it would work exactly with all commercial intrests is something that i alone can't figure out.

A world with only opensource might be an utopia. However shortminded people that just keep supporting windows because that is what they know ... is just as naive.

I have tried hard to make this next passage sound as friendly as possible, please be openminded. And don't be calling me a conspiracy theorist before hearing me out:

You must realise that we are more and more reliant on computer systems. And that I believe that my desires and intrests may vary in the future from M$ or (anybody controlling them (facts)). It's just common sence to promote a clean, opensource solution. I am just not at easy using layer after layer of technology that was developed with comercial intrests that are different fom my own. I like to control my own pc. I can't if i can't at least check what my os is doing. Knowing that some smarter people than me can check the sourcecode too. And you have to admitt since we are all security enthousiasts, if you were M$ it wouldn't be to hard to abuse your power.


EDIT: some cross posting so here i go again

btw i totally , aggree that opensource software isn't "as good" on a software to software basis. However imo it's goodenough these days to switch to an opensource os imo. And like i said i use some closed source app's asswell. however i prefer that a piece of software that is on my pc 24/7 isn't controlled by a company/governament. imo that is just common sence.

windows does work well these days (and it should considering the money that went into it)
linux isn't all that perfect.

as far as i know there are gui's for virtually everything. However once you know what you are doing a cli is sometimes faster, (and consistent over various os') that's why most tutorials on the web will use the cli to quickly get things working. it's easier to copy paste a cli command. than elaberate walkthrough's with screenshots of how all the options should be set. what button to push ..

if you wan't a gui they are out there just put a "g" or a "k" infront of the tool and you'll probably get one.

your actually said it best, when you explained that closed source is more attractive to large companies. Well i'm not a large company .. so i'll promote the other a bit. (while offcourse eating from both pies)

Yes, I agree with you 100%, the idea of open source is very good indeed. but like you said, on an application to application base your mileage may vary. And a lot of end users do need specific applications, support or certain services.

Although some linux distributions do offer customer service for money, they're not that widely used yet. Perhaps this will only be a matter of time. But until then, for a lot of end users and corporations Windows is still the operating system of choice. The support that MS offers is a different story, lets not go into that

I’ll try to explain why I think closed source is a good thing for commercial corporations. Like I said, commercial corporations need to protect their intellectual property. When they put a lot of money and resources into creating a certain application, they will need to make profit from it. If their application would be open source, other competitive corporations could much more easily copy their technology (the way it is now, there wouldn’t even be a law to protect their “open source”, thus they wouldn’t even be able to make any money on it, except maybe on customer service. But they could get competition here too.). Also, they need to protect their software from illegal usage (yes, this is security through obscuration, but lets not get into that either).
So commercial open source applications are just not viable imho.

I don’t think you’re a conspiracy theorist, in fact I applaud your strive for open source.
I think a nice analogy to end my post would be Coca Cola. When they first introduced cola, they wouldn’t make the recipe publicly available, afraid that other companies would copy their product. In time they had to make it available because their patent ran out. As a result of this, a lot of companies that produced cola started making cola that tasted a lot better, which compromised Coca Cola’s market position a lot. Had they released their recipe straight away, they would never have had the opportunity to exploit their product the way they did before their patent ran out.
You could argue that Coca Cola should have made their recipe (source code) available right away, because people deserve to know what is in it. But then again, the ingredients (binary code) of cola have never been a secret. And didn’t Coca Cola deserve the right to be able to exploit their invention commercially?

Often, I hear people complain about how people deserve to know what their software does, like the WGA in Windows for example. But you do know, don’t you? So I don’t see the problem. Sure, the WGA system is not a nice system, but this has nothing to do with it being open source or closed source. Although I do admit that MS could have been a bit more honest about some things.

Regards,

unstable

Edit: Open source is like pepsi!

well, maybe your analogy looses a bit of impact when you realise their used to be cocaine in coca cola ...
IMO people did desirve to know that there was a hard drug in their beverage

we do aggree on almost anything, however i doubt that you could call photoshop, to use your example as mutch an invention as a piece of labour. As long as they have a copyright on the software i don't see the difference between binary and source code. If you want to take comercial advantage, you could just as wel reverse the binaries. The source would only be of help if you want to copy paste .. however that should be protected by copyright. Also don't forget that they tried to patent everything from an hyperlink, to <b> tag to a smilie (M$). that's just being silly

transparant software, for transparant systems. I can aggree that new applications, could benifit and maybe should of closed source (for a while) however something as vital as an os is better kept in the public domain imho

Source: Urban Legends


It would in most cases cost more money to hire people to reverse engineer software back to source code than it would to hire a team of developers and independantly recreate the technology. One of the main reasons for this is that skilled professional reversers are far more uncommon than skilled designers and programmers. (I forgot where I read this. I read this however in a FAQ on a site of a decompilation service I think).


I agree!

Regards,

unstable

Edit: I found where I read it. It was on the website of the boomerang project: http://boomerang.sourceforge.net/lostsource.php#5