Microsoft Surface =/= FOSS

[audiomick]

I am extremely skeptical about such things.
One reason for this is a job I had about 2 years ago at a motor show. Someone had had the bright idea that the presenter could stand at a Plexiglass lectern which was the monitor of a computer. The screen on the lectern was also projected onto a big screen behind the presenter so that the people could see what was going on. The lectern was only one layer of plexiglass and see through. The navigation was hand gestures across the screen on the lectern, and all it really did was play films about the product.

Great idea, super high tech image, super cool. They rehearsed with it for 3 days before they had the device sorted out so that it was half way reliable and the presenters knew which gestures would work and which wouldn't. My impression was that such things will probably work one day, but at the moment they are everything other than reliable and easy to use. And the question is, who needs it?

[Frak]

Yes, it is closed source. Microsoft has a tendency to create proprietary applications.

Would I help make a Linux Distribution that would copy Surface's capabilities? Not for free.

[Woolio1]

Yes, it is closed source. Microsoft has a tendency to create proprietary applications.

Would I help make a Linux Distribution that would copy Surface's capabilities? Not for free.

But free is the entire idea of FOSS!

Free Open Source Whodawhatsit.

[Giant Speck]

But free is the entire idea of FOSS!

Free Open Source Whodawhatsit.

The F in FOSS stands for free as in freedom, not free as in beer.

[Woolio1]

The F in FOSS stands for free as in freedom, not free as in beer.

Hmm... So why don't we pay for Ubuntu?

[-grubby]

Hmm... So why don't we pay for Ubuntu?

That doesn't mean it's required to be sold for money, it just means that it can be. The great majority of FOSS software is free anyway.

[KiwiNZ]

Hmm... So why don't we pay for Ubuntu?

You can if you wish

example

http://www.dse.co.nz/dse.shop/4b7dfb...ct/View/XS8085

[dragos240]

Mah boi. This source code is what all true warriors strive for!

[p_quarles]

Hmm... So why don't we pay for Ubuntu?

Because it's not in Canonical's business model to charge for the OS itself, and it's too reliant on the community-driven development model for that to be likely.

I think Frak and Giant-Speck are saying, though, that something as revolutionary as a tabletop touch UI OS is in a completely different category than something like Ubuntu, which is a very nicely-done prepackaging of existing software based on tried-and-true interface concepts and computing principles. As nice as Ubuntu is, it's not a revolutionary step forward in terms of OSes, or even *nix distributions.

Also: yes, the underlying philosophical justifications of F/LOSS have to do with the exchange of code, concepts and design strategies, as a way of speeding up innovation. Historically, it has very little to do with making binary copies of software available for free to the consumer. The fact that open code leads to the latter is a common side effect, but it was never the principle which led to the movement in the first place. And that's one of the limitations that many developers see in F/LOSS: it might benefit the world more if I released my source code to everyone for nothing in return, but how do I feed my kids if I do that?

Look, it's turned out to be a valid and great business strategy for those who wish to provide software as a way of influencing the framework in which development takes place. This is Google's gambit with Android, for instance. But it's not the only business model, and I agree with those who say that the code for something as revolutionary as Surface might not be something you give up without getting something significant in return.