I thought that it would be obvious - VMware doesn't see a "business interest" for VMware in supporting the platform.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
ITC Rules For Apple in HTC Patent Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I thought that it would be obvious - VMware doesn't see a "business interest" for VMware in supporting the platform.
We all know iOS has major restrictions as to what you're allowed to do on it.
But it's not like Google doesn't make any effort to choose what you're allowed to do with Android. How about not allowing the Market to be installed if you have no 3G radio? (doing it yourself is akin to pirating it)
I've noticed that Linux advocates have a bizarrely skewed world perspective which somehow centers around RMS and double-speak usage of the words "free" and "freedom."
Linux unencumbered? If only. Linux is encumbered by business interest at least as much as OpenSolaris is. Both have source code available. But Linux is licensed under GPL, which restricts you under the interests of Richard Stallman and the FSF. If I were truly unencumbered on Linux in terms of how I wish to operate the computer, I'd be allowed to share things as non-GPL kernel modules in binary form.
I'd even have to suggest that in terms of who's less encumbered, I'd pick OpenSolaris. The source code is available, I have no license restrictions, so any code I attach to it can stay mine. Oracle can only choose to not continue to contribute to the project. The Linux kernel, on the other hand, forces kernel modules to be GPL since it's consider derivative code base on the license because it links to the kernel despite it being all original code.
Certainly using the Linux kernel doesn't force you to pay money, but you pay by giving up control over your code.
Why is this a bad thing? Because it encourages ugly kludges such as kernel modules which exist only to separate chunks of code with regards to the licenses that each can have. This hinders progress and makes things uglier simply because work has to be done for no technical gain, only to work around a license problem that can't be solved by relicensing. This is pretty much the FOSS world's equivalent to working around somebody else's patent, except working around a patent usually results in a new approach. Implementing yet another binary module loader all over again doesn't result in progress.
Example? ZFS. ZFS works. ZFS has shipped and runs in mission critical machines. ZFS doesn't run on Linux because of licensing. So now somebody's taking the time to try to reimplement ZFS as GPL code. That's waste of time. Meanwhile, FreeBSD's already integrated ZFS into mainline.
Oracle has decided it does not want to continue supporting OpenSolaris. As a result, the open source community forked it (Illumos) and made it completely independent of Sun/Oracle. So if Oracle had a "business interest" it wanted to exercise against Illumos, it'd have just as much ability to do so as if Oracle wanted to exercise a "business interest" against Linux.
In short, when given the choice of running any open source OS, I'm not sure why I should choose Linux over OpenSolaris, Darwin, any BSD, or even Haiku.
@AidenShaw: Using VMWare's unavailability on Solaris doesn't make sense as an argument. VMWare controls what platforms VMWare releases VMWare's application on. There's nothing from Oracle/Sun which prevents you from running VMWare or VMWare-like applications on Solaris if it were made available from VMWare. It's make as little sense as mentioning there's no Adobe Photoshop for Linux.
That is an extremely poor argument. Minimum hardware requirements (which almost all software has) a la Android Market are a very far cry from iOS's "you-cannot-install-non-Apple-approved/reviewed-software-on-this-device" even though you OWN the device.
Also, it is not piracy to install market apps on an android device without a 3G radio. Only real-time access to the market is restricted. You can still side-load any .apk you want onto your android device (especially since many market apps are freely available outside the Android market on the web).
You should make up your mind. First you complain about not being allowed to share binaries and then you complain about not being able to control your code.
1. You can do whatever you want with YOUR OWN CODE. It is when you start using/modifying someone else's work that these other considerations come into play. No one is stopping you from making modifications. I see the GPL as more of a tit-for-tat license ("I'll show you mine, but you have to show me yours, too"). That sounds pretty damned fair and reasonable to me.
Pick your poison, you run into problems either way. Linux enthusiasts would rather hold out for a port or work-around for functionality which might take a long time because too few (or too many) people are working on it vs finding themselves waiting a solution which will never come because of business/marketing/financial concerns of large corporations.
I'm quite sure that you understand all of this already. What is your point that you are trying to make?
Several points.
1) That when you said "Sound familiar? iOS vs android, anyone?", I should have clearly answered with "no, that isn't the same" because both are encumbered by corporations.
This I said is incorrect because both Apple and Google attempt to insert their business interests into what you can and can't do on their respective platforms.
Certainly iOS is more restrictive, I'm sure we all agree that is the truth. But as I mentioned, Google does impose their business interests, such as the Market. You also misinterpreted what I said about the market, it's the Market itself that would be pirated if installed on a device without the radio, as you wern't licensed to use the Market. I wasn't talking about Market apps.
2) My second point is that Linux, via the GPL, is encumbered by the business interests of the FSF, and that the belief that you have the "freedom to run advanced software without a business interest half-way across the continent making decisions on your behalf" is false.
3) My third point is that the Linux community tend to go through meaningless hoops in order to satisfy the GPL, resulting in hindering progress and wasting time. And that all of this meaningless work has more to do with the FSF than the interests of some large corporation.
While you claim:
The fact is that in many cases, the reason ports of some software does not exist on Linux is because the GPL prohibits it, not because a business prohibits it. Hence, the ZFS example. Dtrace would be another example; see http://blogs.oracle.com/ahl/entry/dtrace_knockoffs
Calling the GPL a "tit-for-tat" license hides the fact that it is viral, which makes it less fair. That making code to work with the project causes it to be infected by the license is what causes so many problems. If you truly think the GPL is fair and makes sense, why does the GPL require your original code to be bound by the GPL when it interacts with a GPL'd project? Why is not being open source enough to be allowed to link with a GPL'd project? Why does the GPL make itself incompatible to an open source license which specifically protects you and the project from patents used in the project?
At any rate, this is straying too far off from the original forum topic. I'd prefer to take this discussion offline.