How to get rid of linux ?

**kraft** · 05-23-2007, 04:41 PM

In regard of this past comments, i decided to get rid of linux. What is a pity is a lot of people for a reason i ignore that don't accept the idea that i don't want to "give" my work.
http://www.mp3car.com/vbulletin/show...inside-18.html

So linux means soviet communism or something ?

Now that i'm really tired of all this crap and people solliciting instead of taking time to read, search and work, i decided that i'll get rid of linux as is and replace all with hardware solution only.
I.e : i replaced Bluez as i had one french on a french forum that was claiming that i have to release the bluetooth code i wrote.

So here is my reply :

Licenced hardware, no more need of crappy software which works under certain conditions only and not with all the cellulars.

So i'have the idea to get rid of my old good linux, the one which makes people having so constructive bitter comments and behaviour. I was proud to work with linux today i'm wondering again...

**shotgunefx** · 05-23-2007, 05:29 PM

So linux means soviet communism or something.

Not sure how you come to that conclusion. It's a fair deal and it's stated upfront. You get to build on the shoulders of everyone else who's given their time and effort and they get something back and what most people give back (if anything) pales in comparision to what you've gotten (unless you're a hell of contributor).

So your argument is, "I want to use all this work people gave me for nothing, make money on it and give nothing back, even though that's the deal stated upfront".

The GPL doesn't work for everyone and that's why there are alternatives (BSD, Artistic Liscense,etc) and just because you utilize Linux doesn't mean you can't have any secrets, look at Tivo, Tom Tom, etc.

**Zimans** · 05-23-2007, 07:10 PM

Any modifications you make to GPL'd code you have to share the source to. Any code you write that interfaces to a library (Without changing a single line of library code) is yours and yours alone to do as you see fit. People go after these OEM makers claiming they have to release their code because they want to enhance it, (Which I wish they would, some of these hardware products would be so much cooler if the manufacturers let the users do what they wish, look at the wrt54g's) but they do not, nor do thay have to.

The main philosophy of linux, as shotgunefx put it, is to contribute back to what was given to you for free for the better good of the community. What seperates it from communism is that aside from frowny faced people, there is nothing FORCING you to release the code you have written yourself. Whoever that French person is idealistic, but wrong.

Awhile ago when I started figuring out bluletooth I came across the fact that you had bluetooth implemented. I was sadened that you didn't open source your code as up until that point I hadn't found any bluetooth code I could look at to get pointed in the right direction. I eventually did find some example code and went on and wrote my own bluetooth interface (iax<->bluetooth bridge).

Its YOUR code to do with as you see fit. If you want to profit from it, thats your right. That's 'capitalism'.

I solve problems for myself, if that happens to benefit someone else, good for them, but the stuff I do isn't 'for the common good'.

--Zims

**kraft** · 05-23-2007, 07:30 PM

I made something that is able to run with linux just as it could run with windows too.

Write some code, make it run with linux and see many people attempting to demonstrate that making money with linux is a bad thing and how naughty boy you are that you don't wan't to give it for nothing and all the blah blah around other's work.
So i prefer to abandon linux as it is in it's actual state and buy components to replace needed functions including kernel embedded within a chip instead losing time with nagging for a null result apart frustated people.

Gpl and other crap is making that developping for linux is not that interesting for business and probably this is why there are not so many companies to adopt linux which prefers to run Microsoft's products due to the FUD policy that some people from the linux community are cultivating without even noticing what they are doing.
Disgusting from the desire to make something with linux.
We all know that people seems to imagine that everything which runs with linux is free

this is definitely wrong.

I hoped to push some brilliant developpers within linux community to go forward and my contribution even if it was not code based was at least with ideas.
This was my attempt to make some of them react in the good way and to suggest some starting point for a quality development, instead of that i get complaining and crying penguins...this is a pity.

Anyway, i don't care anymore, hardware solutions are offering a more serious and stable solutions for the bluetooth part, even if it contains bits and pieces of linux but who cares, it's enclosed within components. A simple black box like a microwaves oven or coffee machine with no more mentionned O.S.

**kraft** · 05-23-2007, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by Zimans

Any code you write that interfaces to a library (Without changing a single line of library code) is yours and yours alone to do as you see fit.
Its YOUR code to do with as you see fit. If you want to profit from it, thats your right. That's 'capitalism'.

I solve problems for myself, if that happens to benefit someone else, good for them, but the stuff I do isn't 'for the common good'.

--Zims

Agree but this seems not so clear for all of the linux community

That's why i will simply chose all possible hardware components embedding functions i need, assemble them in the way i need, build needed pcb rather than continuing develop forward things on which i already worked.

**Zimans** · 05-23-2007, 08:35 PM

The way most companies offering linux or linux products make money is by selling the supoprt. You can grab the code and work things out your self, but don't expect anyone to help you unless you pay for it.

Another approach you could take (Yea I know you've set your mind) is to offer complete solutions for sale. Many people like to just buy something and have it work, No hassle.

--Zims

**strandtc** · 05-24-2007, 02:01 AM

Kraft...

While I understand what you are talking about, I don't understand your direction. In the past you have said you are not going to be selling your code/system. I too have put alot of time into my Linux based system, and I havn't decided if I will release my code.. or sell it.

What direction do you see yourself going with your project?

While I'm sorry you're getting some negative feedback, you have to remember what type of audience is on these boards (mp3car.com, and opensource projects). *Most* of the people here are doing this because its cool and fun.. and maybe they make a little money on the side for their efforts... they are sharing their hardwork freely/inexpensivly, and I think most expect the same.

The place where you find the opposite (people happy to grow a closed source commercial product) is when they are making money in some way.

-Chris

**Johan_B** · 05-24-2007, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by Zimans

Any modifications you make to GPL'd code you have to share the source to.

This is not true.

If you make a modification to GPLed code, you don't have to do anything.

If you use GPLed code, make modifications to it and distribute it (as Tom Tom does), you need to provide this code.

So as long as you don't distribute it, you don't have to share the code, even if it's commercial use. (Like a company that uses altered GPL code internally.)

This point has always been a major misconception of GPL.

Cheers,

Johan.

**kraft** · 05-24-2007, 02:04 PM

This is helping the Fear Uncertainity Deception for those who want to develop something with linux...

Seems that self proclaimed guards of the gpl are doing the absolutely reversed thing of what the objectives of the linux community should or could be, in other words spreading this o.s. no matter if commercial or free means are used...advocacy about linux ?...LOL !
Not only one advocate is needed but a bunch of them to explain to some C.E.O. that linux is good for their company...LOL again.

In the end the industrials are not losing so much, only linux community is losing and delaying it's success as industrials simply return to microsoft products and / or hardware solution far away from this jungle.

**Zimans** · 05-24-2007, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Johan_B

This is not true.

If you make a modification to GPLed code, you don't have to do anything.

If you use GPLed code, make modifications to it and distribute it (as Tom Tom does), you need to provide this code.

So as long as you don't distribute it, you don't have to share the code, even if it's commercial use. (Like a company that uses altered GPL code internally.)

This point has always been a major misconception of GPL.

Cheers,

Johan.

I DIdn't state it but I was refering to a distributed product (cause all of this is a moot point if you don't actually distribute/sell something)

--Zims