4 ms·

I'm a BSD fan myself, but startups are possible without open source. Stack Overflow runs on Windows, for example. The one thing that startups need is freedom t

I'm a BSD fan myself, but startups are possible without open source. Stack Overflow runs on Windows, for example. The one thing that startups need is freedom to make what people want so that those people will freely choose to pay the startup (how many startups existed in the USSR in 1970?). OSS is just a nice-to-have once you look at it that way. If it was a necessity, you'd have to explain how there were startups before anything was open source. Edit: OSS would still exist in some form even if there were no government funding for it. You know how some people say they do it just for fun? I think that's true.

hasenj 16y ago
SO is the exception that proves the rule. Also, another thing. Linux/BSD push the bar way high up and force Windows to try and catch up. So even if you use windows, you're still affected by Linux. In the same way that you're affected (positively) by Apple even if you use Ubuntu.
- maxharris 16y ago
  The operating system is just one component. People had lives and did things before there were operating systems of any kind. Edit: For example, could you write CAD software without an OS as we know it today? It would be undoubtedly harder, but you could. People did this in the 60s.
  - hasenj 16y ago
    I'm not sure how this fits into the discussion, but what you're saying can be used as an argument against IP. Since people lived just fine before technology, we don't need technology all that much, therefore we don't need IP.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - asher 16y ago
    It might be easier to write CAD software without an OS. At least, writing directly to a framebuffer is simpler than using X11 or OpenGL or Win32. Unless I'm missing something, a modern CAD system has to plot each entity twice; once to the display system and once to an internal grid. The internal grid is used for entity selection, possibly culling and other things. The older AutoCADs (on DOS) apparently plotted the internal grid (hi-res), then resampled it to generate the screen display. Thus, minor panning and zooming could be accomodated without "regenerating" -- replotting the hi-res grid. Anyway, a CAD system doesn't really use the facilities of an OS; something like a web server, however, seems to benefit from an OS.
- defen 16y ago
  Minor rhetorical note - you used the phrase "exception that proves the rule" incorrectly. You used it to mean "the single exception to a general rule", with "open source software is necessary for a successful startup" being the rule, and Stack Overflow being the exception. The phrase actually means that the existence of a specific rule implies that the negation is true for circumstances not covered by the rule. So, if half of the blocks in a city have "parking prohibited" signs, and no such signs elsewhere, that "proves" that parking is in fact allowed on the other blocks, since the signs are excepting the general rule. In other words, why would there be a sign if it was understood that there is no parking? Sorry to make such a big point out of a small matter, but we already lost one good phrase ("Begging the question") to widespread improper usage. Wikipedia has more info, including the origin of the phrase: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule
  - hasenj 16y ago
    The rule is like: It's really really hard to make startups without the open-source Unix-based systems/tools
    - defen 16y ago
      The point is that the phrase "exception that proves the rule" should only be used when talking about man-made rules and laws, not inductive hypotheses. You don't get to use evidence against your hypothesis as evidence for your hypothesis! Put another way, when used correctly, "the exception that proves the rule" is a valid rhetorical phrase regardless of how many exceptions there are. Whereas if there were 500 successful startups using non-open-source tools, you wouldn't say that they were the exceptions that proved the rule.
      - hasenj 16y ago
        > You don't get to use evidence against your hypothesis as evidence for your hypothesis! But you do. That's the point. It's not an absolute law. I'm sure you can find a great application written in Visual Basic. This doesn't make Visual Basic a great choice over Python. If you could list 50+ successful startups running on Windows, then you could say there's a strong evidence. And even then, this only proves that Windows is as good as Linux. It doesn't counter the original point about Linux being great despite not having a business model centered around IP.

hasenj 16y ago

SO is the exception that proves the rule. Also, another thing. Linux/BSD push the bar way high up and force Windows to try and catch up. So even if you use windows, you're still affected by Linux. In the same way that you're affected (positively) by Apple even if you use Ubuntu.

maxharris 16y ago
The operating system is just one component. People had lives and did things before there were operating systems of any kind. Edit: For example, could you write CAD software without an OS as we know it today? It would be undoubtedly harder, but you could. People did this in the 60s.
- hasenj 16y ago
  I'm not sure how this fits into the discussion, but what you're saying can be used as an argument against IP. Since people lived just fine before technology, we don't need technology all that much, therefore we don't need IP.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- asher 16y ago
  It might be easier to write CAD software without an OS. At least, writing directly to a framebuffer is simpler than using X11 or OpenGL or Win32. Unless I'm missing something, a modern CAD system has to plot each entity twice; once to the display system and once to an internal grid. The internal grid is used for entity selection, possibly culling and other things. The older AutoCADs (on DOS) apparently plotted the internal grid (hi-res), then resampled it to generate the screen display. Thus, minor panning and zooming could be accomodated without "regenerating" -- replotting the hi-res grid. Anyway, a CAD system doesn't really use the facilities of an OS; something like a web server, however, seems to benefit from an OS.
defen 16y ago
Minor rhetorical note - you used the phrase "exception that proves the rule" incorrectly. You used it to mean "the single exception to a general rule", with "open source software is necessary for a successful startup" being the rule, and Stack Overflow being the exception. The phrase actually means that the existence of a specific rule implies that the negation is true for circumstances not covered by the rule. So, if half of the blocks in a city have "parking prohibited" signs, and no such signs elsewhere, that "proves" that parking is in fact allowed on the other blocks, since the signs are excepting the general rule. In other words, why would there be a sign if it was understood that there is no parking? Sorry to make such a big point out of a small matter, but we already lost one good phrase ("Begging the question") to widespread improper usage. Wikipedia has more info, including the origin of the phrase: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule
- hasenj 16y ago
  The rule is like: It's really really hard to make startups without the open-source Unix-based systems/tools
  - defen 16y ago
    The point is that the phrase "exception that proves the rule" should only be used when talking about man-made rules and laws, not inductive hypotheses. You don't get to use evidence against your hypothesis as evidence for your hypothesis! Put another way, when used correctly, "the exception that proves the rule" is a valid rhetorical phrase regardless of how many exceptions there are. Whereas if there were 500 successful startups using non-open-source tools, you wouldn't say that they were the exceptions that proved the rule.
    - hasenj 16y ago
      > You don't get to use evidence against your hypothesis as evidence for your hypothesis! But you do. That's the point. It's not an absolute law. I'm sure you can find a great application written in Visual Basic. This doesn't make Visual Basic a great choice over Python. If you could list 50+ successful startups running on Windows, then you could say there's a strong evidence. And even then, this only proves that Windows is as good as Linux. It doesn't counter the original point about Linux being great despite not having a business model centered around IP.