windows query.. · DIGIT-ARC

T

guys i installed winxp sp2 in a frnds machine but the problem is that when i try to reboot, the machine freezes at POST. ii had to reformat and reinstall.
the machine config is
p4 2.8 ht, asus p4p800-vm,2*256 ddr400 ram.
thnx for ur helps and suggestions in advance.

T

oye, i started this thread in the 'open source' forum. why was it removed? did i do anything wrong?

H

technomodel said:
oye, i started this thread in the 'open source' forum. why was it removed? did i do anything wrong?

is windows open-source???
i dont even feel like replying...

Hitesh

A

Even i had the same problem after installing sp2 on my system.
But i did not format my c: but simply upgraded my installation
by booting via XP cd and the problem was solved.
I know the solution but what i wanna know is the reason why it happened.

U

Most prolly a corrupt MBR (Master Boot record), as stated by amit, you don't need to reformat, but just reinstall, as this will reinstall the MBR.

T

but if i upgrade, then the sp2 i installed will be removed. and again when i reinstall the service pack, the problem is repeated.

my dear hitesh, windows IS open source. it's not a free software, but it is open source, as it has started to share it's source code with many countries. so by definition, i guess i can call windows open source and i believe rightly posted it in the open source forum.

Hello technomodel,

technomodel said:
my dear hitesh, windows IS open source.

Well, Windows is NOT Open Source.... there are certain things, like the licencing aggrement, patenting issues, permission over source code... first these things have to be sorted out then only a software can be called an OpenSource software...

technomodel said:
it's not a free software, but it is open source, as it has started to share it's source code with many countries.

The source code of windows is shared with which coutries ? Is it Europe ? or India, China also ?... Just giving out a copy of source code is not enough for a software to be called OpenSource.... In this particular case that you are talking about, the source code has been given..... but the government does not have the rights to compile and test the software wether it really works the it is claimed to work....

Note: For a software to be rightly classified as OpenSource, the following conditions should be met.
1) Users have the right to use the program for any purpose
2) Users have the right to copy and distribut the source code...
3) Users have the right to modify the program for any purpose.
4) Users have the right to re-distribut the modified source codes.

Read GPL conditions for redistributions :
*www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#VerbatimCopying

Read the Open Source defination here:
*www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

technomodel said:
so by definition, i guess i can call windows open source and i believe rightly posted it in the open source forum.

I moved it from OpenSource to Q&A coz i could not understand any reason for a BIOS issue with Windows XP being posted there!!!

H

Sorry for taking this thread off topic but...

technomodel said:
my dear hitesh, windows IS open source. it's not a free software, but it is open source, as it has started to share it's source code with many countries. so by definition, i guess i can call windows open source and i believe rightly posted it in the open source forum.

Well i don't have the source-code of windows otherwise would have removed some of the bugs...and that is why (even otherwise too, as Gnurag pointed out) it is not open source.

I have complete source-code of RH9 (all three CD of source code and i do look at it some of the time...

Hitesh Gupta

T

The Open Source Definition is clear enough, and it is quite clear that the typical non-free program does not qualify. So you would think that ``Open Source company'' would mean one whose products are free software (or close to it), right? Alas, many companies are trying to give it a different meaning.

At the ``Open Source Developers Day'' meeting in August 1998, several of the commercial developers invited said they intend to make only a part of their work free software (or ``open source''). The focus of their business is on developing proprietary add-ons (software or manuals) to sell to the users of this free software. They ask us to regard this as legitimate, as part of our community, because some of the money is donated to free software development.

In effect, these companies seek to gain the favorable cachet of ``open source'' for their proprietary software products--even though those are not ``open source software''--because they have some relationship to free software or because the same company also maintains some free software. (One company founder said quite explicitly that they would put, into the free package they support, as little of their work as the community would stand for.)

Over the years, many companies have contributed to free software development. Some of these companies primarily developed non-free software, but the two activities were separate; thus, we could ignore their non-free products, and work with them on free software projects. Then we could honestly thank them afterward for their free software contributions, without talking about the rest of what they did.

We cannot do the same with these new companies, because they won't let us. These companies actively invite the public to lump all their activities together; they want us to regard their non-free software as favorably as we would regard a real contribution, although it is not one. They present themselves as ``open source companies,'' hoping that we will get a warm fuzzy feeling about them, and that we will be fuzzy-minded in applying it.

This manipulative practice would be no less harmful if it were done using the term ``free software.'' But companies do not seem to use the term ``free software'' that way; perhaps its association with idealism makes it seem unsuitable. The term ``open source'' opened the door for this.

At a trade show in late 1998, dedicated to the operating system often referred to as ``Linux'', the featured speaker was an executive from a prominent software company. He was probably invited on account of his company's decision to ``support'' that system. Unfortunately, their form of ``support'' consists of releasing non-free software that works with the system--in other words, using our community as a market but not contributing to it.

He said, ``There is no way we will make our product open source, but perhaps we will make it `internal' open source. If we allow our customer support staff to have access to the source code, they could fix bugs for the customers, and we could provide a better product and better service.'' (This is not an exact quote, as I did not write his words down, but it gets the gist.)

People in the audience afterward told me, ``He just doesn't get the point.'' But is that so? Which point did he not get?

He did not miss the point of the Open Source movement. That movement does not say users should have freedom, only that allowing more people to look at the source code and help improve it makes for faster and better development. The executive grasped that point completely; unwilling to carry out that approach in full, users included, he was considering implementing it partially, within the company.

The point that he missed is the point that ``open source'' was designed not to raise: the point that users deserve freedom.

Spreading the idea of freedom is a big job--it needs your help. That's why we stick to the term ``free software'' in the GNU Project, so we can help do that job. If you feel that freedom and community are important for their own sake--not just for the convenience they bring--please join us in using the term ``free software''.

*www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html

T

sorry anurag, i guess it's a blasphemy to argue with you in something about which you ate certainly one of the most knowledgable in this forum, but i would like to point this out.
and i knew that you would remove the topic, at least warn me. :wink:

and that's what i wanted. if you think i'm being too clever, please forgive me. my only was reason was to grab as much attention with this thread as possible. i may be wrong in my philosophy,but i want to clear it up.

if you have still not guessed, my main intention is to point at the naming of the 'open source' forum.

K

kurious : if a person developed software using open source platform or gpl , i aint clear abt the terms , does it mean he has to disclose all the contents of his software ?? lets say someone makes a gr8 encryption program for indian army using OS platform . would he have to disclose all his tricks and coding to the open source community . or is there a way where he could protect his property as his own .

- u can move this to open source topic if it seems outta place here

technomodel said:
and that's what i wanted. if you think i'm being too clever, please forgive me. my only was reason was to grab as much attention with this thread as possible.

I dont get the point... you were trying to grab attention by asking about how to fix a WinXP machine which hangs after POST ? could you explain us the logic ?

technomodel said:
i may be wrong in my philosophy,but i want to clear it up.

No you are not wrong at all about GNU and OpenSource... you perhaps seem to understand the difference between the Free Software movement and the OpenSource movement.... the fact is that these two philosiphies are quite different from each other....

technomodel said:
if you have still not guessed, my main intention is to point at the naming of the 'open source' forum.

I have been requesting the same thing ever since then OpenSource section was created a month back ... read these posting that i made on the very first day...
*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9215
*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9223
*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10429

plus there are many more threads in general discussion section where iraised this issue... perhaps you did not go through them....

@klinux, this discussion has become out of topic.... i'd request you to post you views in GPL v3 arriving soon thread in the open source section.... that is the right place to discuss the pit falls of the OpenSource movement... and why it is better to follow the GNU and Free Software movement....

T

GNUrag wrote

plus there are many more threads in general discussion section where iraised this issue... perhaps you did not go through them....

u'r write, i had'nt

GNUrag wrote

I dont get the point... you were trying to grab attention by asking about how to fix a WinXP machine which hangs after POST ? could you explain us the logic ?

well actually what i wanted was that that someone would reply that the thread was to be in another forum,and then i would jump into the discussions about the implications of the name "open source". i specifically chose windows as there is this notion that whatever may be open source, windows can't even be remotely linked to the term.

Some stuff for you to read technomodel,

*mm.gnu.org.in/pipermail/fsf-friends/2004-September/002303.html
*mm.gnu.org.in/pipermail/fsf-friends/2003-November/001255.html
*mm.gnu.org.in/pipermail/fsf-friends/2003-November/001261.html

T

thnx GNUrag.those were really nice links.

"Microsoft opens up code program"

is not the same as

"Microsoft frees up program code"

exactly. and it's because of this very reason that no one can mix proprietory s/wrs with free softwares.

the line between 'open' and 'shared' is very fuzzy.

A

Hey technomodel
I think ur just giving lame excuses to hide your folly.
I dont think you started the thread with the intention of what you are trying to justify now in the later posts.
Admit it maaan if im right.
But please dont get hot if im wrong cos this is just a personal guess.
Please dont feel offended and speak your mind if im wrong.