Revolution OS

[philip2009]

Revolution OS is a 2001 documentary which traces the history of GNU, Linux, and the open source and free software movements. It features several interviews with prominent hackers and entrepreneurs (and hackers-cum-entrepreneurs), including Richard Stallman, Michael Tiemann, Linus Torvalds, Larry Augustin, Eric S. Raymond, Bruce Perens, Frank Hecker and Brian Behlendorf.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7707585592627775409&hl=en

I actually bought this on DVD and found it very enjoyable. Of course it helps if you are interested in Linux and know something about some of the people who appear ...

 

[VFR_KID]

Think this would be more suited in the Windows and other software section.

 

[Burnsy2023]

It's very hippyish, Demonises MS and is hugely biased. I think there's plenty of space in the market for both though

 

[craptakular]

It's very hippyish, Demonises MS and is hugely biased. I think there's plenty of space in the market for both though

Burnsey are you a linux moderator now? If you are, can you change your horiffic windows signature please lol

 

[Burnsy2023]

Burnsey are you a linux moderator now? If you are, can you change your horiffic windows signature please lol

No I'm not, well not specifically, that doesn't mean I won't pop in from time to time though

 

[craptakular]

No I'm not, well not specifically, that doesn't mean I won't pop in from time to time though

oh noes. lol

I think it will be our mission to get you to try a linux/BSD distro lol, assuming you haven't already

 

[Burnsy2023]

I think it will be our mission to get you to try a linux/BSD distro lol, assuming you haven't already

Depends if I can sort this: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17994234

 

[craptakular]

hhhmmm I cant help much with that, I have basic word processing/excel needs. Openoffice suits me, I may try get office 2003 working over wine/crossover for kicks, but I don't really need MS Office.

Do you really need MS Office? is it just because your familiar with it? or a poweruser that needs advanced office stuffs?

 

[philip2009]

It's very hippyish, Demonises MS and is hugely biased.

The tendency of M$ to play dirty, and the legal action taken against them in both the US and Europe, suggests they're only getting what they deserve.

 

[Burnsy2023]

The tendency of M$ to play dirty, and the legal action taken against them in both the US and Europe, suggests they're only getting what they deserve.

I'm not sure why you've said they're playing dirty if they own the IP rights to patents that have been infringed.

 

[BillytheImpaler]

I'll hazard a guess and say that philip2009 was referring more to practices those governments deemed to be those of an "abusive" monopoly, whatever that means.

Meh, I think we can all agree that the current state of software-related IP is broken in a variety of ways.

The film is an interesting sidenote; it's certainly biased and is badly dated. However, I think it's still worth a watch if you're exploring free software.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Meh, I think we can all agree that the current state of software-related IP is broken in a variety of ways.

The film is an interesting sidenote; it's certainly biased and is badly dated. However, I think it's still worth a watch if you're exploring free software.

I'd totally agree with both those points except I'd say that Documentry is worth watching even if you're not exploring free software.

 

[philip2009]

I'm not sure why you've said they're playing dirty ...

I've said they have a tendency to play dirty because, given a free hand, that's exactly what they do. Whether it's the anti-trust prosecution, or getting funding to SCO to try and destroy Linux, or Ballmer making threatening noises about patents in order scare firms away from Linux. As for whether they actually have valid patents (where there is no prior art), how many firms can afford the legal bill to fight M$ ?

 

[Burnsy2023]

I've said they have a tendency to play dirty because, given a free hand, that's exactly what they do. Whether it's the anti-trust prosecution, or getting funding to SCO to try and destroy Linux, or Ballmer making threatening noises about patents in order scare firms away from Linux. As for whether they actually have valid patents (where there is no prior art), how many firms can afford the legal bill to fight M$ ?

The anti-trust prosecutions are laughable at best. And evidence for the SCO funding?

 

[philip2009]

The film is an interesting sidenote; it's certainly biased and is badly dated. However, I think it's still worth a watch if you're exploring free software.

There aren't many Linux documentaries about, and this is the best of them IMHO.

 

[philip2009]

The anti-trust prosecutions are laughable at best.

You may have that opinion however in the real world we know how M$ works -

The trial started on May 18, 1998 with the U.S. Justice Department and the Attorneys General of twenty U.S. states suing Microsoft for illegally thwarting competition in order to protect and extend its software monopoly. Later, in October the US Justice Department also sued Microsoft for violating a 1994 consent decree by forcing computer makers to include its Internet browser as a part of the installation of Windows software. During the antitrust case it was revealed that Microsoft had threatened PC manufacturers with revoking their license to distribute Windows if they removed the Internet Explorer icon from the initial desktop,[citation needed] something that Netscape had requested of its licensees.[citation needed]

Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates was called "evasive and nonresponsive" by a source present at a session in which Gates was questioned on his deposition.[2] He argued over the definitions of words such as "compete", "concerned", "ask", and "we".[3] BusinessWeek reported, "Early rounds of his deposition show him offering obfuscatory answers and saying 'I don't recall' so many times that even the presiding judge had to chuckle. Worse, many of the technology chief's denials and pleas of ignorance have been directly refuted by prosecutors with snippets of E-mail Gates both sent and received."[4] Intel Vice-President Steven McGeady, called as a witness, quoted Paul Maritz, a senior Microsoft vice president as having stated an intention to "extinguish" and "smother" rival Netscape Communications Corporation and to "cut off Netscape's air supply" by giving away a clone of Netscape's flagship product for free. The Microsoft executive denied the allegations.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft#Trial

And evidence for the SCO funding?

Their direct and indirect involvement is well known -

Microsoft funding of SCO controversy

On March 4, 2004, a leaked SCO internal e-mail detailed how Microsoft had raised up to $106 million via the BayStar referral and other means.[44] Blake Stowell of SCO confirmed the memo was real.[45] BayStar claimed the deal was suggested by Microsoft, but that no money for it came directly from them.[46] In addition to the Baystar involvement, Microsoft paid SCO $6M (USD) in May 2003 for a license to "Unix and Unix-related patents", despite the lack of Unix-related patents owned by SCO. [47] This deal was widely seen in the press as a boost to SCO's finances which would help SCO with its lawsuit against IBM.[48][49][50]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO-Linux_controversies#Microsoft_funding_of_SCO_controversy