Literally all open source software is a knockoff of commercial alternatives

Evolution =/= innovation.
Not that I expect NEETs to understand the difference.

You're not making your position any stronger by throwing random unrelated terms.

Name 5 truly innovative open source software projects.
Hint: any "open source alternative" obviously doesn't count.

>knockoff
What does that even mean?
"The first X" was most likely a research project which code never got published or has long since vanished.
Adobe didn't create the first image editing software, Microsoft didn't create the first kernel or the first office suite.
They are all derivatives.

Linux is a Kernel and that Kernel powers the most widely used mobile operating system in the world.
I fail to see how that means it is irrelevant?

This is partly why Hedera Hashgraph will kill bitcoin. Speed, security, stability, governance, regulatory compiance; we can actually put the WORLD ECONOMY on this, no hand waving, no autistic skeleton. A scarce bearer asset with virtually zero counterparty risk but an associated return from staking. In a world of negative interest rates money will pour in by the TRILLIONS. Stay woke my bloke

>governance, regulatory compiance
what's the fucking point then

Any research project where the sourcecode is freely available.

You pretend as if the companies were the innovators, but that just is not the case.

Linux and GNU are literal clones of a proprietary OS, Unix.
What you freetards are still refusing to understand is that the discussion is not whether open source software is in wide use or not, because it is. It's about whether it is truly innovative (it's not).

Care to actually name them?

Okay user.
Now take your government issued shut-up pills and your 2TB Seagate HDD filled with porn and commercial software spying on every opportunity they have, and return to this board once your insurance premiums soar and all your ads are indecent. Then we can take a look at all of the "Innovation" spoon-feeding you'd miss out on by switching to code you can trust.

Innovation doesn't require you to come up with the core concept from scratch. Introducing new concepts on top of the original idea is also innovation.

>Linux and GNU are literal clones of a proprietary OS, Unix.
Yes and UNIX is the clone of another OS which then was based on something etc. until you have the first kernel ever written as a pure research project.

>It's about whether it is truly innovative
And you refuse to understand than innovation doesn't come from companies.
Microsoft didn't invent the kernel, Adobe didn't invent photo editing.
The innovators are the researchers but research software is basically unused, someone picks the research up and makes it work sometimes companies, most often not.

>neets getting this buttblasted

Attached: 1544276873108.png (500x400, 4K)

I'll do you one better, here's a wiki of Open-source research projects.
openresearch.org/wiki/Main_Page

As long as it's better than the proprietary shitware alternative (it is), then it doesn't matter

How can any one man be this stupid?

Commercial software doesn't provide talent and money. Companies provide money, people provide talent. Popular free & open source projects are sponsored by big companies and developed by talented people all over the globe. What kind of software do you call innovative anyway? Can you name some examples?

>i can't actually come up with any name, here is a list of some meme irrelevant scripts used in papers from some boomer professors which reinvent the wheel for the millionth time
LMAO

I don't like open source software. If you're calling your software open source, it's misleading, you're trying to rope in people who think free and open source are the same thing. You can have open source software that is still not respecting of freedom.

but that's worthless, user
there's no Corporation Inc. © logo on any of them

Isn't like 99% of kernel development funded by corporations?

The entire argument is a joke.

>all your arguments are irrelevant because I said so

How's it going, Richard?

Yes, you can obviously dismiss any counter example.

Care to provide some "innovative" corporate software? And please not something which is just monetizing retardation in a new way, nothing innovative about that.

Agreed.
"Open source" is literally a term cucks such as ESR made up since they instinctively know free software is good, but they are too scared to openly support the ideology.

Why on Earth would stallman post in a place like this

OP can't even define "innovative software" and can't give any examples of it. How can you even argue?

What is this supposed to imply, dumb tripfag?

Governance in terms of the code, so you don't get money leaking into 1500 shitcoins based on the only good one, and regulatory compliance means Hedera has a legal team training the SEC in how to approach this. Chances are the money Hedera is throwing at legal will pave the way for crypto as a whole, and you should probably cap this, Hedera will be the first crypto with an ETF. Watch Leemon Baird's Harvard talk and become enlightened

Considering how morally depraved he is it would be unsurprising.

If that were true, then you would think that these mental midget Windows and Apple users would know how to use Linux. In reality, Windows, iOS, and Mac OS are bug ridden, insecure, privacy violating garbage. I have not used Windows or any Apple product for over 15 years, and I don't intend to ever use them again. Apple is shit, and so is Windows. I may not follow the commie philosophy, but I do know that free software is the only way to have control of your own devices.

That commercial software, like the Linux Kernel, can be open source.

who gets

Linux isn't commercial.

Definition of innovation
1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : novelty

>4 replies
unironically falling for this lmao

He means that most mainstream FOSS software that is discussed on Jow Forums is just clones of shit from Windows and OS X, and he’s not really wrong. Nobody here does much for fun beyond browse the web or write toy programs so you’re not likely to see much “innovative” things discussed amongst them.

???
This is absurd, Android is obviously commercial software, as it is used to make money.
Besides there companies which are based around it?

If Linux isn't commercial software, what else could be?

>is just clones of shit from Windows and OS X
Like what?
Certainly GIMP is discussed very rarely and I see no other example.

this

Android isn't Linux. Linux is a kernel.
Android is a complete operating system which uses Linux as its kernel.

No it isn't. I can go to distrowatch.com, download the Android x86 iso image, install it in a VM, etc. Anyone can download and install Android and they don't need to pay anything. Likewise, anyone can download and run Chrome OS free of charge.

This

GIT

>which uses Linux as its kernel.
Yes, thus Linux is commercial software as an integral part inside of commercial software.

Just because something is free to download doesn't mean it isn't commercial.
Commercial software is software that companies use to make money with.
Is Adobe reader not commercial software, just because you can download it for free?

>Android x86
That isn't Android.

Then why is FOSS software usually better? Also, there's many new things that Free software has brought us. Know your crap before posting!

Google does not market Android. Google makes money from marketing. Now, what is really fucked up is how Mac OS developers robbed FreeBSD, made their shitty version of it, and made it proprietary. That is really fucked up.

is irrelevant to the point.

>Google makes money from marketing.
Of course it does.
Imagine how many pixel phones they would have sold if it came without an operating system...

>robbed
Nothing illegal happened, blame the freeBSD guys for not having copyleft.

Very often I find that open source software fits my needs better than closed-source alternatives.

Wow, you're fucking dumb. Google does not sell Android and YES Android x86 is Android you low IQ mental midget.

>Google does not sell Android
And Adobe doesn't sell Adobe reader.
Both is commercial software, claiming otherwise is beyond retarded.

Commercial software is software companies use to make money. Android is used to make money.

That does not make Linux commercial fucktard. Google made their own version, which is completely legal. If they made Android proprietary and marketed it as their own kernel, then it would be a violation. They do something similar to what Red Hat does.They recognize that the OS is not their proprietary OS, but they do make money from the services that the OS provides. You need to learn the differences between free, open source, and proprietary.

>Android proprietary and marketed it as their own kernel,
Android is an operating system, Linux is the kernel.

>That does not make Linux commercial fucktard.
???
It is used to make money, how is that not commercial?

>They do something similar to what Red Hat does.
RedHat also uses Linux as a product to make money.

>You need to learn the differences between free, open source, and proprietary.
We are talking about commercial, which is unrelated to that.
Free, open source and proprietary software can be commercial.

Innovation is a buzzword and a marketing term you god damn faggot. Most """innovation""" happens in universities with open source licenses.

Attached: 1564381535027.jpg (392x309, 141K)

Open source encourages innovation from the proprietary software makers.

Once you get an OSS solution available for free, this will pressure companies to innovate their proprietary counterpart to stay relevant in the market.

Attached: 1529641218026.jpg (576x764, 111K)

> commercial products are not using open source libraries
brainlets leave

>another neet completely missing the point

What has free software brought us on a purely technical level?

lolno
The average CS paper published in the past 15 years or so is nothing but buzzwords and wheel reinventions conveniently veiled in mathematical formalism.
You'd know this if you weren't LARPing and a mathlet.

The Rust language is open source and it has some pretty innovative ideas

this, that's why I only use free software

>most widely used mobile operating system in the world.
because of google
not because linux shit

Unix is not a single OS. Some unixes have open source components.

a shitty BitKeeper knockoff

was windows popular not because microsoft monopoly?

Anything can be commercial or non-commercial, depending of context. If I make non-commercial Linux distro then it's non-commercial Linux. If I make commercial Linux then it's commercial.

which means that gut was also right since he meant different context

Web server. is innovative software. First implementation was free and public domain., later implementations were FOSS Most common web server technologies are also FOSS

GitLab isn't

The original Unix was proprietary, period.
All the rest, as it has been already said a million times, are just evolutions of the same concept, and not actual innovation.
Man, this thread has truly exposed how clueless Jow Forums actually is about the real world. You're all nothing but LARPers.

>goes on NEET website
>surprised they're all NEETs