.

DIR sir !
i have some trouble with my study .sorry ,my name's Vu Anh Tuan,i'm a student of HCMcity University of technology in Viet Nam.I must develope a browser of netscape but i don't have find source code.i don't have money to pay this...please help me .Would you please send me this source code of netscape(netscape navigator browser) or send me free address to download this.
My email: vatuannet@yahoo.co.uk

please help me ,thank you very much

Dime - Apache statistics can be decieving. I am looking at the whole picture. For instance, I run 3 web servers, all of which are apache servers. From this you would think I am a complete open source shop. However, 1 apache server runs on Linux, 1 runs on Netware, and 1 runs on Win2k Server (only 1 out of 3 open source). Contrary to what most people believe, Apache does not equate to Linux. One uses PHP(open source) and another uses ColdFusion (only 1 out of 2 open source).
To make a blanket statement that the Internet is powered by open source, even when you show Apache statistics, is not the whole picture.

Let's take them one at a time.
1. "The Internet is powered by open source."DISAGREE - The Internet is powered by people. It was people at DARPA who got it started. People at Netscape and many other companies that had nothing to do with open source (at the time anyway) that launched this global village. If open source did not exist, there would still be routers, dns servers, mail servers, web servers, etc. Open source is not a bad thing, but let's not vaunt it up beyond the height of its own legs.2. "The Internet is the carrier for open source."AGREED - The Internet certainly makes open source possible. In fact, this assertion is prima facia evidence against #1. Here, Mark put's the horse in front of the cart.3. "The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."DISAGREED - I know it's symantics, but the Internet is not a platform, not at least from a developer's point of view. Like so many other tech terms, the word platform is so misused as to nearly render it meaningless. Let's just keep the word platform to refer to the combination of the operating system and the hardware it runs on, okay?4. "It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."DISAGREED - The fact that software is open source does not inherently make it better or worse in any respect than proprietary software, including security issues. While it is possible that an active development community in open source can respond more quickly to discovered or exploited security vulnerabilities, it is entirely the opposite case for open source projects that receive little attention except by would-be crackers. Any system is only as strong as its weakest component. For Mark to make this assertion only further's the false notion that security in software is a function of the software development model.5. "Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."SHAMEFUL STATEMENT - This statement can neither be proved nor disproved through logic. It is inflammatory and simply pathetic to assign a benefit to open source derived from the hate and jealousy aimed at the United States whatever the political reason. Shame on you, Mark.6. "Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers."AGREED - This is a true statement but can also be just as true in a proprietary software development shop. The only difference is the scope of the definition of peers. I doubt very much that this has accounted more than trivially toward the growth of open source in the market place. It certainly accounts for the growing participation of developers in the open source community, so perhaps one can make an justify the inclusion of this statement in the list.7. "Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants."REDICULOUS - This is political rhetoric. It cannot even be classified as a reason for the growth of open source. The definition of "giants" is an individually subjective matter making the consideration of this statement pointless.8. "Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."AGREE - If premise is that open source has grown because Linux runs on the ubiquitous Intel x86 instruction set and its primary competitor, Unix, primarily runs on expensive and proprietary servers such as those from Sun, then yes I agree. But let's not forget that the very fact that availability and affordability of x86 hardware is the direct result of the Windows/Intel alliance, an amusing fact given that the proprietary Windows OS and its maker are anathema to the open source community.9. "Embedded devices are making greater use of open source."AGREED - Certainly a quantifiable statement. But does this fact account for the growth of open source or does the growth of open source account for this fact?10. "There are an increasing number of companies developing software that aren't software companies."AGREED - No doubt that this is true. The fact is that many hardware and telcom companies are participating in open source development because they see a variety of benefits from doing so, not the least of which is the opportunity to sell support services after installing "free software" on the hardware they are selling.11. "Companies are increasingly supporting Linux."AGREED - Absolutely true, despite the murky waters of intellectual property issues that hang over Linux's head. Vendors and users are jumping on the Linux bandwagon in increasing numbers. The advantages of open source operating systems are too numerous to mention here. But count how many of those companies are or will be releasing their own products under the banner of open source. That number is growing at a pace that would make any snail Indy 500 material by comparison.12. "It's free."DISAGREE - Certainly one can download the code and install it and use it without paying anyone. But open source is not without economic cost. While the exact cost is will be debated for eternity, but the fact that there is cost involved is indisputable. As proof of that statment, I give you the many thousands of companies that still choose to buy Windows despite the fact that I can download and install an operating system, an office suite of productivity applications, and many more software packages that would give me, in essence, functional equivalency with my Windows desktop without paying anyone a license fee.

looks like i want to add another point !.
->> Check out the support it has !!!.
it took me a greal deal to scroll down this page this down to read all the feedbacks !.haa !.
there is no stoppping !. no looking back !.. challenge open source and it challenges u back!!.

We'll yes if you are a millionaire over and over like the smug Andreessen you'd certainly support open source. But what other industry has successfully survived in the US by giving away its products (by harnessing the power of starry eyed, yet essentially naive workers interested in glory).

Next time you stand in the unemployment line as you reflect on your job being outsourced ponder on the fact that Open Source has a lot of the blame. Open Source was responsible for the greatest knowledge transfer in history.

All the millions of hours people in the US spent figuring out Unix and file structures and ASCII and the Internet transferred to countries that spent not a dime in investment.

So be pleased that Marc is filthy rich while you are unemployed, feel pleased that he is a smug (and poorly informed - you may have seen him on Lou Dobbs) businessman sending jobs overseas. Nice anti-American sentiment Marc, I guess you simply don't understand the infrastructure in the US that gave you the opportunity you had.

The Open Source movement has effectively destroyed software development in the US. Good old Marc Andreessen played his part. Think of him fondly when you flip you next burger and think fondly on what used to be.

We'll yes if you are a millionaire over and over like the smug Andreessen you'd certainly support open source. But what other industry has successfully survived in the US by giving away its products (by harnessing the power of starry eyed, yet essentially naive workers interested in glory).

Next time you stand in the unemployment line as you reflect on your job being outsourced ponder on the fact that Open Source has a lot of the blame. Open Source was responsible for the greatest knowledge transfer in history.

All the millions of hours people in the US spent figuring out Unix and file structures and ASCII and the Internet transferred to countries that spent not a dime in investment.

So be pleased that Marc is filthy rich while you are unemployed, feel pleased that he is a smug (and poorly informed - you may have seen him on Lou Dobbs) businessman sending jobs overseas. Nice anti-American sentiment Marc, I guess you simply don't understand the infrastructure in the US that gave you the opportunity you had.

The Open Source movement has effectively destroyed software development in the US. Good old Marc Andreessen played his part. Think of him fondly when you flip you next burger and think fondly on what used to be.

sludge: "True, if you're talking about DNS servers... web and email servers are a different story"

yeah ok.. that explains this [http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/11/03/november_2003_web_server_survey.html]
apache runs 2/3 of the internet's webservers

while i don't have a specific quote, i'm also pretty confident most email on the web is handled by nix.. when microsoft bought out hotmail, they had a job and a half changing the email servers from bsd..

as for the "Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants." comment.. it comes from the phrase. "If I have seen further, it is because I have been standing on the shoulders of giants. it means that open source is able to make better progress because people are able to build upon others' work freely without having to start from scratch.

"The Internet is powered by open source." - True, if you're talking about DNS servers... web and email servers are a different story

"The Internet is the carrier for open source." - The Internet is the carrier for most things... this is not open source specific... just ask the porn industry

"The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed." - So? A factual statement without a point. He should of finished the statement by pointing out that open source is more collabrative and diverse because of its development model. That's a point worth mentioning.

"It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software." - FBI/NSA proprietary software is less secure? Novell's Netware product is less secure than Linux? Why don't they say what they mean... Open source is more secure than Microsoft products.

"Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments." - I don't get this one... Anti-Americans are looking to bring us down through open source? Do they mean anti-monopoly sentiments? If so, Red Hat may be in this boat one day soon...

"Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers." - Correction and feedback from peers are better benefits... How could he overlook that one? He must be one of those virus writers that are constantly looking for bragging rights/respect.

"Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants." - I just don't get this one...

"Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel." - Yes and mainframes were supposed to be obsolete by now... Intel servers sometimes aren't enough... hence IBM has Linux Mainframes. Is this point Intel propaganda?

"Embedded devices are making greater use of open source." - Embedded devices are starting to use "embedded XP"... PocketPC is greater than Linux in the PDA world. What does he mean by "greater"?

"There are an increasing number of companies developing software that aren't software companies." - Great, just what we need... more software without documentation and support, created in garages and prison cells. Do people want their company's mission critical stuff on software that is not made by a software company? Not all software is good... aren't most hacking tools open source?

"Companies are increasingly supporting Linux." - True! However, Oracle for Linux is not open-source. Just because a company supports an open source os platform doesn't make their product GPL (GPL is implied thanks to the 'It's free' benefit stated next).

"It's free." - Finally, the crux of the matter! It's ironic that this comes from a co-founder of a company that charged $$$ for a web browser.

"Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."

I'm not sure this is the best thing to say if we're trying to get Linux to replace Windows in D.C....

Indeed, where are the European protests against Al Qaida?

There were a lot of protests against Al Qaida. Also there were a lot of public displays of sympathy with the victims of 9/11. Most people who are not pacifists even agreed that action in Afghanistan was appropriate.

It's just that the "you are either with us - or against us" speeches from Bush is offensive. We must be allowed to disagree in some cases without beeing labeled pro-terrorism.

This is a big joke of Marc. If open source is so good, why Opsware, his new company, is not? Everybody uses Linux because is "free". Well, almost "free".

ok, i've been reading this discussion and the slashdot ones of the same issue. i see no point of comparing europe and us and "which one is better". there's no real difference. same shit both. basically all so-called "western democracies" are the same. i doesn't matter what kind of tyrant you are, or how much people are you killing. if you do business with "us", "we" like you. if don't, then "we" don't like you and we will put someone to your place that "we" like. simple. but, of course, rhetorics are like "we are doing this for people", but the word "people" should be changed to "business"

usa is the target now, because it is the biggest and "most evil" of western "democracies". but the critic is for government and those other rich bastards who rule. in europe, we have also our own rich bastards and politics, who are no better than american ones. they just don't have guts and power enough to do what they would like to do:
- do business and more money, no matter how
european "leaders" are not so insolent that american ones, because their toys are not big enough. that's why they are building EU to be United Stated of Europe.

interests of european political and economical leaders are the same than american ones.

i think that interests of american and european "joe average" is quite same, and it differs from interests of political and economical leaders. but the information we get, comes mainly from mainstream corporate media, who have great power to control how people will made up their view of world. it's not just coincidence that during the massacre of east-timor late 70's, western media didn't wrote anything about it. and that was not only example.

and still we trust our television and morning newspapers, we consider them as 'objective'. but they are objective! aren't they?

i apologize for my false english, but i think i made my point clear.

>>We threw a bone to France.
>>You know, there's big money in cement. Right?
>
> In a country where the dictator didn't care about
> maintaining the infrastructure, surprise surprise, there
> is a lot of manpower and money involved in the cement
> industry.

The binLaden family became rich though construction, and it's the US that destroyed the infrastructure in the first place. I don't think there is a heck of a lot of money involved in France selling some concrete either.

> Look at what you take for granted: Traffic lights are non
> existent in many parts of Bagdad, leading to enormous
> traffic jams.

I live in Silicon Valley. We are the 10th largest economy in the world, and we carry the rest of the US's butts.

> Schools are being builts.

Yeah, NON RELIGIOUS ONES. What a novel idea. And it's the schools the US blew up that are being rebuilt. Something about school vouchers.. ?

> Thousands of civilian police officers are being trained.
> Sewage systems are being upgraded.

Yeah, after we contributed to a 10 year devestating war against Iraq when we toppled their democracy.

> Yes, cement is not glamorous. But oil is obviously
> glamorous to you, which is why you overstudy it and
> overemphasize it.

Golly, it's just a big coincidence that all the instability happens to be in oil rich areas. We DID overthrow Mossadeq and the CIA admits it was because of oil. Clue in.

It's not in US interest, it's in US business interest for people that have political sway in the government. Do you still believe that Al Gore and Bush are polar opposites? Gore made all his money (well, his dad did) in oil too.

> That says more about your hangups than anything else
> (including your rantings against Israel, your use of the
> term "Zionist", your claim to be an American taxpayer
> although your car is in Australia and you've bought fuel
> in England...hmmm, you wouldn't happen to be a member of
> a cell?)

Oh brother, just because I travel. I have friends from England, I've been to Paris, and I like Australia. I grew up 30 miles from Canada, and I even know some french still, mais je ne le parlez pas tres bien, parce-ce-que je travaille au Etas Unix maintenant, mais je travaille en Rennes..

> If America just cared about oil, then it would have
> readily carved off an autonomous Kurdistan. Actually, from
> an ethno-political standpoint, that probably wouldn't be a
> bad thing, since Kurds in Iraq, Turkey, and throuhgout the
> Middle East really want their own sovereign country.

Not according to the Kurdish Turk I've been talking to for 4 years.

> But there are oil allies in Russia and other parts of
> South America and Central America.

And?

> The same charges were levied against America during the
> first war in Iraq.

April Glaspie stated flat out the US would not get involved with a war against Kuwait. The US in fact blocked UN arbitration from resolving the dispute of oil between the 2 countries. Don't pass off that crap to me. I read the original sources, I that the coverage SCO gets is typical ACROSS THE BOARD for all news in the US. There is no news here. It's just bald propoganda. Read the Economist, read Le Monde, listen to the CBC.

> Some saw it as a precursor to opening Kuwaiti oil markets.
> That hasn't materialized at all. Over a decade later,
> Kuwaiti pipelines are 100% controlled by Kuwaiti,
> Americans be d---ned. The US government knows it's going
> to be a similar siuatation in Iraq.

Why did the US support Hussein for a decade? He's not any different than he was 20 years ago, except he stopped being our puppet.

> And America isn't the only country that uses oil.

We're the one that uses the most per capita.

> Just look at the 20 million gallon oil spill in Galicia,
> on the northwest beaches of Spain. Pointing the finger at
> the United States is an attempt to distract the oil
> consumption in the rest of the world, and thus, it's an
> empty argument.

We're the one that uses the most per capita.

That's a fact.

>> Where is all this money coming from
>> anyhow? Oh, YOUR POCKET and MINE.
>> Think we're going to pay off a 7 trillion
>> dollar debt? We had a surplus one year,
>> did we pay it down at all? Has the
>> US EVERY paid down the debt in 30 years.
>> What happens when you continually
>> spend more money than you take in?
>
> I don't believe you are an American taxpayer.

I probably pay more in taxes than you make in a year. It's not uncommon for me to give away 50 K to my useless government every year, and what do I get for it? Nothing. Crappy schools, some roads, and a war machine that won't quit.

> Besides, practically all businesses borrow money as seed
> capital investments to pay off later on down the road.

The US isn't going to pay it off. The US hasn't reduced the debt once since 1980, in fact, when did we ever?

We follow economics too you know. The euro is going to kill the dollar.

> Even Al Qaida does this. (What happens when you
> continually blow up more followers than you take in?)

But they don't. Why do they have so many followers willing to die?

> I'm just waiting for you to take this further and further
> off topic. Somehow, you are going to tie this all in with
> the Dalai Lama, global warming, abortion, marijuana
> legalization, gay marraige, and Al Gore.

Al Gore is no different than Bush. Both are paper copies of their dads. George H. Bush was an ACTUAL man. So was Al Gore Senior.

Marriage is a purely religious institution.

And if I want to smoke crack, it's my right. I'm a libertarian.

The rest of it I have no stake in or control, so there is little to discuss about it.

Ok so I work for a linux company so I am biased but I am doing sales and marketing, which means that the only people I listen to are customers.
* They buy Linux because they want to build software open source platform

* They use it because they want to work on the platform of the future.

* They use it because it is cool.

Here I am talking specifically about Linux on the desktop. Bill Gates worries about one thing only; people buy Linux because it is cool. Because then he has no argument.Just like motorcycle--people buy motorcycle because of one thing only, because it is cool.