Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 26th Aug 2009 22:23 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source When Windows Vista was launched, the Free Software Foundation started its BadVista campaign, which was aimed at informing users about what the FSF considered user-restrictive features in Vista. Luckily for the FSF, Vista didn't really need a bad-mouthing campaign to fail. Now that Windows 7 is receiving a lot of positive press, the FSF dusted off the BadVista drum, and gave it a fresh coat of paint.
Order by: Score:
Agreed
by WereCatf on Wed 26th Aug 2009 22:31 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

The Free software world has enough to offer, but it always seems like the only time you ever really hear about the FSF is when they're busy badmouthing someone or something else. This doesn't leave a good impression with people.

They've been doing that for years and it still hasn't made much of a difference. Badmouthing others always, ALWAYS, leaves also a negative image of you and just doesn't make you look credible.

FSF really should make themselves heard in some entirely different way and try not to look so much like bitter lunatics.

Reply Score: 18

RE: Agreed
by lemur2 on Wed 26th Aug 2009 22:57 UTC in reply to "Agreed"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Badmouthing others always, ALWAYS, leaves also a negative image of you and just doesn't make you look credible.


Why shouldn't that very thought apply to Microsoft themselves?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Agreed
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 26th Aug 2009 23:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Agreed"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Because MS isn't the underdog?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Agreed
by 0brad0 on Thu 27th Aug 2009 03:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Agreed"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

Because MS isn't the underdog?


That doesn't mean it is any better for Microsoft to do it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Agreed
by sbergman27 on Thu 27th Aug 2009 03:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Agreed"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Other than some well publicized, and rather old, attacks like Balmer's "cancer" quote, MS doesn't seem to do a whole lot of that publicly. Certainly not as much as certain members of the FS community do it to MS. And that really does put us in a bad light. Attacking our opponents just makes our own offerings look weak, and calls into question our motives. Best that everyone stick to promoting our own stuff, even if the other guy does attack us from time to time. People recognize when you are taking the high road. And they recognize mudslinging when they see it, too.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[5]: Agreed
by Moulinneuf on Thu 27th Aug 2009 04:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Agreed"
RE[6]: Agreed
by ralish on Thu 27th Aug 2009 05:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Agreed"
ralish Member since:
2009-05-13

Your entire post reeks of unsubstantiated assertions, but RE your first link, what exactly does that prove? That companies have a habit of marketting their software and may actually stretch the truth or exaggerate the hard realities of the software? You'll note that Firefox has similar pages hosted promoting its product with some questionable assertions now and in the past, and I suspect the same is true of Opera and probably Chrome.

It seems to me that the FOSS community has a (probably) small but vocal minority that has nothing less than a fanatical obsession with all things Microsoft and how they can criticise their offerings and them as a company. And sure, some of this criticism is entirely legitimate, but when it becomes a point that defines you, then you really do need to, bluntly, get a life. Hell, Linus himself recently labelled Microsoft hatred as a "disease".

It's then compounded when the same people tend to take the view that FOSS can do no wrong and the entire computer software ecosystem can be clearly divided across a giant fault line, commonly defined by licensing and abstract concepts of freedom and privacy, almost always misunderstood or characterised.

I use Linux regularly, and I used to use it as my primary OS, but I got tired of it, and one the reasons is the social dynamic that is a part of elements of the community. This lunatic obsession with Microsoft is just grinding, and as someone who uses Microsoft software as well, you just get sick of it.

Put simply, if your product truly is superior, you shouldn't need to be on a constant offensive delivering a barrage of ad hominem attacks, addressing everything and everyone except yourself and the merits of your own work.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[7]: Agreed
by Moulinneuf on Thu 27th Aug 2009 07:11 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Agreed"
RE[5]: Agreed
by gustl on Thu 27th Aug 2009 13:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Agreed"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

Other than some well publicized, and rather old, attacks like Balmer's "cancer" quote, MS doesn't seem to do a whole lot of that publicly.


No, Microsoft is instead reverting to their old ways of forcing completely closed stuff onto us by getting the industry to accept it as "standard".

I just say exFAT.

Will the industry ever learn?

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Agreed
by darknexus on Thu 27th Aug 2009 13:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Agreed"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Will the industry ever learn?


Probably not, especially given how much money Microsoft has to throw around to get their "standards" approved. Face it, if the industry hasn't learned by now, it never will.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Agreed
by WorknMan on Thu 27th Aug 2009 16:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Agreed"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Why shouldn't that very thought apply to Microsoft themselves?


I think it does apply to Microsoft. If you don't use Microsoft products, and they start off on some campaign to bash OSS with, does that make you feel more compelled to use their software? The thing about these kind of fecal dart throwing crusades is that there's never any balance either way, because you know that all one side is going to tell you is exactly what they want you to hear and nothing more.

What the FSF needs to do is drop the politics and show people how they're going to be more productive and get more done using free software. And if that isn't possible, then they've got nothing.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Agreed
by sbergman27 on Wed 26th Aug 2009 23:22 UTC in reply to "Agreed"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

FSF really should make themselves heard in some entirely different way and try not to look so much like bitter lunatics.

However, the bitter lunatics of the FSF *do* deserve credit for being honest and forthright, rather than hiding behind a false facade of sanity and reason.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Agreed
by darknexus on Wed 26th Aug 2009 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Agreed"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Perhaps, but sanity and reason often get further than outright raving madness in the long run.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Agreed
by sbergman27 on Thu 27th Aug 2009 00:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Agreed"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Perhaps, but sanity and reason often get further than outright raving madness in the long run.

Oh, I've absolutely no argument there. The FSF has been ranting and raving for decades, to no effect except to damage the credibility of the more reasonable advocates. It took the OSS movement to finally get us off low center, still dragging along the FSF like a trailer with two flat tires.

Edited 2009-08-27 00:02 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Agreed
by Moulinneuf on Thu 27th Aug 2009 07:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Agreed"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Because people are using BSD , MIT and UNIX ...

Open Source got draged screaming by Free Software.

Reply Score: 2

v Comment by Moulinneuf
by Moulinneuf on Thu 27th Aug 2009 01:18 UTC in reply to "Agreed"
RE: Comment by Moulinneuf
by rockwell on Thu 27th Aug 2009 03:49 UTC in reply to "Comment by Moulinneuf"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

Thing is, most freetards actually seriously believe that proprietary software, is, somehow "bad" and free software is "good."

With insane people like that, there's just no point in having a conversation about it.

Edited 2009-08-27 03:49 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Moulinneuf
by sbergman27 on Thu 27th Aug 2009 04:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Moulinneuf"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

With insane people like that, there's just no point in having a conversation about it.

While I would agree that some people obsess too much and take things to an alarming extreme, I would add that it is equally difficult to have a meaningful conversation with someone who regularly uses such childish terms as "freetard". It's just not constructive. And it makes you look rather worse than the people you are criticizing. Just try to make your points without all the silly and irrelevant name-calling and I think you will find that your points are taken more seriously.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Moulinneuf
by Moulinneuf on Thu 27th Aug 2009 04:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Moulinneuf"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Thing is


Yes that was a good fictionnal movie , yet it as no basis on reality ... Just like you ...

most freetards


Libel and slander as an anonymous who think of himself as a characther in a sci-fi movie ... You really have oustanding braveness and debating skills.

actually seriously believe that proprietary software, is, somehow "bad" and free software is "good."


They are right too ...

That don't means it's perfect for everyone or that it work 100% of the time , but that's proprietary who lie when they say that.

With insane people like that


Your a doctor in psychiatry too now , nice to know ...
That your not that either.

there's just no point in having a conversation about it.


Conversation are between two people , who have something to say and debate , in a mutual respecting environment. People are allowed to make sentence and statement , diverging too.

You don't qualify and are not qualified ...

Reply Score: 0

v RE[3]: Comment by Moulinneuf
by rockwell on Thu 27th Aug 2009 13:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Moulinneuf"
RE[4]: Comment by Moulinneuf
by jabbotts on Thu 27th Aug 2009 18:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Moulinneuf"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Moulinneuf isn't helping his argument much but as the post above points out, your continued use of name calling really doesn't help you out much either. Your simply presenting the other extreme of the spectrum with just as much zeal.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Agreed
by kaiwai on Thu 27th Aug 2009 11:49 UTC in reply to "Agreed"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

The Free software world has enough to offer, but it always seems like the only time you ever really hear about the FSF is when they're busy badmouthing someone or something else. This doesn't leave a good impression with people.

They've been doing that for years and it still hasn't made much of a difference. Badmouthing others always, ALWAYS, leaves also a negative image of you and just doesn't make you look credible.

FSF really should make themselves heard in some entirely different way and try not to look so much like bitter lunatics.


What I find also funny is how they bad mouth Windows 7 and they put nothing up as an alternative for the end user to run instead of Windows. Linux - when are we going to see easy to use applications from the open source world that aren't written by people who abuse users who provide constructive feedback? When are we going to see the same level of hardware support as Windows - webcams that conform to UVC standards but the UVC implemented in Linux is only 1/3 complete. Then there is the issue of binary drivers where compatibility is broken with each release of the kernel.

Personally, I'm all for a good debate but I hate those who bad mouth someone or something and provide nothing in the way of a viable alternative. Its like the politician who bad mouths the government but never provides an alternative set of policies - "I respect what you're trying to achieve, however, here is a superior set of policies that would achieve the same outcomes but at a lower cost......".

Maybe when the FSF provides a comparable product to Windows (or Mac OS X) with the same level of easy to use applications and equal hardware support - then maybe they can say, "Windows is ethically flawed and here is our alternative - it does everything Windows does but without infringing on your rights". If they did that, then I would have a heck of a lot of respect for them - heck, I'd make a sizable donation for sticking to the high ground and being constructive instead of destructive in their advocacy.

Edited 2009-08-27 11:54 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Agreed
by Moulinneuf on Thu 27th Aug 2009 13:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Agreed"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

When are we going to see the same level of hardware support as Windows


You want GNU/Linux to stop supporting legacy hardware and 50% of the known existing hardware to be like Windows ? ... Wait for the hardware OEM/ODM maker to make the driver ?

webcams that conform to UVC standards


That one is so laughable. Sugesting all Webcam that conform to it and you calling it a standard ...

the UVC implemented in Linux is only 1/3 complete.


http://linux-uvc.berlios.de/

8 out of 15 ... That's more then half , and the rest is not some not really needed proprietary crap by any chance ? That have other alternative ?

http://mxhaard.free.fr/

"At the moment, manufacturers of usb bridge and camera sensor did not help us."

Then there is the issue of binary drivers where compatibility is broken with each release of the kernel.


That's the problem of the binary maker ...

I'm all for a good debate


You ? No ... ref your comment history.

I'd make a sizable donation


Lol ...

that aren't written by people who abuse users who provide constructive feedback?


Someone else had enough of your nonsense ? Got a link to your constructive feedback so I can laugh at you there too ?

What in/sane developer would hop on a plane , go to New-Zealand , just for the privilege of abusing poor kaiwai ? Got any pics or video ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Agreed
by rockwell on Thu 27th Aug 2009 13:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Agreed"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

Your freetard keyboard driver keeps adding a space before each question mark. Perfect.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Agreed
by Moulinneuf on Thu 27th Aug 2009 14:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Agreed"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

It's a Microsoft keyboard ...

So , no it's not the keyboard adding space.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Agreed
by rockwell on Thu 27th Aug 2009 16:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Agreed"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

OK, so then it must be the idiot freetard using the keyboard. Thanks for clearing that up.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Agreed
by boldingd on Thu 27th Aug 2009 17:44 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Agreed"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Seriously, man, one crazy idiot is not the entire Free Software movement. If you could, well, just find a way to point and laugh at Moulinneuf without criticizing an entire community, that also includes a lot of sane and rational people, that'd be great.

And, Moulinneuf, long story short, it is entirely the fault of the kernel team that binary drivers break on each kernel release. Basically, as I understand it, because there's not actually an API for distributing a binary driver. (A kernel module is different, in particular in that a kernel module must have bits of it compiled against the same sources and configuration used to build the kernel it's going to get loaded in.) The Linux kernel really does need some kind of inter-release-stable interface for loading binary drivers.

Edited 2009-08-27 17:45 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Agreed
by Moulinneuf on Thu 27th Aug 2009 18:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Agreed"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

People use to not believe me when I said there where extremist who tought Free Software was irrational and insane ... Now I just show who they are by extrimisizing the Free Software position, to get them out of there shell and out in the open, get them all the time. Less Rational and less sane people , then me , hate it and push for more moderate position , witch is where everyone should be pushing, but sadly more people are into hating the FSF out of lies then pushing the moderate and midle ground, mostly from the Open Source camp sadly too.

Dance rockwell , dance my boy ...

Short story, Linus won't ban them, but won't do the work to fix them and the rest of the Linux kernel developer don't want anything to do with them. So if you make binary driver, you support them.

If you got a working solution run it by Linus ... and see if you can get it in the kernel.

Edited 2009-08-27 18:36 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Not so fast...!
by jimmy1971 on Thu 27th Aug 2009 20:30 UTC in reply to "Agreed"
jimmy1971 Member since:
2009-08-27

The anti-Windows site is only one part of the FSF's overall strategy.

They have also made themselves heard in a variety of other ways, the most important of which has been in leading by example (ie. creating the GNU software that comprises much of the Linux-based systems).

There's much to dislike about Windows and how Microsoft conducts its business. So what if the FSF feels strongly enough about it to set up a website?

The average computer user doesn't question the products they use, whether it's an operating system or the sneakers on their feet. If the FSF makes anyone start asking these questions, they've made a positive contributin.

(I'm writing this as a FreeBSD guy, so no, I'm not a "GPL zealot" by any means.)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Agreed
by ElectricDevil on Thu 27th Aug 2009 22:35 UTC in reply to "Agreed"
ElectricDevil Member since:
2006-08-22

FSF really should make themselves heard in some entirely different way and try not to look so much like bitter lunatics.


Or they should make themselves Hurd.(period)

Reply Score: 1

Not limited to Microsoft bashing...
by umccullough on Wed 26th Aug 2009 22:35 UTC
umccullough
Member since:
2006-01-26

In this particular case, the FSF is bashing Microsoft because of their closed-source nature - and I agree that this is a tired method of "marketing"...

If this is all the FSF and other GPL zealots in general were limited to, I wouldn't be so annoyed with them.

What annoys the crap out of me moreso is that they also tend to bash the BSDs, and other open source licenses, while also pretending that they support them. At least, this is my impression.

And let me clarify that they aren't all like this, but it does seem there's definitely some hostility toward non-GPL-based projects out there amongst the GPL-nuts.

Sorry for going slightly off-topic ;) FWIW, I'm not a GPL-hater or anything, and I definitely respect the FSF movement and GPL concepts.

Reply Score: 5

0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

Look it is another stupid post from Moulinneuf. I'll be glad the day this guy gets a brain.

Reply Score: 10

elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Because you think you have more rights then legal and real people becaus etheydisagree with your stealing , lying and coward ways ?


You do realize that every time you accuse someone of stealing, or call them a liar, coward or thief, for simply questioning the GPL/FSF/"Free Software", you pretty much reinforce the image of the FSF fostering a movement of zealots and serve to undermine the principles that the FSF advocates, which ultimately advocate user choice? Just wondering.

Because BSD was the First Free Software that failed and did not work , because thieves and liar took over ?


Did it occur to you that the developers contributing to BSD-licensed projects wanted their code to be "free" for developers to use as they wanted? Seems to me it worked pretty well. How can you call it a failure? It has different objectives than the GPL, and the adoption of BSD software by "thieves and liars" underscores its success. Your arguments against it are reminiscent of Microsoft's criticism of the GPL being cancerous. The ultimate freedom lies with developers to choose how their software can be distributed. You don't have a say in that, until you start coding.

Free Software is Open Source , so your point is really that you don't understand what your talking about at all ...

Open Source is about development method where the source is always open to all.


FSF and Free Software support everyone as long as you don't try stealing and closing software and as for major requirement that Free Software be Open Source ...

So they don't pretend anything , actually it's reverso world. The Open Source liar and thieve , usually emphais that Open Source can be closed by them when the permission to do so is not given.


OSS is a development method. Libre software is a philosophy. The two overlap, but once again, developers have the right to decide how their code can be used. The GPL is one choice developers have, among many others. The point is that the FSF is often critical of licenses that don't meet their arbitrary standards of the four freedoms, which is certainly their right, but overlooks the fact that alternative licenses have still powered popular and successful projects that benefit the OSS community, and their users, in general. Doesn't make anyone a liar or thief.

" there's definitely some hostility toward non-GPL-based projects out there amongst the GPL-nuts.


Because your the one who is clearly nuts , you can simply avoid all GPL , by not touching it or try to illegally steal it and use it and close it ...
"

I suspect the irony of your answer is entirely lost.

" I'm not a GPL-hater


Yes , you are.
"

Who are you to say that? Why is your world so black-and-white?

No , you don'. That'S why you want to make exception for yourself and other thieves like you and be able to steal and compromis eit like you did with all those previous atempt at Free Software that came before it ...

But that's ok , if you steal GPL code or really beome a problem for the FSF. The Justice system and penalty come into play.


I don't have a problem with the GPL, either. I've enjoyed the benefits of using linux for a number of years now. I guess that makes me a liar, thief, and coward because I don't spam online forums advocating the superiority of the GPL.

I'm grateful for the work the developers of the software I use have done. I'll respect whatever license they choose to license their software under. Until I can start coding at that level and producing my own software for the community, I'll continue to respect the choice of the developers, rather than inflicting my demands on them. As a user, I have to respect their freedom to choose, and then make my own choice as to what works for me.

It's sad that you have such a burning zealotry that becomes apparent every time a GPL-related post appears here. If you harnessed that energy for advocacy rather than toxic, denigrating and, frankly, obnoxious attacks, you might find yourself actually contributing to the cause you serve.

Reply Score: 8

ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

I think Moulinneuf is the Sarah Palin of FOSS. That there is some wackiness always guaranteed to amuse.

Reply Score: 5

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

I think


Really ? Must be what pass as brilliant
US thinking these days :

the Sarah Palin of FOSS.


I don't get it , one stand for lies and US politic corruption ( Palin ) , the other for Free And Open Source software.

That there is some wackiness always guaranteed to amuse.


No , you are amusing , me , aparently with my mrere presence in writing I am downright scaring the cowards and liar into a frenzy ...

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

No , you are amusing , me , aparently with my mrere presence in writing I am downright scaring the cowards and liar into a frenzy ...


What is with you and oddly placed spaces? And doesn't emacs have spellcheck by now?

If your presence shows anything it is that there is a percentage of every group that needs to be part of a fanatical following to feel balanced. It isn't enough to simply use an alternative. You have to feel morally superior to the opposition. And Stallman provides you with that feeling, doesn't he?

For he hath given you his Freedoms
That thou did not know thine had
And he shalt smite the enemies of Freedoms
Freedoms he hath defined for you to follow

GPL 33:2

Reply Score: 1

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

What is with you and oddly placed spaces?


Bad writting skills.

And doesn't emacs have spellcheck by now?


I am not using emacs.

If your presence shows anything ... following to feel balanced.


You see fanatios and followers in your alphabet soup and breakfest cocopop ...

It isn't enough to simply use an alternative.


Windows is the alternative ... So do Apple , BSD , commodore , Amiga , beos , etc ...

You have to feel morally superior to the opposition.


I don't feel moraly involved or superior to anyone here , I certainly don't see liar , coward , thieve and morons as opposition either.

And Stallman provides you with that feeling, doesn't he?


Stallman is about feeling for you , one of pure hatred and demonizing and even similar to the devil in your own madness and disconection from reality.

Stallman for me is the guy who created the FSF , helped foster the GPL and who stand for Free Software defense , creation and advocating.

Why you don't use your real name ?

Reply Score: 2

rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

"I don't get it"

Damn straight you don't, you delusional freetard.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

"I don't get it"

I think that's really the problem here. You just don't get it; or you choose to ignore it. Either way.. I think it's time all the adults moved on with the discussion with that age old advice:

Don't Feed The Trolls.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

OSNews will be a better place when everyone ignore MoulinRouge and crockwell.

Reply Score: 2

helf Member since:
2005-07-06

*facepalms*

Reply Score: 2

dostrowski Member since:
2006-11-10

This guy is clearly a troll, please don't continue to feed him.

Reply Score: 1

marafaka Member since:
2006-01-03

As a FreeBSD user I have nothing but praise to tell about the FSF. They call the BSD license what it is, and that's okay coz GPL and BSD are two licenses meant for two different things.

I've even seen the oposite trend - The FreeBSD Foundation trying to work against GPL. Very bad decision. It made me change my mind about donations.

One thing must be understood: socially constructive behaviour is welcome, bashing and name calling is ... under my level.

Reply Score: 2

Quite expected
by jbauer on Wed 26th Aug 2009 22:42 UTC
jbauer
Member since:
2005-07-06

I guess the FSF found out a long time ago that it's just easier to post controversial content to a website (if not just plain FUD) than creating software worth using and that can keep up with the times.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Quite expected
by kenji on Wed 26th Aug 2009 23:17 UTC in reply to "Quite expected"
kenji Member since:
2009-04-08

I guess the FSF found out a long time ago that it's just easier to post controversial content to a website (if not just plain FUD) than creating software worth using and that can keep up with the times.

The FSF doesn't CREATE software. Its purpose is to promote GPL software.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Quite expected
by kenji on Thu 27th Aug 2009 00:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Quite expected"
kenji Member since:
2009-04-08

The FSF doesn't CREATE software. Its purpose is to promote GPL software.

Don't know why I was voted down on that comment, considering that it's true:

http://www.fsf.org/about/

Too many FUD spreaders on OSNews, I suppose.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Quite expected
by 0brad0 on Thu 27th Aug 2009 03:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Quite expected"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05


Don't know why I was voted down on that comment, considering that it's true:

http://www.fsf.org/about/

Too many FUD spreaders on OSNews, I suppose.


It is 100% true. You expect this site to be any better than /.?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Quite expected
by kenji on Thu 27th Aug 2009 15:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Quite expected"
kenji Member since:
2009-04-08

....You expect this site to be any better than /.?

I was hoping for less mouth-breathers.

I've been reading OSNews for almost 7 years and it usually is better than /., but not always.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Quite expected
by 0brad0 on Thu 27th Aug 2009 17:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Quite expected"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

"....You expect this site to be any better than /.?

I was hoping for less mouth-breathers.

I've been reading OSNews for almost 7 years and it usually is better than /., but not always.
"

Too bad there are too many douchebags like Moulinneuf and rockwell around.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Quite expected
by testman on Thu 27th Aug 2009 05:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Quite expected"
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

Oh harden-up princess...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Quite expected
by Bobthearch on Thu 27th Aug 2009 00:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Quite expected"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

So what GPL software was being promoted at that site?

And don't some of those same criticisms also apply to GPS projects as well?

(I didn't vote you down - it was a thoughtful and on-topic comment.)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Quite expected
by umccullough on Thu 27th Aug 2009 00:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Quite expected"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

So what GPL software was being promoted at that site?


I suspect he really meant that they promote the use of GPL for licensing software, and the use of GPL-licensed software.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Quite expected
by nt_jerkface on Thu 27th Aug 2009 02:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Quite expected"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

"I guess the FSF found out a long time ago that it's just easier to post controversial content to a website (if not just plain FUD) than creating software worth using and that can keep up with the times.
The FSF doesn't CREATE software. Its purpose is to promote GPL software. "

Yea Stallman gave up on the Hurd a long time ago and now just tries to defame software that don't follow his carefully crafted definition of Freedom.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Quite expected
by jbasko on Thu 27th Aug 2009 03:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Quite expected"
jbasko Member since:
2009-03-17

I'm down with the FTC organization. Free To Choose whichever OS or software I use, whether, GPL'd, BSD'd, or proprietary.

As much as Windows might have its issues, so do open-source stuff as well. This is software, written by men, so mistakes are bound to happen. Just use the best tool for the job!

As for the general population, branding ties people emotionally to a product. Windows is a brand, not simply an OS, similarly Microsoft is a brand, not just a software company. People are emotionally attached to brands and will forever choose to use what they and the wider population use as they want to be apart of that crowd and that's important to them.

I mean I think Apple and MS have good insight here. Apart from office/dev-use, OSs are simply now an avenue to access media. Media is important to people and whoever markets that the best and create the best experience during, gets the crowd. I mean spending on an OS is just an amortized costs as it's valuable to people in the long run to have easy and engaging access to media.

So as long as people have this attachment to media and branding, proprietary software etc., will be widely used.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Quite expected
by sbergman27 on Thu 27th Aug 2009 03:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Quite expected"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

This is software, written by men, so mistakes are bound to happen.

Indeed. If the HURD had been written by women, it would be Microsoft trying to get a foothold in the desktop market today with their niche "Windows" product.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Quite expected - frightfully true
by jabbotts on Thu 27th Aug 2009 19:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Quite expected"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Made me giggle anyhow. The irony is that women have historically been better with computers. Programming; invented by a woman. Big Iron; originally programmed by women. When the men went in to fix ENIAC, they relied on direction from the women on the team who would actually read the manual. Ha.. hehehe.. ah.. that's good stuff..

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Quite expected
by Moulinneuf on Thu 27th Aug 2009 01:43 UTC in reply to "Quite expected"
Meh.
by graigsmith on Wed 26th Aug 2009 22:55 UTC
graigsmith
Member since:
2006-04-05

Fell for it with vista and tried linux for 2 years, got fed up with it not working. Linux is a fiddly operating system. you have to fiddle with it for it to work. Once you get it running it's stable, just getting there is hell though.. Video drivers are unstable. Every release of ubuntu has some new incompatibility, or bug that you have to work around, so every time you upgrade to new software you have to fiddle with something.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Meh.
by dragSidious on Wed 26th Aug 2009 23:28 UTC in reply to "Meh."
dragSidious Member since:
2009-04-17

There is no reason why you could of not just kept using the same Ubuntu install for those 2 years or so.

I think a lot of this idea of Windows having stable driver interfaces and not being as fiddly as Linux is because until Vista came along Microsoft has been using the same operating system since 2000 when it released Windows 2000. (Windows XP was more cosmetic then anything else)

With Ubuntu they release a new OS every 6-8 months or so and people feel compelled to upgrade because its free and there is always something new to play around with. But there is certainly no reason why you have to keep doing that.

When Microsoft released Windows Vista people rejected it right off the bat because the hardware incompatibilities, broken drivers, and broken application that people ran into with that OS compared to XP. Now that it has some time to mature and people have spent millions fixing everything its a pretty decent OS (a lot better then XP anyways). Now Windows 7 is mostly a cosmetic and marketing change for Vista and people are looking forward to it.

The moral of the story is that if you keep upgrading your OS all the time then expect to screw around with that OS a hell of a lot more. It does not matter if it's Windows or Linux.

Edited 2009-08-26 23:30 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Meh.
by darknexus on Wed 26th Aug 2009 23:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Meh."
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Going slightly OT, but the reason most people feel compelled to upgrade to the latest Ubuntu every 6 months is because that's the only way they can officially get the latest versions of software unless the Ubuntu team is kind enough to backport it which they do not always do. It's one of the problems with the way many package-managed operating systems work, especially those on a short release cycle like Ubuntu although Debian is even more severely affected given its extremely long release cycles. Systems like Arch and Gentoo, which are rolling releases, don't have this problem but with them you are on a constant upgrade path and that has drawbacks of its own. There's a middle ground somewhere, but one hasn't been found that would satisfy everyone. My middle ground would have the core os components (Kernel, Xorg, DE of choice and its assorted apps) remain on the cycle as they currently are but external software such as Firefox and Openoffice should be on a rolling release cycle within each os version. This would, naturally, take a considerable amount of resources to do, so it's not likely to happen. I think, however, if this middle ground is not found it will continue to be one more weight holding down desktop Linux. Windows and Mac users need not update their entire os just to use the latest Firefox, or Openoffice, or insert app of choice here, and neither should Linux users. This needs to be fixed.
Ok, done with my slightly OT thoughts now.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Meh.
by bhtooefr on Thu 27th Aug 2009 13:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Meh."
bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

Ubuntu does have a third solution to that - the LTS versions.

Although, I don't think LTS gets application upgrades, just security updates, but you could use a variation on that theme to reduce resources used updating older OSes, by only updating a specific older OS. Pick an LTS version if you like your kernel and GUI to remain the same, but your apps to upgrade, or pick a normal version if you don't mind an OS upgrade cycle.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Meh.
by OddFox on Thu 27th Aug 2009 00:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Meh."
OddFox Member since:
2005-10-05

But honestly, how many people do you know who are the type to give Linux a try would enjoy using old software? Sure it works, but when you see release announcements talking about all these cool new features that are simply unavailable on your aging installation you are going to start feeling like you're missing out on things, because you are.

The upgrade path for Microsoft operating systems is getting better. There's far less fiddling around with the system on a fresh install of Windows 7, thanks in large part to Microsoft's efforts to provide vendor drivers directly through Windows Update in a more reliable fashion than they've done before. The defaults are much more sane and things just tend to work.

I've been using Linux for a long time as a hobby, since about Mandrake 8.1 or 8.2. Things are definitely getting a lot easier with upgrading your distribution, especially if you use something like Gentoo or Arch which is that whole rolling release type thing. I would posit that the biggest problems with new setups of Linux distros would be things like the graphics server, and providing reliable graphics drivers. For example, my GeForce 9600 GT absolutely does not play nice at all with any of the NVidia drivers provided by Ubuntu and most other distros (They all seem to provide the 180 series, when the 185 series has been out for a long time and the 190 series is almost out the door). The system hard locks, and whether I am able to SSH in to fix the problem or not is not something I care about anymore. For me, anytime I install Linux on my box these days I have to make sure that I find some way to install newer drivers not provided in the official repositories. I must be a very fringe case because it happens without fail using those drivers.

Honestly, it's the biggest thing keeping me from switching to Linux entirely right now, even though I love Windows 7 as far as Windows goes. I'd like to see Xorg development try to incorporate a lot of the improvements Microsoft has implemented in their own graphics services. If the driver craps out, restart it, don't take the whole system down (Or X, either way I'm out any of the things I was viewing/working on at the time of the error). If a program (Read: games mostly played thru Wine) craps out, don't ruin my resolution and drop me to a garbled 800x600 version of my screen which helpfully lets me pan around, so I can open up a terminal and use xrandr to get it back to where it should be. If I want to upgrade my graphics driver, allow me to do it in-place so I don't have to either restart my X server or restart the system entirely. Basically everything Thom was talking about in that article about what Linux and Xorg could learn from the 7 graphics stack I agreed with 100%.

And can people please stop saying that Windows 7 is "mostly a cosmetic" and/or "marketing change for Vista"? People who say these things are completely ignoring the vast amount of under-the-hood changes and additions to the system. Windows 7 isn't just a new Control Panel and some trippy default themes, there are real and important changes that make things run a lot better, not the least of which being the changes to DWM that allow it to use far less memory than it was under Vista. If you can tell me that a list as comprehensive as this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7 proves that Windows 7 is a minor cosmetic and marketing change, then I have to ask what world you are living on? Even if these changes don't specifically apply to you and your usage, they are there for people to take advantage of.

This is OSNews, and I would figure OS enthusiasts would be able to analyze and appreciate new things brought to the table.

P.S. -- For a lot of desktop users, sticking with an old Linux distribution is less than desirable, especially if you aren't the kind who enjoys manually installing and maintaining things like your video drivers. Sure you could keep using your old driver with your old kernel, but as a result you end up missing out on new features (Like VDPAU) and performance/bug fixes unless your distributor or someone else goes out of their way for you to backport these.

Edited 2009-08-27 00:10 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Meh.
by Wrawrat on Thu 27th Aug 2009 01:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Meh."
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

That's a bit off-topic, but...

But honestly, how many people do you know who are the type to give Linux a try would enjoy using old software?


Depends on your needs. I've got the latest Ubuntu on my personal computers, but we've got the 8.04 LTS at work. It doesn't have all the bells and whistles, but it's a stable target, perfect for large deployments. Upgrading dozens of computers every six months is just out of question.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Meh.
by OddFox on Thu 27th Aug 2009 03:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Meh."
OddFox Member since:
2005-10-05

Off-topic from the main article, yes. off-topic from the parent post, no.

And I wouldn't say that upgrading dozens of computers every six months is "just out of the question" in and of itself, kinda depends on the situation. For large deployments with exotic configurations and old software/hardware, it probably would be out of the question to do something major like a distro upgrade every 6 months. But not every distribution pushes radical changes down the pipe every release, and not every distribution even cares much about releases, like the previously mentioned Gentoo and Arch.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Meh.
by Wrawrat on Thu 27th Aug 2009 04:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Meh."
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

Off-topic from the main article, yes. off-topic from the parent post, no.

Yeah, I know. I guess it's better drifting from the main article than feeding the trolls. ;)

And I wouldn't say that upgrading dozens of computers every six months is "just out of the question" in and of itself, kinda depends on the situation. For large deployments with exotic configurations and old software/hardware, it probably would be out of the question to do something major like a distro upgrade every 6 months. But not every distribution pushes radical changes down the pipe every release, and not every distribution even cares much about releases, like the previously mentioned Gentoo and Arch.

Sure, there is no problem to update your personal network every six month. However, it's quite risky to adopt such schedule in a production environment as there is always a possibility to break something for someone. In this case, I believe it's better stay with the devil you know until there is enough incentive to upgrade, hence why some people might want to stick with older releases.

As for distributions with rolling releases, I cannot count the number of times my system was left broken after an "emerge" or "pacman" on the stable branch. My opinion: these distributons are quite great for hackers wanting the complete control of their system... but I question the sanity (and the accountability) of somebody deploying one of them in a production environment (esp. if it's a desktop deployment)! Of course, YMMV.

Edited 2009-08-27 04:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Meh.
by OddFox on Thu 27th Aug 2009 08:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Meh."
OddFox Member since:
2005-10-05

About the rolling releases I would have figured that making use of portage to mask package versions you do not want changed would be a good method of keeping things in order. I don't have experience actually trying to get all that going, but I would have figured the tools had capabilities to allow oneself to strictly manage the software installed. I do hear a lot though from various users that Gentoo and the like suffer from problems in such deployments.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Meh.
by boldingd on Thu 27th Aug 2009 18:48 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Meh."
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Long post cut short: count me among the people who have had terrible, terrible experiences with Gentoo. Like, system-is-unbootable, weekend-sucking experiences. Like, "screw this, Slackware 10 time" experiences. I really, really wish that emerge would, you know, tell you, or, God forbid, halt the operation, if the thing you try to do is known to break systems.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Meh.
by boldingd on Thu 27th Aug 2009 19:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Meh."
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

We've got a number-crunching cluster at work. It's using the now-really-old-and-feature-poor Red Hat Enterprise 4. We've had a RHEL5 site-license for a long time. Why haven't we installed it yet? We're busy, we can't afford the cluster down-time, and nobody will pay for the man-hours to perform the update. It is kinda ridiculous on our part, but it isn't completely for no reason. Updates take time, cost money and carry risks: corporations don't suffer them gladly, in general. I think, anyway. So far as I know.

So... yeah. Companies expect OS's that they can get a few years out of. They do not like OS's that make major architectural changes every six months. Or maybe even every year or two years.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Meh.
by bigozs on Thu 27th Aug 2009 11:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Meh."
bigozs Member since:
2005-08-07

Funny you should mention the 9600GT which is running just fine on Jaunty with the nvidia blob drivers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Meh.
by OddFox on Thu 27th Aug 2009 22:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Meh."
OddFox Member since:
2005-10-05

Funny you should mention the 9600GT which is running just fine on Jaunty with the nvidia blob drivers.


It's really quite bizarre and I haven't been inclined to determine if it's a combination of hardware and software or what but yeah, my 9600GT will barf all over the place when using the 180 series. There's a huge thread on the NVNews.net NVidia Linux forum about it and related issues: http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=123912

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Meh.
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 27th Aug 2009 00:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Meh."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

There is no reason why you could of not just kept using the same Ubuntu install for those 2 years or so.

What about aging software? Ubuntu doesn't always keep up to date with all the latest versions of software. I was stuck using the outdated 0.9.2 version of Stellarium when 0.10.2, until a new version of Ubuntu came out. Sure, some things really *should* be fully tested as a complete system and mostly unchanged throughout a distro release to prevent breaking (kernel, X.org, the desktop environment, and other major pieces of software). But then there are programs that make little sense to use an older version of (ie. Stellarium, Audacious, etc.).

Even worse, not too long ago Pidgin stopped being able to connect to the Yahoo! Messenger service. After a week of being unable to connect, and no updated packages in Ubuntu's repository, I decided to find out why. Apparently, Yahoo! changed their servers in such a way that broke compatibility with older version of client software. Because Ubuntu apparently only accepts security fixes, I guess they can't even be bothered to fix BROKEN software that even ships with their damn distro. I had to go to Pidgin's site and find the instructions/URL for using Pidgin's Ubuntu repositories.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Meh.
by adinas on Thu 27th Aug 2009 13:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Meh."
adinas Member since:
2005-08-17

I actually agree on this. It seem like every linux distro is always using the first version of some new sub system which has all kinds of problems because it is the first release (new sound system, new printing system, kde 3 to kde 4...). No matter which distro/version you look at, there is always something which is a work in progress. If they could just stop making new things for a couple of years and make all the current stuff stable and supported on all hardware, maybe I could finally install it without always having "something that will work in the next version"

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Meh.
by Lennie on Thu 27th Aug 2009 22:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Meh."
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

That's what LTS is for

Reply Score: 2

v Comment by Moulinneuf
by Moulinneuf on Thu 27th Aug 2009 02:04 UTC in reply to "Meh."
RE: Comment by Moulinneuf
by elsewhere on Thu 27th Aug 2009 03:54 UTC in reply to "Comment by Moulinneuf"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

I am sorry your an incompetent moron who can't seek gratis help or pay someone to fix your problem and that GNU/Linux ( I rather should say Ubuntu since your scripted lies only know that )don't work perfectly on your system because you are a moron who fiddle with it.


That's just sad. Why so much venom?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Moulinneuf
by Moulinneuf on Thu 27th Aug 2009 06:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Moulinneuf"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

That's just sad.


No , your comment and reply are what's sad and pathtic ...

Why so much venom?


What you mistakenly call venom , I would call an angrily told possible other options , that have been told numerous time.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Moulinneuf
by rockwell on Thu 27th Aug 2009 14:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Moulinneuf"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

Dance, freetard, dance! Good boy!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Moulinneuf
by helf on Thu 27th Aug 2009 14:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Moulinneuf"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

lol, its like one of those bots you used to run into on IRC or ICQ way back that would just insult you to no end no matter what you responded with.

You are hilarious, Moulinneuf.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Meh.
by bigozs on Thu 27th Aug 2009 11:09 UTC in reply to "Meh."
bigozs Member since:
2005-08-07

Regarding incompatibilities after a new release - It's the same thing with MS products, it's just that you have a frequent release cycle for most Linux distributions so you tend to notice those "baby age" problems more often.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Meh. - distro makes a difference
by jabbotts on Thu 27th Aug 2009 19:53 UTC in reply to "Meh."
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Ubuntu is not the best example. There are other's that do user friendly with better hardware support. For stability, Debian is pretty rock solid. If you didn't try a few different distributions in your two years than it may be worth doing so. If you have a platform that works and no interest in looking at others right now, that's all good too.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Meh.
by Stephen! on Mon 31st Aug 2009 21:27 UTC in reply to "Meh."
Stephen! Member since:
2007-11-24

Linux is a fiddly operating system.


Linux isn't an operating system. It's a kernel.

Reply Score: 1

Won't somebody think of the children?
by vivainio on Wed 26th Aug 2009 23:07 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26


I would much rather have the FSF orchestrate an effort to promote the strong points of Free software, without being so hell-bent on Microsoft this and Microsoft that.


Somehow I imagine a letter from Canonical or Red Hat (this was sent to fortune 500 after all) would have more impact.

OTOH, I don't know how companies *not* upgrading their 2000/XP/Vista desktops to Windows 7 will help the Free Software cause. On the contrary, the more their IT balance bleeds red ink, the more appealing free software will look.

Reply Score: 2

flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Are you sure about that?

The vendors like Microsoft and so on, not to mention some people in the organisation will just throw back the cost of converting and scare management off.

In uncertain economic environments, sometimes it's better to have the devil you know.

Reply Score: 3

A few things
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 26th Aug 2009 23:51 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

"The campaign is about more than just a website, though; the FSF has emailed 499 of the Fortune 500 companies (excluding Microsoft, obviously), under the subject header of "Important notice regarding impending lack of privacy, freedom and security from Microsoft Corporation". The letter promotes the use of Free software."

Did anyone else laugh at that part? Amusing. ;)

"The Free software world has enough to offer, but it always seems like the only time you ever really hear about the FSF is when they're busy badmouthing someone or something else."

Kind of like Apple? Any time you hear about them on TV they're slamming Windows--er, I mean, PC. Not that I'm complaining though, since I think their commercials are pretty funny.

Reply Score: 5

RE: A few things
by Coxy on Thu 27th Aug 2009 07:54 UTC in reply to "A few things"
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

Yeah, that's because in the real world outside of geeks bedrooms and IT departments no one has ever heard of them.

Edited 2009-08-27 07:54 UTC

Reply Score: 2

I don't care what others think of my OS :)
by pcunite on Thu 27th Aug 2009 02:08 UTC
pcunite
Member since:
2008-08-26

I don't care what others think of my OS ;)

I am happy with Windows 7. I think it's great that MS has a majority. Makes it much easier to test and sell software. Why in the world would *real* developers (those who get paid for what they do) want thousands of different little operating systems running around? The Linux fork of everything is a pain to test and deploy for... good luck FSF trying making people feel bad about paying for a hotdog and not expecting the recipie!

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

This is a common misconception that a developer need make there program work on each individual distribution that happens to use a Linux kernel. The reality is that they need only make there program compile with modern libraries. It is the responsibility of the distribution providers to insure it works and is packaged for there product. There is also no end to the examples of software with retail value sold for use on Linux based platforms.

This doesn't relate to the FSF point of your comment though. It is only offered to clarify your idea that developing for non-Windows systems is somehow more complicated.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by jonathane
by jonathane on Thu 27th Aug 2009 02:29 UTC
jonathane
Member since:
2009-05-31

If they're so keen on getting people to adopt FOSS software, they might start by not making their website look like crap.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by jonathane
by Coxy on Thu 27th Aug 2009 07:56 UTC in reply to "Comment by jonathane"
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

Right. If that's an example of what one can achieve with free software alternatives, I can see why people would still rather buy software

Reply Score: 2

Why?
by Kyin on Thu 27th Aug 2009 03:17 UTC
Kyin
Member since:
2009-01-19

Same old song and dance. The FSF gave us the GPL, which is a great weapon to keep free software free. To keep people like Apple from incorporating the code into their system and then closing it off to everyone else. They have a nifty list of free software on their site. I'm sure they've made other contributions, but I don't know what they are.

Probably because all I can hear is them yelling how evil Microsoft is. Seriously? Microsoft controls Windows? Windows is prone to viruses? What, windows costs money? Wow, if the FSF hadn't pointed these things out I would never had known.

I've been using Linux for a long time. And I have to agree with Linus when he said Microsoft hatred is a disease. This disease is crippling free software when people spend more time yelling about Microsoft than they do contributing to their own cause.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why?
by StaubSaugerNZ on Thu 27th Aug 2009 05:55 UTC in reply to "Why?"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

You hypocrates - all of you who profess to use all the GNU stuff [with the small Linux kernel underneath]). You use the product of millions of man-hours of labour and whinge about the philosophy of those who did it for you, for free.

If you don't like the philosophy don't use the software, ok? It is the rational thing to do. Go and get an Apple or switch to BSD, Solaris, or Windows. Otherwise, accept you are logically irrational ingrates and STFU. You are not contributing anything.



Oh yeah, for the next poster. I've written medical software (for research though, not life support certified but medical nevertheless) and it would not be possible to do without Free Software (due to the cost involve to buy all components). The Internet runs on Free Software but because most of you are so goddamn noobie in your outlook you think all computing is your desktop and your company's wimpy Exchange server.

Right now I'm writing software for a project that will process mail for millions of users and is hosted on Linux (the only thing that can scale cost-wise in such huge server farms - same way Google uses Linux). Doing this would not be economical if we were paying for Windows licenses on this scale. Free Software is good for all businesses (except for one company perhaps who is the only one to really benefit from monopolising computing and developer mindshare).

Free Software makes this business possible, and because it is Free Software it'll still be around in 10 years (since we can always maintain it ourselves, 'cause we got the skills unlike the whiners on this site who consider themselves l33t gurus since they know how to install MS Office).

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Why?
by nt_jerkface on Thu 27th Aug 2009 06:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Why?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Right now I'm writing software for a project that will process mail for millions of users and is hosted on Linux (the only thing that can scale cost-wise in such huge server farms - same way Google uses Linux). Doing this would not be economical if we were paying for Windows licenses on this scale.


I didn't say Linux is useless, I was just pointing out how silly it is believe that proprietary software is immoral. Most life-saving software is proprietary, so would the world be better if it didn't exist?

As for your project Linux isn't the only Unix that can be used in server farms. There's also FreeBSD and OpenSolaris.

For all the corporate support of Linux it is funny how Freebsd which as a fraction of the funding is still a viable alternative. If Linux didn't exist FreeBSD would have taken its place on all those backbone servers. It isn't like the internet wouldn't exist if Stallman didn't put forth his Commandments of Freedom.

Sorry but I'm not going to keep my mouth shut when a collectivist who doesn't have to work for a living spends his time defaming proprietary software. You are free to follow him and his Freedoms** while I am free to call bs on the whole thing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why?
by pjafrombbay on Thu 27th Aug 2009 06:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Why?"
pjafrombbay Member since:
2005-07-31

This is probably a waste of time; but here we go!

Like others have already said; you are seriously missing the point. Some of us do like the concept of free and open source software but that DOES NOT make proprietary software bad. Its simply horses for courses. One of the (many) reasons I haven't made the switch to Linux is some of the software that I really like and use a lot that is oly available on Windows. It also happens to be shareware (and I have paid for my copies) and for me, it just works really well.

Oh! and please don't tell me about Wine (been there and done that :-( ).

A little open-mindedness in the geek community wouldn't go astray sometimes. Seems to me that many on "my side of the discussion" have tried both open source and proprietary software but not many on the other side have done the same; for them its a "religious experience" thing (bit like the Taliban did someone say?). Try Windows 7, if you can remove your blinkers you might be surprised.

Regards,
Peter

Edited 2009-08-27 06:59 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Why?
by StaubSaugerNZ on Thu 27th Aug 2009 08:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why?"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

This is probably a waste of time; but here we go!

Like others have already said; you are seriously missing the point. Some of us do like the concept of free and open source software but that DOES NOT make proprietary software bad. Its simply horses for courses. One of the (many) reasons I haven't made the switch to Linux is some of the software that I really like and use a lot that is oly available on Windows. It also happens to be shareware (and I have paid for my copies) and for me, it just works really well.

Oh! and please don't tell me about Wine (been there and done that :-( ).

A little open-mindedness in the geek community wouldn't go astray sometimes. Seems to me that many on "my side of the discussion" have tried both open source and proprietary software but not many on the other side have done the same; for them its a "religious experience" thing (bit like the Taliban did someone say?). Try Windows 7, if you can remove your blinkers you might be surprised.

Regards,
Peter


I am using Windows 7 on one of my machines. It's not too bad, though not worth the colossal amount we'll be charged when it comes out of RC trial use.

I'm very pleased to hear you're one of the few paying for shareware. Well done. By paying for it you are saying that there is some kind of moral obligation attached to software, which what the FSF are saying (although their point-of-view is that the moral concerns are paramount).

Here's something to think about. In the sixties the average person looked down on hippies and greenies as having an impractical view of the world with their concerns for the planet. Today we realise that despite their unkempt appearance that perhaps their message was true. For example, in today's news the axolotl has decreased to around 1000 in the wild. Polar bears are likely to be extinct within a couple of decades, etc the list goes on. Maybe it's due to humans, maybe not, but no matter what we're not doing enough for our environment and not looking after the lesser species.

It is my belief that may advocates of the 'practicality' of proprietary software miss the point as well (just as the mainstream missed the message of the greenies many years ago). Free Software is all about *control*, the user should have the ability to take control if they wish, irrespective of what the developer wanted. The GPL is there to ensure this happens. Sun's Scott McNealy famously declared that "Privacy is dead, get over it". If you accept proprietary software you are of this point of view and don't mind developers and companies having control of your computing experience (think of the iPod fiascos on a larger scale).

It is in the nature of proprietary software and its developers to stop you having control, and it is increasingly possible these days. Their company gets addicted to the cash. I'm happy to pay for my software (at reasonable rates) but I do expect the source. Personally, I'd rather continue to struggle to master my own destiny. All I can do is point this out to those so inured with the corporate mantra and let you make up your own mind.

Peace Peter,
StaubSaugerNZ

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Why?
by nt_jerkface on Thu 27th Aug 2009 09:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Free Software is all about *control*, the user should have the ability to take control if they wish, irrespective of what the developer wanted. The GPL is there to ensure this happens.


So the user should have more control than the creator? Really? Why shouldn't the person who labors for his work be in control of it?

How many software users care about the source? Less than 1%. How many who do could actually do something with it? Less than .0001%. For most users software is a tool that gets a job done. They don't care about having the source anymore than they care about having the blueprints to the office they work in.

but I do expect the source. Personally, I'd rather continue to struggle to master my own destiny.

If you were given the source to MS Office it would have zero effect on your destiny. It would take a large team of highly skilled programmers to even maintain it. I bet like most gpl advocates you're not even a programmer.



All I can do is point this out to those so inured with the corporate mantra and let you make up your own mind. Peace Peter, StaubSaugerNZ


When it comes to which license I should use for my software I only see mantra coming from the gpl crowd.

Open source ideology is naive. If the gpl was the ideal software development model than the Hurd would be done by now.

Software is difficult to write and often requires large teams of experienced programmers as well as industry-specific experts. Believing that open source software should replace all proprietary software only shows a lack of understanding of how commercial software is developed.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Why?
by StaubSaugerNZ on Thu 27th Aug 2009 09:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why?"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13



So the user should have more control than the creator? Really? Why shouldn't the person who labors for his work be in control of it?


That's how it is now, and doesn't work too flash. Teams re-inventing the same stuff again and again for their own closed implementations of stuff.


How many software users care about the source? Less than 1%. How many who do could actually do something with it? Less than .0001%. For most users software is a tool that gets a job done. They don't care about having the source anymore than they care about having the blueprints to the office they work in.

Yes, but the fire wardens want the blueprints.


If you were given the source to MS Office it would have zero effect on your destiny. It would take a large team of highly skilled programmers to even maintain it. I bet like most gpl advocates you're not even a programmer.

I've been programming for 2 decades. 10 as a scientific researcher and the last decade as a software consultant. Fail. You obviously didn't read my earlier post with your bigoted knee-jerk reaction to other posters (obviously a jerk not only in face). Do you work for MS perhaps?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Why?
by rockwell on Thu 27th Aug 2009 14:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why?"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

//Yes, but the fire wardens want the blueprints..//


Brilliant point, you deulusional freetard. Dance, monkey-boy, dance!

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Why?
by StaubSaugerNZ on Thu 27th Aug 2009 18:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why?"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

//Yes, but the fire wardens want the blueprints..//


Brilliant point, you deulusional freetard. Dance, monkey-boy, dance!


So you don't actually have anything real to contribute to the debate and are simply trolling for lurz? Why not head to 4chan then its full of immature gimps you like to play the same way.

I prepared to debate open mindedly about OS news, maybe I'll learn something and maybe you'd learn something. But it looks like you're not, with your content-free childish statements.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Why?
by suzaku on Thu 27th Aug 2009 14:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why?"
suzaku Member since:
2009-08-27


That's how it is now, and doesn't work too flash. Teams re-inventing the same stuff again and again for their own closed implementations of stuff.


Right! Because this doesn't happen in Open-Source-Wonderland! Where some freetard can always be counted on to develop the next video editor, the next audio player, the next window manager, and so on. Of course, here it's called CHOICE. That means that the users have to choose between software that sucks and software that sucks even more.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Why?
by StaubSaugerNZ on Thu 27th Aug 2009 19:04 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why?"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

"
That's how it is now, and doesn't work too flash. Teams re-inventing the same stuff again and again for their own closed implementations of stuff.


Right! Because this doesn't happen in Open-Source-Wonderland! Where some freetard can always be counted on to develop the next video editor, the next audio player, the next window manager, and so on. Of course, here it's called CHOICE. That means that the users have to choose between software that sucks and software that sucks even more.
"

There is duplication in the Open Source world for sure, and I agree it is wasteful. However, you're missing the fact that you are *always* able to extend the work of others as a basis for your own work - if you choose too. Then you spend your time making useful enhancements rather than re-inventing the basics (eg. xine, mplayer, and the sublime vlc all use and extend the hard work in the FFmpeg library [and other libraries]). This means that vlc supports far more codecs than Windows Media Player (apart from a few that companies refuse to allow implementations of, but there are other, better alternatives anyway).

With proprietary implementations the companies must either license someone else's implementation (if it is even available for licensing) and on terms that may not suit them (too expensive, can't use for a particular purpose, can't complete with the original etc). The companies spend so much money getting the basics done that they often can't afford to do much extension beyond a few differentiators.

Competition is good. Coopertition is much better (less wasteful globally and can result in more progress).

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Why?
by boldingd on Thu 27th Aug 2009 18:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why?"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19


"So the user should have more control than the creator? Really? Why shouldn't the person who labors for his work be in control of it?


That's how it is now, and doesn't work too flash. Teams re-inventing the same stuff again and again for their own closed implementations of stuff.
"

Users perhaps should not dictate the software distribution scheme to the developer, but they should maintain control of their own machine, and of the software that they purchase to run on it. The software should cater to the user, not try to coerce the user into continuing to use the software.

At least for me, it's more that many closed-source projects try to usurp control of my computer, and limit what I can do with their software, in order to ensure their own survival and coerce me into continued patronage. I'm thinking about things like choosing closed file formats, so that people have to keep using the same vendor's software even after it gets eclipsed in price and performance, not supporting open formats (for the same reason), using DRM to control media or software use, etc. A large part of my dedication to Free Software isn't the vindictive desire to destroy closed-source software distribution, it's that I don't like my software telling me, "oh, sorry, you can't do that, because then you wouldn't be dependent on us anymore." I don't want to have to beseech software for permission to use it, after I've legitamately purchased it. Sorry if I'm crazy-rambling.

I mean, for freaking serious, why don't Apple products support Ogg Vorbis files? More than half my library's .ogg files. >(

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Why?
by StaubSaugerNZ on Thu 27th Aug 2009 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why?"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

"
[q]So the user should have more control than the creator? Really? Why shouldn't the person who labors for his work be in control of it?


That's how it is now, and doesn't work too flash. Teams re-inventing the same stuff again and again for their own closed implementations of stuff.
"

Users perhaps should not dictate the software distribution scheme to the developer, but they should maintain control of their own machine, and of the software that they purchase to run on it. The software should cater to the user, not try to coerce the user into continuing to use the software.

At least for me, it's more that many closed-source projects try to usurp control of my computer, and limit what I can do with their software, in order to ensure their own survival and coerce me into continued patronage. I'm thinking about things like choosing closed file formats, so that people have to keep using the same vendor's software even after it gets eclipsed in price and performance, not supporting open formats (for the same reason), using DRM to control media or software use, etc. A large part of my dedication to Free Software isn't the vindictive desire to destroy closed-source software distribution, it's that I don't like my software telling me, "oh, sorry, you can't do that, because then you wouldn't be dependent on us anymore." I don't want to have to beseech software for permission to use it, after I've legitamately purchased it. Sorry if I'm crazy-rambling.

I mean, for freaking serious, why don't Apple products support Ogg Vorbis files? More than half my library's .ogg files. >( [/q]

Exactly. You made the point well.

Apple have retarded the progress of Net. The fact corporations can't even agree on an open and free standard for video is completely pathetic - it is not like the differences in codec performance is that great. HTML 5 would have been good with video but Apple just can't help themselves. They were more inclined to promote free and open when they were the struggling underdogs but now they're leader in some markets they're showing themselves to be b@stards.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Why?
by JeffS on Thu 27th Aug 2009 19:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why?"
JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

nt_jerkface:

Since you've thrown the word "collectivist" in reference to Stallman, I'm guessing that you're a Randian (at least partially).

Yet, you argue in favor of the developer/proprietary software developer to take control of your computing experience.

And I always thought that a major part of the Randian/Objectivist/Libertarian/blahblah philosophy was to give freedom to the individual, without centralized control.

Yet, here you are, arguing in favor of centralized control, and against freedom for individual computer users.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a pragmatist and I use both Vista and Ubuntu (dual boot), with using Vista more often than Ubuntu.

But I hate things like DRM, WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage - the only advantage is for MS), file usage monitoring, vendor lock-in.

If I go to a hardware store, and buy a hammer, I should be able to use that hammer whenever, wherever, and however I want, period.

Software should be the same. But the big proprietary software vendors, as well ad the big media companies, try to put in as many restrictions as possible, interfering with what I want to do with my legally purchased computer, and my legally purchased software.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Why?
by nt_jerkface on Thu 27th Aug 2009 20:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

nt_jerkface: Since you've thrown the word "collectivist" in reference to Stallman, I'm guessing that you're a Randian (at least partially). Yet, you argue in favor of the developer/proprietary software developer to take control of your computing experience.


Stallman wants all software to be a public collective. I think the description is apt.

Developers don't take control of your computing experience, they enhance it by providing additional functionality with their program. If you don't want that additional functionality you are free to not download it.


But the big proprietary software vendors, as well ad the big media companies, try to put in as many restrictions as possible, interfering with what I want to do with my legally purchased computer, and my legally purchased software.


Which restrictions are you talking about? The inability to see the source? Do you get upset when you buy a can of Coke and are unable to see the recipe on the can?

Anyways my overall point is that GPL ideology is a joke. You can't expect all software to fall under the GPL. It doesn't work for all software development models, and it doesn't always work for open source projects. See The Hurd as a class A example.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Why?
by ichi on Thu 27th Aug 2009 21:26 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why?"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

Do you get upset when you buy a can of Coke and are unable to see the recipe on the can?


Well yes, I do.
There's something uncomfortable about not knowing what the hell I'm actually drinking.

Anyways my overall point is that GPL ideology is a joke. You can't expect all software to fall under the GPL. It doesn't work for all software development models, and it doesn't always work for open source projects. See The Hurd as a class A example.


None of that proves GPL being a joke, but rather that there's no "one size fits all".

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Why?
by JeffS on Thu 27th Aug 2009 22:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why?"
JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

"Which restrictions are you talking about? The inability to see the source? Do you get upset when you buy a can of Coke and are unable to see the recipe on the can?"

I'll give you a perfect, real life example:

When I bought my iPod, I wanted to get a bunch of the songs off my very extensive CD collection onto my new iPod. So I spent a bunch of time, I mean, a lot of time, ripping many of my CDs to HD, and then importing into iTune, then syncing to my iPod. Fine and dandy.

Later on, however, that machine (on which I had ripped the CDs) had it's CPU burn out.

So I replaced the computer with my current Dell Inspiron (with Vista and Ubuntu).

But I had spent all that time ripping my CDs onto HD, and wanted those songs on my new machine, without having to spend all that time ripping again.

No worries - those songs were on my iPod. Just hook up my iPod, and download the songs onto the new HD. The songs are, after all, just files, being stored on what is essentially a USB storage device.

Bzzzzzzt!!! Nope. Apple put in restrictions on doing that. The files on the iPod are encrypted, and locked in, and don't allow downloading from the iPod onto another machine that is not the original machine from which the songs were originally uploaded.

But, goddammit, they're my songs, from my legally purchased CD collection. I just wanted to save the hassle of having to rip all those CDs again.

But nope, Apple doesn't give a rats ass about customer convenience. They want you to be locked into one machine, and into their hardware, and their file format.

Yes,yes, I know I could've just ghosted the old HD (which is an expense and inconvenience unto itself). Yes, yes, I know I could have bought third party software that unlocks the encrypted files and allows you to download from the iPod (another expense).

The point is, I should not have had to do that sh!t. Again, they're my songs from my CD collection, loaded onto what is essentially a USB storage device.

I was furious.

Yes, I know. I don't have to buy an iPod. But in this case, I had no idea it had such a ridiculous restriction. If I had known, I never would have bought an iPod.

Rest assured, it's my last iPod.

I'll be looking at iRiver, Creative Zen, or Sansa Fuze for my next mp3 player purchase - and I'll be looking very carefully at any restrictions those products might have.

But there in lies the rub. The proprietary software put in an artificial restriction, and greatly inconvenienced me, for the sole purpose of locking me into their wares.

This would never, ever, in a million years, happen with FOSS. With FOSS, there is zero incentive to try to pull that kind of crap on users.

But in the end, it's often a matter of compromises or trade-offs. The iPod is a really slick device, and has a really nice interface.

And the nice interface, polish, completeness, and ease of use, you see with the iPod software, often comes up a bit short with FOSS.

Edited 2009-08-27 22:36 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Why?
by r_a_trip on Thu 27th Aug 2009 14:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why?"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Try Windows 7, if you can remove your blinkers you might be surprised.

I could try that, but it would be costly. I'd have to buy a version of Windows 7 that is not too restricted, which probably means Windows 7 Home Premium. Then I'd have to flesh it out with the "best of breed" third party addons, which would increase the cost further. Test driving windows 7 legally would be an expensive endeavor.

I could have done it with the RC and then pack it with trial versions of the rest, but that seems like an awful lot of effort for something that will only be functional for 30 days (trial periods of third party addons mostly don't last longer).

I've installed the RC on VirtualBox (the proprietary one) and was pleasantly surprised with the smooth install (Vista's wasn't as smooth). A much needed improvement over XP. The desktop was a bit sparse to the eyes, but the color-scheme is very pleasant.

I didn't test it any further, because I have no real use for Windows anymore. GNU/Linux has taken its place. The Linux distro model fits my needs much better. I can't really see myself go back to the sand-boxed model of windows, where every piece of functionality needs to be bought after careful evaluation, because you don't easily chuck something you've parted hard earned cash for.

I know that Windows and addons can be "gratis" at the torrent market, but why go illegal if the alternative is just as gratis and legal to boot.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Why?
by boldingd on Thu 27th Aug 2009 18:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why?"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

I'm using Ubuntu on my lap-top (and I game under WINE just fine... well, not "just fine," I admit, but well enough). I dual-boot my home machine, Vista and Slackware. I've tried, and regularly make use of, both open- and closed-source products. And I am faaaar from the only person who can say that.

You are absolutely correct that closed-source software distribution is not inherently bad, and that both closed- and open-source software can coexist. You're definitely not the only person who realizes it, tho. Hell, probably any BSD-license advocate would agree with you completely.

Edited 2009-08-27 18:14 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Why?
by pjafrombbay on Fri 28th Aug 2009 05:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why?"
pjafrombbay Member since:
2005-07-31

I probably sounded bitter and twisted in my original post (that's because I am :-) .

I am a retired programmer/manager and love to keep my "hand in" especially with things we couldn't do when I worked (typically big IBM mainframe type shop in government). I am learning Python, PHP, jQuery and even OOrexx when I've got time. I help manage not-for-profit websites and on and on.

Seven years ago (when I retired) Linux looked like a good thing to try. I've got to say that its been an on-going frustration. Printing is one of the major bug-bears. I have a Canon LBP-1210 laser with official Canon driver that simply does not work (well not in any flavour of Ubuntu). I found install processes on the Ubuntu forum (now that really is a great support resource) which would work with one Ubuntu release but not the next. I researched what printer I could buy that would work with no problems with Linux (and that I could easily buy and get consumables for - I live in rural NSW, Australia). I bought a Samsung ML-1740 which worked but produced printed output that looks like an old dot-matrix printer. Very frustrating.

Dial-up Internet used to be a problem until I got an ADSL connection. For my programming I use EditPlus (IMHO THE BEST TEXT EDITOR). Geany is the closest alternative in the Linux world but not as good. I am extremely productive in EditPlus (I know it inside out) so am reluctant to change. Tried Wine but had problems. Tried the commercial version and that worked but there are issues with a Windows text editor on Linux.

The straw that broke the camels back so to speak was trying the change the wallpaper in Xubuntu 9.04 (trivial I hear you say). I installed Xubuntu over Windows 7 RC pending the release of Ubuntu 9.10 because I read a good review. (Actually Xubuntu is cr*p - not as good as proper Ubuntu.) Back to the wallpaper, there are ten or twenty pre-installed wallpapers. I went to load in several of my favourite motorcycle wallpapers (I ride a Honda CB900F Hornet in case you couldn't tell). Xubuntu allows me to add two or three then starts deleting them. I will fix you I thought, I found the location of the pre-installed wallpapers and (logged in as SUDO) deleted them and coppied my motorcycle wallpapers into the same folder. Now I can only get ONE (Xfce) wallpaper - I can't change it or add any new wallpapers. I know its trivial but its the end for me.

I will give Google ChromeOS a try when its released but probably never bother with other Linux distros again. Life is simply too short.

Sorry about the rant.
Peter

Reply Score: 2

Stallman will absolve your sins
by nt_jerkface on Thu 27th Aug 2009 05:18 UTC
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

With all the talk of sins I think it is clear that the gpl is a religion first and a license second.

I thought this was pretty funny though:
Two years later, Microsoft itself admits Vista failed.

No Microsoft never stated that, but it seems that the FSF doesn't care much about truth. But anyways if Vista is a failure then what does that make the Hurd?

I'm really getting tired of hearing rants from a collectivist who doesn't have to work for a living and no longer produces anything.

Software is a tool, not having the source does not make it immoral. If Stallman really believes that proprietary software is unethical then he should turn his computer off because hardware contains a ton of it. Oh and if he ever gets checked into a hospital he should demand to be treated only by medical devices that use open source.

Edited 2009-08-27 05:20 UTC

Reply Score: 4

pjafrombbay
Member since:
2005-07-31

Why not stop wasting time with campaigns such as this and simply produce better software than Micr$oft and shout about that? Oh! You can't do that! Oh! Now I see why you do silly campaigns like this.

Peter

PS1: Like several other correspondents on this post, I have tried Linux over many years but it simply isn't as good for desktop use as Windows - there I go, I've said it! I'm over it! Now I can stop wasting my time and just use my (Windows) computer.

PS2: Has anyone else noticed that later versions of Ubuntu are actually getting worse than earlier versions?

PS3: It's only a bl#*dy operating system; surely the pleasure and utility in using a computer is in the applications. Here again, Linux is well behind (unless you like to use the terminal app.

Edited 2009-08-27 05:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

PS3: It's only a bl#*dy operating system; surely the pleasure and utility in using a computer is in the applications. Here again, Linux is well behind (unless you like to use the terminal app.[)]

Why does FUD always return to the CLI? Anno 2009 there is no need to get into the CLI for day to day use. I spend days in Gnome without the NEED to use the CLI.

That I do use it, because I'm an ingrained old fart is another thing. Even if you know something can be done graphically, sometimes the CLI is simpler for one who knows how to use it.

Reply Score: 3

Bad PR
by strcpy on Thu 27th Aug 2009 05:48 UTC
strcpy
Member since:
2009-05-20

I am not a big fan of FSF.

But regardless of me and my opinions, this is extremely bad PR.

Negative campaigns are always obnoxious. Even more so in certain parts of the world; here for instance U.S. presidential elections are always tormenting to watch. In some parts of the world negative campaigns are considered insulting. For these reasons, FSF's offensive strategy often feels distasteful and frankly, disgusting.

When you have to rely on negative publicity, there is already something wrong in your organization.

Reply Score: 2

I'm happy with Vista
by casuto on Thu 27th Aug 2009 06:22 UTC
casuto
Member since:
2007-02-27

I don't care about FSF, because I'm happy with Vista since the day 1.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I'm happy with Vista
by Coxy on Thu 27th Aug 2009 10:56 UTC in reply to "I'm happy with Vista "
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

Me too. I bought a new Laptop to replace my old dinosaur and it came with Vista. After everything I read here I expected that I would want to uninstall it and put XP on it... I don't know on what hardware and what apps the vista badmouthers have tested Vista on but on my laptop it rocks!

Vista is great and much better than xp. I haven't had a single problem with it. It looks really good too. My wife now wants a new laptop so that she can use it as well (she likes the new mine-sweeper).

Reply Score: 2

FSF become communist
by uray on Thu 27th Aug 2009 11:16 UTC
uray
Member since:
2009-08-19

if they (FSF) want people to ditch microsoft products, why don't they focus on quality of their product instead of using bullsh*t propaganda like this...

the people have their own reasons to use commercial or microsoft product, and most people have difficulty to use FSF softwares like Linux...

Reply Score: 1

RE: FSF become communist
by Soulbender on Thu 27th Aug 2009 11:59 UTC in reply to "FSF become communist"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Wow, sure took long for the first stupid, inaccurate communism comment to show up.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: FSF become communist
by Coxy on Thu 27th Aug 2009 12:07 UTC in reply to "RE: FSF become communist"
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

Communism?

You dumb americans don't know anything about communism. You just believe anything your stupid leaders tell you about communism, you even try and use it as an insult in forums... like it's something bad!

I expect you also call people who have different views than yourself Hitler?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: FSF become communist
by rockwell on Thu 27th Aug 2009 14:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: FSF become communist"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

Ok, cocks-y, please explain communism and how well it works to us dumb Americans. Cite examples. Oh, and as you know, China doesn't count, since it's not pure communism. Thanks.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: FSF become communist
by sbergman27 on Thu 27th Aug 2009 14:33 UTC in reply to "RE: FSF become communist"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Wow, sure took long for the first stupid, inaccurate communism comment to show up.

Well... here we need to make a distinction between how RMS and a minority of Linux advocates think, and what that greater community thinks. (Always keeping in mind the dangers of generalizing, of course.)

RMS does believe that closed source is *wrong* and that people should not be able to do proprietary software, and has made that clear on several occasions. In his view, people should *have to* share any code for binaries they distribute. When you think about it, and despite the "common wisdom" on the matter in our community, that is a very communistic attitude. (At this point, I should note that communism is nothing more than an economic system based on a particular philosophy, and should not be confused with the totalitarian governments which, in practice, have often accompanied it for some reason.)

Of course, RMS can't impose his essentially communistic viewpoint and system on the rest of us. So he's been forced to work within a capitalist system, using the capitalist tools available. Hence GPL is grounded in capitalist principles out of necessity. And I think most of us are happy about that.

So while I think that there is not much of a basis for describing the general Linux community as communist... and while the GPL itself is a "tit for tat" agreement, voluntarily entered into by its users, and essentially capitalist in nature, if not so completely so in spirit... I think that it is perfectly legitimate to describe Richard's views, and thus the views of the FSF in general, as being communistic in nature.

Edit: My words "Richard's views, and thus the views of the FSF", above, were selected carefully. As I recall that during the year of GPLv3 debate, Richard made it clear that he, and he alone would make the decisions. It seems that at the FSF, some animals are more equal than others. And so perhaps the FSF microcosm gives us some clue as to *why* totalitarian governments tend to be associated with communistic economic systems, and how that comes about. Just a thought.

Edited 2009-08-27 14:43 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: FSF become communist
by boldingd on Thu 27th Aug 2009 17:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: FSF become communist"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

I can't vote in this thread, so...

+1 (insightful)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: FSF become communist
by telns on Fri 28th Aug 2009 17:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: FSF become communist"
telns Member since:
2009-06-18

In his view, people should *have to* share any code for binaries they distribute. When you think about it, and despite the "common wisdom" on the matter in our community, that is a very communistic attitude. (At this point, I should note that communism is nothing more than an economic system based on a particular philosophy, and should not be confused with the totalitarian governments which, in practice, have often accompanied it for some reason.)


You answered your own musing a couple of lines up. The natural consequence of any "have to" order is that some entity must force compliance, regardless of an individual's level of willingness.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: FSF become communist
by ichi on Fri 28th Aug 2009 17:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: FSF become communist"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

You answered your own musing a couple of lines up. The natural consequence of any "have to" order is that some entity must force compliance, regardless of an individual's level of willingness.


The same entities that force compliance of any other kind of license.

Other than that there's no force feeding, if only because I'd bet RMS hasn't even considered that anyone would willingly choose a non OS license if everyone was informed about it's benefits. Hence all the preaching.

Reply Score: 2

Triste...
by Remiks on Thu 27th Aug 2009 13:42 UTC
Remiks
Member since:
2009-08-25

It's sad to see a group of people (be it a company or a foundation) using negative campaigns to get credibility and increase their user base. It was bad with BadVista, it was bad with the infamous "Get The Facts" campaign. Both MS and the FSF have resorted to this kind of thing, but is it really necessary?

I believe everything is a matter of taste and context. Be it on corporate world, or on the desktop, the software you use is just a choice you've made, because you're more comfortable, because you want to learn, or whatever reason. Corporations look for cost effective solutions; desktop users look to get their jobs done.

I've used both worlds, and I must say, I prefer GNU/Linux (or *BSD), but my preference doesn't come with a necessity of ranting over the proprietary alternative. For what I've seen of W7, it is good, and certainly, very comfortable... But I stick to my penguin friend, which has also never failed, and is too very comfortable (to me, at least).

One thing I don't get is why people tend to insult the things they don't use or don't like. We have here a person who is a fan (please, don't take it as an insult, I'm just trying to make a point) of Free Sotware, and a person who is a fan of Microsoft (or proprietary software, in this context)... Why not simply accept the fact that people have the right to use whatever they want, and then let them be...

Ranting about MS of the FSF does not benefit any of them.

Edited 2009-08-27 13:52 UTC

Reply Score: 1

I want my cake and eat it too!
by JeffS on Thu 27th Aug 2009 20:08 UTC
JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

I have a love/hate relationship with FOSS.

I have a love/hate relationship with Proprietary Software.

With FOSS, I get much greater freedom to have complete control over my computer, and use it as I wish. I also get better efficiency, better stability, and lot's of free goodies.

But with FOSS, I have frustrations - stuff like no stable API for the kernel, or Xorg breaking backwards compatibility, or Linux distros always including "the latest" of everything (introducing bugs and incompatibilities), and the sometimes religious zealotry of some of it's advocates.

With Proprietary software, I get generally greater completeness, more attention to detail, more polish, more compatibility, stable APIs, and generally more stuff "just working".

But with proprietary software I get restrictions, lock-in, DRM, WGA, patents, disabled features, file usage monitoring, the sometimes religious zeal of some of the proprietary software fanbois, and the inability to always do what I want with my computer.

I want software that doesn't limit my usage, doesn't impose artificial restrictions, doesn't limit my freedom, doesn't lock me in, but also has polish, stability, efficiency, compatibility, and stable APIs.

Is that so much to ask? .... probably ;-)

The likes of MS, Apple, Linux, or the FSF are all doubtful to provide all of those things. Just some of them.

Ugh.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I want my cake and eat it too!
by boldingd on Thu 27th Aug 2009 20:33 UTC in reply to "I want my cake and eat it too!"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19


I want software that doesn't limit my usage, doesn't impose artificial restrictions, doesn't limit my freedom, doesn't lock me in, but also has polish, stability, efficiency, compatibility, and stable APIs.


vim ;)

Reply Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

With FOSS, I get much greater freedom to have complete control over my computer, and use it as I wish.


What exactly do you mean by complete conrol? I can install any OS that I choose on my computer, so how what type of control are you talking about? If I use Eclipse instead of Visual Studio, what control do I gain? Especially since if I switched to Eclipse I would lose functionality.

Reply Score: 1

FSF is irrelevant
by ecruz on Fri 28th Aug 2009 16:43 UTC
ecruz
Member since:
2007-06-16

Like others have pointed out, FSF is a negative raising entity, and dictatorial at best.

Anyway, nothing they can, would, will do, will make an impact on the sales or growth of Windows 7 or any other operating system in general.

Look at their support of Darwin. They renamed it GNU/Darwin after Apple open sourced darwin ( I guess Mr. humility, Stallman, has to put his two cents everywhere), and what happened, it died on the vine. Go look at the website. They can't develop nothing relevant.
Criticism is easy, getting things done is the real work!
Windows work and I can get things done without tinkering with it. When I want to tinker, I go to my garage and work on my old car!

Reply Score: 1

FSF's Sins?
by strcpy on Mon 31st Aug 2009 17:11 UTC
strcpy
Member since:
2009-05-20

I really hope some day we'll see a tongue-in-cheeck campaign about FSF's sins.

Reply Score: 1