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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

So what GPL software was being promoted at that site?

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

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.

the FSF is bashing Microsoft because of their closed-source nature

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.

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

I'm not a GPL-hater

I definitely respect the FSF movement and GPL concepts.

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.

"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.

Because MS isn't the underdog?

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.

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

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

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.

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

" I'm not a GPL-hater

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 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.

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

MS doesn't seem to do a whole lot of that publicly

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,

People recognize when you are taking the high road.

And they recognize mudslinging when they see it, too.

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

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.

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.

for simply questioning

you pretty much reinforce the image

the FSF fostering a movement of zealots and serve to undermine the principles that the FSF advocates

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.

developers have the right to decide how their code can be used.

The point is that the FSF is often critical of licenses that don't meet their arbitrary standards of the four freedoms,

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.

I suspect the irony of your answer is entirely lost.

Who are you to say that?

Why is your world so black-and-white?

I don't have a problem with the GPL

I've enjoyed the benefits of using linux for a number of years now.

guess that makes me a liar, thief, and coward because I don't spam online forums advocating the superiority of the GPL.

I'll continue to respect the choice of the developers,

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 ... contributing to the cause you serve.

rather than toxic, denigrating and, frankly, obnoxious attacks,

That's just sad.

Why so much venom?

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 think

the Sarah Palin of FOSS.

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 ...

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

What is with you and oddly placed spaces?

And doesn't emacs have spellcheck by now?

If your presence shows anything ... 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?

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.

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

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 ?

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.

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.

Richard Stallman created the concept of Free** Software as in not free as in beer but Free as in an open source license that requires derivative work to fall under the same license. But instead of giving it a name that accurately describes it like "Forced Open License" he drapes the whole thing in "Freedom" as if the ability to look at the source is a divine right.

Richard Stallman created the concept of Free** Software

in not free as in beer but Free as in an open source license that requires derivative work to fall under the same license.

But instead of giving it a name that accurately describes it like "Forced Open License"

he drapes the whole thing in "Freedom" as if the ability to look at the source is a divine right.

The shocking thing is how so many people actually buy into it.

It really makes me wonder about theories regarding a religious fanaticism gene.

I don't use my real name because I don't want to test the extremes of foss fanaticism.

If you don't like it then tough because part of the fun of the internet is being able to call bs on groups like the fsf without having to worry about personal reprisals.

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.

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

webcams that conform to UVC standards

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.

I'm all for a good debate

I'd make a sizable donation

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

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.

Will the industry ever learn?

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

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.

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

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

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

"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?

"
[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?

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


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

"
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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Actually, it's the other way around. Proprietary software didn't really exist, to any major extent, before the '80's. Prior to that, there was no real market for it.

And the proprietary software market could not have happened without the foundation laid by the previous free software. And I'm not saying proprietary software is bad. I earn my living working for a proprietary software company.

The FSF has been spectacularly successful with a lot of it's other software -

gcc - near ubiquitous on all platforms
glibc - standard API on many unix/linux/bsd systems
Emacs - love it or hate it, it has enjoyed very widespread use
unix shells, such as bash - standard shells used on Linux distros
Gimp - in spite of the stupid name and the less than desirable interface, it's a full featured image manipulation program that is comparable to Photoshop
GTK - GUI library used across many unix/linux systems, as well as many desktop applications

All of it licensed under the GPL, or the LGPL.

And those things are why Stallman often insists on calling Linux, "GNU/Linux", because the combination of the Linux kernel with gcc, glibc, bash, and various other GNU utilities, constitutes a complete (albeit minimal) functioning system.

And oh yeah, the Linux kernel itself is licensed under the GPL. Linux powers Google. Linux powers many websites. Linux powers many devices, phones, set top boxes, and yes, even desktops/laptops. It's a spectacular success by any measure.

And in everything I've read from Stallman, it doesn't necessarily say those other licenses are bad. He just says the GPL is best for protecting people's freedoms.

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.

Linux is a fiddly operating system.