MadPenguin takes a short look at Automatix, and concludes: "While we would use Automatix on a regular basis, we think this utility is taking new steps into a much needed territory. In the ease of today's latest program managers, we still run into those that still can't seem to use these simple package installation solutions. With any luck, endeavors such as Automatix will help to address this need, and once again prove just how far desktop Linux has actually come."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-12
Agreed. I always seek out and prefer a Free Software equivelant to proprietary software. But when there's a clearly superior proprietary solution, I'll use it.
Plus, I do not think proprietary software is evil unto itself. Afterall, I work for a small company that sells it's own highly specialized (wireless data collection) proprietary software.
What gives proprietary software a bad name is Microsoft, and other big proprietary software behemouths like Oracle and SAP, where the pricing is way to high, they deliberately sell unmanagable complexity (to increase services revenues), the licensing is overly restrictive and unreasonable, and in the case of MS, they leverage their monopoly power to put out crap and force it down customers' throats.
But there is a whole world of very good proprietary software out there, that features reasonable, not overly restrictive licensing, and the providers are just trying to compete and make money honestly.
Member since:2005-07-06
There are two fallacies in your line of thought:
1) You assume that the open source/free software community resources are limitless or in any case sufficient to provide free equivalent to proprietary programs/codecs. That is not the case, as anyone struggling with specific and/or less popular tasks under Linux could tell you (where are the equivalents of Nero, Endnote, etc.? can't you see how many desktops progress slowly, adding a little polish here and there, and a badly needed component from time to time?).
2) It's not only about software, it's also about data: if the most common format to share music is mp3 I surely need an mp3 codec, and if that's encumbered by patents/royalties it means it will be difficult or impossible to replicate under a free OS; see also Gimp and Pantone for another example of why you can't propose an exact equivalent of a proprietary software if proprietary standards are involved as well.
In conclusion, Linux / FOSS users would surely benefit from a port of many Windows/Mac applications.
rehdon
Member since:2006-01-01
More resources become available when a large number of people start asking for free software alternatives. Standards are not set in stone, they can change when a large number of people start prefering a different standard.
IE used to be the standard in web browsers and people had to write their web pages to comply with IE specific quirks. But now we have Firefox that is gaining popularity.
The .doc format is the current standard in wordprocessor documents because so many people use MS Word. But you can tell people that you only have OpenOffice Writer and ask them to send you documents in .odf or .pdf format. You can also tell people where they can download their own version of OpenOffice. In time this can make the .doc format an old standard and .odf the new standard.
And there are also Free media codecs available -- it's just that more people need to use them before they can become new standards. I store all my music in .ogg format that is technically just as good as .mp3.
Some people may not yet believe this but I think that GNU/Linux can become the new standard that will replace MS Windows as the default pre-installed desktop operating system in new computers. It can happen sooner than you expect.
But before that can happen, people need to learn to value their freedom and to use the Free Software alternatives whenever one is available. Building GNU/Linux desktops on proprietary software/standards can become the biggest stumbling block on GNU/Linux's road to success for the very reason that I stated in my earlier post: developers of proprietary software can refuse to co-operate at any time without warning and those proprietary components can be taken away from us. But there is no such risk if the operating system is built entirely of Free Software.
Ubuntu has openly expressed their commitment to free software and I hope that all Ubuntu users become familiar with Ubuntu's ideals.
http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/philosophy
Member since:
2006-01-01
Then their is argument from the OSS purists - that there should be no proprietary software mixed with OSS, ever. They consider it immoral, and encouraging the use of proprietary software.
To which I say the best way help the spread of OSS is to make it as palatable as possible to would be newbies - which means being able to play MP3s, have Flash and Java work in their browsers, be able to watch DVDs, and have full 3D acceleration with their Nvidia cards (and other stuff).
The main problem with proprietary software is that the companies that provide it now can easily stop providing it in the future. Then the newbies who came to GNU/Linux because they like the features that proprietary software gives them will go away because they can't anymore get the features they used to have.
If there's some feature that you think you absolutely need on your GNU/Linux desktop, then it's urgent to get this feature provided by free software because then they can't take it away from us. But why would anyone bother to develop free software versions of proprietary products as long as people are happily using the proprietary solutions?
Think parctical and support Free Software!