Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 23rd Jan 2008 22:07 UTC
Linux With Linux on the desktop going from a slow crawl to verging on an explosion, many have toiled with the question: How do we make this happen faster? A well-known Austin-based Linux Advocate thinks he has the answer.
Thread beginning with comment 297454
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Linux for the masses
by WereCatf on Wed 23rd Jan 2008 23:43 UTC
Member since:

We hold the key of Freedom for tens of millions of people and that freedom is Linux

I find this one somehow arrogant. Linux is not the only OS out there.. OpenSolaris, *BSD et al, they are free too! And well, the word "Freedom" is capitalized so does it mean complete freedom from proprietary solutions or freedom to choose and do things your way? Anyways, Linux is not the Holy Grail of OS development. It may be good but heck, so are *BSDs.

Stop porting software to Windows.

He talks about freedom and then wants to force people to choose either proprietary software or Linux? First of all, having OSS projects ported to commercial OSes allow individuals to utilize those solutions under a familiar OS, it may allow them to replace a portion of their proprietary software portfolio, and it also allows them to migrate _slowly_. Besides, some people just like to run Windows and run some OSS applications there. So he wants to rid them of that possibility? IMHO he sounds rather arrogant and I don't like such suggestion AT ALL. OSS is about freedom, whether or not it is used under proprietary OS! If you restrict the conditions under which it can be used you're restricting the freedom of both the software and users, yet he preaches about freedom.. Talk about hypocritical.

Reply Score: 12

v RE: Linux for the masses
by sorpigal on Thu 24th Jan 2008 15:39 in reply to "Linux for the masses"
RE[2]: Linux for the masses
by tim_mcc on Thu 24th Jan 2008 16:29 in reply to "RE: Linux for the masses"
tim_mcc Member since:

The reality is, as much as BSD fans might like to deny it, Linux is a *guarantee* of lasting freedom, BSD is not. GPL'd code cannot be closed off, BSD code can. Companies can contribute to GPL projects secure in the knowledge that their competitors are not being handed an advantage that they themselves will not also have. Average Joes can contribute to a GPL project secure in the knowledge that the code will not be hijacked and made unavailable to him in the future.

To suggest that BSD code can be 'closed off' so that people can no longer access the source code is disingenious in the extreme.

BSD code can never be closed. You can fork it and close that, but what's to stop you using the existing code base?

As for freedom, I fail to see how a license which *restricts* usage can somehow be considered 'free'.

Reply Parent Score: 3