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 297675
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

No, it means it does what the developers want and that is not necessarily the same as what the majority of the users want.


Not at all. Typically, as soon as a given application deviates from what users want, a group of users gets upset and starts their own fork. Ask XFree86 and then Xorg about this.

How do I not have control over my own hardware in closed source OS's and how does OSS magically give me control over it?


(1) Windows has a Microsoft-accessible backdoor.
(2) You do not own your copy of Windows. Microsoft reserves the right to alter the software running on your machine, or stop it working altogether.
(3) Microsoft reserves the right to walk in to your property/facility, examine your installed software, demand proof of purchase (acceptable to Microsoft), and (even though Microsoft and its agents are not the law) charge you a fortune if your records aren't 100% pristine.

See here for more details:
http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2008/012208-eben-moglen-on-open-sour...
"The primary desire that businesses have is for control over their own destinies, for avoidance of autonomy bottlenecks which put the fate of their business into the hands of someone else. The difficulty that they experience -- that they call vendor lock-in, or noninteroperability -- is a difficulty which is really a businessman's equivalent of [Free Software Foundation President Richard] Stallman's frustration at unfreedom. They are essentially the same recognition: In a world of complex, interdependent technology, if I don't control my technology, it will control me. Stallman's understanding of that proposition and Goldman Sachs' understanding [for example] needn't be as far apart as one might think. The desire to maintain autonomy -- the desire to avoid control of destiny by outside parties -- is as fierce in both cases as it can get. "


The whole article is worth a read, if you want some insight into the issue.

Edited 2008-01-25 00:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

Not at all. Typically, as soon as a given application deviates from what users want, a group of users gets upset and starts their own fork. Ask XFree86 and then Xorg about this.


Then those users become the developers and the cycle starts again.

But yeah, projects that don't cater to a large enough group of users are likely to eventually get forked or abandoned.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

a group of users gets upset and starts their own fork.


Users who arent developers can't fork.

(1) Windows has a Microsoft-accessible backdoor.


Does it now. Even if i did it has nothing to do with my control of the hardware. I can still wipe Windows out if I want to.

You do not own your copy of Windows. Microsoft reserves the right to alter the software running on your machine, or stop it working altogether.


Again, nothing to do with the hardware. I can always install something that isn't Windows on my hardware.

Microsoft reserves the right to walk in to your property/facility, examine your installed software,


Wow, again something that has NOTHING to do with my control over the hardware.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Users who arent developers can't fork.


And users of closed-source applications absolutely can't fork.

Does it now.


Yes, it does. There exists a mechanism whereby Microsoft can install software without notification and without the machine owner's permission on any Internet-connected Windows computer, even one that has updates turned off.

Even if i did it has nothing to do with my control of the hardware.


Of course it does ... the OS is in control of your hardware. If the OS won't run ... you won't get anywhere other than ...

I can still wipe Windows out if I want to.


Of course you can ... you would probably stand to lose all your locked-in to proprietary formats data though. Why don't you wipe Windows now (while you still might have a chance to keep your own data intact) & save yourself the pain later?

Wow, again something that has NOTHING to do with my control over the hardware.


Someone (not the law) is allowed to walk in, uninvited, inspect your machines and accuse you of dishonesty (without you necessarily having been at all dishonest), drag your name through the mud, and fine you a fortune (many times your machine's worth) just to allow you to continue running your own computing resources ... and yet you still insist you are in control?

ROFLMAO. You really are a very funny person.

Reply Parent Score: 3