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.
Thread beginning with comment 380857
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Why?
by nt_jerkface on Thu 27th Aug 2009 06:34 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Why?
by pjafrombbay on Thu 27th Aug 2009 06:52 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Why?
by StaubSaugerNZ on Thu 27th Aug 2009 08:30 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 Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Why?
by r_a_trip on Thu 27th Aug 2009 14:00 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Why?
by boldingd on Thu 27th Aug 2009 18:13 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 Parent Score: 1