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 380869
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Why?
by pjafrombbay on Thu 27th Aug 2009 06:52 UTC 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[4]: Why?
by nt_jerkface on Thu 27th Aug 2009 09:01 in reply to "RE[3]: Why?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

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.


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.

but I do expect the source. Personally, I'd rather continue to struggle to master my own destiny.

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.



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


When it comes to which license I should use for my software I only see mantra coming from the gpl crowd.

Open source ideology is naive. If the gpl was the ideal software development model than the Hurd would be done by now.

Software is difficult to write and often requires large teams of experienced programmers as well as industry-specific experts. Believing that open source software should replace all proprietary software only shows a lack of understanding of how commercial software is developed.

Reply Parent Score: 1

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

RE[4]: Why?
by pjafrombbay on Fri 28th Aug 2009 05:16 in reply to "RE[3]: Why?"
pjafrombbay Member since:
2005-07-31

I probably sounded bitter and twisted in my original post (that's because I am :-) .

I am a retired programmer/manager and love to keep my "hand in" especially with things we couldn't do when I worked (typically big IBM mainframe type shop in government). I am learning Python, PHP, jQuery and even OOrexx when I've got time. I help manage not-for-profit websites and on and on.

Seven years ago (when I retired) Linux looked like a good thing to try. I've got to say that its been an on-going frustration. Printing is one of the major bug-bears. I have a Canon LBP-1210 laser with official Canon driver that simply does not work (well not in any flavour of Ubuntu). I found install processes on the Ubuntu forum (now that really is a great support resource) which would work with one Ubuntu release but not the next. I researched what printer I could buy that would work with no problems with Linux (and that I could easily buy and get consumables for - I live in rural NSW, Australia). I bought a Samsung ML-1740 which worked but produced printed output that looks like an old dot-matrix printer. Very frustrating.

Dial-up Internet used to be a problem until I got an ADSL connection. For my programming I use EditPlus (IMHO THE BEST TEXT EDITOR). Geany is the closest alternative in the Linux world but not as good. I am extremely productive in EditPlus (I know it inside out) so am reluctant to change. Tried Wine but had problems. Tried the commercial version and that worked but there are issues with a Windows text editor on Linux.

The straw that broke the camels back so to speak was trying the change the wallpaper in Xubuntu 9.04 (trivial I hear you say). I installed Xubuntu over Windows 7 RC pending the release of Ubuntu 9.10 because I read a good review. (Actually Xubuntu is cr*p - not as good as proper Ubuntu.) Back to the wallpaper, there are ten or twenty pre-installed wallpapers. I went to load in several of my favourite motorcycle wallpapers (I ride a Honda CB900F Hornet in case you couldn't tell). Xubuntu allows me to add two or three then starts deleting them. I will fix you I thought, I found the location of the pre-installed wallpapers and (logged in as SUDO) deleted them and coppied my motorcycle wallpapers into the same folder. Now I can only get ONE (Xfce) wallpaper - I can't change it or add any new wallpapers. I know its trivial but its the end for me.

I will give Google ChromeOS a try when its released but probably never bother with other Linux distros again. Life is simply too short.

Sorry about the rant.
Peter

Reply Parent Score: 2