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 380888
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Why?
by StaubSaugerNZ on Thu 27th Aug 2009 08:30 UTC 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[5]: Why?
by StaubSaugerNZ on Thu 27th Aug 2009 09:59 in reply to "RE[4]: Why?"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13



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?


That's how it is now, and doesn't work too flash. Teams re-inventing the same stuff again and again for their own closed implementations of stuff.


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.

Yes, but the fire wardens want the blueprints.


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.

I've been programming for 2 decades. 10 as a scientific researcher and the last decade as a software consultant. Fail. You obviously didn't read my earlier post with your bigoted knee-jerk reaction to other posters (obviously a jerk not only in face). Do you work for MS perhaps?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Why?
by JeffS on Thu 27th Aug 2009 19:41 in reply to "RE[4]: Why?"
JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

nt_jerkface:

Since you've thrown the word "collectivist" in reference to Stallman, I'm guessing that you're a Randian (at least partially).

Yet, you argue in favor of the developer/proprietary software developer to take control of your computing experience.

And I always thought that a major part of the Randian/Objectivist/Libertarian/blahblah philosophy was to give freedom to the individual, without centralized control.

Yet, here you are, arguing in favor of centralized control, and against freedom for individual computer users.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a pragmatist and I use both Vista and Ubuntu (dual boot), with using Vista more often than Ubuntu.

But I hate things like DRM, WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage - the only advantage is for MS), file usage monitoring, vendor lock-in.

If I go to a hardware store, and buy a hammer, I should be able to use that hammer whenever, wherever, and however I want, period.

Software should be the same. But the big proprietary software vendors, as well ad the big media companies, try to put in as many restrictions as possible, interfering with what I want to do with my legally purchased computer, and my legally purchased software.

Reply Parent Score: 2