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 380894
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Why?
by nt_jerkface on Thu 27th Aug 2009 09:01 UTC 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[6]: Why?
by rockwell on Thu 27th Aug 2009 14:04 in reply to "RE[5]: Why?"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

//Yes, but the fire wardens want the blueprints..//


Brilliant point, you deulusional freetard. Dance, monkey-boy, dance!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Why?
by suzaku on Thu 27th Aug 2009 14:43 in reply to "RE[5]: Why?"
suzaku Member since:
2009-08-27


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.


Right! Because this doesn't happen in Open-Source-Wonderland! Where some freetard can always be counted on to develop the next video editor, the next audio player, the next window manager, and so on. Of course, here it's called CHOICE. That means that the users have to choose between software that sucks and software that sucks even more.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[6]: Why?
by boldingd on Thu 27th Aug 2009 18:08 in reply to "RE[5]: Why?"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19


"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.
"

Users perhaps should not dictate the software distribution scheme to the developer, but they should maintain control of their own machine, and of the software that they purchase to run on it. The software should cater to the user, not try to coerce the user into continuing to use the software.

At least for me, it's more that many closed-source projects try to usurp control of my computer, and limit what I can do with their software, in order to ensure their own survival and coerce me into continued patronage. I'm thinking about things like choosing closed file formats, so that people have to keep using the same vendor's software even after it gets eclipsed in price and performance, not supporting open formats (for the same reason), using DRM to control media or software use, etc. A large part of my dedication to Free Software isn't the vindictive desire to destroy closed-source software distribution, it's that I don't like my software telling me, "oh, sorry, you can't do that, because then you wouldn't be dependent on us anymore." I don't want to have to beseech software for permission to use it, after I've legitamately purchased it. Sorry if I'm crazy-rambling.

I mean, for freaking serious, why don't Apple products support Ogg Vorbis files? More than half my library's .ogg files. >(

Reply Parent Score: 1

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

RE[6]: Why?
by nt_jerkface on Thu 27th Aug 2009 20:29 in reply to "RE[5]: Why?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

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.


Stallman wants all software to be a public collective. I think the description is apt.

Developers don't take control of your computing experience, they enhance it by providing additional functionality with their program. If you don't want that additional functionality you are free to not download it.


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.


Which restrictions are you talking about? The inability to see the source? Do you get upset when you buy a can of Coke and are unable to see the recipe on the can?

Anyways my overall point is that GPL ideology is a joke. You can't expect all software to fall under the GPL. It doesn't work for all software development models, and it doesn't always work for open source projects. See The Hurd as a class A example.

Reply Parent Score: 1