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 380898
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Why?
by StaubSaugerNZ on Thu 27th Aug 2009 09:59 UTC 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[7]: Why?
by StaubSaugerNZ on Thu 27th Aug 2009 18:55 in reply to "RE[6]: Why?"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

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


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


So you don't actually have anything real to contribute to the debate and are simply trolling for lurz? Why not head to 4chan then its full of immature gimps you like to play the same way.

I prepared to debate open mindedly about OS news, maybe I'll learn something and maybe you'd learn something. But it looks like you're not, with your content-free childish statements.

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[7]: Why?
by StaubSaugerNZ on Thu 27th Aug 2009 19:04 in reply to "RE[6]: Why?"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

"
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.
"

There is duplication in the Open Source world for sure, and I agree it is wasteful. However, you're missing the fact that you are *always* able to extend the work of others as a basis for your own work - if you choose too. Then you spend your time making useful enhancements rather than re-inventing the basics (eg. xine, mplayer, and the sublime vlc all use and extend the hard work in the FFmpeg library [and other libraries]). This means that vlc supports far more codecs than Windows Media Player (apart from a few that companies refuse to allow implementations of, but there are other, better alternatives anyway).

With proprietary implementations the companies must either license someone else's implementation (if it is even available for licensing) and on terms that may not suit them (too expensive, can't use for a particular purpose, can't complete with the original etc). The companies spend so much money getting the basics done that they often can't afford to do much extension beyond a few differentiators.

Competition is good. Coopertition is much better (less wasteful globally and can result in more progress).

Reply Parent Score: 2

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[7]: Why?
by StaubSaugerNZ on Thu 27th Aug 2009 18:52 in reply to "RE[6]: Why?"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

"
[q]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. >( [/q]

Exactly. You made the point well.

Apple have retarded the progress of Net. The fact corporations can't even agree on an open and free standard for video is completely pathetic - it is not like the differences in codec performance is that great. HTML 5 would have been good with video but Apple just can't help themselves. They were more inclined to promote free and open when they were the struggling underdogs but now they're leader in some markets they're showing themselves to be b@stards.

Reply Parent Score: 2