Linked by ddc_ on Thu 2nd Feb 2012 23:22 UTC
Slackware, Slax There are different reasons people use Unix-like operating systems, including configurable, availability free of charge, powerful command line interface an many more. Some people are motivated by the moral issue: they reject non-free software. Specifically for such users Free Software Foundation developed Guidelines for Free System Distributions and created the list of absolutely free ("as in freedom") distributions. In this article we are going to look at the most recent entry on the list - Parabola GNU/Linux.
Thread beginning with comment 505840
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Rant
by Valhalla on Fri 3rd Feb 2012 22:36 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Rant"
Valhalla
Member since:
2006-01-24

As I said they are large companies. Not individual developers.

Who are the individual developers making money out of releasing BSD licenced open source code? You linked to a FreeBSD article claiming that GPL favours large companies, I responded by saying that the same goes for BSD, and the same holds true for proprietary code aswell, as is the case in any business model.


Is Richard Stallman hiring them or the large companies? Who employs them exactly?

So unless Richard Stallman is personally hiring developers then he is against professional developers? FSF has employed a number of programmers over the years, I can't say that RMS hired them personally.

Can you point out to me where Stallman says he is against professional developers?

It is that they think that the license must be GPL or compatible in their ideology.

Why does that disturb you? They are in no way forcing you to follow their wishes.

Compare that to Microsoft saying that OEM's can't licence their operating systems unless they block the use of other operating systems on that OEM hardware. You defended Microsoft in this enforcement, but you find FSF wishing that all software would be licenced as GPL or compatible to be extremism?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Rant
by lucas_maximus on Sat 4th Feb 2012 12:22 in reply to "RE[9]: Rant"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Who are the individual developers making money out of releasing BSD licenced open source code? You linked to a FreeBSD article claiming that GPL favours large companies, I responded by saying that the same goes for BSD, and the same holds true for proprietary code aswell, as is the case in any business model.



Can you point out to me where Stallman says he is against professional developers?


Why does that disturb you? They are in no way forcing you to follow their wishes.


They would if they had the chance.

Compare that to Microsoft saying that OEM's can't licence their operating systems unless they block the use of other operating systems on that OEM hardware. You defended Microsoft in this enforcement, but you find FSF wishing that all software would be licenced as GPL or compatible to be extremism?


It not about what he didn't or did say. It pretty clear he hates them, in several places he pretty much says "in my world they won't get paid as much". Most of the virtues of "free software" is that it costs nothing, I think it is more about certain groups of people acting like cheapskates.

I don't think you quite understand. Microsoft values the developers (who I am one) somewhat over the user. I get damn good development tools and give them away for pretty much nothing (yes I know that is too hook me in, but that is alright because it pays well, I know what I am getting into thanks).

The GPL favours the code as it is some sort of sentient being. I cannot take the code legally and do what I like with it unlike say the MIT license (so it is not truly free) and The original developer won't make any money from me.

As for Win 8 tablets, I don't know why you would buy something certified for Win8 when you intend to run something else, seems a bit silly to me. Many of the strongest opponents to it were saying that tablets that can run Linux are more expensive. I see lots of moaning about it, however they aren't willing to put the money where their mouth is.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[11]: Rant
by Valhalla on Sun 5th Feb 2012 08:07 in reply to "RE[10]: Rant"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


They would if they had the chance.

I believe you are judging everyone else by your own poor standards.


It not about what he didn't or did say. It pretty clear he hates them,

-'Oh, I can't point out anything he has said or done which supports my conclusion, but hey it's pretty clear that he hates them'.

Most of the virtues of "free software" is that it costs nothing, I think it is more about certain groups of people acting like cheapskates.

Really? Personally I find those using open source in their proprietary products and not giving back is pretty much the definition of 'cheapskates'. GPL protects against this by requiring any changes to the source code be made available, while BSD code on the other hand is heaven for these 'cheapskates'.


Microsoft values the developers (who I am one) somewhat over the user. I get damn good development tools and give them away for pretty much nothing

Oh stop gushing, Microsoft values the developer's money, and they don't give the tools away (visual express is deliberately crippled), they sell them and not for 'pretty much nothing', could you possible come across as more of a Microsoft shill right now? And wth did this Microsoft development tool advertisment you just made have to do with the discussion at hand?

The GPL favours the code as it is some sort of sentient being.

The whole point of GPL is about keeping the source code and later enhancements made to it open, it has real practical purposes, such as not needing to duplicate effort because someone kept their enhancement to themselves.

By comparison proprietary projects favours the code as some secret sauce which should be locked away.

As for Win 8 tablets, I don't know why you would buy something certified for Win8 when you intend to run something else, seems a bit silly to me.


The problem is that practically every ARM laptop sold through OEM's will come with/or atleast be certified for Windows 8, which means that they won't run non-Windows operating systems due to an artificial barrier Microsoft is enforcing.

Reply Parent Score: 2