Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 11th Nov 2012 15:49 UTC
Windows "Yesterday my desktop died, and so I went ahead and got a brand new Windows 8 laptop. It's always been my feeling that as years go on, user experience has been going down for people who use a computer and the Internet, because of decisions all companies make that are clearly anti-user, either because they think they know best, or in many cases, for financial gains. But from spending all night reinstalling everything and customizing the laptop, I realized just how bad it has become." Probably the biggest reason to go Mac or Linux. Such a shame Microsoft found it more important to pressure OEMs into silly Secure Boot nonsense instead of doing something about the anti-user crapware disaster. Goes to show who Microsoft cares about. Hint: it ain't you.
Thread beginning with comment 542049
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by marcp
by ze_jerkface on Mon 12th Nov 2012 00:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by marcp"
ze_jerkface
Member since:
2012-06-22

GPL? come on ... have you ever heard of BSD? do you even know the history of IT?


BSD doesn't try to redefine the word freedom. They state what you are free to do with the license and that is the end of it. It's the GPL that capitalizes and redefines freedom in a creepy newspeak fashion.

PDPs used by the academics was there BEFORE personal computing era.


Researchers share and hide their work depending on the situation, don't act like academia is one big hippie share fest.

I'm talking about this code being shared freely between various academic places.


No you tried perpetrating a common GPL myth that the software world was some open source utopia before the ebil proprietary companies showed up.

Do you really think it's all about money? do you think it was all pushed there only for money? read about Thompson and Ritchie.


Money and proprietary software are not mutually exclusive. Anyways Thomson and Ritchie worked for Bell labs which was funded by AT&T. It wasn't an open source project so I'm not sure where you are going with this.

I think you might have bought into a few myths from the the cult of the GPL. That's understandable given how widely accepted they are on places like Slashdot.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by marcp
by tylerdurden on Mon 12th Nov 2012 00:43 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by marcp"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17



No you tried perpetrating a common GPL myth that the software world was some open source utopia before the ebil proprietary companies showed up.



You seem to be trying to counteract the previous poster's litany of strawmen, with a straw man of your own.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by marcp
by kwan_e on Mon 12th Nov 2012 08:25 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by marcp"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

[It's the GPL that capitalizes and redefines freedom in a creepy newspeak fashion.


There's the definition, and there's the actual concept and its effects. Like it or not, the real world doesn't care how freedom is defined. What matters is what you actually get as a result.

In some cases, the result you get with GPL licence is more beneficial than BSD.

What's creepy is that people consider freedom to include "freedom to screw others over". There's simply no such thing as absolute freedom - there will always be contention. Ultimately there is a choice between GPL and BSD that anyone can make so it's disturbing how people can view the existence of something contrary to their ideas as somehow personally affecting them.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by marcp
by WereCatf on Mon 12th Nov 2012 08:52 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by marcp"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

There's simply no such thing as absolute freedom - there will always be contention.


Indeed. True, fully complete, unadulterated freedom is in and of itself an oxymoron: it would mean you have the freedom to reign over anything and everyone else while at the same time having the freedom not to be reigned over yourself by anyone or anything -- you simply cannot have both at the same time. As such freedom in the real, material world will always be a subset of the actual philosophical concept of freedom, there is simply no way of fully fitting an all-encompassing, philosophical concept into a world that is governed by physics, not philosophy.

With the aforementioned in mind it's silly to try to claim one's approach to freedom is the best one as it is still affected by one's values, culture and various kinds of limitations imposed by the government and plain, old physics. Debating which approach is better -- not the best -- is certainly acceptable, but one really needs to keep in mind that they are still merely projections of something that is unobtainable and therefore they will always come short.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by marcp
by lemur2 on Mon 12th Nov 2012 11:34 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by marcp"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"GPL? come on ... have you ever heard of BSD? do you even know the history of IT?


BSD doesn't try to redefine the word freedom. They state what you are free to do with the license and that is the end of it. It's the GPL that capitalizes and redefines freedom in a creepy newspeak fashion.

PDPs used by the academics was there BEFORE personal computing era.


Researchers share and hide their work depending on the situation, don't act like academia is one big hippie share fest.

I'm talking about this code being shared freely between various academic places.


No you tried perpetrating a common GPL myth that the software world was some open source utopia before the ebil proprietary companies showed up.

Do you really think it's all about money? do you think it was all pushed there only for money? read about Thompson and Ritchie.


Money and proprietary software are not mutually exclusive. Anyways Thomson and Ritchie worked for Bell labs which was funded by AT&T. It wasn't an open source project so I'm not sure where you are going with this.

I think you might have bought into a few myths from the the cult of the GPL. That's understandable given how widely accepted they are on places like Slashdot.
"

One man's freedom is another man's prison, I suppose.

BTW, FOSS software claims to be "freedom software" from a user's point of view, not a commercial developer's point of view. Since the vast majority of people are computer users not developers, this point of view is by far the most relevant. It also means that true FOSS software is largely written by its own users.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Manifesto

The GNU Manifesto begins by outlining the goal of the project GNU, which stands for GNU's Not Unix. The current contents of GNU at the time of writing are then described and detailed. Richard Stallman then goes into an explanation of why it is important that they complete this project. The reason he explains is based on Unix becoming a proprietary software. It then explains how people can contribute to the project, and also why computer users will benefit from the project.

You seem to have utterly confused this point. The BSD license, for example, allows a commercial developer the complete freedom to take BSD-licensed code, re-package and re-sell it within another commercial closed-source application, and thereby completely screw over the end users.

Edited 2012-11-12 11:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by marcp
by marcp on Mon 12th Nov 2012 11:36 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by marcp"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

BSD doesn't redefine word "free". It just estabilishes freedom to use software however you want. Ergo: it gives you a TOTAL freedom.

Researchers SHARE their work and that's what they supposed to do in education, which is - surprise, surprise - about learning, research, sharing discoveries, etc. I think you are deeply wrong on this subject.
Ritchie and Thompson did their greates things against their own employer, he didn't even know they were working on the particular stuff. He just gave them much more freedom, because it was research.

I didn't try to perpetrate anything, so keep that utter stuff for yourself. This is how you overlooked and misunderstood the things I said.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by marcp
by ricegf on Mon 12th Nov 2012 13:26 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by marcp"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

"TOTAL freedom" is self-contradicting.

BSD gives me the freedom to make software proprietary; that's more freedom for corporations, but less for end users, who may be limited in their ability to install on multiple or non-vendor devices, configure their devices as they please, etc.

GPL protects the original software authors from having to compete with derivatives of their own creations and ensures end users control of their computing experience (if they have or can afford the technical expertise), but limits other authors from distributing derivatives under incompatible licenses they might otherwise choose.

Proprietary licenses are remarkably creative (from a legal perspective), and almost always protect the corporate interests first and foremost - but if you like the products a corporation produces, ensuring their profitability is a great way to get more of 'em.

And so on. License choice is an exercise in selecting the optimum compromise for the creator's own wants and needs, including the need for end users to actually adopt his product.

I personally choose GPL for my hobby projects, as I value the end user's rights over corporations and other developers, but I also buy commercial software at times and carefully adhere to their license of choice.

Bottom line - "TOTAL freedom" is a philosophical rally cry, but doesn't mean much in reality. Life is compromise; deal and move on.

Reply Parent Score: 5