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 542142
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by marcp
by ricegf on Mon 12th Nov 2012 13:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by marcp"
Member since:

"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

RE[6]: Comment by marcp
by lucas_maximus on Mon 12th Nov 2012 16:02 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by marcp"
lucas_maximus Member since:

BSD gives me the freedom to make software proprietary; that's more freedom for corporations, but less for end users.

Sorry? How? Surely it is equal to both?

Both the end user and a corp are free to do what they want with the code.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by marcp
by zlynx on Mon 12th Nov 2012 20:41 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by marcp"
zlynx Member since:

It isn't directly less free for the end-user but the result is less free eventually.

The proprietary fork of a BSD project will attract more users because of the added features and polish. Things like QA testing and documentation, which are often sadly lacking in unfunded open source projects.

As time goes on the original BSD project becomes the unloved poor relative that no one actually wants to use so the choice becomes the "freedom" to use old crap or proprietary good stuff.

Reply Parent Score: 4