Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Feb 2006 21:15 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Linus Torvalds, father of the Linux kernel, has fleshed out his unhappiness with GPLv3 in three recent posts on the Linux Kernel Mailing List. Torvalds previously stated that the kernel will remain under the licensing terms of GPLv2. Yesterday, Torvalds offered his opinion as to where the battle over DRM should take place.
Thread beginning with comment 92369
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Here's what I mean
by jaylaa on Fri 3rd Feb 2006 12:49 UTC in reply to "Here's what I mean"
Member since:

Better software isn't the only reason for open source. What if the closed sourced model actually did produce better software, and everyone knew it. You're saying there would be no need for open source software?

What about voting machines? That code needs to be seen so the voting process is transparent. What about software that various governments use? No government wants to put the security of their country in a foreign company's hands. What about your right to know what's going on in your computer? These are all political issues. It's not just about better software.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Here's what I mean
by halfmanhalfamazing on Sat 4th Feb 2006 03:25 in reply to "RE: Here's what I mean"
halfmanhalfamazing Member since:

---------What if the closed sourced model actually did produce better software, and everyone knew it.-----------

I for one wouldn't be here. And I know I'm not the only one. There are less people out there than you think who will make a choice that hurts them long term simply out of an ideological hissy fit, especially when it comes to something as "irrelevant" as computing.(computing is very relevant, but to use linux/FOSS simply to use linux/FOSS because it's open is sheer stupidity. Unless you're an uber-geek. then that's your thing, your hobby)

-------------You're saying there would be no need for open source software?-----------------

For the most part. One of the main reasons the OSS movement continues to gain steam is that there is little choice out there. And MS' software has stagnated because of it. MS' software has gone leaps and bounds in the past year because they are trying to stay ahead of the linux/OSS crowd. They're sweating bullets and it's not hard to see.

-----------What about voting machines?-----------

What about them? When I went to vote my machine didn't crash. Did yours? I hadn't heard any stories about that. They seemed efficient/speedy in their use, I was in, pressed my buttons, and left.

-------------What about software that various governments use?------------------

What about them? Governments can benefit from OSS software primarily because of cost, not anything else. But they're gonna keep on proprietary softwares for now because proprietary softwares still hold the edge in many areas.

----------What about your right to know what's going on in your computer?---------------

Who cares? As long as it gets the job done. That's why in most(if not all) of my previous posts.... they either specifically say the word "productivity" or elude to that concept.

I just want to get my work done. So do most other people.

I just want my computer to work as efficiently as possible for as long as possible. So do most other people.

How it's done is of little consequence. DRM being one of the few exceptions.

------------These are all political issues.------------

I know they are. And as long as you keep making the Linux/OSS debate about politics instead of a better product, you're gonna have a harder time gaining recruits. Those who are going to be interested in "the cause" are already here. If you want more software and photoshop and games and more devices to work with your shiny new linux box you need to show people how much more productive they can be with it.

Show them *WHY* linux is better, and how it can make their life better and you'll find all kinds of doors opening up to you.

Reply Parent Score: 1