I have a diferent point of view

[Laukev7]

I don't see things as being either 'left' or 'right' wing, I just see them as different approaches. Neither do I actually see them as 'extremes', despite my ill-chosen expression. Some approaches simply work better for some people than for others (I'm not talking about social issues like abortion or gay rights).

I find the left and right concept flawed, anyway.

[ September 07, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 / BOB ]

[worker201]

This thread is headed for the lounge and/or bin anyways, might as well give it a little push.  

Yes, licensing is a silly concept, and the realities of paying for a license are dumb.  But is it required to even slip to that level of abstraction?  No.  My $20 goes to the company.  Whether that is a donation or a license fee doesn't really mean shit to my wallet, it's just $20.

Stupidest analogy ever:
If someone offered you the following deal: you get a red Ferrari for free, or a black Ferrari for $100, which would you choose?  Would you automatically choose the free one?  Or would the benefit of owning a black car vs a red car be worth the $100?  I mean, if you like Cocoa better than GTK, it's worth it, right?

I don't know.
I fully support FSF and GNU, with whatever resources I have to spare.  But I also love my Mac.  If I eve wrote a program, it would be GPL, no question.  But I am not going to let any sort of blindness prevent me from owning the software I need.  Christ, Linux does NOT have a hi-end vector drawing program.  Adobe Illustrator is the only software that even comes close (F freehand and coreldraw).  For awhile, I was seriously trying to decide whether I should get a Mac or a Linux-ready x86.  I decided not to choose.  Instead, I chose Illustrator and Flash.

(but in my spare time, I am trying to figure out how to make a vector program for linux)

So fuck, I don't know anything, really, except what works for me.  That's all I have to say on the topic.

[Werre]

Re: Windows being "easier" for a new user.
This is total and utter bullshit.

Winblows is in no way easier than any modern Linux distro with KDE or gnome properly set up. It's lunacy to even suggest that, unless your definition of "new user" really means that he has had prior contact with Winshit.

As for installing software, which is easier:
-To use ONE frontend and one mechanism to install, keep track of, search, and uninstall packages OR
1. Use god knows what methods (googling, magazines) to find the software, then
2. use vendor-supplied installer that differs from every other installer, then pray it does not fuck up
3. then decide you didn't want this shareware crap anyway, use the vendor-supplied uninstaller that more often than not does NOT remove everything, often causing problems.

Which ones easier?

On Linux you'd use some graphical frontend to locate the software and click "install", and if you decide later to uninstall you can rest assured EVERYTHING except your modified configurations are removed - even those if you so prefer.

Installing shit on Wincrap servers requires RTFMing too, and is more often that not quite painful if it has anything to do with legacy apps or databases.

The thread's parent message was a collection of age-old myths with no basis on reality.

[flap]

quote:That claim doesn't make much sense. Your right to use a software can't be 'restricted' since you didn't have it before acquiring it.

I didn't say that. I said the right you're buying is restricted i.e. limited. You're buying a limited right.

 

quote:Me neither. That rhetoric is getting old.

By "rhetoric" I assume you mean "opinion". And by "getting old" you mean it's one you don't agree with.

 

quote:If someone offered you the following deal: you get a red Ferrari for free, or a black Ferrari for $100, which would you choose? Would you automatically choose the free one? Or would the benefit of owning a black car vs a red car be worth the $100? I mean, if you like Cocoa better than GTK, it's worth it, right?

It has nothing to do with price. I'd happily pay more money for some Free Software than I would for proprietary. There are deeper social issues and principles at stake than how well a particular piece of software works.

[bedouin]

Here's a few of my thoughts.  Take them as a grain of salt.

• The Open Source movement, along with its adaptation is going to keep increasing.  At some point it may even dominate.  Why?  Because access to technology is becoming as important to humankind as access to running water, and free software provides that access with virtually no strings attached.  Neither Microsoft, Apple, or any other corporation is going to willingly become a welfare provider because it's the right thing to do.
• The rise of free software is going to trigger a clash not even comparable to Apple vs. Microsoft.  MS will do whatever it takes to win the hearts and minds of those that count; they're already doing this by flooding schools, corporations, and other institutions with deep discounts or free software.  Expect Microsoft to portray Linux, and possibly other platforms as a kind of ghettoized community: a place where the lawless, anti-establishment, hippies gather.
• Free software needs to be unanimously adopted in the third-world.  Microsoft is targeting developing nations with tremendous vigor, and millions of dollars.  Once you technologically lock-down the oppressed the game is over.
• We're moving into the world where the US is acting increasingly not like a beneficent entity (not to say that it ever did).  Nations are going to be increasingly weary of a company with such close ties to the US, and demand not only that they see the code running on systems in their countries, but that they have the ability to alter it.  
• Just because Open Source is founded upon good intentions doesn't mean that it can't become hijacked.  Furthermore, it can just as easily become an entity as inefficient and unorganized as any bureaucratic organization.  When peoples' needs are not met by free alternatives, they will go somewhere else, and they should be able to.  All of us have running tap water, but do all of us drink straight from the facet?  People will always want the luxury of better things, and there's no reason they shouldn't be able to pursue it if they have the means.
• In some cases superior alternatives exist solely because they are closed ones.  Apple is able to invest in R&D, hire top engineers, and a slew of over things with only a 3-5% market share because they are closed.  At the same time they realize Open Source is a force to be reckoned with, and so they've adopted some of its principles.  If you can devise a way for Apple to produce quality hardware and software, while keeping their intellectual property entirely open, then please suggest it.  With your business model, or ethical model, my favorite platform is destined to failure.
• Whether or not I have the source code for a program, I am still its owner.  I'm the owner of its binary distribution.  Your argument is slightly weak (though I understand, and even agree to a certain extent).  As a developer owning the source code may be complete ownership to you, but to the average consumer they could care less.  What you're suggesting is that, for example, when I purchase a car I don't truly own it unless the manufacture provides me with complete schematics on how to assemble my own car from scratch.  There are a few situations in which having that information is handy, but for the most part it's useless.  As long as the system is open enough for me to diagnose major problems, I'm happy.  Just as in the automotive industry, there's a market for those looking to start from scratch.
• The latest generation of computer users have grown up with P2P; the idea of paying $500 for Photoshop is incomprehensible  to them; $18 for a CD isn't just a rip-off, it's stupid.  As commercial vendors start to implement trickier schemes, or even create more lawsuits, they're going to realize it's a fruitless effort.  The 15 year old who warezed Photoshop from Kazaa had no intention of buying it; he just wanted to crop a photo.  He probably didn't know The Gimp would do that just as easily, and for free.  Software manufactures are going to learn the hard way that those who pirate their software would just as happily use a free (and even inferior) alternative.

So, I guess in summary your ideals are fine, flap.  And I honestly don't think you have much to worry about.  The biggest dilemma is ensuring that the MS beast doesn't grow any further, because they truly are techno-imperialists.

[ September 08, 2004: Message edited by: bedouin ]

[worker201]

Couple points:

1. Take a good long look at your software licenses.  They are unlike any other contract ever produced.  When you pay your money to Microsoft or Adobe or Macromedia or Apple, you are not purchasing software.  You are not even paying money for a binary distribution.  You are paying money to use the software.  The license does not give you "ownership" over anything.  License do not reflect the cost of material goods.  They are more like rent, and your license agreement has hundreds of ways to take their software back if they don't like how you treat it.  This is, unfortunately, the favored business model.

2. I have a close friend who is an officer in the Ecuadorian Navy.  He is in charge of all oceanic mapping, and he has been around the world chasing down sonar and making measurements.  He has told me that in the rest of the world, especially South America and Africa, Windows is considered rare.  Only in the US do people use Windows.  I kinda got the impression that most people used late model minicomputers, or early PC clones running god-knows-what - Solaris or OS/2 or HP/UX or something.  In the US, windows has been marketed as part of the so-called "paperless office" that never actually appeared, and is mostly used by secretaries and junior executives.  Other countries can't afford a computer for every single member of a company's staff.  Therefore Windows is not a dominating force in their markets.  I think that someone (we) should encourage them to stay away from Windows forever.

Anyway, my Mac is still my Mac.  I will probably buy Tiger, and my next primary computer (2-3 yrs from now) will probably be a Mac.  But at the office and at the bars, I tell everyone FSF.

[flap]

quote:Whether or not I have the source code for a program, I am still its owner. I'm the owner of its binary distribution. Your argument is slightly weak (though I understand, and even agree to a certain extent). As a developer owning the source code may be complete ownership to you, but to the average consumer they could care less.

I doubt that. Anyone who has ever had to turn down the opportunity to help other people out by giving them copies of their proprietary software, because the law (and technological anti-copying measures) prohibits them from copying it, will have noticed that they only have limited rights over the software they're using.

[Claris]

quote:Originally posted by insomnia:



What a nice community.
Give us your money and you're part of it.

[ September 07, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]

By God, you're right! How dare we buy things!   :rolleyes:

[flap]

You're not "buying" anything. You're renting a limited right to use something you don't own.

[Aloone_Jonez]

quote:Originally posted by flap:
You're not "buying" anything. You're renting a limited right to use something you don't own.

So what's so bad about renting something?

[flap]

I didn't say there was anything wrong with renting per se. I said there's a problem with buying very limited rights that should be automatic and inalienable.