I have a diferent point of view

[beamrider2600]

I don't think windows is easy to use at all. The biggest challanges to a new user are when things go wrong - when the unexpected happens. Windows is a very unstable operating system - things are far more likely to go wrong and therefore it couldn't be a worse platform to learn on. Even if you start out on Linux at least you can learn how to use it and know it'll work as expected.

[insomnia]

quote:Originally posted by worker201:


Like Bedouin says, it depends on what your community is.  As a Linux user, support means bug reports, donations, art submissions, etc.  But in the Mac community, this may just mean sending $10 to a shareware developer.  A lot of Mac software is free, but not open source.  If I build autoconf or gnutls from source on my Mac, it's really more of a support to GNU than it is to Apple.  Supporting Apple means something else entirely.  Apple makes good software and good hardware, and I am willing to put my money where my mouth is.

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

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

[Laukev7]

quote:Originally posted by insomnia:


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

The best part of it is that you can contribute both by giving money in exchange for innovative and top quality software AND by giving code to the Darwin community.

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

[worker201]

quote:Originally posted by insomnia:



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

Thats not exactly what I meant.  Once the hardware and basic software are purchased, things are voluntary.  Donating $20 to the Mozilla project and paying $20 for a piece of shareware that I think is really cool are pretty much the same thing.  There's no requirement, and you give of your own free will, to support the producers of quality software.  They don't make money off it, but I want to encourage them to keep at it, because they are on the right track.

[insomnia]

quote:Originally posted by worker201:


Thats not exactly what I meant.  Once the hardware and basic software are purchased, things are voluntary.  Donating $20 to the Mozilla project and paying $20 for a piece of shareware that I think is really cool are pretty much the same thing.

You seem to have a different opinion on 'community' software.

When developers share their code, or even better, make it entirely free, they make it a community project.

As for closed source payware, it doesnt belong to any community, every individual has to pay for it  and they will never fully own it.(This doesn't mean it's bad software.)
 
(Unless the Shareware you mean is all OSS)

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

[worker201]

Mostly I was referring to the kind of shareware where it works just fine (not crippled in any way), and you are encouraged to pay a purchase fee, which is little more than a donation to the developers.  When I pay that fee, I am just saying thanks.

Let's look at the other side.  I know tons of people who go to a gnu ftp site and just download away, greedy for free software.  These people never write articles or help newbs or even say "thank you ever so much for your time" when posting to a support mailing list.  So free/open software doesn't automatically make a good community.  I help out where I can because I appreciate all the people out there who helped me out.  I would be lost if it wasn't for kind people at gcc, libpng, and mozilla.  I want to return the favor.  But not everyone is righteous or just when it comes to the computer.

Anyway, you do what you can to help out.  I don't see anything wrong with paying for software, if it is good and reasonably priced.  $130 for OSX, $100 for Illustrator CS (educational!), these are investments I am willing to make.

Ah, capitalism.  Well, as long as we are stuck with it, we might as well do the best we can with it.

[flap]

quote:Donating $20 to the Mozilla project and paying $20 for a piece of shareware that I think is really cool are pretty much the same thing.

The important distinction to make between paying for proprietary software and paying for free software (whether the payment in this case is for a boxed set of software etc. or a donation) is that what you're paying for in each case is very different. Traditional, proprietary software licencing is based on the principle of charging for the use of the software, not the acquisition of it or the work done in producing it. When you buy a boxed Mandrake set, pay a free software developer for some work or you donate $20 to Mozilla, you're either paying for a tangible product or you're acknowledging the work that's been done to produce some software. In any case your payment (or lack of) has absolutely no bearing on your use of the software. Free software is free because you're not restricted in your use or empowering of others to make use of it. When you pay for a shareware licence you're buying a restricted right to simply use the software.

I don't know what your definition of Shareware is, but as I understand it it's software that's released free of charge on a temporary basis but that you're expected to pay for if you wish to use it after a certain period. If you're thinking that paying for shareware software is voluntary then you're probably referring to freeware whose authors ask for, but don't require, a donation; or "donorware".

 

quote:The battle for me isn't so much about commercial vs. open source

Agreed; it isn't about either of those for me. It's about proprietary vs. free software.

[Laukev7]

quote: When you pay for a shareware licence you're buying a restricted right to simply use the software.

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.

[skyman8081]

And I don't care if it is free/open/OSS/GPL/BSD/WTF/BBQ

[Laukev7]

quote:Originally posted by Agent Sauron:
And I don't care if it is free/open/OSS/GPL/BSD/WTF/BBQ

Me neither. That rhetoric is getting old.

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

[insomnia]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7 / BOB:


Me neither. That rhetoric is getting old.

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

I find it very sad you both think like that.
  :confused:

[Laukev7]

Alright, I'll explain.

What I find sad is not as much the existence of open source or free software than the insistence of its proponents on eliminating any alternative business models. Many people such as myself greatly appreciate the contributions and efforts of genuinely innovative companies such as Apple, MadWolf and many others (the former I mention because I admit, it is a company that I have in high esteem, but I am sure that they are not the only ones).

I and many others would rightly be deeply saddened to see such companies and their software disappear as a result of such hasty generalisations. I can do without Microsoft, as they have breached every rule in the book, but for the rest I would like to see a coexistence. Both business models have their strengths and weaknesses and can contribute in their ways to technological innovation.

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

[insomnia]

So...?
Does the fact that you pay for OSX(without even really owning it) make it better.
Would you shoot yourself if all that stuff was free?
How can you not prefer free software?
Wouldn't you like your Apple system to be free as well?

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

[Laukev7]

If they can find a way to make their software free whilst being able to keep one of their biggest selling points for their hardware, and if they choose to do so, then that's their prerogative. However, forcing companies out of the market because they prefer a different approach is another thing, and it is one of the major reasons why I dislike Microsoft, and disagree with OSS extremists.

[insomnia]

Oh well...
IMO, their are no extremists on the left wing side.
We're simply right.