Microsoft, US Justice Dept.: If you copy you're supporting terrorism

[devlkore]

I see what you mean, very good point and I'd never thought of it that way (apart from companies gaining from piracy).

The thing is, as I've said before, I'm into image manipulation and flash and things like that. There is no open source alternative, and I would fully support one if there was.

In my ideal world, we'd all be using BeOS or a Linux, whatever we prefer, and we'd be able to make programs that ran on each platform and I'd be off making something in OpenFlash with image that I'd made in PhotOpenShop. Until that happens, I have to continue using certain bits of software like those mentioned, because of what I want to do.

Office on the other hand, no one has an excuse for using that bloated piece of crap when OpenOffice.org exists.

LA!

ThanX, BYEEEEE!!

[flap]

quote:Originally posted by devlkore:
The thing is, as I've said before, I'm into image manipulation and flash and things like that. There is no open source alternative, and I would fully support one if there was.

 http://gimp.org/

[devlkore]

I've known about Gimp for a while, but unfortunately here is why I can't use it,  a quote from their website:

" Many people do find GIMP very useful. But it is not a Photoshop killer (for real Photoshop users, that is), Photoshop has lots of features that the GIMP lacks. "

That's why. Anyway, as I said, I would love to use open source software for everything, I think that would be great, but I'm not in a position to.

Also, you didn't have an answer to my flash dilema.

[flap]

The solution to the flash problem is: Don't use flash. It's shit.

[devlkore]

Why is it shit?
I've done things in flash that I wouldn't be able to do in any other piece of software.
Unlike a lot of things people do have a choice about (software-wise), if I want to make animated vector STufF with scripting and dynamic content, there is no real alternative. Believe me when I say I'd love to use something else, but Macromedia are supplying me with something that I want, so I guess when I have money and can earn a living from it, I will have to purchase Flash.

[flap]

I can accept there are interactive web applications for which something like flash is appropriate and there is no real alternative, but 9 times out of 10 flash is just used on sites as pure eye candy. In those circumstances it's a pointless waste of the user's bandwidth, as well as being a perversion of the simple, clean + standardised way the web is supposed to be used. I just roll my eyes every time I visit a site which pointlessly uses flash.

[emh]

quote:Originally posted by devlkore:
I've known about Gimp for a while, but unfortunately here is why I can't use it,  a quote from their website:

" Many people do find GIMP very useful. But it is not a Photoshop killer (for real Photoshop users, that is), Photoshop has lots of features that the GIMP lacks. "

That's why. Anyway, as I said, I would love to use open source software for everything, I think that would be great, but I'm not in a position to.

Also, you didn't have an answer to my flash dilema.

From this quote, I can only assume you're taking their word for it and haven't yet tried it yourself and made your own opinion about it.  Why not try it?  It just might do everything you need it to and more.

Of course, if you have tried it, then ignore my above post.

[slave]

I'd almost rather use no software at all than support proprietary software.  The only proprietary software on my computer are these frickin' NVIDIA drivers (which have always given me more crap than any other thing on my system) and Warcraft III (I don't particularly care if games are proprietary or not, since they really serve no use)

[devlkore]

Ok, we all think open source is great, but at the same time, what's wrong with paying someone for software? If they've spent ages making it, and need to live off making it, then what's the problem?

I haven't yet used the gimp, I will, but I know someone who's familiar with what I do in photoshop and he's already told me that I'll still need to use it (PS), because the gimp isn't advanced enough yet.

[flap]

The free in free software refers to freedom, not price. It's a common misconception that people who believe in free software believe that programmers shouldn't be paid for their work.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

[JH]

quote:Originally posted by devlkore:
Ok, we all think open source is great, but at the same time, what's wrong with paying someone for software? If they've spent ages making it, and need to live off making it, then what's the problem?

Sorry but I've never heard of starving MS developers or hanger movie stars. The fanniest thing's that people crying out about piracy are not 'intellectual property makers' but property owners. Paying or not paying for that sort of property doesn't affect people who spend ages making it but people who er... suppose that they must be paid as they have copyrights, not creators but marketoids.

And even more funnier that the US, the champion for intellectual property, didn't pay for foreign copyrights up to 50's (Tolkien's books as example).

[slave]

quote:  Originally posted by devlkore:
Ok, we all think open source is great, but at the same time, what's wrong with paying someone for software? If they've spent ages making it, and need to live off making it, then what's the problem?

Two links:

Selling Free Software can be OK!

Why Software Should not have Owners

[devlkore]

Very interesting, although I think there is a bit of a grey area surrounding the issue of people charging for software that they didn't write or even modify, since you could potentially open a shop just selling software and never have to do anything.

LA!

I do agree with pretty much all of what was in those two links, ThanX.

[flap]

The important freedom is not so much the right to sell other people's code unmodified, but to be able to sell programs based on other free software. For example, Mandrake can legally sell their GNU/Linux distribution, which is based on Red Hat, because of this right. If they weren't allowed to do this then producing Free Sofware would be less profitable for them and possibly pointless altogether, hence there would be less free software in the world.

If this freedom leads to a situation where, as you describe, people sell free software for a profit and give nothing back to the developers, and the developers don't make as much money as they could, then that's a very small price to pay for the benefit society as a whole enjoys. The philosophy of Free Software quite rightly places the freedoms of the software's users far above the financial interests of its developers.