Massachusetts set to switch off Microsoft

[Aloone_Jonez]

http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9566
starting at about the 15th post.

The way you two go at it makes it impossible for anyone else to contribute, and accomplishes nothing.

So fucking what?

I've sick of this bullshit arguement used over and over, "open source beats proprietary because millions of people contribute with bug fixes blah blah blah". Most people don't contribute fuck all useful, look at how small, compact and feature packed Opera is, look at how bloated and featureless Firefox is, notice how a critical bug that should've been fixed 2 years ago in Firefox remains, where are the millions of people writing a bug fix now them?

I really really really do want to know what problems Skyman has with XFree86 - he hasn't told me via IM yet.

I don't know about his opinion, but UNIX in general  lacks a standard DDE between applications and standard widget's ect. something which MAC OS and Windows both have.

So don't destroy this thread with your shouting matches.

Oh excuse me for having an opinion. :rolleyes:

[Aloone_Jonez]

I thought you two argument whores left your baggage in the Linux zone.

Sorry, I've just got back from the pub so I was a bit pissed but I've sobered up a bit now, I agree this debate really does belong here.

[piratePenguin]

Anyway this debate is pointless since we're talking about a hyporthectical situation that doesn't exist.

Agreed.

Oh yes it does, there's your bank and all the other businesses you rely on that use MS product, not to mention the rest of the economy you also depend on. :p

If Microsoft never existed, I'd still dislike non-free software and use free software so long as I can.

That depends on you point of view, so far the only company to cause any harm by means of proprietary software is Microsoft, for this reason I'm anit-MS but not anti-proprietary software. I do encourage sharing and I don't take the moral high ground an accuse anyone who chooses not to share of being evil.

Well I'm anti-Microsoft and anti-non-free software.
I'll use free software so long as it's not too huge (and I mean huge) of an inconvenience (and sofar, it isn't).

I said "It's about right and wrong.", and what I probably should've said is "For me at least, it's about right and wrong.".

You always bring up Firefox and Opera, and it's getting very annoying. Sure, there might be areas where non-free software is better than the free alternatives, and there are also areas where free software kickes the balls of non-free software (most notably, apache).

[Aloone_Jonez]

Agreed.
If Microsoft never existed, I'd still dislike non-free software and use free software so long as I can.

How can you be so certain as Microsoft do exist? You can't agrue this point and neither can I, so let's drop it.

Well I'm anti-Microsoft and anti-non-free software.
I'll use free software so long as it's not too huge (and I mean huge) of an inconvenience (and sofar, it isn't).

So far you've been very lucky then.

I said "It's about right and wrong.", and what I probably should've said is "For me at least, it's about right and wrong.".

You're entitled to your opinion.

You always bring up Firefox and Opera, and it's getting very annoying. Sure, there might be areas where non-free software is better than the free alternatives, and there are also areas where free software kickes the balls of non-free software (most notably, apache).

Yes but that doesn't mean it's generally better overall.

[skyman8081]

You always bring up Firefox and Opera.

 Okay, Photoshop and the GIMP.  Cinelerra and AVID Media Composer.  iTunes and xmms.  GAIM and Trillian.  Audacity and Sound Forge.

Open Source is great, as long as you are a programmer.

[piratePenguin]

Okay, Photoshop and the GIMP.  Cinelerra and AVID Media Composer.  iTunes and xmms.  GAIM and Trillian.  Audacity and Sound Forge.

Free software: 5
Non-free software: 0.
(I'm joking)

What about Linux, GCC, Emacs, Xorg, GNOME and apache?
Like I said:

Sure, there might be areas where non-free software is better than the free alternatives, and there are also areas where free software kickes the balls of non-free software.

Open Source is great, as long as you are a programmer.

It helps (alot), but you don't have to be a programmer to use apache, Linux, GCC et cetera.

[skyman8081]

What about Linux, GCC, Emacs, Xorg, GNOME and apache?

AIX, Borland, vi, Aqua, et. al.

We can prattle on with anecdotal evidence all day.  We won't get anywhere.  Not until there are some serious studies done on the average quality of Open source vs proprietary software.*


Open source is a fucking religion, get over it.

________________
* Not that it matters, even if a formal study is done, unless it come back with glowing praise for open source, it will be decried and villified as "bought" by $propreitarySoftwareVendor.

[piratePenguin]

AIX, Borland, vi, Aqua, et. al.

We can prattle on with anecdotal evidence all day.  We won't get anywhere.  Not until there are some serious studies done on the average quality of Open source vs proprietary software.*


Open source is a fucking religion, get over it.

________________
* Not that it matters, even if a formal study is done, unless it come back with glowing praise for open source, it will be decried and villified as "bought" by $propreitarySoftwareVendor.

I should've brought this up before, but...

http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html
That's a long, intensive paper.
If you have any doubts about it's conclusions (quoted here), do youself a favor and read the full paper:

OSS/FS has significant market share in many markets, is often the most reliable software, and in many cases has the best performance. OSS/FS scales, both in problem size and project size. OSS/FS software often has far better security, perhaps due to the possibility of worldwide review. Total cost of ownership for OSS/FS is often far less than proprietary software, especially as the number of platforms increases. These statements are not merely opinions; these effects can be shown quantitatively, using a wide variety of measures. This doesn

[skyman8081]

There was a metric fuck-ton of Cherry-picking in that study.

Yes, there are SOME cases where open source applications are better than proprietary counterparts.  But you still have not proved to me that by virtue of being open source, an application will be INHERENTLY better than it's proprietary conterpart.

[piratePenguin]

There was a metric fuck-ton of Cherry-picking in that study.

Yes, there are SOME cases where open source applications are better than proprietary counterparts.  But you still have not proved to me that by virtue of being open source, an application will be INHERENTLY better than it's proprietary conterpart.

I'm not trying to do that.
You brought up this discussion (post #50, you said that free software dev's are lazy or some other shit).
You still haven't elaborated on that, even though both myself and worker201 asked you to.

After that, I stated:

You [Aloone_Jonez] always bring up Firefox and Opera, and it's getting very annoying. Sure, there might be areas where non-free software is better than the free alternatives, and there are also areas where free software kickes the balls of non-free software (most notably, apache).

(which is a bit like what you just said: "Yes, there are SOME cases where open source applications are better than proprietary counterparts.") to which you replied:

Okay, Photoshop and the GIMP. Cinelerra and AVID Media Composer. iTunes and xmms. GAIM and Trillian. Audacity and Sound Forge.

(By that, were you suggesting that non-free software is inherently better than free software?)


EDIT: My point: I'm not trying to prove to you that free software is inherently better than non-free software.
And I don't even know what you're trying to prove.

[skyman8081]

No.  Stop building strawmen.

I am saying that in my personal experience, there is a tendency for proprietary software to be of a higher quality than open source programs.

What is so hard about that.  That my experience isn't true?

[piratePenguin]

I am saying that in my personal experience, there is a tendency for proprietary software to be of a higher quality than open source programs.

First time I heard that.

What is so hard about that.  That my experience isn't true?

I'm not complaining.

I added a few sentences to my last post (in this thread), to make it's point clear.

[piratePenguin]

Care to answer my and worker201's question about the laziness of free software developers now skyman?

[WMD]

Okay, Photoshop and the GIMP.  Cinelerra and AVID Media Composer.  iTunes and xmms.  GAIM and Trillian.  Audacity and Sound Forge.

Most of that stuff is software that's harder to develop.  Image editors, video editors, audio editors...tough stuff.  The early versions of those proprietary ones sucked as well.  And of those, Cinelerra is the only one I would say really sucks.

As for the rest...iTunes and xmms have different priorities...and I don't find iTunes to be that great a program anyway.  My dad, not computer savvy, likes Winamp much more than iTunes.  I'd like it more to compare xmms and Winamp.

Gaim and Trillian...funny, I've used both and find Gaim much better.

[worker201]

iTunes and xmms have different priorities...and I don't find iTunes to be that great a program anyway.  My dad, not computer savvy, likes Winamp much more than iTunes.  I'd like it more to compare xmms and Winamp.

Well said.  Of course Winamp wins hands down for skins.  But xmms is a small fast awesome program.

Btw, if anyone thinks anyone is being somehow hurt for using open source, they are wrong.  People who choose open source do so for personal reasons.  I kinda like reporting errors to [email protected] when my command-line video encoder goes splat.  Does that make me wrong in some way?  NO.  Open source software has its purposes, its benefits, and its proponents.