MS-DOS Date

[piratePenguin]

Neither does your response.

Actaully - my response proved that what you said didn't prove anything.
But common sense would tell you the same thing (that your response "proved" nothing).

Notice how there is a great selection of games released under proprierary licences yet there are few free ones? an the same goes for engineering software.

Notice how there is more non-free software than free software?

I wasn't suggesting that but can you provide any strong evidence to prove otherwise?

A bit here and there, but I'm not even gonna present it because it's nothing to do with this discussion (plus I've posted it elsewhere on these forums before.), unless...

The second ("Then no...") part of your answer makes little sense in respect to the question. Unless you're suggesting that free software is inherently less innovative or lacking than non-free software. So you might wanna rephrase it.

Keep in mind: it's not hobbyist versus commercial, it's free versus non-free.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Actaully - my response proved that what you said didn't prove anything.

But common sense would tell you the same thing (that your response "proved" nothing).

I admit that using the word "proves" may have a bit extreme. I do feel the point that proprietary developers might release their software on Linux first under a proprietary licence then be criticised by the Linux community and open source it as a result and this would never happen if they weren't allowed to choose the license in the first place. Look at Opera they at first made their browser payware with a free adware version,  people bitched about it so they decided to make the payware version free too. I hope Opera becomes more popular with the Linux community and so start to bitch so they listen and make it truly free.

Notice how there is more non-free software than free software?

Notice how the areas free-software has forgotten either have a very small userbase and very high research and developemnt cost (engineering software) or a large user base who pay purely for the software and don't rely on any services (games)? How will free software be paid for? You (and many other people) have claimed it can be funded by services and niether of the aforementioned have this source of revinue so they've largely been developed by  amateurs which is why they often lack.

A bit here and there, but I'm not even gonna present it because it's nothing to do with this discussion (plus I've posted it elsewhere on these forums before.), unless...

This whole debate has nothing to do with the thread title but none the less I'm glad a useless thread has made good. If you really believed your arguments are valid then you'd would've posted them so I'm afraid I'll have to assume otherwise.

I however can provide just as many arguments for proprietary software being superiour as I can for free software, this has lead me to the conclusion that niether is inherently better or worse from a purely technically point of view and that the developers deturmine the quality rather than the licence.

The second ("Then no...") part of your answer makes little sense in respect to the question.

Yes it does, you asked me:

Do you agree that non-free is the way things shouldn't be?

I said (summarised version):

Overall marked domiated by free software would be a good thing just as long it's good quality and innovitive and proprietary software is allowed to prosper in the areas where free software has forgoten.

Unless you're suggesting that free software is inherently less innovative or lacking than non-free software. So you might wanna rephrase it.

Done.

Keep in mind: it's not hobbyist versus commercial, it's free versus non-free.

I am aware of this, enterpize does contribrute consideribly to freesoftware in general, yes hobbyists do play a part but this is mainly in areas where the commercial sector has forgotten, so only arguments involving the quality of free software by amateur developers only apply in these circumstances which reinforces my point about the developer deturmining the quality rather than the licence.

[piratePenguin]

Overall marked domiated by free software would be a good thing just as long it's good quality and innovitive and proprietary software is allowed to prosper in the areas where free software has forgoten.

So you at least mostly-agree that non-free is the way things shouldn't be, then?

[Aloone_Jonez]

Yes, although I must hightlight that it must be both innovitive and good quality.

In short, I only (whole heartedly) support good software if this just happens to be free then even better.

[piratePenguin]

Yes, although I must hightlight that it must be both innovitive and good quality.

Well I see no reason that it wouldn't be... Would you like to suggest one?

In short, I only (whole heartedly) support good software if this just happens to be free then even better.

Rephrase, please... I'm not sure I'm interpreting that correctly.

EDIT: Ah, I get it. A break between "software" and "if" would've been a great help.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Well I see no reason that it wouldn't be... Would you like to suggest one?

Alright then:
Because companies can't make money from free software purely on its originality and so they can only rely on the services they provide with it, hence there is no real competitive reason for them to innovate. For example why should a company bother to add a new feature to thier program when their competitor can simply use the code and make their product equal in quality so the consumer will have no reason to prefer their product over their competitor's? If their program was closed source then they would have a reason to do this since it's be a lot harder for thier competitor to make thier program equal.

Not all open source software is innovitive OpenOffice sure isn't, but there again niether is it's proprietary counterpart (Microsoft Office), both dominate platforms, the former on Linux and the latter on Windows. The main (if only) advantage the free option has in this instance for most people is the price, fait enough some people might prefer MS Office's grammer checker while others would rather have the superiour drawing abilities of OO.

How ever this arguement might be bullshit because in my opinion SPICE, ABI Word and BASH are all very innovative pieces of software.

Like I said can think of many arguments as to why proprietary software is better and I can also provide equal arguments as to why free software is. I could argue with you about how shit free software is but there again I could also argue with someone like muzzy about how shit proprietary software is - I could even argue both sides with my self if you like?

Rephrase, please... I'm not sure I'm interpreting that correctly.

I only fully support great software (you say I support Windows but not fully as it's hardly great) and if the software I'm supporting is free then it's an added bonus.

[piratePenguin]

For example why should a company bother to add a new feature to thier program when their competitor can simply use the code and make their product equal in quality so the consumer will have no reason to prefer their product over their competitor's?

Well they're not making the money off the software - they're making it off the services. And I would guess that most users would get the support and other services off whoever wrote that particular program.

For example - X built X Writer and Y built Y Writer (perhaps it's a fork of X Writer). Whoever uses X Writer is going to get support off X and whoever uses Y Writer will get their support off Y. So both X and Y will be trying to build the best product (perhaps learning from eachother) so more users use their product, so more people buy their services.

I only fully support great software (you say I support Windows but not fully as it's hardly great) and if the software I'm supporting is free then it's an added bonus.

Yep - I got it in the end (I edited my previous post).

you say I support Windows but not fully as it's hardly great

"I say you support Windows"
What do you think, do you support Windows?

I could even argue both sides with my self if you like?

Go wild

[Aloone_Jonez]

Well they're not making the money off the software - they're making it off the services. And I would guess that most users would get the support and other services off whoever wrote that particular program.

For example - X built X Writer and Y built Y Writer (perhaps it's a fork of X Writer). Whoever uses X Writer is going to get support off X and whoever uses Y Writer will get their support off Y. So both X and Y will be trying to build the best product (perhaps learning from eachother) so more users use their product, so more people buy their services.

If you wish to  go down this road then surly the quality of their services will in the end make more differance rather than their software, if the software is that similar then I might even buy the support from the company with the best service and use the software from another company with the best software.

I think innovation in the open sector is more likely to come from amatuer programmers who think "Wouldn't it be good if this program did this? I know I'll modify the source so it does", yet again this doesn't prove that open source software would be more or less innovative on the whole.

Yep - I got it in the end (I edited my previous post).

Thanks.

Go wild

Alright here's a good article that deals with the open source security debate, and do you know what? it draws the same conclusion as I would, the licence isn't realy a big enough factor to make a real differance, and I believe the same to be true will all other the open vs closed source arguments.

[piratePenguin]

I think innovation in the open sector is more likely to come from amatuer programmers who think "Wouldn't it be good if this program did this? I know I'll modify the source so it does", yet again this doesn't prove that open source software would be more or less innovative on the whole.

Yep. Alot of cool stuff could happen in the embedded market if the software that runs on some of the devices was free. Like the PSP or the iPod. They could try all sorts of stuff on them things that Sony/Apple mightn't be bothered trying.

Alright here's a good article that deals with the open source security debate, and do you know what? it draws the same conclusion as I would, the licence isn't realy a big enough factor to make a real differance, and I believe the same to be true will all other the open vs closed source arguments.

If having the code

[Aloone_Jonez]

I wonder if that bug has been fixed in Seamonkey?

Wow, that's a very long (biased) article!

I don't know if I'll ever have time to read it since (being dyslexic) I'm a very slow reader, some of your posts took long enough to read! Personally I'd rather concentrate my study on more objective articles.

[piratePenguin]

Wow, that's a very long (biased) article!

As if the article you posted was all-that fair. I wasn't at all impressed by this bit:

The larger number of self-proclaimed hackers who are pro-open source and anti-Microsoft means there are more people out there with the motive and the means to write malicious code targeting Windows systems.

I dislike Microsoft, and I'm a free software advocate. I'm not a hacker - but it certainly is on the cards.
I imagine I'd have much more challenging things to do with my time than looking for faults in Windows :p if/when I get more experience with programming.

So anyhow, you think that article is biased. Back it up..

[Aloone_Jonez]

As if the article you posted was all-that fair. I wasn't at all impressed by this bit:
I dislike Microsoft, and I'm a free software advocate. I'm not a hacker - but it certainly is on the cards.
I imagine I'd have much more challenging things to do with my time than looking for faults in Windows :p if/when I get more experience with programming.

I actually agree with this statement, but I feel you are misinterpreting it, all it says is that some open source advocates might use thier hate of Microsoft as a motive to hack a Windows systems, it doesn't say all of them are this way inclined.

So anyhow, you think that article is biased. Back it up..

I suppose no atricle is free from bias, mine was biased because it's from a Windows security site and yours is as it's from a GNU advocate. My wording was incorrect in the above post; I should've said "your article doesn't represent a ballenced debate", its one sided and only looks at the advantages of open source, while negleting its short commings.

I most enjoy reading articles from sources other than GNU advocates or Microsoft.

This article simply lists the advantages and disadvantages of open source, while here is a ballanced discussion that tackles the all important question; Should all software be open sourced?

This website demonstrates that its possible to write well balanced articles even if you have a strong opinion on the matter as it deals with both the advantages and percieved disadvantages. Notice the wording? they say percieved disadvantages because they do not fully believe that they are significant issues but they address them anyway.

[piratePenguin]

Is it your opinion, Aloone_Jonez, that free software is inherently less innovative than non-free software?

(this discussion (since I asked you if you believe that non-free is the way things shouldn't be) has gone on too long... (I was expecting a very simple answer))

[Aloone_Jonez]

Is it your opinion, Aloone_Jonez, that free software is inherently less innovative than non-free software?

I thought I'd already established this, the licence doesn't determine the quality of software, the developers do.

(this discussion (since I asked you if you believe that non-free is the way things shouldn't be) has gone on too long... (I was expecting a very simple answer))

I'm sorry there is no simple answer, it isn't as simple as right and wrong, open source both has it's advantages and disadvantages, I agree we might be better off with GNU/Linux having the main market share but I dissagree with the notion that all software should be free. You believe free = good and proprietary = evil but I disagree I believe this view is far too simplistic and that the debate is far more complicated than this.

Not all the articles I posted in my previous post reflected my opinions I didn't post them to get my veiw across but to give examples of well ballanced accounts.

[piratePenguin]

I thought I'd already established this, the licence doesn't determine the quality of software, the developers do.


I'm sorry there is no simple answer, it isn't as simple as right and wrong, open source both has it's advantages and disadvantages, I agree we might be better off with GNU/Linux having the main market share but I dissagree with the notion that all software should be free. You believe free = good and proprietary = evil but I disagree I believe this view is far too simplistic and that the debate is far more complicated than this.

Not all the articles I posted in my previous post reflected my opinions I didn't post them to get my veiw across but to give examples of well ballanced accounts.

So I take it that you mean 'No.'.

Good.