All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
MS-DOS Date
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Neither does your response.
--- End quote ---
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).
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---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.
--- End quote ---
Notice how there is more non-free software than free software?
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---I wasn't suggesting that but can you provide any strong evidence to prove otherwise?
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---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).
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Notice how there is more non-free software than free software?
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---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...
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---The second ("Then no...") part of your answer makes little sense in respect to the question.
--- End quote ---
Yes it does, you asked me:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Do you agree that non-free is the way things shouldn't be?
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin --- Unless you're suggesting that free software is inherently less innovative or lacking than non-free software. So you might wanna rephrase it.
--- End quote ---
Done.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Keep in mind: it's not hobbyist versus commercial, it's free versus non-free.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Yes, although I must hightlight that it must be both innovitive and good quality.
--- End quote ---
Well I see no reason that it wouldn't be... Would you like to suggest one?
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---In short, I only (whole heartedly) support good software if this just happens to be free then even better.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version