Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft Software => Topic started by: DanZ on 6 September 2005, 19:05
-
Believe it or not, some software applications still run under MS-DOS. I use one such application that runs on a computer that controls Automatic Test Equipment (ATE). Every Monday without fail, the date is wrong. I haven't kept track of how many days off it is, but as an example, today the computer's date was set to Saturday, September 3, 2005. The actual date is Tuesday, September 6, 2005. Is this a Y2K issue with MS-DOS or maybe a problem with the CMOS or driver for the date? I don't think that the battery is on the blink (if it even has one) because the date is correct during the work week (Monday - Friday). It only gets messed up over the weekends. I searched MicroUknowwho's website, and understandably couldn't find any knowledge base articles for this issue. After all, it isn't reasonable to expect Micro---- to support MS-DOS for such a long period of time. Does anybody know how I might resolve this issue? It's just a nuisance as I can set the date at the beginning of every work week. Maybe it gets stuck every Saturday??
Thanks!
DanZ :rolleyes:
-
I hate to break this to you. But this forum has a retarded policy of not allowing windows help questions.
This is obviously a situation where switching to a different OS is not possible. Something sure to piss off everbody else here.
As for your question, I have no fucking clue. It might be that the CMOS battery is no longer able to hold a long charge, and when it gets shut off over the weekend, the battery runs down. Whereas in the weeknights, it is either left on, or the battery can hold a charge to when the machine is powered up again.
I'd suggest replacing the CMOS battery.
-
Thanks for your reply. It was more civil than I would have expected after reading some of the threads on this website. You are right - I have no choice but to use MS-DOS. I should have mentioned that the computer is never turned off, which is one reason that I didn't suspect the CMOS battery. The computer is only shut down if we know a thunderstorm is heading this way, or if the power goes out for whatever reason. I also forgot to mention that Windows 3.1 is installed on the computer, but I hardly ever use it and it definitely isn't running when I run the ATE. I wonder if the DATE driver got screwed up when Windows was installed?
Thanks for your suggestion. Hopefully the other Microsoft bashers here won't banish you for attempting to answer a legitimate question. I'll take my question elsewhere.
Regards,
DanZ
-
I have no choice but to use MS-DOS.
Yes you do, you could run DR-DOS or even FreeDOS (http://www.freedos.org), if you don't use Windows 3.1 then deltree C:\Windows.
What version of MS-DOS are you using?
What specification is your machine? How old is it?
-
jones is right, skyman is (almost ubiquitiously) wrong. there are several DOS virtual machines or emulators which are better, more stable and because of running within an app on a modern system more secure that MS-DOS, which as you say is not supported.
and skyman is right (for once) when he says this is not a microsoft support forum. if you don't expect microsoft to support MS-DOS then why the hell would you expect people here to?
my advice is to ask on some of those loser boards where windows users hang out, telling each other to format and reinstall XP the whole time. try the windows bbs for example.
good luck and everything, and welcome to the board, but please don't waste your time and others' with microsoft support questions.
-
Thanks for your reply, Aloone_Jonez. Here are the answers to your questions.
>Yes you do, you could run DR-DOS or even FreeDOS (http://www.freedos.org/), if you don't use Windows 3.1 then deltree C:\Windows.
The computer and ATE are being used under a contract with the US military, and it would take an act of Congress - almost literally - to get them to allow us to change the operating system. The computer also has four National Instruments IEEE-488 interface cards installed, and I don't want to take the time to figure out if the 488 cards or run time s/w that controls the ATE are compatible with another operating system. The options that you suggested might work, but practically speaking they aren't options.
>What version of MS-DOS are you using?
MS-DOS Version 6.00
>What specification is your machine? How old is it?
The computer has a 486 class microprocessor and was built in 1992 or 1993. The BIOS is AMI, copyright 1992.
I am starting to think that the BIOS got screwed up or the Windows 3.1 installation caused the problem. I am going to take you up on your offer to remove Windows (that should make the Microsoft haters happy), but first I want to see if I can upgrade the BIOS. I sent a request for a BIOS upgrade to an organization that represents American Megatrends Inc., and should hear back from them within two days.
Two of you folks are pretty nice for Microsoft bashers :D, but the Calum can bite me. I thought that this was a Microsoft help forum when I first posted, and even if it wasn't, there's no reason to act like an idiot jerkoff just because someone asks a question. Thanks again for the help, Jonez and S kyman. Mr or Ms Calum, please stay in the UK or as far away from the US as possible. Thanks.
Best regards,
DanZ
-
First Subheading under Troll Posts (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/faq.php?faq=mes_rules#faq_mes_forum_rules). Read it.
Now, having said that, I would suspect your CMOS battery before anything else (particularly if it's been running continuously since 1992/3, I've not had one last more than five years (seven at a stretch!)), NOT Windows or DOS like some here might suspect. Not everything is a conspiracy. ;)
-
The BIOS might also be so old that it doesn't support the year 2000.
I'm against helping people with MS products too, but I think it's differant with MS abandonware
-
thought that this was a Microsoft help forum when I first posted, and even if it wasn't, there's no reason to act like an idiot jerkoff just because someone asks a question.
No offense, but why would a forum called "Microsuck" be for helping with Microsoft?
-
No but it isn't as obvious as FuckMicrosoft.com
-
Is it posible to download and install Dos(alternative) on a pc without
eresing the old info and etc and still running windows but with the dos replaced ??
-
Yes, I think FreeDOS will allow you to do this.
-
Yes, I think FreeDOS will allow you to do this.
Depends on what you mean by still running windows along with it. Win 3.x will NOT run on freedos. It will run on DR-DOS, but it is a little more tricky.
If you mean multiboot windows and FreeDOS then yeah... but I havn't used FreeDOS in over a year and don't know how much they've improved the stability.
-
DR-DOS is the shit, and it will support every driver MS-DOS does. Not to mention multitasking, networking, and more.
-
Dr-DOS (http://stud3.tuwien.ac.at/~e0225895/drdos/front.htm) Nice replacement for DOS
DOSBox (http://dosbox.sf.net/) DOS shell
DOSBox may be the solution. Work in a modern evironment like Linux, Mac OS X or Windows, and still being able to run your DOS programs.
-
He's already said he can't change the OS by law...
Might sound like a strange idea, but try monitoring the time on the computer on Saturday sometime, and see what happens.
-
WMD,
Refalm was suggesting DOSBox, an emulator that allows you to run old DOS programs under Windows.
DOSBox may be the solution. Work in a modern evironment like Linux, Mac OS X or Windows, and still being able to run your DOS programs.
Firstly, I doubt it'll run under Windows 3.1.
Secondly, even if it did it'd be very slow as it's an emulator.
Finally, I thought he wasn't allowed to install any unapproved software as this is generally the case in a situation like this.
-
WMD,
Refalm was suggesting DOSBox, an emulator that allows you to run old DOS programs under Windows.
In which case, he'd be switching the OS to Windows, with DOS running merely as a program. Same thing.
And I doubt DOSBox would support the TI interface cards he's got.
-
Two of you folks are pretty nice for Microsoft bashers :D, but the Calum can bite me. I thought that this was a Microsoft help forum when I first posted, and even if it wasn't, there's no reason to act like an idiot jerkoff just because someone asks a question. Thanks again for the help, Jonez and S kyman. Mr or Ms Calum, please stay in the UK or as far away from the US as possible. Thanks.
Best regards,
DanZ
US eh? so that's why you are such an arrogant dipshit.
i simply explained the concept of this forum to you, if you want to ask for microsoft support, then my advice to you is: fuck off.
i could have said that the first time but i didn't, in fact i said "good luck and everything, and welcome to the board", so if you can find something wrong with that, you ignorant arrogant wanker, then i hope you are first on the list when your country finally gets what it deserves.
-
He's already said he can't change the OS by law...
Might sound like a strange idea, but try monitoring the time on the computer on Saturday sometime, and see what happens.
can i just say something?
in the real world, this forum has a policy of not helping losers out with their fucked up microsoft problems. there are a million waste fo space sites full of script kiddies for that sort of thing. perhaps since the US military are funding his damn project they can get their fucking wallet out and research the answer to this problem themselves, instead of you pussies, who are supposed to be participating in an *anti* microsoft discussion board bending over backwards to please this ignorant arsehole, who clearly believes he can casually insult people even as they attempt to provide useful information.
take from that what you will, whoever you may be.
-
you ignorant arrogant wanker, then i hope you are first on the list when your country finally gets what it deserves.
Harsh! Insightful, but harsh.
Note, however, that Americans tend to use 'wanker' as slang for an Englishman.
-
can i just say something?
in the real world, this forum has a policy of not helping losers out with their fucked up microsoft problems. there are a million waste fo space sites full of script kiddies for that sort of thing. perhaps since the US military are funding his damn project they can get their fucking wallet out and research the answer to this problem themselves, instead of you pussies, who are supposed to be participating in an *anti* microsoft discussion board bending over backwards to please this ignorant arsehole, who clearly believes he can casually insult people even as they attempt to provide useful information.
take from that what you will, whoever you may be.
I'm afraid things have drastically changed. Microsuck remains a somewhat anti-Microsoft board, but it has lately become a pro-Windows board. This presents, in my mind, anyway, something of a dilemma. If you like Windows but hate Microsoft, then you can give Windows advice with a clear conscience. If you use Windows and love it, then I'm afraid the only advice you can give to someone who wants to switch is "dude, stick with Windows". Fuck you if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole purpose of this site to show that there are quality alternatives to Windows? IF IT IS, then there are a lot of trolls here. Personally, I would never recommend any Microsoft product except their mice to anyone. And I am in the process of weaning myself from the Xbox. And I actively encourage everyone to do the same. That's why I came here in the first place - to get some support as a non-MS newb. What the fuck are we doing here, if not bashing Microsoft? And I still don't understand how someone could hate Microsoft and love Windows. If {insert favorite program here} only works in Windows, then that is not a reason to love Windows. That's a reason to bitch at the company who makes it. Programs live Avid, ProE, AutoCAD and others are ripe for open source replacement, and a little bitching from the users can help that to happen.
ya, I'm rambling, laterz.
-
can i just say something?
in the real world, this forum has a policy of not helping losers out with their fucked up microsoft problems. there are a million waste fo space sites full of script kiddies for that sort of thing. perhaps since the US military are funding his damn project they can get their fucking wallet out and research the answer to this problem themselves, instead of you pussies, who are supposed to be participating in an *anti* microsoft discussion board bending over backwards to please this ignorant arsehole, who clearly believes he can casually insult people even as they attempt to provide useful information.
take from that what you will, whoever you may be.
Did you read my post? I told him to sit at work on Saturday and watch the clock tick. Bending over backwards indeed. :p
-
I'm afraid things have drastically changed. Microsuck remains a somewhat anti-Microsoft board, but it has lately become a pro-Windows board.
That's just muzzy and toadlife. ;)
EDIT: And skyman.
-
And you folks wonder why anti-MS folks get a bad rap. It's because of childish things like "ignorant arsehole",
-
And you folks wonder why anti-MS folks get a bad rap. It's because of childish things like "ignorant arsehole",
"Fuck off" comeback with repetition of whatever was just said in 3... 2...
-
That's just muzzy and toadlife. ;)
EDIT: And skyman.
And Aloone_Jonez.
-
piratePenguin,
I admit have been playing devil's advocate recently, but I've also countered the Winblow$ Xpee B$ODomize$ me every 10 miniutes bullshit I'm sick of hearing about.
If you like Windows but hate Microsoft, then you can give Windows advice with a clear conscience.
Well loving Windows and hating Microsoft would be a moral dilemma in it's self but I personally have no feelings of love or hate towards Windows, to me it's just a tool I use to get my work done.
isn't the whole purpose of this site to show that there are quality alternatives to Windows?
Yes, you're right.
IF IT IS, then there are a lot of trolls here.
This place has been troll-free since MrX, Slave and MacMan left.
Personally, I would never recommend any Microsoft product except their mice to anyone.
This is a very tricky one for me to answer, really it depends on what they want to do, for normal activities like general office use I'd recommend a Mac then possibly Linux, but I'm affraid if they wanted games, Pro Engineer or Protel then I'd have to suggest Windows but I'd strongly recommend they use alternatives like Opera, Thunderbird and OpenOffice for all their other needs.
And I am in the process of weaning myself from the Xbox. And I actively encourage everyone to do the same.
I can see your point but I (if I had a console) wouldn't go through all the inconvenience of selling all my Xbox games.
If {insert favorite program here} only works in Windows, then that is not a reason to love Windows.
I think you're using the word love too much, I don't love my computer, I don't love my stereo, I don't even love my car for fuck sake, what's you obsession with love? Just because you use something it doesn't mean you love it.
That's a reason to bitch at the company who makes it.
That's a fair point to, but it's not entierly their fault that they don't support other platforms as they probably don't know any better and even if they did they wouldn't support Linux because of the Linux fanboys hate of proprietary $oftwarez.
Programs live Avid, ProE, AutoCAD and others are ripe for open source replacement, and a little bitching from the users can help that to happen.
Oh yeah inferior open source replacements. :rolleyes:
Running some programs under WINE is a solution but this is very unreliable but WINE could be better, people say it's not as good as it should be as evil M$ don't release the full Windows API listing but I don't see how this is a problem when nearly all the source code for Windows 2000 has been leaked over the Internet.
The best solution to the problem of software companies not supporting Linux would be if the Linux users them selves dropped their hate of all things proprietary then more companies would invest in Linux so it'd gain a higher userbase.
-
Even "THE MICE" is not an MS invention !
kind of makes you think don't it ?
-
piratePenguin,
Winblow$ Xpee B$ODomize$ me every 10 miniutes bullshit I'm sick of hearing about.
The only time I ever see this "Winblow$ Xpee" crappy-speak is from yourself and skyman. Noone else here, other than the occasional troll, uses it.
We're generally more professional than "Winblow$ Xpee B$ODomize$", so either you'd better get your eyes checked, or have a bit of respect.
I think you're using the word love too much, I don't love my computer, I don't love my stereo, I don't even love my car for fuck sake, what's you obsession with love? Just because you use something it doesn't mean you love it.
I usually say "support".
they wouldn't support Linux because of the Linux fanboys hate of proprietary $oftwarez.
Funny, because there are only very few completely free operating system setups out there. My own being one.
Most GNU/Linux distributions ship with Java and all sorts of other non-free stuff. And when they don't, the first thing 90% of it's users do when they've installed the distribution is install Java or some other non-free software that they want.
but I don't see how this is a problem when nearly all the source code for Windows 2000 has been leaked over the Internet.
Er, I'd assume the wine guys would be in alot of legal trouble if they used that code.
The best solution to the problem of software companies not supporting Linux would be if the Linux users them selves dropped their hate of all things proprietary then more companies would invest in Linux so it'd gain a higher userbase.
Not many GNU/Linux users hate "all things proprietary" so even if we all did retreat, I doubt it'd make much difference.
-
I think you're using the word love too much, I don't love my computer, I don't love my stereo, I don't even love my car for fuck sake, what's you obsession with love? Just because you use something it doesn't mean you love it.
You know, I used to think the same way. But then I got an Apple. And I absolutely love it, even 2 years after opening the box. I think everyone ought to experience the joys of ownership and companionship that come free in every Apple box. It occasionally clouds my judgement of what computers are and what they could/should be. That's not a bad thing. I think the IT world would be a much better place if more people cared about their computers.
Oh yeah inferior open source replacements. :rolleyes:
Just a reminder, that open source replacements are not always inferior. In fact, I haven't used an open source program yet that can be compared feature to feature and design goal to design goal with a popular proprietary program. They are different, and they may not do exactly what you want them to do or expect them to do, but I think 'inferior' is an inappropriate word to describe this.
-
That's a fair point to, but it's not entierly their fault that they don't support other platforms as they probably don't know any better and even if they did they wouldn't support Linux because of the Linux fanboys hate of proprietary $oftwarez.
I'm a Linux fanboy. And I love it when I get to try out some proprietary software for my OS. I see it as a sign of better support for it. I frequently use the nVidia X driver, Opera, VMware, and RealPlayer (which, btw, is much better on Linux than on Windows). I think the above software makes my Linux usage more enjoyable, and I'd love it for more companies to join in. I don't necessarily prefer such software over open-source, but it's always good to have and work with. The only time I dislike proprietary software is when the owner of it uses that proprietary nature to further its own interests (other than simple business profit and advancement, of course).
-
The only time I dislike proprietary software is when the owner of it uses that proprietary nature to further its own interests (other than simple business profit and advancement, of course).
I couldn't agree more. :thumbup:
The only time I ever see this "Winblow$ Xpee" crappy-speak is from yourself and skyman. Noone else here, other than the occasional troll, uses it.
We're generally more professional than "Winblow$ Xpee B$ODomize$", so either you'd better get your eyes checked, or have a bit of respect.
My point was I'm sick of hearing how Windows is supposidly unstable and how it's inherrintly insecure when neither of which are true if you know what you're doing.
Most GNU/Linux distributions ship with Java and all sorts of other non-free stuff. And when they don't, the first thing 90% of it's users do when they've installed the distribution is install Java or some other non-free software that they want.
Fare enough, I suppose I shouldn't have lumped all Linux users in the same pile as the hardcode GNU fanboys like yourself, can't you see? You're attitude to proprietary software is actually giving Linux users a bad name.
Er, I'd assume the wine guys would be in alot of legal trouble if they used that code.
I didn't mean to imply they should directly rip the code, they'd only need to examine it and get an idea of what all the hidden APIs do and write their own inplementations and if the Windows code is really that crap then they would rather not use it anyway.
You know, I used to think the same way. But then I got an Apple. And I absolutely love it, even 2 years after opening the box. I think everyone ought to experience the joys of ownership and companionship that come free in every Apple box. It occasionally clouds my judgement of what computers are and what they could/should be. That's not a bad thing. I think the IT world would be a much better place if more people cared about their computers.
How evil you love some proprietary software!
Just a reminder, that open source replacements are not always inferior. In fact, I haven't used an open source program yet that can be compared feature to feature and design goal to design goal with a popular proprietary program. They are different, and they may not do exactly what you want them to do or expect them to do, but I think 'inferior' is an inappropriate word to describe this.
This depends on the software and you what you expect from it. In my opinion if I'm using one piece of software that fulfills all my needs and I switch to another that doesn't then that piece of software is inferior as far as I'm concerned.
-
Fare enough, I suppose I shouldn't have lumped all Linux users in the same pile as the hardcode GNU fanboys like yourself
Damn right.
can't you see? You're attitude to proprietary software
My attitude being: I won't install non-free software on my computer so long as I can help it. And fortunetly there is plenty enough free software about the place that I can help it.
is actually giving Linux users a bad name.
OK so obviously you see my attitude towards non-free software as a bad thing. Hold it against me, not against anyone else, especially the "Linux" advocates.
Some amount of Muslims have been involved in terorist activity (bad), don't hold that against every Muslim in the world (especially the Christian-Muslims :P).
I didn't mean to imply they should directly rip the code, they'd only need to examine it and get an idea of what all the hidden APIs do and write their own inplementations and if the Windows code is really that crap then they would rather not use it anyway.
I dunno if they're allowd to or what.
-
(especially the Christian-Muslims :P).
???????????????????????????????
What are you smoking?
-
My attitude being: I won't install non-free software on my computer so long as I can help it. And fortunetly there is plenty enough free software about the place that I can help it.
OK so obviously you see my attitude towards non-free software as a bad thing.
Yes I do.
Hold it against me, not against anyone else, especially the "Linux" advocates.
I can't help but feel that when representitaves of proprietary software companies encounter people like your self on Linux forums they form a the oppinion that the Linux userbase doesn't want their software.
Some amount of Muslims have been involved in terorist activity (bad), don't hold that against every Muslim in the world (especially the Christian-Muslims :P).
I dunno if they're allowd to or what.
Well if this small number of muslims stopped being terrorists then they would stop giving Islam a bad name, just like if you dropped your self righteous attitude towards proprietary software you would stop giving Linux users a bad name.
P.S. what do mean by "Christian-Muslims"?
-
???????????????????????????????
What are you smoking?
What, have you got something against Christian-Muslims?
Only messing. The Christian-Muslims are the Linux-GNU/Linux advocates. They don't exist. I was joking.
:p
-
Yes I do.
Good. Well, let me explain why I have this attitude towards non-free software then.
Fundamentally, the developers of non-free software are selfish (And I don't care what their cause is. Making a living or whatnot. It doesn't change the fact.) and inherently evil (Maybe not so much as Hitler was, but I never suggested that.).
Selfishness/evil might well be the basis of capitalism, and I might well see selfishness/evil everywhere around me, but that is no excuse to excuse it. So I don't excuse it.
I complain! I fight! And when there is an alternative (which there is for software), I support the alternative instead.
Am I a luney? Should I wake up to the real world? Well, I am awake, and I'm living in the same world as you.
I can't help but feel that when representitaves of proprietary software companies encounter people like your self on Linux forums they form a the oppinion that the Linux userbase doesn't want their software.
Well, tough shit for them.
A more educated opinion would be that a (small) subset of GNU/Linux users won't use install or use non-free software on their own computers.
Well if this small number of muslims stopped being terrorists then they would stop giving Islam a bad name
Well those Muslim terrorists don't (AFAIK (which isn't much)) have much of a cause.
Well free software advocates like myself do.
And some people will say that we give GNU/Linux or "Linux" a bad name. Others will say that we give GNU/Linux a good name. It's like anything. Some will like, some will dislike.
just like if you dropped your self righteous attitude towards proprietary software you would stop giving Linux users a bad name.
I'd also stop giving them a good name, and be giving up on the cause.
-
Penguin,
What he means is that you can be firmly against proprietary software, and not be constantly badmouthing it.
-
Penguin,
What he means is that you can be firmly against proprietary software, and not be constantly badmouthing it.
Where do I "constantly" badmouth non-free software? I just don't install it on my computer and support it as least as I possibly.
-
Where do I "constantly" badmouth non-free software? I just don't install it on my computer and support it as least as I possibly.
Oh yes you do badmouth it, do I really have to give an example?
Good. Well, let me explain why I have this attitude towards non-free software then.
Fundamentally, the developers of non-free software are selfish (And I don't care what their cause is. Making a living or whatnot. It doesn't change the fact.) and inherently evil (Maybe not so much as Hitler was, but I never suggested that.).
Well one day you'll have to get a job and earn money and I can't see you sharing all your wealth so then you'll be being selfish.
Selfishness/evil might well be the basis of capitalism, and I might well see selfishness/evil everywhere around me, but that is no excuse to excuse it. So I don't excuse it.
Tough shit matey, when you start earning you'll start contributing to the capitalist ragime running Irland.
I complain! I fight! And when there is an alternative (which there is for software), I support the alternative instead.
Good for you, but I'd rather people like yourself campaign for something more constuctive.
Am I a luney?
Yes.
Should I wake up to the real world?
Yes.
Well, I am awake, and I'm living in the same world as you.
You may be awake and living in the real world but you're certainly aren't fully alert as you have no experiance of working in real industry, this is a part of the real world you have yet to see.
Well, tough shit for them.
A more educated opinion would be that a (small) subset of GNU/Linux users won't use install or use non-free software on their own computers.
Well those Muslim terrorists don't (AFAIK (which isn't much)) have much of a cause.
Well free software advocates like myself do.
And some people will say that we give GNU/Linux or "Linux" a bad name. Others will say that we give GNU/Linux a good name. It's like anything. Some will like, some will dislike.
I'd also stop giving them a good name, and be giving up on the cause.
That depends on your point of view but; one group of people (the proprietary software companies) have considerable resources (in the form of capital) to offer you, while the other (GPL fanboy club) are mostly made up of children and students who can only offer their time, I know which I'd rather have on my side.
In my opinion the best way to attack Microsoft is to use alternatives to thier products (as I'm sure you agree) but this is where our similarities end. I don't care whether the alternatives are proprietary or free because just not using MS porducts will hurt them and also encourage innovation by other companies. Oh yes I forgot to mention the fact that I use Windows but that's because it'd be such a huge inconvenience not too and I don't think MS are worth the trouble. I support OpenOffice, Opera and Thunderbird and if everyone did the same MS would be in more than enough trouble even if they kept Windows and lost all their other product I'd be more than satisfied.
Why should people (like you) support proprietary software for Linux?
Simple, because proprietary developers will start to develop and improve Linux versions of ther Windows products and if this happens Linux will become more attractive to people migrating away from Windows. Hopefully these companies will then start to invest money in Linux too, who knows they could even share some of their code too. Look at sun for example, Star Office was proprietary for years until they released OpenOffice, Opera is now free as in beer, who knows one day it might become truely free as well.
-
Dudes you'v got problems
-
Oh yes you do badmouth it, do I really have to give an example?
Yes.
Well one day you'll have to get a job and earn money and I can't see you sharing all your wealth so then you'll be being selfish.
Quite right.
Tough shit matey, when you start earning you'll start contributing to the capitalist ragime running Irland.
Quite right.
WTF do you expect me to do? If I don't be selfish to the point that I have no choice on the matter, what more can one ask?
I have a choice on pretty much all the software I use. Just like everyone else with their own computer. I can install Windows or GNU/Linux, I'll pick GNU/Linux, the fact that it's free software being a huge contributor there. Firefox, Opera. Firefox. Same.
Good for you, but I'd rather people like yourself campaign for something more constuctive.
I'd rather campaign for something I feel strongly about more than something "more constructive".
You may be awake and living in the real world but you're certainly aren't fully alert as you have no experiance of working in real industry, this is a part of the real world you have yet to see.
I amn't fully alert because I have no experience of working in real industry... Of course!
That depends on your point of view
That's exactly my point.
one group of people (the proprietary software companies) have considerable resources (in the form of capital) to offer you, while the other (GPL fanboy club) are mostly made up of children and students who can only offer their time, I know which I'd rather have on my side.
I think that's more commercial versus hobyists.
Interesting point about the "GPL fanboy club" being "mostly made up of children and students". Can you back it up, please?
Why should people (like you) support proprietary software for Linux?
Since when has that been the question?
Anyhow, I just wish RMS and friends never released the LGPL (thereby inviting non-free software along). I made a long enough post about this before and I ain't doing it agian.
As long as I'm never under too much pressure to install some non-free program on my free setup, I don't mind as much.
-
One vote for Moron Zone.
-
Why?
A crappy MS product help thread has generated an intelligent debate, what's so moronic about this?
Yes.
You describe it as an insult to humanity. (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9566)
WTF do you expect me to do? If I don't be selfish to the point that I have no choice on the matter, what more can one ask?
You know if you look at it that way proprietary software is really no more evil than earning money.
I have a choice on pretty much all the software I use. Just like everyone else with their own computer. I can install Windows or GNU/Linux, I'll pick GNU/Linux, the fact that it's free software being a huge contributor there. Firefox, Opera. Firefox. Same.
I feel we're going round in circles now.
I amn't fully alert because I have no experience of working in real industry... Of course!
That's true alright.
I think that's more commercial versus hobyists.
Yes, that's right commercial software is where the real money is, and yes some of it is open source, and yes we have established how it's not as efficent at generating revinue.
Interesting point about the "GPL fanboy club" being "mostly made up of children and students". Can you back it up, please?
Yes, there are companies like Sun and IBM doing their bit but they are also pro-proprietary software, the only people who are anti-proprietary are mainly people who don't have a commercial interest in software like the groups of people listed in my quote above.
Since when has that been the question?
So it wasn't the question I was just making a point and now you're agruing with it in your quote below which is fare enough.
Anyhow, I just wish RMS and friends never released the LGPL (thereby inviting non-free software along). I made a long enough post about this before and I ain't doing it agian.
Why is the LGPL bad? What's so bad about companies being allowed to develop non-free software for Linux?
Go on do me a favour and provide a valid argument to counter the last paragraph of my previous post. If you want the total amount of proprietary software in the world to decline then your best bet it to enourage it's use on the Linux platform especially when it comes to pushing developers to create Linux versions of their Windows programs. I hope you can figure out why this is but I've got a feeling I'll have to explain it to you.
As long as I'm never under too much pressure to install some non-free program on my free setup, I don't mind as much.
That's the good thing about Linux, you have a choice.
-
Why is the LGPL bad?
Go find my post.
What's so bad about companies being allowed to develop non-free software for Linux?
It will[i/] put more pressure on me to use the non-free applications.
Go on do me a favour and provide a valid argument to counter the last paragraph of my previous post. If you want the total amount of proprietary software in the world to decline then your best bet it to enourage it's use on the Linux platform especially when it comes to pushing developers to create Linux versions of their Windows programs. I hope you can figure out why this is but I've got a feeling I'll have to explain it to you.
So we'll all go non-free for a while. We'll go back to 1980, or whenever it was that the software sharing communities were in decline. And then well go free! Yey!
I doubt it very much. It'd only make things much harder.
Plus, I like the way things are hopefully headed (and I've already explained this before).
That's the good thing about Linux, you have a choice.
We have a choice now, but in ten years time, will we?
If we keep accepting non-free software, wouldn't it make things harder in the future to go free-direction?
-
Go find my post.
I haven't got the time to search this forum, if you think your post was so damn important then you find it otherwise I'll assume it wasn't that hot.
It will[i/] put more pressure on me to use the non-free applications.
No it won't, you've already stated that many Linux distros contain non-free software and you've choosen not to use it, how will this change?
So we'll all go non-free for a while. We'll go back to 1980, or whenever it was that the software sharing communities were in decline. And then well go free! Yey!
Even if this is true, this would be better than things staying the way they are.
I doubt it very much. It'd only make things much harder.
Sorry I don't understand you, what do you mean? How would it (whatever it is) make things (what things are you talking about) harder? :confused:
Plus, I like the way things are hopefully headed (and I've already explained this before).
Sorry to break this to you but Linux will never form the empire you'd like it to unless it proves itself to companies so they can develop their own proprietary products for it like games for example - yey, no more "I only use Windows because I can play my favourite games" arguements!
We have a choice now, but in ten years time, will we?
We'd have more choice if Linux was more popular with proprietary applications than we do now with Windows.
If we keep accepting non-free software, wouldn't it make things harder in the future to go free-direction?
You still haven't countered that final paragraph so I'll assume you've accepted it.
Anyway, encouraging non-free software on Linux would (as I've already said) push comercial developers to create Linux versions of their Windows programs, this would encourage people to migrate to Linux as they can now run thier favourate software on it without the buggyness of emulators like WINE and thus reducing Microsoft's market share - the're biggest proprietary software supplier and you're telling me that this won't help your cause. :rolleyes:
Which beggs another question do you think WINE is bad for Linux too?
-
I haven't got the time to search this forum, if you think your post was so damn important then you find it otherwise I'll assume it wasn't that hot.
http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=100243&postcount=23
No it won't, you've already stated that many Linux distros contain non-free software and you've choosen not to use it, how will this change?
Because I never liked Java and I just might like Java2 (I have no idea about any plans for Java2, but it gets my point accross.).
Even if this is true, this would be better than things staying the way they are.
The way they are? Are you serious? Things couldn't be better - in my situation and alot of other people's situations.
Sorry I don't understand you, what do you mean? How would it (whatever it is) make things (what things are you talking about) harder? :confused:
That, and the bit before it, was for the last paragraph of your legendary post :p
Sorry to break this to you but Linux will never form the empire you'd like it to unless it proves itself to companies so they can develop their own proprietary products for it like games for example - yey, no more "I only use Windows because I can play my favourite games" arguements!
I don't need a GNU/Linux empire. I just want myself and your average Joe to be able to live hastle-free lives without non-free software.
We'd have more choice if Linux was more popular with proprietary applications than we do now with Windows.
But we'd have less choice, and more hastle, for those who don't want to support non-free software.
Anyway, encouraging non-free software on Linux would (as I've already said) push comercial developers to create Linux versions of their Windows programs, this would encourage people to migrate to Linux as they can now run thier favourate software on it without the buggyness of emulators like WINE and thus reducing Microsoft's market share - the're biggest proprietary software supplier and you're telling me that this won't help your cause. :rolleyes:
I'm in two bandwagons - the anti-Microsoft one and the free-software one. The death of Microsoft wouldn't be good for the free software end of things if everyone switched to non-free operating system (e.g. Apple Mac OS X), or to a free operating system (e.g. FreeBSD, GNU/Linux) and used mostly non-free software to do their work.
Which beggs another question do you think WINE is bad for Linux too?
Most people use wine to run non-free software, but only because they want to use that non-free software. The answer is yes. No. Yes. No.
Damnit! I intended on saying "yes", up untill this very minute I would've said yes, but no. Right when I typed "but only because they want to use that non-free software" that changed it.
No I don't think it's a bad thing (BTW, I'm looking only at the free-software end of things in this thread.) for GNU/Linux, because all it means is that the non-free software will be more accessable to GNU/Linux users. Those who wanna use it can use it, and those who don't, don't, and that's the important thing.
-
(http://www.squidmobile.com/invokegodwin.jpg)
-
Thanks for wasting my bandwidth skyman :rolleyes:
http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=100243&postcount=23
Yes let's look at that post in more detail:
I'm not bothered that some non-free developers have trouble getting their non-free programs onto our free operating system. I'm actually quite glad.
Why is reducing people's choice of software availble on the platform a good thing?
IMO, inventing the LGPL and applying it to glibc was a bad move by GNU. I'm quite surprised they did it. If it wasn't RMS in control (assuming it was. I dunno though, but I know that he definetly accepts the LGPL), I'd probably expect him to make his own GPL library.
RMS wanted a free operating system. He has it now, and now they're trying to make BIOSes free software. What they want is not a free operating system, but a system of entirely free software. So expliticly (why the hell won't google/dictionary.com help me spell that properly :mad:?) allowing non-free software on the system is just retarded.
You still haven't said why allowing non free software on to a free OS is a bad idea.
But they did it so the operating system could survive
No they did it to boost its popularity.
and maybe someday go mainstream.
Without the industry backing it?
I don't think so.
I've no doubt that the operating system would definetly have survived
Of couse it would have survided, but there's a very big differance between surviving and flourishing.
(we've got free alternatives for almost everything.
No you haven't and most of the alternatives available have a steeper leaning curve while others aren't proper alternatives since they lack some features that some users require or they are simply pure shit.
Currently we don't need non-free software for a usable system.),
So what?
How is this going to change?
but going mainstream is another thing entirely.
Which won't happen unless you allow proprietary software on the scene.
I wouldn't want it to go mainstream unless the major apps and the whole of the OS are free software. I mean, I don't want it to go mainstream unless my system can be totally free software (so all the tools I use must be free). I'd be surprised if RMS thought differently. Which is why I think for him to accept the LGPL, is just silly.
Right now you're making your finally point clear, you want the Linux operating system to remain completely free and not become semi-free which is fair enough but why would allowing proprietary software on it destroy this vision?
You've already said (as far as you're concerned anyway) they're are free alternatives for eveything and if they're supposed to be so much better than their proprietary counterparts then why are you so worried about competition all of a sudden?
I'd much prefer everything to be free software.
Well I prefer free software too it saves me money but I'm mature enough to accept that everything can't be free.
And to outlaw non-free software
Which is the retarded sort of totalitarian policy I and most of the industry will fight against because it's evil and would be an insult to humanity.
rather than welcome it like GNU did when they invented the LGPL.
If welcomming proprietary software will further Linux's goal of becomming the main OS than I think it'd be worth it.
Because I never liked Java and I just might like Java2 (I have no idea about any plans for Java2, but it gets my point accross.).
Why do you hate Java? Please give a reason other than simply because it's proprietary as I think we're all tired to that argument. Personally I dislike Java because it's slow even .NET might be better.
The way they are? Are you serious? Things couldn't be better - in my situation and alot of other people's situations.
Now look who's being selfish, "in my situation", what about me and the rest of the world, do you seriously think we're better off now with Winblow$ than we would be with Linux which I'd use if the proprietary software I rely on supported it?
That, and the bit before it, was for the last paragraph of your legendary post :p
Wow your debating skills really impress me! I presented a clear and detailed argument as to why encouraging proprietary software on Linux will increase its popularity and the best you can come up with is "not very likely", sorry not good enough, please provide reasons as to why allowing non-free software on the Linux scene won't help linux spread.
I don't need a GNU/Linux empire. I just want myself and your average Joe to be able to live hastle-free lives without non-free software.
So, just carry on using you non-free software then, nothing's going to stop you.
But we'd have less choice, and more hastle, for those who don't want to support non-free software.
Why do you think this?
I say bullshit, you'd have far more choice, more people would have the option of running Linux if the proprietary software they need supported it and adding proprietary options to the big list of free options would give an increased number of options to the Linux user.
I'm in two bandwagons - the anti-Microsoft one and the free-software one.
So am I, but that doesn't make me totally anti-proprietary.
The death of Microsoft wouldn't be good for the free software end of things if everyone switched to non-free operating system (e.g. Apple Mac OS X),
That's true I suppose, plus Apple owning the industry would be worse than Microsoft in my opinion as they'd own both the OS and the hardware, but this won't happen anyway.
or to a free operating system (e.g. FreeBSD, GNU/Linux) and used mostly non-free software to do their work.
I doubt this will happen either, most people would use free software like OpenOffice for most of their needs and they'd continiue to rely on proprietary software for the more specialized things like CAD electronics design and even games. Allowing non-free software on to Linux won't make it like Windows currently is. Windows started of as non-free and Linux began as completely free which can't and will never change all that will happen is people will be given a wider choice of software on the Linux platform.
Most people use wine to run non-free software, but only because they want to use that non-free software. The answer is yes. No. Yes. No.
Damnit! I intended on saying "yes", up untill this very minute I would've said yes, but no. Right when I typed "but only because they want to use that non-free software" that changed it.
yes, no, yes, make your mind up. :D
Sersiously, now I hope you can see that pushing developers to create Linux versions of their software will remove many of the roadblocks in the away many of people using Linux.
No I don't think it's a bad thing (BTW, I'm looking only at the free-software end of things in this thread.) for GNU/Linux, because all it means is that the non-free software will be more accessable to GNU/Linux users. Those who wanna use it can use it, and those who don't, don't, and that's the important thing.
Alright then you don't have a problem with WINE but what about WINElib?
Why is encourageing ex-Windows users to run thier old Windows programs with WINE any worse than encouraging the companies who write the software to create Linux versions? The latter is more constructive as it'll provide the user with more choice.
-
We have a choice: free or non-free.
I chose free, for two main reasons: free is the way things should be, and, non-free is the way things shouldn't be.
-
Why is reducing people's choice of software availble on the platform a good thing?
Because it's reducing the choice of non-free software available on a free operating system.
Remind me, why did RMS begin the GNU project?
No they did it to boost its popularity.
Same idea.
Without the industry backing it?
I don't think so.
Yes - that's why they invented the LGPL.
No you haven't and most of the alternatives available have a steeper leaning curve while others aren't proper alternatives since they lack some features that some users require or they are simply pure shit.
So long as they're livable, it wouldn't matter to me.
Which won't happen unless you allow proprietary software on the scene.
Exactly my point (well, same idea).
Right now you're making your finally point clear, you want the Linux operating system to remain completely free and not become semi-free which is fair enough but why would allowing proprietary software on it destroy this vision?
The operating system itself would be free. But you won't get much work done on an operating system alone. If the most popular or the better software isn't free - that'll create more pressure for everyone to use non-free software.
You've already said (as far as you're concerned anyway) they're are free alternatives for eveything and if they're supposed to be so much better than their proprietary counterparts then why are you so worried about competition all of a sudden?
Err, I never said they were all better than the non-free counterparts (good word. I would usually say "alternative" but I say that too much in the wrong places.).
Which is the retarded sort of totalitarian policy I and most of the industry will fight against because it's evil and would be an insult to humanity.
"GNU you mother fuckers! You've licenced your glibc library under the fucking GPL! Now it'll be a fucking bitch to write software for your operating system unless it's free."
Yea, I can imagine it.
If welcomming proprietary software will further Linux's goal of becomming the main OS than I think it'd be worth it.
I don't. And I dunno how RMS feels on the matter - I must email him sometime. Seeing as he accepts the LGPL... I'd have no idea.
Why do you hate Java? Please give a reason other than simply because it's proprietary as I think we're all tired to that argument.
It's increadibly slow, and C# kicks it's balls.
If Microsoft can beat it - it must suck (that was a joke).
Personally I dislike Java because it's slow even .NET might be better.
From what I know about .NET, it rocks in areas.
Now look who's being selfish, "in my situation", what about me and the rest of the world, do you seriously think we're better off now with Winblow$ than we would be with Linux which I'd use if the proprietary software I rely on supported it?
Actually, I said "Things couldn't be better - in my situation and alot of other people's situations.".
Note, and note well, the very distinct "and alot of other people's situations".
Wow your debating skills really impress me!
Thank you :D
I presented a clear and detailed argument as to why encouraging proprietary software on Linux will increase its popularity and the best you can come up with is "not very likely", sorry not good enough, please provide reasons as to why allowing non-free software on the Linux scene won't help linux spread.
You presented, IMO, a very retarded view. And I replied with (just taking the piss):So we'll all go non-free for a while. We'll go back to 1980, or
whenever it was that the software sharing communities were in decline.
And then well go free! Yey!
I doubt it very much. It'd only make things much harder.
Plus, I like the way things are hopefully headed (and I've already explained this before).
Your magnificant idea, or whatever the hell it is, might well be good at gaining more popularity for GNU/Linux. But I would doubt that it wouldn't have damaging consequences freedom-wise, in the short and long term.
So, just carry on using you non-free software then, nothing's going to stop you.
Jesus. Typo, right?
Why do you think this?
I say bullshit, you'd have far more choice, more people would have the option of running Linux if the proprietary software they need supported it and adding proprietary options to the big list of free options would give an increased number of options to the Linux user.
Did you read the whole sentence?
"for those who don't want to support non-free software"
yes, no, yes, make your mind up.
I did. And it was a tough call. But yea, I did.
Alright then you don't have a problem with WINE but what about WINElib?
Why is encourageing ex-Windows users to run thier old Windows programs with WINE any worse than encouraging the companies who write the software to create Linux versions? The latter is more constructive as it'll provide the user with more choice.
I answered yes.
-
I'm mature enough to accept that everything can't be free.
Who's talking about everything being free here?
We're talking about software that is free and software that isn't free.
Understanding that is very fucking important!
-
Because it's reducing the choice of non-free software available on a free operating system.
Which would make the operating system shit because people would have a smaller range of software to choose from, a good OS is no good if it doesn't have good wide range software and games some of which are only catered for by proprietary developers.
Remind me, why did RMS begin the GNU project?
To support the sharing of code and discourage closed source programs, but at least they've had the sense to realize that blind hate of proprietary software won't help thier cause, and allowing its use on their OS will increase it's popularity, hence the popularity of free software in general.
Yes - that's why they invented the LGPL.
So how is gaining the support of the industry a bad thing?
So long as they're livable, it wouldn't matter to me.
You're being selfish again, you can only see things from your perspective or that of people with similar beliefs as yourself.
The operating system itself would be free.
Of course that will never change.
But you won't get much work done on an operating system alone. If the most popular or the better software isn't free - that'll create more pressure for everyone to use non-free software.
How could that change?
There will be no preasure at all, people will just have the ability to migrate to Linux from Windows and continiue to run play their games and use Protel and Pro Engineer for designing things.
Err, I never said they were all better than the non-free counterparts
You're spot on there.
(good word. I would usually say "alternative" but I say that too much in the wrong places.).
I suppose it was quite good, for you at least.
"GNU you mother fuckers! You've licenced your glibc library under the fucking GPL! Now it'll be a fucking bitch to write software for your operating system unless it's free."
Yes, too bad my company can't use Linux because the vendors who supply us with the software we rely on will never have the chance to develop Linux versions, thank you RMS and FUCK YOU TOO! :fu:
Yea, I can imagine it.
So can I but only comming from the mouths of ignoramuses.
I don't. And I dunno how RMS feels on the matter - I must email him sometime. Seeing as he accepts the LGPL... I'd have no idea.
Go on discuss this with him, I hope he's got plenty of patience because he's sure going to need it.
It's increadibly slow, and C# kicks it's balls.
If Microsoft can beat it - it must suck (that was a joke).
From what I know about .NET, it rocks in areas.
I agree.
Actually, I said "Things couldn't be better - in my situation and alot of other people's situations.".
You're still being selfish, you're only considering the people in the same position as you. What about the rest of the world? Are you telling everyone else in a differant situation or opinion to go to hell?
Note, and note well, the very distinct "and alot of other people's situations".
Well done! You still continiue to demonstrate how un-objective you are and how you are incapable of seeing things from anyone else's viewpoint - this is also the critical flaw in your debating style.
Thank you :D
Someone obviously doesn't have their sarcasm radar tuned in.
You presented, IMO, a very retarded view. And I replied with (just taking the piss):Your magnificant idea, or whatever the hell it is,
[sarcasm] It's nice to see how respectful you are of other's opinions[/sarcasm]
might well be good at gaining more popularity for GNU/Linux.
Correct, this is a very good thing as it'd move more people away from Windows as well as increasing the use of free software.
But I would doubt that it wouldn't have damaging consequences freedom-wise, in the short and long term.
The LGPL is very good freedom wise because it allows people the freedom to develop Linux versions of their products which will in turn give more people the freedom to choose a Linux based operating system.
Jesus. Typo, right?
No, I was just respecting your point of view which is that proprietary software is evil and you refuse to use it which is your choice and right and I respect it even though I dsagree.
Did you read the whole sentence?
"for those who don't want to support non-free software"
No one's forcing you to support non-free software.
I did. And it was a tough call. But yea, I did.
I answered yes.
I'm glad you got there in the end and I hope your head doesn't hurt. :D
Alright you obviously think allowing companies to develop Linux versions of their propretary products is bad and WINE is too. How about the other way round?
Do you think it's worng to port free Linux programs to Windows? Is this bad for Linux?
I think this is also good idea as after all it's increasing the number of people using the free product.
-
Which would make the operating system shit because people would have a smaller range of software to choose from, a good OS is no good if it doesn't have good wide range software and games some of which are only catered for by proprietary developers.
It'd still be perfectly usable.
at least they've had the sense to realize that blind hate of proprietary software won't help thier cause
"blind hate"? "blind"?
Like I've already said:I chose free, for two main reasons: free is the way things should be, and, non-free is the way things shouldn't be.
and allowing its use on their OS will increase it's popularity, hence the popularity of free software in general.
Exactly, they did it for popularity, at least from what I can see...
So how is gaining the support of the industry a bad thing?
Because the large bulk of the industry is non-free.
The more non-free software on a free operating system, fuckit, the more non-free software in the world. Actually, that's completely wrong, the less free software, the less choice and the harder it is for those who don't want to use non-free software.
You're being selfish again, you can only see things from your perspective or that of people with similar beliefs as yourself.
No, ass, I speak for myself, and only myself.
I dunno if it'd matter to Joe Stupid and friends. How the fuck would I? How do you expect me to?
How could that change?
How couldn't it change?
I suppose it was quite good, for you at least.
Now why is that?
Yes, too bad my company can't use Linux because the vendors who supply us with the software we rely on will never have the chance to develop Linux versions, thank you RMS and FUCK YOU TOO! :fu:
Eh, no. Again, if you read what I said, "unless it's free", then, well, it all makes sense.
So can I but only comming from the mouths of ignoramuses.
I was emulating what you and your buddies would be saying. But yea, I agree.
Go on discuss this with him, I hope he's got plenty of patience because he's sure going to need it.
I'd imagine he does...
Didn't he start GNU or something like that?
I agree.
You're still being selfish, you're only considering the people in the same position as you. What about the rest of the world? Are you telling everyone else in a differant situation or opinion to go to hell?
Well I dunno what it's like to be in their situation so how the fuck can I speak for them?
Someone obviously doesn't have their sarcasm radar tuned in.
Mine's tuned in alright. But I just couldn't not seize the moment.
[sarcasm] It's nice to see how respectful you are of other's opinions[/sarcasm]
Well you're not very respectful to me or my opinions either - so don't even go there.
And I was just being honest - it was the stupidest thing I heard in a long time.
The LGPL is very good freedom wise because it allows people the freedom to develop Linux versions of their products which will in turn give more people the freedom to choose a Linux based operating system.
It gives developers the freedom to use a free project in their own and not give their users any freedom. I'm against it.
No, I was just respecting your point of view which is that proprietary software is evil and you refuse to use it which is your choice and right and I respect it even though I dsagree.
Are you sure?
Re: "Hippy luney" et cetera.
No one's forcing you to support non-free software.
Noone's forcing anyone to use Windows or any other Microsoft product (e.g. Office/Word).
How about the other way round?
Do you think it's worng to port free Linux programs to Windows? Is this bad for Linux?
It's a good thing for free software, but as for GNU/Linux, it's most likely a bad thing, but I'm not interested in that.
I think this is also good idea as after all it's increasing the number of people using the free product.
Same.
-
PP, You're turning Economics into Morality. Stop it.
-
piratePenguin,
You haven't raised any new points in your above post so I suppose I can't raise anything new by responding to each section of your post individualy (I can if you really wish I just don't see the point). So I think I'll approach this from a diffearnt angle.
I'm going to put across my interpritation of your view point and I'll put forward things from my perspective, please correct me (in the unlikely event) I make any errors.
Your stance:
Proprietary software is evil because the software companies are writing software and keeping their source code a trade secret this reduces the potential for competition to exist as they can also keep their data structures secret thus making it hard for their competitors software to interoperate with it.
ELUAs are an insult to humanity because they limit your rights to copy and redistribute the software, also they allow the turms of the licence to change without your consent.
GNU Linux should avoid it like the plague and make it as hard a possible for people to implement it on a Linux based operating system.
Proprietary software on Linux is a bad thing because it will push out free software and it'll become impossible to do my work with out it so I will have lost the right to choose to only support free software.
My oppinion:
Proprietary software is no more evil or selfish than earning money and not sharing the vast majority of it, competition would exist if many companies had equal market share as they'd all make their products interoperate with their competitor's, the only reason why this isn't the case is because Microsoft has a stranglehold on the entire industry it doesn't mean that propreitary software is evil.
ELUAs protect the company's right to keep control of their code and allow them to reep the benifits of their hard work. Any Licence can be changed without the user's consent and this includes the GPL - they can suddenly decide to make it proprietary if they own the copyright so in this respect it's not differant.
Actively encouraging free software on the Linux platform is a great idea because it's boosts investment in Linux on the whole and hence the userbase even more so when it comes to moving people away from Windows.
Right, now I'm going to pretend I agree with you on the basis that proprietary software is evil (even though I don't) but I shall also argue that allowing it's use on the Linux platform is ultimately good for GNU Linux and free software in general.
We've already established that allowing proprietary software on Linux will increase Linux's's userbase, now this will also cause the use of proprietary software to decline since people will drop Windows and move to Linux thus helping the GNU's cause.
Alright we've also said that the use of proprietary stuff on Linux will increase but this won't damage the free software already on the Linux platform, in fact it's likely to help it as the very action of getting more people to use Linux will introduce them to new free software. I doubt that people will start dropping Linux free software and switching to proprietary alternatives as they will have no need to, the proprietary software on Linux will mainly serve to accommodate ex-Windows users and fill in the gaps free software has largely forgot like design software and games.
People are inherently lazy and as you well know they tend to just use what software comes with their system, on Windows this was all proprietary (Internet Explorer Outlook etc.) but now on Linux this is mostly free so they're far more likely to drop their proprietary stuff for the free stuff just because it'd be too much effort not too.
Well I dunno what it's like to be in their situation so how the fuck can I speak for them?
That's your problem, you can't speak for others in who are totally reliant on proprietary software, you seem to blaming them for this, how is it their fault that they have requirements not meet by free software?
Here's some friendly advice for you, and please don't take offence I'm not being malicious in saying this:
You really need to try to be more objective, the secret to sucessful debating is to try and see things from as many angles as possible, then it's quite easy to predict how people are going to respond to you because you can see it from their perspective, this allows you to always remain one step ahead.
-
Personally, I would distinguish between Open Source software and Free Software. I use open source software because I can change it or borrow code if I want. I use free software because it's free. GNU software is both open and free, which makes it doubly cool.
Yeah, I know I'm not even a part of your little flamewars, but I thought I would post anyway.
-
You know, I this thread has a lot of Fuckidycocktards. ;)
-
PP, You're turning Economics into Morality. Stop it.
We're talking about GNU and the LGPL.
piratePenguin,
You haven't raised any new points in your above post so I suppose I can't raise anything new by responding to each section of your post individualy (I can if you really wish I just don't see the point). So I think I'll approach this from a diffearnt angle.
Just what I was thinking.
GNU Linux should avoid it like the plague and make it as hard a possible for people to implement it on a Linux based operating system.
No, GNU shouldn't welcome non-free software. They did it with the LGPL, but now I'm kinda thinking that they didn't do if because of this, but they did it because very quickly somone would've made another C library that would alow non-free software to link to, more people would use it, and perhaps, GNU would have to eventually too.
Proprietary software on Linux is a bad thing because it will push out free software and it'll become impossible to do my work with out it so I will have lost the right to choose to only support free software.
I wouldn't have lost the right, it'd only make it harder.
Proprietary software is no more evil or selfish than earning money and not sharing the vast majority of it
I think that's quite an exaggeration.
People need at least a small bit of money (or a large bit of money), to pay for whatever they need (quite a confusing term).
Most people only earn enough for themselves and maybe their family (and the government). If they had to give a "vast majority" of it to charity (that does, I think, qualify as sharing), they would be at a tremendous loss (depending on how much they earn and how much they share, they could be unable to pay rent and buy food.).
However, for some people, sharing a vast majority of what they earn wouldn't be such a danger (e.g. Bill Gates).
competition would exist if many companies had equal market share as they'd all make their products interoperate with their competitor's, the only reason why this isn't the case is because Microsoft has a stranglehold on the entire industry it doesn't mean that propreitary software is evil.
That might be true, but I can't really see this ever happening.
Microsoft isn't the first software company with a monopoly, and they might not be the last either.
Right, now I'm going to pretend I agree with you on the basis that proprietary software is evil (even though I don't) but I shall also argue that allowing it's use on the Linux platform is ultimately good for GNU Linux and free software in general.
Having read that (the rest of the post), I'm still not convinced.
A web-browser is a very important tool. If Opera allowd it, I would say that alot (probably most) of GNU/Linux distributions would ship with the non-free Opera web-browser. Firefox would have less users and developers, and in the future when new technologies are invented for the web, it'll be increasingly difficult to survive supporting only free software.
There are very few completely free GNU/Linux distributions out there (but that depends on what you mean by "completely free GNU/Linux distributions"). Most come with Java, and other less-significant non-free software.
I don't think explitically allowing non-free software on GNU will further GNU's cause (freedom), but I'd like to think otherwise.
That's your problem, you can't speak for others in who are totally reliant on proprietary software, you seem to blaming them for this, how is it their fault that they have requirements not meet by free software?
In what way do I seem to be blaming them?
I know my situation is pretty damn good. I know some other people's isn't so good. I don't know how important it is to them that they don't support non-free software. But I can narrow it down a small bit to: most people don't give a fuck. And IMO that's partly the reason that non-free everything and other (even slight) evils (or non-ideals) are so common in this world.
-
No, GNU shouldn't welcome non-free software. They did it with the LGPL, but now I'm kinda thinking that they didn't do if because of this, but they did it because very quickly somone would've made another C library that would alow non-free software to link to, more people would use it, and perhaps, GNU would have to eventually too.
The GPL wouldn't stop people from compiling proprietary software for Linux anyway, I could dynamically link my proprietary code to a GPL library and this wouldn't violate the licence because my program wouldn't actually contain any of the code.
People need at least a small bit of money (or a large bit of money), to pay for whatever they need (quite a confusing term).
Most people only earn enough for themselves and maybe their family (and the government). If they had to give a "vast majority" of it to charity (that does, I think, qualify as sharing), they would be at a tremendous loss (depending on how much they earn and how much they share, they could be unable to pay rent and buy food.).
However, for some people, sharing a vast majority of what they earn wouldn't be such a danger (e.g. Bill Gates).
You're only mentioning a big fat money grabing company here, what about the small proprietary software developer who's writing a small database application for a small company? They're only earning not earning a fat cat sallery and neither are they taking over the entire industry, how are they evil?
That might be true, but I can't really see this ever happening.
Well it does in the hardware industry and even in the software industry when it comes to things other than Office software and operating systems, I can name many diffreant drawing programs all competing with each other there's, Adobe Illustrator, Correl Draw, Micrografix Draw, Inkscape and Openoffice Draw. all of which co-exist happily without any trouble.
Microsoft isn't the first software company with a monopoly, and they might not be the last either.
I can't think of any other company, at first I was going to suggest Adobe but their format's open and they do have many significant competitiion.
Having read that (the rest of the post), I'm still not convinced.
Well I didn't hope to convince you I just wanted you to look at things from another perspective.
A web-browser is a very important tool. If Opera allowd it, I would say that alot (probably most) of GNU/Linux distributions would ship with the non-free Opera web-browser.
Yes they would and no doubt they'd also ship Firefox too, most Linux distributions come with three or so pieces of software capable of performing similar functions.
Firefox would have less users and developers,
That's competition for you.
and in the future when new technologies are invented for the web,
That's interesting you're now talking about inventions which leads nicely on to innovation something that Mozilla Firofox isn't in fact it's no more innovitive than Internet Explorer, all its features are coppied from elsewhere, it's only popular because it's free.
it'll be increasingly difficult to survive supporting only free software.
There are very few completely free GNU/Linux distributions out there (but that depends on what you mean by "completely free GNU/Linux distributions"). Most come with Java, and other less-significant non-free software.
I can see your point here, your main fear that proprietary software could become an essential evil in your otherwize clean free operating system, you've mentiond Java, but what would you have done if Sun hadn't ported Java? Would you GNU lot have gone about the traditional Linux approach of bashing togeather an inferiour half-baked only semmi-working alternative? You could say "hey I know it's shit but at least it's totally free" would this be really worth the trouble when it'd just put more roadblocks in front of people who want to use your operating system?
I'd also like to ask you, you seem to be very happy with your situation at the moment, why do you think this will/could change?
I don't think explitically allowing non-free software on GNU will further GNU's cause (freedom), but I'd like to think otherwise.
I know I've made this point before, but how would doing something that would potentially increase the use of GNU Linux which is free software reduce people's freedom in general? Increasing Linux's userbase will also encourage the development of free soiftware which would be great.
In what way do I seem to be blaming them?
Sorry, I suppose that was a bad choice of words, my point is you are being selfish by not careing for other people who hve other needs than your own.
I know my situation is pretty damn good. I know some other people's isn't so good. I don't know how important it is to them that they don't support non-free software. But I can narrow it down a small bit to: most people don't give a fuck. And IMO that's partly the reason that non-free everything and other (even slight) evils (or non-ideals) are so common in this world.
That's true your opinion only represents a small minority, so why do you want to make everyone else suffer because of what you believe is right? Why should I and many other people have to indure Windows just because a very small minority of people don't want vendors who produce the software we use to develop Linux versions of their products? So what even if you believe it might make life slightly harder for yourself (and I do doubt this) what about everyone else surely they are just as important if not even more so.
-
You know, I this thread has a lot of Fuckidycocktards. ;)
Just one that I can see. :D
Having said that, I long for the days when people could agree to disagree, particularly when neither party is going to convince the other that their particular viewpoint qualifies as absolute truth.
-
Aloone_Jonez is wrong.
PiratePenguin is wrong.
Worker201 is right.
(hehe, worker201 is drinking!)
-
The GPL wouldn't stop people from compiling proprietary software for Linux anyway, I could dynamically link my proprietary code to a GPL library and this wouldn't violate the licence
No you can't, actually.
You're only mentioning a big fat money grabing company here, what about the small proprietary software developer who's writing a small database application for a small company? They're only earning not earning a fat cat sallery and neither are they taking over the entire industry, how are they evil?
There are many, many people and companies that share all the source code that they own.
Do you think it's likely that many people could possibly share a vast majority of their wealth?
Because I do think (and many agree) that it's likely that many companies could share all their software and not be at a great loss.
Said database company, how would they lose out by makeing their software free? Especially if they're only makeing it for a single company - they can sell the source code to them (and to anyone else if they wish) and then offer whatever services to them.
Well it does in the hardware industry and even in the software industry when it comes to things other than Office software and operating systems, I can name many diffreant drawing programs all competing with each other there's, Adobe Illustrator, Correl Draw, Micrografix Draw, Inkscape and Openoffice Draw. all of which co-exist happily without any trouble.
How well do Adobe Illustrator, Correl Draw and Micrografix (whom I've never heard of) Draw read eachothers file formats?
I can't think of any other company, at first I was going to suggest Adobe but their format's open and they do have many significant competitiion.
There doesn't need to be any other company yet. Microsoft won't be gone for a long long time, most likely.
Yes they would and no doubt they'd also ship Firefox too, most Linux distributions come with three or so pieces of software capable of performing similar functions.
True.
That's competition for you.
If Opera was free, we could have two browsers of near-equal brilliance.
That's sharing for you.
That's interesting you're now talking about inventions which leads nicely on to innovation something that Mozilla Firofox isn't in fact it's no more innovitive than Internet Explorer, all its features are coppied from elsewhere
Netscape was the most innovative web-browser to date. Everyone is copying it.
I can see your point here, your main fear that proprietary software could become an essential evil in your otherwize clean free operating system, you've mentiond Java, but what would you have done if Sun hadn't ported Java? Would you GNU lot have gone about the traditional Linux approach of bashing togeather an inferiour half-baked only semmi-working alternative? You could say "hey I know it's shit but at least it's totally free" would this be really worth the trouble when it'd just put more roadblocks in front of people who want to use your operating system?
Err, no. gcj (http://gcc.gnu.org/java/)
If fact, if Sun never ported Java to GNU/Linux, I'd say gcj would probably have never been started.
There's no real need for an alternative to Java (as a language).
I'd also like to ask you, you seem to be very happy with your situation at the moment, why do you think this will/could change?
How couldn't it? There's non-free software everywhere. It significantly out numbers free software.
I've already answered this question with the Opera/Firefox bit.
But that's by no means the only way the situation for me could change.
I know I've made this point before, but how would doing something that would potentially increase the use of GNU Linux which is free software reduce people's freedom in general?
Well that's not all there is to it. Especially if people are switching to GNU/Linux just because of the non-free software.
Sorry, I suppose that was a bad choice of words, my point is you are being selfish by not careing for other people who hve other needs than your own.
Then in what way should I be caring for them?
That's true your opinion only represents a small minority, so why do you want to make everyone else suffer because of what you believe is right? Why should I and many other people have to indure Windows just because a very small minority of people don't want vendors who produce the software we use to develop Linux versions of their products? So what even if you believe it might make life slightly harder for yourself (and I do doubt this) what about everyone else surely they are just as important if not even more so.
You would all be able to use GNU/Linux at your will.
After reading http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html (again), I partly forgive GNU for inventing the LGPL.
-
What about the freedom to keep code to yourself?
You seem to be advocating the forced sharing of code, something I just can't do.
Information may 'want' to be free, but it often doesn't need to be.
Since your so adamant about sharing, why don't you share your social security number with us.
-
You seem to be advocating the forced sharing of code
On GNU.
EDIT: Forced isn't the right word.
I'm advocating: GNU shouldn't go out of your way to make non-free developers welcome.
Since your so adamant about sharing, why don't you share your social security number with us.
Don't even know what it means :p
-
No you can't, actually.
I can understand how statically linking you program with a GNU library conflicts with the licence because parts of it actuall become part of the closed source application, but if it's dynamically linke the library remains a separate entity, how does this conflict the the GNU licence?
There are many, many people and companies that share all the source code that they own.
Do you think it's likely that many people could possibly share a vast majority of their wealth?
Yes they could, and I have never disputed this, but how is not sharing code anymore immoral than sharing money, in my opinion the latter is far more evil. Money can potentially do far more good in the world and code it can proved people with food and water and then luxeries like computers, when code can only benifit people who are already well off enough toafford the latter.
Because I do think (and many agree) that it's likely that many companies could share all their software and not be at a great loss.
You tell that to Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs.
Said database company, how would they lose out by makeing their software free? Especially if they're only makeing it for a single company - they can sell the source code to them (and to anyone else if they wish) and then offer whatever services to them.
If they licence their code under the GPL the company buying it no longer has anympetitive advantage over their competitors since the code is now free they can all dip their fingers in and because of this it would no longer be worth buying code from them. You've mentionded services but they only generate a small amount of revinue compared to the software licences.
How well do Adobe Illustrator, Correl Draw and Micrografix (whom I've never heard of) Draw read eachothers file formats?
Just thought of another - Serif draw.
They don't, but they they can all both save and open in either or both of the two main standared vector fromats (.sgv and .wmf/.emf) oh no you're going to flame me becase the later are M$ formats! but they're open enough to allow bany programs to use them so it's not that bad.
There doesn't need to be any other company yet. Microsoft won't be gone for a long long time, most likely.
My personal opinion is that Microsoft will stop growing when people finall realise that there new products have little advantage over their older ones, even then people won't find alternatives like Linux they'll just keep using Windows.
If Opera was free, we could have two browsers of near-equal brilliance.
I'd like to think the same but I doubt this, people are far more likely to drop Firefox and use Opera. I doulbt code sharing would happen, for example I remember a while a go reading complaints about Draw lacking anti-alising on the OpenOffice forum I don't know why this is the case since thaey could have easily borrowed some of the code from Inkscape or the Gimp.
Netscape was the most innovative web-browser to date.
Netscape was the real pioneer of the web back in the early 90's however nowadays Opera is far more innovitave.
Err, no. gcj (http://gcc.gnu.org/java/)
But it's still following a Java a proprietary platform
If fact, if Sun never ported Java to GNU/Linux, I'd say gcj would probably have never been started.
Why do you think this?
People would still bicth about Linux not having Java and say they won't use it for that very reason.
There's no real need for an alternative to Java (as a language).
How couldn't it? There's non-free software everywhere. It significantly out numbers free software.
I've already answered this question with the Opera/Firefox bit.
So have I you'll always have a choice between the two, unless Opera goes open source in which case you probably wouldn't care anyway in fact you might even be happy.
But that's by no means the only way the situation for me could change.
Well that's not all there is to it. Especially if people are switching to GNU/Linux just because of the non-free software.
I made a piece of software I'd rather people used it because they believe it's superiour to all of the alternatives and it suits their needs the most rathter than just because it's free.
Then in what way should I be caring for them?
Alright, I'll turn this around then, why should they care for people who only use their OS to avoid proprietary software?
You would all be able to use GNU/Linux at your will.
No, my will is to use Linux but I can't because it won't run the software I need.
After reading http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html (again), I partly forgive GNU for inventing the LGPL.
Good, this article raises some good points and I can agree with most of it, the only thing I disagree with is their "we hate proprietary software" ethos.
-
I can understand how statically linking you program with a GNU library conflicts with the licence because parts of it actuall become part of the closed source application, but if it's dynamically linke the library remains a separate entity, how does this conflict the the GNU licence?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL)
Yes they could, and I have never disputed this, but how is not sharing code anymore immoral than sharing money
Because most people don't earn enough money to share without huge consequences. If they did, then I'd agree with you.
You tell that to Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs.
Apple already have made quite a few useful bits of Mac OS X free software, and now they're being implemented in many GNU/Linux distributions (and Windows and FreeBSD and Mac OS X too) (e.g. bonjour -> howl (http://www.porchdogsoft.com/products/howl/)).
But still, Apple have benefitted far more from free software (in the form of FreeBSD) than we've benefitted from them, IMO.
If they licence their code under the GPL the company buying it no longer has anympetitive advantage over their competitors since the code is now free they can all dip their fingers in and because of this it would no longer be worth buying code from them. You've mentionded services but they only generate a small amount of revinue compared to the software licences.
They don't have to licence their software under the GPL in order for it to be free.
If they're selling it to only one customer, they can keep the code until that customer buys it.
oh no you're going to flame me becase the later are M$ formats!
Actually I wasn't.
Why do you think this?
People would still bicth about Linux not having Java and say they won't use it for that very reason.
There would be no Java trap. OpenOffice.org might not be using Java.
And, those people should be bitching to Sun.
So have I you'll always have a choice between the two, unless Opera goes open source in which case you probably wouldn't care anyway in fact you might even be happy.
Ofcourse I would.
Alright, I'll turn this around then, why should they care for people who only use their OS to avoid proprietary software?
I'm not looking for love :p.
No, my will is to use Linux but I can't because it won't run the software I need.
Wrong.
Your will is to use GNU/Linux but you can't because the software that dictates what operating system you use hasn't been ported to GNU/Linux.
Good, this article raises some good points and I can agree with most of it, the only thing I disagree with is their "we hate proprietary software" ethos.
Evident where?
I quote again:
We have a choice: free or non-free.
I chose free, for two main reasons: free is the way things should be, and, non-free is the way things shouldn't be.
Do you agree that non-free is the way things shouldn't be?
-
btw, a social security number is an identification code given to each American citizen. They can be used to catalog and classify all kinds of neat information in diverse databases, thus controlling our lives with an SQL query.
Mine is 223345589
but not in that order.
-
I apologise for my last post, is wasn't up to my usual standard just look at some of those typos, I'm feel really embarrassed. :o
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL)
I'm very impressed that they've though about dynamic linking, I find it very interesting how a proprietary program can violate the GPL even though it doesn't contain one line of GPL'd code, I wonder what the lawyers will make of this one! :eek: I suppose at the end of the day if you hold the copyright for something then you can dictate how it's used as after all it's your property so if you create a library that you don't want proprietary programs to use then you can forbid them from doing so.
Because most people don't earn enough money to share without huge consequences. If they did, then I'd agree with you.
I can see your point but there again nearly everyone in the developed world earns significantly more than they need to survive, I bet you that if everyone gave up their most expensive luxury then there'd be more than enough revenue generated to lift the rest of world from poverty.
Apple already have made quite a few useful bits of Mac OS X free software, and now they're being implemented in many GNU/Linux distributions (and Windows and FreeBSD and Mac OS X too) (e.g. bonjour -> howl (http://www.porchdogsoft.com/products/howl/)).
But still, Apple have benefitted far more from free software (in the form of FreeBSD) than we've benefitted from them, IMO.
That's companies for you - out for their own gain rather than contributing to the greater good.
They don't have to licence their software under the GPL in order for it to be free.
That's true Opera is free and it isn't under GPL! :p Don't worry I do know what you mean, they're the LGPL and BSD licences.
If they're selling it to only one customer, they can keep the code until that customer buys it.
My point still remains valid, if you want to sell your software purely for its commodity value then the the (L)GPL/BSD licences aren't for you but they are suited to developers or are not profit driven or who gain revenue by selling their support and services, in fact some developers just want thier code to be used, in which case they use the BSD licence.
There would be no Java trap. OpenOffice.org might not be using Java.
If Sun weren't allowed to release Java on Linux then they wouldn't have been allowed Star Office so OpenOffice would have never existed in the first place! This proves a point I made a while back here (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9666&page=2&pp=25), just look at the final paragraph:
Simple, because proprietary developers will start to develop and improve Linux versions of their Windows products and if this happens Linux will become more attractive to people migrating away from Windows. Hopefully these companies will then start to invest money in Linux too, who knows they could even share some of their code too. Look at sun for example, Star Office was proprietary for years until they released OpenOffice, Opera is now free as in beer, who knows one day it might become truly free as well.
And, those people should be bitching to Sun.
Normally I'd agree with you but if GNU Linux didn't allow proprietary software then I would directly blame the free software foundation.
I'm not looking for love :p.
Don't worry I love you piratePenguin. ;)
Wrong.
Your will is to use GNU/Linux but you can't because the software that dictates what operating system you use hasn't been ported to GNU/Linux.
Correct, and people who hold the opinion that all non-free software is evil and should be banned from the Linux platform don't provide the developers any encouragement to port their software to Linux.
Evident where?
By the way it's worded:
Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising "more users for this library" if we let them use the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all.
They haven't directly said that they "hate proprietary software" but they repeatedly imply they're in direct competition with it; by doing this they're putting across their point that non-free software is their enemy.
Do you agree that non-free is the way things shouldn't be?
Well, Yes & No.
Firstly yes because I like free stuff and we'd be free from monopolys like Microsoft, I could elaborate more but I feel there is no need to as no doubt you are all aware of this side of the argument.
Then no, because I feel that free software lacks in some areas, (mainly games specialist engineering software and a word processor with a grammar checker) and no I don't feel all of these are due to the fact that proprietary software has made room for it. I'm not convinced that open source generates more innovate software or better quality either, yes I'm aware of all the arguments for this and I respect them but I don't buy into them.
Over all free software is a very good thing and a market dominated by it would be a definitely be ideal just as long as it doesn't crush the inventiveness of some proprietary developers. Proprietary software should and will always have its place namely in neich markets and games where sources of revenue like services and support are unavailable.
-
My point still remains valid, if you want to sell your software purely for its commodity value then the the (L)GPL/BSD licences aren't for you but they are suited to developers or are not profit driven or who gain revenue by selling their support and services, in fact some developers just want thier code to be used, in which case they use the BSD licence.
You can make money from free software - lots of people and companies do it.
If Sun weren't allowed to release Java on Linux then they wouldn't have been allowed Star Office
Star Office would still have existed, and they might well have released a free office suite. They could possibly have made Star Office free software, just so they could release it for GNU/Linux.
Anything could've happened, and it proves nothing.
Then no, because I feel that free software lacks in some areas, (mainly games specialist engineering software and a word processor with a grammar checker) and no I don't feel all of these are due to the fact that proprietary software has made room for it. I'm not convinced that open source generates innovate software or better quality either, yes I'm aware of all the arguments for this and I respect them but I don't buy into them.
Are you suggesting that non-free software is inherently better than free software?
I'd like to see more than anecdotal evidence for that!
-
Are you suggesting that non-free software is inherently better than free software?
I'd like to see more than anecdotal evidence for that!
No, that's just you pulling a strawman out of your ass.
-
You can make money from free software - lots of people and companies do it.
Where did I say that?
If you read my post again I said it depends on your source of revenue, if it's purely from the software itself then an open source licence probably isn't for you but if it's purly from the services and support you're providing from it then it might be right up your street.
Star Office would still have existed, and they might well have released a free office suite. They could possibly have made Star Office free software, just so they could release it for GNU/Linux.
It's possible I suppose but there again so are lots of things.
The main point is kicking proprietary software off GNU/Linux won't gain it any new users nor will it encourage people to develop innovitve new software for it, so I only can draw the conclusion that (apart from a very small minority who would only be pleased by this decision only on the gounds that they believe they might feel forced to use non-free software), the community as a whole will far be worse off without it.
Anything could've happened, and it proves nothing.
Neither does your response.
Are you suggesting that non-free software is inherently better than free software?
I didn't mean to imply this, all I was doing was highlighting areas where free software lacks or has completely missed altogether.
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.
I'd like to see more than anecdotal evidence for that!
I wasn't suggesting that but can you provide any strong evidence to prove otherwise?
I can't, all I can do is provide aguements to suggest why open source is supposed to be better but there again there is also no real hard evidence to back up these claims.
-
No, that's just you pulling a strawman out of your ass.
Actually, given the respective speakers and their polarised opinions, the ONLY two statements that make ANY sense right there are either "FOSS is better than non-FOSS," or "non-FOSS is better than FOSS." Quid erat demonstratum, no "strawman" is to be had here. Die dulci freure. :p
-
You know, having such a big stick up my ass, it does get sore after a while.
-
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.
-
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. (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=103826&postcount=70)
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? :D
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.
-
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? :D
Go wild ;)
-
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, LOL 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. :D
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 (http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Open_Source_Secure.html) 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.
-
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 (http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Open_Source_Secure.html) 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
-
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.
-
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..
-
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 (http://www.tamingthebeast.net/articles5/open-source-software.htm) simply lists the advantages and disadvantages of open source, while here (http://www.freeos.com/articles/4333/) is a ballanced discussion that tackles the all important question; Should all software be open sourced?
This website (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Contents.html) 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 (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Advantages_open_source_soft.html) and percieved disadvantages (http://eu.conecta.it/paper/Perceived_disadvantages_ope.html). Notice the wording? they say percieved disadvantages because they do not fully believe that they are significant issues but they address them anyway.
-
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))
-
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.
-
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.
-
Oh sorry, just rememberd this thread, again you're being overly simplistic. I sorry I can't give a yes/no answer to your question.
-
Oh sorry, just rememberd this thread, again you're being overly simplistic. I sorry I can't give a yes/no answer to your question.
So it is and isn't inherently less innovative?
If you believe that the licence has no say on the matter - then it should be a simple no!
-
This thread is still active, wow.
-
I was answering this:
I asked you if you believe that non-free is the way things shouldn't be
I can't say yes or no because it's not that simple.
Anyway I regret restarting this debat now as it's ceased being productive. Let's discuss things we agree on now, are you still interested in electronics?
I've had to switch from electronics to electrical at work because they didn't have any electronic job vacancies, I'm glad of this because I can keep it as my hobby. I'm concerned now that there's no future in electronic engineering in the UK, most of the available jobs seem to be electrical as we will always need power.
-
are you still interested in electronics?
Yea, I guess a job in electronics would be pretty cool, but I think I'm gonna be an accountant or something totally unrelated to my hobbies.
-
.
-
Yea, I guess a job in electronics would be pretty cool, but I think I'm gonna be an accountant or something totally unrelated to my hobbies.
Accountant? Save yourself the trouble and just kill yourself now, either way your just as dead.
-
Accountant? Save yourself the trouble and just kill yourself now, either way your just as dead.
My (main) money-earning job wouldn't have to pretty, it's only for survival anyhow (My hobbies would be for Survival.). And accountants generally get alot of money from what I know, and I'm doing accountancy in school and it's piss easy (I'm sure it'd be much harder in the real world but it can't be too hard).
I've also thought about being a lawyer or a lecturer (that would totally rock). An architect would also be a good job, but I'm so freeking uncreative it's not even funny. My brother's studying to be an architect and I think I'd be fit for everything but the "design me something original and cool" bit, the actual architecture bit. Civil engineer would also be a good job.
Meh, I dunno where I pulled "accountancy" from.
-
Yes, I agree, a job is means to and end, get one that you can tollerate and pays reasonably well and you're sorted. Often you're better off not having a job as a hobby as it can ruin it if you're not careful.