All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
MS-DOS Date
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Why is the LGPL bad?
--- End quote ---
Go find my post.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---What's so bad about companies being allowed to develop non-free software for Linux?
--- End quote ---
It will[i/] put more pressure on me to use the non-free applications.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---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.
--- End quote ---
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).
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---That's the good thing about Linux, you have a choice.
--- End quote ---
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?
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Go find my post.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---It will[i/] put more pressure on me to use the non-free applications.
--- End quote ---
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?
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---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!
--- End quote ---
Even if this is true, this would be better than things staying the way they are.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---I doubt it very much. It'd only make things much harder.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Plus, I like the way things are hopefully headed (and I've already explained this before).
--- End quote ---
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!
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---We have a choice now, but in ten years time, will we?
--- End quote ---
We'd have more choice if Linux was more popular with proprietary applications than we do now with Windows.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---If we keep accepting non-free software, wouldn't it make things harder in the future to go free-direction?
--- End quote ---
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?
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---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.
--- End quote ---
http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=100243&postcount=23
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---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?
--- End quote ---
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.).
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Even if this is true, this would be better than things staying the way they are.
--- End quote ---
The way they are? Are you serious? Things couldn't be better - in my situation and alot of other people's situations.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---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:
--- End quote ---
That, and the bit before it, was for the last paragraph of your legendary post :p
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---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!
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---We'd have more choice if Linux was more popular with proprietary applications than we do now with Windows.
--- End quote ---
But we'd have less choice, and more hastle, for those who don't want to support non-free software.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---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:
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Which beggs another question do you think WINE is bad for Linux too?
--- End quote ---
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.
skyman8081:
Aloone_Jonez:
Thanks for wasting my bandwidth skyman :rolleyes:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=100243&postcount=23
--- End quote ---
Yes let's look at that post in more detail:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---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.
--- End quote ---
Why is reducing people's choice of software availble on the platform a good thing?
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---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.
--- End quote ---
You still haven't said why allowing non free software on to a free OS is a bad idea.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---But they did it so the operating system could survive
--- End quote ---
No they did it to boost its popularity.
--- Quote --- and maybe someday go mainstream.
--- End quote ---
Without the industry backing it?
I don't think so.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin --- I've no doubt that the operating system would definetly have survived
--- End quote ---
Of couse it would have survided, but there's a very big differance between surviving and flourishing.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin --- (we've got free alternatives for almost everything.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin --- Currently we don't need non-free software for a usable system.),
--- End quote ---
So what?
How is this going to change?
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---but going mainstream is another thing entirely.
--- End quote ---
Which won't happen unless you allow proprietary software on the scene.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---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.
--- End quote ---
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?
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---I'd much prefer everything to be free software.
--- End quote ---
Well I prefer free software too it saves me money but I'm mature enough to accept that everything can't be free.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin --- And to outlaw non-free software
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---rather than welcome it like GNU did when they invented the LGPL.
--- End quote ---
If welcomming proprietary software will further Linux's goal of becomming the main OS than I think it'd be worth it.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---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.).
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---The way they are? Are you serious? Things couldn't be better - in my situation and alot of other people's situations.
--- End quote ---
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?
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---That, and the bit before it, was for the last paragraph of your legendary post :p
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---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.
--- End quote ---
So, just carry on using you non-free software then, nothing's going to stop you.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---But we'd have less choice, and more hastle, for those who don't want to support non-free software.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---I'm in two bandwagons - the anti-Microsoft one and the free-software one.
--- End quote ---
So am I, but that doesn't make me totally anti-proprietary.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin --- 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),
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin --- or to a free operating system (e.g. FreeBSD, GNU/Linux) and used mostly non-free software to do their work.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version