Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX
Distro help. Please?
Dark_Me:
Yay! My reps back in the green!
--- Quote ---And on the licencing/closed source issue it depends on how it's used. Take MS for example. They place restictions on their software to gain an unfair advatage in the market. However someone may ligitamately place ristictions on their software to protect their hard work. Hackers gotta eat.
--- End quote ---
That didn't take too much thought. It's the whole duality of "good"/"evil" thing. Everything can be used for "good" or "evil". Take say, a sword, it can be used for defending ones home and family or for attacking antothers home and family.
You may have noticed the qoutes on "good" and "evil". Thats because my own personal belifes have a more Buddist leaning (I think, I'm not one). I myself belive that "good" and "evil are concepts that only exist in the human mind and not in reality.
I wonder, has anyone ever hijacked their own thread before?
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: Dark_Me ---Yay! My reps back in the green!
--- End quote ---
I don't know why it was ever out of the green, as in my oppinion you've haven't made a post worthy of any negitive reputation yet.
--- Quote from: Dark_Me ---That didn't take too much thought. It's the whole duality of "good"/"evil" thing. Everything can be used for "good" or "evil". Take say, a sword, it can be used for defending ones home and family or for attacking antothers home and family.
--- End quote ---
The same with guns I suppose but there again you would not have to use the sword or gun if your home and familly weren't under threat by evil. Cars are a good example they make our lives easier but if used irresponsibly they kill people.
--- Quote from: Dark_Me ---You may have noticed the qoutes on "good" and "evil". Thats because my own personal belifes have a more Buddist leaning (I think, I'm not one). I myself belive that "good" and "evil are concepts that only exist in the human mind and not in reality.
--- End quote ---
That's a very interesting point.
--- Quote from: Dark_Me ---I wonder, has anyone ever hijacked their own thread before?
--- End quote ---
This debate always takes over when some open source software is compared with similar closed source software and it often drags on for a few pages until we get bored of it and give up.
Dark_Me:
The problem is not the argument or the people making it but that your trying to find moral absolutes. This particular issue is nether "good" nor "evil". It is ether both "good" and "evil" or nether.
The world is nether black nor white nor even grey but all the colours of the rainbow. And we have noone tell us what the colours are. - Me
piratePenguin:
mostYou don't have to be a programmer to support free software.
The non-free developers work hard to take away your freedom. Why shouldn't that be enough to not-support them and support the alternatives that give you all the freedom you could ask for?
If a free ext2 driver only has read support and no write, then that's not even an accidental restriction on your "freedom". Maybe a bit of support is all they need? You could always ask/pay them/someone to get write-support working.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Depends on your view, I hate it when people say "it might be superiour but I won't use it because they won't let me view the source" no wonder people think the GNU fan club are a load of stuck up biggots.
--- End quote ---
Try this: "it might be a better program, but I won't support it's developers (in any way) because they're actually putting effort into restricting my freedom". Is there something wrong with that?
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---I'm neither for it nor against it but in some cases I've seen it produce better quality software so for this reason alone I think it should stay. Open source is good and I'm definitely for it but I don't believe it produces better quality software and under certain circumstances I believe the reverse is true but I accept that there is nothing but anecdotal evidence to prove either way.
--- End quote ---
Funny, I thought you believed that the licence had nothing to do with the quality of the product?
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ([url ---http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=103899&postcount=89[/url])] thought I'd already established this, the licence doesn't determine the quality of software, the developers do.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---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.
--- End quote ---
What about the fs-driver developers, eh?
Also, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---and having the source doesn't mean jack if you're not a programmer.
--- End quote ---
In a similar way that whether Jews are being thrown into concentration camps means jack shit to non-Jewish people? Alot of them didn't give a shit, but you shouldn't disrespect them who did (feel free to disrespect them who didn't, IMO).
I know it's not the same thing, and I didn't sugest that it is. My point is that something doesn't have to directly effect you in order for you to support it (and whether a program is free will directly effect you) or to refuse to support opponents to that something. If you think software should be free, that's enough, whether you are or aren't a programmer (I wouldn't call myself a programmer).
Why do you think "open source" is a good thing Aloone_Jonez? Are you a programmer?
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---I say bullshit if you create something then you have a choice as to whether you release the blueprints no one else
--- End quote ---
I never disagreed with that. I'm for users supporting free software and refusing to support non-free software (unless absolutely necessary. Non-free software is so rampant some people don't have much choice but to support it in one way or another.). If enough people did it, things would likely go their way. And the (software-)world would be a better place. Better software (due to people and companies collaborating more), and everyone's free and it'd be easier to break out of lock-ins (should they occur).
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---and no, you're not evil for choosing not too disclose your secrets.
--- End quote ---
Well IMO you are (e.g. if I asked some company could I have the code for their printer driver so I could improve it, and they said no. This happened RMS once (long time ago), he wasn't impressed.), and thus I won't support you unless I absolutely must (exclude software on PLAs or whatever crap. I never put it there, I was never asked what I wanted there).
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Microsoft this, Microsoft that, Windows 2000, non of the aforementioned have been brought up here, we're talking about a program that lets you read ext under Windows for fuck sake.
--- End quote ---
So what? He had a damn good point against what you said.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Why the fuck should any company pay anyone to fix another company's product?
What motive would they possibly have for reparing Windows 2000?
--- End quote ---
Lots.
If they were running Windows (2000), then they can have their computers have less bugs or change it to be whatever they want it to be.
Why would any company bug fix any program they didn't write? Ask Red Hat.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---If I were to employ someone to repair a bug in an open source program then that modification would also be open source so it'd give me no advantage over my competitors.
--- End quote ---
The bug would be fixed (you will benefit if you use the software. And so will every other user of that software), people might begin to respect you/your company. Just take a look at Xara!
--- Quote from: inkscape.org ---Xara Sponsors XAR/SVG Converter Development
October 2, 2005
Xara announced last week that it is sponsoring Eric Wilhelm for $10,000 to develop a conversion utility based on Uber-Converter, a library for creating 2D vector format conversion tools. This tool will enable Xara users to interoperate with Inkscape and other SVG-based tools.
--- End quote ---
Suddenly, I know I love Xara far more (because they did a good thing).
[not-exactly-ontopic]
--- Quote from: inkscape.org ---Xara Goes Open Source
October 14, 2005
Xara has announced that they are porting Xara Xtreme to Linux and will be releasing it as Open Source under the GPL! There is a prototype version available and an intriguing video for download.
It is not yet known when the source code will be made available; presumably a matter of weeks. Xara also expresses interest in working closely with Inkscape to find ways we can share code, coordinate efforts, and make Open Source graphics superior to anything available in the proprietary world.
--- End quote ---
Xara->Love *= 100;[/not-exactly-ontopic]
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---No, as this is already the case with lots of cars under 10 years old, lots of the parts are non-user serviceable, just you try to fix a car that has a bug in the ECU.
--- End quote ---
What if it was something that you knew you could fix pretty damn easilly?
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Face it.
99.99% of people don't care.
99.99% of people don't give a fuck about the source.
99.99% of people just want software to work out of the box.
99.99% of people. . . Oh well I hope you get the point you're a minority.
--- End quote ---
In that case, .01% of people do care, and they've started a damn-huge movement, and I'll support them. Got a problem with that?
--- Quote from: Alone_Jonez ---Please try to understand the concept that choosing not to share the source is no more evil than choosing not to share most of your money. Sharing money can do a fuck of a lot more than sharing code can. Sharing of the former can save people from starvation and buy them computers while sharing of the latter is only any good when they're already well off enough to buy computer.
--- End quote ---
If you start a movement of (rich aswell as just about confertable) people giving the majority of their money to charity, I'll support you too.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---In this case the only thing restrictive about the license is that you distribute the software as is without any modifications, oh FUCK ME THIS IS SO UNFAIR I CAN'T USE IT BECAUSE OF THIS RESTRICTION IS SO FUCKING EVIL LOL LOLOLOLOLOLOLOZZZZZZ. OMG I'VE COMMITED A FUCKING SIN! LET'S HAVE THE DEVELOPERS BURNED ALIVE.
--- End quote ---
Have a bit of respect.
Wasn't it you that suggested to me that I try better to look at things from other peoples perspective?
Hypocrite.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---hmmm, let me think, I can eitther use a piece of software that perfectly suits my needs and has a restriction placed on it that means I can't modify it and I have to distribute it as is, or use a shitty piece of software that I'll have to go to college and learn how to program to modify it to get it to do what I want. Duh, fucktard, of course I'm going to use the one that works perfectly and I don't give a fuck about the restrictions placed one it as why the hell should I want to modify it as it does exactly fucking what I want it to do.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: me ---Try this: "it might be a better program, but I won't support it's developers (in any way) because they're actually putting effort into restricting my freedom". Is there something wrong with that?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---*sigh another thread fucked up by the hapless free/non-free debate*
--- End quote ---
True.
--- Quote from: Dark_Me ---They place restictions on their software to gain an unfair advatage in the market.
--- End quote ---
Example, please? You're talking about in the licence, right?
(reason I'm asking is because Microsoft use much the same kinda restrictions as the much of every other non-free software developer in the world)
--- Quote from: Dark_Me ---However someone may ligitamately place ristictions on their software to protect their hard work.
--- End quote ---
The GPL does a good enough job of that.
Good enough for Xara anyhow.
--- Quote from: Dark_Me ---Hackers gotta eat.
--- End quote ---
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
Whatever thousand of free software developers do eat.
Aloone_Jonez:
I don't care about this debate any more there are more important things to discuss, sure I could go through and refute eveything in your post but I don't see what it'd achieve as you and I haven't raised any new issues. I did think about deleting my previous post but I thaught, fuck it I've posted it and you'd probably written a response so I thought it would've been rude to have deleted it.
I think we should both just calm down and walk away from this one as the debate as ceased being productive.
Edit: Hang on I haven't finished yet there are more people in this thread than piratePenguin, I am aware of his opinions on this matter but what about other people.
Dark_Me,
Let's go back to the point you made bofore:
--- Quote from: Dark_Me ---You may have noticed the qoutes on "good" and "evil". Thats because my own personal belifes have a more Buddist leaning (I think, I'm not one). I myself belive that "good" and "evil are concepts that only exist in the human mind and not in reality.
--- End quote ---
This suggests that people will have differant opinions of what good and evil are which is kind of like the GNU debate.
Have you read the other flame wars about free/non-free software before?
How about anti-MS articles on this site and others, have you read them too?
Short of forcing all software to be open source what do you think could be done to improve things?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version