Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: worker201 on 16 August 2005, 23:10
-
Somebody here at Microsuck has this signature:
WE ARE THE GNU! LOWER YOUR COSTS AND OPEN YOUR SOURCE. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE, YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.
Personally, I don't think this is how GNU feels. And as an open-source proponent, it is certainly not how I feel. There may be a couple people out there who talk shit with no reason. But that is no reason to dump on the GNU. GNU is a loosely aligned group of people who write good software. As far as I know, they only thing they have ever done as a group is set up an ftp mirror.
Comments?
-
Skyman?
-
The person who has that sig isn't important. The post was about whether or not the GNU is as bad as the sig implies. It seems to me that Microsoft is more akin to the borg than open source software and ideals. If you don't like the direction a certain software package is heading, you can take it and do whatever you want with it, on your own terms. I see no assimilating going on there.
-
The signature skyman has is for 'trol material only' apperantly you have been sucked into the trap worker201. DFTEC which means 'don't feed the energy creature'
just don't reply to troll things which is what skyman wants. The only way to avoid being a troll hunter is to not respond to troll posts (like kintaro's here
http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9553
which we have done a good job at not replying)
-
Hey, I uh, don't think worker201 is actually trying to talk about skyman...
-
Hey, I uh, don't think worker201 is actually trying to talk about skyman...
please. just please. Don't play the cards.
-
What are you talking about?
Stop trolling this thread.
-
Actually, skyman is an efriend of mine, and we have discussed issues of gnu and open source and Linux vs Windows extensively in our spare time. I don't care too much for his signature, and what it implies. But I wanted other people's opinions, and perhaps a little bit of discussion. So thanks for the trolling.
-
DBX_5 please stop going around accusing people of trolling as in doing so you're trolling yourself. :D
-
DBX, Drop it!
As for my sig, it is a light-hearted poke at how The hypothetical "GNU Operating system" is kludged from various things, such as how the Borg is a loose amalgamation of various species. Any individual accomplishment by a free software app is wholesale blanketed to all of the FSF movement "Another victory for free software!", indeed a situation of "Your biological and technological distictiveness will be added to our own". And how a lot of the GNUsaders I have talked to want EVERY peice of software under the GPL, "resistance is futile, you will be assimilated."
If anything, MS is Species 8472, very dense, and just melts through anything. If it makes you feel better, I equate the GNU movement with TNG-era borg, and not the ones from Voyager. I don't put all of open source under it, just the die-hard GPL nuts.
It's just a sig, get over it!
PS. I'm a Warsie.
-
HEY!!!!!
i am not the one making a fuss about it. im just pointing out something obviously somebody (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=100872&postcount=1) didnt portray to the world properly.
I always knew skyman's sig was a joke, (I believe a user PMd' him about it once) it is more of a conversation piece I know it, and you have made me :nothappy: by acusing me of getting over it when was already over..
btw- skyman thankyou for the interesting reading on species 8472 .
For those newbies who have no idea, refer to this link
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/3448/species8472.html
-
It's just a sig, get over it!
I wish I could of said that for Mr X , you would of understood.
-
MrX was just an idiot jackass with a 500x500 image.
Mine is one line of text.
Whats the problem?
-
Thread Cleansed.
DBX take note, your shit will not be tolerated in this forum.
-
How can you not read that sig and not laugh?
-
sorry but I appearantly have wrecked this thread.
-
If you don't like the direction a certain software package is heading, you can take it and do whatever you want with it, on your own terms.
I assume, by "on your own terms", you mean "by the terms of the General Public License", right? ;)
-
I assume, by "on your own terms", you mean "by the terms of the General Public License", right? ;)
If your own terms don't comply with the GPL, then, then, then...
What's wrong with the GPL?
-
It makes it harder to make money as it doesn't protect your code and algorithms from the competition and there's no way of forcing people to pay to use your software. I can think of plenty of pieces of software that wouln'd be as good if they'd been released under the GPL and I certainly wouldn't relese a GPL program if I wanted to make serious money.
-
What's wrong with the GPL?
Nothing wrong specifically ...
It is just that technological superiority in computer software businesses must be protected by distributing software as binaries. Otherwise anybody can copy the code, and make a competing product.
And since most software businesses make money by selling closed-source binary software distributions, then GPL won't stand a chance in the enterprise ...
The only way GPL can be used in the enterprise is with the de-facto technologies, like HTML/XHTML clients/servers (Apache), OpenGL (mesa, SDL), X-window system (X.org, XFree86) ...
These de-facto software technologies have been OPENLY STANDARDIZED, and so one can implement a conforming application as open source project.
But still most closed source apps like Microsoft Office, Corel products, Adobe products, Macromedia Flash ... they all depend on their proprietary formats and the apps that run/create them. Unless all their relevant protocols and fileformats are TOTALLY standardized in the open, no really good GPL software can be created to compete with their products. And so they can make money by selling software ...
-
It makes it harder to make money as it doesn't protect your code and algorithms from the competition and there's no way of forcing people to pay to use your software.
The GPL was designed for the benefit of the software and not it's owners, that is true.
I can think of plenty of pieces of software that wouln'd be as good if they'd been released under the GPL
I think that if all software was licenced under the GPL, then whover does the best job of Photoshop or The GIMP or Firefox or Internet Explorer or iTunes (or whoever the community chooses to develop whatever software (by paying for it)) will be the ones developing it (and getting paid for it), and the software is therefore as good as possible.
If the kernel went to shit, then some software company could fork it and improve it, and then they'd be the primary developers and they'd make some money.
and I certainly wouldn't relese a GPL program if I wanted to make serious money.
Well there's people that write software with the aim of making money, and others that write software with the am of making some good software. If you're in the former, then the GPL might not be the best choice unless you're a brilliant programmer, but it's not an impossible choice either.
Nothing wrong specifically ...
Good!
It is just that technological superiority in computer software businesses must be protected by distributing software as binaries. Otherwise anybody can copy the code, and make a competing product.
And if the competing product is better than the original, then it'll gain popularity. And if the original developers can't produce anything even better, they get fucked. That's competition. It's all good for the end-user, and all bad for the developers that can't produce better code than anyone else.
And since most software businesses make money by selling closed-source binary software distributions, then GPL won't stand a chance in the enterprise ...
So be it!
But still most closed source apps like Microsoft Office, Corel products, Adobe products, Macromedia Flash ... they all depend on their proprietary formats and the apps that run/create them. Unless all their relevant protocols and fileformats are TOTALLY standardized in the open, no really good GPL software can be created to compete with their products. And so they can make money by selling software ...
Um. OpenOffice.org. The GIMP. Inkscape.
And a closing thought: Inkscape + animation (currently under development) + scripting (dunno if it's even planned, but I'd guess it'll be possible) = Flash.
-
The GPL was designed for the benefit of the software and not it's owners, that is true.
And that's why it's not very popular.
I think that if all software was licenced under the GPL, then whover does the best job of Photoshop or The GIMP or Firefox or Internet Explorer or iTunes (or whoever the community chooses to develop whatever software (by paying for it)) will be the ones developing it (and getting paid for it), and the software is therefore as good as possible.
This isn't always the case, in specialised fields like engineering this isn't true as the software is very expensive and is mainly purchased by companies, Pro engineer, Protel, Electronics workbench are all way better than their open source counterparts. I'll discuss more mainstreem software at the end of this post.
Good!
And if the competing product is better than the original, then it'll gain popularity. And if the original developers can't produce anything even better, they get fucked. That's competition. It's all good for the end-user, and all bad for the developers that can't produce better code than anyone else.
I think this speaks for it's self as to why people don't invest much in opensource projects.
Um. OpenOffice.org. The GIMP. Inkscape.
And a closing thought: Inkscape + animation (currently under development) + scripting (dunno if it's even planned, but I'd guess it'll be possible) = Flash.
OpenOffice doesn't quite beat MS office when it comes to features.
How long did it take for The Gimp to develop CYMK support?
Even now it's done by the addition of a plugin.
Inkscape looks very good but it's still in the early stages of development and doesn't yet quite match up to Corel draw.
-
This isn't always the case, in specialised fields like engineering this isn't true as the software is very expensive and is mainly purchased by companies, Pro engineer, Protel, Electronics workbench are all way better than their open source counterparts. I'll discuss more mainstreem software at the end of this post.
I was talking about if _all_ software was free (as in freedom) software.
I think this speaks for it's self as to why people don't invest much in opensource projects.
Didn't Ubuntu get ten million something off Conanonical? Although I got no idea if they'll ever get a penny back hehe.
OpenOffice doesn't quite beat MS office when it comes to features.
Doesn't have to. The GIMP beats XPaint on features. But some people still use XPaint.
It just has to be better software for the particular users needs/wants.
How long did it take for The Gimp to develop CYMK support?
No idea.
Even now it's done by the addition of a plugin.
All the better. It's not a third party plugin, it's provided by default. The GIMP has native CMYK support, and I can disable it with the click of a checkbox. Excellent!
The fact that it's a plugin isn't a bad thing.
Inkscape looks very good but it's still in the early stages of development and doesn't yet quite match up to Corel draw.
Right.
Why are we talking about free_software_product versus non_free_software_product anyhow? This is GPL (general. public. LICENCE.) versus the world. I was more expecting some actual bad points about the GPL licence, not GPL software.
EDIT: And I was also hoping for GPL versus the BSD licence rather than GPL versus insult_to_humanity_and_development non-free licence (eg. MS EULA).
-
As far as the licence is concerned it's not a majour factor in my choice of software. I look more at value for money, i.e. features (whether it'll do want I want) and how easy it is to learn before I even look at the licence - even more so if I were running a business and in which case I'd also consider support. I don't know why the fuck people get so hung up on licence as it's such a insignificant thing in the scheme of things.
-
Whenever I'm chosing software, non-free software is out of the question. Why? Because, I believe that non-free sofware is an insult_to_humanity_and_development. "I wrote X. I own X. You will give me Y in return for X. You are not allowd to modify X in any way. You must not distribute X in anyway. . I wrote X. I own you." (couldn't resist that last sentence) Just read the damn MS EULA. There's no way I can reproduce it making it somehow look more insulting.
Free software, on the other hand, is the right way to go.
EDIT: after that, when I'm chosing software, I give no crap if it's BSD-licenced or GPL licenced or LGPL-licenced. But when I'm writing code, it's GPL GPL GPL GPL, unless I'm contributing to another free-software project using a different free software licence.
I don't know why the fuck people get so hung up on licence as it's such a insignificant thing in the scheme of things.
...
-
Whenever I'm chosing software, non-free software is out of the question. Why? Because, I believe that non-free sofware is an insult_to_humanity_and_development. "I wrote X. I own X. You will give me Y in return for X. You are not allowd to modify X in any way. You must not distribute X in anyway. .
The software creator is providing you with software for a fee. How is it suck an insult to humanity that someone provides a service to you in return for something?
What would be an insult to humanity is if people couldn't create software and receive something in return for it. :rolleyes:
I wrote X. I own you." (couldn't resist that last sentence) Just read the damn MS EULA. There's no way I can reproduce it making it somehow look more insulting.
Right, now you're making sense, there's should be more laws in place to restrict the conditions software vendors can place on their users but what you're suggesting goes to the other extreme - communism. :rolleyes:
Free software, on the other hand, is the right way to go.
EDIT: after that, when I'm chosing software, I give no crap if it's BSD-licenced or GPL licenced or LGPL-licenced. But when I'm writing code, it's GPL GPL GPL GPL, unless I'm contributing to another free-software project using a different free software licence.
...
So if you owned a business and you had a choice bewteen two pieces of software, one is free but will only serve half your needs and the other is perfect for you but costs
-
The software creator is providing you with software for a fee. How is it suck an insult to humanity that someone provides a service to you in return for something?
I wasn't referring to that, I was referring to everything but that.
Quite a difference.
What would be an insult to humanity is if people couldn't create software and receive something in return for it. :rolleyes:
Right, now you're making sense, there's should be more laws in place to restrict the conditions software vendors can place on their users but what you're suggesting goes to the other extreme - communism. :rolleyes:
You misinterpreted what I said.
So if you owned a business and you had a choice bewteen two pieces of software, one is free but will only serve half your needs and the other is perfect for you but costs
-
Read my post again PROPERLY ffs :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
What were you trying to say then?
"It's wrong for a company to write a piece of software and for them to keep the source to themselves and impose certain restrictions on how people are allowed to use the binary.
All software should be free, and companies should have release the source code, and people can do what the like with it providing they adhere to the GPL, BSD or whatever."
My point about you not being very good at making money is true if you would use some inferior freesoftware over some better although much more expensive propietry sofware. This would indicate you have no idea about getting value for money and to make money you need an idea of what value for money is.
My point of view is if you write a piece of software you can do what the fuck you like with it (get used to it) providing you own all of the code. If you want you can release it under the GPL (which is communism although by your own choice) if you like or if you want to make serious money you can keep your trade secrets.
The biggest problem with Microsoft is not the ELUA (altough if doesn't help things) it's the lack of competition. This debate is silly really since you're the user you can choose what software you use and sure you should look at the licence but it shouldn't be the final deturmining factor in your choice, value for money should be.
-
What were you trying to say then?
"It's wrong for a company to write a piece of software and for them to keep the source to themselves and impose certain restrictions on how people are allowed to use the binary.
Exactly. Except I said that it's an insult to humanity etc.
All software should be free, and companies should have release the source code, and people can do what the like with it providing they adhere to the GPL, BSD or whatever."
Now that you added in yourself, but. Good.
My point about you not being very good at making money is true if you would use some inferior freesoftware over some better although much more expensive propietry sofware. This would indicate you have no idea about getting value for money and tomake money you need an idea of what value for money is.
How would I lose money by using GNU/Linux with only free software on my desktop and all the other desktops say in some web-design office I setup? The web-designers can use The GIMP for making raster images or editing some photos, Inkscape for the odd icon, and NVU if they're too noob for emacs, vim, gedit, or whatever.
In what areas in any type of business (not only web-design) would I be losing money? Or what job even?
My point of view is if you write a piece of software you can do what the fuck you like with it (get used to it) providing you own all of the code. If you want you can release it under the GPL (which is communism although by your own choice) if you like or if you want tomake serious money you can keep your trade secrets.
Elaborate on the GPL == communism bit please.
The biggest problem with Microsoft is not the ELUA (altough if doesn't help things) it's the lack of competition.
The EULA as an example of a non-free software licence. And non-free software is a big problem.
If you rented a one bedroom appartment (for one person only), and before renting it you had to agree that only you could step inside it... Alot of people would see this as a problem. EDIT: Why they don't realise similar problems with non-free software, I don't understand. The licences clearly state "You must not allow anyone else to use this software. Blahblahblah.".
This debate is silly really since you're the user you can choose what software you use
In that case, there is no problem with Microsoft whatsoever.
and sure you should look at the licence but it shouldn't be the final deturmining factor in your choice, value for money should be.
That's your opinion. I believe otherwise.
-
The only way GPL can be used in the enterprise is with the de-facto technologies, like HTML/XHTML clients/servers (Apache), OpenGL (mesa, SDL), X-window system (X.org, XFree86)
And of the software's you mentioned , only SDL is licensed under the GPL - and it's actually the LGPL. The rest are released under BSD-like licenses.
If your primary goal is adoption of software, then the GPL is not really the best choice.
-
How would I lose money by using GNU/Linux with only free software on my desktop and all the other desktops say in some web-design office I setup? The web-designers can use The GIMP for making raster images or editing some photos, Inkscape for the odd icon, and NVU if they're too noob for emacs, vim, gedit, or whatever.
In what areas in any type of business (not only web-design) would I be losing money? Or what job even?
Alright here's a situation were I would loose money if I decided to use GNU/Linux, an electronics engineering firm. I could use Protel DXP running on Windows XP (I can't remember how much it costs but it's >
-
And of the software's you mentioned , only SDL is licensed under the GPL - and it's actually the LGPL. The rest are released under BSD-like licenses.
If your primary goal is adoption of software, then the GPL is not really the best choice.
Definetly. But for RMS and like-believers, adoption isn't the most important thing.
Alright here's a situation were I would loose money if I decided to use GNU/Linux, an electronics engineering firm. I could use Protel DXP running on Windows XP (I can't remember how much it costs but it's >
-
piratePenguin, I strongly agree with you. Free Software is the right way to go, no matter the results. Nevertheless, since the results are at least adequate, I will gladly force myself through a small amount of suffering (people laughing, extra work, extra things to learn (since when is this a bad thing?), having to give up certain services) to be a member of the Free Software Community. In addition to that, I find myself in a great advantage to all the local Win-Users, and even the Mac folks.
I must say I will miss your GNU avatar. I hope you plan to return to it yet.
-
Wow, is it really that bad?
I've read the first half of volume one of these (http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits) books. The person who wrote it is a lecturer, and the book is intended mainly for his students. The only software he teaches in it is SPICE (http://bwrc.eecs.berkeley.edu/Classes/IcBook/SPICE/). What an evil fucker!
SPICE isn't very user friendly, and it's not just simulation there's PCB and mechanical design softaware for Windows that simply surpasses anything written for GNU Linux.
I'm not talking about sharing wealth or anything else but source code.
It is if the author is relying on the source code for their wealth.
Because when they rent you a house, only you can step foot inside the frontdoor.
I'm losing out on nothing.
Since when have you rented a house from the aforementioned?
We're talking about software here, not renting accommodation.
I rest my case, the problem here is not proprietary software it's companies like Microsoft and the law giving them too much power. They should prevent companies from altering the licence agreement without written consent from the user but they should still have the right to with-hold the source code, limit the number of users and copying.
What you're suggesting is forcing the GPL on everyone which is more than communism, it's totalitarianism and how do you plan to inforce this?
Software oten contains other media like music and films so if a company releases a computer game do they have to licence the music and films under the GPL to? Do they just have to release the source code? Can they keep everything else under a triditional proprietary licence?
Do you plan to implement different laws for differant kinds of information because currently the law treats all copywrites the same?
You obviously haven't though of the implications of software/data totalitarianism, you'd piss a lot of people off by telling them what they can release and what they can keep private. In the end Forcing the GPL would be more of an insult to humanity than any ELUA.
I'm losing out on nothing.
You don't know what you're missing if you refuse to use a piece of software just because it isn't free, for all you know it could be brilliant and better than any free software, oh well that's just your loss.
-
(http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/1315/surprise8nr.jpg)
I updated my sig to be more offensive.
-
I updated my sig to be more offensive.
Great. But failed - this one's funny. :-D
-
I must say I will miss your GNU avatar. I hope you plan to return to it yet.
:D done.
SPICE isn't very user friendly
But it works. And once you master it (doesn't take very long), that's you sorted.
and it's not just simulation
Oh right.
It is if the author is relying on the source code for their wealth.
How is sharing source code equal to sharing wealth? Free software can be sold just the same way as non-free software.
Since when have you rented a house from the aforementioned?
Go figure :rolleyes:.
We're talking about software here, not renting accommodation.
It was an analogy. Sheezus.
I rest my case
Great!
What you're suggesting is forcing the GPL on everyone
Where in the fuck are you getting this from?
which is more than communism, it's totalitarianism
:rolleyes:
and how do you plan to inforce this?
I'll have anyone who gets in my way murdered and have them dumped in the river Liffey :rolleyes:.
Software oten contains other media like music and films so if a company releases a computer game do they have to licence the music and films under the GPL to? Do they just have to release the source code? Can they keep everything else under a triditional proprietary licence?
I'll have to discuss that with General Stallman and the rest of the council.
You don't know what you're missing if you refuse to use a piece of software just because it isn't free, for all you know it could be brilliant and better than any free software, oh well that's just your loss.
All the software I currently use is free software. Should I ditch Firefox for Internet Explorer and GNU/Linux for Windows? The GIMP for Photoshop, Inkscape for Freehand, GAIM for MSN Messenger/ICQ/Yahoo! Messsenger, and irssi for Gamers.IRC?
I've used all the software I just listed, and the software I use currently, I prefer.
-
:D done.
But it works. And once you master it (doesn't take very long), that's you sorted.
That's often the case but the staff where I work are far too busy to learn it.
How is sharing source code equal to sharing wealth? Free software can be sold just the same way as non-free software.
Yes, but it doesn't stop others from stealing your software or using it without paying for it, also once you GPL it becomes copywrighted by the free software foundation so technically it's not your software anymore.
Go figure :rolleyes:.
It was an analogy. Sheezus.
Alright, I'll use the same analogy, under the totalitarian policy you're describing you wouldn't be allowed to own the house in the first place let alone rent it to anyone.
Where in the fuck are you getting this from?
You keep saying "proprietary is the problem", so I'm assuming you mean the GPL is the solution, which would mean forcing the it on everyone - is this correct?
I'll have to discuss that with General Stallman and the rest of the council.
Exactly, it simply isn't practical to force the GPL on everyone without scrapping all other copyright law, which on one extreme could mean even your holiday snaps are no longer your property anymore.
All the software I currently use is free software. Should I ditch Firefox for Internet Explorer and GNU/Linux for Windows? The GIMP for Photoshop, Inkscape for Freehand, GAIM for MSN Messenger/ICQ/Yahoo! Messsenger, and irssi for Gamers.IRC?
No, use what suits you best and if it's GPL then so be it.
I've used all the software I just listed, and the software I use currently, I prefer.
That's your choice and (I hope you've tried propietary alternatives as well), for example you might be fine using OpenOffice, instead of MS Office (I am too) but others might not because it lacks a grammar checker and decent formula editor.
The GPL system is great, I really like the idea software can be free in every possible way and it can be a communist paradise where everyone does their bit for the good of the community. I also support the idea that if you create a piece of software you have the freedom to do with it what you will, this includes not releasing the source, and only allowing people to use it if they agree to certain terms and conditions. GPL people often think too much about the rights of the users and neglect the rights of the creator(s) of software who should quite rightly have the final in their creation's fate.
-
Real computer users believe that open-source is a model that works, and it has proven to work better (over and over again) than any proprietary model. By extension, real users know that all source will be opened eventually. There WILL be a day in our future where the paid software designers at Adobe (for example) just can't compete with all the free designers and debuggers out there on the net working to make a raster graphics app that kicks ass and is open and free. At that time, Photoshop and its proprietary license will be over. We don't have to force anyone to open their source. The economics of net-based development will force them to do it. Proprietary software is all about economics - if they can't make back their money, the internal development cycle will end. At that point, they will either move to an open source model, or die.
I seriously suggest you all read "The Cathedral and the Bazzaar" by ESR. He explains it well, and offers the proof. Why spend money on debuggers (who hate debugging) when you can get people who are love debugging for free? ESR explains why Adobe and Microsoft like to spend money, and why Linus doesn't have to. Really, it's a good article.
-
That's often the case but the staff where I work are far too busy to learn it.
They've learned so much about electronics and they can't learn how to use a simple program...
Yes, but it doesn't stop others from stealing your software or using it without paying for it
What do you mean by "stealing"?
In what way does any specific non-free software licence stop people from using it without paying for it?
also once you GPL it becomes copywrighted by the free software foundation so technically it's not your software anymore.
WTF?
The licence itself is copyright by the FSF. Whatever you write is copywrite by you and licenced under whatever version of the GPL (assuming that's what you chose) you chose.
Alright, I'll use the same analogy, under the totalitarian policy you're describing you wouldn't be allowed to own the house in the first place let alone rent it to anyone.
What fucking "totalitarian policy" am I describing?
You keep saying "proprietary is the problem", so I'm assuming you mean the GPL is the solution, which would mean forcing the it on everyone - is this correct?
No, I never mentioned forcing anything on any-fucking-body.
I believe that non-free software is a problem, so I will avoid it, bash it and whatever, and support free software instead.
Just like if you believe Microsoft is a problem, you avoid it (well obviously you don't), bash it and whatever, and support the alternatives to Microsoft products. IT DOESN'T FUCKING MEAN HANGING BILLY G AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO USES MICROSOFT PRODUCTS (and I know noone ever suggested that, but I never suggested the shit you're talking about either.)! Most likely, it would mean changing the law so Microsoft or any other big companies can't become so powerful or whatever.
Well in this case, I'm not talking about setting up a communist/totalitarian "policy" or system or whatever the fuck you're talking about. I'm just gonna keep doing my thing (avoiding and bashing non-free software and supporting free software) and hope that more people follow.
Exactly, it simply isn't practical to force the GPL on everyone without scrapping all other copywright law, which on one extreme could mean that even your holiday snaps are no longer your property anymore.
What the fuck are you on about?
BTW, I was just playing along when I mentioned "General Stallman" and all that.
No, use what suits you best and if it's GPL then so be it.
Don't say GPL when you mean free software, it makes no sense.
And like I said, I'm going to avoid non-free software just like anyone who doesn't like Microsoft might avoid Microsoft products.
The fact that all the free software is better for me than the non-free alternatives is just a bonus. I'd still be using Firefox even if Opera cost nothing to buy, had no banner ads and simply kicked the shit outta Firefox.
And (if/)when Firefox's market share and support diminishes (to Opera), the fact that I support it will make all the more difference.
That's your choice and (I hope you've tried the propietary alternatives as well)
I have. And in the future, I might accidentally try them and fall in love with them, but I won't ever use them full-time solong as I can help it.
for example you might be fine using OpenOffice, instead of MS Office (as I am too) but others might not because it lacks a grammar checker and decent formula editor.
I haven't ever forced GNU/Linux or OpenOffice.org or Firefox on anyone (I have educated some poeple on them and a few of them now use Firefox (by their own choice)), and I don't intend on it. I know noone personally who uses GNU/Linux full-time. I'm the only registered GNU/Linux user in my county, last I checked. I haven't invaded my neighbours, or anyone in my house (I've four older brothers who all have their own computers. All bar one use Windows XP (the other using Mac OS X on a powerbook)), and installed GNU/Linux on their computers or the like.
The GPL system is great
Do you actually mean GPL or free software?
I really like the idea that software can be free in every possible way and can be a communist paradise where everyone does their bit for the good of the community. I also support the idea that if you create a piece of software you have the freedom to do with it what you will, this includes not releasing the source, and only allowing people to use it if they agree to certain terms and conditions. GPL people often think too much about the rights of the users and neglect the rights of the creator(s) of software who should quite rightly have the final in their creation's fate.
And when they do decide "their creation's fate", and it's a big mess of restrictions, I believe that everybody should (by their own choice) avoid that software, like I do and will continue to do.
I seriously suggest you all read "The Cathedral and the Bazzaar" by ESR. He explains it well, and offers the proof. Why spend money on debuggers (who hate debugging) when you can get people who are love debugging for free? ESR explains why Adobe and Microsoft like to spend money, and why Linus doesn't have to. Really, it's a good article.
Will do. Even if I wasn't all-that impressed by one article I read by him (I think you can guess which one that was).
-
Will do. Even if I wasn't all-that impressed by one article I read by him (I think you can guess which one that was).
His "how to ask questions" article is kinda abrasive. But trust me, ESR is a giant among men. He's one of the guys that got me interested in Linux in the first place.
-
Ehk, I haven't read this whole post but I already see untruths. People have said the GPL wasn't designed for the programmer, but it was! It was designed so that programmers had a way to share their work without people taking it and using it in closed programs. Because that's illegal, and I just as much as any GPL programmer would sue the shit out of someone if I found my code in a closed app. We get pissed, because they don't follow the rules we gave them to use our software. Just like Microsoft gets pissed when we pirate Windows XP (5 no 6 times each!).
-
His "how to ask questions" article is kinda abrasive. But trust me, ESR is a giant among men. He's one of the guys that got me interested in Linux in the first place.
I watched that 'Revolution OS' film by him, it was pretty good. After watching it, I set out to read the cathedral and the bazaar, but it was longer than I expected.
Reading it now though.
People have said the GPL wasn't designed for the programmer, but it was! It was designed so that programmers had a way to share their work without people taking it and using it in closed programs. Because that's illegal, and I just as much as any GPL programmer would sue the shit out of someone if I found my code in a closed app. We get pissed, because they don't follow the rules we gave them to use our software. Just like Microsoft gets pissed when we pirate Windows XP (5 no 6 times each!).
You're probably talking about:
The GPL was designed for the benefit of the software and not it's owners, that is true.
And you're right.
I guess what I should've said is "The GPL was designed for the benefit of the owners and the software (unlike the MS EULA and friends)".
-
And of the software's you mentioned , only SDL is licensed under the GPL - and it's actually the LGPL. The rest are released under BSD-like licenses.
If your primary goal is adoption of software, then the GPL is not really the best choice.
Yeah, I guess you are right.
Maybe GPL works better on the runtime-platform level. Like most GNU/Linux distributions are GPL or LGPL. On single projects, like Apache, GPL might be for the worse ...
-
They've learned so much about electronics and they can't learn how to use a simple program...
Of course we can but we'd rather pay some money and use Protel, we just draw the schematic into the editor, then it can be simulated and providing we give it the correct design rules it can place and route the PCB for us.
What do you mean by "stealing"?
Other companies using the from it and profiting from it as a result.
In what way does any specific non-free software licence stop people from using it without paying for it?
It doesn't stop people from pirating it, but it means they can be forced to pay a penalty if they get caught.
WTF?
The licence itself is copyright by the FSF. Whatever you write is copywrite by you and licenced under whatever version of the GPL (assuming that's what you chose) you chose.
From the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html)
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.
Am I misinterpreting this or does (1) not mean they take the copyright for the software? If so I'm sorry.
What fucking "totalitarian policy" am I describing?
No, I never mentioned forcing anything on any-fucking-body.
Good.
I believe that non-free software is a problem, so I will avoid it, bash it and whatever, and support free software instead.
That's fair enough - you're entitled to your opinion.
Just like if you believe Microsoft is a problem, you avoid it (well obviously you don't),
Yes, I do avoid MS software when ever it's practical.
bash it and whatever, and support the alternatives to Microsoft products.
Yes, I support OpenOffice, Firefox and Thunderbird but this doesn't mean I won't be honest and admit some non-MS software has its disadvantages in some areas.
Don't say GPL when you mean free software, it makes no sense.
Alrighte you do have a point there.
The fact that all the free software is better for me than the non-free alternatives is just a bonus. I'd still be using Firefox even if Opera cost nothing to buy, had no banner ads and simply kicked the shit outta Firefox.
This is where you and I have our main differances and it's were you'd fall down if you ran a business or large organisation.
And in the future, I might accidentally try them and fall in love with them, but I won't ever use them full-time solong as I can help it.
I find it quite sad that you would let some hippy idealistic vision get in the way of using the software you truly love and suits all of your needs.
And when they do decide "their creation's fate", and it's a big mess of restrictions, I believe that everybody should (by their own choice) avoid that software, like I do and will continue to do.
I'd rather live in the real world and have full control of my code thank you.
-
Other companies using the from it and profiting from it as a result.
If they infringe the licence, then you can sue them. And if the don't, you'll just have to do better.
From the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html)
Am I misinterpreting this or does (1) not mean they take the copyright for the software? If so I'm sorry.
The FSF/GNU don't own Linux. Linus Torvalds and a whole load of other people own Linux.
That's only part of the preamble anyhow.
It is quite confusing. The FSF/GNU don't (can't?) copyright your software. Maybe it's there because they do copyright their software and the GPL was written for their software.
Or maybe it's because e.g. whenever I read linux/COPYING, and I read "we protect your rights by..." it's as if the Linux people are talking to the end-user.
I find it quite sad that you would let some hippy idealistic vision get in the way of using the software you truly love and suits all of your needs.
If the software that suits all my needs happens to be owned by a bunch of assholes who are only interested in making money and try to restrict me in every way imaginable, I'll develop an alternative (and generally there always are good alternatives to use/develop).
If I was to start supporting a non-free product, like anyone who dislikes Microsoft would support Microsoft, I/you would be supporting something that even myself/youself see as evil. So.....
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and
decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it
means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with
his or her whole soul." -Mahatma Gandhi
I'd rather live in the real world and have full control of my code thank you.
Hm?
The thing is, you always would have full control of your code regardless of how many other people there are out there like me.
-
Like most GNU/Linux distributions are GPL or LGPL.
A distribution is just a set of packages which use alot of different licences.
On single projects, like Apache, GPL might be for the worse ...
Linux is a single project, and it's licenced under the GPL.
The Apache licence is alot like the GPL.
-
The thing is, IMO, that rewards should only come for commodities, and services, both of which require labor. I do not consider SW a commodity. If you're a programmer, you should, and still can using the GPL, recieve your cash as:
1)wage - in the case that you are employed (long-term) by a company that pays you to develop specific SW for them. Case Linus Torvalds, OSDevLabs. The company gains their $$$ from 2), 3), 4) and 5).
2)fees for tailor-ordered SW - if you develop SW for people with specific needs on a pay-per-developed-program basis. My sister's husband made a ton of cash that a company payed him TO develop a database system to suit their needs.
3)sales - nice-and-colourful media containing your SW, documentation and other, unrelated merchandise.
4)services - installation, support, registering to a network, a periodic update service (i.e. antivirus SW), etc.
5)donations
The actual usage of software doesn't cause you any more work - and therefore doesn't entitle you to a greater reward.
Now IF you choose GPL, as so many people have already done, you ensure that your program has a future: the more successful it gets, the more people will be willing to contribute. If you're mega-successful, some people might even pay you to develop your baby full time (Linus).
...
-
If they infringe the licence, then you can sue them.
That's the same if they any infringe any other licence agrement.
And if the don't, you'll just have to do better.
What the fuck?
Suppose I write a program and decide to sell it for
-
Yeah, they can take your code and follow the GPL, that is the whole bloody point of the GPL. It is there to protect code and more programmers than just yourself. It is there to protect the community. If a bigger cometitor decided to use some GPL code and release it again under the GPL it is perfectly within their right and done often. Because it isn't about competition, it is about sharing. It is the exact opposite.
-
how is using non-free software any worse than buying a DVD or CD? Film and record companies make a lot of money too you know.
There is no alternative, besides piracy. This could be called art, and that's different from SW.
-
There is no alternative, besides piracy. This could be called art, and that's different from SW.
Personally I think art should be free (as in freedom) as well, as do a lot of people. That is why there are Creative Commons licences and Indie musicians that use them for example. However for things that are expensive to produce like motion pictures, it can be questionable. However if people in the movie industry were not shallow and selfish they could easily pull off a free movie. In fact it has been done, Micheal Moore gave people permission to pirate Farhenhiet 9/11.
-
Some people would call software art.
I don't see anything wrong with people writing software and not wanting to share it, I earn money and I don't share most of it. I don't see any difference in writing software in order to make money and not sharing either the money or the software.
This seems verry silly, someone releases a film and I suspect most of here won't have a problem with paying to see it at the cinma, but if a piece of non-free software released you're like OMG non-free software this is evil!
-
Personally I think art should be free (as in freedom) as well, as do a lot of people. That is why there are Creative Commons licences and Indie musicians that use them for example. However for things that are expensive to produce like motion pictures, it can be questionable. However if people in the movie industry were not shallow and selfish they could easily pull off a free movie. In fact it has been done, Micheal Moore gave people permission to pirate Farhenhiet 9/11.
That's an interesting concept, my point of view is just because someone doesn't want their creation to be free it doesn't make them evil.
-
That's the same if they any infringe any other licence agrement.
Exactly.
Suppose I write a program and decide to sell it for
-
That's an interesting concept, my point of view is just because someone doesn't want their creation to be free it doesn't make them evil.
I think that it does.
Imagine if non-free was all the go whenever that Ohm dude and friends were about.
Wouldn't it just be brilliant!
-
Productivly open models are better than closed models.
Also, think of it that this is not your planet and that it is our planet and respect that and you will understand the importance of sharing is far greater than you seem to imagine.
-
The thing is, IMO, that rewards should only come for commodities, and services, both of which require labor. I do not consider SW a commodity. If you're a programmer, you should, and still can using the GPL, recieve your cash as:
1)wage - in the case that you are employed (long-term) by a company that pays you to develop specific SW for them. Case Linus Torvalds, OSDevLabs. The company gains their $$$ from 2), 3), 4) and 5).
2)fees for tailor-ordered SW - if you develop SW for people with specific needs on a pay-per-developed-program basis. My sister's husband made a ton of cash that a company payed him TO develop a database system to suit their needs.
3)sales - nice-and-colourful media containing your SW, documentation and other, unrelated merchandise.
4)services - installation, support, registering to a network, a periodic update service (i.e. antivirus SW), etc.
5)donations
The actual usage of software doesn't cause you any more work - and therefore doesn't entitle you to a greater reward.
Now IF you choose GPL, as so many people have already done, you ensure that your program has a future: the more successful it gets, the more people will be willing to contribute. If you're mega-successful, some people might even pay you to develop your baby full time (Linus).
But you don't make fuck all if all your profit has gone to someone else who has used your code for their gain.
And yes more money needs to be made than just enough to cover the packaging and programmers, more is needed to be invested to get more programmers on the job and you can choose the programmers and since you've made more money you can aford better coders too.
Why that would be absolutely wonderful! More choice for the users! More competition!
Brilliant, shame about loosing all your customers to Redhat, too bad.
Don't think so. But that's not a bad thing (it is, of course, if you can't write shit. Or compete.).
"proposed", what?
Version of the program, suppose your next version is better than Redhat's but theirs sells more because thier marketing strategy is better.
Nope. You might aswel develop Redhat's version, if it's any better.
Too bad if it's shitt, anyway if you can't beat them then join them.
And most of the time, Redhat and the like (also any programmers) don't make their own version (fork) of the software, they just develop it and submit changes to the maintainers (you).
Now that would be fair but you've got no garantie that they're going to do this.
He doesn't own it and it is not likely that any single entity ever will.
If he owned it all, he could licence future versions under another licence. But linux-2.6.12.5 will forever be licenced under the GNU GPL.
Sorry, I forgot Linux isn't entirely his work.
:eek:
Think about it, the GPL removes the right for you keep your code private and not share it.
WTF has this got to do with their wages FFS? This is getting annoying. Using a non-free licence doesn't make your wages any fatter.
Oh yes it does if they have to pay
-
piratePenguin, when you grow up, and get out of high school.
Maybe then you will see that not every solution works for the same person. And that people hate blind crusading.
I was a LOT like you when I was in your place. I genuinely believed what RMS said, then I grew up.
-
Productivly open models are better than closed models.
That isn't always the case, Opera has more features than FireFox, MS Office has a grammar checker Ooo has none.
Also, think of it that this is not your planet and that it is our planet and respect that and you will understand the importance of sharing is far greater than you seem to imagine.
Sharing is very important and I encourage it, but I fail to understand how not wishing to share everything makes you evil.
-
If you don't share everying, then you are HOARDING and STEALING important peices of code. That if you just GPL'ed them, they would magically become 100000 times better.
-
Well I'm a satan incarnate because I've not GPL'd that old Connect 4 game I wrote in QBASIC many years ago. I really wish I'd GPL'd it as it would've become a super fast state of the art game with real time 3D graphics, be voice activated and be able to learn from it's mistakes too.
-
But you don't make fuck all if all your profit has gone to someone else who has used your code for their gain.
That's competition.
Brilliant, shame about loosing all your customers to Redhat, too bad.
And YOU
LOST.
Shame is right.
Think about it, the GPL removes the right for you keep your code private and not share it.
Well ain't thata bitch!
Think about what you just said. You might learn one of the many reasons so many people love (and hate) the GNU GPL.
Don't be so pig ignorant, either answer my question or don't comment at all.
Don't be so pig ignorant, either answer my question or don't comment at all.
You obviously have no idea of how big Protel is then read as big as Windows.
That BIG?! Whoa. Well, we'll see...
Don't be so pig ignorant, either answer my question or don't comment at all.
Don't be so pig ignorant, either answer my question or don't comment at all.
So it's alright for a company to make a profit from making films but it's wrong for them to profit from proprietary software.
WHAT
THE
FFFFUCK!
We're not talking about profits or wealth or communism or totalitarian or some other crap. We're (at least I am) talking about LICENSES.
non-free softare! is this a typo or is it a change of heart?
Neither. WTF? :confused:
No steal my ideas, stupid.
And how are they gonna do that? Stupid.
How does it make them evil?
Because the licenses they use don't fit the free software definition as written by GNU, because they restrict the end-user in alot of evil ways.
Would you apply the same logic to music films and other art forms?
No. I've wasted enough time on this thread only to be mis-interpreted or to have other bullshit like COMMUNISM, TOTALITARIAN POLICY and all sorts of other bullcrap brought up, and I dunno where the FUCK it comes from.
How does ohms law have any relation to copyrights, he discovered something you can't copyright a discovery can you?
I guess not.
But when you think about it, what he did wasn't all that different to writing a piece of software. You think, discover something, and write it down.
"Buy rights to Ohm's law" "Buy rights to a series of ones and zeros".
OK that is quite stupid. Forget it.
-
piratePenguin, when you grow up, and get out of high school.
Maybe then you will see that not every solution works for the same person. And that people hate blind crusading.
This is a conversation about free software versus non-free software. Not Windows verus GNU/Linux.
I don't agree with non-free software, and I won't use it so long as I can help it. Just like anyone who doesn't like Microsoft would do the same, switch non-free software for Microsoft.
I was a LOT like you when I was in your place.
I doubt it. But even if you were, the fact that you fucked up doesn't necessarily mean that it's inevitable that I will.
I genuinely believed what RMS said, then I grew up.
You grew up?
That isn't always the case, Opera has more features than FireFox, MS Office has a grammar checker Ooo has none.
That's because Microsoft and the Opera developers have alot of full-time developers.
Well I'm a satan incarnate because I've not GPL'd that old Connect 4 game I wrote in QBASIC many years ago. I really wish I'd GPL'd it as it would've become a super fast state of the art game with real time 3D graphics, be voice activated and be able to learn from it's mistakes too.
That'd be pretty sweet.
-
I don't agree with non-free software
What the fuck does that mean? Personally, I don't agree with fish, Phish, or lawnmowers. But they exist nonetheless.
How about for just a moment we assume that there are 2 types of computer programs out there. Commodity programs and generaladvancementofcomputerscience programs. Commodity programs are no different than cars or forks - the creator sells them in order to recapture the investment in production. If you want to use commodity software, you pay cash and agree to their license. Assuming that you buy the whole capitalism/technocracy thing, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. That other type, which needs a better name, is GNU/GPL/etc stuff, which is not produced for sale. I don't know what it's produced for, but it usually has something to do with ego, community, and practicality. The only reason there is even a license is to protect the code from being stolen by commodity software writers.
And let me tell you, Linus, RMS, ESR, Larry Wall, and all the others, are not poor. They get plenty of money from their day jobs. This whole Linux thing, if you boil it down to bare nothingness, is nothing more than a huge hobby, or kernel fanclub. Nothing wrong with that.
Personally, one of the main reasons I started using Linux was anti-capitalistic. A box of SuSE is only $30, after all. Now that I have the experience, I can see the quality difference and appreciate what the developers are trying to do. Of course somebody who uses Windows probably can't see that in the same way I do. And that's fine, whatever.
So sorry to be offtopic - this thread is really for Aloone_Jonez and Pirate Penguin to sling insults and try to outquote each other. I apologize for getting in the way.
-
W
So sorry to be offtopic - this thread is really for Aloone_Jonez and Pirate Penguin to sling insults and try to outquote each other. I apologize for getting in the way.
priceless. you get approval.
-
Being a commie, I don't really think anything should be unfree. But then again I have to live in the real world at the same time, hence living with it. Oh well, lifes a slut. Yea piratePenguin will realise this one day as well.
-
The thing is, IMO, that rewards should only come for commodities, and services, both of which require labor. I do not consider SW a commodity. If you're a programmer, you should, and still can using the GPL, recieve your cash as:
1)wage - in the case that you are employed (long-term) by a company that pays you to develop specific SW for them. Case Linus Torvalds, OSDevLabs. The company gains their $$$ from 2), 3), 4) and 5).
2)fees for tailor-ordered SW - if you develop SW for people with specific needs on a pay-per-developed-program basis. My sister's husband made a ton of cash that a company payed him TO develop a database system to suit their needs.
3)sales - nice-and-colourful media containing your SW, documentation and other, unrelated merchandise.
4)services - installation, support, registering to a network, a periodic update service (i.e. antivirus SW), etc.
5)donations
The actual usage of software doesn't cause you any more work - and therefore doesn't entitle you to a greater reward.
Now IF you choose GPL, as so many people have already done, you ensure that your program has a future: the more successful it gets, the more people will be willing to contribute. If you're mega-successful, some people might even pay you to develop your baby full time (Linus).
But you don't make fuck all if all your profit has gone to someone else who has used your code for their gain.
...
Think about it, the GPL removes the right for you keep your code private and not share it.
Not true. You can keep any modifications private and not share them, or use them on a closed network. As soon as you go public, you have to share.
Don't be so pig ignorant, either answer my question or don't comment at all.
I don't think your question was comprehensible, nor relevant.
non-free softare! is this a typo or is it a change of heart?
As in "switch MS ALONG with non-free SW FOR FSW"
How about for just a moment we assume that there are 2 types of computer programs out there. Commodity programs and generaladvancementofcomputerscience programs. Commodity programs are no different than cars or forks - the creator sells them in order to recapture the investment in production. If you want to use commodity software, you pay cash and agree to their license. Assuming that you buy the whole capitalism/technocracy thing, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. That other type, which needs a better name, is GNU/GPL/etc stuff, which is not produced for sale. I don't know what it's produced for, but it usually has something to do with ego, community, and practicality. The only reason there is even a license is to protect the code from being stolen by commodity software writers.
WTF???
1) They are NOT the same as material commodities. The auther does not lose ANYTHING from state "you do not use" to state "you use", as they would with cars etc.. They lose cash when you decide from "to buy" to "not to buy". "to use"+"not to buy" exists in both cases (FLOSS+ProprietarySW), in one case it is piracy, in the other it is legal.
2)That other type, which needs a better name, is GNU/GPL/etc stuff, which is not produced for sale.
Not since Red Hat.
-
That's competition.
And YOU
LOST.
Shame is right.
Well ain't thata bitch!
Well there you go, the GPL isn't suitable for good honest and hard working people who want to keep their hardwork to themselves and prevent other people from hijacking it for their own gain. The GPL is more suited to people who aren't bothered about making money, often they do it for a hobby, all the want to do is create software and this is why lot's of freesoftware is good. I'd also say that proprietary software can be better too as making money is a very big insentive to create good code, companies are often very pickey about what gets into their code and they can afford better programmers too.
Think about what you just said. You might learn one of the many reasons so many people love (and hate) the GNU GPL.
The GPL may benifit the greater good more but it doesn't make people rich. Doing something for the community is very un-selfish and is great but doing something for yourself isn't evil, it's just human nature - looking after number one.
That BIG?! Whoa. Well, we'll see...
If you're that gooder programmer then you'd be better off working for them than trying to emulate them.
WHAT
THE
FFFFUCK!
We're not talking about profits or wealth or communism or totalitarian or some other crap. We're (at least I am) talking about LICENSES.
I didn't mention any of the above in my previous post, I was in fact talking about licences as you've stated above. I was asking why you think it's evil for a company to copright their software and release it under restricted conditions and how you don't think it's evil if someone writes a book and releases it under the similar conditions.
The GPL is communism as I've already explained and if you forced it upon everyone then it would become totalitarianism and I do appreciate you don't want to do the latter.
Neither. WTF? :confused:
It must've been a typo then:
Well that's what I'm doing, switch MS with non-free software.
Don't worry we all make these - even more so in these heated debates. :D
And how are they gonna do that? Stupid.
Alright I'll spell it out for you, when you write some software the code is the idea it's your decision whether you share it or not and you're not evil if you choose not to.
Because the licenses they use don't fit the free software definition as written by GNU, because they restrict the end-user in alot of evil ways.
How is it evil to stop them from copying it without your permission?
What's evil about making them pay a fee per user?
How is keeping the code secrete is evil?
No. I've wasted enough time on this thread only to be mis-interpreted[/quot]
In future if you feel I've misinterpreted something then please rephase it rather than making silly statements like "WTF" or "What's that got to do with anything?"
or to have other bullshit like COMMUNISM, TOTALITARIAN POLICY and all sorts of other bullcrap brought up, and I dunno where the FUCK it comes from.
I guess not.
You obviously don't understand the philosophy behind communism and totalitarianism, I've tried to explain it, try reading up on the subject a bit more.
But when you think about it, what he did wasn't all that different to writing a piece of software.
Well he might've been able to patent it, I don't know.
You think, discover something, and write it down.
Discovering something is differant to software - it's finding something out while writing software is design.
"Buy rights to Ohm's law" "Buy rights to a series of ones and zeros".
Well if you look at it like that it's the same as anything elese whether it be a book or a film. :rolleyes:
OK that is quite stupid. Forget it.
Yes I agree and you said it not me.
I rest my case, there's nothing evil about proprietary, software, it's no more evil than copyrighting a book or film and restricting its distribution or designing a car or TV and keeping the designs to yourself. I like the idea of sharing ideas, art, code and designs but if people choose not to, it doesn't make them evil.
-
...
Not true. You can keep any modifications private and not share them, or use them on a closed network.As soon as you go public, you HAVE to share.
Exactly once public you have to share.
I don't think your question was comprehensible, nor relevant.
Alright I'll explain:
Like only allowing them to use the piece of software because you've payed for it, what's so bad about that? What's wrong with renting something?
When you "buy" some proprietary software from a shop you don't own it you're renting it, what's so bad about this?
how is using non-free software any worse than buying a DVD or CD?
The same applies here with a CD or DVD, why is buying the right to use software any worse than buying the right to listen to a CD or watch a DVD?
WTF???
1) They are NOT the same as material commodities. The auther does not lose ANYTHING from state "you do not use" to state "you use", as they would with cars etc.. They lose cash when you decide from "to buy" to "not to buy". "to use"+"not to buy" exists in both cases (FLOSS+ProprietarySW), in one case it is piracy, in the other it is legal.
I see your point but the same arguement is true with DVDs and CDs.
2)
That other type, which needs a better name, is GNU/GPL/etc stuff, which is not produced for sale.
Not since Red Hat.
I also see your point here but, yes Redhat have made money from GPL software but they make more money from support rather than the software its self, it's not really the software they're selling but their support of it. I agree, in some cases it's a good idea for companies to not rely on profitting from the software these companies are aiming thier products at businesses rather than the home user for that there's Fedora Core which is Redhat's way of getting free beta testing.
Anyway whether the GPL allows money or not is not the main point, it's that non-free software isn't evil.
-
But you don't make fuck all if all your profit has gone to someone else who has used your code for their gain.
The GPL legally protects the source code from being used in a non-GPL compatible project. You always keep your own copyright on your source and nothing the GPL says can ever change that ever. You always have the option of rereleasing your code under a different license if you see fit.
And yes more money needs to be made than just enough to cover the packaging and programmers, more is needed to be invested to get more programmers on the job and you can choose the programmers and since you've made more money you can aford better coders too.
The open source business model is more complex than just getting money for the packaging. Redhat barely sells any physical products. It's about the services which surround the open source product as well as proprietary additions when possible (LGPL, BSD)
Brilliant, shame about loosing all your customers to Redhat, too bad.
Funny you should mention Redhat :)
Version of the program, suppose your next version is better than Redhat's but theirs sells more because thier marketing strategy is better.
Oh no! That's a business mistake, has nothing to do with the GPL.
Too bad if it's shitt, anyway if you can't beat them then join them.
When the hell has "if you can't beat them join them" been primary? When Netscape couldn't beat Microsoft, they joined them? no. When IBM couldn't beat Microsoft, join them? no. We just keep fighting.
Think about it, the GPL removes the right for you keep your code private and not share it.
Wrong! The GPL protects the rights of the original copyright holder when the code is modified and binaries are redistributed. When no redistribution is involved, the license doesn't even go into effect. And if you make your code GPL, you can change it at anytime if you own 100% of the copyright.
Oh yes it does if they have to pay
-
The GPL legally protects the source code from being used in a non-GPL compatible project.
I was refering to another company using my code and creating a competing product licencend under the GPL. If I hadn't GPL'd the code in the first place they'd have to start from srcatch, they wouldn't have the head start of haiving acess to my code.
You always keep your own copyright on your source and nothing the GPL says can ever change that ever. You always have the option of rereleasing your code under a different license if you see fit.
I understand this, Sun have done this by releasing Star Office under a proprietary licence and OpenOffice under the GPL.
The open source business model is more complex than just getting money for the packaging. Redhat barely sells any physical products. It's about the services which surround the open source product
I've already mentioned this please read the last paragraph of my previous post.
as well as proprietary additions when possible (LGPL, BSD)
So is some of the software in their distrobution proprietary too? Wow they're fucking evil!
Oh no! That's a business mistake, has nothing to do with the GPL.
The "business mistake" was releasing the source code thus allowing the competitor to develop their own version, even though it was shitty they made it sell more than I did because of thier stronger marketing policy.
When the hell has "if you can't beat them join them" been primary? When Netscape couldn't beat Microsoft, they joined them? no. When IBM couldn't beat Microsoft, join them? no. We just keep fighting.
Well I woudn't be in the situation I'm in if I'd kept the source secret in the first place.
Wrong! The GPL protects the rights of the original copyright holder when the code is modified and binaries are redistributed. When no redistribution is involved, the license doesn't even go into effect. And if you make your code GPL, you can change it at anytime if you own 100% of the copyright.
I understand this Sun Star Office OpenOffice again.
However what if I didn't want to be like Sun, I've GPL'd my program, now I want to create a proprietary version, but there will still be the source code from the previous release scattered all over the Internet. I can't just order people to distroy their copies of the source code can I?
Wrong again. GPL does not require you to provide working binaries, it only requires you to provide source code. A lot of distributions make money by providing a good distro in binaries for sale but only providing individual source RPMs to fulfill the source requirements for the GPL.
Where did I say anything about binaries? People can compile it themselves. My point still remains valid, under the proprietary licence they had to pay me to use my software and under the GPL they don't owe me a penny.
Could I release the binaries under a proprietary licence? I should be able to do that if I own the copyright, but it'd only apply to the binaries themselves, so someone elese could just compile it and stick it on thier website so I still gain
-
Well there you go, the GPL isn't suitable for good honest and hard working people who want to keep their hardwork to themselves and prevent other people from hijacking it for their own gain.
For their own GAIN??? What gain do THEY have, if you say that you yourself do not have any gain.
Count me out from this thread.
My last words: I do agree with you that programmers that publish their SW as proprietary do not deserve the gallows. I only think that in a world that automatically supposes a SW licence to be GPL (or a perfected version thereof + none other exists) would be a lot better to live in.
-
For their own GAIN???
I meant to make money.
What gain do THEY have, if you say that you yourself do not have any gain.
In my opinion the GPL isn't as gooder licence for making a profit as a proprietary licence, and Adobe, Microsoft and Apple have proved this as they're all worth more than any Linux company.
Count me out from this thread.
I fear this thread will burst into flames in the end - the free software vs proprietary software debate always does at some point. Until then I'll stick to my point, I'm not trying to convince the people I'm disagreeing with, my motive is to prove a point to on lookers who are not actively involved and let them make up thier own minds.
My last words: I do agree with you that programmers that publish their SW as proprietary do not deserve the gallows. I only think that in a world that automatically supposes a SW licence to be GPL (or a perfected version thereof + none other exists) would be a lot better to live in.
In that respect I agree with this vision of everyone sharing everything, but we live in the real word where companies have to compete with each other and keep their ideas secret from each other in order to do so, and no they're not evil for doing so.
-
From, this post (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=101623&postcount=28) in the another thread (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showthread.php?p=101829#post101829).
Microsoft is gonna be gone, if not by the hands of us, then by the hands of Apple, who is only getting more powerful.
How would we be better of with Apple in a monopoly position, another company out to make money and doesn't just own the OS but also the hardware?
What I'm saying is Microsoft already made the critical mistake. They already gave us a way to get a piece of the dotnet cake. Even if they introduce new APIs (they are with Longhorn) we will still make an open version now that Microsoft gave us the base platform. These Longhorn Linux APIs don't have to be centralized: they can be optional and available when needed by a Longhorn .NET app is run on Linux.
Thank you, you've just explained for me why it's bad for most companies to release their code under the GPL, they've made the same business mistake as I have in the hypothetical senario I was talking about earlier on.
-
How would we be better of with Apple in a monopoly position, another company out to make money and doesn't just own the OS but also the hardware?
They did that once, and I'd *KILL* to get back to the IIe days with AppleBASIC. Screw Vis. :cool:
Thank you, you've just explained for me why it's bad for most companies to release their code under the GPL, they've made the same business mistake as I have in the hypothetical senario I was talking about earlier on.
I understand where you're coming from - in fact, I'd surmise that we all do - but you're neglecting a very important point that rises not out of hatred for the product, but its contempt for the law. I don't know about England, but here in the United States we have the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts which are *supposed* to preclude businesses from "anti-competitive behaviour" - as which, closed source technically qualifies. If our attornies cared enough about the finer points of law, what you say would be a non-issue here. Besides, I think you overestimate the marketing prowess of RedHat, Inc. ;)
You may not like competition from other companies using your GPL code - which you didn't have to licence under in the first place - but here, competition is the law. You keep speaking of a hypothetical "business mistake": life's a bitch, and so's the free market economy. :D
-
What the fuck does that mean?
It means that I don't like non-free software.
How about for just a moment we assume that there are 2 types of computer programs out there. Commodity programs and generaladvancementofcomputerscience programs. Commodity programs are no different than cars or forks - the creator sells them in order to recapture the investment in production. If you want to use commodity software, you pay cash and agree to their license. Assuming that you buy the whole capitalism/technocracy thing, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. That other type, which needs a better name, is GNU/GPL/etc stuff, which is not produced for sale. I don't know what it's produced for, but it usually has something to do with ego, community, and practicality. The only reason there is even a license is to protect the code from being stolen by commodity software writers.
And let me tell you, Linus, RMS, ESR, Larry Wall, and all the others, are not poor. They get plenty of money from their day jobs. This whole Linux thing, if you boil it down to bare nothingness, is nothing more than a huge hobby, or kernel fanclub. Nothing wrong with that.
Personally, one of the main reasons I started using Linux was anti-capitalistic. A box of SuSE is only $30, after all. Now that I have the experience, I can see the quality difference and appreciate what the developers are trying to do. Of course somebody who uses Windows probably can't see that in the same way I do. And that's fine, whatever.
So sorry to be offtopic - this thread is really for Aloone_Jonez and Pirate Penguin to sling insults and try to outquote each other. I apologize for getting in the way.
Whenever I say free/non-free I'm not talking about price at all.... And I know Linus et al. make money...
-
I quit this one about when Jenda left
-
They did that once, and I'd *KILL* to get back to the IIe days with AppleBASIC. Screw Vis. :cool:
Yea I know but I preferred Acorn computers anyway.
I understand where you're coming from - in fact, I'd surmise that we all do - but you're neglecting a very important point that rises not out of hatred for the product, but its contempt for the law. I don't know about England, but here in the United States we have the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts which are *supposed* to preclude businesses from "anti-competitive behaviour" - as which, closed source technically qualifies. If our attornies cared enough about the finer points of law, what you say would be a non-issue here. Besides, I think you overestimate the marketing prowess of RedHat, Inc. ;)
I also understand the anti-competitive argument too and yes the GPL would solve this as it doesn't allow for competition to exist in the first place.
You may not like competition from other companies using your GPL code - which you didn't have to licence under in the first place - but here, competition is the law. You keep speaking of a hypothetical "business mistake": life's a bitch, and so's the free market economy. :D
Proprietary licenses aren't the cause of the mess we're currently in even though they help keep things the way they are. Competition could still exist if Apple, Microsoft and GNU/Linux had equal market share even though 60% is proprietary (I'll asume the remaining 10% is BeOS, BSD and other stuff very few people use) the market would still remain competitive. Apple and Microsoft would both keep their data structures and APIs open and software development tools free (as in beer) as it would allow them to gain customers from the opposition.
Hardware is similar, companies release their hardware but they keep the blue prints secret, in some cases this can keep away competition, (look at waht Microsoft's doing with the Xbox 360 and the controlers), drug and food companies also keep their recipes secret. Companies have being keeping things from us for the last 100 years or more the main differance with software is the law has allowed companies to inforce restrictions on decompilation, but this has been solved in the EU as it's permitted as long as it's for compatability purposes only.
My last question about whether anybody uses proprietary software was a trick question, in fact I hazzard a guess you all do, the BIOS in your computer probably isn't free software and the same goes for the software in your TV, microwave and car, proprietary software is everywhere there is nothing you can do about it!
Nowadays the gap between software and hardware is virtually non-existent, even things without microcontrollers have PLAs (programmable logic arrays). These allow circuits that would've previously been built from gates on many separate chips be custom programmed onto one chip by the user, by connecting up gates on a single chip with a (E)(E)PROM or flash memory to store the connections. Love it or hate it proprietary software is here to say and there's no way to get away from it!
-
My last question about whether anybody uses proprietary software was a trick question, in fact I hazzard a guess you all do, the BIOS in your computer probably isn't free software and the same goes for the software in your TV, microwave and car, proprietary software is everywhere there is nothing you can do about it!
Nowadays the gap between software and hardware is virtually non-existent, even things without microcontrollers have PLAs (programmable logic arrays). These allow circuits that would've previously been built from gates on many separate chips be custom programmed onto one chip by the user, by connecting up gates on a single chip with a (E)(E)PROM or flash memory to store the connections. Love it or hate it proprietary software is here to say and there's no way to get away from it!
We don't get to chose what software goes in them places.
As for BIOSes, well, there's linuxbios (http://www.linuxbios.org/). I'd be using it myself only my motherboard isn't supported.
So there's no non-free software on my harddrive then.
-
Yea I know but I preferred Acorn computers anyway.
To each his own. :cool:
I also understand the anti-competitive argument too and yes the GPL would solve this as it doesn't allow for competition to exist in the first place.
I'm beginning to think that your concept of competition is somewhat skewed. So competition is only fair when one person or entity benefits from it? What about the others? Again, you're conveniently setting aside the argument that you don't HAVE to use the GPL in the first place. Would it be good for sharing your programs with the world? Yes. Do I and others here advocate using it whenever appropriate? Absolutely. But nobody's forcing anybody to use it. That argument is a fallacy on its face, since possibilities do not a problem make.
Proprietary licenses aren't the cause of the mess we're currently in even though they help keep things the way they are. Competition could still exist if Apple, Microsoft and GNU/Linux had equal market share even though 60% is proprietary (I'll asume the remaining 10% is BeOS, BSD and other stuff very few people use) the market would still remain competitive. Apple and Microsoft would both keep their data structures and APIs open and software development tools free (as in beer) as it would allow them to gain customers from the opposition.
Yet you argue that if people were to gain in the competition through reinterpreting other people's work - or even compiling source code - that is somehow wrong. By that standard, shouldn't Sun be out of business? Also, don't argue that proprietary licences aren't the problem we're currently facing, that falls flat once one realises that PC adoption exploded before IBM started patenting everything could get their grubby little hands on. The difference now is that Big Blue is Big Billy; though the faces may have changed, the song remains the same.
Hardware is similar, companies release their hardware but they keep the blue prints secret, in some cases this can keep away competition, (look at waht Microsoft's doing with the Xbox 360 and the controlers), drug and food companies also keep their recipes secret. Companies have being keeping things from us for the last 100 years or more the main differance with software is the law has allowed companies to inforce restrictions on decompilation, but this has been solved in the EU as it's permitted as long as it's for compatability purposes only.
Define compatibility as anything but interoperability with any known system, or the capacity to be checked for said ability, and see how far that gets you in serious development circles. The funny part is that at least Apple learned from their mistake and used a FOSS backend (just because BSD isn't GPL, that doesn't make it proprietary) ;). Hopefully others will begin to see the mistake in not allowing compatibility checks, which the EU was smart enough to notice before ramming through their own DMCA.
My last question about whether anybody uses proprietary software was a trick question, in fact I hazzard a guess you all do, the BIOS in your computer probably isn't free software and the same goes for the software in your TV, microwave and car, proprietary software is everywhere there is nothing you can do about it!
That's hardly a trick question, nor is it relevant to the discussion at hand. Who cares if a microwave's plans are public domain so long as standards exist to provide competing manufacturers? The issue here is that software was traditionally open to reinterpretation on-the-fly, something which firmware just can't handle by design. Again, nobody seems to notice that BIOS and firmware companies directly compete with one another (and yes, even code-share).
Nowadays the gap between software and hardware is virtually non-existent, even things without microcontrollers have PLAs (programmable logic arrays). These allow circuits that would've previously been built from gates on many separate chips be custom programmed onto one chip by the user, by connecting up gates on a single chip with a (E)(E)PROM or flash memory to store the connections.
What do PLAs have to do with the GNU? Wow.
Love it or hate it proprietary software is here to say and there's no way to get away from it!
Sure there is, use FOSS whenever possible. The problem is proprietary software, not firmware and hardware. Nobody ever faked a security video at a tribunal over a missing ROM chip. ;)
-
We don't get to chose what software goes in them places.
As for BIOSes, well, there's linuxbios (http://www.linuxbios.org/). I'd be using it myself only my motherboard isn't supported.
That's a common problem with Linux in general, and before you start I know it's not the developer's fault.
So there's no non-free software on my harddrive then.
Well I'm being very pickey here but it has a microcontroller in it and maybe even a PLA so the answer is yes, not forgetting your graphics card BIOS and possibly your sound card, odds on they'll be proprietary sofftware in your PC somewhere, like it or not. :p
To each his own. :cool:
I think it's a shame how there used to be many platforms around then annd now one platform dominates everything, bring back the good old days I say.
I'm beginning to think that your concept of competition is somewhat skewed. So competition is only fair when one person or entity benefits from it? What about the others?
You have a very good point, but it's a cut-thoat world out there, it might not be fair but that secret algorthim your company has could be the differance between life and death, the same goes for a drug company's secret ingrediant.
Edit:
There are other ways to compete with other companies other than by having trade secrets in the code, customer service and support are also sometimes considered to be equally (if not more) important. My original point was that if all of the companies opened their code they would no longer be competing on the technical merit of their software since (in theory) each piece of software should have equal capabilities.
Again, you're conveniently setting aside the argument that you don't HAVE to use the GPL in the first place.
Yes, this is true, I just wanted to convince people that forceing it would be a very bad (if not even evil) idea.
Would it be good for sharing your programs with the world? Yes. Do I and others here advocate using it whenever appropriate? Absolutely. But nobody's forcing anybody to use it. That argument is a fallacy on its face, since possibilities do not a problem make.
I would also recommend sharing code too, but (as you know) it isn't always good business sense to do so.
Yet you argue that if people were to gain in the competition through reinterpreting other people's work - or even compiling source code - that is somehow wrong.
Of course it isn't wrong and this it's healthy and can happen in the proprietary world as well as the free. The difference is in the free world people work together and in the proprietary they are in competition - this is the communism argument again.
By that standard, shouldn't Sun be out of business?
The open source model might work for well Sun but it would be a complete disaster for Microsoft, because of this people say "force the GPL" as it would solve one problem but it'd also create many more.
Also, don't argue that proprietary licences aren't the problem we're currently facing, that falls flat once one realises that PC adoption exploded before IBM started patenting everything could get their grubby little hands on. The difference now is that Big Blue is Big Billy; though the faces may have changed, the song remains the same.
This could be argued both ways, Adobe, Apple and Opera aren't causing any problems at the moment and they all use proprietary licences but Microsoft is, which is to do with their license. I think the answer to this dilema is proprietary licences aren't the direct cause of the problem, the way Microsoft is using them is.
Define compatibility as anything but interoperability with any known system, or the capacity to be checked for said ability, and see how far that gets you in serious development circles.
This is true, once you've reverse engineered something in order develop your product in a manner that'd make it compatable, you've efectively given your product the same capability.
The funny part is that at least Apple learned from their mistake and used a FOSS backend (just because BSD isn't GPL, that doesn't make it proprietary) ;). Hopefully others will begin to see the mistake in not allowing compatibility checks, which the EU was smart enough to notice before ramming through their own DMCA.
The laws are a very big problem here, you can sell someone a TV and you can't impose any restrictions on them reverse engineering the hardware but you can with the software. I think the EU has used the words "reverse engineering for compatability purposes" to keep the software companies happy.
That's hardly a trick question, nor is it relevant to the discussion at hand. Who cares if a microwave's plans are public domain so long as standards exist to provide competing manufacturers? The issue here is that software was traditionally open to reinterpretation on-the-fly, something which firmware just can't handle by design. Again, nobody seems to notice that BIOS and firmware companies directly compete with one another (and yes, even code-share).
What do PLAs have to do with the GNU? Wow.
That was all aimed the free software fanboy crew who keep saying "proprietary software is evil, either open your code or go to hell". They do their level best to avoid proprietary software as much as possible yet they forget it's embedded in to the very hardware they're using whether they like it or not. ;)
Sure there is, use FOSS whenever possible. The problem is proprietary software, not firmware and hardware. Nobody ever faked a security video at a tribunal over a missing ROM chip. ;)
I can see closed proprietary hardware systems being a potential problem in the future - Apple owning the largest market share could cause this. So far Microsoft has been the only company capable of destroying the competition by using their trade secrets and I really hope they won't achieve this with the Xbox 360. :eek:
-
Open Source is better than Closed Source because it automatically documents the API's in a format programmers who speak any langauge can understand. However closed source can be terrible, it can be better if the programmers at least document the API's so that it can be interoperated with.
-
Documanting the APIs only makes a differance when you're talking about operating systems as programmers need to know the APIs to write good code, you can't apply this logic to other things like computer games.
Free software is supposed to be so much better because many people have access to the source thus giving them the opportunity to improve it and fix any bugs. Muzzey has proved this wrong before (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=95749&postcount=19), if open software is much better then this critical bug (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=202765) that crashes FireFox would've been fixed as soon as it was discovered two years ago, go on click here to crash Firefox (http://muzzy.net/ffcrash/crash.xml) if you don't believe me.
-
That was all aimed the free software fanboy crew who keep saying "proprietary software is evil, either open your code or go to hell".
Who "keeps saying" that?
That Firefox bug isn't a huge problem at least ATM. I haven't seen it exploited anywhere apart from at that page.
And just because one little bug hasn't been fixed, it doesn't mean the whole development model isn't working.
-
And just because one little bug hasn't been fixed, it doesn't mean the whole development model isn't working.
Same goes for the proprietary model.
So what have we learned? Nothing. Abso-fuking-lutely nothing =)
Except maybe that people suck. Live with it, or do like i do: diss at everyone, and get some kicks outta it ;)
-
Thanks ksym, you've beaten me to it. :D
Who "keeps saying" that?
Alright I have exaggerated the language a little but you have clearly stated you believe proprietary software it evil and you avoid it at all costs.
Proprietary software isn't evil it's just people competing with each other and keeping their trade secrets in order for them to stay one step ahead.
-
It's capitalism, it's wonderful.
Live with it. It works, and it works in the feild.
Communism has never worked outside the lab/book.
-
Proprietary software isn't evil it's just people competing with each other and keeping their trade secrets in order for them to stay one step ahead.
One small step ahead for a man, one big leap behind for mankind. [Neil Armstrong + Jenda Vancura]
-
Communism has never worked outside the lab/book.
Well, it works for free software!
Alright I have exaggerated the language a little but you have clearly stated you believe proprietary software it evil and you avoid it at all costs.
Yes I have. But neither myself or GNU have ever demanded that software be made free like what yourself (in that quote) and skyman (in his sig) have suggested.
-
Well, it works for free software!
I'd like to see more than anecdotal evidence for that one.
-
I'd like to see more than anecdotal evidence for that one.
GNU. X11/Xorg. Linux. Apache. Firefox. OpenOffice.org...
-
GNU. X11/Xorg. Linux. Apache. Firefox. OpenOffice.org...
Do you even know what anecdotal evidence is?
Allow me to elighten you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence)
-
Do you even know what anecdotal evidence is?
I did look it up but... Didn't stop me.
Allow me to elighten you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence)
Ah well, I can't help ya there.
-
piratePenguin, I'm going to give you three seconds. exactly three fucking seconds to wipe the stupid smirk off your face, before I will gouge out your eyes and skull-fuck you!
(http://www.orizzontikubrickiani.it/images/hartmantojoker.jpg)
-
Yeah, Capatalism works fucking wonderfully. Just look what happens when to stock market crashes.
(morons)
-
Yes I have. But neither myself or GNU have ever demanded that software be made free like what yourself (in that quote) and skyman (in his sig) have suggested.
Alright you haven't directly said it but you've implied it, by saying something's evil it means you hate it and therefore should be eliminated and if you eliminate all proprietary software only free software will be left.
So what have we learned? Nothing. Abso-fuking-lutely nothing =)
I disagree, we've learned a lot, we've learned that:
Proprietary software isn't evil it's just people being selfish looking after number one which is human nature after all.
Forcing the free model on everyone would be a totalitarian policy and will create more problems than it would solve.
Free software isn't always technically superior, it's the developers that determine the quality which has little to do with the license.
The free model isn't always good business sense and this is why lots of companies refuse to use it.
Free software is great.
It's very good to share.
Doing something for the community is excellent, communism can work.
But people have just as much right to choose to share as they do to to choose not to.
-
Alright you haven't directly said it but you've implied it, by saying something's evil it means you hate it and therefore should be eliminated and if you eliminate all proprietary software only free software will be left.
What's wrong with that? I mean, really, where is the problem? A few dozen suits lose their majority stranglehold of the market to the many? Colour me unimpressed.
Proprietary software isn't evil it's just people being selfish looking after number one which is human nature after all.
...and man is sinful by nature, that doesn't make such behaviour RIGHT or even BENEFICIAL to the whole of humanity. In fact, it can be quite detrimental, particularly considering all the products we'll never hear about and can't BEGIN to quantify because they were quashed by proprietary code that managed to creep into the product one way or another. When someone gets to own common knowledge, that in and of itself is totalitarianism, which brings us to the next point.
Forcing the free model on everyone would be a totalitarian policy and will create more problems than it would solve.
That's debatable; that kind of reactionary thinking is not an uncommon knee-jerk opinion formed when someone else gives them the totalitarian option of paying for something that should be common knowledge (unless you happen to think that C and all programming languages should be governed by their financiers instead of their progenitors, in which case I have no objections to you being dragged out into a field and shot). Having said that, I fail to see how a standarised model would hurt FOSS. Let's bear in mind that proprietary (as in truly uninterpretable) software is a fairly new concept - in fact, most of the growth of the PC platform was made between the late 70's and early 90's - where most of the software was open either to recompilation or at least inspection. Too bad the companies that refuse to share their source are oftentimes the ones that do their best to silence reports of security breaches.
Free software isn't always technically superior, it's the developers that determine the quality which has little to do with the license.
Point one: It'd be nice if idiots would stick to making proprietary software, but this won't happen.
Point two: In light of point one, at least said idiots can have their code corrected, assuming it's worth saving.
Point three: Very often crappy open-source code will die its natural death because of excessively poor coding. The last time I checked, Microsoft still had Vis.
The free model isn't always good business sense and this is why lots of companies refuse to use it.
It's quite good for business, as only the valid concepts receive any attention whatsoever. A program that brings up a terminal and prints "hello world" fifteen-thousand times to a .log file, on the other hand, tends to get left by the wayside. As for Windows, who knows how many other functions Solitaire calls before loading? All kidding aside, IBM, Sun, and a number of other "old-timers" have seen the light and are producing software the same way they produced it twenty years ago. Why doesn't anybody else? Greed is no excuse.
Free software is great.
It's very good to share.
Doing something for the community is excellent, communism can work.
The problem is that we have Rich Stallman on one side espousing the benefits of FOSS, while Vladimir Gates sits on the other side pointing out the cons. I find it convenient - if not ironic - that he rips on the one thing that would topple his empire.
But people have just as much right to choose to share as they do to to choose not to.
Precisely, but greed ultimately leads to a shortage of resources - as has been proven many times prior - and winds up hurting the people it was meant to serve. The question becomes: do I want to serve the community, or serve myself? When you choose the latter, you're hurting everyone, including yourself, particularly in the long run.
-
It is irresistable to come back...
I would like to point out the difference I feel between FOSS and communism. The latter claims common ownership of everything. As to the former, I'm not sure about the other FOSS advocates, but I think no knowledge can ever be owned (but credited to someone), which has long been accepted in science. There is no significant difference, IMO, between discoveries and SW.
As I have mentioned before, I don't yet have a fully formed opinion on media and the like.
-
What's wrong with that? I mean, really, where is the problem? A few dozen suits lose their majority stranglehold of the market to the many? Colour me unimpressed.
This would be a total disaster the market would completely collapse there would be milions of job losses.
Not to mention how the hell could this be inforced?
...and man is sinful by nature, that doesn't make such behaviour RIGHT or even BENEFICIAL to the whole of humanity. In fact, it can be quite detrimental, particularly considering all the products we'll never hear about and can't BEGIN to quantify because they were quashed by proprietary code that managed to creep into the product one way or another. When someone gets to own common knowledge, that in and of itself is totalitarianism, which brings us to the next point.
Oh, I'm evil because I (like most people) earn money and I choose not to share most of it. The company I work for is evil because we design things and we don't share our knowledge with the community, because of this people choose our products over our competitor's who might go under because we haven't shared our ideas with them, so it's our fault they couldn't compete with so we're obviously so evil.
That's debatable; that kind of reactionary thinking is not an uncommon knee-jerk opinion formed when someone else gives them the totalitarian option of paying for something that should be common knowledge (unless you happen to think that C and all programming languages should be governed by their financiers instead of their progenitors, in which case I have no objections to you being dragged out into a field and shot). Having said that, I fail to see how a standarised model would hurt FOSS. Let's bear in mind that proprietary (as in truly uninterpretable) software is a fairly new concept - in fact, most of the growth of the PC platform was made between the late 70's and early 90's - where most of the software was open either to recompilation or at least inspection. Too bad the companies that refuse to share their source are oftentimes the ones that do their best to silence reports of security breaches.
I've heard this all before, all I can say is sharing code only works because it's voluntary, totalitarianism has never worked before in history. Code = wealth, forcing people to share the latter has always lead to disaster so why should compulsory sharing of the former be any different?
Point one: It'd be nice if idiots would stick to making proprietary software, but this won't happen.
What evidence do you have to support this? Why won't things stay proprietary? I've heard this bullshit many times before but nothing significant has happened to support this, the market isn't moving that quickly towards free software, if anything the reverse is the case.
Point two: In light of point one, at least said idiots can have their code corrected, assuming it's worth saving.
If this is true then why hasn't anyone corrected this critical bug in Firefox? Unless you're suggesting Firefox isn't worth saving of course.
Point three: Very often crappy open-source code will die its natural death because of excessively poor coding. The last time I checked, Microsoft still had Vis.
This should (in theory) apply to the proprietary world too (if it did we wouldn't have had to put up with MS-DOS for so long). Why do you think it applies to free software and not proprietary?
It's quite good for business, as only the valid concepts receive any attention whatsoever. A program that brings up a terminal and prints "hello world" fifteen-thousand times to a .log file, on the other hand, tends to get left by the wayside. As for Windows, who knows how many other functions Solitaire calls before loading? All kidding aside, IBM, Sun, and a number of other "old-timers" have seen the light and are producing software the same way they produced it twenty years ago. Why doesn't anybody else? Greed is no excuse.
I chose my wording more carefully this time, I didn't say "The open source model is bad for business" I said "it isn't always good business sense". What works for SUN and IBM might not work for Adobe, Apple or Microsoft.
The problem is that we have Rich Stallman on one side espousing the benefits of FOSS, while Vladimir Gates sits on the other side pointing out the cons. I find it convenient - if not ironic - that he rips on the one thing that would topple his empire.
Free software is great but if you think it'll destroy proprietary software they you're very naive indeed. I support the sharing of code but it isn't vital for a healthy market, many companies all having a reasonable share is.
Precisely, but greed ultimately leads to a shortage of resources - as has been proven many times prior - and winds up hurting the people it was meant to serve. The question becomes: do I want to serve the community, or serve myself? When you choose the latter, you're hurting everyone, including yourself, particularly in the long run.
That's capitalism for you, communism has been tried and tested throughout the course of history and has always done more harm than good, so until something better comes along capitalism as bad as it is, is the best we're going to get.
-
Just wait about five years when the price of oil jumps to triple digits because the Saudi reserves run dry, just wait, and then see how well Capitalism serves. Remember, it was capatalism that lead to Nazi Germany, that was all thanks to Capitalism. It was capaitalism's faults that lead to so many faulty Communist regimes. However most of those regimes were still Capitalist and just masquerade behind the Communist name to sound nice while they are generally totalitarian, etc.
-
Just wait about five years when the price of oil jumps to triple digits because the Saudi reserves run dry, just wait, and then see how well Capitalism serves. Remember, it was capatalism that lead to Nazi Germany, that was all thanks to Capitalism. It was capaitalism's faults that lead to so many faulty Communist regimes. However most of those regimes were still Capitalist and just masquerade behind the Communist name to sound nice while they are generally totalitarian, etc.
If the western world as it is today wishes to maintain, it should've made their cars run on hydrogen fuel and sunflower oil at least ten years ago.
The energy too. Fossil fuels are going to run out someday, and most of the energy supply is still coal based. Yes, nuclear power is a fossil fuel too.
Instead of calling on citizens to consume less and regulate energy use, it has become more of a trend to increase buying force amongst citizens to bost economic health.
But hey, what do the 50+ government leaders care if their children have to live in poverty?
-
Remember, it was capatalism that lead to Nazi Germany, that was all thanks to Capitalism. It was capaitalism's faults that lead to so many faulty Communist regimes.
Where the FUCK do you get this shit from??? Please enlighten me if I am mistaken, but the Nazis were officially The Nationalist Socialist Party - i.e definite left, nothing about capitalism whatsoever!
No comment to the second POC.
-
The energy too. Fossil fuels are going to run out someday, and most of the energy supply is still coal based. Yes, nuclear power is a fossil fuel too.
No it is not. Fossil fuels are transformed organic material.
-
No it is not. Fossil fuels are transformed organic material.
Technically it isn't no. I meant that uranium has to be mined too, and that it can and will run out.
-
Well, with that I agree. It is a non-renewable, not a fossil.
-
Except that fissionable material isn't going to run out for a long time.
The 50 years number, that I know will get thrown out here, is from existing reserves with current mining techniques, and doesn't account for other reserves and techniques. And doesn't take into account the fact that the other nuclear fuel, thorium-232.
ALL resources run out. We shouldn't discard a useful, and viable method of power generation, because it will run out of fuel one day.
Do you wan't humanity to live naked in the bush? Because thats EXACTLY where we will be if you continue that line of thought. The slippery slope goes both ways fuckers.
-
It's capitalism, it's wonderful.
Live with it. It works, and it works in the feild.
Communism has never worked outside the lab/book.
I'd like to see more than anecdotal evidence for that. Because, to my knowledge, true textbook open-market capitalism has never been tried. True Marxism has never been tried either. What we have can be characterised by "technocratic regulated capitalism". Meaning that the microeconomics of current US society are based on trade secrets, branding, and government regulation, as opposed to perfect supply and demand and marginal utility.
-
Where the FUCK do you get this shit from??? Please enlighten me if I am mistaken, but the Nazis were officially The Nationalist Socialist Party - i.e definite left, nothing about capitalism whatsoever!
No comment to the second POC.
Yes, but if Capitalist France wasn't so fucking greedy after World War One, Germany wouldn't have got so fucked up to get in that position.
Also: FACISM is the far right.
China is facist, they call themselves communist, but then the conservatives in Australia call themselves Liberals, China is the far right. As was the Nationalist Socialist Party of Germany.
-
OK, so I've said that writing some program and keeping it to yourself (greed) is evil. Therefore, I won't support that program, instead I'll support/create an alternative to that program.
Alright you haven't directly said it but you've implied it, by saying something's evil it means you hate it and therefore should be eliminated and if you eliminate all proprietary software only free software will be left.
Exactly correct. The fact that I would like to see non-free software eliminated does not mean that I'd even support some totalitarian policy to eliminate it, so don't assume so.
I like the way things are hopefully headed - non-free software eating up market share bit by bit (people chosing it because the software is just plain better (and it will be better (I did say that this is the way things are hopefully headed.).), and hopefully because they like the philosophical end of it too.). And then, when the non-free software companies decide they can't compete, they make their software free.
ALL resources run out. We shouldn't discard a useful, and viable method of power generation, because it will run out of fuel one day.
Nuclear energy isn't renewable. It has some other disadvantages - but they've already been discussed.
I'd like to see more renewable energy being produced in the future.
-
OK, so I've said that writing some program and keeping it to yourself (greed) is evil.
No doubt you or your parents are earning money and you/they don't share most of it, so how does this make them evil?
If I design something and I keep the designs to myself I'm being selfish but no more than anyone else who doesn't share everthing.
Therefore, I won't support that program, instead I'll support/create an alternative to that program.
Fair enough support what you want, I personally support any software that suits my needs and is generally excelent, and if it so happens to be free, then I'll go even more out of my way to support it.
Exactly correct. The fact that I would like to see non-free software eliminated does not mean that I'd even support some totalitarian policy to eliminate it, so don't assume so.
Good, I'm gald you've made yourself clear on that one.
I like the way things are hopefully headed - non-free software eating up market share bit by bit (people chosing it because the software is just plain better (and it will be better (I did say that this is the way things are hopefully headed.).), and hopefully because they like the philosophical end of it too.). And then, when the non-free software companies decide they can't compete, they make their software free.
I have very mixed feelings about this, firstly I doubt this'll ever happen and I am yet to be convinced that it'll be the best thing for the economy or software in general. Making software free will reduce its cost drastically and as a result the programmers will get paid less so less people will want to become developers.
Nuclear energy isn't renewable. It has some other disadvantages - but they've already been discussed.
I'd like to see more renewable energy being produced in the future.
I agree, nuclear energy should be used until we renewable sources are strong enough to support our needs.
-
No doubt you or your parents are earning money and you/they don't share most of it, so how does this make them evil?
To produce software, you write code. For non-free software, you keep this code to yourself and distribute the software in binary form. That is, by definition, selfish.
Money, unlike software, is essential for survival. You need a certain amount of it to pay for your needs, then maybe some more for whatever it is you want, and, sometimes, after that, at least in my opinion, some people do become greedy slash evil, unless they share a bit of their wealth (by giving to charity, for example).
Ofcourse some people will disagree - if you earn money you should be able to keep it for yourself. But when you consider all the problems in the world... At least in my books, any billionaire who hasn't given over INSERT_FIGURE_HERE to charity, is greedy slash evil.
If I design something and I keep the designs to myself I'm being selfish but no more than anyone else who doesn't share everthing.
For some people it just isn't possible to share everything - they just would not survive.
Different story for sharing software.
Making software free will reduce its cost drastically and as a result the programmers will get paid less so less people will want to become developers.
I dunno if things, price-wise, would be much different from today in a mature free software economy.
-
You are deserving of a hard slap across the face by the Invisible Hand
-
blab
I would respect this opinion far more if you actually had bills to pay.
Get over yourself, proprietary software is here for the long-haul.
-
I would respect this opinion far more if you actually had bills to pay.
Get over yourself, proprietary software is here for the long-haul.
What you're saying is that those who have that viewpoint have no expenses, and thus no right to speak.
To that, I give my considered response: Bite. Me.
First off, all my balances are fucking RED for a reason.
Second off, if more people would SHARE, proprietary software wouldn't have the majority stranglehold it enjoys today.
That is all.
-
What you're saying is that those who have that viewpoint have no expenses, and thus no right to speak.
To that, I give my considered response: Bite. Me.
First off, all my balances are fucking RED for a reason.
Thankyou for misrepresenting me.
What I was saying was:
The comments of a 12 year old - with little experience of fiscal matters - about economics don't carry much weight with me. He can say what he likes but I will call bullshit when I see fit.
Eliminating proprietary software would eliminate jobs, family breadwinners would no longer have incomes. How would PP explain that to their kids?
He can comment, but as neither a wage earner or parent he doesn't have the perspective.
Second off, if more people would SHARE, proprietary software wouldn't have the majority stranglehold it enjoys today.
That is all.
We'll that's stating the obvious since FOSS and proprietary are mutexes.
-
I'm seeing a lot of this guy here, he's sad, he hates being used in arguments, he wan't to go away and never be used.
(http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Elilyth/cartoon/mrdid.jpg)
-
Eliminating proprietary software would eliminate jobs, family breadwinners would no longer have incomes. How would PP explain that to their kids?
That's a situation proprietary software companies created and enforced. Everyone thought it was a good idea, since it created jobs. Now, if they go under, all the workers go under, and society as a whole has a responsibility to them - we have to buy software to keep the programmers from getting fired. But when HP or IBM or whoever decides to lay off 5000 workers, no big deal, that's just how it is in the busines world.
Besides, the same argument was once used against television, saying that it would destroy the film and radio industries. Imagine if we had listened? Hindsight proves that the advent of television created a lot of profit for a lot of people, and that film and radio have never been stronger.
And if you're really all that concerned about the welfare of proprietary software creators, why do you use Linux? Hell, why do you use bittorrent? ;)
-
I would respect this opinion far more if you actually had bills to pay.
Get over yourself, proprietary software is here for the long-haul.
Did you even read my post you fucking arsehole?
Eliminating proprietary software would eliminate jobs, family breadwinners would no longer have incomes. How would PP explain that to their kids?
Again, did you even read my post you fucking arsehole?
I dunno if things, price-wise, would be much different from today in a mature free software economy.
And before that:
I like the way things are hopefully headed - non-free software eating up market share bit by bit (people chosing it because the software is just plain better (and it will be better (I did say that this is the way things are hopefully headed.).), and hopefully because they like the philosophical end of it too.). And then, when the non-free software companies decide they can't compete, they make their software free.
-
I dunno if things, price-wise, would be much different from today in a mature free software economy.
And to back that up (or down): http://www.fsfeurope.org/documents/eur5greve.en.html (http://www.fsfeurope.org/documents/eur5greve.en.html)
And the good thing is,
THEY PAY BILLS!
Structure of a Free Software economy
The differences are much smaller than many people would make you believe. The financially most important sector today is software for business activities and most of the revenue is generated through service. This is unlikely to change.
It is true that license revenue will most likely go down, probably significantly. However this only affects a very small part of the software generated revenue; a part which generates a negative trade balance between Europe and the United States today.
The by orders of magnitude largest source of revenue today is service. This sector will be able to grow significantly in a Free Software economy.
In the current system, dominated by proprietary software, only those companies supported by the monopolies can offer services; usually only a small part of what would be possible. The remainder is either done by the monopolies themselves
-
Today, a lot of people are talking about free software -- open source -- things like Linux, Perl, Java, KDE, and so on. Free software is good for the user. But how should it be viewed by commercial developers? Some people don't like the idea of free software; free implies cheap, and we all need to pay for our food and the roof over our heads.
I'm still trying to formulate my own position on this matter. After all, I'm a programmer. When I advocate the use of free software, am I not doing myself out of a living?
The answer, I think, is no. But the way I come to this conclusion is probably not immediately obvious.
Consider software, as a product. Software is readily copyable; if I have a computer I can duplicate the data on any medium it will read. Sometimes people attempt to copy-protect software by one means or another; but in general, all copy-protection mechanisms do is make it harder to copy software -- not impossible. After all, if you can't read it, you can't run it.) Thus, the marginal cost of duplicating software tends towards zero.
However, let's now consider a physical object. If I have an automobile, and I give it to you, I no longer have it; I've given it away. I can't easily duplicate it, so I've lost it. But if I have a program, I can give it to you, and still keep it for myself. Ergo, the traditional way of looking at property as a transferable but not retainable posession doesn't fit.
Copyright laws, as currently constituted around the world, presuppose a high fixed cost for copying, because back when they were first proposed the main infringers of intellectual property rights were rogue printers who plagiarized and republished books. It took a printing press to do this, so enforcing copyright control was fairly easy: you followed the trail of ink and confiscated their plates. Thus, copyright control was enforceable.
Now, with general-purpose computers, any machine capable of running the software is also capable of copying it. So the general assumption underlying existing copyright law (that copying takes special facilities) is invalidated.
A new way of allowing developers to earn a living therefore needs to be formalized; one which does't rely on obsolete assumptions ("copying is hard") and which accomodates a modern view of information as property ("the marginal cost of reproduction tends towards zero").
Free software fits the bill. It isn't necessarily free in a financial sense; just free in the sense that nobody wants to stop you copying it. Developers of free software can still make money by providing support services -- bugfixes, bespoke patches and configuration, end-user support, teaching, and documentation. These are services, not products. For an example of this way of life, look at Larry Wall, developer of Perl. Larry is now employed by O'Reilly and Associates to work on Perl, doing pretty much whatever he wants. ORA make money off this deal because they are the #1 publisher of Perl books, and having Larry in-house gives them a stupendous competitive edge in the Perl support market.
A useful side-effect of free software is that you don't need to waste resources on copy protection or licensing; every user is a potential customer for your support services, so you want to _encourage_ copying. Nor do you necessarily need to market free software. Free software is utterly decoupled from the marketing paradigm that has overtaken the software industry today, because a rational consumer -- faced with a choice between products that are essentially free -- will always pick the best product for their purposes. The usual marketing levers (advertising, featuritis, incompatability, FUD) are actually counterproductive if you try to apply them to free software; advertising usually relies on creating a sense of dissatisfaction or insecurity in the consumer, which requires compensatory fulfillment. But because the profitability of free software is predicated on services, not product, this doesn't raise revenue; it just puts new users off using your software in the first place.
Conversely, if you simply make your program the best possible one for the largest number of users, you will pick up market share. Thus, the free software market is innately technology-driven, not marketing- or sales- driven.
I believe there will always be a niche for developers writing custom applications for a specific customer. There will always be a niche for sysadmins and customization specialists, taking existing packages and configuring them for a specific customer. And there will always be a niche for the technical author, trainer, and troubleshooter, who helps the end-users understand and use the software more effectively. All these people have a vested interest in contributing (as and when they can) to the free software packages that make their jobs possible. They are, in economic terms, innately opposed to proprietary commercial applications packages that have been specified by marketing departments as an all-encompassing solution to all possible user's needs, because such packages make their jobs harder.
I'm a specialist Perl developer, working on bespoke applications for people who need them. Am I worse off because Perl is free, rather than costing me megabucks for a proprietary and non-portable development environment that then charges a runtime royalty? No. Indeed, free software saves me so much money that if I see a chance to contribute something useful to the common pot I will do so.
The free software economy is a gift economy, post-industrial style. The people who keep asking "yes, but why should I trust it?" are still stuck in the mass-production commodity sales era of Henry Ford. I'm convinced that this is the way of the future; after all, if and when nanotechnology comes along, everything will work the way the software industry works today. (Anyone want to help found a Free Hardware Foundation? :-)
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/linux/wibble/freesoft.html
-
I love you pP...
:)
-
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/linux/wibble/freesoft.html
Nice article. Thanks.
-
You should all shut up.
Because you cant beat proprietary demigods like SAP.
If you wanna you should be coding right now.
-
To produce software, you write code. For non-free software, you keep this code to yourself and distribute the software in binary form. That is, by definition, selfish.
So what?
I've designed electronic circuits at work and guess what?
We aren't stupid enough to give our compeitiors all copies of the schematics.
The code for the firmware and PLAs is all a trade secret.
Our battery charging interface and support software for the PC is all closed source, we don't make much money on the software alone, we profit most on the hardware.
Wow!
what evil selfish bastards we all are! We invest time and money in our hardware and software and we fucking deserve to gain a healthy return on our investment. Why don't you fucking string us all up and send us to the gas chambers?
Money, unlike software, is essential for survival. You need a certain amount of it to pay for your needs, then maybe some more for whatever it is you want, and, sometimes, after that, at least in my opinion, some people do become greedy slash evil, unless they share a bit of their wealth (by giving to charity, for example).
So, Microsoft share some of their money with charity.
Ofcourse some people will disagree - if you earn money you should be able to keep it for yourself. But when you consider all the problems in the world... At least in my books, any billionaire who hasn't given over INSERT_FIGURE_HERE to charity, is greedy slash evil.
Read the above.
For some people it just isn't possible to share everything - they just would not survive.
That's because they hardly have enough for themselves and I agree they shouldn't be expected to share. I know it just doesn't seem right for some people to have plenty and some so litte (and it isn't) but that life for you, welcome to the real world you hippy luney.
I'm not very well paid as I'm only an apprentice, I do donate some money to charity. I'm pissed off as I'm nearing the end of my apprenticeship and due to a problem at the company where I work there are no job vacancies for electronic engineers so I'm doing a shitty job at the moment (stock control) either until they find a decent job or I can get one some where else. People who develop software have also been in my situation before, (someone I work with has) your idea that people who develop proprietary software are greedy is palin worng.
Different story for sharing software.
Oh no it isn't, if you depend on the software for your survival it's exactly the same principle. The bigest problem you have is you're thinking that all companies are like Microsoft. You're conveniently forgetting about the smaller developers here who don't make themselves filthy rich and only sell enough to survive which they struggle to do as they have to compete with the old Billy boy and now the GPL crew.
Your logic has a major flaw, you think "Microsoft uses proprietary licences and they're evil therefore other companies who also use them are equally evil". This is pure rubbish, name one other software company that's even half as bad as Microsoft.
I dunno if things, price-wise, would be much different from today in a mature free software economy.
I'm sick to death of this naive attitude "Linux will have it's day", "the good will out and free software will prevail and crush these proprietary daemons", "capitalism will be brought down and we'll all live a life of piece, equality and harmony".
Where do you people get this hippy idealistic bullshit from?
How the fuck are things at the moment suggesting this trend?
Well I've got news for you they aren't going to chance, at least not in this lifetime, if you're right (and I doubt you are) it will be a very long time in the future, the tide hasn't even begun to turn yet and don't bet it will.
As your biased articles have correctly stated, free software can generate revenue and I have never disagreed with this point, but the amount it generates will be considerably less. Free software companies (as already said) make money from their services rather than their code and if they do make it big it'll only be in areas where companies want the services like web serving and databasing.
The domestic consumers will be affected far less as they don't uses the services enough to generate enough revenue to make it worth the developers' while. People won't suddenly mass convert to Linux and there won't be a dramatic increase in free computer games. Projects like OpenOffice, Inkscape and Firefox (which is likely to decline due to competition with IE 7 as I think it might be quite good) might make their mark but on the Windows and Mac platforms not Linux. Neich markets like engineering software where the userbase isn't high enough to sustain the market by purchasing services alone will be affected even less. I doubt Bills empire will come crashing down any time soon and if you do then you're very naive indeed.
-
Do me a personal favour and refute Worker. Better yet, provide the counterpoint to ANY of those articles Pingu just quoted. You're quite wrong about the tides and prevailing winds, as has been proven by China, the Czech Republic, Germany... Indeed, your entire argument hinges on the current market being driven by monopolistic practices - yes, I understand that concept is alien overseas. You've done NOTHING to refute the fact that whereas your company, GE, and the like have to honestly compete with one another, all a multinational giant like Microsoft has to do is close some source here and charge licence fees there to make up for the money they'd lose if people saw how much CRAP is really in their code. Bloat and instruction creep are ALREADY appearing in early previews of IE 7... how are pop-ups handled again? How many DIFFERENT ways can you turn them off before turning them OFF? Additionally, you fail to account for the render-farms that make up such a big portion of the FOSS-graphics movement (no, not GNU exclusively, so don't EVEN go there ;)).
If you SERIOUSLY plan on underestimating the community that brought about Seattle Q/DOS in the first place, it is not us who are na
-
Do me a personal favour and refute Worker.
Quite confusing, please specify:
Do me a personal favour and...
a)refute Worker
b)refute, Worker
c)refute, worker
d)refute worker
e)refute-worker
f)refute Aloone-Jonez
g)refute, Aloone-Jonez
h)refute piratePenguin
i)refute, piratePenguin
j)other - please specify
-
I think if he added the required modifier '201', and a reference to any one of my brilliant posts :D it would be much clearer. That's how I read it, anyway.
-
Communist!
-
Nazi!
-
Godwin's Law!
-
I give up.
-
So what?
I've designed electronic circuits at work and guess what?
We aren't stupid enough to give our compeitiors all copies of the schematics.
The code for the firmware and PLAs is all a trade secret.
Our battery charging interface and support software for the PC is all closed source, we don't make much money on the software alone, we profit most on the hardware.
Wow!
what evil selfish bastards we all are! We invest time and money in our hardware and software and we fucking deserve to gain a healthy return on our investment. Why don't you fucking string us all up and send us to the gas chambers?
I'm quite interested in electronics myself actually. I like that INSERT_SOMETHING_HERE you did in work, may I please have the schematics and the source for the firmware and PLAs? So I can learn how it works and mess about with it a bit?
No? You promised not to? Ah that sucks.
Now, how THE FUCK, is that not selfish of you and whoever it is you're working for? HOW?
I said that by definition it's selfish, and IT IS (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=selfish)!
So, Microsoft share some of their money with charity.
Um. What?
If they do, fair play to them (it doesn't matter I dunno why you brought that up). But they're still selfish (BY DEFINITION) for keeping all that code they wrote to themselves.
That's because they hardly have enough for themselves and I agree they shouldn't be expected to share. I know it just doesn't seem right for some people to have plenty and some so litte (and it isn't) but that life for you, welcome to the real world you hippy luney.
Oh yea, that's life. I almost forgot that. When anyone mentions changing it (some ppl with so much and some ppl with so little), lets bash them with "that's life"!
Bob Geldof (you luney hippy), let's leave things in Africa the way they are because THAT'S LIFE!
you hippy luney.
You're the one that brought up sharing wealth whenever I was talking about sharing software, you hippy luney.
I'm not very well paid as I'm only an apprentice, I do donate some money to charity. I'm pissed off as I'm nearing the end of my apprenticeship and due to a problem at the company where I work there are no job vacancies for electronic engineers so I'm doing a shitty job at the moment (stock control) either until they find a decent job or I can get one some where else. People who develop software have also been in my situation before, (someone I work with has) your idea that people who develop proprietary software are greedy is palin worng.
By definition they are selfish.
Oh no it isn't, if you depend on the software for your survival it's exactly the same principle. The bigest problem you have is you're thinking that all companies are like Microsoft. You're conveniently forgetting about the smaller developers here who don't make themselves filthy rich and only sell enough to survive which they struggle to do as they have to compete with the old Billy boy and now the GPL crew.
Did you read those articles?
Your logic has a major flaw, you think "Microsoft uses proprietary licences and they're evil therefore other companies who also use them are equally evil". This is pure rubbish, name one other software company that's even half as bad as Microsoft.
WHAT THE FUCK?
What the fuck makes you think that?
I'm sick to death of this naive attitude "Linux will have it's day", "the good will out and free software will prevail and crush these proprietary daemons", "capitalism will be brought down and we'll all live a life of piece, equality and harmony".
I stated the way things were hopefully going.
How the fuck are things at the moment suggesting this trend?
GNU/Linux is bigger (in popularity) than ever.
We've got free alternatives to basically everything, and even if the non-free products have more features, using the free alternatives (and no non-free software) generally isn't a huge inconvenience.
Well I've got news for you they aren't going to chance, at least not in this lifetime, if you're right (and I doubt you are) it will be a very long time in the future, the tide hasn't even begun to turn yet and don't bet it will.
The tide HAS begun to turn. Free software is making a huger impact now more than ever.
People won't suddenly mass convert to Linux and there won't be a dramatic increase in free computer games.
[snip]
I doubt Bills empire will come crashing down any time soon and if you do then you're very naive indeed.
So what?
I stated the way things are hopefully going (IMO). Did you like, skip over that or something?
-
People who work at all could be considered selfish. I think personally that a person cannot be held accountable for the status of the selfish money grabbing world. However I think we should all try our best to do what we can (write free software, volunteer, edit wikipedia, give a brother a hand) to make this world a better place.
Hell even some of the most seemly selfless people can be seen as selfish.
-
Yes, because everyone has their own fucked up opinions.
-
Yes, because everyone has their own fucked up opinions.
A wise man once said...
Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one, and they all stink.
-
Haha, that's a good one. ;)
-
Opinions are like penises. Every guy has one, and they're always wanting to shove it down somebody's throat.
-
Nono, not me. ;)
-
Are you a female then?
-
Haha, mentally, yes. ;)
-
Haha, mentally, yes. ;)
So then you want a penis down your troat.
-
Alright you people, back to the serious debate, I've been busy recently but today I've killed time by coming up with some killer troll bait. :)
Do me a personal favour and refute Worker. Better yet, provide the counterpoint to ANY of those articles Pingu just quoted.
Alright then.
Consider software, as a product. Software is readily copyable; if I have a computer I can duplicate the data on any medium it will read. Sometimes people attempt to copy-protect software by one means or another; but in general, all copy-protection mechanisms do is make it harder to copy software -- not impossible. After all, if you can't read it, you can't run it.) Thus, the marginal cost of duplicating software tends towards zero.
However, let's now consider a physical object. If I have an automobile, and I give it to you, I no longer have it; I've given it away. I can't easily duplicate it, so I've lost it. But if I have a program, I can give it to you, and still keep it for myself. Ergo, the traditional way of looking at property as a transferable but not retainable posession doesn't fit.
Copyright laws, as currently constituted around the world, presuppose a high fixed cost for copying, because back when they were first proposed the main infringers of intellectual property rights were rogue printers who plagiarized and republished books. It took a printing press to do this, so enforcing copyright control was fairly easy: you followed the trail of ink and confiscated their plates. Thus, copyright control was enforceable.
Now, with general-purpose computers, any machine capable of running the software is also capable of copying it. So the general assumption underlying existing copyright law (that copying takes special facilities) is invalidated.
Just a few points:
This logic applies to any media stored on a computer, whether it be music, DVDs, or software.
Copyright law is enforceable - look at the number of BitTorrent sites taken down recently.
You've also mentioned plagiarism, software isn't normally plagiarised but copied without the owner's consent, however open source software is more open to plagiarism as it's open code make it easy to copy and call it your own.
A new way of allowing developers to earn a living therefore needs to be formalized; one which does't rely on obsolete assumptions ("copying is hard") and which accomodates a modern view of information as property ("the marginal cost of reproduction tends towards zero").
Software is property, but not in the physical sense of the word, (as you've correctly stated) but it requires vast amounts of money to produce in terms of research and development. Just because it doesn't cost anything to reproduce doesn't mean it isn't worth anything, the artificial cost know as copyright is there to fund the development process - the more they sell the more money there is to invest in making it better, this also helps to protect the company's investment.
Free software fits the bill. It isn't necessarily free in a financial sense; just free in the sense that nobody wants to stop you copying it. Developers of free software can still make money by providing support services --
This may be true for some cooperate applications but why would I, the domestic consumer require the above to run my operating system, office suit, and computer games, especially the latter, notice how there are very few free computer games?
bugfixes, bespoke patches
Hang on the above will both be free too, as they are modifications to the source, so don't bank on gaining any money from them.
and configuration, end-user support, teaching, and
There's not much software we use at work, that we use these services to support, possibly SAP (this is proprietary anyway) there might be others but I can't think of them off the top of my head.
documentation.
Which is normally released under the free documentation license, read my second last statement above.
These are services, not products. For an example of this way of life, look at Larry Wall, developer of Perl. Larry is now employed by O'Reilly and Associates to work on Perl, doing pretty much whatever he wants. ORA make money off this deal because they are the #1 publisher of Perl books, and having Larry in-house gives them a stupendous competitive edge in the Perl support market.
This is highly debatable, it depends on the type of software and it's target market, large organisations might be able to generate this sort of revenue but the domestic market surely won't, and as I've already said my company rarely uses these services.
A useful side-effect of free software is that you don't need to waste resources on copy protection or licensing; every user is a potential customer for your support services, so you want to _encourage_ copying. Nor do you necessarily need to market free software.
Read above, that depends on whether these services are able to generate the sort revenue to support the development process.
Free software is utterly decoupled from the marketing paradigm that has overtaken the software industry today, because a rational consumer -- faced with a choice between products that are essentially free -- will always pick the best product for their purposes.
Exactly, normal people will always use the software that suits their needs, at the moment it isn't always free software that fulfils most peoples needs, I for example have explained why it doesn't suit mine and there are plenty more people just like me.
The usual marketing levers (advertising, featuritis, incompatability, FUD) are actually counterproductive if you try to apply them to free software; advertising usually relies on creating a sense of dissatisfaction or insecurity in the consumer, which requires compensatory fulfillment.
The free software fanboys are FUD experts and so is Microsoft both sides are equal in this respect, but some of the above arguments are true especially for Windows and Linux.
But because the profitability of free software is predicated on services, not product,
This is what the whole of this argument depends on, this is only looking at the corporate market and is neglecting the domestic consumer market.
this doesn't raise revenue; it just puts new users off using your software in the first place.
True, that's what pisses me off about these people they say "PROPRIETARY $OFTWARE I$ EVIL, FREE $OFT WARE IS THE ONLY WAY LINUX RULE$ WINBLOW$ DROOL$"
But I doubt this argument anyway because Microsoft's marketing practices haven't had this effect on most people, in fact they've only made them stronger.
Conversely, if you simply make your program the best possible one for the largest number of users, you will pick up market share. Thus, the free software market is innately technology-driven, not marketing- or sales- driven.
Hang on, that's assuming open source software will be the best and suit most people's needs, this isn't the case with Firefox, Opera is far superior, and even MS Office to OpenOffice and Windows to Linux in some respects.
I believe there will always be a niche for developers writing custom applications for a specific customer. There will always be a niche for sysadmins and customization specialists, taking existing packages and configuring them for a specific customer. And there will always be a niche for the technical author, trainer, and troubleshooter, who helps the end-users understand and use the software more effectively.
Yes, you've correctly pointed out where proprietary software will always have a market, but as I've said before you're neglecting the domestic consumer market.
All these people have a vested interest in contributing (as and when they can) to the free software packages that make their jobs possible. They are, in economic terms, innately opposed to proprietary commercial applications packages that have been specified by marketing departments as an all-encompassing solution to all possible user's needs, because such packages make their jobs harder.
Why would they benefit from sharing their trade secrets with their competitors?
If we did this where I work we'd be out of business in no time, but I suppose your in hypothetical situation everyone's doing this but this will never happen anyway.
I'm a specialist Perl developer, working on bespoke applications for people who need them. Am I worse off because Perl is free, rather than costing me megabucks for a proprietary and non-portable development environment that then charges a runtime royalty? No. Indeed, free software saves me so much money that if I see a chance to contribute something useful to the common pot I will do so.
And I'm an trainee electrical/electronics engineer and I accept the open source model might suit your business, I also accept that it is far less suited to others.
The free software economy is a gift economy, post-industrial style. The people who keep asking "yes, but why should I trust it?" are still stuck in the mass-production commodity sales era of Henry Ford. I'm convinced that this is the way of the future; after all, if and when nanotechnology comes along, everything will work the way the software industry works today. (Anyone want to help found a Free Hardware Foundation? :-)
Sounds good, we'll just have to see, only the future will tell.
Before you also mentioned how easy software is to copy and how hard it is to enforce copyright law, I've pointed out that the same goes for all other forms of electronic media, if you're suggesting free software will become more popular because developers will simply give up then you're wrong. Film and music companies won't be able to generate any revenue from services and neither will game developers along with the many others who can't sell their services, these products will remain proprietary and their developers will work together to create better copy protection and pirate detection schemes.
You're quite wrong about the tides and prevailing winds, as has been proven by China, the Czech Republic, Germany...
These statistics are highly questionable, Linux might have a higher market share but they also ignore the fact there's also a high level of piracy in these areas - lots of people in these areas use Windows but they don't pay for it, and since when have the above set the market trends for the rest of the world?
Indeed, your entire argument hinges on the current market being driven by monopolistic practices
I admit I have been playing devil's advocate a bit here (it's very important to see things from both sides of the argument) but are other companies who use proprietary licences apart from Microsoft you know. I'm countering the blind hatred of proprietary software in general some people seem to think it's bad in general because Microsoft relies on it.
- yes, I understand that concept is alien overseas. You've done NOTHING to refute the fact that whereas your company, GE, and the like have to honestly compete with one another, all a multinational giant
I was never even being trying to refute the fact that Microsoft is bad, but you're doing this again, putting all companies who don't disclose their trade secrets with the same crowd as Microsoft.
like Microsoft has to do is close some source here and charge licence fees there to make up for the money they'd lose if people saw how much CRAP is really in their code.
Normally there is nothing wrong with this, in theory companies who release shit software can't compete with other superior products but as Microsoft have locked everyone in their competitors don't stand a chance and not all of MS' software is shit like the NT kernel for example.
Bloat and instruction creep are ALREADY appearing in early previews of IE 7... how are pop-ups handled again? How many DIFFERENT ways can you turn them off before turning them OFF?
Hang on IE 7 still isn't out of beta testing so you can't really say anything. I admit I may have gone a bit far on this one saying IE 7 may be good, but it doesn't have to be great to stop more people from switching to FireFox. All Microsoft have to do is make it appear equal in features, like add a search bar, tabs and a equally shit download manager (as in better than IE 7 and as crap as Firefox's) and people will see these features and be too lazy to download Firefox.
As far as I'm concerned Firefox just isn't good enough, it's more bloated than Opera and has less features too, so what there're extensions but I don't need them in Opera. The main thing that put me off Opera was the fact I didn't know how many security holes it has but it's just struck me I don't care as it doesn't have a big enough user-base to justify any attacks. Mozilla is shit because that critical bug still hasn't been fixed and because the bug tracking system is open it makes it easier to exploit so it's even more dangerous especially if it's user base increases enough to make an attack worthy.
While I'm, on the subject of bloat, there's OpenOffice which being smaller than MS Office you'd expect it to be lighter and faster, but I've found the reverse to be true, it uses more memory and is way slower than MS Office even though it has a similar number of features. MS Office has separate modules for the spreadsheet, charting word processing etc. but OpenOffice always loads it's big fuck off soffice.bin and it's also packed with Java (something that's not too bad in OO 1 but worse in OO 2) just in case they thought it wasn't already slow enough.
Additionally, you fail to account for the render-farms that make up such a big portion of the FOSS-graphics movement (no, not GNU exclusively, so don't EVEN go there ;)).
I'm sorry I've completely missed your point, what do you mean by this?
What's the FOSS-graphics movement got to do with this?
If you SERIOUSLY plan on underestimating the community that brought about Seattle Q/DOS in the first place, it is not us who are na