Microsoft/Windows - anti-freedom

[Stalker72]

Today, I was talking to some classmates about Microsoft and Windows, and the freedom you have if you use it. I can't make them believe that Microsoft is crushing freedom. One guy is interested in learning more, but he wants it black on white from a reliable source.

I need you to post links from reliable sources that explain the major freedom issues of using Windows and other Microsoft products like Office. It has to be easy to understand. I'm explaining this to n00bs! ;)

Cheers,

Stalker72

[piousp]

Well, you can try to show em Window's EULA

[Stalker72]

Well, you can try to show em Window's EULA
Link please? :popcorn:

Stalker72

[rickyjones]

Today, I was talking to some classmates about Microsoft and Windows, and the freedom you have if you use it. I can't make them believe that Microsoft is crushing freedom. One guy is interested in learning more, but he wants it black on white from a reliable source.

I need you to post links from reliable sources that explain the major freedom issues of using Windows and other Microsoft products like Office. It has to be easy to understand. I'm explaining this to n00bs! ;)

Cheers,

Stalker72

I'm interested - how exactly does Microsoft crush freedom? What kind of freedom are you discussing? Interesting concept, I'd like to see the points.

Thanks,
Richard

[-grubby]

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/eula/home.mspx

[piousp]

Here is the link (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/eula/home.mspx) directly from Microsoft

Here (http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/02/windows_vista_e.html) are some thoughts on Wired


And here (http://www.cyber.com.au/cyber/about/comparing_the_gpl_to_eula.pdf) is a comparison between GPL and Windows EULA

[Johnsie]

It's very easy to blame Microsoft for the failure of the Linux community to get Linux recognised.

I think it's time for us Linux people to grab the bull by the horns and compete rather than sitting here whining about Microsoft and freedom all the time.

[lukaszr]

Linux is failing to promote itself. So let's all attack Microsoft.

I think it's time for us Linux people to grab the bull by the horns and compete rather than sitting here whining about Microsoft.

i second that motion! :popcorn:

[aceinthenight]

I can do whatever I want with Windows or OS X, like they care what I do with it...

[Icehuck]

I can do whatever I want with Windows or OS X, like they care what I do with it...

So how does that source code look?

[aceinthenight]

So how does that source code look?

Like I care? It allows me to be productive, and in the case of OS X, it works just like I want it to. In ever way, OS X is my perfect OS.

[piousp]

i second that motion! :popcorn:

We are not blaming Microsoft or Apple for Linux "Failing". First of all, WHAT FAILING!? I don't understand in what aspect has linux fail.

Second, the point of this thread is about the limitations you accept when using a Microsoft product, in this case, MS Windows.

[Johnsie]

A vast majority of computer users have no interest in working with sourcecode. They just want things to work, be easy to use and look nice. Windows and OSX cater for those people, Linux is getting there but still has a wee bit to go.

I don't think Linux is failing. That was probably an improper use of the word. It is struggling to gain market share though. I don't think spreading hate or starting arguments with Windows users is the best way to promote Linux. Neither is trying to look superior while putting Windows users down. People have been whining on these boards for years, "Microsoft this" and "Microsoft that", when if they really cared about Linux they would be doing things to help improve Linux. Stop making the Linux community look ugly and hateful and do something positive for the community.

[piousp]

A vast majority of computer users have no interesting in working with sourcecode. They just want things to work, be easy to use and look nice. Windows and OSX cater for those people, Linux is getting there but still has a wee bit to go.

I don't think Linux is failing. That was probably an improper use of the word. It is struggling to gain market share though. I don't think spreading hate or starting arguments with Windows users is the best way to promote Linux. Neither is trying to look superior while putting Windows users down. People have been whining on these boards for years, "Microsoft this" and "Microsoft that", when if they really cared about Linux they would be doing things to help improve Linux. Stop making the Linux community look ugly and hateful and do something positive for the community.

We are talking about the freedom you have (as in free speech). We are not talking about if you can be 1000% more productive in MS Windows or in Apple's OSX. We are talking about that you are accepting conditions that limit your freedom, and i you can go and read OSX and Windows EULA and verify that.

However, i do agree with you. There is no gain in bashing Windows or OSX in favor of Linux, but i think that the op is having a nice talk about ideologys and paradigms that differ from those of Microsoft or Apple's, and i dont see any harm on it.

[CrazyDesi]

I could care less about freedom. I want a computer that works. If I can do more with a computer that is "anti-freedom" than a free one, I am going to. I prefer to stick with Linux for the community.

[Icehuck]

Like I care? It allows me to be productive, and in the case of OS X, it works just like I want it to. In ever way, OS X is my perfect OS.

Then going by your previous statement you couldn't do anything you wanted with it. However, you can use the applications available to do the tasks at hand.

[Johnsie]

To be fair those license agreements don't mean anything to anyone. Nobody even reads them lol. Most people just do whatever they want on their computer and are happy with that. And they always have the freedom to not use that operating system if they don't want to be 'limited'.

[Icehuck]

To be fair those license agreements don't mean anything to anyone. Nobody even reads them lol. Most people just do whatever they want on their computer and are happy with that. And they always have the freedom to not use that operating system if they don't want to be 'limited'.

Those license agreements do mean something in terms of law. The GNU license has been tested in court and is upheld.

[piousp]

To be fair those license agreements don't mean anything to anyone. Nobody even reads them lol. Most people just do whatever they want on their computer and are happy with that. And they always have the freedom to not use that operating system if they don't want to be 'limited'.

I disagree. License (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License) is something you accept or have, and in our world it implies a legal responsability. Maybe a lot of windows users have never read the license, and they could care less. But THATS NOT THE POINT. In fact, i think you are violating your own freedom by not reading the license.

[Johnsie]

No, I am saving time by not reading the license. It's not that big a deal because they are not enforced anyway. I'm not going to get into a troll fight with you guys. So let's just agree to disagree and move on.

[Icehuck]

No, I am saving time by not reading the license. It's not that big a deal because they are not enforced anyway. I'm not going to get into a troll fight with you guys. So let's just agree to disagree and move on.

Apple enforced their EULA against psystar and the GNU license has also been enforced a few times.

BTW - You were the troll. Obviously.

[Johnsie]

As you have resorted to name calling then it looks like I was right to call an end to this 'discussion'. This was just an other generic hate thread anyway, so it wont be missed when it get closed.

[brainac0cult]

microsoft is evil!!!!!!!

[Eisenwinter]

microsoft is evil!!!!!!!
Your signature repulses me.

I'm not defending Microsoft, but what you're doing to your sister is brainwashing.

[lykwydchykyn]

Interesting how people make statements like "I don't care about access to source code, I just want it to work", as though the two were mutually exclusive.

Naturally, proprietary apps often work, and sometimes open source ones don't work or don't work as well; so I understand where the statement is coming from. But access to source code is all about making a computer "just work". That's the point, not some geeky obsession with gazing at someone else's C handiwork.

If you have used a computer for a long time (as in, though multiple platform/version transitions) and for more than just web browsing and playing games, probably some of these things have happened to you:

- Had to purchase new software because the file formats changed and your version didn't support the new format
- Had to buy a new OS because the new application version you need doesn't support your OS version.
- Had to buy a new computer or upgrade your hardware because the new OS you required (for the reasons above) didn't support your hardware.
- Had to find a replacement for a program you relied on because the vendor went out of business, or decided they didn't want to keep supporting/publishing that title.
- Were prevented from switching to a competitor's superior software because you have GB of files in the current vendor's format, and there's no conversion utility.
- Were unable to do what you needed with a program because of an arbitrary (rather than technical) limitation imposed on your software because you bought the "lite" or "home" version, rather than the "pro" or "ultimate" version.
- Were driven to use one company's software because of compatibility issues, rather than choosing them on the basis of price/features/quality.

I could go on, but basically these are the kinds of fundamental problems with information technology that the free software movement was created to combat. Forget Microsoft, it's an issue of the proprietary "product" model vs. an open source "support" model. e.g., if your business relies on selling copies of a product, you only make money if people buy more copies of your products. The worst thing that can happen is someone buy your product and run it for 10 years happily. You need them to pay for an upgrade every 1-2 years, or buy an additional product, or buy more licenses of your product in order to stay profitable.

Recommended reading:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/magic-cauldron/

http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software

[Swagman]

"You could care less"

Is that even possible ?

I will assume you meant "Couldn't care less"

Amazing how many people use that term incorrectly.

[Dragonbite]

Today, I was talking to some classmates about Microsoft and Windows, and the freedom you have if you use it. I can't make them believe that Microsoft is crushing freedom. One guy is interested in learning more, but he wants it black on white from a reliable source.

I need you to post links from reliable sources that explain the major freedom issues of using Windows and other Microsoft products like Office. It has to be easy to understand. I'm explaining this to n00bs! ;)

Cheers,

Stalker72

By charging money Microsoft is crushing my freedom of flying to the Bahamas for a winter vacation or building an addition on my house. ;)

Oh wait, the same could be said about taking taxes out of my paycheck or giving up my money to pay for groceries. Then again, I won't go into how paying ME removes the freedom of the company to throw outlandish parties at ritzy places!

So long as Linux exists, I have a choice and thus freedom to go to another operating system that is capable of doing what I need (currently).

Just like so long as OpenOffice.org, KOffice and Google Docs exists I have the freedom to use them instead of MS Office. Any features that MS Office has that these alternatives have, I have the freedom to use it or not. Ironically it is these features that are included in an application that make one "less free".

So long as there is competition, there is freedom.

If I don't like the way things run I have 3 choices; take it, leave it or work around it. This can be by asking for the "feature" (see note above, though, on how this actually LIMITS my freedom), finding an alternative, coding a "fix" or modifying my expectations to existing within the boundaries of what is available.

[wolfen69]

I can do whatever I want with Windows or OS X, like they care what I do with it...

typical windows user response. :roll:

[Sealbhach]

microsoft is evil!!!!!!!

http://i.zdnet.com/gallery/170963.jpg

[Sealbhach]

"You could care less"

Is that even possible ?

I will assume you meant "Couldn't care less"

Amazing how many people use that term incorrectly.

+1

Leave the English language alone!


.

[bapoumba]

Welcome to the Recurring Discussions.

[CrazyDesi]

typical windows user response. :roll:

Did you actually taunt someone by calling them a "typical windows user"...?:roll:

[tsali]

To be fair those license agreements don't mean anything to anyone. Nobody even reads them lol. Most people just do whatever they want on their computer and are happy with that. And they always have the freedom to not use that operating system if they don't want to be 'limited'.

I read the licenses. I never click accept without reading what I am accepting.

I've never found them to be restrictive.

[tsali]

Interesting how people make statements like "I don't care about access to source code, I just want it to work", as though the two were mutually exclusive.

Naturally, proprietary apps often work, and sometimes open source ones don't work or don't work as well; so I understand where the statement is coming from. But access to source code is all about making a computer "just work". That's the point, not some geeky obsession with gazing at someone else's C handiwork.

If you have used a computer for a long time (as in, though multiple platform/version transitions) and for more than just web browsing and playing games, probably some of these things have happened to you:

- Had to purchase new software because the file formats changed and your version didn't support the new format
- Had to buy a new OS because the new application version you need doesn't support your OS version.
- Had to buy a new computer or upgrade your hardware because the new OS you required (for the reasons above) didn't support your hardware.
- Had to find a replacement for a program you relied on because the vendor went out of business, or decided they didn't want to keep supporting/publishing that title.
- Were prevented from switching to a competitor's superior software because you have GB of files in the current vendor's format, and there's no conversion utility.
- Were unable to do what you needed with a program because of an arbitrary (rather than technical) limitation imposed on your software because you bought the "lite" or "home" version, rather than the "pro" or "ultimate" version.
- Were driven to use one company's software because of compatibility issues, rather than choosing them on the basis of price/features/quality.

I could go on, but basically these are the kinds of fundamental problems with information technology that the free software movement was created to combat. Forget Microsoft, it's an issue of the proprietary "product" model vs. an open source "support" model. e.g., if your business relies on selling copies of a product, you only make money if people buy more copies of your products. The worst thing that can happen is someone buy your product and run it for 10 years happily. You need them to pay for an upgrade every 1-2 years, or buy an additional product, or buy more licenses of your product in order to stay profitable.

Recommended reading:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/magic-cauldron/

http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software

I've been using computers daily for a variety of tasks since 1989 and have never encountered any of the issues you've described. It has almost ALWAYS been a better cost benefit to replace software/hardware than it is to modify it and maintain it afterwards.

[lykwydchykyn]

I've been using computers daily for a variety of tasks since 1989 and have never encountered any of the issues you've described. It has almost ALWAYS been a better cost benefit to replace software/hardware than it is to modify it and maintain it afterwards.

Well, there you go. I guess you don't need FOSS. I, and many people I know, have had different experiences. And I appreciate using software that is open because of it.

[karellen]

nobody forces the user to buy (or to use) windows. it's a business like so many others; and about the anti-freedom and not being open sourced...well most people don't care. for them computers are just tools, not credos, not ideologies. not everyone has the time, the willingness and the passion to fiddle with things so irrelevant to them as programs and operating systems. I've used Linux since 2003, but not because I hate Microsoft or Windows but because I like diversity, change and I wanted to find out more; it's just an alternative, not a religion. at least for me

[CrazyDesi]

nobody forces the user to buy (or to use) windows. It's a business like so many others; and about the anti-freedom and not being open sourced...well most people don't care. For them computers are just tools, not credos, not ideologies. Not everyone has the time, the willingness and the passion to fiddle with things so irrelevant to them as programs and operating systems. I've used linux since 2003, but not because i hate microsoft or windows but because i like diversity, change and i wanted to find out more; it's just an alternative, not a religion. At least for me

+1

[Kopachris]

The Software may not be used by more than one processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.
You may permit a maximum of five (5) computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to utilize one or more of the following services of the Software: File Services, Print Services, Internet Information Services, and remote access (including connection sharing and telephony services). The five connection maximum includes any indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other software or hardware which pools or aggregates connections. This five connection maximum does not apply to any other uses of the Software.
I was too sickened to read through the rest of it. They charge $95 for that‽ It's a shame, really, people pay $95 and then find out that they can't even use two processors... (It's really not a problem for most people, though.)

[pirate_tux]

Everybody knows Windows is bloatware, crapware and bugware.

So why are we having this discussion???

[oldsoundguy]

Talked to the owner of a repair shop today. He has been up and down and has been a beta tester for MS for both XP and Vista and is now working on Windows 7. BUT

All of his regular computing is done on Kbuntu! His shop OPERATIONAL computers are also Linux. .... BUT,

When I asked him why he did not promote Linux .. I got the answer.

"Why should I bite the hand that feeds me and pays the rent. If it were not for MS I would not have any business! MS combined with the classic clueless user generates the income to keep my shop running and pay my help!"

[lykwydchykyn]

nobody forces the user to buy (or to use) windows. it's a business like so many others; and about the anti-freedom and not being open sourced...well most people don't care. for them computers are just tools, not credos, not ideologies. not everyone has the time, the willingness and the passion to fiddle with things so irrelevant to them as programs and operating systems. I've used Linux since 2003, but not because I hate Microsoft or Windows but because I like diversity, change and I wanted to find out more; it's just an alternative, not a religion. at least for me

I think you draw a false dichotomy here; software freedom doesn't have to be important on the level of religion or personal freedoms to be important. And as for the "average person"... since when is public apathy a measure of the importance of a cause?

It's funny, if you ask people if "computers" are important to our lives these days, most people would agree they are. Computers hold your bank account, your medical record, your voter registration, and your tax information. They calculate your paycheck, your credit card bill, your utility bills, and your taxes. For a lot of us, they hold our work, our hobbies, our family photos and movies, our music collections, movies, and games. Where I work most people sit at a computer 8 hours a day, and what they're doing is putting data into a computer.

But you ask people if software is important and they act like you're some kind of geek weirdo. What is a computer if not software? Does the hard drive or processor really make a difference? Does it matter to you what kind of CPU is tallying the vote you cast in the last election? Or does it matter more what software is tallying those votes?

Here's a thought: does anyone expect computers (and therefore software) to have *less* of an impact on our daily lives for the next 25 years?

I am not an accountant; I don't understand tax law, I haven't even done my own taxes for the last 10 years. So do I care that the tax laws are published and publicly available? Would I be just as happy if the IRS calculated what I owe in a "black box" and just released a mysterious figure to me? Clearly, no; because I know that even if I don't understand how my tax figures came to be, I know that I can hire someone independent to calculate it for me using publicly available laws.

Software freedom isn't an idealistic cause for me, it's not a religion; it's just a feature, and one that I've come to value highly because I have found that it has tangible pragmatic benefits.

[pirate_tux]

I think you draw a false dichotomy here; software freedom doesn't have to be important on the level of religion or personal freedoms to be important. And as for the "average person"... since when is public apathy a measure of the importance of a cause?

It's funny, if you ask people if "computers" are important to our lives these days, most people would agree they are. Computers hold your bank account, your medical record, your voter registration, and your tax information. They calculate your paycheck, your credit card bill, your utility bills, and your taxes. For a lot of us, they hold our work, our hobbies, our family photos and movies, our music collections, movies, and games. Where I work most people sit at a computer 8 hours a day, and what they're doing is putting data into a computer.

But you ask people if software is important and they act like you're some kind of geek weirdo. What is a computer if not software? Does the hard drive or processor really make a difference? Does it matter to you what kind of CPU is tallying the vote you cast in the last election? Or does it matter more what software is tallying those votes?

Here's a thought: does anyone expect computers (and therefore software) to have *less* of an impact on our daily lives for the next 25 years?

I am not an accountant; I don't understand tax law, I haven't even done my own taxes for the last 10 years. So do I care that the tax laws are published and publicly available? Would I be just as happy if the IRS calculated what I owe in a "black box" and just released a mysterious figure to me? Clearly, no; because I know that even if I don't understand how my tax figures came to be, I know that I can hire someone independent to calculate it for me using publicly available laws.

Software freedom isn't an idealistic cause for me, it's not a religion; it's just a feature, and one that I've come to value highly because I have found that it has tangible pragmatic benefits.

This is one of the best posts I have ever read on Internet. Period.

[cardinals_fan]

Everybody knows Windows is bloatware, crapware and bugware.

So why are we having this discussion???
I didn't know that yet. Thanks for enlightening me with such clearly referenced and logically supported claims.
I think you draw a false dichotomy here; software freedom doesn't have to be important on the level of religion or personal freedoms to be important. And as for the "average person"... since when is public apathy a measure of the importance of a cause?

It's funny, if you ask people if "computers" are important to our lives these days, most people would agree they are. Computers hold your bank account, your medical record, your voter registration, and your tax information. They calculate your paycheck, your credit card bill, your utility bills, and your taxes. For a lot of us, they hold our work, our hobbies, our family photos and movies, our music collections, movies, and games. Where I work most people sit at a computer 8 hours a day, and what they're doing is putting data into a computer.

But you ask people if software is important and they act like you're some kind of geek weirdo. What is a computer if not software? Does the hard drive or processor really make a difference? Does it matter to you what kind of CPU is tallying the vote you cast in the last election? Or does it matter more what software is tallying those votes?

Here's a thought: does anyone expect computers (and therefore software) to have *less* of an impact on our daily lives for the next 25 years?

I am not an accountant; I don't understand tax law, I haven't even done my own taxes for the last 10 years. So do I care that the tax laws are published and publicly available? Would I be just as happy if the IRS calculated what I owe in a "black box" and just released a mysterious figure to me? Clearly, no; because I know that even if I don't understand how my tax figures came to be, I know that I can hire someone independent to calculate it for me using publicly available laws.

Software freedom isn't an idealistic cause for me, it's not a religion; it's just a feature, and one that I've come to value highly because I have found that it has tangible pragmatic benefits.
A tremendous +1

This illustrates everything I love about open source software.

[Dragonbite]

I am not an accountant; I don't understand tax law, I haven't even done my own taxes for the last 10 years. So do I care that the tax laws are published and publicly available? Would I be just as happy if the IRS calculated what I owe in a "black box" and just released a mysterious figure to me? Clearly, no; because I know that even if I don't understand how my tax figures came to be, I know that I can hire someone independent to calculate it for me using publicly available laws.

Well put.

[Liviu-Theodor]

Interesting how people make statements like "I don't care about access to source code, I just want it to work", as though the two were mutually exclusive.

Naturally, proprietary apps often work, and sometimes open source ones don't work or don't work as well; so I understand where the statement is coming from. But access to source code is all about making a computer "just work". That's the point, not some geeky obsession with gazing at someone else's C handiwork.

If you have used a computer for a long time (as in, though multiple platform/version transitions) and for more than just web browsing and playing games, probably some of these things have happened to you:

- Had to purchase new software because the file formats changed and your version didn't support the new format
- Had to buy a new OS because the new application version you need doesn't support your OS version.
- Had to buy a new computer or upgrade your hardware because the new OS you required (for the reasons above) didn't support your hardware.
- Had to find a replacement for a program you relied on because the vendor went out of business, or decided they didn't want to keep supporting/publishing that title.
- Were prevented from switching to a competitor's superior software because you have GB of files in the current vendor's format, and there's no conversion utility.
- Were unable to do what you needed with a program because of an arbitrary (rather than technical) limitation imposed on your software because you bought the "lite" or "home" version, rather than the "pro" or "ultimate" version.
- Were driven to use one company's software because of compatibility issues, rather than choosing them on the basis of price/features/quality.

I could go on, but basically these are the kinds of fundamental problems with information technology that the free software movement was created to combat. Forget Microsoft, it's an issue of the proprietary "product" model vs. an open source "support" model. e.g., if your business relies on selling copies of a product, you only make money if people buy more copies of your products. The worst thing that can happen is someone buy your product and run it for 10 years happily. You need them to pay for an upgrade every 1-2 years, or buy an additional product, or buy more licenses of your product in order to stay profitable.

Recommended reading:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/magic-cauldron/

http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software

I would have thanked for this post, but I don't have the button in this thread... You are so right...

[Liviu-Theodor]

I put multiple quotes because they are all relevant and somewhat in the same level...

I'm interested - how exactly does Microsoft crush freedom? What kind of freedom are you discussing? Interesting concept, I'd like to see the points.

Thanks,
Richard
Microsoft limits use of its software, if you are upgrading the hardware of your PC. Maybe the installed Windows "thinks" that it is installed on another computer, and does not work any more, and forces you to buy another copy. Or maybe you want a newer computer and use the older MS software but you are not allowed to do that: in their vision, you should buy a new MS license, even your older computer is "put to rest", so to speak.

To be fair those license agreements don't mean anything to anyone. Nobody even reads them lol. Most people just do whatever they want on their computer and are happy with that. And they always have the freedom to not use that operating system if they don't want to be 'limited'.
The fact you don't know the law is no excuse.

I disagree. License (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License) is something you accept or have, and in our world it implies a legal responsability. Maybe a lot of windows users have never read the license, and they could care less. But THATS NOT THE POINT. In fact, i think you are violating your own freedom by not reading the license.
Yes, the law is enforced as long as it is valid, even if you don't know it.

No, I am saving time by not reading the license. It's not that big a deal because they are not enforced anyway. I'm not going to get into a troll fight with you guys. So let's just agree to disagree and move on.
Yes you are saving time, by renouncing at your freedom. You think you are safe, but you are not.

Those license agreements do mean something in terms of law. The GNU license has been tested in court and is upheld.
This is good news, GNU licenses finally tested in court.

I read the licenses. I never click accept without reading what I am accepting.

I've never found them to be restrictive.
Oh they are: you can not use one copy on more than one computer, even if you want to transfer it from an older to a newer one, you are limited on the number of processors your computer can have to use it, you are limited to how many connection can be made at a time to your computer, you are limited to how many hardware upgrades can you make to your computer before MS programs and OS's cease to function.

nobody forces the user to buy (or to use) windows. it's a business like so many others; and about the anti-freedom and not being open sourced...well most people don't care. for them computers are just tools, not credos, not ideologies. not everyone has the time, the willingness and the passion to fiddle with things so irrelevant to them as programs and operating systems. I've used Linux since 2003, but not because I hate Microsoft or Windows but because I like diversity, change and I wanted to find out more; it's just an alternative, not a religion. at least for me
Yes, nobody forces now to buy/use windows, but it was a time when the price was included on new computers, even if they came without windows :confused:. And Microsoft is exactly against that diversity you speak of: they want only Windows on computers, and only MS Office, no one else should use anything else, and that is their credo and ideology, and maybe they don't have the time, but for sure they have the willingness and passion to fiddle with such things worldwide...

[tsali]

I am not an accountant; I don't understand tax law, I haven't even done my own taxes for the last 10 years. So do I care that the tax laws are published and publicly available? Would I be just as happy if the IRS calculated what I owe in a "black box" and just released a mysterious figure to me? Clearly, no; because I know that even if I don't understand how my tax figures came to be, I know that I can hire someone independent to calculate it for me using publicly available laws.


I don't accept your analogy because I have no choice about paying taxes. I do not get to weigh the value of that return against the service I'm getting.

However, with any OTHER item that I am free to choose if I want to use it, I can weigh that out; Do I think that this piece of closed source software offers enough value for what it costs me?

In the case of many Microsoft and other closed source programs, YES they DO offer superior value.

But you ask people if software is important and they act like you're some kind of geek weirdo. What is a computer if not software?

A computer is a tool or appliance that performs a service. Most don't care HOW. They DON'T differentiate between the software and hardware. They DON'T care where the CPU or hard disk is located or how they work.

It's about like asking if people care about the metallurgy that went into making a screwdriver. They don't - they just want to use the tool.

[rickyjones]

Originally Posted by rickyjones View Post
I'm interested - how exactly does Microsoft crush freedom? What kind of freedom are you discussing? Interesting concept, I'd like to see the points.

Thanks,
Richard



Microsoft limits use of its software, if you are upgrading the hardware of your PC. Maybe the installed Windows "thinks" that it is installed on another computer, and does not work any more, and forces you to buy another copy. Or maybe you want a newer computer and use the older MS software but you are not allowed to do that: in their vision, you should buy a new MS license, even your older computer is "put to rest", so to speak.


1. "does not work anymore" - Like when you perform a motherboard upgrade and it thinks that it has been copied to a new computer and asks you to re-activate it? It still works.
2. Your older software can be installed on your newer computer as long as the old computer is no longer using it. It's in the EULA if I recall correctly.

As for being unable to use, for example the Home edition, on more than one processor - this is a known limitation to get people to use the professional versions. I don't agree with this but this is not limiting your use of your hardware - you can always get the version that you need for your PC.

Thanks,
Richard

[piousp]

I think you draw a false dichotomy here; software freedom doesn't have to be important on the level of religion or personal freedoms to be important. And as for the "average person"... since when is public apathy a measure of the importance of a cause?

It's funny, if you ask people if "computers" are important to our lives these days, most people would agree they are. Computers hold your bank account, your medical record, your voter registration, and your tax information. They calculate your paycheck, your credit card bill, your utility bills, and your taxes. For a lot of us, they hold our work, our hobbies, our family photos and movies, our music collections, movies, and games. Where I work most people sit at a computer 8 hours a day, and what they're doing is putting data into a computer.

But you ask people if software is important and they act like you're some kind of geek weirdo. What is a computer if not software? Does the hard drive or processor really make a difference? Does it matter to you what kind of CPU is tallying the vote you cast in the last election? Or does it matter more what software is tallying those votes?

Here's a thought: does anyone expect computers (and therefore software) to have *less* of an impact on our daily lives for the next 25 years?

I am not an accountant; I don't understand tax law, I haven't even done my own taxes for the last 10 years. So do I care that the tax laws are published and publicly available? Would I be just as happy if the IRS calculated what I owe in a "black box" and just released a mysterious figure to me? Clearly, no; because I know that even if I don't understand how my tax figures came to be, I know that I can hire someone independent to calculate it for me using publicly available laws.

Software freedom isn't an idealistic cause for me, it's not a religion; it's just a feature, and one that I've come to value highly because I have found that it has tangible pragmatic benefits.

Superior +1. Finally someone bring the discussion to the original topic.
We are not talking about prices or productivity. We are not talking about whether or not the people care about the licenses they are "accepting". Heck, this is not even about you have the freedom of choosing any other OS over MS Windows.

P.S. By the way, since english is not my 1st language, please correct me if i write something wrong. This will help me improve my english ;)

[jobsworth]

I will give you 3 advantages in using Windows XP
and not Ubuntu 8.10.

1) Skype does not work on Ubuntu - yet.
2) My favourite game Soldier of fortune II runs only on Windows XP
- or does it?
3) Fiddle with entries in mstab to view other partitions and hard drives
is a pain with Ubuntu
- very satisfying when it works.

Cannot think of any more. Otherwise can do everything with Ubuntu 8.10.
Well done Mark Shuttleworth for assembling a Linux distribution that I can handle.

[ajcham]

… … …
I am not an accountant; I don't understand tax law, I haven't even done my own taxes for the last 10 years. So do I care that the tax laws are published and publicly available? Would I be just as happy if the IRS calculated what I owe in a "black box" and just released a mysterious figure to me? Clearly, no; because I know that even if I don't understand how my tax figures came to be, I know that I can hire someone independent to calculate it for me using publicly available laws.
… … …


Superb post (I've snipped it in the quote, but it is the entire comment I am referring to) - this describes exactly my thoughts, phrased better than I could ever have hoped to myself. My sig now links to this post.

[lykwydchykyn]

I don't accept your analogy because I have no choice about paying taxes. I do not get to weigh the value of that return against the service I'm getting.

However, with any OTHER item that I am free to choose if I want to use it, I can weigh that out; Do I think that this piece of closed source software offers enough value for what it costs me?

In the case of many Microsoft and other closed source programs, YES they DO offer superior value.


That has nothing to do with my analogy. You're just being contrary.

My point is that I can benefit from the public availability of knowledge even if I don't avail myself of the knowledge directly. I am not a coder and do not modify the code I receive; yet I assert that I still benefit from the openness of the code.

As for your closed source programs offering superior value -- when did I say that wasn't possible? I said that freedom is a feature that I value, even though I don't modify or often read the code. How are you taking that to mean that all FOSS is better than all proprietary software?


A computer is a tool or appliance that performs a service. Most don't care HOW. They DON'T differentiate between the software and hardware. They DON'T care where the CPU or hard disk is located or how they work.

It's about like asking if people care about the metallurgy that went into making a screwdriver. They don't - they just want to use the tool.

The point is simply this: if computers matter so much, software matters. If you say, "computers make a big impact on my life" but "software is not important" -- that's contradictory. Because the only part of a computer that matters in that context is the software.

To take your screwdriver analogy, it would be like someone talking about how important the quality of his tools is to him, but that metallurgy and design don't matter. Since the quality of a tool is directly the result of its design and the metallurgical processes used in its construction, that statement makes no sense (unless, perhaps, he's asserting that some other element contributes to the quality of a tool).

Now, if you want to argue that computers (and therefore software) are not important to our daily lives, that's another issue.

[karellen]

To take your screwdriver analogy, it would be like someone talking about how important the quality of his tools is to him, but that metallurgy and design don't matter. Since the quality of a tool is directly the result of its design and the metallurgical processes used in its construction, that statement makes no sense (unless, perhaps, he's asserting that some other element contributes to the quality of a tool).

being important and caring about this importance are not equivalent notions ;)

[saulgoode]

being important and caring about this importance are not equivalent notions ;)

Isn't "caring" rather the thing that makes something "important"? If you care about something, it is important; if you don't care, it is not important.

[tsali]

As for your closed source programs offering superior value -- when did I say that wasn't possible? I said that freedom is a feature that I value, even though I don't modify or often read the code. How are you taking that to mean that all FOSS is better than all proprietary software?


Perhaps I read that in, but it is a general principle among the FSF hardcore that inferior performing open-source software is better than superior performing closed source software for the simple reason that it IS open-source. I assert that most users only care whether the software yields the desired results in practical application.

The point is simply this: if computers matter so much, software matters. If you say, "computers make a big impact on my life" but "software is not important" -- that's contradictory. Because the only part of a computer that matters in that context is the software.

To take your screwdriver analogy, it would be like someone talking about how important the quality of his tools is to him, but that metallurgy and design don't matter. Since the quality of a tool is directly the result of its design and the metallurgical processes used in its construction, that statement makes no sense (unless, perhaps, he's asserting that some other element contributes to the quality of a tool).

Now, if you want to argue that computers (and therefore software) are not important to our daily lives, that's another issue.


I did not say that software wasn't important. I said that having to KNOW about the guts of that software isn't as important as what the software can do for you. In that sense, whether it is opn or closed source becomes irrelevant.

As far as the screwdrive goes...quality is measured by its performance in practical application - NOT by the amount of nickel the alloy might contain.

I could own a high quality GOLDEN screwdriver, but somehow, I think it'd end up being a lousy screwdriver because it won't do the job.

That was my point.

[karellen]

Isn't "caring" rather the thing that makes something "important"? If you care about something, it is important; if you don't care, it is not important.

nope. oil is important but people usually don't care about the process by which petrol is refined and transformed into oil

[lykwydchykyn]

Perhaps I read that in, but it is a general principle among the FSF hardcore that inferior performing open-source software is better than superior performing closed source software for the simple reason that it IS open-source. I assert that most users only care whether the software yields the desired results in practical application.

I do not represent the FSF hardcore. I represent me.

You are correct that most users *don't* care, but how does that establish that they shouldn't? Most Wal-mart shoppers don't care if they buy clothes made in an Asian sweat-shop, that doesn't mean it doesn't matter.


I did not say that software wasn't important. I said that having to KNOW about the guts of that software isn't as important as what the software can do for you. In that sense, whether it is opn or closed source becomes irrelevant.

Again, my whole point was that open source code conveys advantages to the user whether or not they care about the guts of the software. It is not irrelevant, for reasons I've already outlined and won't rehash.


As far as the screwdrive goes...quality is measured by its performance in practical application - NOT by the amount of nickel the alloy might contain.

I could own a high quality GOLDEN screwdriver, but somehow, I think it'd end up being a lousy screwdriver because it won't do the job.

That was my point.

But you just proved my point. The fact that the screwdriver is made of gold makes it lousy, precisely because of the metallurgic properties of gold. Ergo, its metallurgical aspects directly contribute to its quality, so to say that you only care about one and the other is irrelevant is contradictory.

Look, let's not argue the minutiae of the analogy but get back to the real point: If computers are important to our lives, software is equally so; because the software is the important part of the computer. Do you disagree with that?

[jimmyhacker]

haha.Learn them how looks a real operating system:Linux,Compiz and a black GTk +2 theme.

Learn them what is fast internet.Download a big file with wget and show them the speed.With windoze i download 233 kb/s but in linux i download with 5 MB/s.

Learn them what is a real respectable licence.GPL!

Learn them real community.Take them to ubuntuforums.org

tnx

[Giant Speck]

haha.Learn them how looks a real operating system:Linux,Compiz and a black GTk +2 theme.

Learn them what is fast internet.Download a big file with wget and show them the speed.With windoze i download 233 kb/s but in linux i download with 5 MB/s.

Learn them what is a real respectable licence.GPL!

Learn them real community.Take them to ubuntuforums.org

tnx

I'd be afraid to learn something from someone who was "learning me" rather than "teaching me."

[ajcham]

Perhaps I read that in, but it is a general principle among the FSF hardcore that inferior performing open-source software is better than superior performing closed source software for the simple reason that it IS open-source. I assert that most users only care whether the software yields the desired results in practical application.

For what it's worth, I would say that I do regard Open Source as a virtue in its own right - I will compromise to some extent on technical quality and features in the interest of using Free Software over proprietary. However, I do have what I consider reasonable limits, rather than the "Free Software or death" attitude of some. If the Open Source options in a particular area are seriously deficient and I will be significantly hindered by relying on them, I would use a proprietary alternative.

In the six years I've been using Linux, the number of niches that still need to be adequately filled by Free Software has dropped by quite a margin - I see no reason for this not to continue and in time almost all tasks will be achievable solely with F/OSS, no compromise necessary.

[tsali]

If computers are important to our lives, software is equally so; because the software is the important part of the computer. Do you disagree with that?

I cannot disagree with that.

In the same way, nuclear fusion is also very important in that it heats the planet daily.

I don't ponder how many Mev are released by each fusion event while I'm laying on the beach...

However, I might think about how the bartender shorted me on tequila...

;)

[cardinals_fan]

A computer is a tool or appliance that performs a service. Most don't care HOW. They DON'T differentiate between the software and hardware. They DON'T care where the CPU or hard disk is located or how they work.

It's about like asking if people care about the metallurgy that went into making a screwdriver. They don't - they just want to use the tool.
...and we come to the same point we reached in another thread a while back. The user may just want to play a video, but the infrastructure to watch it must still be there. It's easy to say that "average users don't care about the internals of the system," but that doesn't really matter. An operating system's purpose is to cater to application developers, who in turn write the software that desktop users need.

Also, a screwdriver serves one basic purpose. Even if you put a laser-pointer on the front and add a memory-foam grip, it will still just be inserted into a screw and turned. Computers have far more varied uses that have evolved over time. Again, consider online video. Just in the past decade, watching videos online has been transformed from a rare, geeky pursuit to an almost-ubiquitous activity. Needs are always changing.

[lykwydchykyn]

I cannot disagree with that.

In the same way, nuclear fusion is also very important in that it heats the planet daily.

I don't ponder how many Mev are released by each fusion event while I'm laying on the beach...

However, I might think about how the bartender shorted me on tequila...

;)

That really makes no sense, and doesn't relate to my point in the slightest. I would explain why I think that, but I'm not really seeing the point any more.

[RichartT]

I've registered for this thread because it represents a supreme sticking point to why I find myself unable to stick to OSS when compared to closed-source alternatives.

I think the biggest problem here is simply this: it's hard to convey the tangible, long-term reasons for why someone should use an open-source tool. Let me explain by a popular example:

Say someone is told "hey, use OpenOffice instead of MS Office". So they go and try it, but find some formatting issues with existing .doc files for example. So they tell whoever advocated OO and they say "well you should be using ODF, for such and such a reason". Unfortunately, that doesn't wash with most people because the world uses .doc, not ODF, plus it doesn't help with their current incompatibility. You can't convince them that it's not worth ponying up some cash for a commercial application with a far nicer interface and full support for the file you're trying to use!

Also, someone mentioned the issue of upgrading to newer versions of a program because older formats aren't supported. Does this really matter if there weren't any OSS programs which provided the same functionality to begin with? Are there any programs with the same level of capability as Pro Tools, or even FL Studio? I mean advanced functionality, not something like LMMS. Should I settle for a poor-man's version of a music production program, just because it's OSS?

Reduced functionality in favor of some long-term benefit is VERY HARD to convince people of its merit. Particularly since there's no grantee people will even encounter the supposed long-term benefit. The .doc format is used so much because it's proven, .odf isn't, and the lack of use in business and even between friends isn't going to help convince people of its value.

So, the reason I don't bother with most OSS alternatives is due to lack of functionality. I love functionality, it's what makes me capable of doing things I couldn't do in alternative programs written in OSS. There are exceptions, but overall I want the functionality. Licensing? Only applies for business; most home users couldn't care less (see, I used the phrase correctly).

[Liviu-Theodor]

1. "does not work anymore" - Like when you perform a motherboard upgrade and it thinks that it has been copied to a new computer and asks you to re-activate it? It still works.
2. Your older software can be installed on your newer computer as long as the old computer is no longer using it. It's in the EULA if I recall correctly.

3. As for being unable to use, for example the Home edition, on more than one processor - this is a known limitation to get people to use the professional versions. I don't agree with this but this is not limiting your use of your hardware - you can always get the version that you need for your PC.

Thanks,
Richard

1. If you change the motherboard, usually you change the processor and the memory as well, and maybe other components, like the videocard, and this qualifies very well as another computer...
2. Maybe this is the case for non-OEM software, but for OEM software, in the EULA is stated that you can not install on another computer, even the older one is no longer used at all.
3. Yes, and you pay for software that you don't use...

All talk is for software used legally, isn't it?

[tsali]

That really makes no sense, and doesn't relate to my point in the slightest. I would explain why I think that, but I'm not really seeing the point any more.

The point is that users have no interest in knowing HOW the software works. HOW it does what it does is NOT important to them.

What is important is THAT IS DOES WORK.

For all I know, there are a billion tiny hamsters on treadmills at the other end of the powerline outside of my house. It doesn't matter to me. What matters is that I plug in my blender and it crunches ice...

[cardinals_fan]

The point is that users have no interest in knowing HOW the software works. HOW it does what it does is NOT important to them.

What is important is THAT IS DOES WORK.

For all I know, there are a billion tiny hamsters on treadmills at the other end of the powerline outside of my house. It doesn't matter to me. What matters is that I plug in my blender and it crunches ice...
Again, this is irrelevant when considering an operating system. The purpose of an OS is to be developer-friendly. Only with a strong collection of available software can an OS provide users with a good experience.

Also, your lack of interest in the system is a moot point. You may not care about the technology used in something like Microsoft Silverlight, but you still need it to watch those videos from the Olympics live on NBC.

[tsali]

Again, this is irrelevant when considering an operating system. The purpose of an OS is to be developer-friendly. Only with a strong collection of available software can an OS provide users with a good experience.

Also, your lack of interest in the system is a moot point. You may not care about the technology used in something like Microsoft Silverlight, but you still need it to watch those videos from the Olympics live on NBC.


I think we're really saying the same thing. There were those earlier stating that it was important to know how the OS worked (or at least that's how I took it).

It's not. As you said, it's moot. Users' don't care about how...they care that it does.

[nicklhale]

i went to linux when my windows folder was 20gb and i culd not get it down and i only have a 60gb hard drive therefore it was holding useless files and would not let me delete them

[ikisham]

How much people cannot pay for Windows? Or have trouble using pirated copies? No problem..M$'s rights.
Now, there are alternatives, better software, solutions for an old hardware, even FREE - but propaganda will do its best (or worst) for that not to be known.
So it all comes to the point that if something is done with good intentions (good encompasses ALL), in a spirit of service, that's perfect. When manipulation steps in things start to go wrong. Dark forces do what they can to dumb our inate goodness and they went so far that this whole civilization is crumbling.
Do we need an operating system? It's a simple question and as such has a simple answer. That applies to everything and that's liberty.

[kidux]

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/eula/home.mspx
Last sentence in section 3 is the kicker.

"The Software is licensed, not sold."

[zampes]

The point is that users have no interest in knowing HOW the software works. HOW it does what it does is NOT important to them.

What is important is THAT IS DOES WORK.

For all I know, there are a billion tiny hamsters on treadmills at the other end of the powerline outside of my house. It doesn't matter to me. What matters is that I plug in my blender and it crunches ice...

Exactly the reason the world is the way it is: I don't care HOW things are done as long as they work for ME. Do you realize how incredibly selfish that is in absolutely every sense of the word?

[Twitch6000]

Today, I was talking to some classmates about Microsoft and Windows, and the freedom you have if you use it. I can't make them believe that Microsoft is crushing freedom. One guy is interested in learning more, but he wants it black on white from a reliable source.

I need you to post links from reliable sources that explain the major freedom issues of using Windows and other Microsoft products like Office. It has to be easy to understand. I'm explaining this to n00bs! ;)

Cheers,

Stalker72

Microsoft crushing freedom,uhmm I would like to know how aswell.

If you ask me they have helped freedom more then anything.

[forestpiskie]

Closed for necrotic tendencies.