Ideology vs Merit

[samjh]

Seeing how we're all (mostly?) Linux users who have adopted Linux for some logical reasons, I want to pose this question:

Do you use Linux because you genuinely believe in the "free software" ideology, or is it because of its technical merits?

I know that the answers will mostly be a mixure of both ends of the spectrum, but am not interested in "oh, a bit of this and a bit of that". I want to find out what our answers will be if we had to make an absolute, make-or-break choice between the two.

Feel free to discuss or elaborate on your answers, of course. :)

(PS: I'm curious as to whether we'd use Windows if it was deemed "better" than Linux, or whether Linux would still be used for FOSS ideology's sake.)

[jomiolto]

Both. Open source is better than the alternatives and it's got the added benefit of being, well, open source ;)

[Ozor Mox]

Both. I use FOSS where possible because I prefer it, but I use non-free stuff too when I want to or have to.

(I started almost this exact thread about a week ago! :))

[keplerspeed]

Its a bit like driving a Corvette with the bonnet locked shut. I would drive an 'Open source' camaro over said corvette if I could see and play with the engine!!

[samjh]

Both. I use FOSS where possible because I prefer it, but I use non-free stuff too when I want to or have to.

(I started almost this exact thread about a week ago! :))

In that case, your answer is Merit. :)

As I said in the poll, Ideology is only if you'd choose FOSS in spite of the superiority of a closed-source competitor.

Of course, if the open-source choice is technically better than the closed-source choice and you use the open-source choice, then feel free to pick Ideology. ;)

[forrestcupp]

Definitely usability over ideology. Why should I limit my ability and productivity because of a philosophy that ultimately doesn't matter?

But if there is an open source option that is equally as usable as one that is proprietary, I will choose the open source option, even if the proprietary one is freeware. If the open source option is lacking compared to the proprietary option, I'll make a benefit-cost ratio decision. Kind of like how I used OpenOffice for a long time because I couldn't justify spending that much money on MS Office.

But I'm not going to allow myself to be hindered by a philosophy that isn't really that important in the grand scheme of life.

[Ozor Mox]

In that case, your answer is Merit. :)

As I said in the poll, Ideology is only if you'd choose FOSS in spite of the superiority of a closed-source competitor.

Of course, if the open-source choice is technically better than the closed-source choice and you use the open-source choice, then feel free to pick Ideology. ;)

I suppose. I do gravitate towards FOSS solutions even when they might not be quite as capable as closed source alternatives, but I think I'm slowly moving towards the 'merit' side of things and just using what I like best and what works :)

[etnlIcarus]

I'd say both but letting ideology influence my software choices seems to pay off practically in the long term. It's one case where ideology is not completely separated from reality and part of the merit is the way the OSS philosophy guides the development of the software.

[benj1]

very good question.
I suppose a bit of both, if there isn't an open source tool to do the job, or is clearly significantly inferior i would probably go closed, but its not really a problem I've had open source has been as good as, or better than closed.

[monsterstack]

I'd go for the ideology. Sharing and communicating are some of the things that define us as human beings. Open source software, and free culture in general, aren't just fancy business models or pragmatic solutions to problems, they're a continuation of our natural behaviour. Or as this guy (http://ralpress.org/2009/03/16/free-culture-versus-freetard/) [ralpress.org] puts it, free software, and free culture "is inevitable, profound and unstoppable."

[samjh]

its not really a problem I've had open source has been as good as, or better than closed.

Very true. Lots of FOSS products can compete toe-to-toe against closed-source products, and even come out on top. But there are also closed-source products that have no match in the FOSS line-up.

I was personally very dissatisfied with Vista, which is why I switched completely to Linux. Linux has served my needs very well, but if Windows 7 proves to be better (technically or support-wise), then the temptation to move back to the Dark Side of the Source (TM and copyright 2009 by samjh) is strong. Despite Linux's merits, incompatibilities with Office documents have been a real headache sometimes, not to mention being out of touch with the products most likely to bring me daily bread.

[mofrikaantje]

the dark side of the source

:d :d

[Viva]

Merits mostly, but the ideology behind linux is the source of its merits

[forrestcupp]

the Dark Side of the Source (TM and copyright 2009 by samjh)

Come on, man! You haven't moved back, yet. Don't copyright this; open it up and share it! :)

[monsterstack]

Come on, man! You haven't moved back, yet. Don't copyright this; open it up and share it! :)

The real question is how far can we push this analogy? Torvalds is a weird Han Solo/Skywalker corssbreed, Stallman and the FSF the rebel fleet. They do battle against the Microsoft Empire with all of its Vista Destroyers and the Office Star.

Ballmer: Your powers are weak, old man.
Stallman: You can't win, Steve. If you strike me down I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.


Pamela Jones: They settled. It was the only reason for the ease of our escape.
Torvalds: Easy? You call that easy?
Pamela Jones: They're tracking us.
Torvalds: Not this kernel, sister.
Pamela Jones: At least the information in TomTom is still intact.
Torvalds: What's so important? What's he carrying?
Pamela Jones: The technical readouts of that patent lawsuit. I only hope that when the data's analyzed a weakness can be found. It's not over yet.

Torvalds: Look, Your Worshipfulness, let's get one thing straight. I take orders from just one person: me.
Pamela Jones: It's a wonder you're still alive. Will someone get this big walking carpet out of my way?
Stallman: Rarrrrrrgh!

Lead Developer of Internet Explorer: Until this operating system is fully operational, we are vulnerable. The Rebel Alliance is too well equipped, they're more dangerous than you realize.
Lead Developer of Windows 7: Dangerous to your application, Commander; not to this operating system.

Ballmer: There will be a substantial reward for the one who finds the Netbook Remix. You are free to use any methods necessary, but I want them alive. No disintegrations.
Rob Enderle: As you wish.

Lawyer: Admiral! We have submarine patents on FAT!
Admiral Jeremy Allison: It's a trap!

Linus: Soon I'll be dead, and you with me.
Bill Gates: Ha ha ha! Perhaps you refer to the imminent attack of your rebel fleet? Yes, I assure you, we are quite safe from your friends here.
Linus: Your overconfidence is your weakness.
Bill Gates: Your faith in Google is yours.

Linus: You couldn't bring yourself to kill me before and I don't believe you'll destroy me now.
Ballmer: You underestimate the power of the Dark Side of the Source. If you will not fight, then you will meet your destiny.


k I'll stop now.

[aysiu]

I chose merit, but I don't really like the way the poll option is phrased: If a closed-source competitor is better than an open-source one, I choose closed-source. That isn't necessarily true. I have some basic computing requirements, and if an open source option and a closed source option both help me meet those requirements, I will pick the open source one, even if the closed source one is better.

But if the open source one cannot meet the requirements at all, I will use the closed source one.

In other words, I don't use the best tool for the job. I use the tool that can get the job done. And if both open and closed get the job done, I will use open.

For example, I happen to think Photoshop is better than GIMP (a shock, I know), but since I am not a professional photography or designer, I don't really need Photoshop. GIMP suits my meager image editing needs just fine, and it's GPL'ed.

However, I do use the internet to watch YouTube videos and view other Flash-based websites. I don't like the fact that there are so many Flash-based websites, but there are. I have never found Gnash or SWFdec to operate well on Flash-based websites (occasionally they do, but not consistently), so I use Adobe's Flash plugin, even though it is non-free.

In many cases, though, I've found open source offerings to be superior. I love package management, and I really do not look back fondly on downloading setup.exe files and doing the next-next-next-finish-reboot dance. Rhythmbox, though ugly, is the best music management software I've found on any platform (and, yes, I've used iTunes, Foobar2000, WinAmp, XMMS, Exaile, AmaroK, JuK, Banshee, and just about anything else anyone's ever recommended that isn't a command-line player). I like F-Spot. I like Firefox. I like Thunderbird.

I don't really feel I'm sacrificing a lot by using open source software. Ubuntu is actually a good experience for me, not some sacrifice I'm making to the open source gods. The only real stickler for me is multimedia codecs (MP3, Flash).

[3startuna]

difficult question.

I would consider myself a moderate.

By that I mean. I always try to find an open source alternative to anything I decide to use first. and if one doesnt exist then I'll go to a closed source.

As of now though I havent done anything requiring me to run closed source. All my applications are open source.

I also find that open source programs are actually better than many closed source competitors. Case in point amarok vs media player, or firefox Vs Internet explorer. There is no comparison Open source ROCKS.

If I can find a good open source alternative to movie maker, boom

Come August when I get back to school and need to do CAE I will probably be forced to install some version of windows and dual boot to run it

[mofrikaantje]

Torvalds: Look, Your Worshipfulness, let's get one thing straight. I take orders from just one person: me.
Pamela Jones: It's a wonder you're still alive. Will someone get this big walking carpet out of my way?
Stallman: Rarrrrrrgh!

Lead Developer of Internet Explorer: Until this operating system is fully operational, we are vulnerable. The Rebel Alliance is too well equipped, they're more dangerous than you realize.
Lead Developer of Windows 7: Dangerous to your application, Commander; not to this operating system.


My god, I cracked up :lol:

[rookcifer]

Seeing how we're all (mostly?) Linux users who have adopted Linux for some logical reasons, I want to pose this question:

Do you use Linux because you genuinely believe in the "free software" ideology, or is it because of its technical merits?

You can't mention free software and technical merits separately. Free software has better technical merits (on average) because it is free. The bigger the free software project is, the more this is true. Do you think M$ alone can match the number of eyes and competence of programming that goes into the Linux kernel? Do you think they have as good of a debugging system as Linux? Do you think they have as many people submitting patches and bug fixes to NT and Linux does to its kernel?

Now it's true that there is still some third party software for Windoze that is ahead of that available for Linux (mostly niche stuff like AutoCAD). But this is far from being enough for me not to use Linux full-time. Overall, Linux does the job better for me -- it doesn't have anything to do with being some FLOSS zealot.

And perhaps one of the biggest advantages, for me, is the security. I got so sick and tired of cleaning malware and viruses from my XP box. I got tired of having to run 3 different AV programs and a software firewall. I got tired of Windows dramatically slowing down after several months of usage. I got tired of WGA and having to call M$ if I wanted to reinstall Windows. I got tired of not being able to customize Windows. I want to install and remove what I want from my OS. With Linux, if I want to build the OS from source code, I can.

[3startuna]

The real question is how far can we push this analogy? Torvalds is a weird Han Solo/Skywalker corssbreed, Stallman and the FSF the rebel fleet. They do battle against the Microsoft Empire with all of its Vista Destroyers and the Office Star.

Ballmer: Your powers are weak, old man.
Stallman: You can't win, Steve. If you strike me down I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.


Pamela Jones: They settled. It was the only reason for the ease of our escape.
Torvalds: Easy? You call that easy?
Pamela Jones: They're tracking us.
Torvalds: Not this kernel, sister.
Pamela Jones: At least the information in TomTom is still intact.
Torvalds: What's so important? What's he carrying?
Pamela Jones: The technical readouts of that patent lawsuit. I only hope that when the data's analyzed a weakness can be found. It's not over yet.

Torvalds: Look, Your Worshipfulness, let's get one thing straight. I take orders from just one person: me.
Pamela Jones: It's a wonder you're still alive. Will someone get this big walking carpet out of my way?
Stallman: Rarrrrrrgh!

Lead Developer of Internet Explorer: Until this operating system is fully operational, we are vulnerable. The Rebel Alliance is too well equipped, they're more dangerous than you realize.
Lead Developer of Windows 7: Dangerous to your application, Commander; not to this operating system.

Ballmer: There will be a substantial reward for the one who finds the Netbook Remix. You are free to use any methods necessary, but I want them alive. No disintegrations.
Rob Enderle: As you wish.

Lawyer: Admiral! We have submarine patents on FAT!
Admiral Jeremy Allison: It's a trap!

Linus: Soon I'll be dead, and you with me.
Bill Gates: Ha ha ha! Perhaps you refer to the imminent attack of your rebel fleet? Yes, I assure you, we are quite safe from your friends here.
Linus: Your overconfidence is your weakness.
Bill Gates: Your faith in Google is yours.

Linus: You couldn't bring yourself to kill me before and I don't believe you'll destroy me now.
Ballmer: You underestimate the power of the Dark Side of the Source. If you will not fight, then you will meet your destiny.


k I'll stop now.

LOLOL

I was waiting for Some long time Gnome user after using KDE to shout

"Linus NOOO You were supposed to bring balance and simplicity to the Source Not join them"

[forrestcupp]

Linus: You couldn't bring yourself to kill me before and I don't believe you'll destroy me now.
Ballmer: You underestimate the power of the Dark Side of the Source. If you will not fight, then you will meet your destiny.

:lol:

You've thought about this before. The only major mistake you made is that you forgot to add the (TM and copyright 2009 by samjh) after "the Dark Side of the Source." :)

[RiceMonster]

I voted merit. I lean towards open source, but I have no problem using closed if it's the better option.

Stallman: Rarrrrrrgh!

LOL

[issih]

Its about getting the job done for me, if it works I like it.

If it works and its free (in both terms) I'm a happy bunny.

If its free and nearly as good, or the closed source program is absurdly priced, I'll give the oss version a chance to convince me.

The ideology is fine, but ideologies should never be granted status above an that of a simple idea, and must be subject to change and challenge. If not, you get into religion, and then you are definitely in trouble.

[samjh]

Come on, man! You haven't moved back, yet. Don't copyright this; open it up and share it! :)

I give permission for any member of ubuntuforums.org to use the phrase "Dark Side of the Source" for any forum post within ubuntuforums.org, without royalty, under these conditions:
1. The phrase is not used in any material with the intent to gain any commercial or monetary profit, directly or indirectly.
2. The phrase is not modified in any shape or form, apart from the font and size of typeface.
3. Each use of the phrase is to be made with a link to this post by appropriate utilisation of vBulletin's url tags.

;)

[lisati]

I give permission for any member of ubuntuforums.org to use the phrase "Dark Side of the Source" for any forum post within ubuntuforums.org, without royalty, under these conditions:
1. The phrase is not used in any material with the intent to gain any commercial or monetary profit, directly or indirectly.
2. The phrase is not modified in any shape or form, apart from the font and size of typeface.
3. Each use of the phrase is to be made with a link to this post by appropriate utilisation of vBulletin's url tags.

;)

There! i've quoted the terms and conditions. Will this link (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=7396596&postcount=24) do the job?

At the end of the day, getting the job done is important for many people.

[samjh]

You have done well, Lisati. My heart tells me you will become a great Jedi Knight. :p

[H2SO_four]

I'm happy with Ubuntu and will be sticking with it for the forseeable future. Because it works, the ideology is bonus for me.

[forrestcupp]

I give permission for any member of ubuntuforums.org to use the phrase "Dark Side of the Source" for any forum post within ubuntuforums.org, without royalty, under these conditions:
1. The phrase is not used in any material with the intent to gain any commercial or monetary profit, directly or indirectly.
2. The phrase is not modified in any shape or form, apart from the font and size of typeface.
3. Each use of the phrase is to be made with a link to this post by appropriate utilisation of vBulletin's url tags.

;)

Wow! I have been immortalized by being quoted in the license agreement (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=7396596&postcount=24) for the use of "the Dark Side of the Source." I feel privileged. :)

[monsterstack]

I give permission for any member of ubuntuforums.org to use the phrase "Dark Side of the Source" for any forum post within ubuntuforums.org, without royalty, under these conditions:
1. The phrase is not used in any material with the intent to gain any commercial or monetary profit, directly or indirectly.
2. The phrase is not modified in any shape or form, apart from the font and size of typeface.
3. Each use of the phrase is to be made with a link to this post by appropriate utilisation of vBulletin's url tags.

;)

Anybody have the Piratebay link for this?

[Sporkman]

I don't like to pay for software. Also, free software feels less like someone trying to lock me into their income-generating ecosystem.

[JillSwift]

Merit. So far, for my needs it's all been F&OS, however.

[TheNosh]

Merit, i like Opera MUCH better than firefox, and the closed source virtualbox certainly has more features so i see no reason not to use these things just because the source is closed. i get that FOSS generally results in faster bug fixes and i generally support the philosophies behind it, but in some cases the open source equivalent doesn't do all i want it to. (but the second it does i'll switch to it)

[samjh]

Wow! I have been immortalized by being quoted in the license agreement (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=7396596&postcount=24) for the use of "the Dark Side of the Source." I feel privileged. :)

So you should. It's the first step to being appointed a seat in the Jedi Council.

(WTF is it with me and Jedi today?)

:p

[MikeTheC]

Oh, Merit here, definitely.

Naturally, my preference is for F/OSS. However, that being said...

When a certain type of task needs to be done, and your choices are "do it with commercial software or don't do it at all" or "you can do it with either, but the F/OSS app to do it is not mature/stable/etc. enough" then naturally I'm going to pick the commercial software route.

Examples of this include serious desktop publishing and graphic design work (though arguably Gimp and Inkscape in particular have some interesting features), or serious visual design of web pages, there simply are no good F/OSS solutions. What is it you're supposed to do, just "not do" whatever it is you're trying to get done? I mean, wouldn't that be a bit like cutting your nose off to spite your face?

[toupeiro]

While I support FOSS, and use FOSS whenever possible, Merit wins over with me. In the end, software exists to perform tasks. I don't believe in using something inferior just because its FOSS.

[liviubero]

Ideology.
Software is not different from a mathematical algorithm (see assembler programming) and therefore cannot be patented. To close source software is like closing source for a mathematical algorithm.
You cannot patent a math formula - and so you cannot patent software.

Companies like MS are just $$$-hungry Goliaths who deserve a David.
These companies contribute to the increasing state of ignorance of all users of their products. Ignorance == slavery.
Ideology.

P.S. I study CompScience and I have to use C# - but I compile and run C# stuff in mono.

[directhex]

Free software always has the potential to be better than proprietary software. Whether it is better or not is a per-case issue. I know that the vast majority of non-game apps I run are Free, through preference for the app (not for ideological reasons). Free Software is, by and large, so very much easier to improve upon than proprietary software - with an infinitely shorter turnaround.

[CJ Master]

I use propriety when I absolutly have to, and while using it I generally look for good F/OSS alternatives. I use flash because GNASH currently is very... lame. And I use propriety Java because the F/OSS version doesn't seem to like to allow the applications to create folders?

[karellen]

merit. for me there's no place of ideology in a tool (computers). as long as it's free as in beer and it does the job, it doesn't matter anymore it's not free as in speech :)

[starcannon]

Merit for me.
I have a handful of Linux apps that I have bought and paid for. Theres a few more I'm waiting to get ahold of. I'm gonna buy a full Fluendo Codec pack pretty soon, as well as LinDVD.

I go for what works; though I will say that given a choice between two products, if they both accomplish my goal with the same amount of effort, then I'll go for Libre, and even throw a few bones to the devs if they have a Paypal or some other such way of accepting donations.

[Veteropinguis]

Merit. Ubuntu runs faster on my system and it has all sorts of eye candy. Windows has better gaming support. Mac is supposed to be better for video editing, so if I was going to end up doing that I'd probably invest in a Mac.

I have nothing against Apple or Microsoft, or closed-source software. Honestly I don't really care that Linux is open-source. Because it's open-source it has some features I like, but I have no moral or philosophical qualms about using closed-source software.

[carml]

Ideology,I think free/opensource software is always better because of its openess :P.
I rather use a free software(see Stallmann for reference), the closed source software
I use today are for the most part only videogames (even if I play also free videogames;)).

[Blacklightbulb]

Because I was always a bit of a rebel and because I hate huge profiting corporations and because I always stand aside the weakest (Linux isn't the weakest of OS I know) I love open-source and freeware.

Also then on my old rig all the linux distros ans BSD distros and Freedos all perform better than Win Xp and such.

[aysiu]

This question doesn't really make sense the way it's asked.

I could give you an open source program right now: #!/bin/bash
# Execute no code Surprise! It does nothing. Are you going to use it because it's open source? No. Why? Because it does nothing.

You don't use programs because of their license. You use them because they help you accomplish a task.

So the real question is: if a situation arises in which (open source) program A accomplishes said task and (closed source) program B also accomplishes said task, what bugs, missing features, etc. would you be willing to put up with in program A just because it is open source?

[monsterstack]

This question doesn't really make sense the way it's asked.

I could give you an open source program right now: #!/bin/bash
# Execute no code Surprise! It does nothing. Are you going to use it because it's open source? No. Why? Because it does nothing.

You don't use programs because of their license. You use them because they help you accomplish a task.

So the real question is: if a situation arises in which (open source) program A accomplishes said task and (closed source) program B also accomplishes said task, what bugs, missing features, etc. would you be willing to put up with in program A just because it is open source?

A great many. When I first started using Linux, I came across so many problems I very nearly gave up. But I had this crazy idea that it would all be worth it in the long-run. Free software means that 99% of the time, it can only get better. Now, two years later, I feel vindicated for making that decision. For the stuff I do, the free and open source applications are superior to their closed-source counterparts, or at the very least equally comparable. I write documents in OpenOffice; edit text and code in Nano, Geany and Codeblocks; browse with Firefox; check rss and email with Thunderbird; listen to music with MPD+Sonata; watch films and videos with VLC; create websites with Mediawiki, Wordpress and Joomla; administer my server with Apache, MySQL, and Python. I don't have to settle for sub-standard stuff with Open-source, but I would if I had to.

I think that ideology and merit have a symbiotic relationship. Some people see open-source as simply a great way to do software development, and others see the ideology as a reason to support such development in the first place. Linux depends on both of these kind of people.

[michaelpagz]

I am an ideologue in my own right. But I have to choose merit. I feel like ideological stringency hurts the cause.

I started with open source on a windows machine and were it not for the ubuntu community of people who are very accepting, I wouldn't have been as comfortable learning and making mistakes. People in the open source community have taught me a lot about GNU/Linux, the community, the command line, and the culture, including (ironically) how important the free software movement is to the whole community. So I started researching the FSF and I agree with them on many points. At one point, I went all out and used gNewSense and all "free software" and joined their community completely. They tend to be far less concerned with inclusion and community and more concerned with their cause and how to further it. I didn't learn as much from them or really feel any sense of social concern. It was more just people keeping other people in check and making sure everyone was up to date on the FSF and what they consider free and making sure everyone was using that. No disrespect to the free software community. They have a very important part in the open source community. Namely, making sure that everyone remembers that this is not just another asset for megacorporations to take over and exploit.

So, I feel like the open source community's inclusion of some proprietary components for purely functional reasons actually helped me to gravitate more toward completely free software. Now, I use firefox (not completely proprietary I know), google, and the flash plugin where I must, and that's where my proprietary use ends. That is to say my ideology is stronger because of people who support merit.

ps. This is not a flame toward the FSF at all in any way. They are awesome. I am just stating my experience.

[chessnerd]

I'm pretty much all about merit. This is the reason I use Opera over Firefox. Sure, Firefox has add-ons, but Opera has everything I need in a browser right out of the box and I like the feel of it's interface better.

I'm fine with the open-source movement, but I think the world of computers would be better if there was a harmony between the worlds of open-source and proprietary softwares. So some guy wants to sell his software and hide the code under his mattress? Let him do it. If open-source makes a better program his precious code will become worthless. If not, the world gets to decide between second-rate free software and first-rate costly software and lots of people will choose the free stuff.

Imagine a Linux version where you could use any file system that suited your needs, such as Solaris' ZFS, without needing the use of extra packages to provide support. Just because the CDDL is not considered "GNU compatible" ZFS can't be integrated with the Linux kernel despite the fact that it has some useful and cutting edge features that ext4 lacks. Wouldn't it be nice if it could be used in Linux natively?

The idea of "GNU compatibility" is, in my opinion, ridiculous. If a file system, or any piece of software, is better suited to the needs of the user, let them use it be it open source, semi-open source, or closed source.

[yndesai]

I use software on merit (most of them are closed sources)
BUT develop only open source software for they are the only
one I CAN. . .

While I enjoy the ideology part while having a beer. .

[theDaveTheRave]

You have done well, Lisati. My heart tells me you will become a great Jedi Knight. :p

Should that not be a 'nix-di Knight ??

I'm aggravated that you won't allow us to use your 'the location where the lights are off' comment outside of the forums, hence I'm not quoting it here.

Or maybee you are waiting for someone to reverse engineer it??

in which case.




the following comment
"ecruos eht fo edis krad"


can be used in the following circumstances.
Terms of use
1) by any member of the ubuntuforums.org forum
2) where a link is included to this post
3) The phrase is not modified in any shape or form, apart from the font and size of typeface
unless
3.a) used in translation into any language comprehendable by human or other inteligent life forms.
4). The phrase is not used in any material with the intent to gain any commercial or monetary profit, directly or indirectly.
5) Any modification to the phrase must be available for use by all
6) modifications must contain either a copy of these terms of use with a link to the original version is published with the new copy, and hence modifications are also bound by the same terms of use.


This infromation have been derived from intelectual propert created by samjh "Ideology vs Merit" (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=7396596&postcount=24) www.ubuntuforums.org June 4th 2009


There isn't that better, both idealogically and on technical merit?

David

[mamamia88]

if a program is good then i will use it. i am not going to ignore the shortcomings of open source software if it sucks

[bkadoctaj]

I'd say both but letting ideology influence my software choices seems to pay off practically in the long term. It's one case where ideology is not completely separated from reality and part of the merit is the way the OSS philosophy guides the development of the software.
This is an answer I can agree with.

[t0p]

I give permission for any member of ubuntuforums.org to use the phrase "Dark Side of the Source" for any forum post within ubuntuforums.org, without royalty, under these conditions:
1. The phrase is not used in any material with the intent to gain any commercial or monetary profit, directly or indirectly.
2. The phrase is not modified in any shape or form, apart from the font and size of typeface.
3. Each use of the phrase is to be made with a link to this post by appropriate utilisation of vBulletin's url tags.

;)

Blinkin eck samjh, you can't claim ownership of the phrase "Dark side of the source"! Here is some prior art from 2005 (http://blogs.sun.com/ambiguous/entry/introducing_myself): if I could be bothered no doubt I'd find more.

[harrylucas1]

I give permission for any member of ubuntuforums.org to use the phrase "Dark Side of the Source" for any forum post within ubuntuforums.org, without royalty, under these conditions:
1. The phrase is not used in any material with the intent to gain any commercial or monetary profit, directly or indirectly.
2. The phrase is not modified in any shape or form, apart from the font and size of typeface.
3. Each use of the phrase is to be made with a link to this post by appropriate utilisation of vBulletin's url tags.

;)

Did you copyright it?

[alaukikyo]

Mac is supposed to be better for video editing.

No it is not
openshot is a capable free video editor and there are many others

[samjh]

Blinkin eck samjh, you can't claim ownership of the phrase "Dark side of the source"! Here is some prior art from 2005 (http://blogs.sun.com/ambiguous/entry/introducing_myself): if I could be bothered no doubt I'd find more.

Ack! My claim has been defeated!

Did you copyright it?

According to the Berne Convention, copyright is automatically awarded to the original creator without the need for formal registration, and all signatory nations are required to recognise copyrighted works from other signatory nations.