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.
Last edited by Johnsie; February 2nd, 2009 at 05:53 PM.
microsoft is evil!!!!!!!
I taught my little sister to say "naughty windows, good Ubuntu!"
shes only 1.
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.
"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.
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.