Ideological or practical

[Ozor Mox]

I switched to Ubuntu exclusively more than two years ago now, and at the time I decided it was all or nothing, so I wiped Windows from my computers entirely. Now though, there are times that I think I'm missing out on things, such as games for example. I know that isn't important to everyone, but I'm sure as Linux users you know we can feel like second class citizens sometimes. Just see the ParcelForce thread somewhere on the first few pages as an example. This is why I'm considering using other operating systems (that would be Windows or Mac!) to do things I can't do on Ubuntu.

When I started using Ubuntu, I did it because I wanted to learn and try something different than the same old OS I'd always been using. Then I discovered the practical and moral benefits of FOSS, and this has convinced me up until now to resist any desire to change to using something closed and proprietary for some benefit that might give me. But now, I find myself becoming interested in the practicalities. I want to be able to use all the operating systems that are useful to me, and have things work and work well. I imagine I am like a lot of people on this forum, I want to see Ubuntu and Linux succeed, but I also want to be able to do and use anything that I want to on a computer.

You might think I'm thinking to hard about this, and you'd probably be right! Still, I'm sure others have this clash of ideals or realised this change in how they think, right...?

P.S. I'm not sure 'ideological' is the right word to use, since I never think anyone should see an OS as religion. I mean it to literally mean the idea of FOSS.

[Tews]

Dont feel that you need to explain your need to use an additional OS. Ubuntu/Linux is just a tool, not a religion, though I sometime wonder after reading some of the posts .. lol. Use what you need to get the job done and be at peace with yourself!!

[albinootje]

Now though, there are times that I think I'm missing out on things, such as games for example.

Imho playing computer games for more than a reasonable amount of time per day is pure escapism.

Just see the ParcelForce thread somewhere on the first few pages as an example. This is why I'm considering using other operating systems (that would be Windows or Mac!) to do things I can't do on Ubuntu.
You can of course choose to not stand up for your right, and not raise your voice. You can shrug your shoulders, and do nothing at all when you see injustice in the streets, just like you can turn/run away when websites are only readable/usable for Microsoft product users.

Apart from that there's things like VirtualBox, VMware, Wine, CrossOverLinux to run MS-Windows applications inside Ubuntu.
Instead of buying more Microsoft products you can buy more RAM, and have MS-Windows controlled in a box.. like VirtualBox.

[Saint Angeles]

if your SOLE purpose of using a 2nd OS is for software compatibility, i would choose dual-booting windows rather than getting a mac. its way cheaper, works with MORE software, and very easy to install side by side with your linux install.

i have a windows7 partition i use for FL studio and xmen legends 2. for everything else, theres ubuntu.

[stwschool]

if your SOLE purpose of using a 2nd OS is for software compatibility, i would choose dual-booting windows rather than getting a mac. its way cheaper, works with MORE software, and very easy to install side by side with your linux install.

i have a windows7 partition i use for FL studio and xmen legends 2. for everything else, theres ubuntu.
What he said. For me, practicality wins every time. I'm on Ubuntu because it's the best, not because of any moral crusade. It fits my needs perfectly. Occasionally I find a game or other program won't run in Wine and want to use it, so I boot windows or use virtualbox. Not a big problem for me.

[sydbat]

You might think I'm thinking to hard about this, and you'd probably be right!Remember that scene in Scanners...

[Ozor Mox]

Interesting how the two opposing points of view I was talking about can already be easily seen on this thread...

I do use a VM for most things, though of course it's no good for games. I would like to dual boot, but I want to install Windows after Ubuntu on a second hard drive without it eating Ubuntu so it's going to require a bit of thought! I most probably won't be buying Windows, but I will be acquiring it legally :)

I can't wait for when VMs can do 3D stuff.


Imho playing computer games for more than a reasonable amount of time per day is pure escapism.

Sure, but then I'm not going to be spending more than a "reasonable" amount of time on them anyway...

So all you dual booters, did you have to start with a clean computer and put Windows on first?

[Screwdriver0815]

personally I use the operating system which fits my needs. No matter which OS this may be.
So now its Linux and by chance (K)ubuntu and Mandriva because both do the job like I want it.

If someone would tell me that I have to buy another system so that I can use his stuff to pay him and to feed his life (the parcel-farce) I just laugh and turn around. As we saw in this thread there was another company, offering better service for less money.

If it was for myself, playing games or whatever I would spend the money if I was desparate for it.

So what I want to say is: just do it like it fits your needs. But buying another OS just for using some chargeable services is a little bit strange, imho.

[kirsis]

I can't wait for when VMs can do 3D stuff.


After exclusively using Linux for 2 years, I'm now using Win7 RC as my main OS, with Jaunty in a VirtualBox image with enabled 3D support.

I gotta say, it's damn zippy, especially if your CPU supports virtualization. It starts up as fast as a native installation and with compiz enabled, it feels great.

I once forgot i'm using a virtualized OS and browsed the net for 30 minutes before I realized I could be doing that in windows :)

edit: granted, the 3D stuff is buggy. Compiz works, so does most of the stuff i've tried, but there's plenty of oddball issues, especially if you do graphics programming (need to run linux natively for that)

[Ozor Mox]

So what I want to say is: just do it like it fits your needs. But buying another OS just for using some chargeable services is a little bit strange, imho.

Of course you are right, and there's no way I would use Windows or Mac because of that reason. I was just giving an example of times when Linux users can be forgotten about. Microsoft have 90% of the market, and Apple control the hardware, but Linux users are left without access to many commercial software apps and games, and drivers for lots of hardware that must instead be reverse engineered, and unable to buy portable computers like laptops and netbooks with Linux preinstalled, without getting a choice of about 2.

</rant> :D

The situation is of course improving, but we often have to take a hit of convenience to support our OS of choice, or have the practicality of using whatever we want instead.

[lykwydchykyn]

I don't think you have to be "religious" about free software to NOT want to use Windows/OSX/proprietary software on your system. I happen to like and prefer the Linux way of doing things. Linux is what I WANT to run on my system, and my workflow is adapted to it. It's a nuisance to have to switch to something else, even in a VM, just because of compatibility. ESPECIALLY when it's something like a website which should be written to standards and thus cross-platform.

I think a lot of new Linux users are apologetic about running Linux; they feel bad that they've "stepped out of line" and are now incompatible with the rest of the world's services and products. STOP IT! Stop feeling bad. It's your computer, not theirs. They are the ones trying to sell YOU a product.

When someone has a computer-based product or service that doesn't work with Linux, you are doing them a service to inform them that it doesn't work for you. You aren't "whining" and you aren't being "religious"; you are informing them that they are losing customers because of their support decisions. If they find that they are losing enough customers because of it, they will adapt and be better off for it.

[monsterstack]

I admire and respect the ideals of free software. Of course, pragmatically, I also want my hardware to work properly. So I use non-free codecs and drivers for that purpose. Wanting things to be different doesn't make you a hypocrite, I feel, and neither does it make you a zealot. I think furthermore, absence of convenience ("Lunix doesn't run Photoshop lol") is often better than lack of freedom.

The most important thing about all software is that code controls. Or as I heard it said by some guy, "Think 'free speech', not 'free beer'," isn't just a clever way of putting it; it has profound and deep meaning. When you use free software, you are in control.

One of the reasons I'm totally against proprietary software is because one of its goals is to keep people from sharing and creating society's culture and knowledge. Software is inherently linked to culture: just look at the communities, discussions, flames and trolls, disagreements, wars, achievements that are because of it. And that's just it: culture isn't culture if it isn't shared.

One thing I hear constantly from supporters of more proprietary integration in Linux is the need to get real money and real corporate support. The thing is, though, almost nobody here (on the forums, I mean) ever walks into some executive's office and tries to wrangle a deal. Most people here, I would guess, don't ultimately care about how many dollar signs Linux is worth, or how much marketshare it gathers. We just want the software to be available, and for it to be good. There are plenty of Linux vendors making stacks of cash selling software as a service, and these companies already contribute enormously to the Linux eco-system of software. The point is we already have corporate support. I just don't buy the argument that we need to dilute our dreams of freedom to get more of it. People who support further corporate control are basing it on the presumption that people are only motivated to do anything when there is a huge bundle of cash in front of them. Clearly this is not the case.

Also, I completely disagree with people who see these views as extreme. I also disagree with those who claim these beliefs are somehow religious. Free software is synonymous with free speech, and there is absolutely nothing esoteric or extreme about that. It is not religion or extremism to want to avoid tools and software that control your machine and your data. I honestly think that anyone who accuses people who agree with Stallman and co. of being zealots either just doesn't get it, or doesn't give a damn about free software.

And how about proprietary standards, such as Microsoft's doc format? I often see people say how they must carry on using non-open formats because of compatibility with the bazillions of Microsoft Office documents floating around out there. It's pragmatic to use those as well. But there is still one enormous caveat: ODF can be implemented by anybody. Microsoft even teamed up with Novell to help develop the CleverAge plugin to allow Office 2003/7 to work with ODF documents. It does a fine job; and its licence is a very permissive BSD-style licence, allowing Microsoft to dump it in the core of Office for compatibility for all. Except this is not happening. Instead, they are giving their users an extremely buggy and useless implementation of ODF in the next service pack for Office. Why? They are protecting their monopoly by not giving anybody a reason to move away from their trade-secret document formats. I think sticking true to your guns is important here. Support open-formats and not something that seeks to control users and software companies. None of this is extremism.

To sum up, proprietary software seeks to divide and conquer its users. One of the ways it has managed to stay so powerful for so long is down to its ability to keep people wanting the easy option rather than giving us the power to collaborate, share and evolve amongst ourselves. Free software, on the other hand, is designed to benefit everybody. It is not designed for profit, although magically, profit is still possible with free software. The whole idea is for giving us software that everybody can use, modify, and share with others. The GPL and similar licences give us this freedom.

[diwas]

Thats why I have two OS, Ubuntu and XP. :D

[Therion]

P.S. I'm not sure 'ideological' is the right word to use, since I never think anyone should see an OS as religion. I mean it to literally mean the idea of FOSS.
Ideological is the correct word. It has no religious overtones by definition. What you are dealing with it not a moral issue, it's an ethical issue. You're trying to balance what you feel is right in an ethical sense (the ideals of the FOSS movement) with the actual doing of what you need (or want) to do with your computer on a day-to-day basis. When these two factors are at odds with one another, you feel the twinge created by a dichotomy.

Unfortunately there are no easy answers. This is one of those questions where the answer defines who we are.

[monsterstack]

Ideological is the correct word. It has no religious overtones by definition. What you are dealing with it not a moral issue, it's an ethical issue. You're trying to balance what you feel is right in an ethical sense (the ideals of the FOSS movement) with the actual doing of what you need (or want) to do with your computer on a day-to-day basis. When these two factors are at odds with one another, you feel the twinge created by a dichotomy.

Unfortunately there are no easy answers. This is one of those questions where the answer defines who we are.

+1. That is a very eloquent way of putting it it, and echoes my feelings precisely. Thank you. (Your signature hits the spot, too.)

[Ozor Mox]

Thank you for the enlightening posts, particularly Therion. I could have rewritten my post a thousand times and never summed up the dilemma I wanted to talk about with such finesse!

[albinootje]

Instead, they are giving their users an extremely buggy and useless implementation of ODF in the next service pack for Office. Why? They are protecting their monopoly by not giving anybody a reason to move away from their trade-secret document formats.

Very interesting piece you wrote down here, just like the "Ideological is the correct word." comment by Therion.

For your information, already years ago I told the Linux users, in the places where I work, to save in rtf format instead of doc, to make things easier for anything out there which is not using MS-Office.
Strangely enough rtf is a Microsoft document format which is quite open, there's even an open source application based on the usage of rtf, called Ted (http://www.nllgg.nl/Ted/)

See also here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Word#Attempts_at_cross-version_compatibility

And I thought I read a while ago that MS had opened up the doc format (FWIW,YMMV)a few years ago, but now I can't find it anymore on wikipedia.

[monsterstack]

Very interesting piece you wrote down here, just like the "Ideological is the correct word." comment by Therion.

For your information, already years ago I told the Linux users, in the places where I work, to save in rtf format instead of doc, to make things easier for anything out there which is not using MS-Office.
Strangely enough rtf is a Microsoft document format which is quite open, there's even an open source application based on the usage of rtf, called Ted (http://www.nllgg.nl/Ted/)

See also here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Word#Attempts_at_cross-version_compatibility

And I thought I read a while ago that MS had opened up the doc format (FWIW,YMMV)a few years ago, but now I can't find it anymore on wikipedia.

You may be right, I just wanted a modern(ish) example of how closed formats are only good for monopolizing the market.

[FuturePilot]

I admire and respect the ideals of free software. Of course, pragmatically, I also want my hardware to work properly. So I use non-free codecs and drivers for that purpose. Wanting things to be different doesn't make you a hypocrite, I feel, and neither does it make you a zealot. I think furthermore, absence of convenience ("Lunix doesn't run Photoshop lol") is often better than lack of freedom.

The most important thing about all software is that code controls. Or as I heard it said by some guy, "Think 'free speech', not 'free beer'," isn't just a clever way of putting it; it has profound and deep meaning. When you use free software, you are in control.

One of the reasons I'm totally against proprietary software is because one of its goals is to keep people from sharing and creating society's culture and knowledge. Software is inherently linked to culture: just look at the communities, discussions, flames and trolls, disagreements, wars, achievements that are because of it. And that's just it: culture isn't culture if it isn't shared.

One thing I hear constantly from supporters of more proprietary integration in Linux is the need to get real money and real corporate support. The thing is, though, almost nobody here (on the forums, I mean) ever walks into some executive's office and tries to wrangle a deal. Most people here, I would guess, don't ultimately care about how many dollar signs Linux is worth, or how much marketshare it gathers. We just want the software to be available, and for it to be good. There are plenty of Linux vendors making stacks of cash selling software as a service, and these companies already contribute enormously to the Linux eco-system of software. The point is we already have corporate support. I just don't buy the argument that we need to dilute our dreams of freedom to get more of it. People who support further corporate control are basing it on the presumption that people are only motivated to do anything when there is a huge bundle of cash in front of them. Clearly this is not the case.

Also, I completely disagree with people who see these views as extreme. I also disagree with those who claim these beliefs are somehow religious. Free software is synonymous with free speech, and there is absolutely nothing esoteric or extreme about that. It is not religion or extremism to want to avoid tools and software that control your machine and your data. I honestly think that anyone who accuses people who agree with Stallman and co. of being zealots either just doesn't get it, or doesn't give a damn about free software.

And how about proprietary standards, such as Microsoft's doc format? I often see people say how they must carry on using non-open formats because of compatibility with the bazillions of Microsoft Office documents floating around out there. It's pragmatic to use those as well. But there is still one enormous caveat: ODF can be implemented by anybody. Microsoft even teamed up with Novell to help develop the CleverAge plugin to allow Office 2003/7 to work with ODF documents. It does a fine job; and its licence is a very permissive BSD-style licence, allowing Microsoft to dump it in the core of Office for compatibility for all. Except this is not happening. Instead, they are giving their users an extremely buggy and useless implementation of ODF in the next service pack for Office. Why? They are protecting their monopoly by not giving anybody a reason to move away from their trade-secret document formats. I think sticking true to your guns is important here. Support open-formats and not something that seeks to control users and software companies. None of this is extremism.

To sum up, proprietary software seeks to divide and conquer its users. One of the ways it has managed to stay so powerful for so long is down to its ability to keep people wanting the easy option rather than giving us the power to collaborate, share and evolve amongst ourselves. Free software, on the other hand, is designed to benefit everybody. It is not designed for profit, although magically, profit is still possible with free software. The whole idea is for giving us software that everybody can use, modify, and share with others. The GPL and similar licences give us this freedom.

This ^

[Ozor Mox]

The key issue seems to be how much incompatibility and inconvenience one is willing to take. I have to say, despite happily using Ubuntu for all this time, I have got incredibly frustrated over the last few weeks trying to find a laptop that will be compatible with Ubuntu and doesn't come with Windows preinstalled. I guess that, as well as a few other frustrations (mobile broadband, games, ...) caused me to post this.

[mamamia88]

same here man i don't want to reboot all the time just to watch internet tv on abc.com or igns livewire coverage. good thing virtualbox exists

[albinootje]

I have got incredibly frustrated over the last few weeks trying to find a laptop that will be compatible with Ubuntu and doesn't come with Windows preinstalled.

You're in the UK according to your info, did you look at this one already ? (And Dell also might offer laptops with Ubuntu in the UK?)

http://www.linuxemporium.co.uk/products/laptops/

[albinootje]

You may be right, I just wanted a modern(ish) example of how closed formats are only good for monopolizing the market.

Yes, sure, my comment was just an addon, no criticism at all intended.

And I am still amazed that MS produced at least two different document formats (rtf and doc), and had it included in their word processing software for years, while pushing the closed one like crazy.

[Ozor Mox]

You're in the UK according to your info, did you look at this one already ? (And Dell also might offer laptops with Ubuntu in the UK?)

http://www.linuxemporium.co.uk/products/laptops/

Yes I am considering getting one from there. The only other options I have found are Dell (http://www.dell.co.uk/ubuntu), who's page is now empty (although I can choose from two, yes two, netbooks if I select Ubuntu as the OS from the laptops page). EfficientPC (http://www.efficientpc.co.uk) who I was about to order from when 9.04 came out, but by then they had inexplicably removed all their laptops except one with a Celeron processor (barf!). And then there's Amazon and Play.com, who both have a very confusing and limited selection of Linux netbooks from what I have seen.

It was this that made me consider just buying a Windows laptop and putting Ubuntu on it, possibly as a dual boot, which led to the posting of this thread since I don't want to support the sale of Windows but practically have to if I want a laptop that fits my needs.

[BoyOfDestiny]

same here man i don't want to reboot all the time just to watch internet tv on abc.com or igns livewire coverage. good thing virtualbox exists

Agreed. I made qcow img of xp about 5 years ago (so no WGA in that image...) Used qemu-tools (last year or so) to convert it .vdmk, and works nicely with virtualbox.

I don't need it, but the point is it works. If I have to use something proprietary, I rather use it an emulated virtual environment.

I don't feel comfortable unless that "blackbox" can't modify or control my system.

In a Free Software vm, proprietary stuff is encapsulated and running on a system I can trust... So that's good enough for me.

I view pdfs that are copyrighted in evince. I can view this webpage in firefox. XYZ software package suddenly becomes something I can run on 100% Free software, easily replaceable, interchangeable, and disposable... :popcorn:

[monsterstack]

There's a blog posting about the sort of stance I am against here (http://jonreagan.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/its-time-for-change-part-i/) [wordpress.com]:


Anyone remember the failed “BadVista” campaign the FSF ran a few years ago? Remember the protests in the hazmat suits? How about the protesters against the OOXML document format? Or even the student who ran across a stage behind Bill Gates with a sign that said “FLOSS” on it? Ever feel a little… embarassed? I’m not saying that the people protesting are not fighting the good fight, because they are, just not in the best way.

Thankfully, the FSF seems to be changing it’s tune. It’s turning to actually creating better products than the competition, rather than having a fit because the competition has a lock on the market. The truth is that there are better ways to approach software injustice… and step one is to not blow it out of proportion. It’s just a piece of software — remember that.

The blog makes some fairly sane comments about angry people trolling the net, but I think this particular part completely misses the point. Just a piece of software? If that's your view, then what on earth is the point of making it free at all?

[albinootje]

There's a blog posting about the sort of stance I am against here (http://jonreagan.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/its-time-for-change-part-i/) [wordpress.com]:


That blog page mentions this :


So, instead of activism, we should keep focusing on what we do best: software! If we stick to that, how can we go wrong?


Which is imho a very simplistic way of viewing at the software world.

I am e.g. very happy that http://www.groklaw.net/ has handled reporting of the SCO vs. Linux scandal so well.
And then there's the whole software patents problem, which featured Microsoft threathening Linux users years ago with, it's not something to just shrug your shoulders about and ignore it completely.

It's imho not just a matter of -only- trying to make software better, and -nothing- else, that's not enough.

I have deep respect for the person from Australia with the Toshiba laptop who was busy for a few months trying to get a refund because he didn't want a Microsoft OS on his laptop.
That led to the Refund Day. http://marc.merlins.org/linux/refundday/

Without vocal expressions like that things are not gonna change for good, out of nowhere, for Linux users.

[MaxIBoy]

I am happiest when my ideologies coincide with what is practical. However, when they do not coincide, the two are given about equal priority. In other words, if I'm very strongly opposed on philosophical grounds to a particular software or hardware (DRM-locked media and blu-ray drives are good examples,) then I will not use it, doesn't matter how convenient it is. However, if I really need a particular hardware or software (for example, the proprietary BIOS and firmware being used on my motherboard and peripherals,) I just suck it up and use it. That being said, someday, I hope to have the skills needed to write my own firmware and release it as Free Software.

[Eisenwinter]

this topic comes up every 2 weeks.