How Important is the GNU and Ubuntu Philosophy

[musther]

The Ubuntu and GNU philosophies are similar, you can read about them here:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/

http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/philosophy

My question is simply, how important are they. For me, they would stop me from ever going back to buying into proprietary software, well almost. What I mean by that is I would, could, never buy a proprietary operating system, would struggle at an office suite, but I do/have bought proprietary games. The reason for this is that one game doesn't exclude another, whereas what we see in the OS world is the MS excludes others (don't get me wrong, it's not MS bashing, I wouldn't buy Mac OS either).

So, what do you think?

[bruce89]

Philosophy is usually difficult to follow, and most people don't. It's not a law you know.

[musther]

Yes, but it's interesting, so I thought this topic would be too. :D

[gerbman]

The philosophy is nice, but the fact is that if an OS does not perform or fit my needs as well as another OS, then I simply won't use the former system. Price is just another factor in my cost/benefit analysis. I would use Windows if I thought that it performed or fit my needs better than GNU/Linux, but it doesn't. I'm not a purist to the extent that I would buy an OS because of its philosohpy, disregarding a better OS that I could afford...that simply doesn't make sense to me.

[sweeney]

What matters is the signal generated by the use of a technological solution under a particular license.

When using GNU GPL'd software you are contributing (intentionally or not) to the wider adoption, use and development of that particular technological solution.

Even you only are driven by a cost/benefit analysis, the signal generated is that determined by the GNU GPL. the license determines how you behave (towards software) and how you interact with the world around you.

In contrast, the proprietary license will seek to close your behaviour (towards the software) off from the community around you in order to extract profit. This is the prime motivation behind the developers (or rather the shareholders who control a proprietory software company) of such software.

by emphasising the sharing and reuse of software, GNU GPL'd solutions cause a sharing and reuse phenomenon that links you with the community around you in order to develop better software (amongst other things)

So when confronted with two pieces of software that do a similar job with similar results, that is as the power of software converges, the philosophy behind them becomes paramount.

That is, one can choose software that contributes to the financial success of a busines uninterested in your own empowerment (unless as a by-product from that empowerment they are able to extract wealth)or one can choose software that a community controls and that contributes to a diffusion of human knowledge throughout society.
----------------------------------------------------------------->
(Ps where is the bloody spellchecker on this reply to thread writer?)

[Donshyoku]

I am a consumer... I will consume the best product that I can afford... right now, Ubuntu is the best product for me (though I would pay for something else if I thought it was better).

[az]

My computer is a bunch of plastic and metal without software. The important thing about a computer is what it is doing. The way I see it, whomever owns the software ons the box on which it is running.

Free-libre software belongs to everybody. I would not run anything else.

Would you buy a car with the hood welded shut? Even if you are not a mechanic?

[DoctorMO]

I would always install FLOSS software over propritory software even if that meant I didn't get all the features I would have liked.

Doing what is right is better than doing what you want and as the post above states; using linux sends a clear messages that linux is important enough to support and good enough to use this enables peoples to have more freedom in their computer and disables abusive technoledgies.

Down with Skype!

[musther]

I agree with the above posts (the two above). However, as I said, I recently (yesterday) bought a game I love (Bridge Construction Set from Chronic Logic). This isn't F/OSS, but I still bought it. How do I justify it to myself, that's a good question, but it feels right. I don't mind paying a small company for a piece of software like that, a game which wouldn't exist if they didn't take time to make it, I'm just paying for that time. Am I betraying my F/OSS beliefs?

[asimon]

Would you buy a car with the hood welded shut? Even if you are not a mechanic?
What about all the embedded systems and car computers in modern cars? We don't have the source, do we? So a more intersting question is "would you buy a car where you don't have the source of all the used software"? ;-)

[commodore]

For me free software philosophy is very important but I don't understand how software developers following the Ubuntu philosophy would survive. If software is free of charge then there's almost no way you can earn money as a developer. You can earn money with support and whatever but not as a software developer.

I think I have to use a lot of properiaty software in the future :( I want to be a graphical designer.

[B0rsuk]

Show me GOOD opensource games and I'll won't use commercial software anymore, ever. As it is, opensource games are years behind.... DOS games, in terms of quality, polish, originality.

DOS game downloads:
http://www.the-underdogs.info/
run with Dosbox.

Recently, I had a lot of fun with Master of Magic. Now I'm playing Fantasy General.

[rai4shu2]

In my experience, commercial games are worse than open source games, and they become more and more buggy every year.

The thing that makes you successful in any industry is your philosophy. I don't know whether it's a big deal for a consumer, but for a producer your philosophy is your work. Without it, there is nothing that makes your efforts different from anyone else's.

[asimon]

Show me GOOD opensource games and I'll won't use commercial software anymore, ever. As it is, opensource games are years behind.... DOS games, in terms of quality, polish, originality.
This is really no problem when it comes to orginality. There is no orginality in commercial games since years. It's always more and better graphics, the game play is always the same. ;-)

[Kimm]

The only game I'm playing at the moment is "True Combat: Elite", it may not be Free software, but its free (as in price) and it beats the crap out of Counter Strike!

Unfortunently my Windows friends have trubble getting it to work...

[az]

What about all the embedded systems and car computers in modern cars? We don't have the source, do we? So a more intersting question is "would you buy a car where you don't have the source of all the used software"? ;-)
Well, it depends where you draw the line. I probably wouldn't expect a component in my car to behave in any other way that it is supposed to. Whether it is a box with gears and pulleys or a microchip doesn't really matter - it is just a part.

Whereas a computer (a home computer, for example) can be expected to perform many different tasks and handle my personal information. In that case, I would prefer not to deal with a "black box". We deal with computers in more and more intimate ways. Soon, you will not be able to be an active member of society and get a drivers licence or pay your taxes without *having* to use a computer. That's where it become more and more important that people have the choice to use free-libre software.

And I would try to avoid buying a car that limits my choices when it needs repairs. If I was only able to bring the car in for service at the one garage which was allowed/able to interface with the onboard computer, I would try to buy a different car.

[az]

For me free software philosophy is very important but I don't understand how software developers following the Ubuntu philosophy would survive.
Free-libre software can very well be commercial. You just don't sell the software, since it belongs to everybody. You sell the service of writing and supporting software.

You pay the programmer, and the code belongs to everybody. You only pay for what add value to your software.

So instead of the software being good and verybody paying for it over and over, the software gets better and better when people pay - and they do.

Most software written is in-house, non-distributed stuff. Only a small percentage of software is written for sale in a shrink-wrapped box. You think those developers who write code for their companies to use do it for free?




If software is free of charge then there's almost no way you can earn money as a developer. You can earn money with support and whatever but not as a software developer..

Often, support involves extending existing code. IBM, Sun, Novell all have invested millions in this kind of software? You think they don't know what they are doing?

Mark Shuttleworth is now a billionare. He sold his company ?ten years ago for 310 million. He built that company using free-libre software. Actually, had he not used free software, he would never have been able to be successful.

[blastus]

The number one reason I was drawn to Ubuntu in the first place was because the Ubuntu Philosophy. It's right on the main page so one can't miss it.

[polo_step]

All this philosophy nonsense makes me itch.

As I've said before, if you want to make the world a better place, shut up and fix Linux wireless support or make better keyreg cracks or do something useful. ;)

[musther]

I fail to see how that would make the world a better place. I also fail to see how it would magically make more people use GNU/Linux.

[Lord Illidan]

I like the philosophy. However, I also want to be comfortable. And that is why I use some propietary applications. Hell...what shall I do, remove my nvidia drivers, remove all commercial games, remove all mp3s, and the like? Definitely not. The philosophy is important, but it does not, and will not rule my life.

[polo_step]

I fail to see how that would make the world a better place. I also fail to see how it would magically make more people use GNU/Linux.
Well, if you can't see why fixing the manifold wireless hassles in Linux wouldn't increase the number of people using it, you have a vison problem beyond the abilities of mere glasses to correct. :rolleyes:

[fuscia]

i'm not all that sure what those philosophies are. i like free and i don't miss my computer being used to aid someone trying to sell me stuff.

[musther]

Well, if you can't see why fixing the manifold wireless hassles in Linux wouldn't increase the number of people using it, you have a vison problem beyond the abilities of mere glasses to correct. :rolleyes:

If I'm trying to convince two windows users to choose a GNU/Linux OS, and I say to one of them, you'll have real trouble with your wireless card, and say to another 'you're sweet', of course there is a little more chance that they will decide to give it a try. But it's only a part (and a small one at that) of the equation. Besides, that is very rarely the case, most new users don't know whether or not their hardware will be easy, difficult, or impossible to set up, they just put in the CD and have a go, the real problem is that not many Windows / OS X users even do that. A hell of a lot of your every day MS or Mac users haven't even heard of Linux, many don't even know what on operating system is. It's all about education, dare I say 'Humanity Towards Others' - the spirit, ideology, and philosophy of Ubuntu.

I found your post amusing however because as it happens I do have a vision problem, it's genetic and way 'beyond the abilities of mere glasses to correct'. :)

In response to Lord Illidan, judging by the poll some people do let the philosophy 'rule' them to a great extent, they seem to feel that it is more important than simple convenience, nvidia drivers, games, MP3's and all. I'm not saying they, or you, are right, just pointing it out. After all, that's why I started the poll, to get some interesting results!

[23meg]

All this philosophy nonsense makes me itch.

As I've said before, if you want to make the world a better place, shut up and fix Linux wireless support or make better keyreg cracks or do something useful. ;)
It's due to the efforts of the people who originated this line of thinking that you call nonsense that we have Debian, Ubuntu, whatever today. If noone had reacted to the closing down of operating systems at the times when they were only a university laboratory affair, you wouldn't have a major project like GNU today. Without GNU you wouldn't have a GCC to compile your whole OS with, you wouldn't have free tools for collaboration, so on; things just wouldn't have come to a point where your only worry is wireless support for a device without open specs.

Get informed, mind where you step.

[polo_step]

i don't miss my computer being used to aid someone trying to sell me stuff.
What, you've stopped using search engines??? :D

That's all they're there for, that and revenue scamming.

I was trying to find out about a certain USB device a few weeks ago. I got slightly more than ten thousand (10,000) hits on it. After a couple of hours of modifying the search, I discovered that in the ten thousand hits, only two (2) were actual, original product reviews. Nearly all the rest -- over nine thousand -- were (mostly dubious) e-tail, scam hits and a few sites stealing the copy of the two legitimate reviews.

Modern reality. :( (http://digg.com/technology/How_One_Spammer_Got_BILLIONS_of_Pages_into_Google_ in_3_Weeks)

[polo_step]

Get informed, mind where you step.
Informed?

Let me explain this to you, boy :

I've spent almost thirty years of my working life in Northern California's Hi-Tech triangle, where it all started, crashed and started again a few more times, and I did my bit in it.

I've seen it all and knew a lot of the players.

I've seen the genius and I've seen the greed and the false starts and the scams and the epic stupidities.

In all that, I never once saw philosophy fix bad code.

I have seen jejune philosophical arguments waste time and kill projects. I've seen jejune philosophical arguments derail competent management. I've seen that blather kill whole companies and ultimately waste hundreds of millions of dollars.

I've seen philosophy do everything except anything useful. The closest it ever came was in framing the fatuous banalities needed to produce meaningless, cynical "mission statements" to cheaply motivate gullible workers and investors.

Certainly, Stallman's GNU "vision" was not as preposterous in -- what, 1983? -- as it is now. Then, businesses were still running computer operating systems and applications on 180K single sided 5.25" floppies on 64K of RAM. I know, because I was keeping them going. Code projects were manageable by individuals and small teams working in their spare time between D&D games. Now, systems and third-party software are complex and immense beyond imagining in terms of resource consumption, and Stallman's just another pathetic netloon with an ugly webpage. (http://www.stallman.org/)

Funny, but the stuff that actually works somewhat in desktop Linux seems to be from projects funded by real corporations with real programmers working for real pay. Novell, Sun, the lately-AOL-funded Mozilla, nVidia, etc., etc.

[musther]

Get informed, mind where you step.

Well said!


In all that, I never once saw philosophy fix bad code.

Really, so none of the developers who wrote GNU software, who worked on Debian, Linux, who work on Ubuntu (and here we're just dealing with one branch) believed in the philosophy which underpins it? I'm sorry to say that saying the philosophy is not important is very ignorant of you, I don't care what you claim to have seen.

[RavenOfOdin]

The both of y'all above are right, and at the same time wrong.

No, philosophy does NOT fix bad code.
But it can be a great motivating force for Linux coders, as in the case of the GNU/GPL.

I consider the software to be the one over-riding important point.

Only for that end do I consider philosophy something to throw around for our cause. I've said it before on many other threads and I'll say it again. . .we run the risk of putting people off if we do anything more.

Such as that I have stated above all is, the "Ubuntu philosophy" is nothing to me if it doesn't have firmly rooted relevance in computer hardware or software.

[sweeney]

Informed?




Certainly, Stallman's GNU "vision" was not as preposterous in -- what, 1983? -- as it is now. Then, businesses were still running computer operating systems and applications on 180K single sided 5.25" floppies on 64K of RAM. I know, because I was keeping them going. Code projects were manageable by individuals and small teams working in their spare time between D&D games. Now, systems and third-party software are complex and immense beyond imagining in terms of resource consumption, and Stallman's just another pathetic netloon with an ugly webpage. (http://www.stallman.org/)

Funny, but the stuff that actually works somewhat in desktop Linux seems to be from projects funded by real corporations with real programmers working for real pay. Novell, Sun, the lately-AOL-funded Mozilla, nVidia, etc., etc.




But what makes Free & open source software so robust, efficient and stable is the governing strucutre under copyright law provided by the GNU GPL, which is the predominant license type used in free & open source software. it is this actual license which is the device that ensures the production of the software. and it is the vision of stallman that it expresses. so in this case, the philosophy of the GNU that has enabled the success of free and open source software

[Rhapsody]

and Stallman's just another pathetic netloon with an ugly webpage. (http://www.stallman.org/)
I'll admit that's not the prettiest webpage I've ever seen, but I've seen much worse design. The pages load quickly, scroll quickly, and provide information in a clear and easy way. A far cry from the modern overdesign of most pages.

[rai4shu2]

I've seen philosophy do everything except anything useful.

If it weren't for philosophy, there would be no such word as "useful". We'd all be killing each other with clubs. People who scorn the usefulness of philosophy are rationalizing something (usually reckless hedonism).

[az]

Informed?

Let me explain this to you, boy :

I've spent almost thirty years of my working life in Northern California's Hi-Tech triangle, where it all started, crashed and started again a few more times, and I did my bit in it.

I've seen it all and knew a lot of the players. ]


So what do you do now, for employment?


[

I've seen the genius and I've seen the greed and the false starts and the scams and the epic stupidities.

...

Funny, but the stuff that actually works somewhat in desktop Linux seems to be from projects funded by real corporations with real programmers working for real pay.


That just proves the point that many companies are willing to invest heavily in the philosophy. As stated in this very thread, software freedom is not contrary to good business. A lot of people think FLOSS is really great for business.

Mark Shuttleworth is actually a billonaire, today, because of free-libre software.

And don't call anybody "boy". It is derogatory and against the code of conduct.

[sweeney]

Indeed, the condescending tone of such posts[polo step] is unwarranted, and also the implication that the thousands of programmers who contribute code to GNU Linux software without direct monetary reward are somehow not 'real programmers'.

There are a host of other motivational factors for people to contribute to GNU Linux software besides monetary reward from the traditional company structure. this made possible by the peer production structure of the network, a structure that is completely different from the traditional company structure.

For a good insight check out this link: www.benkler.org/CoasesPenguin.PDF

[Iandefor]

I have seen jejune philosophical arguments waste time and kill projects. I've seen jejune philosophical arguments derail competent management. I've seen that blather kill whole companies and ultimately waste hundreds of millions of dollars. Examples?

This is primarily for my own personal edification, but it'll strengthen your arguments to back them up with examples.

Thanks!