How ideological are you about Linux?

[weasel fierce]

When it comes to Linux and Open Source software in general, how ideological are you?

Feel free to elaborate as much as you feel like, but please refrain from fighting

[KiwiNZ]

Linux is an Operating System, that's it, nothing more, nothing less.

[vasa1]

Linux is an Operating System, that's it, nothing more, nothing less.
That's a trite truism which ignores history.

[KiwiNZ]

That's a trite truism which ignores history.

Say what now?

Linux isn't an Operating System.

[mag1strate]

Linux is an Operating System, that's it, nothing more, nothing less.

Linux is a kernal, Ubuntu is an Operating System.

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html

[KiwiNZ]

Linux is a kernal, Ubuntu is an Operating System.

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html


Linux is a UNIX like computer Operating System

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux

[Wim Sturkenboom]

I just use the tools that get the job done. Slackware servers, Ubuntu desktops, Windows machines.

[lisati]

Kernel? Operating system? Something else? I'm not too worried about pinning down a definition of the word "system" that will satisfy everyone: "it" works for me. :D

[mamamia88]

Using what works best for me always trumps any ideology. That being said I would prefer everything to be open source. It makes it easier to sleep at night knowing that nothing "sneaks" it's way into my computer without a bunch of people much smarter than myself reviewing every line of code. I like my software like i like my government transparent.

[mr john]

I'm a programmer and I think a programmer should have a right to chose his/her own business model depending on what works best for him. If you need to put bread on the table and opening your software up may prevent that then by all means keep it closed. If you think you can make money by selling support then feel free to open it up, but don't be surprised if someone forks it and takes away your business.

OSS is a good thing, especially for users, but not everyone should be expected to give away their code.

[lykwydchykyn]

I use software that is adequate for the task, readily available, and well-integrated into my workflow. Free, open-source software tends to fit this description most often for me.

I don't have any major angst against proprietary software, but I've found that the proprietary software I've had to deal with over the years sooner or later becomes a stick-in-the-mud and a limiting factor in my workflow.

For example, our corporate email client at work: while it does have a Linux-compatible version, it only comes as 32bit rpms. Making it work on modern 64-bit Ubuntu requires a 32-bit JVM, a bunch of deprecated gtk & c libraries, and a bunch of environment tweaks.

I think what it comes down to for me is that, in my personal experience, FOSS applications tended to have more long-term sustainability and flexibility as my technology and workflow evolved, so I feel safer depending on FOSS.

[Paqman]

Software is a tool. You take it out of the box, do the job, put it back in the box. No ideology required.

I use Linux because it's good, not because of any ideological hangups.

[jerome1232]

I hate OSS but am hanging out on an Ubuntu forum anyway

8)

More seriously if I can, I will always use OSS, if it can't fulfil my needs I'll turn to properitary software. I think there's room in this world for both to coexist in some happy or less than happy state.

[QIII]

I'm a pragmatist.

[Erik1984]

I'm a programmer and I think a programmer should have a right to chose his/her own business model depending on what works best for him. If you need to put bread on the table and opening your software up may prevent that then by all means keep it closed. If you think you can make money by selling support then feel free to open it up, but don't be surprised if someone forks it and takes away your business.

OSS is a good thing, especially for users, but not everyone should be expected to give away their code.



Agreed, but as a user I also have right to choose and I take openness into the equation. I checked the 'willing to compromise' box as you sometimes just can't do without closed source parts (of the kernel) or programs.

It also depends on the software category. For games I don't care so much if they are open source or not. If we look at webbrowsers however I find it very important.

[slickymaster]

I'm forced to agree with lisati's post: "Kernel? Operating system? Something else?..." whatever... It also works for me.

[quentinl]

Ubuntu is better than anything else out at the moment
fast
reliable(ish)
has workspaces (catch on Microsoft)
open source
open sauce
neat
and stuff

[Linuxratty]

I only use oss and have for years. I prefer it to what the big boys have to offer.

[evilsoup]

Open source mostly works well enough, and with a few applications it is actually the best there is. I'm generally willing to put up with a little bit more BS from open-source stuff (because what am I going to do, get a refund :v), but if there is no adequate open-source equivalent (mostly games, but also video editing) then I'll use a proprietary solution.

TL;DR I prefer OSS, but will use what works.

[ratcheer]

I selected "I feel strongly about OSS, but willing to compromise". I wish I could run a completely FOSS system, but my hardware requires a few non-free drivers. I refuse to run proprietary applications.

Tim

[mamamia88]

Ubuntu is better than anything else out at the moment
fast
reliable(ish)
has workspaces (catch on Microsoft)
open source
open sauce
neat
and stuff

wow such compelling arguments:wink: and workspaces are really only relevant if they fit your work flow. If a desktop environment is setup properly they are almost pointless. And really faster? Unity and windows 7 are about the same for performance maybe windows 7 is even slightly faster.

[Tibuda]

"I don't really care about OSS, just what tool is best"

[qamelian]

wow such compelling arguments:wink: and workspaces are really only relevant if they fit your work flow. If a desktop environment is setup properly they are almost pointless. And really faster? Unity and windows 7 are about the same for performance maybe windows 7 is even slightly faster.
What you say is mostly a matter of opinion and personal taste. We differ in that I don't consider a desktop environment to be setup properly unless it does allow workspaces.

And my netbook, which shipped with Windows 7 by default, is so slow as to be almost unusable in Windows 7, but it flies right along in Ubuntu. It is measurably faster.

[jerome1232]

workspaces are really only relevant if they fit your work flow.

They are the best thing since butter meet bread.


And really faster? Unity and windows 7 are about the same for performance maybe windows 7 is even slightly faster.

Sure, Unity and Gnome-Shell are a bit heavy, but you know what, Unity runs better than Win 7 Starter Edition somehow on my resource tight netbook. Flash video's stutter a lot more on win 7, barely at all on Ubuntu. That's just my experience in a resource tight arena.

Now, let's put it [Windows 7] up against say, XFCE, IceWM, Openbox, LXDE, or KDE shall we?

There there's that, look at all of those options you have for various environments, you aren't stuck with what apple or microsoft deemed to be your UI (hello tile... thingies... win8... never mind)

[kurt18947]

I'm a programmer and I think a programmer should have a right to chose his/her own business model depending on what works best for him. If you need to put bread on the table and opening your software up may prevent that then by all means keep it closed. If you think you can make money by selling support then feel free to open it up, but don't be surprised if someone forks it and takes away your business.

OSS is a good thing, especially for users, but not everyone should be expected to give away their code.



This analogy may be flawed but here's how I view it. I think of the operating system as a highway system and applications as vehicles using that highway. How would the highway system work if its documentation/maps were incomplete or contain purposeful errors? And vehicles not 'paying tribute' to the highway's owner would become lost, intermittently break down or catch fire for reasons known only to the highway's owner? That wouldn't be a very viable system.

[mamamia88]

They are the best thing since butter meet bread.



Sure, Unity and Gnome-Shell are a bit heavy, but you know what, Unity runs better than Win 7 Starter Edition somehow on my resource tight netbook. Flash video's stutter a lot more on win 7, barely at all on Ubuntu. That's just my experience in a resource tight arena.

Now, let's put it [Windows 7] up against say, XFCE, IceWM, Openbox, LXDE, or KDE shall we?

There there's that, look at all of those options you have for various environments, you aren't stuck with what apple or microsoft deemed to be your UI (hello tile... thingies... win8... never mind)
oh i agree completely. i was just pointing out how it's neat and stuff is a horrible argument. workspaces are cool but once you get 2 monitors i can take em or leave em. I just basically use them as an alternative to the show desktop button in most cases.

[QIII]

Nor would the highway system or the vehicles work well if the civil and mechanical engineers, for want of a few crusts of bread, expired.

Idealism is easy when it is someone else's kids who go hungry.

[kurt18947]

Nor would the highway system or the vehicles work well if the civil and mechanical engineers, for want of a few crusts of bread, expired.

No question about that. For sake of this thread pretend that most or all U.S. highways are owned by G.M. Vehicles produced by G.M. perform really well and are mechanically superior on those highways. In-car navigations systems are perfect, all turns and lane changes are correct, everything is rosy.

Cars manufactured by Ford, Toyota, Nissan etc. fare less well due to engineering and navigation data and documentation supplied by G.M. being incomplete or flawed. When asked about this, G.M. first denies it but when subpenaed says "oh gosh, we may have missed a few things. We're not perfect." In fact the omissions were purposeful intended to give G.M.s automotive division a competitive advantage over it's automotive rivals. If all highway information were equally available to all auto manufacturer's (open source) this situation would be far less likely.

Were those decisions made by the civil and mechanical engineers in the highway division? Probably not. To paraphrase Dilbert , "engineers are genetically incapable of lying". Pointy haired bosses wanting to become millionaires on the other hand .... .

[QIII]

I can imagine a great many things. Many of them are fanciful enough to make any hypothetical argument I choose.

It remains true, however, that flights of fancy make thin soup.

I deal in reality. To the extent that I can indulge in ideology and remain rooted in reality, I will.

Thus, I support FOSS. However, I am pragmatic enough to realize that the world's ills will find no sure cure in FOSS.

Staying the hand of the PHB without reservation and without careful circumspection effects others who, as the babies, will be thrown out with the bath water. PHBs may be without honor, but they may be a necessary evil.

But that is not to say they should move unfettered.

Neither should I be asked to visit a local haberdashery to buy new buttons for my hair shirt.

[HansKisaragi]

I use what works.. OSS is nice but i haven no preferences.. I get very annoyed with the everything must be free mentality some people have but that can be ignored.

[Lemuriano]

I embrace freedom 100% an anything proprietary is forbidden in my system including the kernel which is the linux-libre.


http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/selibre/linux-libre/index.en.html

Need to said more?

[Hylas de Niall]

Good idea for a poll!

It would be great if all our diverse needs could be met by OSS, but all too often that isn't the case. I still need the 'Doze for decent sound and video softs, therefore i voted 'willing to compromise'.

Nice one!

[Hylas de Niall]

I like my software like i like my government transparent.

Best of luck with that! LOL! :lol:

[capncoad]

I would say if two pieces of software are equivalent in features and usefulness and one is open source, I would likely go with the open source out of principle. It's pretty rare that happens though. However I will not limit myself in terms of features and usefulness just because I believe in what open source stands for. If OSS wants to survive it will be because it deserves to. In this case, Android and Firefox have been great examples of that.

[georgelappies]

I prefer linux because it is much more fun to use. Also the OS itself is an IDE and as such makes programming (for anything not windows specific) much easier.

There is just way to much money involved in proprietary software and licensing schemes with shareholders in public companies for it to ever go away.

[rai4shu2]

It's a dilemma, really:

If you use proprietary software, you generally get the most complete and compelling experience from developers who have a real incentive to give you that experience, but you eventually fall victim to the abuses of closed source (i.e. the "upgrade" treadmill, waiting for bug fixes that never come, etc.).

If you use open source software, you generally get the experience you want, although not necessarily in the form you were hoping for. It usually requires a culture adjustment of some kind, and that opens the door for a lot of misinformation. Avoiding misinformation leads to a lack of communication, and then projects inevitably implode when that happens. Thankfully, you can always fork an open source project.

[VooDooSyxx]

"I support OSS but use a variety of tools"

I'm a pragmatist. I will use what works best for my needs. If that happens to be OSS then that's terrific, and I'll certainly go out of my way to use open software even if it means a bit of extra work. That said, if proprietary software is all that's available to meet the current need, I'm not going to just pretend that that need doesn't exist, so I use what's available.

[fatality_uk]

linux is an operating system, that's it, nothing more, nothing less.

+1

[BrokenKingpin]

I prefer to use only open source software, but do use some proprietary drivers when needed.

[Gone fishing]

I voted for feeling strongly although I am not opposed to proprietary software in a Stallman like manner, I feel that free software has the potential to produce better software, because openness and the free flow of ideas are important. I don’t believe for example that the development of science would have been so successful if it followed a model like proprietary software.

Trends in computing at the moment are concerning – walled gardens, the abuse of patents to develop anti competitive monopolies or cartels, restricted boot, SOPRA etc. Ubuntu with the open source movement is an opposing force defending the right of all of us to use our computers and IT technology as we wish, to use this technology for our benefit, not the benefit of a few large corporations.


Ubuntu software is free. Always was, always will be. Free software gives everyone the freedom to use it however they want and share with whoever they like. This freedom has huge benefits.

I am pleased that the majority of voters on the forums have some agreement with me, that ideas are important. However I suspect the KiwiNZ’s views are the dominant view by the authorities on Ubuntu forums, which is a shame.

[KiwiNZ]

I voted for feeling strongly although I am not opposed to proprietary software in a Stallman like manner, I feel that free software has the potential to produce better software, because openness and the free flow of ideas are important. I don’t believe for example that the development of science would have been so successful if it followed a model like proprietary software.

Trends in computing at the moment are concerning – walled gardens, the abuse of patents to develop anti competitive monopolies or cartels, restricted boot, SOPRA etc. Ubuntu with the open source movement is an opposing force defending the right of all of us to use our computers and IT technology as we wish, to use this technology for our benefit, not the benefit of a few large corporations.



I am pleased that the majority of voters on the forums have some agreement with me, that ideas are important. However I suspect the KiwiNZ’s views are the dominant view by the authorities on Ubuntu forums, which is a shame.

True freedom is being free to use what's fits best in ones own circumstance, be it open be it proprietary without guilt or judgement for what ever selects.

The views of the staff are as varied as our backgrounds and where abouts, we are not held by any one doctrine or paradigm.

I am utterly agnostic when it comes to software, there is good and bad open source as there is good and bad proprietary software, I use what is best for me and present both to clients so they can select what is best for them.

In the end it is just software, a product, an earnings stream. It is not some grand crusade.

[sffvba[e0rt]

I am pleased that the majority of voters on the forums have some agreement with me, that ideas are important. However I suspect the KiwiNZ’s views are the dominant view by the authorities on Ubuntu forums, which is a shame.

I am not sure how you have come to this conclusion.


404

[offgridguy]

true freedom is being free to use what's fits best in ones own circumstance, be it open be it proprietary without guilt or judgement for what ever selects.

The views of the staff are as varied as our backgrounds and where abouts, we are not held by any one doctrine or paradigm.

I am utterly agnostic when it comes to software, there is good and bad open source as there is good and bad proprietary software, i use what is best for me and present both to clients so they can select what is best for them.

In the end it is just software, a product, an earnings stream. It is not some grand crusade.
+1

[Gone fishing]

True freedom is being free to use what's fits best in ones own circumstance, be it open be it proprietary without guilt or judgement for what ever selects.

I'm not sure what true freedom is, and in most ways I think that FSF use of the term freedom is unhelpful as the term is too ideologically loaded, furthermore the FSF use of freedom I believe is mistaken http://www.osnews.com/permalink?511368. I would agree with the quote above as I think would most fair thinking people.

However, if I look at the Ubuntu Phlosphy - which is the driving idea behind the Ubuntu project http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/our-philosophy



Our philosophy

Our work is driven by a belief that software should be free and accessible to all.

We believe that every computer user:

Should have the freedom to download, run, copy, distribute, study, share, change and improve their software for any purpose, without paying licensing fees.
Should be able to use their software in the language of their choice.
Should be able to use all software regardless of disability.
Our philosophy is reflected in the software we produce, the way we distribute it and our licensing terms, too - Ubuntu Licence Policy.

Install Ubuntu and you can rest assured that all our software meets these ideals. Plus, we are continually working to ensure that every piece of software you could possibly need is available under a licence that gives you those freedoms.
Free software

Ubuntu software is free. Always was, always will be. Free software gives everyone the freedom to use it however they want and share with whoever they like. This freedom has huge benefits. At one end of the spectrum it enables the Ubuntu community to grow and share its collective experience and expertise to continually improve all things Ubuntu. At the other, we are able to give access to essential software for those who couldn’t otherwise afford it – an advantage that’s keenly felt by individuals and organisations all over the world.

Quoting the Free Software Foundation's, 'What is Free Software,' the freedoms at the core of free software are defined as:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.

The freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to your needs.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others.
The freedom to improve the program and release your improvements to the public, so that everyone benefits.


I would agree with just about every word and you would agree with almost non of it (and seem to believe that the philosophy is just ideological nonsense and rhetoric) I think this is a shame. However, possibly most members of the forum do agree with Ubuntu’s philosophy.

[Copper Bezel]

Gone Fishing, there's a difference between declaring oneself an open source project - which Ubuntu most certainly does - and with opposing all proprietary ones, which Stallman's cohort do. If Ubuntu had the philosophy KiwiNZ is opposing, they would never have released a Windows U1 client or considered Chrome as a default browser for Ubuntu. Hell, they certainly wouldn't have made their serverside code for U1 closed source.

Ubuntu as a project is about as realist as the statement you quoted from KiwiNZ is.

[rai4shu2]

The Ubuntu philosophy was made to benefit users. Users don't have to conform to the Ubuntu philosophy (even users who use Ubuntu like most of us).

And honestly, the Ubuntu philosophy is weakened by its reliance on an uncertain definition of individuality that only really undermines the foundation of rational thought (that a person has individuality distinct enough to provide a justification for such thought).

[pqwoerituytrueiwoq]

fervor OSS over propitiatory
if i cant get it done with OS i use what i have to to get it done
eg;nvidia drivers
on the topic of gpu drivers Intel uses open-source linux drivers which i have never been disappointed in
i wish intel would make low end (20-30 USD range) discrete GPUs so you can use them on AMD systems

[KiwiNZ]

I'm not sure what true freedom is, and in most ways I think that FSF use of the term freedom is unhelpful as the term is too ideologically loaded, furthermore the FSF use of freedom I believe is mistaken http://www.osnews.com/permalink?511368. I would agree with the quote above as I think would most fair thinking people.

However, if I look at the Ubuntu Phlosphy - which is the driving idea behind the Ubuntu project http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/our-philosophy



I would agree with just about every word and you would agree with almost non of it (and seem to believe that the philosophy is just ideological nonsense and rhetoric) I think this is a shame. However, possibly most members of the forum do agree with Ubuntu’s philosophy.

I neither agree or disagree software is a tool, do I feel my cordless drill is a crusade? Do I feel my Audi is a crusade? No to both they are tools.

Am I passionate about Civil Defence?, do I think Red cross is a worthy crusade? Yes, they are both something I am passionate about and give energy to, they have real life outcomes for people in real need.

[Gone fishing]

Gone Fishing, there's a difference between declaring oneself an open source project - which Ubuntu most certainly does - and with opposing all proprietary ones, which Stallman's cohort do. If Ubuntu had the philosophy KiwiNZ is opposing, they would never have released a Windows U1 client or considered Chrome as a default browser for Ubuntu. Hell, they certainly wouldn't have made their serverside code for U1 closed source.

Ubuntu as a project is about as realist as the statement you quoted from KiwiNZ is.
If you read the link http://www.osnews.com/permalink?511368 you will see that I oppose the view of FSF. I myself am pretty OK at some MS applications Access and Excel, and see nothing immoral about using them. I would rather use open-source software but that is not always possible. I believe Richard is wrong on Freedom. I think it is a shame when people are trapped into proprietary software, they are not doing anything wrong or immoral I would rather that they were more free.

I support Ubuntu and its more pragmatic approach both practical and philosophical reasons. Now that enough about me I wouldn't want to be accused of solipsism. However kiwiNZ's position is
Linux is an Operating System, that's it, nothing more, nothing less. This view he has expressed on several occasions This is not a pragmatic position it is an ideological political position that opposes open-source and the Ubuntu Philosophy.

Ubuntu's philosophy is the driving vision of the project and I support it I think it is a shame when others don't. They are however, fully entitled to their position I think they are wrong.

[Aaron Christianson]

There was a period when I only used open-source software except for BIOS and whatever was on my phone and mp3 player (and possibly other embedded devices that I didn't know about). Now I grudgingly use a bit more proprietary software, like flash, and I have some hardware that is inoperable without proprietary drivers.

I execute code that hasn't been released for public audit as little as possible, which is why I have all flash blocked in my browser (and scripts too) until I choose to turn it on. My wireless driver, while proprietary, is source available, so I'm not running it blind.

I also check the licenses on my browser plugins.

On the other hand, do have a nook, which is part android, and part closed secret sauce. I also have some android devices, which, while more open than the nook, does have some proprietary code in the google apps (not sure if it is source available or not... should check). I check the licenses on android apps as well.

I'm a one of the few refugees to Linux from Mac, which I admit was, in some ways, a superior user experience, and the main thing that drove the transition was FOSS ideology.

So I guess you could say it's important to me.

On the other hand, I have no objection to other people using proprietary software heavily, or lots of proprietary software being ported to linux. I actually think it is wonderful for the platform. I just don't want to use it personally, if it can be helped.

Software is a tool. It's just that if you can't see the code, you're never sure if it's your tool or somebody else's.

[Gone fishing]

I have spent most of my adult life working in the third world hopefully improving the life opportunities of many young people and we do get passionate about things.


Am I passionate about Civil Defence?, do I think Red cross is a worthy crusade? Yes, they are both something I am passionate about and give energy to, they have real life outcomes for people in real need.

I happen to be passionate about open-source because I believe it can have real life outcomes for people in real need. I believe that the world needs free software and this can and will make a difference to the lives of real people.

post edit

Perhaps I can give an example.

I helped a friend setting up a system for a mission (St Katherines I think.) They had been given 30 odd PCs running Windows XP. Having no network etc the inevitable happened and the PCs were full of viruses and a complete mess. We set-up a FreeBSD server openldap nfs squid etc with Ubuntu workstations my friend can administer the server from Maseru over ssh and the the system has been working well for a three years.

The alternative as MS refuse to give educational licences in Lesotho would have been pirated Windows and a mess. Here is free software making a real difference to peoples lives. Open-source needs advocates and defending

[Aaron Christianson]

If this were facebook, I would like the above post a bazillion times.

[KiwiNZ]

I have spent most of my adult life working in the third world hopefully improving the life opportunities of many young people and we do get passionate about things.



I happen to be passionate about open-source because I believe it can have real life outcomes for people in real need. I believe that the world needs free software and this can and will make a difference to the lives of real people.

post edit

Perhaps I can give an example.

I helped a friend setting up a system for a mission (St Katherines I think.) They had been given 30 odd PCs running Windows XP. Having no network etc the inevitable happened and the PCs were full of viruses and a complete mess. We set-up a FreeBSD server openldap nfs squid etc with Ubuntu workstations my friend can administer the server from Maseru over ssh and the the system has been working well for a three years.

The alternative as MS refuse to give educational licences in Lesotho would have been pirated Windows and a mess. Here is free software making a real difference to peoples lives. Open-source needs advocates and defending

People here that know me,know what I have done.

[Gone fishing]

You have done nothing and I personally appreciate the time and effort obviously put into the forums making sure the atmosphere is pleasant. Nevertheless I think when you post you have authority – earned authority. However I think your position on open-source, free software and liberty issues in IT is wrong as far as I understand it.

I believe that these things you are disinterested in, I suspect you feel that I am a young (if only) naïve idealist or busy body. Possibly we are both wrong and I do apologise if I have offended you personally – I just think you are wrong this stuff is important.

[Lemuriano]

Computers in general are classify as generative systems, but the more proprietary software and/or hardware you use, then the less generative they become, making then almost non-generative.

Proprietary software and/or hardware in it self are non-generative and therefor hinder innovation. There intended use is set and can´t be modify or redirect in any way, at least by the user.

Therefor, in order for the community to evolve and thrive, it most have the freedom to do so, which is achievable only if free software is use, allowing the path toward development.

Gnu/Linux-libre contrary to others OS is a tool, that in the IT world allow the application and flow of new ideas, promoting in this way it´s evolution.

In contrast, proprietary software and/or hardware and the craziness of pattens, lock down creativity and highjack ideas.

In conclusion, if we want to amputate the will to innovate, then proprietary is the road to follow.

Remember that supply and demand are interrelated, so you can chose if as a community we demand more supply.


Software is a tool. It's just that if you can't see the code, you're never sure if it's your tool or somebody else's.

In principle I agree with this statement, even thou in my view it still hinder innovation.

[KiwiNZ]

You have done nothing and I personally appreciate the time and effort obviously put into the forums making sure the atmosphere is pleasant. Nevertheless I think when you post you have authority – earned authority. However I think your position on open-source, free software and liberty in software is wrong as far as I understand it.

I believe that these things you are disinterested in, I suspect you feel that I am a young (if only) naïve idealist or busy body. Possibly we are both wrong and I do apologise if I have offended you personally – I just think you are wrong this stuff is important.

Again you have me wrong, I have been involved with ubuntu since day one, I have been involved with Open Source since the early 90's. I have provided a lot of resources to community projects with the assistance of Open Source products. I simply do not see Open Source in it's self a crusade.

I am who I am today because of the work I have done and not what Open Source has done.

A saying we have here in New Zealand is very important to me....

He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata! He tangata! He tangata!.......what is the greatest thing on earth? 'Tis people! 'Tis people! 'Tis people!

[Gone fishing]

He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata! He tangata! He tangata!.......what is the greatest thing on earth? 'Tis people! 'Tis people! 'Tis people!


Not unlike the Zulu

umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu


I am who I am today because of the work I have done and not what Open Source has done.

That makes sense or why would you put the effort you obviously do put in.

OK Lets then leave it agreeing to disagree or even possibly agreeing, I kind of agree about the crusade but....

[mips]

umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu


Translation: A person is a person because of people.

[Frogs Hair]

I have to use the tools provided at work and school and that currently doesn't include Linux. None of my employers have allowed the use of software outside of what they provide.

[Aaron Christianson]

People here that know me,know what I have done.
He's passionate about FOSS because it helps people. What does this have to do with that?

[Gone fishing]

I think kiwiNZ wrote that because my responses felt like a personal attack and for that I am sorry. I felt needled because of comments like income stream and its just software. I believe that open-source can and does improve peoples lives and I am very grateful to the developers (particularly the unpaid ones) who put time and effort into open-source to make it possible. I also appreciate that companies are making money out of open-source but they are also giving back in a way that seems enlightened to me.

When I have a little time later this week I may start a thread on example of how open-source improves lives. I hope I do not come across as a foss evangelist because that is not how I feel.

There are certainly differences between my an kiwiNZ position and I think he is wrong, however I also suspect these differences are not so great when I consider the time and effort he puts into the forums and Ubuntu.

[Erik1984]

True freedom is being free to use what's fits best in ones own circumstance, be it open be it proprietary without guilt or judgement for what ever selects.


Agreed.



In the end it is just software, a product, an earnings stream.

This is where I disagree, not all software is a product. Making money is not the driver behind all software development. Project and product are not necessarily the same. Product implies a typical producer vs consumer relation while many open source projects are centered around collaboration of developers and users.



It is not some grand crusade.


Here I agree again. FOSS should be promoted in a friendly way, not forced.

[ikt]

I was heavily ideological about free software when I first got into it, but the small bugs have been stacking up and while I find proprietary software usually limiting, I'm not a huge fan of buggy free software either, unfortunately I've been dealing with it a lot of the time, and still do on a weekly basis, however I still find it better than windows etc, so thus I have a jaded and cynical 'use what works best' instead of 'use FOSS, it's easier and better and prettier than anything out there!'

[ofnuts]

Free, open software is our only defense against commercial software that becomes more opaque every year, spies on us on every occasion, steals our data, and attempts to tie our hands (AppStore, soon the Windows store or whatever they call it).

This is my computer, not some appliance remote-controlled from San Jose or Redmond.

[flavouride]

Linux is an Operating System, that's it, nothing more, nothing less.

+1
For the time being, after my open source OS is loaded, to have a utilised desktop environment I need proprietary nVidia driver,

to upload photos I need Adobe flash player,

to play some media I need restricted plugins,

and I'm using Google Chrome [because it's getting updated a lot quicker than Chromium and with mobile broadband it doesn't seem the best idea to compile directly from source] and some non-free extensions to get my daily tasks done

[KiwiNZ]

I think kiwiNZ wrote that because my responses felt like a personal attack and for that I am sorry. I felt needled because of comments like income stream and its just software. I believe that open-source can and does improve peoples lives and I am very grateful to the developers (particularly the unpaid ones) who put time and effort into open-source to make it possible. I also appreciate that companies are making money out of open-source but they are also giving back in a way that seems enlightened to me.

When I have a little time later this week I may start a thread on example of how open-source improves lives. I hope I do not come across as a foss evangelist because that is not how I feel.

There are certainly differences between my an kiwiNZ position and I think he is wrong, however I also suspect these differences are not so great when I consider the time and effort he puts into the forums and Ubuntu.

Our differences are not great, when you consider my primary belief for software etc is (and as I have stated countless times on these Forums) use what best fits the need and the circumstance.

If one is advising or establishing an organisation in a third world ( I hate that term) or developing country to say provide local schools or employment etc you are not going to choose expensive software solutions as this will divert capital from the real task at hand, unless that organisation needs interoperability with MSFT and other proprietary solutions in order to operate effectively. In those cases I would do me best to obtain favourable terms or sponsorship. This meets the paradigm of using the best fit.

When it comes to the SME , large enterprise and Government sectors no matter what spin is put on it the majority of cases proprietary is the best fit, there are exceptions and one glaring example is Server side applications.

So I am not ideological, software for me is not a crusade it is a business, it is a business of providing the best solution be Open source or proprietary. Software is also a business in order to make a profit, profit provides jobs, jobs create revenue, revenue creates growth and wealth resulting in a win win situation.

I want to see both Open source and proprietary prosper and grow because from this a better world can be created from its application and investment.

[rai4shu2]

Here's something Linus Torvalds mentioned on Slashdot a while back:


I think microkernels are stupid. ...

Btw, it's not just microkernels. Any time you have "one overriding idea", and push your idea as a superior ideology, you're going to be wrong. Microkernels had one such ideology, there have been others. It's all BS. The fact is, reality is complicated, and not amenable to the "one large idea" model of problem solving. The only way that problems get solved in real life is with a lot of hard work on getting the details right. Not by some over-arching ideology that somehow magically makes things work.

http://meta.slashdot.org/story/12/10/11/0030249/linus-torvalds-answers-your-questions

[ofnuts]

Calling micro-kernels an "ideology" is a bit far-fetched. of course the devil is in the details, but some architectures/techniques make the details a lot simpler to work out. Do we really want to code for Turing machines?

[ratcheer]

Free, open software is our only defense against commercial software that becomes more opaque every year, spies on us on every occasion, steals our data, and attempts to tie our hands (AppStore, soon the Windows store or whatever they call it).

This is my computer, not some appliance remote-controlled from San Jose or Redmond.

+1

Tim

[Aaron Christianson]

Software is also a business in order to make a profit, profit provides jobs, jobs create revenue, revenue creates growth and wealth resulting in a win win situation.
PREACH!

Although not all software is for profit. I teach (something with no connection to CS) for profit. I write software (very simple software) for fun. It just so happens that some other people like to use it as well, though I'm unsure if it has helped to create any profit (I did create a font that several IT students and professionals use, so that might be one, but if it didn't exist, they would just use something else).

[weasel fierce]

One view might be that proprietary software is made for a profit, whereas open source can generate profit or not, as the situation demands.

[Aaron Christianson]

Calling micro-kernels an "ideology" is a bit far-fetched. of course the devil is in the details, but some architectures/techniques make the details a lot simpler to work out. Do we really want to code for Turing machines?

Micro-kernel is not an ideology. Modular > monolithic is a core value of Unix philosophy, however. The advocacy of micro-kernels, of which there are very few functional examples, requires a philosophical justification as there isn't really a good experiential one.

And yet advocacy continues; probably because modular is greater than monolithic in the majority of cases.

Of course, the Linux kernel isn't really as monolithic as it was when the debate took place. Today, the entire hardware side of the kernel is modular and can be dynamically loaded in and out, just like the kernels in major commercial operating systems. Linux, the infamous monolithic kernel, is actually a functional hybrid kernel.

[Fuji_in_Japan]

In almost all cases I prefer to use OSS. But I often find situations where I have to use proprietary software.

[WinterMadness]

I used to be kind of ideological about it. But, at the end of the day, I need something that actually works. I cant be fiddling around with drivers all day, and despite what some people may want, I cant sit around reading manuals all day either. A lot of times I need something that works the way I expect it to without having to learn anything about the software, and unfortunately, linux majorly fails in this department.

[nothingspecial]

I used to be kind of ideological about it. But, at the end of the day, I need something that actually works. I cant be fiddling around with drivers all day, and despite what some people may want, I cant sit around reading manuals all day either. A lot of times I need something that works the way I expect it to without having to learn anything about the software, and unfortunately, linux majorly fails in this department.

Funnily enough, I feel exactly the same way when I have to use Windows. Just goes to show you ..........

[divergex]

Linux works well for me. The "ah-ha" moment for me was when I came across bugs in Windows Vista and Adobe Dreamweaver. Both were bugs that should have been fixed, but in both cases the attitude seemed to be to buy the new version. When running a small business and always watching the bottom line, why should I buy a new version of software when the current version already does everything I need?

I have found the Linux community much more receptive to bug reports, and discovered that for everything I need to do, Linux offers me an appropriate app. The number of distributions is a nice thing also, as whatever you may need is usually covered.

Finally, and perhaps most important, I can use an app, discover its value, and reward the developers appropriately. Good luck trying to return a $400 piece of software to a retail store if it doesn't work out for you.

[mamamia88]

Linux works well for me. The "ah-ha" moment for me was when I came across bugs in Windows Vista and Adobe Dreamweaver. Both were bugs that should have been fixed, but in both cases the attitude seemed to be to buy the new version. When running a small business and always watching the bottom line, why should I buy a new version of software when the current version already does everything I need?

I have found the Linux community much more receptive to bug reports, and discovered that for everything I need to do, Linux offers me an appropriate app. The number of distributions is a nice thing also, as whatever you may need is usually covered.

Finally, and perhaps most important, I can use an app, discover its value, and reward the developers appropriately. Good luck trying to return a $400 piece of software to a retail store if it doesn't work out for you.

also anyone can view the source code meaning if i run into a problem and am skilled enough i can fix it for myself if the developer can't. i can also release it as a new app and call it something else if the maintainer refuses to include bug fix upstream. try doing that with windows. hey microsoft you have bug abc that is caused by def and can be fixed by jkl.

[KiwiNZ]

Linux works well for me. The "ah-ha" moment for me was when I came across bugs in Windows Vista and Adobe Dreamweaver. Both were bugs that should have been fixed, but in both cases the attitude seemed to be to buy the new version. When running a small business and always watching the bottom line, why should I buy a new version of software when the current version already does everything I need?

I have found the Linux community much more receptive to bug reports, and discovered that for everything I need to do, Linux offers me an appropriate app. The number of distributions is a nice thing also, as whatever you may need is usually covered.

Finally, and perhaps most important, I can use an app, discover its value, and reward the developers appropriately. Good luck trying to return a $400 piece of software to a retail store if it doesn't work out for you.

Couple of things...... ,

for a business one would not be buying software from retail.

Also trial versions are available for most major business packages and can also be negotiated with your provider. Also any business installation would only (should only) be done after reading white papers, developing a implementation plan that includes such basics as rigorous testing, training, documenting, support planning and of course disaster recovery and roll back . With this risk mitigation can be done and problems detected and fixed or plans changed.

[KiwiNZ]

also anyone can view the source code meaning if i run into a problem and am skilled enough i can fix it for myself if the developer can't. i can also release it as a new app and call it something else if the maintainer refuses to include bug fix upstream. try doing that with windows. hey microsoft you have bug abc that is caused by def and can be fixed by jkl.

Unless the business does their own inhouse Application Development etc being able to see the source code is largely irrelevant.

[divergex]

Couple of things...... ,

for a business one would not be buying software from retail.

Also trial versions are available for most major business packages and can also be negotiated with your provider. Also any business installation would only (should only) be done after reading white papers, developing a implementation plan that includes such basics as rigorous testing, training, documenting, support planning and of course disaster recovery and roll back . With this risk mitigation can be done and problems detected and fixed or plans changed.

Every situation is different; most businesses I have as clients prefer buying at retail. I usually suggest otherwise due to cost savings and other factors but if that's what they prefer, then so be it. I have one client in particular that will only buy Dell computers from the local Staples store. They do not get any special perks from Dell nor Staples. It's just their preference.

As for me, A client asked me to take on a project that needed a fast turnaround, so buying the software (Dreamweaver CS4) at retail was the only option due to time. At that time the software worked fine on XP, but after having certified it on Vista, I upgraded only to find the bug. Adobe acknowledged the bug but never fixed it, and the only solution was to upgrade to CS5.

[KiwiNZ]

Every situation is different; most businesses I have as clients prefer buying at retail. I usually suggest otherwise due to cost savings and other factors but if that's what they prefer, then so be it. I have one client in particular that will only buy Dell computers from the local Staples store. They do not get any special perks from Dell nor Staples. It's just their preference.

As for me, A client asked me to take on a project that needed a fast turnaround, so buying the software (Dreamweaver CS4) at retail was the only option due to time. At that time the software worked fine on XP, but after having certified it on Vista, I upgraded only to find the bug. Adobe acknowledged the bug but never fixed it, and the only solution was to upgrade to CS5.

Don't you have Wholesalers, OEM Partners, and Business Partners for the likes of IBM, MSFT, Dell, Lenovo etc etc etc in your locale?

[divergex]

Don't you have Wholesalers, OEM Partners, and Business Partners for the likes of IBM, MSFT, Dell, Lenovo etc etc etc in your locale?

Of course, and for larger companies, they are definitely the best choice. But for smaller companies of ten or fewer employees, sometimes retail is better. Volume licensing is often not an option for such small groups. It really depends on the situation. I find that most people buy a software version and stick with for years. I have clients still using Microsoft Office 2003 because there is no compelling reason to upgrade.

[KiwiNZ]

Of course, and for larger companies, they are definitely the best choice. But for smaller companies of ten or fewer employees, sometimes retail is better. Volume licensing is often not an option for such small groups. It really depends on the situation. I find that most people buy a software version and stick with for years. I have clients still using Microsoft Office 2003 because there is no compelling reason to upgrade.

We must do it differently here, we have tier structure partners covering SME and Large Corporates, be it 10 seats or 1000 seats none would need to shop retail.

[divergex]

We must do it differently here, we have tier structure partners covering SME and Large Corporates, be it 10 seats or 1000 seats none would need to shop retail.

Indeed. The SME market in the U.S. is largely ignored by the major vendors, thus it's where most of my clients come from.

[Primefalcon]

Honestly I'd like to use nothing but OSS tbh, and I will use it if it gets the job done even if its not quite as flashy....

However I will use Proprietary software where I have to, if the OSS wont do the job I need, which unfortunately is in a few areas... but nothing that makes me use windows or mac thankfully at all....

[ofnuts]

Funnily enough, I feel exactly the same way when I have to use Windows. Just goes to show you ..........
Indeed. Windows software: inexpensive, functional, malware-free. Pick any two.

[zach.detton]

I selected "I support OSS but use a variety of tools". I'd prefer to use OSS when I can (especially XFCE), but I'm gonna use whatever works best for the situation. I've found that taking an RMS stance on OSS is a turn off and can push people away who may be interested in FOSS. It's hard to promote Open Source with a Closed Mind.

[Copper Bezel]

Funnily enough, I feel exactly the same way when I have to use Windows. Just goes to show you ..........
I can't say my experience jives with either of y'all's. The only operating system I don't have to bash around a bit to make it do basic things is Android. Things are more likely to just work on Windows, but they're also more likely to come with extra-special are-you-really-really-really-sure dialogues, so it seems like a wash to me. = )

[cyberhood]

So I am not ideological, software for me is not a crusade it is a business, it is a business of providing the best solution be Open source or proprietary. Software is also a business in order to make a profit, profit provides jobs, jobs create revenue, revenue creates growth and wealth resulting in a win win situation.
Market fundamentalism is an ideology.