PDA

View Full Version : Is anyone other then me loving all the closed source programs in Linux



darkhatter
August 29th, 2006, 03:20 PM
I know everyone appears to hate it, but there has to be a few. The binary drivers can create problems but there is nothing wrong with the software.

Here is my list of closed source software that I just love:

Maya 7.0
The best 3d software out there

Picasa 2
I use to think that fspot was good but when I finally left my high horse and installed it I saw what was missing

its a really short list because thats all I tried but the only way to get my photoshop port it to prove that the Linux community is ready to buy for software, I don't see anything wrong with that.

imo when we run around advertising that Linux is free we degrade it, we shouldn't say its free that should just be a hidden extra, Linux can more then hold out if it costs money

~Andrew~

richbarna
August 29th, 2006, 03:28 PM
I will use any software that gets the task done, so if it is closed or open source I don't mind. I am not into the hard-core open source everything should be free. I like that the software I need is free, but if a good program came along and I really needed it, I would pay.

Linux for me is a personal choice not a philosophy, although the community part of it is attractive.

At the moment I have practically everything I need that is open source.

cstudent
August 29th, 2006, 03:33 PM
I use Moneydance as my Quicken alternative. I tried gnucash and kmymoney, but I liked Moneydance best. It's java based and cost about $30US. About the same cost, maybe a little less, as Quicken and much nicer to use, imho. It doesn't have all the garbage in the gui that Quicken does. Everytime I upgraded Quicken it took me a month to figure out where they moved everything.

darkhatter
August 29th, 2006, 03:40 PM
I agree with you richbarna I use what can get the job done the best, be it open or closed

I also use Firefox, thunderbird, azureus, amsn in both windows and linux, I'm just waiting for a amarok and k3b port to windows, but that should happen now.

DoctorMO
August 29th, 2006, 04:25 PM
It's not so much the applications (which live or die on certain distros) but drivers and open standards. it doesn't hurt me if you use photoshop but photoshop saves in OpenRaster or if you use illerstrator but it saves in SVG.

It's when a) you use a program which tried to control the market via closed standards and b) where there are drivers which are based at kernel level and thus need to be trusted, tested and fixed in the context of the operating system.

BuffaloX
August 29th, 2006, 05:02 PM
I don't mind closed source software.
PROVIDED that the company dosn't make claims about stupid patents.
99.9% of software patents are outright nonsense.

Unfortunately Adobe is among those that does this to some degree.
Autodesk are totally frantic, with NO respect for their customers. I will never touch anything from Autodesk ever.
If you move to another country, you may not be able to upgrade.

Also closed source software tends to bind you, because their fileformats also are closed, so you can't port your projects, to other software.

gruvsyco
August 29th, 2006, 05:45 PM
I'd just like to see Linux get more widespread usage. Open/Closed applications, doesn't matter to me. When I'm able, I hope to get XSI Foundation for Linux and, I'm hoping the Nevercenter will either port Silo or figure out how to get it to run through WINE with their protection scheme. I would also love to have Photoshop working on Linux as well. I think just about everything else I use is OSS.

SoundMachine
August 29th, 2006, 05:48 PM
I don't mind closed source software.
PROVIDED that the company dosn't make claims about stupid patents.
99.9% of software patents are outright nonsense.

Unfortunately Adobe is among those that does this to some degree.
Autodesk are totally frantic, with NO respect for their customers. I will never touch anything from Autodesk ever.
If you move to another country, you may not be able to upgrade.

Also closed source software tends to bind you, because their fileformats also are closed, so you can't port your projects, to other software.

Well software patents is a problem with legislation more than with the software companies IMHO. If I can make you use my stuff and get paid instead of using other peoples stuff, why wouldn't I? People have a problem when it comes to SW patents but when it's hardware, nobody complains, why is that?

What closed source program can't save files in a restricted format and has no options for other, more open formats?

Onyros
August 29th, 2006, 05:52 PM
Don't forget about the best browser there is, for any platform whatsoever. I just keep discovering things about it that make other software unnecessary.

It's a browser, but it's also a mail client, it has bittorrent integrated, you can take notes with it while you're browsing, it's also a feed reader, and the only graphical browser I can think of that's faster is dillo... so, the closed source winner is... Opera ;)

I use it both in Windows and in Linux, but as you can see from my sig, I only use Windows 10% of the time :P

While in Ubuntu I use Opera/dillo as browsers, Evolution for mail and PIM, Liferea for feeds, Bittorrent for torrents and tomboy for notes... in Windows I use Opera (and you can't believe the memory footprint, unfortunately still much worse in Linux).

It's a great piece of software. If only foobar2000 could ever get ported to Linux... ;)

SoundMachine
August 29th, 2006, 05:52 PM
I'd just like to see Linux get more widespread usage.

In time it will, Linux is still young and very much up and coming. :)

SoundMachine
August 29th, 2006, 05:55 PM
Don't forget about the best browser there is, for any platform whatsoever. I just keep discovering things about it that make other software unnecessary.

Konqueror isn't closed source. ;)


It's a great piece of software. If only foobar2000 could ever get ported to Linux... ;)

Well there is amarok that is ten times better and loads of others if you insist on using GTK only progs.

gruvsyco
August 29th, 2006, 05:58 PM
In time it will, Linux is still young and very much up and coming. :)
Linux isn't really that young... I first used it 94/95, about the same time that Win95 and Windows NT were birthed.

3rdalbum
August 29th, 2006, 06:17 PM
The Hurd isn't that young either. I think, by the word "young", SoundMachine meant "unrefined".

SoundMachine
August 29th, 2006, 06:19 PM
Linux isn't really that young... I first used it 94/95, about the same time that Win95 and Windows NT were birthed.

Actually, the first commercial distro was Slackware, Patrick Volkerding released it in June '93, i used SLS before that but the HUGE install of an entire 10MB was a warning that Linux is severely bloated compared to other comparable OS's. Fortunantly Slackware took care of that problem rather nicely.

The first DOS type kernel (now you may say 'but NT' but NT was using UI interfaces that were developed on top of DOS first) was released in the 70's, Linux first usable kernel release was in the 90's.

But if you ever used it back then then you know that it wasn't comparable to MS products.

It's still young when you consider the timeline of development as a desktop OS, and in the server market which is what it started out as, a server OS, Linux is bigger than Windows by far.

peabody
August 29th, 2006, 06:24 PM
imo when we run around advertising that Linux is free we degrade it,


I disagree very strongly with this.



The binary drivers can create problems but there is nothing wrong with the software.


Ooooooooooh yes there is. Using proprietary drivers is technically illegal. They violate the GPL license the kernel is under. But because it can be done on a personal use basis, and the kernel developers would look like bastards if they dared try to bring the users or ATI or Nvidia to court, nobody does anything about it. Heck, I run 'em knowing this, but I hate it.



we shouldn't say its free that should just be a hidden extra, Linux can more then hold out if it costs money


How the f--- do you hide the fact it's free? Say it costs money when it doesn't? That's a lie and violates the spirit of Linux and makes a mockery of the work so many countless people have put into it. I can gaurantee you that trying to trick people into paying for Linux is NOT going to do anything to increase its market share.

Look, if people want to run non free software on Linux that's fine. In fact it's done quite often (internally at google, most 3d rendering houses use proprietary software on top of Linux). It's a personal choice and one that may be tied to necessity. I don't believe that everything should be free or has to be free. I know there will always be a proprietary sector to software as its economic model is well proven and that provides a lot of R&D. But to think that something's poor just because it's free?

I have to say that thinking that calling Linux free degrades it is rather antithetical to the Open Source and Free Software movement. The point is to see value in something being free and open. I'm not trying to patronize you, I just seriously think a big reason for even considering Linux is to at least be open to its philosophy, if not aligned to it. If one can't do that, why bother? Windows XP or Mac OS X are certainly very functional pay-for alternatives and much of the software from the FLOSS world can actually be run on those platforms these days.

The real reason you don't see paying customers for Linux proprietary software is because of a lack of penetration, not because the average person thinks that everything free is crap. In fact, IMO, people go for the "good enough" free alternative 90% of the time. If you can save a buck why not? If Linux were to get something like 10% desktop penetration there certainly would be a market of paying customers. In fact, I personally feel that 10% is all Linux would really ever need and more than that would be a lot of responsibility. Mac is less than 10% of the market.

There was a spokesperson for Microsoft who said that if enough customers demanded Office for Linux, Microsoft would make it. There just isn't the demand. Currently, there aren't enough buyers based on quantity. The fact that Microsoft discontinued many products on Mac (IE, Virtual PC) is testament to how less than 10% of the market is not enough market share to be significant, especially to someone like Microsoft or Adobe.

If one absolutely needs to run Photoshop, why not run Windows? Unless you custom build a system, all major PC sellers include a Windows license with the cost of purchase. If you need to pay for Photoshop after that, what the hecks' the price difference? If one is a pragmatist, I cannot fathom why Windows XP doesn't suit one's needs.

I highly, highly, HIGHLY, do not like Adobe as a company (I about cried when they bought macromedia), and would prefer to see people within the Linux community contribute to projects such as the Gimp and GimpShop to make it a better, viable alternative to Photoshop, rather than cave in and buy a Photoshop for Linux.

SoundMachine
August 29th, 2006, 06:29 PM
I couldn't agree mere, when you realize what FLOSS really means for development you will understand the value in it.

Got a bug? Report it and it is usually very rapidly resolved, if you can't wait, fix it yourself or if you can't, get someone else to do it for you, even if you have to pay him for it. Same goes with a function you're missing, the nice thing is that this is then shared with everyone else that suffers from this bug or lacks this function.

It only takes ONE user who can fix it or get someone to fix it and everyone benefits from it.

gruvsyco
August 29th, 2006, 06:34 PM
Actually, the first commercial distro was Slackware, Patrick Volkerding released it in June '93, i used SLS before that but the HUGE install of an entire 10MB was a warning that Linux is severely bloated compared to other comparable OS's. Fortunantly Slackware took care of that problem rather nicely.

The first DOS type kernel (now you may say 'but NT' but NT was using UI interfaces that were developed on top of DOS first) was released in the 70's, Linux first usable kernel release was in the 90's.

But if you ever used it back then then you know that it wasn't comparable to MS products.

It's still young when you consider the timeline of development as a desktop OS, and in the server market which is what it started out as, a server OS, Linux is bigger than Windows by far.

Not trying to get into flames here but, firstly, I wasn't stating 94/95 was when Linux first came about but, when I first used it. And, based on your argument on the history of DOS = Windows (and, I don't believe the current incarnation of Windows shares much in common with legacy DOS)... then one could argue that X, the windowing environment we have all come to use on Linux, has been around since the mid 80s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System) and, that Linux itself is similar in structure and usage to Unix which goes back to the 60s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix).

Magnes
August 29th, 2006, 06:35 PM
I don't like closed source programs but I use Picasa and several others because of lack of alternatives (I'm steel seeking and testing new programs, like f-spot). I don't like close source because:
1. I don't thrust closed source programs - I don't know what the program is doing through the Internet (like Picasa - it's contacting google servers) - it may be spyware.
2. Picasa2 is good example of another thing - it is buggy but hasn't been fixed for several months now (Linux and Windows version).
3. Close format of file in closed source application mean that in the future conversion from that format could be imposible (i have some files made in Adobe InDesign which I can't convert to Scribus format, it's pain in the -youknow-).

(sorry for my English)

chadk
August 29th, 2006, 06:37 PM
In time it will, Linux is still young and very much up and coming. :)

People have been saying that for at least 10-15 years.

SoundMachine
August 29th, 2006, 06:51 PM
Not trying to get into flames here but, firstly, I wasn't stating 94/95 was when Linux first came about but, when I first used it. And, based on your argument on the history of DOS = Windows (and, I don't believe the current incarnation of Windows shares much in common with legacy DOS)... then one could argue that X, the windowing environment we have all come to use on Linux, has been around since the mid 80s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System) and, that Linux itself is similar in structure and usage to Unix which goes back to the 60s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix).

Don't worry about it, I was just clarifying the timeline.

Leave Unix out of it though, even if the structure is similar they share no native code which was the point i was making, pretty much the same thing with todays X and the various WM/DE's.

The NT line was developed for a long time, given the interface (directly) from a known working desktop fork it has gone on for a long time.

On one hand you say that Unix is similar to Linux, which it is not, on the other you say that NT shares very little with DOS, but it uses the same commands, the same directory structure and partition structure (c:, d: and so on) and NT still has 16 bit compatability DOS mode.

I don't intend to flame you at all, this is just a discussion in a thread going way, way off topic.

I'll be happy to continue it in PM's but i think we should let this thread get back on track. :)

SoundMachine
August 29th, 2006, 06:57 PM
People have been saying that for at least 10-15 years.

Well, if you look at the development pace and the gaining of support both from software vendors and hardware vendors you'll notice one thing.

Linux is FLOSS, every potential new user is a potential new developer that will speed up the development, the growth is exponential.

IYY
August 29th, 2006, 07:38 PM
I don't like to use closed source apps, but I do like the fact that closed source apps are being made for Linux. This is something that has to happen sooner or later, and is an indication of maturity and readiness for the average user. You can't expect all commercial software vendors to open source their code, but making a Linux version is very nice of them.

Closed source drivers, on the other hand, I can't stand.

BuffaloX
August 29th, 2006, 07:50 PM
Well software patents is a problem with legislation more than with the software companies IMHO. If I can make you use my stuff and get paid instead of using other peoples stuff, why wouldn't I? People have a problem when it comes to SW patents but when it's hardware, nobody complains, why is that?
This thread is about closed source software. Hence that's what I write about.
But I agree, except I know less about that.



What closed source program can't save files in a restricted format and has no options for other, more open formats?

Do you mean closed source programs that can't save at all?
Or that all closed source programs support open formats?
Neither makes sense. :confused:
But to clarify about being bound by closed source, due to closed format.

NO closed format app I can think of, has an open format as default. Which means that if you are a proffesional, or active hobbyist, and has used a piece of closed source software for some time, for a certain type of project. You will need to convert all projects, or maybe it isn't even possible to either export from the old, nor import to the new software.
Sometimes there is a good reason, because the two pieces of software handles the same problem in very different ways. But other times, closed software companies, uses their file format, to deliberately hinder migration to or communication with other software, or at least they don't want to spend resources on it, because it dosn't help them.
This is why many governments now legislate that public offices MUST use open formats.

Even if I don't like closed source software, or the company behind it, I may use it anyway, it depends on how much I mind, and what need/alternatives are available.
I use Windows for Games, but I don't like MS, and I hope that XP will be the last MS software I ever use.

SoundMachine
August 29th, 2006, 08:10 PM
This thread is about closed source software. Hence that's what I write about.
But I agree, except I know less about that.



Do you mean closed source programs that can't save at all?
Or that all closed source programs support open formats?
Neither makes sense. :confused:
But to clarify about being bound by closed source, due to closed format.

NO closed format app I can think of, has an open format as default. Which means that if you are a proffesional, or active hobbyist, and has used a piece of closed source software for some time, for a certain type of project. You will need to convert all projects, or maybe it isn't even possible to either export from the old, nor import to the new software.
Sometimes there is a good reason, because the two pieces of software handles the same problem in very different ways. But other times, closed software companies, uses their file format, to deliberately hinder migration to or communication with other software, or at least they don't want to spend resources on it, because it dosn't help them.
This is why many governments now legislate that public offices MUST use open formats.

Even if I don't like closed source software, or the company behind it, I may use it anyway, it depends on how much I mind, and what need/alternatives are available.
I use Windows for Games, but I don't like MS, and I hope that XP will be the last MS software I ever use.

Bleh, sorry, i edited and removed too much before i posted.

I mean what closed software can't save in other formats than it's default restricted format, what software is BOUND to a restricted format? If you need to use someones work to build on then just ask them to save it in a format you can open, it's what i do.

I prefer FLOSS software but for other reasons, i am bound by work to windows boxes and looking forward to Vista with it's security enhancements and all other enhancements (under the hood) because of that.

Of course, i should probably be careful what i wish for. ;)

PenguinMan
August 29th, 2006, 08:19 PM
The open source Linux zealots are the ones that are hindering the desktop advancement of Linux. For Linux to ever succeed on the desktop, there must be businesses creating closed source programs and investing in the Linux market. Otherwise, Linux will never be useful to the average computer user that just wants to get his/her work done.

rattlerviper
August 29th, 2006, 08:31 PM
Well personally I am very pro open source, but the second Photoshop becomes available for Linux Adobe can have my $700.00! It's truly the only software I find myself missing...I have purchased photoshop from 6.0 all the way up to CS2...and don't use it now because it does not work on Linux:-? I don't use gimp either because even with gimpshop installed it's still a SOB. I suppose I could dual boot just to use Photoshop, but that seems like such a waste. Adobe really needs to bring thier products over to linux. Photoshop, Dreamweaver and the rest.:D

Kindred
August 29th, 2006, 08:36 PM
I really don't like closed source apps and hope they never succeed on Linux as a whole. But yeah, closed drivers are the worst..

Anyway, people should be free to make their own choices without too much harassment.

peabody
August 29th, 2006, 08:56 PM
The open source Linux zealots are the ones that are hindering the desktop advancement of Linux. For Linux to ever succeed on the desktop, there must be businesses creating closed source programs and investing in the Linux market. Otherwise, Linux will never be useful to the average computer user that just wants to get his/her work done.

Just what zealots would those be? Names? Proprietary software vendors are not going to write software for Linux until there is market. There is nothing technically preventing proprietary software vendors from writing "photoshop" and other such things natively for Linux right now. However they won't, because there are not enough paying customers. A proprietary software company is not going to say, "Gee, Linux is neat. I'd really like it if there were more customers in that market. I think I'll take the insane and naive risk of writing my software for that market in anticipation that customers will flock to that platform." Uh-unh. Not going to happen. If we (FLOSS folks, sane and zealots alike) build it (penetration, market share), they will come. I think the zealots are doing the most for Linux right now, annoying though they may be. Zealots file bug reports.

gruvsyco
August 29th, 2006, 09:14 PM
Just what zealots would those be? Names? Proprietary software vendors are not going to write software for Linux until there is market. There is nothing technically preventing proprietary software vendors from writing "photoshop" and other such things natively for Linux right now. However they won't, because there are not enough paying customers. A proprietary software company is not going to say, "Gee, Linux is neat. I'd really like it if there were more customers in that market. I think I'll take the insane and naive risk of writing my software for that market in anticipation that customers will flock to that platform." Uh-unh. Not going to happen. If we (FLOSS folks, sane and zealots alike) build it (penetration, market share), they will come. I think the zealots are doing the most for Linux right now, annoying though they may be. Zealots file bug reports.

I think he's talking about the folks that choose to make Linux a platform for politics. And, while I do agree with him, it's not anything that will ever go away since, IMO one of the biggest "zealots" is RMS.

BuffaloX
August 29th, 2006, 10:25 PM
Bleh, sorry, i edited and removed too much before i posted.

I mean what closed software can't save in other formats than it's default restricted format, what software is BOUND to a restricted format? If you need to use someones work to build on then just ask them to save it in a format you can open, it's what i do.


You have to ask for a format you can open. Which in part supports my argument.
Almost all paint programs loose layer info when exporting.
Instrument info is lost for sequencers like Steinberg, when exporting.
Templates and scrpts for any MS app.
Indesign will loose most layout info.
Can you export a Windows media player playlist?

The point being that you may be able to export/import, but often at the cost of loosing part of the data, and sometimes the project being totally unusable.

Try converting an advanced project from Quark Express to Indesign.

darkhatter
August 30th, 2006, 02:37 AM
I disagree very strongly with this.



Ooooooooooh yes there is. Using proprietary drivers is technically illegal. They violate the GPL license the kernel is under. But because it can be done on a personal use basis, and the kernel developers would look like bastards if they dared try to bring the users or ATI or Nvidia to court, nobody does anything about it. Heck, I run 'em knowing this, but I hate it.



How the f--- do you hide the fact it's free? Say it costs money when it doesn't? That's a lie and violates the spirit of Linux and makes a mockery of the work so many countless people have put into it. I can gaurantee you that trying to trick people into paying for Linux is NOT going to do anything to increase its market share.

Look, if people want to run non free software on Linux that's fine. In fact it's done quite often (internally at google, most 3d rendering houses use proprietary software on top of Linux). It's a personal choice and one that may be tied to necessity. I don't believe that everything should be free or has to be free. I know there will always be a proprietary sector to software as its economic model is well proven and that provides a lot of R&D. But to think that something's poor just because it's free?

I have to say that thinking that calling Linux free degrades it is rather antithetical to the Open Source and Free Software movement. The point is to see value in something being free and open. I'm not trying to patronize you, I just seriously think a big reason for even considering Linux is to at least be open to its philosophy, if not aligned to it. If one can't do that, why bother? Windows XP or Mac OS X are certainly very functional pay-for alternatives and much of the software from the FLOSS world can actually be run on those platforms these days.

The real reason you don't see paying customers for Linux proprietary software is because of a lack of penetration, not because the average person thinks that everything free is crap. In fact, IMO, people go for the "good enough" free alternative 90% of the time. If you can save a buck why not? If Linux were to get something like 10% desktop penetration there certainly would be a market of paying customers. In fact, I personally feel that 10% is all Linux would really ever need and more than that would be a lot of responsibility. Mac is less than 10% of the market.

There was a spokesperson for Microsoft who said that if enough customers demanded Office for Linux, Microsoft would make it. There just isn't the demand. Currently, there aren't enough buyers based on quantity. The fact that Microsoft discontinued many products on Mac (IE, Virtual PC) is testament to how less than 10% of the market is not enough market share to be significant, especially to someone like Microsoft or Adobe.

If one absolutely needs to run Photoshop, why not run Windows? Unless you custom build a system, all major PC sellers include a Windows license with the cost of purchase. If you need to pay for Photoshop after that, what the hecks' the price difference? If one is a pragmatist, I cannot fathom why Windows XP doesn't suit one's needs.

I highly, highly, HIGHLY, do not like Adobe as a company (I about cried when they bought macromedia), and would prefer to see people within the Linux community contribute to projects such as the Gimp and GimpShop to make it a better, viable alternative to Photoshop, rather than cave in and buy a Photoshop for Linux.

I think that came out wrong, what I was trying to say was just don't mention anything about the cost all together, not say it costs money, cause some distro cost money....personally I don't hate adobe (I try not to hate corporations I just don't give them any money. gimp is really nice and I'm really looking forward to the new 2.4 series of gimp thats going to bring on some BIG changes so I may drop my bootleg copy of photoshop cs2 and go gimp

slimdog360
August 30th, 2006, 05:32 AM
I have no problem with closed source programs so long as I dont get forced into using them.

weasel fierce
August 30th, 2006, 08:05 AM
I greatly appreciate my copy of Unreal Tournament :)

darkhatter
August 30th, 2006, 08:02 PM
This went the wrong way The point of this was I just tried picasa 2, and it was WAY better then f-spot so I wanted to hear about other software that is for Linux, thats all it was. Everyone just leave this is not a thread for flaming

I also really like opera but it still gives me problems rendering some web sites

Thats the only thing I don't like about these forums, everyone hates kde and its full of fanboys and girls

curuxz
August 30th, 2006, 08:16 PM
This went the wrong way The point of this was I just tried picasa 2, and it was WAY better then f-spot so I wanted to hear about other software that is for Linux, thats all it was. Everyone just leave this is not a thread for flaming

I also really like opera but it still gives me problems rendering some web sites

Thats the only thing I don't like about these forums, everyone hates kde and its full of fanboys and girls


Picasa SUCKS....buggy slow and does not understand dual monitors. They need to try alot harder if they are going to impress me.

darkhatter
August 30th, 2006, 08:31 PM
I'm not sure where your finding all the bugs, and dual monitor is not a very common set-up, almost every problem I use other the kde gives me problems in dual-monitor.

if you don't like a program just say it, don't lie to everyone else

kinematic
August 30th, 2006, 08:57 PM
Ooooooooooh yes there is. Using proprietary drivers is technically illegal.They violate the GPL license the kernel is under.

oooooooooooh no they dont't.
proprietary drivers don't violate the gpl license because they were never released under the gpl so nvidia,ati and others aren't obligated to release the source code.
the gpl license only affects software that's released under it.

BuffaloX
August 30th, 2006, 09:10 PM
oooooooooooh no they dont't.
proprietary drivers don't violate the gpl license because they were never released under the gpl so nvidia,ati and others aren't obligated to release the source code.
the gpl license only affects software that's released under it.

Have a look at this then:

http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html



Closed source Linux kernal modules are Illegal.
That's it, it is very simple. I've had the misfortune of talking to a lot of different IP lawyers over the years about this topic, and every one that I've talked to all agree that there is no way that anyone can create a Linux kernel module, today, that can be closed source. It just violates the GPL due to fun things like derivative works and linking and other stuff. Again, it's very simple.

kinematic
August 30th, 2006, 09:50 PM
i stand corrected ;)

darkhatter
August 30th, 2006, 10:17 PM
I know there is problems with closed source drivers. This is about programs not drivers!!!!!!!!

kegie
August 30th, 2006, 10:40 PM
The open source Linux zealots are the ones that are hindering the desktop advancement of Linux.
Now, that's just as wrong as can be. First of all, Linux wouldn't be at ALL if it wasn't for 'open source zealots'. In fact, there is no part of linux that isn't written by 'open source zealots'. If there is anything that is hindering the desktop advancement of Linux, it's those pesky commercial companies developing closed source software, not the developers who are actually contributing to it.

Second of all, the only ones who lose out if commercial software fails because of free software are the commercial software companies. Sure, adoption of linux might slow down. So what? The only ones with "desktop advancement" as a pressing and immediate need are the commercial companies trying to make a living off of linux. Linux will survive even if every commercial company involved in it dies, precisely because it is founded on open source zealotry. As long as that core idea remains (and computers are still programmable), the only way Linux can fail is if another free and open alternative overtakes it. And if so, that is only for the better.

Complaining about closed source drivers may seem strange to you, but if so, that is only because you don't realise what sets linux apart in the first place. The only way linux fails is if everyone forgets what free software stands for.

AndyCooll
August 30th, 2006, 11:16 PM
I too am a keen supporter of open-source programs and where possible will choose to use them over their proprietary counterparts.

That said, I have nothing against proprietary software per se and use it if appropriate. Indeed I would like to see more companies making their proprietary software available on Linux. I'd certainly rush out and buy a Linux version of Football Manager if it ever becomes available for instance!

Having said that, the only closed source program (not including codecs or plugins) that I currently use on Linux is VMware. I use it because it best suits my needs for now, I run my Windows XP image with it and try other distros. The open-source alternative is Xen and I'd prefer to use that, but it looks a bit complicated and difficult to set-up at the moment. When that changes I'll probably move over.

:cool:

DoctorMO
August 30th, 2006, 11:32 PM
It's currently a truce by the way, it's technicaly illigal for nVidia and ATI to release drivers for the Linux kernel because they function by being linked to the Linux kernel headers which are licenced under the GPL _NOT_ the Lesser GPL. thus these binary packages break the GPL.

This means that even if ATI or nVidia allowed their drivers to be included on the ubuntu CD it wouldn't be permitted under the GPL anyway.

The FSF who enforces the GPL won't go after ATI or nVidia because it would just mean those companies withdrawing from making any drivers what so ever, although they might be able to get the source code for the current nVidia and ATI drivers if the had enough money to burn doing it.

bruce89
August 30th, 2006, 11:36 PM
This means that even if ATI or nVidia allowed their drivers to be included on the ubuntu CD it wouldn't be permitted under the GPL anyway.

They did have the nVidia ones on it for a while, RMS got upset.

I like finding bugs and seeing them getting fixed, or fixing them myself. (not coding though)

DoctorMO
August 30th, 2006, 11:37 PM
This is why it isn't good enough that hardware makers release drivers, they must release either open source drivers or specifications.

darkhatter
August 31st, 2006, 01:09 AM
I'm really looking forward to gimp 2.4, I just wish they would change the name. gimp is degrading....it just makes it sound gimp

mrgnash
August 31st, 2006, 04:33 AM
A big NO from me, so far.

I'm not opposed to using closed source apps in Linux -- although I am against trial periods and all that other hoopla which has thoroughly polluted the Windows experience. It's just that, besides Opera, most of these apps seem to be substandard:

Picasa - Very nice in a lot of ways, but painfully slow (ok, this might have something to do with the fact that I have tens of thousands of pictures ;) But F-Spot handled the same load much better... ) and I couldn't get it to interface correctly with CUPS, nor did it have the sense to use Nautilus to locate the file directory when requested.

Realplayer - Completely and utterly useless. On not one of my many Ubuntu installs has this thing worked - at all. From wretchedly stuttery content streaming, to error messages about not being able to handle rm files (!!!), I'd have to say that this is one of the cruddiest programs I've used on Linux thus far.

VMWare - Very unintuitive, and with the numerous driver bugs and system load, pretty much useless.

peabody
August 31st, 2006, 04:42 AM
I'm really looking forward to gimp 2.4, I just wish they would change the name. gimp is degrading....it just makes it sound gimp

I apologize if I'm one of the one's responsible about hijacking your thread towards a discussion of drivers, or if I came on strongly. I suppose I was in a bad mood :).

I have to agree with you on this. Some of the naming in the open source world can be very unprofessional. It's fine if people want to call it the gimp, but it would be nice if there was an option to brand the name off the app to something that looks better in the professional world. Chage it to something like Graphics IMPlementer ;). I once suggested gimp to a collegue and she was opposed to using it from the start, off the name alone. Perhaps a bit callous, but I'm sure it isn't the first time that's been a problem.

DoktorSeven
August 31st, 2006, 06:11 AM
What's in a name? that which we call the Gimp
by any other name would manipulate images as sweet ;)

I don't mind the non-open source stuff, as long as companies don't try to force bad EULAs (emphasis on "bad") or spyware down our throat with it. Sure, you wish it could be open-source, but hey, play along with the closed-source people, maybe one day they'll figure out we're a bunch of swell guys and open their stuff up too. ;)

DoctorMO
August 31st, 2006, 07:53 AM
peabody in a funny twist of fate; nothing stops you releasing the current stable version under another name and configuring it differently for the more photoshop minded people.

Create a nice Website for it (you can keep the icon if you wish) and tell all your friends about Graphics Imanipulator!