Is Linux the high moral ground?

[lancest]

Using Linux several years- last year now full time. Getting rid of all my unlicensed software and movie DVD's. Will only use free software in future. Decided it's the only way I can influence my wife and others to wake up to their addiction to Windows unlicensed software. Most here use pirated software. Change is coming I can feel it.
People just don't understand sometimes. Feel misunderstood anyone?

[weblordpepe]

My personal opinion is that selling software is illogical and cannot be sustained.

For the simple fact that a computer file or any data cannot be a unique object. You cannot 'steal' information in the traditional definition.

No resources are consumed in the creation or deletion of computer information.

So why would you pay money for software?
-The simple answer is that most people wouldn't; many people don't; and some people can't.

To me, open-source software is the only logical approprach to software-distrobution. People have a moral right to know what they own. Eg: They want/need to know what their computer is doing.

To a certain extent you can't even do it. Reverse engineering is always possible. Look at the first IBM-clone PCs, and look at how it spawned an industry.

[Jhongy]

Fellow China-ite here :-) I'm in Shanghai.

I don't think paying for software is illogical at all... however, as a scientist and a on-again off-again programmer, I am drawn much more towards the ideal of free and open source software.

I think operating systems - and software in general - is a very powerful and important tool that will be responsible for improving life/society for many years to come. In that sense, I find restrictive patents and IP encumberments are immoral -- especially some of the really frivolous patents that have been taken out. Many proprietary-code companies seem more concerned with playing the law-and-patent game than actually advancing the boundaries of computing -- which does society a tremendous disservice.

Again and again I can think of areas in which technology could be helping to advance society, but where it will never happen because of entrenched legal / unfair IP issues, or because everything is about the bottom line.

FOSS software openly battles against this cynical and wasteful state of affairs -- in an apparently altruistic way. In this sense, I do believe that FOSS software is the moral high-ground.

Is it liberalism in the extreme, or socialism? Maybe both...

[heimo]

I think link to FSF / GNU's philosophy page is now appropriate:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/

[Praill]

My personal opinion is that selling software is illogical and cannot be sustained.

You may be able to argue that writing software is not a tangable good, but you cannot argue that it is not a speacialized technical service.

People go to a specialized school for 4-5 years to be able to just begin writing the software you use everyday. Most of the involved applications people have spent their whole lives developing, on libraries and technologies previous people spent their whole lives developing.
To suggest that everything should be free is ridiculous, and is the sort of rantings you hear from communist idealists.

The linux approach is not that EVERYTHING should be free, but the KERNEL should be open. When you use closed standards and protocols you get a monopoly, there is no way around it. Therefore a governing body needs to suggest how things should be made, which hasnt been done since the advancement of computers was neither widely predicted or is widely understood.

Its reminiscent of the government deciding roads should be made of asphault, and then varying developers make cars to drive on that asphault. Windows approach is to make you buy their car, wear a blindfold, and never know how you got there.

Ubuntu is free because of the generosity of a very rich entreprenuer who realizes Windows roots run too deep to sustain any kind of competition. Once Linux becomes a house-hold name you will see varying companies with varying versions charging varying prices... the way it should be.

[weblordpepe]

You may be able to argue that writing software is not a tangable good, but you cannot argue that it is not a speacialized technical service.

People go to a specialized school for 4-5 years to be able to just begin writing the software you use everyday. Most of the involved applications people have spent their whole lives developing, on libraries and technologies previous people spent their whole lives developing.
To suggest that everything should be free is ridiculous, and is the sort of rantings you hear from communist idealists.

Well you can stop right there before the mods get angry.

Although as far as the schools thing. Well no that's not correct at all. Yes its a specialty. The same way its a specialty for someone to paint a picture. It therefor takes next to no resources for that picture to get to all corners of the world.

The point is that software which needs to be bought survives only by patents and laws, and hoping someone doesn't figure out how you wrote the program. Thats the failing point. Someone is always going to figure it out. Eg the WINE project.

Jhongy - great post. I know exactly where you're coming from. I see the correlation between the benefits of scientific-method and the benefits of open-source software. To off-set the cheesieness of that last sentence, I will now place a cool emoticon. :guitar:

[stanjam]

Stating that the goal of open source is a communistic ideal is VERY wrong and of target. In many people's mind it is more like frees speech.

I am of the belief that there is room in this world for both free and/or open source software and paid software. The main problem I have with the Free software foundation is its stance that there is no room for closed source or paid software within its ranks, whereas the Open source movement sees an ideal of having room for both models.

In the end the open source software wins out. Why? Because support and future development is ultimately limited to those that have the source code. With open source there is no such limitations and support can be more widely available and, ultimately better.

[jrusso2]

I like Linux because it is socialist.

[KIAaze]

The main problem I have with the Free software foundation is its stance that there is no room for closed source or paid software within its ranks, whereas the Open source movement sees an ideal of having room for both models.

The part about the FSF not accepting paid software is wrong.
The GPL does not forbid selling software. This has been made quite clear a lot of times.
Software developers need to make money somehow.

The part about closed source is true however as far as I know.
But I think it's a good ideal and agree with it (altough i am still not completely free myself of closed source software).

[stanjam]

The part about the FSF not accepting paid software is wrong.
The GPL does not forbid selling software. This has been made quite clear a lot of times.
Software developers need to make money somehow.

The part about closed source is true however as far as I know.
But I think it's a good ideal and agree with it (altough i am still not completely free myself of closed source software).

Yes, it IS true that you can sell it, but you must ALSO provide it for free. The Free software foundation sees no place for apid or closed software within its ranks, and that is the main difference between the open source model and the free source model.

In my opinion the two should co exist. The programmer should have the RIGHT to release or not release his code if he or she chooses. In the very mindset of an open society one should be free to do that, and one should be free to mix the two as they see fit. Just my opinion folks, but I would like to see a society where the two can coexist peacefully instead of all the bickering that exists now. Until it is that way proprietary software will continue to beat down the free software movement. I believe the Open Source model is the best way to move forward.

[kvonb]

I wish more Chinese people would take up Linux, it could wipe out Microsoft's market dominance in one fair swoop!

Plus we would get the benefit of more drivers, as most of the hardware is made there!

[KIAaze]

Yes, it IS true that you can sell it, but you must ALSO provide it for free. The Free software foundation sees no place for apid or closed software within its ranks, and that is the main difference between the open source model and the free source model.

No, you don't have to provide your software for free when using the GPL.

You are only forced to make the source code available (you can even charge money for that).
The only thing is of course that the people who bought the software as well as the source code must be free to do whatever they want with it.
This effectively means that once somebody has bought the source code, he can redistribute the software for free.

I think this is a great way to keep the price of the software at a reasonable level. It's clear that it's impossible to build up an empire like Microsoft by using a license like the GPL.
But companies like Novell, Red Hat or Mozilla show that it's still possible to make money of it.


In my opinion the two should co exist. The programmer should have the RIGHT to release or not release his code if he or she chooses. In the very mindset of an open society one should be free to do that, and one should be free to mix the two as they see fit. Just my opinion folks, but I would like to see a society where the two can coexist peacefully instead of all the bickering that exists now. Until it is that way proprietary software will continue to beat down the free software movement. I believe the Open Source model is the best way to move forward.

They are already coexisting. And personally, even tough I prefer the GPL, I won't kill you for using a simple open-soure license like BSD. ^^
I just think that the GPL is a better choice because it keeps the open-source open-source.
With a BSD-like license, improved code isn't given back to the community.

[Jhongy]

In my opinion the two should co exist. The programmer should have the RIGHT to release or not release his code if he or she chooses.

They do -- they don't have to release their code under the GPL ;-)

But, of course, as soon as you make use of any other programmer's hard work that was released under the GPL, then that changes.

Although I am convinced that, as I posted above, FOSS is the way to go, the two can coexist just fine (in the software ecosystem; not in a single product) -- and most open source programmers recognise this. If anything, it's people on the proprietary side of the fence that have trouble recognizing this.

[lancest]

Great comments. Social system? I think Linux is more capitalist than socialist because it offers complete freedom. Rampant piracy is going to help solve the problem. Can you say WTO? I know for a fact computer shops here in China are being inspected several times every month for illegal software. Lets see if the noose tightens with WTO enforcement.

[stanjam]

They do -- they don't have to release their code under the GPL ;-)

But, of course, as soon as you make use of any other programmer's hard work that was released under the GPL, then that changes.

Although I am convinced that, as I posted above, FOSS is the way to go, the two can coexist just fine (in the software ecosystem; not in a single product) -- and most open source programmers recognise this. If anything, it's people on the proprietary side of the fence that have trouble recognizing this.

On that point I will have to agree, it is the proprietary side that doesn't get it.

[mech7]

My personal opinion is that selling software is illogical and cannot be sustained.

For the simple fact that a computer file or any data cannot be a unique object. You cannot 'steal' information in the traditional definition.

No resources are consumed in the creation or deletion of computer information.

So why would you pay money for software?
-The simple answer is that most people wouldn't; many people don't; and some people can't.

To me, open-source software is the only logical approprach to software-distrobution. People have a moral right to know what they own. Eg: They want/need to know what their computer is doing.

To a certain extent you can't even do it. Reverse engineering is always possible. Look at the first IBM-clone PCs, and look at how it spawned an industry.

Sorry but that is the most stupid thing i have ever heared and obviously does not come from a programmer.

[weblordpepe]

Sorry but that is the most stupid thing i have ever heared and obviously does not come from a programmer.
OK well instead of making a completely useless post like that - why don't you prove me wrong?

DRM has been introduced as a way to give the impression that data is a unique object. Cryptography has also been introduced. Of course I am correct. To state otherwise would only be pushing an agenda of some kind. You cannot rob somebody of their information by copying it. That's not stealing.

And before you make judgements about whether or not I am a 'programmer', try actually validating your argument. For all you know, I could be Bill Gates in disguise.

The basic summary of my argument is that open-source / free software jives with the physical & logical properties of computer information. It does not try to deny that you can copy files. There is no copy-protection built into Ubuntu to try & trick you into thinking your burnt CDR is unique in some way.

[Jhongy]

Great comments. Social system? I think Linux is more capitalist than socialist because it offers complete freedom.

I think that is nonsense, however --- freedom is not synonymous with capitalism. Just because something is more free, does not make it more capitalist.

[lancest]

While there are always grey areas. I don't go around stating other people's (widely held) opinions are nonsense. You have a right to your opinion too. That's what you should have said.

[Jhongy]

While there are always grey areas. I don't go around stating other people's (widely held) opinions are nonsense. You have a right to your opinion too. That's what you should have said.

I said I *THINK* it is nonsense.... I do. :-) I do not *THINK* that simply equating capitalism with a notion of freedom makes any logical sense (outside of market freedom). No logical sense == nonsense. Not forcing my opinion on anything or anyone. Just my thoughts.

Chill! :) This is in a thread where others are calling each other stupid...!!!

[Sef]

Chill!

Yes, chill or this thread will be locked.


I think that is nonsense, however --- freedom is not synonymous with capitalism. Just because something is more free, does not make it more capitalist.


Very true. Capitalism and Socialism are different models of how an economy of a country is run. Either one could be used by a democatic government or by a totalitorian government.

Last, I moving this to the community cafe.

[Gargamella]

yes I think it is not useful use pirated software as Windows since you can have a better os for free... I believe that now you should pay just for very specific business software, which once will may have an open source good alternative, will not be necessary anymore.

I agree with you, since I stopped playing pirated game software.

[karellen]

My personal opinion is that selling software is illogical and cannot be sustained.

For the simple fact that a computer file or any data cannot be a unique object. You cannot 'steal' information in the traditional definition.

No resources are consumed in the creation or deletion of computer information.

So why would you pay money for software?
-The simple answer is that most people wouldn't; many people don't; and some people can't.

To me, open-source software is the only logical approprach to software-distrobution. People have a moral right to know what they own. Eg: They want/need to know what their computer is doing.

To a certain extent you can't even do it. Reverse engineering is always possible. Look at the first IBM-clone PCs, and look at how it spawned an industry.

it's everybody's choice to choose what they want to use and what suits their needs better: proprietary software and open source software. I think linking morality with intelectual property is pretty hazardous. I don't know about others and I'm not in the position to judge, but speaking for myself, if I write a piece of program I'd like to make some money out of it and the right to modify and replicate it to remain at my will. that means that I can choose to distribuite it under gpl...or eula. free or not. but I want the freedom to do whatever I want with something I've made. it's simple. it's like writing a book: I may post it freely for download on the net, I may give it to a publisher and sell it. or even to make it open and invite whoever wants to contribute and modify it's content. but I want to have the right to choose. and I believe this is moral should be all about

[Praill]

And before you make judgements about whether or not I am a 'programmer'...

You cant be a programmer thinking like this because you have no respect for the industry. Its like someone thats not a janitor throwing their garbage on the floor, same thing.

You think all software should be open and free because it benefits YOU. You forget that complicated peices of software can take several hundred people several years to create. You cant possibly suggest that these people should (or even would) do this for free.
I dont expect to walk into a grocery store, grab whatever I want, and walk out. I could try to argue that fruit and animals come from the earth and no one can "own" them.. so im free to take what I wish.
I would end up behind bars because all the farmers/truck drivers/cashiers/etc dont want to work for free.

Programmers dont want to work for free either. The ones that do, usually do so in pursuit of a cause. The various linux programs distributed for free are with the intent to create a competing product. These programs are created by people that want to give something back to the community that helped them or help bring users away from m$.

I understand your points for open source software, but when you release the source it is IMPOSSIBLE to stop pirating... thats why its never going to be the exclusive way to create software... unless we live in a communism where the state owns all equity.

[lancest]

The market will decide who wins! Only fair.
If people want to pay for software then they can. I believe the future is not in selling software but in extending and servicing it. The network will be the computer. Worldwide piracy is a symptom of changes to come.

[Wugglz]

Hooray.My first post:)



You forget that complicated peices of software can take several hundred people several years to create. You cant possibly suggest that these people should (or even would) do this for free.


First of all, Gnu/Linux is a complicated piece of software that has taken several hundred (nonetheless a few thousand) people several years to create, and these many people have done this for free. So yes, you can easily suggest that someone would want to do this for free.



Programmers dont want to work for free either. The ones that do, usually do so in pursuit of a cause. The various linux programs distributed for free are with the intent to create a competing product. These programs are created by people that want to give something back to the community that helped them or help bring users away from m$.


Also, the GNU project began in 1984, well before Microsoft formed the strong monopoly it has today. So free software definitely didn't form with the intent of crippling Microsoft.

Instead, I would have to say the free software exists more with the mindset of 'By the people, for the people' than 'for you' or 'against Microsoft'. I think that it exists neither to benefit me nor benefit you, but instead for everyone to benefit each other. Gnu/Linux exists because the people who made or contributed to it wanted it, otherwise, they would have had no reason to make or contribute to it.

[Praill]

By the people, for the people
A communist ideal if ive ever heard one.

In 1984 there was.. what?.. a handful of people using computers on a daily basis? You cant make money in an industry where theres no money to be made. Back then, most people working with computers were doing so as a hobby. Now, 24 years later.. the computer is a major staple of everday life and therefore an industry that warrants enormous equity.

If you think people should just "create for the people" then that is a communist ideal. There is nothing wrong with communism... it looks great on paper.. but it doesnt work. Running a society that works to profit others, or the state, cripples ambition and innovation. People are inheritantly greedy and more likely to work harder and longer for benefits to themselves rather than benefits to others or the state. This is the simple reason why communism has never, and will never work... and likewise why your ideology is flawed.

[brentoboy]

Software is software. I know because I write it for a living.

A software publisher has to make money in one way or another. There is that special case where a community has a somewhat universal need for a particular solution, and the community itself can put together a workable solution that meets its own need, and then distribute it for free because all the contributors can do it on their spare time and don't need to be reimbursed.

But, even free software costs someone something at one point or another. Either it costs a developer his own free time that he could have spent with his (or her) family, or it costs a company (like Mozilla or red hat) money to pay Dev's full time to produce free stuff.

The point is, that, whether it is free or not, it isnt free.
and one of the ways to make money off of software is to close the source and charge for the product -- to each his own.

The problem enters in when technology is patented.
Patents make it so that a community with the time and resources still cant make a decent mp3 player or dvd player and cant watch the DVDs they purchased with REAL MONEY. That's stupid.

--
But saying programmers cant charge for their work is like saying that, because you can photocopy a book, you shouldn't have to pay the author for their time. What do you do for a living? Would you do it without compensation? Are you too young to have bills to pay? Do you have a family? Do you live in "magic land" where everything is free and no one needs a paycheck?

[dspari1]

Using Linux several years- last year now full time. Getting rid of all my unlicensed software and movie DVD's. Will only use free software in future. Decided it's the only way I can influence my wife and others to wake up to their addiction to Windows unlicensed software. Most here use pirated software. Change is coming I can feel it.
People just don't understand sometimes. Feel misunderstood anyone?

So you are throwing away all the DVD's that you PAID for?

I don't have a problem with paying for software because computer programmers have to eat and pay bills too. My problem though is when I have to pay $400 for Windows Vista Ultimate eddition, $600 for Microsoft Office, and $999 for Photoshop CS3 Extended. Back when I was a kid, IBM sold OS/2 at $200, but then Microsoft(when they were still the good guys) came along and offered Windows for $20. Microsoft has become as greedy as IBM, and I also feel change is coming. Microsoft is doing Linux a big favor by charging too much and making their software very hard to pirate.

As a gamer, I only pay $50 for brand new games and I'm perfectly fine with that pice. Hell, I don't mind paying the new $60 price tag on console games since I know the dollar is no longer worth what is use to due to inflation. The prices eventually drops down to $20 after 1 year of sales, so it's fine.

I've been using Linux exclusively for the last 3 months, and I can thank Cedega for getting the games that I play to work well. I hope that game developers will eventually support us natively, but until then, I'll just pay Cedega and hope more and more users do what I do until the gaming companies realize that there IS a market for us.

[Aranel]

I think that is nonsense, however --- freedom is not synonymous with capitalism. Just because something is more free, does not make it more capitalist.

This is true. Marx's idea of a perfect society was one in which everyone had complete freedom (without government, even) but nobody abused it; everyone just took what he needed out of the commune. In my opinion, this is impracticable in society, but FLOSS is like Marxism in that respect; everything is given back to the community.

However, there are capitalist aspects of FLOSS, too. It's profitable, for one thing, so people can make money out of it (e.g. Red Hat). There's also no monopoly for each "industry"; instead, we see straight capitalist competition (OpenSolaris vs. BSDs vs. Linux; GNOME vs. KDE vs. XFCE), where everyone is motivated to make a product better than the competition's. Plus, since nobody places restrictions on the distribution of FLOSS, it's pretty much the embodiment of laissez-faire (although, again, this also reflects Marx's "communist brotherhood").

So FLOSS is definitely not socialist, in the way socialism has actually been implemented in the world, but it shows both capitalist and Marxist (as opposed to later socialist/communist) characteristics. Honestly, I don't see it as either. The FLOSS movement is a phenomenon all to its own, and it would be unfair to label it as capitalist or communist.

...Just my two cents' worth.

[karellen]

But saying programmers cant charge for their work is like saying that, because you can photocopy a book, you shouldn't have to pay the author for their time. What do you do for a living? Would you do it without compensation? Are you too young to have bills to pay? Do you have a family? Do you live in "magic land" where everything is free and no one needs a paycheck?

I totally subscribe to this

[prince_alfie]

Compensation needs to be capped. I think that there are people who just earn too much money that their lives are meaningless.

[Wugglz]

A communist ideal if ive ever heard one.

In 1984 there was.. what?.. a handful of people using computers on a daily basis? You cant make money in an industry where theres no money to be made. Back then, most people working with computers were doing so as a hobby. Now, 24 years later.. the computer is a major staple of everday life and therefore an industry that warrants enormous equity.

If you think people should just "create for the people" then that is a communist ideal. There is nothing wrong with communism... it looks great on paper.. but it doesnt work. Running a society that works to profit others, or the state, cripples ambition and innovation. People are inheritantly greedy and more likely to work harder and longer for benefits to themselves rather than benefits to others or the state. This is the simple reason why communism has never, and will never work... and likewise why your ideology is flawed.

Yeah... I guess I would have to agree with that. I still think that when the free software movement started there was a 'create for each other' ideology, but yes, today there is much more motivation towards linux and more companies and people have taken interest and invested in it, which you can see through how much it has improved. I was simply trying to state that some people are willing to work on software for free, since that is how gnu/linux was started.

[ezphilosophy]

I wish more Chinese people would take up Linux, it could wipe out Microsoft's market dominance in one fair swoop!

I'm working on it! Any day now...

[bx2]

Well, the people that are creating software for a living are now threated by this? Hardly, you will be able to keep on coding far into the future and there will always be jobs available. I think when we see what has happened in the past and what is happening now the basic greed and control of everything has to stop. There has to be a change in the hearts and minds of people. So what if there is free operating software? It tends to be a check on the rest. I mean, have you had unlimited success and happiness from "other" software? No because for the most part, it plain and simple is crap. Why can't there be something out there free for all, to me that's closer to Democracy than what we see going on today. "Tootleberries"

[juxtaposed]

I think Linux is more capitalist than socialist because it offers complete freedom.

Capitalism isn't complete freedom, in it's implemented form it is slavery to corporations and government.

Like I said on another thread, Open Source is anarchy, because it is freedom.


or this thread will be locked.

I hate it when mods do that.

It always seems like they are just eager to use mod powers on anything.


unless we live in a communism where the state owns all equity.

There is no state in communism ;)


This is the simple reason why communism has never, and will never work...

No, the reason it hasn't worked is that noone has actually implemented it on a national scale.

And no, just because someone says "our country is communist" doesn't make it true.


making their software very hard to pirate.

It's not ;)


but nobody abused it;

It's easier to abuse a system with authority (statism) then a system without authority (communism, anarchism).

[dspari1]

Capitalism isn't complete freedom, in it's implemented form it is slavery to corporations and government.

Like I said on another thread, Open Source is anarchy, because it is freedom.



I hate it when mods do that.

It always seems like they are just eager to use mod powers on anything.



There is no state in communism ;)



No, the reason it hasn't worked is that noone has actually implemented it on a national scale.

And no, just because someone says "our country is communist" doesn't make it true.



It's not ;)



It's easier to abuse a system with authority (statism) then a system without authority (communism, anarchism).

Way to quote everyone out of context.

[getaboat]

Yes Linux is the high moral ground.

I write MS based software for a living for a commercial company. If other companies don't buy our stuff I don't have a job.

I dislike piracy in "soft" stuff (software music etc.). There are people like me out there trying to make a living. That having been said trying to maintain a moral high ground with teenage kids with access to P2P ain't easy. Piracy is rife at the consumer level in the UK. If you use pirated stuff you are a crook - and I probably am by association.

But that is where is Linux claims the high ground. Use Linux and all the software that comes with it with a clear conscience. You are going straight.

Good grown up thread BTW.

[juxtaposed]

Way to quote everyone out of context.

That's the last thing I expected anyone to say, as that certainly wasn't the intention.

[Catfish81]

I like the open source idea, and obviously people can develop code and charge for it but doing it under the GPL is harder because once you provide the code it's freely distributable isnt it? I'm not sure... I just use the software ;)

And use it I do, mainly because Windows has always been too expensive for my liking. When I first started using WinXP and found it was actually somewhat stable compared to the previous Windows versions I said I'd maybe buy it one day when the price dropped. I'm still waiting.

I think that GPL software (Linux, Ubuntu specifically, but not totally) has come a long way since I used it first in the late 1990s. Ubuntu to me is a very usable system if he user just wants to do the same old tasks each day. Play music, video, internet, emails, word processor etc. The parts I don't like about Linux are when you introduce say, a device like a camera and the drivers don't work. So the user has to go try to make it work for themselves.

I know this is also true with Windows, but people for some reason just dont know how to do these things when it comes to Linux. I guess it's because most people on computers don't actually know anything about a computer, they just know about the [application] software they use. Which leads me to my never ending question: Why don't people like to pay for techs to come and fix their computers, hardware or software alike?

I guess it all comes down to money in the end. LOL big rambling post this one.

[Hallvor]

There is no state in communism ;)

... which shows that communism is only an unrealistic dream, See below.


No, the reason it hasn't worked is that noone has actually implemented it on a national scale.

Actually, alone in the 20th century, some 100 million people were killed in the process. The process of course does not excel further than the dictatorship of the proletariat, which apparently is an euphemism for the rule of the bosses of the communist party. After enriching themselves, it is not that tempting to disslolve the state into anarchy. It feels so much better for this clique to stay wealthy and to use the secret police and military to make sure status quo persists.


It's easier to abuse a system with authority (statism) then a system without authority (communism, anarchism).

You are living in a dream world that does not exist. Communism and anarchism will not work because the more freedom people get, the more economic inequality there will be. And with inequality comes power, and communism/anarchism dissolves itself. Secondly, why should not a neighbouring country just invade a communist/anarchist country with no central power and make it the poorest province of their country? You see, "communism" needs a state to survive. And if there is no state, there is no communism.

[Chilli Bob]

Sorry but that is the most stupid thing i have ever heared and obviously does not come from a programmer.



+1

[juxtaposed]

The process of course does not excel further than the dictatorship of the proletariat, which apparently is an euphemism for the rule of the bosses of the communist party.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is just the intermediate on the path from capitalism to communism.

Yes, one very major obstacle in the path to real communism is the people who get the power don't want to give it up. It doesn't mean it is impossible though, just considerably hard. But many good things in life are hard.


Secondly, why should not a neighbouring country just invade a communist/anarchist country with no central power and make it the poorest province of their country?

Never underestimate a determined populace to fight a much more technically sophisticated and organized occupying force. Of course, they can't fight traditionally, but they can fight a guerilla war. Think of two major wars in the last half century - Iraq and Vietnam. In Vietnam the north had less organization, less millitary might - but they still managed to fight off a foreign power and it's puppet government.

The populace can most certainly fight back an occupying force, if it is determined enough to fight for it's freedom. If not, well, they will loose the freedom of anarchy.

But I must say, you do seem to know what you are talking about.

[Hallvor]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is just the intermediate on the path from capitalism to communism.

I know that, but it was as far as any communist experiment went in the 20th century, and the paradox was that they in my opinion all ended up more oppressive than the systems they replaced, effectively robbing the citizens of civil liberties common in democratic societies.


Yes, one very major obstacle in the path to real communism is the people who get the power don't want to give it up. It doesn't mean it is impossible though, just considerably hard. But many good things in life are hard.

No, it is not impossible that political leaders back down and dissolve the state. It is, however, unlikely. And the costs in terms of human lives in the 20th century have been staggering. The sacrifices have not been matched by the results. But let`s imagine that a successful revolution has taken place, and that the leaders dissolve the state. Then what? It is here that the duality of freedom comes in: Let`s imagine a wolf and a sheep. For the wolf, freedom means freedom TO eat the sheep. But for the sheep, freedom means freedom FROM the wolf. Freedom is not a universal value, but is different for all. An anarchist/communist society offers great freedom TO, but not necessarily great freedom FROM. And this mix will in my opinion make sure that any anarchist/communist society will not last long. A good society in my opinion finds a good compromise between freedoms of the individuals, and protection from oppression - including oppression from the state.


Never underestimate a determined populace to fight a much more technically sophisticated and organized occupying force. Of course, they can't fight traditionally, but they can fight a guerilla war.

That depends. Very few invasions have been successful for long periods of time in history, so you may be right in most cases. If the other country is a lot larger and ruthless enough, they could 1) round up the entire population, 2) kill the intelligentsia and others who could organize resistance, 3) spread the remaining population in isolated areas in the invading country and under the control of the army or secret police, and 4) populate the area with settlers from the invading country. Lack of organized resistance makes this a little easier.

Other than that, I hope you keep the political enthusiasm you have today. So many people are indifferent about politics and take civil liberties for granted, and since they take them for granted, they are unwilling to risk fighting whatever threatens such liberties. Even though I personally think anarchism/communism is a waste of time, I think there may be a chance there is a political moderate inside you who is trying to come out, ready to fight enthusiastically for democratic values - in my sense of the word. :)

[KIAaze]

I like the open source idea, and obviously people can develop code and charge for it but doing it under the GPL is harder because once you provide the code it's freely distributable isnt it? I'm not sure... I just use the software ;)

Yes, but I'm still willing to buy it. :)
And if somebody needs some software to do some work but can't afford it, I don't see any problems with giving it to them for free.
I enjoy paying for things because I want to support the creators work instead of being "forced" to pay for it.
(I also enjoy paying for things after having played, watched, listened to them and seen how great they are, but this is a little bit more on the illegal side... ^^')


And use it I do, mainly because Windows has always been too expensive for my liking. When I first started using WinXP and found it was actually somewhat stable compared to the previous Windows versions I said I'd maybe buy it one day when the price dropped. I'm still waiting.

You'd better buy it now, because soon it might not be available any more (except from people reselling it)...
There will be only Vista.



The parts I don't like about Linux are when you introduce say, a device like a camera and the drivers don't work. So the user has to go try to make it work for themselves.

I know this is also true with Windows, but people for some reason just dont know how to do these things when it comes to Linux. I guess it's because most people on computers don't actually know anything about a computer, they just know about the [application] software they use.

Those people also don't know how to do it under Windows.
It's just that for Windows, the drivers are already made for them by the hardware companies (and those would certainly be capable of making Linux drivers if they wanted to).

[smaker]

You may be able to argue that writing software is not a tangable good, but you cannot argue that it is not a speacialized technical service.

People go to a specialized school for 4-5 years to be able to just begin writing the software you use everyday. Most of the involved applications people have spent their whole lives developing, on libraries and technologies previous people spent their whole lives developing.
To suggest that everything should be free is ridiculous, and is the sort of rantings you hear from communist idealists.

The linux approach is not that EVERYTHING should be free, but the KERNEL should be open. When you use closed standards and protocols you get a monopoly, there is no way around it. Therefore a governing body needs to suggest how things should be made, which hasnt been done since the advancement of computers was neither widely predicted or is widely understood.

Its reminiscent of the government deciding roads should be made of asphault, and then varying developers make cars to drive on that asphault. Windows approach is to make you buy their car, wear a blindfold, and never know how you got there.

Ubuntu is free because of the generosity of a very rich entreprenuer who realizes Windows roots run too deep to sustain any kind of competition. Once Linux becomes a house-hold name you will see varying companies with varying versions charging varying prices... the way it should be.

I could not agree more..well said and your are very correct on all counts regardless what the 'zealots' dont like to hear of reality.

bye
smaker

[smaker]

Well you can stop right there before the mods get angry.

Although as far as the schools thing. Well no that's not correct at all. Yes its a specialty. The same way its a specialty for someone to paint a picture. It therefor takes next to no resources for that picture to get to all corners of the world.

The point is that software which needs to be bought survives only by patents and laws, and hoping someone doesn't figure out how you wrote the program. Thats the failing point. Someone is always going to figure it out. Eg the WINE project.

Jhongy - great post. I know exactly where you're coming from. I see the correlation between the benefits of scientific-method and the benefits of open-source software. To off-set the cheesieness of that last sentence, I will now place a cool emoticon. :guitar:

You mean before the 'thought police' start hand-cuffing?

oh -really...

bye
smaker

[smaker]

Well you can stop right there before the mods get angry.

Although as far as the schools thing. Well no that's not correct at all. Yes its a specialty. The same way its a specialty for someone to paint a picture. It therefor takes next to no resources for that picture to get to all corners of the world.

The point is that software which needs to be bought survives only by patents and laws, and hoping someone doesn't figure out how you wrote the program. Thats the failing point. Someone is always going to figure it out. Eg the WINE project.

Jhongy - great post. I know exactly where you're coming from. I see the correlation between the benefits of scientific-method and the benefits of open-source software. To off-set the cheesieness of that last sentence, I will now place a cool emoticon. :guitar:

dont use wine as a example..its FAR from a perfect scenario from what Ive seen mostly game wize,,, and its always going to be playing catch up with directX isn't it ?

bye
smaker

[smaker]

That's the last thing I expected anyone to say, as that certainly wasn't the intention.

Dont worry it wasn't you..he said that out of desperation imho , because he reallly had no come back at all to your post. When there is no reply to be had sometimes people resort to flames.

bye
smaker

[Compucore]

Well software at any level whether its the operating system or a software package that you use is really only coded thought set of instructions to do a particular task you set out to do in the first place. The only time that it is tangible is on the medium in question that you need to transfer from into your computer, like diskettes, cd roms, tape back ups as examples. Now with the internet iva, DSL, Cable modem, 56k ancient internal and external.

If a particular software that I would need desperately that I would pay for it. But if I should find it under linux for free be it what ever it is. I would rather take free instead of paying for it personally.

Compucore


You may be able to argue that writing software is not a tangable good, but you cannot argue that it is not a speacialized technical service.

People go to a specialized school for 4-5 years to be able to just begin writing the software you use everyday. Most of the involved applications people have spent their whole lives developing, on libraries and technologies previous people spent their whole lives developing.
To suggest that everything should be free is ridiculous, and is the sort of rantings you hear from communist idealists.

The linux approach is not that EVERYTHING should be free, but the KERNEL should be open. When you use closed standards and protocols you get a monopoly, there is no way around it. Therefore a governing body needs to suggest how things should be made, which hasnt been done since the advancement of computers was neither widely predicted or is widely understood.

Its reminiscent of the government deciding roads should be made of asphault, and then varying developers make cars to drive on that asphault. Windows approach is to make you buy their car, wear a blindfold, and never know how you got there.

Ubuntu is free because of the generosity of a very rich entreprenuer who realizes Windows roots run too deep to sustain any kind of competition. Once Linux becomes a house-hold name you will see varying companies with varying versions charging varying prices... the way it should be.

[smaker]

Well software at any level whether its the operating system or a software package that you use is really only coded thought set of instructions to do a particular task you set out to do in the first place. The only time that it is tangible is on the medium in question that you need to transfer from into your computer, like diskettes, cd roms, tape back ups as examples. Now with the internet iva, DSL, Cable modem, 56k ancient internal and external.

If a particular software that I would need desperately that I would pay for it. But if I should find it under linux for free be it what ever it is. I would rather take free instead of paying for it personally.

Compucore

I def. agree that if a software/service is available for free and is a very good product, then sure Ill consider that strongly , as while I'm def. NOT against good proprietary software I do think having freely available software is a huge benefit to people that dont have the means otherwise.

:)
cy
smaker

[Jadd]

Back to the subject of piracy and how it harms open source and free of charge software.

Piracy does harm libre software, because it allows propiritary software to become the standard. What annoys me the most in this is that propiertary software companies are delibrately applying a double standard in this. Microsoft turns a blind eye to all the pirated copies of windows in the third world, because it doesn't want the third world to turn to open source software. The music industry turns a blind eye to all the illegal music videos on youtube, because they want to ensure that their artists remain the most popular, rather than those who use creative commons licences or who publish on magnatune. These companies are delibrately not sueing.

So my question is, could I sue instead? Could I press charges for copyright infringement even if I don't own the copyright? If this were possible, the people could get rid of stupid copyright laws by enforcing them.

[lancest]

Bill Gates even said at some point they want to collect from those highest piracy rate countries. I just don't see how this is possible since people are very used to not paying for software. Yes MS must be aware of that. I really believe Vista is a problem for MS to continue that dominance because of it's poor performance and DRM stuff. XP will be around for a while longer but Linux brilliance is making XP look very outdated. Some kind of change is in the air, but not the kind measured in sales units.

[Dimitriid]

weblordpepe Is right in saying selling software its illogical and cannot be sustained. However if he is not able to effectively marry that concept with the follow through concept of "Software designed is an specialized task" its because you have to dig deeper:Software is information, and information its a right for people, it serves a basic human need. Therefore it cannot be subject to capitalist tribulations and the free market.

Now it cannot be subject to said tribulations because capitalism will only ever serve the interests of the bourgeouisie, of the ruling class. As more essencial human needs are comertialized they in part become a luxury only for those able to afford them. This is why software, ideas, knowledge, art and many other things should NEVER be comercialized at all under any circumstances.

But of course in this modern globalized world most people will continue to be drones and will always have to deal with End of Users agreements to their souls.

[Frak]

Only at least the core of the system should be open. Then people get their choice.

I really don't care about proprietary software in general, as long as its not integrated in my system by default. If I want Binary blobs in my system, that is my choice.

[HermanAB]

In a market where the main competition is lower than shark-****, it is easy to hold the moral high ground...

(Hah, did I fool the forum nicety filter?)

[user481516]

I am currently researching a paper on Marx and Open Source. I really think there is something to all this and here is the proposal I have so far. What Linux does is create an environment where the producer gets to maintain possession and access to the product that he/she produces. Marx would be proud!

The current Open Source movement fulfills many of Karl Marx’s suggestions in the Estranged Labour section of the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Marx expresses the need for a great change in the capitalist frame of mind. He claims that in a capitalist economy, the worker “sinks to the level of… the most wretched of commodities,” and through their production they become alienated from themselves. The objects they labor upon become private property of the capitalist. The worker becomes a slave to the capitalist and the more they produce, the more alienated they become.

In the Open Source movement, great production can occur with absolutely no monetary incentive and no alienation from one’s labor. Groups of skilled professionals, in which all members have a common goal, produce a common product and all their goods, labor, and knowledge are intentionally licensed to the public. Marx's explanation of how true communism would function and manifest itself is lacking and ambiguous. No attempt to completely overturn a complex capitalist society, impose communism, and fulfill Marxist ideals, has succeeded. The Open Source movement provides us, on a smaller scale, with a concrete example of a functioning communist model.

[LaRoza]

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/8060/necromancingsv7.jpg