Linux, freedom, do we care?

[wrtpeeps]

Listening to the Ubuntu UK podcast this week, they mention that most people who change to Linux from Windows actually don't care about software freedom etc, and that it isn't the reason they change.

I must say I agree with them. In my eyes, I feel most people change due to the fact that most of the time it doesn't cost a penny, and that it's a bit faster.

Caring about freedom may come later, but, how many of us actually care at the start? Personally I still don't care, but maybe some day I'll have an epiphany.

Just curious.

[saulgoode]

You care... you just don't know you care. 8-[

[seatex]

Linux is freedom...

...from M$ and Apple.

:)

[flytripper]

Thats exactly one of the reasons I switched. Why should I the owner of a bought and paid for installation disk keep having to phone them up to get their blessing when I want to re-install my OS?
O yeah I remember now. Its not MY OS, its THEIR OS. .... They can shove it, I wont stand for it anymore.

[venator260]

The freedom doesn't matter to me either.


I came because it was something to try.

I stayed because of the speed, cost, and lower systems specs (extending the useful life of my PC by several years), as well as the freedom from viruses and spyware. It seems to me that, in general, things are just done better and smarter in Linux. Open Source looks to me to be a better way to write software, but I don't care much about the whole ideology of the thing.

[wrtpeeps]

I agree with the above.

It would also be nice if this didn't turn into a microsoft or apple bashing thread, and people gave their true opinions. :):)

[FlyingIsFun1217]

It was free. It wasn't preinstalled. It wasn't windows. Need I say more?

FlyingIsFun1217

[Barrucadu]

I tried out Linux because a friend persuaded me, and the freedom was certainly an attraction. I can't exploit this freedom, as my programming skills are rather weak, but it is a nice feeling that the freedom is there for when I improve.

[Skripka]

It was free. It wasn't preinstalled. It wasn't windows. Need I say more?

FlyingIsFun1217

It is open source, thus I can tweak as much as I like....unlike OSX.


It is $$$$ free, and has lower hardware requirements than Win.

[lukjad]

First of all, I didn't know about Windows being owned by Microsoft. That is what MS wants. They don't want informed people, they want lucrative drones. I cannot say that it wasn't because of the software freedom because, in my opinion at the time, all software was free. I had what I now know to be a pirated version of Norton, a pirated version of MS Word, a pirated version of Win 98 and who knows what else. I was given these things by people who knew better than I what was legal and what wasn't. I though it was legal and when I found out that it wasn't legal I wanted to get rid of it. I was told by someone that the version of MS Office was pirated and I replaced it with Openoffice at their suggestion. Norton, pirated? Avast! Windows, pirated? (I didn't actually find this out 'til after I completely wiped Windows off my system but the reaction would have (hopefully) been the same.) I had dual booted for a while and found the system to be better than Windows, even though I had no sound. So I decided to take the plunge and became a full time Ubuntuer. No sound, yes, but no viruses, no ads, and all the software was legal.

That is why I chose Ubuntu.

[loell]

Caring about freedom may come later, but, how many of us actually care at the start?

why does it matter? and why do you care? ;)

[wrtpeeps]

why does it matter? and why do you care? ;)

It doesn't matter, it's a curiosity I have to find out how many linux users actually cared about freedom when they changed to use linux (if they ever used anything previously).

[scragar]

my reason for switching was far more because things(and to quote way to many windows users here) "just worked", as opposed to windows where I had a nightmare trying to get it working over 1 week, only to give up. Someone local gave me an ubuntu CD, popped it in and it was working, installed it and it was working, from then on I gave up on windows(which actualy ran better and faster from a virtual machine when actualy installed, go figure(OK, so I wasn't worried about viruses etc on a Vbox, but still point stands)). Freedom didn't come into it until I started playing with it, once I had actualy started using it, and can now get windows running "perfectly"(again, no sound on windows for some reason, and the net is about 1/10 of the speed it is in ubuntu, but atleast it works without crashing all the time), the freedom of ubuntu keeps me using it, not it's compatabiliy(what can I say, I can make it look how I want, not how someone else demands it should look).

[ryaxnb]

I hate MS, though I have nothing against commercial software. Being a kid, I am unable to afford most of it though, unlike Linux.

[cardinals_fan]

I don't have a problem with closed source, but I do have a problem with DRM/lock-in. It's decidedly creepy to use an OS that calls home to its makers.

[flytripper]

drm another ball sucking idea from the company that gave you activex

[wrtpeeps]

drm another ball sucking idea from the company that gave you activex

oh dear oh dear.:rolleyes:

Microsoft did not invent drm, so PLEASE don't turn this into pointless bashing.

[cardinals_fan]

Every time an ActiveX control is enabled, a kitten dies.

Sorry, I couldn't help it. Back to topic :)

[wrtpeeps]

Every time an ActiveX control is enabled, a kitten dies.

Sorry, I couldn't help it. Back to topic :)

:lolflag:

But yea, Stallman rambles on about how linux users are all about freedom. That doesn't really seem to be the case.

[scragar]

Every time an ActiveX control is enabled, a kitten dies.

ActiveX comes enabled by default, does that mean a kitten dies everytime windows is installed?


And back on topic I want to point out that my nephew doesn't have linux installed for freedom, he's just unaware of windows(he's 4 and has used linux from the moment he first had a PC, I made sure of that :P ), so yah, no freedom for him, what I want to know, is how he'll react if he's made to use windows, what with being brought up on a computer that's easy to use, preconfigured to his preferences and doesn't crash(his PC was one I put together from parts I had going spare, pentium 4, 1 GB of ram(dunno why, but I've got tons of 512 sticks but nothing that needs them...)), will be fun to observe.

[flytripper]

bin bash

lol

sorry

they may not have invented it but are behind it somewhat.. any how.

[TBOL3]

I tried it for several reasons. I had bot a mac (a cheap one), and there were no games for it. I had to find games. So I found a few free ones. Anyway, when the I realized I really couldn't do anything with it (do to hardware), I went back to my old PC. But I licked my games, so I took most of them back with me. After a while, I got board of those games. So I searched for more. If found a few, but in my search, I learned that most of them could only run on linux. Well, it just so happened I had an old partition with fedora core 4... So I booted it up. And found out that the game wouldn't install. But I then found out about ubuntu 6.06lts. And I liked it. It was faster, cleaner, and had more games. It wasn't until a few months ago that I started caring about freedom.

[Catharina]

I did not really care about freedom from the start although it made me curious about Linux. That I did not care, was mainly because I did not understand the importance of software freedom at that point.

I switched because I was fed up with Windows and the virus and spyware plagues that come with it. Later I came to understand the concept of free software better and now it is my main reason for using it. I like to see Ubuntu attracting lots of new Gnu/Linux users but also I find it a bit of a shame to see that a lot of them seem not to care about software freedom. Still have hopes that they will some day though:popcorn:

[scragar]

hmn, looks like this thread is pretty much everyone agreeing with the idea of linux offered something else first, then freedom adds another reason to support it, once you've understood the idea behind freedom of software and the benifits it offers

[Ob1]

The average user doesn't have any strong notion of programming so naturally there's indifference towards the concept of free software.

[YaroMan86]

I'm a big fan of free software, but I'm not the type who outright rejects proprietary software. I use Flash 10 and the proprietary nVidia driver because frankly they're better than their open source alternatives Gnash and nv.

[scragar]

The average user doesn't have any strong notion of programming so naturally there's indifference towards the concept of free software.

They still get considerable benefits from it, for example k3b is much better than nero, and free, pidgin supports loads of chat programs and has a much easier interface than MSN or AIM, as well as supporting more than 1 messaging format.

And let's not forget that the most popular antiviruses on windows are all FLOSS

[chris4585]

I do care, I care about the philosophy behind free software, and Ubuntu. Its a wonderful feeling knowing you can change your OS, and suggest things, and help people. I like the feeling

[Ob1]

They still get considerable benefits from it, for example k3b is much better than nero, and free, pidgin supports loads of chat programs and has a much easier interface than MSN or AIM, as well as supporting more than 1 messaging format.

And let's not forget that the most popular antiviruses on windows are all FLOSS

I's unfortunate that they don't care or know. Most people just downloaded these programs and use them, they don't care about the availability of the source code or any other freedom.

[saulgoode]

Someone local gave me an ubuntu CD ... Freedom didn't come into it until ...
Wouldn't you say that freedom entered into it when someone gave you an ubuntu CD? That local someone was granted the freedom to make copies and give them away (and not some ad/share/crippleware copy but the real thing).

[scragar]

Wouldn't you say that freedom entered into it when someone gave you an ubuntu CD? That local someone was granted the freedom to make copies and give them away (and not some ad/share/crippleware copy but the real thing).

I would, but at that time I was unaware of the freedoms, the person didn't even fully explain Ubuntu at the time.
I only tried it because I had a box that was pretty much unusable (and I was running good only 95 on my main box, who needs a powerful computer, all I did was web dev in notepad++ which doesn't need a fantastic computer).

I have done that myself as well though now(there's a good chance if your in manchester, horwich or preston(lancashire, UK BTW) around the same time as I'm there for whatever reason(usualy cinema, but there are other reasons) I'll try to give you an ubuntu CD with the phrase "Free Software for Free People" on the back :P), I need to find a good way to explain why ubuntu is better than windows though, other than the freedom, so far I've just been pushing the DRM and security deals, but not enough people seem to care.

[Tom_ZeCat]

I haven't completely transitioned to Linux only. I have two machines, an Ubuntu one and a Windows XP one KVM-switched together. I'm increasing more and more use of Linux, but I haven't eliminated Windows.

I got interested in Linux first to create a specialized juke box PC out of a very old computer, a Pentium III with 256 MB of RAM. No Microsoft OS would run satisfactorily on it. Oh, Win 98, Win 2K, or Win 95 would run on it, but not to my satisfaction. The Win 9X oses would run, but would crash all the time. Win 2K would run better, but would still crash some on it, and I couldn't get the sound card to work. Ubuntu was the perfect solution.

So, actually, I have two Linux PCs including my juke box clunker. After working with Ubuntu, I knew I wanted to use it more than just on my juke box, so I bought a no OS refurb PC and went from there. I went for Linux because I feel that Microsoft has poor customer service. Microsoft doesn't act based on what their customers want. They act based on what they want. It's not the old Burger King "Have it your way." It's, "Have it Microsoft's way." Microsoft hasn't added anything to Microsoft Office that I actually want since 2002, and even then it was one feature, and nothing else in the entire suite. Then in the 2007 version, they ruined the entire interface. Same thing with Visual BASIC. They orphaned the most popular programming language in the world, replacing it with a different language, the so-called Visual BASIC.net, which was incompatible with code written in previous versions of VB.

I also don't want Windows Vista, nor do most Windows users. It's being forced on people whether they want it or not. Most people want incrimental upgrades to XP similar to what Apple is doing with OS X. I just got tired of Microsoft's arrogance. I realized if I want a PC to work the way I work, I can do it with Linux. I can either code in features that I want myself or I can find plug-ins written by others that do what I want.

It doesn't bother me that companies like Microsoft, Apple, and Corel charge money for their software. What bothers me is when they charge money without giving me value in return for it. (I'm not saying Apple and Corel do that -- I don't use their products.) Vista is a worse OS than XP; MS Office '07 is worse than '03 and earlier, and Visual BASIC.net is absolute garbage compared to Visual BASIC 6 and earlier. I've switched to REALbasic, which is more similar to VB 6 than VB.NET is, and, unlike any version of VB, will compile for Windows, Linux, and Macintosh.

If Microsoft keeps treating its customers the way it does, its empire will crumble, especially if Macintosh prices drop close to PC prices and/or if Linux preinstalled machines become more and more available.

So, my answer to the question is, "Yes." I want more freedom. I want freedom to have a PC that works customized to the way I work. I don't necessarily demand software that's free. That's more of an added bonus. However, I would have been willing to pay money for Linux software if it gave me the features I want and/or let me tinker to change features.

To be fair, Microsoft does allow some customization of the various Office programs via the built-in language, VBA, or through recorded macro keystrokes (which automatically create VBA code). However, why would I keep paying big bucks for Office when Microsoft's professional programmers add absolutely zero features that I want, and change the interface to make it harder for me to use? That's ridiculous.

[Joeb454]

I don't really care, I just prefer using Ubuntu/Linux over Windows, though I still keep Windows around, just in case.

I'm not going to get rid of it, just in case I ever need it :)

[tdrusk]

I see freedom as getting good software for free also, with no catches.

[Bachstelze]

Could someone please define what "free software" means in the scope of this thread? Is it the fake, "free but with three pages of conditions and restrictions", freedom of RMS and friends, of the freedom the dictionary tells us about: doing whatever you want as long as you don't harm others?

If talking about the former, that's right, nobody besides those who are delusioned enough to think it represents true freedom cares about it. The latter, however, everyone cares (or at least should care) about.

[23meg]

You care... you just don't know you care. 8-[

Quoted for emphasis.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=4724690&postcount=63
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=4725157&postcount=71

[damis648]

Thats exactly one of the reasons I switched. Why should I the owner of a bought and paid for installation disk keep having to phone them up to get their blessing when I want to re-install my OS?
O yeah I remember now. Its not MY OS, its THEIR OS. .... They can shove it, I wont stand for it anymore.

+1. Exactly. I bought it. I paid for it. I do what I want with it. They do not control me and my OS!

[sicofante]

I wished freedom came after quality in the minds of developers themselves... I would happily pay for better Linux apps if they weren't free (beer, freedom... whatever) but just better, like Photoshop, Dreamweaver, almost every game, Roboform, Quarkexpress, Freehand, Solidworks... That Stallman "philosophy" and FSF zealotry has scared the hell out of too many companies and that's one of the reasons why we get close to nothing from most tier 1 ISVs.

[L815]

I care because I don't like paying for software.
Luckily I haven't had to fork over a ton of money for suites like office or adobe.

Majority of the programs I use with Windows is OSS or freeware which works on Linux.

But I agree with the OP, freedom isn't the initial motive to move, but it's a reward earned through curiosity :)

[RiceMonster]

i Don't Have A Problem With Closed Source, But I Do Have A Problem With Drm/lock-in.

+1

[SomeGuyDude]

most people who change to Linux from Windows actually don't care about software freedom etc,

I must say I agree with them.

I feel most people change due to the fact that most of the time it doesn't cost a penny

Am I the only one who can't make these two sentiments mesh??

[Bachstelze]

+1. Exactly. I bought it. I paid for it. I do what I want with it. They do not control me and my OS!

Ridiculous. Just ridiculous... Unless in the public domain, software is protected by copyright law. Unless you are the author of a piece of software, you can't do whatever you want with it!

[jomiolto]

I definitely care. I don't want the operating system manufacturer to dictate how I use my computer. I want nothing to do with DRM, WGA or anything like that. Neither do I like having some arbitrary limitations on what hardware my operating system supports (ie. no more than 8GB of memory or only a single processor).

[SomeGuyDude]

Ridiculous. Just ridiculous... Unless in the public domain, software is protected by copyright law. Unless you are the author of a software, you can't do whatever you want with it!

No way! Once you buy something it's entirely your property!

That's why after I bought my DVD of Ratatouille I paid admission to a large showing, and afterwards gave out multiple copies to those who liked it. After all, it's mine, right??

[Bachstelze]

No way! Once you buy something it's entirely your property!

That's why after I bought my DVD of Ratatouille I paid admission to a large showing, and afterwards gave out multiple copies to those who liked it. After all, it's mine, right??

I sincerely hope this message was ironic.

[jomiolto]

Ridiculous. Just ridiculous... Unless in the public domain, software is protected by copyright law. Unless you are the author of a piece of software, you can't do whatever you want with it!

Depends on what you mean by "do". If you mean using the software, then you can do anything you want with FOSS (or at least most of it), because they don't have EULAs that limit their usage.

[L815]

Oh the irony.

Xchat on Linux FOSS
Xchat on Windows 30 day trial + OS

I know why it's that way, I just find it funny; I also get a giggle every time I mention that to fellow classmates :guitar:

[Bachstelze]

Depends on what you mean by "do". If you mean using the software, then you can do anything you want with FOSS (or at least most of it), because they don't have EULAs that limit their usage.

True. But you can't, for example, claim you're the one who wrote it.

[dmizer]

Linux is freedom...

...from M$ and Apple.

:)

no joke, that's the kind of freedom i was looking for. not software freedom. frankly, after 4 years i still have only a passing interest in software freedom but as long as i don't have to use a mac or pc, i'm all smiles.

[Bachstelze]

Xchat on Linux FOSS
Xchat on Windows 30 day trial + OS


Please, please, please. There is something you must understand : Free Software is about freedom, not price.

In the case of Xchat, there is no "Xchat for Linux" and "Xchat for Windows", there is Xchat, and it is Free Software. Anyone can download the source for Xchat, compile Windows binaries from it, and distribute them at no cost.

[p_quarles]

Am I the only one who can't make these two sentiments mesh??
Ah, no. Many people routinely confuse software freedom with freedom from paying for software. I expect they all have the same trouble.

[dacium]

The only people who care are those who understand programming and what it can do for them. Thats probaby 99% of linux users and 1% of windows users. Hence why the overwhelming majority of desktop PC users (at least 99%) don't care about linux and don't run it.

[Bachstelze]

The only people who care are those who understand programming and what it can do for them.

Wrong. In case you didn't know, freedom and programming are two different things. Do you think everyone here is a programmer, or what?

[bobbob94]

Indeed. I can't program but free (as in libre) software is important to me (I guess we can assume that most people prefer free as in gratis software, from the prevalence of pirated commercial software. I don't know anyone with a legal copy of Photoshop, but I know plenty of people who use it...) Computers have become and are continuing to be an important part of most peoples lives, and affect even those who don't have one because so much relies on them. They are an extremely powerful part of our society and having that power under the control of a monopoly private company (or a cartel of such) seems a much worse idea than having such things as open file standards. I know the free software arguments can seem very abstract and unworldy, but I think these issues can have far reaching and important real world consequences...

[eragon100]

I couldn't care less.

I have never cared, I don't care, and I won't ever care.

Ubuntu just runs faster, more stable, more user-friendly, no viruses, and no $$$

I play a ton of commercial linux games, (even pay for them) and sincerely hope that more will come. I also play the open-source games, butnot becasue they are open, but because they are fun to play, and free.

I use opera as my only web browser, and sometimes check interesting sights in google earth.

Got it?

[Bachstelze]

I couldn't care less.

I have never cared, I don't care, and I won't ever care.

Ubuntu just runs faster, more stable, more user-friendly, no viruses, and no $$$

I play a ton of commercial linux games, (even pay for them) and sincerely hope that more will come. I also play the open-source games, butnot becasue they are open, but because they are fun to play, and free.

I use opera as my only web browser, and sometimes check interesting sights in google earth.

Got it?

Well, just because one uses non-free software doesn't necessarily mean one does not care about freedom. I do care about freedom. Very much. All the code I have written in my life so far has been free (and not the "it's free but here's your three pages of restrictions" kind of frre, really free), and unless my employer says so, I see no reason why I would write anything else.

However, there ase some tools that I need, to get some work done or just for my personal entertainment, that are not as free as I would like. But what can I do? The people who wrote them decided that they would not be free, and it's their right, so I deal with it.

[perce]

Although only developers can take full advantage from software freedom as defined by FSF, freedom to use and redistribute the software matters to everybody. And even if I don't see proprietary software as immoral itself, it is very likely to be distributed following business models in contrast with users' interests. For example:

http://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2007/fall/antifeatures/

And don't forget that advantages of freedom to modify are passed on normal users: the live CD is just one example. If GNU/Linux were not released under a license which allows modification and redistribution, there would be no live CD.

[clinux]

most people don't care about software freedom because NOBODY pays for commercial products, ain't that right? i can think a couple of websites from which people "buy" their software...

[wrtpeeps]

I was referring to the RMS style freedom. Thought that was fairly clear actually.

[wrtpeeps]

Oh the irony.

Xchat on Linux FOSS
Xchat on Windows 30 day trial + OS

I know why it's that way, I just find it funny; I also get a giggle every time I mention that to fellow classmates :guitar:

Completely irrelevant to this thread. Windows has multiple free(as in money), opensource xchat versions.

[rudihawk]

I just use Ubuntu beacuse its faster, I prefer the UI and I love its features. No virii and malware is also a bonus!

[wrtpeeps]

A lot of people seem to think that once you purchase a windows license you somehow "own" the product. You get a license to use it.

Same way you get a tv license in the UK (anyone pay this and think they own the content on their televisions?).

[Bachstelze]

And even if I don't see proprietary software as immoral itself, it is very likely to be distributed following business models in contrast with users' interests.

I believe I am old enough to decide for myself whether or not the software I'm using contrasts with my interest, and I don't need Daddy RMS to hold my hand, thanks.

[perce]

I believe I am old enough to decide for myself whether or not the software I'm using contrasts with my interest, and I don't need Daddy RMS to hold my hand, thanks.

You may not need him to tell you what to do, but you still need him and his crew to write software for you, so please don't be so sarcastic.

[Bachstelze]

You may not need him to tell you what to do, but you still need him and his crew to write software for you.

Oh yeah? Like... what? In case you didn't know, the whole GNU thing is just a rewrite of tools that already existed before.

[scottuss]

I think that some of us do care, and that's great. I care a little, I'm glad that I don't have to worry about so many of the restrictions attached to other operating systems.

HOWEVER

The people (real hardcore Linux nerds) who think that Linux will become the OS of choice by pushing the whole Freedom thing are very wrong.

True Story: I installed Ubuntu on my grandmother's computer over XP Home because she saw my installation and liked the look of it and how easy / organised it was. I tried to explain all of the differences between Ubuntu and Windows and all the usual stuff you have to go through with your converts. She seemed to grasp everything, but the Freedom part. She couldn't understand why it was given away for free as in money (she didn't care about free as in anything else!)

She is now a proud Ubuntu user and has convinced my Auntie to use it on her computer. Again, she isn't interested in the Freedoms (apart from price £) that come with it, just the fact that it is a great operating system.

[perce]

Oh yeah? Like... what? In case you didn't know, the whole GNU thing is just a rewrite of tools that already existed before.

Of course there were operating systems of the Unix family before, as well as free implementations of Unix developed in parallel with GNU, but still
GNU is at the base of what you're using. This does not mean of course that you have to embrace the ideology behind its development, but I think the sarcasm towards RMS in your previous post is out of place.

[Bachstelze]

Oh yeah? Like... what? In case you didn't know, the whole GNU thing is just a rewrite of tools that already existed before.

Now I realize that my messages might sound like I kind of hate RMS and the GNU project, which is very far from the truth. The truth is that I completely disagree with the whole philosophy behind the GNU project, and have a completely different vision of freedom. That being said, I've had a few discussions with RMS that were really pleasant, and he is a very nice person. The people who get on my nerves, however, are those who seem to believe that the GNU philosophy is the only way to freedom, and everything else is pure evil.


but I think the sarcasm towards RMS in your previous post is out of place.

The sarcasm was not directed towards RMS himself, but towards the people who do believe that eveything they do in their lives needs his approval. And by the way, he sometimes jokes about them as well, here's one that really made me laugh :


All I can do personally is bless your computer. But if it contains non-free software, it needs an exorcism!

[wrtpeeps]

Now I realize that my messages might sound like I kind of hate RMS and the GNU project, which is very far from the truth. The truth is that I completely disagree with the whole philosophy behind the GNU project, and have a completely different vision of freedom. That being said, I've had a few discussions with RMS that were really pleasant, and he is a very nice person. The people who get on my nervers, however, are those who seem to believe that the GNU philosophy is the only way to freedom, and everything else is pure evil.



The sarcasm was not directed towards RMS himself, but towards the people who do believe that eveything they do in their lives needs his approval. And by the way, he sometimes jokes about them as well, here's one that really made me laughed :

I think you can read my mind. Your last few posts have been spot on!

I also have a problem with people who consider everything that stallman doesn't "agree" with evil. Sheep is all they are.

[perce]

That kind of behaviour you are criticizing is typical of minority movement, and is among the reasons why they always remain in minority. watching "Life of Brian" at least once a year should be mandatory to many people.

By the way, just to distinguish myself from RMS, I use proprietary software, but I try not to depend on it, if possible.

[saulgoode]

The people who get on my nerves, however, are those who seem to believe that the GNU philosophy is the only way to freedom, and everything else is pure evil.
The people who get on my nerves are ones who take a statement such as "business models in contrast with users' interests" and characterize it as meaning "pure evil".

[perce]

The people who get on my nerves are ones who take a statement such as "business models in contrast with users' interests" and characterize it as meaning "pure evil".

It's me who used the words "business models in contrast with users' interests" but, as far as I know, I didn't use the words "pure evil". In fact, I don't give such kind of moral judgments lightheartedly.

[Bachstelze]

The people who get on my nerves are ones who take a statement such as "business models in contrast with users' interests" and characterize it as meaning "pure evil".

I could say the same about the people who take random words that don't even come from the same message, mix them in whichever the hell way is convenient for them, and think they're being really smart.

EDIT: and those who don't understands hyperboles, too.

[saulgoode]

I could say the same about the people who take random words that don't even come from the same message, mix them in whichever the hell way is convenient for them, and think they're being really smart.
I'm glad you caught the ironic nature of my argument. NOBODY in this thread has suggested that commercial software is "pure evil".

When, where, and IF such a criticism is made, then it would be appropriate to confront it. Otherwise you are just knocking down a hypothetical straw man.

[Bachstelze]

I'm glad you caught the ironic nature of my argument. NOBODY in this thread has suggested that commercial software is "pure evil".

The world isn't limited to this thread, and my speaking of "pure evil" was just a hyperbole. If bapoumba happens to come here, she'll tell you what happened to me in a small Ubuntu chatroom on Jabber when I dared to say that I was using another license than the GPL for my code, so you won't think I just make things up.

[wrtpeeps]

Again, it's not for anyone to decide, other than yourself, what license you use for your code.

You own it, it's yours, you can do what you want.

[scragar]

Again, it's not for anyone to decide, other than yourself, what license you use for your code.

You own it, it's yours, you can do what you want.

as long as it's not the GPL v1, gotta use a modern one instead of something so old.


That's not to say of course that you can't, only that you shouldn't(should be an expiration date on licences actualy).

As for why people slated you for not using GPL I'm lost for things to say, GPL is a nice licence, but there are lost's of licences that are just as good, if not better, the apache one being a good example.

[Canis familiaris]

Who cares about GPL and stuff.
I only care that I enjoy my computing.

[geoken]

I didn't choose solely based on the freedom, but if Linux was simply closed source freeware (and everything else was identical) I probably wouldn't be using it. In other words, the freedoms were a deciding factor.

As for the GPL thing, I really like the concept. I would never be upset that someone chose an MIT, BSD or similar license. I just like the 'no leeching' aspects of the GPL. If it wasn't for licenses like that the open source community would have never seen webkit, even with the restrictions Apple did everything they could to keep it away from people.

I don't think there is anything wrong with telling a person "Yeah, you can use my code but whatever you make needs to be shared as freely as I shared my code with you". It would be very hard to have any sort of 'free software movement' without the GPL because for every open source app, there would be a slightly better closed source version made by some person who scoops up the open code, ads a couple of features, then only distributes the binary.

[brokenLockpick]

For me personally I needed the free (as in free speach) part to be able to accept the no cost part. I would 100% distrust a no cost OS if the source wasn't available for review, I'd just assume it was doing something horrible in the background.

[wrtpeeps]

For me personally I needed the free (as in free speach) part to be able to accept the no cost part. I would 100% distrust a no cost OS if the source wasn't available for review, I'd just assume it was doing something horrible in the background.

So, before you install anything, you have a complete review of the sourcecode, just to know what EXACTLY it does?

[dmizer]

For me personally I needed the free (as in free speach) part to be able to accept the no cost part. I would 100% distrust a no cost OS if the source wasn't available for review, I'd just assume it was doing something horrible in the background.

while this is a valid point, i would be far less worried about the potential nasties it might bring. my concern in this situation would be that the individual holding the source would have the power to pull the "free" plug at any time they so desire. and, there goes my OS.

[Bachstelze]

So, before you install anything, you have a complete review of the sourcecode, just to know what EXACTLY it does?

No, but you can assume that someone else did it. The problem, however, is whether the people who did it know their stuff...

[xodus1]

Software freedom i.e. Meaning I made this for $2 you buy it from me for $199. Just face it, It's true we like the freedom of choice, Windows $300, Linux $0 -- Photoshop $350 up, Gimp $free, and so on. I've use Linux over about 15 years, and its only become easy to use (for most of you all) in the past couple of years, but as for me I love the freedom of choice and also to a reason the software freedoms as well, but only if its something like Call of Duty 4, Unreal Tournament 3, btw would be nice if they ran natively on linux, but I'll use vista for them till a native linux installer is provided. I use a blackberry which windows will always be needed or mac os.

Case and Point the only freedom is choice.

[BwackNinja]

The whole freedom stuff didn't hit me until I really got into using it. It is nice how it works, but especially the people you install ubuntu for as opposed to those who install it for themselves don't really know or have much reason to care that it is free beyond any monetary expenses and legality. I actually picked up using ubuntu because my friend asked me if I used linux because I knew so much about computers, I said I didn't use it, was bored and interested (and had 50gb on my 200gb hdd unpartitioned due to the winxp installer not being up to date and able to deal with any hdd bigger than 129gb) so I installed it, had troubles, fixed aforementioned troubles, and then, by the point where I'm installing software from source to get the bleeding-edge stuff, THEN I have this 'free' thing to worry and care about. This free as in freedom stuff only affects the average user when distributing, and I wouldn't be surprised if pirated windows makes the rounds much more than a free and legal liveCD.

Ignoring the legal standpoint, free as in freedom only matters to the programmers, or at least anyone who knows what they're doing enough or wants to help the programmers in any way they can.

Random: Yes, VB.NET is crap. It pretended to obsolete everything I'd already done and implemented a new paradigm (I wasn't able to access and change variables of other windows and controls in those windows in my projects anymore). I stuck with VB6, I can use it in wine. I'm also trying out REALBASIC to see how much I'll have to change in order for me to regain my programming ability in linux. The only other language I can program in is java, which isn't ideal for desktop applications. I know basic c++ but not enough to get very far without learning a lot more. Its annoying being able to only read and manipulate code and not write it when I did it so easily before.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Cheap, fast and being a useful development environment drew me in. Then I fell in love with the free software stuff (and all the amazing leaders behind this). At this point, cheap and fast are just icing; the free software ideal is what will keep me here.

[brokenLockpick]

So, before you install anything, you have a complete review of the sourcecode, just to know what EXACTLY it does?

Ideally this is what I would do, but I don't have that sort of time. I do occasionally look over it when I'm curious about how a certain functionality was accomplished. I'm more comforted by the idea that it's been looked at and can be looked at to try and make sure that there is nothing malicious, which is more than can be said of closed source software.

[aysiu]

There are a couple of ideas people have thrown out that I don't necessarily agree with here.

1. The idea only programmers benefit from software freedom. I haven't really found that to be the case at all. I am not a programmer, but I reap many benefits from freedom software: Open Source for Non-Programmers (http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/2007/07/18/open-source-for-non-programmers/)

2. The idea that caring about software freedom means eschewing proprietary software. I don't see why there needs to be exclusivity. You can care about something without it being an exclusive relationship with it. As a matter of fact, if I had a friend I cared about who said, "If you're also friends with anyone else, then you obviously don't care about our friendship," I'd drop that friend in an instant. Friendship isn't exclusive, and neither is software type. I can actually (*Gasp!*) use both free software and nonfree software. It's amazing, but I somehow manage to pull off such a feat.

Likewise, I care about local businesses, and while I tend to favor local businesses over large corporate chains, I will sometimes shop at a large corporate chain or eat at a chain restaurant instead of a mom-and-pop joint. That doesn't mean I don't care about local businesses. I just don't have an exclusive relationship with any of them.

Do I think the world would be a better place if we have more open source software than proprietary software? Yes. Do I think proprietary software is evil? No. I respect the right of programmers to release their software under whatever license they want to. That is their right. If, however, I have to choose between two programs that both accomplish the task I want to accomplish, I will favor the open source one.

[Methuselah]

Yes, freedom matters to me.

The fact that I merely have the right to use windows in certain specific ways after buying a license, it's increasingly annoying tendency to 'phone home' and possibly keep tabs on me, and its increasing obsession with various DRM schemes made me uneasy. Using windows was threatening to become more and more like computing in a kind of digital police state. I bailed out at Xp.

[drivel]

Well,I do care about that.
People can tweak as they need,and create more useful stuff based on the codes that exist.
More stable and can run on lower hardware.

[original_jamingrit]

So, before you install anything, you have a complete review of the sourcecode, just to know what EXACTLY it does?

I do often look at the source, and sometimes I like to tweak the source so I can get a program to work the way I want it to with hot-keys, and change the verbosity, and what not.

And if it's a popular software project, you can pretty much take for granted that many people who may or may not know better than yourself have done code review. Placing your trust in many fellow users is a lot easier than trusting a single company. Especially when that company doesn't (http://www.lafkon.net/tc/) even trust (http://defectivebydesign.org/) you (http://www.drm.info/) to begin with.

[Tom_ZeCat]

BwackNinja wrote:
Random: Yes, VB.NET is crap. It pretended to obsolete everything I'd already done and implemented a new paradigm (I wasn't able to access and change variables of other windows and controls in those windows in my projects anymore). I stuck with VB6, I can use it in wine. I'm also trying out REALBASIC to see how much I'll have to change in order for me to regain my programming ability in linux. The only other language I can program in is java, which isn't ideal for desktop applications. I know basic c++ but not enough to get very far without learning a lot more. Its annoying being able to only read and manipulate code and not write it when I did it so easily before.

Give REALbasic a shot. It's actually a lot more like VB 6 and earlier than VB.NET. In fact, a lot of VB code and be cut and pasted directly into RB and run right off the bat. Other code can run after only minor modifications. And RB creates executables that are self-contained with no reliance on runtime files, greatly simplifying the setup programs you create. We're talking Windows programming here. I haven't done anything extensive in RB in Linux. Not yet. However, it's what I'm going with. The personal edition of RB for Linux is free (monetarily). Most things in RB that are different from VB are easy to grasp. For example, if you pass a variable from one sub to another and don't specify if it's ByRef or ByVal, in VB it's ByRef by default, but in RB the default is ByVal. This difference has not affected my programming style because I always specify whether it's ByRef or ByVal because I think that makes the code more readable. RB's controls do much the same thing as VB's, but they have different names, and more of them are available by default without having to install extras. You can use many of the same VB tools such as ActiveX controls, calls to the WinAPI, and third party VB controls. However, use of those will make your app only compatible with Windows. You won't be able to compile for Linux or Mac. Since a wealth of intrinsic and third-party RB controls exist, it only makes sense to try to use them instead of Microsoft specific ones.

I would say grab RB for Linux and try out coding in it with what VB knowledge you have. There's a lot of RB help available in RB forums (web-based and mail lists). Many of the RB people who hang out there are very VB familiar. Several times I've posted VB code that doesn't work in RB and have been told exactly how to modify it to run in RB. A lot of RB experts on those forums work for REAL Software. It's in their best interests to help VB programmers become skilled in RB.

By far the largest number of RB programmers are Mac people. After all, RB started out as a Mac language before it branched out to Windows and Linux. That hasn't been a problem for me. They've been willing to help me even though I haven't written RB apps for a Mac yet. I can't till I own one.

In any event, I'm looking forward to creating something for the Linux community in RB. I'm not ruling out learning other languages, but RB is obviously the one that I can get up and running with fastest with given my VB background.

[Cresho]

With linux, I can look up to my heroes like linus, mark, I even have bookmarks of them. With windows, I cannot ever imagine bill gates being my hero after he took my 1000 plus dollars (does third party software count?) on all those expensive and useless software that did nothing for me.

I remember on my first computer, it had a 56k modem and purchased a phone optimizer for net. I spent 40 bucks so that it can tell me that I already had my hardware and software optimized. What a joke. Worst part was that I fall for the hype. I look at bill gates and his windows 98 that I still have, always wondered why my hardware gaved me the blue screen of death. OHH NO! It's not billies fault. It was the hardware I was running it on.

With linux, I put in my cd, booted and I came across a labyrinth of good community based software and the people behind it. They don't charge. They say nothing. These creatures of habit just put out good streamlined software. These are my heros. NOT bill gates, not superman, not batman, not rayman, it is those who are hidden and those who crawl or surf the net and put stuff out anonymously or not. My heroes.


Sorry, that sounded retarted but its true.

[lisati]

I came to Ubuntu partly out of curiosity, and partly because it seemed easier to try out and set up than another Linux distro I'd done some preliminary research on. I decided to stay because it suits me to do so.

[FlyingIsFun1217]

not rayman

http://www.gamesportfolio.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_e_surprised.gif

You take that back!

Nice post though ;)

FlyingIsFun1217

[rune0077]

These are my heros. NOT bill gates, not superman, not batman, not rayman, it is those who are hidden and those who crawl or surf the net and put stuff out anonymously or not. My heroes.


Hey wait a minute, Superman and Batman are hidden too. That's why they have secret identities you know? In fact, I shouldn't be surprised if Shuttleworth puts on a cape and costume at night and fights crime with cool gadgets his spend his fortune developing (okay, I would be a little surprised).

[scragar]

Hey wait a minute, Superman and Batman are hidden too. That's why they have secret identities you know? In fact, I shouldn't be surprised if Shuttleworth puts on a cape and costume at night and fights crime with cool gadgets his spend his fortune developing (okay, I would be a little surprised).

what, you've never heard of "freedom in software man"? he's my favorite superhero, right after "Ignore the idiot when he tells you how hard linux is to set up while spending 1 hour installing windows and another 30 minutes trying to get it configured man"

[Bachstelze]

They don't charge. They say nothing.

Torvalds? Stallman? Shuttleworth? They do charge, and they do say. A lot of things, and not always smart ones.

No offense meant, but you really should grow up a bit.

[rune0077]

what, you've never heard of "freedom in software man"? he's my favorite superhero

Fighting the good fight against his arch-nemesis, Mr. Propriety.

[rune0077]

Torvalds? Stallman? Shuttleworth? They do charge, and they do say. A lot of things, and not always smart ones.

No offense meant, but you really should grow up a bit.

Linus Torvalds always comes off sounding like an arrogant son of a *beep* to me. Having nothing else but his words to judge him by, I really don't think I like the man very much.

[richg]

Linux techies care. They like to break it, fix it, modify it which is ok. Without Linux techies, we would not be where we are now.
Average user wants an OS that works, they do not care what the version is.

Rich

[cardinals_fan]

With linux, I can look up to my heroes like linus, mark, I even have bookmarks of them. With windows, I cannot ever imagine bill gates being my hero after he took my 1000 plus dollars (does third party software count?) on all those expensive and useless software that did nothing for me.
Stalking pervert!

...just kidding :)