Slashdot Mirror

this writeup explains it all.

After giving this a good thorough read when it was first published, I "fixed" my mom's box when she called me up by installing linux on it.

She is even happier now than she was before. Notices no difference what-soever.

When friends try to prop you for a windows cd, don't give it to them. Give them a linux install instead.

Briefly: People mostly get it with a new computer, so they don't actually shell out anything for it and they don't know about the (often hidden) option to omit installation of Windows for cash. Or they pirate it instead of getting Linux, because that's what they are used to.

Operating systems seem to come with culture. Linux comes with "free" culture, and if one uses Linux (forgive me, RMS), one tends to adapt the culture and consider free soft natural state of things.

On MacOS, however, the culture goes like "you pay for everything". Apps are crippled and if you need something good - you pay. In this environment you consider being paid for software natural state of things.

Note, I have never in my life used MacOS. What I have just said is more like theoretical observation.

On windows front this issue is very unclear. People expect everything for free, but it should have a price tag, or it is shit.
I have no idea what developers think there. Do they?

I refer you to this article

STOP PIRATING WINDOWS if you want linux to grow.

This means refusing to hand your cd's over to your friends, refusing to visit usenet or x/y torrent site and download it, etc.

If you present them with the actual cost of windows, rather than the ubiquitous perception of "free", they will be compelled to see the real value...

200 bucks for MS operating system, or free for one that works 99% as well for 99% of users.

You're forgetting that Windows is free anyway.

I don't really see why people view Linux as an alternative to Windows as it's really an entirely different beast. Most of the people (me counted) I know use Linux because that's exactly not wat they want to use, not just a free alternative to windows.

Using Linux instead of Windows because it's free is really no reason at all because, as previously stated in an article posted here, Windows is free (http://articles.tlug.jp/Windows_Is_Free)

If you are that concerned about the patent issues, you can always sell one of the distributions that have signed a deal the Microsoft. I installed Suse 10.02 last night and I have to admit I would be comfortable installing it on my 78 year old mother's machine. It has come that far in usability.

I agree with Dave Gutteridge when he says the real problem is that Windows is free. Think about it. How many people do you know who have walked into a store and paid $200 for a copy of Windows?

If you are that concerned about the patent issues, you can always sell one of the distributions that have signed a deal the Microsoft. I installed Suse 10.02 last night and I have to admit I would be comfortable installing it on my 78 year old mother's machine. It has come that far in usability.

I agree with Dave Gutteridge when he says the real problem is that Windows is free. Think about it. How many people do you know who have walked into a store and paid $200 for a copy of Windows?

I've been a big proponent of the new OS over the past few months, even going so far as loading it onto most of my computers and spending hours tweaking and optimizing it. So why, nine months after launch, am I so frustrated? The litany of what doesn't work and what still frustrates me stretches on endlessly. The upshot is that even after nine months, Vista just ain't cutting it. I definitely gave Microsoft too much of a free pass on this operating system: I expected it to get the kinks worked out more quickly. Boy, was I fooled! If Microsoft can't get Vista working,

http://tlug.jp/articles/Windows_Is_Free/mobile

It is 56K, which takes about 12 seconds to load on a DoCoMo FOMA phone in Tokyo. YMMV. :)

From an interview with Linus Torvalds himself - http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html :

Further more:

So... I'd say you are completely and utterly wrong.

I don't know about the Open Source camp, but the Free camp as led by RMS would strongly disagree with you. RMS has said that if you have proprietary software and your neighbor wants a copy, you're morally obligated to copy it and give it to him. RMS says that even if the proprietary ware is "free" like beer it is still inferior because you cannot modify it. RMS' old story of not being able to use a printer because he didn't have the source code to the driver rings true even today: look at how badly 64-bit Windows is hamstrung because the driver inventory is poor, compared to Linux where 64-bit works quite well because almost all the software and drivers are free and easily modified to run 64-bit.

So RMS would say copy the software, even if it's proprietary, but that the Free software is better.

Linus has said before that he'd probably choose a different licens if had was to choose one today.

(2) commercial software deprives people of vital rights - ie, they are evil.

Commercial software does no such thing. It is proprietary software that deprives people of rights. The GP's point was that it's important to realize that commercial FOSS projects can be good for the community, and note that FOSS part means (among other things) non-proprietary. Or to quote RMS:

You have to be very careful there. Commercial software and Proprietary software are totally different concepts. "Commercial" refers to the financial arrangement of the software. "Proprietary" refers to what the users are permitted to do. Free software must have the freedom to copy, to modify, and have the source code. So proprietary software is mutually exclusive with free software, but there can be commercial software that are free software.[1]

Perhaps that makes it clearer what he thinks. Not that what he thinks matters as much as you claim it does.

[1] Quotation from an interview available here.

HY: About the GNU/Linux argument; have you talked with Richard Stallman about this?

Linus: rms asked me if I minded the name before starting to use it, and I said "go ahead".

I didn't think it would explode into the large discussion it resulted in, and I also thought that rms would only use it for the specific release of Linux that the FSF was working on rather than "every" Linux system.

I never felt that the naming issue was all that important, but I was obviously wrong judging by how many people felt very strongly about it. So these days I just tell people to call it just plain "Linux" and nothing more.

The president of the Tokyo Linux User Group doesn't look too bad either.