Linux Advocate Suggests Using More Closed-Source Software (techrepublic.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Open Source advocate Jack Wallen is a writer for Linux.com and Tech Republic. He predicts that both Windows and OS X will be Open Source within 5 years, writing that "neither Microsoft nor Apple make serious money from operating systems any longer" (with both companies giving away major OS upgrades), but argues that smaller software companies still see close-sourced code as a profit center. So yesterday Wallen wrote a surprising column urging Linux fans to begin considering closed-source software.

"That doesn't mean, in any way, you are giving up on the idea of freedom. What it means is that the best tool for the job is the one you should be using...be that open, closed, or somewhere in between. Should you close your mind to close sourced tools, you could miss out on some seriously amazing applications. On top of that (and this is something I've harped on for decades), the more you use closed source applications on open source environments, the more will be made available."
I'd be curious to hear how many Slashdot readers agree with Mr. Wallen...

Comments

free as in libre not as in beer

[cats-paw]

I'm not giving up the idea of freedom, by giving up freedom.

yeah, i don't think that word means what you think it means.

Re:free as in libre not as in beer

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not giving up the idea of freedom, by giving up freedom.

So, I bought and paid for a copy of the Linux version of Noise Ninja (when they actually made a Linux version), and a Linux version of Bibble Pro (now Corel Aftershot Pro, who still make a Linux version). One is no longer available, the other was bought by a larger company. However, I still continue to use those products, years later, and install them each time I upgrade Linux.

I regret purchasing both of them. First Noise Ninja: they don't make a Linux version any more (sod the bastards), after just 9 years. Second; I have a RAW mode camera, and Bibble supported it 7 years ago. Since Bibble was bought by Corel about 5 years ago, I've been expecting them to discontinue support for Linux. It's only a matter of time, as I continue to install Bibble each time I upgrade Linux. This is what they are against, as it appalls them. Deliberately upgrading a single package, legally purchased without machine specificity, each time you upgrade your PC. Open source would be far better.

Re:free as in libre not as in beer

[Spazmania]

For closed source software to be the best tool for the job, at least one of the following must be true:

1. The best available open source software doesn't do what I need and can't be readily made to do what I need.

2. The closed source software has sufficient APIs to cleanly integrate in to my environment and does a substantially better job than the best available open source software.

3. I just want a throwaway: something cheap that does the job I need done now without requiring any effort on my part. If I throw it away next year, no big deal.

Anyway, those still fighting the closed source/open source divide have missed the boat. The modern threat to open source software is software as a service. When you don't have possession of the object code either and can't even choose to stay with the version you liked, you well and truly have no freedom.

Re:free as in libre not as in beer

[Skinkie]

Also important:
4. It should work, and not annoy me to figure out why and how it is broken.

For any competent user that is able to use a debugger the ability to actually figure out what is broken, and save significant amount of time doing so, is something that doesn't work for closed source software. Close source embraces a philosophy that any outsider is not competent and the product is pure magic. The fact that no public bugtrackers exists for close source software magnifies the root cause.

Re:free as in libre not as in beer

[Lonewolf666]

I disagree about the software as a service being the modern threat to open source software. For the same reasons that one might prefer open source over closed source software, open source is preferable over software as a service. Closed source software is less free than open source, software as a service even less than closed source software.

Assuming that all software as a service is also closed source of course. But otherwise, it would by definition be open source software itself and not a threat to open source software.

Re:free as in libre not as in beer

[secretsquirel]

GPL4: If this software is used for any public facing purpose you must make available the source code.

Re:free as in libre not as in beer

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm... for me, it's slightly different.

1. Does open-source fail do it better, or at least achieve parity?

2. Does the software install on my existing systems with sufficient restrictions so that I can have a relatively high level of confidence that it works as expected (e.g., no automatic phone-home feature, etc.)

3. Does the vendor provide a warranty for the functionality of the software?

4. Will I only be slightly annoyed if I have to stop using the software because it's incompatible with something that I'm already running?

Open-source is not always the clear winner (e.g., very rarely is there a warranty at all!), but a lot of commercial software falls down just as hard.

Software purchased by/for my employer has a slightly different set of standards -- a business should expect to pay for software, after all, so free-as-in-beer isn't an issue there. And access to source is less important if the lawyers can get a fit-for-purpose clause in the license.

Which brings me back to software-for-personal-use: Always always always read the EULA/license. If you get pissed off trying to slog through the document, either for length, or at the number of times you get responsibilities but not rights, and the vendor gets rights but not responsibilities, look for another piece of software.

Re: free as in libre not as in beer

[Anonymous Coward]

AGPL?

Re:free as in libre not as in beer

[dmbasso]

That would actually be the AGPLv3.

Re:free as in libre not as in beer

[secretsquirel]

0h, the more you know..

Re:free as in libre not as in beer

[BasilBrush]

Users can't use debuggers, whether they are competent or not. Only programmers can. Sure, programmers also have software that they use. So then the claim should be any competent programmer that is able to use a debugger... But even then it's wrong. I'm a professional programmer who uses a debugger every day. But I wouldn't dream of wasting my time debugging other people's software that's broken. Throw it away and buy something that isn't broken. It will cost me far less, because my time isn't worthless.

Re:free as in libre not as in beer

[davester666]

,,,the less likely you will be to post on slashdot...

Re:free as in libre not as in beer

[keneng]

Options 1, 2, 3 may seem reasonable, but when there is no open-source that is adequate, it is an opportunity for those who want it to make it happen within open-source. Identifying the missing feature is important and crowdsourcing that feature request among other like-minded individuals seems to be working.

You're absolutely right about "When you don't have possession of the object code either and can't even choose to stay with the version you liked, you well and truly have no freedom." Here is an example of having no freedom to stay with a certain version of the binaries as stated by Trevor Pott which I respect a great deal for his lucidity and ability to to express it:
1)microsoft office tool bar changed to ribbon bar when nobody wanted it breaking the original agreement of service.
2)microsoft "unlimited one drive" cloud storage to "limited 5GB one drive" cloud storage breaking the original agreement of service.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
This isn't just Microsoft. This the big 5 software and the big 5 telecom not listening to their customers. This is the big 5 software and big 5 telecom simply saying "take it or leave it" attitude/approach with their customers. You can see it in their billing arrangements no pre-paid credit cards accepted. You can see it when you move to different software/telecom providers, the big 5 software/big 5 telecom make it very painful to move. This is about doing everything to take away your digital freedom in subtle ways, preventing competition and preserving their cash cows.

You're absolutely right about "software as a service" being a threat to open-source and digital-freedom. As an example, OFFICE365 is attempting to replace office by offering everything through the web-browser. Oddly enough open365 was released recently. Is open365 entirely opensource? Can we install open365 within the lan? Can we build the open365 binaries ourselves? If so as you said we do preserve our digital freedom.

As for the Linux Advocate promoting non-free software on Linux, I disagree with his point of view because it defeats the purpose of going with an open-source operating system. Non-free software is exactly that NO DIGITAL FREEDOM. There has been a compromise made already, BINARY BLOB hardware drivers especially for cpu/motherboard/graphics cards/network card are have always been present and made available in order to simply use the operating-system, but above that is where the line is drawn. Most software-developers would tend to want to make those binary blobs go away, but for the sake of practicality, many throw in the towel and use those binary blobs. Most gamer fans would tend to throw away the os and run windows to get their games running. Valve Steam is certainly a wonderful entry point for gamers to be introduced to Linux and is acceptable provided it resides in a strict jail ensuring the rest of the normal GNU/Linux software repos remain unaffected by its use and especially the learning and "under-the-hood" "do-it-yourself" aspects of GNU/Linux.

BIG 5 TELECOM ARE THE ONES PLACING THE MOST NON-FREE BINARIES ON YOUR CELL-PHONE/INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE.
IT IS TO THEIR BENEFIT IN PRESERVING THEIR CASH COW, BUT IT CRUSHES INDIVIDUALS' DIGITAL FREEDOM.
HOW DID THE BIG 5 TELECOM GET AWAY WITH THAT? "REGULATORY CAPTURE". "Regulatory capture" is another very subtle example of destroying digital freedom through the use of political power.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
The thing about using non-free software and using the same-old same-old internet service providers means they remain cash cows without any breathing room for "incumbents" or disruptive technology players. The illusion of room for opportunity in those niche markets are there, but the reality is those big 5 software and telecom players in either U.S.A. or any other country just buy out/choke an

Re: free as in libre not as in beer

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, closed source simply isn't as useful. Hardware is getting upgraded all the time. When that happens, it's not like you can recompile the closed source. Instead, you completely lose your investment of money to buy the software and time spent learning to use it.

Re:free as in libre not as in beer

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAHAHA...

And therein lies the fundamental problem with open source. It is written by geeks who think the entire world should e populated by programmers who have nothing better to do with their time than try to run debuggers on massive code bases.

This is why open source fails in so many cases. it lacks documentation, it is almost always a bear to setup and operate and usually lacks features that are meant to address usability. Having actually run development and IT departments (and being a developer myself), I can state for a fact that with only a couple exceptions, open source solutions never really quite work properly. They always take a staff of people to work around weird quirks, missing features, broken features, incompatibilities and omissions. In terms of trying to incorporate open source into software projects, again, with very few exceptions, I am unconvinced that the open source projects saved us much time. We often end up having to expend huge amounts of developer time trying to ramp up our own developers on the open source project (which, when dealing with code bases that are trivial in size, is not a trivial undertaking) just to figure out how to fix problems in the code, or even figure out details of how some feature work (because when trying to create robust, reliable, usage systems, the integrations have to be tight - error reporting in particular is almost always a nightmare because each package has their own religion about how it should be done, if it does it at all). All that time represents a loss in productivity because those people are not working on our core value proposition.

So, the moment you start saying "well, you just read the source code and fire up a debugger" you need to realize that you've just lost.

Re:free as in libre not as in beer

[Anonymous Coward]

The suggestion in this article lays the groundwork for a man-in-the-middle attack in open software.

Systemd is bad enough. This suggestion is beyond bad.

Re:free as in libre not as in beer

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Also even if I can doesn't mean I want to. Debugging is hard. Learning someone else's code is hard. Why should I do hard work to use YOUR software? If I'm a dev (and I am) I have enough hard work to do on MY software. It is the same within software teams. I do backend dev work. Could debug and fix front end bugs but instead I email the guy that wrote it. Before for all of us. He/she already knows the code base and has the dev environment setup. They know the coupling between components more than me. If it is a design/lack of understanding something they then learn it and can refactor where else it is broke/not do it again etc.

Fixing bugs on open source is for people that are doing it as a hobby (or employer is paying for it). Most of the time it is easier for a dev to find another provider than to fix bugs in the one they are currently using, at least if you've separated your concerns properly. Oh there's a glitch in how this XML serializer works ... okay here's another one ... and it works, problem solved commit and push. If in the process of finding the problem I get enough info to reproduce or disassemble and even see what the problem is: I'll post a bug.

Also, this post seems kind of silly: smaller software makers ... ie not making OSs? OS ~= other software. An OS by itself provides no value ... you can't do any work with it (not counting text editors and such that might come along with them). Being able to turn your computer on, attach a peripheral etc and have it works is just assumed. If it doesn't we'll by a tablet or something else instead. Other software is directly tied to a business goal. This app manages our billing, this one manages our email etc. That has real value that you can calculate and give to the company developing the software. The OS just limits/expands the range of vendors you can pick from to solve your business needs.

Re:free as in libre not as in beer

[donaldm]

You are quite right most users can't use a debugger or program for that matter, however, they can send in a fault report which is normally available for both open and closed source applications. At least with an open source fault you are more likely to get the problem fixed fairly quickly especially if the fault is deemed to be critical.

When I say "deemed to be critical" I mean that the maintainers or developers will determine this. Too many people have wish lists which in the majority of cases are cosmetic and definitely not critical

Re: free as in libre not as in beer

[Anonymous Coward]

Google TFError works for me 99% of the time. 99% of those times it leads me to a viable solution... the remainder typically dont have a good fix (the recent evolution-mapi borkage for example).

Re:free as in libre not as in beer

[Immerman]

If you regret purchasing them, why keep using them? Clearly you actually still prefer them to the open source alternatives.

Personally I try to steer clear of closed source for core infrastructure stuff - If I don't own my OS, I don't really own my computer, and the dominant closed source OSes are all pretty clear about the fact that I don't own the OS.

For "mission critical" stuff, I insist on open formats. I'll happily use closed source if it's the best tool for the job, and in many cases it's substantially more functional and/or polished than the open source alternatives, but part of being the best tool is not holding my data hostage to my continued product loyalty. Too many programs, open and closed, have been abandoned, eclipsed, or otherwise gone in directions I felt made them no longer the best tool.

For other, non-critical stuff, I don't even insist on that. If I don't care about long term access to my data (calculator history, game saves, etc), or effectively own the software (no activations BS, spying, etc) and am content never getting another upgrade, then I see no reason to worry about whether it's open or closed source. After all, I've had plenty of beloved open-source programs get abandoned as well, and the fact that I or someone else could theoretically adopt them is completely irrelevant - I don't have the time or energy to do so, and apparently nobody else does either.

Re:free as in libre not as in beer

[BasilBrush]

For indie closed source apps, I find the developers to be very responsive to bugs and requests. So the difference then seems to be small scale developers vs big developers. Far more so than closed or open.

Re:free as in libre not as in beer

[ronruble5]

One more point: 5. You should have some reasonable reasons to believe that the closed-source app will not be killed, abandoned, or otherwise made unusable for your purposes for a period of time long enough to provide a safety factor. If this is for business, a support contract with (substantial) financial penalties is probably needed. And active peer support forums can also provide a safety factor. But you need to be prepared to dump and replace if the software does become abandoned.

Open source Windows in 5 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll believe that when me shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet.

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[AmiMoJo]

Microsoft and Apple won't open source their operating systems. They rely on DRM and/or spying to make money, and an open source version without that stuff would undermine their profits.

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. I didn't bother going past the first sentence after reading that pile of stink. What a buffoon.

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the reason neither of the companies will ever open source their OS. Why would anyone use the commercial version if the open source version could be modified to not spy or shit on their users? Force feeding new "features" would result into similar forking as happened with Devuan or Cinnamon/Mate.

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um mate, you have purple shite on your nose.
Just saying.

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Farva, you are not stopping me!

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the reason neither of the companies will ever open source their browser. Why would anyone use the commercial version if the open source version could be modified to not spy or shit on their users? Force feeding new "features" would result into similar forking as happened with Chromium or Palemoon/IceCat.

FTFY.

Snark aside, on second thought that is even more apt as Microsoft actually has open sourced parts of their browser in an attempt to compete.

Re: Open source Windows in 5 years?

[Billly Gates]

Let's see? You can run Linux on Azure, vew the source code of c# and .net, make Android software and run the emulator under visual studio, run the full non crippled version of studio for free, run visual studio code and visual studio online natively on Linux, run MS office on Android, run Ubuntu natively on Windows 10 anniversary edition, etc.

MS is definitely quite different than when Bill Gates was at the helm. Yes, prepare for purple shit I believe MS is heading that direction to attract more app developers

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[BasilBrush]

People still use Google's spyware version of Android, rather than the open source version.

But I agree that neither Microsoft nor Apple will open source their OS. There's no benefit to them from doing so. Apple in particular uses Mac OS as a feature to sell their hardware. Letting people use OSX or iOS on any hardware would be completely completely negative for them.

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[rtb61]

The reality is there is room for both open source software and closed source software in the market. For overall socio-economic cost efficiency as a whole, the core software should be free open source software, the software the majority of people, corporations and governments use on a day to day basis, this managed by a consortium of governments and universities, with inputs from the rest of society, individuals and companies. It just makes sound economic sense to do it this way as it provides by far the most cost efficient solution ie making it by far cheaper for the majority.

Beyond the core applications there are a whole range of software solutions that can be closed source and work within that overall framework of free open source software (in terms of compatibility rather than sharing code).

So should Apple or M$ open source their OSs, only if they no longer support them, beyond that it would be smart for them both to do both, a Linux version and their own in house version, it makes sense to do both. So the more business/education/government is free open source ie Linux and the private use, the operating system as an appliance more for content consumption and gaming and social interaction is closed source but remains data compatible with open source and some applications are also compatible with various operating systems (applications used in education and government interaction).

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[intrico]

I would have said the same thing 5 years ago if someone told me at the time that SQL Server might be on its way to Linux.

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Otherwise known as "theme" or "skin".

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[loonycyborg]

There's really no reason for DRM system to be closed source. Only encryption keys need to be secret, not entire system.

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[keneng]

You made my weekend :)

Re: Open source Windows in 5 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Encripted keys wont prevent circunvention. Closes source does.

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[gweihir]

That is actually wrong. As the software is per design under attacker (= user) control, you need to keep far more secret than the keys. Kerckhoffs's principle does not apply to this situation.

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think, quickly more than slowly, the browser is becoming the OS. The browsers are all open-source. So, in reality, Microsoft has already open-sourced their upcoming OS ... they just may not have realized it yet. There is a reason why they give away WIndows 10. The future is a browser, and a whole heap of online services. Nobody will care if you compiled your own browser/OS.

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[loonycyborg]

I don't see how it follows. You can modify software even if it's closed source. It's still under user's control. You can state that doing so is illegal or ensure integrity using signing, but this approach works exactly the same with open source. It doesn't change anything at all.

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[gweihir]

Yes, clearly you have no real clue how DRM works.

The biggest danger to DRM is exactly the user changing code. Ever heard, for example, of people that crack DRM of games? With binary-only, this is however massively more difficult, so DRM has some chance in the real world as long as no source code is available.

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[Aighearach]

I'll believe that when me shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet.

My shit turns purple whenever I drink fresh beet juice! A nice magenta color. Colors the whole bowl, too. First time it happened I thought I was gonna die, until I woke the rest of the way up and thought about it more carefully. Carrot juice produces a nice light orange color that sticks to the paper. The cheap juicers produce less color than the good "slow masticating" types, which crush the cell walls and release more goodies.

I understand the Japanese have various products to add fresh scent.

I'm quite sure purple sherbet shit is gonna happen first. It might be happening already.

Re: Open source Windows in 5 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

It obviously isn't working too good. I can goto TPB and download any AAA game I want.(single player mode, offline).

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[loonycyborg]

Code being closed means next to nothing to DRM crackers. They just undo encryption/obfuscation and RE it with IDA Pro or some other code analyzer or disassembler. No source being available can only hamper people who try to be law abiding or can't spare extra effort to contribute to closed systems(which is pretty much everyone except DRM crackers).

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[gweihir]

That is so far removed from reality, I will not even comment on it.

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[loonycyborg]

How is it removed from reality when so many DRM schemes were reversed and then crackers posted detailed accounts of how they did it? Anyone who isn't aware of this is most definitely ignorant of issues surrounding DRM systems.

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

But people would know the software capabilities, thus it won't be opened.

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

"There's really no reason for DRM system to be closed source. Only encryption keys need to be secret, not entire system."

Wrong, relevant topics include the analogue gap and reverse engineering.

Read the license

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all open software requires you to keep it open sourced. The MPL is a good example of this and it commonly used in open source projects.

Parts of OS X are already open source

[laffer1]

The Mac OS X kernel and many other system components are already open source and available on Apple's developer site. This has been the case for years.

Similarly, Microsoft has started to open source .NET, ASP.NET and related tech as well as their plan to bring SQL Server to Linux. I think at this point a mix of closed and open source is already happening. Even in the Linux world, some people run Oracle or IBM software that is commercial on linux. This isn't a new thing.

Re:Parts of OS X are already open source

[Anonymous Coward]

Open Source means more than that the source code is downloadable and readable. It also means that the source could be relatively easily compiled if you want to fork it for your own use, and also that you can incorporate improvements and there is an organization of peers who you can engage with to incorporate your improvements into the main source tree of the software product.

Apple doesn't do these things. There was a time when there was a downloadable and buildable Darwin distribution, but those days are long gone.

Re:Parts of OS X are already open source

[Lonewolf666]

Unfortunately, many other system components are not open source, such as the drivers. Over ten years ago, when there were no open source AMDs GPU drivers (yet), I wondered why people don't adapt the Mac OS X drivers (Macs were using ATI GPUs at the time). Some browsing in the repository showed me that those parts were not published. Overall, my impression is that Apple is keeping some parts open (good) but has no interest in opening up the rest. Which is completely legal of course, but they are not exactly driving open source either.

Other vendors "tactically" open source parts of their ecosystem, while keeping the presumably most profitable parts to themselves. An example would be AMDs GPU drivers, where they keep the drivers for the professional cards proprietary. Overall still a good thing IMHO, Linux already profits from much improved driver quality and stability.

Google is actually going the other way, by making their newer Android apps increasingly closed source and letting the open source versions languish. Sure you can still get those, but the gap to the latest closed source apps is increasing, not shrinking.

Re:Parts of OS X are already open source

[laffer1]

You're not wrong, but I think open source developers find ways of making code difficult to use as well. For example, the GNOME project seems to hate non Linux operating systems. Many tools are pushing systemd or wayland integration now.

One can argue that since it's open you can re-implement systemd or write a wayland compositor yourself but this is significant work and it's also a moving target. Just because something is open, doesn't mean it's useful.

We all forget that sometimes.

Re:Parts of OS X are already open source

[rahvin112]

And yet the open darwin project shutdown entirely because Apple made it impossible to keep an open version of the kernel around wasting developer hours and generally disrespecting the developers involved.

As a result everyone abandoned the project and Apple was happy about it. Apple OS X is not open source and doesn't support it.

Re:Parts of OS X are already open source

[Eravnrekaree]

The solution here is for Gnome to simply turn off the features that depend on systemd when running on another OS, as for wayland, I am not fond of that myself and the problems it fixed could have been fixed with some simple X11 extensions that would protect backward and forward compatability

Re:Parts of OS X are already open source

[Anonymous Coward]

GNOME is mostly developed by Red Hat, as is systemd. What interest do they have in compatibility with non-Linux systems?

Re:Parts of OS X are already open source

[Anonymous Coward]

GCC has made an art of making their code unusable to anyone else, all just to spite the BSD people who they see as the enemy.

Re:Parts of OS X are already open source

[Lonewolf666]

I've read that the stated reason was making forks difficult. But that is rarely a good idea:
Parts of the industry have invested into LLVM/Clang instead, and now GCC has real competition. With a permissive, non-GPL license that Stallman must really hate ;-p

As an anti-smoking advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest everybody smoke cigarettes.

Re:As an anti-smoking advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to start smoking, you should smoke a pipe. You'll look like a distinguished gentlemen and it smells a hell of a lot better.

Re:As an anti-smoking advocate...

[adhdengineer]

cigars are way cooler tho. with a nice big glass of whiskey..

EditorDavid

[Anonymous Coward]

EditorDavid:
"Civil Liberties Expert Argues Snowden Was Wrong"
"Linux Advocate Suggests Using More Closed-Source Software"

+1 For mentions articles like this.
-10 For thinking they are worth shit.

Re:EditorDavid

[bn-7bc]

EditorDavid: "Linux Advocate Suggests Using More Closed-Source Software"

What ever happened to using the right tool for the job regardless of wether it is Open source or not, that said, if 2 solutions of equal suitability is found I don't see any problem in giving preference to the open source one

Re:EditorDavid

[gweihir]

So that is the root-cause of the problem of the recent influx of stupid stories on /.

I predict

[WizADSL]

I predict Jack Wallen will regret that statement within 5 years

Re:I predict

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the first time stupid statements from Linux.com have been posted on Slashdot.

And what must be done to TRAITORS?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, to be hanged by the nuts until they are dead.

Re:And what must be done to TRAITORS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Men will never be free until the last Microsoft user is strangled with the entrails of the last Apple fanboy.

Fall down and hope to miss the ground

[gavron]

He's wrong on all counts.

- Apple will not be open-sourcing their OS modifications to BSD

- Microsoft will not open-sourcing their OS

- NEITHER OF THOSE POINTS Is relevant to software applications available for LInux
      (In other words even if both Apple and Microsoft open-sourced their OSs that has
        nothing to do with application availability under Linux)

Finally regardless of all the above, FOSS supporters aren't here to "get more apps".
We want freedom to enjoy our apps as per the freedoms of open source software.
Sure, we COULD have MOARE apps. If they're closed-source or blobs we don't
want them.

Ehud
Tucson AZ
It's hot here, but not as hot as the hell that those who want to adopt closed-source
software on Linux will burn in.

Re:Fall down and hope to miss the ground

[mccalli]

Who's "we"? You might not, but I can tell you I was happy running closed source on Linux. From VMware Server through to binary graphics drivers, I was just fine. Different people may have different aims.

Re:Fall down and hope to miss the ground

[geek]

It's hot here, but not as hot as the hell that those who want to adopt closed-source
software on Linux will burn in.

This is a religion for you............ I think you need to step away and get a glimpse of reality for a while.

Re:Fall down and hope to miss the ground

[whoever57]

Who's "we"? You might not, but I can tell you I was happy running closed source on Linux. From VMware Server through to binary graphics drivers,

I can't imagine why. VMWare on Linux is nowhere near as effective as KVM. The only reason to use VMWare on Linux is compatibility of guest images.

Re:Fall down and hope to miss the ground

[turbidostato]

"The only reason to use VMWare on Linux is compatibility of guest images"

The only reason to use VMWare is ignoramus management mandating so.

Re:Fall down and hope to miss the ground

[Zontar The Mindless]

You may think you're speaking for others, but I'm equally sure that you're speaking only for yourself.

Re:Fall down and hope to miss the ground

[Anonymous Coward]

your a pretentious idiot, go look up apple darwin and try to stop spouting utter shit.

Re:Fall down and hope to miss the ground

[Aighearach]

Well thankfully, you doing so doesn't cause it to end up on my computer.

A counter-example isn't even an example, in this case. You missed the point of what you replied to.

Also, you probably "were" happy running it because you're "not" an open source user, and "are" running a closed OS. But you "did" try it for awhile, but not all the way.

Re:Fall down and hope to miss the ground

[Aighearach]

you're not your

Nah, screw that

[vadim_t]

I want more open source stuff, not more free stuff. I don't want more closed source applications on Linux, I want more open ones. Linux moves fast, and any closed source software is a pain in the ass.

There's also that free as in beer but closed source is pretty much synonymous with "we track your every move", because they've got to pay the bills somehow.

Hell, Windows 10 costs money, and it has bloody ads in the start menu. Screw that.

Re:Nah, screw that

[Aighearach]

I want more open source stuff, not more free stuff.

I don't. I just want the devs to stop making changes other than fixing what is broken. I've had the software I need for years.

Windows Advocate Suggests Using Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

MSDOS Advocate Suggests Using Plan 9

see where this is going?

Re:Windows Advocate Suggests Using Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

What license does Bell Labs use/

Re:Windows Advocate Suggests Using Linux

[tepples]

Wikipedia's article about Plan 9 claims that Alcatel-Lucent (formerly Bell Labs) has released the Plan 9 operating system under GPLv2 and Lucent Public License. Both are free software licenses, though FSF believes that the LPL's choice of law clause is problematic.

Hackintosh

[Anonymous Coward]

Due to the possibility of creating a hackintosh computers, MacOSX will never become fully open source. Possibly more open source but never fully because they need to protect their hardware devision. It is their hardware devision that pays for OSX development. The free updates are not free - you just pre-paid when you purchased a Mac.

Re: Hackintosh

[Anonymous Coward]

There are already tons of hackintosh mods and tutorials Out there. What are you talking about? It's closed source and people still build them.

This is not a new argument

[twistedcubic]

"Use the best tool for the job..." Now remember, we wouldn't have Git if it were't for some stubborn activist who ignored admonishments from high ranking Linux developers which inspired Linus to write it. Git is revolutionary because it is free software. Bitkeeper was just "the best tool for the job." Notice how we have several companies making crazy money from using Git (like GitHub), so there's something in it for the "profit motive" types as well.

Re:This is not a new argument

[Kjella]

"Use the best tool for the job..." Now remember, we wouldn't have Git if it were't for some stubborn activist

This is the open source walled garden philosophy. As long as we make a major stink about any non-free software and chase them away to keep the sanctity of the garden, sooner or later an open source alternative will appear. If Photoshop came to Office it'd be bad for GIMP. If MS Office came to Linux it'd be bad for LibreOffice. Competition is bad. Choice is bad. If the open source alternatives are shit then you either eat shit or create a better open source solution. And those are the only two options.

The only reason that ended well is that you had Linus to save the day. Again. Otherwise he'd probably just have to go back to using tarballs and shooting his kernel project in the foot because of RMS & friends, his project is a massive success despite all attempts to destroy it because of some ideological rant. The older I get, the more I have the feeling that RMS won the lottery convincing Linus to use the GPL and that GNU/Hurd would have been a total disaster that never saw any real world use.

When some people talk you should think letting proprietary software run on Linux was like letting the snake into the Garden of Eden. So now Steam runs on Linux, bringing with it closed source games and DRM. It still doesn't stop anyone else from continuing to make open source games without DRM. What's wrong with winning on merit and not on ideology? Open source is great when it does the job. Heck, for the price and flexibility I'll put up with a few warts. But when I really need something else, I'd like it to be available. I don't want to be in my own walled garden of open source for my own protection.

Sun Microsystems

[Luthair]

Remember when they were opening up all their software because they had a hardware guy in charge and would make it back in hw? *flushing noise*

Re:Sun Microsystems

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be interesting if we ever get the full story about what brought Sun down, but giving software away for free wasn't their main problem. The indications from reading between the lines were turf wars inside Sun that made it difficult/impossible to transition the company to the realities of not only Linux but Windows becoming a stable server OS, combined with the inability of their SPARC division to delivery competitive processors.

Which isn't to say that I agree Apple with open source Mac OS or iOS, because they do have value in restricting it to their hardware.

Microsoft on the other hand appear to be making the transition to a service provider with Azure, and making their main software (Office) available on all platforms, at which point Windows doesn't have the monetary value that it currently does.

Re:Sun Microsystems

[Gavagai80]

I think Sun's move to open source was more of a desperate ploy to become relevant again through the mistaken belief that people would flock to their software if it were free (when, of course, nobody actually wanted their software at all).

Re:Sun Microsystems

[orasio]

Posted from my Android phone.

Re:Sun Microsystems

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO, Sun built too big and ignored the threat of 2 socket commodity hardware. All of their "good stuff" was in their huge E10000, SF15000, M9000 size machines, which were awesome at the things they did well ... what they didn't do well was sell in quantity.

Re:Sun Microsystems

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this meant to be ironic? There's no Sun software* in Android.

(*software licensed from Oracle, that is)

Re:Sun Microsystems

[laddiebuck]

What kind of idiotic assertion is that? Sun invented java, Android runs on java. Not the jvm, but still java.

Re:Sun Microsystems

[Anonymous Coward]

Read what I wrote: there's no Sun software in Android.

If I write a program in a language Sun created, does that make it Sun's software? No.

Sun open-sourced Java. If it weren't for Google using the APIs there would be no debate about whether Android owes anything to Sun. If it hadn't been Java, it would have been some other language.

No thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

the more you use closed source applications on open source environments, the more will be made available.

Why would I, hypothetical FOSS advocate, want more closed-source applications?

Re:No thanks

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Well, obviously, to get even more vendor lock-ins and data files you can't read than you already have!

Re:No thanks

[Intron]

the more you use closed source applications on open source environments, the more will be made available.

Why would I, hypothetical FOSS advocate, want more closed-source applications?

Games.

Microsoft doesn't make much money on OS? Eh?

[Kartu]

Seriously?
https://www.microsoft.com/inve...

Re:Microsoft doesn't make much money on OS? Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're citing financial data from six years ago. In addition, Windows and Windows Live are combined into one category.

Dogma Alert!

[wjcofkc]

For as long as I can remember, the Open Source community has been staunch in their attitude of FOSS only while also screaming bloody murder that FOSS must and will go fully mainstream.

Personally, I have long held that this approach is not productive and is even destructive. This thinking has set the Open Source world back for too long. I have been using Linux and Open Source software since 1996 and have always perceived this as a dogmatic approach. You can't have your cake and it too. A few years ago I used Macs along side Linux. It was a work thing but I used OS X for years. How did I work that? I ran and enjoyed the commercial software on my Mac, however, with X Windows already built in and having a great console as well as Darwin Ports. I was able to still use all of the software I used on Linux. It was a best of both worlds. Open and closed source do not have to be mutually exclusive, as I proved to myself. As it always has been, I am overwhelmingly a Linux user. It used to be I kept a "just in case" Windows box around. With Wine working so very well these days. The Windows box is collecting dust while I go ahead and install closed source Windows software for those areas where Linux lacks. That sort of leveraging works very well for me.

So there you go folks, food for thought.

Re:Dogma Alert!

[stinerman]

The Open Source folks are generally about it being a better development model. On a long enough timeline Open Source software will outperform proprietary software. It will become the best tool for the job.

Free Software advocates are more like what you describe. RMS has said on many occasions his goal is not technical superiority, but freedom (as he defines it). He screams bloody murder that proprietary software is morally and ethically wrong, but he's not really concerned if that retards its adoption. He's not interested in using or recommending proprietary software even if it "helps the cause" at the end of the day.

Re:Dogma Alert!

[wjcofkc]

The Open Source folks are generally about it being a better development model. On a long enough timeline Open Source software will outperform proprietary software. It will become the best tool for the job.

While I am not disputing the superiority of the dev model, the Linux kernel be a prime example, past that the time line you speak of has proven to be longer than fast paced industry is willing to slow themselves down for. Granted, if such models had been adapted to commercial software, we would likely not be in the malware apocalypse we are in now. Unfortunately that is just not how it works. Best tool for the job is far to broad a statement, unless you are already on Open Source developer, then yeah.

Re:Dogma Alert!

[Dadoo]

For as long as I can remember, the Open Source community has been staunch in their attitude of FOSS only while also screaming bloody murder that FOSS must and will go fully mainstream.

To be more accurate, you remember OSS software folks being combative, and the reason you remember that is because closed-source software people have fought us every step of the way. We don't have a choice but to be combative, because it's the only way to hold our ground.

Re:Dogma Alert!

[Gavagai80]

If the open source community were about something other than advocating open source, it would need to renamed.

Re:Dogma Alert!

[wjcofkc]

Multi-Source? Anyhow, it's all about moving forward.

Re:Dogma Alert!

[turbidostato]

"This thinking has set the Open Source world back for too long."

That's exactly why I can't have a corporate laptop running Ubuntu working for one of the biggest banks in the world on an internal OpenStack deployment, which I report about using LibreOffice.

Oh, wait!

Re:Dogma Alert!

[BasilBrush]

Most "closed-source software people" don't even know you are there. Of those that do, the vast majority don't care.

The reason you guys are scrappy, is because you feel like a tiny minority.

Re:Dogma Alert!

[Aighearach]

No, the people screaming are just internet trolls that you confused with being the "open source community." Most of them are posting from windows, which they "must" run because they mostly use their computer to play games.

Actual FLOSS users don't care what you're running, or if you consider what they're already doing to be "mainstream" or not. What value would that bring me? More lame users in forums? That benefits who, how?

Re:Dogma Alert!

[Anonymous Coward]

>Most "closed-source software people" don't even know you are there

For every 1000 of those, there is one corporate lawyer who really, really does know we exist.

Re:Dogma Alert!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's because you are dogmatic and have a city sized chip on your shoulder.

One sentence says it all..

[golgotha007]

>> What it means is that the best tool for the job is the one you should be using..

I couldn't agree more.

Re:One sentence says it all..

[fisted]

I'd pick a tool that I can debug over one that i cannot, even if the latter seems superior

Re:One sentence says it all..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd pick a tool that I can debug over one that i cannot, even if the latter seems superior

I'll take the tool that I don't need to debug. I want to USE the tool to create something else. I don't want to spend my time fixing the tool before I can use it.

Re:One sentence says it all..

[golgotha007]

Then it seems that a tool you can debug is the right tool for the job.

Re:One sentence says it all..

[fisted]

The right tool? Yes, obviously. The best tool? Not necessarily. Debugability is pretty much orthogonal to whatever job the tool is supposed to do when it behaves as it should.

They never did

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple always made their money selling hardware, which came with the OS. Microsoft always made their money primarily on Office. Getting Windows on all the computers was mostly just a way to keep everyone using Office.

it was never about money

[Gravis Zero]

What he seems to be missing entirely is that free software isn't about the money, it's about freedom. I admit I've used closed software when it was convenient, even one of the programs he listed, Insync. It seemed like it was a perfect solution but after a while I ran into performance issues and without being able to debug the process to identify the cause, I could only report the bug as best I could which resulted in a "can't reproduce, ticket closed" situation. So now, I have software that works kinda but I cannot fix or even say what needs to be fixed. This is the true cost of closed-source software.

Re:it was never about money

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

Re:it was never about money

[Anonymous Coward]

Hundreds of Millions of computer users around the world can barely or not at all afford to pay $100 for a piece of software. They need free-as-in-beer software to write documents, communicate with their friends and view media of various kinds. And the operating system to run those apps on, etc. Software freedom is not remotely their main concern.

Re:it was never about money

[tepples]

Hundreds of Millions of computer users around the world can barely or not at all afford to pay $100 for a piece of software.

How much did they pay for the hardware on which to run it?

Re:it was never about money

[Anonymous Coward]

Given how in this day and age you can find perfectly good & capable computers lying around curbs, dumpsters, etc. for anyone to take I'd say between free and dirt cheap.

Re:it was never about money

[Stormwatch]

How much did they pay for the hardware on which to run it?

Not necessarily much. You can buy a nice refurbished PC for $100, and it will be perfectly sufficient for people who don't play modern games or do heavy graphics work - that means most people. Then you could spend another $100 on the operating system, $100 on the office suite, $100 on this and $100 on that... or just grab some Free software.

Re:it was never about money

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? That's the train-wreck of thought going through your mind? Some people have also offered others money to take their computers off of their backs, so with your reasoning no one pays anything for a computer these days, but rather earn money when obtaining one. Idiot.

Support business model doesn't always work

[timmyf2371]

It would be nice if all software was open source, but i don't think the business model always works. I think we have to recognise that software which is open source (free libre) quickly becomes available via other sources (legally), even if the original source charges for it.

For big organisations like Red Hat, despite the software being repackaged and made available for free as in beer, they make a lot of money on the support contracts for enterprise companies. So it works well for them.

For smaller companies or even one man shops, the business model of support for a fee just doesn't work. I bought Reflector and a particularly useful browser tab recorder in the past six months for business purposes. Would they have been developed if they had been released under an open source license? Probably not as the developer would not seen value from it.

Re: Support business model doesn't always work

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny you should mention reflector... It started as a free version. Going to paid has spawned a number of alternatives though like ilspy and dot peek

Re:Support business model doesn't always work

[turbidostato]

"It would be nice if all software was open source, but i don't think the business model always works."

Of course the business model of selling licenses to use software that doesn't need licenses to be used doesn't always work.

Maybe it is the business model which is the problem. I for one much better prefer a business model that pays for writing the damn software, for instance.

Desktop vs Server

[freakingme]

I don't really care for the software on my desktop, as long as it works. Having said that, the only paid and closed source piece of software on my desktop is my IDE (being a developer and sysadmin). However, on servers, serving public facing services I'll probably always use open source software. If I need a bug fixed or a new feature implemented I don't want to rely on external parties. Sure, there's tons of contracts that you could sign, but experience learns that eventually the vendor isn't able to supply, and you'll need to fix things yourself.

"switch to Windows, that's where the apps are"...

[mlts]

I have seen this argument since the dawn of Linux: Drop what you are doing, join the rest of the world and run Novell/MS-DOS/Windows, because that is what the "cool kids" are using, and where the applications are.

How about no? Desktop Linux is getting to a point where it is viable for day to day work tasks, and gaming is becoming not just a wish, but actually something coming around (slowly but surely). Going back to having to use Windows or a closed source OS will set Linux back by years. The fact that Linux is a decent desktop OS is why MS is deciding to fold and play in the Linux ecosystem. If people and companies go back to "closed source, good, F/OSS bad", I can see MS pivoting again, swinging deals to eradicate Linux in the server rooms in return for cost breaks come true-up time.

As of now, the only two MS products that are a must have in a company are AD and Exchange (and even those are debatable). I'd rather see F/OSS alternatives which might take some work, but can be used, as opposed to having to "surrender" and be forced to vendor lock-in.

Right..

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the open source spirit is all about profit.

Sounds like a fucking realtor...

[Chas]

The market's up! It's a good time to buy/sell!
The market's down! It's a good time to buy/sell!
The market's crashing! It's a good time to buy/sell!
The market is so fucked you shouldn't buy or sell right now! It's a good time to buy/sell!

So this dumbshit is advocating closed source so we can lock ourselves into proprietary software, hoping that "someday" the owners of the proprietary shit MAY open source it. "Out of the goodness of their hearts."

Dude needs to stop huffing his compressed air cans... He's delusional.

Sounds nice on paper

[ZeroWaiteState]

Using lots of closed source software sounds good on paper. On some cases it makes sense if you are doing something in a niche area and closed source is far more robust. However, consider what you give up: If something goes wrong, you have no tools to figure out why. That means a support agreement for as long as you rely on it, in perpetuity. You can only incorporate said software in ways permitted by the copyright holder. Unlike open source systems where you can fork the code if there is a problem with the upstream developer, in the closed source case you must accept any ongoing license changes as they occur or stop using their code. Security back ports are impossible. The ownership of closed source systems changes frequently just like in open source. However, you are completely at the mercy of whoever acquires them for reasons explained above. The fact that software is closed source (meaning you have no way of knowing code is infringing) does not protect you as a user from patent infringement claims, unless the license agreement offers such indemnity. Porting to new hardware architectures often requires virtualization or emulation (such as on mobile). Cross compiling isn't possible without vendor support. You are often restricted when it comes to deployment (management of key servers etc) In the case of zero-cost closed source, the price actually bring paid is usually consenting to various types of surveillance. In closed source software, file storage formats are often secret as well, in some cases protected by patents. If you stop using the software in this case, you no longer have a non-infringing method of accessing your own data.

Re:Sounds nice on paper

[Gavagai80]

Of course, expensive non-redistributable commercial software can provide source code too (as mine does) and that can address some of the issues.

One Word

[PvtVoid]

Mathematica.

Until somebody comes up with an open-source Mathematica clone (and manages to survive Wolfram's lawyers), the world will never be 100% open source. Mathematica is unique, and is decades ahead of its nearest equivalent.

Re:One Word

[Anonymous Coward]

SageMath is getting better and better. They released a new version last week.

Mathematica, on the other hand, is just getting more bloated and bloated and bloated, with more bullshit user interface features, and with more bullshit DRM, and very few technical mathematical/algorithmical improvements.

And Maple is just as bad. The "classical maple", whose worksheets are ".mws" files, was nice and fast. The "new modern maple", whose worksheets are ".mw" files, is a slow bloated piece of shit written in java, which takes forever to load and do anything. It suffers from the same problem as Mathematica: new versions get cranked out every year, and these versions provide very little mathematical and technical improvements, and a ton of new useless gimmicks, like "Mapplets", and interactive-this, and interactive-that. Maple is becoming a toy. Might be fun for an undergrad learning calculus, but a nightmare for a real scientist or engineer.

SageMath, on the other hand, with each successive version, is improving mathematically and technically, without adding useless bloat. And even if the developers went crazy and started adding bloat in the future, you can always fork it.

Sooner or later, Maple and Mathematica will both explode under their own weight, and Mathematica and MapleSoft will both go bankrupt. And SageMath will become the de-facto standard for math software. It is not a question of "if", it is a question of "when".

Re:One Word

[donaldm]

Mathematica.

Until somebody comes up with an open-source Mathematica clone (and manages to survive Wolfram's lawyers), the world will never be 100% open source. Mathematica is unique, and is decades ahead of its nearest equivalent.

Well, you could use SageMath in place of Mathematica.

For Fedora users "dnf install sagemath" or for people using the Debian distributions you could use apt-get.

Basically, Mathematica is a very specialized piece of software that I would go as far as saying that over 99% or the total population of PC users would never be aware of or could countenance using.

Not a chance

[addikt10]

There is just about 0 chance that either Apple or Microsoft will produce even mostly open source operating systems.
I think the concept is so stupid that I'm more likely to ignore anything else he says, other than to respond:

"Use the best tool for the job. There is value added if you can read, modify, and fix tools that are open source, as is the great value of not being required to pay for it. If there is a closed source tool that is free, there is value in that as well. And if there is an expensive closed source tool that is a better value than others because it is much closer to what you need/want: Use that."

See? Easy.

Doubtful..

[Junta]

Windows and OS X will be Open Source within 5 years

It will not happen. First, there really isn't any significant upside for Microsoft and Apple. It's not going to win over folks not already on board their platform. If Apple suddenly wanted more 'hackintosh' footprint, this could help, but they don't want that, they want to control the entire experience. Even given their limited support of their hardware, they still manage to do things like release an update that screws up a currently-shipping product (iPad Pro). They see the open ecosystem as a huge headache to support, as well as a thankless one margin-wise. For Microsoft, there are two major markets they don't have locked down where their OS can play:handsets and datacenters. The players don't care much about open source, they care about how those systems are managed and/or cost.

Another factor is that such an endeavor for such massive codebases can be very costly or impossible. There's probably third party code without copyright assignment that would need to be identified and an arrangement reached with the copyright holder or work done to remove and write a replacement.

Ideological purity is a powerful drug

[istartedi]

Ideological purity is a powerful drug, and like all drugs you can overdose on it. The hard core addicts in either camp won't listen. I've been using free/open source on Windows for years. Why? Because I like the OS for some things, and the applications for others. I don't know where I fit on the ideological purity spectrum. It's hard to self-analyze and be objective. That said, I don't think I'm much of a zealot in either direction.

Anyway, it's just a bit interesting to see somebody who identifies with a "camp" advocating the flip-side of what I've been doing (mostly without making a stink about it) for years. The tool you like for what you want to do. 'nuff said.

Re:Ideological purity is a powerful drug

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I've observed a lot more FOSS zealots than closed source zealots. That's hardly a statistically sound observation though.

While I like a lot of what FOSS has brought to the table, the zealotry turns me off big time. The zealots are about as interesting to me as religious zealots, which is to say not at all.

One of the sins the FOSS zealots are guilty of is claiming all sorts of benefits that are theoretically true, but cannot be backed up with real-world data. And when something clearly and unambiguously goes wrong with a FOSS project, the zealots are still in there making excuses. "Well it's still better than proprietary! Why, we'd never even know with a proprietary system!" Yeah, you just keep telling yourself that.

A FOSS zealot cannot ever admit when a proprietary solution is superior. Nor can they admit when a proprietary system adds value or has any worth whatsoever. It's against the church of Stallman.

Re:Ideological purity is a powerful drug

[Bert64]

Being open adds value, being proprietary removes value.
Wether those values matter to you is down to individual needs. Other values which are unrelated to being open or proprietary may be more important to you.

All else being equal, open is better.

Re:Ideological purity is a powerful drug

[Anonymous Coward]

Being the right tool for the job provides the greatest value. If it's proprietary, the cost of acquisition, training, and maintenance has to be factored in. Likewise for open source, though it's harder (usually) to quantify it because you may not track and value your own time for code review and modification properly. Either way, it's not religious; it's just being the right tool that counts.

Re:Ideological purity is a powerful drug

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "Being open adds value, being proprietary removes value."

Wrong. And that's exactly the kind of unsupported value judgment I was referring to. It's this notion of ideological purity, like "proprietary removes value". This is literally impossible. Market forces demand that every sold thing, whether product or service, add value.

Oh, but you say you only meant relative value? Still wrong. The statement that "open adds value" is also precisely the kind of unsupported value judgment I meant. It's accepted uncritically by the faithful.

"Four legs good! Two legs bad!" That's the level of uncritical discourse that FOLSS zealots engage in. They never actually provide evidence that open source provides this value add they claim.

I'd not complain if the support were more low key. If it targeted specific systems or functionality. My objections would be withdrawn if there was more humility, a better appreciation of the contributions of ALL programmers, and some respect paid to the generations of computer people who came before. Almost all of which worked in a proprietary environment.

Instead the FOSS zealots expect us to believe that computers systems spent decades wandering in the darkness, lost in the wilderness of proprietary, being held down by powerful forces of evil capitalism. Actually it was those very forces that nurtured this industry and brought us to this point.

'Only FOSS can save us!' Seems to be the message. Really, get some outside interests. You need a hobby outside of computers. FOSS is great and it's you and your attitude weighing it down.

Re:Closed can be open

[Anonymous Coward]

less about the source code which most open sources users can't read anyways, and more about Open Standards

Yeah, they tried the 'open surface' argument before. We weren't fooled then and we aren't fooled now. But keep trying, punk.

Hard to make games, movies, and tax software free

[tepples]

We want freedom to enjoy our apps as per the freedoms of open source software.
Sure, we COULD have MOARE apps. If they're closed-source or blobs we don't
want them.

Free software is distinguished by the end user having the right and ability to make and share improvement to the software. It works well for libraries and for applications used by businesses, which can afford to hire someone to improve the software and contribute improvements back upstream. But there still exist several categories of software for which a viable free software business model has not yet been demonstrated. How would high-production-value video games, software for playing rented (as opposed to purchased) movies, and annual updates to tax return preparation software to reflect amended tax codes be developed under a free software model?

About quality and choice on platform of preference

[edis]

Expressed statements are risky, but not that invalid. There well may exist some best-in-class software, being either closed source, not money-free or both. Being available for open platform is open option, real choice. It should be no secret, that not every niche is covered by open-source siblings equally well in every regard. While matters continue to be so, platform is stronger, being covered with another option.

Segregation of games and production

[tepples]

If games cannot be made free software, some people would prefer to keep the development and production environments and the games environment completely segregated. The former environments would run all free software, while the games environment would be a PlayStation 4 console.

Re:Segregation of games and production

[Intron]

If games cannot be made free software, some people would prefer to keep the development and production environments and the games environment completely segregated. The former environments would run all free software, while the games environment would be a PlayStation 4 console.

That's the Tivo model. Sell the software so it only runs on hardware that you sell.

Re:Segregation of games and production

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really see why entertainment software -needs- to be open source or bust. I do agree that companies should sit back and stop trying to fight modding, but I don't expect them to hand over the source code to help it either.

For production crap though, that stuff I'll go open source as much as possible.

Re:Segregation of games and production

[loonycyborg]

There is no rational reason why anything, including games should be closed source. Currently the situation works out to be defacto donation sponsored software(most people pirate and only "buy" to support makers that they like). Enshrining the donation based model explicitly would have the benefit of allowing source to be open, and thus make it easier to develop third party plugins, or just make system easier to study for purpose of troubleshooting. But most makers insist on closed source/"commercial" model for ideological reasons. In the end open source trend will take over games just like any other software. Games are always a bit behind on trends like that because of their nature. Games aren't mission critical software thus makers can afford to be less rational and more ideology motivated because no real life goal can suffer as result (control system for nuclear plant this isn't).

Re: Segregation of games and production

[Anonymous Coward]

Delusion. A lot of people just pay for their games.
People who pirate then buy ones they like are a far smaller market than you realise. Open source software works for functional software. Once one person writes an efficient algorithm to resize an image it makes sense for any software that needs this funtionality to just use that pre-existing algorithm. It doesnt make sense for games because they are a creative product. What makes sense for games makers is to make games that only work when interacting with a server that doesn't talk to unlicensed copies. Such as all of yours.

Re:Segregation of games and production

[Aighearach]

some people

True that! And indeed, if it isn't FOSS is already self-segregated because I won't even know it exists. Or care.

They not only could never sell me software, it is unlikely they can even reach me with advertising or word of mouth knowledge of their product. The only way I'll know about a closed source offering is if I end up with their data file and am asking what it is. Which doesn't happen this decade, or the last, because of open formats.

Re: Segregation of games and production

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes sense for games makers is to make games that only work when interacting with a server that doesn't talk to unlicensed copies.

Yes, it worked out so well for Dark Spore, Simcity, Diablo 3...

Re:Segregation of games and production

[tepples]

Which major game uses "open formats" for its saved campaign states?

Re:Segregation of games and production

[Aighearach]

Every chess program.

I believe Go uses open formats too.

Best tool for the job

[bug1]

Best tool for the job in the long term is the one you understand, trust and maintainer yourself if need be.

In the short term there may be closed source tools that are better, but be aware you are you are giving some control of you operations to a third party, both financial and security. Your are choosing to give up your independence. Dark side, leads to, it does.

Re:Best tool for the job

[Jeremi]

Best tool for the job in the long term is the one you understand, trust and maintainer yourself if need be.

That's a factor only if you realistically will ever have the time, expertise, and willingness to do those things. If you can confidently predict up-front that you will never actually understand, trust, and maintain the software yourself anyway, then open-source-ness is a bit of a non-factor. Of course you might conceivably someday hire a contractor to do those things, or luck out and find someone who is doing them for free anyway, so it's still somewhat relevant -- but usually it's not the deciding factor. The deciding factor is whether or not the software will let you accomplish your goals with the minimum amount of pain, expense, and effort on your part -- and that depends almost entirely on the quality and appropriateness of the software to your task, and only tangentially on the software's closed/open status.

Re:Best tool for the job

[bug1]

The deciding factor is whether or not the software will let you accomplish your goals

In what timeframe ?

Perhaps i should have bolded long term, because sometimes the best tool for the job in the short term is not the best in the long term.

Re: Best tool for the job

[Anonymous Coward]

I still support and maintain Windows 2000. No source needed!

Things too sensible to happen

[John Allsup]

1. Port Windows and Mac OS X to run on top of a Linux kernel (and merging the best bits of each) so that all have a shared foundation.
2. Allowing apps for each platform (and you may as well do likewise with Android etc.) to send objects via simple IPC and shared memory (data structures like those you see in clojure, are a good idea here) basically an improvement upon the CLR idea MS has.
3. Open sourcing much of those foundations.
4. Putting ARM cores like those on smartphones onto the GPU, and running most of the GUI on the GPU. This is a throwback to X11, but based around modern GPUs with the pcie backplane being the network.
5. Having the GUI frontend be a separate small OS running on said ARM cores, which both runs the GUI, sound and such, and brings up the main processors, which are then freed up for the general purpose processing tasks they are best at.
6. Moving away from binary code to higher level code (android runtime sort of illustrates this) which can be comipiled either AOT or JIT when loaded onto a system.
7. Using dynamic compilation for both performance and security purposes (this entail rethinking the syscall interface, so that a process can only access the syscalls it needs: something akin to capability security, which can be achieved via the AOT and JIT compilation so that a process is limited in what syscalls it can make: do not allow processes to create executable binary code without explicit permission, and so on. This would make reverse engineering much easier, which is why things probably aren't heading this way, but Free Software would not suffer in the same way. (The thesis on the Synthesis OS, from quite a few years back, is worth a quick perusal.)
8. Do likewise as the coprocessed GUI for sound, and synchronosed sound and graphics, and IO (rather than taxing the main processors with the overhead of USB, having a small ARM core or similar doing this would get us back some of the advantages Firewire traditionally had over USB.
The thing is, small ARM cores (or similar) as we find in mobile phones, raspberry pis and so on, can be cheaply added to e.g. a GPU, and since main processors (intel and amd) are hitting a wall with single core performance, it is sensible to start offloading to coprocessors as we had to do in the old days. But these days a small ARM core together with a specialised processor would be the way to go. Making it ubiquitous would lead to economies of scale (provided patent nightmares don't rear their ugly head as they tend to).
Having done the above, OS architecture would need a bit of chanigng.

Re:Things too sensible to happen

[bioteq]

I seriously like the way you think. A lot of these are pipe dreams, but wonderful dreams, nonetheless.

Unfortunately, typing this got rid of my mod for you, but I think words work better than a +1, at this point.

The frontier has moved

[Britz]

The free software movement was founded as a consumer protection movement. It was about having control over your machine. With free software, you have user rights and user freedoms to do what you want with what you buy.

Open Source ensures that you can review the code at any time to ensure it does what you want.

But that has completely changed. Everyone runs open source now, but we have even less control, because the computing doesn't even happen on user owned hardware anymore. It doesn't matter if Facebook or Google run on open source. It doesn't even matter if large parts of iOS and Android are open source.

iOS is a lot more closed off compared to Android, yet users have much more control over the apps and what they are doing in iOS. So from a user control and user freedom perspective, iOS is currently (Android 6 brought a lot of important updates in this field, but few phones have it) preferable. Same with encryption technology. Boxcryptor is a good example of how open source is currently of little relevance, when it comes to protecting the users rights.

The world has changed. Richard Stallman is still right, but very little relevance. Moxie Marlinspike is currently the man of the hour.

Re:The frontier has moved

[Ash-Fox]

Open Source ensures that you can review the code at any time to ensure it does what you want.

When working with large code bases like Seamonkey, Second life, OpenOffice.org, SystemD etc. The amount of capability as user (or developer) has in order to do much on these can be extremely limiting.

Re:The frontier has moved

[dbIII]

However there is far more opportunity for something to be done due to more available developers being able to do something about it than the one or two people at a commercial software house that have responsibility over the portion of code with problems.
I've hit that wall on many occasions.

Re:The frontier has moved

[Ash-Fox]

However there is far more opportunity for something to be done due to more available developers being able to do something about it than the one or two people at a commercial software house that have responsibility over the portion of code with problems.

My experience in such matters has lead to disappointment. But, I guess experience can vary.

Re:The frontier has moved

[dbIII]

Using a lot of closed source software and going through weeks of support hoops for each problem has made me a very big fan of open source software and searchable mailing lists.
There's also the different practices - tiny patch today for a single problem versus waiting up to three months for a huge patch for a long list of problems. Open source developers are willing and able to take responsibility for their own work instead of having to wait weeks to get it signed off.

Re:The frontier has moved

[Ash-Fox]

Using a lot of closed source software and going through weeks of support hoops for each problem has made me a very big fan of open source software and searchable mailing lists.

Don't get me wrong, I use opensource software daily and I work with it, I just don't have this great experience with the community. Some of the most annoying support I've had from both Microsoft and Redhat, both on opensource and closed source technologies provided by both for enterprise level stuff.

There's also the different practices - tiny patch today for a single problem versus waiting up to three months for a huge patch for a long list of problems.

A tiny patch for a large project requires setting up a development environment which in my experience is often taking the piss in complexity (my luck is that I always end up in that stage when the environment setup instructions have just become outdated and I waste a week or two trying to find out what I need to do, by which the documentation is updated when I find out) and this is coming from someone experienced in working in large software projects. Then sometimes you find out the software which is opensource, is actually using proprietary libraries like Kakadu, fmod, Havok (and for actually good reasons) etc. and the licensing cost for at least two of those is something insane; so you're left dependent on developers.

I get really annoyed with some opensource projects, because you're encouraged to "join the community" and become part of it. So you go through the entire processes needed and in fact, forced, just so you can report a bug, provide a patch or such and then you end up having to deal with attitude (typically this is from unpaid volunteers, paid people generally seem a lot nicer) over your contributions. At least with proprietary software, typically I just fill out a form and the response I get isn't typically highly resistant and written in such a form that doesn't feel like someone told you to "feck off". But then, even if you were, you wouldn't feel the burn as much since you weren't forced to go through an entire process of be part of the community love.

Open source developers are willing and able to take responsibility for their own work instead of having to wait weeks to get it signed off.

To be honest, I've never seen that in any of the large projects I mentioned. If you wanted to do a release version, you had to go through the entire process. Perhaps you could give an example of a large project that has made an official release for a minor fix just for you while skipping all their processes?

Re:The frontier has moved

[dbIII]

I didn't say skipping processes, I was discussing different processes and the ability of developers to take responsibility for their own work.
Defect resolution on many commercial software projects is very slow, to the point where it can be weeks before a client is able to inform the developer responsible for the portion of code related to the defect that there is a defect in the first place!

Re:The frontier has moved

[Ash-Fox]

I was discussing different processes

How about just being specific about those processes then? Like FreeBSD team is using a variant of the v-model, the upper community of the Linux kernel uses a unique variant of Agile or the Koffice team uses Scrum etc.

Defect resolution on many commercial software projects is very slow

I've not noticed any difference between large opensource projects and large proprietary projects through resolutions time. However, you're mentioning specifically 'commercial' projects and... I have to say, when it comes to commercial projects, I've had more responsive people through paid support channels despite the project being either proprietary or opensource. The resolution because of that responsiveness on occasion was faster.

Re:The frontier has moved

[dbIII]

I certainly have noticed on many occasions hence what I've written. It's good that you have had better experiences but it is most definitely not always the case. If you want to suggest otherwise, fair enough, but I have observed what I have observed and it has been very annoying as a client. I've been on the other end with implementing a ticketing systems and improving response time but most places do not bother to put on enough support staff to keep response times low.

The most utterly fucking ridiculous one was with Macrovision (I can mention them because they've been bought out and the name has gone) in 2008 with a Y2K bug of all things. Their "protection" software, which only punished the honest, was changed so that permanent licences (which were dated as "00") expired in the year 2000. It was a couple of weeks before that was resolved and I could not run the software from another vendor that was "protected" for that period of time. The slow response time happened despite daily nagging from myself and the vendor of the software I wanted to run.

The moral of the story is that with closed source software there are many more risks of a roadblock than with open source software. You have to balance the benefits versus the risks.

Re:"switch to Windows, that's where the apps are".

[Anonymous Coward]

How about no? Desktop Linux is getting to a point where it is viable for day to day work tasks

Getting there? I know I'm not an average computer using but after happily using Linux as my primary desktop system for 16 years now I don't agree it's "getting there". It has been there for years. I've downloaded and burned Ubuntu cds for two people who don't know how to do that themselves not too long ago, because they for some reason decided to try Linux and asked me how to do it. Both installed Ubuntu without anyone present to hold their hands and got their email and printers to work without needing to ask me more than two or three simple questions over the phone. Apparently it's dead easy nowadays.

While open source shouldn't be about money...

[Anonymous Coward]

Open Source doesn't make all software great by itself.

From my experiences it seems that the UNIX commandline tool programs where a single expert can easilly maintain and fix bugs the open source model is great.

However more complex software needs a good leadership to make things work. With lots of people around the world working together things can get messy quite quickly. This means that any larger successful project needs to be commercially backed as the amount of work just goes through the roof.

There are lots of large successful open source projects but as a long time Linux desktop user I can clearly see that there's less money involved in the desktops than ever before. While things have certainly gotten better during the years in the kernel area things are not looking pretty in the userland. Considering the amount of regressions in late distributions I'm afraid that the things will get even uglier without more commercial backing.

Not going to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

This article is utterly insane, out of touch with reality, and absolutely disgusting. The author is a downright idiot.

It is like saying, that a slave who has been freed, should sometimes voluntarily allow himself to be shackled for a few hours a day.

Or like saying that a democratic country should go back to being a monarchy.

Once you get a taste of libre software, there is simply no going back to the proprietary crap. Period. End of discussion.

Re:Not going to happen

[Zontar The Mindless]

Yet there abound examples ancient and contemporary of people voluntarily giving up some of their freedoms or allowing others to exercise extra power in order to solve a problem or gain some momentary advantage. Please explain how this can be so.

Also, you never seem to have heard of something called a "constitutional monarchy"...?

Secure Boot; non-HP inkjets

[tepples]

I've downloaded and burned Ubuntu cds for two people who don't know how to do that themselves not too long ago, because they for some reason decided to try Linux and asked me how to do it. Both installed Ubuntu without anyone present to hold their hands

How long ago was this? Were the PCs made before the release of Windows 8 in late 2012, when Microsoft started requiring manufacturers of new PCs and desktop PC motherboards to default to Secure Boot with Microsoft's keys?

and got their email and printers to work without needing to ask me more than two or three simple questions over the phone.

True, setting up a mail user agent is similar no matter the OS. Some printers and scanners do work out of the box, but those are more hit-or-miss, especially if the printer isn't PostScript and/or the manufacturer isn't as cooperative as HP.

Re:Secure Boot; non-HP inkjets

[Ol Olsoc]

I've downloaded and burned Ubuntu cds for two people who don't know how to do that themselves not too long ago, because they for some reason decided to try Linux and asked me how to do it. Both installed Ubuntu without anyone present to hold their hands

How long ago was this? Were the PCs made before the release of Windows 8 in late 2012, when Microsoft started requiring manufacturers of new PCs and desktop PC motherboards to default to Secure Boot with Microsoft's keys?

And aftrwards as well! I've had no problem getting Linux installed and ruuning on recent computers. Just have to enable "legacy boot". Most recent was a Acer Touch screen laptop that had W8.1 on it.

Re:Secure Boot; non-HP inkjets

[turbidostato]

"How long ago was this? Were the PCs made before the release of Windows 8 in late 2012, when Microsoft started requiring manufacturers of new PCs and desktop PC motherboards to default to Secure Boot with Microsoft's keys?"

Well, my home PC dates back to 2009 and it runs Linux.

My corporate-provided laptop dates back to a month ago and it runs Linux.

Your point is?

"Some printers and scanners do work out of the box, but those are more hit-or-miss"

Yes. Trying to print out of a lawn mower is also a hit-or-miss. What does my employer do? Make damn sure it will print out from my corporate Linux laptop, be it a printer or a lawn mower, or they ain't gonna buy it. And what do I do at my home? Make damn sure it will print out from my home Linux computer, be it a printer or a lawn mower, or I'm not gonna buy it.

Easy peasy.

Re:Secure Boot; non-HP inkjets

[donaldm]

Well, my home PC dates back to 2009 and it runs Linux.

I have two laptops one 7 years old and the other 6 years, both have been running Linux (Fedora) since I purchased them. I have also used these laptops in a Professional capacity whilst working in a Microsoft-centric environment without any major issues. I do upgrade or should I say fresh install (it's the quickest) every time a new release comes out and that normally takes about an hour.

Fast forward to December 2015, I finally decided to build my own desktop with the latest Intel Skylake chipset. All I did was to select "Other OS" in the BIOS and I installed Fedora 23 without any problems. Basically, it took me about 20 minutes for the install, 15 minutes for customization, about one hour for the update and five hours for my personal data recovery with the update and the recovery running together. Even during the update and recovery phase I could still use the installed applications.

As for printers I have never had a printer or scanner issue with using Linux for home or corporate (17 years) use. However, the firms I worked for always made sure they had decent printers.

Re:Secure Boot; non-HP inkjets

[Zontar The Mindless]

Basically, it took me about 20 minutes for the install, 15 minutes for customization, about one hour for the update and five hours for my personal data recovery with the update and the recovery running together. ...

6+ hours to do a desktop installation and restore? You keeping Wikipedia on that thing?

I can take a system from "tabula rasa" to "completely ready to use" in about 2 hours. And I'm probably not anything special in that regard.

Re:Secure Boot; non-HP inkjets

[Anonymous Coward]

How long ago was this? Were the PCs made before the release of Windows 8 in late 2012, when Microsoft started requiring manufacturers of new PCs and desktop PC motherboards to default to Secure Boot with Microsoft's keys?

Both were using old hardware. But as others already pointed out that doesn't matter. I'm sitting behind a box running Debian on brand new hardware with UEFI and it works fine.

Re:Secure Boot; non-HP inkjets

[tepples]

A 2-hour setup is fine if you have no projects to restore or if their primary working copies are stored on a NAS box. Restoring a multi-hundred-gigabyte /home from offline backup might take longer.

Re:Secure Boot; non-HP inkjets

[tepples]

I've had no problem getting Linux installed and ruuning on recent computers. Just have to enable "legacy boot". Most recent was a Acer Touch screen laptop that had W8.1 on it.

Perhaps it depends on how big the laptops are. Laptops and convertibles with an Atom Bay Trail processor tend to fare poorly, such as the T100TA on which sleep, backlight brightness, camera, and Bluetooth are broken. Furthermore, you have to plan ahead and download firmware-brcm80211 before you wipe the drive so that you can set up Wi-Fi and audio.

SuperTuxKart

[tepples]

Once you get a taste of libre software, there is simply no going back to the proprietary crap. Period. End of discussion.

To what extent do end users who have tried both SuperTuxKart and Mario Kart 8 prefer the former?

Re:SuperTuxKart

[donaldm]

Once you get a taste of libre software, there is simply no going back to the proprietary crap. Period. End of discussion.

To what extent do end users who have tried both SuperTuxKart and Mario Kart 8 prefer the former?

Sorry, I prefer Dark Souls and Bloodborne and I did "git gud" although I could "git bttr". :-)

Re:SuperTuxKart

[tepples]

Once you get a taste of libre software, there is simply no going back to the proprietary crap.

I prefer Dark Souls and Bloodborne

So what's the viable free alternative to Dark Souls or Bloodborne?

But, closed source software is usually inferior...

[Anonymous Coward]

So why would I want to use closed source software? Linux is functionally a vastly superior platform to Windows or Apple for the competent professional user, as are the tools available on it. For everyone else, there is Android and Chromebooks. There are few areas in which I am involved where closed source tools remain competitive. The only ones I use these days are SAP, and some FPGA toolchains from Xilinx and Altera. I can imagine that there are still a few graphics programs, and some tax or accounting software that are still Windows only, but the remaining use cases for proprietrary software are becoming increasingly scarce. The opinions of one writer, who doesn't have a day job that involves writing software are actually completely irrelevant. It seems that this man doesn't understand either the Microsoft or Apple business models. It simply isn't true that Windows will become free software. It is the core source of revenue for Microsoft, along with Office. Microsoft is irrelevant in mobile, and becoming even more irrelevant with every month. For Apple, locking the OS to their hardware is their business model. As Apple loses ground in mobile, I can only imagine their usual jealously protectionist behaviour will intensify, as they try to protect their computer business. Making Windows, OSX, or Office opn source makes no business sense to me, and the author gives no logical justification for his views. It looks more like a piece designed to attract atention from software freedom zealots. With Windows 8/10, it is clear that Microsoft has lost their way with usability, and that the Windows codevbase is becoming increasingly lardy, outdated, and difficult to fix. It is a bloated sphagetti of deprecated, obsolete, and current microsoft technologies / APIs, with inconsistent user interfaces and usability standards. From and end user standpoint, I no longer believe that Windows is an acceptable product. Even simple settings are buried below layers of poorly designed GUI. I'd be surprised if Windows can retain anything like the market share it has in two years, let alone five.

Re:"switch to Windows, that's where the apps are".

[Anonymous Coward]

How about no? Desktop Linux is getting to a point where it is viable for day to day work tasks

Getting there? I know I'm not an average computer using but after happily using Linux as my primary desktop system for 16 years now I don't agree it's "getting there". It has been there for years. I've downloaded and burned Ubuntu cds for two people who don't know how to do that themselves not too long ago, because they for some reason decided to try Linux and asked me how to do it. Both installed Ubuntu without anyone present to hold their hands and got their email and printers to work without needing to ask me more than two or three simple questions over the phone. Apparently it's dead easy nowadays.

Yeah it's easy dead easy unless...

unless you are using Realtek wireless hardware
unless you are using ATI / AMD graphics card
unless you are using certain Intel integrated cards
unless you are using Nvidia card with open source drivers

unless you want to share printers and files in network
unless you want to open a docx file someone sent you
unless you want to fill PDF forms
unless you want to use samsung / brother / canon / not HP printers
unless you want to print using european paper sizes (apparently)
unless you want to scan images
unless you want to extract images from smart phones
unless you want to transfer files to smart phones
(And the list just goes on)

While most of the problems can be solved it usually takes a long time to figure out the problem and come up with solution to it.

I'd say using linux is "dead easy" for average consumer if it comes preinstalled and is used in similiarly to Chrome OS. Even then the hardware needs to be supported and tested or else things like sleep mode can cause huge problems.

Open Source: putting the cartridge before the gnu

[Anonymous Coward]

since 1998. This is exactly why the "Open Source Movement" is utterly pointless. Their basic tenet is "use Free Software when it is better in technical respects than proprietary software" but that's really a no-brainer. Also a non-starter: you first need Free Software lovers to jumpstart the software before you can glaze it with your "Open Source" blessing.

All those "Look Ma! No principles!" guys don't add anything worthwhile to the discussion.

Completely agree

[tom229]

Completely agree. Open platforms are important. Open protocols are important. Open standards are important. Open source end user applications are much less so, and insisting they have to be has traditionally caused major problems for GNU/Linux. Think of a computer like a city. In a city you want critical infrastructure like the roads, electricity, and water to be publicly controlled. You want to make sure companies don't try to patent the shape of buildings, or the name Bob. But after that you want the free market to run most of what people use day-to-day. An open source operating system, with standardized core level apis, protocols, and methodology works like this. There's no benefit to insisting all end user applications also be developed by the community. It just amounts to religious fundamentalism when you take it this far.

Re:Completely agree

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously don't believe. And in the words of Yoda, "This is why you fail."

All the coolest movies you've watched had CGI done on open source. All the coolest server farm implementations, were done on opensource. Opensource is NOT supposed to be the piping of the infrastructure. OpenSource IS the water in the pipes. Water for all. If you want to charge for maintaining the pipes, by all means. But the water itself should not have rights assigned to it. You want to make money - find it in the service economy. There is *NO* cash in actual software code any more - we are heading towards abundance. It's time to jettison the old ways.

And definitely give up the sense of entitlement of the Gen X, Gen Y and Millenials. Life is hard. Life is a constant struggle. We have choices because 30 years or more ago, Richard Stallman took up the battle. And now that we are finally reaping the rewards of 3 decades of work and things are STARTING to go mainstream, people are advocating giving up control back to the corporate overlords.

We are where we are because software needs to be free in order to be able to grow faster. Closed source product rely on profits to expand. Open source products fill needs.

This is just someone tired of fighting the battle. If that's the case, he should go work for a Windows company.

Re:Completely agree

[Ash-Fox]

All the coolest movies you've watched had CGI done on open source.

Are you talking about render farms that are running on a Linux based operating system while putting most of the work on the graphic cards which is being done by using proprietary drivers to do so?

Re:Completely agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Open to Interopability via Standards YES
Handing out source NO

You do not need to have source to have interopability, that is achieved by standards DESIGN for INTEROP with API's PROTOCOLS and HOOKS and what not, not source code handed out. Interop comes via designed interop interfaces, not hacking around source handed out.

Re:Completely agree

[armanox]

Or maybe the render farms that were running on MIPS based IRIX systems?

Re:"switch to Windows, that's where the apps are".

[tepples]

unless you want to share printers and files in network

Your Linux box can share files through FTP, NFS, CIFS (via Samba), BitTorrent, or any of several other free services. If you're willing to run proprietary apps on a free OS, you can also use Dropbox. As for printers, a Mac or Linux box running CUPS can share them with any other Mac or Linux box running CUPS.

unless you want to open a docx file someone sent you

LibreOffice Writer has opened every .docx I've thrown at it, but I admit that my work flows have not included mailing a file back and forth several round trips for revisions.

unless you want to fill PDF forms

In this comment, another user reported success using recent versions of the free Evince or Okular to fill in PDF forms in a manner that Adobe Reader can read.

unless you want to use samsung / brother / canon / not HP printers

Any PostScript printer should work fine.

unless you want to scan images

As you pointed out, HP printers work wonderfully. And so do HP scanners. This is why I've made a point of recommending HP to friends and family members: if someone's printer is an HP network printer, I can print from Xubuntu on my laptop.

unless you want to extract images from smart phones
unless you want to transfer files to smart phones

Say what? I've connected my aunt's iPhone to my Xubuntu laptop and was able to see the files. As for Android, modern versions of gvfs can mount MTP over USB, but I usually use the FTP server in Cheetah Mobile's file manager to move files on and off my tablet's internal storage.

Biggest Issue: Proprietary software is a PITA

[Anonymous Coward]

I use to use Microsoft Windows and almost entirely proprietary software. That was before software activation and other nuisances. Over time it just because so problematic I stopped upgrading. I'd revert to using old dos programs just to avoid the garbage coming out of the proprietary ecosystem. I wasn't going to buy DRM music or video or mess around spending hours with activating software or re-activating software (and don't even get me started when it fails or the the activation systems get shut down).

I wouldn't switch back to proprietary software even if it was the best thing on earth. It's been nothing but problems and it's getting worse. If you buy a printer with a proprietary driver or any piece of hardware you end up with stuff that doesn't work six months down the line. It's not worth it.

Yes and no.

[Lumpy]

Free DAW software.... all of it sucks.
Pay DAW software.... $60 for Reaper and get something that utterly blows away ProTools and Logic Pro...

I gladly pay for software that is at a sane price and is exceptional. sadly big companies dont understand that.

Re:Yes and no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ardour 4 doesn't suck.

Open source CGI meets closed source DRM

[tepples]

All the coolest movies you've watched had CGI done on open source.

Unless they're machinima, in which case all the CGI is done on closed source.

Besides, after the CGI is rendered, closed-source software called "DRM" is used to stream it to the end user's computer in order to prevent the user from teeing the video into an unencrypted file to keep the stream past the agreed rental period.

Re:But, closed source software is usually inferior

[tepples]

the remaining use cases for proprietrary software are becoming increasingly scarce.

Is the video game industry's $81 billion per year "scarce"?

Re:No, I'm not going to move into a cave

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop being stupid.

Good riddance, desktop devs

[Etcetera]

If "using more closed source software" means the freedesktop.org guys and/or their target audience moves over to shiny new Mac Books and leaves the Linux ecosystem alone, I'm all for it.

Not just systemd, but a lot of the other work that has come out of the Linux-on-the-Desktop-is-right-around-the-corner community has destabilized lots of working server installations. Maybe once they can be convinced that the future of the App crowd is back in the closed source hosted or closed source ecosystem area (hint: it is), we can start to wrest control back and begin picking up the pieces.

Unfortunately, I used to use proprietary software

[HiThere]

Unfortunately, I used to use proprietary software, and my experience during that time was a hideous mess of proprietary and undocumented file formats that couldn't be shared between applications, and caused trouble when an associate switched to a newer version of the software.

So I think it's a very poor suggestion.

Since I switched to Linux I've had very few problems with incompatible file types across different version of the software. This is far more desirable. Your mileage may vary, but please compute it over a period of years, not just at one point in time.

Re:No, I'm not going to move into a cave

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop being stupid.

I'm stupid for not wanting software to watch what I'm doing?

Show me your numbers.

[westlake]

Desktop Linux is getting to a point where it is viable for day to day work tasks, and gaming is becoming not just a wish, but actually something coming around (slowly but surely).

If it was coming around any slower, it would be going backwards.

Steam Hardware & Software Survey: April 2016

Windows All 95% Down 0.3%
Windows 10 64 Bit 38% Up 1.4%

OSX 3.6% Up 0.3%

Linux 0.9% No change
Ubuntu All 0.4%

The "Steam Machine?" Doesn't seem to catching on:

Alienware Steam Machine ASM100-2980BLK Desktop Console #3,546 in Computers & Accessories, #172 in Computers & Accessories > Desktops > Towers [7:10 PM ET May 21]

The Mac Mini is hot right now at Amazon ---- well, as hot as it gets for a desktop these days ---- and there appear to be some good values in entry-level Win 10 gaming systems.

Linux has about 2% of the desktop market, Windows 10, 15%. Desktop Operating System Market Share - April 2016 A desktop market in decline is not healthy for Linux, which has always been starved of OEM support. Microsoft plays well with Linux if you are managing a server.

But it is also doing spectacularly well on the desktop side selling things like MS Office as a service.

Re:Show me your numbers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Desktop Linux is getting to a point where it is viable for day to day work tasks, and gaming is becoming not just a wish, but actually something coming around (slowly but surely).

If it was coming around any slower, it would be going backwards.

Steam Hardware & Software Survey: April 2016

Windows All 95% Down 0.3%
Windows 10 64 Bit 38% Up 1.4%

OSX 3.6% Up 0.3%

Linux 0.9% No change
Ubuntu All 0.4%

The "Steam Machine?" Doesn't seem to catching on:

Alienware Steam Machine ASM100-2980BLK Desktop Console #3,546 in Computers & Accessories, #172 in Computers & Accessories > Desktops > Towers [7:10 PM ET May 21]

The Mac Mini is hot right now at Amazon ---- well, as hot as it gets for a desktop these days ---- and there appear to be some good values in entry-level Win 10 gaming systems.

Linux has about 2% of the desktop market, Windows 10, 15%. Desktop Operating System Market Share - April 2016 A desktop market in decline is not healthy for Linux, which has always been starved of OEM support. Microsoft plays well with Linux if you are managing a server.

But it is also doing spectacularly well on the desktop side selling things like MS Office as a service.

totally irrelevant

Re:Show me your numbers.

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to think that usability depends on market share. Those 2% who use it on desktop computers will probably tell you that they consider it to be perfectly usable. A tiny 2% or less of the market share translates to an awful lot of users, enough to have the developers amongst them develop and support quite a large number of different desktop environments and window managers. Market share isn't everything.

The problem with closed software

[guruevi]

The problem with closed software, regardless of how amazing they may be, is that they're closed and eventually whatever company is making the software is either going to abandon the project or go out of business. It happens even with big software houses like Microsoft and Apple, they have abandoned some very excellent software products they respectively bought and made in favor of either established in-house software or totally different architectures.

I've run into that problem time and again, the only things I can count on is open source software to be either continuously developed or at least available to make fixes for.

Re:The problem with closed software

[Ash-Fox]

Tell me more of Apple's amazing software that they abandoned.

Re:The problem with closed software

[Anonymous Coward]

Final Cut Pro?

Re:The problem with closed software

[Anonymous Coward]

Graphing Calculator? MacOS? HyperCard?

Re:The problem with closed software

[Ash-Fox]

Graphing Calculator? MacOS? HyperCard?

I didn't think any of those were amazing, honestly.

Re:The problem with closed software

[Ash-Fox]

Final Cut Pro?

I'm not very familiar with it, but that's still being developed. So this doesn't really make the point.

Re:The problem with closed software

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, technically they didn't abandon it - they just turned it into iMovie Pro

Re:The problem with closed software

[Anonymous Coward]

Rosetta. Aperture. Shake.

OpenDoc!

Not to mention the software they didn't kill but managed to fubar, like iTunes, QuickTime for Windows, and GarageBand.

Re:"switch to Windows, that's where the apps are".

[geek]

Desktop Linux is getting to a point where it is viable for day to day work tasks, and gaming is becoming not just a wish, but actually something coming around (slowly but surely).

Sorry but this is BS. I've used Linux since 1995 and the only time it was ever remotely viable as a desktop was during the really bad days of Windows XP. Every Linux DE looks dated, is buggy as fuck, has really horrible config settings, missing options people have had for decades........ the list goes on. The closest to a viable desktop I found was MATE but even that had massive issues.

I love Linux and FreeBSD but they will never be main stream desktops for the sole reason that the people who are developing the "desktop" part of it are morons. KDE is so buggy its laughable. GNOME has stripped so much stuff out it's not usable and you have to use beta extensions that break on every update just to regain basic functionality.

The kernel developers war against graphic drivers has destroyed any hope whatsoever of Linux as a gaming OS. Not even Vulcan can save it now. It is so god damned hard to get nVidia drivers let alone NEW drivers that its fucking pointless to try.

I spent the last week trying to get Fedora into a usable state as a desktop OS only to have it fucking puke on the floor and shit itself before running off into a corner to cry like a little baby. One "dnf remove application" was all it took for dnf to literally uninstall its own fucking dependencies (sqlite3) and render the entire system unusable. Ok, fine, I switched to Ubuntu MATE and within 5 minutes of adding the nVidia PPA for the latest drivers the system crashed and wouldn't boot anymore due to kernel/nvidia driver issues.

Seriously, just fuck right off with this Linux as a desktop OS bullshit. It's tired and not going to happen. Give Linux one thing to do as a server and it will likely be ok. Give it more than that and it's a pathetic, unstable and barely usable system developed by grown men acting like babies and fighting on mailing lists to show each other how manly they are.

That now famous picture of Linus flipping off nVidia is me in reverse flipping him off.

Re:"switch to Windows, that's where the apps are".

[Gaygirlie]

Ok, fine, I switched to Ubuntu MATE and within 5 minutes of adding the nVidia PPA for the latest drivers the system crashed and wouldn't boot anymore due to kernel/nvidia driver issues.

Why did you need to use a PPA for that? The drivers are already in Ubuntu's repos and while I can't say about the Mate-version at least in the Unity-version you just clicky-clicky a few times through the settings-app's "Additional drivers" or whatever its name was to download and turn them on.

he's right!

[cas2000]

> the more you use closed source applications on open source
> environments, the more will be made available."

and the more you order burgers with turd sauce, the more shops will keep turd sauce in stock.

Re:Unfortunately, I used to use proprietary softwa

[Ol Olsoc]

Unfortunately, I used to use proprietary software, and my experience during that time was a hideous mess of proprietary and undocumented file formats that couldn't be shared between applications, and caused trouble when an associate switched to a newer version of the software.

Don't forget feature bloat. Office eventually became a bloated pig of a program, with "features" thay 99.99999% of us would never use. But feature bloat was something that made life easier for reviewers, as they could rattle off the awesome new features that only reviewers and fanbois would brandish like a bludgeonn to claim superiority.

So I think it's a very poor suggestion.

Since I switched to Linux I've had very few problems with incompatible file types across different version of the software. This is far more desirable. Your mileage may vary, but please compute it over a period of years, not just at one point in time.

This - so much this. Back to the office comparisons, Microsoft can't even make it's own Office suite comptible with itself between Mac and PC - and with inherent incompatibility, and not even serving the Linux market in any way, it gets an Olsoc rating of 0. Not recommended. Now I take files between all three platforms and it just works. No more of wondering what's going to be screwed up and needs fixed, a tremendous productivity improvement.

Re:"switch to Windows, that's where the apps are".

[geek]

Ok, fine, I switched to Ubuntu MATE and within 5 minutes of adding the nVidia PPA for the latest drivers the system crashed and wouldn't boot anymore due to kernel/nvidia driver issues.

Why did you need to use a PPA for that? The drivers are already in Ubuntu's repos and while I can't say about the Mate-version at least in the Unity-version you just clicky-clicky a few times through the settings-app's "Additional drivers" or whatever its name was to download and turn them on.

OLD drivers are in Ubuntu. The best you'll get out of Ubuntu is 361, you need at least 364.19 for Vulcan and nVidia is already pushing 367. Ubuntu won't see those drivers for another 2 years at best without using a PPA.

I use a lot of closed stuff on linux

[dbIII]

I use a lot of closed source stuff on linux.
It takes months to years from when a bug report is submitted to when a patch or new release fixes the problem.

The most annoying one was a bug that needed one extra byte in a header of information being sent to a printer. Without it no maps could be plotted at all, and no PDF output in that application either (plus clients wanted everything on paper back then). Seven months from when the problem was reported, including what byte to add, to when the patch was released. Luckily a wrapper script around the right binary pretending to be the binary was not difficult to do and could intercept the output to add the extra byte.
In all the other cases all I could do is wait for things to be fixed inside the hidden black boxes. I'm still waiting on some things which is why I have three versions of the software in use - all with different bugs or woeful performance compared with an earlier version (really slooow GUI - three seconds to open a menu versus milliseconds).


So there you go, if it does the job then fine but as soon as something goes wrong be prepared to wait a very long time before you can get hold of a fix.

Re:I use a lot of closed stuff on linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Try using open source stuff on linux.
It takes months to years from when a bug report is submitted to when the bug report is closed with the reason that they decided to scrap the component and rewrite it from the ground up. (The replacement has not fixed your bug, by the way.)

Or perhaps it's closed because the bug triagers went on an annual close spree, asking people to verify whether the bug still exists in the current version. (Of course it does. The bug would have been closed if it had been fixed!)

(I'm looking at you, GNOME. Smaller projects seem to fare much better.)

Captcha: avenge.

Re:I use a lot of closed stuff on linux

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, GNOME is to open source as Bonzai Buddy is to closed-source. The only worse representative for FOSS I can think of is PulseAudio.

I hate Windows as much as the next guy,

[mark_reh]

except for the astroturfers who will be posting followup comments to this and probably modding me down to troll status, but even I keep a machine running Windows to do CAD because the Linux CAD programs are pretty bad.

I look forward to the day I can escape Windows completely.

Closed Minded

[Anonymous Coward]

Limiting yourself to FOSS and just fighting against closed source just because you think it limits your freedom, is pretty damn closed minded. Adding choice is never losing freedom, whether it be FOSS or closed source options, only limiting choice does that.

Re:Closed Minded

[clintre]

Many think that Linux has to be F/OSS only and that is just plain wrong. There is a middle ground where a proper mix of closed and open source work together to create a powerful desktop for all people, not just the F/OSS or die people, which are definitely a very closed minded group.

Don't need it, don't want it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. Yeah, free software likin' guy here. I've got lots and lots of it. It keeps getting better every year. The problems with closed software keep getting worse, seemingly year by year. Locked down API's, proprietary IOT technology that you can't modify, and if you try either the company doesn't warranty the product, or tries to sue you into oblivion. And you can't modify the technology you bought to better suit your needs, they don't want you adapting their products either. If you don't use it in the way they intend, SUE! (I don't know why this keeps popping into my head, but John Deere locking down their tractor control/operating systems and it will cost you lots if your tractor isn't working, and the dealer might be busy during planting/harvest season, and if you try to hire your own guy or modify it yourself, sue, and if you pull their dingus out and put your own in (both software and control hardware), they offer you NO WARRANTY, even if something breaks that has *NOTHING* to do with the software or electronic control hardware. And there are thousands of other companies that make products that also have proprietary/locked down/locked out APIs or harware and also have the "use it in the way intended or sue" mentality. And people look at me funny when I use Open/Free software. "Oh you should use brand B. Are you wierd or something?" And now this guy says "the proprietary isn't so bad..." Really?

Why?

[HalAtWork]

Why ditch what I like for something that will require a lot of work to get to the same place, or that may never get there due to different goals or philosophy?

Re:"switch to Windows, that's where the apps are".

[donaldm]

I spent the last week trying to get Fedora into a usable state as a desktop OS only to have it fucking puke on the floor and shit itself before running off into a corner to cry like a little baby. One "dnf remove application" was all it took for dnf to literally uninstall its own fucking dependencies (sqlite3) and render the entire system unusable. Ok, fine, I switched to Ubuntu MATE and within 5 minutes of adding the nVidia PPA for the latest drivers the system crashed and wouldn't boot anymore due to kernel/nvidia driver issues

That's strange I installed Fedora 23 KDE spin on my new Skylake desktop which I built myself in December 2015. I did not have any issues or have had any issues since. I also have Fedora 23 on two of my laptops, one (AMD) seven years and the other (Intel i7) six years old, both work fine.

Re:"switch to Windows, that's where the apps are".

[ArchieBunker]

I recently installed FreeBSD on an old Thinkpad laptop that used to run XP. I decided to give the Enlightenment window manager a try. I Click on the terminal button which causes the whole thing to freeze. I switch to another console and see Enlightenment has the cpu pegged at 100%. Oh and Chrome is also buggy as hell and segfaults every other page. Oh well that was a few hours wasted. Back to Windows 7 then.

Re:"switch to Windows, that's where the apps are".

[Bert64]

The same can be said of any OS...
Windows often comes preconfigured on hardware with a set of drivers and customisations, if you try to install it yourself using generic rather than oem-supplied install media it can be a huge pain in the ass.
OSX is designed specifically for Apple hardware and works very well, but trying to install on a hackintosh can be difficult and unreliable.

Reality Check,

[westlake]

For any competent user that is able to use a debugger the ability to actually figure out what is broken, and save significant amount of time doing so, is something that doesn't work for closed source software.

A debugger is a programmer's tool, not a user's tool --- and debugging a program of even modest complexity is not a trivial problem.

Close source embraces a philosophy that any outsider is not competent and the product is pure magic.

The product is not magic, but understanding does not come easy. You could say with a fair amount of truth that the core developers of an ambitious and successful open source project are no less contemptuous of the outsider who has nothing much to offer and butts in where he is not welcome.

Interesting - the flip side of how I use Windows

[mikeebbbd]

The author makes a good point.

In reverse: most of the application and utility software I regularly use in Windows is free, usually open-source (some is closed-source freeware). It works well. I stick with Windows because of specific games (that in some cases cannot run in a virtual machine), and for a couple of closed-source applications that just do things better or more conveniently than the open-source alternatives. I have tested Linux (Mint) and could easily switch now if the Wine/Mono ecosystem advanced just a bit so those couple of gotta-use-them closed applications would work. They're very close, actually, and do appear to install (but then they don't work). Also, games (the ones I have are not in Steam).

[flame on]
Frankly, if Linux as a group wants to be a player in the desktop game, the religious attitude about open source has to change. While maybe not embracing closed source, why not be ecumenical about it? Can't we "just get along?" All the "rest of us" really want is a system that works; Windows 10 seems to be trying its best to lose that label so where's the Really Useful Alternative?
[/flame]

PS: I could see Windows eventually going open-source on a .NET model. That is: a "core" consisting of the kernel and perhaps a few necessary services, enough to boot the thing, but to do anything useful you would need a bunch of libraries and services that are not (at first, anyway) open source. The .NET open source "core" seems to be like that, because so much other stuff is needed to complete the project. Oracle does it, too, with VirtualBox: the basic machine is open, but the extensions that you need to make it useful are not (though they are free).

Re:Hard to make games, movies, and tax software fr

[Zontar The Mindless]

I'm still waiting for an open source XML editor that's as good as oXygenXML.

(Or, for that matter, an open source equivalent to Visio. At least I don't need that any longer, so I'm not tied to Windows any more.)

Linux consider closed source?

[Anonymous Coward]

Such a pile of bullshit. What does it even mean "Linux" to "consider" anything? Has the kernel become sentient of late?

There are Linux distributions closely embracing closed source (Oracle Linux anyone)? Then there are ones keeping closed source at a distance. I happen to prefer the latter ones for (strong) reasons. Here isn't the place to discuss them, besides they've been discussed at breadth elsewhere, so it wouldn't be anything new.

BTW: opening Windows' source code? I imagine that as opening a cesspool: I wouldn't enjoy being around, thanks.

Re:"switch to Windows, that's where the apps are".

[untoreh]

I took the bait.. just wait 6~ months and switch to amd, there is a good change amd is going to be the "go to" for vga in linux because of amdgpu/pro stack. It is kind of true that gnome has been stripping stuff more and more, afaik there is to say though that the whole GNOME 3 is a "transition" into a more "unix like" approach in order to modularize everything, like the API for theming. Can't say much about KDE, everywhere I read people say something along the lines of "just when it reached stability with KDE4, they scratched it up and made a new buggy KDE5", I don't know how buggy it truly is though...I think people exaggerate crashes...Explorer.exe has crashed a shitload on my windwos10 too so it's not like there is a stability heaven for window managers...especially with apps that hook actively in the UI itself, and KDE makes UI customization one of its main goal, some people like it some dont and want something that just works, KDE is indeed love or hate. Fedora is an upstream version...try centos? Ubuntu won't boot with new video drivers...well I don't know I personally have never experienced boot inability because of video drivers, simply because if they fail it just fallsback to software rendering? It's not like windows does not bsod from time to time because of video drivers... And even if video drivers make your kernel images unbootable, you can always disable the specific modules from boot command line entry (grub or syslinux or w/e), boot up and revert back. Also there is the whole xorg->wayland transition so there are gonna be hiccups in the near future. Is linux usable as a desktop? Yes but mostly for a little bit more advanced users, that that much tough but enough to alienate the majority, yes even ubuntu is gonna need command line time to time enough to make it "a bad choice". Is linux usable as a gaming desktop? Not if you wanna switch from windows to linux, but if you build your rig thinking in advance about running linux it can be. You just have to choose the right video cards (it is nvidia until now, could be amd in the near future), for keyboard/mouse and other perfipherals make sure that they support linux drivers, and if they do not, at least make sure they offer proper help to altruistic coders willing to spend their times reverse engineering the drivers (like roccat!), then it is just gonna be a matter of games supporting linux, or you can use WINE (which personally I think it is ludicrous because spending time and check whatever workaround every game needs is a waste of time, and the whole wine pursuit of d3d is just an effort without long term reward, wine is good for running average windows software though, that it is ok at... ), or kvm with vga passthrough with a windows vm which is in general 95% the performance of baremetal (but then why not run on windows in the first place??? Well...I personally recently switched to linux from windows as main OS because of software compatibility and it is easier to use with docker&friends, others may not like telemetry running on their hardware and are fine with it running in a more controlled vm, others might find the ease with which you can just delete a wm and make another in a few minutes quite handy...).

Re:"switch to Windows, that's where the apps are".

[Zontar The Mindless]

It is so god damned hard to get nVidia drivers let alone NEW drivers that its fucking pointless to try.

Oh, yeah, it sure is...

--Nvidia/Linux desktop user.

Complete BS

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Moving to a SERVICE model does not automatically mean open source
2) Linux historically has had closed source (drivers without appropriate licenses - check WHENCE file for history lesson)
3) Whilst Windows is moving to be given away free (it already is) and the source IS given out to GOVERNMENTS and BIG COMPANIES who pay, it will not be open source, and defiantly not within 5 years and DEFINATLY not under GPL license.
4) Given the amount of attacks on Windows, no way in hell will they hand out the source to Joe Public. They shall forever remain diffing patch files to find exploits.
5) Handing out source with 30 odd years of terrible programming and serious bugs lurking in there, is not a good move.
6) Every Linux fool seems to think open source is the answer, yet look at all the terrible bugs (and TERRIBLE ARCHITECTURE) in Linux. Fat lot of good handing out source did there.

Re:Complete BS

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the comment was that the service model is the ultimate closed source. (Some) APIs documented but no opportunity to even look at the object code which you *can* do with traditional closed source (though it may violate the license).

Windows does work, for a lot of people. MS isn't religious about it; WIndows is just there, and the marketing process and the amount of (closed and open) software for it ensures that it'll remain a Big Deal for a long time to come despite the growing spyware content. The income from it and the other closed-source stuff MS sells pays for patching the mess (when they find out it needs it, which is already too late for many), and searching the Internet can turn up ways around some of the worst spying activities (just like finding info on Linux!).

If Linux were as big in the market as MS or even Apple, it would be attacked a lot too and I'm not sure the open-source community would be able to keep up with a Windows level of patching activity. Yes, Android is technically Linux under the hood and it DOES require a lot of patching due to attacks among other things - main issue there is getting the patches into running systems due to phone carriers and lack of attention to phones more than a year old. There is no such thing as error-free software. Is there such a thing as effective antimalware for Linux?

It's about both

[phorm]

It depends on which end you're looking at, the development end or the user end. I'd imagine a lot of Linux users wouldn't be such if it weren't also free as in $

cunt reasoning.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you forgo bootybusting you will miss out on some amazing nuts.

http://tinyurl.com/fuckthespies

Microsoft is Global Mother Fucking Spyware.

Re:"switch to Windows, that's where the apps are".

[Anonymous Coward]

> In this comment [slashdot.org], another user reported success using recent versions of the free Evince or Okular to fill in PDF forms in a manner that Adobe Reader can read.

I once had trouble filling out a PDF form. A short while later I found out that while it was meant to filled out on a computer, it wasn't actually a form, you had to edit the PDF and put letters at the right place manually! (this was a Swedish government form)
The universe always comes up with the bigger idiot that goes and breaks a perfectly working feature out of pure stupidity.

This guy is delusional

[Anonymous Coward]

Both Apple and Microsoft make money off their operating systems. What has changed is they do not see value anymore charging customers for upgrades to that operating system. Linux fails on the first level making money off selling the stand alone OS in the first place. You provide a free install and then support it for free.
I do not see Apple or Microsoft doing this in the future.

Windows won't be open source

[allo]

Just think about it. Does microsoft want a windows version, where things like the win10 installer can be removed easily?

They want to make money with their app store, to copy the apple business model. This needs a tight coupling of app store and operation system, because currently the system works fine with non-appstore programs.

Google can afford an open source android, as most people install the play store as very first thing on their custom rom. Because without appstore you're pretty much fucked when you want to run commercial apps (you may buy and install them, but their drm requires google or amazon appstore).

Microsoft cannot, as all programs already bring their own drm and their own updater programs. An appstore is convenient for programmers, but not required to achieve the things, which an appstore provides. And people are used to find software without store, on mobile platforms most people do not consider other sources, not even installing something as f-droid or the amazon store (which even has a daily offer of one paid app for free).

My data has to be free

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not too much concerned about CS software when it comes to applications. My OS has to be FOSS, and whatever I create with a program has to be accessible to me even when the program itself is gone. I'm Linux user since '93, and Linux only since ~95 (maybe earlier - had a Win partition, but didn't use it...). Still I had no issues buying a version of Opera when they offered it. When the company (or rather, the product) 'died' I was sad because there was no matching powerful software. But still I could switch to something else and not lose anything. Same with games (where I mostly pay for the content). No problem buying those. Ever done it.

But using a program that stores created data in an (undocumented) proprietary format is a no-go. Same holds for DRM that ties the use to some online verification site. If people had been more consequent in avoiding those (instead of saying "I don't care", or, even worse, use cracked versions) things could be much better nowadays. Unfortunately mankind ever since preferred quick satisfaction over future prospects....

Re:Hard to make games, movies, and tax software fr

[Anonymous Coward]

Tax software: actually it can. There are several software packages the Canadian government recommends for personal filers that are free and emit the standard file needed for electronic filing. The one I've used the last few years is donation ware. Also if you file more than 5 returns (presumably you are a professional tax filer) they charge you. Closed source though free for most normal people.

As long as part of the market is willing to pay the cost for the rest to freeload it can work.

The future is already here....

[yelvington]

This Linux vs Microsoft vs Apple thing is like watching three angry old men rant at each other while the kids and their kids have moved on.

Netflix. Hulu. Google Translate. Swype. Google Now. Alexa. Quit thinking of the world as bounded by 20th century desktop computing paradigms and Microsoft/Apple business models. Linux is already everywhere, on phones and watches and TV sets and cameras and devices that don't quite have names yet, and it's running closed-source apps on open-source foundations.

Re:"switch to Windows, that's where the apps are".

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but this is BS. I've used Linux since 1995 and the only time it was ever remotely viable as a desktop was during the really bad days of Windows XP.

I guess it must depend on what you expect from it. I've always hated the Windows "here, let me do this for you" attitude, with annoying popups preventing me to concentrate on what I want to do at that moment. I want to be the one telling the computer what to do, I don't want the computer to be the one who decides what needs my attention now. I'm not too familiar with the most recent Windows versions, but this annoyed me well after XP.

This attitude also gradually drove me away from the big desktop environments on Linux. I've been using a tiling window manager for several years now and I'm perfectly happy with that. No, that's not an implementation of the desktop metaphor, but I use it on desktop computers for the same things I would use a desktop environment for. For me Linux is perfectly ready for the deskop and has been for years.

Re:"switch to Windows, that's where the apps are".

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, a good friend of mine had almost the same experience a few weeks back. The difference is that he tried to install Windows 10 on an old laptop that used to run Linux. He didn't get it to work and went back to Linux. Anecdotes like this really don't say anything useful about the quality of operating systems.

Closed source dark ages mentality

[Eravnrekaree]

I strongly oppose closed source software, its a dark ages mentality meant to keep everyone illiterate in the incantations of software, should be opposed for the usual reasons which are given by the FSF, how it takes away users freedom and is counterproductive, making it impossible except for an elite cabal to improve the software. I might only consider closed source drivers so that good hardware support on Linux to support oddball hardware, but with open source drivers being available for all commonly used hardware in order to encourage more average people to try and use Linux.

I am not opposed to the idea of Wine finally being brought to where it can support 100% of Windows applications so that people can use a Windows app on Linux if they want, for the same reason I can accept the idea of a closed source driver for oddball hardware, to make the adoption of Linux easier for average people.

Never trust business to respect freedom over time.

[MindlessGenius]

Business and its economic Interest are always trumpeted by those who stand to profit.
Open sourced is a counter culture against greed driven exploitation via obfuscated means.

It stands to reason that intermittently over time, business supporters will make attacks on Open source, and it's legitimacy and attempt to re define it's meaning. purpose and objectives...

Freedom means being liberated from fascist controls and manipulations as well as transparency in it power and in democratic structures.

Re: "switch to Windows, that's where the apps are"

[buchanmilne]

Yeah it's easy dead easy unless...

(Forgive the lack of formatting, no preview available in the mobile interface snd formatting is difficult in it too).

unless you are using Realtek wireless hardware

Yeah, that used to be a thing about 5 years ago (when you had to use b43-fwcutter manually before the giod distros automated it for you), but since Intel Core-series CPUs, almost all laptops ship with intel cards which work out-the-box or at worst need you to download a new firmware.

unless you are using ATI / AMD graphics card

My current work laptop has some relatively new radeon, the linux distro I use worked out-the-box for my needs (no command-line required, can't remember which driver it is running).

unless you are using certain Intel integrated cards

Do you mesn Intel graphics? I bought a Skylake-based desktop for my wife last year (about October I think). I had to upgrade kernels (to a 4.4.x kernel) to get stable graphics, but that was easy enough and that system has worked perfectly since.

unless you are using Nvidia card with open source drivers

If your card doesn't run well on nouveau, install the Nvidia proprietary drivers. Your distro should give you an option for that.

unless you want to share printers and files in network

Printer sharing I find easier between linux machines than between windows machines. On my windows machine at work I have given up printing to the corporate windows print server because it takes 20 minutes to get it to work each time (previously we were printing to HP JetDirects from Windows and Linux without issue). I should actually try printing from my Linux box again, I got it to work once with about the same hassle as the Windows box ...

unless you want to open a docx file someone sent you

Opening is fine for standard documents. When people have embedded proprietary formats it does go downhill quickly (but only a little faster than MS Office because this is just a bad approach in general).

unless you want to fill PDF forms

I keep the last version of Acrobat (9.4?) around for fillable PDFs that require Acrobat. The rest work fine in KDEs PDF viewer (okular).

unless you want to use samsung / brother / canon / not HP printers

Don't buy crap printers. I had an HP OfficeJet for 10 years that worked for printing,scanning and faxing from Linux. When it died I bought a new multi-function HP Deskjet that worked perfectly out-the-box (although I did check HPs linux printing site before I bought).

unless you want to print using european paper sizes (apparently)

It's easy enough to use the now-standard system-config-printer to change your default printer settings (to e.g. A4). Previously you may have needed to edit cupsd.conf but that is hardly rocket science.

unless you want to scan images

See above, no issue.

unless you want to extract images from smart phones

Plug it in, choose to browse with a file manager or photo app, copy, paste, wait for it to finish, eject/unmount.

unless you want to transfer files to smart phones

Do the same as above, just reverse where you copy and where you paste.

(And the list just goes on)

Wow, my non-technical-with-computers wife can do most of the above without my help (she doesn't ever use a command line). Either you haven't used Linux in about 8 years, or you must be a bit of a slow learner.

Linux becoming another proprietary OS?

[walterbyrd]

Seems to be heading that way. First systemd, then more closed source software, all the things that made Linux a unique, and interesting, project seem to be fading away.

Re:Linux becoming another proprietary OS?

[clintre]

Many of the things that made Linux unique, especially on the desktop, are also what kept it from being something that everyone would want to use. It was not interesting to the masses and never would be. Having a mix of closed source software that fulfills certain needs in a way that no F/OSS has not been able to, does not take away from Linux. It only adds to it.

Choice is the key.

If you have the choice of being able to use closed source or F/OSS for a certain need, there is absolutely NO downside.

Repeat until you get it

[ajyand]

Repeat until you get it, "Closed source is shy sister of spyware." There is every incentive possible in the universe to collect all useful and not so useful information about the user, remember the trade and commerce just before the colonial era?

Pwned

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically what he's saying is that his handlers can't put hidden back doors into Open Source Software, so they've told him to push" Closed Source, to introduce Back Doors.

Shilling for the feds.

Those who already own a PC or printer

[tepples]

Your point is?

Many people bought computers before they decided to try Linux.

And what do I do at my home? Make damn sure it will print out from my home Linux computer, be it a printer or a lawn mower, or I'm not gonna buy it.

Where does this leave people who are switching from Windows to Linux but already own a printer? They'd either have to replace the printer before it stops working or wait to switch from Windows to Linux until the printer breaks.

Re:Those who already own a PC or printer

[turbidostato]

"Where does this leave people who are switching from Windows to Linux but already own a printer?"

I don't give a damn. Really. It's not my problem.

But just for a constructive answer: they will either be clever and learn that the problem was with windows and the lock-in ecosystem it induces and they will act consequently fleeing away from it as fast as they can -as I did so many years ago, or they won't be so clever and will go back to windows blaming linux for its "lack of compatibility" or "unfriendliness" or something similar.

Either way, again, it's not my problem and it bears no relationship with the origin of this thread that was about the FUD-full implication that somehow you couldn't buy today a computer capable of running Linux.

Re:Hard to make games, movies, and tax software fr

[tepples]

There are several software packages the Canadian government recommends for personal filers that are free and emit the standard file needed for electronic filing.

I guess it depends on where you live. Is there any counterpart for the United States, both federal and the 50 states? All the "free file" options I've seen are SaaSS, free only as in beer. I can see no way a single free software project (as defined by FSF) could stay up to date with every amendment to every individual or small business income tax law in every city, county, state/province/region, and sovereign country on the planet.

Linux Advocate Suggests Using More Closed-Source Software

Closed source though free for most normal people.

Point proved.

Calligra Flow

[tepples]

Or, for that matter, an open source equivalent to Visio.

I run Xubuntu 14.04 on my Dell Inspiron mini 1012 laptop, and apart from a slightly clunky configuration interface, I've had little problem using a Vizio TV as a second monitor through the laptop's VGA output.

Oh, you meant that Visio. Is KDE's Calligra Flow any good?

Flow is a flowcharting and diagramming application for the Calligra Suite and has a user interface that is similar to Microsoft Visio. It is fully integrated into Calligra and can for example be embedded into Calligra Words.

In which countries are PCs in dumpsters?

[tepples]

Hundreds of Millions of computer users around the world can barely or not at all afford to pay $100 for a piece of software.

in this day and age you can find perfectly good & capable computers lying around curbs, dumpsters, etc. for anyone to take

Are computers found in dumpsters even in low-exchange-rate countries where 100 USD is a lot of money?

Re:In which countries are PCs in dumpsters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed they are. I live in a 3rd world country under great economic inequality and I routinely find Core2Duo-era systems lying on the curbside at both rich and poor neighborhoods alike. My latest dumpster PC has an Athlon II X2 240 with 2GB of DDR3 and an Asus board - better than many of my own spares! And you can also pick up a similarly-specced refurbished desktop for around 60 USD, or much less if you settle for something like a P4.

Any other than board games?

[tepples]

Which major game uses "open formats"

chess [...] Go

Touché. Thank you. But because Chess and Call of Duty aren't entirely close substitutes, can you think of any major video game that uses "open formats" for saved games and isn't a port of a pre-1923 board game?

Re:Any other than board games?

[Aighearach]

And of course you left out the burning question, "What makes running Call of Duty" important to people who care about open file formats?

I'll give you a hint: it isn't. It is just off-topic to what you were responding to. You presumed that playing commercial games is important to me, or somehow is implicated in my needs. It isn't.

And if I was into spending my time that way, I'd probably get a console game machine long, long before changing what my general purpose computer setup is. I do work on my computer, in addition to a bunch of hobbies. Even if I included "commercial game-playing" as an activity, it seems far-fetched that it would be such an important one that it would control my software choices.

Open-Source plea bargaining...

[haedus]

...won't help the cause of software freedom. This argument sounds to me like, let the colonialists take some of our land, and then they'll let us use some of it. The key problem with proprietary software (more informed term than 'closed-source') is it has no incentive to care about freedom. The main incentive is profit, always. If hiring monkeys to snort coke and come up with business plans means more profit and a competitive edge, monkeys will start entering the labor force (and the price of coke may rise). If something is unethical, of course a company MAY not do it, to drive profits, but this is often not the case. That being said... If software freedom will increase profits, a company will most likely seek it. If software freedom will hurt profits, a company will steer away from it. To my understanding, riding a segregated bus, does not send a clear message that segregation is okay. One may feel compelled to allow such an injustice for a numerous plethora of reasons and even try to rationalize the behavior. Maybe they'll improve the conditions of the 'back of the bus' someday if we keep riding, but... I don't think free software is anti-capitalist or against business in any sense. It just so happens many businesses have made great fortunes at exploiting the abilities of computers and bits; and, when, gosh golly, some one uses a computer to do things a computer by nature can do, it may have a huge impact on your ability to profit if you've leveraged software as a tool of exploitation, as opposed to a medium for computing. If your 'product', by it's innate nature, has the ability to be copied as many times as physical hardware will allow, you aren't really profiting from your product. You are profiting from your exploit of legal frameworks created to attempt to control the nature of a computer. the GMO folks are trying to do the same thing with genetics (make the source code for all the food we eat proprietary so we can't control our food source any more). However, the term 'closed-source' obviously misses the point to begin with. It implies the opposite which is 'open-source' which was an attempt to reconcile the 'radical' idea of freedom with the absurdity of law and means leveraged to exploit software for monetary gains. Software freedom is software freedom. Plea Bargains are popular and often yield great outcomes, but they rarely help fix the shitty circumstances that create them in the first place. This argument and open-source software itself have always been a plea-bargain made with those with power, because, well, fighting for freedom is a hard-sell. You will be inconvenienced at the least, and hundreds of years ago, you might end up dead fighting for your freedom. A reality T.V., an internet meme, and a side of fries are often much more appealing; open source could be grouped somewhere in there as well. I will say there is usually always something to be said for compromise... ...but when you compromise on freedom... it's more often a 'giving in, giving up, or selling out' than actual fair compromise...