Slashdot Mirror
"The Ultimate Argument Against Linux"
GroundBounce writes "osOpinion has posted an article which basically refutes all of the FUD against Linux but then contends that the FUD itself may be enough to keep it from succeeding. I don't agree, but it's interesting reading anyway. "
Social change still takes time, however quickly information can move. People still change gradually.
--Evan Vetere
The FUD that that is created "no such thing as a free lunch" is purely based upon ages and ages of paying for goods. We are entering a whole new age, where people CAN give their blood, sweat, and tears away for free, and still make money in another form (documentation, support, et al). :)
The only one I really disagree with is "Why would anyone write good software and give it away free?" The people that will/do say this are those that also say "How can anyone sit in front of their computer for 12 hours straight?!? I cant stand it for 2 hours!" They dont realize that this is something we love. I personally say to myself that I get to go to work, rather than I have to go to work. Its a hobby that we're lucky enough to make $$ from.
-----
If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed...
I see nothing in the GPL that makes an exception for employees to have less rights. I can't even see how you could have an employment contract that could prevent the employee from asking for the modifications and distributing outside the company.
SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.
There is nothing more humerous than watching computer geeks discuss economics (I suppose watching economists code would probably be up on the list, but most economists are smart enough to know how foolish they would look :) If you think that RMS, Linus, and Larry Wall have not earned tangible economic benefit from thier work you are seriously deluded. RMS has received various grants and sycophantic followers to provide for him, Linus got a US visa and job at Transmeta, and Larry got a book contract or two. These are just a few of the benefits which were won by those individuals who were willing to pay the "opportunity costs" (that is an important word there for econ study into such fuzzy realms, please remember it) of writing code and giving it away rather than selling it.
Free software does have a price, and it is measured in standard units (dollars, euros, whatever) but you have to understand how the big picture works in order to see it in action. Even if someone does an activity for nothing more than personal satisfaction that is an economic activity; they have chosen to forgo doing something else (time is the only currency that really matters) and instead did something which gave them self-satisfaction and pleasure (comfort/pleasure and power being the major goals of most economic activity.)
In fact, there are whole sub-fields of economics dedicated to the analysis and explanation of mundane human activity in economic terms. All of these "intangibles" you describe can be explained as rational choices made for some form or another of personal gain. Sorry, but none of us are saints and, as always, TANSTAAFL.
I loved it! Especially the last part... "people get systems they deserve"
This is pro-linux all the way! Basically what it says is that linux is a mature and stable platform and the only reason left not to use it is because you're afraid to, chicken! heheheh...
"Ironically, with a graphical environment very similar to Windows or the Mac, Linux's command-line and scripting interface will perhaps soon emerge as a major selling point for advanced users. Windows and Macintosh treat all users alike, irrespective of skill level, and do not allow users to acquire more control over their machines with increasing experience. Unix and Unix-like systems, on the other hand, "scale" extremely well with experience, rewarding advanced users with dramatically greater productivity.
This has been my pro argument for Linux for a long while. I like the power of unix and the amount of customization. But I often find GUIs too darned clunky and difficult to use for certain tasks. The best method is to open multiple shells in a window manager to do your work. The best of both worlds scenario.
But for those folks who like the pure point and click, it's available (or will be). I don't think one can ever argue against GUIs, but rather one can argue against getting rid of the CLI. That won't happen in Linux.
I have to work with NT at work and I very much miss the "scalability" to use more CLI than GUI. Alas, that will not happen in NT.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
When I started using Linux 5 years ago, explaining to clients that I was using Linux was very difficult. It was hard enough to explain to them what the value of the WWW was, or how email could improve their relationships with their customers.
Now I tell people I use Linux and it is hard for me to avoid having to explain that it isn't like Windows where everything is done for you. That owning a computer isn't always like using an appliance... However I can also tell a client that my system is running a Linux server, that it has Apache, and thus that it is THE TOP OF THE LINE as a web host.
Furthermore now when I install a custom programmed machine controling someones exhibit, I don't have to explain that Linux DOESN'T mean that I am the only person in the world who can fix it, it means that a permanent installation can be PERMANENT.
I don't hear people responding to Linux with fear. Most people are curious, want to know whether it is worth switching to, and if there is value for them. When they bought their Windows machine it was because it was the only name in the game. The very notion that with the same hardware they can now have a choice is extrodinarily persuasive and always has been. The dual boot machine with no risk...
The basic fact is that the status of Linux as a FREE alternative would not make a difference to a first time buyer, or someone buying a new machine. No one calculates the cost of Windows. It is free cause it is on the machine when you order it. To switch and actually PAY for another OS is to much trouble.
Linux has the advantage of taking away that cost, and allowing a user to TRY IT. Anyone who is frightened of it or doesn't trust it has THAT choice.
I remember when the DOS users pshawed the Macintosh. A Windowing interface was too clunky, they were so fast with text only that it a mouse was a hindrance. I still don't understand why Macintosh doesn't have more keyboard control. It seems so sensical. Now adays, they say, you can't have a CLI it is too complicated. True enough, the GUI did make machines accessible to people who can't remember how to do things or read manuals. But to talk about the GUI for an OS being the judgement of usefulness is a joke...
I don't think that anyone is scared of Linux but people who have a stake in its failure. Everyone else sees it as part and parcel to a world in which a 300 dollar PC can do everything you ever wanted. Back when I was a teenager the C64 was like that... We are FINALLY back into a world where the cheap computer isn't a real compromise. As long as Linux works on cheap commodity hardware then in the world of the PERSONAL computer, Linux will succeed in offering its one great value... ****FREE**** CHOICE
Every mind can be changed, give it time.
As much as people say that "UNIX is 20 years ago technology"
In twenty years we will hear that "Windows? God, thats an old piece of crap"
(today it's a new piece of crap)
The current hype, is in favor of Linux,
and it leeks into people's minds,
They begin to question Microsoft.
No matter how "I'll always use windows" drones act,
they won't use windows, they'll use what everyone else is using,
may it be windows, may it be BeOS, may it be Linux.
Yes, I admit, there are some people that wait until I say "god I just had to recompile a kernel",
and say "I told you windows is better".
(saying "how many BSoD's have you got while i compiled it" shut them down for awhile)
they will fade.
Fashion comes, fashion goes,
but even if it's not trendy, Linux is fun to use, and has a warm place in our hearts.
---
---
I'm going to live forever, or die in the attempt.
As for the big event that can make the shift to Linux stronger, I think the release of Windows 2000 will be a cusp. If Microsoft can actually deliver on its promises (this would be a new thing for them), then they be able to push Linux back out the door. If Windows 2000 prooves to be robust and stable, then much of the argument for Linux may dissapear (except for the noteworthy price difference).
If on the other hand Windows 2000 is a big flop, and gets drowned by its own complexity, then Microsoft has nowhere to go. If it flops, it would be years before they could take a different approach and by that time its too late, and Linux will continue to spread like wildfire.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
That's one possible interpretation of the situation. But consider this - Did the employer "distribute" the software to the employees? Or did the employer merely install the software on all of his/her computers, and then permit the employees use the computers? It's a subtle distinction, I know, but that's the kind of thing a legal decision would hinge on.
So I guess here is the question I would ask: If I own a computer, and I install GPL software on it, and I permit someone else to use that computer, does that constitute distribution to the other person under the GPL as it is currently written?
I know that if I modify the source code and fail to share those modifications, I violate the spirit of the GPL, but I'm not sure I violate the letter of the GPL.
I believe you are correct; you only have to provide source code if you redistribute your changes. Making changes does not force you to share those changes. Otherwise, you'd be in violation of the license the instant you inserted a single space into the source code and recompiled it on an non-networked computer.
However, it is unclear to me whether or not internal distribution is considered distribution. In other words, if a corporation, which legally is a single individual, puts a modified version of GNU/Linux on all their computers, are they then required to let their employees have the source code and redistribute it? Would installing GNU/Linux on a system that another individual will use be considered distributing it? I don't think so, but the license isn't clear.
I read it right after it posted, saved it from my cache to my server. Hopefully my pair.com server space won't get /.'ed either:
http://haughey.com/linux.html
This article mentioned that several times that free software refutes the time-honored belief that "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." This is very wrong. Free lunches don't exist, and never will.
It's a common misconception among non-economists that prices equates to money. Free software does have a price, but it's not measured in dollars, marks or yen.
Richard certainly got paid for creating Emacs. Linus got paid for Linux. Larry got paid for Perl. And they got paid full worth according to the value of their software. But they didn't get paid with money, they got paid with respect, adulation and other valuable intangibles.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Cant read the article, guess we /.ed the server.
But frankly, I could give a rats ass what people say about Linux.
I USE IT BECAUSE I LIKE IT.
I will continue to contribute in whatever manner possible because I want others to like the same things I do. If Linux goes away as yet another flash-in-the-pan, I wont care. I WILL STILL LIKE IT. I will continue to use it until I no longer LIKE IT. Then I will find something else I like.
Maybe that is too simple for some. But I have been in this game way too long to use something just because it its the most popular or has the best "reputation". If it didn't work FOR me, I would use one of to the other choices out there.
**** Sworn to Fun, Loyal to None. ****
No, the author states that nobody would want to modify Linux to distribute their own proprietary derivative. You certainly can modify it for internal use without releasing the source code, but something that is only used internally doesn't have much chance of affecting the community as a whole. As you say, the GPL prohibits the distribution of such a version without also distributing the source.
Open Source software AND its data will live beyond the 'company' that produced it.
.
Think about it. I create a Program X (say a database) if I stop supporting it, the customer will still be able to modify/update and use that product. I make my money supporting it because I am the one most knowledgable about it.
It also allows the customer to have safer data. (done any data conversion between systems?) I have converted data for many reasons including: version/hardware obsolescence, Y2K/programming issues.
Open-Source also means Open-Data
make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
its quite interesting.
....ie dont hold on to it beyond its used by date.
I am a java programmer and web developper. (eg http://www1.loom.net.au/home/fish/ )
I dont know all that much about inner workings of OS's, and I have never used Linux or even seen it on a box in RL.
Yet I am about to tackle it. I am setting up a home server , Linux & apache.
what convinced me of this?.... 3 things
1. sick of Microsoft's patronising attitude.
2. Astonishing level of support potential from the linux community
3. A very apparent "love of labour" which effectively removes the need for any enforced "quality control" and (to me) garanties a quality product.
The best thing the Linux community can do is DISPLAY its labour of love, it is very endearing (especially in an over-capitalist society) DANGER : dont become "Mac dags"
The bulk of the PC using public are sheep, they'll go with whatever has the numbers.
M$ has demonstrated the power of markting intelligence.
in a MARKETING vs LOVE OF LABOUR battle, if the love of labour doesn't win then I'm stuffed!
just PLEASE dont swap "love of labour" for "M$ hating"
its about Linux not M$
I read the article earlier today, and I think that the author doesn't understand the GPL. Either that, or I don't understand the GPL.
The author states that no company would want to modify GPL'ed code because the GPL requires them to provide the source to the public. However, isn't this the case only if the software is distributed? e.g. If a company wants to modify the linux kernel for internal use only, and does not try and sell it or make it available for public use, then they wouldn't have to release the modified source, correct?
Someone please whack me back into line if I'm way out of it...