Proprietary applications make it possible for people to do things with Linux RIGHT NOW which formerly they could only do on a proprietary OS. That means that it's easier to get people to switch from Windows to Linux, because they're giving up less and less functionality. Then, if somebody later comes up with a free alternative, there are a much larger number of people who might consider switching to it. That's _good_ for free software.
The free-software-only zealots believe one of two fallacies: 1) Someday everyone will, all at once, see that free software is the Way, and immediately discontinue the use of all proprietary software. Sorry, ain't gonna happen. If the Linux community pushes commercial software developers away in order to achieve "free software purity", they'll keep developing for Windows, and people will continue to have reasons to stick with a proprietary infrastructure.
2) That Linux is better off staying as a niche player for the use of the Free Software Priests. I _strongly_ disagree. I think that most of you would agree that a future computing environment based on free and/or open-source software _infrastructures_ is a lot more attractive than a future computing environment based on source which is locked up (and, in some cases, actually _lost_) in Redmond.
So I welcome the availability software from Real, Corel, IBM, Sybase, and whoever. I'll make my own choices as to what I actually _install_ on my system (which, of course, you can't do with Windows, e.g. MSIE), and I might decide to use free software over commercial software where good free software is available (I have both RealPlayer and x11amp on my system, and I end up listening to ShoutCast much more often than Real these days). But having more software options of _any_ kind on Linux is a good thing, because in the end they will lead to more people using Linux.
Commercial interests will never truly "take over" Linux, because of two things: 1) the GPL ensures that Linux code will always be available, and 2) you people who love free software exist.
1) I don't believe I've ever read anywhere that Slashdot stands for communism and the abolition of all that is commercial and money-grubbing. Ever noticed those little graphics at the top of the page? They're called ADVERTISEMENTS. If you click on them, Rob probably gets a little bit of money. If you don't, Rob might still get a little bit from the impression, but I'd guess not.
The amazon link is quite clear. If you click through and order the book, Rob gets money via the Amazon partners program, and Katz gets money because he's the author. If you don't click, they don't. What the hell is so hard to understand about that, and why could it possibly be a big deal?
2) Re the community thing: If you don't like Rob's moderation, go somewhere else. There are plenty of places on the net where you can post to your heart's content without fear of being moderated. Of course, nobody actually reads those posts anymore because there's so much dreck. Slashdot exists because Rob and various other people spend hours of their time making it exist. If they choose to censor people, it's their choice. They are even nice enough to give you the option of setting your threshold low enough to see just about _everything_ -- they don't just remove the posts as is done with most moderated sites.
Personally, I like Katz's stuff. I can, however, understand why many people don't. But I will NEVER understand why those people cannot simply ignore him, and continue to suggest that he should go away from whereever those people happen to like to hang out.
The difference between this kind of argument and the kind of arguments you hear about within Microsoft or other places is that this argument demonstrates the fundamental split in beliefs and intentions of those behind the free software and open-source movement.
RMS and Bruce Perens are activists. They believe that people have an inalienable right to have source code for their software, and that all software should always be freely redistributable. That is the fundamental philosophy behind GNU.
ESR and Tim O'Reilly, on the other hand, are pragmatists. They believe that software developed in the bazaar model is likely to be higher-quality than proprietary software, but they don't talk about rights.
The big difference is that the activists resent the development of proprietary software for Linux -- the database products, WordPerfect, etc. -- while the pragmatists welcome it, because it means that Linux will have that much better a chance to make inroads with the general public.
Personally, I find myself much more sympathetic to the pragmatic cause, because I believe that an open-source infrastructure like Linux is infinitely more valuable than any single piece of open-source application software, so I hope it succeeds.
So Intuit has denied the rumor because they don't see enough customer interest.
Show them customer interest! Go to
http://altserv.intuit.com/orien/qkn_enhance.html
and write a nice friendly note indicating that you'd LOVE to see a Quicken port to Linux (or an entirely web-based version) so you can get rid of Windows on your machine once and for all.
(For those of you who don't like commercial software or Intuit, _don't_ write and, instead, help out GNUCash.:)
Notice that the major problem isn't so much that the software is incredibly buggy, but the fact that the _developers don't seem to care_. This is EXACTLY the greatest advantage of open source software -- if the original developer doesn't care about your bug, you can fix it yourself, or hire somebody to fix it. With cathedral software, if M$ doesn't have time to fix your bugs while they're adding twenty-seven thousand new Wizards to Word 2000, you're screwed.
I just wrote a letter to the San Jose Mercury News asking them to replace "PC & Pixel", the most idiotic technology-related strip I've ever seen, with "User Friendly" on their print comics page. If other Merc readers feel the same way, I urge you to write as well.
I wasn't sure who to write to, so I just wrote to the reader rep. Make your own choice. Their feedback page is at http://www.mercurycenter.com/resources/feedback/
Slashdot Mirror
Even proprietary applications are good for Linux.
Proprietary applications make it possible for people to do things with Linux RIGHT NOW which formerly they could only do on a proprietary OS. That means that it's easier to get people to switch from Windows to Linux, because they're giving up less and less functionality. Then, if somebody later comes up with a free alternative, there are a much larger number of people who might consider switching to it. That's _good_ for free software.
The free-software-only zealots believe one of two fallacies:
1) Someday everyone will, all at once, see that free software is the Way, and immediately discontinue the use of all proprietary software. Sorry, ain't gonna happen. If the Linux community pushes commercial software developers away in order to achieve "free software purity", they'll keep developing for Windows, and people will continue to have reasons to stick with a proprietary infrastructure.
2) That Linux is better off staying as a niche player for the use of the Free Software Priests. I _strongly_ disagree. I think that most of you would agree that a future computing environment based on free and/or open-source software _infrastructures_ is a lot more attractive than a future computing environment based on source which is locked up (and, in some cases, actually _lost_) in Redmond.
So I welcome the availability software from Real, Corel, IBM, Sybase, and whoever. I'll make my own choices as to what I actually _install_ on my system (which, of course, you can't do with Windows, e.g. MSIE), and I might decide to use free software over commercial software where good free software is available (I have both RealPlayer and x11amp on my system, and I end up listening to ShoutCast much more often than Real these days). But having more software options of _any_ kind on Linux is a good thing, because in the end they will lead to more people using Linux.
Commercial interests will never truly "take over" Linux, because of two things: 1) the GPL ensures that Linux code will always be available, and 2) you people who love free software exist.
Adam
"I do not think this book is of particular interest to the slashdot following."
"(we have heard what he has to say about the geek ethos and understand, we don't want to hear it anymore)."
Speak for yourself, buddy.
Oh, come on. Give it a break.
1) I don't believe I've ever read anywhere that Slashdot stands for communism and the abolition of all that is commercial and money-grubbing. Ever noticed those little graphics at the top of the page? They're called ADVERTISEMENTS. If you click on them, Rob probably gets a little bit of money. If you don't, Rob might still get a little bit from the impression, but I'd guess not.
The amazon link is quite clear. If you click through and order the book, Rob gets money via the Amazon partners program, and Katz gets money because he's the author. If you don't click, they don't. What the hell is so hard to understand about that, and why could it possibly be a big deal?
2) Re the community thing: If you don't like Rob's moderation, go somewhere else. There are plenty of places on the net where you can post to your heart's content without fear of being moderated. Of course, nobody actually reads those posts anymore because there's so much dreck. Slashdot exists because Rob and various other people spend hours of their time making it exist. If they choose to censor people, it's their choice. They are even nice enough to give you the option of setting your threshold low enough to see just about _everything_ -- they don't just remove the posts as is done with most moderated sites.
Personally, I like Katz's stuff. I can, however, understand why many people don't. But I will NEVER understand why those people cannot simply ignore him, and continue to suggest that he should go away from whereever those people happen to like to hang out.
Adam
The difference between this kind of argument and the kind of arguments you hear about within Microsoft or other places is that this argument demonstrates the fundamental split in beliefs and intentions of those behind the free software and open-source movement.
RMS and Bruce Perens are activists. They believe that people have an inalienable right to have source code for their software, and that all software should always be freely redistributable. That is the fundamental philosophy behind GNU.
ESR and Tim O'Reilly, on the other hand, are pragmatists. They believe that software developed in the bazaar model is likely to be higher-quality than proprietary software, but they don't talk about rights.
The big difference is that the activists resent the development of proprietary software for Linux -- the database products, WordPerfect, etc. -- while the pragmatists welcome it, because it means that Linux will have that much better a chance to make inroads with the general public.
Personally, I find myself much more sympathetic to the pragmatic cause, because I believe that an open-source infrastructure like Linux is infinitely more valuable than any single piece of open-source application software, so I hope it succeeds.
Adam
So Intuit has denied the rumor because they don't see enough customer interest.
l
:)
Show them customer interest! Go to
http://altserv.intuit.com/orien/qkn_enhance.htm
and write a nice friendly note indicating that you'd LOVE to see a Quicken port to Linux (or an entirely web-based version) so you can get rid of Windows on your machine once and for all.
(For those of you who don't like commercial software or Intuit, _don't_ write and, instead, help out GNUCash.
Adam
UPN = United Paramount Network, which is a US-based broadcast network. Other shows on UPN include The Sentinel and ST: Voyager.
http://www.upn.com/ has a "find station" button with a list of US affiliates. Probably if you're outside the US, you're out of luck for now.
In the San Francisco Bay Area, the UPN affiliate is KBHK channel 44, channel 12 on most cable systems.
Adam
Notice that the major problem isn't so much that the software is incredibly buggy, but the fact that the _developers don't seem to care_. This is EXACTLY the greatest advantage of open source software -- if the original developer doesn't care about your bug, you can fix it yourself, or hire somebody to fix it. With cathedral software, if M$ doesn't have time to fix your bugs while they're adding twenty-seven thousand new Wizards to Word 2000, you're screwed.
Somebody oughta point this out to BugNet.
I just wrote a letter to the San Jose Mercury News asking them to replace "PC & Pixel", the most idiotic technology-related strip I've ever seen, with "User Friendly" on their print comics page. If other Merc readers feel the same way, I urge you to write as well.
I wasn't sure who to write to, so I just wrote to the reader rep. Make your own choice. Their feedback page is at http://www.mercurycenter.com/resources/feedback/
Later,
Adam