I don't see a mechanic or engineer calling the company that makes their tools evil. Why should it be any different for software?
Name a startup that Microsoft shut down using some secret back door in Windows.
Aside from that having children grow up on Linux does not assurance they'll learn how to program. Its a very hard skill to learn. Its why so few do it. There's no promise here that their lives or industry will develop any differently than if they use Windows. Its more wishful thinking than anything else.
By the way there is an alternative to Microsoft that's not Linux, its Apple. Apple's marketshare is growing at the expense of Microsoft's. That was supposed to be Linux's victory. What happened? I guess people aren't willing to overlook usability for the "politics" of free software.
This is true. I know you'll rebut with "useful data" but I do have one data point. My own.
I run Mac OS X on two computers, Windows XP on one and Linux on one. Kubuntu 8.04. Linux just isn't there yet. Its trying its damndest and it keeps improving but the problem is Apple and Microsoft don't stand still either.
It feels like a constant game of catchup with Linux. Under the hood the technology is rock solid, but Macs and Windows have been stable now for years too. Under the hood is pretty irrelevant to most folks. In terms of the UI there are still too many things I can't intuitively do on Linux that I can on either Mac OS X or Windows XP. Now its possible because I grew up not using Linux that I find the platforms I did use easier because I know them better. But that doesn't change the fact that Linux isn't on par yet. It has to do more than simply catch up to the other two, it has to SURPASS them. I'm not confident it will anytime soon.
I know the rhetoric of the free software movement. Its just that its blown out of the water by one very simple fact. Most people don't know HOW to program. Its a very tiny and small percentage of humanity that does. Its akin to how many people know how to fix their own cars. Thats why we have auto mechanics who fix other people's cars. Most people while they COULD, don't want to bother learning how to fix their own cars. Same with software. So this "Freedom" that free software is protecting is a "freedom" most people don't even WANT to begin with. Thats why I'm asking why is proprietary software anti-freedom?
You may think that you can get your foot in the door with a developing country that doesn't already have a technology infrastructure. Maybe you can get an early foothold. But Africans and people in Asia don't want to use hard to use software anymore than Americans or Europeans do. I think that eventually over time proprietary software would win out over free software in terms of operating systems and office suites simply because for most folks Windows is easier to use and keep running than Linux is. Its all an exercise in futility.
Thats the main problem. If the "product" that the free software community was offering was better from a practical point of view (on desktops, in the IT dept there's a clear practical advantage for OSS) then you wouldn't need to call people evil for offering proprietary software because the masses would prefer free software in the first place. But thats not the case is it? Make it easier to use than Windows or a Mac and you won't ever have to have this discussion ever again.
I guess no one ever pulled you aside and told you that this is just software we're talking about. Not freedom vs slavery or the right to free speech or anything like that.
Just software. A product like any other, yet the only product with a movement behind it!
It should be pretty telling that folks would rather pay for most software than use Linux and free software that they can download and install themselves. Perhaps if it was of a higher quality in regards to usability and intuitiveness people wouldn't shy away from FREE software. Any animosity you may have towards proprietary software vendors would be more productively placed inward at the free software community. The solution is simple. Make a BETTER product and more people will use it.
As it stands the fastest growing OS in the market is Mac OS X which comes on computers that cost more than the ones that are installed with Windows. So in a shrinking PC market more people are actually choosing the MOST expensive computing option, above the standard priced Windows and aren't even CONSIDERING Linux and open source software.
Just make better stuff and you won't have to make silly comparisons between Microsoft and heroin pushers.
How is proprietary software anti-freedom? Its a product. You want it, you pay for it and then you can use it. What more is there to consider? Open source is only of value to those who either want to freeload, or like to tinker without paying for access. There is no "freedom" issue here. Thats like saying a people cannot be free as long as they're expected to pay for food, or electricity, or a car, or pens and pencils. What is it about software that makes it different from any other product in our economy that makes charging for it anti-freedom?
Should people walk into Staples and demand free office supplies and then call the store employees "oppressors" if they do not let you walk out without paying for it?
Its possible, its just extremely difficult. There are countless examples of profitable proprietary software companies. For profitable open source companies there's Red Hat and maybe Suse? Maybe a handful of others?
So what you are saying is that software, most of which is the digital equipment of office supplies you can pick up at Staples, can't be proprietary because thats evil. So apparently the labor of programmers is worth less than the labor of.... everyone else on earth? If anyone else does a job they deserve to get paid for it but software developers don't?
There are many ways to do good deeds. Giving away software isn't one of them. Helping the sick, the hungry, the abused, the oppressed... in other words REAL causes. Not invented causes such as the social injustice of proprietary software.
And no open source is NOT a superior development model. It is just one of many. Were it superior we would all be using open source operating systems on our desktops. Last time I checked Redmond had the top spot followed by Cupertino. Those who allow their politics to get in the way of practically bring up the rear with Linux.
Those restrictions (except the US only one) aren't likely to go away. The $99 for a developer license serves as a barrier to "crapware" that lots of developers throw up on various platforms like paint on a canvas in abstract art hoping to catch some customers at random. Those who will pay the $99 fee will be developers who are SERIOUS about creating not just quality software but a great interface for their users. Take a look at all the programs available for the Palm OS or Windows Mobile or Symbian or the various already existing Linux mobile platforms. Most of the software is crap. I know, I used to use a Palm OS smartphone for 5 years, a different one each year.
With Free Software there's a different problem it brings to the table. Its long been said that free software developers program to "scratch their own itch." Man is that ever true. Very few free software programs would win awards for user interfaces or intuitiveness. I'm not worried about Firefox not showing up on the iPhone, they can swing the $99 fee easy. Its crap programs like GIMP or Abiword or Keep that Apple wants to discourage from being ported to the iPhone. Their absence won't be missed by a great many people.
The only stupid one is you, I'm not comparing gifting with shoplifting. What I'm comparing is the loss of revenue that happens in both cases. The developer of the software still has to find some way to earn a living. Selling support services doesn't cut it in most cases. Red Hat and Suse the two biggest open source companies manage to do it and Mozilla manages by getting search engine placement revenue from Google but for everyone else they're living a pipe dream if they're giving away their software and hoping to make it up on services.
But as you say, someone is a weasel for trying to eat.
I know this is dangerous to say on Slashdot and all but here goes.
You are VASTLY overstating the importance of open source on a mobile platform such as the iPhone. Its a friggin $500 phone. You think the masses who are buying it are going to care if they can use open source software on it or not? The big draw of the device is its interface and ease of use. You can release zero cost programs via the AppStore if you want and to the user thats really all that matters. The vast majority of the computing using public can't program to begin with so whether its open source or proprietary is wholly irrelevant.
Did you see Apple's latest financials this week? Apple's sales are growing while the rest of the PC industry is shrinking. This recession isn't affecting the company in terms of Macs at all so far. There's no indication it will either. As people's PCs break and get old they're buying Macs.
About that philosophical difference..... seeing as how a lot of computer software is the equivalent of digital office supplies how good does it feel to be giving away your labor (if you actually are a programmer that is) to enable others to freeload off of the electronic versions of Staples / Office Max's products?
Don't get the analogy?
Word processing software - Typewriters/mechanical word processors Email,IM,IRC - Pens, Paper, Envelopes, Stamps Database software - Filing cabinets Spreadsheet software - Calculators and ledgers
There are exceptions of course, video games aren't office productivity tools. They're the equivalent of board games.
But still with so much software resembling something you could buy from Staples 20 years ago, it kinda takes the "righteousness" out of the whole free software movement. Shoplift something from Staples or Office Max and see if you still have the feeling you are a part of an important "movement".
He's calling you insane because what you are asking for will never be achieved. For most people a computer is a tool to surf the web, chat on line, do reports on and play video games on. You are asking for the equivalent of Computer Science 101 to be taught to high schoolers. Thats absolutely ridiculous.
Don't have the resources? What are you daft? They've got like $18 billion in cash, an already in place retail network of Apple Stores and Best Buy Apple Stores, an extremely successful online store and an existing developer network.
We're geeks. Only geeks care about stuff like this. To even be aware of this stuff you have to frequent geeky websites. Is it still a surprise that Comcast is still able to get new subscribers?
Slashdot Mirror
Won't be easy.
Seeing as how those freedoms are important and actually matter.
I don't see a mechanic or engineer calling the company that makes their tools evil. Why should it be any different for software?
Name a startup that Microsoft shut down using some secret back door in Windows.
Aside from that having children grow up on Linux does not assurance they'll learn how to program. Its a very hard skill to learn. Its why so few do it. There's no promise here that their lives or industry will develop any differently than if they use Windows. Its more wishful thinking than anything else.
By the way there is an alternative to Microsoft that's not Linux, its Apple. Apple's marketshare is growing at the expense of Microsoft's. That was supposed to be Linux's victory. What happened? I guess people aren't willing to overlook usability for the "politics" of free software.
There is an easier way to make money in software though. Don't make it free. Charge for it instead.
Thats why proprietary software vendors make billions while open source software vendors struggle to survive.
This is true. I know you'll rebut with "useful data" but I do have one data point. My own.
I run Mac OS X on two computers, Windows XP on one and Linux on one. Kubuntu 8.04. Linux just isn't there yet. Its trying its damndest and it keeps improving but the problem is Apple and Microsoft don't stand still either.
It feels like a constant game of catchup with Linux. Under the hood the technology is rock solid, but Macs and Windows have been stable now for years too. Under the hood is pretty irrelevant to most folks. In terms of the UI there are still too many things I can't intuitively do on Linux that I can on either Mac OS X or Windows XP. Now its possible because I grew up not using Linux that I find the platforms I did use easier because I know them better. But that doesn't change the fact that Linux isn't on par yet. It has to do more than simply catch up to the other two, it has to SURPASS them. I'm not confident it will anytime soon.
I know the rhetoric of the free software movement. Its just that its blown out of the water by one very simple fact. Most people don't know HOW to program. Its a very tiny and small percentage of humanity that does. Its akin to how many people know how to fix their own cars. Thats why we have auto mechanics who fix other people's cars. Most people while they COULD, don't want to bother learning how to fix their own cars. Same with software. So this "Freedom" that free software is protecting is a "freedom" most people don't even WANT to begin with. Thats why I'm asking why is proprietary software anti-freedom?
You may think that you can get your foot in the door with a developing country that doesn't already have a technology infrastructure. Maybe you can get an early foothold. But Africans and people in Asia don't want to use hard to use software anymore than Americans or Europeans do. I think that eventually over time proprietary software would win out over free software in terms of operating systems and office suites simply because for most folks Windows is easier to use and keep running than Linux is. Its all an exercise in futility.
Thats the main problem. If the "product" that the free software community was offering was better from a practical point of view (on desktops, in the IT dept there's a clear practical advantage for OSS) then you wouldn't need to call people evil for offering proprietary software because the masses would prefer free software in the first place. But thats not the case is it? Make it easier to use than Windows or a Mac and you won't ever have to have this discussion ever again.
I guess no one ever pulled you aside and told you that this is just software we're talking about. Not freedom vs slavery or the right to free speech or anything like that.
Just software. A product like any other, yet the only product with a movement behind it!
It should be pretty telling that folks would rather pay for most software than use Linux and free software that they can download and install themselves. Perhaps if it was of a higher quality in regards to usability and intuitiveness people wouldn't shy away from FREE software. Any animosity you may have towards proprietary software vendors would be more productively placed inward at the free software community. The solution is simple. Make a BETTER product and more people will use it.
As it stands the fastest growing OS in the market is Mac OS X which comes on computers that cost more than the ones that are installed with Windows. So in a shrinking PC market more people are actually choosing the MOST expensive computing option, above the standard priced Windows and aren't even CONSIDERING Linux and open source software.
Just make better stuff and you won't have to make silly comparisons between Microsoft and heroin pushers.
Say it with me slowly.
Its just software.
We're not talking about civil rights here or anything. A pinch of perspective won't kill you.
How is proprietary software anti-freedom? Its a product. You want it, you pay for it and then you can use it. What more is there to consider? Open source is only of value to those who either want to freeload, or like to tinker without paying for access. There is no "freedom" issue here. Thats like saying a people cannot be free as long as they're expected to pay for food, or electricity, or a car, or pens and pencils. What is it about software that makes it different from any other product in our economy that makes charging for it anti-freedom?
Should people walk into Staples and demand free office supplies and then call the store employees "oppressors" if they do not let you walk out without paying for it?
Its possible, its just extremely difficult. There are countless examples of profitable proprietary software companies. For profitable open source companies there's Red Hat and maybe Suse? Maybe a handful of others?
So what you are saying is that software, most of which is the digital equipment of office supplies you can pick up at Staples, can't be proprietary because thats evil. So apparently the labor of programmers is worth less than the labor of .... everyone else on earth? If anyone else does a job they deserve to get paid for it but software developers don't?
Is this what free software is all about?
There are many ways to do good deeds. Giving away software isn't one of them. Helping the sick, the hungry, the abused, the oppressed... in other words REAL causes. Not invented causes such as the social injustice of proprietary software.
And no open source is NOT a superior development model. It is just one of many. Were it superior we would all be using open source operating systems on our desktops. Last time I checked Redmond had the top spot followed by Cupertino. Those who allow their politics to get in the way of practically bring up the rear with Linux.
Those restrictions (except the US only one) aren't likely to go away. The $99 for a developer license serves as a barrier to "crapware" that lots of developers throw up on various platforms like paint on a canvas in abstract art hoping to catch some customers at random. Those who will pay the $99 fee will be developers who are SERIOUS about creating not just quality software but a great interface for their users. Take a look at all the programs available for the Palm OS or Windows Mobile or Symbian or the various already existing Linux mobile platforms. Most of the software is crap. I know, I used to use a Palm OS smartphone for 5 years, a different one each year.
With Free Software there's a different problem it brings to the table. Its long been said that free software developers program to "scratch their own itch." Man is that ever true. Very few free software programs would win awards for user interfaces or intuitiveness. I'm not worried about Firefox not showing up on the iPhone, they can swing the $99 fee easy. Its crap programs like GIMP or Abiword or Keep that Apple wants to discourage from being ported to the iPhone. Their absence won't be missed by a great many people.
The only stupid one is you, I'm not comparing gifting with shoplifting. What I'm comparing is the loss of revenue that happens in both cases. The developer of the software still has to find some way to earn a living. Selling support services doesn't cut it in most cases. Red Hat and Suse the two biggest open source companies manage to do it and Mozilla manages by getting search engine placement revenue from Google but for everyone else they're living a pipe dream if they're giving away their software and hoping to make it up on services.
But as you say, someone is a weasel for trying to eat.
I know this is dangerous to say on Slashdot and all but here goes.
You are VASTLY overstating the importance of open source on a mobile platform such as the iPhone. Its a friggin $500 phone. You think the masses who are buying it are going to care if they can use open source software on it or not? The big draw of the device is its interface and ease of use. You can release zero cost programs via the AppStore if you want and to the user thats really all that matters. The vast majority of the computing using public can't program to begin with so whether its open source or proprietary is wholly irrelevant.
Did you see Apple's latest financials this week? Apple's sales are growing while the rest of the PC industry is shrinking. This recession isn't affecting the company in terms of Macs at all so far. There's no indication it will either. As people's PCs break and get old they're buying Macs.
About that philosophical difference..... seeing as how a lot of computer software is the equivalent of digital office supplies how good does it feel to be giving away your labor (if you actually are a programmer that is) to enable others to freeload off of the electronic versions of Staples / Office Max's products?
Don't get the analogy?
Word processing software - Typewriters/mechanical word processors
Email,IM,IRC - Pens, Paper, Envelopes, Stamps
Database software - Filing cabinets
Spreadsheet software - Calculators and ledgers
There are exceptions of course, video games aren't office productivity tools. They're the equivalent of board games.
But still with so much software resembling something you could buy from Staples 20 years ago, it kinda takes the "righteousness" out of the whole free software movement. Shoplift something from Staples or Office Max and see if you still have the feeling you are a part of an important "movement".
I'll do more than imply it for him then. I'll out right say it.
Even though I'm a Mac User, Windows provides a better desktop experience than Linux.
I run Mac OS X, Windows XP and Linux in my home. Linux still has a very far way to go.
He's calling you insane because what you are asking for will never be achieved. For most people a computer is a tool to surf the web, chat on line, do reports on and play video games on. You are asking for the equivalent of Computer Science 101 to be taught to high schoolers. Thats absolutely ridiculous.
Yes it is. You see Apple is already kicking Sony Erricson's and Microsoft's ass in handhelds.
Don't have the resources? What are you daft? They've got like $18 billion in cash, an already in place retail network of Apple Stores and Best Buy Apple Stores, an extremely successful online store and an existing developer network.
How the hell do they not have the resources?
Ohhh you're such an independent rebel..... .... just like all the other identical independent rebels!
Well to be fair if you can still get to the websites you want to go to, then what is someone supposed to be upset over?
We're geeks. Only geeks care about stuff like this. To even be aware of this stuff you have to frequent geeky websites. Is it still a surprise that Comcast is still able to get new subscribers?
Its like you are pissed that companies won't go out of their way to make their COMPETITOR's products just as good as their own.