Ask any Hurd or Linux developers, and they'll tell you they're working on kernels. They might disagree on the whole GNU/Linux thing, but they're not going to claim otherwise on what they're actually doing.
I use slavery, because proprietary software is designed to keep users divided and helpless. The users are divided because they are forbidden to share copies with anyone else and the users are helpless because they don't have the source code that programmers can read and change.
You're confusing proprietary software with free software.
Users of Skype are not free to run Skype for any purpose, they cannot study how Skype works or adapt it to their needs, they likely cannot distribute copies of Skype and certainly cannot distribute modified versions of Skype.
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.
You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.
The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is ok if there is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program (since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to make them.
In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software.
Slashdot Mirror
Hurd and Linux aren't operating systems.
Ask any Hurd or Linux developers, and they'll tell you they're working on kernels. They might disagree on the whole GNU/Linux thing, but they're not going to claim otherwise on what they're actually doing.
Right, GNU/Linux is a way to describe the generic mix of GNU and Linux.
Fedora, Ubuntu, Red Hat, Suse, Slackware are all fine names for their particular combination.
Doesn't mean they're not GNU/Linux, but they're distinct brands in their own right.
There is no product called 'Fedora Core Linux' being produced though. There's an operating system called 'Fedora'.
Video card is synonymous with thing-containing-GPU :)
Not everyone is like that.
Gnash and Swfdec will both work on FreeBSD :)
People use GNU/Hurd today. Not many, because GNU/Linux serves their needs better, but it's not vapourware.
Currently, the position taken by the FSF is one of whether something is user upgradable. If it is, then it should be free software.
As for cellphones, http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/5-reasons-to-avoid-iphone-3g/.
I'd like Joe User to use the Linux kernel. I'd also like them to use the GNU operating system.
I'm just not in favour of doing that with proprietary software.
So your job said you can't install Ekiga on Windows?
GNU/Linux isn't designed for Joe User, at least not yet.
nVidia haven't released their drivers as free software.
I just bought a laptop, having seen my friends Thinkpad, and wanted a small, lightweight laptop I could carry around the place.
And to install proprietary software from whoever pays them enough money.
There are some great reasons to get free software out there, but to do so at the expense of freedom is a mistake.
It disappoints me to see non-free software in distributions, especially when it's stuff like Opera.
Sadly, both of those contain binary blobs and at least Debian also distributes some proprietary software.
There are a few distributions but I accept these are hardly well known.
Just how often do people temporarily install Flash or nVidia drivers?
It's certainly a case of accepting things are technically better. You can do that with most software though.
To choose to not install software, because it is proprietary is to accept the mission of free software.
Open source development has always been a compromise between free software and proprietary software. Look at Eric Raymond, for examples of this.
He advocated proprietary codecs, for example.
I use slavery, because proprietary software is designed to keep users divided and helpless. The users are divided because they are forbidden to share copies with anyone else and the users are helpless because they don't have the source code that programmers can read and change.
You can help make sure there are.
Join the FSF.
Who said anything about GNU approved? There's lots of free software under the BSD, Expat and Apache licenses.
But to speak of the 'freedom' to enter into slavery is absurd.
You're confusing proprietary software with free software.
Users of Skype are not free to run Skype for any purpose, they cannot study how Skype works or adapt it to their needs, they likely cannot distribute copies of Skype and certainly cannot distribute modified versions of Skype.
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.
You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.
The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is ok if there is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program (since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to make them.
In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software.
Proprietary software is never the only/best choice.
Only -- one can always refuse a piece of software. Simply say "No thanks".
Best -- many pieces of proprietary software are technically superior to free software. If you value your freedom, you will say no to these too.
How did your colleague get away with not using Skype? It seems like maybe you don't need it, but rather, you want it.
All of the things I cited would have been built with proprietary software were it not for GNU.
An ability, perhaps.
I don't believe one can choose to become a slave.