I know there is hostility toward the GPL, but I don't understand how it affects businesses. Is it just those who develop software that find it difficult to deal with?
The differences between the GPL and BSD mean nothing to me, as far as I know. I deploy Linux and BSD freely at work, and have never heard anything that should keep me from that.
What are the sticking points that a business user should be aware of? As long as the license allows me to freely use the OS or software, why should I care about this debate?
You're the one who read criticism into my comment, I didn't put it there. You assumed I was being critical and apparently used your imagination for the rest. I'm sorry you had to go to all that extra effort.
Making unqualified statements doesn't make someone a zealot, being excessively zealous does. You must have missed the part of my comment where I said that I WASN'T saying Linux was better, just that I was more comfortable with it. You know, the perspective thing... Or maybe you lack perspective.
So I guess I should apologize for the improper use of the word "any" (I like quotes). Such a small word, yet such a problem. You are apparently a type of Windows user I have never met, as in never getting viruses/worms/spyware/adware/etc.
I don't believe I have imagined being inundated by such things on the reasonably large number of Windows workstations at work. Or smiling and trying to look sympathetic while users describe problems they are having at home, knowing I'm about to tell them they will have to find someone else to work on their machines.
It's that perspective thing again. From my point of view, Windows looks like the plague. Kind of ironic, since I happen to be typing this while booted into the WinXP partition of my work laptop. I just noticed that. Oh well.
I use Linux a lot, but I also have systems here at home running OSX, FreeBSD, and Solaris. If it makes you feel better, I'll admit to some discomfort while using FreeBSD and Solaris. I never said Linux was better, just easier to me. Haven't Mac users been saying similar things for quite a while? Stinking zealots...
I'm sorry, I assumed that your whole post was open to comment, or did you get off topic as well? I referred specifically to your comment about Linux being "hard". I believe I mentioned that it was a matter of perspective.
I don't consider myself an expert, but I do feel very comfortable with Linux. Enough to say I feel it is easier for me to use than Windows. Simply because I have used it for several years. Not sure what's wrong with that statement, but apparently I was wrong to say it. Glad I didn't say I was a Windows expert, everyone would jump down my throat then, calling me "holier than thou"... Or is it Windows that is holey(er)?
Congratulations on being a Unix programmer, you're obviously very proud of it. I don't think you're lying, I'm just not sure whether I'm supposed to be impressed or clap. It's hard to clap and type, though, so I'll just try to be impressed...
As far as I am concerned, that last bit was the only intentionally antagonistic statement I have made in this series of comments. So that's your cue to be offended and overreact.
Didn't I say it's a matter of perspective? I was responding to the comment:
I just don't get the whole "Linux is all I use" mentality. Why make life hard?
If you consider my comments "bashing", you must live a sheltered life...
I believe I also said something to the effect that however "hard" an OS is, it is a matter of perspective. I reread my post and see nothing critical toward the parent.
The fact that I have not spent time installing Antivirus, Adware/Spyware removal tools, or even had to worry about it makes my statement a fact. Disconnecting Windows from the network is the only way to achieve the same results. No bashing here, simply pleasant statements of fact... And an easily provable one.
Use Linux only for a few years, then check back and decide which you think is "hard".
It's all in your perspective, I guess, but I rarely boot into Windows for more than a few minutes these days. And then it's only to test software/hardware before releasing it to my users. It's too hard to get anything done.
Not user friendly enough, I guess.
I spend much less time tinkering with * on Linux than ANY Windows user does dealing with Antivirus/Adware/Spyware/Maintenance/etc.
But I've been using Linux for a long time, and am very comfortable with it. From my perspective, it's much easier to deal with. I'm not saying it's BETTER, I'm sure that's always going to be decided on an individual basis, but I like not having to think about how I'm going to afford the next version of OS or Office Suite, etc. I just apt-get it and forget it...
Whatever you're making, it's way too much, and you certainly owe your company six hours...
mount -t smbfs//servername/sharename/mountdirectory -o username=mywindowsusername,password=mywindowspassw ord
I don't think you are a troll or a flamebaiter... I just think you didn't read the article carefully enough. I have very similar responsibilities to the author, and have been using Linux on my desktop and laptop for several years. The author never mentioned making changes to the Exchange server that would affect the rest of the clients. I think the point is that Linux easily coexists on the network, not only for the purpose of replacing Windows. I don't see that happening for a long time at my company.
I also use OpenOffice, Evolution, etc. to access company resources and distribute documentation. As a network admin, I can't imagine living without the resources and tools available on Linux. But I admit I don't run into many who think and operate the same as I do.
There is a device called cellsocket that my company uses to connect regular analog telephones up to cellphones. You pick up the phone, hear a dial tone, then dial as you normally would, but it uses your cellphone for the connection. You could possibly connect something like this to your house POTS wiring and use your regular phones in the house while your cellphone sits and charges.
As far as making VOIP calls, there is the Sipura-3000 which mentions something similar to what you are asking. The manual is located at:
http://www.sipura.com/Documents/SPA-3000.pdf/
You could purchase or set up an Asterisk server for this purpose, integrating a POTS line, Cell line,and various SIP services, etc. That will run into quite a bit of an expense and configuration though. A Digium card Wildcard TDM400P http://www.digum.com/ with a combination of FXO and FXS modules would probably be what you need.
It's a lot of effort though, and possibly a lot of expense. I would try out the Sipura-3000 and a CellSocket type adapter first. I have 3 Sipura devices so far, and they work nicely, and are fairly easy to set up.
wordprocessor=wordprocessor
spreadsheet=spreadsheet
web browser=web browser
email client=email client
Which skills in particular are you concerned about?
They will learn how to waste countless company hours on personal web browsing, IM, and email using Linux just as easy as they will on Windows. Except with Linux I wouldn't have to waste time clearing off spyware/adware/viruses/worms.
The Windows "Real World" isn't a pretty one from my perspective, and the Linux one is a dream. Let's hope it comes true some day.
People purchase operating systems and software all the time. If they don't know any better, why not give them something they can be comfortable with? Once they do get comfortable with it, maybe then they will try free Linux. I purchased a few distros before I came to that point, and it's been 5 years since I've personally paid for Linux.
All but two of the Linux "servers" at my company are castoff Windows workstations. I think it's funny to show people who turned their noses up at these systems the kind of uptimes they get. It cost nothing to implement them, and they can run for years without rebooting. They play a very important role for us, and I can set up as many as I want without needing approval. No surprise Linux is spreading if there are more companies like mine around.
It would be ironic... But it does happen. A current fact of life is that the majority of companies have no choice but to run Windows in some form or fashion. Only time can fix that. But you simply cannot do everything under Linux yet, as much as it pains me to say it.
Saturday I lost the ability to use ttfonts in PHP after I upgraded PHP. Now I'm regretting making all those graphic banners and image links on my company intranet using PHP. But that's because of my ignorance, and it will take me a while to figure out what I need to do to fix that particular issue.
Other than that, that particular server has been heavily used 24/7 for 5 years, only coming down to replace a failing UPS, a failed RAID drive, and to max out the RAM. How is that for reliability, security, and stability?
I would say Mr. Taylor's quote about the brittle nature of Linux certainly applies to older servers like some of mine that cannot be taken down and upgraded (Or shouldn't have, in my case). I am definitely regretting not trying out Debian years ago for that very reason.
I seem to remember WinXP SP2 breaking a lot of things recently, and I can probably come up with a pretty large list of things that are broken in Windows by adding software. Of course, Microsoft would say that they can't control what is broken if you install software that isn't theirs. Apparently in their opinion the same excuse cannot be used by OSS.
Linux is open source, everyone can make their own distro if they so desire. I am against any talk of there being one single distro. Diversity is the strength of open source.
If there are competing technologys, GOOD! The best will rise to the top, but there is always room for the inevitable niche. So called analysts always say diversity hurts Linux, but it is probably the one thing that will keep exploits, viruses, and worms from causing as much problems on Linux as it does on Windows. Innovation follows diversity and freedom.
There will probably only be a few Linux distros that have blanket support by the commercial software industry, but people like me will always be able to enjoy having the freedom to be different. There are several distros out there that no normal person would ever use (Gentoo, Slack, etc.), but those who do use it, love it! That's the beauty of open source, and it is a huge strength.
Actually, they come with any combination of CD/DVD-RW. It's just a pop-in notebook drive, so you can put whatever you like in there, and upgrade whenever you like.
I've ordered them, depending on the year I bought them, with Win98, Win2k, or WinXP preinstalled. The vendors I purchased them from didn't give the no-OS option at the time, unfortunately. They were branded differently (Plastic Stickers easily replaced by Plastic Penguins), but were most likely the same manufacturer.
These bookpcs always were a niche market, but hopefully now they will gain popularity enough to drive the prices down.
I don't think there is much that would keep me from buying a mini, especially if it is still cheaper when I am in the market for another small system. The limiting factor would have been the choice of OS, but there are now a few Linux distros out there for ppc, including my current favorite, ubuntu. It runs pretty well on an old G4 I found to test it on. Haven't tried to set up a dual boot between it and OSX yet, but that's for another day I guess. So much play, so little time.
I have been purchasing pc's like that since at least 2002, with my total at 3 so far. I'm glad the big manufacturers have taken notice of the mac mini, it means the prices will be pushed down where they should be. In the $100 to $200 range for new systems maybe.
Mac hardware has always been great, but I will buy which ever is cheaper. Mac Minis (like its mini itx predecessors) are not designed to be incredibly fast, but incredibly small. Their size makes them a nice addition to the home theater system, or pretty much anywhere.
They both run linux, so other than price, there really isn't much difference between them to me.
Extend your monitor, keyboard/mouse, and audio over cat5 cable up to a few hundred feet away and share your regular pc from out in the shop.
I use several of these at work, and they are great for sharing a single purpose workstation on both sides of the building.
Or just get an old pc and don't worry about it, if it dies, get another one.
Knoppix is under 20 minutes, which is cool, but Mepis installs in about 5 minutes. Desktop type apps only on KDE. Very cool, but annoying when I remember something I can't live without and don't have an internet connection. Quickest way to get an operational Debian system. It's awesome, you can test the system with a Live CD, then install it right there.
Even with the daily list of vulnerabilities, viruses, BSOD's, lock-ups, Windows Protection Errors, Ooga-Booga dances to keep the machine running, Windows XP is still the best OS out there!
Linux may be stable, virus-free, more secure by design, have tons of free software available, frequent updates, and no restrictions on how many times you install it or where, but it is definitely not ready for the desktop.
I mean, it may have more features than Windows, easily connect to just about any type of network service, but really, who can say that it's ready for people to use?
So what if it takes under 20 minutes to install a full system with more software than I would ever want to use. Five hours of installation, patching, inserting software cds, installing and updating virus protection, installing effective firewall software, finding device drivers, entering license numbers for an equivalent system in Windows is a small thing compared to what you get with Windows, whatever that means...
So what if there are Linux desktops that have not needed rebooting in nearly 2 years, and the only work performed on them was to type "apt-get upgrade dist"? That's just too boring and predictable! What fun is there in that? So what if you can install or upgrade all currently installed software over the internet with one command or by selecting it and clicking install?
I'm sorry, but Linux is not ready for the primetime, not "Enterprise" ready. I'm not sure what that means, and frankly I'm not sure anyone else who says that does either, but they are absolutely correct! I can vouch for it.
I thought the point of the GPL was to protect the copyright holder. They create a work and release it under the GPL with the understanding that other people cannot take their efforts and profit from them without releasing their modifications back to the public under the same license. If this is the case, I don't understand why people are against the GPL. The person(s) who did the work expect that their creations will remain free and open, and that any improvements to their work will in turn benefit both themselves and the community. If other developers do not want to operate with the same community focus, I'm sure they are welcome to create their own software under a license that they feel comfortable with. What is all the complaining about? If it's your work, you get to choose the license, period. How does the GPL affect users? There are no restrictions on how you USE it, as long as you don't sell it or distribute it. You can even keep your modifications to yourself if you keep them within your organization. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong though...
Oops... You're right, it may not be adware. But these days it's almost safer to assume that if it is for Windows, and it's free, than it MUST contain adware. So there is no lying involved here, just perfectly reasonable assumptions. How would a user know, without doing careful research on the software before installing? How many users are going to do that? Is there any proof that it isn't adware? Is there someone maintaining a list of programs that are verified to be safe? The only way I can even feel remotely safe about the software is if it's source is available for peer review. After that is for a trusted group other than the company that developed it to publicly announce it to be free of adware/spyware. I have worked an ungodly amount of hours clearing off viruses, spyware/adware from systems on my network, so I have earned the right to be critical and make such assumptions. Even if I am occasionally wrong.
Since they are trying to live off selling their product, they would be interested in finding more customers. Here's a newsflash for you, buddy... Most Linux users are not interested in Trillian! There are a half dozen or more similar programs for Linux already. Who cares about one more? There is more software available for Linux than I will ever use, and that is growing rapidly. It's their loss if they don't support Linux, not mine. They would certainly have to offer something incredible for me to pay money for it regardless of the OS I use.
You're absolutely right! Trillian is much better at installing adware than anything in the OSS community! However, if you are referring to chatting, I doubt it's better. Unless it comes with cookies...
Slashdot Mirror
I know there is hostility toward the GPL, but I don't understand how it affects businesses. Is it just those who develop software that find it difficult to deal with?
The differences between the GPL and BSD mean nothing to me, as far as I know. I deploy Linux and BSD freely at work, and have never heard anything that should keep me from that.
What are the sticking points that a business user should be aware of? As long as the license allows me to freely use the OS or software, why should I care about this debate?
You're the one who read criticism into my comment, I didn't put it there. You assumed I was being critical and apparently used your imagination for the rest. I'm sorry you had to go to all that extra effort.
Making unqualified statements doesn't make someone a zealot, being excessively zealous does. You must have missed the part of my comment where I said that I WASN'T saying Linux was better, just that I was more comfortable with it. You know, the perspective thing... Or maybe you lack perspective.
So I guess I should apologize for the improper use of the word "any" (I like quotes). Such a small word, yet such a problem. You are apparently a type of Windows user I have never met, as in never getting viruses/worms/spyware/adware/etc.
I don't believe I have imagined being inundated by such things on the reasonably large number of Windows workstations at work. Or smiling and trying to look sympathetic while users describe problems they are having at home, knowing I'm about to tell them they will have to find someone else to work on their machines.
It's that perspective thing again. From my point of view, Windows looks like the plague. Kind of ironic, since I happen to be typing this while booted into the WinXP partition of my work laptop. I just noticed that. Oh well.
I use Linux a lot, but I also have systems here at home running OSX, FreeBSD, and Solaris. If it makes you feel better, I'll admit to some discomfort while using FreeBSD and Solaris. I never said Linux was better, just easier to me. Haven't Mac users been saying similar things for quite a while? Stinking zealots...
I'm sorry, I assumed that your whole post was open to comment, or did you get off topic as well? I referred specifically to your comment about Linux being "hard". I believe I mentioned that it was a matter of perspective.
I don't consider myself an expert, but I do feel very comfortable with Linux. Enough to say I feel it is easier for me to use than Windows. Simply because I have used it for several years. Not sure what's wrong with that statement, but apparently I was wrong to say it. Glad I didn't say I was a Windows expert, everyone would jump down my throat then, calling me "holier than thou"... Or is it Windows that is holey(er)?
Congratulations on being a Unix programmer, you're obviously very proud of it. I don't think you're lying, I'm just not sure whether I'm supposed to be impressed or clap. It's hard to clap and type, though, so I'll just try to be impressed...
As far as I am concerned, that last bit was the only intentionally antagonistic statement I have made in this series of comments. So that's your cue to be offended and overreact.
Zealot? Bashing? Where does that come from?
Didn't I say it's a matter of perspective? I was responding to the comment:
I just don't get the whole "Linux is all I use" mentality. Why make life hard?
If you consider my comments "bashing", you must live a sheltered life...
I believe I also said something to the effect that however "hard" an OS is, it is a matter of perspective. I reread my post and see nothing critical toward the parent.
The fact that I have not spent time installing Antivirus, Adware/Spyware removal tools, or even had to worry about it makes my statement a fact. Disconnecting Windows from the network is the only way to achieve the same results. No bashing here, simply pleasant statements of fact... And an easily provable one.
Use Linux only for a few years, then check back and decide which you think is "hard".
It's all in your perspective, I guess, but I rarely boot into Windows for more than a few minutes these days. And then it's only to test software/hardware before releasing it to my users. It's too hard to get anything done.
Not user friendly enough, I guess.
I spend much less time tinkering with * on Linux than ANY Windows user does dealing with Antivirus/Adware/Spyware/Maintenance/etc.
But I've been using Linux for a long time, and am very comfortable with it. From my perspective, it's much easier to deal with. I'm not saying it's BETTER, I'm sure that's always going to be decided on an individual basis, but I like not having to think about how I'm going to afford the next version of OS or Office Suite, etc. I just apt-get it and forget it...
Whatever you're making, it's way too much, and you certainly owe your company six hours... mount -t smbfs //servername/sharename /mountdirectory -o username=mywindowsusername,password=mywindowspassw ord
I don't think you are a troll or a flamebaiter... I just think you didn't read the article carefully enough. I have very similar responsibilities to the author, and have been using Linux on my desktop and laptop for several years. The author never mentioned making changes to the Exchange server that would affect the rest of the clients. I think the point is that Linux easily coexists on the network, not only for the purpose of replacing Windows. I don't see that happening for a long time at my company. I also use OpenOffice, Evolution, etc. to access company resources and distribute documentation. As a network admin, I can't imagine living without the resources and tools available on Linux. But I admit I don't run into many who think and operate the same as I do.
Sorry about the link on my previous post:
http://www.sipura.com/Documents/SPA-3000.pdf
I also misread your question, I assumed you were asking for something you would use personally.
I was wrong, obviously.
There is a device called cellsocket that my company uses to connect regular analog telephones up to cellphones. You pick up the phone, hear a dial tone, then dial as you normally would, but it uses your cellphone for the connection. You could possibly connect something like this to your house POTS wiring and use your regular phones in the house while your cellphone sits and charges.
As far as making VOIP calls, there is the Sipura-3000 which mentions something similar to what you are asking. The manual is located at:
http://www.sipura.com/Documents/SPA-3000.pdf/
You could purchase or set up an Asterisk server for this purpose, integrating a POTS line, Cell line,and various SIP services, etc. That will run into quite a bit of an expense and configuration though. A Digium card Wildcard TDM400P http://www.digum.com/ with a combination of FXO and FXS modules would probably be what you need.
It's a lot of effort though, and possibly a lot of expense. I would try out the Sipura-3000 and a CellSocket type adapter first. I have 3 Sipura devices so far, and they work nicely, and are fairly easy to set up.
wordprocessor=wordprocessor spreadsheet=spreadsheet web browser=web browser email client=email client Which skills in particular are you concerned about? They will learn how to waste countless company hours on personal web browsing, IM, and email using Linux just as easy as they will on Windows. Except with Linux I wouldn't have to waste time clearing off spyware/adware/viruses/worms. The Windows "Real World" isn't a pretty one from my perspective, and the Linux one is a dream. Let's hope it comes true some day.
People purchase operating systems and software all the time. If they don't know any better, why not give them something they can be comfortable with? Once they do get comfortable with it, maybe then they will try free Linux. I purchased a few distros before I came to that point, and it's been 5 years since I've personally paid for Linux.
That's not even funny...
All but two of the Linux "servers" at my company are castoff Windows workstations. I think it's funny to show people who turned their noses up at these systems the kind of uptimes they get. It cost nothing to implement them, and they can run for years without rebooting. They play a very important role for us, and I can set up as many as I want without needing approval. No surprise Linux is spreading if there are more companies like mine around.
It would be ironic... But it does happen. A current fact of life is that the majority of companies have no choice but to run Windows in some form or fashion. Only time can fix that. But you simply cannot do everything under Linux yet, as much as it pains me to say it.
I actually break things all the time...
Saturday I lost the ability to use ttfonts in PHP after I upgraded PHP. Now I'm regretting making all those graphic banners and image links on my company intranet using PHP. But that's because of my ignorance, and it will take me a while to figure out what I need to do to fix that particular issue.
Other than that, that particular server has been heavily used 24/7 for 5 years, only coming down to replace a failing UPS, a failed RAID drive, and to max out the RAM. How is that for reliability, security, and stability?
I would say Mr. Taylor's quote about the brittle nature of Linux certainly applies to older servers like some of mine that cannot be taken down and upgraded (Or shouldn't have, in my case). I am definitely regretting not trying out Debian years ago for that very reason.
I seem to remember WinXP SP2 breaking a lot of things recently, and I can probably come up with a pretty large list of things that are broken in Windows by adding software. Of course, Microsoft would say that they can't control what is broken if you install software that isn't theirs. Apparently in their opinion the same excuse cannot be used by OSS.
Linux is open source, everyone can make their own distro if they so desire. I am against any talk of there being one single distro. Diversity is the strength of open source.
If there are competing technologys, GOOD! The best will rise to the top, but there is always room for the inevitable niche. So called analysts always say diversity hurts Linux, but it is probably the one thing that will keep exploits, viruses, and worms from causing as much problems on Linux as it does on Windows. Innovation follows diversity and freedom.
There will probably only be a few Linux distros that have blanket support by the commercial software industry, but people like me will always be able to enjoy having the freedom to be different. There are several distros out there that no normal person would ever use (Gentoo, Slack, etc.), but those who do use it, love it! That's the beauty of open source, and it is a huge strength.
Actually, they come with any combination of CD/DVD-RW. It's just a pop-in notebook drive, so you can put whatever you like in there, and upgrade whenever you like. I've ordered them, depending on the year I bought them, with Win98, Win2k, or WinXP preinstalled. The vendors I purchased them from didn't give the no-OS option at the time, unfortunately. They were branded differently (Plastic Stickers easily replaced by Plastic Penguins), but were most likely the same manufacturer. These bookpcs always were a niche market, but hopefully now they will gain popularity enough to drive the prices down. I don't think there is much that would keep me from buying a mini, especially if it is still cheaper when I am in the market for another small system. The limiting factor would have been the choice of OS, but there are now a few Linux distros out there for ppc, including my current favorite, ubuntu. It runs pretty well on an old G4 I found to test it on. Haven't tried to set up a dual boot between it and OSX yet, but that's for another day I guess. So much play, so little time.
I have been purchasing pc's like that since at least 2002, with my total at 3 so far. I'm glad the big manufacturers have taken notice of the mac mini, it means the prices will be pushed down where they should be. In the $100 to $200 range for new systems maybe.
C sid=3c23d08bb22bf0f99259c3a8bd72e214/
http://www.thebookpc.com/index.php/cPath/68_33?os
Mac hardware has always been great, but I will buy which ever is cheaper. Mac Minis (like its mini itx predecessors) are not designed to be incredibly fast, but incredibly small. Their size makes them a nice addition to the home theater system, or pretty much anywhere.
They both run linux, so other than price, there really isn't much difference between them to me.
Extend your monitor, keyboard/mouse, and audio over cat5 cable up to a few hundred feet away and share your regular pc from out in the shop. I use several of these at work, and they are great for sharing a single purpose workstation on both sides of the building. Or just get an old pc and don't worry about it, if it dies, get another one.
Knoppix is under 20 minutes, which is cool, but Mepis installs in about 5 minutes. Desktop type apps only on KDE. Very cool, but annoying when I remember something I can't live without and don't have an internet connection. Quickest way to get an operational Debian system. It's awesome, you can test the system with a Live CD, then install it right there.
Even with the daily list of vulnerabilities, viruses, BSOD's, lock-ups, Windows Protection Errors, Ooga-Booga dances to keep the machine running, Windows XP is still the best OS out there! Linux may be stable, virus-free, more secure by design, have tons of free software available, frequent updates, and no restrictions on how many times you install it or where, but it is definitely not ready for the desktop. I mean, it may have more features than Windows, easily connect to just about any type of network service, but really, who can say that it's ready for people to use? So what if it takes under 20 minutes to install a full system with more software than I would ever want to use. Five hours of installation, patching, inserting software cds, installing and updating virus protection, installing effective firewall software, finding device drivers, entering license numbers for an equivalent system in Windows is a small thing compared to what you get with Windows, whatever that means... So what if there are Linux desktops that have not needed rebooting in nearly 2 years, and the only work performed on them was to type "apt-get upgrade dist"? That's just too boring and predictable! What fun is there in that? So what if you can install or upgrade all currently installed software over the internet with one command or by selecting it and clicking install? I'm sorry, but Linux is not ready for the primetime, not "Enterprise" ready. I'm not sure what that means, and frankly I'm not sure anyone else who says that does either, but they are absolutely correct! I can vouch for it.
I thought the point of the GPL was to protect the copyright holder. They create a work and release it under the GPL with the understanding that other people cannot take their efforts and profit from them without releasing their modifications back to the public under the same license. If this is the case, I don't understand why people are against the GPL. The person(s) who did the work expect that their creations will remain free and open, and that any improvements to their work will in turn benefit both themselves and the community. If other developers do not want to operate with the same community focus, I'm sure they are welcome to create their own software under a license that they feel comfortable with. What is all the complaining about? If it's your work, you get to choose the license, period. How does the GPL affect users? There are no restrictions on how you USE it, as long as you don't sell it or distribute it. You can even keep your modifications to yourself if you keep them within your organization. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong though...
Oops... You're right, it may not be adware. But these days it's almost safer to assume that if it is for Windows, and it's free, than it MUST contain adware. So there is no lying involved here, just perfectly reasonable assumptions. How would a user know, without doing careful research on the software before installing? How many users are going to do that? Is there any proof that it isn't adware? Is there someone maintaining a list of programs that are verified to be safe? The only way I can even feel remotely safe about the software is if it's source is available for peer review. After that is for a trusted group other than the company that developed it to publicly announce it to be free of adware/spyware. I have worked an ungodly amount of hours clearing off viruses, spyware/adware from systems on my network, so I have earned the right to be critical and make such assumptions. Even if I am occasionally wrong.
Since they are trying to live off selling their product, they would be interested in finding more customers. Here's a newsflash for you, buddy... Most Linux users are not interested in Trillian! There are a half dozen or more similar programs for Linux already. Who cares about one more? There is more software available for Linux than I will ever use, and that is growing rapidly. It's their loss if they don't support Linux, not mine. They would certainly have to offer something incredible for me to pay money for it regardless of the OS I use.
You're absolutely right! Trillian is much better at installing adware than anything in the OSS community! However, if you are referring to chatting, I doubt it's better. Unless it comes with cookies...