I wasn't asking for actual reasons that open source is better, I was poking at the the fact that "open source" is routinely thrown out with all kinds of blanket assumptions attached and exposited.
By mentioning moneylenders I was referencing the communist manifesto which is quite anti-capitalism, and this relates to a commond agenda of open source -- at the very least open source users -- of being anti-corporate and anti-capitalism. By taking a basic idea to the point of absurdity I was pontificating that it is absurd to throw out blanket ideas like "Microsoft is evil", "your government has your best interests in mind" and "open source is better".
BSD and Linux need to stop fighting, because they're both open source, and because they really have a common enemy.
Why even use the word "buy" anymore without transfer of ownership? This is renting.
Like we weren't getting ripped off textbooks before, this is even worse. We're paying for something that doesn't actually exist and that we don't get to keep. To whose benefit? Not mine.
I think the real problem is that the majority of drivers treat driving as a purely casual task, lend no importance or self-criticism to how they drive, and believe that traffic laws are designed for those with even baser intellects than which are in their own stunning posession. Perhaps accentuating this in America is that many of us now (purposelessly) are driving SUVs. Couple these wider cars with a poor sense of space and you have way too many people cutting turns and drifting across the double-yellow. Crashes would be inevitable.
While driving on the side of the road opposite to your position in the car is smart for visibility and other such matters, accidents due to negligence and human absurdity are unavoidable regardless of which "side" we're on.
This is precisely the same thing as the DRM agenda. "Converting" the unintelligent closed source masses. What makes open source better, just that fact? Performance and reliability are unimportant? Down with corporations, drag the moneylenders into the streets and lynch them?
I would absolutely agree with the notion that Microsoft is not evil (you know, being a company and not any kind of actual, living being) and that Windows is greatly responsible for much of the success of personal computing in the mainstream. However, that article is a joke. It's a collection of arbitary, sophist suppositions written at a 4th grade level.
Why was this dreck posted again? Because most people just glance at headlines and fill in the blanks? Wish I'd done that.
You mean, like every single other mail service out there?
I don't care why other people use gmail, but I like it because if I go away on vacation, I don't have to leave my computer and client running to constantly download e-mails so I don't hit my storage limit and start bouncing. Yeah, at work I use the web interface, but at home I don't usually feel like firing up a browser window and logging in. Plus, managing multiple mail accounts (or even just multiple gmails) is simply a lot easier with a client.
So to more directly answer your query: what will we do when gmail randomly decides to charge for its service (unlikely, but it could happen)? We will use POP to download our e-mails and migrate somewhere else.
There's an incorrect assumption here, by your friend or whomever, that commercial software requires skill, time, and effort and that open source software does not. If commercial software is devalued by an open source alternative, then perhaps the value was never there to begin with. The act of exerted time or effort alone does merit a pricetag. It must also be worth buying. To contrast, if something is valuable, that thing is not automatically lessened if the initial effort was minimal or even nonexistant.
As a very general aside, Microsoft isn't the only commercial developer around, people. Get over your bigotries. Open source is not automatically more innovative than a commercial application. Companies such as Apple and Adobe are very closed, very expensive, and very innovative.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll readily support anything that keeps Madcatz out of the market.
Now you're just splitting hairs.
I wasn't asking for actual reasons that open source is better, I was poking at the the fact that "open source" is routinely thrown out with all kinds of blanket assumptions attached and exposited.
By mentioning moneylenders I was referencing the communist manifesto which is quite anti-capitalism, and this relates to a commond agenda of open source -- at the very least open source users -- of being anti-corporate and anti-capitalism. By taking a basic idea to the point of absurdity I was pontificating that it is absurd to throw out blanket ideas like "Microsoft is evil", "your government has your best interests in mind" and "open source is better".
BSD and Linux need to stop fighting, because they're both open source, and because they really have a common enemy.
Thank you.
Why even use the word "buy" anymore without transfer of ownership? This is renting.
Like we weren't getting ripped off textbooks before, this is even worse. We're paying for something that doesn't actually exist and that we don't get to keep. To whose benefit? Not mine.
I think the real problem is that the majority of drivers treat driving as a purely casual task, lend no importance or self-criticism to how they drive, and believe that traffic laws are designed for those with even baser intellects than which are in their own stunning posession. Perhaps accentuating this in America is that many of us now (purposelessly) are driving SUVs. Couple these wider cars with a poor sense of space and you have way too many people cutting turns and drifting across the double-yellow. Crashes would be inevitable.
While driving on the side of the road opposite to your position in the car is smart for visibility and other such matters, accidents due to negligence and human absurdity are unavoidable regardless of which "side" we're on.
This is precisely the same thing as the DRM agenda. "Converting" the unintelligent closed source masses. What makes open source better, just that fact? Performance and reliability are unimportant? Down with corporations, drag the moneylenders into the streets and lynch them?
Please.
Hey now, don't reach too far, that Holy Grail of verbal sophistry just isn't worth it, Brunhilde.
To use "in common with others" means that you and others draw from the same pool. There is absolutely no implication of a return.
You don't share so you can get something out of it -- you share because it's the right thing to do. Imposing debt is not sharing.
Why was this dreck posted again? Because most people just glance at headlines and fill in the blanks? Wish I'd done that.
You mean, like every single other mail service out there? I don't care why other people use gmail, but I like it because if I go away on vacation, I don't have to leave my computer and client running to constantly download e-mails so I don't hit my storage limit and start bouncing. Yeah, at work I use the web interface, but at home I don't usually feel like firing up a browser window and logging in. Plus, managing multiple mail accounts (or even just multiple gmails) is simply a lot easier with a client. So to more directly answer your query: what will we do when gmail randomly decides to charge for its service (unlikely, but it could happen)? We will use POP to download our e-mails and migrate somewhere else.
Point being, if you use gmail as a POP account the mail is downloaded to your computer.
If they decide to start charging $50 a month -- fine -- but we'll still have our e-mails.
As a very general aside, Microsoft isn't the only commercial developer around, people. Get over your bigotries. Open source is not automatically more innovative than a commercial application. Companies such as Apple and Adobe are very closed, very expensive, and very innovative.