Moderators: snarkout, Patrick, dann
Code: Select all
<video src="demo.ogg">hehe , don't get me wrong, i would love opera to be open source because its a good application and also the ability to have ports for any system would be nice.Jza wrote:Yeah they wont touch opera because is closed source yet they use flash.allix wrote:That is good news, i know there are some who would not touch opera because its close source, i personly use it with flash.
I don't know about you but I only run Linux on X86/X86-64 which Opera works on. Sure it would be nice and all if Opera was open source as it would if the Nvidia drivers were open source as well. But that doesn't mean it is not a solid product. They have done a great job porting it and I am glad they are able to make money off the program.allix wrote:does opera run on a mips, alpha, powerpc, sparc, freescale, m32r, cell, gamecube, superH and any other platforms that linux runs on mentioned at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kern ... hitectures
The fact is closed source software only runs on platforms the proprietary company wants it to run on, another reason free software/open source is a better solution.
Well if you wanna take an open source angle to this, I'd argue that one of the core elements of open source is to ensure that the little guy is not locked up in chains and can't do crap.CptnObvious999 wrote:I don't know about you but I only run Linux on X86/X86-64 which Opera works on. Sure it would be nice and all if Opera was open source as it would if the Nvidia drivers were open source as well. But that doesn't mean it is not a solid product. They have done a great job porting it and I am glad they are able to make money off the program.
Well guess what, I think you can expect Konqueror to be under GPLv3 in the future, HAHA!CptnObvious999 wrote:I personally use Konqueror as my browser but props to the Opera guys for doing an awesome job.
Actually Devon, you just mixed three things that, to a degree, are somewhat unrelated to each other.CptnObvious999 wrote:I think the "it's a solid product and even though they support us, I refuse to use it because it isn't open source" is a crazy idea, but maybe thats just me.
).
Why would I be angry? You are completely entitled to your own opinions, that's what free speech is all about, and I am probably the staunchest advocate of free speech you've ever met. I may not agree with your ideas, and you may not agree with mine, but that's not to say that I will prevent you from having your own opinions and ideas.CptnObvious999 wrote:(insert angry Troels reply now)
I honestly believe that the Opera company is not out to get us and there is plenty of competition to make sure that this does not happen.Tsuroerusu wrote:Well if you wanna take an open source angle to this, I'd argue that one of the core elements of open source is to ensure that the little guy is not locked up in chains and can't do crap.
Sure there's not a lot of people using say NetBSD or OpenBSD, but why should those users not be able to do the same stuff as GNU/Linux users (Sorry Devon, this term is a good one when talking about about the system you and I both use, and the BSDs, which are whole OSes) unless there's some valid technical limitation that prevents something from being possible? An example of this would be things such as 3D effects, such as those provided by Compiz. There's no theoretical reason that those couldn't run on OpenBSD, but the OpenBSD developers have not implemented the kernel side of the Direct Rendering architecture. I am sure that they will do this at some point in the future, and then you could foresee Compiz running on OpenBSD.
There's nothing wrong with that, the GPLv3 is a fine license. I am simply against it to be used on the kernel. (Which it won't be, at least not for a while, so lets not open that can of worms)Tsuroerusu wrote:Well guess what, I think you can expect Konqueror to be under GPLv3 in the future, HAHA!CptnObvious999 wrote:I personally use Konqueror as my browser but props to the Opera guys for doing an awesome job.
Have you ever tried it? It is a very nice browser and I recommend you do so.Tsuroerusu wrote:"it's a solid product" - Might very well be, I don't know.
Well this is another area that they and I disagree. So what your saying is that having binary Nvidia drivers, Opera, Flash support, and many other components is worse for us then if we didn't have them.Tsuroerusu wrote:"and even though they support us" - Free software people like RMS does NOT see a proprietary software company porting their software to a free system as "supporting us", they see it as the opposite, basically. I personally see Opera Software ASA porting their web browser to GNU/Linux as supporting the people who uses Opera, not the platform as a whole. If you want to support the platform itself, release your stuff as free software or fund development of free software (Mark Shuttleworth would be a name that would come to mind, with him sponsoring KDE).
Jeez, was it necessary to write a novel on this? My eyes are falling out of my head...Tsuroerusu wrote:"I refuse to use it because it isn't open source" - Some people give a higher priority to their privacy than others, you're just gonna have to respect that, period! Why is it so crazy to not use proprietary software because of the fact that you don't know what the software really, and truly does, and other various reasons, when the internet is practically being flooded with monitoring and surveillance? Recently in Denmark, as part of an anti-terrorism law, the police are allowed to monitor ANY internet traffic that they can obtain a court's permission to monitor. Sure you could argue that if I am not doing anything wrong, I don't have to worry, but at the same time, my privacy is not 100% assured. That's like having a backdoor in an encryption algorithm for completely defending that encryption, if a police investigation needed that. Sure if you're not hiding anything illegal, you don't have to worry, but at the same time, you are absolutely NOT assured of security AT ALL. And also there's the argument of ethical reasons. Now, this can either be a completely bogus, or completely valid argument, depending on how the people you talk view computing. Most people view computers as machines that are designed to serve them and their needs (Hehe, that sure sounded like something right out of my hentai collection, didn't it? If you want to know what I am talking about, you should watch an anime film called Pianist).
I personally view computing, yes, even the use of it, as a collaborative process, a bit like scientists often view science. For example, to do some kind of experiment you're always depend on something others have done, unless you absolutely and utterly repeat every possible scientific exploration since mankind first came into existence. Nobody is gonna do that! First of all, it would take more time than they have lifetime to cover. Second it's just too big a burden, and thirdly your basic thinking about science is built on the work of others because you've been raised by others and learned things from others, you could argue that even our languages are a science in it's own right (Just try learning Chinese and you'll see what I mean). Even our life as human beings is a collaborative process, because we use what others have done. For example, I live in a house that others have built, or I eat food that others have produced (Pizza, for instance. Even though I am a decent cook, I still can't make pizza the same way the people in Italy can!
Now I hope you understand what I mean by "collaborative process", so when I say that's my view of computing, you ought to be able to see what I mean. So to me, the concept of proprietary software is unethical in some sense, because, if we compare software to science, I am not allowed to see the thoughts (The source code) of others, and learn from those. Now, I'll admit that I don't give as high a priority to this as RMS does (Most likely because he's had very different computing experiences than I have), but I can understand why RMS does what he does by just looking at myself giving an extremely high priority to free speech, which I am sure that Kim Jong-Il won't understand.
Of these two, and very different, views of computing, I know which one most of you probably stands behind, but should that prevent me from standing behind the one I do? I don't think so.
I just remember you calling me as spewing FUD and other things.Tsuroerusu wrote:Why would I be angry? You are completely entitled to your own opinions, that's what free speech is all about, and I am probably the staunchest advocate of free speech you've ever met. I may not agree with your ideas, and you may not agree with mine, but that's not to say that I will prevent you from having your own opinions and ideas.CptnObvious999 wrote:(insert angry Troels reply now)
You obviously misunderstood. It's not about competition. I'm not talking about vendor lock-in like not being able to do a certain task because some software is available for XYZ platform (By the way, the whole concept of vendor lock-in, in computing, comes from the very concept proprietary software).CptnObvious999 wrote:I honestly believe that the Opera company is not out to get us and there is plenty of competition to make sure that this does not happen.Tsuroerusu wrote:Well if you wanna take an open source angle to this, I'd argue that one of the core elements of open source is to ensure that the little guy is not locked up in chains and can't do crap.
Sure there's not a lot of people using say NetBSD or OpenBSD, but why should those users not be able to do the same stuff as GNU/Linux users (Sorry Devon, this term is a good one when talking about about the system you and I both use, and the BSDs, which are whole OSes) unless there's some valid technical limitation that prevents something from being possible? An example of this would be things such as 3D effects, such as those provided by Compiz. There's no theoretical reason that those couldn't run on OpenBSD, but the OpenBSD developers have not implemented the kernel side of the Direct Rendering architecture. I am sure that they will do this at some point in the future, and then you could foresee Compiz running on OpenBSD.
Hehe, fair enough.CptnObvious999 wrote:There's nothing wrong with that, the GPLv3 is a fine license. I am simply against it to be used on the kernel. (Which it won't be, at least not for a while, so lets not open that can of worms)Tsuroerusu wrote:Well guess what, I think you can expect Konqueror to be under GPLv3 in the future, HAHA!CptnObvious999 wrote:I personally use Konqueror as my browser but props to the Opera guys for doing an awesome job.
I have played with it in the past (Quite a while ago though), not my cup of tea. If they make Opera free software, I'll say great and take a look at it again.CptnObvious999 wrote:Have you ever tried it? It is a very nice browser and I recommend you do so.Tsuroerusu wrote:"it's a solid product" - Might very well be, I don't know.
I don't see those components as benefitting GNU/Linux itself, or the free software ecosystem, I'm sure they benefit the people who wants to use them.CptnObvious999 wrote:Well this is another area that they and I disagree. So what your saying is that having binary Nvidia drivers, Opera, Flash support, and many other components is worse for us then if we didn't have them.Tsuroerusu wrote:"and even though they support us" - Free software people like RMS does NOT see a proprietary software company porting their software to a free system as "supporting us", they see it as the opposite, basically. I personally see Opera Software ASA porting their web browser to GNU/Linux as supporting the people who uses Opera, not the platform as a whole. If you want to support the platform itself, release your stuff as free software or fund development of free software (Mark Shuttleworth would be a name that would come to mind, with him sponsoring KDE).
Well, yes, because I wanted to explain the reason for my views.CptnObvious999 wrote:Jeez, was it necessary to write a novel on this?
Your eyes, your problem, go see an optician.CptnObvious999 wrote:My eyes are falling out of my head...
Call it whatever you want, people argue all the time that it's being paranoid advocating the use of another OS than Windows for security reasons.CptnObvious999 wrote:I think you are a little too paranoid, I fully trust the Opera company as doing the right thing.
Fair enough, I am not however. Especially since there's no reason to take that risk when we have browsers such as Firefox and Konqueror.CptnObvious999 wrote:I do not believe they are spying on me and they have a great record as far as security goes. If they indeed are spying on me it will be found out eventually and will be given a lot of bad press, a company like Opera although it is not too small could not take a hit like that. So they would be very very stupid to do that. Is it still possible that it could happen? Sure, but I am willing to take that very small risk.
Yes, because you were intentionally relaying incorrect information!CptnObvious999 wrote:I just remember you calling me as spewing FUD and other things.Tsuroerusu wrote:Why would I be angry? You are completely entitled to your own opinions, that's what free speech is all about, and I am probably the staunchest advocate of free speech you've ever met. I may not agree with your ideas, and you may not agree with mine, but that's not to say that I will prevent you from having your own opinions and ideas.CptnObvious999 wrote:(insert angry Troels reply now)
Dude don't look at me, Devon started!Wally Balljacker wrote:Why is it that everytime a piece of proprietary software is brought up, you always have to turn the discussion into a full-on religious war?
Did I say it does? If I did (Which I don't believe I did, by the way), let me just say that Opera does not pollute the environment, nor does it kill babies.Wally Balljacker wrote:Seriously, using Opera doesn't kill babies, or pollute the environment. Relax.
I wasn't referring to religion in a traditional sense. Free Software is by all acounts a religious crusade and political campain for software freedom, which is precisely why I don't subscribe to it. I don't need people preaching to me about the ethics of software, or the "immoral" act of, God forbid, using commercial software that I have paid for.Tsuroerusu wrote:Dude don't look at me, Devon started!Wally Balljacker wrote:Why is it that everytime a piece of proprietary software is brought up, you always have to turn the discussion into a full-on religious war?
And oh by the way, free software is not about religion. Christianity and Islam are religions.
Well then please explain it to me, because I don't understand what you mean by "religious" in this case. I'm very good at English, but obviously not perfect.Wally Balljacker wrote:I wasn't referring to religion in a traditional sense.
Well, I'll agree to political campaign, not religious crusade.Wally Balljacker wrote:Free Software is by all acounts a religious crusade and political campain for software freedom, which is precisely why I don't subscribe to it.
Yeah I agree, using Apache, MySQL, Compiz, F-Spot, Banshee, Beagle, NetworkManager, Tomboy and the Tango icons ... is really really awful!Wally Balljacker wrote:I don't need people preaching to me about the ethics of software, or the "immoral" act of, God forbid, using commercial software that I have paid for.
I partly agree with you, I think the general idea behind the campaign is OK, but I think it could have been done in a much much better way. Instead of saying "You should not use Windows Vista because of X, Y and Z, use free software instead", they should be saying "Oh before you use Windows Vista, did you know X, Y and Z?".Wally Balljacker wrote:I also think the whole "Bad Vista" FUD campain was in bad taste. It's really no different than Microsoft's "Get The Facts" scare tactics. Let's win over Windows users by showing them superior technology, not telling them Vista is evil, because in most cases they will just roll their eyes and scoff.
