I have to admit it... Vista makes a nice desktop

[Wally Balljacker]

I mean free as in freedom.

I think that is a bunch of crap to be honest. I enjoy the freedom to use whatever I want, open or proprietary.

What a completely useless statement. I've heard it enough that apparently it needs a response.

Nobody has said you shouldn't be allowed to use whatever software you want. Stallman voices his opinion on why you shouldn't use proprietary software, and he has reasons to back up his argument, but I've never seen him once say that you should be forbidden from doing whatever the Hell you want to do with your computer. Stallman simply points out the consequences of proprietary software, which you can't avoid unless you use Free (as in Freedom, of course) Software.

So you're basically arguing against nobody. It's the strawman argument against Free Software; it's old, and it's a complete waste of time. Use whatever you feel like using for whatever reason you want to, but quit wasting people's time with sayings that contribute absolutely nothing to anyone's understanding.

To clarify, I think taking advantage of freedom of choice and using whatever software one pleases, whether the source code is open or proprietary, is a greater exercise of freedom than restricting oneself to purely free software. I respect the people who feel that using only free software constitutes a higher degree of freedom, but I wholeheartedly disagree with them. I don't view access to source code as a right, unlike some in the free software community, and I respect the rights of the software author to do as they wish with their code. I absolutely encourage developers to release their software under the GPL, but I think this notion that proprietary software is "unethical" is just bollocks.

[jturning]

To clarify, I think taking advantage of freedom of choice and using whatever software one pleases, whether the source code is open or proprietary, is a greater exercise of freedom than restricting oneself to purely free software. I respect the people who feel that using only free software constitutes a higher degree of freedom, but I wholeheartedly disagree with them. I don't view access to source code as a right, unlike some in the free software community, and I respect the rights of the software author to do as they wish with their code. I absolutely encourage developers to release their software under the GPL, but I think this notion that proprietary software is "unethical" is just bollocks.

I think when many talk about free software and their choice to use only free software, they're buying into the ideal world that could be. Where all the software we need is available, created and maintained by the global population. People donate their time and others their money to support this effort where everyone is free to use the software, enhance the software, and copy and distribute the software. This goes beyond just the software people choose to run, but the enabling of people everywhere to utilize computers to accomplish real tasks whether business, personal, government or humanitarian. This ideal world would enable anyone to make complete use of any computing hardware they could get their hands on for the betterment of themselves and humankind.

I do think proprietary software is unethical. You're restricted in how you can utilize the software. You can't copy it and give it away to help your friends or others. You don't have access to the source code to fix bugs, or update the software when the world changes, even if that means hiring a programmer. So if the producer of the software no longer supports the program and some external conditions change integral to the software, the program becomes useless even though you purchased it. You've invested money and time into utilizing the software, and now it no longer will work for you leaving you to find another program to accomplish your task. And what many companies do is stop supporting older programs forcing you to purchase newer versions. And all you have to do is look at some of the ways large proprietary software corporations behave in the market place restricting and harming users with their business practices. For example take software patents which large corporations use to rob and plunder small companies and individuals.

With that said we don't live in a perfect world, and some people need to get work done. So some of us balance our love and hope for Free Software with actually accomplishing tasks. So if the best tools for your work only exist in proprietary forms and even on proprietary operating systems, do what you have to do. But don't delude yourself that's it is not harmful to support many of these proprietary software companies. By paying them for their products you contribute to the problems they create, and fund their lobbyists and attorneys in the furtherance of a proprietary software world. Maybe not all are unethical, but the world they're fostering is.

Many of the world still has no idea about Free Software, so there is much hope for the ideal world of Free Software as people become conscious of it and hopefully fight for it. And there will always be programming jobs for the companies and people that need customized software unique to their business or hardware. A Free Software world doesn't mean all programmers work for free. And many businesses that make money from Free Software will continue to invest proceeds into programmers to support the software that contribute to their profits.

Bugz

[Vogateer]

To clarify, I think taking advantage of freedom of choice and using whatever software one pleases, whether the source code is open or proprietary, is a greater exercise of freedom than restricting oneself to purely free software. I respect the people who feel that using only free software constitutes a higher degree of freedom, but I wholeheartedly disagree with them. I don't view access to source code as a right, unlike some in the free software community, and I respect the rights of the software author to do as they wish with their code. I absolutely encourage developers to release their software under the GPL, but I think this notion that proprietary software is "unethical" is just bollocks.

I certainly didn't get that from "I think that is a bunch of crap," when someone asked about software freedom. And when you said "I enjoy the freedom to use whatever I want," it sounds very much like you're arguing that someone wants to take away that freedom, when I haven't seen anybody who has said they do. There's no straight line between what he said and what you said. He said you should care about the freedom to control what your computer does (software freedom), while you said you should be able to use whatever software you want. They're unrelated issues, so I don't understand why people bring it up in discussion at all.

So who in the free software community doesn't support the rights of the software author to do as they wish with their code? Certainly no major name in Free Software that I know. The funny thing is that the only person I've seen on this thread that suggests you violate those rights is you, when you mentioned the Pirate Bay. If you think that it's a greater freedom to choose whatever you want to run, then I agree, but who exactly is trying to take that freedom away?

With Free Software, it's not an either/or situation, where using free software means you give up some other right, it's just and, you still get to choose what you want to run, and if you happen to choose Free Software, you have more control over what goes in there. So do you have any example of someone who actually believes that software developers don't or shouldn't have the right to release code however they wish, or is this still the strawman argument?

[hellonorman]

I think when many talk about free software and their choice to use only free software, they're buying into the ideal world that could be. Where all the software we need is available, created and maintained by the global population. People donate their time and others their money to support this effort where everyone is free to use the software, enhance the software, and copy and distribute the software. This goes beyond just the software people choose to run, but the enabling of people everywhere to utilize computers to accomplish real tasks whether business, personal, government or humanitarian. This ideal world would enable anyone to make complete use of any computing hardware they could get their hands on for the betterment of themselves and humankind.

I do think proprietary software is unethical. You're restricted in how you can utilize the software. You can't copy it and give it away to help your friends or others. You don't have access to the source code to fix bugs, or update the software when the world changes, even if that means hiring a programmer. So if the producer of the software no longer supports the program and some external conditions change integral to the software, the program becomes useless even though you purchased it. You've invested money and time into utilizing the software, and now it no longer will work for you leaving you to find another program to accomplish your task. And what many companies do is stop supporting older programs forcing you to purchase newer versions. And all you have to do is look at some of the ways large proprietary software corporations behave in the market place restricting and harming users with their business practices. For example take software patents which large corporations use to rob and plunder small companies and individuals.

With that said we don't live in a perfect world, and some people need to get work done. So some of us balance our love and hope for Free Software with actually accomplishing tasks. So if the best tools for your work only exist in proprietary forms and even on proprietary operating systems, do what you have to do. But don't delude yourself that's it is not harmful to support many of these proprietary software companies. By paying them for their products you contribute to the problems they create, and fund their lobbyists and attorneys in the furtherance of a proprietary software world. Maybe not all are unethical, but the world they're fostering is.

Many of the world still has no idea about Free Software, so there is much hope for the ideal world of Free Software as people become conscious of it and hopefully fight for it. And there will always be programming jobs for the companies and people that need customized software unique to their business or hardware. A Free Software world doesn't mean all programmers work for free. And many businesses that make money from Free Software will continue to invest proceeds into programmers to support the software that contribute to their profits.

Bugz

I could go point by point and debate many of the things you say here. But I think all your arguments stem from the premise that proprietary software is unethical. So I'll just ask the simple question. Where does this right for free software stem from?

I can agree with many arguments in favor of open standards and protocols, especially in regards to the world wide web. However if someone writes a proprietary application that is the best at what it does and it uses open standards, how is it inherently unethical for them to not share the source code with the world?

[hellonorman]

So do you have any example of someone who actually believes that software developers don't or shouldn't have the right to release code however they wish, or is this still the strawman argument?

The post right above yours claims that all proprietary code is unethical. Is he alone in his thinking?

[greggh]

So do you have any example of someone who actually believes that software developers don't or shouldn't have the right to release code however they wish, or is this still the strawman argument?

The post right above yours claims that all proprietary code is unethical. Is he alone in his thinking?

Stating that you believe that writing and distributing proprietary software is unethical, and that programmers should not do this, is not at all the same as saying that programmers should be denied the right or ability to write proprietary software. Even Stallman has never, as far as I know, said that he thinks programmers shouldn't be allowed to write proprietary code. He just says they shouldn't.

Edit: I was rereading through this thread and just wanted to acknowledge that Vogateer already pointed out the same thing as I was saying.

http://www.thelinuxlink.net/forum/viewt ... 683#p20683

I missed it the first time around.

[MattKingUSA]

Ok, so, free to choose non-free is correct. But choosing to exercise freedom with non-free software is false. So, free is free in the sense that it's open. But closed isn't free even if you get it for free. Or choose freely to use it. And it's not closed because you have freedom of choice, but not to use it freely...as in unrestricted. But freely as in using closed freely with a lot of restrictions. So, you are free to restrict yourself from using your hardware. Or you can be free to use software freely completely unrestricted and open. Am I getting this correct?

EDIT: Wait, I think I stated that wrong. What I meant was that you can freely choose to use software that restricts your ablility oporate your computer and software free from restrictions. Which is *inarguably true.

[hellonorman]

So do you have any example of someone who actually believes that software developers don't or shouldn't have the right to release code however they wish, or is this still the strawman argument?

The post right above yours claims that all proprietary code is unethical. Is he alone in his thinking?

Stating that you believe that writing and distributing proprietary software is unethical, and that programmers should not do this, is not at all the same as saying that programmers should be denied the right or ability to write proprietary software. Even Stallman has never, as far as I know, said that he thinks programmers shouldn't be allowed to write proprietary code. He just says they shouldn't.

I agree that there is a difference in saying it like that. I'm not so sure that's a difference the community at large makes. It also doesn't explain how proprietary software is inherently unethical.

[greggh]

The post right above yours claims that all proprietary code is unethical. Is he alone in his thinking?

Stating that you believe that writing and distributing proprietary software is unethical, and that programmers should not do this, is not at all the same as saying that programmers should be denied the right or ability to write proprietary software. Even Stallman has never, as far as I know, said that he thinks programmers shouldn't be allowed to write proprietary code. He just says they shouldn't.

I agree that there is a difference in saying it like that. I'm not so sure that's a difference the community at large makes. It also doesn't explain how proprietary software is inherently unethical.

I think it's stunningly obvious that the free software community at large understands this very clear difference. It is exceedingly rare to hear from even the most active among free software users that they think that writing and distributing free software should be a crime, and that people should go to jail for doing it. The community simply asks and tries to persuade people to value their freedoms, and respect the freedoms of others, to run the software as they wish, study and understand the software, share the software with others, and be able to modify the software to do what they wish and share those modifications with others. We try to persuade people not to write, distribute, or use non-free software. We ask this of people, we don't seek to make it a crime to do otherwise.

As to why people in the free software community think the creation and distribution of non-free software is unethical has been discussed many times, you disagree, so I won't go into that again.

Edit: On the subject of software freedom, I think the following is the best speech Eben Moglen gave. It runs about a half hour and is in three parts.

The system of ownership of ideas

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN00_v7gpbo
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDFVAA_Mb5c
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlf_3JD3l8I

[LinuxMint-4]

Speaking of Freedom and free software, there was a excellent interview with Richard Stallman on the Gusty Geeks radio show recently. Gusty Geeks has been among the best top Linux podcasts...this was probably their best one yet.

http://www.gutsygeeks.com/audio/listen. ... format=mp3

http://www.gutsygeeks.com/audio/listen. ... format=ogg

[greggh]

Speaking of Freedom and free software, there was a excellent interview with Richard Stallman on the Gusty Geeks radio show recently. Gusty Geeks has been among the best top Linux podcasts...this was probably their best one yet.

http://www.gutsygeeks.com/audio/listen. ... format=mp3

http://www.gutsygeeks.com/audio/listen. ... format=ogg

Thanks so much for posting this. Going to listen right now.

[LinuxMint-4]

(Old but still topical.....)

Ubuntu 1, Windows 0
I shake my head at this Windows foolishness!

By: Frank Cohen
Nov. 11, 2007 11:00 AM


http://linux.sys-con.com/node/458943


Frank Cohen's Blog

PushToTest is setting up a new test lab to check builds of TestMaker. We bought Toshiba Satellite (A216) laptops for the lab. We tried installing Windows XP over the pre-installed Windows Vista. Toshiba does not provide XP device drivers for the laptop and they actively discouraged me in doing so in a support call.

In the end I found no way to get the network adaptor to function under Windows XP and had to reinstall Vista.

This made me wonder how much work is involved in producing XP drivers for a laptop?

I installed Ubuntu on the Toshiba laptop. Ubuntu installed in 15 minutes - 49 for Windows XP and 125 for Windows Vista. Ubuntu's desktop came right up. I opened the pre-installed Firefox browser and found I could browse the Web immediately. Ubuntu installed a network adaptor for the Toshiba laptop.

I shake my head at this Windows foolishness!

-Frank

[Wally Balljacker]

(Old but still topical.....)

Ubuntu 1, Windows 0
I shake my head at this Windows foolishness!

By: Frank Cohen
Nov. 11, 2007 11:00 AM


http://linux.sys-con.com/node/458943


Frank Cohen's Blog

PushToTest is setting up a new test lab to check builds of TestMaker. We bought Toshiba Satellite (A216) laptops for the lab. We tried installing Windows XP over the pre-installed Windows Vista. Toshiba does not provide XP device drivers for the laptop and they actively discouraged me in doing so in a support call.

In the end I found no way to get the network adaptor to function under Windows XP and had to reinstall Vista.

This made me wonder how much work is involved in producing XP drivers for a laptop?

I installed Ubuntu on the Toshiba laptop. Ubuntu installed in 15 minutes - 49 for Windows XP and 125 for Windows Vista. Ubuntu's desktop came right up. I opened the pre-installed Firefox browser and found I could browse the Web immediately. Ubuntu installed a network adaptor for the Toshiba laptop.

I shake my head at this Windows foolishness!

-Frank

First of all, why did he buy laptops that aren't supported by XP? He should have done his research.

Why is he surprised that an old version of Windows released seven years ago doesn't support his modern laptop that came with Vista? That's like trying to fashion Windows 95 onto a Pentium 4 system released in 2002 or me complaining that Debian Woody doesn't run on my modern Core 2 Duo laptop. It's ludicrous and isn't a valid argument at all.

Seriously guys, I hate to rain on your Windows bashing parade, but the double standards around here are incredible.

[LinuxMint-4]

(Old but still topical.....)

Ubuntu 1, Windows 0
I shake my head at this Windows foolishness!

By: Frank Cohen
Nov. 11, 2007 11:00 AM


http://linux.sys-con.com/node/458943


Frank Cohen's Blog

PushToTest is setting up a new test lab to check builds of TestMaker. We bought Toshiba Satellite (A216) laptops for the lab. We tried installing Windows XP over the pre-installed Windows Vista. Toshiba does not provide XP device drivers for the laptop and they actively discouraged me in doing so in a support call.

In the end I found no way to get the network adaptor to function under Windows XP and had to reinstall Vista.

This made me wonder how much work is involved in producing XP drivers for a laptop?

I installed Ubuntu on the Toshiba laptop. Ubuntu installed in 15 minutes - 49 for Windows XP and 125 for Windows Vista. Ubuntu's desktop came right up. I opened the pre-installed Firefox browser and found I could browse the Web immediately. Ubuntu installed a network adaptor for the Toshiba laptop.

I shake my head at this Windows foolishness!

-Frank

First of all, why did he buy laptops that aren't supported by XP? He should have done his research.

Why is he surprised that an old version of Windows released seven years ago doesn't support his modern laptop that came with Vista? That's like trying to fashion Windows 95 onto a Pentium 4 system released in 2002 or me complaining that Debian Woody doesn't run on my modern Core 2 Duo laptop. It's ludicrous and isn't a valid argument at all.

Seriously guys, I hate to rain on your Windows bashing parade, but the double standards around here are incredible.

I have three laptops (Chembook 6133 with 160 MB Ram, Two Chembooks 160 MB Ram and 90 MB Ram) that I cannot install Ubuntu or any form of Ubuntu on (Icebuntu, Fluxbuntu) or even Vector Linux Light, yet Windows 98 and Windows 4.O NT will install on all three with no problem.

However...

The Chembook 6133 laptop was able to install Absolute Linux and DSL.
Both Chembook 5033 laptops were only able to install DSL and DSL-N.

In addition, the Omnibook 5700 with 48 MB Ram can run Windows 4.0 NT . I did manage to install DSL on it but can't get the GUI running correctly for it to work.

But the above are glaring exceptions to Linux, in every other computer I tried Xubuntu or some other other low requirement distro on, the install usually went well. In one case with a higher end Power Spec machine, a reinstall with Windows XP on a larger hard drive...XP could not locate drivers for the LAN or the sound card. Same machine, dual boot install with Linux Mint 4...Mint was able to find the drivers for LAN and sound card with no problem.

In addition, I have tried out a lot of distros, Open Suse, Mandriva Extreme, Mandriva, Freespire, Sabayon, Vector Linux, Knoppix, DSL, DSL-N, Puppy, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Fluxbuntu, Icebuntu, Yellow Dog, PC Linux, Fedora ,and every time It seems I go back to Ubuntu Gnome or Linux Mint. With the publicity, online support and ease of installation and intuitive features, frequent release schedules....it does seem Ubuntu is the leading Linux desktop of choice .

Personally, Windows XP has been a great operating system and in my opinion the best the MSFT has ever done with Windows 2000 a close second. But it is seven years old and is long in the tooth. It is my opinion Vista runs like shit and needs a lot of RAM or a lot of tweaks to make it run somewhat useful, thats the good part about it.....we won't go into the driver issues or the allegations of back doors or DRM that supposedly checks you 30 to 60 times a second..........after all that would be ..........FUD.

Yet... while it is easy to say XP is old and ready for the PC grave, Vista is at least FIVE years old when you put the development time in. Having to buy more RAM or make substantial hacks to make a newer expensive proprietary operating system (by a World Class Company with Billions of Dollars at its disposal) work a little better in a modern machine is inexcusable.

And another thing having to spend $80 a year after buying a new Windows computer for anti virus software is inexcusable and no consumer should never have to put up with that nonsense anymore. The very least Windows should do is to provide FREE antivirus as a part of the Operating system cost instead of pissing away $300 Million on a commercial campaign on a product riddled with issues from day one....$300 mil will only buy so much lipstick for the pig.

Of course providing free antivirus by MSFT will never happen due to the back room deals that seem go on behind the scenes. Which brings up another point, the amount of crapware/trialware on a new Windows PC is beyond ridiculous ...a 60 day free trial of Office or six months free of AOL?..no thanks.

Ubuntu 8.04 is new and fresh and up to date and it is nearing five months old. It works with most needed applications and if it doesn't ....try wine or code weavers. And that brings up another point that few talk about. If you buy a microwave, TIVO, refrigerator or even a generic MP3 player. Does it matter what the operating system the appliance uses is or what firmware version it is ..so long as it works? Same goes for computers.

You are a heavy gamer...you probably have a windows machine for that. Or a Playstation, Wii or whatever. No arguments here...But beyond that glaring example....

I believe Ubuntu is the standard that most Linux distros should look up to. Others will disagree, and thats fine..its my opinion. I appreciated Richard Stallman's interview on Gusty Geeks and it gave me a new perspective on where and why he is coming from...he definitely has a lot of valid arguments....though personally I have no problem if the distro is not 100% free.

I want functionality, performance and security and yet I do not want to feel that I must use Windows or Apple to achieve that....not that Windows can provide the performance or security portion anyway.

Windows XP was Windows last great OS, its done its job well...now it is time for Windows to step aside and let real innovation that Linux can only provide with security and new modern (and cutting edge) applications that only open source can provide.

While it is great that someone can run down to their favorite brick and mortar store and buy a computer that works out of the box....little by little Windows won't be the only game in town anymore. While Windows will still be around for a long time, each year it will become less and less relevant.

[Patrick]

Debian will install on ANYTHING.