Relapse
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| incinerator Jan 31, 2006 1:25 AM EDT |
I finally started to think Novell has gotten the picture puzzled out, and now this relapse into old pre-FLOSS times. Bah, obviously there's still to many people at Novell who think of software as some kind of "property" (intellectual property: isn't! It's a [censored] term for [censored] concepts!) : I don't want bloody non-free software ported to GNU/Linux. I don't want non-free software at all! Novell: Don't waste your money porting non-free software to GNU/Linux. Invest it in Free Software projects that create FLOSS replacements instead! |
| number6x Jan 31, 2006 5:37 AM EDT |
incinerator, If you don't want non-free software on Linux, then don't buy it. I, however, think that commercial vendors should be encouraged to port their wares to Linux. I remember back in 1997 when I started using Linux I spent a lot of time trying to get DOS emulators to work. I thought I 'needed' my old DOS programs to get by. By late 1998 I new Linux already had everything that I needed. I got Linux because I wanted a good C/C++ compiler. Linux gave me the compiler, as well as an operating system, windowing system, and a whole slew of other programs and utilities. The cherry on top was that Linux was a lot like Unix so all my training and work in school on Unix systems was usefull. Many potential Linux users stick with Windows because they think the 'need' the proprietary programs that come with Windows. Once they get to Linux, they will be exposed to more alternatives, most of them Free($$), open, and/or Libre. Like me they think they know what they need, but they are ignorant of the truth. Only time spent working on Linux will teach them the truth. Their true needs are already met by Free and Open alternatives. On the other side of the coin, more Free and Open alternatives are begining to gain market share in Windows land. As more Windows users switch to Free and Open software on the Windows platform, the software they think they 'need' will already be on Linux! This is why Microsoft fears The Free and Open source movement. It provides alternate solutions to all of MS's cash cows, and only the lack of knowledge on the part of Windows users keeps them from jumping ship! So, if you feel strongly about it, don't buy any software that a proprietary vendor ports to Linux. Speak by withholding your dollars. I think that money and sales are pretty much the only language proprietary companies can understand, so I encourage you to stick to your principals. But I still think that other people could benefit from these ports, benefit in ways they cannot yet imagine. incinerator, If you don't want non-free software on Linux, then don't buy it. I, however, think that commercial vendors should be encouraged to port their wares to Linux. I remember back in 1997 when I started using Linux I spent a lot of time trying to get DOS emulators to work. I thought I 'needed' my old DOS programs to get by. By late 1998 I new Linux already had everything that I needed. I got Linux because I wanted a good C/C++ compiler. Linux gave me the compiler, as well as an operating system, windowing system, and a whole slew of other programs and utilities. The cherry on top was that Linux was a lot like Unix so all my training and work in school on Unix systems was useful. Many potential Linux users stick with Windows because they think the 'need' the proprietary programs that come with Windows. Once they get to Linux, they will be exposed to more alternatives, most of them Free($$), open, and/or Libre. Like me they think they know what they need, but they are ignorant of the truth. Only time spent working on Linux will teach them the truth. Their true needs are already met by Free and Open alternatives. On the other side of the coin, more Free and Open alternatives are beginning to gain market share in Windows land. As more Windows users switch to Free and Open software on the Windows platform, the software they think they 'need' will already be on Linux! This is why Microsoft fears The Free and Open source movement. It provides alternate solutions to all of MS's cash cows, and only the lack of knowledge on the part of Windows users keeps them from jumping ship! So, if you feel strongly about it, don't buy any software that a proprietary vendor ports to Linux. Speak by withholding your dollars. I think that money and sales are pretty much the only language proprietary companies can understand, so I encourage you to stick to your principals. But I still think that other people could benefit from these ports, benefit in ways they cannot yet imagine. |
| incinerator Jan 31, 2006 12:02 PM EDT |
All good points number6x, but: 1.) Companies could have started porting their non-free apps to Linux ages ago. With things like winelib that's getting easier and easier. Why haven't they done so, yet? Well, exactly, because they see no money in it. I cannot possibly vote by my feet because there's nothing to run from. 2.) Yes, it would surely be a benefit if popular non-free software was ported to GNU/Linux and other free operating systems. However, it would be an even greater benefit for everyone even more if more and better free software were available. That's where the money should go. Many good replacements are available already, why not spend the money into integrating and marketing them? 3.) Using Free Software is, among other things, about unchaining yourself from the of non-free software by which companies browbeat you. What's the point in switching to GNU/Linux or other free software operating systems if you just chain yourself again by using non-free software on it? Free Software is not just about the geeky coolness factor. It's about a paradigm shift in how we should interact with software and with each other. As long as users still think paying for getting handcuffed is The Way To Go(tm) Free Software will never fulfil its true purpose. |
| Kagehi Jan 31, 2006 12:11 PM EDT |
I just want what works and the option to get something free if its good enough. The problem is, sometimes the later isn't true. Gimp for example irritates me almost as much as IE or Firefox without the tabs option active. It also doesn't support PNG with gamma. Guess how many application do support it - IE, Outlook, Photoshop, Paintshop Pro, and some others. **But**, how many support it "correctly"? - Photoshop. I know of not one damn opensource application that supports it correctly and the damn library originated in open source. Go figure... Point is, as bloated, annoying, over priced and sometimes unconfigurable as full software packages are, some, like Photoshop, Maya, Poser, etc. have no, and likely will never have any, equivalent that isn't harder to use and less complete, when it works are all, for Linux. At least until and unless they get converted to Linux. Its not the 90% of the stuff that is good enough that is the problem, its the 10% that would require an investment of innovation and time to just "match" proprietary software, where I can't or won't compromise my own ability to do something, just to get a much poorer free application, that make companies converting to Linux a "good" thing. And in the long run, its still better if they do, because those application for Linux that exist will be forced to improve, which in turn means that the proprietary stuff has to compete and maybe the next version of Photoshop will be $150, not $500, and I won't be stuck fighting with Gimp or trying to use Paintshop Pro, while Corel insists their PNG support isn't #@$#$ broken. I can imagine you Incinerator not having to need any of the stuff non-free companies make, but you are almost certainly *not* someone trying to do full professional 3D work or anything else that "requires" that software either. |
| incinerator Feb 01, 2006 2:25 AM EDT |
Well, there's the obvious difference between your and my point of view.
I don't want non-free software to compete. I want it to go away and vanish in the dust, good riddance and it will be fun to watch. You seem to care more about photoshop's price tag than about your personal freedom. Fair enough, I don't blame you. If it's not an important issue for you, then go ahead and continue paying money for getting handcuffed. I will continue avoiding non-free software as much as I can, even if it comes with a zero dollar price tag. It's surprising how many people seem to list photoshop as The Killer Application(tm) they desperately need. Wow, at least 20% of the world's population must be gfx designers. How many of these people do actually use a legally obtained copy of it? Every single Adobe employee would be richer than Billy Gates if that were true. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!