The funny thing is that corporate users rely on it.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Nov 18, 2009 1:39 PM EDT |
Ironic, given that "Open Source" was coined for their benefit, that corporations actually rely on that freedom far more than they rely on access to the source. |
| caitlyn Nov 18, 2009 3:12 PM EDT |
First, I really like Bruce Byfield's writing. I don't like it so much that I'd want to read every article twice. This was posted on LXer before, perhaps from a different website. What I really like about this article is that he talks about Free software from a purely pragmatic vantage point. The article isn't about FSF or FOSS philosophy. It's about how, in practical terms, proprietary software has failed corporate and individual users and the real world advantages, both in technical and financial terms, of Free alternatives. As a former OS/2 user and certified professional I share his pain when it comes to how IBM was strong-armed into dropping their technically superior OS. FSF philosophy is just not relevant to a lot of people and a lot of people simply don't share or don't even understand the ideological arguments. Start giving real world examples of how proprietary software under restrictive licenses costs you more money, hurts your business, or gets in the way of getting work done and people listen. |
| bigg Nov 18, 2009 3:59 PM EDT |
> The article isn't about FSF or FOSS philosophy. It's about how, in practical terms, proprietary software has failed corporate and individual users and the real world advantages, both in technical and financial terms, of Free alternatives. You forgot a couple words in your first sentence. It should read, "The article isn't about FSF or FOSS philosophy as I've defined it." I don't see how anyone could possibly read the writings of RMS and others at FSF and not see how it relates to "in practical terms, proprietary software has failed corporate and individual users and the real world advantages, both in technical and financial terms, of Free alternatives". What did the FSF do to you? I just don't understand your constant attacks on them as clueless. |
| caitlyn Nov 18, 2009 4:13 PM EDT |
@bigg: Since when is disagreement with an ideology an attack on the organization that supports it? I also really, really, really get upset when someone equates disagreement with not understanding or "clueless"-ness. The idea that someone disagreeing with you is automatically clueless is closed minded in the extreme. Would you like me to post links to RMS writings or speeches and pick them apart? Is that what you really want? |
| bigg Nov 18, 2009 5:11 PM EDT |
> The idea that someone disagreeing with you is automatically clueless is closed minded in the extreme. I wrote "I just don't understand your constant attacks on them as clueless." In other words, you are saying the FSF is clueless. You did not understand what I wrote. > Would you like me to post links to RMS writings or speeches and pick them apart? No, because of course it misses the point to say that you disagree with some of what RMS has written. You wrote Quoting:The article isn't about FSF or FOSS philosophy. It's about how, in practical terms, proprietary software has failed corporate and individual users and the real world advantages, both in technical and financial terms, of Free alternatives. A lot of what the FSF talks about is precisely the real world advantages of free software. If you cannot admit that RMS has ever written anything of practical importance, you're not being honest. |
| caitlyn Nov 18, 2009 5:29 PM EDT |
Quoting:If you cannot admit that RMS has ever written anything of practical importance, you're not being honest. I never said anything of the sort. I have repeatedly said that RMS is spot on when it comes to "cloud" computing. I'm sure I can find lots of other RMS points that I agree with or where he makes cogent points in practical terms. |
| gus3 Nov 18, 2009 5:41 PM EDT |
bigg, you're putting words in her keyboard that she didn't type. Not once, but twice, you accused her of calling the FSF "clueless," when she did no such thing. The only one saying any such here is you. And when she calls you on it, you shift the topic at hand from the FSF to RMS, using wild extrapolation that isn't borne out by facts. But you won't let that get in your way, will you? Stop trolling. |
| dinotrac Nov 18, 2009 5:42 PM EDT |
I'm sorry, Catiln, but it absolutely is about FSF and FOSS philosophy. In case you're forgotten, RMS's whole FOSS adventure started with the simple desire to get a printer working. Free softare is, at its core, about being able to do the stuff you need to get done. All of that FSF and FOSS philosophy means that you are free to install new copies of the software on new (or old) machines as you wish. It means you can pilot new ideas cheaply, and without having to worry about license compliance, accounting, etc,etc. Free software is a great thing for business. Philosophically speaking, it means that a business is free to do what it needs to do. |
| bigg Nov 18, 2009 5:50 PM EDT |
@dino: Absolutely agree. @gus: "And when she calls you on it, you shift the topic at hand from the FSF to RMS, using wild extrapolation that isn't borne out by facts." Seriously, shifting from FSF to RMS? If that makes sense (and it doesn't) you might read what was actually written, and you will see that she was the one who talked about RMS. I wrote about "RMS and others at FSF". > Stop trolling. Well, let's see. Caitlyn made a claim about the FSF. I called her on it. And you contributed what to the conversation? You might want to look up the definition of trolling. |
| gus3 Nov 18, 2009 6:26 PM EDT |
@bigg: You called her on nothing but your own fantasy, which you exposed in your second sentence by putting your own convenient words into what she said. She never once mentioned RMS in her first comment, but you acted as if she had. (The man is not the org, and vice-versa.) Wow, Freudian projection, straw-man, and composition fallacy. Triple-play! |
| caitlyn Nov 18, 2009 10:51 PM EDT |
My last post was not the best in any case. I basically did what I accused bigg of doing, equating cluefulness with my own views which is absolutely NOT what I wanted to say. Let's try it again. RMS (and by extension FSF) talk about software in terms of ethics. Most people do not attribute ethical standards or morality to software or the license the software is released under. Businesses, as a rule, certainly do not. When RMS talks about proprietary software being unethical he completely loses me. I think he loses a lot of people at that point. Does he also make practical arguments for free software as bigg claims? Of course he does! That is besides the point. He ties the practical argument to the ethical argument and when he hits the ethical part a lot of eyes glaze over. What Bruce Byfield has done so effectively in this article is separate the two and concentrate strictly on the practical and pragmatic aspects of free software. In doing so he writes a very compelling and effective article that will reach people that an RMS discussion of ethics will never reach. |
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!