Sins? SINS?!?!?!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| caitlyn Nov 30, 2009 2:19 PM EDT |
I've often complained about an almost religious zealotry among some in the Linux and the larger FOSS community. Now along comes this article which actually describes free and proprietary software in purely religious terms. It's now a "sin" to run Flash even though, by the author's own admission, gnash is seriously problematic in its current state of development. Proprietary graphics drivers are a "sin" too. Never mind if your hardware won't work without them. If you use them you are a sinner! The author has been using FOSS for 1.5 years. It really does seem new converts are the most evangelical. Linux is not a religion. FOSS is not a religion. Using proprietary software is not a sin. It is, as one commenter pointed out, a decision, and sometimes a necessary one. |
| jdixon Nov 30, 2009 2:51 PM EDT |
> Linux is not a religion. FOSS is not a religion. Using proprietary software is not a sin. It is, as one commenter pointed out, a decision, and sometimes a necessary one. Absolutely. |
| g0d4 Nov 30, 2009 3:19 PM EDT |
I don't know if I must cry or laugh with these comments. It's a title given by the author with a sense of humour. Do you actually believe that you will go to hell if you use the Adobe Flash plugin?!? Or do you think the author believes that?!? It's a metaphor! "Metaphor: a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity" Did you even read the post? Is this what you understand from it? At least try to be a little open minded and stick with the essence of the article. |
| bigg Nov 30, 2009 3:35 PM EDT |
@g0d4: I agree. I didn't see anything of a religious nature in the article. Heck, the author even said thisQuoting:These two applications, Adobe Flash Player and the Graphic Drivers, are the only ones that I haven’t been able to be replace with something free yet. If he really viewed this from a religious perspective, I doubt he'd tell the world that he uses Flash and closed drivers. |
| caitlyn Nov 30, 2009 3:36 PM EDT |
I read the article. I don't have a reading comprehension problem. The zealotry in the community is real. FSF talks about "ethics" when dealing with software which throws it into the realm of belief systems rather than facts. Whether the author was being humorous or not is pretty well irrelevant. Couching Linux and FOSS in religious terms is just plain a bad idea. |
| g0d4 Nov 30, 2009 3:55 PM EDT |
@caitlyn: If you can't understand the meaning of a metaphor, then there is nothing more I can say to explain it. We are way off-topic here. I don't find discussing FLOSS as a religion or in religious terms interesting or even worthy. I can't even believe that I wrote the prev sentence. However, I would definitely laugh if I ever came across an RMS or Linus statue or temple. :p If you wanna make a point about FSF ethics and religion, I don't think this is the article to do it. It's not fair, not to the post and not to the writer. |
| caitlyn Nov 30, 2009 5:01 PM EDT |
Sorry, I do know what a metaphor is. Considering the religious fervor of some free software advocates this was a really poor metaphor to choose. That was pretty much my entire point, which you seem to have missed. |
| azerthoth Nov 30, 2009 5:17 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, I had the same WTF moment you had. |
| dinotrac Nov 30, 2009 5:32 PM EDT |
Oh Good Lord!! (whoops!! Sorry for the religious reference TOS police) Caitlyn, you're working awfully hard to be offended here. Most of us know that "sin" is a term that has leaked into the daily lexicon and taken on a life apart from its biblical meaning -- unless you can find someplace in the bible making direct reference to chocolate or cheesecake. If you don't know that, however, there is another little hint -- the author confesses to being a sinner himself. The article is not about religious fervor, it is about the difficulty of putting together a fully functional desktop without using proprietary software. Unless, of course, you just plain don't want it to be. |
| montezuma Nov 30, 2009 8:57 PM EDT |
Dino has sinned again by violating the TOS. What a naughty boy he is! He needs to be taken out the back and beaten using a telephone book to hide the marks. Ooops sorry my metaphors/humor got the better of me. |
| azerthoth Nov 30, 2009 8:58 PM EDT |
ooh, never thought I would see dino use the "but everybody else is doing it" defense. |
| dinotrac Nov 30, 2009 10:46 PM EDT |
But everybody else is doing it. |
| tuxtom Dec 01, 2009 3:43 PM EDT |
I'm reading this thread from an XP box. |
| gus3 Dec 01, 2009 3:48 PM EDT |
But that won't clean it up. (And vice-versa.) |
| tracyanne Dec 01, 2009 5:09 PM EDT |
TT, a legacy operating system, how cute. |
| vainrveenr Dec 01, 2009 8:32 PM EDT |
Quoting:I've often complained about an almost religious zealotry among some in the Linux and the larger FOSS community. Now along comes this article which actually describes free and proprietary software in purely religious terms. It's now a "sin" to run Flash even though, by the author's own admission, gnash is seriously problematic in its current state of development. Proprietary graphics drivers are a "sin" too. Never mind if your hardware won't work without them. If you use them you are a sinner!One could also turn this completely upside down and write that F/OSS developers are the "sinners" here. - Shame on those gnash developers who still cannot put out problem-free operation and features! - Shame on those F/OSS driver devs who, even without the need for NDAs and extra monetary-support, still cannot get fully open-sourced graphics drivers to work with "your hardware"! - Shame on F/OSS developers who add new apps and new features without even a smidgen of good, useful documentation on their software! (also see the related piece 'Linux Documentation From A User's Viewpoint' linked via LXer at http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/129037/index.html ) So F/OSS developer inefficiencies and failures are appropriately judged here through this refocus, rather than judging the F/OSS end-user who may very well "make or break" such developer successes! |
| baruch60610 Jan 02, 2010 6:53 AM EDT |
It may be true that this particular article was using "metaphor" - or maybe not. Caitlyn has a point in either case. Many Linux advocates exhibit a fervor usually found in religious bigots. They often sneer at those who use proprietary software or who prefer functional, easy-to-use software over having to modify and recompile the kernel. In short, many Linux advocates are zealots. They are waging a jihad, a holy war for Linux. There is nothing wrong with wanting to turn on your computer and use it, without having to rewrite the software or become an expert in drivers, hardware, computer science, etc. Not everyone wants to get under the hood and see what makes it work, tweak everything, get it tuned within an inch of its life. Not everyone cares to be a purist. Just as in real life not everyone wants to be a priest, not everyone considers Linux to be an ethical or moral choice. And that's perfectly OK. However, there are those who claim that it's *not* OK. In my opinion, they've missed the point. If Linux is about freedom, then people should be free to "sin" if they choose. What the critics are arguing is, in effect, that people should use inferior software purely because it's "free" (as in speech). If the software did what it was supposed to do, then there would be no need to turn to proprietary software. Since it doesn't work properly, it is useless. It's broken. If I wanted to use crappy software, I wouldn't be using Linux in the first place. I'd have stayed with the OS that came with my machine (you know which OS I'm talking about). I use Linux because it's better than Windows. I use Open Office because it works almost as well as Office. And I use flash because it works better than gnash. |
| gus3 Jan 02, 2010 7:15 AM EDT |
@baruch:Quoting:Just as in real life not everyone wants to be a priest, not everyone considers Linux to be an ethical or moral choice. And that's perfectly OK.Wow, in the 2+ years I've been on LXer, I've never seen such an attempt to defend "the cathedral" in these fora. |
| dinotrac Jan 02, 2010 12:37 PM EDT |
gus3 - Seriously? You must still be feeling the effects of last night. |
| gus3 Jan 02, 2010 1:09 PM EDT |
#!/bin/sh # I knew it didn't sound quite right sed 's%such an attempt%such a blatant attempt%' |
| bigg Jan 02, 2010 1:18 PM EDT |
It never ceases to amaze me that the anti-preaching types do so much more preaching than everyone else. Baruch should look in the mirror if he/she wants to see a zealot. |
| tuxchick Jan 02, 2010 2:57 PM EDT |
Everyone has to make their own choices, I think the best choices are made with some thought and knowledge. For example, it's convenient to dump your used motor oil in the nearest stream or down a storm drain. It is magically whisked away and it's not your problem any more. Of course a person who exercises some care and knowledge, and has an understanding of consequences, knows that it still is their problem, as well as a problem for a lot of other people, plants, and critters. Baruch's silly overheated hyperbole doesn't even come close to reality, or to framing the question in a useful way, but it does raise the interesting question of 'what factors make a piece of software the best choice?' For me, and for a lot of folks who value software freedom, a good piece of software is not one that fouls the stream. We all know the consequences of using Windows and other Microsoftware-- every dollar that goes to Redmond supports a vicious empire that has done incredible damage to computing, the marketplace, tech progress, and even our civil liberties. What about tech vendors that are not evil, but make good products, and they're nice people, and they do good, but still release closed, proprietary products? That's a harder choice. For me, they're still not the best choice because they perpetuate a form of customer-hostility that I don't care to support, and that is preventing customers from having complete control of the products they own. I know, they call it licensing, which is a nice bit of propaganda aimed at denying customers their traditional consumer rights. For me, the default choice is always for freedom. It's hard because we're still a long way from real freedom-- document and file formats, standards and protocols, open hardware, open Internet--there are very large and powerful interests devoted to fencing off and locking up everything. Sometimes I think it's not about money as much as it is about a psychotic need for control and power. Think consequences, and everything becomes a lot clearer. |
| azerthoth Jan 02, 2010 3:21 PM EDT |
Quoting:Sometimes I think it's not about money as much as it is about a psychotic need for control and power. MS or FSF/RMS? |
| dinotrac Jan 02, 2010 3:29 PM EDT |
>For me, the default choice is always for freedom. That's not a bad way to express pragmatism. For me, the default choice is always for freedom, but... I use proprietary drivers for my nvidia cards and I use flashplayer.. I also use Opera. C'est la vie. |
| jdixon Jan 02, 2010 4:43 PM EDT |
> For me, the default choice is always for freedom, Absolutely. Your computer, your freedom to decide what to use. Whether to use FOSS or closed software on your computer is entirely your choice. Not mine and not anyone else's. Anyone who claims otherwise wants power more than they want any kind of freedom. |
| Koriel Jan 02, 2010 7:24 PM EDT |
I myself develop both types of software free as in GPL2 and non-free and I honestly can't see that their is a problem with this, and these FOSS evangelists who do annoy me greatly. Do i see it as a religion nope most certainly not, i believe in practicalities i need to eat and do my best to support my family so i develop proprietary software, I also feel the need to give back due to all the free software that i benefit from and I do that using FOSS. Rarely do i find myself agreeing with Dino but in this case it really is simple pragmatism. |
| tuxchick Jan 02, 2010 7:33 PM EDT |
Quoting: Your computer, your freedom to decide what to use. Which isn't all that much choice, and when people say that I think they're missing some very large and important points. If it weren't for FOSS and all those hardline 'religious zealots', our choices would be even more meager than they are now. Can you get custom Mac OS X boxes from third-party vendors? Not legally. Can you use iTunes with any device you want? Haha. Can you move an OEM Windows to a different machine? Not legally. Can get get customized Windows boxes? Heck no, your choices are a handful of tiny variations on the exact same thing, with the most significant variations being different functions crippled to justify different prices. Is there a good cross-platform application software ecosystem for Linux, Mac, and Windows? Can't even get common document formats or un-borked networking prototocols. The computing marketplace is still very unfree, our choices very limited, and there is hardly any real technological progress. FOSS is the one thin line between us and total lockin and lockdown, and as I said before it's just one small link in the chain. There are many chokepoints that we do not control, and large powerful forces are doing their best to put their own brand of choke on them. That's way more important than getting all snitty over the people who take a hard line on freedom because they are not pretty enough. |
| tuxchick Jan 02, 2010 7:55 PM EDT |
Koriel, here's a thought that has been floating around in my head lately: the free-as-in-don't-pay culture is firmly entrenched, but does it have to be? There is no rule that says Free Software has to be free of cost. I contribute money to my fave projects, and what I would like even more are options to purchase guaranteed-good installation binaries for different distributions, and support. We leave it up to the various distro maintainers to handle packaging and support, and I think that is an unwieldy system that is breaking down as Linux desktop apps multiply and it gets more popular. We're way too dependent on the distros and that is not good, because they are not capable of managing more than a subset of apps and customizations competently. Community support is not adequate, especially as noobs pour in and outumber experienced users. I think there is a lot of confused thinking about money and customer service in the FOSS world. On the one hand, accepting filthy lucre is a sin, in some circles. On the other hand, we need filthy lucre to pay the bills. Lots of commercial interests are profiting handsomely from FOSS. Is that somehow more pure than the people who actually create it getting paid? Why not cut out the middle people? |
| azerthoth Jan 02, 2010 8:18 PM EDT |
The right to compensation is written in to the GPL, that few use that option is literally of no concern what so every. Use it if you want, give something (anything) back if you want. You are required to do neither. Use it and anything else you want as you see fit, its your computer. You can not assign moral actions to bits of letters and numbers (morals being more subjective and codified opinions to start with). If you want to listen to the extremists in any of the existant camps you can, then you can head out and mock or deride anyone who disagrees with you as you see fit. Do what you want with your system in the way that you choose. Anything else has an aroma and requires small squares of tissue paper to clean up. And I realize that regardless, someone is going to leave those little bombs around for me to step in. |
| dinotrac Jan 02, 2010 9:01 PM EDT |
>There is no rule that says Free Software has to be free of cost. Sorry, TC, but that's not right. Oh, technically, yeah, but... The GPL protects your right to distribute code to whomever you wish so long as you provide the source, which means your ability to make money from the stuff evaporates if someone down the line decides to distribute it too. You can find your own value-adds, but the code is a dead end financially. |
| Koriel Jan 02, 2010 9:55 PM EDT |
@Dino
You hit the nail on the head Dino as to why I have to sell one of my apps under a proprietary license and thats simply because if i release it under the GPL, the code is a dead end financially due to the ability of others to take the code and roll their own. I certainly have no problem with the GPL the majority of my non - contracted software is free as in cost as well as GPL'd, and if any ones mentions the donations system, i'll personally come down and slap you upside the head :) It has not worked for me, One of my GPL apps has downloads in the thousands yet no one has donated a single penny not even to cover the cost of my hosting service which has taken a bashing due to the heavy downloading I received after a recent release, does it bother me, yes a little bit, will it change my views on the merits of the GPL not one whit as its a great license to promote the use of truly free software which i wholeheartedly support but not to the exclusion of proprietary software the two can easily live side by side. @Tuxchick Im glad to hear that you donate to your fav projects unfortunately im afraid their are just not enough folk like yourself around as my experience with the donations system has proven to me. And i agree with you that FOSS acts as a barrier against the total lockdown scenario but that doesn't mean locking down software is bad as long as you are free to use something else, I have one paid app which does 2 things well making it very suitable for a limited subset of uses of the Tor network but you can also use the free Vidalia/Tor package to do the same thing just not as well or as easily in my opinion so their are options, i believe in my app so much so that I even have a link on my website to the free Vidalia/Tor package. The only thing im dead against is lockin which I consider to be an evil practice as all it amounts to is the continuous ripping off consumers im afraid i will leave evil to Microsoft as they seem to have an almost zen master grip on the concept. |
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!