Neowin.net

I am a MCSE so i work a lot with Microsoft software..

But i also use a lot of open source software, and in some companys i recomend some open source software to replace microsoft software, example openoffice.

But this is really embarissing for anyone who supports open source, because it's not like this that people will promote open source, they are just making themselves look bad, it's like "If you don't use open source you're a jerk"..

One of the more funnier things I saw going to that site was that it required MSXML5.0 from MS corporation. I dunno, just struck me as ironic, lol.

It's EFF meets OSS fanatics

Idiots. Right. That's exactly what they say, "if you dont buy it it's not free". It's free as in freedom, not in price, "idiot".

edit: misunderstood the post. apologies.

Last edited by zORYn on 19 Dec 2006 - 23:32

I think that's what he meant...

My thought on that argument is simply this: why does purchasing software take away our freedom?

It takes away your freedom to change later. Its a pain when you've got all your documents in Microsoft Works Word Processor and you want to switch to Linux or a Mac, for example. Its not the purchasing that's the issue, its the fact that the source is unavailable - the only way to get at many file formats used by un-free software is to hack them or pay huge licence fees to their developers.

If that software restricts your freedom to do what you want with the software that you've purchased, or your media files etc then i'd say that freedom was being restricted. Wouldnt you?

Purchasing doesn't. I purchased my Linux boxed set when I tried Linux for the first time. My freedoms weren't affected by the cost at all. I can use the software in any way I please (not so with Windows). I can re-distribute to as many other people or computers as I please (again, not so with Windows). I can also look and learn from the source code and participate in development, if I please (or if I had the talent! ). Again, not so with Windows.

It is the license that makes software free or not free. Not the price tag (or lack thereof).

What do you mean "You can use the software in any way you please?" How are you restricted from using Windows in a way that you'd want to? Also, there *are* restrictions on how you can use Linux. Most Linux code is bound by the GPL, not to mention the fact that your use of any operating system is bound by the law. For example, using a computer to steal another person's private information is illegal no matter what operating system you're using.

Your point about redistribution is really just a matter of pricing. You're not permitted to share your copy of Windows for the same reason you're not permitted to share your copy of Mac OS, iLife, Doom 3, Zelda, or tons of other software that isn't free. You aren't giving up any freedoms by paying for something. Our country and indeed most of the world have markets that are built on the exchange of goods and services for money... it's not exactly an "evil" concept despite how you make it sound sometimes.

Third, there's access to the source code. While the actual code is obviously closely guarded, you don't really need it. One of the most important reasons for the success of Windows is that it's a very open and pluggable platform with extremely well-documented APIs. Sure, there are advantages to the OpenSource model for the handful of us that know how to program and who can go in and fix bugs that annoy us. But for 99.5% of the market there's no advantage. There are, however, several disadvantages including security concerns, fracturing of the codebase, and the incompatibilities that inevitably arise as programs and modules are built with conflicting dependencies.

I don't think OSS is bad or that traditional "closed source" is bad. They both have their uses and places in the market. I really wish we could get past the whole "us versus them" mentality on both sides.

How about the EULA?



No, there're restrictions on how you can modify and/or redistribute Linux, which hardly falls under what your "99,5% of the market" consider as usage.



And in the case of GPL, the price is your word (so to speak, more like a contract, or license, or whatever) of contributing back to the comunity anything you make that's based on GPL'ed code.
Yet, while there's a price, you're still free to use the software as you please. Use as in installing it wherever you want, as many times as you want, handing copies to friends, etc... It's not the price, it's the rights you obtain over the usage of the adquired item.



I'll decide what I need and what I don't, thank you very much.



There also advantages concerning (surprise) security.



Agreed.

So defensive!

"No, there're restrictions on how you can modify and/or redistribute Linux, which hardly falls under what your "99,5% of the market" consider as usage."

Uh, yes it would? Unless you're redefining the word 'use', of course ... I fail to see how the EULA is significantly to a GPL in terms of what it talks about?

"Yet, while there's a price, you're still free to use the software as you please. Use as in installing it wherever you want, as many times as you want, handing copies to friends, etc... It's not the price, it's the rights you obtain over the usage of the adquired item."

What exactly is your point now? That copyright is bad? People shouldn't make money from software? Stealing is okay? Free software is in some way morally superior to paid-for software? Paying for software somehow constitutes a loss of freedom no matter what the actual software says? I could make something freely available and say "you cannot redistribute this" - or I could make you pay for it and say the same. Am I now wrong for doing the latter?

You seem to miss the point that Brandon is talking about *most* people. Not YOU, alone.

Your points are largely incorrect. Microsoft's EULA prevents users from multiple simultaneous connections, as a specific example. You work for them. Have you even ever read your EULA? Filled with restrictions on use, and informing you that Microsoft reserves the right to install whatever they please on your machine - with or without your approval.

In amongst your incorrect statements and misunderstandings, you stated something that I can only assume you directed toward me, personally (since I was the only one you quoted). You said, "it's not exactly an "evil" concept despite how you make it sound sometimes". I have never said Microsoft or Capitalism is "evil". Not sure where you are getting that from, but you are defending a point that I didn't make.

In fact, you are quite welcome to search every single post I have ever made with regards to Microsoft or Windows, and see if I have ever said they were evil, poorly written, or must be destroyed or replaced with Linux or anything else.

Your lack of understanding of the terms of use for the primary product of the company you work for astounds me. :no:

What the heck are you talking about?

1.- GPL has nothing to do with MS's style of EULA. If you fail to see the difference that just shows you didn't even bother to get a clue.

2- Your second reply just confirms that you don't have a clue. Paying for something has nothing to do with what right you have over that item... care to point where exactly did I said OSS was better because of the price? I was talking about freedom, ffs.

I'm not missing Brandon's point, Brandon just didn't make any valid point besides the last couple of lines.

Next time take your time before replying, just to make sure you won't embarrass yourself.

Then why don't you explain your argument for why the GNU Public License and and End User License Agreement don't have anything in common? Instead you decided went all ad hominem on us.




What a foolish, selfish response. If giving you that code (when there are already publicly documented means to accomplish pretty much anything you could want to) has a negative impact on other users of the software (for reasons I described above) - then it is irresponsible to do so. The dependency issues alone completely justify, in my mind, the existence of private APIs and undocumented source code. Forget about changing them, just using undocumented APIs either means that your application is likely to break on future versions of the OS (or with something as simple as a security update) - OR that you've now added to the already ungodly compatibility burden for the owner of said API.

If you want something exposed via a public interface that isn't right now - there are plenty of great channels for that feedback. In fact, if you have anything particular in mind I'd be very interested to hear it.

Well to be honest license agreements don't usually make the top of my reading list, no. However, connection limits are key to differentiating different SKUs. That's a limitation of the version of the product you're buying, not a "use restriction" any more than not having a feature is a "use restriction" using that feature.



I never claimed that you did. The key phrase was "how you make it sound." However, you're correct that it wasn't specifically directed at anything you said - it should have been more specifically addressed to the "BadVista.org" people and those defending them.



I'm not sure why it would. I'm also not a lawyer nor do I work in licensing for any Microsoft product. I've never felt impeded in my use of Windows due to its licensing. I certainly don't think it's perfect - quite the contrary, I have several opinions about how Windows licensing could be greatly improved while still maintaing shareholder value. But I have opinions about a lot of things and not everyone agrees with me

Still, my point remains that tons of Open Source software comes with licensing restrictions. Clearly they are different restrictions, but they are restrictions nonetheless. Thus I found the argument along the lines of "When you buy Windows you give up your freedoms" to be completely absurd. You are in fact enacting your freedom to buy Windows. If you don't, you're enacting your freedom to not buy it. It's a bit like saying that when you buy a Porsche 911 that you're "giving up your freedom" to go off-roading.

You're right, very good point.

What does the site have to do with communism? I don't see any party affiliated or advertising on the site. You have a twisted view of what communism is...

The person said they're ACTING like communists. They didn't say it was an actual communist party

Although I agree that the site is pointless, how many users actually *choose* Windows? Most people use Windows because:

1. that's what came with their new computer
2. the only 'option' they got was as to what flavor of windows they want
3. that's what everybody else uses... so why stick out?

I agree that choosing Vista is part of the thing we call freedom of choice. But can we really call it a choice, when there was simply no other option at the time of purchase?

99% Linux users on the other hand, use Linux because they *chose* to.

With that said:
1. the site is indeed pointless, or even stupid as you said.
2. people are not *forced* to use vista, but when that's the only option available at purchase, is it really an option?

Although you may not be forced, a majority of people who buy a computer will be forced to use it, as they know of nothing else. In fact, most people would be shocked if you told them the operating system is a choice (they would probably think its a "part" of the computer)

That's a cop-out and you know it.

If people don't have the option to purchase Linux (or don't know that they have that option) that's not the fault of Windows, Microsoft, or any grand conspiracy. It's due to poor execution and/or marketing on the part of Linux vendors - along with the fact that Linux just isn't a good desktop operating system for 99.5% of users.

lol You mean "fact" as in "get the facts", right? XD

It's mostly due to 'inertia'. People stick with what they know best.
Edit: and that's perfectly understandable. Trying something new requires a leap of faith.

Linux not being a good desktop OS? That's debatable...

Don't twist his words, he didn't say that. He said "Linux just isn't a good desktop operating system for 99.5% of users", which is different, as it has context.

I'd like to comment on the above actually for a second. Alot of Linux users say that distros such as Ubuntu are infact usable for the general public. Well if anyoine remembers there was a debacle 6 months ago that happened in a Ubuntu upgrade where it prevented users loading the GUI and being forced to fix an issue in the command line. Accompying this was people defending the OS saying that a user should learn to use the command line ect. To be honest if a user has to learn how to use a command line to fix a faulty update then the OS isnt ready for the prime time.

Ubuntu and other distros may be good but if problems are allowed to happen like the above and the users defend the company saying the user should know how to issue command line fixes then really the OS still has some way to go until it's ready to be installed as default on casual users systems.

I mean many will cite gaming as the reason not to adopt Linux or software. Really most people could get by on open office and an email client I'd assume.

The above isnt an attack on luinux either. Its a great system. I just wanted to comment on the above and add my bit to it.

My apologies, I didn't mean to twist his words.

What I meant was: "It's debatable that Linux isn't a good desktop operating system for 99,5% of users."

My claim is: if a tech-savvy user installs Linux, most people will be able to use it. So I disagree to what he said.

I didn't mean to twist his words, but I think it came out wrong



I agree with what you said. Things like this just shouldn't happen, and it's a big mistake by Canonical (the company that works on Ubuntu) to not have enough quality checks.

I hope it won't happen again (and I believe they were adding additional quality checks).

You are correct, I misspoke (miswrote?) - what I meant was "along with the fact that 99.5% of users don't think Linux is a good desktop operating system for them." And clearly 99.5% isn't a scientifically determined figure, but I doubt many will object to my point.

Thus the connection to poor product execution and marketing on the part of Linux vendors. Whether or not Linux actually is a good desktop operating system for those people is another matter (in my opinion it's not for most of them, though I'll agree that there are some cases where its "good enough" factor and its "cheap as free" factor do come together). The fact is that most people have never once been exposed to any kind of desktop Linux marketing. Heck my 21-year-old college-student sister thinks Linux is a programming language. They also don't care for a second that it's Open Source or about silly "free as in speech" arguments.

I agree. There are a lot of things that could be improved (though I believe the most important ones are up to hardware manufacturers and such).



Oh, many Linux users feel the same way.

Personally, I think that Open Source has its advantages, but I don't see why people should be so religious about it. Open formats are another thing... I continue to feel that open formats are important. (Think AutoCAD and such. That company is deliberately encrypting their format, to prevent reverse-engineering. Because of this, other companies that often have better products, can't enter the CAD market.)

Anyways, it's a shame this topic is going to fall off the page soon, it's providing some interesting discussion (and strangely, I haven't seen that much flaming yet! :p)

Well, we're not all like that ;-) (As you already know, since you're dual-booting yourself)

These people are just 'the loud minority'.

I'm sticking with the motto: "Use what you like."

I bet you can't stand politicians.

That my friend, is an understatment. I'm perfectly fine with a politician doing things that *I* dont like... what I dont like it the politician trying to be all things to all people. You simple can't.

When I lived back in San Francisco the Mayor was Willie Brown. When he was asked on Politically Correct that had taken more money from special interest than any other House speaker (his previous job) and could he be trusted to work for the public's interest. He said; "Just because I take your money doesnt mean Im not going to screw you too."

I love the 'too" in that, as all politicians are screwing all of us. Or so I believe... but this is far off topic.

Let's use real arguments here, not FUD.

1. It's perfectly possible to learn Linux without an IT degree. My mother could use Linux - if I set it up for her. It's the same with Windows: she can use it if I set it up for her.

2. I open my package manager, look in the list of over 20 000 programs, and install the one I need.
If it's not available in the repositories, I download the program and double-click to install (things like Autopackage). If it's a Windows program, I use Wine.

I agree about BadVista.org not being a professional site, and just being a bad idea in general.

However, Microsoft does play this game too. Ever heard about their 'Get the facts' website?

Or the "Linux is a cancer" spiel?

However, returning the same negative vibes is just really bad karma. (and the middle column on that site is awful in my browser's typical width)

Greeeeeeeeat.... right around lunchtime, too.

Yes, let's resort to an ad-hominem personal attack, rather than discussing valid logical items.

I have as much respect for your post as the posts that "discuss" Microsoft by making fun of Ballmer.

Dude that guy looks like a stretched Gimli from LOTR.

I'm not going to be involved in this conversation.