I thought this was a silly question to be asking r/linux, but I've had a few comment threads go the way of "X software is better, so I will never use a free alternative." Am I insane, or is this exactly the opposite of the philosophy that started the GNU project? The FSF? How do we have this on r/linux?
EDIT: Clarity: I always mean "free software" as in "free speech".
Posted Apr 15, 2011, 9:03 PM UTC · edited
I think of the linux kernel and it's community as generally being the embodiment of loving the practical benefits of free software without caring too much about the ethics. That's not to say that they don't care; they certainly do. It's just that they have set their practicality vs. ethics scale at a different mark perhaps than I have.
That's why Linux-libre exists as an off-shoot project instead of just being linux. The binary blobs are an ethical problem for everyone, but often actually solve a practical problem of getting devices to work. For many people, that's a trade-off they are willing to make.
Everyone is at a different point along that scale, and r/linux is a large enough community that you are going to find people who are absolutely committed to free software as well as those that don't care at all.
Regression to the mean means a collective "meh."
But don't despair. There are plenty here in r/linux who are advocating free software, even if we get lost in the muddle sometimes.
I agree with this completely, personally I go for whatever works best. A perfect example is comparing the Nouveau and proprietary Nvidia video drivers. I'm running Arch and my laptop was running a bit hot with the Nouveau drivers, I switched to the Nvidia drivers and my problem was solved. I'm willing to sacrifice some of the software freedom for practicality.
Bottom line is, everyone has priorities, its all a matter of figuring out what works best for you, and what kind of sacrifices you are willing to make in the name of ethics.
For me, a program being FOSS is a "nice to have" feature, not a requirement. If you give me two nearly identical programs, their one distinction being that one is FOSS and the other is not, then yes, I will go for the FOSS program.
But the real world is not like that. Let's take image editing: For advanced work, nothing can compete with PhotoShop. GIMP can't, for starters. But even simple stuff is outdone by proprietary software. Paint.NET which is freeware instead of FOSS is an extremely nice piece of software. There aren't any free image editors that can compete with that either.
On the other hand, in browsers, the two FOSS browsers, Firefox and Chromium are clearly superior to their competition. However, that material superiority is why I use them, not any ideological reason. Back when this wasn't the case, I happily used Opera.
I use Linux because, for my purposes where OS choice makes a big difference, especially programming, it's vastly more useful than Windows. I also use it for general web browsing and other day to day as I find it is faster. Being free (as in beer) also helps too. However I will never use one of those strictly FOSS only distributions because their decision to not include things such as Flash or wireless drivers means they are less useful for me.
Nowhere does the decision that Linux is the better OS for me require a conviction to never use non-FOSS software.
For advanced work, nothing can compete with PhotoShop. GIMP can't, for starters. But even simple stuff is outdone by proprietary software. Paint.NET which is freeware instead of FOSS is an extremely nice piece of software. There aren't any free image editors that can compete with that either.
This isn't true in my experience. There's very little, perhaps nothing, that Photoshop can do that the GIMP can't do, but the GIMP suffers from unfamiliarity to many Photoshop power users.
Well, I've never used Photoshop and barely touched the GIMP, but I hear these claims about Photoshop doing more and being easier to use a lot. You should help write some documentation that shows how to do the more complicated things that GIMP can do and get that out there. You could help to end this myth and maybe get a few career photoshoppers onto an open alternative and it would help people who want to learn to use GIMP better or on a wider range of projects.
One of the big issues with GIMP is that professional graphic designers need to be able to work in CMYK colors instead of RGB, something GIMP does not support. In addition to that, GIMP also do not have layer filters. The closest you can get is duplicating a layer, applying a filter, and then masking off portions of the image. If you change something on the picture, you have to do the same thing over again. While there are a lot of things you can do with GIMP even if it takes more effort than on Photoshop, it still has a number of shortcomings that will prevent it from ever seeing widespread commercial adoption.
I dont really agree with the Paint.Net being better than GIMP. Wondering what makes you say that?
As a simple image editor - It's not competing directly with GIMP, but with lightweight image editors such as Pinta etc.
The reason I put these in a specific category is that many things don't need access to the features of GIMP/Photoshop, and for them, I'll have them finished in the time it takes GIMP or Photoshop to load.
This. A thousand times, this.
I am lucky enough to have never HAD to rely on a non-free product except at work. So my own attitude is: use a free/open source preferably cross-platform solution whenever possible. I think I'd only use a closed-source application if none of the available alternatives was even adequate or ready for daily use.
I guess that's what my comment threads came down to....the industry standard is to used nonfree programs. My issue lies with the apathy that comes with it. If the industry standard is nonfree, shouldn't someone devoted to free software be making every effort to better the free solutions, rather than giving in to the nonfree ones in every case, simply because the boss/customer/coworker says so?
shouldn't someone devoted to free software be making every effort to better the free solutions, rather than giving in to the nonfree ones in every case, simply because the boss/customer/coworker says so?
I'd say both. Bosses and customers want what they want. That isn't to say that you shouldn't try to sell them on the advantages of free software: you should.
i also prefer cross-platform application´s and open source whenever possible. and with whenever possible i mean: always.
Where did you manage to find hardware that was open? Intel, AMD and Via all keep the microcode and related software in their processors closed and the updates encrypted.
who is talking about hardware? The thread topic specifically said "software" so I pretty much assumed that was a boundary in the discussion.
Because that hardware has upgradable software built in.
Device drivers for specific hardware is one of the biggest draw backs! There is always going to be a alternative for different types of software. Properly functioning hardware is the root of Linux usability. (opinion)
Edit: Grammar =/
This is true, however many companies will contribute to the Linux community by developing drivers and standards for the kernel. Intel contributes quite a bit to the kernel from what I've read.
Also AMD recently open-sourced VAAPI, which will supposedly lead to better implementation in video players. We'll see. IIRC AMD also open-sources documentation on their hardware for driver development (radeonhd driver) while development their in-house driver (fglrx) in a parallel fashion.
I haven't read much on the situation lately, but I suspect the reason for leaving low-level details on hardware out would be that it would put them in a bad situation in terms of investing R&D in design, then just revealing all of their findings for free. Maybe someone else has more info on the matter.
EDIT: I just remembered that AMD did open source the R600 architecture documentation to allow open source development. This was in 2008, so that was around a year after the 2900XT release. Apparently this also included microcode. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_r600_oss_3d&num=1 That's the only article that I remember reading....maybe they've released architecture notes since then.
I don't have a source, but as far as I am aware, AMD has not released any documentation regarding the Radeon 4000+ series. This is why the radeonhd driver will not work with newer cards.
To be honest I've never even tried to run the radeonhd driver with my 4870x2, but the fglrx driver runs quite well on it. It was really bad when I first got the card (3 years ago or so), but everything works well now. The only problems I have are: full screen flash sometimes causes X to stop redrawing upon leaving full screen, so I have to go to a console tty by pressing ctrl+alt+f[2-6], then back to tty7. vaapi has some screen corruption problems with certain codecs in the mkv container, so I stick with gl renderer in smplayer sometimes I get a little lag when displaying all desktops in kde.....but not enough to actually affect performance, just barely noticeable lag.
For the most part if you have a relatively new GPU fglrx is the way to go anyway.
I've been trying to understand FOSS more and I have a question: you mention you've never had to rely on a non-free piece of software (We'll ignore work). Why is it that it when it comes to software, you like free software? Or, is it that you like open source software? Or, must it be free open source software?
I'm basically trying to think of how the FOSS model would apply outside of software and if it's possible. Like, groceries, cars, houses and the like. In those areas it's obvious that you pay for a good and I suppose that's why the closed-source, or rather, paid programs model even started oh-so-many years ago. I pay for services/goods, which I expect to be of high quality, and I in turn offer my services/goods for money.
I'm not sure if that's clear . . anyway, it's late and I've just had a ~ 4 hour programming run and my mind is an intricate mess. What I'm alluding at really isn't a new question so that means someone in the past has given an eloquent answer so if I could be redirected to them, go for it!
In the context of this thread, I am using "free software" in the RMS sense - open source software under a license such as GPL2/3. I don't simply mean "free as in beer", although I'm not rich and the cost factor is a nice side effect. I think that there are strong benefits to the use of open source software, not just for programmers but for users also. I prefer cross platform programs because I want to be able to use them at work, or get friends to use them (friends who are unlikely to run Linux). As far as whether the FOSS model can apply outside of software, I'm really not sure. I don't want to categorically say "it cannot ever apply", but much of what makes the open source model work so well is specific to how software is written and improved.
I will use whatever i need to accomplish a task most efficiently. Most of the time its open source software, but some of it is just not up to par with industry standards.
Proprietary software generally has proprietary gui's that are no good for command line usage, eg: piping. And that really bothers me, i find proprietary software purposefully doesn't account for that usage type and can make efficient workflow integration a massive pita.
What are some examples, and what if any alternatives have you considered?
Which is covered by freedom 0, the freedom to run the software for any purpose.
As for not meeting industry standards, do you then file a report of the software's failing? Do you have any programming expertise to throw in a helping hand? This is the effort I'm trying to find in the community, and I'm worried it doesn't exist, here.
How do we have this on r/linux?
Because there are people who use Linux for reasons other than philosophy. If you are happy using commercial software, then Linux becomes just another option to use. This sort of user does not really care about GNU or the FSF. They just want something that meets their needs.
But to ignore the merit of the philosophy, after using the software? It seems unlikely that someone who reads r/linux is ignorant of the philosophy, and it is a facially good one....
Sure, but don't ignore the merits of the other software model, either, even if you don't like it. There is no GPL tool that is as good as Photoshop (please spare me the arguments for GIMP, etc.), so you can't say that the proprietary model is completely worthless.
I do like Photoshop: I stopped pirating it as a teenager and switched to GIMP, but Photoshop is a technically superior piece of software.
I had a similar experience as well. If someone ever offers me a free copy of Photoshop, straight to Wine it goes. Until then, I will just use GIMP. Since I am not a professional, most of what I do can be done in GIMP and Luminance/qtpfsgui when I want to do HDR even if it isn't as easy as I would like it to be.
There is no GPL tool that is as good as Photoshop
OK, so explain what's wrong with Krita.
It doesn't even serve the same purpose as photoshop...
Also, it doesn't need to have something wrong with it to be inferior to photoshop.
[deleted]
Oh God, no. Really? Krita? Really?
Oh, but I can! It is worthless because it removes freedom from its users, not because it produces worse software. Better or worse is not the problem.
It is worthless
Well, that about wraps up all the arguments from you that I'll be reading tonight, I guess. I prefer free software, generally, but I'm not going to say that the proprietary model is worthless.
As a devoted open source software advocate, I think your statement is completely assinine.
so you can't say that the proprietary model is completely worthless.
I think it's worse than worthless (being an overall negative)
The parts of it that appear positive (sometimes being a better tool, & the seemingly better "profit" potential as a lot of businesses see it), only reinforce the perception that it actually does have positive merits -- and I see that as a fairly serious negative in terms of advancement and ascension of the human race.
Computers, digital information (software included), etc. is giving us our first taste of what it means to have a resource where scarcity no longer applies. Minds entrenched by the way things worked for all of human history are having trouble adjusting. We have, in my opinion, done a very shitty job of integrating our newfound ability to spread and replicate information at close to the speed of light. Instead of embracing it, we've got copyright & piracy lawsuits out the wazoo.
If we're struggling with this at this point, things are only going to get worse as our digital abilities go farther, faster than our legal (and by extension, I say, our philosophical) values can adjust.
Silliness all around. If you think the civilized world hasn't dealt with this exact same problem over and over again, generation and after generation, then you're just naive, and possibly stupid...or just young.
The printing press was the 15th century equivalent of the Internet, and if you think they didn't deal with nearly identical problems from its invention, then you're fooling yourself.
The philosophy does not have merit in all situations. This is where the disconnect between the zealots and the pragmatists exists.
For example, for software I rely on (in the sense that losing access to the software would cause me pain), I strongly prefer (and contribute to) foss. This generally extends to tools I use to do my job.
For software that I don't rely on, which large consists of amusements such as games, it's pointless to avoid proprietary licences. If that involves using a proprietary OS, that's fine. I still have no dependancy on it.
I find games to be a very rare exception, for most cases. I still think it's better to push for freer games, since I find most of the reason people play nonfree games is the same reason most people use M$ Office: Because other people do.
Now, the philosophy as a whole, though....it seems to me that the philosophy is above all other considerations. See this article.
Oh trust me, I've read the GNU propaganda. Reading it again won't sway me to becoming a zealot.
People play non-free games because there's only so much Tuxracer that one can stand ;)
Kidding aside, it's impossible in practice to produce open source games on par with proprietary offerings. Top line games have costs inline with hollywood blockbuster movies. Also, where is the practical benefit to having an OSS game? If the licenser of the game abuses their control, then the answer is simple: stop playing the damn game.
You should conclude from those premises that the philosophy is not as universally compelling as you previously assumed.
No, the philosophy is good, but not to people who ignore it or don't realize the importance.
If a philosophy is ignorable or uncompelling to Bob, then it follows that either that philosophy is incompatible with Bob's worldview, or the people pushing that philosophy to Bob did an insufficient job communicating.
Note that this is a separate issue from truth.
[deleted]
Hm. I suppose so....but does that not just say that the people who haven't delved deeper into the origins of their hobby are ignorant, and content to remain that way? Isn't that the worst thing of all?
[deleted]
Facially good? Why is my skin so oily, then?
[deleted]
I agree with the philosophy and more or less follow it in practice whenever I can. The reason is that I consider computers in general more than just a simple tool. Today I used my laptop to study, to talk to friends, to entertain myself, to read a book, to comment here and to make up my mind about who to vote for in an upcoming election. They are an incredibly complex and versatile tool which gives them the capability to work against the interests and intents of the user. This is unlike like say a hammer which you can strike wherever you want, or a paper book, or a pencil and paper.
The effectiveness of the development model around free software is a byproduct of the philosophy and doesn't always produce the most efficient programs in every case. They are also not mutually exclusive as there are examples of free software developed in a closed environment until release date.
In the GPL vs. BSD license debate, I'm on the BSD side. If I take an open source project, add to it, and give an executable to others, I see no reason I must be required to also share my changes to the code. I am not taking away the original code from them; the only code I'm holding back is mine. I do not believe that free access to others' hard work is a fundamental liberty. I give my code away under the MIT license because I want to share it with others, but I don't give a flip if somebody takes that code, does something proprietary with it, and generates a profit. What reason do I have to protest? I gave them my code under terms that allowed them to do that, and their profit comes from their changes to and/or application of my code, not mine. Likewise, I respect the GPL and, while I think it's a shame that I can't use it, I don't use GPL code in a project that I am unwilling to also put under the GPL. Sometimes it pisses me off a bit, but it would be hypocritical of me to say you have to share your code the same way I do, which is kind of how I interpret the more militant free software advocates. Access to information is awesome, and I want to see more of it, but it's just not my place to mandate that other people share their work.
but it's just not my place to mandate that other people share their work.
Well sure it is, what do you think money is? You certainly agree that one has the right to charge money for their hard work(software). That money is someone else's work, and you're requiring them to give you some of it in exchange for your own hard work(the software). What if you only wanted to charge money for privileged access to the hard work (source code) and the right to make modifications? This too is done all the time.
I do not believe that free access to others' hard work is a fundamental liberty.
I completely agree with you, and this elucidates what I think is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the GPL by many people. The GPL doesn't make the software free as in no strings attached. You get access to the program and the source code and the right to make modifications for free as in no strings attached. That's already a pretty good deal, but its pretty much identical to any other open source license. The specific purpose of the GPL is to mediate a specific form of payment on the behalf of the person who actually did the hard work and released their source code under the GPL. The GPL collects payment on the behalf of this person in the form of source code. "I'll let you have the source to my program, but you have to pay me for the privilege of distribution a derrivative of my hard work by giving others the same freedoms I gave you." Its actually quite beautiful as far as payment systems go: its not a universal open source license, its a license for people who want to share their hard work and be repayed in mutual sharing.
tl;dr Any argument in favor of charging money for software necessarily works in favor of the GPL.
That money is someone else's work, and you're requiring them to give you some of it in exchange for your own hard work(the software).
If I understand you analogy, you're drawing a parallel between charging for work and putting conditions on the use of that work. I agree, it's within my rights and your rights to do that. My argument isn't about what conditions to place on your own work. My argument is against the dogmatic claims that such conditions should be placed on all work.
tl;dr Any argument in favor of charging money for software necessarily works in favor of the GPL.
It wasn't my intent to make such an argument.
I know that wasn't your goal to make such an argument: I just meant that to be a clear take-home summary of my perspective on the GPL and to fend of any others' criticism which would not address this claim of mine. I agree that asserting that everyone should use the GPL is silly because its purpose is to do a job for those who want it done: I'm just arguing that its actually a very useful tool for freedom loving hippies like myself, and not to belabor the point because it seems like we more or less agree, but my analogy was between the restrictions necessary to sell software (i.e. telling people who haven't bought it that they can't use it.) and the restrictions that the GPL enacts. They're different restrictions, but they share a purpose, achieving the goals of the software's author.
I enjoy the civility of this thread, but I'm curious about how you would explain the apparent contradiction between your agreement that free access to others' work is not a fundamental liberty and your assertion that the GPL is useful for "freedom loving" people. I think this is a subtely different question from what is more frequently asked, "How do more restrictions on something make it more free?"
My attempt at an explanation of the latter question is simply that different people are willing to make different tradeoffs between freedom from external forces and freedom to accessible resources. Perhaps the apparent contradiction could also be explained by a similar argument by defining "liberty" and "freedom" to each mean one or the other of these two seemingly opposing ideals. There, I've given you some ammunition to start with if you want it. :)
I am for Free software, but I'm not anti-proprietary. I believe that Free software development is a better development model, and that it is the best way to create wonderful, clean, and useful programs.
That doesn't mean that I won't use a non-free piece of software if it's better. If a product is good enough, yeah, I'll FREELY give up my right to modify/redistribute it. Just because someone follows a different development philosophy doesn't make theirs inherently evil. I, for instance, actually prefer permissive licenses (BSD/MIT, etc), since the GPL is a bit too viral for my tastes.
I am, but I count 8 times. That's how many people I've switched to linux (not dual boot either).
You're doing better than me :/
To be fair, my school hates freedom.
I ♥ Linux since I was introduced to it and totally devote my time in using Linux (especially Ubuntu) cos'
It is free (as in beer)
It is not resource intensive (Can install in an old PC)
There are many software that can help me to do the jobs
You can use Compiz wizard to make the wobble effect
You can rotate the desktop cube to 4 different sides
I'm a die-hard software freedom fanatic, but a lot of people here merely use GNU+Linux because it is better than the alternatives for their purposes. To better understand the nature and implications of their point of view, read up on Stalman's criticism of the term "open source". In any case, though, I'm happy to have them here since larger numbers of users help keep the community vibrant, and like it or not, this stuff simply isn't an ideological issue for many people.
Don't waste your time trying to argue about free software with these people. You'll get nothing but resistance from a bunch of folks completely blind to the social changes that created the entire OS from the bottom up.
These are the same people who have never written a line of code or contributed anything at all.
[deleted]
But a lot of the times you get the people who seek to do nothing but profit from that work and the community built by the Linux project, without ever giving anything back. They'd switch over to OS X if it was free. These are the types of people who are totally unproductive for any kind of community project like this.
[deleted]
Yep yep yep. Arguing about free software with random people on the internet is pretty much a waste of time. It's like the Monty Python Argument Clinic sketch. It's not really an argument, it's just an excuse for a futile bickering.
For people who actually are interested in looking at source code there is no reason to even ask the question: of course they want to see it. So by even asking the question you're begging the premise of why people would be interested in the topic if they're not interested in examining source code.
The real topic here is the definition of freedom and what that means. This is a huge topic and a very important one that has shaped the politics of the US since the sixties. Mixing that very complex and multifaceted rhetoric in with the specific example of computer source code without setting some specific premises is going to get nothing but a mess of cross-talk. In electronic terms: you've failed to establish the sampling parameters and the result is an unacceptable signal to noise ratio.
[deleted]
Who said anything about studying computer science? I assume only a small portion of the people who modify source code have any computer science training from a university. This is the whole point, you don't need someone to tell you what to do --you can educate yourself. I majored in English and I read source code all the time and hacking around with bash scripts is like my main hobby.
I don't see insights. I see bickering and I call it bickering because it's not insightful comments but political posturing.
[deleted]
Please no one downvote this. He speaks truth. +1
I value whatever amount of freedom I can attain but like it or not, freedom requires societal cooperation. You can't really be free all by yourself. That's why I not only try to exclusively use free software but I also suggest it to them whenever people ask me what program to use for a task or if they complain about a non-free one.
Every user should understand how the software they use affects their life. Part of that is learning how proprietary software places unnecessary limitations on the improvement of the software they use. It is my hope that everyone progresses along this path of understanding and that we may all free ourselves from intrusive and annoying practices of proprietary software developers.
To be honest I will use the software that best fits my situation. %99 percent of the time that means free software that is readily available in Arch's repos or AUR.
I still use MS office because I have a free copy from school. For the most part the best software in its category is FOSS.
Examples: Handbrake, Calibre, vim, Amarok, vlc, smplayer, Dolphin, ktorrent, kid3....all IMO of course.
That said if I have to use certain software for school (Microcap for example) then I will boot into a virtual machine and install it.
I still have Windows 7 installed on an SSD for gaming/Netflix. Netflix instant watch doesn't run very well in a virtual machine. Silverlight crashes, causing the video frame to just go black :\
Another thing that I encounter is that the general public really has no idea that free software doesn't necessarily refer to cost, but rather the fact that the source code is readily available and that there is a certain level of transparency that exists. In fact I'd wager that a vast majority of people don't even know what source code is. That's fine, and it's a bit naive to expect otherwise.
I think with companies like Google pushing Linux-based operating systems to the general public via Android and Chromium OS we will see more people recognize the fact that paying for software doesn't necessarily mean that it will be superior to a free alternative.
The general public (and even people in tech field) don't realize that companies can monetize software projects that are free (gratis) using other means (tech support, etc.)
The one thing OP fails to understand is that some people, including myself, use linux because they like it, not because it's free. Honestly, I'm not going to use an inferior product because it's FOSS because FOSS just isn't that big of a deal to me. I agree that FOSS is important, but I don't see the proprietary model as flawed.
Also, these preachy posts are exactly why some people don't like the linux community. Let us make our own damn decisions and you can make your own.
"preachy" how? I ask about something, and try to convince people of my side? I give logical reasons for it to be true? I am tired of people accusing free software users of being "as bad as religion" or "zealots" for understanding and embodying a set of principles that arose from a very logical set of truths.
You are decrying those that oppose you as ignorant, software that does not fit into your philosophy as worthless, and stereotyping those who do not agree with you.
You continually bring up the four freedoms and declare them to be inherently good and necessary with all the zeal of a religious zealot insisting anyone who does not follow their holy book is ignorant, anything produced that is not in accordance with those rules worthless, and stereotyping those that do not agree as heathens who engage in devil worship.
You take a commonly used word (free) which has to the majority of the population a clear meaning (free as in beer) then complain when anyone uses it unqualified to refer to its common use, insisting unqualified free software means FLOSS instead of the meaning that stems logically from the name - freeware.
You are preachy because you declare your position to be an unqualified good and declare every other position untenable.
Do you not see how the comparisons are inevitable?
I disagree regarding prop. software, but if linux were as 'closed' as windows and osx i would still use it. It's just better.
I avoid properietary software as long as I find free alternatives which are good enough for the job. But I value my personal freedom to do things with my system higher than the freeness of software. Which means - the moment I can't do something anymore with free software I switch to proprietary solutions.
Same goes for my work - I always prefer getting free software projects and even offer better rates for those, but I have not yet found a way to make my living doing just that. So I often have to code proprietary software, although I usually work at least with some open library and can regularly give back patches.
I've seen that situation. I've been in it. I wonder if there is a better way to do things. Maybe if people were aware of the power of computers, and the low, low cost of your services (with FOSS), they might want more of it! :P
Not totally. I still use Windows 7, although not very often, as much as I like ogg and FLAC, most of my media is in proprietary formats, there's still some proprietary software I prefer like ACS, and I love me some Opera browser.
I just helped my nephew with a video project for school, and sorry to say I went to Windows for that, and used free (as in beer) presumably proprietary offerings that I'm already somewhat familiar with for editing and whatnot (he had a deadline, I just wanted to use stuff that I knew would work) although I'm playing with FOSS software to see if I could accomplish the same in a Linux environment.
I like FOSS and what it stands for, but at the end of the day, I use what works for me.
This is where things like WINE comes in, it could allow Windows users to run that X software on Linux/Unix. At least until they find and learn an alternative. Failing that, VirtualBox for real Windows when required. Can't ask these users to start writing their own alternative to X software, they may not have the time or skills. To me, the free thing to do in that case is help out WINE, and help any alternative until it's ready for you.
I've helped a few projects, but only in the drive-by contributor way. Odd bugfixes, features or code cleanups. Except two Windows ones for work. One, I mainly answer questions on the group. The other is mine/work's and if anyone asks me anything or gives me anything, I'm always very pleased. :-)
WINE is nice, maybe, for someone who needs to transition. But often I wonder why any "normal" user would need that at all--they have perfectly good alternatives for all of their software.
I've been the drive-by contributor once, too! I'm hoping to run a bigger contribution over the summer, as well as building my own project up.
Oh, it'll be a fun summer.
Sometimes Wine really is the only option available bar real Windows in a VM, for instance: http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?2725554
Wine also seams commonly used to play Windows games.
Generally Wine is for transition, but normally people find Wine/Linux isn't a good Windows. Then, they leave and complain "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" or they knuckle down and learn a new, better, platform. If you want Windows, use Windows, but don't complain Linux isn't Windows. Any OS-X Wine like thing will be the same.
Contributions are contributions. As those drive-by contributions add up. :-)
There are plenty of people that use Linux because it is the right tool for the job, not because it is Free Software. Afterall, this is r/linux, not r/fsf or r/gnu.
Is it right to ignore the philosophy that spawned the right tool? Is it right to ignore the history of your tools?
EDIT: r/fsf is empty, I checked. r/gnu might be fun. Thanks for suggestions.
I don't see a problem with it. I mean it's nice to be aware of the history, but that's what evolution is all about: starting somewhere and moving past it / building upon it. I prefer free software, but I definitely don't use it exclusively (nvidia binaries, anyone?)
I suppose there are some points where it might be necessary....but it shouldn't be an accepted state, should it? Pushing the developers to move towards freer solutions should be a major goal.
Also, evolution is never about moving past something, unless we've solved the problem forever. We obviously haven't, in this case, since there are still nonfree softwares out there.
For bigger projects, it's difficult because you have to find people heavily committed to the project (there's usually no financial incentive). For the smaller projects, if there's no free solution out there I usually just roll my own and stick it on github. No one actually uses them besides me, but that's beside the point.
Completely agree. I myself use the nVidia tool for my GTX 460, simply because it works better, but I would prefer to use the free software.
With me, if there is a choice between free and non-free software, and the two are comparable, I will always take the free software. After all, I'm using Linux. However, if one clearly outstrips the other (I mean really outperforms it), then I will always go with that.
TL;DR: free software, unless the non-free absolutely kills the free software.
Absolutely. If the two tools are comparable, or even if the open source tool is slightly weaker, I'll take it every time.
So I use stuff like nVidia, Dropbox, but everything else is either cloud-based, open source, or homebrew.
Google Linus and Bitkeeper some time.
Good question. Is it right to ignore the philosophy that spawned the right tool if that tool were proprietary?
Software is not a religion, it is a collection of 1s and 0s.
Unfortunately, the WTO, the justice system and eventually the cops do not agree with that nice statement.
Your 0s and 1s have little labelled attached to them that tell how you can or can not re-arrange and interpret them if you do not want to end up in jail.
No, it's not, because the proprietary tool uses a flawed philosophy. That's largely my point.
And this is certainly no religion, it is about freedom, not some mythological super-being that created the universe.
The philosophy is not flawed if the tool solves the problem it is designed to solve.
The flaw is in the expectation that all software should follow a particular philosophy because this flawed philosophy is not 'free as in freedom'.
You can claim that it isn't religion, but to argue that a proprietary tool is flawed because it does not align to the four freedoms is a religious statement.
Tools do not use philosophy.
As far as freedom goes, a proprietary tool that lets me get my work done faster, cheaper, and more accurately gives me more freedom than a "free" tools that can't do my work, or makes my work more expensive or less accurate. The former lets me get my work done leaving me time and resources to do what I want to do. The latter forces me to spend more time and effort than I want to spend to get my work done. That's not freedom. That's more like slavery.
Good, bad... I'm the guy with the root password.
The only thing "wrong" is if you violate the software agreement. It's not enough to have the source code and the tools to compile software, if you don't have the time and knowledge to make changes, it may as well not be free for you.
Yes, because in the end, it's just a tool.
Again, yes. Did you know PostgreSQL had Julian Assange as a contributor? Would you not use that tool because of its history? If the tool fits your needs, use it. I don't care if it came from hitler and was originally designed to eradicate jews. If it can be made to fit whatever task I have at hand...I'll use it.
I would say no, because that's a simplistic, surface level analysis of a tools' role in your life. I know that personally I want as close to a globally optimal life out come as I can get, and the mission of the FSF furthers that, and using proprietary software, in the large analysis, hinders it.
25 years after the GNU manifesto was published and there are still people as short-sighted as that. This makes me very tired.
At least argue against the arguments put forth by free software advocates specifically to refute the "pragmatic" stance.
Such as?
I would suggest that if you want to convince people to do anything, you need a practical reason for them to be convinced. The "free software only" proponents rely on ideological arguments, which is not an advantageous approach.
[deleted]
As a practical matter, the only way GNU ethics will spread is if current adherents take an active and sustained role in spreading that message.
Well, a tool perhaps, but if the tool comes with detachable parts and instructions on how to build new ones, then the tool is inherently better.
Not really. It's only better if you care that you can build new ones. If you don't have a need for new ones, then...well...fuck it. Especially when it's free-as-in-beer, it doesn't matter.
I agree, but... Godwin'd.
Did you just sort of compare Julian Assange to Hitler?
No. They were meant to be two separate and unrelated examples. Hitler didn't author any software so I couldn't directly contribute anything authored by him, so I picked the next best controversial subject, julian assange.
Those people are part of the problem, not the solution.