Freedom

[Prometheum]

Originally Posted by deus-redux

*sits around repeatedly screaming "GNU-SLASH-LINUX!!"*

But seriously guys:

1) Stop turning every "help me choose an OS" thread into a patriotic flame war.

2) Most people do not chose their OS as some divine affiliation with "freedom". Sure, freedom is all well and good, but I'll install Windows if that's what it takes to achieve what I need to do.

OP, I would recommend Ubuntu or Fedora. If you use Fedora, you can get all the semi-legal stuff like MP3 support from the Livna packages.

Regardless though, just install and play around with something - don't let the choice fuss you too much.

-deus-

Then you obviously don't support freedom. Don't let your debasement of your freedom affect others.

"Most people" get completely pissed off when I explain to them what non-free software means, and typically the reaction is, "come over ASAP and help me set up gNewSense". All of these "most people" statements are just red herrings; unless you can show me some representative survey to that effect, and among the informed populace, then there's nor reason to bring it up.

Freedom isn't just an important criterion, it's the most important criterion for anyone who values their freedom. Don't get confused or swayed by people who say "you can do X faster with my non-free program"; they're just trying to trap you. Nothing's worth using if it costs you your freedom.

[deus-redux]

Originally Posted by Prometheum

Then you obviously don't support freedom. Don't let your debasement of your freedom affect others.

Using a proprietary software package doesn't mean giving up your freedom. It's business sense not to want to share the inner workings of your top product.

Do you refuse to buy a car because they don't include the blueprints to its engine?

I'm sure many of the things YOU own are covered by patents. Therefore, by your own logic, you must be anti-freedom.

Originally Posted by Prometheum

All of these "most people" statements are just red herrings; unless you can show me some representative survey to that effect, and among the informed populace, then there's nor reason to bring it up.

http://www.palomar.edu/atrc/Pod/images/OS_Usage.gif

The fact that the majority of people use Windows, a proprietary OS, indicates that the majority of people do not chose their OS because of "freedom".

Originally Posted by Prometheum

Freedom isn't just an important criterion, it's the most important criterion for anyone who values their freedom. Don't get confused or swayed by people who say "you can do X faster with my non-free program"; they're just trying to trap you. Nothing's worth using if it costs you your freedom.

You do realise that the current state of computing technology would be decades behind where it is now if there weren't any commercial software development?

Just as a plumber doesn't come fix your heating for free, a software developer shouldn't be expected to give away everything he writes for free, either.

It's not about being anti-freedom, it's about making practical choices that work. Sometimes the proprietary solution really is far better.

-deus-

[Prometheum]

Since this forum's leadership doesn't care about freedom, I'm going to stop reading it regularly, at least for a while. I'm reachable if someone wants help and I'll respond to your threads if you ask me to, but don't expect me to be looking.

Originally Posted by deus-redux

Using a proprietary software package doesn't mean giving up your freedom. It's business sense not to want to share the inner workings of your top product.

Do you refuse to buy a car because they don't include the blueprints to its engine?

I'm sure many of the things YOU own are covered by patents. Therefore, by your own logic, you must be anti-freedom.



http://www.palomar.edu/atrc/Pod/images/OS_Usage.gif

The fact that the majority of people use Windows, a proprietary OS, indicates that the majority of people do not chose their OS because of "freedom".



You do realise that the current state of computing technology would be decades behind where it is now if there weren't any commercial software development?

Just as a plumber doesn't come fix your heating for free, a software developer shouldn't be expected to give away everything he writes for free, either.

It's not about being anti-freedom, it's about making practical choices that work. Sometimes the proprietary solution really is far better.

-deus-

I never thought I'd say this to you, but you're an idiot.

You just know this thread will escalate into a big ass flame war. I'm actually looking forward to this one.

*Grabs popcorn and coke*

No, but really..lets approach this matter like gentlemen and be reasonable about this. Lets try to maintain some respect here. I think we all have a lot to learn, so wouldn't it be rationale to discuss it without the abuse?

[deus-redux]

Originally Posted by Prometheum

Since this forum's leadership doesn't care about freedom, I'm going to stop reading it regularly, at least for a while. I'm reachable if someone wants help and I'll respond to your threads if you ask me to, but don't expect me to be looking.

Sorry, I didn't realise I had to take a particular point of view.

Do you not post in PLRC because the mods are too right wing for your communist ass?

Originally Posted by Prometheum

I never thought I'd say this to you, but you're an idiot.

Way to resolve a logical argument.

Originally Posted by villageillness

Lets approach this matter like gentlemen and be reasonable about this. Lets try to maintain some respect here. I think we all have a lot to learn, so wouldn't it be rationale to discuss it without the abuse?

That's what I've been doing. At no point have I insulted anyone. I guess I just hit a soft spot.

-deus-

[Prometheum]

Originally Posted by deus-redux

Sorry, I didn't realise I had to take a particular point of view.

Do you not post in PLRC because the mods are too right wing for your communist ass?



Way to resolve a logical argument.

I'm so fucking sick of people being idiots. I really am, and it gets to the point where I just don't want to correct them, so I tell them they're idiots and hope they work it out for themselves. If a forum's mod is hostile, I stop going to the forum on a regular basis. If the mods in My God moved all my posts into a "God Does Not Exist" thread every time I spoke, I'd stop going there too.

You have not once argued with me, so there is no logical argument here to be resolved.

Hint: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free?jss=0

[deus-redux]

Originally Posted by Prometheum

blah blah blah

You should really crawl down from up your own arse and check out the sunshine once in a while.

-deus-

[Prometheum]

Originally Posted by deus-redux

You should really crawl down from up your own arse and check out the sunshine once in a while.

-deus-

Dude, you don't even know the difference between "free as in freedom" and "free as in free beer". For the people that "invented the language" you've got a lot of learning in it yet.

[deus-redux]

Originally Posted by Prometheum

Dude, you don't even know the difference between "free as in freedom" and "free as in free beer". For the people that "invented the language" you've got a lot of learning in it yet.

I am well aware of the difference.

The point you are missing is: if software companies release their products' source code on a "free as in freedom" basis, they also inherently make their product "free as in beer".

This means nobody pays for their products, and the company makes no money.

Yes, in an ideal world, all software would be free, in both meanings. But in case you didn't notice, some of us make a living from writing software - and putting food on the table is kinda high on our list of priorities.

-deus-

[Prometheum]

Originally Posted by deus-redux

I am well aware of the difference.

The point you are missing is: if software companies release their products' source code on a "free as in freedom" basis, they also inherently make their product "free as in beer".

This means nobody pays for their products, and the company makes no money.

Yes, in an ideal world, all software would be free, in both meanings. But in case you didn't notice, some of us make a living from writing software - and putting food on the table is kinda high on our list of priorities.

-deus-

If you have to get a job (in our hypothetical free-only world) that is on software the is to be released to the public, it isn't hard to get one at any of the companies that write free software, 90% or more of jobs in the software industry are in writing software that is never released and thus doesn't have to be free. This is the realm of "custom software", or software written internal to a company or by a contracted company for a buyer. Hell, even if you're writing distributed free software, you can make a living (a pretty good one too) writing in features that companies or organizations want.

That being said, free software is not inherently "free as in beer" -- MySQL, Snort, RHEL, Enterprise SuSe, Ubuntu, Gentoo, Fedora, just about every other major GNU/Linux distro, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD prove you wrong. If no free software company could make money, Red Hat would be dead, Novell would be (mostly) dead, as would just about any GNU/Linux or BSD distro: they all stay afloat by selling their distributions, exercising freedom 3 and 4 of the FSF definitions. They could only do that with free software.

You're wrong, and you're wrong becuase you're misinformed. You also blatently ignored the quoted part of my post you responded to regarding "most people": I would estimate casually that 99% of those windows users have either never heard of free software options, don't know why freedom is important, or aren't making the choice themselves. Sun, IBM, Intel, AMD, Red Hat, Canonical, and Novell all agree with me that you're wrong: they make a lot of money selling free software.

I really wish you would admit to being wrong, and allow this (pretty much purely) semantic argument to die. If you want to argue as to why freedom is essential in an OS, I can take that up as well.