4 ms·

Maybe I'm missing something, but I've never viewed computer usage as a militant adherence to a single software pricing model. I view it as using the best combi

by brk 19y ago

Maybe I'm missing something, but I've never viewed computer usage as a militant adherence to a single software pricing model. I view it as using the best combination of OS and apps that suit my needs, in combination with offering the best cost to usability ratio. Who cares if the software is free or paid? OSS or proprietary? Find what works best for YOU, and go with it. Note that the best answer is likely to be very different person to person. Fanboys of any denomination are all equally annoying and blind.

vikas5678 19y ago
Yeah, free or otherwise, software should be a pleasure to use, and I think the linux guys are missing a big part of the market share because of issues like the ones covered in the link. If a average(non programmer/linux literate) person can install ubuntu/linux and start using it full swing without having to jump through hoops and pull out some hair, thats when will linux get its fair share of the market.
- aflag 19y ago
  I don't know what you call a "linux guy". Nonetheless, I consider myself a "free software guy", GNU/Linux is just one of the possibilities when you are looking for free software. We are not looking for as many people using GNU/Linux as possible (althought that's sure much better than people using nothing but proprietary software). We are looking for many people supporting free software. So, having tons of users who don't contribute or care about free software doesn't make me happy. I'm not saying we should drop usability, it's important, it's nice, but we shouldn't confuse lack of proprietary application with usability, that's all.
  - ks 19y ago
    > Why should anyone involved in free software development care about people who doesn't care about free software? Sometimes the end justifies the means. I'm sure that many of the Firefox converts didn't switch because of their love of free software. But it forces web developers to think about standards and not limit their web pages to Internet Explorer. So more users benefit you directly.
aflag 19y ago
Your view is different then mine. You see, I take care about the consequences of my actions. Sure, it's much more convinient to use adobe acroread, using MS Office is probably a lot easier than OpenOffice. But by using such software I'm contributing with ideas that are not so good for society. This essay explains a lot of my point of view towards software: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html I think finding what work best for me is just too selfish, I rather find what I think is best for everyone. Also, I realise that, althought proprietary software may be the best thing for me in the short-term, in the long run, free software will be much better for me. It will give me more freedom. Now, I was hoping to have a serious discussion, but you call me a fanboy (althought for some reason people are downmodding me like crazy). Are you want to troll me?
- brk 19y ago
  I was not meaning to call you a fanboy directly, although I guess by your own admission you do fit the description. I care about the consequences of my actions as well (or at least some actions, I am not to be held responsible when beer is involved), but free software != the absolute answer for everything. Do you not believe that everyone deserves to be paid for their work? Paying for software creates a cash flow for the company, which can be used to fund development, maintenance and enhancements. Some companies use that cash flow (IMO) in better ways than others, and that factors in to how I make my choices.
  - aflag 19y ago
    Of course free software is not the answer for everything. It's just a good effort towards freedom when it comes to software development and use. I appreciate that freedom very much, that's why I like free software. Free software doesn't mean you can't charge for them, it only means that the user of the software trully owns it, as opposed to simple having the right to use it. Where I live it's very common to see companies that will write management software for other companies and sell it to them. I don't see any reason why they couldn't be selling free software, it would be very benefitial for the client because he would be able to even maintain the software if they want to. Or they can even contract a different company for maintaining the software. You give your client a lot of freedom this way.
cstejerean 19y ago
As a programmer I can't imagine not having a preference for OSS. Open source allows me to learn from the authors, to locate and fix bugs (if it's a low priority bug that the authors won't get to for a while), to compile the software on the platforms I choose and to better understand the way an application works (beats reading the documentation sometimes). Even if the software is paid I would still prefer to get the source code in addition the binary when I purchase it. Because of this bias I'm willing to put up with the slight inconveniences of using free alternatives.
- brk 19y ago
  Preference, yes. Adamant "OSS-only" stance is harder to justify, IMO. And example, I do a lot of technical drawings as part of my work. There is Visio for Windows (don't use Windows, so that is not an option), or OmniGraffle for Mac (which I use almost daily and gladly paid for). What is "the" OSS technical drawing package that runs on linux or OSX, is moderately robust (I don't need "power user" app, but something stable and logical), and has a decent set of icons available? I haven't found the equivalent app, but if you know of something I'd love to give it a try. Another one is that I do a fair bit of photography and have been known to sell a picture or two from time to time. I use Aperature and Photoshop a lot. I have not found an OSS app with the same capabilities as either of these apps to support .RAW formats, elegant workflows, manage extremely large image caches (thousands of 13MP images and derivatives, etc.). The Gimp is powerful, but it is cumbersome (and I've spent many hours attempting to learn it), and seems (to me) to lag Photoshop by quite a bit. Also it is much harder to build on the work of others (part of the OSS spirit) with The Gimp because while many custom brushes, plugins and tutorials exist for Photoshop, they are fewer and farther between for The Gimp.

by brk 19y ago

vikas5678 19y ago

Yeah, free or otherwise, software should be a pleasure to use, and I think the linux guys are missing a big part of the market share because of issues like the ones covered in the link. If a average(non programmer/linux literate) person can install ubuntu/linux and start using it full swing without having to jump through hoops and pull out some hair, thats when will linux get its fair share of the market.

aflag 19y ago
I don't know what you call a "linux guy". Nonetheless, I consider myself a "free software guy", GNU/Linux is just one of the possibilities when you are looking for free software. We are not looking for as many people using GNU/Linux as possible (althought that's sure much better than people using nothing but proprietary software). We are looking for many people supporting free software. So, having tons of users who don't contribute or care about free software doesn't make me happy. I'm not saying we should drop usability, it's important, it's nice, but we shouldn't confuse lack of proprietary application with usability, that's all.
- ks 19y ago
  > Why should anyone involved in free software development care about people who doesn't care about free software? Sometimes the end justifies the means. I'm sure that many of the Firefox converts didn't switch because of their love of free software. But it forces web developers to think about standards and not limit their web pages to Internet Explorer. So more users benefit you directly.

aflag 19y ago

Your view is different then mine. You see, I take care about the consequences of my actions. Sure, it's much more convinient to use adobe acroread, using MS Office is probably a lot easier than OpenOffice. But by using such software I'm contributing with ideas that are not so good for society. This essay explains a lot of my point of view towards software: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html I think finding what work best for me is just too selfish, I rather find what I think is best for everyone. Also, I realise that, althought proprietary software may be the best thing for me in the short-term, in the long run, free software will be much better for me. It will give me more freedom. Now, I was hoping to have a serious discussion, but you call me a fanboy (althought for some reason people are downmodding me like crazy). Are you want to troll me?

brk 19y ago
I was not meaning to call you a fanboy directly, although I guess by your own admission you do fit the description. I care about the consequences of my actions as well (or at least some actions, I am not to be held responsible when beer is involved), but free software != the absolute answer for everything. Do you not believe that everyone deserves to be paid for their work? Paying for software creates a cash flow for the company, which can be used to fund development, maintenance and enhancements. Some companies use that cash flow (IMO) in better ways than others, and that factors in to how I make my choices.
- aflag 19y ago
  Of course free software is not the answer for everything. It's just a good effort towards freedom when it comes to software development and use. I appreciate that freedom very much, that's why I like free software. Free software doesn't mean you can't charge for them, it only means that the user of the software trully owns it, as opposed to simple having the right to use it. Where I live it's very common to see companies that will write management software for other companies and sell it to them. I don't see any reason why they couldn't be selling free software, it would be very benefitial for the client because he would be able to even maintain the software if they want to. Or they can even contract a different company for maintaining the software. You give your client a lot of freedom this way.

cstejerean 19y ago

As a programmer I can't imagine not having a preference for OSS. Open source allows me to learn from the authors, to locate and fix bugs (if it's a low priority bug that the authors won't get to for a while), to compile the software on the platforms I choose and to better understand the way an application works (beats reading the documentation sometimes). Even if the software is paid I would still prefer to get the source code in addition the binary when I purchase it. Because of this bias I'm willing to put up with the slight inconveniences of using free alternatives.

brk 19y ago
Preference, yes. Adamant "OSS-only" stance is harder to justify, IMO. And example, I do a lot of technical drawings as part of my work. There is Visio for Windows (don't use Windows, so that is not an option), or OmniGraffle for Mac (which I use almost daily and gladly paid for). What is "the" OSS technical drawing package that runs on linux or OSX, is moderately robust (I don't need "power user" app, but something stable and logical), and has a decent set of icons available? I haven't found the equivalent app, but if you know of something I'd love to give it a try. Another one is that I do a fair bit of photography and have been known to sell a picture or two from time to time. I use Aperature and Photoshop a lot. I have not found an OSS app with the same capabilities as either of these apps to support .RAW formats, elegant workflows, manage extremely large image caches (thousands of 13MP images and derivatives, etc.). The Gimp is powerful, but it is cumbersome (and I've spent many hours attempting to learn it), and seems (to me) to lag Photoshop by quite a bit. Also it is much harder to build on the work of others (part of the OSS spirit) with The Gimp because while many custom brushes, plugins and tutorials exist for Photoshop, they are fewer and farther between for The Gimp.