2 ms·

I don't see why you assume nothing as "wonderful" (which is a dubious perspective--I've used Mac OS quite a bit and it definitely isn't wonderful) could not hav

by tikhonj 15y ago

I don't see why you assume nothing as "wonderful" (which is a dubious perspective--I've used Mac OS quite a bit and it definitely isn't wonderful) could not have been created by the open source community. Look, for example, at KDE 4.7. It is much better than Mac OS (or, more accurately, worth is subjective so your whole argument about "wonderful Mac OS" is silly) and is open source. Most users who are not programmers don't prefer anything--they use whatever the nice salesman at Best Buy or their slightly tech-savvy relative got them to use. On top of that, both Windows and Mac are infinitely more heavily marketed than Linux. Proprietary software is always evil because it arbitrarily limits what you can do with something you've "bought". Almost everyone here hates DRM; proprietary software is basically software with DRM even if it isn't built in explicitly. There is nothing wrong with making money; that whole argument is a fallacy (a false dichotomy). Just because you let people modify and redistribute the source does not preclude your making money; I bet Apple would be raking in just as much cash even if you could (and hey, some people do already) run Mac OS on different hardware.

billpatrianakos 15y ago
I never meant for my opinion to be taken as fact. I was just trying to illustrate part of my point. Stallman and FSF people keep saying you can make money with free software but it's not realistic. I never said the FSF or Stallmam were opposed to making money either. Secrecy is what keeps proprietary software valuable. If paid software shipped with source you have already lost most of your sales after selling it just once. It would be great to be able to give people the ability to modify the software but that only works if everyone sticks to the honor system. The GPL requires that you be okay with redistribution. How can you make money when you agree to let your work be distributed in any way shape or form for free. I don't give a shit if you give me credit for the work. You can say Mickey Mouse coded it as long as you pay. That's how I see it. I completely disagree with distribution. I think it's fine for people to distribute mods and patches but not the entire program. That completely undermines the developer. I think the FSF is fighting for a just cause but the world just isn't ready for it yet. One mistake is to take a position that calls for the eradication of any software that isn't GPL basically. The other mistake is believing people will be honest. If I could trust every user to pay for a copy of my software and only distribute patches and bug fixes then I could happily get on board. But as long as free software means that people can (and "can" usually turns into "will") redistribute my work for free in its entirety and my work gives competitors a huge leg up then I cannot get behind free software as a viable business. The support, upgrades, and patches business model doesn't lend itself to every program. It makes sense for Red Hat but would it makes sense for, say, TextMate? The world isn't ready. Free software is wonderful for software that costs nothing but not for the majority of businesses selling software.

by tikhonj 15y ago

billpatrianakos 15y ago

I never meant for my opinion to be taken as fact. I was just trying to illustrate part of my point. Stallman and FSF people keep saying you can make money with free software but it's not realistic. I never said the FSF or Stallmam were opposed to making money either. Secrecy is what keeps proprietary software valuable. If paid software shipped with source you have already lost most of your sales after selling it just once. It would be great to be able to give people the ability to modify the software but that only works if everyone sticks to the honor system. The GPL requires that you be okay with redistribution. How can you make money when you agree to let your work be distributed in any way shape or form for free. I don't give a shit if you give me credit for the work. You can say Mickey Mouse coded it as long as you pay. That's how I see it. I completely disagree with distribution. I think it's fine for people to distribute mods and patches but not the entire program. That completely undermines the developer. I think the FSF is fighting for a just cause but the world just isn't ready for it yet. One mistake is to take a position that calls for the eradication of any software that isn't GPL basically. The other mistake is believing people will be honest. If I could trust every user to pay for a copy of my software and only distribute patches and bug fixes then I could happily get on board. But as long as free software means that people can (and "can" usually turns into "will") redistribute my work for free in its entirety and my work gives competitors a huge leg up then I cannot get behind free software as a viable business. The support, upgrades, and patches business model doesn't lend itself to every program. It makes sense for Red Hat but would it makes sense for, say, TextMate? The world isn't ready. Free software is wonderful for software that costs nothing but not for the majority of businesses selling software.