4 ms·

> They could most likely not make an informed choice, because you do not educate them about denying them their freedom. Users don't care about their "freedom",

> They could most likely not make an informed choice, because you do not educate them about denying them their freedom. Users don't care about their "freedom", and neither do I, so why is educating them my problem? Also, you're not giving users credit. I'm informed, and yet I still choose to buy Mac OS X, iPhones, and even DRM'd media (iTunes video rentals). > And still there is no argument to do it. I don't see any other viable economically proven method to fund our consumer software development.

ekianjo 14y ago
> I don't see any other viable economically proven method to fund our consumer software development. Apparently you have never heard of RedHat. You missed a billion dollar company. They release their software for free, as CentOS, as well. But they sell costumer support on top of that. It WORKS.
- flatline3 14y ago
  RedHat doesn't sell consumer software.
  - rbanffy 14y ago
    Right. They don't sell software - they sell expert advice. You sell software to uninformed users. I can see the difference.
    - flatline3 14y ago
      Consumer software that requires significant 'support' would be bad consumer software.
      - ekianjo 14y ago
        Do you consider Windows a consumer software or not? I see pretty much a big need of support needed for that one. Just look at all the forums dedicated to solving its shortcomings.
        flatline3 14y ago
        Hmm. Should Rovio sell Angry Birds support contracts? Windows occupies a rather unique market position of ubiquity and scale, and its still debatable whether such a thing would be viable given the R&D costs in producing a modern desktop OS, mobile OS, programming languages and runtimes, Metro, etc. I'm not a Windows expert, but it's pretty undeniable that Apple and MS pour bucket loads of cash into their respective platforms. Linux, on the desktop, has barely caught up to the last decade's state of the art, and in many places (such as graphics drivers), it relies on closed-source software. Underneath it all is closed source hardware (like those graphics chipsets and proprietary processor cores). Nobody tends to complain about that, since spending millions on hardware development is out of reach. Making use of software source code is equally out of reach to nearly all users: thus, they just don't care.
        slowpoke 14y ago
        >its still debatable whether such a thing would be viable given the R&D costs in producing a modern desktop OS, mobile OS, programming languages and runtimes, Metro, etc. Bullshit. The estimated cost to redevelop the Linux kernel in a proprietary environment exceeds 600 million USD, and has probably even reached the billion USD mark by now.[1]. It's perfectly possible. The only reason Windows is still so entrenched on the market are shady monopolist tactics, intentional lock-in practices and closed, shitty formats such as the Office pseudo-standard. In other words, the very things RMS warned about and which the free software community is fighting against. >Linux, on the desktop, has barely caught up to the last decade's state of the art, and in many places (such as graphics drivers), it relies on closed-source software. Your ramblings are so dishonest it's cringe-worthy. GNU/Linux is perfectly viable on the desktop. The greatest hurdle it faces is exactly the kind of FUD that you are spreading. As for the drivers: yes, and this is a problem. The evil of proprietary hardware and closed specs is something that needs to go the way of the dodo, too, and it needs to do so fast. We could have drivers vastly exceeding anything proprietary if the specs for nVidia or ATI/AMD cards would be accessible. For the record, the best graphic drivers available for GNU/Linux are for the Intel Graphic chips, and they are perfectly free. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Estimated_cost_to_redevelop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Estimated_cost_to...

ekianjo 14y ago

> I don't see any other viable economically proven method to fund our consumer software development. Apparently you have never heard of RedHat. You missed a billion dollar company. They release their software for free, as CentOS, as well. But they sell costumer support on top of that. It WORKS.

flatline3 14y ago
RedHat doesn't sell consumer software.
- rbanffy 14y ago
  Right. They don't sell software - they sell expert advice. You sell software to uninformed users. I can see the difference.
  - flatline3 14y ago
    Consumer software that requires significant 'support' would be bad consumer software.
    - ekianjo 14y ago
      Do you consider Windows a consumer software or not? I see pretty much a big need of support needed for that one. Just look at all the forums dedicated to solving its shortcomings.
      - flatline3 14y ago
        Hmm. Should Rovio sell Angry Birds support contracts? Windows occupies a rather unique market position of ubiquity and scale, and its still debatable whether such a thing would be viable given the R&D costs in producing a modern desktop OS, mobile OS, programming languages and runtimes, Metro, etc. I'm not a Windows expert, but it's pretty undeniable that Apple and MS pour bucket loads of cash into their respective platforms. Linux, on the desktop, has barely caught up to the last decade's state of the art, and in many places (such as graphics drivers), it relies on closed-source software. Underneath it all is closed source hardware (like those graphics chipsets and proprietary processor cores). Nobody tends to complain about that, since spending millions on hardware development is out of reach. Making use of software source code is equally out of reach to nearly all users: thus, they just don't care.
        slowpoke 14y ago
        >its still debatable whether such a thing would be viable given the R&D costs in producing a modern desktop OS, mobile OS, programming languages and runtimes, Metro, etc. Bullshit. The estimated cost to redevelop the Linux kernel in a proprietary environment exceeds 600 million USD, and has probably even reached the billion USD mark by now.[1]. It's perfectly possible. The only reason Windows is still so entrenched on the market are shady monopolist tactics, intentional lock-in practices and closed, shitty formats such as the Office pseudo-standard. In other words, the very things RMS warned about and which the free software community is fighting against. >Linux, on the desktop, has barely caught up to the last decade's state of the art, and in many places (such as graphics drivers), it relies on closed-source software. Your ramblings are so dishonest it's cringe-worthy. GNU/Linux is perfectly viable on the desktop. The greatest hurdle it faces is exactly the kind of FUD that you are spreading. As for the drivers: yes, and this is a problem. The evil of proprietary hardware and closed specs is something that needs to go the way of the dodo, too, and it needs to do so fast. We could have drivers vastly exceeding anything proprietary if the specs for nVidia or ATI/AMD cards would be accessible. For the record, the best graphic drivers available for GNU/Linux are for the Intel Graphic chips, and they are perfectly free. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Estimated_cost_to_redevelop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Estimated_cost_to...