5 ms·

I value free, open source software more than convenience. For this reason, I will not use OSX or any other non-free operating system no matter how convenient th

by 16s 14y ago

I value free, open source software more than convenience. For this reason, I will not use OSX or any other non-free operating system no matter how convenient they may be to use. That convenience comes at a great cost that I am not willing to pay.

hollerith 14y ago
A noble, socially-responsible choice. Kudos!
- jshen 14y ago
  Sorry, I just don't see it that way. Don't get me wrong, I prefer open source, all else being equal, but software is a tool for me to achieve some other goal. If paying someone for proprietary software allows me to more quickly or cheaply achieve my real goal, then that's great. What exactly is irresponsible about that? What exactly is ignoble about that?
  - prawks 14y ago
    I think this mostly comes down to things like vendor lock-in. Yes, the tool enables you to more effectively do something, but at the cost of certain freedoms to you. For instance, I can buy a hammer because it will make it much easier to drive nails than without one, but the handle is too long. So I can saw the end off to suit my purposes. You can't with proprietary software. Also, don't make the mistake that free == libre. It's the fact that you're paying for proprietary software, not that your paying for it.
  - vacri 14y ago
    You're trading short-term convenience for long-term flexibility.
  - hollerith 14y ago
    Although only about 1 percent of the computer-using population chooses to run Linux, the competition provided by Linux has had a positive effect on proprietary OSes, which benefits computer users who will never run Linux. One example of this beneficial effect is the appearance of the netbook. Only after netbooks running Linux gained significant market share did Microsoft consent to license Windows to netbook makers at a price that made any sort of sense given the low retail price of the netbook. If Linux has not been an option for the early netbook makers, it is likely that hardware makers would never have been able to persuade Microsoft or Apple to consent to allow the product category to be created in the first place. An argument can also be made that without at least a small fraction of computer users running Linux on their desktops, Linux would not have been able to capture the hearts and minds of corporate decision-makers with the result that Linux use on corporate servers might not have exploded the way it did in the late 1990s and first years of the 2000s. Certainly, Linux activists claiming to understand the thinking processes of corporate execs were saying at the time (late 1990s) that Linux needs desktop users in order to be taken seriously by mostly-Windows-desktop-using corporate execs and IT managers. I will concede that at least some people (particularly, perfectionistic people like me or people who are easily annoyed) by will waste less time learning how to admin their machine if they run OS X than if they run Linux. And I will concede that the time and effort of these people would probably result in more social good if it were spent earning money and donating that money to a philanthropy than if it were spend learning how to adminning a Linux box. But that does not detract from the fact that if all you know about a person is that they run Linux, they're doing more "expected good" (a statistical term) for the world than someone who all you know about them is that they are a computer user or an OS X user.
    - jshen 14y ago
      You're making a different point now than what I took you to mean before. Not only that, but the OP would really be doing something noble if they were making open source, contributing in some other way if they aren't a coder, than with some holier-than-thou complaint about other peoples choices (i.e. OSX).
  - chimeracoder 14y ago
    > . If paying someone for proprietary software allows me to more quickly or cheaply achieve You're confusing the tradeoff. The tradeoff is not about money; libre software can be sold as well. The point in question is whether you should have to (or even be able to) sacrifice your intrinsic rights, such as your right to modify your own property for your own purposes. Whether or not you paid money for it is irrelevant to that aforementioned right.
    - jshen 14y ago
      Intrinsic right? That's a weird statement to me. What about the creator, don't I have an intrinsic right to determine the terms by which I distribute my creations? What makes you believe any of these things are intrinsic? Is that a faith based belief?
      - lucian1900 14y ago
        The US has the first sale doctrine, and there are similar laws in other parts of the world. The seller has no rights over property after they sell it.
        jshen 14y ago
        The definition of property is fuzzy, and I can sell you bits that don't include source code. The OP is arguing that source code is an intrinsic right. I don't see that.
schraeds 14y ago
Paying $30 for well polished software?
drcube 14y ago
I agree, but how hardcore do you take it? I'm on the fence about switching to a Linux-libre OS and wondering if anybody has any experience with it.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  The biggest thing to remember is that you need to select hardware that will work with Linux (just like how the vast majority of Mac users use Apple hardware). The issue is knowing what to get. If you're in the market for a laptop, I would highly recommend the ThinkPad X1 Carbon. It's a great piece of hardware by itself, and the Linux compatibility is there as well.
  - xiaomai 14y ago
    That's good to know. I'm currently on a t400s, and I was wanting to upgrade to the X1 Carbon, but I hadn't seen anything about it on thinkwiki yet.
    - w1ntermute 14y ago
      Take a look at this review: http://ftbeowulf.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/lenovo-x1-carbon/ http://ftbeowulf.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/lenovo-x1-carbon/
  - drcube 14y ago
    Yeah, I've been using Linux for years, and I currently have a System 76 laptop that comes with Linux installed. I'm more worried about switching to the "GNU Approved" OSes, like Trisquel or Parabola. They have a modified "Linux-libre" kernel with non-free modules removed, and they usually block non-free software by default in the package manager. I want to do it, because it does make me feel better to use all free software, but I don't want a crippled user experience. I'll put up with a little extra work to get things like Gnash working instead of Flash, but if certain drivers just aren't there, I'm not comfortable just giving up core functionality. Not yet, at least.
    - 14y ago
shuw 14y ago
I'm curious about your thoughts outside of software. This is a sincere question because I often see so much passion about the topic in software, but rarely outside. Do you only play free games, listen to free music and read free books? What about the electronics you use, the architecture of the buildings you live in and the car you drive?
- billswift 14y ago
  "Books Were the First Open-Source Software" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-roberts/books-were-the-first-open_b_35844.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-roberts/books-were-the-fi...
- chimeracoder 14y ago
  The analogy breaks down for most things outside of software (even hardware, to a degree), because the basis for the argument in favor of free software is the four freedoms[1], which are themselves mere extensions of the rights of purchase. If you sell me something, you cannot tell me that I can't modify it for my own use, for example. You as the seller can't tell me that I'm not allowed to resell my textbooks, or to modify the frames on my eyeglasses, or to hire my friend to fix my vacuum cleaner. Proprietary software licenses do do that - the main difference is that is a non-rivalrous good; I can redistribute software without losing access to it myself. Because of that, people think it's somehow 'wrong' to say that I should be allowed to purchase a program and then resell it to another person, but if you look at it the other way, that's no more 'wrong' than purchasing a physical good and then reselling it. In the South, it used to be common to sell property on the condition that the purchaser never sell it to a black person (I think they still used the term Negro or 'colored' then). If I remember correctly, that was first deemed illegal in certain parts not because it's horribly racist, but because it violates the principles of first sale: you've sold me something, and now you can't tell me what I'm not allowed to do with it. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
  - SCdF 14y ago
    Quick aside, there are still (in NZ at least) various conditions that you can attach to property sales. For example, if your property had some native rainforest on it, you could state to whomever you sell it to that they are not allowed to mess with that part of the land (e.g. chop trees down), and whenever they onsell they must also make that a condition of sale.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
dylok4200 14y ago
definitely prefer open source but sometimes have to delve into the other to get the outcome sought. aversion to buying a product and now owning it though. should be yours to do with as you please.
billswift 14y ago
I would prefer to use only open source, but I am not technically literate enough. I have used both Windows and Linux for 16 years, and had been using Linux more and Windows less for the first nine years. Over the past 7 years, since getting on the Internet, I have mostly used Windows, because I have not managed to get any of the Linux distros I have tried to work over a dial-up modem.

by 16s 14y ago

hollerith 14y ago

A noble, socially-responsible choice. Kudos!

jshen 14y ago
Sorry, I just don't see it that way. Don't get me wrong, I prefer open source, all else being equal, but software is a tool for me to achieve some other goal. If paying someone for proprietary software allows me to more quickly or cheaply achieve my real goal, then that's great. What exactly is irresponsible about that? What exactly is ignoble about that?
- prawks 14y ago
  I think this mostly comes down to things like vendor lock-in. Yes, the tool enables you to more effectively do something, but at the cost of certain freedoms to you. For instance, I can buy a hammer because it will make it much easier to drive nails than without one, but the handle is too long. So I can saw the end off to suit my purposes. You can't with proprietary software. Also, don't make the mistake that free == libre. It's the fact that you're paying for proprietary software, not that your paying for it.
- vacri 14y ago
  You're trading short-term convenience for long-term flexibility.
- hollerith 14y ago
  Although only about 1 percent of the computer-using population chooses to run Linux, the competition provided by Linux has had a positive effect on proprietary OSes, which benefits computer users who will never run Linux. One example of this beneficial effect is the appearance of the netbook. Only after netbooks running Linux gained significant market share did Microsoft consent to license Windows to netbook makers at a price that made any sort of sense given the low retail price of the netbook. If Linux has not been an option for the early netbook makers, it is likely that hardware makers would never have been able to persuade Microsoft or Apple to consent to allow the product category to be created in the first place. An argument can also be made that without at least a small fraction of computer users running Linux on their desktops, Linux would not have been able to capture the hearts and minds of corporate decision-makers with the result that Linux use on corporate servers might not have exploded the way it did in the late 1990s and first years of the 2000s. Certainly, Linux activists claiming to understand the thinking processes of corporate execs were saying at the time (late 1990s) that Linux needs desktop users in order to be taken seriously by mostly-Windows-desktop-using corporate execs and IT managers. I will concede that at least some people (particularly, perfectionistic people like me or people who are easily annoyed) by will waste less time learning how to admin their machine if they run OS X than if they run Linux. And I will concede that the time and effort of these people would probably result in more social good if it were spent earning money and donating that money to a philanthropy than if it were spend learning how to adminning a Linux box. But that does not detract from the fact that if all you know about a person is that they run Linux, they're doing more "expected good" (a statistical term) for the world than someone who all you know about them is that they are a computer user or an OS X user.
  - jshen 14y ago
    You're making a different point now than what I took you to mean before. Not only that, but the OP would really be doing something noble if they were making open source, contributing in some other way if they aren't a coder, than with some holier-than-thou complaint about other peoples choices (i.e. OSX).
- chimeracoder 14y ago
  > . If paying someone for proprietary software allows me to more quickly or cheaply achieve You're confusing the tradeoff. The tradeoff is not about money; libre software can be sold as well. The point in question is whether you should have to (or even be able to) sacrifice your intrinsic rights, such as your right to modify your own property for your own purposes. Whether or not you paid money for it is irrelevant to that aforementioned right.
  - jshen 14y ago
    Intrinsic right? That's a weird statement to me. What about the creator, don't I have an intrinsic right to determine the terms by which I distribute my creations? What makes you believe any of these things are intrinsic? Is that a faith based belief?
    - lucian1900 14y ago
      The US has the first sale doctrine, and there are similar laws in other parts of the world. The seller has no rights over property after they sell it.
      - jshen 14y ago
        The definition of property is fuzzy, and I can sell you bits that don't include source code. The OP is arguing that source code is an intrinsic right. I don't see that.

schraeds 14y ago

Paying $30 for well polished software?

drcube 14y ago

I agree, but how hardcore do you take it? I'm on the fence about switching to a Linux-libre OS and wondering if anybody has any experience with it.

w1ntermute 14y ago
The biggest thing to remember is that you need to select hardware that will work with Linux (just like how the vast majority of Mac users use Apple hardware). The issue is knowing what to get. If you're in the market for a laptop, I would highly recommend the ThinkPad X1 Carbon. It's a great piece of hardware by itself, and the Linux compatibility is there as well.
- xiaomai 14y ago
  That's good to know. I'm currently on a t400s, and I was wanting to upgrade to the X1 Carbon, but I hadn't seen anything about it on thinkwiki yet.
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    Take a look at this review: http://ftbeowulf.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/lenovo-x1-carbon/ http://ftbeowulf.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/lenovo-x1-carbon/
- drcube 14y ago
  Yeah, I've been using Linux for years, and I currently have a System 76 laptop that comes with Linux installed. I'm more worried about switching to the "GNU Approved" OSes, like Trisquel or Parabola. They have a modified "Linux-libre" kernel with non-free modules removed, and they usually block non-free software by default in the package manager. I want to do it, because it does make me feel better to use all free software, but I don't want a crippled user experience. I'll put up with a little extra work to get things like Gnash working instead of Flash, but if certain drivers just aren't there, I'm not comfortable just giving up core functionality. Not yet, at least.
  - 14y ago

shuw 14y ago

I'm curious about your thoughts outside of software. This is a sincere question because I often see so much passion about the topic in software, but rarely outside. Do you only play free games, listen to free music and read free books? What about the electronics you use, the architecture of the buildings you live in and the car you drive?

billswift 14y ago
"Books Were the First Open-Source Software" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-roberts/books-were-the-first-open_b_35844.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-roberts/books-were-the-fi...
chimeracoder 14y ago
The analogy breaks down for most things outside of software (even hardware, to a degree), because the basis for the argument in favor of free software is the four freedoms[1], which are themselves mere extensions of the rights of purchase. If you sell me something, you cannot tell me that I can't modify it for my own use, for example. You as the seller can't tell me that I'm not allowed to resell my textbooks, or to modify the frames on my eyeglasses, or to hire my friend to fix my vacuum cleaner. Proprietary software licenses do do that - the main difference is that is a non-rivalrous good; I can redistribute software without losing access to it myself. Because of that, people think it's somehow 'wrong' to say that I should be allowed to purchase a program and then resell it to another person, but if you look at it the other way, that's no more 'wrong' than purchasing a physical good and then reselling it. In the South, it used to be common to sell property on the condition that the purchaser never sell it to a black person (I think they still used the term Negro or 'colored' then). If I remember correctly, that was first deemed illegal in certain parts not because it's horribly racist, but because it violates the principles of first sale: you've sold me something, and now you can't tell me what I'm not allowed to do with it. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
- SCdF 14y ago
  Quick aside, there are still (in NZ at least) various conditions that you can attach to property sales. For example, if your property had some native rainforest on it, you could state to whomever you sell it to that they are not allowed to mess with that part of the land (e.g. chop trees down), and whenever they onsell they must also make that a condition of sale.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

dylok4200 14y ago

definitely prefer open source but sometimes have to delve into the other to get the outcome sought. aversion to buying a product and now owning it though. should be yours to do with as you please.

billswift 14y ago

I would prefer to use only open source, but I am not technically literate enough. I have used both Windows and Linux for 16 years, and had been using Linux more and Windows less for the first nine years. Over the past 7 years, since getting on the Internet, I have mostly used Windows, because I have not managed to get any of the Linux distros I have tried to work over a dial-up modem.