3 ms·

I am not an opensource zealot, but there are several kinds of non-opensource software that I try to avoid using for my work (for entertainment is different): 1

by loxs 14y ago

I am not an opensource zealot, but there are several kinds of non-opensource software that I try to avoid using for my work (for entertainment is different): 1. My production OS. 2. My language of choice (runtime environment, compiler etc.) 3. My development environment - editor, debugger etc. Not sticking to this rule is asking for trouble. Anyone ever seen a whole team switch from Visual Studio 2008 to 2010? Enjoy the show and don't forget to bring beer and popcorn...

kaolinite 14y ago
Good rules to live by, though it is possible to be overly cautious. You may (or may not) find that the improvements that Sublime Text brings to your productivity are worth handing over a little bit of control. In reality though, whether it's closed-source or not tends to be irrelevant - the Gnome (3) project is a good example of what can happen when an entire project changes its mind on how things can be done, to the dismay of its users.
- loxs 14y ago
  Yeah, but the source of GNOME 2 is there, and the people who are not happy with ver.3 created several forks. They may or may not be of better quality, but they are there and if on wants to continue living in GNOME 2, (s)he can do so. The situation is not exactly the same with Sublime Text... it is completely at the mercy of its creator...
swah 14y ago
Changing IDEs might be a big thing, but changing editors is something that many of us do several times a day (quick fix before commiting on Vim, prefer Emacs for Latex, ST for Python, etc).
pjmlp 14y ago
So basically you want to earn money without paying anything back to the people that allowed to you to buy food?! Good decision!
- loxs 14y ago
  I never said "won't give money". I just said "won't use non-opensource". These are two different things, just FYI. I have paid for opensource software - Red Hat Linux. And would pay again if the paid offer is better than the free one. Also, I can't help if you feel hurt that I don't pay for emacs and GCC. It's called "collaborative effort for the good of humanity". I respect that and I also try to give something back. I can't always measure exactly "what have I gained" vs. "what have I given in return" and that's fine with me. And I am sure it's also fine with the people who developed my tools. Even if I use them to earn money. Especially if I do so. If it's not fine with you, go pay for your tools and spend your life measuring guilt. I'm fine with that too.
  - pjmlp 14y ago
    The main reason I only participate in GPL projects (no LGPL) is exactly because I don't want my code to be used in commercial situations. I agree with "collaborative effort for the good of humanity" as long as it is not done by getting money with the free work of others. That is why I always donate for the projects I make use of, taking into consideration that in no other profession people get their tools for free.
    - loxs 14y ago
      I don't think it's possible to measure and avoid the "as long as it is not done by getting money with the free work of others". To get our tools for free is a result of the very nature of the computer and the Internet (copying costs practically nothing). I think it's absolutely moral to write commercial software by using Emacs. All the people who have collaborated (at least enough to have any impact) have gained commercial rewards for it. For example their work on Emacs has improved their skills, was used on a CV to find work etc. By only using it (making it more popular) I contribute to their commercial success (if they at all try to achieve it). By having donated to the FSF, I contribute even more. Heck, even by having donated to Wikipedia I may have contributed to their commercial success. So no, I absolutely don't have any moral problems with using emacs to write commercial software.

by loxs 14y ago

kaolinite 14y ago

Good rules to live by, though it is possible to be overly cautious. You may (or may not) find that the improvements that Sublime Text brings to your productivity are worth handing over a little bit of control. In reality though, whether it's closed-source or not tends to be irrelevant - the Gnome (3) project is a good example of what can happen when an entire project changes its mind on how things can be done, to the dismay of its users.

loxs 14y ago
Yeah, but the source of GNOME 2 is there, and the people who are not happy with ver.3 created several forks. They may or may not be of better quality, but they are there and if on wants to continue living in GNOME 2, (s)he can do so. The situation is not exactly the same with Sublime Text... it is completely at the mercy of its creator...

swah 14y ago

Changing IDEs might be a big thing, but changing editors is something that many of us do several times a day (quick fix before commiting on Vim, prefer Emacs for Latex, ST for Python, etc).

pjmlp 14y ago

So basically you want to earn money without paying anything back to the people that allowed to you to buy food?! Good decision!

loxs 14y ago
I never said "won't give money". I just said "won't use non-opensource". These are two different things, just FYI. I have paid for opensource software - Red Hat Linux. And would pay again if the paid offer is better than the free one. Also, I can't help if you feel hurt that I don't pay for emacs and GCC. It's called "collaborative effort for the good of humanity". I respect that and I also try to give something back. I can't always measure exactly "what have I gained" vs. "what have I given in return" and that's fine with me. And I am sure it's also fine with the people who developed my tools. Even if I use them to earn money. Especially if I do so. If it's not fine with you, go pay for your tools and spend your life measuring guilt. I'm fine with that too.
- pjmlp 14y ago
  The main reason I only participate in GPL projects (no LGPL) is exactly because I don't want my code to be used in commercial situations. I agree with "collaborative effort for the good of humanity" as long as it is not done by getting money with the free work of others. That is why I always donate for the projects I make use of, taking into consideration that in no other profession people get their tools for free.
  - loxs 14y ago
    I don't think it's possible to measure and avoid the "as long as it is not done by getting money with the free work of others". To get our tools for free is a result of the very nature of the computer and the Internet (copying costs practically nothing). I think it's absolutely moral to write commercial software by using Emacs. All the people who have collaborated (at least enough to have any impact) have gained commercial rewards for it. For example their work on Emacs has improved their skills, was used on a CV to find work etc. By only using it (making it more popular) I contribute to their commercial success (if they at all try to achieve it). By having donated to the FSF, I contribute even more. Heck, even by having donated to Wikipedia I may have contributed to their commercial success. So no, I absolutely don't have any moral problems with using emacs to write commercial software.