5 ms·

After that blog post of theirs where they called everyone who took advantage of the free option they provide "cheaters", why would I want to use or recommend a

After that blog post of theirs where they called everyone who took advantage of the free option they provide "cheaters", why would I want to use or recommend a Linux distro that provides nothing but a shoddy OSX GUI ripoff?

bndr 12y ago
You mean this post [1] ? I find their reasoning quite logical. [1] http://blog.elementaryos.org/post/110645528530/payments http://blog.elementaryos.org/post/110645528530/payments
- mox1 12y ago
  So they wrote all this code themselves right? No, of course they didn't. The large majority of what they are selling was written by others (kernel, Debian, etc). Are they passing any revenue to their upstream providers? They have every right to try and charge people, but it's very disengineous to run git clone on a FOSS repo,make a few changes then write a big blog post about charging for the output.
  - Siyo 12y ago
    If that's your argument, then why do we allow thousands of companies to base their proprietary web applications on the FOSS stack? How many of these companies would even exist today without Linux or Ruby or MySQL/Postgres? How much do companies contribute back to these projects? Why is it so bad if elementary OS is based on Debian, but it's completely fine when some startup runs on Debian servers?
    - krisgenre 12y ago
      Not everyone goes around calling people who download free software for free as cheaters. All this backlash is because of the attitude they are showing towards non paying customers.
      - fernandotakai 12y ago
        exactly. you don't see redhat calling everyone that uses centos cheaters -- hell, centos is part of redhat (even though it's independent).
        psgbg 12y ago
        Sorry Red Hat killed Red Hat for end users (in favor of maintaining Red Hat for enterprise users)... And only in recent years admitted it was an error. So you did chose bad your example. Cent OS was an answer to that, providing a Red Hat binary distribution without any support, for free.
      - Siyo 12y ago
        What they said is that they want to sell elementary OS. But going completely in that direction is pointless because someone will just fork the project and offer it for free. So what they did is make you enter $0, so when you do get it for free, it feels like you've cheated the system. What's wrong with that?
        krisgenre 12y ago
        Let's say everyone starts donating and they receive tons of money. Canonical, Debian and everyone else notices this and starts bitching about how eOS guys cheated the system by earning money off their work but din't pay anything back. Would this still seem right?
      - forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
        Unless I'm mistaken, they didn't call people who download free software for free cheaters.
  - psgbg 12y ago
    >So they wrote all this code themselves right?No, of course they didn't. The large majority of what they are selling was written by others (kernel, Debian, etc). That's is misleading at most. It's true that they use other free software, so they don't write all the software themselves. That's a fact, but every other open source project is based in work by other. The development of Linux kernel is based in work made by individuals at their own expense, but also contributions made by companies (as IBM, Canonical, Red Hat) and donations. Linux have paid software developers (it does not cost you but it cost to somebody). As far I know, the developers of Elementary OS, are collaborating with the community and they have fixed problems in other open source projects they use themselves as Gtk. >Are they passing any revenue to their upstream providers? They have posted bounties (cash) to fix bugs in other software the "upstream providers" in bountysource, so that's public information. >hey have every right to try and charge people, That's true!. > but it's very disengineous to run git clone on a FOSS repo,make a few changes then write a big blog post about charging for the output. They write their own file-manager (pantheon-files), their own window manager (gala, over mutter), their own configuration system (switchboard). Their calendar application, their calculator, their music player, their movie player... etc. So that's not easy, and your own phrase is "very disengineous" at least, certainly inaccurate and I hope not bad intentioned. *Edited:formating.
  - tree_of_item 12y ago
    This is absurd. Thousands of companies sell proprietary software based on BSD/MIT/Apache libraries every day and contribute absolutely nothing to those projects and no one bats an eye. But another FOSS project takes them and wants to charge money? What a ripoff!
meatfuck 12y ago
By putting cheaters in quotes, you're putting words into their mouths. I didn't find the word cheaters on that page. They are making a solid point about the cost of open source software and about how free software isn't free.
- stonogo 12y ago
  You didn't find the word on that page because it originally appeared on this one: http://blog.elementaryos.org/post/110645528530/payments http://blog.elementaryos.org/post/110645528530/payments They turned off user comments and edited their post when they started getting pushback from people asking how much of their revenue is going to upstream developers (which is where the vast majority of the work on this operating system is being done).
- bpeebles 12y ago
  The another blog post originally[1] had the phrase: "We want users to understand that they’re pretty much cheating the system when they choose not to pay for software." And like, they have this on their home page: "100% Free elementary OS is completely free, both in terms of pricing and licensing." So it's weird to mention cheating or talk about making it harder to download for $0 while talking up the free pricing in their ad copy. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150211113458/http://blog.elementaryos.org/post/110645528530/payments https://web.archive.org/web/20150211113458/http://blog.eleme...
  - justin66 12y ago
    The statement on that page that I find most bothersome: If we want to see the world of open source software grow, we should encourage users to pay for its development; otherwise it’ll be underfunded or developers will have to resort to backdoor deals and advertising. And nobody wants that future. There really are distros that have a business model which isn't shady. It's a lot of work to do something like have a free version and an enterprise version, you have to do boring things like sell and market and support, but those sorts of things don't represent some kind of Open Source apocalypse. There are even distros that have a business model of asking for donations without being all passive-aggressive about it...
psgbg 12y ago
I think that was a poorly transmitted message and an overblown story. Probably it should be read as "taking advantage of the system". Look run an Open Source project is costly, as much as making any other kind of software. Or you throw money developing it or time (which can be translated to money). They release the source code of everything, plus is GPL so it's free* software as stated by the FSF (but they have privative software as well, for example drivers, as many other Linux distros do). You still can download the iso for free. Plus they have a community ready to help you, and developers trying yo fix every bug they can. You don't want to pay. Fine don't pay. You don't want to pay them. Fine don't pay them. But try to think this, in every situation if you use free software that don't require to you to pay consider to help the project. If you have the possibility, then do a donation you are making a little big help to the project. Any help is welcomed (bug reporting, documentation, programming, recommending to your friends, and other things) If you don't care, it's fine. But when good open source project dies, God help us. And this is true for every single open source projects not only for them (Ubuntu, Debian, Arch, FreeBSD, vlc player, Kodi). (free* as freedom). (free* as free beer).
- nickysielicki 12y ago
  The elementary devs are idiots for not thinking about what they wanted to get out of this project in the first place. Let's take a look at other open source monetizers: * Red Hat - Provide enterprise support. * Canonical - Provide dumb cloud services and enterprise support * Docker - Provide enterprise support. Where does Elementary fit into any of these models? Oh it doesn't? Then what in god's name were you thinking? And then they go on to insult 99%+ of their userbase for using their software without paying? But that was never implied as part of the deal! When I first heard of Elementary I thought of it as something much like Linux Mint... A Ubuntu install with a non-gnome DE as default. Actually, I still very much see it as that... That's all it fucking is. So when Lubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Linux Mint, and Ubuntu all exist entirely for free, and this similar product (but more hipster) comes along, why were the "cheaters", expected to know that this one intended to charge them? I'm toying with the idea right now of registering geteos.com and linking to images of Elementary without an option to pay just as a "Fuck You" to these guys.
Touche 12y ago
That's not what it is. It's obvious if you follow these guys that they are Apple fans who wanted to customize their OS, couldn't, so created their own. They used OSX as a starting point, that's for sure, but that was years ago, now it's going in its own direction. I personally wouldn't use Elementary because it's overly opinionated for my taste, but I recognize their hard work and originality, they are not ripping anything off and haven't for a long time.
SunShiranui 12y ago
I think a lot of people have taken a single statement out of context without actually trying to understand the message they wanted to convey. It's hard to deny that an open source project with more funding has more chances of surviving and developing good software, and I think it's true that users need to be made aware of that. A well-funded, sustanaible open source ecosystem is in the interest of all of us. Having an alternative to proprietary software is very important if we want to mantain at least the freedom of choice.

bndr 12y ago

You mean this post [1] ? I find their reasoning quite logical. [1] http://blog.elementaryos.org/post/110645528530/payments http://blog.elementaryos.org/post/110645528530/payments

mox1 12y ago
So they wrote all this code themselves right? No, of course they didn't. The large majority of what they are selling was written by others (kernel, Debian, etc). Are they passing any revenue to their upstream providers? They have every right to try and charge people, but it's very disengineous to run git clone on a FOSS repo,make a few changes then write a big blog post about charging for the output.
- Siyo 12y ago
  If that's your argument, then why do we allow thousands of companies to base their proprietary web applications on the FOSS stack? How many of these companies would even exist today without Linux or Ruby or MySQL/Postgres? How much do companies contribute back to these projects? Why is it so bad if elementary OS is based on Debian, but it's completely fine when some startup runs on Debian servers?
  - krisgenre 12y ago
    Not everyone goes around calling people who download free software for free as cheaters. All this backlash is because of the attitude they are showing towards non paying customers.
    - fernandotakai 12y ago
      exactly. you don't see redhat calling everyone that uses centos cheaters -- hell, centos is part of redhat (even though it's independent).
      - psgbg 12y ago
        Sorry Red Hat killed Red Hat for end users (in favor of maintaining Red Hat for enterprise users)... And only in recent years admitted it was an error. So you did chose bad your example. Cent OS was an answer to that, providing a Red Hat binary distribution without any support, for free.
    - Siyo 12y ago
      What they said is that they want to sell elementary OS. But going completely in that direction is pointless because someone will just fork the project and offer it for free. So what they did is make you enter $0, so when you do get it for free, it feels like you've cheated the system. What's wrong with that?
      - krisgenre 12y ago
        Let's say everyone starts donating and they receive tons of money. Canonical, Debian and everyone else notices this and starts bitching about how eOS guys cheated the system by earning money off their work but din't pay anything back. Would this still seem right?
    - forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
      Unless I'm mistaken, they didn't call people who download free software for free cheaters.
- psgbg 12y ago
  >So they wrote all this code themselves right?No, of course they didn't. The large majority of what they are selling was written by others (kernel, Debian, etc). That's is misleading at most. It's true that they use other free software, so they don't write all the software themselves. That's a fact, but every other open source project is based in work by other. The development of Linux kernel is based in work made by individuals at their own expense, but also contributions made by companies (as IBM, Canonical, Red Hat) and donations. Linux have paid software developers (it does not cost you but it cost to somebody). As far I know, the developers of Elementary OS, are collaborating with the community and they have fixed problems in other open source projects they use themselves as Gtk. >Are they passing any revenue to their upstream providers? They have posted bounties (cash) to fix bugs in other software the "upstream providers" in bountysource, so that's public information. >hey have every right to try and charge people, That's true!. > but it's very disengineous to run git clone on a FOSS repo,make a few changes then write a big blog post about charging for the output. They write their own file-manager (pantheon-files), their own window manager (gala, over mutter), their own configuration system (switchboard). Their calendar application, their calculator, their music player, their movie player... etc. So that's not easy, and your own phrase is "very disengineous" at least, certainly inaccurate and I hope not bad intentioned. *Edited:formating.
- tree_of_item 12y ago
  This is absurd. Thousands of companies sell proprietary software based on BSD/MIT/Apache libraries every day and contribute absolutely nothing to those projects and no one bats an eye. But another FOSS project takes them and wants to charge money? What a ripoff!

meatfuck 12y ago

By putting cheaters in quotes, you're putting words into their mouths. I didn't find the word cheaters on that page. They are making a solid point about the cost of open source software and about how free software isn't free.

stonogo 12y ago
You didn't find the word on that page because it originally appeared on this one: http://blog.elementaryos.org/post/110645528530/payments http://blog.elementaryos.org/post/110645528530/payments They turned off user comments and edited their post when they started getting pushback from people asking how much of their revenue is going to upstream developers (which is where the vast majority of the work on this operating system is being done).
bpeebles 12y ago
The another blog post originally[1] had the phrase: "We want users to understand that they’re pretty much cheating the system when they choose not to pay for software." And like, they have this on their home page: "100% Free elementary OS is completely free, both in terms of pricing and licensing." So it's weird to mention cheating or talk about making it harder to download for $0 while talking up the free pricing in their ad copy. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150211113458/http://blog.elementaryos.org/post/110645528530/payments https://web.archive.org/web/20150211113458/http://blog.eleme...
- justin66 12y ago
  The statement on that page that I find most bothersome: If we want to see the world of open source software grow, we should encourage users to pay for its development; otherwise it’ll be underfunded or developers will have to resort to backdoor deals and advertising. And nobody wants that future. There really are distros that have a business model which isn't shady. It's a lot of work to do something like have a free version and an enterprise version, you have to do boring things like sell and market and support, but those sorts of things don't represent some kind of Open Source apocalypse. There are even distros that have a business model of asking for donations without being all passive-aggressive about it...

psgbg 12y ago

I think that was a poorly transmitted message and an overblown story. Probably it should be read as "taking advantage of the system". Look run an Open Source project is costly, as much as making any other kind of software. Or you throw money developing it or time (which can be translated to money). They release the source code of everything, plus is GPL so it's free* software as stated by the FSF (but they have privative software as well, for example drivers, as many other Linux distros do). You still can download the iso for free. Plus they have a community ready to help you, and developers trying yo fix every bug they can. You don't want to pay. Fine don't pay. You don't want to pay them. Fine don't pay them. But try to think this, in every situation if you use free software that don't require to you to pay consider to help the project. If you have the possibility, then do a donation you are making a little big help to the project. Any help is welcomed (bug reporting, documentation, programming, recommending to your friends, and other things) If you don't care, it's fine. But when good open source project dies, God help us. And this is true for every single open source projects not only for them (Ubuntu, Debian, Arch, FreeBSD, vlc player, Kodi). (free* as freedom). (free* as free beer).

nickysielicki 12y ago
The elementary devs are idiots for not thinking about what they wanted to get out of this project in the first place. Let's take a look at other open source monetizers: * Red Hat - Provide enterprise support. * Canonical - Provide dumb cloud services and enterprise support * Docker - Provide enterprise support. Where does Elementary fit into any of these models? Oh it doesn't? Then what in god's name were you thinking? And then they go on to insult 99%+ of their userbase for using their software without paying? But that was never implied as part of the deal! When I first heard of Elementary I thought of it as something much like Linux Mint... A Ubuntu install with a non-gnome DE as default. Actually, I still very much see it as that... That's all it fucking is. So when Lubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Linux Mint, and Ubuntu all exist entirely for free, and this similar product (but more hipster) comes along, why were the "cheaters", expected to know that this one intended to charge them? I'm toying with the idea right now of registering geteos.com and linking to images of Elementary without an option to pay just as a "Fuck You" to these guys.

Touche 12y ago

That's not what it is. It's obvious if you follow these guys that they are Apple fans who wanted to customize their OS, couldn't, so created their own. They used OSX as a starting point, that's for sure, but that was years ago, now it's going in its own direction. I personally wouldn't use Elementary because it's overly opinionated for my taste, but I recognize their hard work and originality, they are not ripping anything off and haven't for a long time.

SunShiranui 12y ago

I think a lot of people have taken a single statement out of context without actually trying to understand the message they wanted to convey. It's hard to deny that an open source project with more funding has more chances of surviving and developing good software, and I think it's true that users need to be made aware of that. A well-funded, sustanaible open source ecosystem is in the interest of all of us. Having an alternative to proprietary software is very important if we want to mantain at least the freedom of choice.