3 ms·

I can plainly see the backlash they got from that arrogant blog post about 'making you not pay for the download of our ubuntu clone we slapped a pretty ui on' d

I can plainly see the backlash they got from that arrogant blog post about 'making you not pay for the download of our ubuntu clone we slapped a pretty ui on' didn't do much at all.

sbuk 11y ago
You are relatively new here, but you should've seen this. Please read it. http://blog.ycombinator.com/new-hacker-news-guideline http://blog.ycombinator.com/new-hacker-news-guideline
- morbius 11y ago
  This is a red herring -- the OP's post didn't say anything that was overly or gratuitously negative, at least not compared to many of the other comments on this thread. It's very true that saying that users are 'cheating the system' when they expect a libre product to be provided to them free of charge when the developers of said product themselves have added little more than a glossy sheen upon years of blood, sweat, and tears is an arrogant thing to say. Modifying GNU/Linux isn't new and it doesn't give you the right to say such outlandish things in defence of your own project.
  - sbuk 11y ago
    You are welcome to download the source code to Elementary OS for free. Whichever way you frame your "think of the children" logic, the team at eOS are doing things the right way. The gripe here seems to be that they are monetising. Free as in liberty, not as in beer. There is nothing in any version of the GPL that says money may not be charged for compiled binaries. From the debian.org site, on whose shoulders eOS is ultimately standing; "Many people new to free software find themselves confused because the word "free" in the term "free software" is not used the way they expect. To them free means "at no cost". An English dictionary lists almost twenty different meanings for "free". Only one of them is "at no cost". The rest refer to liberty and lack of constraint. When we speak of Free Software, we mean freedom, not price." Canonical ask for donations on the download page too. The BSDs have donation drives. eOS are monetising in a different way. I have not seen the "cheating the system" comment/article and if they did say it, it was wrong. That said, it isn't there now. The "little more than a glossy sheen" remark is off too. They are considering usability and are adding to the community. But hey, pretty doesn't belong in Linux does it? This attitude stinks and is largely why designers won't engage with the community, that and this self righteousness that pervades.

I can plainly see the backlash they got from that arrogant blog post about 'making you not pay for the download of our ubuntu clone we slapped a pretty ui on' didn't do much at all.

sbuk 11y ago

You are relatively new here, but you should've seen this. Please read it. http://blog.ycombinator.com/new-hacker-news-guideline http://blog.ycombinator.com/new-hacker-news-guideline

morbius 11y ago
This is a red herring -- the OP's post didn't say anything that was overly or gratuitously negative, at least not compared to many of the other comments on this thread. It's very true that saying that users are 'cheating the system' when they expect a libre product to be provided to them free of charge when the developers of said product themselves have added little more than a glossy sheen upon years of blood, sweat, and tears is an arrogant thing to say. Modifying GNU/Linux isn't new and it doesn't give you the right to say such outlandish things in defence of your own project.
- sbuk 11y ago
  You are welcome to download the source code to Elementary OS for free. Whichever way you frame your "think of the children" logic, the team at eOS are doing things the right way. The gripe here seems to be that they are monetising. Free as in liberty, not as in beer. There is nothing in any version of the GPL that says money may not be charged for compiled binaries. From the debian.org site, on whose shoulders eOS is ultimately standing; "Many people new to free software find themselves confused because the word "free" in the term "free software" is not used the way they expect. To them free means "at no cost". An English dictionary lists almost twenty different meanings for "free". Only one of them is "at no cost". The rest refer to liberty and lack of constraint. When we speak of Free Software, we mean freedom, not price." Canonical ask for donations on the download page too. The BSDs have donation drives. eOS are monetising in a different way. I have not seen the "cheating the system" comment/article and if they did say it, it was wrong. That said, it isn't there now. The "little more than a glossy sheen" remark is off too. They are considering usability and are adding to the community. But hey, pretty doesn't belong in Linux does it? This attitude stinks and is largely why designers won't engage with the community, that and this self righteousness that pervades.