Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

AlexS · 2010-05-13 13:30:52

Do you use Linux and other software for ethical reasons of practical ones?
Ethical. I have made significant efforts to use foss that exceed what I really needed for my personal practical purposes.

But as usual the issue gets clouded by the fact that learning more about something provides you with benefits. But really, the main practical benefit of using foss is that I feel confident that I will be able to use my skills for as long as I care, instead of depending on the whims of a company.

Will/do you use proprietary software?
Of course, but only if I have no viable alternative.

Do you consider free software to be unethical
Ethics are the historic basis of foss, so yes

3]) · 2010-05-13 14:50:13

Do you use Linux and other software for ethical reasons of practical ones?

I use it for both practical and ethical reasons. Practical because I can modify it to my needs, and the applications available to it are vast.
Ethical because I believe that software should be freely distributed and freely changed whenever the user fits it. I also like the idea that they will through the GPL license have to contribute their improvements to the core program they copied from.

Will/do you use proprietary software?

Yes, I do play computer games hence if I want to play the most modern games I will have to use my Windows partition.

Do you consider free software to be unethical

I do not if and only if its usability and quality are of a higher norm. I will only be against it if this free software application
could be improved upon without destroying it's general features and usability.

Staerseus · 2010-05-13 20:13:43

Do you use Linux and other software for ethical reasons of practical ones?

For both reasons. I don't like Microsoft and its work (except AoE II), I don't like the way, that Windows pretends to "work". I like the philosophy, I like the freedom of choice. I believe, that only sharing information and knowledge can make the human kind better.

Will/do you use proprietary software?

I only use Adobe Flash, because of some pages, but I am really sick of it. I have also installed Skype and binary version of Virtualbox.

Do you consider free software to be unethical?

Of course not, software patents are unethical, they don't have to do anything in the 21. century.

Last edited by Staerseus (2010-05-13 20:14:30)

JohannesSM64 · 2010-05-13 20:20:40

Both. FOSS has many advantages in convenience and friendliness (from a power user's standpoint), but if a proprietary application has no decent FOSS alternative, I will use it. This mostly happens for locked-in proprietary formats and protocols

Zerathidune · 2010-05-14 18:48:20

I use Free Software for both reasons, but ethics is the main one. It seems every time I cave and use some proprietary software, I get burned. I try to avoid it as much as possible, but I'm still using non-free bioses on all but one machine, and some non-free firmware that is needed by some drivers. Is using non-free software unethical? I think developing it certainly is, a user should be able to do what they want with the software they use, and a developer has no right to tell them otherwise. Just using proprietary software I think is at least not as bad. If you pay for it you're still supporting its development, and even if you don't, you can inadvertantly cause others to feel pressured to do the same. So I think while it's not as bad it should still be avoided.

A year or so ago, a friend asked me, "If there was an operating system that was technically supirior to any free operating system, but was proprietary, would you use it?" In short, the answer is no, but I feel like most, if not all, of the technical issues I have with windows directly stem from it being proprietary - This dichotomy between practical and ethical reasons isn't real; ethical concerns are such because they have practical consiqences. stealing isn't wrong for some deep philisophical reason, it's wrong because you hurt someone else by doing so - They then have the practical problem of not having what you took anymore.

Of course, there are far worse things than proprietary software, as pseudonomous points out, It's also wrong to support companies that exploit workers in foreign countries - and I agree that it's more wrong than supporting the math works because matlab is proprieatry. But then, I also do my best to by locally grown food, etc. I don't think the answer is to give up. I've been burned too many times by proprietary software to put up with it if I can avoid it, or to inflict it on others.

linux-ka · 2010-05-14 19:33:40

I will say: practical usage...but I have a nice and warm feeling when using it, hence I'd also say ethical too.
Furthermore I like the feeling to be able to rescue my system or modify it on my own because of its transperence.
I won't be a fanboy but actually Linux/Unix/BSD offers more possibilities.

Peasantoid · 2010-05-14 19:38:48

Mainly practical - free software suits me very well. Though I quite like not being beholden to corporations.

ngoonee · 2010-05-15 01:06:42

Zerathidune wrote:

I use Free Software for both reasons, but ethics is the main one. It seems every time I cave and use some proprietary software, I get burned. I try to avoid it as much as possible, but I'm still using non-free bioses on all but one machine, and some non-free firmware that is needed by some drivers. Is using non-free software unethical? I think developing it certainly is, a user should be able to do what they want with the software they use, and a developer has no right to tell them otherwise. Just using proprietary software I think is at least not as bad. If you pay for it you're still supporting its development, and even if you don't, you can inadvertantly cause others to feel pressured to do the same. So I think while it's not as bad it should still be avoided.

That's a pretty unique viewpoint (shades of Stallman). Why should the developer not have a right to decide on what conditions he will sell his software? Would you sell your time as a service-industry person (say a doctor) and give the patient the right to decide what he wants you to do in that time?

Anikom15 · 2010-05-15 01:39:05

I do it for ethics, only use proprietary software when there is no suitable alternative. Free Software is all about ethics.

Zerathidune · 2010-05-15 01:48:38

ngoonee wrote:

Zerathidune wrote:
I use Free Software for both reasons, but ethics is the main one. It seems every time I cave and use some proprietary software, I get burned. I try to avoid it as much as possible, but I'm still using non-free bioses on all but one machine, and some non-free firmware that is needed by some drivers. Is using non-free software unethical? I think developing it certainly is, a user should be able to do what they want with the software they use, and a developer has no right to tell them otherwise. Just using proprietary software I think is at least not as bad. If you pay for it you're still supporting its development, and even if you don't, you can inadvertantly cause others to feel pressured to do the same. So I think while it's not as bad it should still be avoided.
That's a pretty unique viewpoint (shades of Stallman). Why should the developer not have a right to decide on what conditions he will sell his software? Would you sell your time as a service-industry person (say a doctor) and give the patient the right to decide what he wants you to do in that time?

I don't think it's as unique an idea as you seem to. I actually find your example a little confusing - If I'm paying a service industry person, say a plumber, I generally *do* expect the right to decide what they do with the time I'm paying them for - I want them to fix the specific problem I'm paying them to fix. If I go in to see a doctor about some problem with my leg, and he says he's more in the mood to give me an eye exam, I'd be rather annoyed.

I'm also not really sure how your example applies. I'm not suggesting a developer should not be able to decide how he'll sell his software, but if I buy a piece of furnature, I don't expect, and would not put up with, the salesperson making me agree to a contract that says I can't put a cover on it to protect it, or patch it if it becomes worn, or give it a way at some point down the road. Once the sale has been made, it is *my* furnature, and the person who sold it to me should have no further say. That's really the crux of my opinon.

Of course, giving me these rights does make it more difficult to make money off the software, but not impossible, and anyway I don't see that as justification for the behavior - publishers in the past have tried to extract royalties for second hand book sales, and it was ruled that they did not have this right. There's no reason there should be a mechanism for them to say we're only allowed to read it for pleasure either, or anything like that.

In theory, I think that if two parties agree on a contract, the terms of the contract should be up to them. In practice though, I think a lot of times people agree to these contracts because they have no clout with the developers, and they're basically being coerced - many EULA's say that the developer can revoke your right to use the software at any time for any reason, and that they can change the terms of the contract after you agree to it - who would agree to that for software they paid good money for if they had a real choice in the matter?

(incidently, I stopped using windows when microsoft pulled such a clause on me. I had actually read the EULA for XP service pack 1, agreed to it because I had to to use the software, and down the road I no longer had use of an operating system I'd spent $100 on because I had apparently reinstalled it too many times (This condition was not in the original agreement, they added it for service pack 2 I think) due to it being rather unreliable, and so it locked me out. I opted not to buy another copy.)

skottish · 2010-05-15 02:25:40

Zerathidune wrote:

... snip ...
(incidently, I stopped using windows when microsoft pulled such a clause on me. I had actually read the EULA for XP service pack 1, agreed to it because I had to to use the software, and down the road I no longer had use of an operating system I'd spent $100 on because I had apparently reinstalled it too many times (This condition was not in the original agreement, they added it for service pack 2 I think) due to it being rather unreliable, and so it locked me out. I opted not to buy another copy.)

Yeah, no user had ever purchased XP (or any other Microsoft product since that time). It wasn't until the service packs started coming out that awareness started to grow. Microsoft had actually stated this, but the "legal speak" didn't start to truly dawn on people until it was a bit late. This is just one of many examples of how patents overshadow licenses in countries that still respect patents.

jocheem67 · 2010-05-15 04:10:33

Pfffffff....I truly think that a lot of software using MS operatingsystems is better than software on linux OS'ses.
Me using Arch is mainly an ethical based decision. I'm no geek, and not involved any computing activities, just a user. That I use Arch or linux in general comes from the admiration that there indeed are so many people out there who really wanna help others without being paid for it. Simply amazing, try find that in other fields of commerce.. So I do admire the free software idea.
That others/developers/companies do wanna see money for their efforts, is on the other hand a perfectly normal policy.

ngoonee · 2010-05-15 04:51:03

Zerathidune wrote:

ngoonee wrote:
Zerathidune wrote:
I use Free Software for both reasons, but ethics is the main one. It seems every time I cave and use some proprietary software, I get burned. I try to avoid it as much as possible, but I'm still using non-free bioses on all but one machine, and some non-free firmware that is needed by some drivers. Is using non-free software unethical? I think developing it certainly is, a user should be able to do what they want with the software they use, and a developer has no right to tell them otherwise. Just using proprietary software I think is at least not as bad. If you pay for it you're still supporting its development, and even if you don't, you can inadvertantly cause others to feel pressured to do the same. So I think while it's not as bad it should still be avoided.
That's a pretty unique viewpoint (shades of Stallman). Why should the developer not have a right to decide on what conditions he will sell his software? Would you sell your time as a service-industry person (say a doctor) and give the patient the right to decide what he wants you to do in that time?
I don't think it's as unique an idea as you seem to. I actually find your example a little confusing - If I'm paying a service industry person, say a plumber, I generally *do* expect the right to decide what they do with the time I'm paying them for - I want them to fix the specific problem I'm paying them to fix. If I go in to see a doctor about some problem with my leg, and he says he's more in the mood to give me an eye exam, I'd be rather annoyed.
I'm also not really sure how your example applies. I'm not suggesting a developer should not be able to decide how he'll sell his software, but if I buy a piece of furnature, I don't expect, and would not put up with, the salesperson making me agree to a contract that says I can't put a cover on it to protect it, or patch it if it becomes worn, or give it a way at some point down the road. Once the sale has been made, it is *my* furnature, and the person who sold it to me should have no further say. That's really the crux of my opinon.

Do you purchase food demanding to know the recipe? Proprietary software is sold to you to do whatever you want with it, but the recipe used to make it wasn't. The recipe is worth much more than the software itself (ask KFC about that), after all.

Likewise, when you purchase a piece of furniture you don't purchase the design specs, nor the right to have them.

I think you're confusing between ownership of software and ownership of source code. Software is the finished product. Bringing up Microsoft's draconian user licenses is a different matter altogether, most other software I know off allows you to move it around but with only one license 'active' at one time. The problem with software is that it can be identically copied for free, which you can't do with your fridge or car, so they can't be treated identically.

I'm not FOR proprietary development, open source rocks. But to condemn developers on ethical grounds is ridiculous. They have a skill, they make money based on that skill. Unfortunately their product is very easily copied a million times over at almost no cost to the copier, therefore they take measures to protect their EARNINGS which are based on the what they've put in to the product. That's their rights, just like its our right not to purchase on their terms.

ilembitov · 2010-05-15 08:14:24

Honestly, I first tried Linux more than 7 years ago when I was still a kid. I guess, it was ASP Linux 9 (a Russian version of Red Hat 9 back in the pre-UTF8 era) and I kinda liked it. But mostly it was because almost nobody else actually even knew what it was It came on a free CD with a magazine that I was reading at a time (russian edition of a german magazine CHIP). I could have much use of it, because back then I didn't even have Internet, so I was just tinkering with the system on a really basic level (just looking at GNOME and stuff). Then my aunt gave me a 5-CD version of then commercial SuSE 9-something. It was kinda cool, because it had a lot more software (I didn't have Internet, right? ) but I didn't like the frontend for the package manager (since then probably I hate YaST) and I spend a while before I understood how to install NVidia drivers (it wasn't on the disks at that time, even when the distro was commercial), but still it was interesting.

However, a really cool thing was Debian 3.1 Sarge. I got it with an original german edition of CHIP on a double-sided DVD. I was just mesmerized by aptitude, really. I mean, it kinda amazed me that I had many thousand of packages just several keystrokes away, and the package manager was much better than SuSE's (since then I like .deb much more than .rpm, heh), and so I started rolling. Then I tried a whole bunch of distros that came with various German IT magazines (Russia had nearly none Linux-related journals back then, so I had to bring ones from Germany) and finally settled with Fedora. I remember a lot of positive reviews on first Ubuntu release, but for some reason it wasn't interesting for me - Fedora was just the more beatiful and user-friendly (following the Red Hat tradition) then. So, by Fedora 3 release I got Internet at home, and Fedora 4 was the first Linux distro that I have installed as my only system.

By that time it also happened so that I started using OpenOffice instead of MS Office, and I found it kinda cool that I didn't have to bother with cracks and warez. When I got Internet, I started using even more Open Source apps on windows. So, when Fedora came, I knew most of default apps.

Since then I just lost the habit of using Windows and got a real anti-Windows karma I mean, I never was any kind of advanced computer user, so using Windows always resulted in reinstalling it every 2-3 months or so (OK, I just don't know how to maintain it. But it's supposed to be user-friendly, so if I am not doing anything wrong, why should it become slow and unstable over time?) Every now and then I try Windows just to realize I can't use it (XP, Vista or 7) and the only useable Windows for me is Windows 2000, which isn't really suitable for modern laptops. All the later Windows give me BSOD in a week or two even though I NEVER do anything non-typical (just install a couple of apps, so what?) During one of such sessions I got Windows XP to fail every time I boot it after a month of using - and that was my laptop, and I realised that it won't boot on the go, so it was pretty nasty.

So right now it's purely pragmatical - though I could have used the "free-as-in-speech" propaganda when my peers (5 or 7 years ago) asked me, why the hell would I bother with an OS that can't do a lot of things (just remember desktop Linux in early 2000s). I explained them that free software works the same way the science does (hence the famous DNA story about inheriting ideas in science), so it's counter-productive for software development to be done otherwise. Now it does everything I need and more. And I actually can't use Windows. And I don't make money on computers (I only occassionally write some articles for IT magazines), so I don't really care for IT industry This is why I don't use Windows:

-it keeps on failing on me. The bad thing, that I have no idea how to fix it, since there are no verbose error output, and sometimes you get to the point when can't really do anything.

-it just pisses me off with an unbelieveable amount of confirmation and other windows - "Do you wanna copy it?" - OK - "It's a system file! Sure?" - Yeah, yeah, whatever - "Are you an administrator on this machine?" - I'm it's only user, damn it, and you know it - "You know, I think you better not. Just don't"

-I don't know how to tweak it to work properly. I believe it's a waste of time when I have to search on the torrents for the documentation to my OS. Linux gives me all the documentation in manpages, and even then, I can always use great wikis (like Arch or Gentoo, etc).

-I don't like antiviruses. I decided to buy an Intel Celeron 723 laptop for a reason. I wanted a small machine (12 inch Thinkpad X200s) that I could take wherever I go and that is moderately fast (damn! you could work in an office suite, browse the Web and watch multimedia on a 10 year old machine! why do I need a quad-core something for that?) but affordable (it was $650, I guess). But it still has its drawbacks. One of them is that you just don't run apps that you don't need. And you absolutely don't have any resourses to spare for Windows.

-I like package managers. Probably number one reason that attracted me to Linux. You can install any app you want in a matter of few keystrokes. And you don't have to bother any more, it will update automatically. That's just way too cool.

-Windows doesn't have a lot of apps I need, and many of some common apps won't work on Windows the way it should (without a proper terminal, for example).

-I like Linux games more. Seriously Almost all the games I would like to play (although I only sometimes have time for that) are either available on Linux natively (Eschalon, Battle For Wesnoth, World of Goo, nethack) or are perfectly playable with Wine (all the classic rpgs, really). Right now I have a super-duper 2-core gaming laptop (I occasionally write articles for a local magazine, so I got this one for a review) and I just don't know what to play on it (OK, I tried Fallout 3, but all the others seem just dull, although eye-candy).

When it comes to free software, I'm being pragmatical, too. I am a Linux user. I use non-commercial distros that often don't have an enormous team of developers/maintainers (such as ArchLinux). So I want my devs to be able to fix the issues as soon as possible (which is unreal with proprietary). I want my OS to support all the hardware I have (since Linux is still not in favor of the hardware vendors, one should rely on open source drivers). And since proprietary media technology have poor support for my platform (such as Flash), I hate them, too.

So, I am pragmatical. I care for free software because it gives me what I need. When somebody asks me, why I use Linux and not Winows, I say "Windows is too complex for me, I don't know how to use it" - which is totally true (I know it would die on me in a matter of a few weeks). So, here it is

PJ · 2010-05-15 09:08:38

Do you use Linux and other software for ethical reasons of practical ones?
I use open source for both practical reasons and because I enjoy it.

Will/do you use proprietary software?
Yes, if the proprietary software is the better alternative and by better it does something that the open source alternative can't do which is required to get the job done.

Do you consider free software to be unethical
No, I don't see anything ethical in software by itself.

The only ethical I can think of when it comes to the software industry is whether or not software patents should exist. I think the patent system is broken and it doesn't serve the purpose it once had so I think it should either be removed or rethinked, but that is a different story.

gtfernandezm · 2010-05-15 10:52:37

Zerathidune wrote:

I'm also not really sure how your example applies. I'm not suggesting a developer should not be able to decide how he'll sell his software, but if I buy a piece of furnature, I don't expect, and would not put up with, the salesperson making me agree to a contract that says I can't put a cover on it to protect it, or patch it if it becomes worn, or give it a way at some point down the road. Once the sale has been made, it is *my* furnature, and the person who sold it to me should have no further say. That's really the crux of my opinon.

I wouldn't put up with it either, I would buy furniture from a more open salesperson. But if the salesperson demands that contract, and I choose to consent to it, they have not done anything wrong. I choose not to buy proprietary software for those very reasons, but it is all about consent. If someone somehow forced me into buying software which limited my rights, that would be wrong, but that doesn't really happen. If you do sign a contract saying you will only use a product in certain ways, you have absolutely no right to use it in other ways and the person who solf it to you does have a further say.

Of course, giving me these rights does make it more difficult to make money off the software, but not impossible, and anyway I don't see that as justification for the behavior - publishers in the past have tried to extract royalties for second hand book sales, and it was ruled that they did not have this right. There's no reason there should be a mechanism for them to say we're only allowed to read it for pleasure either, or anything like that.

I don't see how this applies. I am allowed under most terms to simply resell a piece of software, aren't I? If I buy a cd containing Adobe Photoshop, and no longer want it, I can sell it to you since it is my personal property. You can modify the physical book, but you are not allowed to modify the content of books, copy and redistribute them, etc. Movies for example can not even be shown commercially unless purchased under a particular set of terms. I can't just project a DVD onto a screen and charge people money for that, in fact if I am a bussiness or organization I can't even do that for free.

In theory, I think that if two parties agree on a contract, the terms of the contract should be up to them. In practice though, I think a lot of times people agree to these contracts because they have no clout with the developers, and they're basically being coerced - many EULA's say that the developer can revoke your right to use the software at any time for any reason, and that they can change the terms of the contract after you agree to it - who would agree to that for software they paid good money for if they had a real choice in the matter?

Huh? The terms of the contract ARE up to them. If I find a contract unacceptable, I don't have to sign it, and I can even try to negotiate with the producer. You are right in saying I have no clout, but they have no responsibility to treat all customers as if they are important. If you fun the terms of a contract unacceptable, fon't agree to them, of course there is real choice in the matter, aren't we all evidence of that? If you can show me an example of Microsoft forcing a consumer to use Microsoft products against their wishes I will change my opinion,

(incidently, I stopped using windows when microsoft pulled such a clause on me. I had actually read the EULA for XP service pack 1, agreed to it because I had to to use the software, and down the road I no longer had use of an operating system I'd spent $100 on because I had apparently reinstalled it too many times (This condition was not in the original agreement, they added it for service pack 2 I think) due to it being rather unreliable, and so it locked me out. I opted not to buy another copy.)

You found the contract unacceptable and refused to give Microsoft your business. Now one of their competitors has your business instead. Capitalism at work.

Last edited by gtfernandezm (2010-05-15 20:10:34)

Tiigon · 2010-05-15 12:16:32

Do you use Linux and other software for ethical reasons of practical ones?
Practical. It's faster than Windows, offers lots of software easily available with a package manager, and allows me to change in almost any way.

Will/do you use proprietary software?
Yes. Flash is still (sadly) almost a must. Then there are some games too good to stop playing, such as TrackMania, Age of Empires (the first and second games, I only have the first though) and Dwarf Fortress. I use very few closed programs other than games, Windows maybe one or two times a week but that's pretty much it.

Do you consider free software to be unethical?
Nope.

stqn · 2010-05-15 13:17:43

gtfernandezm wrote:

I am allowed under most terms to simply resell a piece of software, aren't I? If I buy a cd containing Adobe Photoshop, and no longer want it, I can sell it to you since it is my personal property.

Looks like Autodesk may not be in agreement with you.
Edit: looks like I can't read... s/Adobe/Autodesk/. But still, that applies .

Last edited by stqn (2010-05-15 13:19:37)

SwedBo · 2010-05-15 13:44:33

Do you use Linux and other software for ethical reasons of practical ones ?

Mostly for practical reasons but the whole idea of FOSS is an interesting point, too.

Will/do you use proprietary software ?

Yes. ( No comments .. )

Do you consider free software to be unethical ?

Is it unethical to share with people ? Consider it as an answer ..

gtfernandezm · 2010-05-15 20:08:07

stqn wrote:

gtfernandezm wrote:
I am allowed under most terms to simply resell a piece of software, aren't I? If I buy a cd containing Adobe Photoshop, and no longer want it, I can sell it to you since it is my personal property.
Looks like Autodesk may not be in agreement with you.
Edit: looks like I can't read... s/Adobe/Autodesk/. But still, that applies .

Interesting. Thanks for sharing that. I am not sure how I feel about it, I will have to look for some updates on that story.

gtfernandezm · 2010-05-15 20:09:59

SwedBo wrote:

Do you use Linux and other software for ethical reasons of practical ones ?
Mostly for practical reasons but the whole idea of FOSS is an interesting point, too.
Will/do you use proprietary software ?
Yes. ( No comments .. )
Do you consider free software to be unethical ?
Is it unethical to share with people ? Consider it as an answer ..

The last question should be do you consider non-free software to be unethical. At first it said non freee and when i went to edit it I messed it up to just saying free. Now it says non-free

Galera · 2010-05-15 20:38:15

gtfernandezm wrote:

Do you use Linux and other software for ethical reasons of practical ones?

Both.

gtfernandezm wrote:

Will/do you use proprietary software?

Yes.

gtfernandezm wrote:

Do you consider free software to be unethical

I don`t consider it unethical. I consider it´s more like a childish attitude.

Ranguvar · 2010-05-15 23:25:55

Misfit138 wrote:

drcouzelis wrote:
Misfit138 wrote:
No, I understand that people must work if they wish to eat. A career at a software company is honest work.
That doesn't make sense. gtfernandezm didn't say anything about people who create software not being paid for their work.
It makes perfect sense, you're just being contentious.

I actually agree with drcouzelis.
Free (libre) software does not prohibit money from being made and a living from being earned; far from it. See Red Hat? Exactly.
Will Free Software cause the average salary of a software developer to go down? I think so, yes. But even though software developer is the career I wish to pursue, this does not mean I support stopping Free Software at all costs. We simply have an inflated, too-costly software production system right now. Key word, inflated.
RMS talked about this particular issue, but I'm lazy and Google isn't helping much at the moment.
As to a career at a software company being honest work... it isn't if you're applying the usual EULA-like licenses to what you produce. In my opinion.

Do you use Linux and other software for ethical reasons or practical ones?
Both.

Will/do you use proprietary software?
Yes. I don't take the same stance on non-free software as RMS (no way, period). If non-free software has no remote equivalent in Free software, I'll go along with it, but I won't like it (NVIDIA blob driver, Flash, many video games). However, you'll often find me tinkering with Free alternatives (Nouveau, Gnash and HTML5 replacer scripts, and Free games respectively).

Do you consider non-free software to be unethical?
Yes, I do. I hold the opinion that "intellectual property" is bullshit, and creators of software have no inherent moral right to control copies of their intellectual creations. However, I can deal fine with the bare-minimum restrictions in the MIT, X11, ISC, and BSD licenses, and even the larger GPL, because... well, the end may in _part_ justify the means.
EULAs, though, disgust me outright.

Misfit138 · 2010-05-16 01:35:08

Ranguvar wrote:

Misfit138 wrote:
drcouzelis wrote:
That doesn't make sense. gtfernandezm didn't say anything about people who create software not being paid for their work.
It makes perfect sense, you're just being contentious.
I actually agree with drcouzelis.
Free (libre) software does not prohibit money from being made and a living from being earned; far from it. See Red Hat? Exactly...

I understand the concept of free software perfectly.
Let me state my bullet point more plainly.
Non-free software includes commercial proprietary software. By extension, and by merit of the simple fact that Microsoft and Apple operating systems account for ~98% market share worldwide, the overwhelming majority of computer software is both proprietary and has been sold for profit. People who work for such companies are doing honest work.

Yes, there are some inarguably evil corporations in this world, but I think your anger over social injustice may be more appropriately directed elsewhere. If I may, I suggest you research the economics and control over our food and fuel supply, worldwide. Personal computers are far from being a basic human right.
Now food and warmth on the other hand, (without which the human organism will die), are commodities carefully controlled by a small elite group who effectively oppress the entire human race and planet.

Anikom15 · 2010-05-16 06:04:08

Another factor is Free Software stimulates the economy. How? It lowers prices and encourages competition. It's not
socialist at all, it's far more capitalist.

Arch Linux

#26 2010-05-13 13:30:52

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

#27 2010-05-13 14:50:13

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

#28 2010-05-13 20:13:43

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

#29 2010-05-13 20:20:40

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

#30 2010-05-14 18:48:20

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

#31 2010-05-14 19:33:40

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

#32 2010-05-14 19:38:48

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

#33 2010-05-15 01:06:42

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

#34 2010-05-15 01:39:05

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

#35 2010-05-15 01:48:38

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

#36 2010-05-15 02:25:40

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

#37 2010-05-15 04:10:33

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

#38 2010-05-15 04:51:03

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

#39 2010-05-15 08:14:24

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

#40 2010-05-15 09:08:38

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

#41 2010-05-15 10:52:37

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

#42 2010-05-15 12:16:32

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

#43 2010-05-15 13:17:43

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

#44 2010-05-15 13:44:33

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

#45 2010-05-15 20:08:07

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

#46 2010-05-15 20:09:59

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

#47 2010-05-15 20:38:15

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

#48 2010-05-15 23:25:55

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

#49 2010-05-16 01:35:08

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

#50 2010-05-16 06:04:08

Re: Do you use Linux/FOSS for practical or ideological reasons.

Board footer