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

gtfernandezm · 2010-05-16 20:56:24

EDIT: Um gmail was messing up and I was using this text entry form just to type something out. I forgot and pressed submit.

Last edited by gtfernandezm (2010-05-16 20:57:47)

George.Harmony · 2010-05-16 21:23:12

Do you use Linux and other free software for ideological reasons or practical ones?

I use it for simply practical reasons. It feeds my need to tweak and make it work the way I want it to, no the way some company tells me it has to work. Once Linux plays games as well as Windows I will switch my gaming rig over to Linux also. On a laptop it is usually the only o/s I run since I do not game on laptops.

Is it simply the best tool for what you want to do, or do you use it because you support the philosophy behind it?

On my laptop and for servers it is the best tool for the job. Support is easy to obtain, programs are free and as capable as their purchasable counterparts, and I get to tweak the heck out of them.

Will/do you use proprietary software?

Yes if it performs better then the open source alternative.

Do you find non-free software to be immoral or ethically unacceptable?

No. In a free society if someone wants to keep their knowledge to themselves that is their right, just as much as it is someone elses right to give theirs away. Personally i think we will get farther as a human race if we share but that is my opinion and you are allowed to hold whatever opinion you want. I may debate it with you but I will fight to the death for you to have a right to your opinion.

troodux · 2010-05-18 00:35:48

Do you use Linux and other free software for ideological reasons or practical ones?

Neither...Well, I use only linux for about seven years ( i drop my last personnal win box - a MS Win 2k - in 2003 )
I thougt I used FOSS for practical reasons until i had to use ( and somehow administer ) a XP box for my new job. I realized that installing and running untrusted code ( read : from unaviable source code ) really made me sick. My company trusts IBM, MS and Oracle code, so do I - it owns the computer and the data that may be lost or stollen, after all - , but for all the rest I use as much as I can free software and never EVER freewares, sharewares or, even worst, "crackwares".

Is it simply the best tool for what you want to do, or do you use it because you support the philosophy behind it?

It is simply the only tool which I really know what it does behind the scene... And for my personal use it's pretty good!

Will/do you use proprietary software?

Without torture, you mean? No.

Do you find non-free software to be immoral or ethically unacceptable?

Just fundamentally insecure

Last edited by troodux (2010-05-18 00:49:09)

Ranguvar · 2010-05-18 02:25:48

Misfit138 wrote:

Ranguvar wrote:
Misfit138 wrote:
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.
http://blog.marcelotoledo.org/wp-conten … _share.jpg

I've already said why I don't really consider it honest work, but I don't really see how what you just said furthers the discussion? Could be me. Yes, the majority of software is commercial and proprietary. Free software exists for Windows and the Mac too, of course, though I'm not claiming it's the majority. I don't see what place that chart has in all this.

Misfit138 wrote:

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.

Those are issues, and extremely important ones, more so as a whole of course.
Should we focus on them to the exclusion of everything else?
Or, perhaps, should those with talent in a particular field use that gift to focus their work there? I go for the latter mostly.

Misfit138 · 2010-05-21 01:59:49

Ranguvar wrote:

Misfit138 wrote:
Ranguvar wrote:
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.
http://blog.marcelotoledo.org/wp-conten … _share.jpg
I've already said why I don't really consider it honest work, but I don't really see how what you just said furthers the discussion? Could be me. Yes, the majority of software is commercial and proprietary. Free software exists for Windows and the Mac too, of course, though I'm not claiming it's the majority. I don't see what place that chart has in all this.
Misfit138 wrote:
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.
Those are issues, and extremely important ones, more so as a whole of course.
Should we focus on them to the exclusion of everything else?
Or, perhaps, should those with talent in a particular field use that gift to focus their work there? I go for the latter mostly.

You're very naughty.

ancient_archer · 2010-05-22 07:56:16

Well, I use Linux partly for ideological, partly for practical reasons... As for FOSS, I don't care as much because if I did, I couldn't play mp3s, use Opera etc... But as for Linux, I think that I use it partly because I don't like Microsoft sell and marketing policy and the way how it abuses its dominancy in the market of home OS. Then it leads to things like near impossibility to buy (at least in my country) a netbook or some kinds of notebooks without OS (due to vendor lock-in) which REALLY annoys me a lot.

And as for practical reasons, I really like some features of Linux distributions. First of all, I think that it's enhances security out of the box so usually malware/virus/trojans don't have much chance. Then I like very much package managers like pacman and synaptic where I can see all the software to install and the great thing is that I can install multiple programs at once (like e.g. pacman or powerpill -S vlc mplayer smplayer filelight) which is perfect! Then, since I use Linux, I think I learned really a lot about computers and all that stuff like file systems etc.

And also I like the abundance of software to choose from (I really like some great piece of FOSS software like Smplayer, Juk, Brasero/K3b, Leafpad, OpenOffice, Krusader (although it's not as good as Total Commander but still very fine), Filelight, GThumb, DVD Styler, Disk Utility, GParted, KGpg). I really don't know whether in Windows there are comparable equivalents for some of the software I listed.

And also I really like the freedom that Linux gives me. I may choose differnet filesystems according to my taste (ext3/ext4, JFS, XFS, reiserFS, etc.) , then I may choose various DE/window managers (Gnome, KDE, E16/E17, Open/Fluxbox, LXDE, etc...), I may customize the look (colours, icons etc.) That's what I like on Linux.

Then, although I'm not a typical Arch user, I like terminal for doing some things which are much simpler than in GUI or even Windows. E.g. aforementioned installation of packages. Or one example for all: Some time ago I needed to join 2 PDFs into one in order to make my bachelor thesis right. So (then I was using Simply Mepis) I just typed in terminal pdftk file1.pdf file2.pdf cat output file3.pdf and that was it! Wow, so simple

So, I use Linux partly for ideological, partly for practical reasons...

Ranguvar · 2010-05-22 15:14:53

ancient_archer wrote:

As for FOSS, I don't care as much because if I did, I couldn't play mp3s, use Opera etc..

Just a minor correction, you can play MP3s using free software
The issue is that MP3 is a proprietary format which is heavily patented and imposes licensing fees on those who use it for commercial purpose (technically all purposes, but they thankfully only bother with commercial).
Now, if only more portable players supported the non-patented, higher-quality Ogg Vorbis...

lawmaker · 2010-05-22 18:34:24

gtfernandezm wrote:

Do you use Linux and other free software for ideological reasons or practical ones?

Both. Not sure about the exact ratio. :-)

gtfernandezm wrote:

Is it simply the best tool for what you want to do, or do you use it because you support the philosophy behind it?

It is the best tool for me and I fully support the free software philosophy behind it. I should add that "best tool" doesn't mean the absense of annoyances or problems.

gtfernandezm wrote:

Will/do you use proprietary software?

Unfortunately, yes. At work it's a must, although most of the time, I use free software running on my own machine. Privately, I never use proprietary software for anything important, but I do make exceptions for a few games (running in Linux, I don't use Windows) and nVidia binary driver (I should finally try Noveau). I try to avoid any proprietary-firmware-requiring devices. Oh, and I probably use proprietary BIOSes.

gtfernandezm wrote:

Do you find non-free software to be immoral or ethically unacceptable?

I dislike proprietary software and I totally hate DRM in any form. I do find DRM and many other typical practices of proprietary software vendors unacceptable, ethically or morally. These practices include back doors, rootkits (Sony), spying on the user, "cheating" (nVidia/ATI drivers vs benchmarking tools), product activation (part of DRM), etc. I also find certain practices of embedded OSes vendors unethical, for instance remote deletion of purchased materials from customer's machines (Amazon), artificial restrictions on what software can run on these OSes (Apple handhelds), any form of vendor's remote control over the machine (unless it can be turned off and it is turned off by default), etc.

As for proprietary software not doing anything dirty from above, I'm not sure. It probably depends on how you look at vendor-user relationship. If you fell about purchased software as your ownership, then restricting your use of that software probably seems unethical. If you look at it as an agreement between two parties, what can be unethical about that (if both parties agree)?

Although, the parties are not always equal. Consider a professional photographer. He can choose not to use any proprietary software (like Photoshop), but if every other photographer uses it, then the photographer undermines his position, allowing proprietary-software-using competition to roll over him (producing more acceptable/higher quality output, spending less time processing photos, etc.). So, he's more or less pushed to get Photoshop and agree to it's license terms, while for Adobe, he's nobody.

Long story short, I'm not entriely sure here.

pogeymanz · 2010-05-22 20:43:00

Here is my two cents, if it's even worth that.

I don't have an objection to the existence of proprietary software. When you install proprietary software, you usually must agree to some license terms, i.e. sign a contract. There's nothing wrong with signing a contract; I have a lease I signed so that I can live in my apartment. Businesses make contractual agreements all the time, and in principal it's not a bad thing.

BUT, why the hell would I agree to some BS terms in a contract, just to start up my computer? To check my email, browse the web, write a letter, play music, etc? That's just dumb. I'm all about freedom, so yes, it's okay if you'd like to sign a contract to do these really basic things, but I just wish the consumers were more informed. I get the feeling that if someone MADE people sit down and read the Windows/Mac EULAs and then the GPL (or BSDL), the choice would be clear.

I will always choose free software when I can. And I wont complain if someone would prefer Opera to Firefox, because even though Opera is not free software, it's license is very similar to Firefox's. Opera is not on my list of evil corporations.

So, I always look at it from a business perspective. "If I sacrifice some freedom to use this software, am I going to gain anything from it? Will I gain enough to make it worth it?" For programs like Mathematica, yes it's worth it. And in the worst case scenario, I can still boot my computer and access my email and documents, etc. I love giving Steven Wolfram money so that he can continue making Mathematica the single best piece of mathematical software ever.

And in the lab I work for, they all use LabVIEW, because there is pretty much nothing else like it. So I have no problem with agreeing to some contract with them, because it makes me more productive, thus making us more money (in theory).

Like I said, though, I love free software, so I will always choose it if I can.

Last edited by pogeymanz (2010-05-22 20:44:37)

bzt · 2010-05-22 21:25:07

Do you use Linux and other software for ethical reasons of practical ones?
Mostly ideological. I discovered free software on Windows and rapidly began to like what it is. I highly value the ability to freely share copies of the software piece, whereas most closed source does not allow this. I use Linux because I have the power over my system.

Will/do you use proprietary software?
Yes, I do but currently it's drivers or old Windows games only. I only use proprietary software if there is absolutely no alternative or it is technically far superior, which is commonly the case with drivers. I would always prefer an immature piece of free software over a proprietary one if it gets the same job done.

Do you consider proprietary software to be unethical
That really depends. Most proprietary software is fine, although I find it sad that most of it is restricted for commerical usage. Needless to say, I understand that companies or individuals want to make money that way.
What I consider unethical are highly dubious clauses in the EULAs that grant the creator of the software rights which can be considered unethical. Most of those cannot be enforced anyway. Plenty of examples can be found by Google but what makes me even more sad is that users accept those terms because they do not care about their rights or privacy. Also I find it unethical to distrust the user by default and install additional software, which checks if your copy is genuine. This is also what initially drove me away from Windows.

sokuban · 2010-05-23 20:29:14

Do you use Linux and other software for ethical reasons of practical ones?
I can't really say ethical all the way because I don't use a 100% free distro and all, but I don't really think it is practical for me when I think of all the time wasted. I'm not sure why I use Linux now. I'm sure I'll be able to answer this question better if I had to use a Windows box for a while.

Will/do you use proprietary software?
Yea. I use flash, acrobat reader, unrar among many games I use on my own computer. Games especially; I have never seen a good free game.

But of course proprietary software is used a lot in my life, and I can't go tell my friend "sorry, I won't ride in your car because it is run with non-free software".

Do you consider free software to be unethical
Wait... what!?

Do you consider nonfree software to be unethical
I don't, but I do consider cloud computing to be unethical, whether it be free or nonfree software used to run it.

Ah, and while I'm at it, Apple style "locked up computers" (iPhone, iPad) are also unethical.

Last edited by sokuban (2010-05-23 20:32:52)

xelados · 2010-06-01 09:26:29

Do you use Linux and other free software for ideological reasons or practical ones?
Mostly ideological reasons. If I had to state a ratio, it'd be something like 80:20.

Is it simply the best tool for what you want to do, or do you use it because you support the philosophy behind it?
For all but the most niche of tasks (music composition, video editing, other highly focused media tasks), free software is the best available. It's unrestricted, powerful (I invite anyone to find a Windows editor even close in power to vim or emacs), and the sheer amount of choice a user has when using GNU/Linux allows them to make their computer truly their own.

Will/do you use proprietary software? Do you find non-free software to be immoral or ethically unacceptable?
I will use proprietary software to get access to certain formats (Flash) or to fulfill tasks that do not have a free equivalent yet (Graphics Gale, though I may just tweak GIMP someday...). Sometimes I'll play a (commercial) game, but I'm mostly gaming on my DS anyway.

I strongly disagree with proprietary software practices and believe that the companies who strengthen those practices (Microsoft, Apple, EA, Ubisoft) are doing their customers a great disservice and shooting themselves in the foot. If someone buys a piece of software, they should have the right to know exactly what the software is doing, the right to repair it if it is broken, the right to extend or improve it, and the right to pass it onto someone else if they no longer want or need it. If those rights were fulfilled, then software as a piece of property would be much like furniture or other physical objects. I feel that the user deserves to know exactly what's going on with their software mainly since the software acts through the computer, so it controls a physical object. In a sense, software could be thought of the same way that drugs are in the medical field. A patient deserves to know which chemicals are going into their body. They have that right. They're also entitled to know (or be told) what those chemicals are supposed to be doing.

Software is the chemicals we put into our computers (patients) to get the desired effect. Proprietary software is, in a way, "bad medicine".

iphitus · 2010-06-01 10:52:00

I'm not sure whether I could state my reason for using Linux as either practical or idealogical. They've changed over time. Originally it was purely curiosity and an interest in tweaking, though the ideological argument appealed to me.

I use the best tool for the job and that I agree with the ideological argument, but do not let it prevent me from completing the task as in some cases, there's no choice about what tool to use.

I remember years ago, it was very easy to say "just use open source alternatives," but when you have professional or very specific requirements:
a) the industry standard software is sometimes a standard for a very very good reason - it's excellent software
b) the open source alternatives are unavailable, under developed or lack credibility

dunc · 2010-06-03 17:33:12

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

Mainly practical, although the idea of paying for a proprietary OS has come to seem more and more weird over the time I've used Linux. I'm still not sure I'd call that an ethical position, though; it's still largely on the practical side: throwing money at software you can't fix - or even diagnose - yourself just seems pointless.

Keeping the instructions that make a computer work secret is just downright odd, frankly, like trying to ban the sale of aftermarket maintenance manuals for cars. We (I speak in general terms here ) know how PCs work; the real question should be, "Why shouldn't an OS be open-source?", not the converse.

Will/do you use proprietary software?

Absolutely. On my XBox. There are probably a few non-free bits and bobs on my computers, but not much. I'm not about to purge them, though. I don't know where I'd draw the line - 5% non-free, 10%? - but I'm no absolutist. If a tiny amount of proprietary code is necessary to make a largely free system work well, then fair enough.

Do you consider non-free software to be unethical?

Not at all. It's the right of the developers to decide how they wish to distribute their work. With the exception of videogames - which contain artistic content as well as sets of instructions - I think they're nuts to keep their code secret, but not unethical.

Where I part company with defenders of non-free licencing is when it comes to resale. For example, EA's "Project $10" is stepping over the line. Once something has been sold, even a licence-to-use, it's been sold; you no longer own or control it. I'm well aware that "non-transferable" tickets have been sold for years by the entertainment industry. I consider this unethical too. It's price-fixing. Let the market - ie, us - find its level.

Edit: spelling. "For", not "fot".

Last edited by dunc (2010-06-03 17:34:08)

gtfernandezm · 2010-06-03 20:21:26

Mispost please ignore/delete.

Last edited by gtfernandezm (2010-06-03 20:22:34)

Arch Linux

#51 2010-05-16 20:56:24

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

#52 2010-05-16 21:23:12

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

#53 2010-05-18 00:35:48

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

#54 2010-05-18 02:25:48

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

#55 2010-05-21 01:59:49

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

#56 2010-05-22 07:56:16

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

#57 2010-05-22 15:14:53

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

#58 2010-05-22 18:34:24

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

#59 2010-05-22 20:43:00

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

#60 2010-05-22 21:25:07

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

#61 2010-05-23 20:29:14

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

#62 2010-06-01 09:26:29

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

#63 2010-06-01 10:52:00

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

#64 2010-06-03 17:33:12

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

#65 2010-06-03 20:21:26

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

Board footer