| |||||||||||||
My kid hates Linux (ZDNet)My kid hates Linux (ZDNet)Posted Apr 15, 2008 13:45 UTC (Tue) by Zack (guest, #37335)In reply to: My kid hates Linux (ZDNet) by Janne Parent article: My kid hates Linux (ZDNet)
>What freedoms are we talking about here? Freedom to modify the source? Like I said: since I'm not a coder, that particular benefit is meaningless to me. For example the freedom to help your neighbour. It doesn't always mean you're the one giving help, it also means the freedom to be the one helped, the neighbour in this case. Those who cannot code Free Software should not get in the way of those coding Free Software. And in my view being a champion for installing non-free software on a free system does mean "getting in the way." >I'm not telling anyone to jump when I tell them to jump. What I AM saying is that "I want to do certain things with my computer, and for my needs, Linux is not suitable". What do you suggest I should do? Give up my photography-hobby (for example) while developers work on an Aperture-replacement? That's a bit of an overstatement. I think it was perfectly possible to have photography as a hobby before computers even existed. I see no harm in reverting some of the practices that demand the use of proprietary software to a more basic form, especially since it's just a hobby. >Make do with apps that have maybe 10% of the functionality I can find in those evil proprietary apps? It's a start. You could fill in the other 90% with technology that has been around for a long time now. >And for what? For a benefit (open source) that does not directly benefit me? Well, I guess there's the point of contention. If all one seeks from software is how it benefits one directly right at that moment, without regard to anything or anyone, then it's true there are, and will likely always be, better systems available. I don't feel you see it that way, but I'm trying to explain why some (like me) are opposed to the advocacy of adding "mostly harmless" non-free software to an otherwise free system. >Linux does not exist in a bubble. GNU/Linux *does* exist in a bubble. Within that bubble it is blissfully shielded to some degree from anti-social practices. And any software that threatens to upset that should be rejected. >If Windows or Mac do the things users want to do, while Linux does not, there's no chance for Linux. For me this means the wants of users just have to change. If they cannot appreciate the freedom, and to some degree, the social responsibility that comes with it, it's lost before they even got it. >People will keep on using proprietary software. Is THAT what we want? The difference between people running (for example) Ubuntu with all proprietary "additions" and OSX or ms windows is negligable. So, yes, since adding proprietary software to free systems and propagating it as "value added" is a zero-sum game. These users might just as well keep running their old proprietary os. And, no; since it is not what we want, we shouldn't even begin adding proprietary software to a free system.
(Log in to post comments)
My kid hates Linux (ZDNet) Posted Apr 16, 2008 8:15 UTC (Wed) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] "For example the freedom to help your neighbour." My inlaws use Mac. And I have helped them with various questions they have asked. Am I missing something here? "Those who cannot code Free Software should not get in the way of those coding Free Software. And in my view being a champion for installing non-free software on a free system does mean "getting in the way."" I'm sorry but that seems like fascism to me, where someone dictates what can and can't be done. If I choose to use proprietary piece of software because the free alternative does not cut the mustard, that does not mean that I'm "getting in the way of those who write free software". I'm not REQUIRED to use free software. They (free software developers) are not entitled to have me (or anyone else for that matter) as their user. Just because some people choose the proprietary alternative does not mean that they are "getting in the way". "That's a bit of an overstatement. I think it was perfectly possible to have photography as a hobby before computers even existed. " And no-one wants to go back to those times. We have come to expect certain things from the tools we are provided. Would you be A-OK going back to 66Mhz Pentium as your main computer? "I see no harm in reverting some of the practices that demand the use of proprietary software to a more basic form, especially since it's just a hobby." I do see the harm. And no, I'm not willing to switch to inferior tools just because they are "free". Hobby is something you enjoy doing. And if some proprietqary tools gives better results and is more pleasant to use, why exactly should I NOT use it? You should understand the fact that my hobby is not "using Aperture" (or some other piece of software), the hobby is photography. "It's a start. You could fill in the other 90% with technology that has been around for a long time now." Such as? Darkrooms? Thanks but no thanks. "I don't feel you see it that way, but I'm trying to explain why some (like me) are opposed to the advocacy of adding "mostly harmless" non-free software to an otherwise free system." And that mentality makes sure that millions of people will keep on using systems that are 100% proprietary. That mentality makes sure that loads of new users who try out Linux will after few days of usage think "this thing sucks!". Go ahead and tell them about the nirvana of freedom, but to them, it does not matter. "GNU/Linux *does* exist in a bubble." No, it doesn't. Sure, it might do so for the hard-core free-software crowd, but 99% of the people are not part of that crowd. "And any software that threatens to upset that should be rejected." feel free to do just that, just don't start dictating to others what they can and can't do. "The difference between people running (for example) Ubuntu with all proprietary "additions" and OSX or ms windows is negligable." We are talking about something like people running Ubuntu with NVIDIA-drives and Flash, as opposed to people running proprietary OS filled with proprietary software. "These users might just as well keep running their old proprietary os." And since Linux with nothing but free software does not meet their needs, that is exactly what they will do. "And, no; since it is not what we want, we shouldn't even begin adding proprietary software to a free system. " Who is this "we" you talk about? Do you speak for the entire community? The point I was making is that we should just lace Linux with proprietary software and be done with it. Point is that if we can't sell Linux to users because we want to stick to just free software, and therefore can't provide the users with equal or better experience than what they can get on those proprietary OS'es, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot. We will drive millions of people to proprietary software. And before you say "but letting them run proprietary software on Linux does the exact same thing!". Well, there are differences. If we let those users run those apps on Linux, we expose them to the free software ecosystem, since everything else around them will be free software. And they just might notice that some free alternative does the job of that proprietary app just fine, easing them in to replacing that app with free alternative. If we shun those people and drive them to Windows and Macs, we lose that opportunity, while further strengthening those two platforms. Where is the benefit? IS the only benefit that some free software greybeards can feel good inside knowing that no-one is running proprietary software on Linux?
My kid hates Linux (ZDNet) Posted Apr 16, 2008 11:27 UTC (Wed) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] "The point I was making is that we should just lace Linux with proprietary software and be done with it." I obviously made an error there. That should read "The point I was making is NOT that we should just lave Linux with proprietary software and be done with it".
My kid hates Linux (ZDNet) Posted Apr 16, 2008 12:07 UTC (Wed) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link] You seem to confound what I think you *should* and what I think you *must* run on your computers. Thankfully it is (still) impossible for me or anyone else to decide what you can or cannot run on your computer. The Free Software movement is a social movement, but hardly anyone can afford to be 100% social all of the time; we as a species are just not build and bred that way. This means there are indeed acceptable reasons to run non-free software at times, and where that line in the sand is drawn is different for everyone. But even though you might have installed and are running proprietary software for an acceptable reason, it should never be thought of as being right or being anything *but* an act of anti-social behaviour. Now human beings don't like to be thought of as participating in anti-social behaviour, so we start inventing reasons why our behaviour isn't really that anti-social; we just tell ourselves, "well, I'm just being practical", "everyone else is doing it", "It doesn't really matter if just I do it". And what's worse is that we might even try and convince others that those reasons are valid, just so we can feel better about ourselves since now we're only part of a larger group that behaves that way. I cannot (and would not) dictate what kind of software you run. But I can (and will) point out that regardless of whether someones reasons of running proprietary software are acceptable, that at its core it remains anti-social behaviour. The fact is that people will run non-free software and there is nothing I can change about that. But as soon as those people try to convince others that running non-free software should be an socially acceptable practice, I might be able to explain why it should not, so I speak up. You might see that as "dictating", but it is not very different than someone else speaking about how great a particular piece of non-free software is, and how people should really use it.
|
|||||||||||||