No truce, we're not naive
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| r_a_trip Jun 14, 2006 3:18 AM EDT |
Of course Microsoft would like a truce. Microsoft needs time to regroup and build better anti-competitve weapons. If it can reduce the pressure and the scrutiny from the FOSS community, it can move to create a war plan out of sight behind closed doors. Microsoft would like to lull us into complacency and than come out with all guns blazing to deliver the fatal blow. Every extended olive branch from Redmond should be checked first to make sure it is not on fire or rubbed in poison. |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 14, 2006 4:38 AM EDT |
"Every extended olive branch from Redmond should be checked first to make sure it is not on fire or rubbed in poison." There is no need to accept the olive branch in the first place. MS only needs to follow accepted, open industry standards. There is no relation between FLOSS and standards, aside from the fact that many FLOSS applications implement said standards. That would solve about 75% of the issues (the remainder being FUD and predatory business practices). |
| Libervis Jun 14, 2006 6:29 AM EDT |
Even this article contains instances of FUD, like this for example:Quoting:After hearing their response, he acknowledged that there is no consensus on this question and that from his perspective, "it appears to be equal. Windows has more patches, but Microsoft releases them more frequently and fixes things more quickly," said Moskowitz. Do I even need to comment on that? Patch up your ass MS. I'm so tired of this twisted bull of language. You call these lies a proposal of truce?! It makes me stop reading any articles with the title that mentiones "Microsoft", "truce", "making up" "peace" and similar motives. There is no piece with MS, and *because* of MS itself. Thanks |
| Teron Jun 14, 2006 6:57 AM EDT |
Was just going to comment on that quote. I mean, a bajillion bugs both found and fixed quickly in a Linux distro vs. many found, most fixed relatively quickly and some simply left there? I mean, what the...? |
| wind0wsr3fund Jun 14, 2006 7:17 AM EDT |
The goals of the Free Software community and providers of freedom-restricting wares will always be at odds. Therefore, a truce is not possible. One will win, one will lose, period. |
| Libervis Jun 14, 2006 7:53 AM EDT |
That's actually true wind0wsr3fund. If the goal of proprietary software companies is to restrict freedom for their profit (which it actually is) and the goal of Free Software community is exactly that freedom which is being restricted, it is a big clash of interests. So, it's a good point. |
| tuxchick2 Jun 14, 2006 8:23 AM EDT |
Why do there need to be winners and losers? Both Free and non-Free software can exist in the same world. It's not an either/or proposition. I was joking when I said " Linux advocates are foaming religious zealots who want to control everyone's lives." But perhaps there is a kernel of truth in it. As far as any "truce", get a grip. Add my metoos to all the other responses to this. |
| devnet Jun 14, 2006 8:45 AM EDT |
Open Standards will always win because they will always exist and will most likely not change. |
| wind0wsr3fund Jun 14, 2006 12:33 PM EDT |
"Why do there need to be winners and losers? Both Free and non-Free software can exist in the same world." Wrong. Non-free software attacks users of free software by attempting to exclude them from participating with its market share. It doesn't happen the other way around. The very nature of the proprietary software provider's business model demands constant growth (assimilation) of that market. What you have here is a version of "Digital Divide". For those of you who think that the proprietary software regime does not affect your ability to use your computer in freedom (because you use Free Software), consider the following: You are the only person on the planet who runs Free Software on your computer. Because everyone else uses Microsoft's Windows OS, you can not swap files with anyone because of file formatting issues that can not be reversed engineered due to the protection offered by the DMCA, can not browse a web site on the Internet (because all are created for IE optimization AND because you do not have a valid Microsoft Passport), can not send or receive email (everyone uses the latest version of LookOut that has been "extended" to utilize "ActiveIMAP" and/or "ActivePop3")..... You get the idea (I hope). Bottom line is, you are now the prisoner. You have the right to create and use proprietary software. Just do me and everyone else a favor and keep it to yourself. Once the software is distributed, I feel very strongly that you have an ethical responsibility to provide certain freedoms along with it. More specifically, freedoms 0-3 as defined by the GPL. Thank you, wind0wsr3fund |
| wind0wsr3fund Jun 14, 2006 12:36 PM EDT |
"Open Standards will always win because they will always exist and will most likely not change." Wrong! Standards, whether Open, Licensed, or defacto, are only as good as their implementation. How in the world can anyone know how a standard has been implemented if the user is not free to inspect the code? Standards are VERY important but in no way justify non-free software. |
| dinotrac Jun 14, 2006 12:51 PM EDT |
w3f - Unbelievable! We halfway agree on something! Open Standards do not win by default. They win only if people follow them. As to inspecting the code...Always a plus. However, you don't need to see the code to know if a standard has been implemented. It's certainly nice for troubleshooting, but not needed. The reference for a standard is its specification, not any single implementation. |
| devnet Jun 14, 2006 1:15 PM EDT |
and since they're open...people will always follow them and make them better...see if they don't like the technology that supports the open standard, they make the technology better. open standards do not cost...that makes sure that they'll always be used. The mere fact that they'll always be used means they win. Period. The only way they lose is if no one uses them. |
| Libervis Jun 14, 2006 3:12 PM EDT |
Oh, thanks w3f. At least I don't need to start preaching again. :D It's not about FOSS zealots wanting their Free Software to take over the world or something. No, that's just a necessary sideffect. :P What we, so called "zealots", want is for freedom to take over the world. When that truly happens, noone really rules the world! :) Proprietary software is fundamentally about ruling over someone though, and that doesn't lead to freedom, nor choice nor anything good. It leads to a form of slavery or whatever you call a total opposite of freedom. |
| tuxchick2 Jun 14, 2006 3:50 PM EDT |
Libervis, our definitions of freedom are not the same. Yours and cranky3f seems to involve making choices on behalf of people "for their own good", unless I am reading your posts incorrectly. |
| dinotrac Jun 14, 2006 3:55 PM EDT |
>Proprietary software is fundamentally about ruling over someone though Now that's getting just plain wacky. The government rules over people. It has nasty folks with guns and big sticks and all manner of ugly hardware to keep you in line. Proprietary software? I don't see how. You don't even have to buy it. I know lots of people who don't. People who make that choice make trade-offs, including some they probably aren't aware of. But ruled over? You should talk to the folks at Ernie Ball about that. When Microsoft's buddies (or alter egos, if you prefer) tried ruling over Ernie Ball, the company switched to free software. The bad guys extorted some blood money in the process, but Ernie Ball now breathes the sweet air of freedom and all that nasty proprietary software can't do a blessed thing about it. |
| jimf Jun 14, 2006 9:05 PM EDT |
one of the real issues in all this are corporations. Let's face it corporations are a construct to limit the liability and responsibility of individuals. As such, they don't really encourage responsibility or morality, or ethical behavior. The main goal of a corporation is, after all, profit for the stockholder. It also seems to me that the bigger these corporations become the less they abide by ethical behavior. The government's mindless pandering to business interests encourages this bad behavior. While that isn't always true, MS is certainly a great example of the corporate sleazeball behavior that's become prevalent, though not the only one by far. Linux and the GPL not only give us legal guidelines, but also stress the ethics of how one should create and use software. It's obvious that many of the less ethical of the corporate giants have problem handling that. It's not a 'war', but it's hard to see how any of this, software or otherwise, is going to be resolved soon, certainly not by any truce between MS and Linux. |
| grouch Jun 14, 2006 9:40 PM EDT |
dinotrac: >"Proprietary software? I don't see how. You don't even have to buy it. I know lots of people who don't. People who make that choice make trade-offs, including some they probably aren't aware of." Those trade-offs are exactly why Stallman began GNU and created the GPL. It was the enticement to behave unethically, that is, to shun his community by not sharing his work to help others, that led him to begin GNU. As you say, it wasn't because closed, EULA-restricted software could somehow rule over him. It was because it requires trade-offs that he considered unethical. jimf: >"It also seems to me that the bigger these corporations become the less they abide by ethical behavior. The government's mindless pandering to business interests encourages this bad behavior." That fits most mega-corporations, either wholly or in part. The really large ones are like hydras, but with some decent heads and some downright evil. Personally, if Sam Palmisano showed up at my door, I'd invite him in or for a walk around the place. If Bill Gates showed up, I'd lock the door and invite him to leave, immediately. (If he declined, I'd call the police to report an unsavory character on the premises). |
| Libervis Jun 15, 2006 6:26 AM EDT |
@tuxchick2Quoting:Libervis, our definitions of freedom are not the same. Yours and cranky3f seems to involve making choices on behalf of people "for their own good", unless I am reading your posts incorrectly. Not really. My definition of freedom is acting however you will as long as it doesn't detriment anothers' freedom to act as they will. What you end up with is a balance and some natural restrictions that arise to protect it. For example, I am and should be restricted from doing anything that will restricts anothers freedom and ability to do their own thing, and they are in turn restricted the same way. It's a kind of a reciprocity. In accordance with this I believe that releasing software as proprietary (and hence excercising control over all of its copies) steps over the boundaries of this balance, as users don't have the same freedom that the software developer has once they choose to cast away their freedom by using this proprietary software (which usually happens either out of not knowing or not valuing their freedom enough). Why should users have the same freedoms as developers with the same software? Because developers are users too and every user is a potential developer. @dinotrac Quoting:When Microsoft's buddies (or alter egos, if you prefer) tried ruling over Ernie Ball, the company switched to free software. The bad guys extorted some blood money in the process, but Ernie Ball now breathes the sweet air of freedom and all that nasty proprietary software can't do a blessed thing about it. Well they did try to rule over them, didn't they? Yes, the government has the ruling power, but that same government distributes some of this power, through law, to copyright holders which can then use it to "rule over" those who are ignorant or unknowing enough not to value their freedom or give freedom to everyone who uses their software. Grouch also explained it nicely regarding the trade-offs. What is unethical about those trade offs (such as not being able to share software with your neighbour) is the anti-social behavior which is caused by the lack of freedom (which is also unethical). So of course, unethical gives birth to more of unethical, and that circle starts with someones imposition of proprietary terms on software (helped through law by the government who allows all, including these terms). Thanks |
| dinotrac Jun 15, 2006 8:57 AM EDT |
>Well they did try to rule over them, didn't they? Try is the operative word. It only matters if you can. |
| tuxchick2 Jun 15, 2006 9:14 AM EDT |
grouch, you would really pass on such a marvelous opportunity? Picture a different scenario: *knock knock* Grouch opens his door. "Mr. Gates, why are you knocking on my door at 2am?" Gates: "Oh, I just thought I'd drop by and see how you're doing. I have a strong commitment to customer satisfaction, you know." Grouch: "Well, it's kind of late, but since you're here you might as well come in." Grouch makes coffee and invites Gates to his basement computer room. "Here is my Windows PC, running XP Professional. Go ahead, sit down and make yourself at home." Gates sits down and starts fooling around. "What, you have dialup? Who has dialup anymore. Gee, this is slow." Grouch edges away. Gates continues to type and mutter. "This is taking forever. What's all this stuff in the systray? Anti-virus, anti-spyware, firewall...hey! quit pestering me with questions, how do I know if I want that service to access the Internet? No, I do not want to check for updates now. No, I really don't, damn you! Oh all right, go ahead and download. Gee, 300 megabytes for a Windows update? This is going to take forever! How am I going to check email? Oh no, three thousand new messages, I'll die of old age first..." Meanwhile, Grouch quietly bolts the basement door and tiptoes back to bed. Mrs. Grouch says "what's going on?" Grouch replies, "Oh, just letting someone experience Windows without the help of a gigantic personal tech support staff." Mrs. Grouch falls instantly asleep at the mention of computers. |
| Libervis Jun 15, 2006 9:16 AM EDT |
> Try is the operative word. It only matters if you can. Still, it describes a tendency. Proprietary software gives full control, or you could call it a "ruling power", to its copyright holder which actually is power over other people who use this software regarding the use of its software. Of course I am not saying that this rule extends to all other areas of users life, but it does still include the area of software use. |
| dinotrac Jun 15, 2006 9:51 AM EDT |
Libervis: Ummmm...... Free software also gives full control to its copyright holder. In the case of free software, the copyright holder (or holders) generously share much more of that control than the holders of copyright on proprietary software. The only software that doesn't do that is in the public domain. |
| dcparris Jun 15, 2006 12:40 PM EDT |
> Free software also gives full control to its copyright holder. In the case of free software, the copyright holder (or holders) generously share much more of that control than the holders of copyright on proprietary software. And there you have it - a much more balanced approach to control. I may have written the software, but you are running it on your computer. Therefore, you deserve to have control of the software on your computer. I don't see what - other than current copyright law - gives me the right to prevent you from having that control. I think it is utterly rude, crude and socially unacceptable to prevent you from having control over the software running on your computer. Also, you should note that people frequently subject themselves to the control of others, despite having numerous alternate choices. From kids who join gangs to prostitutes, people often subject themselves to the control of unscrupulous people. And Windows is merely the poster child for why no one should ever release code under non-free terms. |
| grouch Jun 15, 2006 1:38 PM EDT |
tuxchick2: Interesting scenario, except I don't do MS Windows. Never had eXtortion Protection in my house; never will. I had to use that nasty thing once, long enough to download a manual to a dsl modem for a local business to see how to set it up for GNU/Linux. That was a disgusting 30 minutes. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!