You're missing the point. Only Microsoft can use the theoretical survalence compenent because they are the only ones with access to the source code.

Er, 95% of all computer software is proprietary, and has the same potential capability. So.. get used to it?

Why should I get used to it when I can use free software....

95%? On your PC perhaps...

No.

I'm just... I'm just not sure how to respond to that.

Okay, let me put it for you another way: You obviously don't know the first thing about software, how it's developed or how it works, so why pretend? Why bother making unfounded assertations like "MICROSOFT IS SPYING ON ME".

Given that I can't envision even one motive for doing so, I'm just going to have to label you as paranoid delusional. And since you don't help develop opensource software (and probably can't even read C) you cannot possibly reap the benefits of having the source code available to you, which makes you nothing more than a poser.

By the way, the next time you buy a high-end video card give me a call. I might have a few old Voodoo cards to trade for it.

I have to agree with him Mystic. I'm a staunch supporter of the open source community--if it weren't for them, I'd probably not be at the level of intelligence/functionality with my computer I am today. But this is going a bit far.

Not to mention, being a programmer currently looking ahead at making money off of programming or some similar field...well... I can't say that I would want to make anything I would make money off of open source. It'd just be shoddy business practices.

I don't think you realize how much time is put into programs, even open source ones (though they're almost always more hobbies than anything else). They require hundreds, if not thousands or more of man hours. After you spend so much time on something like that...do you think you could just give it away? I mean you want SOME compensation for making it, not just some "THANKS DOOD" on a message board.

My two cents.

This might be a solution, but the problem that it addresses is considerably insignificant.

Read that paragraph over again. Multiple times.

I will personally vouch for that. Programming is a time-intensive field. More so when you encounter problems such as why your TEXT WON'T DISPLAY ON THE SCREEN!! Erm...sorry. Venting frustrations of current program. For some (me) the rewards of seeing a program you put your time into sitting there on the computer screen is pretty good. Gives you that sense of accomplishment. Also, someone might think there could be a market for this program. So programmer tries to market his program. No harm no foul. But, he can't necessarily market program if his source code is on 10^5 different message boards. Why market when Programmer B can grab source for their own purposes?

I love open source software, but I have to feed the kids as well. Sometimes closed source has its place (and don't say security, because security by obscurity doesn't always work). I guess the true benefit you get from making an open source program is the satisfaction of it all. If only you could live off of that. . .

But don't linux distributors for example make a living off of oss?

The only thing you pay for when you buy a linux distro is the support most of the time. Or the discs it takes to stamp them because you don't have the bandwidth to download the iso yourself. So no, I wouldn't say they're making a living off the OS. RedHat Certified Linux Techs make good money supporting users who don't know how to use linux in a business environment. But they don't make money off the OS.. How could they? It's 100% free.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Again: don't the distributors make money off of/with oss (open-source software)?

I understood the reasoning behind your question, and I gave you the correct answer. No. They do not make money off of the software itself. They make money off of supporting the software. By nature, open source solutions mean that from a monetary aspect they are also free to be had by anybody who wants to take the time and effort to get them. But as a distributor, you make money from the support of your particular OSS.

I believe in free software for a reason. RMS started the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation because he felt that users were being cheated by the owners of the software. I don't feel like regurgitating his essays and speeches, so if you are inclined to read about his viewpoints in detail, I suggest the GNU site at http://www.gnu.org .

Here are some of the problems he saw:

• Proprietary software allows the proprietor to dominate the user
• The user does not know what the program does, because he does not have the source code. For all they know, it could be running surveillance Jon -- nice attempt at a cheap-shot telling me it's 'of no use to me' because I don't know C. You are only looking at the practical benefits of free software and are ignoring the moral benefits. Just because I don't know how to examine the software for malicious components or DRM doesn't mean that somebody else can't. And that benefits and protects me, whether I know C or not. And to say that I know nothing about softwar development is idiotic and unfounded, so I am just going to take that as flamebate.
• Proprietary software many times restricts the user's rights to distribute, sell, modify, or even use. Free Software was designed to prevent all of that.

RMS saw all these problems, and he started the Free Software Foundation to solve them. I do not support free software because I am a "fanboi". I support free software because I believe it is morally right, and I would like to know what my software is doing. I do not want to be dominated by a proprietor. I do not support free software unconditionally! RMS and the FSF advocate free software where they believe the user is being or could be dominated. Any time else, I don't see any reason to use free software. As a moral person, I do not believe in exploiting or dominating the end-user! This is why I support free software. As an end-user, I want my computer to be free of control or domination. As a developer, I would like to set my end-users free of my domination.

To relate this back to the original topic: My GNU / Linux operating system is almost non-free software free. The only remaining component is the nvidia driver. I like my card, but I would also like to remove any dependence on a proprietor. We do NOT know what the driver is really doing! And, we do NOT have control over the situation! Free software is about Independence. So please stop telling me that I am just a 'fanboy' who is supporting the next best thing.

I concur....

Pfft, everyone knows that the BSD license is more free than the viral GNU license. . .



Seriously, I think you're a little too paranoid Mystic0. If you want to check to see if you're being spied on, sniff your outgoing packets with Snort or block bad packets with a firewall. Fight back if you are so worried about it.

Look, I know it is unlikly I'm being "spyed" upon. But what can you really do if you don't have the rights to the source code? Sure, you can sniff the packets, and maybe complain about it. But that doesn't even come close to having the source code. And what about DRM? Seriously, non-free software simply takes away your control and your rights. You are simply under the control of the proprietors. Free software sets you free from that control, in so many different ways. It basically ensures that the user is never exploited or taken advantage of.

The GPL is "viral" so that it can ensure that the software remains free....

How?? How is buying a program confiscating my rights? What rights am I being denied? Am I really and truly obligated to by <this program>? Does the typical end user care about program source code? All they care is that it works. If it works great, good for company, bad for competitor. If it works ****ty, bad for company, good for competitor.

Look what you're saying, man. You really are paranoid. There is no conspiracy to suppress your computing ability with closed-sources. All except those programs in designed, do not spy on your activities. And if you're that worried, get a packet sniffer like Malus said.

This is preposterous.

A decent parallel to what Mystic0 is the argument that running down a hill in a soapbox car is more fun than riding a rollercoaster because it wasn't built as a commercial enterprise.

I think the Linux kernel is the most impressive effort in software engineering history has ever seen, and it's by far the best-performing preemptive multitasking kernel ever created. The numbers don't lie.

But there are a few facts you may have overlooked.



1.) Linux makes no claim to backwards-compatability. They're constantly creating new interfaces and, generally, a new major kernel version requires a recompile of older programs. The differences between 2.4 and 2.6 were not trivial. Microsoft is bound from making fundamental changes to the base OS because of decades of third party development. Yes, a lot of people (and companies) continue to use ancient programs to this day. Think about how many banks still use software written in COBOL.

If you think you can pry yourself away from tinkering with operating systems you don't really understand, maybe you can try taking a look at Windows CE? To create Windows CE they went back and stripped out all of the legacy code, leaving a streamlined OS that can be ported to literally any platform you can think of.

In order to get rid of legacy code from Longhorn, they just tossed it all into a wrapper for their new APIs, moving it out of the base OS.

2.) Windows is not half as shoddy as you, and other misinformed OSS zealots would believe. The overwhelming majority of errors that occur in Windows are due to hardware errors (overheating, faulty memory, and so-forth). The remainder are due to misbehaving applications. I've been using Windows for something on the order of 15 years now and I've never encountered most of the problems you people describe. That includes the amount of time I've spent beta-testing various versions of Windows.

3.) You are not smarter, more tech-savvy or computer-literate simply for using Linux, and using Linux does not make your opinions correct.

4.) The simple fact is that Windows has more hardware vendor support and more software developer support because you are assured that your program will run no matter what hardware and software environment the application is running under. Can you offer me the same guarantee with Linux? What happens if I want a pure Gnome system but you developed your app using Qt? What happens if my soundcard only has OSS drivers, but you use ALSA exclusively? GNU-Linux has no unified direction which is why it's a complete bust on the desktop front.

Was that a jab at my spelling? I did spell it correctly. . .

I feel that the GNU license isn't truly free, since you can't really use it anywhere at all (including commerical applications) without releasing all of your source code. While it inhibits companies from stealing code, it also keeps them from embracing open source endeavors, which I feel is counterproductive for open source enthusiasts. Commerical acceptance is key when trying to garner support for the open source initiative.

And to counter that "free speech" not "free beer" problem...well, once someone has the source code, it's even easier to pirate. Easier to change. Easier to make your own.

Easier to rip off.

That's why people don't release the source code to very many things, games being one of the very few things (and even then, most games don't release full SDKs).

See the problem with this is that, and I like to make a parallel to Socialism here--it's too much of an idea, and not enough of an implementation.

Yes, complete freedom would be nice, if people weren't such asses. People steal, cheat, lie, and all kinds of other things I don't want to THINK about, and this is what prevents completely OSS for everything. This is what makes companies hoard their source. Well...that and the fact that they like to profit off of what they have.

And if this post doesn't make any sense, it's because I woke up at 2 in the morning to make it.

I doubt you could find something out of place (as you are suggesting) in the source code of any major application you use (assuming you even knew enough to understand the code in the first place). The source code would be very, very long and difficult to follow. If you have the time to even begin piecing together enough of what is going on to find something...then you probably don't actually have any use for your computer in the first place. That's what computers are for, right? Getting things done. At least, for some people...they are good for wasting time too, obviously.

Again, where the hell did that come from? I'm just going to again take that as flamebate and consider you to be a troll if you really think you can just start saying things like that out of nowhere with absolutly no evidence. What the hell? Where did I say that GNU / Linux made me an expert overnight???:confused: And what makes you such an expert? Please.

Opps, Malus, sorry. That was a mistake on my part.:(

Dj Yoshi and JediGandalf missed the point completly, so I'm not even going to respond.

Evidence that is relevant to modern versions of Windows please

If I'm not mistaken, Jon`C is a computer science major (I could be very wrong). Regardless, he is extremely knowledgable about computers and their components, coding, etc. He's older, more experienced, and more savvy than you and I. What makes him know so much is wisdom. Either way, I don't think he was directing that last comment at you. It was more at the Linux nerds all over the world who think that they're better than Windows users.

And I don't think it's we who are missing the point, Mystic0.

psst. the apple gui was stolen from someone else. In fact, alot of the stuff in Apple OSs are taken from other places and assimilated into the software, like the dock.

Who cares about his knowledge. Does that automatically make me stupid? I could have a PhD for all you know. How the hell do you think you can make that statement? This is the internet. You don't know me. You don't know nearly enough to say that about me. That label is becoming a cliche and it's annoying as hell.

I'm not even going to respond. Go back and read my reasons for free software. That is the only thing that is relevent. All this other crap has nothing to do with it. I'm tired of all this evasive action.



Um... can you tell me why that matters?

1) You're 15, maybe 16. I do know you somewhat, Mystic0, enough to know that Jon probably knows more than you and I combined.

2) It matters because those arguments would no longer be relevant if they don't appear in the latest version(s) of Windows.

Wrong....

It's Xerox's fault for not protecting PARC. In fact, they actually encouraged Microsoft, Apple, IBM and other companies to look into it. Apple was the first to release a viable product, and Microsoft "stole" it by licensing the MacUI library (insofar as a closed-source library can be stolen). Apple didn't just sue Microsoft to prevent them from using today's common UI elements - they sued HP too, and tried to get a court order preventing any third party from using those elements. Had Apple won the lawsuit KDE AND GNOME WOULD NOT EXIST TODAY AND WE WOULD ALL BE USING MACS.

MacOS X itself is based on BSD with the UI having roots in NextStep. It's actually extremely advanced compared to Windows XP and X11. X just recently added a composite extension and they are working on creating a standard for vectorization (two features that were first implemented in MacOS X). Longhorn is going to be similar. I believe a DirectX 9-compliant video card is recommended by Microsoft for basic desktop work.

This has got to be the funniest thread in the history of Massassi.

Mystic: I want links. I want proof that windows constantly sends that data from WMP, IE, etc.

Why do I want proof? Cause you used it as part of your argument. Back it up, it's all that I ask.

Open Source software is great, but you cannot honestly expect everyone to go open source. THEY MAKE NO MONEY. Hell, if it wasn't for massive sponsorship, Linux would have maybe 2-3 distros, no more. When people become software developers for a living, THEY WANT TO MAKE MONEY. You are denying their right to sell their product! It's the same as a farmer selling food. You're saying that it should be free, when obviously that farmer worked good and long to get that food to you.

Many people go to open source because it's a nice way to learn how to program. Many, MANY programmers started off as open source programmers, where they could receive input from other programmers constantly. But also MANY of those programmers got real jobs for closed-source programs for the work they had done.

If you want totally free software for everything, go make it yourself.

Finally, on the mark of open source drivers. Those companies make no money off of releasing those drivers. They already do more than you should expect them to.

No, CM, don't even try. He doesn't understand that free software, in whatever sense, is analogous to free monetarily.

Hey look, 2¢

Y'know, just because some people have problems with a certian OS, or a certian Driver policy, doesn't mean it's an epidemic. :p

Um, no?

Bothers to post that, but no links :p

Let me stop this "discussion" for a moment.

As creator of this thread, I demand that we get back to the original topic. This will sound rather hostile, but I am afraid that I am inclined to say it nevertheless: Jon derailed this thread with an extremely bitter and hostile assault on free software advocates like myself. It seems that almost every time he sees one, something triggers in his mind that causes him to flame free software and GNU / Linux. My best guess is that this is a retaliation to the irrational and relentless onslaught of "linux fanboiz". (I have put "linux fanboiz" in quotes to capture their essence. I do not support the termonology "Linux" when describing the GNU / Linux operating system. I have done this to illustrate their ignorance.) Having said all that, it is pretty apparent that there is a reason that Jon is angry. However, I do not think it is appropriate to label all supporters of the GNU / Linux Operating System and the Free Software Movement as idiotic zealots.

Now, I understand that not everything Jon said falls into that category. In fact, much of what he has said is in response to things I have said. However, this description still reflects his attitude. Starting about half way through the discussion, he has had a condescending and bitter tone toward me.

From that point forward, I took the defensive, and, one thing led to another, and the discussion was thoroughly derailed from a thread on a new, open specification graphics card, to a holy war on "open source". (I have put the term "open source" in quotes because it reflects the direction of discussion. However, I have tried to refrain from using the term "open source" as much as possible. I do not believe in just open source software! I believe in free software. There is a difference! For disambiguation, see this page.)

Let me set one thing straight: I do not believe in free software because it is the cool thing to do. I believe in free software, as an end-user, because it allows me to be independent of domination by a proprietor. I believe in free software, as a developer, because it is a moral practice: it prevents me from exploiting my end-users. In a nutshell, I believe in free software when it prevents domination. Therefore, I have no problem with non-free software in a situation where it is impossible for an end-user to be dominated.

Having said all that, I will now state the following topics that should not be a part of this discussion, because they do not pertain to my original post:

• How old we are
• How "savvy" we are
• What kind of degree we have
• My knowledge of C
• Whether or not people can make a living on writing "open source"
• The quality of Linux
• The quality of Windows
• How Microsoft obtained it's current position

Please refrain from discussing anything on that list. If you can't help it, please split the discussion and start a new thread! If anybody here fails to obey this, I request that a moderator close this thread.


Allow me to summarize what the original discussion was about. Remember how I argued that a graphics card with well documented specifications is a good thing, because it enables the driver to be written as free software. Before we go on, we need to establish what free software is and why it is a good thing. Many of you think you know what free software is. Even if you think you know, I strongly encourage you to skim this page for information on why free software is important!

Summary of the GNU Project, the Free Software Foundation, and the reasons Richard Matthew Stallman (RMS) founded them.

I realize that the GNU Project is not the same thing as the Free Software Foundation. However, I linked to it nevertheless, because I think that that page does the best job of summarizing what free software is and why it exists.

One of two scenarios can exist: either the specifications are not published, and the end-user must rely on the proprietor for non-free software drivers, or the specifications are published, and the end user can rely on the community to write free software drivers. Let's look at what happens when the graphics card specifications are not published. First, I'll borrow a quote from the GNU page I linked to earlier:

[/b]

As you can see, secret hardware hurts free software. Here is a list of effects that secret graphics card specifications bring, assuming that the proprietary, non-free driver is used:

• The user does not know what the program does, because the community has not had a chance to analyze the driver's source code. This means that the program could be running surveillance! (please do not ask for evidence of this. This is a theoretical situation, so I do not have any. Furthermore, there is no certain way to know without access to the source code.) Or maybe it is just restricting the user's privileges, via Digital Rights Management (DRM).
• The user must have faith that the proprietor will make effective software on his platform. History has shown us that the proprietor will usually only write the software for the platforms that have the largest user base. If the user has an uncommon platform, the proprietor will probably not support it.
• The driver code can never be merged into Linux, X.org, or other free software.
• The user is generally left helpless to the company, and is at it's mercy.
• Debugging is made much harder.
• The fact the driver is non-free software taints the entire system, which could be otherwise entirely free from domination of a proprietor.

As you can see, the users are left helpless. The community has no control over the situation. Let's look at the effects that documented specifications of the graphics card bring, assuming that the driver is free software:

• The community knows exactly what the program does, and will quickly spot any malicious components.
• The specifications can be thoroughly studied. Because a wide range of people have access to the specifications, there can be wide support for obscure platforms. In addition, the specifications and driver source code can be carefully analyzed by everyone to ensure that the driver is taking full advantage of the hardware.
• The end-user is free from domination by a proprietor.
• The driver can be merged into Linux, X.org, and other free software.
• The graphics card driver is one of the few missing links in an otherwise free GNU / Linux operating system. (If there are any other crucial components used with the GNU / Linux Operating System that are non-free, please let me know.) If the Open Graphics Project is successful, we will have in our hands an operating system that is completely independent and free from domination by a proprietor.

Any comments are welcome, if stated in a calm and objective manner.:)