Reply to: This is the we hate Richard Stallman thread

[bogeyman]

Indeed... although my correction of the original false premise of this thread seems to have drawn me into correcting the various other misrepresentations of the free software movement that have been posted, I personally use a Mac, on the grounds that as a software developer I can't afford the hassle and proprietary lock-in of Windows, and am happy to pay for the proprietary OS X because it's simply streets ahead of Linux.

Much of the software I use on the Mac is either free software (some of which costs money if one can't be bothered to build from the source oneself) or open source, but a fair number of applications that I use on a daily basis are proprietary.

At the end of the day, what's important is to have the best tools to do the job - I even bought a legit copy of Windows XP Pro at full retail price simply because I have to test client-side code on Internet Explorer

There's a chap at CurrentClientCorp who refuses to use any proprietary software whatsoever... I can respect his principles, but I wonder what would happen if this came into conflict with the requirements of the business.

UPDATE: Just realised that I should have referred to "misunderstandings" rather than "misrepresentations" - I didn't mean to suggest that anybody was speaking in anything other than good faith. Sorry

So you use a Mac for the same reason I do: I can do *nix, Windows and other x-platform development on the same box. I have all the advantages of OS X, (and Linux) but am not lacking my essential Windows apps either. I'm not a Mac 'fanboy' - it's a pragmatic decision - best of both worlds and all that.

Your chap at ClientCorp should learn a little about pragmatism too. Mind you, there's always at least one such ideologue deep in the techie bowels of every corporation

[NickFitz]

You make it sound so evil. Which is the knub of what we're talking about here: you're saying MS or others shouldn't be allowed to sell what they want, and that theft of that product ought to be legal. By "restrictions" you don't mean restrictions on the legitimate user, you mean restrictions on the software pirate.

I'm not saying that. They can do whatever they damn well please, and usually do. I'm just saying that what they do sucks, and that it restricts the freedom of the user.

RMS may regard Microsoft and all others as an evil that should be eradicated, but all I've done is try to correct people's misunderstandings on several points by explaining that RMS does not hate anybody who makes money from software, that open source and free software are not the same thing, that free software does not mean non-commercial software (free as in speech, not as in beer), and that proprietary software (from any company) imposes limitations on the freedom of the user.

The fact that other people manage to make money out of free software shows that the Microsoft business model, reliant as it is on restricting the freedom of the user in ever more onerous ways, is not the only way to be successful in the software industry. Given the impossibility of ever fully securing digital media from redistribution, I think it is a fatally flawed business model, and even Microsoft will ultimately be forced to abandon it.

[VectraMan]

I do have a Mac, and I can run my copy of XP on it just fine

Yes that was a bad example really.

[NickFitz]

If you bought a Mac, would you be complaining that you couldn't run your legitimately purchased copy of XP on it? Of course not.

I do have a Mac, and I can run my copy of XP on it just fine

[VectraMan]

I refer you to what I said earlier about "Windows Genuine Advantage":

Microsoft screwed up, for sure. But imagine a little old lady whose XP installation suddenly doesn't work. Is she going to think: "I wish I could recompile the kernel to get around this". What would it being open source have acheived at that point? Ubuntu being open source didn't help me at all when I couldn't install it on my laptop a couple of weeks ago.

It's not like the open-source and/or free software community has never done a bad release, or experienced bugs.

not so you can recompile the kernel with your own changes, but so that your working installation doesn't suddenly get turned off in a flawed attempt to protect the vested interests of its manufacturers' shareholders

You make it sound so evil. Which is the knub of what we're talking about here: you're saying MS or others shouldn't be allowed to sell what they want, and that theft of that product ought to be legal. By "restrictions" you don't mean restrictions on the legitimate user, you mean restrictions on the software pirate.

[VectraMan]

1. I bought Windows XP2 Pro SP2 about two years ago at full retail price - about £260;
2. I now buy one of these desktop/gaming machines from Dell;
3. The XP2 license forbids me from running my legitimately-purchased copy of the software on this machine because it's quad-core.

Seems like a restriction that affects the user to me - a perfectly usable piece of software that I bought two years ago, so that I could legitimately install it on a single personal computer, becomes valueless if I buy a new personal computer.

If you bought a Mac, would you be complaining that you couldn't run your legitimately purchased copy of XP on it? Of course not.

You agreed to those terms (i.e. limited to dual core). It's not a restriction that affects the use of the product according to the terms of the use of the product. It's not like they're saying "you can't use it to look at porn", they're just saying "you must pay us more if you use a higher spec machine than this". You chose not to buy a higher spec version, because you didn't need it. Which again is MS protecting their business by creating a pricing structure, nothing to do with restrictions on use.

I didn't know about the quad core thing, not sure what you're meant to buy.

[NickFitz]

We're back to the same thing: this bizarre idea that users want to look inside the source code of products that they buy and modify them to their own ends. 99.9% of users don't have the skill even if they did want to, and why would they want to? I don't, and I'm a software engineer by trade. Accept that reality, and all this talk of freedom is a total irrelevance.

I refer you to what I said earlier about "Windows Genuine Advantage":

Ordinary users just want it to work, and hopefully to get better over time. By deliberately infecting their customers' purchased software with an application designed to protect the proprietary software business model, which then went wrong for some customers, Microsoft revealed the fundamental reason why software should be free: not so you can recompile the kernel with your own changes, but so that your working installation doesn't suddenly get turned off in a flawed attempt to protect the vested interests of its manufacturers' shareholders.

[NickFitz]

All those things are about protecting their business, nothing to do with restrictions that affect the user

1. I bought Windows XP2 Pro SP2 about two years ago at full retail price - about £260;
2. I now buy one of these desktop/gaming machines from Dell;
3. The XP2 license forbids me from running my legitimately-purchased copy of the software on this machine because it's quad-core.

Seems like a restriction that affects the user to me - a perfectly usable piece of software that I bought two years ago, so that I could legitimately install it on a single personal computer, becomes valueless if I buy a new personal computer.

Note that I'm not talking about using the same software on two machines here - just transferring it to a new machine, which the license allows, but not if I buy a modern computer with multiple (>2) cores. Effectively, Microsoft's EULA infringes upon my freedom as a consumer by dictating what hardware I can buy if I want to make use of the software I bought from them.

[VectraMan]

Okay so I'll concede I had no idea that "free software" and "open source" aren't quite the same thing.

• You are not given ownership of the software, merely a license;
• You may only install the software on one machine with no more than two processors;
• You may only use the software for thirty days unless you activate it in the manner ordained by Microsoft;
• You may permit no more than ten devices to connect to to your workstation for the purpose of using its services;

All those things are about protecting their business, nothing to do with restrictions that affect the user (i.e. you can't resell it, you can't buy one copy and use it multiple times, you have to activate it - PITA, but no problem to legitimate users, and if you want to run a server you have to buy the server version).

The Visual Studio EULA (warning: PDF) also imposes a great number of restrictions upon what you can do with your own products produced using it, including preventing you from licensing your product in certain ways (section 3.1(b)) and, rather bizarrely, preventing you from using an older version when you upgrade to a newer version (section 11.1).

The first part basically says you can't distribute MS's code, only their DLLs, not really a suprise (i.e. you can't licence the redistributable parts in a way that means you have to supply code - i.e. the GPL), and the second part says if you pay for an upgrade price (i.e. discounted) you can't then use both versions - i.e. if you want to use it twice you have to pay twice. Again, protecting their commercial interests, not putting any restriction on legitmitately paid up users.

We're back to the same thing: this bizarre idea that users want to look inside the source code of products that they buy and modify them to their own ends. 99.9% of users don't have the skill even if they did want to, and why would they want to? I don't, and I'm a software engineer by trade. Accept that reality, and all this talk of freedom is a total irrelevance.

[blacjac]

Well blow you down indeed.

If you make false claims to support your position expect them to be blown down.

I'm not anti-OSS, as such, but neither can I understand the thinking of 'professional' developers who bang on and on about it being our salvation.

I never said I had a position on the subject......


Personally I agree with NickFitz, I use whatever tools is best to get the job done, be it proprietory or open source.

I agree with your view on 'professional' developers as well, I have met so many developers who don't seem to understand that the language you use to develop is not important, it's how you use that language that is important.
Any code monkey (sorry nickfitz ) can pick up a programming language and write code. I am amazed at how many developers class themselves as "C# developers" or "Java Developers" or "VB Developers" and will stick to only one language when one of the others would be far better for the job in hand.

[NickFitz]

I'm not anti-OSS, as such, but neither can I understand the thinking of 'professional' developers who bang on and on about it being our salvation.

Indeed... although my correction of the original false premise of this thread seems to have drawn me into correcting the various other misrepresentations of the free software movement that have been posted, I personally use a Mac, on the grounds that as a software developer I can't afford the hassle and proprietary lock-in of Windows, and am happy to pay for the proprietary OS X because it's simply streets ahead of Linux.

Much of the software I use on the Mac is either free software (some of which costs money if one can't be bothered to build from the source oneself) or open source, but a fair number of applications that I use on a daily basis are proprietary.

At the end of the day, what's important is to have the best tools to do the job - I even bought a legit copy of Windows XP Pro at full retail price simply because I have to test client-side code on Internet Explorer

There's a chap at CurrentClientCorp who refuses to use any proprietary software whatsoever... I can respect his principles, but I wonder what would happen if this came into conflict with the requirements of the business.

UPDATE: Just realised that I should have referred to "misunderstandings" rather than "misrepresentations" - I didn't mean to suggest that anybody was speaking in anything other than good faith. Sorry

[bogeyman]

Well blow me down with a feather.
My Word experience will now be complete.



Where did I put that VBA book.........

Happy birthday to me, happy bitrthday to me

Well blow you down indeed.

If you make false claims to support your position expect them to be blown down.

I'm not anti-OSS, as such, but neither can I understand the thinking of 'professional' developers who bang on and on about it being our salvation.

[NickFitz]

Sorry I missed that. Could you say it again?

Don't tempt me

[NickFitz]

Perhaps you should tell us what you mean by the terms?

As this thread started with a misrepresentation of RMS's views, which is what I originally responded to, it makes more sense to link to his explanations of the terms:

The Free Software Definition

Why “Open Source” misses the point of Free Software

Selling Free Software

You seem to be under this paranoid delusion that proprietary software has to come with a raft of restrictions on use. Well I've paid for XP (a couple of times), Office, MS Visual Studio, and you know what? None of them have put any restrictions on what I can do with them (well okay there's that thing about not being used for terrorism that was in the old NT installs, but I can live with that).

Windows XP Pro EULA

Without even scrolling the page to see past clause 1.3, I can see that:

1. You are not given ownership of the software, merely a license;
2. You may only install the software on one machine with no more than two processors;
3. You may only use the software for thirty days unless you activate it in the manner ordained by Microsoft;
4. You may permit no more than ten devices to connect to to your workstation for the purpose of using its services;

... and the list goes on - you'll find an enormous number of restrictions placed on your usage of the software, in addition to a large number of legal obligations placed upon you.

In fact, if there were any restrictions on VC++, or any royalties on what you could make with it, there's absolutely no way I would use it, or could use it.

The Visual Studio EULA (warning: PDF) also imposes a great number of restrictions upon what you can do with your own products produced using it, including preventing you from licensing your product in certain ways (section 3.1(b)) and, rather bizarrely, preventing you from using an older version when you upgrade to a newer version (section 11.1). Good luck supporting a version of your product that breaks on a newer version of their libraries - not only are you not allowed to peek inside their code to find out why it doesn't work any more (section 6), but you can't even install the old version to test with

[blacjac]

Indeed you can. VBA is your friend - it's not a friend I like very much, but there we are.

Well blow me down with a feather.
My Word experience will now be complete.



Where did I put that VBA book.........

Happy birthday to me, happy bitrthday to me