Well then it is free-er. No less freedom than Windows, and certainly more in MANY respects.
Yes, it is more free than Windows, in very very many ways. My only point was that it is not free in its entirety. I dislike when I hear GNU/Linux users talk about how it's free to do "whatever" they want with. Like any licensed code, there are limitations on how you're allowed to use it.
That IS your point, though. You are arguing in thread about the best OS. The OS is largely a platform you use to do your work, run your apps and address your various hardware resources. Linux does this very well, regardless of the BS about licensing and making modifications.
I disagree. Linux is still very limited in terms of "do[ing] your work" and "run[ning] your apps" for the majority of end users. As you'll note, many commercial software applications are available exclusively for the two elephants in the market (Photoshop and Office come to mind) that are deemed industry standard. Sure, there are alternatives (GIMP and Lotus, don't even talk about OO.org, it's a POS) but while they're very good for the price ($0 is very reasonable), they're still not quite on the same level. Those apps, the available software library for a specific platform, is very important in defining usability. And I mean, come on, there's still no stable build of Flash for 64-bit Linux. How will we watch hilarious cat videos?
Linux has its markets, but it's not for the majority of users, home users. They need specific commercial applications, they need to be able to download things and not have to understand why they won't work because they're not using Windows, and they need to be able to just get on the computer and get their **** done without worrying about tinkering around.
So I should buy a brand new computer every time I want the benefits of a new OS?
Windows XP was released in 2001, Vista in 2006 and Windows 7 in 2009. I don't think it's too unreasonable for someone to buy a new machine to utilize each of these operating systems. Hardware does not last forever, and innovation in technology is rapid. But you have a point, not everybody wants to spend money to buy a new machine, so free Linux updates are good there. Then again, most end users could care less and will happily stick with what they got until their computer spontaneously combusts.
I happen to think it is, but don't really care enough to fight you on it. Windows works fine.
And it's because Windows works fine that I fail to see how it isn't the "best" OS. It works fine, it's commercially supported, it's compatible with almost any piece of recent hardware I can think of, and performance is relatively great. Unless you're in the minority who want finer control, what's to complain about? Most people see computers as tools, not a hobby.
Yes because developers are retards and have no idea what their time is worth. :rollmy****ingeyes:
You keep forgetting that someone actually wrote this software and chose that license. The term "license" actually TELLS you the code isn't 100% free, nor do you OWN it. This particular license allows the original creator of a piece of code to share something freely, and makes sure any changes are like-wise freely shared. If I write software, don't I have that right? The GPL is a valid license in a WHOLE landscape of licenses that fit different needs.
Nobody is forcing you to waste your time coding free patches to GPL'd code, and yet you WILL get the benefit from those who have, along with the rest of the privileges that come with. Likewise, no one is stopping you from closing your own source on YOUR project.
Absolutely. The developer did indeed choose that license. I have no problem with those who choose to do so for valid reasons, so long as they don't proclaim the software is free in "every way" as many of the Linux fanatics I run into seem to do. "It's free, it's free, it's completely free!". No, it's not, and like you said, the term license does in fact tell you that. My only point regarding the GPL is that as a license, it's more pro-gratis than it is pro-libre. Whereas the BSD License pretty much gives you the right to do ANYTHING, the GPL has further restrictions as if it's spiting proprietary software. Seems ****ed up to me.
My point about time and effort was about the mindset that seems to be infecting many members of the Linux community. Many of them feel as though all software should be free, and that it's some heinous crime to charge for software. It's absolutely ridiculous. It's great that develops can and do choose to release open source applications, but it takes just as much effort to program as it does to do anything else. Software development is a profession, and MANY people have jobs involved in it. Yet these freetards demonize them as if they're immoral bastards for expecting compensation for their work, because they're used to their mindset of getting everything free.
So, again, in a thread about the best OS (see loose definition above), you can't see the benefit to linux because you have a personal hang up about a license that dictates how you can MODIFY said OS (not actually USE in it's existing form, which is arguably the point of this discussion)?
You're too focused on this licensing thing, it's not the only thing I have against Linux. It just bothers me. I apologize for not making additional points in my original post, but most people consider the "freeness" of Linux to be one of it's major advantages, but I figured I'd start with that.
What if he says "free to use, distribute AND modify, with the irrevocable requirement of sharing any and all modifications with the same rights and rules" (my kindergarten teacher called this "share and share alike", by the way)? It's his software, so ... you want to automatically take AWAY his right to dictate how his software is used?
I don't want people to stop using the GPL, I just want people to understand that if they're using it as a tool of "freedom", they're mistaken. See below point
The recursive or inalienable right is a very powerful thing to a programmer who may be otherwise blindly releasing his hard work into the wild. Sometimes it fits, sometimes it doesn't. It's certainly better to have the choice (believe it or not, that is part of "Freedom"), than to say "software is either FREE or it's ****ing NOT". We don't live in such a black and white world.
Yes, it is a part of freedom to choose to be non-free. That is actually my point. The closest thing to this is the BSD License, where you're allowed to pretty much do what the **** ever. You can keep it open source, you can close it and use it in proprietary projects, it's compatible with the GPL so you can implement it there, etc. I merely hate hearing about how code under the GPL is "free". It has fitting places for use, though.
I have, by the way, seen RMS speak. He's a ****ing dirt, and nutball. The world needs the crazies though, we get him and Ann Coulter and many more of their blindly zealous ilk, and we learn from them.
Quite.
