Coffeehouse Post

Single Post Permalink

View Thread: - how not to promote open source
  • User profile image

    anand.t wrote:
    emet wrote:
    FSF's philosophy is free software is always the better choice. RMS said himself that it is better to use an inferior software if it is free software. The FSF's goals is not really to promote use of free software, but to promote the philosophy behind it. So yes, they use free software to push an agenda, not an agenda to push free software. They've always been that way.

    The last time I checked both WMP and Itunes was free. I am sure the philosophy needs to be changed to say "Free Non-MSFT software is always the better choice"

    Seriouslyy what has RMS achieved using this agenda. He has created a bunch of die hard fans. While gates has gone and made billions, donated billions towards curing malaria, TB, cancer, aids and dont forget they donated millions worth software and hardware. Donating software was definitely selfish as they wanted everyone to use MSFT products, but who really cares as long as kids get a decent OS and computer.     

    i think you dont get the meaning of "free". There is "free" as in "free beer" and "free" as in "freedom of speed"

    "free" as in "free beer" has to do with how much you have to pay(in monetary term) and "free" as in "freedom speed" has to do with what can do you with the code after you get it(it doesnt matter if you paid for it or not)

    WMP and Itunes are "free" as in "free beer" because you dont have to pay to get them but they are not "free as in freedom of speech" because, you cant for example, take WMP, change the code to something you want, publish your modifications for the world to see and apply and redistribute your modified version without asking/begging or paying microsoft to that ability. linux is "free" as in "freedom of speed" because you can do that.

    so when you see FSF(free software foundation) ..think .."FREE AS IN FREEDOM OF SPEECH" ..thats what they care about ..ofcource, this philosofy tend to drive the price of software to 0$ but thats the side effect, not the intendend target

    Free software doesnt exist to destroy microsoft, thats the side effect since what microsoft stands for is at a direct confict with what free software hope to achieve, microsoft isnt alone.

    Do you agree with DRM technology? do you like to share your stuff? with your friends and family? would you like to buy the same song 5 times? for yourself, your wife and your 3 kinds and the last copy for your best friend?

    free software stands for what you want to do with the code you have, propietary company like to restrics some of these rights to for their own benefits ..

    RMS likes to see or he presents the world in black and white and i have issues with that but, fundamentally, what he is fighting for is something is good for the end user at the expense of big/greedy corporations