81–90 of 98 posts
Focusing on touchy-feely stuff like whether some software is better because their spokesperson is a genius/is a kook/made money selling software/popularized the editor millions use/wants to help some people with their riches/doesn't wash their hair because they are afraid of getting soap in their eyes/etc is fun but not really satisfying. Matt, I think there is some merit to your argument but you fail to take into ac…
Focusing on touchy-feely stuff like whether some software is better because their spokesperson is a genius/is a kook/made money selling software/popularized the editor millions use/wants to help some people with their riches/doesn't wash their hair because they are afraid of getting soap in their eyes/etc is fun but not really satisfying. Matt, I think there is some merit to your argument but you fail to take into ac…
Photoshop, and GIMP has been around for a very long time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only restriction is that one can't deny others the same freedoms. Ah, good. Progress. We agree that what FSF calls "free", and what RMS so piously lectures us all about, has at least one substantive restriction. My definition of "free" (as in speech, as the Righteous and Holy FSF puts it) includes no substantive restrictions. I think the Stallman's definition of "free" basically amounts to extortion on some level…
I don't see it as extortion, I like of think of it as share and share alike. Someone elsewhere commented that GPL advocates want to be paid back in code rather than money. There's some truth to that view. I like the analogy to the "tragedy of the commons". Everyone wants to graze their cows there for free, but then sell their milk for profits. Programs are a form of mathematics. Freely (as in freedom) disseminating t…
Finally a voice of reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Proprietary software is never better.
Depends on your definition of better. The fact that Adobe's revenues were over $3 billion would indicate that quite a few people would define "better" in such a way that Photoshop is better than GIMP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes I wish Linux distributions would totally dump GNU and use newlib or something. I suspect the only thing that has kept GNU in the distros for so long is GCC.
You can always use BSD if you want a non-GNU userland.
I agree with most of this, but certainly not the line "It’s driven the computer revolution, which is the most significant shift in technology" Microsoft in my view completely stifled any innovation for ages with their monopoly and unethical business practices. We went backwards in some cases. If it weren't for microsoft I think a lot more innovation would have happened in computing. Thankfully that's all changed now.
Do you agree that an order of magnitude fewer people would be using PCs? (I'm assuming that all proprietary OS monopolies are equal, since if MS were never born its possible Mac or IBM would have achieved what Microsoft has.) I don't see how 10% of the developers we have now, even in an all open-source world, could have created anything like what currently exists.
Focusing on touchy-feely stuff like whether some software is better because their spokesperson is a genius/is a kook/made money selling software/popularized the editor millions use/wants to help some people with their riches/doesn't wash their hair because they are afraid of getting soap in their eyes/etc is fun but not really satisfying. Matt, I think there is some merit to your argument but you fail to take into ac…
Photoshop, and GIMP has been around for a very long time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Photoshop, and GIMP has been around for a very long time.
Wikipedia says Photoshop has its origin in code from University of Michigan written around 1987 wheras GIMP was started as a student project at UCB around 1994. That gives it a 7 year head start.
Also, if GIMP can't catch up in 14 years, will it ever? That's basically infinity in the software industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia says Photoshop has its origin in code from University of Michigan written around 1987 wheras GIMP was started as a student project at UCB around 1994. That gives it a 7 year head start.
I'm not sure I see your point with the age thing. Is it relevant whether or not an open source project of a given age is better than a proprietary one of the same age? The economics of proprietary software ensure that there will generally be older versions in nearly every niche (especially consumer facing). Also, if GIMP can't catch up in 14 years, will it ever? That's basically infinity in the software industry.
We all know initial conditions are very important. Once a community adapts to the rules of a given open source or proprietary application it rarely decides to change even when the alternative may be superior in some way.
Also, if GIMP can't catch up in 14 years, will it ever? That's basically infinity in the software industry.
GIMP is already superior to Photoshop in at least one significant way: you can give copies of it to your family, friends, students or whoever without breaking any laws. Of course if you're a design pro who uses Photoshop because it has features GIMP lacks then that may not matter to you.
However both those topics are besides the point. My main issue with your essay lies in the statement
It’s obvious that up to this point, proprietary software has created a vibrant ecosystem and immense profits that probably would not have existed were all software open source.
That's not at all obvious. What is obvious to me is that some proprietary companies have made obscene profits by preventing fair competition to keep prices artificially high and stop people from switching to lower cost or free alternatives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The MIT license and the BSD license are much truer to the idea of "free" than any FSF licenses. The point of the licenses is different. BSD and MIT gives you the freedom to take away other people's freedoms using the code. FSF does not. I don't think it's quite obvious which of these is "truer to the idea of 'free'", which is a pretty vague phrase. Where you are coming from makes sense, but one could also think of…
BSD and MIT gives you the freedom to take away other people's freedoms using the code. This sort of doctrinaire newspeak is what gives GPL advocates the appearance of a cult. Developers who incorporate some open source code in their app and don't release it aren't taking away anyone's freedoms.
Let's not throw around names... it's not out of comprehension to think of knowing what your computer is running as a fundamental right.
Developers who incorporate some open source code in their app and don't release it aren't taking away anyone's freedoms.
That's precisely it. I'm not asking you to agree with the FSF view, but to understand it. In the view of the GPL, distributing proprietary software is absolutely taking away people's rights of knowing what's running on their machine, modifying what they're running, etc.
Fundamental rights aren't always obvious, and whether or not this view will catch on is not something I pretend to know. I think this will be an open question for dozens, if not hundreds of years to come.