I made this to see what people think about opensource programs, my friend the other day said he won't get wine for his mac because it's "free" and "free" stuff could carry/handle viruses or be a crap program. I wouldn't have cared much except for the fact that i had asked him to help me work on my python program, which had a windows dependancy. So, i set up this poll to gather enough information to free him from the evil commercial programs, who think a profit can be made about everything, and open it up to the people who actually care.
I myself support opensource programs, as, being a linux user myself, get almost all of my programs from opensource repos. I have a couple of free games that are awesome, a 3D modeler that is free (and works really well). Advanced graphic, sound and motion picture editors (all free). Plus lots more!
Linux is opensource and works fine since 99% of internet servers use it, Libreoffice kicks microsoft words ass, GIMP and Paint.NET are very, very powerful for photo editing, Handbrake is amazing for video compression, Project64 is opensource, that has a few hundred thousand downloads at this point, so yeah, opensource is pretty win
Open Source is great, allows people to maybe complete some tasks easier, and others to learn about how the program is structured.
indeed, I have noticed with linux/opensource programs, many of them, when an error occurs go: OK, here's the problem: <Full details>
I suggest: <doing this>. Then all you have to do is take the error, put it into google and most results will come up. But with windows everything is hidden and is thus harder to get at, and then when you do get to it everything is encrypted. So the only way to fix your product is to not fix it, and uninstall it and take it back to the store.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Free + Crabs + Ability to trample/suffocate opponents in Cortex Command = Free Bombs.
Linux is opensource and works fine since 99% of internet servers use it, Libreoffice kicks microsoft words ass, GIMP and Paint.NET are very, very powerful for photo editing, Handbrake is amazing for video compression, Project64 is opensource, that has a few hundred thousand downloads at this point, so yeah, opensource is pretty win
Actually its share is 64% currently and according to the IDC 50% of hardware sold this year has been running Windows.
Uh the office suite is a lot nicer then LibreOffice more features UI sucks less go ribbon.
Gimp is alright but I much prefer Photoshop.
Handbreak is nice I agree.
I've seen very few programs that are open source and actually benefit a lot from it. Most of them are primarily maintained by a small team of people that basically do the same thing a regular team would. Open source is just an excuse to let people screw around and create their own branches of popular programs, or to help them practice coding.
It's a good idea but it's hardly the reason that some open source software is good. There's just as much closed source crap as there is open source crap.
I've seen very few programs that are open source and actually benefit a lot from it.
Firefox is nice so I can run custom builds of it like PaleMoon.
Ubuntu benefits from being open source so I can load up Lubuntu and get rid of the evils of Unity.
Android as a whole benefits from it with the aosp builds kicking the **** out of googles builds.
Linux is opensource and works fine since 99% of internet servers use it
This only shows that Linux works fine for Internet Servers. The separation is more around 60-40, with a bit of margin for FreeBSD and Unix based systems. Linux on the desktop has had a "long way to go" since it's inception, pretty much. And the "Year of the Linux desktop" is always "right around the corner" to the point where it's simply laughable. The Desktop Environments either try to duplicate features in Windows or OSX or try to break new ground with badly researched and thought out features with little to no UI testing or regard for backward compatibility. Meanwhile, people who complain about the quality of Open Source are pointed at as the cause of the problem. "If you want it to be better, do it yourself" Type thing- as if the investment of time and effort to do those changes is instantly justified.
Libreoffice kicks microsoft words ass
Wow, this is news to me.
GIMP and Paint.NET are very, very powerful for photo editing
Paint.NET isn't Open Source.
Handbrake is amazing for video compression
So is VirtualDub
Project64 is opensource
The old version. No it isn't. Mupen64 is, though.
that has a few hundred thousand downloads at this point, so yeah, opensource is pretty win
# of downloads is not an indication of software quality.
Neither is the license under which software is released. I've said it before, I'll say it again- Software should be judged on it's merits and functionality, not on political and licensing concerns.
indeed, I have noticed with linux/opensource programs, many of them, when an error occurs go: OK, here's the problem: <Full details>
On the contrary, I've noticed with Open Source programs that you have to repeat some error message and ask what it means on some forum, only to learn that it's a common problem when people have glibc 4.3.10 installed instead of 4.3.10b, but you cannot install 4.3.10b because then SNATE (which of course stands for "SNATE is Not A Text Editor") won't work. Additionally, even if there is a solution, it usually requires a long string of complex cli commands. Consider the simple case of a broken package manager. "run sudo dpkg --configure" from the GUI package manager. How about you run it yourself? Why does the user need to run dpkg? It's these sorts of fiobles that drive me batshit insane, and the response is always "well, Why don't you fix it" No. I'm not going to fix it. Instead, I'm going to use software that works for what I want and is generally more conducive to what I want to get done. Never before have I suddenly had so many opportunities reopened then when I reinstalled Windows on my laptop.
But with windows everything is hidden and is thus harder to get at, and then when you do get to it everything is encrypted. So the only way to fix your product is to not fix it, and uninstall it and take it back to the store.
Firefox is nice so I can run custom builds of it like PaleMoon.
Firefox being Open Source is not it's killer feature. Actually, it's original Killer feature was simply that it wasn't made by Microsoft, which was enough for a lot of people.
Ubuntu benefits from being open source so I can load up Lubuntu and get rid of the evils of Unity.
proper plug-compatible desktop shells could easily be made at the binary level. The fact that the Linux almost forces it at the source level is a disadvantage rather than a benefit.
But with windows everything is hidden and is thus harder to get at, and then when you do get to it everything is encrypted. So the only way to fix your product is to not fix it, and uninstall it and take it back to the store.
A day or so ago i got a new windows game, it didn't work, one of my friends pointed out that if i had loaded it up on a linux OS it would have said something along the lines of: "glib blablabla is needed." With windows, windows tries to install it itself, and if that fails you don't know what to try and install manually.
But i guess i may have phrased that incorrectly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Free + Crabs + Ability to trample/suffocate opponents in Cortex Command = Free Bombs.
Free and open source software have a completely different approach towards users, other developers and the community: as a part of these groups I always consider the license. Have you ever tried Ubuntu? Debian stable? Your example it's full of clichés and hate. Plus it doesn't make sense either: with packages and dependencies problems like those are quite rare.
In the Firefox download page you can read "Non-profit - Innovating for you - Fast, flexible, secure". We all know that those features made its fortune and all of that is because of its license: the GPL.
Ya Ubuntu has a really great approach to users called **** them over with a subpar UI with performance issues.
Ya Ubuntu has a really great approach to users called **** them over with a subpar UI with performance issues.
Or you could throw on a different DE, or use a different distro, but...
GPL is a terrible license Apache license ftw.
What exactly is wrong with the GPL? The GPL is basically any other free software license (you can modify this, redistribute it, blah blah blah), but ensures GPL software remains free software by saying that, when a program is redistributed, it must stay under the license. This is a very good thing.
If you want to use GPL programs in proprietary software (which kinda kills the point of "free software," but whatever), you can theoretically break the software down into a GPL portion and a proprietary portion.
Or you could throw on a different DE, or use a different distro, but...
What exactly is wrong with the GPL? The GPL is basically any other free software license (you can modify this, redistribute it, blah blah blah), but ensures GPL software remains free software by saying that, when a program is redistributed, it must stay under the license. This is a very good thing.
If you want to use GPL programs in proprietary software (which kinda kills the point of "free software," but whatever), you can theoretically break the software down into a GPL portion and a proprietary portion.
I hate GPL for the reason that take Bukkit for example If i make a bukkit plugin I am required to keep it under the GPL license I cant change the license of my software that uses a GPL library.
They fixed this issue with the lesser GPL thing but it still annoys me.
A day or so ago i got a new windows game, it didn't work, one of my friends pointed out that if i had loaded it up on a linux OS it would have said something along the lines of: "glib blablabla is needed." With windows, windows tries to install it itself, and if that fails you don't know what to try and install manually.
But i guess i may have phrased that incorrectly.
I still have no idea what you are talking about.
When you install a windows game on windows, everything needed is installed. There is never any issue with failing or anything like that.
The library you need to load the game onto linux has to do with how linux emulates windows to play games. This has nothing to do with windows itself.
Free and open source software have a completely different approach towards users, other developers and the community: as a part of these groups I always consider the license. Have you ever tried Ubuntu? Debian stable? Your example it's full of clichés and hate. Plus it doesn't make sense either: with packages and dependencies problems like those are quite rare.
Ubuntu is not a good example for showing the benefits of free and open source software, since a lot of its ease of use comes from making it super easy to get non-free software (Flash and MP3).
This only shows that Linux works fine for Internet Servers. The separation is more around 60-40, with a bit of margin for FreeBSD and Unix based systems. Linux on the desktop has had a "long way to go" since it's inception, pretty much. And the "Year of the Linux desktop" is always "right around the corner" to the point where it's simply laughable. The Desktop Environments either try to duplicate features in Windows or OSX or try to break new ground with badly researched and thought out features with little to no UI testing or regard for backward compatibility. Meanwhile, people who complain about the quality of Open Source are pointed at as the cause of the problem. "If you want it to be better, do it yourself" Type thing- as if the investment of time and effort to do those changes is instantly justified.
I know it's been said every year, but I think that Linux is approaching a point where it will be a very competitive OS. It's got graphical installers, decent driver support, and Steam is on the way. The average user can do what needs to be done in Linux (browsing is the same, LibreOffice is good enough for basic use). I see, right now, 5 major hurdles to Linux adoption:
-iTunes (iOS vendor lock-in)
-Microsoft Office
-Pre-installed Windows (the average person buys a pre-built with Windows and sees no need to change their OS)
-No games (will not be an issue soon)
-Crappy drivers (hopefully going to improve soon)
Still, it doesn't matter to most people if Linux is on .1% of desktops or 100%. As long as it's still here for me to use, I'm happy.
I will admit that most desktop environments are bad. Unity and GNOME 3 are just horrible to use, KDE is a resource hog (though not a problem on most modern-ish computers), and the rest are just plain ugly.
As for the last part, it's a problem. The solution to a basic issue shouldn't be "go modify the source code and do it yourself." The good news is that experienced users can do that. Linus' Law - With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow.
I hate GPL for the reason that take Bukkit for example If i make a bukkit plugin I am required to keep it under the GPL license I cant change the license of my software that uses a GPL library.
They fixed this issue with the lesser GPL thing but it still annoys me.
In fact, as a software developer, it might turn me off from a library if I needed to use one. What if I develop some awesome program that takes me ages, and I use a GPL library. I want to make profit off of this program, but I can't because one tiny piece of it is GPL'd.
I prefer the MIT licence. You can do what you want with it, but you have to include a copy of the licence and copyright statement in software products that include sizeable chunks of the MIT'd software.
The way I understood it (and maybe I'm wrong), if you use a GPL program, modifications to that program need to stay under the GPL. However, you can write one program that works with a GPL program, and the new program can be under a different license. My logic is based off of the fact that Linux is under the GPL, but closed source and non-GPL programs can run on top of the Linux kernel. Modifications to the kernel itself have to stay under the GPL, though.
Free and open source software have a completely different approach towards users, other developers and the community: as a part of these groups I always consider the license.
This is the problem. Open Source has a completely different approach to development, as well. This is it's reward. It is also it's punishment.
Have you ever tried Ubuntu? Debian stable?
Yes... what's you're point? Is this another of the standard "Oh, you just didn't choose the right distro" things?
Your example it's full of clichés
expressions that have been so over-used they have lost their effect? Well, to be fair, when somebody tells me that Desktop Linux didn't suit them I'm not surprised, either.
Plus it doesn't make sense either: with packages and dependencies problems like those are quite rare.
Using the package manager you are usually at least 2 versions behind- and there is of course no chance of using the latest builds. If you want to use Linux 'Properly' you are going to be compiling from scratch. If you stick to things that show up in your distributions standard Repository, you are going to be missing some of the entire point of Linux- and Open Source in general really, which is usually about compiling things on your own, not downloading and using binaries.
In the Firefox download page you can read "Non-profit - Innovating for you - Fast, flexible, secure". We all know that those features made its fortune and all of that is because of its license: the GPL.
several points. First, it didn't make a fortune. Second, that revenue it has made either comes in the form of donations by users (very little) or as part of the money Google used to be throwing at Mozilla. Every successful Open Source project seems to have a financier. (Firefox and Mozilla, Ubuntu and Canonical, RE Linux and Red Hat.
Firefox, QT, VLC, Blender, Linux Kernel, glibc and OpenGL are just some example of how powerful and vesatile free and opensource software is. Not every free software has to be perfect or user-friendly but at least it's ethical and helpful.
We have a Browser that used to be pretty good but is slowing going up diarrhea Drive without a saddle by imitating it's main opponent badly, A Windowing Toolkit that is only one of about 20 you can use on a Linux Desktop, of which each DE seems to choose a different "main" toolkit, because nobody can decide on just what a Windowing Toolkit should contain or how it should be bound. VLC < MPlayer, It's certainly not the best OSS can do since there are so many better alternatives. (mplayer, kmplayer as two examples). The Linux Kernel isn't really a good example either; it has the massive advantage over HURD in that it has existed for the last 20+ years, but it lacks a Stable Driver ABI, which people seem to actually like. Strong coupling- especially with software like that- is prone to problems.
For business productivity try to find an accounting package, shipping system or great suite of design tools that run on Linux. They don’t exist. Aside from web surfing and nerd circle jerk parties Linux on the desktop is useless.
only some OpenGL implementations are Open Source. In fact MESA is the only one I'm aware of. All other implementations are proprietary on the part of Card Vendors. I think Open Source drivers for some Graphics Cards might provide the OpenGL implementation, as well. As for glibc, aside from builds being marked as "stable" either not linking at all or in the more hilarious case coming with a completely broken ldconfig that can't parse filenames etc. glibc works, but BSD's libc blows it out of the water; BSD's version aims to be straightforward. GNU's version... well, I'm not really sure what it aims to do. Ideally a c library should be ANSI C. glibc isn't and requires the use of gcc extensions (statement expressions, at the very least, probably a lot more). Ideally a C Library should be small. statically linking glibc is over 10 times larger than statically linking BSD's libc instead in most situations.
Personally, as is obvious from the above, I would choose BSD stuff before GNU stuff in a heartbeat. One of my biggest reasons is that BSD devs are sane and down to Earth. To be fair, so are most Linux devs, but the FSF is sort of like the fat guy that sits in the corner of the room with a case of terminal flatulence. Overall they come off as a bunch of assclowns with a 'grand vision' and heads so enormous that one can be certain they needed proctological advice to get them so far up their asses. the GPL and GNU is not software freedom. It's software freedom how they tell you. How can a license- which at it's core is restricting freedoms- claim to be preserving them? GPLv1 made it impossible to put Free Software on a CD along with anything else. So it was quickly scrapped and replaced with GPLv2. – GPLv2 made it impossible to use libraries in any non-GPL program, which means no one other than freetards would use them, thus the LGPL was born. – Java came and since it’s different from the “dynamic linking” as defined in the LGPL, they had to create a new GPL-like license with a “classpath linking exception”. Then, proprietary server-side programs using GPL software became more popular. But no worries, FSF to the rescue! A new license (Affero GPL) is conceived to restric- I mean “respect” your freedom more. – The whole Tivoization and patents issues that made GPLv3 the horrible behemoth it is today. Let’s add yet another permission to GPL to make it practical for JavaScript. Why? Because apparently, RMS has declared Javascript code not released under a free license to be evil. Which is about par for the course for what he does... but, there is a disclaimer. Code for “trivial” tasks is regarded as not evil. Of course, what is a “trivial” task is entirely open to interpretation. (Stallman offers some kind of definition in the above link, but even he admits it’s somewhat vague).
Personally, as is obvious from the above, I would choose BSD stuff before GNU stuff in a heartbeat. One of my biggest reasons is that BSD devs are sane and down to Earth. To be fair, so are most Linux devs, but the FSF is sort of like the fat guy that sits in the corner of the room with a case of terminal flatulence. Overall they come off as a bunch of assclowns with a 'grand vision' and heads so enormous that one can be certain they needed proctological advice to get them so far up their asses. the GPL and GNU is not software freedom. It's software freedom how they tell you. How can a license- which at it's core is restricting freedoms- claim to be preserving them? GPLv1 made it impossible to put Free Software on a CD along with anything else. So it was quickly scrapped and replaced with GPLv2. – GPLv2 made it impossible to use libraries in any non-GPL program, which means no one other than freetards would use them, thus the LGPL was born. – Java came and since it’s different from the “dynamic linking” as defined in the LGPL, they had to create a new GPL-like license with a “classpath linking exception”. Then, proprietary server-side programs using GPL software became more popular. But no worries, FSF to the rescue! A new license (Affero GPL) is conceived to restric- I mean “respect” your freedom more. – The whole Tivoization and patents issues that made GPLv3 the horrible behemoth it is today. Let’s add yet another permission to GPL to make it practical for JavaScript. Why? Because apparently, RMS has declared Javascript code not released under a free license to be evil. Which is about par for the course for what he does... but, there is a disclaimer. Code for “trivial” tasks is regarded as not evil. Of course, what is a “trivial” task is entirely open to interpretation. (Stallman offers some kind of definition in the above link, but even he admits it’s somewhat vague).
I agree that the FSF is a bit excessive. I respect RMS for his contributions to free software, but he and the FSF make me feel like a bad person because I'm using a non-free BIOS and MP3s and occasionally boot into Windows. The fact of the matter is that it's just not practical for most people to avoid non-free software.
My take is this: I want free software to exist. People deserve the option. It's good to be able to see code, change it, compile it yourself, share it, whatever. At the very least, the existence of an alternative and free program will push proprietary software developers to innovate. If you want to use a proprietary program, it shouldn't be a big deal, but the FSF makes it one. Most people who have access to a free press don't write, and no one complains about that. But if people have access to free software and they don't use it, it's a problem.
The GPL is a license that protects the freedom of the users at the cost of distributors. And at the end of the day, the end users don't really care. How many PC users know C and can modify their programs? So in that respect, the GPL is bad.
Side note: JavaScript is really designed for web browsers, so it's kind of pointless to have the freedom to modify or redistribute it. There are honestly much bigger issues in terms of software freedom, like drivers and promoting free video codecs.
The GPL is a license that protects the freedom of the users at the cost of distributors. And at the end of the day, the end users don't really care. How many PC users know C and can modify their programs? So in that respect, the GPL is bad.
Forced freedom is not freedom. With open source software the users are the distributors and developers not all of them but some of them. Even RSM has recommended against using GPL for libraries and other things. I like opensource software I like the idea Ubuntu can give things away for free. But I also like the idea red hat can charge for a distribution and the support for it if they chose.
Forced freedom is not freedom. With open source software the users are the distributors and developers not all of them but some of them. Even RSM has recommended against using GPL for libraries and other things. I like opensource software I like the idea Ubuntu can give things away for free. But I also like the idea red hat can charge for a distribution and the support for it if they chose.
For libraries, they are now advising the LGPL.
There's an argument that maybe Linux wouldn't have made it this far without the GPL -- the companies who have profited off of Linux and used that money to build up the kernel (like Red Hat) could have kept their source code closed up under a BSD-style license. Under the GPL, they were forced to release their source code. While I'm sure people would have contributed independently, Linux might not have made it this far if companies were just able to say, "Here's a kernel that works and it's free. Let's work on it a little and sell it as closed source." It's impossible to know whether or not this would have happened, but it's something to consider.
I myself support opensource programs, as, being a linux user myself, get almost all of my programs from opensource repos. I have a couple of free games that are awesome, a 3D modeler that is free (and works really well). Advanced graphic, sound and motion picture editors (all free). Plus lots more!
So what do you think?
Free + Crabs + Ability to trample/suffocate opponents in Cortex Command = Free Bombs.
i5-4690K @4.6GHz ~ ASRock Z97X Fatal1ty Killer ~ EKWB Supremacy MX ~ Watercooled SLI STRIX 970s
Project RedShift
Ok, thanks for pointing that out.
Free + Crabs + Ability to trample/suffocate opponents in Cortex Command = Free Bombs.
indeed, I have noticed with linux/opensource programs, many of them, when an error occurs go: OK, here's the problem: <Full details>
I suggest: <doing this>. Then all you have to do is take the error, put it into google and most results will come up. But with windows everything is hidden and is thus harder to get at, and then when you do get to it everything is encrypted. So the only way to fix your product is to not fix it, and uninstall it and take it back to the store.
Free + Crabs + Ability to trample/suffocate opponents in Cortex Command = Free Bombs.
Actually its share is 64% currently and according to the IDC 50% of hardware sold this year has been running Windows.
Uh the office suite is a lot nicer then LibreOffice more features UI sucks less go ribbon.
Gimp is alright but I much prefer Photoshop.
Handbreak is nice I agree.
It's a good idea but it's hardly the reason that some open source software is good. There's just as much closed source crap as there is open source crap.
Firefox is nice so I can run custom builds of it like PaleMoon.
Ubuntu benefits from being open source so I can load up Lubuntu and get rid of the evils of Unity.
Android as a whole benefits from it with the aosp builds kicking the **** out of googles builds.
This only shows that Linux works fine for Internet Servers. The separation is more around 60-40, with a bit of margin for FreeBSD and Unix based systems. Linux on the desktop has had a "long way to go" since it's inception, pretty much. And the "Year of the Linux desktop" is always "right around the corner" to the point where it's simply laughable. The Desktop Environments either try to duplicate features in Windows or OSX or try to break new ground with badly researched and thought out features with little to no UI testing or regard for backward compatibility. Meanwhile, people who complain about the quality of Open Source are pointed at as the cause of the problem. "If you want it to be better, do it yourself" Type thing- as if the investment of time and effort to do those changes is instantly justified.
Wow, this is news to me.
Paint.NET isn't Open Source.
So is VirtualDub
The old version. No it isn't. Mupen64 is, though.
# of downloads is not an indication of software quality.
Neither is the license under which software is released. I've said it before, I'll say it again- Software should be judged on it's merits and functionality, not on political and licensing concerns.
On the contrary, I've noticed with Open Source programs that you have to repeat some error message and ask what it means on some forum, only to learn that it's a common problem when people have glibc 4.3.10 installed instead of 4.3.10b, but you cannot install 4.3.10b because then SNATE (which of course stands for "SNATE is Not A Text Editor") won't work. Additionally, even if there is a solution, it usually requires a long string of complex cli commands. Consider the simple case of a broken package manager. "run sudo dpkg --configure" from the GUI package manager. How about you run it yourself? Why does the user need to run dpkg? It's these sorts of fiobles that drive me batshit insane, and the response is always "well, Why don't you fix it" No. I'm not going to fix it. Instead, I'm going to use software that works for what I want and is generally more conducive to what I want to get done. Never before have I suddenly had so many opportunities reopened then when I reinstalled Windows on my laptop.
No idea what this is based on.
Firefox being Open Source is not it's killer feature. Actually, it's original Killer feature was simply that it wasn't made by Microsoft, which was enough for a lot of people.
proper plug-compatible desktop shells could easily be made at the binary level. The fact that the Linux almost forces it at the source level is a disadvantage rather than a benefit.
What?
What are you even talking about?
A day or so ago i got a new windows game, it didn't work, one of my friends pointed out that if i had loaded it up on a linux OS it would have said something along the lines of: "glib blablabla is needed." With windows, windows tries to install it itself, and if that fails you don't know what to try and install manually.
But i guess i may have phrased that incorrectly.
Free + Crabs + Ability to trample/suffocate opponents in Cortex Command = Free Bombs.
Ya Ubuntu has a really great approach to users called **** them over with a subpar UI with performance issues.
GPL is a terrible license Apache license ftw.
Or you could throw on a different DE, or use a different distro, but...
What exactly is wrong with the GPL? The GPL is basically any other free software license (you can modify this, redistribute it, blah blah blah), but ensures GPL software remains free software by saying that, when a program is redistributed, it must stay under the license. This is a very good thing.
If you want to use GPL programs in proprietary software (which kinda kills the point of "free software," but whatever), you can theoretically break the software down into a GPL portion and a proprietary portion.
I hate GPL for the reason that take Bukkit for example If i make a bukkit plugin I am required to keep it under the GPL license I cant change the license of my software that uses a GPL library.
They fixed this issue with the lesser GPL thing but it still annoys me.
When you install a windows game on windows, everything needed is installed. There is never any issue with failing or anything like that.
The library you need to load the game onto linux has to do with how linux emulates windows to play games. This has nothing to do with windows itself.
There is nothing encrypted or hidden.
Ubuntu is not a good example for showing the benefits of free and open source software, since a lot of its ease of use comes from making it super easy to get non-free software (Flash and MP3).
I know it's been said every year, but I think that Linux is approaching a point where it will be a very competitive OS. It's got graphical installers, decent driver support, and Steam is on the way. The average user can do what needs to be done in Linux (browsing is the same, LibreOffice is good enough for basic use). I see, right now, 5 major hurdles to Linux adoption:
-iTunes (iOS vendor lock-in)
-Microsoft Office
-Pre-installed Windows (the average person buys a pre-built with Windows and sees no need to change their OS)
-No games (will not be an issue soon)
-Crappy drivers (hopefully going to improve soon)
Still, it doesn't matter to most people if Linux is on .1% of desktops or 100%. As long as it's still here for me to use, I'm happy.
I will admit that most desktop environments are bad. Unity and GNOME 3 are just horrible to use, KDE is a resource hog (though not a problem on most modern-ish computers), and the rest are just plain ugly.
As for the last part, it's a problem. The solution to a basic issue shouldn't be "go modify the source code and do it yourself." The good news is that experienced users can do that. Linus' Law - With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow.
The way I understood it (and maybe I'm wrong), if you use a GPL program, modifications to that program need to stay under the GPL. However, you can write one program that works with a GPL program, and the new program can be under a different license. My logic is based off of the fact that Linux is under the GPL, but closed source and non-GPL programs can run on top of the Linux kernel. Modifications to the kernel itself have to stay under the GPL, though.
This is the problem. Open Source has a completely different approach to development, as well. This is it's reward. It is also it's punishment.
Yes... what's you're point? Is this another of the standard "Oh, you just didn't choose the right distro" things?
expressions that have been so over-used they have lost their effect? Well, to be fair, when somebody tells me that Desktop Linux didn't suit them I'm not surprised, either.
Using the package manager you are usually at least 2 versions behind- and there is of course no chance of using the latest builds. If you want to use Linux 'Properly' you are going to be compiling from scratch. If you stick to things that show up in your distributions standard Repository, you are going to be missing some of the entire point of Linux- and Open Source in general really, which is usually about compiling things on your own, not downloading and using binaries.
several points. First, it didn't make a fortune. Second, that revenue it has made either comes in the form of donations by users (very little) or as part of the money Google used to be throwing at Mozilla. Every successful Open Source project seems to have a financier. (Firefox and Mozilla, Ubuntu and Canonical, RE Linux and Red Hat.
We have a Browser that used to be pretty good but is slowing going up diarrhea Drive without a saddle by imitating it's main opponent badly, A Windowing Toolkit that is only one of about 20 you can use on a Linux Desktop, of which each DE seems to choose a different "main" toolkit, because nobody can decide on just what a Windowing Toolkit should contain or how it should be bound. VLC < MPlayer, It's certainly not the best OSS can do since there are so many better alternatives. (mplayer, kmplayer as two examples). The Linux Kernel isn't really a good example either; it has the massive advantage over HURD in that it has existed for the last 20+ years, but it lacks a Stable Driver ABI, which people seem to actually like. Strong coupling- especially with software like that- is prone to problems.
For business productivity try to find an accounting package, shipping system or great suite of design tools that run on Linux. They don’t exist. Aside from web surfing and nerd circle jerk parties Linux on the desktop is useless.
only some OpenGL implementations are Open Source. In fact MESA is the only one I'm aware of. All other implementations are proprietary on the part of Card Vendors. I think Open Source drivers for some Graphics Cards might provide the OpenGL implementation, as well. As for glibc, aside from builds being marked as "stable" either not linking at all or in the more hilarious case coming with a completely broken ldconfig that can't parse filenames etc. glibc works, but BSD's libc blows it out of the water; BSD's version aims to be straightforward. GNU's version... well, I'm not really sure what it aims to do. Ideally a c library should be ANSI C. glibc isn't and requires the use of gcc extensions (statement expressions, at the very least, probably a lot more). Ideally a C Library should be small. statically linking glibc is over 10 times larger than statically linking BSD's libc instead in most situations.
Personally, as is obvious from the above, I would choose BSD stuff before GNU stuff in a heartbeat. One of my biggest reasons is that BSD devs are sane and down to Earth. To be fair, so are most Linux devs, but the FSF is sort of like the fat guy that sits in the corner of the room with a case of terminal flatulence. Overall they come off as a bunch of assclowns with a 'grand vision' and heads so enormous that one can be certain they needed proctological advice to get them so far up their asses. the GPL and GNU is not software freedom. It's software freedom how they tell you. How can a license- which at it's core is restricting freedoms- claim to be preserving them? GPLv1 made it impossible to put Free Software on a CD along with anything else. So it was quickly scrapped and replaced with GPLv2. – GPLv2 made it impossible to use libraries in any non-GPL program, which means no one other than freetards would use them, thus the LGPL was born. – Java came and since it’s different from the “dynamic linking” as defined in the LGPL, they had to create a new GPL-like license with a “classpath linking exception”. Then, proprietary server-side programs using GPL software became more popular. But no worries, FSF to the rescue! A new license (Affero GPL) is conceived to restric- I mean “respect” your freedom more. – The whole Tivoization and patents issues that made GPLv3 the horrible behemoth it is today. Let’s add yet another permission to GPL to make it practical for JavaScript. Why? Because apparently, RMS has declared Javascript code not released under a free license to be evil. Which is about par for the course for what he does... but, there is a disclaimer. Code for “trivial” tasks is regarded as not evil. Of course, what is a “trivial” task is entirely open to interpretation. (Stallman offers some kind of definition in the above link, but even he admits it’s somewhat vague).
I agree that the FSF is a bit excessive. I respect RMS for his contributions to free software, but he and the FSF make me feel like a bad person because I'm using a non-free BIOS and MP3s and occasionally boot into Windows. The fact of the matter is that it's just not practical for most people to avoid non-free software.
My take is this: I want free software to exist. People deserve the option. It's good to be able to see code, change it, compile it yourself, share it, whatever. At the very least, the existence of an alternative and free program will push proprietary software developers to innovate. If you want to use a proprietary program, it shouldn't be a big deal, but the FSF makes it one. Most people who have access to a free press don't write, and no one complains about that. But if people have access to free software and they don't use it, it's a problem.
The GPL is a license that protects the freedom of the users at the cost of distributors. And at the end of the day, the end users don't really care. How many PC users know C and can modify their programs? So in that respect, the GPL is bad.
Side note: JavaScript is really designed for web browsers, so it's kind of pointless to have the freedom to modify or redistribute it. There are honestly much bigger issues in terms of software freedom, like drivers and promoting free video codecs.
Forced freedom is not freedom. With open source software the users are the distributors and developers not all of them but some of them. Even RSM has recommended against using GPL for libraries and other things. I like opensource software I like the idea Ubuntu can give things away for free. But I also like the idea red hat can charge for a distribution and the support for it if they chose.
For libraries, they are now advising the LGPL.
There's an argument that maybe Linux wouldn't have made it this far without the GPL -- the companies who have profited off of Linux and used that money to build up the kernel (like Red Hat) could have kept their source code closed up under a BSD-style license. Under the GPL, they were forced to release their source code. While I'm sure people would have contributed independently, Linux might not have made it this far if companies were just able to say, "Here's a kernel that works and it's free. Let's work on it a little and sell it as closed source." It's impossible to know whether or not this would have happened, but it's something to consider.