“Free as in Freedom”. From what I understood, the idea of open source is not based necessarily on getting an OS for free, but on having access to the code and being allowed to modify it, although you must not commercialize it. Richard Stallman’s Linux GnewSense does not make use of any proprietary software, but the repositories have quite old versions of the applications, which makes it obsolete and “unusable” for many. That is why many Linux users favour OpenSuse and other distributions. The question is: does one use it because it can be downloaded for free, or because it’s open source? I mean, how can a noob (like me, for example) appreciate the idea of “open source”, when I don’t have a clue of what’s going on in there? There are many who use Linux just because it’s free, and others who use it because it’s free AND they know how to…bash. Maybe the most important thing is that Linux allows you to learn about it, not just to use it like a washing machine - but it’s your choice if you want to learn how to modify/ improve or not (at least you have this choice!). So do you think that “Open Source” matters because of sparing some money, or because of freedom?
Both of those things are important
- it’s better than the expensive alternatives, safer than the expensive alternatives, more advanced than the expensive alternatives… and so on
Oh yes, I just remember the most important: It makes you Cool, Sexy and Attractive 
On 06/17/2011 02:36 PM, riderplus wrote:
> So do you think that
> “Open Source” matters because of sparing some money, or because of
> freedom?
For me, the fact that the OS does not cost anything is a nice bonus, but the
main importance of open source is that every part of the code has been
scrutinized by a lot of very smart people, who understand how to make a system
secure. Not only are the crashes reduced, but the possibility of including a
backdoor exploit is minimized.
The other thing that I really appreciate is the opportunity to do system
development.
LoL. I’m sure 
On 06/17/2011 09:36 PM, riderplus wrote:
>
> The question is: does one use it because it can be
> downloaded for free, or because it’s open source?
some folks use free and open source software because it is more secure,
stable and reliable than more costly alternatives…and, some of those
pay top dollar for experienced administrators to set up and over see it…
and, many also pay fees for professional support, security updates and
etc (for, many (if not most/all) users of SUSE Linux Enterprise and Red
Hat pay for support by Attachmate/Novell and Red Hat)
> I mean, how can a noob
> (like me, for example) appreciate the idea of “open source”, when I
> don’t have a clue of what’s going on in there?
did you have an appreciation for your previous operating systems
because you had a clue of what was going on in it? or is that
understanding important to usability?
anyway, you do realize (don’t you) that it is far easier to really see
what is going on inside of Linux because you can actually see what
is going on in the open code…proprietary closely guard their secret
code so that you can NOT see either what is going on, or why/when/how it
goes on…
now i’m not a programmer so i can’t actually look at the code myself,
but i trust the Linux community to do it well and often
> There are many who use
> Linux just because it’s free, and others who use it because it’s free
> AND they know how to…bash.
i use it because it is better and it does not require the poor folks of
the world to contribute to this kind of over the top lifestyle:
http://www.google.com/search?q=bill+gates+house+images consumerism
and, i would use it if it cost more than Mr. Gates best…because it
is worth more…
by the way, its not really free…it is only “cost free” to those who
refuse to contribute in any way (there are thousands of ways to contribute)
> Maybe the most important thing is that
> Linux allows you to learn about it, not just to use it like a washing
> machine - but it’s your choice if you want to learn how to modify/
> improve or not (at least you have this choice!). So do you think that
> “Open Source” matters because of sparing some money, or because of
> freedom?
Freedom.
–
dd
http://is.gd/bpoMD
i use it because it is better and it does not require the poor folks of
the world to contribute to this kind of over the top lifestyle:
bill gates house images - Google Search consumerism
and, i would use it if it cost more than Mr. Gates best…because it
is worth more.
I kinda agree with you, DenverD. I’m no communist/radical leftist, but the concept of Open Source can sometimes be effective against monopoly. When I think of movies like “Antitrust” I don’t feel so comfortable. And it’s so darn silly for so many people to associate copyleft with left ideology and radical anti-consumerism. Anyway…
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The fact that the source is open means more people can contribute to it.
Ever tried helping microsoft fix a bug by checking the code and submitting
a fix? Impossible to do… slows things down (which is maybe why it took
eight years between windows XP and vista).
Also product obsolescence doesn’t need to be as much of an issue. Some
products must change every year (Turbotax) but others, not so much. Linux
and Open Source products naturally avoid problems of needing to go to the
next version just to keep working because the code is usable by anybody.
If you like an application and it’s otherwise not supported by the company
just keep using it, no worries.
Learning is a big thing. Security is a big thing. Freedom is a big
thing, but in the end I think you’ll find that most people who use Linux
do so because:
a) They realize it is the best.
b) They do not accept barriers imposed by others (cough monopolists
*cough) to keep them from doing so.
Good luck.
On 06/17/2011 01:36 PM, riderplus wrote:
>
> “Free as in Freedom”. From what I understood, the idea of open source is
> not based necessarily on getting an OS for free, but on having access to
> the code and being allowed to modify it, although you must not
> commercialize it. Richard Stallman’s Linux GnewSense does not make use
> of any proprietary software, but the repositories have quite old
> versions of the applications, which makes it obsolete and “unusable” for
> many. That is why many Linux users favour OpenSuse and other
> distributions. The question is: does one use it because it can be
> downloaded for free, or because it’s open source? I mean, how can a noob
> (like me, for example) appreciate the idea of “open source”, when I
> don’t have a clue of what’s going on in there? There are many who use
> Linux just because it’s free, and others who use it because it’s free
> AND they know how to…bash. Maybe the most important thing is that
> Linux allows you to learn about it, not just to use it like a washing
> machine - but it’s your choice if you want to learn how to modify/
> improve or not (at least you have this choice!). So do you think that
> “Open Source” matters because of sparing some money, or because of
> freedom?
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJN+8l4AAoJEF+XTK08PnB5viIQAM+JcGbMKb/3jBbnuNECtQbS
6QUF582Wdv13G4ddCBfxbfwL6mwbLR4OMW9eaupZguxe+M0lg5O5orhMx/Y46ive
eoiZYmWTqZVcFmx5shTI28nNAx7U/RHgmGMJrVI5NmDdoe1jRiC9o01EU903axXX
NYDE51ZpQTCdaXHr62EO8KFCDKcsj1ak0Ya6yWwbGiqr3CfdysloorlU2gYrC9nq
s1Er5ys0kQpzONqjbOCq1r6bIXf9cuIN/AqnEX/pNaQlyCttvBkSgH9iYN62bO+5
gBkFDpCPOU+6mcSroKmi/V6ZUHFDY7753fwF4QiIWymxC6FZRYg75sauuigkmebn
nRkrDqfmiSvYylCALAPPYUm+8YQ0y6cCl6+Mxldc5k+5qPAj4mRb8xogob+dSjEW
aD2IsLxPzvJWNagNNCcox9/6Dh71i9eVxBKtbTVwUYyUfYdZpDLol3bfUwRFWqz7
kXtnwpZsPgC9MZvnoUxppNEMHnQ56d9itit2Y34lBhokRuJ8nvSvpfjEoA4tRcIS
aEUeizAWUM9BiVFqhBhieP0lEt9nzYCeTnsvqkSyIhMG+Yc21YX3sCLsSfo7uGrE
5HW3DSkOecgodfv+Qgj46FiySv25rhhSzxcDd7V2R8ldmTff/eNS6MlDobm88wqH
rLvjNsdJXT8ZMa+ru8bL
=6ilb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 06/17/2011 02:36 PM, riderplus wrote:
>
> “Free as in Freedom”. From what I understood, the idea of open source is
> not based necessarily on getting an OS for free, but on having access to
> the code and being allowed to modify it, although you must not
True… this is a key strength.
> commercialize it. Richard Stallman’s Linux GnewSense does not make use
> of any proprietary software, but the repositories have quite old
> versions of the applications, which makes it obsolete and “unusable” for
> many. That is why many Linux users favour OpenSuse and other
> distributions. The question is: does one use it because it can be
> downloaded for free, or because it’s open source? I mean, how can a noob
I think many use FOSS initially because it’s free… and while at first, it just
appears free in the dollars and cents view, many quickly discover that the
reason that it works so well is because it’s FOSS.
> (like me, for example) appreciate the idea of “open source”, when I
> don’t have a clue of what’s going on in there? There are many who use
> Linux just because it’s free, and others who use it because it’s free
> AND they know how to…bash. Maybe the most important thing is that
> Linux allows you to learn about it, not just to use it like a washing
> machine - but it’s your choice if you want to learn how to modify/
> improve or not (at least you have this choice!). So do you think that
> “Open Source” matters because of sparing some money, or because of
> freedom?
Free Software is protected software and obtainable software.
Proprietary software is neither protected nor obtainable… oh… perhaps for
the moment, but NOT long term. Let me explain.
When you decide upon proprietary software, you get a version that runs on a set
of configurations of hardware. As the product matures and gets support,
sometimes new configurations are added. When the software producer decides a
new version needs to be done, then a new configuration of hardware is supported,
sometimes it won’t include your hardware that worked with the last version…
also, it may not fully support exceptionally new hardware, and you have to wait
either until the next version or until the vendor chooses to add support for the
configuration. You will have to pay either in software upgrade costs and/or
hardware upgrade costs… all because the source code is hidden by design.
But the vendor goes through changes… sales, acquisitions, deals, etc. And
held in the balance is the supposed “Intellectual Property” known as closed
source software. Throughout the random lifetime of the vendor, anything can
happen… even the total destruction of the software… never to return.
With FOSS on the otherhand, FOSS software is made to be copied like crazy and
since the source is a given, the ability to have a CHANCE of supporting
everything from old configs to new configs is always present. Doesn’t mean that
there won’t be some hard times… but hard times in porting and testing at least
means the FOSS is alive… no “total destruction” like closed source software.
You can easily argue that FOSS is more or less immortal… whereas closed source
software is dead… it’s just a matter of time.
That probably varies from person to person.
I use linux, because it is better. Some of the ideological arguments over open source, copy left, whether Novell gave too much away in agreements with Microsoft, etc - they seem silly to me.
I actually paid for opensuse versions before 11.4. That is to say, I purchased the disks. That’s partly to give back something to the organization that does the work to provide the distro. The reason that I downloaded this time, is that I was anxious to try 11.4 and didn’t want to wait the extra time. (I recall with 11.3, that I could not order until several days after the release date; they were not yet setup to take orders).
Going back to the early days of PCs (the 1980s), I bought software to suit my needs. Sometimes I bought shareware. And the shareware and freeware was often good, sometimes better. I think the difference is this: An open source programmer writes the software for himself, and then makes it available to others. A commercial software vendor makes software for what he thinks the market will buy. The motivation of making the software for yourself seems to produce better software, though often with some rough edges. The current open source model starts with what people design for themselves, then there’s usually a committee of volunteers to smooth out the rough edges.
I look at the current software market, and compare it to the way things were back in the 1980s. Excel is a crappy spreadsheet, with lots of unnecessary eye candy added. The spread sheet that I had used in the 1980s was superior, at least for what I want to do. But it has been destroyed by the monopistic tendencies of Microsoft. I could say the same about other applications.
The MS monopoly destroys innovation. Open source encourages innovation. Long live open source.
I have always had the view that ‘free open source’ software was as much a ‘political’ movement as it was a way of licensing software code (as per the GPL).
And of course Free Open Source (per the Free Software Foundation of ‘free’) is not the same as just ‘open source’.
As to "how can a noob (like the OP, for example) appreciate the idea of “open source” ", IMHO a lot depends on what constitutes a ‘noob’ ?
My view is most noob’s do not appreciate nor really understand free open source. Nor when they learn, do they care. They simply ride the wave and hang on to the coat tails of those who DO care.
A few times when on business trips, over supper with colleagues, they have asked me why I use GNU/Linux instead of MS-Windows or MacIntosh, and I end up (after warning them 1st to stop me if my podium is too high) going into to a politic chat on Free Open Source software, and the freedoms it entails. ie Software that has the four essential freedoms:
-
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). -
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. -
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). -
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Typically they are all interested and politely listen during the meal, and one or two of the MS-Windows users are inspired to try GNU/Linux, but also typically after trialing they go back to using MS-Windows. (My experience is the MacIntosh users are rarely swayed away from their beloved Mac).
When I chat with them about their failed GNU/Linux efforts (most of them try Ubuntu) they simply note they could not get some hardware aspect to work (typically wireless, or sound) to work on Ubuntu and they could not understand how to run apps on Ubuntu, or install codecs … etc … They never ask for help, but assume they should be able to figure it out themselves. They waste a silly amount of time and they fail.
Price is never an issue in their returning to MS-Windows (after a failed Ubuntu trial), because almost without exception they mostly have a LOT of pirated software for their MS-Windows PCs, giving their MS-Windows PCs a capability that should cost thousands of dollars, but does not.
When asked for a recommendation as to what GNU/Linux distribution to try, I simply note that I use openSUSE and I can help them with openSUSE GNU/Linux if they want to try it (or I can refer them to members of our office Linux Users Group (LUG) where there are other GNU/Linux users) but almost always they do NOT install openSUSE, but instead they try and fail at Ubuntu based on a friend or relative’s suggestion. Of course the help they get from the friend or relative who uses Ubuntu is not much, because typically to give decent help in GNU/Linux IMHO requires average to advanced GNU/Linux knowledge which many Ubuntu user’s do not have. And their friends/relatives do not have sufficient GNU/Linux knowledge.
I note ‘free’ (as in free beer) is more a driving factor for noobs in trying GNU/Linux and the concept of ‘Free open source’ is a curiosity to them, but it is MOST DEFINITELY not a driving factor for noobs.
The typical noob rationale (of the noobs that I have met) is they express the view that they do not have the knowledge to take advantage of ‘free open source’ and so illegal beer free pirated software (for MS-Windows) is of much more interest to them.
oldcpu wrote:
> …snip…
>
> I note ‘free’ (as in free beer) is more a driving factor for noobs in
> trying GNU/Linux and the concept of ‘Free open source’ is a curiosity to
> them, but it is MOST DEFINITELY not a driving factor for noobs.
>
> The typical noob rationale (of the noobs that I have met) is they
> express the view that they do not have the knowledge to take advantage
> of ‘free open source’ and so illegal beer free pirated software (for
> MS-Windows) is of much more interest to them.
>
That is so sad and so true.
Thank you for the experience you shared, it is almost completely identical
to my own experience over the last years.
For the free as free beer part I want to add that IMHO this has also a big
value. It is true of course that this is not an essential part of the
freedom in the GPL, but it has a very beneficial aspect that a multitude of
FOSS is available without cost. It makes it possible for people who have not
much money to participate in a legal way in the world of up to date software
technologies.
Of course many use instead simply pirated software and do not appreciate
that they do not need to use that.
–
PC: oS 11.3 64 bit | Intel Core2 Quad Q8300@2.50GHz | KDE 4.6.4 | GeForce
9600 GT | 4GB Ram
Eee PC 1201n: oS 11.4 64 bit | Intel Atom 330@1.60GHz | KDE 4.6.4 | nVidia
ION | 3GB Ram
On 06/25/2011 05:09 PM, martin_helm wrote:
> Of course many use instead simply pirated software
Redmond and company have a very tight rope to walk…
they want to stop folks from stealing their software, but they do not
want that enough to take all the measures possible and risk driving
folks to FOSS…because they know that once the masses realize there is
a viable alternative for free (as in beer) they wave bye-bye to Mr. Bill
and Mr. Steve (both Steves)
–
DD
-Caveat-Hardware-Software-
25 June: Sunrise 4:38 AM, Sunset 10:12 PM
As a new Linux convert, here’s my take on open source:
I tried my first linux distro because Windows failed me- and badly. Had it not been for the fact that openSUSE was entirely free, I most likely would not have even thought of trying.
Only as I’ve become more technically savvy has the FOSS ideology become meaningful. When I try to explain open source software to “not computer people”, they look at me as if I’m just a tad crazy.
On 2011-06-25 09:39, Chris Cox wrote:
>
> But the vendor goes through changes… sales, acquisitions, deals, etc.
So does the free side. Differently, but it does. And free apps do
disappear, stop being supported, etc. We do get a chance, yes, but only if
you are a dev or can pay a team of devs. Not if you are a plain user.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.4 x86_64 “Celadon” at Telcontar)
And since we’re talking about open source and proprietary software, I was “puzzled” by Microsoft’s desire to invest a lot of money in certificates for customers who receive Linux support from SUSE (link: Microsoft To Invest $100 Million More In SUSE Linux | All about Linux). I don’t know what to say about the rage against Microsoft that many foss advocates (myself included, and not just for the “free software-free beer” kind of thing) encourage, but it seems that sometimes (for selfish / financial reasons, but who cares) Microsoft can indirectly contribute to the development of the foss project.
Another thing: I’m disappointed that when you google “linux blog” you find a crappy blog (something with “linux haters”) which has no apparent aim…maybe just to discourage the linux users. I don’t know who that guy is, and I’m sorry to say that he seems disturbed for no reason. Anyway…freedom of speech with its good and bad sides: people who don’t have any idea of what they’re talking about just ramble on (like that guy in his posts).
Personally i still lean more to the Free software (Free as in freedom) side of the argument and use a GNU/Linux Distribution for the freedom
as far as gNewSense and its problems for users I think the reasons are two fold. The Firs being People are trying to Shoe horn it on any hardware you have to build for a purely Free Software distribution and make sure that all of the hardware has free and open drivers the other issue I feel is an issue for gNewSense in particular is it’s Ubuntu base (Ubuntu as a Project is loosing its focus and its support for things such as Power management on laptops is terrible at best) and this is backed up by the far superior Debian based Trisquel GNU/Linux
Personally while I lean towards the Freedom (Free Software) argument I See the use of Binary drivers a a matter of Choice and Seance at the need of the day I need to have my work done those binary blobs currently reside in my installs