What is your opinion of Free (Libre) Software?
I feel that supporting Free Software is an integral part of building a good future for us and generations to come. Why? The reason is simple. Proprietary ideologies are the enemies of human progress. If we, as a species, cannot contribute to the world, have others view and add to our work, or protect our technological rights, then we will never advance. Transparency is paramount. How can we ensure that the technological advancements such as brain implants or bodily augmentations we receive in the future function as they are supposed to (ie. no corporate backdoors) without reviewing and auditing the code?
>he fell for the freetard meme
How's it feel not having any software? Lol like Microsoft gives a fuck about some c'uck loser on 4chan like you.
You know what's wrong with free/libre software? It doesn't go far enough. If a project has a ridiculous, absurd amount of convoluted code and doesn't allow commits from anyone outside of a single corporation, can it truly be said to be free/libre? Might as well be closed source in that case.
>If a project has a ridiculous, absurd amount of convoluted code and doesn't allow commits from anyone outside of a single corporation, can it truly be said to be free/libre?
What? It's not contributing to the project that's a problem, it's reusing the project's code in proprietary software that the GPL protects against.
If nobody outside of one corporation has the time and skill to understand the source, and even if they did nobody outside has the time and skill to modify the source, then the software being ostensibly "open source" doesn't actually help at all, in any way.
>doesn't allow commits from anyone outside of a single corporation
>nobody outside has the time and skill to modify the source
doesn't have anything to do with the source being open
Yeah, I know. The argument applies just the same to free software though. If the codebase is big enough, convoluted enough, and the developers exclusionary enough, then having the source and theoretically being able to do what you like with the source as per the GPL means nothing.
That implies you have the time and skill to understand the code. With a codebase of, say, over 10 million lines of convoluted C? In your spare time? Good fucking luck with that.
I'm a bit of the paranoid type (not even into CP or something like that) and even though I knew closed source software can "snoop" on what you do I never realized the extent, I'm just not comfortable with someone being able (key word, I don't belive I'm watched 100%) to know anything I do. With closed source you pretty much have to trust the manufacturer and they (a lot of the time) have reasons to hide stuff and exploit you. For example Win 10 sending your keystrokes every 30 seconds whether you disable it or not for example.
You're missing the point. I'm saying that once a project gets big and complicated enough, the source code alone becomes nigh useless for the goal of keeping the project free and open. Thus, if you want free and open software, the GPL is not enough. Even corporations working on their own proprietary projects run into this problem. I remember hearing about how microsoft, even with the source code, had a lot of trouble re-comprehending what the hell they did with their earlier versions of word doc format, for example.
Based RMS, fighting the good fight.
>Freedom sometimes demands a sacrifice... when people say: "Yeah, I wish I could use Free Software but it's inconvenient in a certain way". What they're saying is: "I don't value my Freedom enough to make any sacrifice." and you're not gonna get Freedom if you do that.
It's Linux. Linus made it with GNU tools, but ultimately he alone made it. Hence, it's his OS and he named it Linux. RMS is to autistic to realize this and needs to get that into his freetarded brain
Dumbest shit I've read all day. Proprietary is good and this is why gnu Linux sucks. Without money at stake to drive and motivate via competition you end up with a total clusterfuck. 600+ distros, 4+ DE's Wayland and mir being developed separately to do the exact same fucking shit ect.
And most everyday users can't do shit with it. Business won't touch it and nothing improves because their is no cash impetus.
The exception is the server world where Linux shines. Which is also where money and competition exists (surprise fucking surprise). In this arena with high financial stakes Linux performs excellent. Because people have to work towards a set common goal and shit has to get done properly or someone is gonna can canned.
Meanwhile in desktop land we have no direction and no order. Shit barely works for the average user, but we have a shitload of autistic customization nobody gives a shit about... Because everyone is a special fucking snowflake who can't get their shit together.
Non proprietary software is direction less shit just like every other socialist shit idea.
>Proprietary is good and this is why gnu Linux sucks
>And most everyday users can't do shit with it.
So? GNU/Linux isn't for normies
>Business won't touch it and nothing improves because their is no cash impetus.
The fuck are you on about? RHEL and SUSE Enterprise
>Meanwhile in desktop land we have no direction and no order. Shit barely works for the average user
Yes, I think governments should subsidize open source projects that the public deems beneficial to society (i.e. the government pays contributors for every "like" people gave their projects). Obviously, there would have to be measures to prevent groups of people who cheat the system (i.e. A group of people who all create their own phony projects, and "like" each other's project to receive welfare from the government).
If some random guy on the street starts rambling at you, do you try to converse with them? No, you ignore them, abs get on with your day. It's the same thing with shitty codebases.
Linux shines in the server domain because it is the best option.
On the desktop there is a lot of variables like more frequent change in hardware, a lot more services running etc.
The reason there is many options is not a sign of failure by any means. Sure it might be dublicated effort, but if you have ever done any programming yourself, taking something brilliant from another project is not that hard.
Maybe you think proprietary means a dictator that determines the way, just use Ubuntu, they have that.
They even have a donation button so you can give $100 per download if that's what you want.
Or pick another distro and do the same.
I like free software. I love GNU/Linux. I'm not completely free, though, and I'm not sure if I'm ready to be. Switching operating systems made tons of sense. From a functional standpoint, leaving Windows makes a ton of sense. Ditching things like Steam and such now that I'm already on GNU/Linux is the real hard part. To be clear, I don't spend a lot of time playing video games. I'm kind of bored of them recently, but I still use Steam to chat with a lot of my online friends. I don't really have a good alternative yet so I don't want to uninstall it. I also did buy a lot of games that I'll probably want to play again at some point in time.
>a continent full of retards that blame every problem on the US
>still thinks that centralized socialism is a viable alternative
Yeah, they can keep believing that as long as I don't have to mop up their own mess.
Honestly, as long as the source code is publicly available, that's all that should matter. I think arguing about licensing is the most pointless and unproductive activity imaginable.
Also ethical software isn't necessarily (ever) good software, as in bug-free, efficient, portable nor does it mean the developers readily welcome newcomers or accept their patches.
There's a lot of posturing and pretense, not to mention the fact that the GPL and other such software licenses have not faced any real legal scrutiny. I'm for free software but I'm against advocating for it.
>Honestly, as long as the source code is publicly available, that's all that should matter. I think arguing about licensing is the most pointless and unproductive activity imaginable.
Why? Don't you want to make sure your code isn't reused by the megacorps?
>Also ethical software isn't necessarily (ever) good software, as in bug-free, efficient, portable nor does it mean the developers readily welcome newcomers or accept their patches.
Give one good example of a rejected commit or contribution.
>There's a lot of posturing and pretense, not to mention the fact that the GPL and other such software licenses have not faced any real legal scrutiny.
>Who do you think writes the licenses, monkeys? The FSF has lawyers.
>I'm for free software but I'm against advocating for it.
They are one in the same, you can't have one without the other.