|Comments on Friday 15 November 2002:|
|I think I may have just got the blog comment that has made me laugh the loudest, of all the comments since the blog came to be. In response to an entry in which I was angry at X-Windows, I got this:|
Its not about functionality. That will come. Its about freedom. Stallman said it back in the early 80s. I'll pass on the proprietary crap/spyware and deal with the flaws thanks.The functionality will come. Stallman said it in the early 80's. Hmmm, what year is it now? [15:24]
|Tsk. Give the man a break. He said 'will come', he didn't set a date.|
Actually, I have recently discovered the problem with open source software. Richard Stallman is a horrible singer. http://www.gnu.org/music/free-software-song.html
And you really don't want to see him dancing.
|Hmm. It appears that Bill Gates sang on TV once. http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=baba&date=19980129|
Anybody have a copy of this to compare with Stallman? I think this would be very useful.
|To be fair, I think you've somewhat misconstrued Jay's comment here. Stallman's central point has always been freedom (freedom to read and alter code, with the stipulation that any altered code used in a program that is distributed is also made available to be freely read and altered - this is the core of the GPL) - that is what he said back in the early 80's, not that functionality would necessarily come. Functionality has always been a bonus. It's a moral point Stallman is trying to make, not a functional one. The coming functionality is something that Jay has added.|
Of course, XFree86 isn't licensed under the GPL. It's under the MIT X11 license which I believe is closer to a BSD style license (Qualifies as Free Software, but only just). Which actually makes it rather antithetical to the GPL, in that anybody can take XFree86 code and build a proprietary system using it without being under any obligation to release code changes. Bringing up Stallman in this way in a discussion of XFree86 is a bit of an odd thing to do really. Mildly like quoting from Jesus at a Buddhist gathering. Which point would tend to make Jay an open source zealot with a shallow understanding of the licenses involved. Ah well.
|The whole thing is silly. No one forces anyone to use Windows. That's what the whole thing is about - people's loathing of the methods of Microsoft, rather than their love of Linux.|
Microsoft have a license agreement. If you find that agreement to be shit, don't enter into it. The world may suck, Microsoft may have a manopoly which is in keeping with the laws of US. if the US goverment doesn't like the way Microsoft runs it's things, it has the power to change it. if you don't like the way the US goverment handles things, don't live there. The same goes for any country.
Comparing X-Windows to MS Windows (which is the only comparasion to be made) is silly, as MS Windows is clearly superior in most ways.
|Actually, comparing Windows to X-Windows isn't valid at all. Comparing KDE, Gnome or some other desktop manager to Windows is valid, but X-Windows itself is neither a window or desktop manager.|
|Digi: "No one forces anyone to use Windows."|
I don't think this is entirely true. Many people seem to have to use Windows in their workplace or at home when preparing documents and so on for work. If you don't use Windows at work then you're out of a job. You later say that "Microsoft may have a manopoly" which is a bit scary and seems to imply that Mr Gates and Mr Ballmer have tied up the right to be a man. At any rate, I think you should rethink your statement that nobody is forced to use Windows. If Microsoft does have a monopoly, that tends to suggest that people are forced to use Windows in order to communicate with others who are part of the reason that MS has a monopoly. Or else you have to play as the thimble instead of the little car. Who wants to do that?
"That's what the whole thing is about - people's loathing of the methods of Microsoft, rather than their love of Linux."
I think you're somewhat mistaken here. I use Linux because I enjoy using Linux, not because I dislike Microsoft. I enjoy making fun of Microsoft because they are such an easy target, and I am easily amused. Essentially, Linux does what I want an operating system to do better than Windows does. I don't loath Microsoft, it's just that Linux does a better job for me.
Nik: "Comparing KDE, Gnome or some other desktop manager to Windows is valid"
I would say it's only superficially valid. Windows is an operating system (well at least - today's versions of Windows are operating systems), KDE and Gnome are desktop environments that run on top of the operating system, somewhat like Windows 95 ran on top of DOS. I think it depends on what sort of comparison you're making - whether you're comparing operating systems or desktop environments. You could compare KDE to Windows on a purely graphical user friendliness basis, but this seems to miss the point. Though I agree that you can't compare Windows to X-Windows. I think the only really valid comparison is 'Certain Linux Distro' and 'Certain Version of Windows'.
|Annybody ever use or get accquainted with a mac? i am so close to getting a laptop but am having second thoughts and am thinking about getting a mac instead, thoughts? opinions?|
|Fair comments Nik and Tom. But I still stand by what I said, just not the way I said it. By "the whole thing", I meant the stupid militant open source people who want to *force* freedom on everyone. Open source is fine and all, but if I decide not to use it I don't want to be called a fascist.|
When I was saying how people use Linux just for the sake of not using a Microsoft product I was speaking of the militant open source spouting people (who rarely do anything for open source), and not the people who use Linux as a tool rather than a political statement.
Nik: Fair point, I wasn't being precise. By X I meant ‘GUI with *nix’, and by Windows I meant ‘the use and functionality of the Win95/98/XP GUI’.
|Ace: "Annybody ever use or get accquainted with a mac? i am so close to getting a laptop but am having second thoughts and am thinking about getting a mac instead, thoughts? opinions? "|
Macs are awesome. They have worked well for years. If you have the money I recomend getting a Mac OS X laptop. Mac OS X is built on Unix and for years Mac OS (since 7.5) has been able to read/write onto PC format. 7.5 itself was limited but Mac OS has come a long way since 1994.
|Thanx, I think that is what I am going to get...btw Raven, your site kicks ass.|