On 2007-07-29, Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> waterskidoo <water.skidoo@xxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> On 2007-07-27, Kier <vallon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It's a reasonably safe position to take, but one thing to consider here
> is that being "pro-linux" is more of a philosophical position, linux is
> not a commercial entity, it's an operating system which anyone can
> freely download and use. Being pro-Windows is the same thing as being
> pro-Microsoft, as Microsoft own all rights to Windows, and guard those
> rights jealously indeed, therefore, if you're pro-Windows, you are
> supporting a particular commercial organisation.
In the case of a person shilling Windows or even a so called Windows
zealot I agree with you Mark because an onlooker is going to
make the connection between supporting Windows and Microsoft.
It's just human nature to connect the dots. I do feel however
that one has to differentiate between the two types of Windows
supporters. Those that use the software and associated applications
to do their job, entertainment etc and those that are joined at
the hip with Microsoft. The first type rarely gives thought to
Microsoft and it's predatory tactics. They are just users and while
they may debate how good their Windows programs are, when in groups
like this, they have no real horse in the race. To them it's just
a debate. These people need to be introduced to Linux.
The second group however is where the danger is because these
are the people who for whatever reason feel Microsoft is their
birth mother and they hate with a a passion any and all
challengers, like Linux and Apple.
Many times these people *are* shills in the sense that their
lively-hood is tied to Microsoft either directly or indirectly.
My POV is that there are less of the second group and that
as Linux advocates we should tread carefully before making
accusations because it seems the Linux community already
has somewhat of a reputation for being a bit overzealous.
Once proved a shill however, the person should be exposed
and then ignored other than to point out on occasion the motives
of said person.
> Now, there's nothing necessarily wrong with supporting a commercial
> organisation, *but*, it's not orthogonal to being pro-Linux, since free
> software is a quite different political positioning to proprietary. For
> example, being pro-Symbian is essentially the same from a cola point of
> view as being pro-Windows, or being pro-Mac is equally more or less the
> same as being pro-Windows, since each of these are proprietary systems,
> with commercially motivated owners.
My approach is a little more middle of the road. I support open source
and advocate it's use when appropriate but at the same time I can
appreciate the commercial offerings when they are appropriate.
The iPhone is a good example of my opinions. I like the device
and feel it is a brilliant piece of engineering, especially
the UI. I wouldn't purchase one because it's far more than I
need, but I don't shun it or slam it just because it doesn't
run Linux because I don't see Apple making a point of using
that device to discredit Linux. They build a nice phone,
many people like it and that's it. Now if Microsoft were to
build the same phone and let's say their was a Linux version
as well, you can bet Microsoft would go far beyond the normal
advertising to discredit the phone.
The "Get The Facts " campaign is a good example of this.
The crux of it is if a Linux version existed that worked as
well or better I would buy that one but at the same time I would
not try to convince people that the Linux version was better
just because it runs Linux,if that was not really the case.
I've noticed this happen occasionally with Linux software.
Some person will ask about an equivalent to a commercial
Windows application and even though only very early on in development
cycle software exists for Linux, it will still be
suggested as a replacement and without the caveat that
should go along with it. To me, this is not the correct
thing to do because depending upon the situation, it
will take 5 minutes for the person to see the differences.
> The question which deserves consideration, therefore, is why would
> anyone come to cola with a pro-Windows, Symbian or Mac (or AmigaOS, or
> RiscOS, or AIX, or HPUX, or VMS, or CPM ...) position? This group is
> simply not the place for pushing proprietary solutions, it's about
> pushing the free Linux-based solutions.
Good question. Apparently it seems that this group has been
invaded by some very professional shills. I have no
problem discussing other operating systems and how they
compare to Linux, I think it is healthy and informative because
if the discussion stays civil, Linux advocacy is done and
the defects and sore points of Windows are brought out
on the table. In this type of discussion you will often hear
a person say "I never knew that" when some common fault of
Windows is explained.
IOW it's like advocacy without being forceful and turning
people off to Linux.
> There are some interesting grey areas, though - for example:
>
> Quake 3/4 vs Nexuiz
> Skype vs Jabber
> Opera vs Firefox
>
> These are all examples of binary-only, proprietary, applications, which
> have functionally equivalent free alternatives. We often see people
> here pushing the virtues of Skype on Linux; can it be justified with
> respect to the charter of the group? In some respects, it can, since it
> does run on Linux, and this is a linux advocacy group.
My personal feeling is that I run Linux software when I can.
While I would prefer the software to be full open source,
I would rather have Linux software that is binary than
be stuck running Windows software. For example it doesn't
bother me that Nvidia's drivers are proprietary. I would
like them to be open but I'll take what I can get at this
point in anticipation of the day when Nvidia changes
their mind.
> Equally, Skype were recently found guilty of GPL violation in Germany
> with respect to the usage of the Linux kernel in one of their Skype
> phones (again, the GPL has been validated in court).
And each one of these cases should be publizied because a
common misconception of the GPL is that there is no protection.
> Looking at things the other way around, why don't we see more:
>
> pro-freeBSD
> pro-OpenBSD
> pro-NetBSD
> pro-ReactOS
> pro-Freedos
>
> ... people here? Well, I suspect that this is for the same reason we
> don't see much in the way of pro-Linux people polluting proprietary
> advocacy groups, because they are all philosophically similar. They are
> all about free software as an approach, as much as any particular
> implementation.
I think it's a matter of respect for the other guy.
BSD people tend to be quite emotional about their software, generally
speaking.
> Where the line gets crossed, however, is in such as the Tivo box, where
> the intent of the GPL is subverted through the use of binary-only kernel
> extensions. This is worthy of discussion here, of course.
A binary kernel seems to be crossing the line to me?
Does the GPL allow that?
What about the custom changes Tivo has made to the kernel?
Don't they have to be open sourced?
|
|
