Posted by: Taran Rampersad
on January 09, 2004 12:13 AM
If you really read your quotes, I think you'll find that there's no assertion being made. Perhaps your perspective leads you down the path to this assertion. I'll lend you mine.
People who use Free Software need to assure that their software remains free. That's part of the GPL, part of the responsibility that comes with the freedoms.
People who don't use Free Software should be encouraged to use Free Software. RMS makes what many would concede to be philosophical points, but they are very realist. Users have a choice. If they choose software that does not give them the liberties that Free Software provides, that too is a choice.
At no time did RMS say 'Use inferior software because of the Freedoms'. It's up to Free Software projects to create usable software. And the people who *can* be involved in these Free Software projects are the same people who may be using proprietary products.
Consider the money spent on these Commercial Off the Shelf proprietary packages over a period of time - the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) which Microsoft has been using ostentiously. The truth is that the TCO of Windows 95 is lower than GNU/Linux. But the TCO of running a proprietary OS is substantially higher because of having to upgrade to a new OS all the time.
The *true* TCO isn't comparing Windows XP to GNU/Linux. The *true* cost of ownership will be known when Microsoft says "Ok, everyone, if you don't upgrade you'll be left out. You can buy an upgrade for $xxx, you can train your people on it for $yyy, and you will have to upgrade your hardware for $zzz".
So, with using Free Software the money saved from that - which is uncertain except, perhaps, to the Microsoft Business Team - could be paid to Free Software folks who will make usable software, or make software more usable. After all, what's usable for one group may be unusable for another.
No, I don't think there have been any assertions. Perhaps you read an implied assertion into it, but I am certain that nobody in the Free Software Foundation or any of the affiliated organizations has ever made an assertion that 'people have to use inferior software'.
If Free Software is considered 'inferior' for an application, there's nothing holding people back from changing the application, except perhaps misunderstanding Free Software. If there's any assertion that has been made, it's that Free Software permits people more Freedom.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Real products v. Philosophical byproducts
Posted by: Taran Rampersad on January 09, 2004 12:13 AMPeople who use Free Software need to assure that their software remains free. That's part of the GPL, part of the responsibility that comes with the freedoms.
People who don't use Free Software should be encouraged to use Free Software. RMS makes what many would concede to be philosophical points, but they are very realist. Users have a choice. If they choose software that does not give them the liberties that Free Software provides, that too is a choice.
At no time did RMS say 'Use inferior software because of the Freedoms'. It's up to Free Software projects to create usable software. And the people who *can* be involved in these Free Software projects are the same people who may be using proprietary products.
Consider the money spent on these Commercial Off the Shelf proprietary packages over a period of time - the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) which Microsoft has been using ostentiously. The truth is that the TCO of Windows 95 is lower than GNU/Linux. But the TCO of running a proprietary OS is substantially higher because of having to upgrade to a new OS all the time.
The *true* TCO isn't comparing Windows XP to GNU/Linux. The *true* cost of ownership will be known when Microsoft says "Ok, everyone, if you don't upgrade you'll be left out. You can buy an upgrade for $xxx, you can train your people on it for $yyy, and you will have to upgrade your hardware for $zzz".
So, with using Free Software the money saved from that - which is uncertain except, perhaps, to the Microsoft Business Team - could be paid to Free Software folks who will make usable software, or make software more usable. After all, what's usable for one group may be unusable for another.
No, I don't think there have been any assertions. Perhaps you read an implied assertion into it, but I am certain that nobody in the Free Software Foundation or any of the affiliated organizations has ever made an assertion that 'people have to use inferior software'.
If Free Software is considered 'inferior' for an application, there's nothing holding people back from changing the application, except perhaps misunderstanding Free Software. If there's any assertion that has been made, it's that Free Software permits people more Freedom.
#